Replacement theology, also known as supersessionism, is the view that the Christian church has replaced Israel in God’s plan and purpose. This theological perspective argues that God’s covenant with national Israel as described in the Old Testament was only temporary and has been superseded by the New Covenant in Christ.
Here are some key points about replacement theology:
– It teaches that the promises, privileges, and prerogatives once belonging to Israel have now been transferred to the church. The church is viewed as the “new Israel.”
– According to this view, the church has permanently replaced ethnic Israel as God’s people and inherits the Old Testament promises made to Israel.
– Replacement theology sees no future role or function for national Israel. The church alone receives the promises found in the Old Testament, leaving no covenant promises for modern Jews as a people.
– Advocates of this theological perspective believe that Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant at the Last Supper, fulfilling and thus ending the Mosaic Covenant between God and Israel.
– The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD is seen as God’s punishment on the Jews for their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. The old covenant has been abrogated and national Israel has forfeited its status and function.
– God’s remaining promises to Israel will be fulfilled in the Christian church, which is now God’s true chosen people, not ethnic Jews. The church is the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16).
– Being Jewish no longer has any religious significance or advantage in the economy of salvation. Jews are now on equal footing with Gentiles and simply need to embrace Jesus Christ through faith.
– While there may be a future mass conversion of Jews, replacement theologians insist that the church has become the new and true Israel. The church alone is the recipient of the covenant promises of God.
Replacement theology fundamentally changes how one reads the Old Testament, especially in regard to prophecies about Israel’s future. Advocates of this view read prophecies about Israel as having already been fulfilled historically in Christ and the church. This leads them to reject any future, ethnic fulfillment for Israel as a nation.
The implications of replacement theology are significant. It rules out any restoration of Israel or future role in God’s purposes. The millennium and Christ’s return to reign from Jerusalem are spiritualized rather than seen as literal future events. Prophecies regarding Israel’s restoration are applied to the church rather than national Israel.
Most who hold this theological perspective believe that the church was actually grafted into Israel and did not fully replace Israel. God still has a plan and purpose for individual Jews who come to faith in Christ and are part of the church. However, God’s covenant promises to Israel as a nation no longer apply but have been transferred to the “new Israel”—the church.
Replacement theology has been the dominant perspective in the church for much of its history. However, it declined in Protestant circles after World War 2 and the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948. Dispensationalism, which affirms God’s future purposes for Israel, has been far more influential among Evangelicals.
Nevertheless, replacement theology continues to have advocates both among Protestant groups and Roman Catholicism. It remains a significant theological perspective within Christendom. Understanding it is important to properly interpreting God’s plans for Israel in the Bible.
Some key biblical arguments used to support replacement theology include:
– God’s judgement on Israel in AD 70 demonstrates that God has rejected national Israel as his chosen people (Matthew 21:33-45; 23:29-24:2).
– Jesus said the kingdom would be taken away from Israel and given to another people (Matthew 8:10-12; 21:43). This is seen as predicting that the church would become the new Israel.
– Peter applies terms like “chosen people,” “royal priesthood,” and “holy nation” once used of Israel to the church (1 Peter 2:9-10). This indicates a transferral of covenant status.
– Paul speaks of Gentile Christians being grafted into the cultivated olive tree, which represents Israel (Romans 11:11-24). He appears to envision the church as now being the tree into which former outsiders are grafted.
– The New Covenant was instituted at the Last Supper (Luke 22:20). Since it is a replacement of the Old Covenant, national Israel is no longer God’s covenant people. That status belongs to the church.
– Paul says all the promises of God are “yes” and “amen” in Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20). Advocates of replacement theology see this as indicating that the Old Testament promises to Israel are fulfilled spiritually in the church through Jesus. There is no future ethnic fulfillment.
– Paul asserts that being Jewish or circumcised no longer counts for anything (Galatians 5:6; 6:15). What matters is belonging to the “Israel of God,” which is understood as the church (Galatians 6:16).
– James applies Amos 9:11-12 to the church, even though it speaks of the rebuilding of the “fallen tent of David” (Acts 15:13-18). Replacement theology sees this as taking promises of Israel’s restoration and applying them to the church.
However, there are also arguments against replacement theology:
– Numerous Old Testament prophecies depict a future restoration of Israel as a nation (Isaiah 11:11-12; 60:10-22; Jeremiah 33:7-9; Ezekiel 37:1-28). The New Testament reaffirms these promises (Romans 11:25-27).
– Romans 9-11 speaks explicitly of continued Jewish election and a future redemption of Israel. Paul envisages a future widespread Jewish acceptance of Jesus as Messiah (Romans 11:12-15, 25-32).
– Various New Testament passages anticipate Jesus returning to a converted Israel (Matthew 23:37-39; Acts 1:6-8). These promises seem unfulfilled if applied to the church.
– There are distinctions made between Israel and the church in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 10:32). Replacement theology sees no such distinctions.
– Paul says the gifts and calling of God to Israel are “irrevocable” (Romans 11:29). He affirms that God still has covenant promises to ethnic Israel.
– Jesus made promises of a future restoration of Israel with himself as king in Jerusalem (Matthew 19:28; Luke 1:32-33). These are unfulfilled if applied to the church.
– The Servant Songs of Isaiah 41:8-9; 44:1; 49:3 depict Israel as having a continued role in God’s plans. Jesus applies Isaiah 42:1 to himself, indicating he came to fulfill Israel’s calling (Matthew 12:18-21).
– Replacement theology has historically led to the persecution of Jews on the basis that God has rejected them. However, Paul condemns arrogance against the Jews (Romans 11:17-24).
In summary, replacement theology teaches that God has permanently rejected national/ethnic Israel as his chosen people and that the church is now the “new Israel” which fulfills the Old Testament promises made to Israel. This theological perspective has had an enormous impact on how prophecy and the Old Testament is interpreted. It remains an influential view but also faces significant challenges from Scripture. There are indications that God still has a role and purpose for ethnic Israel in the future, which replacement theology denies. The debate between these two perspectives continues in theology today.
Some key points in the debate include:
– How to interpret Old Testament prophecies about Israel’s restoration – Are they fulfilled spiritually in Christ and the church or do they depict a future ethnic restoration?
– Has the Mosaic Covenant been abolished and replaced by the New Covenant? Or does it have an ongoing function alongside the New Covenant?
– What is the identity of the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 – Is it the church or national Israel?
– How to understand Romans 9-11 – Does this passage teach a future conversion of “all Israel” or just the remnant of Jewish believers?
– Are there two tracks in God’s purposes – one for Israel and one for the church? Or has the church permanently replaced Israel?
– Does the New Testament anticipate a future restoration of Israel under the Messiah or is this fulfilled spiritually in Christ?
Understanding these issues requires interpreting both the Old and New Testaments on their own terms. Passages that speak specifically about Israel should not be spiritualized and applied to the church. The prophecies regarding Israel’s future should be taken at face value, not reinterpreted.
At the same time, the New Testament expands God’s purposes to graciously include Gentiles in the promises made to Israel. The church participates in but does not exhaust God’s covenant promises. Israel as a nation still awaits the fulfillment of prophecies regarding her restoration.
In conclusion, replacement theology rejects any future ethnic hope for Israel and applies Israel’s spiritual privileges to the church. However, there are good biblical grounds for believing that God still has a role for national Israel in his redemptive purposes in the future. The church has not permanently replaced Israel but participates in God’s covenant promises. At the same time, we must avoid the extremes of either triumphalism over Israel or dismissing the legitimate place of the church. God’s plans encompass both Israel and the church.