The Ekklesia of Christ
Augustine
Chapter 2 –The Old and New Testaments and Christ’s Ekklesia
Today our Scriptures are divided into “Old Testament” (OT) and “New Testament” (NT), and it is often carefully explained that testament means covenant.1 It is further clarified that the OT carries the Old Covenant that has now been replaced by the New Covenant that is contained in the NT. To a degree that is correct, for the NT contains the account of Jesus’ ministry on earth during which He kept the Law of God and fulfilled the ordinances of the Mosaic Law so that He qualified as that perfect sacrifice for the sins of mankind – He was eternal God come in the flesh. It is also clear that at His last meal with His disciples, Jesus spoke of the contents of the cup representing the new testament, or New Covenant, in His blood (Luke 22:20); this is the fulfillment of the words of Jehovah spoken to the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31-34).
However, what too often takes place in our minds is the formation of a great gap between the OT and the NT. We fail to recognize that the NT is built upon the OT, and that God has given both to us as His Word. Under the New Covenant we “are built upon the foundation of the apostles [NT] and prophets [OT], Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20). Isaiah wrote of this: “Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste [yield or hurry away]” (Isaiah 28:16).2 The prevailing thought among believers today is that the “church” is God’s present avenue of work in this world (we are in the “Church Age”); it began when Jesus declared that He would build His church (ekklesia), someday He will finish it, and then He will go back to working with Israel. In essence, what is being said is that the NT speaks to the “church” that Jesus is building today, and the OT outlines God’s dealings with Israel that will continue at a future date after the “church” is completed.
If we would permit the Scriptures to speak for themselves, and set aside our manmade theologies, however well systematized they might be, we would discover that God’s Word to us is one revelation. Within the Greek Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the word ekklesia appears over 41 times, and the corresponding Hebrew word has been translated as assembly or congregation in the KJV. They are all used of the children of Israel or Judah, and in each case it refers to a special gathering of the people. God’s called-out ones have always been there; the prophets of Israel spoke much of the remnant that the Lord would restore, even as they spoke against the apostasy of their day – really their message is very appropriate for our day of spiritual carnage.
Two primary errors have flowed out of an incorrect consideration of the OT Scriptures from our post-Messianic perspective, and both of these are prevalent today. It is important that we understand these so that we can recognize them when we hear them, and so that we can read the Scriptures with a proper understanding of the work that God is doing today against the background of what He began with Adam.
A. Replacement Theology
The first of these errors says that the “Church” has replaced Israel in God’s economy, and so all of the promises that God made to Israel are for us today. Today this is commonly known as replacement theology (an older term is supersessionism, where the church is said to supersede Israel3); it says that God has finished with Israel because they rejected Jesus as their Messiah, and God has set them aside forever. Those who hold to this position use Matthew 21:43 as a basis for their understanding: “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” To whom was this addressed? Jesus was speaking to the chief priests and elders of the people of Israel, and the thrust is that because they refused to recognize Jesus for Who He is, the kingdom of God would be given to a people (singular; a specific people but not a nation as we think of it today) who would bring forth the fruits in keeping with God’s kingdom. These Jewish leaders recognized that Jesus spoke these things against them (Matthew 21:45), yet they were afraid of taking action against Him because the people considered Jesus to be a prophet. Even though Jesus’ words were directed specifically to the Jewish leaders who were spiritual failures, it is clear from Israel’s history that they, as a people, were not strong in their commitment to the Lord. Isaiah wrote that though Israel should become as the sand of the sea, only a remnant would repent (Isaiah 10:22).4 God has always worked with the faithful few. Jesus’ ministry on earth was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24); He taught the people of Israel, confronted their spiritual leaders, gained great followings, and we are told that many believed in His name because of the miracles that they had witnessed, yet Jesus would not commit Himself to them (John 2:23-24). At the time of His crucifixion, the many were gone, and after Jesus’ ascension, the disciples who gathered to await the coming of the Comforter were 120 (Acts 1:15) – a small remnant of the crowds that had followed the Lord and were beneficiaries of His miracles.
