The Jewish Bible As Runner Up
Twelve years before I arrived in Southern California, the Brooklyn Dodgers also relocated to Los Angeles. After 68 seasons in Brooklyn, the Dodgers moved to Los Angeles on October 8, 1957. The baseball New York Giants also relocated to the Golden State after the 1957 season, becoming the San Francisco Giants to keep the historic Dodgers–Giants rivalry intact.
The Brooklyn Dodgers were renamed the Los Angeles Dodgers. Obviously, the LA Dodgers remained the same team as the Brooklyn Bums, as they were referred to. Now, Brooklyn and Los Angeles Dodgers fans share the same proud history. They both can brag about World Series wins in 1956, 1963, 1965, 1969, 1981, 1988, and so on.
Whether the World Series championship rings were won in NY or in LA, ALL Dodger fans celebrate these victories and the players who are part of the Dodger legacy.
When it comes to the connection between the nation of Israel and the New Testament Church, some replacement theologians argue the Jewish nation and the multi-ethnic Church are the same team. These Christian influencers advocate that the Church today is the “new Israel” or a “spiritual Israel.”
According to Replacement Theology, the Church is a spiritual entity that has superseded the physical nation of Israel and is now the newest version of Israel. To the supersessionist mindset, former Israel failed God as His chosen instrument. Hence, God moved His team from an ethnic, religious body of Abraham’s descendants to a spiritual body connected to Abraham by faith, NOT by nationality.
In the last two posts of this series, I want to focus on the thinking that has turned the Israelite Dodgers into the Universal Dodgers in the minds of many replacement theology advocates.
It boils down to hermeneutics, the art of applying interpretive skills to biblical passages, especially about God’s relationship to Israel and the Church. In previous posts, I defined hermeneutics and shared a few dynamics. In this post, I continue to flesh out key hermeneutical considerations that clarify the concerns about the Church’s relationship to Israel.
Is Israel the same entity as the Church, but now designated as a “spiritual Israel”? Or are they two distinct bodies of people, unified through the worship of the God of Israel?
Let’s find out.
I have to initially ask: “Does Replacement theology (RT) grow out of the text of the Tenach? Another way to formulate my concern is to inquire whether Replacement theology is a top-down theological system. In this scheme, a student starts with a premise that he imposes on the biblical text.
In contrast, when an interpreter has consistent principles of biblical interpretation, he respects the text and lets his interpretation reflect it. An expert theologian begins with one premise: theology grows out of the biblical text, and is not forced onto a passage.
Therefore, every learner of Scripture must keep a few hermeneutical essentials in mind.
I think this interpretational guide, considering a passage’s context, is the best way to discover what a biblical writer intended. This method guards against interpreting the text through a preconceived theology. Instead, it focuses on discovering the biblical writer’s intent by examining the surrounding context. This includes the book’s context, the surrounding paragraphs, and the verse’s immediate setting.
Let’s examine a well-known passage that many people interpret without considering the surrounding context.
Replacement theologians will point to the benediction in Galatians 6:16 to argue that Paul sees the Church as the “new Israel”: “For all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16, bold formatting mine, ESV). Does this interpretation reflect the context of the Book of Galatians?
For the expositor to see Shaul’s benediction as pointing to the Church as the “spiritual Israel,” the interpreter would need to set aside the letter’s entire argument.
In Galatians 6:16, Shaul wishes mercy and peace on those Gentiles who refuse to heed the message of the Judaizers. These upstarts championed the idea that Gentile believers be circumcised as an external act to attain righteousness before God, rather than trust in the gift of redemption they have received from God. This was the false teaching the Apostle has been refuting for 6 chapters in Galatians.
Now, what is Shaul saying in this closing blessing?
According to Shaul, these Gentiles in Galatia are to be blessed for NOT giving in to the false doctrine of the Judaizers. Paul states, “And as for all who walk by this rule…” What rule? Check out the preceding verses 14-15
But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. (Galatians 6:14-15, bold formatting mine, ESV).
Two rules pop out in these verses: 1) Boast in the redemption made possible through the sacrificial death of Yeshua. Rather than boasting in the rite of circumcision, the believer trusts in the atonement made possible through Yeshua. 2) Place the highest spiritual priority on becoming the new creation made possible through the Messiah. The blessing of a new spiritual creation takes precedence over one’s status as circumcised or uncircumcised.
Those Gentile Christians who follow this rule described in Galatians 6:14-15 and have not given in to the false teaching of the circumcision party are blessed by God. Shaul wishes mercy and peace upon these believers. But that’s not all.
