This is part 2 of a continuing blog series. To read part 1, click here.
There are few theological topics of dispute in recent history that can draw out more acrimony than what I am about to begin writing about. Indeed, it is such that some pretty nasty denunciations can be thrown at those who espouse the theological position that I hold to. I am speaking of course of what is usually referred to as "Replacement" Theology. If you ask many Christians today, "Replacement" Theology is that hateful position that says that God has totally rejected the Jewish people and "replaced" them with the Church - a largely gentile body. According to most today, this doctrine is responsible for most, if not all, of the anti-semitism present in church history and today. Perhaps only Calvinism is equal in the amount of vitriol "Replacement" Theology garners in much of the Evangelical and (especially) Charismatic worlds today.
One might notice that I put the word "replacement" in quotes and put a question mark at the end of the title of this post. This is because defining my terms is going to be tough. To be sure, calling my position "Replacement Theology" is not likely going to win my position much sympathy. After all, if I am going to argue (and I will argue) that God has not in fact rejected the Jewish people and that the Church is more aptly considered a "fulfillment" or a "reconstitution" of Israel, why keep the loaded and pejoratively packed label "Replacement Theology"?
It is a good question to be sure. In all honesty, like just about everyone who espouses my position, I don't much care for the label "Replacement Theology". Others in my theological camp have attempted to give it a more sympathetic moniker. Two of the most prominent are "Fulfillment Theology" and "Supersessionism". By Fulfillment Theology, we mean that the Church "fulfills" the covenants and promises that God had made with Israel of old. The term "Supersessionism" is related to the verb "to supersede", and emphasizes that the Church now supersedes the nation of Israel as God's people just as the New Covenant "supersedes" the Old Covenant.
Both of the above terms are fine with me and much to be preferred over the more popular-level label. But the problem is that both Fulfillment Theology and Supersessionism are much more academic-level and the average person sitting in church every Sunday morning is unlikely to understand what these terms mean. I could try to give it a new name - come up with something on my own - like "Union Theology" or something along those lines to describe my belief that the Church is the "union" of the remnant of Israel and believers among the gentile nations . The problem there of course is related to the problem with Fulfillment Theology; no one is going to know what it means without spending a great deal of time on definitions, clarifications and nuances.
Lastly on this point, there is a real sense in which the Church does in fact "replace" Israel. While I do believe that the Church is more accurately the "fulfillment" and "reconstituting" of Israel, and while I will argue that the Church is the union of Israel and the gentiles into a new body, there is a very real sense in which it is true that the Church does "replace" Israel, just as the High Priesthood of Jesus replaces that of Aaron.
Unfortunately, despite its baggage, it appears that I am stuck with "Replacement Theology". Hereafter, in this and in all subsequent posts in this series, I will abbreviate Replacement Theology as RT, though I may occasionally use Fulfillment Theology and/or Supersessionism interchangeably.
In addition to my own position, the other problem I face is that the opposite position to my own is also difficult to define. The most common name given to the contrary position of RT is "Dispensationalism". Dispensationalism is an entire theological system of interpreting all of the Bible. I won't spend too much time delving into the origins of Dispensationalism. Others have gone into far more depth on its origins. Most trace it to Great Britain and the Plymouth Brethren movement of the early 19th century, led by a man named John Nelson Darby. From there, it began to spread in popularity among American Fundamentalists and Evangelicals partially through C.I. Scofield's study Bible. Theological educational institutions like Moody Bible Institute and Dallas Theological Seminary have been bastions of Dispensationalism throughout their respective histories. It has also been the default position in most Pentecostal denominations (such as the Assemblies of God) and in the Jesus People movement (Calvary Chapel).
Central to Dispensationalism is the distinction that is made between Israel and the Church. Lewis Sperry Chafer writes that: "The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly
objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with
heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity...."
(quoted by Charles C. Ryrie in Dispensationalism: Revised and Expanded, page 33)
But even here, it is not so simple. Today there are broad, popular-level theological perspectives that are similar in most respects to Dispensationalism, yet will sometimes borrow heavily from non-dispensational perspectives, while also emphasizing political and/or cultural concerns. For example, the Messianic Jewish movement and Christian Zionism distinguish between Israel and the Church, but typically do not hold to the more nuanced positions of Classical Dispensationalism. In fact, my experience has been that there are those who will hold to an Israel/Church distinction who will go out of their way to distance themselves from Dispensationalism. The upshot to that oftentimes is the use of verbal sleight of hand to parry critiques of their particular perspective, simply by asserting their independence of Dispensational theology and their agreement with many criticisms of the same.
Still, for all the differences, the common denominator is the distinction that is made between people of God A (Israel) and people of God B (the Church). To illustrate, the statement of faith for Friends of Israel states: "We believe Israel is distinct from the church and central to God’s plan, past, present, and future. The unfulfilled prophecies given to Israel in the Old Testament will find their literal fulfillment in Israel at a future time"
Similarly, Jews for Jesus, a Messianic Jewish organization (and an otherwise outstanding ministry), writes in their faith statement that: "We believe that Israel exists as a covenant people through whom God continues to accomplish His purposes and that the Church is an elect people in accordance with the New Covenant, comprising both Jews and Gentiles who acknowledge Jesus as Messiah and Redeemer."
Nevertheless, despite the important differences noted above, it would be tedious and redundant to consistently have to differentiate between the various labels I just described. So once again, despite the baggage and inadequacies of the name, I am going to simply lump all those who espouse the Israel/Church dichotomy as adherents to "Dispensationalism", unless a sufficient reason exists to differentiate.
Lastly, before I finish, I do want to reiterate that the vast majority of my theological opponents on this issue are truly Christians. They do love the Lord and his people. Many of them are otherwise sound on a number of other important theological and moral issues. I am happy to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them where the Gospel is concerned. So please, despite my strong disagreement with Dispensationalism (broadly considered), do not read into it any nastiness or eagerness to pronounce anathema.
Amen
No comments:
Post a Comment