This final part brings the series to its conclusion by examining covenant judgment, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and what it means to live within a fully realized new covenant. Rather than future speculation, the focus here is on fulfillment, clarity, and Christian maturity.
Israel, the Church, and the Question of “Two Peoples of God”:
As noted in Part II, dispensational theology maintains that Israel and the Church constitute two distinct peoples of God. Although both are said to enjoy a special relationship with God, they are understood to remain permanently separate. This raises several foundational questions: Are Israel and the Church truly distinct entities? If so, when and how did this separation occur? Does God therefore deal with them independently and according to separate redemptive timelines? Finally, what does the historical and biblical record indicate regarding these claims?
This third section examines the dispensational assertion of “two peoples of God,” tracing its historical origins, evaluating its exegetical foundations, and assessing its coherence within the broader biblical narrative.
The Dispensational Origin of the “Two Peoples” Framework:
The sharp distinction between Israel and the Church is not a doctrine inherited from the early or medieval church, but rather one that emerged in the nineteenth century through the work of John Nelson Darby. Darby developed this framework following what his contemporaries described as a period of intense theological reorientation during his recovery from a riding accident in 1827. During this time, Darby concluded that the “kingdom” described in Isaiah and other Old Testament texts was categorically different from the Christian church.1
Darby argued that Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel should not be interpreted typologically or ecclesiologically, but rather as literal predictions concerning ethnic Israel alone. Correspondingly, the Church—unknown and unrevealed in the Old Testament—was said to be a New Testament phenomenon whose destiny was wholly distinct from Israel’s. This hermeneutical move became foundational to dispensational theology.2
As Darby himself maintained, the separation between Israel and the Church functioned as the decisive interpretive hinge upon which the understanding of Scripture turned. Later dispensational writers echoed this claim, emphasizing that God’s purposes in history were not unified but bifurcated: one oriented toward national Israel with earthly promises, and the other toward the Gentile Church with heavenly promises.3
Within this framework, the Church is frequently described as a temporary “parenthesis” in God’s redemptive plan—a pause in prophetic history initiated by Israel’s rejection of the Messiah and destined to end at the rapture, after which God would resume his dealings with Israel.4 This construction effectively subordinates the Church to Israel, positioning it as an interim phenomenon rather than the culmination of God’s covenantal purposes.
The Emergence of the “Replacement Theology” Charge:
It is within this dispensational framework that the term “replacement theology” emerged. Dispensationalists often apply this label to theological traditions that reject the Israel–Church dichotomy, suggesting that such views improperly assert that the Church has supplanted Israel in God’s plan. The term itself is polemical and misleading, as it assumes precisely the separation that is under dispute. Historically, the Church did not understand itself as “replacing” Israel, but rather as constituting the faithful continuation and fulfillment of Israel’s covenantal vocation in Christ.5
Jesus, the Kingdom, and the Ekklēsia:
The Gospels consistently portray Jesus proclaiming the Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven) as the central theme of his ministry. He also speaks of Israel, of judgment, and of his ekklēsia. The Greek term ekklēsia, commonly translated “church,” denotes an assembly or gathered people and is not unique to the New Testament. In the Septuagint, it frequently refers to the assembly of Israel itself.6
Dispensational theology contends that the Church began only after Israel’s rejection of Jesus, functioning as a temporary interruption in prophetic history. Yet the Gospels present a different picture. Jesus speaks explicitly of building his ekklēsia prior to his crucifixion (Matt. 16:18), and he inaugurates the New Covenant at Passover—before his rejection by the nation. The New Covenant is thus not a post-Israel contingency plan but the fulfillment of Israel’s own covenantal trajectory.7
Hebrews 8:7–13 explicitly describes the New Covenant as rendering the former covenant obsolete, not by negating God’s promises but by fulfilling them in Christ. The text addresses Israel and Judah directly, framing the New Covenant as the divinely intended resolution of covenantal failure, not as the establishment of a separate people.
Acts, Pentecost, and the Absence of a Prophetic “Pause”:
The book of Acts provides no evidence for the dispensational notion of a prophetic pause. Following his resurrection, Jesus instructs his disciples concerning the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:3). When they inquire about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, Jesus redirects their expectations—not toward a deferred national restoration, but toward a Spirit-empowered mission extending from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth.
Pentecost further reinforces this trajectory. The initial outpouring of the Spirit occurs among Jews gathered from many nations, signalling not the birth of a new religious entity detached from Israel, but the renewal and expansion of Israel’s mission to bless the nations. Gentile inclusion follows soon thereafter, most notably in the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10), where Peter explicitly affirms that God shows no partiality and accepts those from every nation who fear him.