He also applies this benediction to Jewish followers of Yeshua, whom he calls “the Israel of God.” These are messianic Jews who embrace Yeshua and who do not practice circumcision as a way to attain a right standing before God.
Rabbi Shaul is NOT saying here in Galatians 6:16 that the Gentile Church is the “Israel of God.”
Paul never uses the phrase “Israel of God” elsewhere to refer to the NT body of believers. Ironically, given the controversy in this congregation, why would Paul add to it by making Gentile followers of Yeshua think they belong to the true Israel? Wouldn’t that drive them towards the circumcisers who want Gentiles to convert to Judaism through circumcision?
As I said in this section, one must begin with a contextual approach to understand Scripture.
Once again, I am indebted to Michael Vlach’s work, Dispensational Hermeneutics, for highlighting the grammatical-historical components of understanding Scripture.
Grapple with the Grammar. English grammar was my least favorite subject throughout K-12. As I matured and delved into biblical study, I learned that words are important. Grammar, and how words connect in a sentence, are essential in biblical study. We need to ask ourselves how passages are connected to previous and following paragraphs. One cannot wrench a sentence or words out of a chapter in the Bible without asking what the words mean in a sentence and how the sentence relates to the surrounding atmosphere.
I’ve heard too many Sunday sermons in which the speaker rushes through swaths of Scripture without slowing down to examine a passage’s essential grammar. Take Romans 11:26-27 as an example:
And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, “Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.” (Romans 11:26-27 bold formatting mine, NRSV).
I observe several grammatical nuances in the phrase “all Israel will be saved.”
1) “All Israel” is in contrast to verse 25, where Paul mentions that “part” of Israel has been hardened towards the gospel message. This contrast supports the fact that God is presently working with a remnant of Jewish people who follow Yeshua, compared to the partial hardening of members of Israel who have not yet embraced their Messiah. “So too at the present time there is a REMNANT, chosen by grace” (Romans 11:5, capitalization and bold formatting mine, NRSV).
2) “Will be saved” is a future tense verb. The time will come in the future when the God of Israel will redeem the ENTIRE Jewish nation based on their willingness to recognize Jesus as their Messiah. Then, the category of a “remnant ” within Israel will no longer exist. In fact, ALL Israel will be redeemed by the God of their fathers.
3) “Will be saved” is a passive verb, which indicates an outside power or person will redeem the nation, not themselves.
4) A coming messianic Deliverer from Zion or Jerusalem shall be the One who brings redemption to the Jewish people (Romans 11:27)
5) This Deliverer will remove sins from the nation of Israel.
The passage cannot be referring to the Church because the Church is not awaiting redemption. No biblical teaching says the “Church will be saved” in the future, nor does the NT indicate any present partial hardening in the Church. In addition, the Church does not await a Deliverer to take away its sins. The Church awaits the Messiah, Yeshua, to return to earth and establish His kingdom based on the redemption from sins He already accomplished in His first coming.
It’s amazing what an expositor can discover by examining a passage’s grammar.
Start Unpacking Some History. Students of the Bible cannot ignore that each biblical writer wrote within a specific historical setting. Any examiner of the Scriptures should begin interpreting a passage by asking about the “when ” and “where” of a biblical author.
Nevertheless, Christians will grab a passage like Jeremiah 29:11, apply it to themselves, and never ask what was happening in Jeremiah’s life and the lives of his audience. These questions provide the historical setting for this well-known passage. “For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the LORD, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope” (Jeremiah 29:11 NRSV).
What is taking place in the lives of the people Jeremiah is writing to? How does this passage provide them comfort in their historical situation? You get the picture.
Once the expositor understands that the prophet Jeremiah is addressing Jewish exiles in Babylon, the passage’s application becomes more faithful to its Scriptural context. Then evangelicals will think first before plastering Jeremiah 29:11 on a coffee mug, knowing this promise was originally given to Israel and still applies.
Michael Vlach writes, “. . . there is a need to be aware of the historical situations of the Bible writers because that is the context in which they wrote ” (pg. 24).
History matters when interpreting Scripture.
Inquiring about Genre Is Not an Option. The student must ask, “What kind of literature is the author using? Is he writing a letter to a congregation in a certain city, a psalm of praise to God while facing overwhelming problems, or a proverb describing spiritual wisdom?” A passage’s or book’s genre affects how one interprets that section of the Word of God.
At the same time, the student must remember that a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture does not exclude figures of speech, symbols, typology, and other literary forms. When Yeshua says in John 10:7, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep (John 10:7, ESV), I do not believe Yeshua is actually a wooden door. He is using a metaphor. This is true in many other cases where biblical authors use non-literal figures of speech.
