Introduction

The purpose of the research paper is to look at theological views concerning the

relationship between Israel and the Church: 1) Dual-Covenant Theology, 2) Supersessionism, 3)

Dispensationalism, 4) Covenant Theology, and 5) Remnant Theology. Each theological view

would be analyzed on their strengths and weakness. It should be noted that certain views have

sub-set variations, which allows them to overlap with other views, so the views will be taken as a

whole for less complications. In the end, the student will decide on the view that is more

Biblically for a Christian to believe, as it will give a clear identification of who are the people of

Israel today and how the Church is grafted. The conclusion of this paper is important for

Christians in interpreting the Scriptures, especially concerning God’s promises directly

addressed to the people of Israel and the fulfillment of these promises. The paper can also help

give guidelines in knowing which promises of God for Israel can be applied to the Church, and

which promises are exclusive to Israel, which is dependent on identifying, who Israel is.

Dual-Covenant Theology

“Dual-covenant theology teaches that since God's covenant with the Jews is still valid for

them, they don't need the New Covenant to be saved. Jews could go to Heaven simply by

keeping the Law of Moses, because of the "everlasting covenant" between Abraham and God

(Gen 17:13), whereas Gentiles (those who are not Jews) must convert to Christianity to be saved.

In other words, Jews have their own way to God, the Old Covenant, and the Christians theirs,

the New Covenant.”1 Dual-covenant theology supports Separation theology, a view that

identifies the Church and the nation Israel as two separate groups. Following this logic flow

1
Catholics For Israel, What is Dual-Covenant Theology?, http://www.catholicsforisrael.com/content/view/
103/25/, accessed February 28, 2014.

1
would mean that the nation Israel is still the recipient of God’s promises, and the non-Jewish

people of the Church are not included in the promises.

Strengths

This view is considered appealing especially to the Jews and others who embrace

Judaism. Interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies and promises are easier as it is only

addressed to the nation of Israel. However this means that certain prophecies and promises are

not directly relevant to the Church as people want it to be.

Weaknesses

The view is contrary to what the Bible teaches, as the view teaches the sufficiency of

following the Mosaic Law to be saved, and the unnecessary need for the Jews to be evangelized.

Paul argues that the Law does not save, but rather makes a person aware of their condemnation

(Romans 3:20). He also argues the need of those, who know the Law, to be free from the Law as

part of Christ’s salvation (Romans 7:1-8:4). To Paul the gospel of Christianity is necessary for

all, especially the Jews (Romans 1:16; 10:1-4). In addition Jesus in His ministry was focused on

the Jews (Matthew 15:24), as well as His command to evangelize beginning with the Jews (Acts

1:8).

Supersessionism

The Supersessionism or Replacement theology teaches “that the church, Abraham’s

spiritual seed, has replaced national Israel in that it had transcended and fulfilled the terms of the

2
covenant given to Israel, which covenant Israel had lost because of disobedience.”2 According to

Matt Slick, in Supersessionism the Jewish people are no longer God’s chosen people, but the

Christian church with the replacement most likely happened during the Pentecost.3 In this view

the nation Israel is replaced by the Church, which means all promises for Israel are no longer

applicable to them. This means that the Church being the true Israel will be the recipients of

God’s promises to Israel.

Strengths

Being the opposite of Dual-Covenant theology, Supersessionism is strong in emphasizing

the exclusiveness of salvation, which can be found only in Jesus Christ. With the Church fully

replacing Israel with all the promises and future prophecies for Israel, including the still to be

fulfilled, interpretation of Scriptures, especially of the Old Testament, is simpler, because

interpretation does not have to be literal.

There are many passages in the New Testament that are being used to support

Supersessionism. A common passages used is Paul’s letter addressing Gentiles as Abraham’s

seed and heirs to the promise (Galatians 3:29). Another passage that strongly supports the

replacement is Romans 2:28-29, where a person is not a Jew, because of the outside, but in the

inside, having circumcision of the heart. BDAG also support Supersessionism where they also

define Israel using 1 Corinthians 10:18; Galatians 6:16; Romans 9:6 being “Christians as entitled

2
Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “An Assessment of ‘Replacement Theology:’ The Relationship Between the Israel of
the Abrahamic-Davidic Covenant and the Christian Church,” Mishkan 21 (February 1994): 9; quoted in H. Wayne
House, ed. Israel, The Land and the People, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998), 78.
3
Matt Slick, What is replacement theology?, http://carm.org/questions-replacement-theology, accessed
February 28, 2014.

