Recently I had a question asking whether “covenant theology” is so-called “replacement theology.” Those dispensational critics of Reformed covenant theology who accuse it of teaching that the New Covenant church has “replaced” Israel do not understand historic Reformed covenant theology. They are imputing to Reformed theology a way of thinking about redemptive history that has more in common with dispensationalism than it does with Reformed theology.
First, the very category of “replacement” is foreign to Reformed theology because it assumes a dispensational, Israeleo-centric way of thinking. It assumes that the temporary, national people was, in fact, intended to be the permanent arrangement. Such a way of thinking is contrary to the promise in Gen 3:15. The promise was that there would be a Savior. The national people was only a means to that end, not an end in itself. According to Paul in Ephesians 2:11-22, in Christ the dividing wall has been destroyed. It cannot be rebuilt. The two peoples (Jews and Gentiles) have been made one in Christ. Among those who ae united to Christ by grace alone, through faith alone, there is no Jew, nor Gentile (Rom 10:12; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11).
At least some forms of dispensationalism have suggested that God intended the national covenant with Israel to be permanent. According to Reformed theology, the Mosaic covenant was never intended to be permanent. According to Galatians 3 (and chapter 4), the Mosaic covenant was a codicil to the Abrahamic covenant. A codicil is added to an existing document. It doesn’t replace the existing document. Dispensationalism reverses things. They make the Abrahamic covenant a codicil to the Mosaic. Hebrews 3 says that Moses was a worker in Jesus’ house. Dispensationalism makes Jesus a worker in Moses’ house.
Second, with respect to salvation, Reformed covenant theology does not juxtapose Israel and the church. For Reformed theology, the church has always been the Israel of God and the Israel of God has always been the church. Reformed covenant theology distinguishes the old and new covenants (2 Cor 3; Heb 7-10). It recognizes that the church was temporarily administered through a typological, national people, but the church has existed since Adam, Noah, Abraham, and it existed under Moses, David, and it exists under Christ.
Third, the church has always been one, under various administrations, under types, shadows, and now under the reality in Christ, because the object of faith has always been one. Jesus the Messiah was the object of faith of the typological church (Heb 11; Luke 24; 2 Cor 3) and he remains the object of faith.
Fourth, despite the abrogation of the national covenant by the obedience, death, and resurrection of Christ (Col 2:14), the NT church has not “replaced” the Jews. Paul says that God “grafted” the Gentiles into the people of God. Grafting is not replacement, it is addition.
It has been widely held by Reformed theologians that there will be a great conversion of Jews. Some call this “anti-semitism.” This isn’t anti-semitism, it is Christianity. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). The alternative to Jesus’ exclusivist claim is universalism which is nothing less than an assault on the person and finished work of Christ. Other Reformed writers understand the promises in Rom 11 to refer only to the salvation of all the elect (Rom 2:28) rather than to a future conversion of Jews. In any event, Reformed theology is not anti-semitic. We have always hoped and prayed for the salvation, in Christ, sola gratia et sola fide, of all of God’s elect, Jew and Gentile alike.
Here are some resources for getting to covenant theology.
Here are Lig Duncan’s lectures on covenant theology.
Filed under: Covenant, Justification, Pastoral Ministry, I Get Questions, Reforming Evangelicalism, eschatology | Tagged: covenant theology, dispenationalism, eschatology, replacement theology
It really is odd, isn’t it? Baptist ecclesiology, as far as I can tell, necessitates the view that Pentecost is the “birthday of the church”; one naturally deduces that there was no church prior to that event, and that therefore God didn’t graft into an existing tree, but planted a whole new one. Who was it who was meant to be proposing replacement?
It seems that a Dispensationalist’s attacks on Covenant Theology and an atheist’s attack on Christianity have this in common: the critique only holds up from their presuppositions.
That’s what made it so difficult for me to understand and accept Covenant Theology. I failed to examine my assumptions when approaching Scriptures and though there were a ton of passages I couldn’t make sense of through a Dispensational lens, as long as I made literal fulfillment of OT prophecy (to ‘literal’ Israel) a test of God’s ’sovereignty’ I couldn’t understand/accept Covenant Theology. Thankfully that’s not the case anymore.
Anyway, thanks for the post, Dr. Clark.
“It has been widely held by Reformed theologians that there will be a great conversion of Jews.”
