What do you think?
Rate this book
God's Chosen People: Promised to Israel, Fulfilled in the Church
What do you think, are the Jews still God’s chosen people? Is your answer based more on theological tradition or the clear teaching of Scripture? In other words, how would you make your case from the Bible? In God’s Chosen People, theologian and pastor A. Blake White makes his biblical case that "Jesus Christ and His people are the fulfillment of all OT prophecy,” even the prophecies about the Jews. Now that Christ has come, it’s about your faith, not your family tree. Actually, that was God’s plan all along.
- GenresTheology
195 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 18, 2017
16 people are currently reading
18 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
December 14, 2024
Positives:
1. I appreciate White's desire to find his support in Scripture. This book is full of Scripture references. White states that his intention is to be “truly committed to Scripture alone rather than to our theological presuppositions.” He wants the Bible, rather than theological presuppositions, to inform his theology.
2. I agree with his criticism of Classic Dispensationalism and Covenant theology. White particularly resists "replacement theology," and he instead argues that "Israel is not being replaced but being purified, expanded, and reconstituted around her Messiah" (42).
Concerns:
1. White leaves out the possibility that the OT promises can still be fulfilled for the nation of Israel even if they were fulfilled in some way during the ministry of Christ. The NT does apply OT terminology about Israel to the church. This does not mean that the church now receives the fullness of what Israel was promised and that there is nothing left for Israel in the future. It simply means that the church receives some of the blessings promised to Israel as well.
2. White doesn’t really interact with opposing views. He includes a lot of quotes from people who agree with his views. He mentions other views for some passages (like Romans 11), but in many other passages he does not anticipate objections. Instead, he keeps insisting that the Scripture references “clearly” (e.g., pp. 1, 101, 112, 143), support his view, in spite of the fact that many other intelligent scholars and believers do not agree with his view.
3. White's use of the Scriptural texts is problematic.
a. The book seems to me to hinge on the idea that the NT presents Christ as the true Israel. Therefore, the OT promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ, and we should not expect them to be fulfilled in ethnic Israel. White quotes other theologians who agree with his claim that “Christ is Israel.” However, there is no clear Scripture that backs this up. Paul says that Jesus is the heir of the Abrahamic promises. White concludes, therefore, that Jesus “embodies and sums up Israel. As the Messiah, what is true of Him is true of them. . . . the whole Bible is about Jesus. So, who is Israel? Jesus.” (103) Jesus “represents His people so that what is true of Him is true of His people.” (104) “So, who is Israel? Jesus, and the people of Jesus, namely, the Church.” (105)
White uses other texts that are very weak in supporting this idea:
Isaiah 60:5-6 says that nations and kings will bring their wealth to Zion, including gold and frankincense. The wise men are kings who come from the nations and bring gold and frankincense to Jesus when he is born. Therefore, Jesus is Zion (Israel) and is fulfilling Isaiah 60:5-6. (pp. 35-36)
The OT identifies Israel as a vine. In John 15, Jesus declares himself to be “the true vine.” Therefore White concludes, “What Jesus is saying is that He is the true Israel.” (p. 76)
Ezekiel refers to the good Shepherd who will rescue his sheep (Israel). In John, Jesus identifies himself as the Good Shepherd who rescues the church. Therefore, “The sheep of Israel in Ezekiel 34 are the Church in John.” (p. 75)
b. In his use of other texts, he says more than the texts actually say:
In 2 Cor. 1:20, “All the promises of God are ‘yes’ in Christ.” Therefore, “Jesus fulfills the promises, and He shares them with all who are in Him.. . . The Church is the end-time Israel by virtue of her union with Israel’s Messiah.” To say that “the promises of God are ‘yes’ in Christ is NOT saying that Jesus in his first coming is the fulfillment of all of God’s promises. (p. 141)
In Ephesians 2:11-3:6, Paul says that the Ephesians were “at one time Gentiles” and “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel.” But now they “are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.” White says that this means “the church and Israel are no longer distinct. They are no longer ‘strangers and aliens’ but are now ‘fellow citizens’ (sympolitai) with Israel. . . . This is all very clear stuff.” (p. 143) However, this is not what the Bible says. The Bible says they are “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.” It does not say they are “fellow citizens with Israel.”
