Replacement Theology Defined

First in a Series

This is the first in a series of Talk Back Yeshiva articles on the subject of Replacement Theology in relation to issues including:

• Church History
• The Land of Israel
• God's Faithfulness
• Blessings (for the Church) and Curses (for Israel)
• Defining 'Israel' - especially in the New Testament
• Why is this such a hot potato issue?
• Israel and the Church in prophecy

As the debate develops, and we talk through the issues raised in this series, it's likely that the subjects covered will expand over time.

You can also take a look at an article by Ray Harverson on the issue, which is a good 'easy access' (but not exhaustive) introduction to the subject by clicking here. 

A Spectrum of Beliefs

Before we embark on this series, however, it would be good to start with a definition of what Replacement Theology actually is. 

A good starting point definition is particularly necessary as the term itself covers a fairly wide spectrum of beliefs, from the well structured argument to the down-right whacky and bizarre. Some adherents are much more hard-line that Israel has been totally replaced by the Church - forever, whereas others see this 'replacement' as being temporary and that one day God may choose to again include Israel in His plans. 

Some, I am sure, will not fully agree with the definition I offer, below. In which case, I invite you to make a brief comment so we can all move forward in our understanding - nuance can be important, after all - and it is a key 'Yeshiva principle' that we learn more by debate and disagreement than by bland acceptance. 

Defining Replacement Theology

In essence, wherever you are on the spectrum, Replacement Theology teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan - to one degree or another. Adherents believe that Israel (and therefore the Jews, whether in the Diaspora, or not) are no longer God’s chosen people, and that He does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel. 

For me, anyone who suggests a relegation, replacement, or hint that God has somehow 'finished' with the jewish people in His plans for history and the redemption of creation sits somewhere on this spectrum. 

Once this position is established, it inevitably forces other conclusions in other areas of belief and theology. It also creates some major hermeneutical inconsistencies. 

Blessings and Curses

For example, if the Church has entirely replaced Israel, then the curses and punishments for Israel outlined in the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) must also be redirected to the Church, as well as the promises of blessing. Somewhat unsurprisingly, Replacement Theologians are somewhat reluctant to make this particular 'replacement' - so the Church ends up with the blessings and the Jews end up with the curses. 

Of course, major problems exist with this view, such as the fact that the Jewish people have survived throughout the centuries and especially with the revival of the modern state of Israel. 

An Accident, or the God of History?

A question rarely, if ever, tackled by replacement theology is that if Israel has been replaced, and there is no future for the Jewish nation, how do we explain the remarkable survival of the Jewish people over the past 2000 years, despite the many attempts to destroy them (often by the Church)? 

Furthermore, how do you explain why and how Israel reappeared as a nation in the 20th century after not existing for 1900 years? 

It was certainly easier to be a Replacement Theologian prior to 1948. Indeed, you will often find that replacement theologians are forced to conclude that 1948 was a political mistake by the UN, rather than admit that God really is in control of world events. 

Inconsistencies of Replacement Theology

If replacement theology is your starting point, then you may be entirely logical, but your conclusions will also start to show numerous inconsistencies (even in its own internal hermeneutic). These conclusions will also start to bear no resemblance to God's revelation of His own nature, personality and relationship with His people.

An Alternative Plan

In my view, although simplified for the sake of this article, God has a rich and beautiful plan for the Church, just as He does for Israel. This plan was never to replace His people, Israel. Israel and the Church can and should be different, and just as a father loves his two children as individuals, so too our Father in heaven loves His two children.

It's a 'both/and' scenario, not 'either/or', which is the only real option available to replacement theology.

One day, we shall recognise each other and will embrace. The Church will recognise that it is called to be 'one new man' (Ephesians 2:15) with the Jews because of Messiah, and Israel will "look upon him whom they have pierced and mourn for him as an only son" (Zechariah 12:10).

The Apostle Paul's own words (Romans 11:25-26) are essential as a basis for our studies: 

"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved..."

Note that, crucially, Paul clearly says that:

• Gentiles were already showing ignorance and arrogance regarding Israel, why else make the statements Paul makes? 
• Israel's rejection of Messiah is only partial, not complete.
• It's not forever, but is time delimited.
• Israel is still clearly in God's heart and plans.

But more of this, and other issues raised in this article, at a later date as the series continues...