Israel: Replacement Theology
Romans 9:1-6
One of the things I got to do on this trip [to
Israel], similar but better than last year, I got to go down and spend about
three hours with a paratrooper company right on the Gaza border. Gaza is
southeast of Israel. The border comes about five miles from the Mediterranean
and makes a right angle turn and heads due south. This outfit is right on that
corner. They wouldn’t allow me to shoot any weapons, which was a great disappointment
to me. After the war last November when Gaza was shooting so many missiles at
Israel, they couldn’t do any more live firing near the border. Now
Palestinians, or Gaza residents, are allowed to come all the way up to the
border fence so they have to avoid any kind of semblance of fighting. They gave
me a little demo and gave me a rundown on their weapons. Then I walked around
outside their living quarters and their training area to the border and walked
along within the trenches. My guide was a paratrooper in 1973. He was having a
lot of fun showing me things.
Let’s open our Bibles to Romans, chapter 9. I want to
continue with what we were talking about last time, hermeneutics and
replacement theology. Now I’m going to basically focus on some of the hermeneutics.
We looked at this passage, the opening introduction to chapter 9. Now the three
chapters, Romans 9–11, are the go-to chapters that demonstrate in the New
Testament that God has not departed, cancelled, or abrogated His promises, His
covenants to Israel. But if you don’t interpret literally you’re not going to
come up with the right answer. If Israel means Israel, that’s interpreting it
literally.
If Israel is a term that refers to the Church, if
Israel is a term that refers to Christianity, if Israel is a term for the
Church in the Old Testament, and the Church is a term for Israel in the New
Testament, then you can just about make the Bible say whatever you want it to
say. This is the foundation for what is known as replacement theology. Where
I’m going with this, which is foundational to understanding issues today, is
how to understand a plain, literal translation. Then we’re going to see how
that lays the groundwork, the soil out of which replacement theology and
anti-Semitism grows. It doesn’t mean that if somebody holds to allegorical or
non-literal interpretation that they necessarily hold to replacement theology
or if they do hold to that, that they’re anti-Semitic. But once you lay that
groundwork of allegorical interpretation, that’s the soil out of which the
Holocaust came.
Its roots are in the late first century, as we’ll see.
Romans 9:4 and 5 focuses on the fact that the Israelites, “To whom pertain the
adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the service of God and
the promises…” This is Paul talking about the Church Age. The promises and the
covenants still belong to Israel. He’s using the term Israel here in its Old
Testament sense, referring to ethnic Israel, not some sort of spiritual Israel,
not just Israelites who trust in Christ but it still belongs to Israel. Just as
the Abrahamic covenant applies to all Jews in the Old Testament, thus all
males, as we studied on Tuesday night in Acts, had to be circumcised because
they all participate in the covenant. It doesn’t mean all Jews are saved but
that at a natural, physical level they are all beneficiaries of at least the
earthly aspect of the promises of God.
This is also part of the Abrahamic covenant, Genesis
12:1-3. This means they were commanded to be a blessing to the world and God’s
promise that He would bless those who bless them and will curse those who curse
them. The Abrahamic covenant is the foundation for why we believe it is
important for Christians to bless Israel. There’s a lot of different ways in
which Christians can bless Israel but one of the ways we can bless Israel as a
nation is in terms of our support for Israel. I remember hearing pastors teach
about this back in the 90s and a lot of people asked, “Well, does that mean we
have to approve of every decision that Israel makes?” No, that’s not what it
means. Supporting Israel means that you support their right to exist as a
nation, their right to self-defense, their right to defensible borders and
their right to own and possess that which has been given them under
international law. There are going to be good policies, bad policies, weak
policies, and strong policies that come out of the Knesset, their parliament,
in Israel that not only may we not agree with but that many Israelis may not
agree with. They have something like 16 different political parties. There’s a
proverb among the Jews that if you have three Jews, you have five opinions. So
it’s just nonsense to say that if you support Israel you validate every
decision their government makes. That’s not what that means.