Therefore, when Jesus said to the Jewish leaders: “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you” and will be given to a people who will live in accordance with God’s kingdom, what did He mean? As Jesus met with His disciples on the evening before His crucifixion, He took the cup and declared that this drink symbolized the New Covenant in His blood that was about to be shed (Luke 22:20). Along with this New Covenant came a fulfillment and completion of the Mosaic Law, particularly as it pertained to the priesthood, the sacrifices and the temple (Ephesians 2:13-16) – the new replaced the old (Hebrews 8:13). With the implementation of the New Covenant, the kingdom of God came in a whole new way and with a new power (Revelation 12:10): God’s Law (the Ten Commandments) are now written upon our minds and placed within our hearts (Hebrews 10:15-17), and the Spirit of God (the Comforter) was dispatched to dwell within everyone who places his faith in the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 8:9). “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink [physical things as the Jews had come to understand it]; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Romans 14:17). Jesus told Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36), and the New Covenant follows this truth. In essence, Jesus alerted the Jewish religious leaders that God’s kingdom would no longer be theirs: their Mosaic Law was about to be fulfilled and replaced (abolished in Ephesians 2:15) by the New Covenant. As a nation they had fulfilled God’s mandate for them – to bring the Prophet into the world (Deuteronomy 18:15) Who was the promised Blessing to all families of the earth (Genesis 12:3).5
A careful examination of the Scriptures reveals that changes did take place for Israel. As Jesus died, the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51), this was a sure sign to the religious leadership of Israel that the temple rituals had been ended by God, for only He could tear it from the top down. As Jesus died for the sins of the world, the temple, its priesthood and the sacrifices were rendered obsolete; referring to Jehovah’s words to Jeremiah, the writer of Hebrews declared: “In that he [Jehovah] saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old [declared to be obsolete]. Now that which decayeth [is being made old] and waxeth old [is becoming obsolete] is ready to vanish away [is close to disappearing]” (Hebrews 8:13a).6 It was only a few years after these words were written that the temple and all of Jerusalem were completely destroyed by the Romans; all of what Jesus had fulfilled was now removed: the temple and Jerusalem were completely gone (even as Jesus had predicted, there was not one stone that was left in place – Luke 19:41-44), and the Jews of Jerusalem were either killed or taken captive – the exercise of the Law of Moses came to a halt (the central aspects of the priesthood and the temple were wiped out – it was like they had vanished).7
Replacement theology says that God has turned away from Israel, and that the “Church” has become His new Israel and assumes all of the promises, both nationally and spiritually, that were made to Israel. This is where the advocates of this theology err; they endeavor to establish the “Church” as a replacement Israel – when it is not! Earlier we referred to Paul’s teachings in Romans 11; let’s return to that and have a closer look so that we can better understand exactly what is laid out for Israel and for us, His ekklesia.
Paul begins by laying down a principle in Romans 11:16 – “For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.” He uses two illustrations to establish a single truth. The first (firstfruit and lump) would be very familiar to a Jewish audience; before the Jews could partake of a new harvest, they had to bring a sheaf of barley (omer, can refer to the sheaf or to a dry measure; barley was the first grain to ripen) to the temple.8 The priest would wave this before the Lord (the Wave Offering) as the expression of Israel’s acknowledgment of God as being their Provider and their readiness to give to Him the first of their harvest, before they used any of it for themselves (Leviticus 23:11, 14). Lump (phurama) speaks of that which has been mixed and kneaded – hence the bread that would be made from the harvested grain.9 In essence, Paul is saying that if the harvest has been consecrated to the Lord (made holy), then that which is made from the sanctified harvest is also holy.
The root and the branches are more closely related to the parable that Jesus taught in John 15. Root (rhiza) identifies the cause or reason for something, and for a plant that is its root.10 Within His parable, Jesus spoke of the Vine and the branches – the Vine being identified with the root as Paul uses it here. Jesus said: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth [prunes] it, that it may bring forth more fruit … Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it [should] abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.” (John 15:1-4).11 Since the Vine is holy, then it should be anticipated that its branches will reflect the holiness of the Vine – if the root is holy, then the branches that are abiding in the Root will also be holy.
We must understand that both the firstfruit and the root are the Lord Jesus Christ: “now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits [singular] of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20) – Christ is the first Who was risen who would never die; as John wrote the Revelation, he identified Jesus this way: “behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David” (Revelation 5:5) – Jesus, born about a thousand years after David, is called his Root. The One Who declared: “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58) is the Root of David, and the One in Whom we must faithfully abide if we would bear fruit for Him. Therefore, everything that is tied to the Lord (whether the meal for baking or the branch) is holy – the key being the connection to Him!
Returning to Paul’s illustration in Romans 11, he goes on to say that some of the branches have been broken off because of unbelief, and that some wild branches have been grafted into the Tree (the Lord Jesus) by faith (Romans 11:17-20). This is an illustration of the Jews and Gentiles being made one in the Lord Jesus (Ephesians 2:14-16); the natural branches (Jews) of the Olive Tree were broken off because of unbelief and the unnatural branches of the wild olive tree (Gentiles) were grafted in through faith. Jesus spoke of this: “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold [aule – speaking of Israel]: them also I must bring [lead], and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold [poimne – flock], and one shepherd” (John 10:16).12 There is only one flock, kingdom of God, ekklesia and one shepherd. After recounting some of the faithful of the OT, the writer of Hebrews concludes with this: “And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect [complete]” (Hebrews 11:39-40)13 – the OT saints (even from before Abraham) await the redeemed who will come to faith in Christ before they, with us, will be complete. As Paul began his letter to the Roman Christians, he carefully explained that a Jew is someone who through faith has circumcised his heart and is right before God (Romans 2:29), even as Abraham was declared to be righteous because of his faith in the Lord before circumcision was instituted as a sign of God’s promise (Romans 4:3, 11). Faith in the Lord and faithfulness to the Lord is what makes us a child of God and of Abraham (Romans 4:16). As John describes the New Jerusalem for us, we are told that the gates bear the names of the twelve tribes of Israel and that the foundation of the City carries the names of the twelve Apostles (Revelation 21:12, 14). It is through the faith of Abraham that entrance is gained to that City, but the foundation of all saving faith (OT and NT) is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Chief Corner Who brought in the New Covenant forever (the Message of the Apostles).
