Deuteronomy
14:2: For
you are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the Lord has
chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples
who are on the face of the earth
Since this is International
Holocaust Remembrance Day, here’s an article that fits the occasion.
Ron Matsen, who is president
of Koinonia Institute, also has over 30 years of pastoral ministry as
well. He has lectured many times on end
times, so he is well-suited to discuss “replacement theology;” this theory has
a sizeable end-times application. Replacement
theology is one of the oldest controversies impacting the Christian church. Unlike
controversies on the canon, or Arius, this controversy has never been resolved.
By the time you reach the end of this paper (in two parts), you’ll see why. The subject’s importance is further strengthened by the fact
that virtually all the Reformation-based denominations teach it. And there has been an increase in evangelical
denominations that do, too. So let’s see
what it’s all about. We’ll start with a
definition:
Replacement
theology: The view that the Jewish
people and the land are replaced by the Christian church to fulfill the
purposes of God to become the historic continuation of Israel. The theory says that God rejected the Jews because
of their rejection of His laws and what they did to His Son, so when the Bible
speaks of God’s dealing with ‘Israel’ from the book of Acts and beyond, He is really
speaking to not Israel but the church. The nation Israel has no calling in the plan
of God; promises and covenants are null and void—they have been given to the
church. This is particularly important for the end times. So, the theory goes, Israel is no longer
God’s chosen people.
Is there a Biblical basis
for the view? Definitely. Let’s start with Jeremiah. Poor Jeremiah was the prophet in the last
days of Israel and Judah (Israel split in two when Solomon’s son ruled). He records God’s anger. Jeremiah 3:6-8:
The Lord said also to me in the days of Josiah the
king: “Have you seen what backsliding Israel has done? She has gone
up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there played the
harlot. 7 And I said, after she had done all these things, ‘Return
to Me.’ But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw
it. 8 Then I saw that for all the causes for which
backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given
her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not
fear, but went and played the harlot also
God
considered Himself married to Israel, in a spiritual sense, in this and many
other Old Testament verses (like Jeremiah 31:32). When Israel worshipped other gods, God considered
it harlotry, or adultery. In this verse,
from the Old Testament, He is fed up with His wandering “wife” and has given
the Jews a divorce.
A second
verse that supports replacement theology goes like this: Jesus, in the week before He was crucified by
Pilate and the Jews, prophesies about the Jews’ fate in Matthew 21:43:
“Therefore
I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing
the fruits of it.
The
“kingdom of God” is a spiritual kingdom, revealed since His first advent. Since
Jesus arrived, it is for those Gentiles and Jews who are saved and are
operating under the King’s principles, as Jesus outlined them in the New
Testament. On the subject of His accusation that they would lose membership in
the kingdom, it sounds like He meant the whole nation, all of them. But this is still theory. He says He will take
away the promises previously given to them, and will give them to the saved Gentile
people (not an individual nation; the word ‘nation’ should just be “people.”)
Thirdly, two chapters later, in Matthew
23:37-39, Jesus makes another judgment on the Jews:
“O
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are
sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a
hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left
to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall
see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of
the Lord!’ ”
God’s
patience in longsuffering does have an end.
The word “desolate” suggests that His presence with them (think of the
pillars of cloud and fire in their Exodus) is abandoned. BUT note verse 39, hmmmm.
Lastly, for
this paper, Paul, in Romans, gives us a re-definition of what it means to be a
Jew. Romans 2:28-29:
For he
is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that
which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he
is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is
that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose
praise is not from men but from God.
God has always wanted His people to show a
different spirit to the world. His
loving compassion and His fairness in justice He wanted mirrored in His people.
A “real” Jew is a new creation in the spirit, or shows changes inwardly. One born a genetic Jew is one only outwardly.
