The Relationship Between Israel and the Church in Redemptive History

According to Moore Theological College

Nathaniel Parker

Dr. Craig Blaising BIBTH-7724

April 28, 2021

 The Relationship Between Israel and the Church in Redemptive History

According to Moore Theological College

Introduction

The relationship between Israel and the church in redemptive history is a

discussion that has continued from the birth of the church to the present age. Does Israel

have a current or future role within redemptive history? Is there a distinction between Jew

and Gentile believers within the church of the present age and the gathering of the people

of God at the end of the age? Does the church replace Israel? What is the role of Christ in

the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies? Who are the people of God?

One group of scholars who has attempted to answer these questions over the years

are faculty members from Moore Theological College in Australia. Each have contributed

to seeking to unpack a biblical theology concerning how Israel fits within God’s

redemptive history. This paper will take a closer examination of some of the key players

in the discussion, beginning with the most influential scholar who kickstarted the

discussion: Donald Robinson. Brief discussions on the contribution of D. Broughton

Knox will follow. Scholars who continued Robinson’s legacy such as Graeme

Goldsworthy and William Dumbrell are covered, including how Dumbrell continued

Knox’s legacy. Concluding the discussion will be a brief examination of a current Moore

Theological College scholar who has continued the Robinson-Goldsworthy legacy, Lionel

Windsor.

The contributions of the various scholars, overall, have much in common with an

overall coherence in a Moore Theological College position on biblical theology. One of

the main areas of coherence is in the scholars’ Gospel-centered approach to biblical

theology. Windsor summarizes the Moore Theological College positon on biblical

theology as follows: “It sees the Bible as the living account of God’s purposes being

1
 2

worked out through the ages, in wonderfully diverse ways, yet united by a single goal: the

gospel of Jesus Christ.”1

In the areas of clear variance between the scholars, one is able to easily trace the

doctrinal development by surveying each scholar. Donald Robinson laid the foundation

and provided the most influence which was carried over throughout the doctrinal

development, although D. Broughton Knox laid his own influential foundation as well.

Graeme Goldsworthy brought Robinson’s influence to the masses, while at times charting

his own variance with Robinson in earlier writing, eventually taking a step back toward

the direction of Robinson more aligned with Robinson’s distinction theology in

Goldsworthy’s later writings. The seeds of Knox bear fruit in the position of William

Dumbrell who is at most variance with the other Moore Theological College faculty

members but most closely aligned with Knox. Lionel Windsor brings the discussion full

circle closely to Robinson in his contribution which resembles current Moore Theological

College scholarship. Each of these scholars will be unpacked further to gain a deeper

understanding of a Moore Theological College position or positions concerning the

relationship between Israel and the church within redemptive history.

Donald Robinson

Donald Robinson was one of Moore Theological College’s most influential faculty

members, laying the foundation for the methodology which Moore Theological College

scholars utilize to this day. He developed the bulk of his ecclesiology while at Moore. His

methodology was essentially a biblical theology (particularly a New Testament theology)

that was neither dispensational nor covenantal, but a via media between the two positions.

While he valued the role of biblical covenants, he did not make them central to his
———————————
1.Lionel Windsor, Reading Ephesians and Colossians After Supersessionism:
Christ’s Mission Through Israel to the Nations (Fair Lawn: Cascade, 2017), xi.
 3

understanding of a biblical theological grand narrative.2 Robinson makes a distinction

between the nation of Israel and Gentile believers with Gentile believers inheriting the

blessing of the nations promise of Genesis 12 when he writes:

God’s distinctive promises to Israel are in the New Testament fulfilled, not to all
believers, but to Jewish believers who constitute the restored remnant of Israel;
and that Gentile believers are the inheritors of other promises altogether, that is,
the promises made in the Old Testament to the nations who should come to
Israel’s light.3

Robinson was heavily influenced by J.Y. Campbell who did not equate the New

Testament church with Old Testament Israel.4 On his exegesis of Romans 9-11, Robinson

clearly identifies Israel as a nation that did not lose its national identity by stating: “He

[referring to Paul] nowhere suggests that Israel has lost or changed its original character.

He does not, in short, propose any new definition. Israel is the people or nation of Israel,

of whose identity no one had any doubt.”5 He applies this thought throughout the rest of

the New Testament by stating: “Thus, in the New Testament, Gentile believers are not, in

fact, represented as spiritual Israelites, or as forming part of the renewed Israel of

prophecy.”6 Kuhn elaborates on Robinson’s position by stating that “Robinson believed

that Israel is preserved as an identity (ethnic?) in the church as a demonstration of God’s

———————————

Chase R. Kuhn, The Ecclesiology of Donald Robinson and D. Broughton Knox:

2.

Exposition, Analysis, and Theological Evaluation (Eugene: Wipf and Stock,

2017), Chapter 5.

Peter G. Bolt and Mark D. Thompson, eds., Donald Robinson Selected Works:
3.