3
to the term Israel.”4 Finally most of the early Church Fathers support this view as they “referred

to passages like Matthew 21:43-44 that the kingdom had been taken from the Jews and been

given to the believing Gentiles.”5

Weaknesses

There are promises from God to Israel that are difficult to be fulfilled in the Church, such

as promises directly addressed concerning the land of Israel, the Levites, and others (Jeremiah

32:41; 33:16, 18; 37:26-27). These prophecies and promises if to be fulfilled literally cannot be

fulfilled by the Church, which means the only choice for those who support this view is to

interpret such promises and prophecies in a spiritual way rather than literally to be fulfilled in the

Church. The danger of not taking certain passages of the Bible literally causes risks that other

passages of the Bible can be open for non-literal interpretations, such as the Creation event.

Another problem of being the opposite of Dual-Covenant Theology, Supersessionism

implies that God’s covenant for Israel is not as unconditional or permanent as it seems. The

nation of Israel held security on God’s covenant to them, because it is everlasting, but if such

loopholes exist in their covenant, then the other covenants of God is not as trustworthy as it

seems.

Finally Biblical support for this view has strong counterarguments. Galatians 3:29 is

considered one of strongest arguments to support Supersessionism, but according to Jeffery

Miller “While believers in Christ are figuratively called Abraham’s seed (“offspring” or

“descendants”) in Gal 3:29, they are never called Israel in Scripture. If the phrase “a seed of
4
Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ©2000), 481.
5
Jeffery P. Miller, “Exposition of Poets and Prophets: Eschatology” (lecture, International Graduate School
of Leadership, Quezon City, Philippines, January 2013).

4
Jacob” (Israel) occurred in Scripture it would support the Replacement Theology case, but that

phrase does not occur anywhere in Scripture.”6

Dispensationalism

“Dispensationalism holds to a distinction between Israel (even believing Israel) and the

church. On this view, the promises made to Israel in the OT were not intended as prophecies

about what God would do spiritually for the church, but will literally be fulfilled by Israel itself

(largely in the millennium).”7 Similar to Dual-Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism also

support Separation theology, which means it identifies the Church and the nation Israel as two

separate groups meaning the nation Israel will receive the literal fulfillment of God’s promises

for them, and the Church, unless they are also Jews, are not included in the promises. However

unlike the Dual-Covenant Theology, this view does not consider Israel, as already saved, but

rather still in need of the gospel and be part of the Church. Dispensationalism identifies Israel as

literal Jews receiving the promises of God addressed to them, the Church as believers of Christ

receiving only the promises addressed to them, and the Jewish believers as receiving both the

promises addressed to Israel and the Church.

Strengths

Being the opposite of Replacement Theology, the strength of Dispensationalism is being

literal in Scripture using proper exegesis. The view also then affirms that God’s covenant to the

nation of Israel as unconditional and without loopholes. However unlike the Dual-Covenant

6
Ibid.
7
Matt Perman, What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new
covenant theology?, http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-does-john-piper-believe-about-dispensationalism-
covenant-theology-and-new-covenant-theology, accessed March 3, 2014.

5
Theology, Dispensationalism does not believe that the Old Covenant is sufficient for salvation of

Israel.