The formulation of replacement theology seems to have begun with Augustine (although its roots go back to the second century AD),14 and it is prevalent today among those whose doctrines have been strongly influenced by his teachings – the Roman Catholics, and many who adhere to Reformed theology, hold Augustine and his teachings in high regard. From the second century forward, this replacement theology grew out of a desire to eradicate everything Jewish from Christianity; very early anti-Semitism gained traction among the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Reformers didn’t shake this sentiment.
Consider an example from Augustine’s writings. Ezekiel wrote that the Lord would “take you [Israel] from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land” (Ezekiel 36:24); this was to be done because of the Lord’s holy name and so the heathen would know that He is God (Ezekiel 36:22-23). Augustine took this seemingly straightforward passage and said: “And therefore we ought to take this saying … not literally, as if they referred to Israel after the flesh, but spiritually, as referring to the spiritual Israel. For the Church, without spot or wrinkle, gathered out of all nations, and destined to reign for ever with Christ, is itself the land of the blessed, the land of the living …”15 By spiritualizing the promises made to Israel regarding the physical land of promise, Augustine was able to reject Israel outright and turn his attention to “the Church” as the replacement for Israel within God’s economy. Such spiritualization of God’s Word served to heighten an already growing attitude of anti-Semitism within the rapidly-forming, apostate Roman Catholic Church. What is fascinating is that this attitude was not lost during the reformation: Martin Luther considered the destruction of Jerusalem and concluded that “the Jews, surely rejected by God, are no longer his people, and neither is he any longer their God;”16 John Calvin is quoted: “Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.”17 Such thinking only served to foment the anti-Jewishness that had characterized the Roman Catholic Church from its earliest beginnings, and provided a rationalized justification for “the Church” replacing Israel entirely.
Today our Scriptures are divided into “Old Testament” (OT) and “New Testament” (NT), and it is often carefully explained that testament means covenant.1 It is further clarified that the OT carries the Old Covenant that has now been replaced by the New Covenant that is contained in the NT. To a degree that is correct, for the NT contains the account of Jesus’ ministry on earth during which He kept the Law of God and fulfilled the ordinances of the Mosaic Law so that He qualified as that perfect sacrifice for the sins of mankind – He was eternal God come in the flesh. It is also clear that at His last meal with His disciples, Jesus spoke of the contents of the cup representing the new testament, or New Covenant, in His blood (Luke 22:20); this is the fulfillment of the words of Jehovah spoken to the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31-34).
However, what too often takes place in our minds is the formation of a great gap between the OT and the NT. We fail to recognize that the NT is built upon the OT, and that God has given both to us as His Word. Under the New Covenant we “are built upon the foundation of the apostles [NT] and prophets [OT], Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20). Isaiah wrote of this: “Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste [yield or hurry away]” (Isaiah 28:16).2 The prevailing thought among believers today is that the “church” is God’s present avenue of work in this world (we are in the “Church Age”); it began when Jesus declared that He would build His church (ekklesia), someday He will finish it, and then He will go back to working with Israel. In essence, what is being said is that the NT speaks to the “church” that Jesus is building today, and the OT outlines God’s dealings with Israel that will continue at a future date after the “church” is completed.
If we would permit the Scriptures to speak for themselves, and set aside our manmade theologies, however well systematized they might be, we would discover that God’s Word to us is one revelation. Within the Greek Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the word ekklesia appears over 41 times, and the corresponding Hebrew word has been translated as assembly or congregation in the KJV. They are all used of the children of Israel or Judah, and in each case it refers to a special gathering of the people. God’s called-out ones have always been there; the prophets of Israel spoke much of the remnant that the Lord would restore, even as they spoke against the apostasy of their day – really their message is very appropriate for our day of spiritual carnage.
Two primary errors have flowed out of an incorrect consideration of the OT Scriptures from our post-Messianic perspective, and both of these are prevalent today. It is important that we understand these so that we can recognize them when we hear them, and so that we can read the Scriptures with a proper understanding of the work that God is doing today against the background of what He began with Adam.
