The Jewish Question – Replacement Theology under critical review

May 2005

Some notes from a friend, Mark Tronson

(Mark would appreciate your feedback – mark[at]bushorchestra.com

1. A Theological Debate

As this trip is associated with my personal Mission to Jewish people, I need to discuss with you a theological debate. To my mind there has never been any mutual satisfaction or agreement as to the antagonists in this. The issue is confused further by the Zionist nationalistic cause.

The debate rages within the theological world as to whether the Jewish people ceased as God’s Covenant people at the Cross. This is at the heart of the debate. The very early church was ambivalent as “Christ followers” never saw themselves as outside of Judaism.

The disciples worshipped in the Jerusalem temple and rural synagogues. Here “Christ followers” received Roman Imperial protection as Judaism was recognized as a legitimate Religion. Once the custodians of Judaism saw that “Christ followers” presence was creating a difficult political question for Judaism, largely due to “in your face preaching that Jesus is Messiah”, it became an issue.

As this new movement of “Christ followers” expanded exponentially – AND – including non-Jews (the Gentiles) – AND – moreover their incessant claim that Jesus is Messiah (the Greek word in the New Testament for Messiah is ‘Christ’) it eventually forced upon itself a mutual separation.

This new movement also created an economic crisis. We read of this in the Acts of the Apostles with the loss of sales of ancient religious artifact rites. The role of the ancient gods was challenged as was Caesar worship.

Conflict with Judaism first
(in spite of the fact that thousands of Jews became “Christ followers”),

then with Rome
(again in spite of the fact that thousands including those in Caesar’s own household became “Christ followers”)

became inevitable “institutionally”.

2. What are the Jews’ standing before a Christian God?

This is increasingly becoming a very difficult question.

The early Church fathers on the most part were of one accord, but that was largely due to their anti-Semitic version of Christian history.

Justin Martyr AD160 wrote against the Jews “The Scriptures are not yours, but ours”.

The Cappadocian Fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus) were of one mind with a strong emphasis on the Trinity (some suggested they even believed in three Gods not One in three persons) and thereby castigated the Jews.

Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons 177AD wrote “Jews are disinherited from the grace of God”,

Tertullian a great theologian on the deity of Christ 160-230AD wrote his famous treatise “Against the Jews” saying that God had rejected the Jews in favour of the Christians.

Augustine who attempted the first major systemization of Christian theological thought, likewise rejected the Jews and that Christians were the inheritors of God’s favour.

These reflect but a few in SEPARATING “Christ followers” (Christians) from “Judaism” on the primary basis that the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah and from Matthew 27:25 that Jesus’ blood would be upon them and their children.

This early church fathers’ teaching placed the institutional Jew “outside the Salvation of Christ” and this has come down to us in a very clinical way of thinking (referred to as Greek western thought).

This is “Replacement Theology”. It is the basis upon which anti-Semitism is built.

The Reformation produced the greatest hater of Jews in the 500 years of Christian history, Martin Luther. His writings against the Jews are vile and filthy. You cannot read his writings on the Jews without putting cotton wool in your ears and washing out your mouth with soap.

Holocaust academic circles today acknowledge that Luther’s impact on German “Jewish” thought was undoubtedly the popular well spring of Nazi ideology. It also influenced thinking throughout the West.

Christian instruction – brought down through the centuries to us and as taught in theological colleges / seminaries – is that the Covenant with the Hebrews (the Jews) passed from Judaism to Christianity at “Calvary” – this is Replacement Theology.

This affects every attitude we have toward Jews and the anti-Semitism witnessed over centuries.

3. What of God’s heart for His people?

For a good number of theological scholars and bible lovers, there remains a place in God’s heart for the Jews and more so point to both Old Testament and New Testament passages. The major and minor prophets particularly Isaiah and Ezekiel extol the relationship between God and his Covenant people (the Jews) and where many prophecies link God and His Covenant in situations to whit, are yet to be fulfilled.
In the first instance the debate proceeds from the Old Testament resting upon the nature of God and His promises.

