Arguing Against the Election of Ethnic Israel by Refuting Dispensationalism
Most proponents of supersessionism—the doctrine that Israel is re-defined after the first century and consists only of those who follow Yeshua—hold that ethnic Israel is no longer elect. Some call this replacement theology. Usually, those who argue for this view contrast it with Dispensationalism, a system of theology that dominated American Evangelicalism in the 20th century. It had its origins in the mid-1800s and was first put forth as a systematic theology by John Nelson Darby.
In my evaluation, Dispensationalism presents many problematic views. For example, it posits two separate peoples of God: the Church and Israel/the Jewish people. This separation is so complete in classic Dispensationalism that one cannot be part of both. A Messianic Jew, in this framework, is not spiritually part of Israel but instead part of the destiny of the Bride, the Church.
Robert McKenzie’s Presentation and a Rejoinder
A recent book by Robert McKenzie, Identifying the Seed: An Examination and Evaluation of the Differences Between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, argues that there is now one seed of Abraham that counts—those who follow Jesus. This is also the view of classical Reformed Calvinism. It is one of the strongest books I have read supporting Reformed Covenant theology and one of the most persuasive presentations of replacement theology.
It is persuasive, in part, because it leaves out the evidence of many texts that simply cannot be fit into the system. One of the points the author misses is how a non-Dispensationalist understands the election of both the Church and Israel. We do not see these elections as implying permanently separate peoples. Rather, we see an intersecting—and ultimately one—people.
I argued this in my book Jewish Roots, first published in 1986. The Messianic Jew is both part of the Church and part of the nation of Israel. In addition, when all Israel is saved, the Jewish people will be part of the Church while still being preserved as a distinct nation. This is because nations or ethnic groups are part of God’s enrichment of humanity and are preserved in the New Jerusalem.
Israel is a nation qua nation among the nations and an instrument of God through which He will gain total victory and submission from all nations. The Church is also an instrument of that victory—not as a literal nation, but as a saved remnant from every nation. In one dimension, Israel and the Church will be one, yet Israel and the nations are also preserved as nations.
McKenzie does not address God’s purpose for nations. This is well addressed by R. Kendall Soulen in The God of Israel and Christian Theology. Israel and the nations form an eternal dyad that shows God’s love for distinct nations and corporate peoples, which He preserves. Ultimately, Israel and the nations will come into a place of mutual blessing, as predicted in the prophets. Soulen, it should be noted, is not a Dispensationalist.
McKenzie objects to the premillennial view in which all the promises are fulfilled for Israel in that age, while the Church is absent. Yes, classic Dispensationalism held this view. However, a better view holds that Israel and the Church rule together in that age: the Church representing all nations, while Israel continues in its national life as well.
The Election of Ethnic Israel Held by Non-Premillennialists
However, I do not think it is wise to make premillennialism so primary that without it we cannot defend the election of Israel. Richard Lovelace, the late professor of Church History at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and the late J. Rodman Williams of Regent University both held a robust view of the election of ethnic Israel and the fulfillment of her destiny as a nation in the New Heavens and New Earth.
The Roman Catholic Church also affirms the continued election of ethnic Israel. All three are amillennial—that is, they do not hold to a literal 1,000-year period before the New Heavens and New Earth. Do I believe this is the best view when considering all the evidence? No. But the election of Israel is more important to our argument and is not dependent on premillennialism.
McKenzie does not take texts in their natural sense but redefines their meaning in accord with a supposed New Testament reinterpretation. These new applications, however, do not change the original meaning or the fulfillment of what was prophesied. We argue for taking biblical texts in their natural sense.
Historic Ethnic Israel Restorationism
Christian Zionism is the modern term for Christians who believe that the Bible predicts the regathering of the Jewish people to their ancient Land. They support Israel and this regathering on a biblical basis. However, before this term was used, many in Church history—long before Darby—believed in the election of the Jewish people, and some also believed in their return to the Land. This was called Restorationism.
We can trace the beginnings of Restorationism to the Puritans, who were not premillennialists. This history is well recounted in The Puritan Hope by Ian Murray. Romans 11 is a prominent text for these expositors. In the 1600s, we find this view clearly taught. Most notable is Increase Mather, founder and first president of Harvard. Others include the expositor Elnathan Parr and the famed defender of the Law of God, Samuel Rutherford.
This perspective influenced Lutheran Pietists in the 1700s, such as Philipp Spener. Jonathan Edwards also embraced the continuing election of ethnic Israel. Indeed, “Though they are enemies of the Gospel… they are beloved and elect” (Romans 11:29). In the same period, Ludwig von Zinzendorf, leader of the Moravians, was firmly committed to this view and influenced by the Pietists.
In the early 19th century, this perspective became strong among Anglicans. My book Passion for Israel provides a summary of this history.
One Body Plus Ethnic Israel
Rightly defining the Body—the one new humanity of Jew and Gentile—while maintaining the national election of Israel/the Jewish people is key to answering McKenzie and others who argue similarly.
I am convinced that our view rests on the overwhelming evidence of Scripture. Some years ago, I presented a paper laying out this evidence to the Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams. After hearing it, he confirmed that what I presented reflected the right understanding of Paul and the Bible.