But I have a problem about how this verse is
interpreted by replacement theologians. Is
He saying, the genetic Jews were not considered real Jews, and should be
dispossessed? Some would think that. But
think straight on this: Do you see Paul cursing
the Jews, or saying they transferred their covenantal rights to Gentiles? No, he doesn’t. You’re reading beyond what he said to what you
want to hear, out of your prejudice. He is simply defining “real Jew” as any Jew or
Gentile who is saved and showing inward signs of a new creation. Nothing more. Circumcision,
in these verses, is a symbol that signifies them as His peculiar people (see Deuteronomy
14:2 at the beginning of the paper). The
Jews twisted it to a sign of salvation, but Paul is thinking of the symbolic
meaning, that the person “stamped” with it should act how a person ought to
behave, the new creation of a saved person.
(Turning a cheek to those who attack us, or forgiving our attacker, for
example). Most of the Jews were not
“inward” or “real” Jews when they loaded God’s law with man’s burdensome
traditions. Most were arrogant of the
poor, and had no compassion. More than once God told them He preferred mercy
over their sacrifices. Most of the Jews were “going through the motions” if
they even celebrated a religious ritual that God gave them. Their heart wasn’t
in it; they lacked a heart of love for God and His wonderful character.” But not all of them were “fake Jews,”
spiritually.
Those four verses are just a few, but they
present a powerful position in favor of replacement theology. But there are some negatives to the theory. Mr. Matsen points out that this view causes
prejudicial hatred of the Jews, and the theory was instituted by prejudicial
church fathers when they made church legislation. This started ‘way back in history. He cites factual
evidence that Christian fathers clearly showed this prejudice, which was
troubling for me to read, since I had always revered them. The apostles didn’t think this way. Here are a few examples:
Ignatius of Antioch (50-117 AD) taught that those
who partake of the Passover are partakers of those who killed Jesus.
Passover, the Jewish ritual involving the shedding
of blood of an innocent lamb to free the people, is an important symbol of the
sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, whose blood shed for us frees us from sin.
Now please hear me on this: Symbols are
important. So dis-allowing fellowship
and abandoning those symbols is a terrible idea. But it was done by the Western churches to
avoid fellowship with Jews.
Thus, as early as the first century, we have the
first prejudicial quote of many of the church fathers toward the Jews. (The shame of Ignatius is that he was the student
of John the Apostle, the disciple that Jesus loved the most—who never expressed
an angry bone in his body). The idea of placing
all the blame for killing Christ on the Jews germinated very quickly. The problem with the blame, as I see it, is: Both
Jew and Gentile were at fault in Jesus’ death. Fact is, under the Romans, the
Jews were not permitted to sentence anyone to death; they had to clear it with
their Roman Gentile masters—in this case, Governor Pilate. It’s also true the
Gentiles were the ones who tortured Him and delivered the final blow to Jesus’
life; and a gruesome blow that was, as many Scriptures—Old and New
Testament—attest. It’s true, on the other hand, that the Jews hounded Jesus
throughout His short life, and finally egged Pilate to exterminate Him. But he
stalled, knowing that Jesus was not guilty.
If this Gentile had a spine, he could have told the people to get lost, so
he must bear part of the fault for condemning an obviously innocent
person to death. Sure, if he had let Jesus live, the blood-lusting Jews might
have rioted, and he might have had an insurrection like the Maccabees did 200
years before, and that could cause bloodshed, and even loss of his soldiers’
lives. But that was not the cause of his
decision against Jesus. He knew that the
Roman soldiers could handle any riot. He, as many Gentile rulers before (and many
since), simply did not respect life much—whether it was his soldiers, or Jesus. Despite the warnings of his wife, he had no
clue of what kind of Man stood before him.
Jesus was simply an inconvenience. So what if he killed an innocent man?
Get Him out of the way so these people calm down; I want to enjoy the rest of my
afternoon. So, I believe God had guilt
on both parties—the Jews actually cursed themselves for their part in this act
(Matt 27:25), and Gentiles willingly did what they asked. But this was God’s purpose. As Paul pointed out in Romans, we are ALL guilty
of sin; He died for our sin; we all were the reason Jesus died. Each had a hand
in killing Him. That is why I was troubled to read how Ignatius shook off what
he was taught, and blamed the Jews only.
(I have an upcoming blog on the church’s move against the Passover
hinted above).
Justin Martyr (about 150 AD) claimed that God’s
covenant with Israel was no longer valid, and the Gentiles had replaced the
Jews.