The ultimate question for many who favour this view of the Scripture, is that throughout the Old Testament God has done what He has done to stand upright upon His word and for His Name sake in order that the nations might recognize Yahweh as the one true Living God.

In this view, ample evidence is shown in the Scripture for the prophetic word “being fulfilled” time and again, and in more recent times, the one critical historical hallmark of prophecy was the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland (1948) after almost two centuries in Diaspora.

There is much literature on this subject and in recent decades hundreds of prophecy conferences have been held and many won to Salvation in Christ through such seminars and preaching.

In the second instance the debate proceeds, that Paul in
a.. Romans 11:17 says Christians are “grafted in”, b.. Ephesians 2:13 Christians are “brought near” and c.. Romans 15:27 Christians are “partakers” –

These don’t reflect a usurping of the Covenant or indeed a replacement at all. Christ followers are “joined into” what God had been doing in Israel to bring redemption to the world.

Moreover, this view holds that as in Romans 11:29 that God did not break his Covenant promises with Israel.

Should this view “hold weight” – then God has NOT dispensed with his chosen people, and the Jews retain a specific place in the economy of God.

“Replacement Theology” is under critical review.

4. There is difficulty in both schools of thought.
Should the early church fathers and Luther be “solely” correct in their theological understanding of where the cut off point is for Salvation (Calvary) – then it is said by those who hold the other view that God is NOT true to His promises, and God’s character as revealed in both the Old and New Testament does not allow that.
Should the other be “solely” true, then for what purpose was the Cross if Jesus’ death was not a sacrifice for all mankind including the Jew.

This is the basis of the Gospel – Jesus, Lamb of God slain for the sin of the whole world. What of the suffering servant, the innocent sinless perfect God in humankind – fully God and fully man – Yahweh fulfilling the Covenant with His own Son.

BUT on the other hand, history of fulfilled prophecy for the Jews is pointed out. Nor can it be denied the unmistakable influence Jewish people have had. Their business sense and their endeavours in whatever field they have put their mind to do.

In our own history many of Australia’s most distinguished son’s and daughter’s in public, private and military life have been Jews. We know them as historical household names.

Jews outnumber in percentage of population in matters of financial and national influence many thousands of times greater than any comparative statistic.

The two views are not reconcilable. This is a very difficult theological debate. I have no conclusion in my own heart. Christ died for me as He did for my friends and my Tronson family members who are Jewish.

At the same time I affirm that within the economy of God is a place for his Chosen people, and I am unable to reconcile the two within existing historic theological frameworks.

5. One Messianic Option

In 1999 on a leaders training tour of Israel our group was introduced to a leading member of a Messianic Jewish Christian group in Jerusalem. It proved to be a most interesting and enlightening theological talk and subsequent discussion from all us “supposedly theological types”.

There is a growing Messianic Jewish movement, which seems to illustrate something of a middle path. I have given this much thought without coming to a firm conclusion one way or the other. It continues to challenge me, not least to look with fresh eyes the New Testament, particularly Paul’s letter to the Romans in the passages quoted above.

Essentially, these Messianic Jewish groups (there are many with various dynamics – not unlike in the USA where there are some 871 Protestant / Pentecostal denominations all with varying degrees of this or that) have come afresh to the New Testament.

Christians have looked at the Gospel story from the end of Jesus’ earthly story, from the Cross and the Resurrection. These Messianic Jewish groups come to the story as “Jews of the Covenant”.

They are not coming to the Gospel story in the past tense, as in the Acts of the Apostles, whose sermons preach about a past event – in other words – Calvary and Resurrection which happened “some time ago”.
This Messianic Jewish Christian view rather, centers on Jesus’ critical question to Peter, “Who do you say that I am?” And the third answer Peter gave was that – Jesus is Messiah (the Christ).

It is to this answer that the Messianic Jewish Christian movement appear to be based theologically.
This is a really important distinction.

