Inclusion Not Replacement

Posted on by
Reply

Article “Replacement or Inclusion Theology?” by Dr. Sam Storms (at this link)

I was recently asked by a member at Bridgeway if I believe in what is called “replacement” theology. Although this is a massively complex subject, I tried to provide a brief answer. Here it is.

All biblical interpreters recognize that there is development between the Old Testament and the New. Some say the Old Testament is the seed to which the New Testament provides the flower. Others speak of the relationship as one of symbol to substance, or type to anti-type. The point being that we must strive to understand the progress in redemptive history. And when I look at the relationship between Israel and the Church I see something similar to the relationship between the caterpillar and the butterfly.

The butterfly doesn’t replace the caterpillar. The butterfly IS the caterpillar in a more developed and consummate form. The butterfly is what God intended the caterpillar to become. Likewise, the church doesn’t replace Israel. The church IS Israel as God always intended it to be. Let me explain that further.

I believe that what we see in the NT isn’t the replacement of Israel but an expanded definition of who Israel is. During the time of the old testament one was an Israelite (primarily) because one was a physical, biological descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. One’s ethnicity was the deciding factor. But with the coming of Christ and the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles, the meaning of what constitutes a “true Jew” has undergone revision, or perhaps a better word would be expansion. Not one believing Jewish person has been replaced. Not one believing Jewish person has been set aside or lost their promised inheritance.

Rather, God now says that a true Jew is one who is circumcised in heart and not just in one’s physical body (Rom. 2:28-29). The key passage is Galatians 3:16-18 and 3:25-29. There Paul says that the promises were made “to Abraham and to his offspring” (v. 16). I prefer the translation “seed” instead of “offspring” but the point is the same either way. In other words, when God gave the promises to Abraham and his seed in Genesis 12-17 it appeared he had in mind Abraham and all his physical progeny. But later we learn that it was limited to the progeny of Isaac and not Ishmael. Then we learn that it had narrowed down even further to be the progeny of Jacob and not Esau. When we get to the NT, Paul says it has been narrowed down even further, to but one Jewish person, Jesus. Here is what Paul says:

“Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring/seed. It does not say, ‘And to offsprings/seeds,’ referring to many, but referring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ” (v. 16).

Wow! Paul is saying that God’s ultimate meaning in the Abrahamic covenant was that all the promises would be fulfilled in only “one” of Abraham’s physical seed/progeny . . . Jesus Christ! But just when you feel led to conclude that it’s impossibly narrow, Paul opens it up and says:

“for in Christ Jesus you are ALL sons of God, through faith. . . And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (i.e., the promise made to Abraham) (v. 28, 29).

So, the only relevant question now isn’t whose blood is in your veins (physically speaking) but whose faith is in your heart (spiritually speaking). If you have faith in Jesus and thus are “in” him then you become the seed of Abraham that will inherit the promises! That means being an ethnic Jew or Gentile doesn’t matter when it comes to who inherits the promised blessings. What matters, the only thing that matters, is whether or not you are in Christ by faith.

So, a true “seed” of Abraham or a “true Jew” isn’t a matter of physical descent but of spiritual new birth. No one has been replaced. All ethnic Jews who are in Christ by faith are the seed of Abraham and no less so is it true of all ethnic Gentiles who are in Christ by faith.

This is why Paul said in Ephesians 2:11ff. that believing Gentiles are now equal members of the “commonwealth of Israel” (2:12) and are “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (2:19).

One more text from Ephesians will prove helpful. Paul says that in Christ the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile has been torn down and that he “has made us both one” (Eph. 2:14). Again, he has created “in himself one new man in place of the two” (Eph. 2:15). This “one new man” is the Church of Jesus Christ in which are believing Jews and believing Gentiles, co-heirs of the promises made to the old testament patriarchs.

The old covenant into which God entered with the physical descendants of Abraham was designed to be temporary until the coming of the Messiah and the New Covenant. This is the consistent message of the book of Hebrews. Now, anyone of any ethnicity has equal status as heirs of God’s promises so long as they believe in Jesus.

Whether or not God will save the last generation of living ethnic Jews just before the second coming of Christ is a matter of debate. I hope that is true! Who could possibly protest? But there are texts on both sides of the issue and God-honoring, Bible-believing Christians end up with differing answers. But regardless of one’s conclusion on that matter, I still believe that whoever gets saved, whether now, during the course of church history, or later when Christ returns, all will be members of the one body of Christ, the Church, equal in their inheritance of all that God has promised.

