Replacement theology states that the church has replaced Israel and is the new Israel to the point of saying that the two terms in the New Testament are synonymous. Arnold Fruchtenbaum attributes this view to William E. Cox in his Amillennialism Today on pages 46-47.
Fruchtenbaum presents a powerful refutation to the claim that the terms Israel and the church are interchangeable in the New Testament when he states that the word Israel is used seventy-three times in the New Testament in Issues in Dispensationalism on page 118 and then proceeds to list all seventy-three references in the New Testament. When you read the seventy-three references to Israel, it is obvious that the two terms are not interchangeable. The overwhelming majority of the seventy-three listings refer to ethnic Israel.
Then Fruchtenbaum states that of the seventy-three references, replacement theologians only use one passage to equate Israel with the church. That one passage out of seventy-three that is Galatians 6:16: “And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” There are two other passages that replacement theologians use but they are not unanimous in believing that these passages equate Israel with the church. The other two passages are Romans 9:6 and 11:26. Some replacement theologians think these two passages speak of national, ethnic Israel and not the church or spiritual Israel.
In Galatians, Paul is defending the doctrine of justification by faith alone against the Judaizers who were persuading Gentile believers to put themselves under the law to earn salvation. So clearly in Galatians 6:15, Paul declares that salvation is not through Jewish circumcision but the power of God who makes those trust Christ a “new creature.” “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” In Galatians 2:7-9, Paul identified two groups: Jews and Gentiles or the circumcision and the uncircumcision. The Jews and Gentiles in the two groups who responded to the gospel preached by Peter and Paul are now in Christ.
In Galatians 6:16, Paul pronounces God’s blessings on these two groups: “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” Paul refers to “them” and “the Israel of God.” Here is where the debate begins between replacement theologians and dispensational theologians. Is Paul referring to two different groups within the church or is he stating that both groups are the same? The question is, “Who is the Israel of God?” If you are a replacement theologian your answer is the church. If you are a dispensational theologian, your answer is Jewish believers in the church.
Fruchtenbaum mentions an important work on Galatians 6:16 by S. Lewis Johnson in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost. The name of the chapter is “Paul and ‘The Israel of God.’” In this chapter, Johnson rejects the view that “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 can be the church for three reasons.
Three reasons for rejecting “the Israel of God” is the church.
The first reason is grammatical.
To interpret the “kai” [English “and”] as “even” so that “them” and “the Israel of God” are the same is use the secondary meaning of kai and not the primary meaning which is “and.”
This is to use the explicative or appositional kai. Johnson provides a principle for this case: “It is necessary to begin this part of the discussion with a reminder of a basic, but often neglected, hermeneutical principle. It is this: in the absence of compelling exegetical and theological considerations, we should avoid the rarer grammatical usages when the common ones make good sense” (page 187). The reason the common usage of kai is not used by Replacement theologians is because it does not fit their amillennial system.
Fruchtenbaum mentions another impressive reason given by Johnson rejecting on grammatical grounds the view that “the Israel of God” is the church. “If Paul’s intention was to identify the “them” as being “the Israel of God,” then the best way of showing this was to eliminate the kai altogether” (Issues in Dispensationalism, page 123).
The second reason is exegetical.
“From the standpoint of biblical usage this view stands condemned. There is no instance in biblical literature of the term Israel being used in the sense of the church” (Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, page189). Romans 9:6 does not refer to “they that are of Israel” as being the church and for that reason not all replacement theologians use Romans 9:6 in their argument.
The third reason is theological.
“There is no historical evidence that the term Israel was identified with the church before A.D 160. Further, at that date there was no characterization of the church as ‘the Israel of God.’ In other words, for more than a century after Paul there was no evidence of the identification” (Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, page191).
Three reasons for believing “the Israel of God” is the believing Jewish remnant within the church.
The first reason is grammatical.
The common use of the kai is the continuative or conjunctive and is the primary meaning which should be used. Charles Ryrie speaks of the emphatic use of kai as in Mark 16:7 and Acts 1:14 which also draw a distinction between groups. Kai is used over 9000 times as simple conjunction or “and.”
The second reason is exegetical.