Supporting Israel means that we support their right to
exist, their right to legal borders that have been established through
international law and that takes us back to San Remo in 1920, which we have
studied in the past. According to San Remo, which was signed off on by 55
nations, all of the land west of the Jordan River was to be reserved for a
national home for the Jewish people. The Arabs ended up getting Jordan. They
have Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. None of those nations existed
prior to 1920. The previous legal owner of that real estate was the Ottoman
Empire. When the Ottoman Empire broke apart at the end of World War I, then
someone had to come in and designate who the new sovereign states were going to
be and that fell to the victors of World War I.
They did the same thing in Paris. The four great
powers, England, Japan, Italy, and the United States met in Paris and imposed
the Treaty of Versailles on the Germans but part of what happened at Paris is
that they had to redraw the borders for Eastern Europe: Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, Germany, Austria, and the Balkan States. All of those borders were
reestablished. A lot of people don’t understand that even if you don’t have a
shooting war, it’s still a war. It could be a legal war but when you win, the
surveyors are going to come out, re-survey the property, draw where the
property lines are and all of that gets filed down at the courthouse.
But on a larger scale, at the end of World War I,
that’s what happened at Paris. They sent out all the surveyors all throughout
Europe and they redrew all the borders. No one questioned their right to do it.
Poland, Hungary, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Belarus, and everyone in that area
had new borders. They didn’t have time to deal with the border situation with
the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. So that put that off until they met in San
Remo in 1920 and they redrew the borders and established the states of Syria,
Libya, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. It’s part of the same documents
that said those nations were now coming into existence with those borders.
The Arabs accept all of that part but that same
document said all the land west of Jordan was to go to the Jewish people as a
national homeland. But they put Abdullah Faisal as the kind of Syria. The
French, who were governing under the mandate of the League of Nations, knew
that the British had promised King Faisal a position of power and leadership if
he would aid them in their defeat of the Germans and the Ottomans. The British
were forced to fulfill a promise to him and the only thing they could do was
give him the area now known as the Kingdom of Jordan. Winston Churchill was
foreign secretary at the time and had to sign off on that. He hated doing it
but it was the only solution. That left everything west of the Jordan River to
be a homeland for the Jewish people.
That’s the only legal document that establishes legal
sovereignty over that land after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Who owned that
land legally prior to 1920? The Ottomans. No one else. The Palestinian Arabs
aren’t there. The only people who have ever been given sovereignty there by the
League of Nations are the Jews. That’s international law. The UN was supposed
to defend all treaties and alliances established by the League of Nations under
their charter when they first started but they didn’t do it. At the same time
the Israelis were so concerned and decided they’d have “a bird in the hand
rather than two in the bush” so they were ready to accept just any little piece
of real estate now rather than wait for something later on. So they
compromised.
Everybody just ignored this legal document and it went
into the files so everybody forgot about it until the 1980s. Then two different
legal scholars, Howard Grief who spoke to our group [in Israel last summer],
and Jacques Gauthier have done all of the detailed intricate work on pulling
this information out and making it available to people. It’s gradually gaining
more and more of a following to understand these things. That’s the legal
argument as to why Israel has to right to the land.
The Biblical argument, which matters to us even if a
lot of people don’t care what the Bible says or what history says, but we
should care what the law says. We claim to be a people who believe in the rule
of law. We may not like the decisions made at San Remo but guess what, if we
believe in the rule of law, that’s where we’re supposed to start. You can’t
just ignore it and act like it’s not there. That’s what’s been going on for the
last eighty years.
Because of that, we’d had all this mess as we ignored
the rule of law. It all goes back to the Abrahamic covenant and God’s promises.