Volume 1 Assembling God’s People (Camperdown: Australian Church Record, 2008), 81.

Kuhn, The Ecclesiology of Donald Robinson and D. Broughton Knox:

4.

Exposition, Analysis, and Theological Evaluation, Chapter 5.

Bolt and Thompson, Donald Robinson Selected Works: Volume 1 Assembling

5.

God’s People, 49 Bracketed text added.

Bolt and Thompson, Donald Robinson Selected Works: Volume 1 Assembling

6.

God’s People, 85.

 4

wisdom in bringing together Jews and Gentiles,” further clarifying that “while the church

is the gathering of the people of God, there is good reason why it is not called ‘Israel.’”7

Robinson’s position concerning whether the term “people of God” was transferred

from Old Testament Israel to the New Testament church underwent doctrinal

development. Originally he believed it did, while later shifting his position stating that it

did not. Kuhn quotes Robinson’s early position as follows:

The continuity of the people of God in the New Testament with the people of God
in the Old Testament is obscured for English readers by the fact that different
words are employed to express what is essentially the same ideal: the people of
God. In the O.T. we have the ‘congregation,’ and in the N.T. we have ‘the church,’
but the concept is one and the same.8

Kuhn later quotes Robinson’s developed position as follows: “‘Church’ is not a synonym

for ‘people of God’; it is rather an activity of the ‘people of God.’ Images such as ‘aliens

and exiles’…apply to the people of God in the world, but do not describe the church, i.e.

the people assembled with Christ in the midst.”9 Robinson unpacks this position further in

his exegesis of Romans 9-11 in his classic work Faith’s Framework by stating that both

Jews and Gentiles remain distinct ethnic entities both before and after their salvation. He

states so as follows: “The term ‘people of God’ has not been applied to the NT church as

taking over the role. Most passages in Scripture concern believing Jews and a remnant.

The other nations brought into believing retain their ethnical differences.”10 Robinson does

not view a “new Israel” in the church. While he argues there is somewhat of a “purified
———————————

Kuhn, The Ecclesiology of Donald Robinson and D. Broughton Knox:

7.

Exposition, Analysis, and Theological Evaluation, Chapter 5.

Kuhn, The Ecclesiology of Donald Robinson and D. Broughton Knox:

8.

Exposition, Analysis, and Theological Evaluation, Chapter 5.

Kuhn, The Ecclesiology of Donald Robinson and D. Broughton Knox:

9.

Exposition, Analysis, and Theological Evaluation, Chapter 5.

Donald Robinson, Faith’s Framework: The Structure of New Testament

10.

Theology (Mountain Street Media, 2014), 81–88.

 5

Israel” from the believing remnant of Jews, the church cannot be considered a “new

Israel” or replacement of Israel. He elaborates on this as follows: “Unity in sin and

salvation does not mean, however, that Christian Jews and Gentiles form a new Israel.

They form on one hand a new or purified Israel-or an elect remnant-and a group of

converted Gentiles on the other, conscious of their relationship to and interaction with

each other,” continuing by writing “But this unity is plainly not something that can be

called ‘Israel.’ The Gentiles remain Gentiles, even under the Gospel, and Jerusalem

remains Jerusalem.”11

While the term “people of God” was not transferred from Israel to the New

Testament church, Robinson is comfortable with various “peoples of God” as an

Eschatological “peoples,” each with their own distinct ethnicity.12 This hints as what

Dumbrell later unpacks as an eschatological “worshipping community,” without the more

intense language of Israel being replaced with a “new Israel.” Additionally, Robinson, as

Graeme Goldsworthy to follow, is Christocentric in his interpretation of the fulfillment of

the Old Testament promises. He does label Christ as the “true Israel” who fulfills the Old

Testament covenants. He also views Israel as failing in its covenantal relationship with

God, as well as Christ being the One who ushers into effect the blessing to the nations of

Genesis 12. Kuhn summarizes Robinson’s position as follows:

In the scheme of salvation history, Israel failed in covenantal fellowship with God
and therefore in purpose of being a light to the nations. Robinson believed that it is
only through Christ—true Israel—that people can fulfill their calling as the people
of God, as it is Christ who has fulfilled the old covenant. Those who are joined to
Christ by faith are the people of God, a people inclusive of the nations,

going onto state:

The fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel also brought fulfillment of God’s

blessing to the nations (Gen 12:3). It is first and foremost through Christ, the true
Jew and true Israel, that salvation comes to the Gentiles. But it is also through
———————————
11. Robinson, Faith’s Framework: The Structure of New Testament Theology, 89.

Bolt and Thompson, Donald Robinson Selected Works: Volume 1 Assembling

12.

God’s People, 12–14.

