Replacement Theology

There is a doctrine taught by many Christian churches known as Supersessionism, or Replacement Theology. In brief, this doctrine asserts that the Church has replaced, or superseded, the Nation of Israel in regards to God’s program and promises (those yet unfulfilled). Again, in brief, the doctrine asserts that the Nation of Israel forfeited her status as God’s chosen people when she (collectively/corporately) rejected her Messiah (Jesus) and that all of God’s favor and promises were then withdrawn from Israel and bestowed upon the Church.

There is a problem with this doctrine, and that is that it isn’t true. There are many arguments that may sound convincing that have been established by its proponents over the centuries, but the teaching is not found in the Bible, and any passages used by its proponents have been misapplied, misinterpreted, or simply misunderstood. Many of these aforementioned proponents were no doubt sincere and well-intentioned, but perhaps not all.

So where did this teaching come from? Assuming that its originators were operating from a non-nefarious position (and some may have had less than noble motivations), the teaching actually originates from an understandable theological quandary that its proponents were trying to satisfy.

The Nation of Israel ceased to exist in 70 AD/CE, after the Roman Empire leveled Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple (Herod’s Temple, not Solomon’s), and scattered the Hebrew people throughout its provinces (an event known as the Diaspora). Many Christians in the first and second centuries (AD/CE) no doubt expected Christ to return during their lifetimes and re-establish Israel and begin His prophesied kingdom on earth. He had promised to return and established His kingdom during His ministry. As the centuries passed, however, and the New Testament was canonized, and the Old Testament was studied in light of Jesus' ministry and God’s revealed Word written in the New Testament, it became clear that there was a problem. Israel no longer existed as a nation.

The more time passed, the bigger the problem seemed to become. No nation disbanded for so long had ever reformed itself in recorded history. Church theologians (the sincere ones anyway) had the promises of God regarding the Nation of Israel that were present in the Old Testament that clearly had not yet been fulfilled on the one hand, and the reality of the situation of Israel’s non-existence on the other. How could this be explained while maintaining the integrity of God and His Word (without God breaking His promises)? An answer emerged in the halls of Church theologians—Replacement Theology. In order to justify this teaching, explanations had to be made, new interpretations revealed, and Scripture reapplied (in this case, misapplied). Of course, not everyone over the centuries accepted this teaching.

Other theological subjects, such as eschatology (the study of the end times) and the Millennial Kingdom, had to be altered to fit this new doctrine. (How can a literal thousand-year kingdom exist with Jesus ruling as the King of Israel from Jerusalem if Israel was no longer part of God’s program?) So other incorrect teachings arose like “amillennialism” (“no Millennial Kingdom”), which taught that prophecies regarding the Millennial Kingdom were to be interpreted for spiritual and symbolic meanings and applications, rather than literal ones. Again, some theologians may have had less noble intentions (after all, if they could rule over the people instead of Christ, then there would be no need for Him to establish a literal kingdom), but not all.

But we see now through the lens of recent history (the past century) that God can fulfill His promises on His own. Israel became a nation again in 1948. Its borders expanded to include the entirety of Jerusalem in 1967. These are not proofs against Supersessionism, but they could be indicators that the fulfillment of God’s promises for Israel (those that are yet unfulfilled) could be on the horizon. Perhaps.

What is the lesson in all of this? Well, one lesson is that God doesn’t need our help to fulfill His promises, He will do that on His own. But a bigger lesson, I think, is that we don’t need to try to have an explanation for every Biblical teaching that doesn’t completely make sense to us; for example, the Trinity, the sovereign election of God (predestination and free agency), and the dual-nature of Christ (the deity of Jesus). Some of our lack of understanding might be a matter of perspective (this side of eternity, or the imperfection of our minds) like the proponents of Supersessionism who lacked the historical perspective that we have.

Keep in mind, it was not my intention with this post to discuss the particulars of God’s dispensations or covenants (specifically the New Covenant and Christ’s fulfillment of the Law). These are separate doctrines that I don’t tie-in with Replacement Theology as some others might. I consider Replacement Theology to specifically mean that the Church has replaced Israel and that all of God’s promises to Israel were forfeited by them and now apply to the Church.

As always, thanks for reading!