-Is it fair to say that in the exodus out of Egypt that the gentiles ( “mixed multitude”) were a flash in the pan compared to what was to come and now the Jew’s conversions are the flash in the pan compared to what is to come when the fulness of the gentiles has come in?
-Another question: If the fulness of the gentiles has come in, would that mean then the convert jews will catch the brunt of the persecution, etc. world’s wrath?
Excellent post, Dr. Clark. From my browsing the only people who use ‘replacement theology’ are the dispensationalists attacking a straw man covenant theology. One cannot replace something with itself.
J. Lim, my transition from dispensationalism to Reformed theology was similar, and until I was willing to let the Bible challenge my presuppositions, it wasn’t clear. Fortunately God has since given me more Biblical lenses.
Durrell,
My own reading of Rom 11, when Paul says, “so all Israel will be saved,” he is using the word “Israel” metaphorically or as a synonym for the elect. My point is that Reformed covenant theology is often criticized by dispensationalists for ignoring or neglecting ethnic Jews, of having no interest in their conversion or of being hard-hearted. So I simply reply by pointing out that there have been a number of Reformed writers who hold to a future conversion of Jews. As to the future proportion, I couldn’t say. It does seem as if, since the ascension, that it has been predominantly Gentiles who have been converted, but we have had a few Jewish converts at WSC in recent years alone. There does seem to be increased interest among Reformed folk in reaching the Jews with the gospel. It would be glorious to see a great conversion of jews (and Gentiles). We should pray earnestly that God would bless those faithful efforts to evangelism national Israel and Jews everywhere.
[...] Theology and So-Called "Replacement Theology" On the HBCovenant Theology is Not Replacement Theology Heidelblog __________________ R. Scott Clark, D.Phil Professor of Church History and Historical Theology [...]
At my previous seminary the straw needs replacing with something more durable like a nice synthetic fiber that can hold out because that man has been beaten to a pulp.
Another straw man is that Covenants theme of the Bible is “Redemptive History” whereas the dispy’s is “The Glory of God.” Have you heard this argument. What does “The Glory of God” mean, its pious but hollow. What means does God use to bring himself glory? The answer to that question will produce their actual theme. It will probably have something to do with Land and a throne.
Hi Jared,
We agree. The Westminster Divines, though some of them were chiliasts, were not Dispensationalists, and they gave us the first Question and Answer of the Shorter Catechism:
What is the chief end of man?
To glorify God and enjoy him forever.
We agree that the glory of God is paramount but the question is: how has God willed to glorify himself? We say that his revealed will is that he glorifies himself through the salvation of all of his people.
Dr. Clark, would you perhaps discuss the change that has taken place within covenant theology during 20th century? It seems that covenant theology, as well as dispensationalism as described by historians have undergone some-what of a change/modification during the past 70 years or so. Most notably through the contribution of George Ladd and the evangelical consensus regarding Inaugural Eschatology. So, obviously progressive dispensationalism is a new aspect of dispensational theology (if you want to call it that)… how would you classify “New Covenant Theology” or “Modified Coventalism?” Thanks…
Josiah,
I don’t accept the premise of your question, that whatever folk call “covenant theology” necessarily is covenant theology. Dispensationalism may have been modified (original, extra crispy, and fat free) but “Reformed covenant theology” is what it is.
Have there been proposed modifications? Sure. Was there development in the 16th and 17th centuries? Sure. I discuss all this in my Brief History of Covenant Theology. See also Vos’ history and other resources here. There’s a more detailed and academic history of covenant theology forthcoming from Brill (in ‘09 perhaps).
The revisions of covenant theology proposed by Barth and by some conservatives, e.g., eliminating the covenant of works or the covenant of redemption, are fundamental rejections of major aspects or of constituent parts of covenant theology. If I set a house on fire I’m not just remodeling the living room!
As far as I can tell, the so-called “New Covenant Theology” is neither new nor covenant theology. Inasmuch as it rejects the fourth commandment as an expression of the natural and moral will of God, it is antinomian. Inasmuch as it is Baptist, it is a fundamental repudiation of the continuity of the promise and administration of the covenant of grace, “I will be a God to you and to your children.” I’m hard pressed to see what is “covenantal” about NCT.
Dr. Clark, please be forbearing with me here (especially in light of the context “God has given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see” 11:8 NKJV)! I’m not seeing how you’re coming to the conclusion that the text “so all Israel will be saved” is a metaphor the entirety of the elect. Unless you mean elect Jews, not all the elect (including gentiles) addressed. Then I’m tracking with you.