“Exegetically the view is sound, since ‘Israel’ has its uniform Pauline ethnic sense. And further, the apostle achieves a very striking climatic conclusion. Drawing near the end of his ‘battle-epistle’ with its harsh and forceful attack on the Judaists and its omission of the customary words of thanksgiving, Paul tempers his language with a special blessing for those faithful believing Israelites who, understanding the grace of God and its exclusion of any human works as the ground of redemption” (Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, page192).
The third reason is theological.
What Paul presents in Galatians 6:16 is consistent with his teaching in Romans 9 and 11 that there are two groups in the church: Gentiles and ethnic Jews. In Romans 9, Paul describes Israel’s past (not the church). In Romans 10, Paul presents Israel’s present (not the church 10:1). In Romans 11, Paul predicts Israel’s future (11:25-26). God is not through with Israel.
Both views are presented at Treasuring Christ and the Replacement view defended.
The idea of replacement theology, that the church replaced Israel in God’s covenant is just ridiculous. The three reasons that the passage in Galatians can’t be used, of grammatical, exegetical, and theological arguments should be followed every time we look at scripture and doctrine. It is especially important that we noticed that in the 73 occurrences of the word Israel their main focus is the one Galatians. It is also important to point out that replacement theologians argument is neither grammatical, exegetical, or theological. We need to be very careful not to add or take away from the Scripture or in any doctrine ever.
Paul I agree, as we read and study the Word we must remember to keep good hermeneutical principles. It is not hard to take the Word out of context and twist it to make it mean what you would like for it to say. We can see this every day in cults and other religions that spiritualize the scriptures. We must hold to doctrine and theology to discover the truth and make sure it is the truth that we preach and teach. Enjoyed your post.
Howard, I agree with you that we need to hold to good strong hermeneutical principles. When we fail to do this we miss the point and change what the Bible is saying. When we try and make the Bible fit what we are saying we stir far from God’s truth. We do see these in cults and we as Christians need to live out the Gospel and teach in love what is the Gospel truly is.
We do see in this argument that the proper approach to interpretation means everything. No middle ground or consensus can ever hope to be met when the opposing parties are using two entirely different methods when studying God’s word. Therefore I think that the real debate is not the role of Israel or the church, but the role of proper biblical interpretation. If that is hammered out, then things like Replacement Theology will fall by the wayside.
The amillennialist are using this replacement theology to lay the groundwork for their position. Through my time here at Piedmont and the courses I have had on Dispesationalism it is clear that this is the correct view in scripture. Out of the 73 times the word Israel is used in the New Testament that one of them is agreed on by replacement theologians to equate the church with Israel. This view is just wrong. There is a clear distinction between the church and Israel all through scripture and on into eschatology. Replacement theology has a week argument at best and is easily refuted in scripture as we have seen in this post.
Hello Howard, I would also add to your argument.
1. Church is not in the Old Testament.
2. Romans chapter 9-11 teach a future for these people who are not the church.
3. There is no mention of the church between Revelation 4:1 to Revelation 20. During the tribulation God will turn His attention back to Israel.
4. The use of the word “and” in Galatians 6:16 means that Paul is referring to 2 different groups. Not the church being the new Israel.
I agree with your post. Have a great day, David Ford
Yes it is a weak argument. Most Covenant theologians are amillennialist and they hold on to the argument. Their theology is a strain on issuse of salvation and eschatology. The use of the one verse in Gal 6:16 reflects the weakness of the argument.
I understand that some Christians are indoctrinated into believing the church has replaced Israel. You will find that many of these same Christians and the churches they attend like to impose a lot of Old Testament principles on New Testament believers. Some Pastors teach from their pulpit as if they are Moses, and his congregation is the Israelites. But the change in me came when I examined the scripture closely and became a student of the word. I believe that if you are an in depth student of the word you will see that Israel and the church are clearly different. This article just cements my belief that they are different, especially on the use of the word “and” in Galatians 6:16. Clearly it is 2 groups Paul is referring to in this passage. The other concrete passage for the 2 being different is Romans chapter 9, 10, 11. There is a future prophetic plan for the Jewish people of Israel.
Many times in order for a church, as you said, to give rules or guidelines regarding tithing they must apply principles that are from the Old Testament. And as you said this leads to their faulty interpretation of the millennium.