One People, Not Two:
Throughout the apostolic period, the early Christian movement was understood as a Jewish sect—“the Way”—rather than a separate religion. Internal conflicts arose not over whether Gentiles could belong to a different people of God, but over how Gentiles were to be included within the same covenant community. The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) resolved this tension by affirming Gentile inclusion apart from full adherence to Mosaic law, thereby preserving unity rather than institutionalizing division.
Paul’s letters consistently reinforce this vision. Faith, not ethnicity, defines covenant membership. Those who belong to Christ—Jew or Gentile—are Abraham’s offspring and heirs according to promise (Gal. 3:26–29). Paul’s discussion of the “mystery” in Ephesians 3 does not introduce a second people of God, but rather reveals that Gentiles are now fellow heirs within the same body.8
Ekklēsia and Covenant Continuity:
The New Testament’s use of ekklēsia deliberately echoes Old Testament covenant language. Acts 7:38 explicitly refers to Israel in the wilderness as the ekklēsia, underscoring continuity rather than rupture. Jesus’ declaration that he would build his ekklēsia would thus have been intelligible to his Jewish audience as a covenantal renewal, not the creation of a novel institution.9
Israel’s Vocation and the Blessing of the Nations:
Israel’s election was never an end in itself. From Genesis onward, Israel is chosen for a purpose: to mediate God’s blessing to the nations. The Abrahamic promise explicitly envisions the inclusion of “all the families of the earth,” and the prophetic literature consistently affirms Israel’s vocation as a light to the nations—a calling ultimately fulfilled in the Messiah.10
Covenant Conditions, Judgment, and Fulfillment:
The Mosaic covenant was explicitly conditional, with blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. Scripture records that Israel experienced both. The climactic judgment of the first century—culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70—occurred precisely as Jesus had foretold and within the covenantal framework articulated in Deuteronomy and Leviticus.11
Israel, Zionism, and the Modern State:
The modern State of Israel emerged from secular political Zionism rather than covenantal repentance or obedience. While the name “Israel” carries profound biblical resonance, nomenclature alone does not confer theological identity. The biblical category of “Israel” has always been covenantal and faith-defined, not merely ethnic or political (Rom. 9:6).12
13. Appendix to Part III & Notes for reference and further study:
“Chosen People,” Covenant, and the Origins of Israel
Following the flood narrative, Scripture presents humanity reduced to a single surviving family. Noah and his sons are commissioned to “be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth” (Gen. 9:1–3). This mandate echoes the original creation blessing and establishes a universal human vocation rather than a narrowly ethnic one. The genealogies of Genesis 10—commonly referred to as the “Table of Nations”—trace the spread of humanity through Noah’s three sons and frame the emergence of the nations as the fulfillment of this divine command.13
Genesis 11 records a disruption of this mandate in the account of the Tower of Babel. Rather than dispersing across the earth, humanity settles in Shinar and seeks to establish permanence and renown: “Let us build ourselves a city… otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth” (Gen. 11:4). The construction of a ziggurat suggests not merely urban consolidation but religious defection. Joshua later confirms that Abraham’s ancestors “worshiped other gods” beyond the Euphrates (Josh. 24:2).14
In response to this disobedience, God confuses human language and scatters the nations. Deuteronomy 32:7–9 (“The Song of Moses”) reflects on this event theologically, portraying the division of the nations as occurring “according to the number of the sons of God,” while identifying Israel—“Jacob his allotted heritage”—as the Lord’s own portion. This text frames Israel’s election not as favoritism, but as a strategic redemptive response to the fragmentation of the nations.15
Against this backdrop, Genesis 12 introduces God’s covenant with Abram. The initial command is simple but decisive: “Go.” Abram’s obedience initiates a covenantal relationship characterized by promise and purpose. The covenant unfolds further in Genesis 15, where Abram’s belief in God’s promise of offspring “as numerous as the stars” is credited to him as righteousness. The land promise is solemnized through a covenant ceremony in which God commits himself to Abram’s descendants.