So the replacement idea was in full flower as
early as that.
Similar were the thoughts of Irenaeus,
Tertullian, and Origen as well. All
otherwise giants in the faith in those first 200 years after Christ was taken
up.
Things got even more heated up, especially when
the Church gained enough influence to be “married” to the State—i.e., when
Constantine declared them the official religion of Rome (313 AD, Edict of
Milan). The church would then load up with pagans (looking for advantage by
belonging to the “right” church), so now it was powered and attended by pagans.
The Council of Elvira, in Spain, 305 AD, prohibited
Christians of that country from sharing a meal with a Jew, or marrying them,
blessing them, or of observing the Sabbath with them.
That was bad.
Then the hammer came down:
The Council of Nicaea (325 AD), changed the
celebration of the Resurrection from the Jewish Passover and the Feast of First
Fruits, to Easter to
avoid participation with the Jews.
So they made legislation, from evil thoughts as
early as Ignatius. This was a stupid move on two other fronts besides prejudice: Again, symbols are wiped out: Besides Passover, Jesus was the First Fruit
of those who are resurrected. The festival of First Fruits began on Nisan 15,
the day after Passover—so the anti-correct date of Passover legislation also
basically ended celebration of First Fruit.
So they took that spiritual date and that meaningful symbol away too. (Kids
got hurt the most. Most have questions
about what was going on in the special service—thus, when you explain and throw
in the real meaning of the symbols, it’s an evangelistic tool. And easier to memorize because you have
visuals and repetition). Secondly, throwing
it at Easter was terrible, since Easter was already a pagan holiday. It even had
an idolatrous worship of a goddess of sexual fertility (including religious
prostitution) and, likely elsewhere, a goddess of spring (my upcoming blog will
attempt to spell this out). As a result,
Passover, like substitution of Santa Claus instead of the birth of Christ, has
been censored or corrupted away from their real meanings. The fourth reason this was a bad idea was
this: God, in having the Jews celebrate
Passover for Jewish freedom as they had for centuries, wanted them to see the second,
the more real meaning of Passover, meaning Christ. It was a way they could be saved and become Christian
Jews. He also wanted the Christian Jews
to celebrate with Gentiles who believed in Christ. So people could see that it
wasn’t just some Jewish cult; salvation was for everybody.
Here are the Nicaean Council’s statements on this
subject. Keep in mind, this legislation
is really the Western Church trying to exercise power over the Eastern
churches, who were doing the right thing and celebrating Passover and the
Resurrection together, on the right date:
We also send you the good news of the settlement
concerning the holy pasch (ie Passover) namely that in answer to
your prayers this question also has been resolved. All the brethren in the East
who have hitherto followed the Jewish practice will henceforth observe the
custom of the Romans and of yourselves and of all of us who from ancient times
have kept Easter together with you. Rejoicing then in these successes and in
the common peace and harmony and in the cutting off of all heresy…
Saying that the Christian Jews are guilty of “heresy” (and implying
that the Eastern churches that celebrate on the same day are partakers of
heresy, too) was a smear upon the whole Jewish people, and the Eastern churches
as well. The Western churches (centered in Rome) were also forcing the Eastern
churches (who, by the way, want to continue the proper date and have no
prejudices against the Jews), to worship the Roman way (the corrupt Easter),
just to be “united.” (This was the
beginning of the split between the two churches, Orthodox and Catholic, that fully
broke them 700 years later). Fact is, some
of the earliest Jews were not heretical at all; they were the first ones,
largely, who became Christians. Gentiles weren’t fully evangelized until Acts 9.
(PS: I found prejudice in Mr. Matsen’s statement about the Council’s decision,
stating negative things the Council did not say. His source might have wanted the church
fathers in Nicaea to look more spiteful than I have already made them!).
The point of all this is that some people dislike
replacement theory because it “causes” the prejudice you see above. I maintain that it sure happened that way,
BUT--it’s possible to believe in replacement theology without hating the
Jews. Believing in It could be just
a response to Scripture (like the ones above).
