What is replacement theology?

This blog post has arisen to attempt to answer some proponents of Christian zionism. I am well aware that my answer will be far too short and inadequate to offer a full treatment of this subject, but hopefully it will offer some lines of thought for consideration. Many years ago I visited the Yad Vashem holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, which I found deeply moving. As a Christian I have always been touched by the needs of the downcast and also for the ancient people, the Jews. After all, according to the flesh our Saviour was born a Jew and Romans 9:1-5 is clear: Paul writes: "I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen".

However, at that memorial site, I mused the reason for the Jewish suffering at the hands of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. The holocaust began with Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle) which was Hitler's autobiographical manifesto which shaped his political ideology. This book led to the formulating of the Nazi vision, which led to the Holocaust and other unspeakable sufferings. In short, Hitler had the wrong doctrine, which led to the wrong vision, which led to disaster. We as Christians cannot assume that our doctrine is in accord with sound principles of biblical interpretation. It made me think that I had also better make sure that I held to the right biblical doctrine, because this will shape my vision in Christian service. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians in 1 Thess. 5:21-22 "but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil".

My first appeal in any theological engagement is that we must all do this with humility, with teachability and honesty. I am about to critique opponents of a so called "replacement theology" and it is not uncommon to get a strong reaction when you do so. My question is "why is that?". We need to make sure that when we react, that we do so with fruit of the Holy Spirit and not in the flesh; my experience over the years has taught me that sometimes vociferous opponents are trying to convince themselves, as much as others, because their doctrinal footing is unstable.

Let me attempt to give an initial and brief summary of replacement theology. This term replacement theology is a pejorative term or label used by those Christians who hold to a dispensationalist framework to understand the Bible, against those who do not hold to the same ideas as them, especially in relation to a special "supposed" plan for the Jews and the political state of Israel. The phrase "supersessionism" is another term used to identify this doctrine. It would be asserted that those who hold to a replacement theology teach that the church has replaced Israel with the church and that the state of Israel has no place in God's prophetic purposes. While this would be simplistic, it at least opens up the dialogue.

Those Christian groups that hold to a strong value system to support the Jews, the State of Israel and so forth, commonly hold to a dispensationalist approach to the Bible, one that is pre-millenial and almost always an Arminian understanding of salvation. Those that hold to the supposed "replacement theology" generally speaking hold to a reformed, Calvinistic and covenantal approach to theology, one that takes sound doctrine and biblical exegesis very seriously. I write supposed "replacement theology", because I do not think that this term is sufficient in its assertions. In essence we are considering two very different hermeneutics to interpreting the Bible. Our doctrine shapes our vision, which then motivates our mission, which will be either be faithful or unfaithful to the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the head of the church (Ephesians 1:22-23).

I have several questions to begin with, followed by three book recommendations.

1). Is a dispensational view to the Bible valid? This approach was pioneered by John Nelson Darby in the 19th Century and this approach to biblical interpretation is a relative newcomer on the block. Has the church misunderstood the Bible through centuries until the 19th Century and Darby's new ideas? This is not acceptable in my view.

2). Does God have one people or two? My answer is that the Lord has only ever had one people, the people of God. The church has not so much replaced the Jews, but the purpose of God has expanded in its scope beyond the Jews, following the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

3). Does a dispensational framework hold to a form of replacement theology itself? Why do I say that? In my experience, the dispensational zeal for the Jews, in effect ends up replacing the church with a new found vision for the state of Israel, a political theology, and at times a recovery of the Jewish OT ceremonies, feasts and practices.

Here are three book recommendations for those who would like to explore a different viewpoint to the widely assumed dispensationalist opinion.

1). William Hendriksen "More than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation".
2). O. Palmer Robertson, "The Christ of the Covenants".
3). D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, "Romans 2:1-3:20, The Righteous Judgment of God".