Because of the strength of being literal in Scriptures, Biblical support for this view can be

considered strong. The view points out that Scriptures supports the Church as being part of

Abraham’s seed, but it never said that they are Israel or Israel’s seed (Romans 4:11, 16, 18; 9:7-

8; Galatians 3:29). Abraham is father to many nations because of the Church, but that does not

make the Church as Israel. Finally the word Israel in the New Testament is always used by Paul

to pertain to Jews. Galatians 6:16, one of the passages BDAG used to support Replacement

Theology, is argued that “the kai is used in its normal sense of being a coordinating conjunction

connecting the general group of believers to that special group of believers called “the Israel of

God” that are Jewish believers. In order for the kai to have an explicative or appositional use as

the Replacement Theology proponents propose, there must be some compelling reason to depart

from the normal meaning of kai. No other compelling reason exists in the text.”8

Weaknesses

Dispensationalism has no difficulty in taking promises and prophecies addressed to Israel

as literal. Also the promises for Israel are applicable to the Church only if the New Testament

specifies the promise to be so. The difficulty is making those passages relevant to the Church.

Probably one of the major difficulties of accepting this view is the need for a person to

accept that the Church is not the new Israel, and that means they are not as special as they

thought. They also might have to accept certain promises for Israel they have claimed in the past

8
Jeffery P. Miller, “Exposition of Poets and Prophets: Eschatology.”

6
were not actually direct promises to them. It is the emotional factor that makes this view difficult

to accept.

The extreme danger of this accepting view, as same with the Dual-Covenant Theology, is

the thought that the people of the Church can join Israel to receive both blessings of Israel and

the Church. This was one of Paul’s problems on his mission to the Gentiles, causing him to write

to Gentiles convincing them they do not need to convert through circumcision to join Israel.9

Though the Church is not Israel does not make them lesser, because they are sufficient in Christ.

Covenant Theology

“Covenant theology believes that God has structured his relationship with humanity by

covenants rather than dispensations.”10 Covenant theology or Federal theology is similar to

Replacement theology in their belief that the Church has replaced Israel. However, the major

difference is the view does not claim God abandoning His promises to Israel. They argue that the

all promises and prophecies for Israel are fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:15-16), who is the

head of the Church.

The strengths and weaknesses of the Covenant theology are similar to Replacement

theology with the exception of God fully abandoning the nation of Israel. They still believe that

God is still not finish with nation of Israel (Romans 11), but through conversion to Christ and

entry in the Church.11 This view is most commonly held among Calvinists.

9
Steve Motyer, “New Israel”, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell, Baker
Reference Library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 618.
10
Matt Perman, What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new
covenant theology?.
11
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003), 1053.

7
 Remnant Theology

Supersessionism and Covenant theology generally hold the view of Replacement

theology meaning they view the Church as replacing the nation of Israel as the New Israel. Dual-

Covenant theology and Dispensationalism generally support a theology called Separation

Theology, where the nation of Israel is still Israel and the Church is not the New Israel. Remnant

Theology is the middle ground for Replacement theology and Separation Theology “by

understanding the Church to be a subset of faithful ethnic Israel who received Jesus (Yeshua) as

the promised Messiah. This faithful subset of Israel is called the Remnant or the "Israel of God"

(Galatians 6:6).”12

Using Romans 11, the view assumes that the olive tree does not represent the nation

Israel, but the remnant Israel. Remnant Israel, having branches from non-believing Jews cut off

and composed of Jewish believers and grafted Gentiles believers, is called the Church.13 This

means that the Gentiles in the Church are also partakers of the prophecies and promises for the

Remnant Israel. “The Gentile Church does not exist instead of Israel (replacement theology); nor

does it exist outside of Israel (separation theology); but rather it is incorporated within the

faithful remnant of Israel.”14

Strengths

The Remnant theology makes sense of certain passages of Scriptures: Paul’s argument of

being a Jew and believer in Jesus makes him part of the remnant Israel (Romans 11:1-5), Gentile

12
John J. Parsons, Israel and the Church, http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Israel/israel.html,
accessed March 5, 2014.
13
John Gay, Remnant Theology, http://www.leaderu.com/theology/remnanttheo.html, accessed March 5,
2014.
14
John J. Parsons, Israel and the Church.

