Chapter 6: Replacement Theology – the great malady
In our day, there are many in Christendom that teach and believe that the Church has replaced Israel. This is called replacement theology.{cliv} The views span widely. Some believe that the Jewish people simply have no part in God at all, and are therefore no better off than the pagans. Others believe that they are under the covenant still, but they can never experience any of the blessings – only curses. Still others have the idea that we have replaced Israel in a manner that God is not interested in theocracy anymore, but instead in a “new heaven and new earth” being lived out among the believers on this present earth. Still others claim that because the church has replaced Israel, when we read the Old Testament – especially the prophecies and promises – we should not consider Israel at all, only ourselves.{clv} With such diversity, it is little wonder why there is much confusion in this area. Of course, there are more opinions than just these, and even on the opposing side that says Israel has not been cast away; there are many, many opinions.
As with everything, our primary concern should be with what Scripture actually validates. For certain issues, there is a bit of interpolation and speculation that is necessary. This, however, is not one of those areas. There are preterists that believe all of prophecy has been fulfilled, an idea that can only be come to when you take replacement theology to it’s absolute worst outcome mingled with a severe twisting of Scripture. Then, there are those that are not necessarily preterists, but at the same time teach a very similar doctrine. Men such as N. T. Wright would hold this view. It says that we are currently living out the new heaven and new earth, however, they also hold to a future return of Christ and a future new heaven and new earth. Both of these positions are arrived at by claiming that the Babylon in Revelation 17 is Rome. It takes a certain kind of view that is based in symbolism and mystery to come to any conclusions that Israel is replaced, let alone that the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation have been fulfilled.
I have a hermeneutical principle when it comes to understanding the Scripture: if it makes sense in the immediate context in which it reads, that is the interpretation of the text. For example, when Isaiah says that the mountain of the Lord will be exalted higher than all the other mountains in the world, and that all nations shall stream to it,{clvi} how should we translate that? We can take it at face value and say that the literal Mount Zion will ascend up, and coupled with other verses that speak of the mountains being brought low,{clvii} all the other mountains will shrink. At that time, which is the return of Christ, all nations will come to Jerusalem. Or, we can spiritualize the text and say that the mountain of the Lord is being described in Psalm 24 as some sort of ethereal, and imaginary, sort of mountain that we “spiritually” climb to come into the presence of God. There will be a time when that mountain, which is the Church, will be the most prominent and influential object in all the world, and all nations will come to saving faith because we have taken the world by storm with our acoustic guitars and loud praises to enter into the gates of thanksgiving. Of course, I’m mocking the second option a bit here. This interpretation is known as dominion theology. It claims that there are seven “mountains”, or spheres of influence, that Christians need to take dominion over. When the Christians can take these areas of politics, media, education, etc, then the end will come. The mountain of the Lord will be higher than all these other mountains, thus all nations will stream unto it – the Church. I call this a doctrine of demons.{clviii}
I see no reason to expect that we must spiritualize the text in Isaiah 2. It makes perfect sense as it is stated. This is true for practically every prophecy. Many times, the visions that the prophets behold are explained. If that explanation makes sense, then why should we change it?{clix} There are, however, times where things aren’t so clear. An example of this would be many of the prophecies in the book of Revelation. Much of the symbolism is not explained. Yet, things such as Revelation or the symbolic prophecies in the book of Daniel should not be taken in the context of themselves, but rather in the context of a symphony of prophecy given through the ages to all the prophets of Israel.{clx} If we look at the prophecies as literal prophetic utterance, then much of what we need to answer is how much has been fulfilled and what yet remains to be fulfilled.
Now, it is mentioned in the prophetic texts that there would come a time when a people that are not God’s originally chosen people would be the object of God’s attention.{clxi} From these texts, we can conclude two things: the Church does not replace Israel, and the Church has become united unto Israel. In the Hebrew, the word ‘kahal’ is used for “assembly.” When you read of the “assembly of Israel” that traveled in the wilderness, or came to the mouth of the tent of meeting, the word being used is ‘kahal’, and it is used in relation to the whole camp of Israel.