In addition, I feel that those three chapters in Romans are the most conclusive concerning dispensationalism and the interpretation of the millennium.
I am so glad you are a student of the Word David and it is exciting to read your post on how a change came over you as you studied the Word. I am a firm believer that you do not impose your belief system upon the Word but you let the Word impose its belief system on you. So often we go into the Word with a wrong notion and feel we have to change what we read to fit our belief system. I believe this is what is being done with replacement theology. Israel and the church must be one so they make the Word fit their belief system. Keep studying and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you.
That was my take on it. Not that it is okay, but I think this interpretation survives on people not getting into their word, opening up to the other views and simply just critically thinking. Because the text clearly shows that replacement is just out of the question. Plus, it just seems to take more effort to force OT applications onto the church.
The idea of replacement theology, that the church and Israel are interchangeable, can only hatched through a preconceived notion without allowing the Scriptures to speak on its own behalf. The Galations six passage constitutes two separate groups: the first group 6:6a, paul wishes blessing on them as they walk according the will of God, the second (a separate) addressed group, 6:6b is the Israel of God; this most likely refers to the saved Jews. It is best to take this passage with a literal, normal approach and view Israel as all the physical Jews during this New Testament time.
As is mentioned above and perhaps the most convincing argument for dispensationalism is chapters nine through eleven of Romans. God is without question not finished with Israel. Because God faithful to his promises, there is work yet to be done. It is foolishness to overlook the evident future aspect of the dealings with Israel. In order to adhere to a replacement theology this thought must be bypassed. The blessings that Israel has in store will be brought to fruition when Christ returns.
Michael, I like your post and I agree that there is future work with Israel and God is not finished with them. I think some compelling evidence is the land promise that has never been fulfilled but will be fulfilled in the coming millennial kingdom (Gen. 15:18). To say that Israel is the Church is not theologically correct.
There are several things that jump out at me in this debate about Replacement Theology. First is the importance of how Christians approach Scripture. In an earlier post by David, he writes of how a change came over him when he became a student of the word. If we as believers approach the Word of God humbly, and with the truth as our only goal, God will not mislead us or bring us into a state of confusion. Too many people seem to be more interested in winning a debate that in discovering the truth. Secondly, it seems that those who hold to the Replacement Theology view have forgotten the main rule in biblical translation and interpretation, that is context is everything. When one does not take into account what is going on around a certain passage, the likelihood of misinterpretation is greatly increased.
Very good insight. Reading the Bible is not like reading any old book. Guidance must come from the Holy Spirit to comprehend a lot of what is written. Full knowledge of this book can never be understood I believe in this lifetime. Dr. Bowman I am sure is still gleaning insight from it. God is not out to mislead, I agree. His wisdom is vast and will be poured out on us till we finally get to meet, and then some. Contextualization is very important. This is a big problem with most…a verse is picked, sounds good, serves a purpose, but it in no way means what people think and they in turn pass it on and so rolls the ball….hence we get a new “religion” born out of wrong ideas but usually with good intentions so they are left to spread false doctrine just because they are a “church”
The Replacement theology is not biblical sound. Why would the Church take Israel’s place. The Church and Israel are to separate things. Israel refers either to a person (Jacob), a people group (the Israelites), and a Nation. The Church is made up of believers of Christ. The church is the body of Christ. The word church comes from the Greek word kyriakon which means belonging to the Lord. Why would the apostles use another word for the church if they just took the place of Israel, would they not just have called them Israel? I believe the Church has a purpose while Israel has a purpose in this world and doing God’s work.
Brandon I love your point about the church and Israel separate in the use of the Greek word. Sometimes these “theologians “come up with these so-called doctrines and a run with them based on a stretch of one passage that just isn’t true. I’m with you the church has his purpose as Israel had it’s, in Gods work.
