The Heresy of Ethnic Engrafting & The True Identity of The Jews
Introduction
Since the turn of the 20th century, in recent years, and within the last number of months, the question of Romans 11, the future of Israel, and the political importance of Israel has moved from an academic debate parlayed between helium-heads (one can think of Mr. Mackey from South Park), into something that all Christians are seeing is far more pressing and imminent than ever before. There are many in the reformed world who look at the various views- those views which sway from complete dispensationalism to a so-called “reformed view” of a future engrafting of Israel-and conclude that they are all within the pale of orthodoxy. “These issues don’t touch the essentials,” they’ll say, giving preferential space to those who would do actual harm to Christ’s bride. But, for many others in the Reformed world, those with eyes to see, understand that this issue is not merely a disagreement in eschatology or just a mere interpretative curfuffle. Instead, it is an issue that endangers the integrity of the gospel itself because it destroys the very foundation of the covenant of grace.
A growing number of Reformed theologians/pastors (mostly men considered young, immature, and arrogant) argue that any doctrine assigning a future covenantal or ethnic role to Israel, even one framed as a future mass conversion through faith in Christ, risks compromising the very foundations of the gospel; the very doctrines upon which the church stands or falls. In the view of these immature and younger men, the problem is not merely dispensational Zionism. The problem is deeper. Doctrinal. Theological. Biblical.
We, the arrogant and immature men spurned by our fathers, understand these views as the reintroduction of ethnicity into God’s plan of salvation and/or the erection of a superfluous and superficial (unbiblical) covenant for an unregenerate people.
The Gospel Abolishes Ethnic Privilege
The first and most fundamental argument is that the gospel abolishes ethnic distinctions as covenantal categories. This is an especially important aspect to note regarding the so-called reformed view of a future Jewish engrafting. Contemporary pastors who hold this view will often argue that it is the “majority Reformed view” held by the Puritans and reformers and therefore cannot be heretical. Case in point, the Antioch Declaration says this:
“With the Puritans of old, we affirm that in God’s good time, multitudes of Jews will come to faith in Christ and be added to the true commonwealth of Israel, inheriting the same blessings as Gentile believers.” (Emphasis mine)
But, as Van Til taught us, “The church must always subject its traditions and its theology to the judgment of Scripture” and “To be truly Reformed is to be constantly reforming our thinking by the Word of God.” So, to say that because the Puritans held to a particular view, or to say that a view is the “majority reformed view,” quite literally means nothing if it cannot be substantiated by scripture.
Continuing, the New Testament repeatedly insists that the dividing line between Jew and Gentile has been destroyed in Christ. Meaning, any consideration of ethnicity as a component of the equation of God’s love and salvation is categorically inaccurate. Paul is emphatically clear on this point.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek…for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28)
Similarly, Paul writes that Christ has broken down the ethnic dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile and has created in himself “one new man” (Eph. 2:14–16). Ethnicity is no longer a factor as regards salvation. No longer does salvation belong to a nation or ethnic group, but the Spirit of God now belongs to all nations where salvation has come. In Christ, the gospel does not preserve ethnic privilege as regards salvation; on the contrary, it destroys it. The covenant people of God are no longer defined by bloodline, nationality, territory, border, boundaries, or anything of the like. Rather, it is by union with Christ, and this alone, by which the covenant people of God are determined.
For this reason, we must understand this aspect with sobriety: any theology suggesting that ethnic identity matters, even in the slightest, for the purposes of being grafted into Christ, is reintroducing ethnicity as a factor in the salvation equation and as a covenantal category. And in so doing, it becomes ineligible for consideration as an orthodox belief. Even saying Jews possess a unique prophetic future necessarily introduces ethnicity into the mix, which, as has been explained above, is repugnant to scripture and the gospel. The reason for this is because of how this question demands to be answered: why are the Jews more important than the French, let's say? Well, it’s because of their ethnicity: they are Jews. But that is precisely what Paul rejects.
Romans 10:12 leaves no room for ambiguity:
“For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all.”
Thus, the argument runs, if ethnicity retains covenantal significance in redemptive history, then the gospel has not truly abolished the old dividing lines; Christ’s death has not destroyed the dividing wall of separation. But where have the reformed included ethnicity as fundamental in this equation, you may ask. Good question. For instance:
John Murray said: “The salvation of Israel is to be understood as the restoration of ethnic Israel… but it will be salvation in Christ and incorporation into the church.”
