It is surprising, and yet it is not surprising, that Jew-hatred is on the rise in the world today. Satan never did like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Ever since Genesis 12, when God made a covenant with Abraham, Satan figured out that God was going to use a descendant of Abraham to topple him as the “god of this world”. Antisemitism was born that day. And the “children” of the Evil One (John 8:44) carry that spiritual DNA within them. This is seen very graphically in the religion of Islam which has been at the forefront of antisemitism in both its rhetoric and violent actions. But this dislike for the Jews is not limited to that religious philosophy. What is more troubling is that it is also seen in the realm of Christianity. The rising antisemitism within the church today is not something new but has a long history behind it.
Some Church history. This anti-Jew attitude found in some churches today really began way back in the history of the Church in the writings of some church fathers (such as Origen and Justin Martyr) and some church councils (such as the Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD). They thought that because the Jews of Jesus’ day rejected Him at His first coming, God in turn rejected them. The Church, therefore, has replaced Israel in the plan and program of God. To arrive at this point, it was necessary to alter the way the Scriptures were interpreted. They began using a spiritual or allegorical approach borrowed from the Greeks. And in these ancient sources, some of the rhetoric became quite heated, referring to Israel as “Christ killers”. Modern writers have toned down the harsh rhetoric present in some of the ancient writers. This is especially true after Israel became a nation in 1948. Modern writers, however, still see Israel being replaced by the Church. But it is not surprising that this theological position has been the source for some of the rising antisemitism within Christianity.
Today’s Replacement Theology. Obviously as with any theological position, there will be variations of views within it. However, William Cox fairly represents the idea that the Church replaced Israel. He suggested that God made two kinds of promises to Israel, those of national promises and those of spiritual promises. He then concluded: “The spiritual promises are still being fulfilled through the church today. Israel’s national promises all have been either fulfilled or invalidated because of unbelief.” (Cox, Amillennialism Today, p. 37). This statement is quite wrong on both points. His theological position goes back to the church fathers and some councils but has significant problems with the Scriptures themselves. For example, Psalm 89 is but one powerful passage that Cox and others in his camp need to analyze in detail.
Psalm 89 and the Replacing of Israel.
GOD’S CHARACTER. The Psalmist Ethan began this psalm with a declaration about the character of God. In His dealings with His people, God is characterized both by faithfulness and lovingkindness. “Faithfulness” (89:1, 2, 5, 824. 33, 49) means He is completely reliable and will never go against what He has committed Himself to do. This word was often connected with covenant making. This faithful God is the mighty God (89:5-7) which means that no one can thwart His purposes. And this includes any bad behavior of Israel. Also, God is characterized by “lovingkindness” (89:1, 2, 14, 24, 28, 33, 49) which means that His love does not fail or change. It includes the aspects of loyalty and mercy, which in turn includes the forgiveness of sins. Unlike human love relationships which ebb and flow and can quickly change, God’s love is a loyal, unchanging love. These truths are vital when dealing with a covenant commitment.
GOD’S SWORN STATEMENT. He declared that “forever” will be His commitment to David and that covenant (89:28, 29, 36) which means that nowhere in time will He change that covenant. Forever ceases to have meaning otherwise. If the universe is in existence, so will be the covenant with David (89:36-37). God powerfully says:
“I will not break off My lovingkindness from Him (David) nor deal falsely in My faithfulness. My covenant I will not violate nor will I alter the utterance of My lips, once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David (Psa. 89:33-35).
Very clearly God states that He will not alter that covenant. To switch from Israel to the Church would be doing the very thing and He would be violating both His lovingkindness and His covenant faithfulness. Nowhere in the Davidic Covenant is there provision made for replacing Israel with some other group.
GOD’S COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM CANNOT BE CHANGED. (This includes the Land, Davidic and New covenants which flow from the Abrahamic Covenant). It is important at this point to look at the Apostle Paul’s declaration about covenants that have been “ratified” (made legally binding). In Galatians 3:15, he writes:
“Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.”
Everyone understands that once a contract or covenant becomes legally binding, it cannot be changed: neither the provisions of it nor the parties involved in it. The Abrahamic Covenant was made legally binding in the ceremony that is recorded in Genesis 15. This ratified covenant simply cannot be changed and that is what this theological position does by substituting the Church for Israel.