In Philippians 3, Paul says “we are the circumcision.” White concludes, “The Church is the circumcision, which is another way of saying that the Church is Israel.” (147) There is no basis for equating “circumcision” with “Israel,” though.
1 Peter 2 says that the church is “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession.” White converts these indefinite articles to definite articles, implying that the church now gets these titles instead of Israel: “The Church is now the chosen race (Isa. 34:20), the kingdom of priests (Exod. 19:6), the holy nation (Deut. 7:6), and the people for His own possession (Isa. 43:21, Mal. 3:17).” (155)
White’s handling of Galatians 3:26-29 is problematic. “There is neither Jew nor Greek . . . there is no male and female.” White concludes, “There is no difference between Jew or Gentile in the new covenant. There is no distinction. In the new age, one should not distinguish Israel and the church.” Paul is not saying that no distinctions remain. He is stating that Gentiles and Jews have the same standing in Christ. To say that no distinction remains at all in this age would be to say that in the new age, there is no distinction between male and female. Yet White quotes another author who asks “How could language state it any more conclusively and unambiguously?” (105)
Conclusion: I don't think White's arguments for Christ and the church as the fulfillment of the OT promises to Israel adequately represent the biblical teaching on the subject. It is true that the NT uses a lot of OT terminology when referring to the church. There absolutely are analogies between OT Israel and the church. But to say that Christ, the only perfect Israelite, is the fulfillment of all of the prophecies to Israel and that thereby the church is the continuation of Israel is not really what the NT says.
Also, this view seems to require eliminating a lot of details from OT promises to Israel. Isaiah 19:18-25 that there will be an altar in Egypt, a highway from Egypt to Assyria, by means of which Egypt, Israel, and Assyria will be a joint blessing to all the ends of the earth as they worship the LORD. To ignore these details and simply say that this passage means that "Gentile nations will be included in the people of God" and "will be absorbed into the identity, titles and privileges of Israel" (p. 16-17) seems to be disregarding key elements of OT promises.
1. I appreciate White's desire to find his support in Scripture. This book is full of Scripture references. White states that his intention is to be “truly committed to Scripture alone rather than to our theological presuppositions.” He wants the Bible, rather than theological presuppositions, to inform his theology.
2. I agree with his criticism of Classic Dispensationalism and Covenant theology. White particularly resists "replacement theology," and he instead argues that "Israel is not being replaced but being purified, expanded, and reconstituted around her Messiah" (42).
Concerns:
1. White leaves out the possibility that the OT promises can still be fulfilled for the nation of Israel even if they were fulfilled in some way during the ministry of Christ. The NT does apply OT terminology about Israel to the church. This does not mean that the church now receives the fullness of what Israel was promised and that there is nothing left for Israel in the future. It simply means that the church receives some of the blessings promised to Israel as well.
2. White doesn’t really interact with opposing views. He includes a lot of quotes from people who agree with his views. He mentions other views for some passages (like Romans 11), but in many other passages he does not anticipate objections. Instead, he keeps insisting that the Scripture references “clearly” (e.g., pp. 1, 101, 112, 143), support his view, in spite of the fact that many other intelligent scholars and believers do not agree with his view.