Genesis 17 expands the covenant’s scope and clarifies its conditional dimensions. Abram is commanded to “walk before me faithfully and be blameless,” followed by the divine commitment, “Then I will make my covenant between me and you.” Abram’s renaming as Abraham—“father of many nations”—signals that the covenant’s horizon extends beyond a single ethnic lineage.16
The New Testament’s repeated appeal to Abraham in discussions of Israel’s identity and vocation reflects this foundational role. The promises to Abraham include not only nationhood and land, but the blessing of “all the families of the earth.” While Isaac is identified as the covenantal heir, Abraham fathers multiple sons, reinforcing the multinational scope embedded within the promise itself.17
Significantly, “Israel” as a named entity does not emerge until Jacob, Abraham’s grandson. Like Abraham, Jacob receives his new name directly from God, marking a covenantal transformation tied to divine purpose. Deuteronomy 32’s identification of “Jacob” as the Lord’s portion underscores this covenantal—not merely biological—definition.
Two phrases central to the Abrahamic narrative warrant particular attention: “believed the Lord” (Gen. 15:6) and “obeyed my voice” (Gen. 26:5). In Hebrew thought, belief and obedience are inseparable. The verb šāmaʿ (“hear”) encompasses attentive listening, trust, and responsive action. Faith is thus inherently active, not merely cognitive.18
This pattern continues with Isaac and Jacob. Each receives the promise accompanied by specific commands and responds in obedience. Jacob’s vow at Bethel (Gen. 28:20–22) further illustrates the reciprocal structure of covenant fidelity. The repetition of the promise across generations underscores that covenant participation is neither automatic nor unconditional.
(14) Covenant Judgment, Jerusalem, and the Jewish–Roman Wars
The covenantal warnings of Leviticus 26:27–35 bear striking resemblance to later apocalyptic imagery, including passages in Revelation and Jesus’ prophetic discourse in Luke 21:5–24. The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 during the Jewish–Roman wars appears to correspond closely to these warnings. An earlier precedent exists in the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC, which was explicitly accompanied by a seventy-year exile and a promise of return.19
By contrast, the Jewish–Roman wars (66–136 AD) include no comparable biblical promise of restoration or timeframe for return. While divine mercy remains available upon repentance, Scripture contains no unambiguous declaration that Israel would again possess the land or rebuild the temple following this later judgment.
The Jewish–Roman did not end with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. Following that, there were further battles that consisted of multiple revolts culminating in the Bar Kokhba uprising (132–136 AD). Roman suppression was brutal and decisive, resulting in mass death, enslavement, and widespread displacement. Judea was effectively depopulated, and Jewish national life was shattered. Ancient and later sources describe scenes of extraordinary violence, imagery that resonates with apocalyptic biblical language (cf. Rev. 14:20).20
Accounts of the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70—drawing primarily on Josephus—depict famine, mass crucifixions, internal violence, and the eventual destruction of the temple, despite Roman attempts to preserve it. Jesus’ prophecy that “not one stone would be left upon another” (Matt. 24:2) was fulfilled with devastating precision.21
These events coincided with the rise of multiple messianic claimants, culminating in Simon bar Kokhba, whose revolt was widely regarded by many Jews as messianic in nature. Jesus had warned of false messiahs during precisely such periods of upheaval (Matt. 24:5, 23–26). Historians commonly identify this era as decisive in the widening separation between Judaism and Christianity.22
The existence of this historical split, however, does not necessitate the conclusion that God established two distinct peoples. Rather, the evidence suggests the continuation of a single people of God, now defined by faith in the Messiah rather than ethnicity alone—a remnant composed of both Jewish and Gentile believers (cf. Gal. 3:28; Rom. 9:6–7, 27–29).
Early
Christian sources indicate that believers who heeded Jesus’ warnings escaped
Jerusalem prior to its destruction.23
The question now that must be considered is: will later generations similarly
heed the declarations of Jesus?
Appendix B: Historical detail of Israel’s Destruction.
The Bar Kokhba revolt was the third and final major escalation of the Jewish–Roman wars. This was a large-scale armed rebellion by the Jews of Judea against the Roman Empire, led by Simon bar Kokhba that began in 132 A.D. and lasted until 136 A.D.. The Roman army brutally suppressed the uprising which resulted in a total defeat of the short-lived Jewish state. The Roman campaigns led to the near-depopulation of Judea through widespread killings, mass enslavement, and the displacement of many Jews from the region. The last Jewish stronghold was Betar and it was here that Bar Kokhba was killed.
“The horrendous scene after the city's capture could be best described as a massacre. 112} The Jerusalem Talmud relates that the number of dead in Betar was enormous, and that the Romans "went about slaughtering them until a horse sunk in blood up to its nostrils, and the blood carried away boulders that weighted forty sela until it went four miles into the sea. If you should think that it (Betar) was close to the sea, behold, it was forty miles distant from the sea."{113}{114}”
{Quote taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt}
Certainly, parts of that description sound as if they could have been lifted right out of Passages such as Revelation 14:20, “And the wine press was trampled outside the city, and blood came out from the wine press, up to the horses’ bridles, for a distance of 1,600 stadia.”