When I try to understand the letter to the Ephesians, I acknowledge the historical and spiritual issues facing this body of believers in the Greek city of Ephesus. Yet when I read the letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2-3, I must confront the fact that Yeshua uttered these letters within a prophetic book. I must take into account the apocalyptic nature of His communication.
In addition, one must study the context of a non-literal figure, the term used, and the sentence’s syntax. The interpreter of a figure of speech must still follow the hermeneutical dynamics discussed elsewhere in this article.
Here’s an example. Daniel 2 and 7 use symbolism that points to the biblical history of the Gentile nations. King Nebuchadnezzar dreams of non-literal figures, and the prophet Daniel interprets these symbols literally and historically. In Daniel 2:31-35, the prophet is given the symbolic details of the king’s dream. Then, in vv. 36-45, God Himself provides the prophet with the symbols’ interpretation.
If a student ignores the interpretation already provided in the biblical text, he puts himself out on a limb. He risks going beyond the text and concocting his own interpretation.
Many biblical scholars claim to employ the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. However, these scholars often fail to apply this hermeneutic to prophecies in the Hebrew text, especially those about God’s promise to restore Israel to the land and provide spiritual redemption through their Messiah. Instead, they interpret these restoration passages symbolically. The result is that these theologians misrepresent the prophetic message given to Israel and substitute the NT Church for the Jewish nation.
Here, the covenant theology system sadly triumphs over biblical hermeneutics. If one claims to interpret Scripture literally, why wouldn’t they apply that principle to OT prophetic sections about Israel’s restoration? On what basis do RT scholars ignore the grammatical-historical hermeneutic and slip into a non-literal exposition of a passage?
As Vlach points out, “After all, prophecies about corporate Israel’s curses and dispersion occurred literally. Why then should prophecies about corporate Israel’s blessings and restoration not be taken literally?” (Dispensational Hermeneutics, pp. 32-33).
The covenant-theology interpreter is stuck between a rock and a hard place when he tries to diminish the literal meaning of many OT prophecies. For example, Daniel 9:27 and 11:36 predict the coming of the Antichrist who will commit blasphemy, declaring himself to be God (known as the abomination of desolation) in the Jewish Temple. This passage assumes Israel will be in the land when this event occurs, and the Jewish people will be worshiping in a rebuilt temple.
When Yeshua alludes to this event in Matthew 24:15, He refers to Daniel 9:27 and 11:36. He did not reinterpret these passages non-literally, as RT interpreters do. For this event to be fulfilled literally, Yeshua expected the physical Temple to be standing, the nation of Israel to be in the land, and a real Antichrist to commit the ultimate blasphemy in the Temple proper.
Fourteen verses later, the Messiah Yeshua provides the timeline for these events: We read in vv. 29- 20.
“Immediately after the suffering of those days
the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from heaven,
and the powers of heaven will be shaken.Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn; they will see ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven’ with power and great glory” (Matthew 24:29-30, bold formatting mine, NRSV).
Many Reformed expositors say this passage was fulfilled either BEFORE the A.D. destruction of the Temple or when the Temple was demolished that year.
I have to inquire, “Did an Antichrist enter the Temple to commit blasphemy BEFORE or at 70 A.D.?” On the other hand, could we understand this passage as a prophecy about a future post-70 A.D. event that has not yet happened… even immediately prior to the Messiah Yeshua’s return or the Second Coming according to vv. 29-30?
If the biblical expositor believes the event in Matthew 24:15 has already taken place prior to 70 A.D. or at that momentous time, they will need to explain the words of Jesus, “immediately after the suffering of those days.” Did Jesus return before, during, or immediately after the 70 A.D. catastrophe?
Jesus is saying that despite the 70 A.D. destruction of the Temple and the post-70 A.D. dispersion of the Jewish people, the time will come when Israel will be restored to their homeland before His return to earth.
Yeshua expects His followers to understand Daniel’s prophecy about Israel literally, as He did.
I admit I rely heavily on Michael V. Vlach’s brief work, Dispensational Hermeneutics (Theological Studies Press, 2023). My goal is not to push the theological system of Dispensationalism. My main objective is to provide readers with a helpful rubric for biblical interpretation. Vlach’s principles of biblical interpretation fit perfectly with my goal of showing readers how to understand Israel’s place in the prophetic sections of both testaments.
In addition, be sure to catch the thread that runs throughout this section. I am addressing theologians who prioritize the New Testament over the Old Testament. When an RT proponent operates with the assumption of NT priority, he provides himself with the needed justification for replacing Israel with the NT Church.
