Playback speed:
The Rise of Replacement Theology
The Rise of the Bishops
By the second century, there was evidence in Antioch and several Asian cities that congregations had moved toward governance by a single bishop assisted by several presbyters (elders) and deacons. Bishops became the chief ministers in worship, teaching, pastoral care, and all church administration. From A.D. 100 to 451, we see the period of the Church Fathers, called the Patristic era, combing forms of Latin and Greek patḗr (meaning father). Many of these men became sole proprietors over a growing disparate number of church affiliations, each with differing opinions about their connection to Israel. For example, the history of the papacy for the church in Rome spans from the time of Peter until today. However, many of these bishops were martyred during the first three centuries, so their identities remain obscure, and they held no temporal power until the time of Constantine.
The Ecclesiastical Province and the Council of Nicaea
It is unclear when these bishops became the sole governing leaders or how such “monarchical” bishops were connected to the original apostles by direct succession, localization of missionary founders, appointment, or elevation from the presbyterate. But increasing heresy and other problems, primarily motivated by Hellenistic, Gnostic, and other competing world views, drove the bishops to meet in councils, grouping according to the civil provinces. By the third century, there is clear evidence of the ecclesiastical province coinciding with the civil jurisdiction, accepting the bishop of the regional capital as its primate. This system received canonical status during the rule of Constantine at the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325).
The Preeminence of Rome
Rome quickly became the preeminent see—the church of Peter and Paul, and the only apostolic see in the Latin West, the capital of the Roman Empire and soon to become the dominant center of Christianity. However, the sole proprietorship of the bishop, apostolic (papal) succession more akin to monarchial rule rather than theocratic priestly governance, and the joining with any civil, particularly Gentile jurisdiction would have been a departure from the congregational leadership model the early Jewish believers would have adopted from the Beit Din and the rabbinic judicial council of Jerusalem (Sanhedrin).
The Migration and Reimagining of Judaism
After the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, Judaism migrated away from its theocratic judicial center in Jerusalem to a decentralized synagogue model that became the place of Jewish learning and Torah observance. Without the Temple and its sacrificial atonement, Judaism necessitated a reimagining that kept Jewish education at the heart of its people. But the governance under Jewish Law was now relegated to Jewish scholars and rabbis, many of whom were not descendants of the priestly theocracy—the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods.
Judaism Today
Judaism today is a beautiful spiritual yet complex mix of reform, reconstructionist, modern, and Orthodox observances, all of which, to varying degrees, revolve around following the Law of Moses and its rabbinic discourse written in the Talmud and other books. There is tremendous wisdom and prophetic insight within the writings of the sages, but it fundamentally rejects Christian Orthodoxy. To the Jewish people, Jesus is not God or God’s anointed, and surely not the Savior of Israel. While many Jews hope for a Messiah and believe in an afterlife, Judaism’s primary object is to live a good life here and now that glorifies God and tries to improve the world. But without Jesus, it is unfulfilled.
The Gospel and Greek Philosophy
As the Gospel turned more towards the Gentiles, Christian thought began to redefine scripture as the correlation and fulfillment of prevailing Greek and Roman philosophy. Christian theology in the second century was not systematic, and theologians such as Justin Martyr, Theophilus, and Athenagoros, attempted to conciliate Greek thought. Counterarguments against Montanism in Tertullian’s early writings confirmed the church’s nature as a continuous society originating in and tied to a divine revelation identical to the church of the Apostles. However, this perception brought with it the dangers of traditionalism and institutionalism.
The Growing Distance Between the Church and Its Jewish Roots
The expanding and predominantly Gentile church gradually became more distant from its early roots that initially saw Christianity as the fulfillment of Biblical Judaism, and leadership sought ways to reconcile this increasing chasm between the unbelieving Jewish people following rabbinic Judaism and the vastly expanding number of Gentile Christians who held little knowledge or interest in their Hebraic foundation. These leaders sought ways to understand the Kingdom of God apart from Israel, and understandably so.
The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Rise of Antisemitism
Between A.D. 130-135, Rome destroyed Jerusalem, killing, enslaving, and exiling the Jewish people. Rome fully paganized Jerusalem, and it was no longer the spiritual center of Judaism or Christianity, and Israel ceased to exist as God’s chosen and covenant nation. Church leaders could not have foreseen a time when God would restore the Jewish people to the land He promised to Abraham. But their understanding of God’s dealing with Israel was misguided, driven by an underlying hatred for the Jewish people—centuries-old antisemitism.
Justin Martyr and Early Christian Antisemitism
In his Dialogue with Trypho (A.D. 155-160), Justin Martyr argued that the destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem were God’s judgments on Israel for rejecting Christ. He stated that the Jews “justly suffer” and that the Jewish cities were rightly “burned with fire.” He also described the Jews as “desolate” and forbidden to go to Jerusalem. He said, “Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One… and now you reject those who hope in Him.” Ironically, Christians such as Justin Martyr desperately cling to a God they can trust unequivocally but arrogantly assume the same God can callously reject His beloved covenant people, Israel.
Paul’s Warning to the Gentiles
However, the expansive gap between the Jewish and Christian leaders started much earlier, in the first century, before the destruction of Jerusalem, when the Apostle Paul wrote the Book of Romans. His discourse could not be more precise as a warning to the Gentiles who sought to remove or marginalize God’s redemptive plans for Israel and His Kingdom and the understanding of God’s collective purpose in bringing the Gentiles into His Kingdom for an immediate dispensation apart from Israel. Most of the available writings from the period reflect a millenarianist perspective (called chiliasm).
Pre-Millennialism in Early Christianity
The Second Epistle of Peter urged Christians to wait patiently on the Lord for His return, reminding us, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). The First Epistle of Clement, written by Pope Clement I in A.D. 95, criticizes those who had doubts about the second coming because it had not yet occurred. Bishop Papias of Hierapolis (A.D. 70–155) favored a pre-millennial position in his five-volume work.
The Early Church’s Expectation of Christ’s Return
The clear implication from scripture and non-canonical writings of the early church is that Jesus’ return was imminent. They expected Him to return at any moment to set up a physical, earthly Kingdom in Jerusalem for one thousand years. In other words, the early church was Pre-Millennial in its views about the Kingdom and primarily understood that God’s Kingdom was intricately connected to Israel. As the disciples asked Jesus, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). Even the sages in the Talmud taught that the creation would exist for six thousand years before the universal Sabbath and the one-thousand-year Messianic era. But all that was about to change.
Augustine and the Shift to Amillennialism
One of the most influential fathers of the early church is Augustine of Hippo (Latin name Aurelius Augustinus, A.D. 354-430), also known as Saint Augustine. He was a theologian and philosopher of Berber origin and became the bishop of Hippo Regius in Numidia, Roman North Africa. In his book, City of God, a massive volume of work that took Augustine about twelve years to complete, he redefined his understanding of the one-thousand-year Millennial Kingdom. Augustine had previously viewed the Millennium as a literal future of one thousand years but changed his beliefs, claiming the doctrine was carnal. In his writings, he wrongly presumed the Millennium began at the First Advent of Christ and incorrectly predicted that the binding of Satan would be complete by A.D. 650 and that Christ would return at that time—the Second Advent. Neither of these happened.
Augustine’s Influence on Christian Thought
Augustine’s false theology helped shape the practice of biblical exegesis, laying the foundation for Roman Catholicism and modern Christian thought. Extensively reading Platonic texts to understand their doctrine, Augustine redefined Christianity as a rival and replacement for these ancient Greek philosophers. He believed that the church saints presently reign with Christ on earth inferiorly. And one day in the future, in the fullness of Christ’s coming Kingdom, those whom God the Father has blessed will reign in a superior way to this present age.
Augustine and the Church-State Relationship
Augustine’s anti-Donatist polemic was distinct in creating the governing relationship between the church and state, arguing for a universal church against local particularism (independent self-governing states). Donatism was the primary form of Christianity in Africa, where Augustine spent most of his life. The outcome of this polemic was the formation and rise to power of the Roman Catholic Church and its subservient relationship with the Roman Empire. This newly restructured church hierarchy reflected the organization of the Roman Empire, and its ecclesiastical councils also functioned like parliaments that embodied its philosophical wisdom and civil laws.
The Dominance of Amillennialism
Augustinian Amillennialism became the prevailing doctrine of the Roman Church. Martin Luther also rejected the future Millennial Kingdom and interpreted Revelation chapter 20 as a description of the historical church rather than the end of history. Hence, after the reformation and for almost fifteen hundred years, Amillennialism remains the dominant theology for most Christians in the West. Variations of Amillennialism are Postmillennial and Preterist theologies that also incorrectly redefine the dispensational period of the Millennium.
Postmillennialism and Preterism
Postmillennialism is an interpretation of Revelation Chapter 20, which sees Christ’s second coming after the Millennium, establishing a golden church age where Christians thrive and prosper until Jesus returns. And Preterism is an eschatological view that interprets some (partial Preterism) or all (full Preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events that have already occurred.
The Inaccuracies of Replacement Theology
None of these theologies have accurately reconciled Biblical prophecy concerning the restoration of Israel with Christ’s Second Advent. Hence, these theologies have incorrectly led many Christians to believe that God’s future Kingdom is exclusively spiritual and that all prophecy concerning Israel’s return is allegorically only a picture of the church. Or they see Israel as a type or shadow of the church, with the church being the complete fulfillment of God’s promises initially given to Israel. They believe that God has made all things new. Hence, the church has become a “new Israel,” replacing the old apostate people of God with a new one. And since God divorced Israel, He has taken all her covenant promises and given them to the church. This theology is called Supersessionism, commonly referred to as replacement theology.
Understanding Supersessionism
Supersessionism comes from the Latin words super, meaning on or upon, and sedere, meaning to sit. It conveys the idea of one person sitting upon another person’s chair and displacing them. Some use the term “fulfillment theology,” suggesting that Israel was merely a type or picture of the church, and the church is the fulfillment of all covenant promises from Abraham to Christ comprising the true people of God. Regardless of its title, the theological premise is the same, and it fails to demonstrate how God can make specific promises to a particular people group in a corporate or nationalistic sense, in this instance Israel, without fulfilling these promises to the same group.
The Forms of Replacement Theology
Diprose defines Replacement Theology as the view that “the church completely and permanently replaced ethnic Israel in the working out of God’s plan and as the recipient of Old Testament promises to Israel.” Soulen argues that Supersessionism is linked to the coming of Jesus: “According to this teaching, God chose the Jewish people after the fall of Adam in order to prepare the world for the coming of Jesus Christ, the Savior. After Christ came, however, the special role of the Jewish people came to an end, and its place was taken by the church, the new Israel.”
The Impact of Supersessionism on God’s Covenants
Walter C. Kaiser Jr. said, “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.” The key word here is “covenant,” which the Supersessionist claims Israel has lost or relinquished if that was even possible, or implies that God has somehow taken away Israel’s covenants which stains God’s unbending, unchanging, and unbreakable nature.
Varying Forms of Supersessionism
There are varying forms of Supersessionism based on one of two overarching beliefs. One is that the nation of Israel has somehow completed or fortified its status as the people of God and will never again possess a unique role or function apart from the church. And another is that the church is now the true and faithful Israel and has permanently replaced or superseded national Israel as the people of God. Within these two streams of thought are variations, some predicated on Israel’s disobedience and God’s punishment as the basis for His rejection, called “punitive” or “retributive” Supersessionism.
Economic and Structural Supersessionism
Another is called economic Supersessionism, which is less harsh and focuses on God’s plan for human history to transfer His covenant promises from an exclusive ethnic group (Israel) to a universal group not based on ethnicity (the church). And lastly, structural Supersessionism is more of a hermeneutic or perspective with a deep bias against the Old Testament Hebrew scriptures on the part of Christians.
Soulen on Supersessionism
According to Soulen, “The problem of Supersessionism in Christian theology goes beyond the explicit teaching that the church has displaced Israel as God’s people in the economy of salvation. At a deeper level, the problem of Supersessionism coincides with the way in which Christians have traditionally understood the theological and narrative unity of the Christian canon as a whole.” Where punitive and economic Supersessionism is an explicit doctrinal perspective, structural Supersessionism relates to how the standard canonical narrative has been perceived, rendering the Hebrew scriptures largely indecisive and completely ignoring them except for Genesis chapters one through three.
The Canonical Narrative and Israel’s Role
Soulen argues that the church has accepted Justin Martyr and Irenaeus’s standard canonical narrative that dismisses Israel as the central people through whom God would bring His redemptive plans to humanity. Israel is irrelevant, except for these four episodes of history: God’s intention to create the first two parents, Adam and Eve, the fall of man into sin, Christ’s incarnation and the church’s inauguration, and the final consummation.
God’s Unbreakable Covenants with Israel
However, as we meticulously studied, God’s covenants with Abraham and the one made with Israel through the Mosaic Covenant are unbreakable. Paul said, “The law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect” (Galatians 3:17). Israel’s failure to obey the Law of Moses and her overwhelming but not total rejection of Jesus as Messiah cannot change God’s love for or break His covenants with the Jewish people. Nor will it alter His divine plans to redeem them nationally. Paul said, “Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace” (Romans 11:5).
God’s Faithfulness to Israel
While the northern Kingdom of Israel was taken into captivity by the Assyrians (not the southern Kingdom of Judah), inferring that God somehow had divorced them, He also said, “Where is the certificate of your mother’s divorce, Whom I have put away? Or which of My creditors is it to whom I have sold you? For your iniquities you have sold yourselves, And for your transgressions your mother has been put away” (Isaiah 50:1). God’s word tells us that Israel sold itself into slavery and divorced God—a one-sided separation. Later, God exiled the southern Kingdom to Babylon. But the Lord remained faithful to Israel, bringing a remnant back to the land, later redeeming them through the blood of Christ, and erasing any perpetual severance from Him.
The Temporality of Israel’s Separation from God
Israel’s exile and separation from God were dispensationally temporary. And the Lord appeared to Jeremiah, saying “Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you” (Jeremiah 31:3); If My covenant is not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth, then I will cast away the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, so that I will not take any of his descendants to be rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will cause their captives to return, and will have mercy on them” (Jeremiah 33:25-26). And Paul said, “I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! Have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers” (Romans 11:1, 11, 28).
Israel’s Redemption Through Christ
Israel was never to be redeemed by fulfilling the Mosaic Law. Only Jesus could and has done that, as it says, “By the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified” (Romans 3:20); “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17). And Jesus never questioned Israel’s observance of the Law. He challenged them on their faith, the foundation of both the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants.
The Abrahamic Covenant and Faith
The Abrahamic covenant predates both the giving of the Law and the Advent of Christ, as was God’s election of Israel. All who lived in Israel before Christ, King David included, rested on this covenant of faith, trusting the Lord for his tender mercies. For those who believed, are they not part of Israel, and will they not enter God’s Kingdom when Jesus returns? Israel’s dispensation began with God’s promise to Abraham and did not end with the Advent of Christ, nor could it. Israel’s existence is part of one continual dispensation of God’s grace and redemption for the whole world and is the foundation for all who believe—the church.
The Flawed Argument Against Israel
The argument against Israel, therefore, even fails along dispensational lines. God chose Israel before Jesus came and will continue to do so. For God to reject Israel entirely would require every person in Israel to reject Christ, which scripture says otherwise. Many Jews were saved on the Day of Pentecost and even more after it. However, personal salvation is separate from national redemption.
God’s Faithfulness and Israel’s National Redemption
If God rejects Israel as a nation, He is an unfaithful liar. But if He individually selects those He deems worthy to enter His Kingdom, He is a righteous judge and King, as Paul says, “For there is no partiality with God” (Romans 2:11). Israel’s redemption is not predicated on all the Jewish people having faith in God. Israel’s national redemption rests solely on God’s faithfulness. And as salvation is personal, all who call upon the name of the Lord, Jew, and Gentile, will enter His Kingdom.
Amen!
Ongoing series:
- Israel’s Covenants and the Kingdom
- Separation of the Church from Israel
- The Significance and the Early Church
- Reconnecting the Church to Israel
- God’s Kingdom and the Restoration of Israel