A. Replacement Theology
The first of these errors says that the “Church” has replaced Israel in God’s economy, and so all of the promises that God made to Israel are for us today. Today this is commonly known as replacement theology (an older term is supersessionism, where the church is said to supersede Israel3); it says that God has finished with Israel because they rejected Jesus as their Messiah, and God has set them aside forever. Those who hold to this position use Matthew 21:43 as a basis for their understanding: “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” To whom was this addressed? Jesus was speaking to the chief priests and elders of the people of Israel, and the thrust is that because they refused to recognize Jesus for Who He is, the kingdom of God would be given to a people (singular; a specific people but not a nation as we think of it today) who would bring forth the fruits in keeping with God’s kingdom. These Jewish leaders recognized that Jesus spoke these things against them (Matthew 21:45), yet they were afraid of taking action against Him because the people considered Jesus to be a prophet. Even though Jesus’ words were directed specifically to the Jewish leaders who were spiritual failures, it is clear from Israel’s history that they, as a people, were not strong in their commitment to the Lord. Isaiah wrote that though Israel should become as the sand of the sea, only a remnant would repent (Isaiah 10:22).4 God has always worked with the faithful few. Jesus’ ministry on earth was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24); He taught the people of Israel, confronted their spiritual leaders, gained great followings, and we are told that many believed in His name because of the miracles that they had witnessed, yet Jesus would not commit Himself to them (John 2:23-24). At the time of His crucifixion, the many were gone, and after Jesus’ ascension, the disciples who gathered to await the coming of the Comforter were 120 (Acts 1:15) – a small remnant of the crowds that had followed the Lord and were beneficiaries of His miracles.
Therefore, when Jesus said to the Jewish leaders: “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you” and will be given to a people who will live in accordance with God’s kingdom, what did He mean? As Jesus met with His disciples on the evening before His crucifixion, He took the cup and declared that this drink symbolized the New Covenant in His blood that was about to be shed (Luke 22:20). Along with this New Covenant came a fulfillment and completion of the Mosaic Law, particularly as it pertained to the priesthood, the sacrifices and the temple (Ephesians 2:13-16) – the new replaced the old (Hebrews 8:13). With the implementation of the New Covenant, the kingdom of God came in a whole new way and with a new power (Revelation 12:10): God’s Law (the Ten Commandments) are now written upon our minds and placed within our hearts (Hebrews 10:15-17), and the Spirit of God (the Comforter) was dispatched to dwell within everyone who places his faith in the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 8:9). “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink [physical things as the Jews had come to understand it]; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Romans 14:17). Jesus told Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36), and the New Covenant follows this truth. In essence, Jesus alerted the Jewish religious leaders that God’s kingdom would no longer be theirs: their Mosaic Law was about to be fulfilled and replaced (abolished in Ephesians 2:15) by the New Covenant. As a nation they had fulfilled God’s mandate for them – to bring the Prophet into the world (Deuteronomy 18:15) Who was the promised Blessing to all families of the earth (Genesis 12:3).5
A careful examination of the Scriptures reveals that changes did take place for Israel. As Jesus died, the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51), this was a sure sign to the religious leadership of Israel that the temple rituals had been ended by God, for only He could tear it from the top down. As Jesus died for the sins of the world, the temple, its priesthood and the sacrifices were rendered obsolete; referring to Jehovah’s words to Jeremiah, the writer of Hebrews declared: “In that he [Jehovah] saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old [declared to be obsolete]. Now that which decayeth [is being made old] and waxeth old [is becoming obsolete] is ready to vanish away [is close to disappearing]” (Hebrews 8:13a).6 It was only a few years after these words were written that the temple and all of Jerusalem were completely destroyed by the Romans; all of what Jesus had fulfilled was now removed: the temple and Jerusalem were completely gone (even as Jesus had predicted, there was not one stone that was left in place – Luke 19:41-44), and the Jews of Jerusalem were either killed or taken captive – the exercise of the Law of Moses came to a halt (the central aspects of the priesthood and the temple were wiped out – it was like they had vanished).7
Replacement theology says that God has turned away from Israel, and that the “Church” has become His new Israel and assumes all of the promises, both nationally and spiritually, that were made to Israel. This is where the advocates of this theology err; they endeavor to establish the “Church” as a replacement Israel – when it is not! Earlier we referred to Paul’s teachings in Romans 11; let’s return to that and have a closer look so that we can better understand exactly what is laid out for Israel and for us, His ekklesia.
Paul begins by laying down a principle in Romans 11:16 – “For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.” He uses two illustrations to establish a single truth. The first (firstfruit and lump) would be very familiar to a Jewish audience; before the Jews could partake of a new harvest, they had to bring a sheaf of barley (omer, can refer to the sheaf or to a dry measure; barley was the first grain to ripen) to the temple.8 The priest would wave this before the Lord (the Wave Offering) as the expression of Israel’s acknowledgment of God as being their Provider and their readiness to give to Him the first of their harvest, before they used any of it for themselves (Leviticus 23:11, 14). Lump (phurama) speaks of that which has been mixed and kneaded – hence the bread that would be made from the harvested grain.9 In essence, Paul is saying that if the harvest has been consecrated to the Lord (made holy), then that which is made from the sanctified harvest is also holy.
The root and the branches are more closely related to the parable that Jesus taught in John 15. Root (rhiza) identifies the cause or reason for something, and for a plant that is its root.10 Within His parable, Jesus spoke of the Vine and the branches – the Vine being identified with the root as Paul uses it here. Jesus said: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth [prunes] it, that it may bring forth more fruit … Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it [should] abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.” (John 15:1-4).11 Since the Vine is holy, then it should be anticipated that its branches will reflect the holiness of the Vine – if the root is holy, then the branches that are abiding in the Root will also be holy.