 6

those initially redeemed from Israel that the church continued to spread to the
wider world. Finally, it is through the rejection of Israel that the gospel is
advancing amongst the Gentiles (Rom 11).

concluding with: “While Israel is not superseded in the church, there remains a place of

prominence for Israel in the salvific purposes of God. Robinson believed the church at

Jerusalem (consisting of Israelites) was the dispenser of grace to the nations.”13

D. Broughton Knox

Just as Donald Robinson was heavily influential to Moore Theological College,

David Broughton Knox played a major role in influencing the theological trajectory of

Moore Theological College. Both he and Robinson extensively taught on ecclesiology to

the point where his and Robinson’s positions are collectively considered the “Knox-

Robinson view” of the church.14 However, unlike Robinson, Knox did not extensively

write academic theological works. While he was a systematic theologian heavily

influenced by T.C. Hammond, justr as Robinson did, he employed a biblical theological

methodology which grounded his systematic conclusions.15

While Knox was well-known for his contributions to ecclesiology, the relationship

between Israel and the church (and its role in redemptive history) was not a major point

discussed in what little Knox contributed in academic writings. His most explicit

contribution to the topic is found in his Reformed Theological Review article entitled “The

Church and the People of God in the Old Testament.” He begins by surveying that the

nation of Israel played a role in redemptive history that that many early Christians in Acts
———————————

Kuhn, The Ecclesiology of Donald Robinson and D. Broughton Knox:

13.

Exposition, Analysis, and Theological Evaluation, Chapter 5.

Kuhn, The Ecclesiology of Donald Robinson and D. Broughton Knox:

14.

Exposition, Analysis, and Theological Evaluation, Introduction.

Kuhn, The Ecclesiology of Donald Robinson and D. Broughton Knox:

15.

Exposition, Analysis, and Theological Evaluation, Chapter 7.

 7

were “loyal Jews” or those who “kept the law” in James and the Pauline writings.16 Knox

also states that “The initiative of God in redeeming His people is the keynote of the Old

Testament.”17 He considers the Old Testament people of God (the nation of Israel) to be

the Old Testament “church,” then draws a connection between the Old Testament

“church” with the New Testament church. He leverages the “called out” sense of ekklesia

to refer to an Old Testament “church” by connecting it back to God’s calling of Abraham

in the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 12 when he writes: “We conclude then that Israel

was the people of God because God called them and that the ground of this call is to be

found solely in God’s character of love, justice, and mercy.”18 He reiterates this further by

stating: “The glory of God was the purpose of the calling of the Old Testament church. It

is the purpose of the church’s existence to-day.”19 Knox also considers the relationship of

covenant to be the central relationship by which God operates with His people, tracing

various covenants throughout the Old Testament to the New Covenant in which the

church is the recipient of.

Knox quickly moves into the New Testament church as both the continuance of

and the replacement of the Old Testament nation of Israel when he writes: “The early

Christians were certain that the Jewish nation by rejecting and crucifying its Messiah, had

ceased to be God’s instrument.”20 He uses the language of “remnant” in Romans 9-11 to

refer to the “true” Old Testament “church” consisting of saved Israelites and transfers this

“remnant” concept to the New Testament church, even to truly saved (regenerate) church
———————————

David Broughton Knox, “The Church and the People of God in the Old
16.

Testament,” The Reformed Theological Review 10 (1951): 12.

17. Knox, “The Church and the People of God in the Old Testament,” 13.
18. Knox, “The Church and the People of God in the Old Testament,” 14.
19. Knox, “The Church and the People of God in the Old Testament,” 15.
20. Knox, “The Church and the People of God in the Old Testament,” 12.
 8

members in contrast to unregenerate church members. He summarizes this position as

follows:“In a truer sense, the people of God, once identified with the Hebrews, was now

no longer confined by this natural restriction. The wild olive branch had been grafted in

on to the old root.”21 In terms of salvation itself, Knox draws a continuity between Old

Testament and New Testament salvation, seeing both as acts of God’s grace, not a

salvation by law or works versus salvation by grace distinction.

Knox further uses the terms “saved community” and “saving community” to

describe the church, which seem to parallel the “redeemed, worshipping community”

terminology used later by William Dumbrell.22 However, Knox does not limit the New

Testament church to a “worshipping community” and expands his languages to a more

broader “saved, saving community.” Knox is laying the foundation for further Moore

Theological College scholars such as Dumbrell when he uses terminology that affirms the

New Testament church is the replacement of national Israel. His clearest example of such

language is when he states: “There is no doubt that Israel was God’s chosen instrument.