In the Greek Septuagint, the word ‘kahal’ is replaced with ecclesia. Ecclesia is the Greek word used in our New Testaments as “church.” There is never any place where the Greek word ecclesia is being used to represent a local gathering, nor anywhere that the word is used to describe some sort of gathering place. In every reference, it is being used to describe the Church as a whole, whether it is they that meet in Ephesus, or the global Body dispersed throughout the earth. In Acts 19:32, we read of an “assembly” that was in confusion. The word used is ecclesia. How can it mean church in one place, and then assembly in another? The answer is that the church never has been the gathering place, only the gathered people of God. When Paul addressed the Church in Corinth, he didn’t need to send 15 copies of the same letter to 15 different congregations. They are all one Body that just so happens to be in Corinth.
This is important to note, because the other word that is sometimes used to replace kahal is the Greek word synagogue. In our modern times, we have come to the conclusion that a church is where believers in Jesus meet, but a synagogue is where the Jews meet. That is not a distinction that was made in the first century. Both ecclesia and synagogue were used as variants of the Hebrew word ‘kahal’. Kahal was the assembly of Israel. It was the gathering of the chosen people – the elect. The church was never intended to replace Israel, but rather to come alongside of Israel. Many times the confusion is answered in seeing that the synagogue is where the believers met, and the ecclesia is the body that meets together.
Think of the movie series, “The Lord of the Rings”. There comes a certain time where Frodo desires to travel alone. Sam, his companion, has to go with him. Frodo tells Sam, “I’m going alone, Sam!” Sam responds, “Of course you are! And I’m going with you.”{clxii} Sam had made a promise that he would take care of Mr. Frodo, and Sam was not going to be caught going back on his promise. At a later time, Frodo is weighed down with the burden of carrying the ring. He doesn’t think that he can continue. Sam then proclaims, to paraphrase it, “If you cannot walk, then I will carry you.”{clxiii} This is a shadow of the Church and Israel. I’ll admit that it breaks down, but the idea is there.
What we are to Israel is what Sam was to Frodo. We come alongside of, and when they can’t carry the burden by themselves, we will carry them. This is where the second person becomes the hero. Though the Jewish people do not yet know it, they are incomplete without us, and we are incomplete without them. When we read Romans 11:11-25, Paul ends the statement of how we’ve been grafted into Israel with these words: “I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brethren, lest you be wise in your own conceit…” If the Church will start to become ignorant of this mystery, that the two have become one, they will be conceited. They might begin thinking that they have replaced Israel! They might have some sort of haughty notion that they are the kingdom! After all, didn’t Jesus say, “The kingdom is within you”?{clxiv}
We have neglected the mystery. After not understanding it, we have then tossed it aside and haven’t even thought to ask the question again. What is it that Paul is getting at in Romans 9-11? Is there a reason for what he is saying? We read the inception of Paul’s thoughts on national Israel in the first verses of Romans 9: “I could wish myself accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers according to the flesh.” Does it get any plainer than that? We have two options to take now. Either we can say that Paul has this disposition because he is Jewish, and who doesn’t long for those that they love to come to Christ? Or, we can say that Paul has this longing and anguish because he has an apostolic heart. The beginning of an apostolic heart and mind is that it has conformed to the heart and mind of the Lord. If we take the first option, we bring Paul down to being petty and unnecessarily mouthing concern. If we take the second option, we bring Paul up to a status that would require of us. Why is it that we have not attained to that status? Maybe it isn’t an individual status, for not everyone is an apostle, but as a corporate apostolic Body, why is our disposition so contrary to Paul’s?
Now, it is true that Paul mentions in verse 6, “not all Israel is Israel.” So, Paul uses this title of Israel in a special way. But lets just look at the other times that Paul uses the name Israel. When he wishes himself accursed for the sake of the people of Israel, is that national Israel or special Israel? It is national Israel. He quotes Isaiah concerning Israel, “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved.” Is this national Israel or special Israel? It is nation Israel. What about Romans 9:30-31? The Gentiles obtained righteousness by faith, but Israel, who pursued righteousness according to the Law, has not obtained that righteousness. Is this national or special Israel? It is national Israel.