So God promises to watch out for Israel. Now that hasn’t changed. As I pointed
out in the previous two classes there are two basic errors that have really
plagued Christianity: Replacement theology and Christian anti-Semitism. No one
likes to call replacement theology by that name because it gave birth to the
Holocaust. They claim not to believe it anymore but they still say the Jews
aren’t God’s chosen people, the Church is the new people of God, and they still
believe the same thing. Replacement theology got hung around the neck of the
Holocaust so they don’t like it. But it’s coming back very big, along with
anti-Semitism.
The foundation of these two things is the issue of
interpretation. How do you interpret the Bible? David Cooper said, “When the
plain sense of the Bible makes common sense, make no other sense. Therefore
take every word at its ordinary usual meaning unless the facts of the immediate
context are arguing for something else.” Now that’s literal interpretation. I
gave you several quotes last time from non-literal, covenant theologians on how
they interpret Scripture. One was from Oswald Allis, a very well-known, famous
Old Testament scholar from Westminster Seminary in the first half of the 20th
century where he said, “It’s the insistent claims of its advocates [of literal
interpretation] that only when interpreted literally is the Bible interpreted
truly. And they denounce us as spiritualizers and allegorizers, those who do
not interpret the Bible with the same degree of literalness as they do. None
have made this charge more pointed than the dispensationalists.” We are the
whipping boy for everything that’s wrong because George Bush sent American
troops into Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein. He was accused of running foreign
policy according to these dispensationalists who love and hoped every day when
they woke up that the Battle of Armageddon was around the corner. That’s how
they caricatured us. They accused Bush of being a dispensationalist. I don’t
think he ever heard the word. He’s from a Methodist background. They’re not
dispensationalists. Probably the last president who understood anything about
that was President Ronald Reagan. Allegedly he read “Late, Great Planet Earth”
which made an impact on him.
Allis also said “The Old Testament prophecies, if
literally interpreted, cannot be regarded as having been fulfilled or of being
capable of fulfillment in this present age.” That’s right, they can’t be
fulfilled literally in this present age. They’re amillennialists, which means
no literal, thousand year, physical reign of Jesus on the earth so they’ve
spiritualized the kingdom. The kingdom is now Jesus ruling over the Church from
heaven.
If you pay attention to a lot of people they use terms
like, “Well, we’re going to do this for the Kingdom.” I don’t see a lot of that
terminology in the Scripture but it’s very popular among a lot of evangelicals
today. It comes out of a non-literal interpretation and teaching on the
kingdom. That’s their view. They have a non-literal view of the kingdom. They
believe Jesus Christ rules and reigns in our hearts today so that’s the
kingdom. We’re in the Millennium. Aren’t you glad? I always like what Tommy Ice
says, “If we’re living in the kingdom today, then I’m living in a millennial
ghetto.”
So we have some passages which I want to read to you.
Some people think I make these things up. Isaiah 65:25, “The wolf and the lamb
[notice it’s not the lion here] will graze together and the lion will eat straw
like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They will do no evil or harm
in all My holy mountains, says the Lord.” Now this is talking about Israel and
the kingdom once the Israelites have returned and Israel has been restored to
the land and the kingdom established. This is comparable to what Revelation
talks about the curse being rolled back.
We have antagonism and we have carnivorous animals in
the animal kingdom because of the curse of sin. This wasn’t God’s original
design or intent and so now we live in a time when the wolf and the lamb, well
the wolf looks at the lamb like its dinner and the lamb is just too stupid to
know. They will graze together in the kingdom. Notice the wolf becomes
herbivorous. The wolf will graze. There will be a change that takes place in
the animals. Just like the original animals were all herbivorous and their
dental structure, gastrointestinal system, everything changed as a result of
the curse. But they were still wolves and lions and jaguars and whatever. How
do you normally take the words that the wolf and the lamb will graze together?
A wolf is a wolf. A lamb is a lamb. A lion is a lion. And a serpent is a
serpent.
