(Minor Editing By Rabbi Loren)

These are challenging and confusing times. With all the numerous and varied “winds of doctrine” that are blowing around us these days, many Christians find it difficult to discern the difference between truth and error. Here at CJF Ministries, one error we frequently encounter is Replacement Theology. Actually, it’s nothing new: in fact, it’s been around for centuries. Some of its roots are traceable to the writings of some of the Early Church fathers. And even today, oddly enough, this pernicious error is taught as a fact in many Bible colleges and seminaries worldwide. So let me ask you – how much do you know about Replacement Theology? If you were called upon to refute it, could you?

Definition

Replacement Theology – reduced to its simplest form – teaches that the Church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. The term “Replacement Theology” is relatively new and unfamiliar to many people (in some cases, even those who believe in it). Among theologians, the older and more widely used term is “supersessionism.” The Church “supersedes” Israel. Its proponents teach that God has set aside Israel and made the Church “new Israel,” the new and improved people of God. There are many variations within the broad spectrum of Replacement Theology, but two of the main approaches are these:

1. Israel’s role as the people of God was completed (economic supersessionism). This is the kinder and gentler way of stating the basic thesis of Replacement Theology. It says that once the Messiah came 2,000 years ago, Israel’s mission was completed. A transition occurred at that point, and the Church took over as the people of God and became the focal point for the outworking of God’s plan and purpose in redemption. God is no longer working administratively through ethnic Israel.

2. Israel’s place as the people of God was forfeited (punitive supersessionism). Other Replacement theologians are more straightforward and actually say that the supposed replacement of Israel was a divine judgment on the nation for its rejection of the Messiah in the first century. This is what some writers have called “punitive secessionism.”

Perhaps Martin Luther articulated this position most eloquently when he wrote: “For such ruthless wrath of God is sufficient evidence that they

[i.e., the Jewish people] assuredly have erred and gone astray. Even a child can comprehend this. For one dare not regard God as so cruel that he would punish his own people so long, so terrible, so unmercifully … Therefore this work of wrath is proof that the Jews, surely rejected by God, are no longer his people, and neither is he any longer their God” (“On the Jews and Their Lies,” Trans. Martin H. Bertram, in Luther’s Works [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971], p. 265).

Common threads that weave their way through the numerous variations of supersessionism are (1) that God is finished with Israel as a nation, and (2) that the promises He made to Israel in the Old Testament have been inherited by the Church. (However, most Replacement theologians are reluctant to say that the Church – which is largely in apostasy today – has also inherited the curses and judgments that God pronounced on Israel for her apostasy.)

One defender of Replacement Theology writes: “The Jewish nation no longer has a place as the special people of God; that place has been taken by the Christian community which fulfills God’s purpose for Israel” (Bruce Waltke, “Kingdom Promises as Spiritual,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Testaments, Ed. John S. Feinberg [Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 1987] p. 275). This is how one evangelical theologian summarized the essence of supersessionism in a paper he presented at the Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting a few years ago: “The issue is whether national Israel as an administrative structure is still in the plan of God” (“A Future for Israel in Covenant Theology: The Untold Story” by R. Todd Mangum, Instructor in Historical and Systematic Theology at Biblical Theological Seminary in Hatfield, Pennsylvania [November 16, 2000], p. 20.

Theological Basis

Replacement Theology is closely associated with Reformed (or Covenant) Theology, the brand of theology historically linked to John Calvin (1509-1564) and the Protestant Reformation. Reformed/Covenant Theology, in turn, is closely associated with amillennialism, an eschatological view with a spiritualized (rather than literal-historical) interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures. The natural affinity these views (that is, Replacement Theology and amillennialism) seem to have for each other is understandable because Replacement Theology relies so heavily on a non-literal and allegorical interpretation of the biblical promises to Israel.

Although many of the early Reformers and Puritans – including even Calvin himself – wrote about the nation of Israel one day being restored by the grace of God and experiencing a national regeneration, that is an increasingly marginalized, minority view in Reformed Christianity today (which is ironic, since we have seen the amazing rebirth of the nation of Israel, just as the Word of God predicted!). And even among those who allow for an end-time work of the Spirit of God among the Jewish people, there is still a reluctance to acknowledge that God is not finished with His people Israel as a nation, or to acknowledge the prospect of a future Kingdom on the Earth.