Sorry about the eschatological digression. The text deals with the Jews, but not about the hardships, etc. I’ll try to stay focused.
It depends upon how one reads Paul’s intent in Rom 11. It goes back to Rom 2:28. If, in Christ, there is no more “Jew” or “Gentile,” and if, according to Rom 2 and Rom 9, what matters is election, then the point of Rom 11 would be, in effect, to say that all the elect shall be saved.
As I say, others read Rom 11 differently. In this reading the question Paul is answering the question: Is one disqualified from election and salvation because one is Jewish? The answer is, “No.” Paul appeals to himself as a case study. Notice that he says that he has not rejected his people “whom he foreknew.” People aren’t elect because they are Jewish. They’re not reprobate because they’re Jewish. The remnant is elect. It’s by grace, whether for Jews or Gentiles.
Hello Dr. Clark,
I happened upon your posting while researching online. Over the past year or more I have progressed from being traditionally dispensational (I must admit by tradition rather than by a study of fact) to being more inclined to the reformed covenenant theology point of view. So many mainline churches and known ministries make the distinction between jews and the church…your article helped me understand that God has always had a remnant, of which Paul (a jew) was a part of, just as the many gentiles who had also accepted Christ by faith. I would definitely enjoy reading more of your writings on the subject. Thank you and God bless!
Thanks! Glad to be useful.
There’s more here: http://www.wscal.edu/clark Look at the menu on the right. Try “covenant theology” and “systematic theology.”
What the Bible is All About
http://www.wscal.edu/bookstore/store/details.php?id=2043
Dr. Clark, thanks for your quick reply. Forgive my ignorance, im still trying to learn the distinctions between CT and NCT. Would you say that the promises are “literally” fulfilled in one man, ie: The Lord Jesus Christ, or would you see the promises fulfilled spiritually in the church ie: Israel? From what i have read, the divergence between CT and NCT hinges on this understanding. Are the promises fulfilled in the church (Israel), or in the one man (Israel)…? again, forgive my ignorance on this matter… thanks!
Josiah,
It’s been a while since I read the NCT materials so I cannot speak to their views in detail but I can speak to how the Reformed Churches have understood the covenants.
It was not the the church, under the old covenant or the new, who obeyed the law. Christ obeyed the law. As I argued in the essay on “The Israel of God,” Jesus is the Israel of God. Those who are united to Christ by grace alone, through faith alone, become the Israel of God in Christ. As Paul says, not everyone who was in the national Israelite covenant was “Israel.” They were all baptized into Moses and they all ate the manna. A Jew is one who is a Jew inwardly, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
That is why we, following the early fathers, have always seen a substantial continuity in the covenant of grace under Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Christ relative to salvation and the abiding validity of the moral law as the norm for the Christian life. Christ was revealed to the typological church through types and shadows. We have the fulfillment, but we have the same Christ, the same grace, the same covenant of grace. There are real differences of administration but one covenant of grace.
[...] Theology is Not Replacement Theology R. Scott Clark addresses this too-frequent criticism of Reformed [...]
[...] 6. Covenant Theology is Not Replacement Theology [...]
Dr. Clark,
Forgive me once again for my ignorance. This question is just building up on your post but I was wondering what your thoughts on Ezekiel’s descriptions of the Third Temple were – when is it going to built/administered, where is it going to built, etc. As much as I would like to submit to Covenant Theology, this is something I am currently unable to put my mind around. I am just a college student so I don’t know much about theology but I do love my Bible. Any advice and resources would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
[...] 6. Covenant Theology is Not Replacement Theology [...]
I’d like to ask some critical questions. What specific covenant with God has the Church entered merging Israel with the Church? Is it the New Covenant or is it some other? Where is this covenant recorded?
I am sure that you are aware that God is sovereign and man is not. Man is obligated to God, not God to man. So show me in the word of God where Israel is called the Church in the Old Testament? Are we reading the same Bible?
Further more your misquoting of scripture is most erroneous. Your mistreatment from the book of Hebrews both in the NKJV and the NASV of Hebrews 3:2 made reference to Moses as being ‘faithful’ as Christ in God’s house. One can be a worker but not necessarily faithful. Judas Iscariot, Ahithophel, Achan, Nadab and Abihu, need I name more? It amazes me how men take the words of scripture to mollify anti-semitism espoused by the likes of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, also his ‘une alliance, Thomas Aquinas’ ‘Summa Theologica’, Luther’s Commentary on Romans.