As most commentators point out this reiterates a
parallel statement from Isaiah 11 talking about when the root of Jesse, the
branch, comes forward and rules over the Kingdom. So again it’s a Messianic
prophecy about the millennial kingdom. In that passage we also read, “The wolf
also will dwell with the lamb. The leopard will lie down with the young goat.”
The only time now when a leopard lies down with a young goat is when the young
goat is in its belly. It continues, “And the calf and the young lion and
fatling together and a little boy will lead them. Also the cow and the bear
will graze, Their young will lie down together, And the lion will eat straw
like the ox. The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, and the
weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den…”
Are we to take this literally? A lot of people come to
this passage and say, “Lions don’t eat straw. That’s absurd. The Bible must be
talking about something else. We can’t interpret this literally.” Now
I’ll read from a scholarly commentary, “The New International Commentary Series
on the Old Testament” written by John Oswalt. On Isaiah he writes, “With a
classic set of images the prophet portrays the kind of security and safety from
the result of the rule of the Messiah. The most helpless will be at ease with
those who were formerly the most rapacious and violent.” Notice how he shifted
it. He’s not talking about literal lambs or literal wolves or literal lions.
He’s saying the lamb and the calf represent the most insecure and helpless in a
culture and the lion and the bear represent the most rapacious, the most
violent members of a culture. He says, “There are three ways of interpreting
such statements. The first is literalistic [a hidden pejorative in the
statement], looking for a literal fulfillment of the words. While this
interpretation is possible, the fact that the lion’s being carnivorous is
fundamental to what a lion is…”
Now where did he get that? He’s portraying right away
that he has a faulty view of creation. In our view God did not create lions as
being carnivorous. Genesis 1 says that God created them to eat from the field.
Then sin changed that. So that shows a non-literal view of Genesis as well. He
continues, “Literal fulfillment of the Bible would require a basic alteration
of the lion’s nature.” See he has set up a completely false description of what
the essence of a lion is. This is just silly word games.
He says, “A second means of interpretation is
spiritualistic. The animals represent various spiritual conditions and states
within human beings.” Where does he get that idea? Is it in the text? No,
you’re reading it into the text from some prior idea. “While this avoids the
problems of literal fulfillment it introduces a host of other problems, chief
of which is the absence in the text of any controls upon the process. Thus it
depends solely upon the exegesis’s correspondence where correspondence might
be.
The third way of interpreting this passage and others
like it is the figurative…” I love the way he parses the difference between
spiritualistic and figurative. It’s echoes one president and says it all
depends on the meaning of “is”. The details of vocabulary is where the battle
rages. So Oswalt concludes, “In this approach one concludes that an extended
figure of speech [nothing in the text indicates it’s a figure of speech] is
being used to make an overarching point, mainly that in the Messiah’s reign,
the fears associated with insecurity, danger, and evil will be removed not only
for the individual but for the world as well.”
How about Calvin? He said, “In a word under these
figures the prophet speaks the same truth as Paul plainly affirm, that Christ
came to claim out of a state of disorder those things which are in heaven and
on earth.” See Calvin is interpreting this whole thing that it’s really talking
about the church, He’s saying that once you’re saved the old sin nature, the
“wolfness,” the lioness, that’s going to go away and everybody in the church is
going to cuddle up together. That’s basically what he says. He said, “It may be
thus summed up. Christ will come to drive away hurt out of the world and to restore
to its former beauty the world which lay under the curse. For this reason the
straw will be the food of the lion.”
And then in other quotes related to Isaiah 65, he
brings in the idea of the Church. He is saying this applies to the Church today;
but Isaiah wrote it. That’s the problem that we see where the literal
fulfillment goes. Calvin says about Isaiah 65:18, which reads “But be glad and
rejoice forever in what I create.” The context here is the new creation of the
kingdom in the millennial kingdom. “For behold I create Jerusalem for rejoicing
and her people for gladness.” Now our friend Oswalt
says this isn’t literal Jerusalem but it’s talking about the Church. Calvin
says, “At first sight this might be thought harsh but an excellent meaning is
obtained that the ground of joy is the deliverance of the Church.” Where do we
see the Church in the passage?
