The Prevalence of Distinction
The God of the Bible is a God of distinction.
The Bible is a book of distinctions.
All of reality is contingent upon distinction.
“This, not that,” is an essential component of understanding purpose and living the life more abundant.
From start to finish, the Word of God is insistent on pointing out distinctions: God is not man (Num. 23:19, I Sam. 15:29), male is not female (Gen. 2:18-23, I Cor. 11:2-16), husbands are not wives (Eph. 5:22-33, I Pet. 3:1-7), good is not evil (Is. 5:20, Prov. 17:15), spiritual is not natural (I Cor. 2:14, Rom. 8:5-8), wisdom is not foolishness (James 3:15, Prov. 9), redeemed is not condemned (I Cor. 1:18, II Cor. 2:15-16), and most poignantly for the purposes of this post, Jews are not Gentiles (Amos 3:1-2, Deut. 7:6) and the Church is not Israel (Eph. 2:17-19, 3:6, Rom. 4:16).
(Before continuing any further, I feel compelled to point out that with just a single exception, I limited myself to two verses to illustrate the distinctions listed above. This is not because these were the only verses available to do so, but simply to make the point with some manner of brevity. Distinction is a major theme throughout all of a scripture, from beginning to end.)
My reason for hammering the reality and the predominance of distinction is to bring to light the fact that Covenant Theology, with its insistence on the Church’s replacement, or supersession, or fulfillment, or extension, or whatever of Israel, attempts to do away with this fundamental element of life and faith. By conflating the Church with Israel and saying that Gentile believers in Christ essentially are the “true” or “real” Israel, the system upends this very obvious component of scripture and life and does so without biblical warrant.
It has become a repeated rejoinder in my conversations and disagreements on X: “The language of distinction between Israel and the Church continues throughout the entirety of scripture.” In response, those from the Covenant Theology camp offer up either verses which do not say what they claim or replies along the lines of, “No, it doesn’t,” without any substantive support. As I will show, the verses most commonly deployed against the reality of distinction between Israel and the Church can only be made to do so if read through a massive interpretive framework that presupposes what it is attempting to prove.
First, it is important to note that the Apostle Paul uses the name, “Israel” 65 times in the New Testament and every single time is speaking about the ethnic, national entity. He never once says, “Israel” when referring to the Church.
Next, it is important to note that in verses commonly used to show the conflation of the Church with Israel, the language of distinction is clearly being used. For instance, in Ephesians 2:17-19, Paul writes:
“And He came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through Him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,”
Notice: there are two groups of people being described here, “you who were far off,” and “those who were near.” In the next sentence, Paul says “we both” have been given access to the Father. And lastly, you cannot be “fellow” citizens with someone if you have become or replaced that someone.
Every descriptor in this passage is a statement of distinction. And that distinction is important because of the verses immediately preceding:
“For He Himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in His flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that He might create in Himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.”
The Replacement/Fulfillment theologian will claim that these verses upend my claims of distinction because, after all, there is one new man and one body. But notice: the point of the oneness is unity among distinction. It is not at all that the distinction has been annihilated or done away with, but that the two groups in view here, Jews and Gentiles, can come together as one in Christ despite the distinction. There is one body, but as Paul repeatedly points out, one body is comprised of different members (I Cor. 12, Rom. 12, Eph. 3).
In other words, distinction is what makes the unity so beautiful. Different groups of people, Jews and Gentiles, who, beforehand, had been separated by a “dividing wall of hostility,” are now brought together by Christ’s redeeming work on the cross.
Just as the Godhead is three distinct persons operating as one entity and a marriage is two distinct persons coming together to form one family, so also the Church is comprised of two distinct groups, Jews and Gentiles, coming together to worship the one, true God.
Which brings us to another favorite verse of the Replacement Theology crowd, Galatians 3:28-29:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.”
What is frustrating about the use of this verse in order to conflate Jews and Gentiles is the obvious inconsistency on display by those who do so. I have yet to interact with a single one who claims that men and women have no distinction in Christ. Even those who would hoist this verse up for egalitarian purposes, to claim that women have biblical warrant to be pastors, for instance, would never take the logic so far as to mean that there are no differences at all between males and females in Christ. So what exactly is the point being made here? The answer is found in the verses preceding:
“But now that faith has come… in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
The passage is about inclusion into Christ through faith. The point Paul is making is that absolutely no one is prevented from coming to faith in Christ and joining the family of God. The invitation to adoption and salvation is open to all, regardless of ethnicity, sex or social status.