God made a covenant with Abraham that was unilateral, unconditional and irrevocable, ‘Israel’, Abraham’s progeny (his physical progeny) will receive all God has promised. Ezekiel was commanded by God to tell lifeless, whorish, idolatrous, Israel that He would restore them and giving them a heart of flesh, breathing into them life and they will minister to their King in His Holy Temple as was decreed before the foundation of the world.
Further more the Mosaic Covenant proves that Israel couldn’t qualify for the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant only cursed them. This did not negate the Abrahamic Covenant it further proves God’s irrevocable promises, that He will restore Israel according to His sovereign will.
Do you just “know it all,” or are you really curious how Bible-believing Christians could possibly disagree with you?
Galatians tells us that we are Abraham’s children, if we share his faith. God made a covenant with him, and his children, Gen.17. Paul’s point is that the Law (Moses’ Covenant) that came 430 years after the promise to Abraham can’t annul the previous covenant based on promise. So, in substance it hasn’t changed.
There’s one covenant, a gracious covenant, that we’re all saved by. The New Covenant is what we call that covenant, now that the Christ that Abraham hoped for is come already. So, what do you think? Are you Abraham’s child or not?
How about the Old Testament Israel called “the church” by the New Testament? Will that do? Acts 7:38 “This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:? And they are called “the congregation” all over the place in the Hebrew.
You should probably not fixate on word-association anyway. Jesus said he had a single flock to merge. He said He was the vine, which picture Paul uses to describe us Gentiles as having been grafted into him. He also states that the middle wall of separation has been removed. There is not more “Jew” and “Gentile.” Those words have no meaning beyond the historical anymore. Jesus was and is the “true Israel.” All true believers derive their name from him.
And I don’t know if you simply didn’t read the reference in Heb.3 correctly, or what Dr.Clark said about it. You seem to be judging improperly as to “whose” house Moses served in. He served in Christ’s house, who is the son and the heir. This is the writer’s point.
Your tendentious accusations of “anti-semitism” are quite out of line, and show a shocking anachronism. Covenant-theology isn’t anti-semitic, its philo-semitic. It refuses to re-erect that dividing wall that Jesus tore down. It calls to the Jews to join the rest of the world in celebrating the Messiah their fathers helped bring into the world.
Philo-Semitism? How euphemistic? That term my friend reminds me of the covering Adam and Eve used to cover their nakedness. Let’s be realistic, what this erroneous teaching does, it further alienates Messianic Jews and Jewish people from people like you, and it is sad. Call me anachronistic if you must, but I must tell you, I am not a dispensationalist of any sorts, neither am I trying to keep up with the latest ‘groupie titles’. I don’t need labels or titles to distinguish who I am. I am a chosen child by God’s wonderful grace and I am indeed grateful to be ‘just grafted in.’
Jennifer,
You cannot set it up so that anyone who disagrees with you is anti-
semitic. That line of argumentation literally begs the question, i.e.
assumes the conclusion in the premise.
The question I was addressing in the post is whether historic Reformed
covenant theology is, as some allege, “Replacement Theology.”
We deny the premise.
Have you read any historic Reformed theology (e.g., Witsius)?
What kind of reply is that? Non-substantive.
Not that I thought you were serious in the first place…
Alienating Messianic Jews and Talmudic Jews alike? Because I don’t “affirm” them if (peradventure) they have this counter-factual, unbiblical self-conceit? Please. Jesus had enough to say to Jewish elitism.
“Your house is left to you desolate.” (Mt.23:38)
“And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness:” (Mt.8:11-12)
Paul’s testimony:
“And he [Christ] said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.” And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.” And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air, (Act 22:21-23)
Yet he said of these would be murderers:
“I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom.9:3).
It isn’t loving to affirm people in their sinful, no-longer-necessary ethno-religious sectarianism. Indeed, its sin to do so. 1Cor.14:38.
“Let’s be realistic, what this erroneous teaching does, it further alienates Messianic Jews and Jewish people from people like you, and it is sad.”