We could believe in replacement theory and still have compassion on the
Jews, still understand that their mistakes, like our mistakes, could be
forgiven and covered by the Cross. We
can believe that we are all responsible for crucifying Jesus, Jew and Gentile,
and still believe from the above Scripture in replacement theology, and have
Scriptural backing. Corrupt thinking is
what caused people to lay prejudice against the Jews, not a doctrinal theory.
Thus, we have not made a single point against replacement
theology in this paper yet.
Christians who believed as the Eastern churches did about
Passover for Resurrection celebration were known as Quartodecimans, which means
“the 14ers,” named after the Jewish day of Passover—the 14th of
Nisan. (It included the Feast of First Fruits,
which began the next day).
Now, the worst cut of all:
Later the 14ers (these were Passover Gentiles, not Jews; the Jews had
been persecuted more severely at all stages) were excommunicated from Church
for their “heretical” belief. Some countries even threw out the Jews, like
Spain did in 1492. Having all your property taken away, and going homeless, they
should see as un-Christian. (Excommunication was a big deal at the time; most
people believed that on that act, they would lose their salvation and go to
hell. These people evidently believed God would have mercy on them for standing
up for the meaning of Passover over against a pagan celebration, and see them
righteous vs. their oppressors.
Finally, two more examples of early church fathers who showed
their true stripes (there were many others as well): The Old Testament had been translated by
Jewish scholars from Hebrew to the Septuagint, in Greek, useful by nearly
everybody, since most people in the heart of the Empire spoke Greek. But St.
Jerome, a famous late 4th century Church father, felt it necessary
to translate it from Hebrew to Latin—a questionable idea, since Latin was a
dying language--he believed that the Septuagint was corrupted by Hebrew
scholars, so he rejected the Septuagint.
So here is his quote, and it will help you understand why he rejected
the Hebrew scholars' efforts. He
described the Jews as:
…serpents, wearing the image of Judas, their songs and
prayers are the braying of donkeys.
For history buffs, the renowned Augustine didn’t escape the
prejudicial bite: he asserted that the
Jews
…were deserving of death…
Mr. Matsen points out that all this produces arrogance,
involved in boasting against Jews. As I said before, you can’t blame replacement
theology for that.
Mr. Matsen then did make his first good point: a weakness of the replacement theory is, the
church becomes “branches without roots.”
Let me explain that one. The
church, in the theory, can ignore the Old Testament (since it was “just about
the Jews”) about the rise and fall of Israel. But I have a problem with doing that: the symbols of the Old Testament are gone;
the special meaning of the tabernacle, the religious feasts—the laws God gave
them, too—those laws prevented inflation, they suppressed the homeless count,
they instituted restitution as the best way to handle felons. Israel’s morality
or faith in God in handling crises, the great true stories the kids love to
hear, are all there. You can’t call
these irrelevant. Our roots are in
the Old Testament. Do we not believe that ALL Scripture is profitable (II
Timothy 3:16), even Old Testament? Do we ignore the fact that much of what we
know, in Christianity, was rooted in the Old Testament, and explained to the
Jews? In His Bible, He has written us a
letter—a really long letter—about questions we have all had throughout the
centuries: Why are we here? Is there a God? Is He personal to each person? Does He judge? What are His expectations of us, if any? Much of this is explained in the Old
Testament. IF we see how God treated
Israel when they were bad, and when they were good, we can know how He will
treat us.
Many people get anxious reading the Old Testament because they
assume God is a harsh Judge, eager to shed blood in wars, etc., and they prefer
the loving, easy-going Jesus in the New Testament. Replacement theology
allegedly helps you by urging you to read only the New Testament. On that line of thinking I have an anxious
thought for them: God and Jesus were often the opposite of what you assume--God
is loving and compassionate many places in Scripture, and Jesus can whip you
with His tongue. Jesus talked more about hell than anybody. Here’s one for your anxiety: in replacement
theology, God cut off the Jews! That
means He might cut you off!
This refusal to face mortality must end; wake up! Get ready to meet your Maker by reading His
Word and find out the clear way to avoid hell (it’s not what you think!)
I had to stop in the middle of this debate—sorry. Be sure and get my final points, and decision
next week. As always, praise to Our God.
No comments:
Post a Comment