We must understand that both the firstfruit and the root are the Lord Jesus Christ: “now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits [singular] of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20) – Christ is the first Who was risen who would never die; as John wrote the Revelation, he identified Jesus this way: “behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David” (Revelation 5:5) – Jesus, born about a thousand years after David, is called his Root. The One Who declared: “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58) is the Root of David, and the One in Whom we must faithfully abide if we would bear fruit for Him. Therefore, everything that is tied to the Lord (whether the meal for baking or the branch) is holy – the key being the connection to Him!
Returning to Paul’s illustration in Romans 11, he goes on to say that some of the branches have been broken off because of unbelief, and that some wild branches have been grafted into the Tree (the Lord Jesus) by faith (Romans 11:17-20). This is an illustration of the Jews and Gentiles being made one in the Lord Jesus (Ephesians 2:14-16); the natural branches (Jews) of the Olive Tree were broken off because of unbelief and the unnatural branches of the wild olive tree (Gentiles) were grafted in through faith. Jesus spoke of this: “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold [aule – speaking of Israel]: them also I must bring [lead], and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold [poimne – flock], and one shepherd” (John 10:16).12 There is only one flock, kingdom of God, ekklesia and one shepherd. After recounting some of the faithful of the OT, the writer of Hebrews concludes with this: “And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect [complete]” (Hebrews 11:39-40)13 – the OT saints (even from before Abraham) await the redeemed who will come to faith in Christ before they, with us, will be complete. As Paul began his letter to the Roman Christians, he carefully explained that a Jew is someone who through faith has circumcised his heart and is right before God (Romans 2:29), even as Abraham was declared to be righteous because of his faith in the Lord before circumcision was instituted as a sign of God’s promise (Romans 4:3, 11). Faith in the Lord and faithfulness to the Lord is what makes us a child of God and of Abraham (Romans 4:16). As John describes the New Jerusalem for us, we are told that the gates bear the names of the twelve tribes of Israel and that the foundation of the City carries the names of the twelve Apostles (Revelation 21:12, 14). It is through the faith of Abraham that entrance is gained to that City, but the foundation of all saving faith (OT and NT) is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Chief Corner Who brought in the New Covenant forever (the Message of the Apostles).
The formulation of replacement theology seems to have begun with Augustine (although its roots go back to the second century AD),14 and it is prevalent today among those whose doctrines have been strongly influenced by his teachings – the Roman Catholics, and many who adhere to Reformed theology, hold Augustine and his teachings in high regard. From the second century forward, this replacement theology grew out of a desire to eradicate everything Jewish from Christianity; very early anti-Semitism gained traction among the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Reformers didn’t shake this sentiment.
Consider an example from Augustine’s writings. Ezekiel wrote that the Lord would “take you [Israel] from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land” (Ezekiel 36:24); this was to be done because of the Lord’s holy name and so the heathen would know that He is God (Ezekiel 36:22-23). Augustine took this seemingly straightforward passage and said: “And therefore we ought to take this saying … not literally, as if they referred to Israel after the flesh, but spiritually, as referring to the spiritual Israel. For the Church, without spot or wrinkle, gathered out of all nations, and destined to reign for ever with Christ, is itself the land of the blessed, the land of the living …”15 By spiritualizing the promises made to Israel regarding the physical land of promise, Augustine was able to reject Israel outright and turn his attention to “the Church” as the replacement for Israel within God’s economy. Such spiritualization of God’s Word served to heighten an already growing attitude of anti-Semitism within the rapidly-forming, apostate Roman Catholic Church. What is fascinating is that this attitude was not lost during the reformation: Martin Luther considered the destruction of Jerusalem and concluded that “the Jews, surely rejected by God, are no longer his people, and neither is he any longer their God;”16 John Calvin is quoted: “Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.”17 Such thinking only served to foment the anti-Jewishness that had characterized the Roman Catholic Church from its earliest beginnings, and provided a rationalized justification for “the Church” replacing Israel entirely.
C. I. Scofield
B. “Church Age” Theology
The second error that has flowed out of the separation of the OT and NT is that the “church” is something that God has inserted into the passage of time and it has nothing to do with Israel. This theological position is a product of a dispensational approach to Bible interpretation, which “is essentially the belief or teaching that God has worked with mankind according to different methods in different time periods.”18 Probably the most well-known proponent of this teaching was C.I. Scofield, who developed a study Bible around seven dispensations of Biblical interpretation (he saw seven), and placed his dispensational notes on virtually every page.