So I don’t believe that God’s saving work among ethnic Jews means that he will reconstitute the old covenant theocracy of Israel. I believe that all believing ethnic Jews, together with all believing ethnic Gentiles, will together constitute the Elect, the Church of Jesus Christ, the one “holy nation” that is in covenant with God (1 Peter 2:9). And because they are all in him, the true seed of Abraham, they are all likewise the seed of Abraham and thus heirs of the promise.

I don’t believe in replacement theology. I believe in inclusion theology: Gentiles have now been included in the commonwealth of Israel and are as much “true Jews” as are believing ethnic Jews. It isn’t replacement, but fulfillment, just as the butterfly fulfills and completes what God intended when he first made a caterpillar.

I Don’t Need Anyone to Teach Me! Really?

Posted on by
Reply

“Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire; he breaks out against all sound judgment.” – Proverbs 18:1

In some sectors of the internet, one can discover professing Christians who live their lives in isolation from the local Church.

Now, we all understand it when someone is providentially hindered from attending a local Church, and that is a very different scenario. I am not speaking of such people. I am referring to those who’s absence from the local Church is willful. Not only so, but they actively encourage others to do the same. I believe this to be extremely dangerous. More than that.. I believe the teaching is demonic in origin. Who else but the enemy of our souls would be the source of a teaching that seeks to remove God’s precious sheep from the nurture, care and protection of God-given elder/shepherds.

One verse championed by these people, taking out of context (as with all falsehood), is 1 John 2:27 which reads as follows:

“But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.”

Note the phrase, “you have no need that anyone should teach you.”

There you go… for these people, this verse clearly teaches that the Christian does not need to have leaders and teachers in their lives. They are more than ok to isolate themselves from the local Church.

But is this what 1 John 2:27 is teaching?

The context of the verse says ‘No… not at all!!’

Here are some notes from Dr. Sam Storms at his website (found here). You will see, once the context is understood, the true meaning of 1 John 2:27 is abundantly clear:

The Doctrinal Test (1) – 2:18-27

1. Antichrists and Christians – 2:18-21
a. the existence of many false teachers is evidence that this is the last hour – 2:18

John emphatically states that we may know this is (the) last hour because of the existence and activity of many antichrists.

Antichrist – occurs only in the Johannine epistles (2:18(2),22; 4:3; 2 John 7). This word is never used to describe the Beast of Rev. 13. The term is a combination of anti (against or instead of) and christos (Messiah, Christ). The Antichrist thus opposes Christ as his adversary or enemy with a view to taking his place. He is a lying pretender who portrays himself as Christ; he is a counterfeit or diabolical parody of Christ himself. See 2 Thess. 2:3-12.

Westcott writes: “It seems to be most consonant to the context to hold that antichristos here describes one who, assuming the guise of Christ, opposes Christ” (70). Again, “the Antichrist assails Christ by proposing to do or to preserve what He did while he denies Him” (70).

Although they had heard that this person’s appearance is yet future, “even now” (kai nun) says John, many antichrists have already come.

Paul wrote in 2 Thess. 2:7 that “the mystery of lawlessness was already at work.” In 1 John 4:3 he points out that the spirit of antichrist is now at work in the world. What John means in 2:18 is that the “many antichrists” are forerunners of the one they heard was still to come. Because they proclaim the same heresies he will proclaim and oppose Christ now as he will then, they are rightly called antichrists (esp. in view of their denial of Christ in vv. 22-23).

In 2:22, he writes: ‘Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. The spirit of the antichrist, says John, is found in anyone who denies that Jesus is God come in the flesh (1 John 4:3).

Again, in 2 John 7, he writes: ‘For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Thus, for John, ‘antichrist is

* Anyone ‘who denies that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22)
* Anyone ‘who denies the Father and the Son (1 John 2:23)
* ‘Every spirit that does not confess Jesus (1 John 4:3)
* ‘Those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh (2 John 7)

Some have argued that John’s point is that there is no other antichrist than the one even then operative in his day or the one who takes up and perpetuates this heresy in subsequent history. In other words, anyone in general can be ‘antichrist, if he or she espouses this heresy, but no one in particular, whether in the first or the twentieth centuries, is the antichrist as if there were only one to whom the others look forward.

In other words, the ‘antichrist’ who his readers were told was yet to come is now with them in the form of anyone who espouses the heretical denial of the incarnation of the Son of God. According to DeMar, for example, it is possible that the early church ‘heard’ that one man was to come on the scene who was to be the Antichrist. John seems to be correcting this mistaken notion (Last Days Madness, 227).

Says B. B. Warfield: Continue reading →