WHY REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY IS WRONG
The institute of Christian apologetics website (http://sss.contender.org) has numerous articles posted for the discriminating reader to access and utilize. These articles include information on Cults, Apologetics, Dispensationalism, etc. One article that was of particular interest is: Why Replacement Theology is Wrong.
According to the article, Replacement Theology finds its premise in the notion that the church in general has supplanted Israel as the focal point of God’s manifest blessing upon Earth. The theological supposition views Judaism as archaic and rebellious. Through the act of denying the Messianic portents of Jesus Christ, Judaism has lost the right to be considered as God’s recipient of special blessing or grace in the new economic valuations of God’s kingdom. This theological variant has been a pronounced view among Protestants, Roman Catholics and Muslims (p. 1). This perspective may have even influenced the early American church and its unique outlook of destiny and purpose in God’s economy (p. 3).
The difficulty of this view can be found in its reliance upon a Dispensational understanding of God’s work. Is God different, at least in His responses to mankind at various junctures historically? The Contender website seems to agree with a Dispensational understanding as there are articles that affirm this theological alternative. As, in the Replacement article, distinguishing the unique Jewish covenants as being proper expressions in a geographical expression historically mitigates the exclusionary view. By displacing the spiritual covenants from the natural arrangements, Kevin Johnson allows for extensions to reach into the religious, Christian community, as God’s focal point of unique spiritual blessing through Christ Jesus, yet retaining Covenantal responsibility and veracity with Judaic expressions and overtones in the physiological realm. This is a problematic approach, particularly in light of the overwhelmingly Jewish make-up of the early church.
Kevin Johnson’s assumption is a valiant attempt at rectifying the discrepancies that have existed between the church as an entity and Jewish considerations. Replacement theology is wrong, but it appears Johnson’s offering is just a modification of that which he presents as an incorrect assumption.
