In my last article, I wrote of the invented term “Mosaic Age,” and how it is often used by Preterists to promote the concept that the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was an eschatological terminus.  As I showed, however, the destruction of the temple was a Dispensational event.  Not merely because the Cross failed to annul the temple-service, which certainly would have been abrogated in A.D. 30 (and not 40 years later) had it been in God’s plans to bring in the “coming age” without it; but because Christ’s second coming is said to occur at the end of the age, a period always tied to the world-system.

  Whence then did this strange doctrine of the Mosaic Age come from?  That it must have originated from somewhere is evident.  But that it is not a term employed in the Scriptures, nor is there is there a single text that supports such a concept, makes it obvious that it came from the imaginations of men.  And I think we can trace it back to “Replacement Theology.”

  The idea of a Jewish Age being superseded by a Christian Age is, of course, at the very heart of Replacement Thelogy.  It is no surprise that this concept has become prominent among those who adhere to “covenant theology.”  Because of the popular view of supersesssion, the phrase “heavens and earth” are sometimes seen as metaphors describing the Mosaic Economy. The land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem are spiritualized, while the promises of land return are either explained away by some factitious distinction, or ignored.   The R.T.’s, however, have no trouble with leaving to the Jews a literal fulfillment of all the curses.  

  Come to verses which speak of literal blessings, however, and they claim that they’ve been appropriated to the church.  When?  Well, I suppose, when the mysterious act of supersession took place.  A simple glance at some of the verses in question, however, makes it obvious that Jehovah could not possibly have had any replacement or abrogation in mind.  Take the following verse, for example, and try interpreting it to the church:

 ”And they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children forever” (Ezek. 37: 25).

 It’s obvious that the prophet is predicting a restoration of Israel, and not the church.  For the preceding context speaks of re-gathering of the dispersed nation from among all the heathen, and the consequent re-union of the twelve tribes (v. 16-22).  Then follows a description of Israel’s santification (v. 23-24) and the permanent presence of Messiah among them (v. 24-28).  In the clearest possible language, the prophet was affirming God’s promise to restore the nation.  But because of the deceitful doctrine of replacement theology, God’s promise is nullified, and we are told that the passage is “spiritually fulfilled.”  In what way we know not.  However, according to R.T.’s Israel will never be regathered or restored.

 Supersessionists can get away with preaching the “casting away of Israel” because of their concept that the Mosaic Age ended in A.D. 70.  But, assuming that there is such a thing as a Mosaic Age, wouldn’t a fulfillment of Jevohah’s promises to Israel be necessary before it could end? I mean, if God had plans to cast Israel away and transfer all their blessings to the church, then to what purpose did the prophecies of restoration serve?  And how can you or I accept a doctrine which, essentially, makes God a liar?

 We hold that God’s promises remain steadfast and immutable.  And that every jot and tittle will be fulfilled in the New Covenant.   To claim that a Jewish Age was replaced with a Christian Age is simple enough to comprehend.  Nevertheless, it is bad theology.  It would be more technically correct to say that the Old Covenant is replaced by the New.  And most Preterists would concur with this.  However, will the replacement come about by a single act of supersession? or do the mechanics involve something more than that?  I think it is obvious from Scripture that the New Covenant has not been fully established.  At least, I don’t know any “orthodox Preterist” who claims that we are now drinking “this fruit of the vine” with Christ in His Father’s kingdom (see Matthew 26: 29).

  But until the New Covenant is established, the Old will remain in effect.  Which is why Israel must remain part of God’s plan for the duration of this age.  Because our very salvation is based on the ”faith of Abraham,” making us Jews according to the spirit, the perpetuity of the moral law is required.  Otherwise, from what are we to be “justified?”  For sin is transgression of the law (1 John 3: 4).  No one would claim that Abraham was justified under the ceremonial law, for that was not added until 430 years after God promised to give him the land (Gal. 3: 17).  What then?  Abraham must have been justified under the moral law; and he received circumcision as a seal that he had obtained the righteousness of God.

  Now, if the faith of Abraham is still necessary to entering the terms of New Covenant, then the moral law is still in force.  And if this be the case, then the Jews are still part of God’s plan, for the sabbath (fourth commandment) is a sign between God and Israel (Exodus 31: 17).  If someone protests that the sabbath has now been passed to the church, we reply that it has not.  For the church received the sign of the eighth day, and not the seventh.  But the sabbath is the seventh day.  This clinches our argument, and identifies the mechanics of Christian salvation as being part and parcel of the Old Covenant system.

   Which is why Paul emphatically declares, that saved Gentiles are as wild olive branches grafted into a natural tree (Romans 11: 17).  The wild branches do not replace the natural branches, but are “graffed in among them.”  Now there is a distinction made between natural branches and wild branches.  Even when Gentile grafting has taken place, the natural branches remain on their own tree.  And the broken-off branches have the promise of being grafted in again (Romans 11: 23-24). 

   Now it would totally violate Paul’s argument to say that the natural branches have no more hope.  For if that is correct, then the wild branches are also without hope.  For if it is no longer possible for the natural branches to be grafted into their own tree, then it is too late for the wild olive branches to be grafted into the same.  Obviously, the grafting in of the wild branches presupposes the continued existence of the natural stock.  Wherefore, to say that Israel as cast away by God in A.D. 70 is to overthrow the most basic principles of Gospel salvation. 

  No, we cannot agree with the error of “Replacement Theology.”  Nor can we agree that the “Mosaic Age” ended in A.D. 70.  God does not just cancel His promises because some prove unfaithful.  God could not have cast natural Israel away, because there has always been a remnant of believers among them (Romans 11: 1-5).  This remnant, like the 7,000 faithful during Elijah’s time, has kept Israel preserved in God’s plan throughout the centuries.  In fact, the existence of a remnant is proof that God has not cast away the nation!  For the sake of the elect, Israel still looks forward to a glorious time, when all the promises made to the fathers will be fulfilled.  And then we too, I trust, shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God.