From The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT), Murray writes:
“It is exegetically impossible to give to ‘Israel’ in this verse any other meaning than ethnic Israel.”
And again:
“The ‘all Israel’ of verse 26 is the ethnic Israel, the same Israel that has been in view throughout this chapter.”
Richard B. Gaffin Jr. In discussions of Romans 11, Pauline theology says:
“Paul anticipates a future salvation of ethnic Israel, not apart from the church but through incorporation into it.”
John Calvin explicitly identifies Israel in Romans 11 with the ethnic Jewish nation.
“Many understand this of the [ethnic] Jewish nation, that after the Gentiles have been gathered, they shall also be restored from their defection to the obedience of faith.”
— Commentary on Romans 11:26
And elsewhere in the same passage:
“I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, yet I deny not that the [ethnic] Jews shall at length return from their defection to the obedience of faith.”
— Commentary on Romans
It would be possible to continue with quotations from Bucer, Beza, Turretin, et al, all indicating the same thing: the centrality of ethnicity regarding the future engrafting of Israel. This is because they all believe these people will be engrafted (albeit by faith in Christ) because they are ethnically Jewish. This is only possible if these people are special to God. When the point is pressed, you realize that these people are special to God because they are Jews — because of their ethnicity — and for no other reasons. But in allowing ethnicity to be a factor in why these people are called by God, these men, and all others who follow after them in this point, are subtly denying the glory of the Gospel of Christ.
Certainly, Romans 9-11 discuss ethnic Israel, but not in regard to salvation. In these passages, Paul discusses them with regard to nature and his ethnic and racial bond to them. But Paul in no way makes ethnicity an aspect of their salvation.
Point being, ethnicity does not and cannot be even an inkling of a factor in why the Lord elects anyone. If it is, the gospel of Christ has been denied because in Christ is perfect equality. No people outside of Christ are more special to God than any other.
The Church Is the True Israel of God
The second argument flows directly from the first. The New Testament consistently teaches that God has always had one people, that Israel was the church under age, and that in the New Testament the church has now come of age and is more obviously centered around Christ. What this truth shows is that, while God chose a nation to be in covenant with and a nation through which he chose to bless the world, even then, ethnicity was never a noteworthy aspect of what it meant to be one of God’s people.
For instance, Paul says:
“Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” (Rom. 9:6)
This fact did not become true when Paul said it; it had always been true. True and genuine Israel, therefore, is not and was never determined by bloodline or DNA, nor is it determined by a dubious and erroneous Hagar covenant (which I’ve covered more thoroughly here), but by election and faith only.
This point is made even clearer when we see that the New Testament often unites the Old and New Covenant people via titles. Notice that Paul speaks of the NT church as “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), while Peter applies OT Israel’s covenant titles—“a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation”—to the church (1 Pet. 2:9). In doing this the Apostles are making the stark point that there are not, and never have been, two peoples but one only; that God has always had one group of people that were elect and united in Christ.
The trajectory of redemptive history is therefore clear:
In this light, the futurist reading of Romans 11 becomes nothing more than an absurdity. To suggest that ethnic Israel as a nation retains a distinct prophetic role would mean that the church is not the final (continuing) form of Israel. It would imply that something remains unfinished in God’s redemptive plan. It would suggest that Old Testament promises, which are inferior, have a future redemptive hope, despite the perfect (Christ) having already come.
Further, the New Testament repeatedly insists that all the promises of God find their “Yes” and “amen” in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 1:20). This means that all the promises of land, heritage, etc., to the Old Testament people find their fulfillment in Christ, both materially and immaterially, for the church. The church, the continuation of God’s people, united to Christ, is therefore the heir of those promises.
To introduce a future ethnic restoration is to wrongfully and heretically understand the role of ethnicity in the Old Covenant and to also reverse the direction of biblical theology, which fundamentally destroys the gospel.
It Rebuilds What Christ Fulfilled
A third concern arises from the theology of fulfillment, particularly as articulated in the book of Hebrews. The Apostles clearly teach that Christ fulfills the entire Old Covenant system:
Christ is the true temple.
Christ is the true high priest.
Christ is the final sacrifice.