With respect to the seige of Jerusalem that began in 66 A.D. I’ve included this brief account. The following quote is taken from The Siege of Jerusalem, by Jared Jackson and draws on sources from: Keller, Werner. 1956. “The Bible as History.” New York, NY: William Morrow & Co.; as well as from Whitson, William. 1957. “The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus,” Philadelphia, PA: John C. Winston.
“…Food rations inside the city were scarce. During the nights, ghostly figures would sneak through hidden passages to steal food amid supplies from the soldiers’ tents. Titus decreed that those captured were to be crucified. A forest of crosses littered the countryside as trees were stripped off the land to satisfy the orders for crucifying some 500 Jews per day (cf. Matthew 27:25).
A rampart was built around the city to seal off the hidden passages. Hunger became so intense that the citizens became insane with famine, resorting to murdering one another over food; they even practiced cannibalism. Those who perished were cast over the walls into piles of bodies that remained unburied. The scene of the Holy City was one of utter desolation.
The campaign was taking longer than Titus expected; the soldiers were becoming difficult to manage. They could see Herod’s temple, with its golden surfaces glittering in each evening’s sunset. Every soldier could imagine himself taking spoil of what lay beyond the walls. The Jews who tried to escape had their bodies ripped open, as pitiless soldiers searched their stomachs for jewels and gold.
The Roman army gradually subdued the city, but was impeded when it reached the temple compound. The massive stone walls were impenetrable; the soldiers gained access by burning the great temple doors. Upon gaining entry, Titus commanded his men to put out the fire and “spare the Sanctuary.” But the Jews violently attacked those extinguishing the fire. The Romans retaliated with merciless slaughter; they went berserk — partly out of vengeance, partly with greed.
As the battle raged on, suddenly, a soldier—without command—launched a torch through the Golden Window of the temple. Instantly, the flames licked the fabrics and wood that adorned the interior of that precious building. Titus again commanded his soldiers to put out the fire, but to no avail. The temple was lost. Eventually, the soldiers completely tore apart the compound, looking for rumored treasures. They plundered the city and extracted vengeance from the enemy that had resisted them so bitterly, and had cost them so much.
Having lost its glory, Titus ordered the city razed to bury the evil he had witnessed.
Some 40 years earlier, Jesus had prophesied that “not one of these stones shall be left one upon another” (Matthew 24:1-2). Despite the efforts of the Jews to defend their temple, and the endeavors of the Roman general to preserve that precious building, Christ’s words were fulfilled. The Savior’s prophecy could not be thwarted by mere human resistance. He is Lord of all!
Why discuss such
horrors? Why elaborate on the gory details? The destruction of God’s own city,
Jerusalem, speaks to the judgment prophecies of Christ and should serve as a
vivid warning to all of us to heed His words and prepare for His Kingdom that
is to come fully.
________________________________________
New here? You may want to start with the Start Here page to understand how this series fits together.
For a broader reflection on mortality, judgment, and why these questions matter in the first place, see: Sin, Soul, Death, and Hell.
____________________________________
Endnotes:
1. John Nelson Darby, The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, vol. 2 (Kingston-on-Thames: Stow Hill, 1962), 89–127; Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 63–95.
2. Darby, Collected Writings, 2:94–102; Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton, IL: BridgePoint, 1993), 49–72.
3. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 39–47; George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 36–58.
4. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 145–148; Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 89–94.
5. N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 787–799; Michael J. Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel? (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 15–28.
6. Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 44–48; Septuagint usage discussed in Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 99–103.
7. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 202–207; R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 622–627.
8. N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 820–826; F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 303–307.
9. Acts 7:38; see G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 109–145.
10. Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 65–92; Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 308–312.
11. R. K. Harrison, Old Testament Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 195–203; N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 345–368.
12. N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 770–783.
13. Appendix Footnotes (Continued)
14. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (Word Biblical Commentary 1; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 219–231.
15. John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 94–102; Josh. 24:2.
16. Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 113–120.
17. Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 287–292; Gen. 17:1–8.
18. K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 307–312.
19. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 564–566.
20. R. K. Harrison, Old Testament Times, 195–203; Lev. 26:27–35.
21. Peter Schäfer, The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 1–35.
22. Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, trans. G. A. Williamson (London: Penguin, 1981), 300–375.
23. Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 235–255.
24. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.5.3, trans. Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926).