But for two thousand years they have been laid aside, rejected. They were His people, His

church. This is no longer true.”23

Graeme Goldsworthy

Graeme Goldsworthy brought Robinson’s biblical theology to the masses

(particularly preachers). He considers his biblical theological methodology a modification

of what is commonly referred to as the “Robinson-Hebert” approach, also known to be a

general Moore Theological College approach to biblical theology (although Goldsworthy

———————————
21. Knox, “The Church and the People of God in the Old Testament,” 13.
22. Knox, “The Church and the People of God in the Old Testament,” 17.
23. Knox, “The Church and the People of God in the Old Testament,” 18.
 9

seems to take issue with labeling it as such).24 Goldsworthy, as does Robinson, utilizes a

canonical biblical theology in his approach or (type to borrow Klink and Lockett’s term)

to biblical theology.25 Goldsworthy heavily expands Robinson’s Christocentric view of

Scripture to make Christ and the Gospel of Christ the center (or mitte to draw on

Eichrodt’s terminology) of his biblical theology and hermeneutics.26 Goldsworthy

summarized his biblical theology as follows: “Biblical Theology is Christological, for its

subject matter is the whole Bible as God’s testimony to Christ. It is therefore, from start to

finish, a study of Christ.”27 At times Goldsworthy is overly Christocentric in his

understanding of Scripture (for example, his linking the Promised Land events to Jesus

telling the thief on the cross he would be with Him in paradise).28 Goldsworthy

summarizes his Gospel-centered approach to Scripture as follows: “What went before

Christ in the Old Testament. as well as what comes after him, finds its meaning in him. So

the Old Testament must be understood in its relationship to the gospel event.”29 He

grounds his hermeneutic in a Gospel-centered approach when he writes: “By referring to

the gospel as the hermeneutical key I mean that proper interpretation of any part of the
———————————

Graeme Goldsworthy, Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical

24.

Foundations and Principles (Downers Grove: IVP, 2012), 190.

Goldsworthy, Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations

25.

and Principles, 45.

Graeme Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture (Grand

26.

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 86.

Goldsworthy, Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations

27.

and Principles, 40.

28.Graeme Goldsworthy, According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in
the Bible (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1991), 156.
29.Goldsworthy, According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the
Bible, 50.
 10

Bible requires us to relate it to the person and work of Jesus.”30

According to Goldsworthy, Jesus is the fulfiller of the Old Testament. He

summarizes this position as follows: “The New Testament constantly refers, either

explicitly or implicitly, to Christ as the fulfiller of the promises, prophecies and

expectations of the Old Testament.”31 This allows Goldsworthy to reduce Israel’s role in

an eschatological sense in redemptive history without utilizing stronger replacement

language such as displayed by Knox and Dumbrell. Goldsworthy views Israel’s promises

as fulfilled in the life of Christ. Joel Wright rightly (no pun intended) summarizes

Goldsworthy’s Christological fulfillment in his paper as follows:

We believe that the conclusion will reveal that in Goldsworthy’s theology, Israel
will not be replaced by the Church, nor will she be fulfilled in the Church, but will
find her fulfillment in time and space in the person of Jesus Christ at His first
coming, and thus no longer hold a place of theological importance as an ethnic,
national, territorial people.32

Goldsworthy utilizes and expands Robinson’s use of the term “New Israel” as applied to

Christ. He expands the “New Israel” language further to also consider Jesus Himself as

the “kingdom of God,” more precisely as the representative of the kingdom of God. He

summarizes this position by stating: “Jesus is the kingdom of God that has already come

in a representative though potent way.”33

Goldsworthy unfolds his understanding of the kingdom of God through a series of

———————————
30. Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, 88.

Graeme Goldsworthy, Jesus Through the Old Testament (Abington, Oxford: The
31.

Bible Reading Fellowship, 2017), 51.

Joel R. Wright, “The Place of National Israel in the Biblical Theology of Grame
32.

Goldsworthy” (2019), 2 Joel Wright’s paper provides an excellent in-depth study of

Graeme Goldsworthy for those who wish to embark on further study.

Graeme Goldsworthy, “The Kingdom of God as Hermeneutic Grid,” Southern

33.

Baptist Journal of Theology 12, no. 1 (2008): 14.

 11

three “epochs.”34 Each of these epochs is based on Robinson’s typology when applied to

the grand narrative of biblical theology.35 Goldsworthy unpacks the three epochs as

follows: “The proposal is that the kingdom of God is revealed in three stages: in Israel’s

history from Abraham to Solomon’s building of the temple, in prophetic eschatology, and

in its fulfilment in Christ.”36 The first coming of Christ is the fulfillment of the kingdom

of God in Goldsworthy’s typology.37 Israel’s redemptive history is the type, whereas Christ

as the fulfiller of Israel’s redemptive history is the antitype.38

Goldsworthy utilizes Robinson’s definition of the “people of God” that begins

with a remnant of Israel that is restored in Christ.39 He also extends the language of the

“people of God” directly to Christ as the representative of the true “people of God” and

even refers to Christ as the true “people of God” in this representative sense.40 Wright

summarizes Goldsworthy’s use of the term “people of God” well when he writes:

“Goldsworthy’s theology allows a small place for the nation of Israel after the incarnation

of Christ, and that small place does not include Israel as a national entity; it includes her
———————————

Goldsworthy, Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations

34.

and Principles, 111.

Goldsworthy, Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations

35.

and Principles, 170.

