Point of View: Replacement Theology by Dr. Larry Hufhand

Our subject of discussion this morning is: “Replacement Theology.”   Let’s begin by defining Replacement Theology [supersessionism].  We will use the letters RT to refer to Replacement Theology.  Simply put, RT is simply replacing Israel with the Church.  In other words, Israel became the church in the New Testament.  The idea that the church was founded on the Day of Pentecost is not accurate according to those who hold to the RT position.  Since the church is based on Grace, and Grace is God’s favor upon fallen man, then the Church actually began in the Garden of Eden, when God provided a covering of skins for clothes for Adam and Eve.

Another aspect of RT is that all the promises that God made to Israel, now belong to the Church; consequently, God is done with Israel, due to the fact that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus.  This, of course was not true. Augustine, in the 4^th century, as well as Martin Luther in the 15^th century and many Reformers of today believed that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus, so they are to be shunned at the least, or killed at the worst.  That played right into the hand of Hitler and his excuse for the holocaust.

Basically, this is a Reformed position, and so anything having to do with prophecy is rendered null and void.  Those who adhere to the RT position, spiritualize all O.T. as well as N.T. prophecies, including the Rapture, the Tribulation period, and the 1,000 year Millennial reign of Christ.  This is the reason the Reformers are so adamant against the Dispensational position of Eschatology.

Dr. Larry Hufhand

The Hufhand Report: Friday Focus, August 28, 2020.

Related Reading:

In essence, Replacement theology [supersessionism] removes from Israel a national destiny in the land of Canaan because of her rejection of Jesus’ Messianic credentials. All the biblical statements of Israel enjoying future blessings in the land of Canaan are said to be descriptions of the spiritual blessings that now accrue to the Church. The expectation of a physical kingdom has been spiritualized and taken from Israel and given to the Gentiles (Matthew 21:43), even though Jesus never denied that the physical kingdom would be restored to Israel (Acts 1:6-7). That this way of expounding Scripture completely violates the principles of biblical exposition is of little importance to them. We should interpret Scripture by the nature of the text. If it is literal, then we should interpret it literally, but if it is spiritual or figurative, then we should respond accordingly. For instance, Jesus said, “I am the door!” Does this mean He actually is a door? Of course not! The context is clearly figurative and needs to be interpreted as such. We are therefore not committed to any singular form of biblical exposition - literal or figurative - but rather to the context. This will determine our style of exposition and therefore we uphold the integrity of Scripture and its authority. Replacement Theology, ICEJ


An Introduction to Dispensationalism, by Dr. David L. Cummins, from a recorded lecture series.

Moderate Evangelicals, by Dr. Clay Nuttall

Reaffirmation of Dispensational Truth, by Dr. H. A. Ironside

 

Israel is a Tough Nut, by Dr. Clay Nuttall