Jennifer, I can’t resist piping up here because I happen to be a Christian of Jewish heritage, recently converted to the Reformed faith (and covenant theology). I thank God that he delivered me from the bondage of dispensationalism (though I realize you claim not to be a dispensationalist). What you are saying about Messianic Jews and Jewish people being alienated is true unfortunately in many cases (I should know because I used to be one of the alienated ones and many of my friends still are) but that is only because they don’t know better. I, like you, used to rail against “replacement theology” until finally, after 15 years as a Christian, I decided to read some primary sources, starting with Calvin’s Institutes. When I read Calvin, I was shocked to discover that for all those years, I had never really understood the gospel or the grace of God. If you haven’t yet read Calvin, Luther, or some of the Reformed confessions, I highly recommend it!
David R.
Thank you but I am quite familiar with both Calvin’s Institutes and Martin Luther. My suggestion is to you that you read ‘The Church and The Jews’ (The Biblical Relationship) By Dan Gruber. Elijah Publishing P.O. Box 776 Hanover, NH 03755
ISBN 0-9669253-3-5
This book is a real eye-opener i.e. Part Three: The Traditions of Men,
Section A: Augustine and Aquinas
Augustine’s City of God
The Allegory of Galatians 4:21-31
Augustine’s City
The Millennium
Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica
John Calvin’s Institute of the Christian Religion
Luther’s Commentary on Romans
Would please read this book.
You’ve stated that the church was referred to in Acts 7:38? Was it really? It should be noted that it is found in the King James Version. Most other translations have more correctly translated this verse to read, congregation in the wilderness. or assembly in the wilderness. The Greek term ekklesia is not only used in the technical sense of the New Testament Church, but I have also found in my studies that in the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew ‘kahal’, means “congregation.” I believe that was the intent of Acts 7:38. There are several other passages where the term ekklesia is used in the non-technical sense of “assembly,” Acts 19:32 “So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the ‘assembly’ (ekklesia) was in confusion and the majority did not know for what reason they had come together.” So, was this the church also? A bunch of gentile pagans? “And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly (ekklesia). Acts 19:41 So an assembly of pagan gentiles who where yelling “Great is Diana of the Ephesians, was this the church also?
Jennifer,
The meaning of
εκκλησια is, of
course, determined by it’s immediate context which is interpreted in
light of usage, e.g. in the LXX.
If one knows, a priori, that
εκκλησια cannot = “the
visible Christ-confessing covenant community” then the text and
context isn’t really determining the meaning.
Jennifer,
I’m responding here since there is no reply link above. I haven’t read Gruber but I have read several books dealing with Christian anti-Semitism. Has there been Christian anti-Semitism? Of course. Do Jews need Christ? Of course. Should Christians love the Jews? Of course! But I can’t for the life of me see how one makes the leap from these premises to the conclusion that Christian anti-Semitism flows from Reformed covenant theology (well, I actually can – I used to do it myself)! Jennifer, I’m curious – can you point to any passages in Calvin that are more “anti-Semitic” than certain “harsh” passages in Paul, or in the gospel of John, or even in the synoptics?
David,
First of all, I must say that I am appalled at your stance on this heretical teaching which promotes the very sentiments of anti-semitism.
I am then equally appalled how you’ve taken the stance of negativity against the True Fathers of the Church, the Apostles Paul and John. Need I remind you that these men were not influenced by Origen’s allegorical interpretation of scripture, as did Augustine who so blindly followed. Au Contraire, need I remind you of 2 Timothy 3:16? “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Paul and John were moved by the Spirit of God to write these things no matter what your may presuppositional interpretations are. To compare these men with these ’so called fathers’ of the church is ludicrous to say the least. I am not negating the fact that these men were not instrumental in positively influencing the church with some of their exegeses and hermeneutics, but I must say they were not always on target many of them followed the ‘Father of Allegory’, spiritualizing scripture with mere presupposition.
May I share with you this writing from Horatius Bonar….
“Let us speak reverently of the Jew. Let us not misjudge him by present appearances. He is not what he once was, nor what he yet shall be.
Let us speak reverently of the Jew. We have much cause to do so. What, though all Christendom, both of the East and West, has for nearly eighteen centuries treated him as offscouring of the race? What though Mohammad has taught his followers to revile and persecute the sons of Abraham?….