Christ is the mediator of the new covenant.
Because of this, Paul declares:
“In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete.” (Heb. 8:13)
When one emphasizes a future national role for Israel, one necessarily re-nationalizes promises that the New Testament universalizes in Christ. If Israel as a nation retains prophetic significance apart from the church, then Old Testament categories—land, nation, sacrifice, and ethnicity—are still functioning in redemptive history.
But in this, again, is where rightful claims of heresy derive: Christ has already fulfilled them.
To restore them would, in effect, be to erect the system and people that Christ already tore down and to tear down what Christ has already built in its place, thereby altering redemption.
Who The Modern Jews Are Not
In my previous article regarding this subject, I discussed who the Jews are not; they are not a covenant people; they are not in covenant with Abraham; they are not the chosen people of God, etc. While this certainly cleared many things up for many people, questions remained about who the Jews actually are. To answer that question, it is necessary for me to again address who they are not in order to eventually address who they are.
There is much debate as to the true nature of modern-day Jews. They claim to be the flesh-and-blood (genetic) descendants of Abraham; the distant relatives of the Apostle Paul; the same Jews Paul spoke of in Romans 9-11. This, however, is not true. To prove this, only two points need to be made:
Modern Jews do not determine their lineage biblically. God’s design for determining lineage is patrilineal, i.e., through the father. Modern Jews, however, determine their lineage matrilineally, i.e., through the mother. Throughout the Bible, we consistently see covenant lineage and tribal identity being identified through the father, never the mother. Israel was counted “by their fathers’ houses” (Num. 1:18), inheritance followed the father’s tribe, and the priesthood and kingship were transmitted through male descent (Aaron and David). Genealogies throughout Scripture also follow the patrilineal line, clearly showing God’s design. This is essential for determining tribal identity and the Messianic promise as evident in the opening of the Gospels. However, God destroyed all lineage documentation when Titus sacked Jerusalem in AD 70, thus making it impossible for Jews to know, at all, who they are or which tribes they are from. God did this so as to utterly destroy these people from the earth. Nevertheless, to attempt to counter this divine act, later rabbinic rule was changed to show that Jewish identity comes through the mother, which makes this decision a post-biblical development, invented by the “Jews,” that does not reflect the genealogical and covenantal structure established in Scripture. This fact is vital because genetic descent is foundational to the Jews’ claim of divine rights to the land of Israel. Genetic identity is also a fundamental assumption of dispensational Christian’s reasoning for why the Jews deserve Christian loyalty over other nations. Knowing, then, that there is absolutely no way of determining the true genetic lineage of modern-day Jews means that any affirmative conclusion is only an assumption. Moderns assume that because these people call themselves Jews and the Old Covenant people of the bible were also called Jews, they are therefore the same people. This shows the ignorance of moderns and the ease with which we have been bamboozled.
Modern Jews do not practice ceremonial animal sacrifices. This is clearly a major religious problem, since the Bible is emphatic that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Leviticus 17:11; Hebrews 9:22). Forgiveness of sins under the Mosaic covenant was tied to the sacrificial system administered by the temple priesthood. Passages like Leviticus 17:11 state that atonement is made through the shedding of blood, and the entire structure of the law centers on sacrifices offered by the priests at the temple in Jerusalem. Further, Christians understand that our sins are still atoned for by the shedding of blood, only now it is Christ’s blood shed once for all (Hebrews 9:12, 26). Since the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, however, modern Judaism no longer offers the sacrifices required by the law for sin, which puts them squarely at odds with the Torah and the God they claim to serve. Rabbinic traditions (the words of man) later replaced sacrifices with prayer, repentance, and good works, but these substitutes are prescribed only in the Talmud, not in the Torah (the actual word of God), for atonement. What does this mean, except that the system practiced in modern Judaism differs fundamentally from the sacrificial framework that defined worship and the forgiveness of sins in biblical Israel?
From these two reasons alone, we can confidently conclude that modern Jews are neither genetically nor religiously tied to the Jews of the bible. They have fundamentally altered the biblical means of genealogical progression and accounting and have grossly distorted God’s means of forgiveness. This means that whatever Jews Paul was speaking of in Romans 11 as having a future promise of engrafting are not the Jews that comprise the modern state of Israel. Not at all. Not even close.