David Cloud, a Fundamental Baptist and avid dispensationalist, has admitted that there are no specific indications within Scripture as to how many dispensations there are, and says: “The exact number of dispensations or ages is not what is important ... The important point is that there HAVE been various periods during which God has worked out His purposes, and during these periods God has related to men in different ways and has required different things of them. To understand and interpret the Bible properly, one must understand this” (emphasis his).19 However, having underscored the importance of dispensational interpretation, he then makes this statement: “I am convinced that the way of salvation was the same in principle in the Old Testament as it is today, and that was by faith through God’s grace based on the shed blood of Christ (Romans 4). Further, it appears to me that Ephesians 2:18-22 tells us that the household of God, that great temple that God is building, ultimately includes both Israel and church age saints”; he then goes on to conclude “that no one system of dispensational theology can satisfy everything the Bible teaches about Israel, the church, and future events.”20 From this one must conclude that the dispensational grid for Biblical interpretation is not as critical as Cloud claims (he virtually contradicts himself on this whole subject) because: 1) it doesn’t really matter how many dispensations you hold, 2) the thread of salvation from Adam to the end of time is the same, and 3) no one system of dispensationalism will work all of the time. So, my question to Cloud would be: “Why are you so adamant that you must have a dispensational model in order to interpret the Bible correctly?” I would concur that we need to be ever conscious of the context of a passage that we might be reading, but I do not think that it is essential to hold to a complex, dispensational understanding of man’s history in order to properly understand God’s Word to us. Why do we need a manmade grid through which to view the Scriptures, when God has promised that His Spirit will provide us with the discernment needed to understand His Word (John 16:13; 1 Corinthians 2:14)? Once again, man has created a system of theology that may appear to fit together so neatly, yet even Cloud admits that it leaves gaps in a proper understanding of Scripture. Why not simply set man’s created systematic theologies aside, and permit the Spirit of God to speak to us through the words that God has preserved for us? Unfortunately, there are few of us today who do not carry about an excessive amount of theological baggage that hinders our understanding of the Bible.
The second error that has flowed out of the separation of the OT and NT is that the “church” is something that God has inserted into the passage of time and it has nothing to do with Israel. This theological position is a product of a dispensational approach to Bible interpretation, which “is essentially the belief or teaching that God has worked with mankind according to different methods in different time periods.”18 Probably the most well-known proponent of this teaching was C.I. Scofield, who developed a study Bible around seven dispensations of Biblical interpretation (he saw seven), and placed his dispensational notes on virtually every page.
David Cloud, a Fundamental Baptist and avid dispensationalist, has admitted that there are no specific indications within Scripture as to how many dispensations there are, and says: “The exact number of dispensations or ages is not what is important ... The important point is that there HAVE been various periods during which God has worked out His purposes, and during these periods God has related to men in different ways and has required different things of them. To understand and interpret the Bible properly, one must understand this” (emphasis his).19 However, having underscored the importance of dispensational interpretation, he then makes this statement: “I am convinced that the way of salvation was the same in principle in the Old Testament as it is today, and that was by faith through God’s grace based on the shed blood of Christ (Romans 4). Further, it appears to me that Ephesians 2:18-22 tells us that the household of God, that great temple that God is building, ultimately includes both Israel and church age saints”; he then goes on to conclude “that no one system of dispensational theology can satisfy everything the Bible teaches about Israel, the church, and future events.”20 From this one must conclude that the dispensational grid for Biblical interpretation is not as critical as Cloud claims (he virtually contradicts himself on this whole subject) because: 1) it doesn’t really matter how many dispensations you hold, 2) the thread of salvation from Adam to the end of time is the same, and 3) no one system of dispensationalism will work all of the time. So, my question to Cloud would be: “Why are you so adamant that you must have a dispensational model in order to interpret the Bible correctly?” I would concur that we need to be ever conscious of the context of a passage that we might be reading, but I do not think that it is essential to hold to a complex, dispensational understanding of man’s history in order to properly understand God’s Word to us. Why do we need a manmade grid through which to view the Scriptures, when God has promised that His Spirit will provide us with the discernment needed to understand His Word (John 16:13; 1 Corinthians 2:14)? Once again, man has created a system of theology that may appear to fit together so neatly, yet even Cloud admits that it leaves gaps in a proper understanding of Scripture. Why not simply set man’s created systematic theologies aside, and permit the Spirit of God to speak to us through the words that God has preserved for us? Unfortunately, there are few of us today who do not carry about an excessive amount of theological baggage that hinders our understanding of the Bible.
Matt Costella
Even though David Cloud has admitted that any dispensational model will not work all of the time, he still insists upon using dispensationalism to interpret the Scriptures; consequently, he refers to the present dispensation as the “Church Age” – one of the nine dispensations that he uses.21 Matt Costella, in his article “The Historical Development of Dispensational Theology Within Biblical Fundamentalism,” has listed several characteristics of dispensational theology:
* a rigidly applied literalism in the interpretation of Scripture
* a dichotomy between Israel and the church
* a restricted view of the church
* a Jewish concept of the kingdom
* a postponement of the kingdom
* a distinction between law and grace that creates a multiple basis for God's dealing with man
* a compartmentalization of Scripture
* a pre-tribulation rapture
* its view of the purpose of the great tribulation
* its view of the millennial reign of Christ
* its view of the eternal state
* its view of the apostate nature of Christendom (emphasis added)22
Of these, you will note that several create all kinds of difficulties with many passages of Scripture; nevertheless, these support the modern Evangelical understanding of the “Church Age.” Cloud declares: “Dispensational Theology helps us study the Bible within its proper context.”23 However, again I ask: rather than submit the text of God’s Word to the arbitrary divisions (dispensations) of man’s making, why not simply study the Scriptures always being aware of its context?