Replacement theology, that the church is Israel, is summed up perfectly in Ryrie, pg.460. “Also, when the disciples questioned the Lord just before His ascension concerning when the kingdom promised to Israel (not the church) would come, He did not tell them that the kingdom had been changed to the church, but only said that he could not reveal the time when the kingdom would come (Acts 1:6-8). In other words, whatever form the kingdom would take in the present age (i.e., the mysteries of the kingdom) would not change or abrogate the promises of the Davidic Covenant concerning the future, earthly kingdom.” When we have Jesus telling the disciples that He couldn’t reveal the time the kingdom would come, doesn’t that give ample proof that the church is not Israel? Also the church does not fulfill the yet-fulfilled promises made to Israel, there must be a time when they will be fulfilled, and that time is in the Millennium.
I agree with your comment on Acts 1:6-8. When the disciples asked Jesus if He would restore his kingdom at this time and He replied that it was not for them to know the times which God had set. I do not see that Israel has replaced the church either. God still has a future plan for Israel that has not yet been fulfilled.
This was an interesting view that I was not familiar with before. I do not know why people read into the scripture to make it fit within their model instead of just taking it at face value. I always find it fascinating that people want to base a core truth or doctrine or theological viewpoint on one or two Scripture verses and ignore the myriad of other verses that speak to the contrary. Replacement theology seems to ignore the fact that throughout the N.T. (73 times) the word Israel is used and it has nothing to do with the Church, but they use Gal. 6:16 to base an entire theological viewpoint around. My father is constantly talking about balance in the Christian life and how Scripture is always balanced. This viewpoint is totally unbalanced. Replacement theologians also have to change the meaning or interpretation of wording in the Greek to make Israel and the church to be one. Again this is nothing more than putting your viewpoint into the Scripture instead of letting the Word dictate the viewpoint.
It would appear that the use of the Galatians passage has become somewhat of a “locus classicus” in replacement theology. And they would certainly need one as a case cannot really be built for it by a normal reading of the New Testament.
I would certainly agree that if you have to base an entire theological system of one verse (against 70+ that speak against your interpretation) then you have imbalanced what the Bible says.
The Scriptures clearly make a distinction between Israel and the Church. Most theologians state Gal 6:16 makes no reference to the church. Most believe it is a connection with Jewish believers. Dispensationalist have arrived at the right conclusion. This doctrine is confusing to Covenant Theologians since they must incorporate the Covenant of works and Grace.
The Scriptures clearly make a distinction between Israel and the Church. Most theologians state Gal 6:16 makes no reference to the church. Most believe it is a connection with Jewish believers. Dispensationalist have arrived at the right conclusion. This doctrine is confusing to Covenant Theologians since they must incorporate the Covenant of works and Grace. So, in replacement theology the church has replaced Israel as the primary means by which the world is blessed by God’s work. Though it is true that the church does replace Israel in some areas such as properly representing God on earth, acknowledging the promise of the Messiah, etc., it is not biblical to say that God is completely done with Israel and that the Christian church is its complete replacement.
“For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, ‘The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will remove ungodliness from Jacob,’” (Rom. 11:25-26).
Some replacement theologians would teach that any mention of “Israel” after Acts chapter 2 (Pentecost) would be referring to the Christian church, but the above Scripture cannot be used to support that idea. In fact, it plainly contradicts it. Obviously, God is not done with Israel. The text tells us that God has hardened Israel but it also tells that disheartening is temporary.
Replacement theology is also known as supersessionism which means that the Christian church has superceded Israel in God’s plan.
This post is helpful in understanding the replacement theology concerning Israel and the church. Replacement theologians teach that Israel and the church are interchangeable and are the same. However Fruchtenbaum in the post refutes this theology very well. He states that of the seventy-three times Israel is used in the New Testament only one passage is used by the replacement theologians to prove their point. The replacement theologians use Galatians 6:16 to show that Israel and the church are the same. The dispensational theologians proclaim that these are believers who are Jews.
In the post Fruchtenbaum refers to a work by Lewis Johnson who rejects that “the Israel of God” used in Galatians 6:16 is the church. The grammatical, exegetical, and theological reasons given by Jonson are convincing. After reading the post, I agree that Israel and the church are two separate entities. From previous teachings and studies I believe that Israel will receive the land promised to Abraham in the covenant made by God. God can not lie and what he says will come to pass.
