Replacement Theology

Several times in recent years, I have heard people who hold firmly to Zionism and traditional dispensational theology speak about the subject of replacement theology in a manner that I find somewhat perplexing.

While well-intentioned, they seem to think that this is a new doctrine that is now suddenly sweeping through our churches. I desire to deal with this matter here in as simple a format as possible. In order to do so, we must ask, and answer, the following questions:

In this series we have learned how it is always dangerous to replace Israel.

Replacing Israel occurs when one interprets the word Israel in the text of Scripture to mean the church or all believers—understanding them to be the new Israel or the spiritual Israel. It is taking the concept of Israel (the people, the nation, or the land) in a non-literal sense.

In the previous installment, we considered the origin and nature of Replacement Theology, which involves understanding the church to be the new Israel or the spiritual Israel, or otherwise taking the concept of Israel (the people, the nation, or the land) in some non-literal sense when we encounter it within the text of Holy Scripture.

As Bible-believing Christians, we must maintain a keen focus on the importance of Israel—from its biblical past, through its strategic present, to its prophetic future.

And, indeed, we must always remember that God still has a future for Israel! Proclaiming this truth—and acting on it—is the very reason The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry came into existence more than 86 years ago.

Read Part 1.

What’s Going on Around the Globe?

Fazio sees a cyclical aspect to this type of philosophical swing and believes that a commitment to literal interpretation might also move to another point on the globe, such as African nations or other developing countries.

Have the blessings God promised to the Chosen People of Israel been redirected to all believers in the church? Will the church receive the prophetic future God promised the Jewish people repeatedly throughout the Old Testament?

People who answer yes to these questions hold to a position referred to as Replacement Theology, or Supersessionism.¹ This influence is growing today; and it’s important to ask, “What should we who love Israel—and God’s future plan for Israel—do about it?”

Read Part 2 and Part 1.

As we conclude this short series, I’d like to try to unlock the meaning of an obscure phrase, found twice within the letters to the seven churches of Revelation. which has always intrigued me. The references are quite easy to remember, as they both end in the number nine.

Christ told “the church in Smyrna” (Rev. 2:8):

Read Part 1.

The Lord Jesus Christ made two startling announcements, through the Apostle John, to the recipients of the book of Revelation.

Speaking to His congregation at Smyrna, He stated: “I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9).

Then, He addressed the Philadelphian church regarding “those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie” (Rev. 3:9).

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.