The Church Age is held to be a “parenthetical time frame in which God no longer dealt specifically with the Jews but with the church, which is comprised of all who believe on Him, whether Jew or Gentile.”24 Even though Cloud understands that men from all “dispensations” are saved in the same way, he still speaks of the Church Age as a separate and distinct dispensation. There is a sense in which he holds the “church” in isolation, and yet seems to understand a great coming together in the future. However, as we have already seen, there are glimpses in the OT of the New Covenant that God would make with Israel, and through which He would draw people of all nations together (Psalm 22:27; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hosea 2:23). Yes, it was a mystery; in Colossians 1:25-27, Paul confirms that this was a mystery in the OT. Yet a mystery is NOT something that is unknown, just something that is difficult to fully understand or explain. So when we read “Christ in you, the hope of glory” spoken of as being a mystery in times past – it is not something that was unknown, just something that was not clearly understood from the OT perspective (Colossians 1:27).
* a rigidly applied literalism in the interpretation of Scripture
* a dichotomy between Israel and the church
* a restricted view of the church
* a Jewish concept of the kingdom
* a postponement of the kingdom
* a distinction between law and grace that creates a multiple basis for God's dealing with man
* a compartmentalization of Scripture
* a pre-tribulation rapture
* its view of the purpose of the great tribulation
* its view of the millennial reign of Christ
* its view of the eternal state
* its view of the apostate nature of Christendom (emphasis added)22
Of these, you will note that several create all kinds of difficulties with many passages of Scripture; nevertheless, these support the modern Evangelical understanding of the “Church Age.” Cloud declares: “Dispensational Theology helps us study the Bible within its proper context.”23 However, again I ask: rather than submit the text of God’s Word to the arbitrary divisions (dispensations) of man’s making, why not simply study the Scriptures always being aware of its context?
The Church Age is held to be a “parenthetical time frame in which God no longer dealt specifically with the Jews but with the church, which is comprised of all who believe on Him, whether Jew or Gentile.”24 Even though Cloud understands that men from all “dispensations” are saved in the same way, he still speaks of the Church Age as a separate and distinct dispensation. There is a sense in which he holds the “church” in isolation, and yet seems to understand a great coming together in the future. However, as we have already seen, there are glimpses in the OT of the New Covenant that God would make with Israel, and through which He would draw people of all nations together (Psalm 22:27; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hosea 2:23). Yes, it was a mystery; in Colossians 1:25-27, Paul confirms that this was a mystery in the OT. Yet a mystery is NOT something that is unknown, just something that is difficult to fully understand or explain. So when we read “Christ in you, the hope of glory” spoken of as being a mystery in times past – it is not something that was unknown, just something that was not clearly understood from the OT perspective (Colossians 1:27).
Greg Boyd
Too many Evangelicals view the “Church” as an afterthought on the part of God; when Israel’s religious leaders rejected Jesus as their Messiah, God came up with a Plan B that saw the Gospel extended to the Gentiles. Their view is that Jesus came to earth to establish His earthly kingdom, but when the Jews rejected Him as their Messiah, God then had to come up with an alternate plan for mankind. Nothing could be further from the evidence of Scripture. God was not caught off guard by the Jewish leaders, and Jesus’ crucifixion was not a “Plan B” in God’s dealings with mankind. Passages like 1 Peter 1:19-20 and Revelation 13:8 eliminate any conjecture that God had to implement a secondary plan in order to save the day. Daniel 9:24-27 speaks of the Messiah coming and being “cut off, but not for himself”; truly, Jesus was “cut off,” and it was not for Himself but for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). This kind of “alternate plan” speculation stems from what is called Open Theism, which says that God does not know what has not yet happened, and that He is ever learning from, and responding to, events as they unfold. The late Clark Pinnock of Regent College and McMaster’s University, and Greg Boyd of Bethel College & Seminary and Woodland Hills Church (St. Paul, MN), are two who have actively promoted this heresy. Those who would reject this extreme position, still attribute unique characteristics to this present time that do not find support in Scripture. Probably the most pronounced of these would be the separation between Israel and the ekklesia (one of the fundamental pillars of dispensationalism). Passages like Romans 11:16-27 (that we looked at earlier) should remove any thought of such a dichotomy existing between the two, for Paul carefully explains that we are grafted into the Olive Tree alongside of faithful Israel – we are one in Christ. In Ephesians 2:11-18 it is clarified that, through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, God has made the Jew and the Gentile one in Christ (this is something new under the New Covenant that was implemented through the shed blood of Christ) – that which separated us has been removed (the Law of Moses with its many ordinances). However, what is often clear from the Scriptures does not fit well with “Church Age” theology, and consequently, we will hear much about the theology while the eternal truths of God’s Word are virtually ignored or spiritualized away. Cloud says that the “New Covenant … is God’s promise to convert Israel and forgive her sin and give her a new heart of obedience”;25 he also says: “Christ is our new husband and Lord, and He rules our lives through the New Covenant.”26 Despite Cloud’s desire to appear to have his theology well defined and Biblically accurate, there are just too many times when he appears to trip over his own untied theological laces. My personal experience is that if we will hold a love for the truth of the Word of God (2 Thessalonians 2:10), and expend time and effort into studying it (2 Timothy 2:15), then we will discover that God has not left us to our own devices or the devices of other, but His Spirit will guide us to understand His Word (John 16:13) – not that we suddenly have all of the answers, but rather through our love for His Truth, the Spirit will grow our understanding of His Word to us (2 Peter 3:18).