See, that’s how many, many Christians interpret the
Bible. It’s through this kind of non-literal view. Incidentally, that’s why
they get sucked into a liberal view of interpreting the Constitution as a
living document; they say it’s symbolic. They’ve been prepared for that because
they go to these liberal churches every Sunday and they’ve been taught this
spiritualized, allegorized way of doing hermeneutics. And that was reinforced
in every literature class they took in most colleges and universities.
I never could make sense of poetry until I had dear
old Doctor Wyatt who had one foot in the grave. She seemed ancient but she was
probably no older than I am now. But she seemed ancient when I was in college.
She taught Wordsworth and Coleridge from a literal hermeneutic. She would show
us pictures of the Lake Region in England and talk about their lives and talk
about what was happening in their life when they wrote this poetry. All of a
sudden poetry made sense because she applied a literal hermeneutic to poetry.
It made it make sense.
I was brought up in a church that held to literal
interpretation. That’s what formed my mentality and it was why I never could
understand this subjectivism in interpretation. So Calvin says this relates to
the Church. Isaiah 2:2 is the last example I’ll give you. The passage is
talking about the Messianic Kingdom. “Now it will come about that in the last days
the mountain of the house of the Lord will be established as the chief of the
mountains and shall be raised above the hills. And all nations will stream to
it.” This is talking about a new mountain of the Lord’s. This is the millennial
temple. There will be sort of an up thrust from the earth, the Temple Mount,
and the new temple will be built on that if you interpret it literally. “And
all the nations will stream to it and many peoples will come and say ‘Come, let
us go up to the mountain of the Lord, the house of the God of Jacob that He may
teach us concerning His ways and that we may walk in His paths for the law will
go forth from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”
Now Oswalt has three paragraphs on trying to make sense
out of the word, Zion. He says it can’t really be this tiny mountain in
Jerusalem. It never did make sense to him. He goes on to say, “One does not
need to give the actual city some sort of semi-eternal status. Jerusalem has
become some sort of symbol of God’s self-revelation through history. There’s no
life apart from Him who has revealed Himself supremely in that context.” He’s
saying it’s not talking about literal Jerusalem. Where does he get this? Calvin
said that it’s the restoration of the Church and that’s all we need to read.
Isaiah 2 is about the restoration of the church? Then verse 4 says, “And He
will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples and
they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning
hooks. Nation will not lift up swords against nation, and never again will they
learn war.”
This is the verse that is over the entryway to the
United Nations. This states their purpose for their founding the UN was
to bring world peace by beating ‘swords into plowshares and spears into pruning
hooks.” By putting this Bible verse over the entry to the United Nations
building, the U.N. took
upon itself a Messianic mission. They are an idolatrous organization because
they claim to be able to do what the Bible says only the Messiah will be able
to do. So from that point, if you’re a Bible-believing Christian, you should
have nothing to do with the U.N. It
has put itself in the place of the Messiah, but then I’m radical.
Oswalt says, “When these principles are extended to
the nations, world peace can result. However the thought of producing peace on
any other ground is folly. Until persons and nations have come to God to learn
His ways and walk in them, peace is an illusion. This does not mean the Church
merely waits for the Second Coming.” Where does he get the Church here? See,
they’re reading the church into all of these different passages. That’s the
main thing I wanted to illustrate and give you an idea of how the spiritual or
allegorical interpretation works.
Now where did this come from? When did this come into
the Church? Well the first person to really systemize this is Origen. His
primary biographer, Joseph Trigg, who writes about him says, “The fundamental
criticism of Origen beginning in his own lifetime is that he used allegorical
interpretation to provide a specious justification for reinterpreting Christian
doctrine in terms of platonic philosophy.” Okay? So basically Origen is the one
who finally moved the Church away from a literal interpretation. Prior to that
the Church had a mix. It’s not true they were always literal. They really
hadn’t refined their view of interpretation so it was a mix of a little
allegory and a little literal interpretation. That’s why they never got that
solidified.
