Does the church replace Israel?
The question has generated countless debates, yet I wonder whether the question itself assumes a framework that Scripture never gives us.
The more fundamental question is whether God has always intended to save sinners through one promised Christ.
Immediately after Adam’s fall, God promised the seed who would crush the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15). That promise was renewed with Abraham, to whom God declared that all the families of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 12:3). Israel subsequently became the nation through which that promised seed would come. And then Paul identifies the seed as Christ (Gal. 3:16).
To be clear, Israel occupied an indispensable place in redemptive history because God was bringing Christ into the world through Israel, as well as bringing the Old Testament scriptures through them.
Edward Fisher understood this relationship and, explaining that the addition of the law at Sinai, he wrote that it was given “by way of subserviency and attendance, to better advance and make effectual the Covenant of Grace” (Part I, chap. 2, sec. 2.3, p. 63).
Basically, he was saying that the law was given to serve the promise.
Sinai exposed Israel’s inability to establish righteousness through obedience, while the sacrifices and ceremonies continually directed believing Israelites toward the promised Redeemer. Fisher consequently described the tabernacle, ark, and mercy seat as types of Christ (p. 67).
As Baptists, we distinguish between the covenant of grace promised throughout the Old Testament and its establishment in Christ’s blood. Nevertheless, the saving object of faith remained the same. Abraham was justified by faith, and every believing Israelite likewise received salvation through the promised Christ.
This also explains Paul’s distinction between physical descent and participation in the promise. “They are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). External membership among God’s covenant people never guaranteed saving union with Christ.
We are equally capable of confusing religious privilege with a saving possession. Church attendance, baptism, Scripture reading, and the Lord’s Supper can become occasions for self-righteousness when we begin treating them as grounds of acceptance before God, when their proper use directs our faith toward Christ.
Ultimately, calling this replacement theology is rather like accusing an oak tree of replacing the acorn. The promise has reached its appointed fulfillment.
God did not lose Israel and gain the church. He brought the promised Messiah through Israel, and in Christ the blessing promised to Abraham now extends to the nations.
The church does not replace Israel; rather, as Christ is the true and better Adam, He is also the true and better Israel. He is the suffering Servant that Isaiah prophesied about and succeeds where both Adam and Israel failed as covenant representatives, and brings all those who come to Him back to the Father.