This view stands in contrast to the teachings of Dispensational Premillennialism, which affirms the continuing role that Israel plays (in tandem with the Church) in the outworking of God’s plan of redemption.

Historical Roots

Elements of Replacement Theology can be traced as far back as Marcion (A.D. 160), who carried on a theological crusade to purge the Church of what he perceived to be dangerous Jewish errors and influences. Later, many of these same anti-Judaic sentiments found their way into the thinking (and writings) of the Early Church fathers. Irenaeus (c. 180), for instance, wrote, “The Jews have rejected the Son of God and cast Him out of the vineyard when they slew Him. Therefore, God has justly rejected them and has given to the Gentiles outside the vineyard the fruits of its cultivation” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, [1885-1887], Volume 1, p. 493).

Over time, statements like these became the basis for full-blown anti-Semitism in some sectors of Christianity. Anything Jewish was renounced as an attempt to subvert and “Judaize” the Church. Teachings like chiliasm (millenarianism), for instance, were denounced as “Jewish fables.” The Early Church, which was clearly and undeniably Jewish, was described as “primitive,” unenlightened, and beset by erroneous notions that were carry-overs from ancient Judaism.

By the seventh century, Jewish people who came to faith in the Messiah were required to denounce their Jewish ancestry and heritage before they could be baptized. Professor Paul Halsall of Fordham University cites the following Visigoth profession from c. A.D. 680-687: “I do here and now renounce every rite and observance of the Jewish religion, detesting all its most solemn ceremonies and tenets that in former days I kept and held. In future I will practice no rite or celebration connected with it, nor any custom of my past error, promising neither to seek it out or perform it. In the name of this Creed, which I truly believe and hold with all my heart, I promise that I will never return to the vomit of Jewish superstition. Never again will I fulfill any of the offices of Jewish ceremonies to which I was addicted, nor ever more hold them dear. I altogether deny and reject the errors of the Jewish religion, casting forth whatever conflicts with the Christian Faith, and affirming that my belief in the Holy Trinity is strong enough to make me live the truly Christian life, shun all intercourse with other Jews and have the circle of my friends only among honest Christians. With them or apart from them I must always eat Christian food, and as a genuinely devout Christian go often and reverently to Church. I promise also to maintain and embrace with due love and reverence the observance of all the Lord’s days or feasts for martyrs as declared by the piety of the Church, and upon those days to consort always with sincere Christians, as it behooves a pious and sincere Christian to do. Herewith is my profession of faith and belief as given by me on this date …” (“Professions of Faith Extracted from Jews on Baptism,’ from the Internet Medieval Sourcebook compiled by Professor Paul Halsall of Fordham University [www.fordham.edu/halsall/sources/jewish-oaths.html]).

The incredible irony here is that only a few centuries earlier, the Church had been almost exclusively Jewish! The Messiah was Jewish; the writers of the Bible were Jewish; the apostles were Jewish; the earliest Christians were Jewish; the first congregation was Jewish (located in Jerusalem); and the first missionaries were Jewish!

In fact, a council of Church leaders – including Paul, Barnabas, Peter and James – was convened at Jerusalem (Acts 15) so the leaders of the new and growing Messianic Movement (known first as “the sect of the Nazarenes,” Acts 24:5) could decide upon what conditions non-Jews would be admitted into the fellowship of the saints! But here, within just a few generations, the shoe was already on the other foot! Non-Jews were in control of the Church now. Jewish doctrines (the earthly Kingdom in particular) were considered erroneous and even seditious. And non-Jewish Church leaders were laying down the terms for Jewish believers in Jesus who wished to be baptized.

Exegetical Problems with Supersessionism

Did the sins of the Jewish nation result in her rejection? Paul’s answer is found in Romans 11: I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away his people whom He foreknew (vv. 1-2, NKJV). I say then, have they [Israel] stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! (vv. 11-12, NKJV). For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? (v. 15, NKJV).