8
believer are part of the Church, grafted into the olive tree (Romans 11:17), Jews, who rejected

Jesus are cut off from Israel (Acts 3:23; Romans 11:17), and Gentile believers are not “excluded

from citizenship in Israel” and no longer “foreigners to the covenants of the promise”, but

“fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household” (Ephesians 2:19).15

Remnant theology mostly has the strengths of Covenant theology, but without most of the

weaknesses. The prophecies and promises of God for Israel can still be interpreted literally, but

directly fulfilled to the remnant Israel and not the nation Israel as whole. The nation of Israel in

general still has a special place and part for God, because of His covenant to Abraham with

majority of them will be grafted back to the olive tree. The Gentiles of the Church is also

recipients of the promises, because they are part of the remnant Israel, but are humbled because

they are unnaturally grafted unlike the Jews.

Weaknesses

The Remnant theology has implications of supporting a Judaizing view of Christianity.

This theology could be used for the Church to follow Rabbinical Judaism. Another problem is

the Church seems to pre-exist before Pentecost and Israel, but started from Abraham. This seems

to contradict Jesus on building the Church on Peter in the New Testament (Matthew 16:18). It

also seem to contradicts New Testament authors in making distinction the difference between the

Church and what seems to be the remnant Israel (1 Corinthians 10:32; Hebrews 11:40; 12:23).

Summary

This paper has studied five views on the relationship between Israel and the Church: 1)

Dual-Covenant Theology, 2) Supersessionism, 3) Dispensationalism, 4) Covenant Theology, and

15
John Gay, Remnant Theology.

9
5) Remnant Theology. Supersessionism and Covenant theology both view that the Church is now

the New Israel and this happened most likely during the Pentecost. Dispensationalism and Dual-

Covenant theology view the Church and Israel as separate groups with the special case of Jewish

believers, who are both. Remnant theology views the Church as the remnant Israel, composed of

Jewish believers and then grafted with Gentiles.

Dual-Covenant and supersessionism are not considered strong in Biblical support, which

makes Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, and Remnant Theology as proper Evangelical

views. In whatever view a Christian holds or will be choosing, certain truths should be always

remembered: 1) “Christ, not any particular group of people, is the center of God’s purpose.”, 2)

“It follows that the people of God and the Old Testament must be understood

christocentrically.”, 3) “Judgment on Israel does not cancel her election.”, and 4) “OT ways of

understanding God’s people may be applied to the church.”16

Personal Reflection

Reflecting on my spiritual journey, as a Christian, I have shifted my view various times.

At a young age the Baptist school I’m enrolled in taught Covenant theology, which means I

believed in Replacement theology. As I grew older, I began to shift to Separation theology of

Dispensationalism almost border lining Dual-Covenant theology. Because of this, I struggled

with my personal study of the Old Testament. I often only use God’s character as basis for

timeless principles, and not His promises to Israel. As of now I still hold a mild view of

Separation theology of Dispensationalism; however I am open to Remnant theology as a possible

view of the relationship between Israel and the Church.

16
Steve Motyer, “New Israel,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 618-619.

10
 Biblography

Catholics For Israel. What is Dual-Covenant Theology?. http://www.catholicsforisrael.com/

content/view/103/25/. Accessed February 28, 2014.

Danker, Frederick W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Gay, John. Remnant Theology, http://www.leaderu.com/theology/remnanttheo.html. Accessed

March 5, 2014.

Kaiser, Walter C. Jr. “An Assessment of ‘Replacement Theology:’ The Relationship Between
the Israel of the Abrahamic-Davidic Covenant and the Christian Church.” Mishkan 21
(February 1994): 9; quoted in H. Wayne House, ed. Israel, The Land and the People.
Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998.

Millard J. Erickson. Christian Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003.

Miller, Jeffery P. “Exposition of Poets and Prophets: Eschatology.” Lecture. International

Graduate School of Leadership, Quezon City, Philippines, January 2013.

Motyer, Steve. “New Israel.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. Editor Walter A.
Elwell, Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001.

Parsons, John J. Israel and the Church, http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Israel/

israel.html. Accessed March 5, 2014.

Perman, Matt. What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and
new covenant theology?, http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-does-john-piper-
believe-about-dispensationalism-covenant-theology-and-new-covenant-theology.
Accessed March 3, 2014.

Slick, Matt. What is replacement theology?. http://carm.org/questions-replacement-theology.

Accessed February 28, 2014.

11