36. Goldsworthy, “The Kingdom of God as Hermeneutic Grid,” 11.

Wright, “The Place of National Israel in the Biblical Theology of Grame

37.

Goldsworthy,” 6.
38. Goldsworthy, Jesus Through the Old Testament, 44–46.

Goldsworthy, According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the

39.

Bible, 67–68.

Goldsworthy, According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the

40.

Bible, 204.
 12

being a reconstituted ‘people’ in Christ, not in history.”41

In addition to his language concerning the “people of God,” Goldsworthy is able to

apply his Christocentric understanding of redemptive history through the concept of

“sonship.” He considers Adam to be the first “son of God,” then views multiple

representatives of the nation of Israel as various “sons of God,” in which Christ is the

ultimate “Son of God” and fulfiller of God’s sonship role within redemptive history.42

Goldsworthy summarizes this position as follows: “The son of God, therefore, is first of

all Adam, then the nation of Israel, and then this nation’s royal representative who is the

son of David.”43

Goldsworthy’s Christocentric biblical theology and Gospel-centered hermeneutic,

along with his considering Christ to be the “New Israel” and the “people of God” and his

utilizing typology to allow Israel to be a previous “Son of God,” allows Israel to drop out

of redemptive history. Wright summarizes Goldsworthy’s position well when he stated:

“It is our contention that Goldsworthy argues that Israel, as a national entity, disappears

from their place of biblical prominence, thus becoming a non-essential in the redemptive

program of God,” continuining on as follows: “Goldsworthy does not recognize the New

Testament church as a new Israel. He does not recognize a rejection of the nation in the

course of salvation history. Yet his theology allows for a quasi-disappearance of the nation

from the purposes of God from the incarnation to the consummation.”44 Goldsworthy has

modified and shifted his biblical theological position a step closer to Robinson which has
———————————

Wright, “The Place of National Israel in the Biblical Theology of Grame

41.

Goldsworthy,” 16.

Graeme Goldsworthy, The Son of God and the New Creation (Wheaton:
42.

Crossway, 2011), 60–70.

43. Goldsworthy, The Son of God and the New Creation, 84.

Wright, “The Place of National Israel in the Biblical Theology of Grame

44.

Goldsworthy,” 2; 15.
 13

allowed him to eliminate some of the uncomfortable portions of his previous theological

position that could be viewed as an implied supercessionism. Goldsworthy has in later

writings adopted Robinson’s distinction theology between Jew and Gentile believers, and

he also more explicitly appreciates Robinson’s contribution of such distinction theology.45

Robinson’s distinction theology is further developed in the recent Moore Theological

College scholarship found in Windsor.

William Dumbrell

William Dumbrell takes up the mantle of Robinson and Knox and continues to

make major contributions to the scholarly community in his writings on ecclesiology. He

goes further than Robinson and Goldsworthy and fleshes out his prior influence from

Knox to construct a building of a biblical theology concerning the relationship between

Israel and the church where Knox previously laid the foundation. Dumbrell extends

Knox’s replacement language to consider Israel as merely a type in which is ultimately

fulfilled in an eschatological “redeemed” or “worshipping community.” This community

consists of Gentiles, plus a believing remnant of Jews, borrowing from Robinson’s

terminology.46 However, unlike Robinson (and Goldsworthy in his later theological

contributions), Dumbrell does not clearly distinguish between the nation of Israel as

Abraham’s physical offspring and the Gentile nations in his “redeemed, worshipping

community.” He states that the “redeemed” or “worshipping community” is comprised of

Gentiles and a “believing remnant” of Jews who “share in the rights which were once

exclusively those of national Israel.”47 He simply groups them all together into a new
———————————

Windsor, Reading Ephesians and Colossians After Supersessionism: Christ’s

45.

Mission Through Israel to the Nations, 23–24.

For further study, please see the author of this paper’s previous paper, “An
46.

Analysis of William Dumbrell and the ‘Great Nation’ of the Abrahamic Covenant.”
47. William J. Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old
 14

“people of God” when he writes that the center of Abraham in the eschaton “will gather

the great nation that will be the company of the redeemed, the new people of God. Israel

in some sense foreshadows this new people and will continue as the holder of the creation

charge given to Adam until it is finally and fully expressed by the redeemed.”48 He also

transfers the promises from Israel to the “new people (of God)” when he writes: “The

transference of the promises from Israel to the new people are now fully made.”49

Dumbrell reads New Testament concepts back into the Old Testament to reinterpret

concepts (such as the nation of Israel as an eschatological “redeemed, worshipping

community”) when he writes that there “must therefore be a worshipping community

called into being by a great reception, whose ideal role will be to reflect through worship

the nature of God, the Redeemer.”50

Dumbrell, as does Knox before him, focuses strongly on the concept of covenant

at the center of his biblical theology (in contrast to Robinson and Goldsworthy who take a

Christ-centered approach to biblical theology). While he considers the “covenant with

creation” to be the foundational covenant, he actually places the “covenant with creation”

at the Noahaic Covenant in Genesis 6:18, not Genesis 1-2 (he vows that Genesis 1-2 is a

mere foreshadowing of a true “covenant with creation” in Genesis 6:18). All other

covenants are to be considered “movements forward from this creation base of Genesis

6:18.”51
———————————

Testament, Moore College Lectures (New York: Lancer Books, 1985), 158.

