By John B. Carpenter, Op-ed contributor Sunday, March 29, 2026
iStock/photovs
Dr. Dinah Dye recently offered a thoughtful critique of “Replacement Theology,” arguing for a paradigm of fulfillment rather than replacement regarding Israel and the Church. We share significant common ground. In her article, Dr. Dye rightly observes: “When Jesus says, ‘I will build my ekklesia (church),’ He is not inventing something new; He is speaking of rebuilding the covenant assembly.”
Exactly.
That is an accurate observation that unlocks the true, biblical relationship between Israel and the Church. However, Dr. Dye’s interest was to show that the New Testament doesn’t necessarily teach that the Church replaced Israel. That’s getting ahead of ourselves. First, we need to see what the Old Testament says about who Israel really is.
In Genesis, God defines Israel. Long before the New Testament was written, the Old Testament had already defined the true Israel as a multiethnic church.
For centuries, Christians have identified Israel in the Old Testament as a single, literal ethnic group. Even supersessionists — those who historically believed the Church superseded Israel — assumed the technical definition of “Israel” in the Bible was an ethnic group. But Genesis reveals a radical, theological definition that challenges this assumption. The Gospel’s diversity wasn’t a later addition; it was the plan from the start.
The true definition of Israel is repeated at three pivotal moments in the narrative of Jacob, the man renamed Israel. In each instance, the divine name El Shaddai (God Almighty) is invoked to signal the vital importance of the promise.
First, Isaac blesses Jacob, saying, “May God Almighty bless you … that you may become a company of peoples” (k’hal ‘amim; Gen 28:3). The key word here, kahal, is the Hebrew equivalent of ekklesia, the Greek word for “church” or “assembly.” The plural “peoples” suggests a gathering of multiple different ethnic groups, not just a single ethnicity becoming numerous. Isaac’s parting blessing is for Jacob to be an assembly of ethnicities. This is at the beginning of the Jacob – Israel – narrative in Genesis.
Then, as if to frame the Jacob narrative, at the end, God Himself appears to Jacob, confirming His name change to Israel and declaring, “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations (k’hal goyim) shall come from you” (Gen 35:11). By substituting “nations” (goyim) for “peoples” (‘amim), God further clarifies that these are not merely physical descendants but a gathering of various political and ethnic entities.
Finally, the book of Genesis ends with a final reminder of the definition of Israel. Jacob restates the promise on his deathbed, reminding his family that God will make him a “company of peoples” (Gen 48:4). If the Old Testament had been written in English, Jacob might have been told three times that he would become a “church of ethnicities.”
Affirming Dr. Dye’s insight, when Jesus spoke of building His ekklesia, He was referencing this ancient kahal. This definition of Israel as an assembly of nations is immediately borne out in Israel’s subsequent history. At the exodus, the nation leaving Egypt included a “mixed multitude” referring to a great mixture of nationalities who allied with Israel by faith. Throughout the Old Testament, faith-based inclusion was a constant theme. Rahab, a Canaanite, became an Israelite by faith. Ruth, a Moabite, likewise joined Israel by faith. By believing in the Lord, ethnic Gentiles became part of “Israel.” The identity of Israel, from beginning to end, was never exclusively one race.
The prophets solidified this theological identity with the concept of the “remnant,” drawing a distinction between physical Israel and the true Israel — an Israel defined by individual choice for God’s calling, not birth.
This brings us to the crux of the replacement debate. The fundamental assumption that Israel was primarily an ethnic people has led to the theological error of supersessionism and the pernicious error of dispensationalism. The Church did not replace Israel because Israel was always and already the Church, the promised “assembly of peoples.”
When the Apostle Paul speaks of the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16), he is not speaking of a replacement entity; he is describing the continuum of God’s ancient gathering of believers from all kinds of peoples and nations. Believers in Christ are the “children of Abraham,” and the true Israel is the one olive tree into which believing Gentiles are grafted.
Therefore, we can agree with Dr. Dye: fulfillment, not replacement, tells the true story. Christ is rebuilding the covenant assembly, an assembly that, from its very inception in Genesis, was designed to be the Church.
This does not mean that Christians cannot support modern Israel. We can still do so. Israel is a Western nation, and our greatest ally in the Middle East, if not the whole world. It is constantly maligned and threatened by radical Islamic regimes. However, it doesn’t mean that we give them an automatic pass for every action, claiming that they are “God’s people” based merely on their ethnicity. We want them to become God’s true people, grafted back into God’s one olive tree. And that’s only possible through faith in Jesus.
John B. Carpenter, Ph.D., is pastor of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church, in Danville, VA. and the author of Seven Pillars of a Biblical Church (Wipf and Stock, 2022) and the Covenant Caswell substack.