A question I have been asked by a number of people over the past year is whether, as a Reformed Church, Faith Church believes in “replacement theology.” Please know it is entirely okay if you have never heard of that term before or do not know what it means. It is a term that I have seen used more to describe what other people believe, with those that use it typically defining it as: the belief that the church has replaced the people of Israel in God’s plan of salvation.
While I have been asked this question from time to time over the past decade, the recent repetition of this question made me think that a blog post might be of interest to a wider audience, trying to correct what may be a common misunderstanding or critique of our tradition from other Christians and to clarify our understanding of how the Old and New Testaments relate to each other. As the title indicates, the Reformed tradition does not view the church as the replacement of Israel (as commonly claimed) but also not as a parenthesis in God’s redemptive plan for the world (as others do) but rather as the promised fulfillment of the saving plan of God set forth in Scripture.
The Church is Not Replacement of Israel
Over the years, it is true that some have read the Bible as indicating that because the people of Israel rejected their Messiah, God has rejected them and handed over the status of his chosen people to the church. Not only do I think that such a reading misunderstands what Scripture says, but it can lead and unfortunately has led to anti-Semitic ideas and actions among Christians. I think it is important to note that such a belief is not the origin of anti-Semitism, as one can see many people in the pre-Christian era who said hateful things towards Jews and tried to harm and even eliminate them. As is often the case, people can latch onto and then further develop ideas that they think can reinforce and strengthen their pre-existing beliefs and desires as a way to justify and even invoke the name of God in support of their horrific actions.
While some think that Reformed churches have such a belief, I have not seen people within the Reformed tradition describe their view in such a way nor do I see it present when I read Reformed theology. In fact, such a view seems to stand against some key emphases found in our tradition.
Something that Reformed theology highlights is that the Bible is one continuing story, one in which promises are made and then fulfilled and one in which various events, figures, and situations point forward to ones that will come later. Saying that the church “replaces” Israel is not a perspective of continuation but rather of contrast and thus stands at odds with the heart of the way that the Reformed tradition reads the Bible.
Rather than seeing the church and Israel as two separate entities, with the former supplanting the latter, Reformed theology sees them as intertwined and connected; the root of Israel blossoms into the flower of the church. In light of the emphasis in Reformed theology to make sure all beliefs are rooted in Scripture, there are several key passages that stand as the foundation for such a view. One is Romans 11, in which the Apostle Paul speaks about Gentiles (non-Jews) being “grafted” into the tree. It is not a new tree planted, but rather new people entering into the community of people that God has been forming since the fall into sin in the Garden of Eden. Ephesians 3:6 speaks of Gentiles being co-heirs of the promises God made to Israel; it is not they are now the heirs in place but rather heirs along with, fulfilling God’s plan to work through a nation to reach people of all nations. Another key passage is Galatians 3, which speaks about people who are not of Jewish ethnicity being “children” of Abraham (the originating ancestor for the Jewish people) through faith, putting non-Jewish people into this line. Again, these words do not point to the church being the replacement of Israel, but rather the fulfilment of God’s promise to Abraham to bless all the nations through him. Further supporting this idea of the church as the continuation of Israel is the use of language found in the Old Testament describing Israel to describe the church (see 1 Peter 2:9-10, drawing on numerous Old Testament passages), showing a connection and not a competition between them.
The Church is Not Parenthesis in God’s Plan
The Reformed tradition’s emphasis on the continuity of God’s plan to redeem people is not something that is shared by all traditions. The view that I was taught in my early years had a much different viewpoint when it comes to the relationship of Israel and the church. This view saw a strong distinction between these two entities, with Israel standing as God’s covenant people and the church standing as a “parenthesis” in God’s dealing with Israel that stands between the time of Jesus (beginning at Pentecost) and the events of the days in which God will resume his plan with Israel. In such a view, there are separate plans and promises for these people; Israel has physical promises of land and a kingdom while the church has “spiritual” promises.
As I continued to read and study Scripture in light of this system, I found logical and practical challenges within this system that I had been taught. Time and space precludes discussion of every issue, but I will note that overall I had a hard time seeing and maintaining such a distinction in light of passages noted above as well as the way that the church is described in the New Testament – a people God planned for from eternity past that to display the wisdom of God (see Ephesians 3:10). That doesn’t sound like a parenthesis to me but rather a key part of the plan! Moreover, viewing Israel and the church as separate peoples seems to fly in the face of the discussions in Ephesians 2-3 that through Christ, God made the two one.
The parenthesis in the plan of God is not the church but rather the covenant that God makes with Moses – the “old covenant” in that God had a plan before the law was given. It was always meant to be temporary and for a time, pointing people forward to the new covenant that God would make, a covenant that is better and greater in that it is more expansive and inclusive. The coming of Christ stands as the end of that parenthesis and brings about the next part in God’s plan – to bring people from all nations together as God had promised.
So What?
I realize this discussion of “replacement theology” and the relationship between Israel and the church can seem a bit academic so you may be asking “so what?” in reading this. I believe there are practical ramifications but not necessarily in the ones that some people may think. I’ve seen many people believe that one’s view on this topic dictates how they view the end times (whether there is a literally 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth or it is more symbolic of the present age) and/or one’s stance on the modern nation-state of Israel (e.g., whether Christians should always support Israel in times of conflicts). While I think one’s view could have implications on those matters, it alone will not decide it as there are many other complex issues in those discussions (that I won’t touch on in this post!).
The bigger difference I think is how we view our Bible and how we view our world. Viewing the church as the fulfillment of God’s promises means that we read all of the Bible as our book and our story; the Old Testament is not “their” story but our family story too. In addition, it is a reminder of the fact that people from all nations can and will join into God’s people and that the way they do so, regardless of their background, is only through trusting in the one who came from Abraham’s line – Jesus. God has kept the promises spoken to and through Israel and now calls all people everywhere to trust Him and receive the final fulfillment of those promises that comes upon Christ’s return.
Questions about the Bible or theology? Email them to Pastor Brian at Theology@WeAreFaith.org. You can also email to be added to the list that receives weekly emails with our blog posts.