It should be evident, even from such a cursory look at how the ekklesia fits into God’s working from the beginning of time, that it is not an afterthought; it is not a parenthetical interruption of God’s dealings with Israel (the Church Age), but rather an integral part of God’s plan that was established before the foundation of the world. Nor do we see that the ekklesia has replaced Israel and assumed all of God’s promises to it. We must guard against placing the ekklesia in isolation; Hebrews 11 should make it abundantly clear that we are part of the body of believers of all the ages. The New Covenant of fulfillment in Christ includes everyone in the whole world and has replaced the old Mosaic Covenant of promise; we are participants in the kingdom of God (with the OT saints, NT saints and Millennium saints) that will find its final expression in the eternal new heaven and new earth.
__________________________________
It should be evident, even from such a cursory look at how the ekklesia fits into God’s working from the beginning of time, that it is not an afterthought; it is not a parenthetical interruption of God’s dealings with Israel (the Church Age), but rather an integral part of God’s plan that was established before the foundation of the world. Nor do we see that the ekklesia has replaced Israel and assumed all of God’s promises to it. We must guard against placing the ekklesia in isolation; Hebrews 11 should make it abundantly clear that we are part of the body of believers of all the ages. The New Covenant of fulfillment in Christ includes everyone in the whole world and has replaced the old Mosaic Covenant of promise; we are participants in the kingdom of God (with the OT saints, NT saints and Millennium saints) that will find its final expression in the eternal new heaven and new earth.
__________________________________
1 Strong’s Online.
2 Holladay Lexicon, Bibleworks 8.
3 http://www.shema.com/Combating%20Replacement%20Theology/crt-004.php
4 Brown, Driver, Briggs Lexicon, Bibleworks 8.
5 For more on this see: https://www.thenarrowtruth.com/the-role-of-israel-today.html
6 Friberg Lexicon.
7 Ernest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 18.
8 Strong’s Online.
9 Ibid.
10 Strong’s Online; Friberg Lexicon.
11 Friberg Lexicon; Stephanus 1550 NT.
12 Strong’s Online.
13 Ibid.
14 http://www.shema.com/Combating%20Replacement%20Theology/crt-004.php
15 Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 34, paragraph 49.
16 Martin Luther, “On the Jews and their Lies,” http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/ documents/luther-jews.htm
17 https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Calvin
18 Matt Costella, “The Historical Development of Dispensational Theology Within Biblical Fundamentalism,” Foundation Magazine, Jan-Feb 2002.
19 David Cloud, “Study the Bible Dispensationally.”
20 Ibid.
21 The father of dispensationalism (John Nelson Darby) proposed six, Scofield had seven; proposals have varied from as few as three to as many as 18, with many in between; https://theologue.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/howmanydispensations-edsanders.pdf
22 Costella, “Historical.”
23 Cloud, “Study.”
24 Ibid.
25 https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/a_refutation_of_replacement_theology.php
26 https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/the-law-and-the-new-testament-christian.php
2 Holladay Lexicon, Bibleworks 8.
3 http://www.shema.com/Combating%20Replacement%20Theology/crt-004.php
4 Brown, Driver, Briggs Lexicon, Bibleworks 8.
5 For more on this see: https://www.thenarrowtruth.com/the-role-of-israel-today.html
6 Friberg Lexicon.
7 Ernest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 18.
8 Strong’s Online.
9 Ibid.
10 Strong’s Online; Friberg Lexicon.
11 Friberg Lexicon; Stephanus 1550 NT.
12 Strong’s Online.
13 Ibid.
14 http://www.shema.com/Combating%20Replacement%20Theology/crt-004.php
15 Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 34, paragraph 49.
16 Martin Luther, “On the Jews and their Lies,” http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/ documents/luther-jews.htm
17 https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Calvin
18 Matt Costella, “The Historical Development of Dispensational Theology Within Biblical Fundamentalism,” Foundation Magazine, Jan-Feb 2002.
19 David Cloud, “Study the Bible Dispensationally.”
20 Ibid.
21 The father of dispensationalism (John Nelson Darby) proposed six, Scofield had seven; proposals have varied from as few as three to as many as 18, with many in between; https://theologue.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/howmanydispensations-edsanders.pdf
22 Costella, “Historical.”
23 Cloud, “Study.”
24 Ibid.
25 https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/a_refutation_of_replacement_theology.php
26 https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/the-law-and-the-new-testament-christian.php