Too many pastors are inundated with ministerial demands and have little time to study the passages they preach. These speakers often turn to other passages to help explain the one they are studying. They assume they can quickly find the meaning of an Old Testament text in the New Covenant.
Nevertheless, there is a downside to this practice: If the NT is used consistently to grasp the meaning of an Old Testament verse, the INTERPRETER PRIORITIZES THE NEW TESTAMENT as his go-to interpretive tool.
In contrast, when I study a passage in the Psalms, I can best understand that poetic section within the Psalm itself. The same rule applies to verses in the prophetic books. Vlach remarks that God placed a text in a certain book so it can be understood within that section of the Bible. The preacher does not always need to default to the New Covenant to comprehend a passage from the Jewish Scriptures.
Later revelation might comment on a passage, draw principles or significances from it, or connect a promise in the Old with fulfillment in the New, but later revelation does not interpret or change the meaning of the earlier revelation (Vlach, Dispensational Hermeneutics, bold formatting mine,pg. 36)
Therefore, the meaning of a given text is to be found within that text, using the grammatical-historical method of biblical interpretation.
Here are a few examples.
In Genesis, the Lord God promised Abraham that a great nation would come from him and reside in a specific geographic region, later known as Israel. God also promised Abraham that his descendants would bless the gentile nations. Throughout the entire Old Testament, Abraham’s seed became known as the people of Israel.
For the New Testament to claim, according to Replacement theology supporters, that the Church has superseded Israel is out of harmony with ALL of the Jewish Scriptures. Such a concept is foreign to the entire scope of the Hebrew Bible.
In this view, the NT is employed to reinterpret earlier passages, such as Genesis 12:1-3, where God promises that Abraham and his seed will become the nation of Israel. In the RT scheme, those promises given to the Jewish people have now been reassigned to the Church. Good luck with all that.
If we use New Testament passages to reinterpret passages from the Tenach describing God’s covenant with Abraham and his seed, then those later passages take priority over the Jewish Bible. Here, the meaning of the Abrahamic Covenant is no longer found in Genesis, but in an erroneously applied New Testament passage. Consequently, the interpreter prioritizes the NT over the Old Testament and redefines Israel’s identity, despite myriad Old Testament passages describing Israel’s origin, history, and prophetic future.
In Galatians 3, Rabbi Shaul refers to the blessing of Abraham that has come upon Gentile followers of the Messiah. We see this in Galatians 3:8-9:
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. (Galatians 3:8-9, bold formatting mine, ESV).
The blessing the author of Galatians describes is found in the early part of verse 8: “God would justify the Gentiles by faith.” In other words, God promises spiritual blessings on the Gentiles through their faith in the Messiah, the seed of Abraham. Notice what Shaul did NOT say: God would give Gentile believers the land of Israel, or Gentile disciples of Yeshua would become a great nation replacing Israel.
Herein is a major issue with Replacement theology: they have pilfered Israel’s distinctiveness and left the Jewish people without any spiritual or national identity before God.
For Christians who deem themselves true Israel, they have grabbed Israel’s promises and future hope and applied them to themselves.
One young pastor who holds to Covenant theology questioned the identity of modern Israel. To him, the modern nation of Israel has no identity. He would be comfortable issuing Israel a blank Social Security card.
If you comb through the New Testament, you’ll find that the only provision of the Abrahamic covenant applied to Gentile Christians is the promise of spiritual blessings. Check Galatians 3:14: “so that in Christ [Messiah] Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith” (Galatians 3:14, bracketting and bold formatting mine, ESV). Verse 14 notes that the blessing of Abraham given to Gentiles is the “promised Spirit through faith.” No land promises. No commitment from God to make the Church a great physical nation to replace the Jewish people.
What about Galatians 3:29? “And if you are Christ’s [Messiah’s], then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise (Galatians 3:29, bracketing and bold formatting mine, ESV). If Gentiles are Abraham’s offspring, does that not make Gentiles who follow Yeshua members of Abraham’s offspring, Israel? Yet one can be Abraham’s seed and not be part of Israel. After all, Abraham’s other seed, Ishmael, is the father of the Arab nations.
In Galatians, we learn that Abraham’s blessing to the Gentiles is spiritual, as seen in the previous context of Galatians 3. The blessing is not physical or national. Gentiles do not become part of Israel when they accept Yeshua. They are baptized into the spiritual body, the Church (1 Cor 12:13). Gentiles are Abraham’s spiritual offspring, heirs of the spiritual promise.
