Supersessionism

What is replacement theology? How old is it? What is it that might be new about it?

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.

We are concluding this series with a practical case study, showing how these issues worked out in the life, ministry, and influence of one of the greatest Reformers in the history of the church.

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.

We briefly examined the development of this doctrine up to the time of the Reformation. This is where we will take up our historical journey in this article.

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 the series.

Read the series.

I’ve mentioned analogies in this series, so let me give one of my own.

Suppose someone made you a promise concerning something of great importance to you. This person then went a step further and, to show his intent to make good his promise, entered in to some solemn ritual involving a self-maledictory oath. You could surely trust the promise right?

Read the series.

Read the series.

A Plea for Plain Speaking

I am considering this matter of plain speaking in theological discourse, and have noted my dislike of those views which put something in a such way that it is easy to mistake the intentions. We are used to being given the run-around by the cults—for they deal in duplicity—but evangelical brothers and sisters can do this sort of thing too. I only wish to issue a plea for plain-speaking.

I’m going to repost a group of articles I wrote years ago about the God of Supersessionism. I have been having fun lately on ‘X’ with people who want to correct me on my view of the covenants with the usual fodder of ‘the NT reinterprets the OT.’ One of these individuals informed me the “the Covenant” in Genesis 1-3 was plainly in view. When I asked him (repeatedly) to show me this “covenant” he implied I needed to receive the Spirit! Another gentleman who claimed the NT is required to understand the OT was challenged with the five covenants God mentions in Jer. 33. His response was to close the conversation down.

Read the series.

Part Four of the book contains essays on “Jesus and Israel’s Future.” Michael Wilkins is well known as an expert on the Gospel of Matthew, and his piece considers how the Gospel tackles Israel’s future is portrayed in light of the negative reactions to Jesus’ ministry (e.g., 314).