If the Jewish nation has no future in God’s plan, as the supersessionists claim, then what is the future “fullness” of Israel that Paul mentions in verse 12? And when, exactly, will the nation be resurrected (“life from the dead”) and “accepted” by God (verse 15)? Paul can’t be talking about the Church in this passage because the Church has never died – and never will (John 11:26). The only reasonable answer is that Paul is referring to a yet-future resurrection and restoration of Am Israel (the “people of Israel,” a collective term for the nation), as prophesied in passages like Ezekiel 37:1-14. It doesn’t mean they will automatically be saved simply because they are Jewish; rather, it means that the majority of Jewish people who are living at that time will recognize Yeshua of Nazareth as their Messiah and receive Him as Savior (Zechariah 12:10, Romans 11:26).

They will be saved in the same way believers from all ages and generations have been saved; that is, they will be saved by grace, through faith (Eph. 2:8-10). The problem with saying that God rejected His people Israel is that the term “rejection” implies permanence and finality. Paul’s forceful statements in Romans 11 probably indicate that people were claiming, even in his day, that God had “cast away” His people Israel (v. 1). They were saying that Israel had “stumbled’ and “fallen” from her former position (vv. 11-12). Paul rejected any such notion (“Certainly not!” in verses 1 and 11). Then he goes on to say that even if we insist on saying that they were rejected, then we are forced to the conclusion that the rejection is only temporary. Even if we insist on saying that they did stumble and fall, then it must also be said that their fall brought salvation to the rest of the world (Gentiles) – and Israel’s fall, too, is only temporary because they are destined to be restored one day to a position of “fullness” (v. 12).

The “fullness of the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:25) refers to the time when the full number of non-Jewish believers has been added to the ranks of the Church and the last person has been saved. Likewise, the “fullness” of the Jewish people (v. 12) refers to the time when “all Israel shall be saved” (v. 26). As we saw earlier, that means the Jewish people en masse will recognize and receive their Messiah, Yeshua of Nazareth. There may be some dissenters – and their probably will be – but the Holy Spirit of God will do a powerful work among the Jewish people, and multitudes of them – the vast majority of them – will come to faith in the Messiah of Israel, Jesus of Nazareth.

The truth is that God is no more finished with Israel than He is finished with the Gentiles. Neither one has been replaced by the other; and God’s plan for both remains intact, in spite of their failures. This is really the crux of the issue. Replacement Theology says that Israel was rejected by God and that the rejection was permanent and irrevocable; however, we say that God’s calling on Israel was permanent and irrevocable, in spite of her many sins and shortcomings (Romans 11:29)

What Did the Apostles Believe About the Millennium?

Another problem for supersessionism and amillennialism is that these views are not in harmony with the teachings of the Apostles and the Early Church. Almost without exception, Church historians agree that chiliasm, an early form of premillennialism, was the position of the Early (Jewish) Church. In his classic, encyclopedic History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff wrote, “The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene Age [A.D. 100-325] is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, … a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius …” (Scribner, 1884; Vol. 2, p. 614).

What’s interesting about this admission is that it comes from someone who was neither evangelical nor premillennial. Schaff, in fact, was himself an ardent supersessionist! He wrote, “The carnal Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament is a diabolical perversion. The Christians, and not the Jews, are the true Israel of God and the righteous owners of the Old Testament Scriptures” (Ibid., Sec. 167, “Barnabas”). Yet as a student of history and as a scholar, he had to acknowledge that chiliasm was “prominent” in the Early Church, even though he himself despised it.

It should be noted that Papias (who believed in a future, earthly Kingdom) was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of the Apostle John who actually penned the passages in the Book of Revelation about the Millennial Kingdom. Premillennialism, then, may be the only eschatological system with an unbroken link directly to the author of the Apocalypse. This means that amillennialism represents a departure from what the Early Church believed. Augustine (354-430), author of City of God, a 22-volume defense of his theological views, proposed ideas similar to what we know as amillennialism (Books 15 to 19). However, even Augustine started out as a premillennialist! It wasn’t until later in his lif