Replacement Theology: Is It Biblical?

Debra Hodges
1 day ago
4 min read

Ancient ruins and a church separated by a crack. A menorah, Star of David, cross, globe, and scrolls with text are present, under golden light.

Introduction

Dr. David L. Cooper (1886–1965), the founder of The Biblical Research Society, made a statement regarding the best way Scripture should be interpreted. The following is the full version of the quote.

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.

I bring this quote up because I think believers should consider its practicality and truth before fully embracing the doctrine of Replacement Theology (also called Supersessionism or Fulfillment Theology). I believe this doctrine misinterprets and spiritualizes the meaning of certain Scriptures, when there’s no reason not to take them literally.

Definition and background

Replacement Theology is a Christian doctrine that presumes the Church has permanently replaced national Israel as God’s chosen people. This doctrine holds that God has no separate plan for the nation of Israel and no future role for the nation in prophecy. The Church is now the “new Israel,” and all the promises made to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament are now spiritually fulfilled in the Church.

This doctrine believes the reason God transferred His promises of land, blessing, and covenant identity from Israel to the Church is that Israel failed to keep God’s covenant by rejecting Jesus as Messiah, thus forfeiting their special status as God’s chosen people.

Early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr and Augustine of Hippo were instrumental in developing this theology, partly in response to Jewish persecution of early Christians, and partly to distance Christianity from its Jewish origins.

While this doctrine has a long history within Christian theology, there are good reasons to question whether replacement theology fully and accurately aligns with Scripture.

The Biblical problem with replacement theology

The first problem with the idea that God changed His mind about the covenants He made with Israel is that Scripture shows that God’s promises to Israel were not dependent on Israel’s obedience, but on His faithfulness.

In the Abrahamic Covenant, God promised to give him land, descendants, and blessing (Genesis 12, 15, 17):
In the Davidic Covenant, God promised to give him an everlasting throne (2 Samuel 7):
In the New Covenant, God told Israel that His law would no longer be written on stone tablets but written on their hearts (Jeremiah 31:31–37):

In Jeremiah 31, God ties Israel’s permanent existence to the permanence of the sun, moon, and stars. By asserting that God has made His promises to Israel null and void, it makes the doctrine of Replacement Theology sound, as if it implies that God breaks His word.

Only if these decrees vanish from my sight… will Israel ever cease being a nation before me. (Jeremiah 31:36, NIV)

The second problem with the doctrine of Replacement Theology is that the Apostle Paul rejected the doctrine in the book of Romans.

“Has God rejected His people? By no means!” (Romans 11:1)
Paul asserts that all Israel will be saved after experiencing a hardening until the full number of Gentiles has come in (Romans 11:25–26).
Paul called Gentile believers a “wild olive shoot” that would be grafted into Israel’s olive tree. (Romans 11:17).

It’s ludicrous to believe that the covenant promises of Almighty, Holy God can be broken due to the failures of the promised. If that premise were true, then no believer has assurance, because salvation itself depends on God’s faithfulness, not human performance.

The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. (Romans 11:29, ESV)

The third problem with Replacement Theology is the fact that Jesus Himself affirms the future restoration of the nation of Israel.

You will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’ (Matthew 23:39, ESV)

By this statement, Jesus is implying the following:

Israel still has a role to play in human history
Israel will one day recognize Jesus as her Messiah
God’s covenant purposes are not yet complete

Rightly dividing the word of truth

Scripture plainly states that all believers are one in Christ. There is no group that God favors over another, since the New Covenant extended His grace and promises to all people through their faith in Jesus.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28, ESV)

Replacement Theology distorts prophecy and teachings about the end times. To believe in this doctrine, one must take the following liberties with Scripture:

Allegorizing land promises
Spiritualizing prophetic passages
Dismissing Israel-focused prophecies in Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation

Scripture clearly indicates the nation of Israel has a definitive role to play at the end of the age (see Revelation 7, 12, and 14).

Conclusion

The real issue at stake in the doctrine of Replacement Theology is God’s character. Throughout the Bible, God is shown to be faithful in keeping His promises despite human failure.

If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself. (2 Timothy 2:13, ESV)

If God can permanently abandon people, especially people He personally chose, made covenants with, and preserved throughout the ages, then the Gospel itself becomes unstable. This is not the case, because Scripture paints a picture of God as a loving, merciful, faithful, long-suffering, and just Heavenly Father who deeply and sacrificially cares for His rebellious children.