We reach Romans 10:1, and once again Paul is referring to the Israelites and his desire that they might be saved. Is this national Israel or special Israel? It is national Israel. Then, Paul goes through how anyone who confesses with their mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believes in their heart that God raised Him from the dead that you shall be saved. Yet, this is still in context of the previous statements about national Israel. This is why Paul moves onto speaking about how they cannot believe if they have not heard, and how can they hear unless one preaches to them, and how can one preach unless he is sent? And Paul concludes this by saying, “But not all the Israelites accepted the good news…” Is this national Israel or special Israel? It is national Israel.
Are you starting to see my point? Just because Paul uses the idea of Israel in a special way one time, that not all Israel is Israel, does not mean that Paul is talking about the remnant every time he speaks of Israel. So, when we come to Romans 11, we see Paul ask the question, “Did God reject His people?” Paul then goes back to speaking about special Israel, or the remnant, in claiming that this is proof that God has not rejected His people. Just as Elijah claimed he was the only prophet left, and God replied that there are 7000 that have not bowed the knee to Baal, so too is there a remnant of Jewish believers in Jesus the Messiah. What all of Israel sought so earnestly, only a remnant obtained. The others were hardened in heart.
It is with this context that Paul then explains God’s purposes. Have they stumbled so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. Is Paul using the term Israel to mean the remnant or the nation? It is the nation. The remnant is a part of those Gentile believers that are supposed to make national Israel envious. What is the purpose of making Israel envious? We find Paul answer this in Romans 11:32, “For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he might have mercy on them all.” It is God’s desire that the majority be hardened so that they might obtain mercy in the end. As Paul explained in Romans 11:26, “And so all Israel shall be saved…”
Now, the next bit that concerns us is the pieces of Romans 11 that I have skipped. We read in verses 17-21, “If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over the branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say, then, ‘Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.’ Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.”
The two have become one. Though national Israel is currently broken off, that does not in any way mean that they are rejected. They will be grafted back into their own root. All Israel (national) will be saved. Now, because the two have become one, we cannot then validate any kind of theology that would say, “It is our call as the church to…” or, “It is their call as Israel to…” The two have become one, and therefore even our purpose and call is the same as their purpose and call. I need to be careful with what I say and how I word it, because the truth is that God has distinguished between the remnant and national Israel. As the remnant, we cannot fulfill the call that God has placed upon all of Israel until all of Israel is saved.
Therefore, we are currently given the task of driving the Jew to jealousy that they might be saved. It is our task, as the Church, to live in such a manner that national Israel perceives that we are living in the reality of their promises. What they have sought after and have not obtained, we have obtained by faith. So, when we’re discussing what our call is as the Church, we are discussing a subject within a subject. The larger subject to first understand is Israel’s primary purpose and calling. Once we understand that, we then need to progress from there to asking what it is that we do now, because we do not have all of Israel to perform that calling. It takes all of Israel to perform the intended gifts and callings of God. We can’t do it simply because we have enough faith.
So, I will venture into more depth with this, but I will leave you at least with a glimpse of what we are called to be. Our calling as the Body of Christ is to be the priesthood to the nations. We cannot fulfill that mandate apart from all Israel being saved. So, as the remnant within Israel, our calling is to first be the priesthood to them. Our purpose is to drive the Jew to jealousy, so that they might come to the saving knowledge of Christ. The way that we do that is split into two separate topics, both of them related. First, we display the manifest wisdom of God to the principalities and powers. To do that, we reiterate the cross in showing selflessness on behalf of those who do not believe. “They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death.”{clxv} Second, we live and move and have our being in the reality of Zion. Zion is in two places: heaven and earth. The heavenly Zion is what we are called to represent, for the earthly Zion is currently far beneath the glory of God. With those two commissions, we have all of ecclesiology explained. It is from these two mandates that we better understand our purpose, how to function, and all the minute details of daily life lived together as believers.