Still let us speak reverently of the Jew, if not for what he is, at least for what he was and what he shall be, when the Redeemer shall come to Zion and turn away ungodliness from Jacob. {Isa 59:20; see. Rom 11:26}
In him we see the development of God’s great purpose as to the woman’s seed, the representative of a long line of kings and prophets, the kinsmen of Him who is the Word made flesh. It was a Jew who sat on one of the most exalted thrones of the earth; it is a Jew who now sits upon the throne of heaven. It was a Jew who wrought such miracles once on our earth, who spoke such gracious words. It was a Jew who said, “Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me.” It was Jewish blood that was shed on Calvary; it was a Jew who bore our sins in His own body on the tree. It was a Jew who died, and was buried, and rose again. It is a Jew who liveth to intercede for us, who is to come in glory and majesty as earthly judge and monarch. It is a Jew who is our Prophet, our Priest, our King.
So it is with the Jew, I mean the whole Jewish nation. There are indelible memories connected with them, which will ever, to anyone who believes in the Bible, prevent them from being contemned; nay, will cast around them a nobility and a dignity which no other nation has possessed or can attain to. To Him in whose purposes they occupy so large a space, they are still “beloved for their fathers’ sake” (Romans11:28). Of them, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever.”
H.Bonar, “The Jew,” The Quarterly Journal of Prophecy (July 1870):209-11
I ask you, do you actually think God has merged the Church with Israel making in the sense that these people of the anti-judaic persuasion would want you to believe? Yes, Paul has stated in Ephesians: 14. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15. having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16. and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross there by putting to death the enmity. 17. and He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. This distinctly speaks of the Mosaic Law, not God’s covenantal promises He’s made with the Jews, which includes Eretz Yisrael. My friend, God is not finished with Israel on an individual basis. I pray that God will open your eyes from this blindness that has infected your vision.
Jennifer
Do you know what it means to “beg the question”?
The “blndness” here is found in the failure to see in Ephesians 2:12.13 that “strangers from the covenants of promise” . . .are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” All the covenants and promises have been fulfilled in Messias Yeshua. At the moment of His death, the veil before the holy of holies was rent from top to bottom. This was no mere symbolic gesture—it confirmed that God, after the atonement, was finished with ethnic Israel. Consequently, only “the Israel of God” who glory in the Cross have been granted the “boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh (Hebrews 10:19,20).” Why then would a Christian want to promote an “Israel” idol crafted from a Christ-hating, geo-political state in the Middle East.
I hope I’m not too late to join this discussion.
Dr. Clark, you wrote: “At least some forms of dispensationalism have suggested that God intended the national covenant with Israel to be permanent. According to Reformed theology, the Mosaic covenant was never intended to be permanent. According to Galatians 3 (and chapter 4), the Mosaic covenant was a codicil to the Abrahamic covenant. A codicil is added to an existing document. It doesn’t replace the existing document. Dispensationalism reverses things. They make the Abrahamic covenant a codicil to the Mosaic. Hebrews 3 says that Moses was a worker in Jesus’ house. Dispensationalism makes Jesus a worker in Moses’ house.”
If possible, would you please link to a document or tell me where to find one that maintains that Dispensationalism makes “the Abrahamic covenant a codicil to the Mosaic.” Also, please tell me your source for the statement that “Dispensationalism makes Jesus a worker in Moses’ house” in Hebrews 3. Thank you.
“The two peoples (Jews and Gentiles) have been made one in Christ. Among those who ae united to Christ by grace alone, through faith alone, there is no Jew, nor Gentile (Rom 10:12; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11).”
In the Galatians passage, it also says that, in Christ, there is no male or female. Obviously, the gender differences will remain. Doesn’t it mean that the most important thing is that both are in Christ, but that lesser things (gender, roles, etc.) remain? And couldn’t that apply to Jews and Gentiles? That they’ll still remain Jews and Gentiles? Throughout Scripture, God distinguishes between them (e.g. Rev. 3:9).
Recently I had a question asking whether “covenant theology” is so-called “replacement theology.” Those dispensational critics of Reformed covenant theology who accuse it of teaching that the New Covenant church has “replaced” Israel do not understand historic Reformed covenant theology. They are imputing to Reformed theology a way of thinking about redemptive history that has more in common with dispensationalism than it does with Reformed theology.
First, the very category of “replacement” is foreign to Reformed theology because it assumes a dispensational, Israeleo-centric way of thinking. It assumes that the temporary, national people was, in fact, intended to be the permanent arrangement. Such a way of thinking is contrary to the promise in Gen 3:15. The promise was that there would be a Savior. The national people was only a means to that end, not an end in itself. According to Paul in Ephesians 2:11-22, in Christ the dividing wall has been destroyed. It cannot be rebuilt. The two peoples (Jews and Gentiles) have been made one in Christ. Among those who ae united to Christ by grace alone, through faith alone, there is no Jew, nor Gentile (Rom 10:12; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11).