ISRAEL’S UNFAITHFULNESS. The failure of Israel is not subject to debate. The church fathers and church councils were right in seeing the sin of Israel in rejecting Jesus as Messiah. Israel failed time and again and unquestionably their greatest sin was their rejection of the clear evidence presented to them by Jesus Himself. Was God caught off-guard by that? Of course not. Psalm 89:30-32 shows God’s foreknowledge when it states: “if his sons forsake My law”, which they did many times. God’s response, however, would not be to cut them off, but rather to discipline them. The early church fathers and councils forgot that the covenant making God is a covenant keeping God. He is characterized by faithfulness and lovingkindness. And no amount of spiritualizing scripture can change that. It is puzzling that some of these theologians who emphasize God’s grace appear to be unable to see God extending His grace and mercy to His chosen people. But He does since He is characterized by faithfulness and lovingkindness.
Reasons Why the Church Has Not Replaced Israel.
This article cannot go into detail on the following points which show that the nation of Israel has not been replaced by the Church. Consider the following:
EXISTENCE OF THE UNCONDITIONAL, UNFULFILLED COVENANTS THAT GOD MADE WITH ISRAEL. The fact is that the covenants God made with Israel are unconditional (unilateral), meaning that covenant fulfillment is dependent on God alone. Israel’s sins, while keeping them from blessing, never would terminate the covenant. These covenants remain unfulfilled, but since God has committed Himself to fulfill them, they shall be.
THE BIBLICAL USE OF THE TERM “ISRAEL”. The Old Testament records over 2,000 usages of the term “Israel” and it always refers to a specific national group. The New Testament uses the term 73 times and, following the O.T., uses it of the nation of Israel and the people of Israel. Those replacing Israel with the Church will often use 3 of these 73 uses to try and prove their point (Gal. 6:16; Rom. 9:6 and Rom. 11:26). In Romans 9-11, Paul is speaking about national Israel and their varied response to the gospel in the present and their overwhelming national response to the gospel in the future. He is not talking about the church but his “kinsmen according to the flesh”. Galatians 6 is used by most all trying to prove that the church replaces Israel by showing that “Israel” and “church” are used interchangeably. Their claim is based on the word “and”. They set aside the primary meaning of “and” (kai) and substitute the secondary meaning of “even”, even though there is no compelling grammatical or contextual reason for doing so. This is shaky exegetical ground for a theology.
THE STARTING POINT OF ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH. The Church and Israel did not begin at the same time and are, therefore, not the same entity. Israel essentially began when God called Abraham (Gen. 12) and promised to make a nation from him. The Church began on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). This “body of Christ” could not exist until it had a “head”. That “head” is Jesus who did not arrive at that position until after His resurrection (Eph. 2:16, 3:6; 5:23, 30; Col. 1:18, 24). It is worth noting that in His ministry, Jesus said “I will” build my Church. The Church was still in the future. It did not exist in the O.T.
SPECIFIC SCRIPTURES THAT SUPPORT A DISTINCTION. Romans 9-11 is an example of a N.T. scripture that clearly presents the unique place of national Israel in the future, which does not allow for any replacing of Israel. If replacement theology is to be a credible theological option, it must have passages in the N.T. which shows that God has indeed made a switch from Israel to the Church. They have no such passages. One would expect God to explain His new plan and people in detail after spending 1500 years referring to Israel as His chosen people. Surely a chapter or two to let us in on His breaking of the covenant relationship He had with Israel. He does not do that.
THE EXTERNAL DIFFERENCES. National Israel had an army, specific national boundaries, a system of taxation, forms of government that are not found in the Church. Replacement theologian Louis Berkhof admitted that Israel’s “external institution differed vastly from that of the church” (“Systematic Theology” 572). This fact strongly supports the point that there is a distinction to be maintained.
THE INTERNAL DIFFERENCES. There are also significant internal differences between Israel and the Church. Only saved people are in the body of Christ. Such people enter the Church through Spirit baptism only. Israel, on the other hand, always was inhabited by believers and unbelievers, saved and unsaved. Also, the two functioned under two differing covenants. The Church is related to the New Covenant and Israel was under the Mosaic Covenant. Two very different rules of life. Other internal differences exist, but these surely show us that internally the Church and Israel are distinct from one another.
Out of a person’s theology comes their thinking and living. Antisemitism is rooted in what one believes, whether that be in Islam or Christianity. If we let the Scriptures speak, they are not telling us that the Church has replaced Israel in the plans and purposes of the covenant making God.