In Jeremiah 31:35-36, the prophet clearly states that Israel will ALWAYS be a nation before Him. Always? Yes, like forever. Read Jeremiah’s guarantee:
Thus says the LORD,
who gives the sun for light by day
and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—
the LORD of hosts is his name:
“If this fixed order departs
from before me, declares the LORD,
then shall the offspring of Israel cease
from being a nation before me forever.” (Jeremiah 31:35-36, bold formatting mine, ESV)
If Israel has become the Church, as RT theologians claim, then these academics are stating that God changed His mind about this promise. In vs. 36, the prophet’s utterance is clear: “the seed of Israel will always be a nation before Me.” Not a church. Not a spiritual community under a new name.
In the Hebrew Bible, it’s a breeze to see that God gave the geographical land of the Canaanites to Israel. Most importantly, this promise is repeated several times in the NT, according to Gerald McDermott in his Christian Post article, “New Antisemitism Rising Among Christians Is Heresy,” pg. 4).
The author of Hebrews states that God led Abraham to a place he would inherit. In addition, Jacob and his heirs with him received the same promise. “By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. (Hebrews 11:9 ESV). The writer of Hebrews does NOT say this promise of the land to the patriarch is now transferred to the Church. This passage in Hebrews 11 would have been a prime place for the nameless author of Hebrews to say the land promise has now been signed over to the Church.
In Acts 7:4-5, Stephen declared that God promised Abraham the land of Israel and to his descendants. Again, this promise still applies to Israel. “Then he went out from the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his father died, God removed him from there into THIS LAND in which you are NOW living. Yet he gave him no inheritance there, not even a foot’s length, but promised to give it to him and his offspring after him, though he had no child (Acts 7:4-5, bold formatting mine, ESV). Again, the text makes no mention of the Abrahamic real estate being conveyed to the Church.
Rabbi Shaul says in Acts 13:17-19, “God chose the patriarchs and gave them their land as an inheritance. The God of this people, Israel, chose our fathers and made the people great during their stay in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm he led them out of it. And for about forty years he put up with them in the wilderness. And after destroying seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land as an inheritance (Acts 13:17-19, bold formatting mine, ESV).
Paul presents Israel’s ownership of the land as a solid fact that has not changed even AFTER the establishment of the Church. Yes, EVEN AFTER the supernatural birth of the New Covenant church.
In contrast to replacement theology, which claims the true Israel is the New Testament church, Paul writes in Romans 9:3-4, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ [Messiah] for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. (Romans 9:3-4, bold formatting and bracketting mine, ESV).
Paul says that his Jewish kinsmen are the same as the entity known as “Israel.” To Saul, Israel is still Israel and not the Church. To them still belong the “adoption . . . and the promises.” Paul does not say the promises have now been given to the Church or that Israel has been disqualified because of their unbelief.
Anyone reading my posts can tell I’m a baseball fanatic. From the summer through October, I catch as many games as I can. I even carry opinions about baseball announcers. I live in a town where the local TV baseball announcers do a decent job calling the play-by-play. However, our local commentators tend to ignore the opposing team during the game. It’s so annoying and myopic.
If the opposing team is at bat, these TV baseball professionals will talk about the local hometown pitcher on the mound. Even if the opposing batter is a well-known major league phenom, the commentators will sing the hurler’s praises as if the batter is non-existent. Of course, if the batter smacks a home run over the fence, the local guys calling the game begrudgingly acknowledge the ballplayer’s run-scoring feat.
Those who espouse replacement theology are like these biased baseball announcers. Despite the obvious presence of Israel in both testaments, these expositors find a way to override and ignore God’s commitment to Israel. Like the prejudiced baseball commentators, Covenant theology proponents navigate through the Word of God, only viewing one team on the field-the NT Church… even when the Body of Messiah is not present!
Replacement theologians mainly see Israel under judgment by the Hebrew prophets for the nation’s disobedience to God. In contrast, a fair-minded Bible student knows the Scriptures present a more positive view of Israel and depict a powerful future for Israel under the blessing of Yeshua, the Messiah of Israel.
In our last post in this series, “Have the Jewish Scriptures Become Second Class Among Christians,” I will wrap up our discussion and respond to a few more methods Replacement theologians use to obscure Israel’s place of blessing on God’s playing field.
In the biblical sense, both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Covenant equally grasp the…
In the biblical sense, BOTH the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Covenant equally grasp the…
In the biblical sense, BOTH the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Covenant equally grasp the…
We need to challenge any distinctions made by Christians between the biblical Israel and the…
We need to challenge any distinctions made by Christians between the biblical Israel and the…
When Yeshua entered Jerusalem on a donkey, His intent was to declare Himself the messianic…