These Jews as the Covenant people, HAVE recognized like Peter, that JESUS is MESSIAH – the Lamb of God, the fulfillment of prophecy, the Prince of Peace, the Ancient of Days, the fulfillment of their COVENANT.

Therefore this Messianic Jewish Christian movement lay claim to the promises of God as they have accepted the Messiah as their collective and individual Saviour and Lord.

Jesus in this view therefore, as in John 3:16 died for the world (the whole world, in other words, the Gentiles), to bring the Gentiles, to “graft them in” as Paul explains in Romans where Gentiles are grafted into the Covenant family.

Anyone, Jew or Gentile who rejects Jesus as Messiah is not a part of the “New Covenant” and it is at this point traditional Christian thought connects with this Messianic view.

The difference lies in the nature of the original Covenant in that Jews who accept MESSIAH receive into “THEIR” Covenant those Gentiles who have come to the foot of the Cross in repentance and accept Jesus MESSIAH as Saviour and Lord of their life.

This is the “New Covenant”. Until Calvary, Gentiles were not part of the Covenant community.
This Messianic movement opens a different door for Jewish people to consider.

It appears to answers some of Paul’s more difficult writings, its lateral thinking dynamic opens a fresh set of possibilities and moreover the Covenant with God’s chosen people is retained.

The parameters I am still struggling with.

As I understand this Messianic view, Jesus did not die for the Jew who accepts Jesus as MESSIAH as by the Jew accepting Jesus as MESSIAH the Covenant for that person becomes fulfilled as is Salvation – the Jewish person becomes intoxicated with the love of Christ as MESSIAH is recognized within the longing inner depths of the Jewish soul. Moreover, the Day of Pentecost, the receiving of the Holy Ghost, is just as valid for the Messianic Jew as it is for the Christian. The “grafted” link is established.

Christian thought on Salvation deals with “past tense” whereas this Messianic view reinterprets Covenant Salvation with “present tense” – but this tense issue is Greek / western thinking, not Hebraic.

6. Zionism

The Zionist situation was initiated in the mid 1850’s with a small group of Jews seeing Palestine (the Holy Land) as a Jewish State and over the next 70 years this movement grew. American Jewery became important in this. Their financial support to the Allied cause in WWI was based on an understanding that Palestine would be retained in western influence for ultimate Jewish self government. This was important to many American Jews as most came out of Russia and did not trust Russia’s interest in Constantinople (Black Sea access), Palestine and the Holy City.

This was the political background to the Balflour Declaration in the House of Commons in 1918 when Lord Balflour guaranteed that Britain would work toward a State of Israel.

Zionism is the political aspiration. Thousands of Jews illegally migrated to Palestine in the ’30s, as the British mandate would only allow limited numbers. Holocaust provided a situation whereby no longer could Zionism be held and the United Nations recognized the State of Israel in 1948.

The Holocaust in this sense became the well spring for the nation of Israel and the new center of Judaism. Christian Bible teacher and scholar David Pawson suggests that the strict edict of the Old Testament that the Jews were to remain a separate people, created the spiritual basis of the holocaust. He explains that the Jews of Germany had assimilated so much, they lost their first love, lost their separateness, a key spiritual component cause of the holocaust (regardless of national socialism’s ideology led by Adolf Hitler).

There is considerable affirmation that the 100 years prior to that 1948 vote in the United Nations, that the prophetic biblical teaching which had spread across the Christian world had provided a ground swell of opinion that this would be an inevitable fulfillment of prophecy.

It needs to be noted that much of the world fears end times millennium views – US President Ronald Reagan key advisors in the ’80s were believed to be “born-again” Christians with “end times” philosophies. The fear was that military decisions would be based on such philosophies. Some see the current US President George W Bush in a similar mold.

The pressure points – a) many Christians in the West and their biblical prophetic views – viz the State of Israel b) the State of Israel itself as a Zionist Nationalistic identity c) And those who want to see the State of Israel destroyed.