William J. Dumbrell, The Search for Order: Biblical Eschatology in Focus.

48.

(Ada, MI: Baker Books, 1994), 24.

Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old
49.

Testament, 159.

Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old
50.

Testament, 122.
51. William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: An Old Testament Covenant
 15

Whereas Robinson’s typology developed into Goldsworthy’s “epochs,” and

Goldsworthy extended his typology as Israel’s redemptive history to be ultimately fulfilled

in Christ, Dumbrell makes the nation Israel itself the type, with the fulfillment antitype in

the future eschatological “redeemed, worshipping community.” He unpacks this position

as follows: “Certainly, the call of Israel and her constitution may be immediately in mind,

but only as a pledge of what is still to come beyond that call; namely, the final political

reality—the kingdom of God,”continuing his argument by stating: “Israel as a nation may

later exhibit features of this since her constitution is God-given, but the true political

structure aimed at in Gen 12:1-3 will not come into being until the whole company of the

redeemed are gathered together in a New Heaven and a New Earth.”52 He concludes his

position as follows: “Genesis 12:2 may initially have had Israel in view, but Israel as

representative of the wider saved community to stem from her witness.”53

Dumbrell believes that Israel continually failed in its redemptive history when he

states that Israel’s redemptive history was “a series of disappointing pilgrimages towards

goals never achieved.”54 He continues to flesh out this theology by stating: “The OT

presentation is idealistic; a model is presented in the book of Exodus to which historical

Israel never conformed. This inevitably translated the ideal into an eschatological hope

carried by believing communities.”55 While Israel potentially had the ability to expand its

“worshipping community” role (Dumbrell summarizes such as follows: “In summary, the
———————————

Theology (West Ryde, Australia: Paternoster, Authentic Publishers, 2013), 4–5.

Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old
52.

Testament, 131.

William J. Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old

53.

Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 28.

54. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 73.

Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old
55.

Testament, 150.
 16

OT presented Israel’s role as a worshipping community under divine rule reporting to

Israel’s kingship. This was Israel’s defined role. If adhered to, Israel would have had its

effect on the wider world.”),56 Dumbrell still considered such an occurrence unlikely and

views Israel as merely an “ideal” that could never be fulfilled eschatologicallly as an

ultimate reality.57 Israel’s ultimate failure was its rejection of Christ, in which he places

Christ’s “separation from national Israel” at Matthew 13.58 Christ then “creates a New

Community…In Christ the new community fulfills the Exod 19:3b-6 role of Israel.”59

Through the death of Christ, the new “redeemed, worshipping community” that comprises

the typological fulfillment is created when Dumbrell states: “Both Rev 1:6 and 5:9-10

assume that a new worshipping community (i.e., and ‘Israel’) has arisen through the death

of Christ.”60 Dumbrell argues his typological position further when he writes: “Perhaps the

‘great nation’ of this passage is to be taken eschatologically, to mean the company of the

redeemed who will fulfill the call to Abram (cf. Rev. 5:11). We may therefore look to the

New Testament to fulfill the concept of Israel, which failed to be realized in the OT.”,61

concluding with: “True, the call of Israel is the initial fulfillment of divine redemptive

purposes, but Israel was ever meant to be only a living example of what the Kingdom of
———————————

Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old
56.

Testament, 150.

Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old
57.

Testament, 191.

Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old
58.

Testament, 152.

Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old
59.

Testament, 210.

Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old
60.

Testament, 519.
61. Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament, 28.
 17

God in political reality could mean. In her own way, Israel as a nation…was to be a

symbol of the final society which we meet in Rev 21-22.”62

Dumbrell does not believe that Israel as a nation “will enter the blessing of ‘rest’

attached to these promises” (referring to the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant in

Genesis 12:1-3).63 He believes a “redeemed, worshipping community” will be the true

eschatological fulfillment when he writes: “A new community united by common worship

has arisen in whom is realized the consummation of every eschatological hope to which

humanity has been related throughout the Bible.”64 His strongest language concerning the

relationship between Israel and the eschatological “redeemed, worshipping community”

that best summarizes Dumbrell’s is as follows:

For though Israel is certainly the nation which the Abrahamic promises have
immediately in view, Israel as a nation, as a symbol of divine rule manifested
within a political framework, was intended itself to be an image of the shape of
final world government, a symbol pointing beyond itself to the reality yet to be…a
final world system will emerge; a ‘great nation’ will come into being of which the
nation of Israel was but a mere anticipation.65

Lionel Windsor

Lionel Windsor is a current representation of a Moore Theological College scholar

heavily influenced by Donald Robinson and Graeme Goldsworthy. In fact, he is most-

aligned in his biblical theological understanding of the relationship of Israel and the

church within redemptive history and the Jew/Gentile distinction of Robinson, as well as

of Goldsworthy’s later doctrinal developments.66 He states the Robinson-Goldsworthy

———————————
62. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 75–76.

Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old
63.

Testament, 128.

Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old
64.

Testament, 160.
65. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 75–76.
66. Windsor, Reading Ephesians and Colossians After Supersessionism: Christ’s
 18

position of biblical theology as follows: “The Robinson-Goldsworthy vision for biblical

theology is both strongly Christological and structurally Israel-shaped.”67

Windsor is writing from what he terms an “evangelical post-supercessionist”

position.68 He adheres to some of dispensationalism’s position on the distinction between

Israel and the church without fully aligning himself as a dispensationalist (taking the same

position as Robinson). He rejects the dividing of “dispensations” and the separation

between the church and Israel in the current age.69 He borrows from Goldsworthy in a

Christocentric view of the fulfillment of God’s promises while also clearly affirming that

Christ did not replace Israel. Christ is not Israel’s replacement but Israel’s fulfillment of

God’s promises to Israel in which Windsor also emphasizes the fulfillment of these

promises are brought about through the nation of Israel.70

Windsor also makes heavy use of the term “vocation” to apply to Israel, especially

within Pauline biblical texts, when he states: “Paul was convinced that Israel had received

a special divine revelation which conferred on Jews a distinct divine vocation. Paul, in

other words, was committed to the view that God’s global purposes in Christ included a

special place-and correspondingly a special role-for the Jewish people.”71 He defines

———————————

Mission Through Israel to the Nations, 21.

Windsor, Reading Ephesians and Colossians After Supersessionism: Christ’s

67.

Mission Through Israel to the Nations, 24.

Windsor, Reading Ephesians and Colossians After Supersessionism: Christ’s

68.

Mission Through Israel to the Nations, 3.

Windsor, Reading Ephesians and Colossians After Supersessionism: Christ’s

69.

Mission Through Israel to the Nations, 9.

Windsor, Reading Ephesians and Colossians After Supersessionism: Christ’s

70.

Mission Through Israel to the Nations, 88–89.

Lionel Windsor, Paul and the Vocation of Israel: How Paul’s Jewish Ddentity
71.

Informs His Apostolic Ministry, with Special Reference to Romans (Berlin: De Gruyter,
2014), 1.
 19

“vocation” as follows: “The term ‘vocation’ here refers to the notion that the distinct

existence and concrete practice of Jewish people stems from a special divine intention and

implies a special role for Jews within God’s wider purposes.”72 Windsor continues to

unpack his discussion on vocation as follows: “We are contending that Paul did not

conceive of a distinct value of Jewishness principally in terms of salvation, but rather in

terms of a special vocation arising from their possession of a unique divine revelation (the

Law, or the Scriptures more generally).73 He considers Paul’s “apostolic vocation” to be

that which fulfilled Israel’s divine vocation.”74

Windsor considers Israel to be a distinctive ethnic group in his exegesis of

Romans 9-11.75 He also considers Gentiles to now be blessed alongside Israel as the

fulfillment of the Genesis 12:1-3 Abrahamic Covenant.76 In Ephesians 2:1-10, he

considers the “you” and “we” passages to refer to a distinction between Jew and Gentile

while placing an emphasis on the salvation of God.77 Windsor makes this distinction as

follows: “On the one hand, Jews stand in an equal position with the non-Jews with respect

to sin, judgment, and salvation through the gospel. On the other hand, Jews have a certain

privilege and pre-eminence with respect to the gospel.”78

———————————

Windsor, Paul and the Vocation of Israel: How Paul’s Jewish Ddentity Informs
72.

His Apostolic Ministry, with Special Reference to Romans, 248.

Windsor, Paul and the Vocation of Israel: How Paul’s Jewish Ddentity Informs
73.

His Apostolic Ministry, with Special Reference to Romans, 14.

Windsor, Paul and the Vocation of Israel: How Paul’s Jewish Ddentity Informs
74.

His Apostolic Ministry, with Special Reference to Romans, 19.

Windsor, Paul and the Vocation of Israel: How Paul’s Jewish Ddentity Informs
75.

His Apostolic Ministry, with Special Reference to Romans, 51.

Windsor, Reading Ephesians and Colossians After Supersessionism: Christ’s

76.

Mission Through Israel to the Nations, 157.

Windsor, Reading Ephesians and Colossians After Supersessionism: Christ’s

77.

Mission Through Israel to the Nations, 157.