3. White's use of the Scriptural texts is problematic.
a. The book seems to me to hinge on the idea that the NT presents Christ as the true Israel. Therefore, the OT promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ, and we should not expect them to be fulfilled in ethnic Israel. White quotes other theologians who agree with his claim that “Christ is Israel.” However, there is no clear Scripture that backs this up. Paul says that Jesus is the heir of the Abrahamic promises. White concludes, therefore, that Jesus “embodies and sums up Israel. As the Messiah, what is true of Him is true of them. . . . the whole Bible is about Jesus. So, who is Israel? Jesus.” (103) Jesus “represents His people so that what is true of Him is true of His people.” (104) “So, who is Israel? Jesus, and the people of Jesus, namely, the Church.” (105)
White uses other texts that are very weak in supporting this idea:
Isaiah 60:5-6 says that nations and kings will bring their wealth to Zion, including gold and frankincense. The wise men are kings who come from the nations and bring gold and frankincense to Jesus when he is born. Therefore, Jesus is Zion (Israel) and is fulfilling Isaiah 60:5-6. (pp. 35-36)
The OT identifies Israel as a vine. In John 15, Jesus declares himself to be “the true vine.” Therefore White concludes, “What Jesus is saying is that He is the true Israel.” (p. 76)
Ezekiel refers to the good Shepherd who will rescue his sheep (Israel). In John, Jesus identifies himself as the Good Shepherd who rescues the church. Therefore, “The sheep of Israel in Ezekiel 34 are the Church in John.” (p. 75)
b. In his use of other texts, he says more than the texts actually say:
In 2 Cor. 1:20, “All the promises of God are ‘yes’ in Christ.” Therefore, “Jesus fulfills the promises, and He shares them with all who are in Him.. . . The Church is the end-time Israel by virtue of her union with Israel’s Messiah.” To say that “the promises of God are ‘yes’ in Christ is NOT saying that Jesus in his first coming is the fulfillment of all of God’s promises. (p. 141)
In Ephesians 2:11-3:6, Paul says that the Ephesians were “at one time Gentiles” and “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel.” But now they “are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.” White says that this means “the church and Israel are no longer distinct. They are no longer ‘strangers and aliens’ but are now ‘fellow citizens’ (sympolitai) with Israel. . . . This is all very clear stuff.” (p. 143) However, this is not what the Bible says. The Bible says they are “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.” It does not say they are “fellow citizens with Israel.”
In Philippians 3, Paul says “we are the circumcision.” White concludes, “The Church is the circumcision, which is another way of saying that the Church is Israel.” (147) There is no basis for equating “circumcision” with “Israel,” though.
1 Peter 2 says that the church is “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession.” White converts these indefinite articles to definite articles, implying that the church now gets these titles instead of Israel: “The Church is now the chosen race (Isa. 34:20), the kingdom of priests (Exod. 19:6), the holy nation (Deut. 7:6), and the people for His own possession (Isa. 43:21, Mal. 3:17).” (155)
White’s handling of Galatians 3:26-29 is problematic. “There is neither Jew nor Greek . . . there is no male and female.” White concludes, “There is no difference between Jew or Gentile in the new covenant. There is no distinction. In the new age, one should not distinguish Israel and the church.” Paul is not saying that no distinctions remain. He is stating that Gentiles and Jews have the same standing in Christ. To say that no distinction remains at all in this age would be to say that in the new age, there is no distinction between male and female. Yet White quotes another author who asks “How could language state it any more conclusively and unambiguously?” (105)
Conclusion: I don't think White's arguments for Christ and the church as the fulfillment of the OT promises to Israel adequately represent the biblical teaching on the subject. It is true that the NT uses a lot of OT terminology when referring to the church. There absolutely are analogies between OT Israel and the church. But to say that Christ, the only perfect Israelite, is the fulfillment of all of the prophecies to Israel and that thereby the church is the continuation of Israel is not really what the NT says.
Also, this view seems to require eliminating a lot of details from OT promises to Israel. Isaiah 19:18-25 that there will be an altar in Egypt, a highway from Egypt to Assyria, by means of which Egypt, Israel, and Assyria will be a joint blessing to all the ends of the earth as they worship the LORD. To ignore these details and simply say that this passage means that "Gentile nations will be included in the people of God" and "will be absorbed into the identity, titles and privileges of Israel" (p. 16-17) seems to be disregarding key elements of OT promises.
June 25, 2024
Excellent
This is the first time that I have heard of New Covenant theology. The book is well-written and very informative. It points out the deficiencies of dispensationalism in scripture and various authors, most of whom I have heard of and read. He also introduced me to some authors that I have added to my library. The major thing that I got out of this book is the centrality of Christ in the whole Bible and how that shapes our identity, who we are in Christ, and how we accomplish our mission.
This is the first time that I have heard of New Covenant theology. The book is well-written and very informative. It points out the deficiencies of dispensationalism in scripture and various authors, most of whom I have heard of and read. He also introduced me to some authors that I have added to my library. The major thing that I got out of this book is the centrality of Christ in the whole Bible and how that shapes our identity, who we are in Christ, and how we accomplish our mission.
March 23, 2018
Blake White states his position clearly, and covers the related Biblical data very well.
January 16, 2019
Fantastic book by Blake White tracing the story of the people of God through scripture. It’s a must read.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews