“Replacement Theology” - Is It Wrong to Use the Term? (Part 9)
Image
Read the series.
This is the final post in this series, the purpose of which has been to ask whether “replacement theology” and “supercessionism” correctly describe what some theologies, covenant theology especially, do with the nation of Israel and its OT promises in teaching fulfillment through “transformation” into Christ and the church. I am not saying that every CT (or NCT) will want to see themselves undercover of these names, only that the names fairly describe this aspect of the way these good people interpret the NT’s use of the OT.
We have seen that replacement theology exists. I have shown that some CT’s actually use the term “replace” (or “supercessionism”) to describe their approach in their own works, and that they recommend books that unashamedly use it. More anecdotally, I have encountered this opinion many times in conversations.
Of course, replacement theology is not confined to orthodox Reformed covenantalism, but they are the ones whose books and lectures I know best. In this tradition, it is common to view the history of Israel as primarily a structural learning device; a tool for teaching the Christian church through narrative and type; a “means to an end” as R. Scott Clark put it.
A Third Kind of Replacementism
What is engendered by this is an elevation of the NT above the OT, even though the NT relies on the OT in large part for its validation. A dual-level understanding of revelation is created in the mind (often as not it goes unnoticed), wherein the voice of the OT is always recirculated through the voice of the NT. This fosters a third variety of replacementism, this time involving the original voice of the OT in its context. That voice is stifled and re-transmitted through a particular understanding of the NT and its function. What results is what OT scholar John Sailhamer called a “devaluation of the Old Testament.” He reminds us that,
We must remember that those who first saw Jesus did not have a NT version of Jesus to compare with the OT. They had only the version of Jesus they knew, or knew about, to compare with the OT. Their comparison was later enshrined textually as the NT against the background of the OT. It was the end result of much reflection on the meaning of the OT Scriptures not the NT. (John H. Sailhamer, The Meaning of the Pentateuch, 555)
Additionally, the dissemination of the writings of the NT has often not been given much thought by those whose theological picture is informed by a hermeneutical determinism (i.e. the OT is interpreted through the NT) which was quite impossible for first century Christians. Put bluntly, these saints did not have a NT to interpret the OT with! What the most fortunate of them did have was a Gospel or two and several letters. But this was comparatively rare.
Another by-product of this is what R. Kendall Soulen has labelled “Israel-forgetfulness.” In his own words,
To recall, the model’s foreground is the sequence of episodes that constitute the standard model’s overarching plot: God’s creation of Adam and Eve for the purpose of consummation, the fall, redemption in Christ through the church, the final judgment and final consummation. Although the model’s foreground is by definition not identical with the model as a whole, it does depict how God’s consummating and redemptive purposes engage humankind in universal and enduring ways. The foreground can therefore be said to encapsulate what the standard model depicts as theologically decisive for a Christian reading of the Bible. The difficulty, of course, is that the foreground wholly omits the Hebrew Scriptures with the exception of Genesis 1-3. (R. Kendall Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian Theology, 49)
Put more simply, by only requiring a minimal grounding in the soil of the OT because of the perceived superiority of the NT, the “standard model” (i.e. supercessionism) forgets about God’s enduring commitments to Israel in the OT, and by the adoption of typological understandings of that relation, feels no need to find its roots in those commitments. The resultant theology will be actual, conceptual or “original voice” replacementism. That original voice is a covenantally supported voice, and formal covenants of the kind God made with Noah, Abraham, Phinehas and David are not subject to change, “expansion”, “transformation”, and certainly not “transferal.” Once set down and sealed by a solemn oath, they are hermeneutically fixed forever. It is this very fixity which, I hold, provides the basis for biblical interpretation. Since these covenants are in the OT, the NT cannot (and I argue does not) reimagine them in any way.
I should add here that Dispensationalists normally would never follow me here, and I would never follow them in their advancing of “stewardships” above covenants. This is a big reason why I call myself a Biblical Covenantalist.
Matthew 21:43
Several times we have seen that Matthew 21:43 is used by CT’s to teach that God has done with Israel as a nation, and now the “kingdom” is given to the church. Within such an interpretation there is no wiggle-room for saying the church expands Israel or grows out of it. The “kingdom” is given to another “nation.” There is no organic identity between the one nation and the one that replaces it. G.K. Beale, for instance, in his interpretation of Matthew 21:41, employs Matthew 21:43 to mean that,
Jesus … interprets this to mean that ‘the kingdom of God will be taken away from you [Israel] and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. (A New Testament Biblical Theology, 673. The insertion of “Israel” is by Beale.)
Speaking of the same text on page 680 he writes of Jesus, “rejecting ethnic national Israel as God’s true people.” Furthermore, he interprets the stone cut out without hands, which smashes the image in Daniel 2 as smashing, “the ungodly nations, which also includes Israel” (682). In Part Two I cited Greg Durand using Matthew 21:43 this way. In Part Four Hans LaRondelle was shown using it the same way.
In Part Five I illustrated a confusion that can occur as a result of a too soon avoidance of supercession language by contrasting Sam Storms’s denial of the teaching that, “All the promises given to the former [Israel]have been transferred to the latter [the church]”; a teaching that is expressly taught by many covenant theologians.
In Part Six I concentrated on the common CT misinterpretation of the Olive Tree metaphor in Romans 11 and then compared it with Gary Burge’s replacement theology in Part Seven (N.B. Burge’s book on the land of Israel is often recommended by CT’s). Then in Part Eight I looked at how Jeremiah 31 and 33 are handled by CT’s in order to show how this approach to OT Israel ignores the force of what God promised to the nation. This lessening of the force of God’s commitment to Israel as a nation is essential to replacement theology of all stripes.
So – Is It Wrong to Use the Term?
Since many CT’s themselves use this terminology, and many non-dispensational writers also put their finger on it, I see no good reason not to call it what it appears to me it is. I have spoken of three forms of replacementism. Michael Vlach, in his fine book on the subject (Has the Church Replaced Israel?), follows Soulen in locating four varieties. My three forms are “Actual” replacementism where the church is said to actually replace the nation of Israel in God’s plans (though not, let it be said, as an afterthought). Then I gave examples of “Conceptual” supercessionism where the concepts and ideas related to the nation of Israel are applied to the church as fulfillments of the OT promises. Finally here I noted what I call “Original Voice” replacementism. In this incarnation it is the original voice of the OT text in context that is superceded by the more authoritative voice of the NT.
In all three cases I think we are justified in speaking about replacement theology, although not pejoratively. Moreover, it is important not to charge a brother with teaching actual replacementism when he or she is careful not to do so.
I do feel that sometimes it might be better to avoid the term. I think it depends on what is being discussed. But then I also think that just because one person doesn’t care for a label does not mean that they are unfairly identified. The purpose of these nine posts is to supply grounds for such an identification. Those grounds ought to be understood before using the words “Replacement theology.”
Paul Henebury Bio
Paul Martin Henebury is a native of Manchester, England and a graduate of London Theological Seminary and Tyndale Theological Seminary (MDiv, PhD). He has been a Church-planter, pastor and a professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics. He was also editor of the Conservative Theological Journal (suggesting its new name, Journal of Dispensational Theology, prior to leaving that post). He is now the President of Telos School of Theology.
- 62 views
I rather thought I might get CT’s trying to argue that they are not supercessionists (see the recent piece by Green Baggins). I’m a bit disappointed that no one took up the challenge of these posts.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Perhaps the CT’s are simply weary of the repetitious CT bashing. Although not a full-fledged CT myself, I bailed out of this series some time ago. It’s seems useless to appeal for any other perspective than the one presented, which seems to require Biblical blinders to maintain.
G. N. Barkman
This is not about CT bashing at all. It is about whether “replacement theology” and “supercessionism” are accurate descriptors of CT (and certain other) positions on Israel and the Church. I seem to recall that you claimed that replacement theology was in the eye of the beholder. Well, my point is that many of those who DO teach it say they don’t even when it has been shown that their theological mentors and peers SAY they actually do. Again, my goal was narrow; to show that replacement theology was a real thing and to show where it could be found. Other matters, such as the hermeneutical priority of the Testaments, was subsidiary. Appealing to “the Apostle’s hermeneutic” etc, just bypasses the subject of these posts.
Do you still think “replacement theology” is an inappropriate term? If so, how have I not proven my thesis? How have I been unfair?
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
I agreed to wait until the end of the series in order to make a fair assessment. I must confess that I grew a little weary and bailed out at some point. I do appreciate that Brother Henebury has clarified and defined his thesis. I will attempt to review the entire series and hopefully make some beneficial observations in the next few days.
JSB
Yes, I truly understand how one might say “enough already”. I was a tad surprised that SI wanted to run it. The reason I took my time was so that I could set out the discussion (which recall was on one topic) in such a way as my conclusions were clearly anchored in sufficient material.
Anyway, looking forward to any observations you may have.
Paul H.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Dr. Henebury,
Methinks you are beating a dead horse. How many articles does it take to say essentially the same thing, namely that CT teaches replacement theology regardless of what certain representatives of CT say? Yes, I still believe this boils down to the eye of the beholder. CT will always look like Replacement Theology to you because of your unwavering commitment to DT. I used to hold the same perspective, however CT now looks more like Fulfillment Theology to me, as my understanding of Scripture has changed. There seems little purpose in trying to challenge your perspective because you will never see things differently unless you change your basic orientation. That’s why hermeneutics is not subsidiary but fundamental to this issue. (I am tempted to address why I believe your hermeneutic is flawed, but that would take more time than I presently enjoy, and would also take us into an area that you have already stated to be subsidiary, not essential.)
So, let me stipulate that you have proved your point about Replacement Theology. You have the right to call it what you please. I, and many others, will maintain the right to call it Fulfillment Theology instead. It will always look like Replacement Theology to you and will always look like Fulfillment Theology to us. I think this much was well established by the end of two or three articles. Are you really surprised many found the lengthy series a bit tedious?
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
P. S. I really do respect your scholarship and appreciate your gracious spirit. Let’s just agree to disagree on this one.
G. N. Barkman
I appreciate your remarks about the length of the series. It was not written for SI, and in it I was working through the different types of replacementism as well as giving examples - none of which were from DT’s. The main thrust was that CT’s and non-DT’s do speak of what you call fulfillment theology (which I would say is a question-begging name) with the terms replacement theology and supercessionism, and I provided evidence from CT’s of that very thing. That was my purpose.
So I think it a tad unfair for you still to use the eye of the beholder thing, since none of the “eyes” I cited were dispensationalists. Viz, it is not only DT’s who use these descriptors, ergo, your objection loses much of its force.
Anyway, thanks for your interaction and God bless!
PH
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
My simple understanding of the term Replacement Theology is that the Church has replaced Israel in regard to the OT promises of God relating to Israel’s future. To DT’s, this seems absurd. How can the church inherit promises made to Israel? The promises are obviously made to Israel in its physical and national existence. The promises, therefore, must be fulfilled in the same manner.
CT’s, on the other hand, find much NT encouragement to believe that the church fulfills many (some would say most, even all) of these promises. Without the NT, such fulfillment would indeed seem highly speculative at best, and truly absurd. However, there are so many NT texts that point in this direction, that to ignore this inspired interpretative revelation looks absurd to CT’s. In the light of the NT, the OT promises must be revisited and re-examined. The result is far more nuanced and complex than the simple idea of replacement. It is not replacement, but rather fulfillment. It is not replacement because true spiritual Israel is the church. Regenerated members of ethnic Israel are part of the church. Regenerated Gentiles are also part of the church. Abraham’s true seed is identified by faith in Christ, which includes believing Jews and Gentiles. In Christ, there is no longer Jews and Gentiles, but one body, which is Christ. Like the OT sacrifices and priesthood, many other elements of God’s dealings with OT Israel pointed to Christ. Most Jews did not understand that at the time, but we are enabled to see that now. Much more needs to be said, but I must stop for now.
G. N. Barkman
If what you are saying is true, then why would CTs themselves use replacement and supercession terminology? If there’s one thing that Paul has demonstrated in this series, it’s that a considerable number of prominent CTs are comfortable with that kind of language, in spite of your protests to the contrary.
Paul
I don’t know. I can only speak for myself and what I have come to understand and believe. I think “replacement” is a poor choice to describe the fulfillment of OT statements regarding the spiritual seed of Abraham, which is Christ and all those who are joined to Christ by faith.
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]My simple understanding of the term Replacement Theology is that the Church has replaced Israel in regard to the OT promises of God relating to Israel’s future. To DT’s, this seems absurd. How can the church inherit promises made to Israel? The promises are obviously made to Israel in its physical and national existence. The promises, therefore, must be fulfilled in the same manner.
CT’s, on the other hand, find much NT encouragement to believe that the church fulfills many (some would say most, even all) of these promises. Without the NT, such fulfillment would indeed seem highly speculative at best, and truly absurd. However, there are so many NT texts that point in this direction, that to ignore this inspired interpretative revelation looks absurd to CT’s. In the light of the NT, the OT promises must be revisited and re-examined. The result is far more nuanced and complex than the simple idea of replacement. It is not replacement, but rather fulfillment. It is not replacement because true spiritual Israel is the church. Regenerated members of ethnic Israel are part of the church. Regenerated Gentiles are also part of the church. Abraham’s true seed is identified by faith in Christ, which includes believing Jews and Gentiles. In Christ, there is no longer Jews and Gentiles, but one body, which is Christ. Like the OT sacrifices and priesthood, many other elements of God’s dealings with OT Israel pointed to Christ. Most Jews did not understand that at the time, but we are enabled to see that now. Much more needs to be said, but I must stop for now.
Thank you GNB for your succinct summary. I don’t find the term “replacement” helpful and agree that “fulfillment” better captures the NT perspective on the relation of the Church to Israel. The term used is far less important than the teaching. So some use the term “replacment.” Okay, let’s move on.
I was taught dispensationalism but looking back do not think it is something that would have been evident from the text. Nor was it evident for centuries to most Christians and I think even DT proponents would admit that it is relatively new. That in itself doesn’t make it untrue. I see how they get there even if I can’t get there myself. However, anecdotally, in all my international travel, which is considerable, and in all the places I’ve taught overseas I never met a dispensationalist who came to it from the text. If they came to it they did via American missionaries or books. I’m also puzzled by the insistence of understanding OT prophecy as did the original audience especially in light of the fact that many of the prophets didn’t grasp all they were prophesying, nor did the disciples. So there is a hermeneutical gap and presuppositions that will continue to keep CT and DT in disagreement.
Like you I do respect Paul’s scholarship. In the end, I don’t want to say it doesn’t matter if one is DT or CT. It might affect how much they can work together or partner together in ministry. Whether one is DT or CT is not central to the gospel or indicative of unfaithfulness to the gospel. I believe in the pre-regnal return of Jesus. Whether his eternal reign is preceded by 1000 years of earthly reign with return phases, multiple resurrections, restored Israel, rebuilt temple, reinstated sacrifices, etc. - I remain open to be convinced and once held some of those views but am not now convinced of their scriptural clarity and do not make it a test of fellowship or partnership in ministry.
I appreciate the above comment a lot. While obviously disagreeing with some of it, I think it most helpful
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
For all the ink spilled, the difference between “replacement” and “fulfillment” is hard to see. I think Steve is correct that the term used is less important than the teaching. The question is whether promises made to a specific and identifiable group of people will be fulfilled to/with that group or whether that group is/was/going to be replaced by another group, and whether the promise was actually something else than was promised.
I believe that hermeneutics is the key issue. Some people’s hermeneutics allow them to do things with words and sentences that other people’s won’t allow. I have never been able to satisfy my exegetical conscience that words are as fluid in referent and meaning as other people seem to be able to do. If you tell your son that you are going to take him to the baseball game, and then take your daughter to the shopping mall instead, I doubt he will be satisfied that you call it fulfillment instead of replacement. (If it’s a Tiger’s game, he may be glad to be replaced). And I doubt telling him you had other plans all along will be much of a consolation. Telling him that “son” really meant “daughter” and that “baseball game” was actually “shopping mall” will be hard to grasp, even with the additional revelation. You are the dad; you can do what you want. But there’s going to be an issue. Again, the point is what the words mean.
If you believe that the church is the true Israel, IMO, you actually have to show that from the text of Scripture. And if you do, you will have demonstrated replacement theology (that an ethnically diverse people of an entirely different nature has replaced an ethnically distinct people). To call that “fulfillment” seems meaningless to me. To me, it seems a whole lot easier just to take it for what it says both in the OT and NT. To try to construct some superstructure of explanation on top of it is neither necessary nor helpful. It seems to me there is an easier explanation.
Anyone want to discuss the dispensational / replacement idea from the angle of Revelation 7?
- Are the 144,000 part of the church before they are sealed?
- Are they part of the church after they are sealed?
- Are they the same 144,000 in Revelation 14:1?
- Genealogically, are they Jews?
- Do you consider this sealing as a special grace to Israel or the church?
My own thoughts:
- No
- Yes
- Yes
- Yes
- Israel
John B. Lee
Dr. Henebury, you have proven that a number of theologians have used the words “Israel,” “replacement” (or synonyms thereof), and “Church” in the same sentence. You have also provided examples of theologians who, while not employing this combination themselves, have cited with general favor the works of theologians who have. Therefore, you argue all of these theologians hold to Replacement Theology, which you define as “any theology that teaches a switching out of ‘old Israel’ with ‘new,’ ‘true Israel.’”
Therein lieth the rub. Which “Israel” does which theologian mean in which context? As you recognize, the word “Israel” has various meanings generally and as used in Scripture. The “Church” does too. “Replacement” can also have various shades of meaning depending upon usage.
According to your position, the Bible does not teach that there is a new, true Israel (the true seed of Abraham) which is a continuation of the old, true Israel (the true seed of Abraham) to which the covenant blessings of God ultimately belong. You may be right. You may be wrong. The question is, “What does the Bible teach?” In fairness, that is question that you and most of the commenters have been addressing, not whether certain theologians employ three words in juxtaposition (which does not in and of itself demonstrate your definition of Replacement Theology).
I must side with another Englishman, who aptly said:
Distinctions have been drawn by certain exceedingly wise men (measured by their own estimate of themselves), between the people of God who lived before the coming of Christ and those who lived afterwards. We have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the Church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed one at a time in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement! … Israel in the Covenant of Grace is not natural Israel, but all believers in all ages.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Sermon No. 848, www.spurgeongems.org/vols13-15/chs848.pdf, at p. 5 (boldface added)(italics in original) (6/30/17).
JSB
Featured Resource
Discussion