 20

Windsor also makes a few observations of Robinson’s position concerning the

Jew/Gentile distinction. He states that Robinson considers a renewed Israel as the

“apostolic community of disciples.”79 Additionally, the reason for Paul’s apostolic mission

is Christ’s work in sharing Israel’s blessings with the nations.80 Finally, Galatians 6:16

refers to actual Jews who believe in Christ as the “Israel of God.”81

Conclusion

The question as to the relationship between Israel and the church with regard to

redemptive history is one that has attracted discussion and debate since the birth of the

church and will continue to attract discussion and debate from scholars from now until the

eschaton. Scholars from Moore Theological College in Australia have attempted to

answer this question over the years, with degrees of coherence and variance.

A range of Moore Theological College faculty over the years have made

significant contributions to answering the question concerning the relationship of Israel to

the church within redemptive history. This paper surveyed some of the major biblical

theological positions taken by a handful of key players at Moore Theological College over

the years. Donald Robinson laid the foundation for a distinction theology that is a via

media between dispensationalism and covenantalism, answering key questions concerning

who comprises “Israel” in the New Testament and who comprises the “people of God”

throughout redemptive history. Graeme Goldsworthy brought Robinson’s biblical

———————————

Windsor, Paul and the Vocation of Israel: How Paul’s Jewish Ddentity Informs
78.

His Apostolic Ministry, with Special Reference to Romans, 18.

Windsor, Reading Ephesians and Colossians After Supersessionism: Christ’s

79.

Mission Through Israel to the Nations, 103.

Windsor, Reading Ephesians and Colossians After Supersessionism: Christ’s

80.

Mission Through Israel to the Nations, 153.

Windsor, Paul and the Vocation of Israel: How Paul’s Jewish Ddentity Informs
81.

His Apostolic Ministry, with Special Reference to Romans, 56.

 21

theology to the masses while emphasizing a Christocentric biblical theology and a Gospel-

centered biblical hermeneutic. He originally allowed Israel to drop out of redemptive

history in his earlier writings, while bringing his doctrinal development closer to

Robinson’s distinction theology in later writings. D. Broughton Knox laid the foundation

for the church replacing Israel in redemptive history, in which William Dumbrell

constructed a biblical theology that considers “Israel” to be a type ultimately fulfilled in an

eschatological “redeemed, worshipping community.” One can trace the doctrinal

development from Robinson and Knox to Goldsworthy and Dumbrell. Lionel Windsor

brings the current Moore Theological College biblical theological position full circle to a

post-supercessionist position most closely aligned with Robinson.

Further extensive studies on each of these key players provide additional avenues

and trails for study.82 Additional Moore Theological College faculty that has not been

covered in this paper that also provide additional study opportunities include: Peter

O’brien, Brian Rosner, and Barry Webb. This survey scratches the surface of what can

lead to a wealth of further in-depth examinations and studies. Until the eschaton arrives,

studies on the relationship of Israel to the church within redemptive history will continue

to be discussed so as to determine how Israel and the church fit within the puzzle of God’s

grand narrative within biblical theology.

———————————
82.The author of this paper’s previously-cited paper on Dumbrell, as well as Joel
Wright’s previosly-cited paper on Goldsworthy, make for two additional in-depth studies
to follow.
 WORKS CITED

Bolt, Peter G., and Mark D. Thompson, eds. Donald Robinson Selected Works: Volume 1
Assembling God’s People. Camperdown: Australian Church Record, 2008.

Dumbrell, William J. Covenant and Creation: An Old Testament Covenant Theology.

West Ryde, Australia: Paternoster, Authentic Publishers, 2013.

———. The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old Testament. Moore
College Lectures. New York: Lancer Books, 1985.

———. The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2002.

———. The Search for Order: Biblical Eschatology in Focus. Ada, MI: Baker Books,
1994.

Goldsworthy, Graeme. According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible.
Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1991.

———. Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations and Principles.

Downers Grove: IVP, 2012.

———. Jesus Through the Old Testament. Abington, Oxford: The Bible Reading
Fellowship, 2017.

———. “The Kingdom of God as Hermeneutic Grid.” Southern Baptist Journal of

Theology 12, no. 1 (2008).

———. Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2000.

———. The Son of God and the New Creation. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.

Knox, David Broughton. “The Church and the People of God in the Old Testament.” The
Reformed Theological Review 10 (1951).

Kuhn, Chase R. The Ecclesiology of Donald Robinson and D. Broughton Knox:

Exposition, Analysis, and Theological Evaluation. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2017.

Robinson, Donald. Faith’s Framework: The Structure of New Testament Theology.

Mountain Street Media, 2014.

Windsor, Lionel. Paul and the Vocation of Israel: How Paul’s Jewish Ddentity Informs
His Apostolic Ministry, with Special Reference to Romans. Berlin: De Gruyter,
2014.

22
 23

———. Reading Ephesians and Colossians After Supersessionism: Christ’s Mission

Through Israel to the Nations. Fair Lawn: Cascade, 2017.

Wright, Joel R. “The Place of National Israel in the Biblical Theology of Grame
Goldsworthy,” 2019.