But Origen came out of Alexandria in northern Egypt.
Alexandria had become the seat of Greek philosophy. After the Roman Empire
conquered Greece the seat of Greek philosophy moved from up north in Greece
down to Egypt. So the focal point, the development and teaching of Greek
philosophy was in Alexandria. That was where they had the Alexandrian library,
which was the best library in the world at the time. So Alexandria is just a
focal point for platonic thought. In platonic thought the literal, physical
world is not really important. What’s important is what it stands for. It’s
just a physical representation of the ultimate ideal. What’s important is the
ideal, not the shadow that we see in front of us. So this affects their view of
life.
If it’s a fact that material things are not that
important, then material pleasures in Platonism and the way it affects the
monastic movement later on are related. No need to feed the body. That’s evil.
We need to just go into the desert, live by ourselves in a monastery and focus
on the eternal things and everything will be wonderful. Greek philosophy
dominated the area in Northern Africa.
Now in Antioch, the same Antioch in Syria that we’ve
studied with Paul was the location that stayed a center of strong, solid
orthodox doctrine for several hundred years. Antioch was the seat of a literal
interpretation. Those folks at Antioch emphasized a literal interpretation of
the Scripture. Guess what? They were also premillennial. That also influenced
all of the area up through Turkey and up through Constantinople. So those areas
held to a more literal interpretation of Scripture and they were premillennial.
A couple of the church fathers were Polycarp and Papias. The Alexandrians hated
Papias but Papias and Polycarp were both directly discipled and taught by the
Apostle John. Maybe Papias had even met the Apostle Paul. They had a literal
interpretation and they were premillennial in their writings but they’re hated
by the Alexandrians, including Origen. They just ridiculed them in their
writings according to Eusebius who also ridiculed Papias.
So Origen comes out of Alexandria and he develops this
whole way of interpreting Scripture. Ronald Deprose in his book, “Israel and
the Church”, says of Origen, “He motivated this view by appealing to the view
of divine inspiration and affirming that often statements made by the Biblical
writers are not literally true and that many events presented as historical are
inherently impossible. Thus, only simple believers will limit themselves to the
literal meaning of the text.
What Origen did is that he said just like the
individual is made up of body, soul, and spirit, every text has three meanings:
the literal meaning, the soulish meaning, and the spiritual meaning. The
literal meaning may or may not even be true but what really matters is the
symbolic or spiritual meaning.” But how do you get there? There’s no control on
how you get that spiritual meaning. Origen is the one who takes this after it’s
already been developed for probably a hundred years and he systematized it. He
was brilliant. A brilliant heretic, that is. He sets the stage so that within a
hundred years of his death Augustine is going to take that and systematize that
into a whole amillennial, non-literal interpretation that is inherently
anti-Semitic and full bore replacement theology.
DeProse also says, “An attitude of contempt toward
Israel had become the rule by Origen’s time [200–250 B.C.]. The new
element in his view of Israel is his perception of them as manifesting no
elevation of thought.” In other words he’s saying there nothing really valuable
in the Old Testament. In the early church they began to dump the Old Testament.
It’s not important; it’s tied to Israel; they weren’t important, they were
saying. They called them the “Christ-killers.” They said it wasn’t important to
know the Old Testament to understand the New Testament. He goes on to say, “It
follows that the interpreter must always posit a deeper or higher meaning
related to prophecies related to Judea, Jerusalem, Israel, Judah, and Jacob
which Origen affirms are not to be understood by us in a carnal sense.”