There are, however, other theories that go into greater detail to explain who modern-day Jews are. However, for the sake of space and time, I will not go into exhaustive detail on these additional theories but will instead provide brief explanations, leaving it to the reader to explore further.
Some Theories Of Who The Jews Are
Khazar Conversion Theory
This view argues that the majority of modern Ashkenazi Jews did not descend from ancient Israelites but are rather from the Khazars, a Turkic empire in the Caucasus that converted to Judaism in the 8th–9th centuries. Historical records from Byzantine, Arab, and Jewish sources describe the conversion of the Khazar ruling class and large portions of the population. When the Khazar kingdom collapsed in the 10th century, these Jewish Khazars migrated westward into Eastern Europe, where large Jewish populations suddenly appeared in the historical record. Thus, much of modern European Jewry descends from Khazar converts rather than from biblical Israel.
Edomite / Idumean Theory
This argument centers on events in the Second Temple period. Around 125 BC, the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus conquered the Idumeans (better known as Edomites) and compelled them to adopt Judaism as their religion. Over time, they were absorbed into Judean society and intermarried with the Jewish population. Herod the Great, for instance, who ruled Judea during the time of Christ, was himself an Idumean (Antiquities of the Jews 14.1.3). Proponents argue that this large-scale incorporation of Edomites gradually reshaped the population of Judea, so that later Jews—and by extension many modern Jews—descend substantially from Edom rather than from the tribes of Israel. They are Edomites.
The Destruction of The Temple Argument
This is the theory that the Jewish people as an ethnic population were effectively destroyed in the aftermath of the Jewish–Roman wars, culminating in the destruction of the temple in AD 70, by Titus, the son of Vespasian. The Roman campaign was so devastating that it eliminated the core population of Judea through mass slaughter, enslavement, and displacement. Ancient accounts—especially those of Flavius Josephus—describe immense casualties and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple, after which hundreds of thousands of Jews were reportedly killed, and many others sold into slavery across the Roman Empire. This catastrophe effectively shattered the genealogical continuity of the Jewish people in the land, and subsequent populations identifying as Jews largely arose from later converts (see the Khazar theory) or scattered remnants that no longer represented a continuous ethnic lineage from ancient Israel.
Who The Jews Are
It is, therefore, my belief that Jesus destroyed all the Jews in AD 70, via Titus and the Roman army, as promised in Deuteronomy 8:19-20 and described as fulfilled in Luke 21, because of their endless disobedience and idolatry. In this act, God erased the Jewish people completely from the face of the earth. He removed any vestige of their history, and he destroyed the temple of their worship. Any Jew who survived only survived because they believed in Christ and heeded his words to flee the city when they saw destruction coming. Those Jews who fled then acculturated into other cultures, and their Jewish identity was lost.
Modern Jews are therefore not real Jews, but are in fact a race of European converts to Judaism, and to prevent this knowledge from being widely known, DNA testing in Israel is under strict governmental control (Genetic Information Law of 2000), which is why they trace their lineage through their mothers rather than their fathers.
This means, then, that modern Jews are not a special people — they are an ordinary people. Those who today call themselves “Jews” are no more unique than Canadians, Brazilians, or Indonesians. They are not the chosen people of God, for only if you are Christ's, are you Abraham's offspring, and an heir according to promise (Galatians 3:29). They are not the apple of God’s eye; they are nothing more to God than a pagan people in need of the grace and forgiveness of Christ.
Conclusion
As Christians, then, how ought we view these people who call themselves Jews? We should view them with pity and desire that they would repent of their sins and believe in Christ. We should view them, not as brothers or partners, but as enemies of the cross, haters of Christ, and rebellious image bearers in need of the Good Shepherd and the salvation he offers. We should, therefore, pray for their total and complete submission to Christ and his word; we should plead that the Lord would, along with all other kinds of people, save the “Jews” out of their impenitent stupor.
As a nation, however, we have no obligation to Israel. We should not be giving them our money, our soldiers, our tears, our hearts, our concerns, or our time. They are an adversary of American interests, and they are a leech on our system and our people. We ought to re-migrate all Jews unwilling to have total and unilateral American allegiance, assimilate completely, and make Christ their God. They are not Americans, they are not Christians, and most put their allegiance to Israel above their allegiance to America.