At least some forms of dispensationalism have suggested that God intended the national covenant with Israel to be permanent. According to Reformed theology, the Mosaic covenant was never intended to be permanent. According to Galatians 3 (and chapter 4), the Mosaic covenant was a codicil to the Abrahamic covenant. A codicil is added to an existing document. It doesn’t replace the existing document. Dispensationalism reverses things. They make the Abrahamic covenant a codicil to the Mosaic. Hebrews 3 says that Moses was a worker in Jesus’ house. Dispensationalism makes Jesus a worker in Moses’ house.
Second, with respect to salvation, Reformed covenant theology does not juxtapose Israel and the church. For Reformed theology, the church has always been the Israel of God and the Israel of God has always been the church. Reformed covenant theology distinguishes the old and new covenants (2 Cor 3; Heb 7-10). It recognizes that the church was temporarily administered through a typological, national people, but the church has existed since Adam, Noah, Abraham, and it existed under Moses, David, and it exists under Christ.
Third, the church has always been one, under various administrations, under types, shadows, and now under the reality in Christ, because the object of faith has always been one. Jesus the Messiah was the object of faith of the typological church (Heb 11; Luke 24; 2 Cor 3) and he remains the object of faith.
Fourth, despite the abrogation of the national covenant by the obedience, death, and resurrection of Christ (Col 2:14), the NT church has not “replaced” the Jews. Paul says that God “grafted” the Gentiles into the people of God. Grafting is not replacement, it is addition.
It has been widely held by Reformed theologians that there will be a great conversion of Jews. Some call this “anti-semitism.” This isn’t anti-semitism, it is Christianity. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). The alternative to Jesus’ exclusivist claim is universalism which is nothing less than an assault on the person and finished work of Christ. Other Reformed writers understand the promises in Rom 11 to refer only to the salvation of all the elect (Rom 2:28) rather than to a future conversion of Jews. In any event, Reformed theology is not anti-semitic. We have always hoped and prayed for the salvation, in Christ, sola gratia et sola fide, of all of God’s elect, Jew and Gentile alike.
Here are some resources for getting to covenant theology.
Here are Lig Duncan’s lectures on covenant theology
Sorry, I accidentally included your post. My comment ends on the fourth major paragraph.
[...] Covenant theology is not replacement theology __________________ R. Scott Clark, D.Phil Professor of Church History and Historical Theology "For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church" Associate Pastor Oceanside URC The Heidelblog [...]
Recently I’ve been discussing Romans 11 with someone on a Reformed message board, who says that after AD 70 the Jews ceased to exist! It’s one way to avoid anti-Semitism if you believe they don’t even exist!
Is that compatible with Scripture – including obviously Romans 11? I would have thought not.
[...] [...]
Richard,
(Speaking as a Jewish Christian), they did not cease to exist–that would be absurd. But with the abrogation of the Mosaic Covenant, Israel did lose its status as the people of God. After all, it was the Mosaic Covenant that constituted them such–and once that covenant became obsolete, those who were “ami” (my people) became “lo ami” (not my people)–though of course a large number of individual Jews continued to enter into the blessings of the New Covenant through faith in Christ.
Thanks, David.
Do you believe that Romans 11 teaches a future national (re)conversion of the Jews, as well as the numbers that have believed over the centuries?
Richard, I personally do not believe in the national conversion interpretation of Romans 11:25-26. It seems to me that that text is too isolated and the evidence drawn from it is too tenuous–not to mention that the conclusion seems to go against the clear NT principle that God in the New Covenant no longer makes a distinction between nations.
[...] one. Replacement Theology and Covenant Theology are two different animals and are incompatible. http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008…ment-theology/ http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/repl…theology-8601/ <—puritan board forum [...]
[...] Scott Clark, a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary wrote an excellent article entitled, Covenant Theology is Not Replacement Theology. It doesn’t give a long expository explanation of the reformed view but it gives you a taste [...]
[...] Reformed covenant theology is evident by the continued popularity of a 2008 post explaining that Covenant Theology is Not Replacement Theology. Here I tried to show that those who describe covenant theology as “replacement [...]