In other words, there’s not a literal meaning to these
words. He believed they were really talking about spiritual truths that belong
to Christ and the Church. “In Origen’s understanding the only positive function
of physical Israel was that of being a type of spiritual Israel.” He means the
Church, us. See there’s an inherent anti-Jewishness, an inherent anti-Semitism
that’s already percolating by the early 3rd century. He says, “The
promises were not made to physical Israel because she was unworthy of them and
incapable of understanding them. Thus Origen effectively disinherits physical
Israel.” By one hundred and fifty years after the death of the last apostle,
Israel is being cut out. This leads to what is known as replacement theology.
What I’ve done is shown how you move from a literal to
a non-literal interpretation. Once you do that you pretty much cut your anchor
cords to any kind of objective guidelines for determining the meaning of a
text. This eventually led to treating all these terms, such as Israel, Judea,
Judah, and Jacob in non-literal ways. So then Israel doesn’t mean Israel
anymore, it means the Church, and the Church doesn’t mean the Church, it means
Israel. This leads to replacement theology. So what is replacement theology? It
is a view that the Church is the new or true Israel that has permanently
replaced or superseded national Israel as the people of God and therefore, national
Israel will not experience a restoration to the land of Israel or to a position
of favor with God.”
In this quote national Israel basically means ethnic
Israel or Jews. So replacement theology basically says there’s no longer
anything about being an ethnic Jew or nothing significant about being national
Israel but that the Church now inherits all of the promises that God made to
Israel. Well, we just read Romans 9:4 that says the promises belong to Israel.
This is a direct contradiction of Scripture.
Now another word that is used for replacement theology
is a technical, large word, supersessionism. I wondered why they started using
this but now I understand that no one wants to say they believe in replacement
theology. When one thing supersedes something else, it basically replaces it.
But now we have a nice neutral, academic term so we can blow smoke up
everybody’s skirt. Supersessionism is another word that derives from two Latin
words, super
which means on or upon and sedere which means when one person sits on the chair of another and
displaces the latter. So one thing replaces another, so that here we have
Israel superseded by the church and Israel no longer matters.
Walt Kaiser, a dispensationalist, was the president of
Gordon Conwell Seminary up at Boston. He writes, “Replacement theology declares
that the Church, Abraham’s spiritual seed, had replaced national Israel in that
it had transcended and fulfilled the terms of the covenant given to Israel,
which covenant Israel had lost because of disobedience.” Replacement theology’s
view is that the covenant with Abraham is not permanent because they killed the
Messiah. That meant they lost the covenant. That ended it.
Deprose writes, “Replacement theology is the view that
the church completely and permanently replaced ethnic Israel in the working out
of God’s plan and as a recipient of Old Testament promises to Israel. Hans
LaRondelle who is a covenant theologian says, “The New Testament confirms that
Israel would no longer be the people of God and would be replaced by a people
that would accept the Messiah and His message of the kingdom of God.” See
that’s their message.
So if Israel doesn’t matter then it doesn’t matter
who’s over there trying to carve out a nation on the west side of the Jordan.
They are irrelevant spiritually and whatever they do doesn’t matter because God
doesn’t have anything to do with the Jews anymore. You can see how this
mentality gave rise to tacit approval of the Holocaust.
Now there are four different types of supersessionism.
There’s political, which is the view that there was a replacement of the Jewish
people, their worship and their land by a political power that claims superior
religious status, so Rome dominated and defeated the Jews, Islam conquered the
land, so they are superior to the Jews. That’s political supersessionism. If
you go to Jerusalem, if you’re walking down from the Mount of Olives, across
the Kidron Valley from the Dome of the Rock, the Temple Mount, and if you get
level with the Dome of the Rock which you don’t necessarily see from other
vantage points, right behind it you can see the two domes of the Church of the
Holy Sepulcher which is about a quarter mile on the other side. The Moslems
built the Dome of the Mount higher than the Church of the Sepulcher to prove
Islam was superior to Christianity. They put the Dome of the Rock on the site
of the Temple to show they had conquered Israel. That is a political, militant
supersessionism right there.