Replacement theology is clearly wrong. Not many ways to put it. I think that most people might not choose it after seeing and understanding other views. I think it happens when a person not really reading the text and listening to someone that may think they got it. It is easy to think that God has chosen the church over Israel, but just because something is easier to believe does not make it right. The operations of Israel and the church are very different. Israel is God’s chosen people that He chose and separated from the nations. The Church is God’s chosen people that are sealed with the Holy Spirit and separated from the world. And I think if the church was supposed to replace :Israel, then wouldn’t that make God a liar since there are still promises that need to be fulfilled?
I agree, it, to me, is clearly wrong. Not only does it seem like passages are misunderstood but looking at it as only spiritual. When your foundation is wrong, we tend to mess the rest up.
This article makes a good starting straying point for studying the differences of interpretation between covenant theology and Dispensationalism. In our reading of Ryrie this week I was surprised to learn that Covenant Theologians have to resort to such things as making the Abrahamic covenant conditional rather than unconditional.
What is also surprising to me, is that such incredibly smart theologians such as Wayne Grudem (who uses the “Israel of God” passage to support his view) can neglect the vast amount of New Testament references that show Israel to be a delegate entity in the church age.
When I look at most misinterpretation of Scripture, it is because context of a passage is not looked at. Many like to pick and choose which passages they want to look at instead of taking a passage in context in it’s writing. I could never understand why some of my (Reformed) friends trash talked Israel. “They killed our Savior” is the answer given as to why. That answer never made sense to me. Now that I understand that they hold to replacement theology, I better understand what they were saying. There is a distinct difference between the Church and Israel. Matthew 16:18 Jesus would not say “I will build my church” he would have said “I will continue my church” or “I will rebuild my church.” When taken in context, I find nothing in Scripture that would make me think God’s promise will change.
Hermeneutics is a literal grammatical-historical and normal interpretation and replacement theology has taken these out entirely in coming to its conclusions.
Paul wrote “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:” in 1 Corinthians 10:32. This reference to Jews separate from the church shows that the New Testament church did not replace the Jewish nation. Romans 9:6 distinguishes the nation as a whole from the believing element within the nation. This is the contrast between Abraham’s physical descendants and his spiritual descendants. Not all of Abraham’s physical descendants are to be recipients of His spiritual blessing. National Israel continues with its own promises and the church is never equated with a so-called “new Israel” but is carefully and continually distinguished as a separate work of God in this age.
Wow this is a very good post Nigel. The point of separating the church and Israel in Romans 9 is one of the strongest arguments I have seen because of the distinguishment of national Israel and the descendants of Abraham that have been blessed by his seed who is Christ.
Replacement theologians have a very very weak argument in my opinion. No where does the Bible ever equate Israel and the church. I did not know how many verses there were, but seventy-three is quite a handful, and for R.T. to grasp onto one verse to prove a point and leave seventy-two others would seem a bit shaky at the minimum. I am sure somewhere they have tried to explain a few more away, but Romans 9, 10, and 11 is a grand slam when it comes to convincing anyone that Israel has a past, present, and future in Gods plan separate from the church. Galatians 6 when read with a normal literal hermeneutic is clear that there are two separate groups being spoken of. The “and” is a dead give away, plus I also agree that if Paul meant it to be one group, the “kai” would not have been there. He was very articulate and for us to put meaning where there clearly should be only one, is heretical to say the least. Let Scripture define itself…let it say what it has to say and lets not put meanings where they shouldn’t be. Understand the culture, read carefully, pray, listen, be patient, and let the Holy Spirit work on His time to bring understanding and wisdom, not on our own time. This I believe is the biggest mistake…defining Scripture on our own terms when we know it cannot be done w/o the H.S.
I love the simple way in which to distinguish the church from Israel given in the second paragraph of this post. The church cannot be equated with Israel based on this simple exercise. What is saddest about replacement theology to me is that they bring the promises of God to null and make a mockery of him. Christ had a special dealing with Israel and we see Christ’s heart in that he wanted to draw all of Israel underneath his wings but they would not let him. Replacement theology has been disproved as embarrassing and new replacement theology that says that the church is Israel in full bloom is just a mask for the same replacement theology that has always been taught. Yes we have commonality through the grace of Christ but we also have distinction for as long as we are on this earth. My heart breaks for Israel.