Ecclesiology and Replacement Theology

I divided replacement theology into two pieces:

1. The Church is the institutional successor to Judaism.  Jesus fulfilled the law, transforming Judaism into Christianity.  Rituals are transformed from instruments of law to instruments of grace. [2nd century]

2. The Church is the replacement of Judaism.  Jesus fulfilled the law, but replaced Judaism with Christianity.  The old rituals were replaced by new physical instruments of grace. [Calvin, ~1535]


Here's why I think both are incorrect.  First, we have Jesus' words in his Sermon on the Mount:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; 

I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, 

not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, 

will by any means disappear from the Law 

until everything is accomplished.

 This is an insight into the fulfillment of the law by the cross of Christ.  As Paul explains:

Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, 

locked up until faith should be revealed. 

So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ 

that we might be justified by faith. 

Now that faith has come, we are no longer 

under the supervision of the law” (Galatians 3:23-25).

The law and its institutions, therefore, were designed to point to the person and work of Jesus Christ.

This is an illustration for the present time, indicating 

that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were 

not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 

They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—

external regulations applying until the time of the new order 

(Hebrews 9:10; read the whole section from verse 1 to get the full effect).

The conlcusion, then, when Jesus says "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" is that He is the fulfillment of the entire plan of God.

The reason we should believe that the old law is now truly fulfilled and done (and not just transformed) is here:

For he himself is our peace, 

who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, 

the dividing wall of hostility, 

by abolishing in his flesh the law 

with its commandments and regulations. 

His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, 

thus making peace,

 and in this one body to reconcile 

both of them to God through the cross, 

by which he put to death their hostility (Ephesians 2:14-16).

Ecclesiology: Wagging the Dog

Here are four views of the church, more or less, and how they imply particular doctrines.

1. The Church is the organic successor to Judaism.  In the fulfillment of the law, Jesus created something new.  The rituals of Judaism were physical shadows to illustrate the spiritual reality that is in the Church. [~1670]

2. The Church is the institutional successor to Judaism.  Jesus fulfilled the law, transforming Judaism into Christianity.  Rituals are transformed from instruments of law to instruments of grace. [2nd century]

3. The Church is the replacement of Judaism.  Jesus fulfilled the law, but replaced Judaism with Christianity.  The old rituals were replaced by new physical instruments of grace. [Calvin, ~1535]

4. The Church is completely different from Judaism. The Jews were under a different covenant, one of works, while this age is a covenant of grace.  Obedience to the present law is the yardstick of being saved. [Darby, ~1835]




We are fallible.

Ecclesiology and doctrine inform each other.  If you change your mind about what the Church is, your doctrine will probably eventually change.  Similarly, if you change your mind on certain points of doctrine, your view of the Church may eventually change as well.

We are imperfect. I'm perfectly capable of believing a doctrine that conflicts with my view of the Church, and vice versa.  Though it seems that one is eventually brought into line with the other.

Is it "wagging the dog" to derive your doctrine from what you believe about the Church?  That depends on you, and how certain you are of the authority you base belief on.



For example.  Though point #1 really only surfaces in the 1600s, it was implied in the Didache and early patristic writings via the rite of believer's baptism; i.e. to these early Christians, circumcision was not transformed into baptism, but rather was a shadow.