If you go inside the Dome of the Rock you see all the
scribble on the walls but it’s the Arabic quotations from the Koran. All of
those citations were chosen to be written inside the Dome of the Rock because
they all say something about Jesus just being a man, Jesus couldn’t be God, God
didn’t have any wives, and God didn’t have any babies. The whole Dome of the
Rock is a theological statement of the superiority of Islam over Christianity
and that Jesus is nothing but a man. I never heard that from anyone until
lately but it’s there. You can find some websites that actually lists the
English translations of all those citations.
Then there’s punitive supersessionism which is
represented by such early figures in the Church as Hippolytes, Origen, and
Luther and that’s the views that the Jews who reject Jesus as the Messiah are
consequently condemned by God and have to forfeit the promises otherwise due to
them under the covenant. It’s saying God replaced them as a punishment. These
are not mutually exclusive. All of these types can all be present in the same
group. There’s economic supersessionism which is using the term “economic” in a
technical, theological sense and says that the practical purpose of the nation
of Israel in God’s plan is replaced by the role of the Church. This is
represented by writers such as Justin Martyr and Augustine.
Then there’s structural supersessionism. This is
Soulen’s term. He’s another scholar researching on this. He believes that the de facto
marginalization of the Old Testament is normative for Christian thought. The
Hebrew Scriptures are considered to be largely indecisive for shaping Christian
convictions. In other words, you don’t really need to know the Old Testament.
See how that subtly infiltrated a lot of evangelicals, even dispensationalists.
You start talking to people about the Old Testament. They don’t know it. They
haven’t been taught it so much. That’s one of the reasons that I’ve spent so
much time in my ministry teaching the Old Testament because if you don’t understand
the Old Testament you don’t understand the New Testament.
Sadly, even within dispensationalism, many emphasize
so much the truths related to being “in Christ” that they ignore the Old
Testament. I knew of one teacher in Dallas, a great teacher, a great
dispensationalist, but he spent forty years in his ministry teaching only the
primary Pauline epistles, especially Ephesians, Colossians, and Romans, that
focused on what we have in Christ. He never, ever taught the Old Testament.
Well, if you don’t understand the Old Testament, you can’t really get your
hands around the New Testament passages because they’re filled with quotations
from the Old Testament. You have to understand the whole counsel of God. So
these are elements that still survive in a lot of evangelicalism which have
their root in hostility to Israel from the very early days of Christianity.
So what are the core beliefs of replacement theology?
Well, it’s already 8:35 so I’ll stop here. This will be a good place to start
next time. We want to finish out replacement theology and then we’re going to
start on the rise and development of anti-Semitism and how that manifests
itself today. I want to start addressing the question, “Can a person be neutral
to Israel or anti-Zionist and not be anti-Semitic? Another way to put it is,
“Is anti-Zionism just a mask for anti-Semitism?
I’ll give you a hint. In most cases it is.
Anti-Zionism when you understand history and all that is involved then you’re
going to realize that it’s basically giving tacit approval to the destruction
of Jews because you’re basically saying that you don’t want the Jews to have a
home base, a free base, a place where they can be protected from persecution
and where they can relax and not have fear that the government is going to
attack them simply because they’re Jewish. So anti-Zionism is basically saying,
“Oh, the Jews don’t need to have their own place. We can take care of them in
the nations of the world where they can be safe and secure.” But that isn’t
going to happen so anti-Zionism is inherently anti-Semitic. I don’t care what
some politicians say. I don’t care how they try to finesse it. If you don’t
want to support Israel, if you don’t believe Israel has a right to defend
itself, and a right to their borders, and that we should help them because
that’s part of blessing Israel and that Israel even today is a distinct people
of God and has a distinct role in God’s plan, then that’s a subtle form of
anti-Semitism and is extremely dangerous. So as we go through this we’ll wrap
this up as a backdrop for understanding the importance of understanding the
doctrines contained in Romans 9–11.