There is, however, a point being made in these verses that needs addressing:
“And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”
By itself, this would certainly seem to suggest that because faith in Christ (which members of the Church possess) makes you the offspring of Abraham (which Israel is), then the Church is Israel. But hold on.
For clarity, let’s turn again to another passage from Paul found in Romans 4:
“For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. …That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, ‘I have made you the father of many nations…’”
The promise of the Abrahamic covenant came not through the law but through faith so that it would be Abraham’s faith (and not his works) that would provide the blueprint for how we are all to be saved (as detailed in Romans 4:2-5).
That faith is guaranteed to all via grace: “all” meaning “not only the adherent of the law,” which is the Jews, “but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham,” which in this context is Gentile believers. Jew or Gentile, it matters not: each one of us can all upon the name of the Lord to be saved.
Which is why Abraham can be said to be, “the father of us all.”
Abraham has two kinds of descendants: physical ones, of whom some are ethnic, national Israel and some are not (his descendants through Ishmael and Esau), and spiritual ones, of whom some are true, spiritual Israel (Rom. 9:6) and some of whom are not (Gentile believers.)
All of Abraham’s spiritual descendants are saved, part of the family of God, and joint heirs to the eternal promises, but not all of Abraham’s physical descendants are as such. As the Bible point outs in multiple places, Jewish ethnicity was never and will never be enough to save anyone. Jews, like Gentiles, must share the faith of Abraham in order to be saved and receive the promises.
But that does not mean, and this is vitally important, that Gentile believers ever become Israel, and the verses used to make that claim simply do not stand up to scrutiny without a presuppositional bias. “Not all Israel is Israel,” (Romans 9:6) does not mean that the Church is now Israel. “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart,” (Romans 2: 28-29) does not mean that Gentiles become Jews when they get saved. Again, the inability of Jewish ethnicity in-and-of itself to save does not mean that Gentiles are spiritual Jews or that the Church is the real Israel.
As we’ve seen, the two groups are distinct from one another. They are joined together by a shared faith and in belonging to the family of God via the redeeming work of Christ, but Jews are saved and glorified as Jews and Gentiles are saved and glorified as Gentiles.
I would submit to you that maintaining this distinction is the only way to make chapters like Romans 11 make any sense. If the Church is Israel, then what does a statement like, “a partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in,” even mean? The interpretive damage done to the plain reading of the scriptural text in the name of identifying the Church as some kind of “real” or “true” Israel is vast. Most of the prophetic passages of the Bible (which constitute almost a third of the Bible’s totality) must be reinterpreted as symbolic and allegorical. The “blessed hope” of Titus 2:13 must be explained away or redefined so that the Church can be seen as the entity that endures the Day of the Lord, Daniel’s 70th Week, the Time of Jacob’s Trouble, and the events of Revelation (the Tribulation), instead of how the Bible clearly describes these events: as focused on God’s original covenant nation (consider Rev. 7:1-8, 12:1 and 21:10-12).
If we read the biblical text plainly, at face value, without insisting upon an interpretive lens derived from tradition, it becomes clear that Israel and the Church are two distinct entities within the redemptive framework of the scriptures. While saved the same way and belonging to the same God, they each have different particular purposes to serve and different goals to accomplish.
Just like a man and a woman in a marriage: same family, different roles.
The Church appropriating the identity of Israel for itself is as backwards as a husband assuming the identity of a wife. It is not only senseless, but also impossible to actuate.
Instead, we Gentiles believers should glory in the God of Israel deciding to save us from the gods of our heathen ancestors and, like the Canaanite woman of Matthew 15 before us, be thankful for the crumbs that fall from the master’s table. The incorporation into the family of God alongside the original covenant people is a grace beyond comprehension and we should celebrate it as such. We should not seek to co-opt from Israel her own unique, special identity.
Let God save Gentiles as Gentiles and Jews as Jews. And let us give glory to Him for both.
Unity amongst distinction is a beautiful thing, indeed.
+
And now Yahweh says,
He who formed me from the womb to be His servant,
to bring Jacob back to Him;
and that Israel might be gathered to Him—
for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord,
and my God has become my strength—
He says:
“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant
to raise up the tribes of Jacob
and to bring back the preserved of Israel;
I will make you as a light for the nations,
that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”
- Isaiah 49:5-6