But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people...always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth...men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. (2 Timothy 3:1-5, 7, 8b, ESV)
Chapter Six - The Result - Part 1 - Poisoned Perspective
The concept of, and later the term, “replacement theology” has been around for many years, but the definition has changed several times. For example, when Jesus taught and performed miracles on the Sabbath and claimed to be the Son of God many of the Jews viewed Him as a false teacher. From their perspective, not understanding that Jesus was a fulfillment of the very Scripture they were defending, they considered His teaching out of alignment from what they were taught. They thought He wanted to replace their theology. Anytime a new perspective of God comes to light (or is fabricated) it can threaten existing perceptions of God.
Even within Judaism major theological differences emerged. At the time of Jesus’ ministry on earth, Judaism had separated into several sects. Each with a unique perspective of God and how to appease Him. But were any of them truly seeking God? Did any of them correctly understand the Tanakh?[1] Even though they sincerely sought God, history indicates that none of them appeared to be able to sustain their beliefs and ways of life for very long. Then after years of silence, God the Father sent His Son to solve the problem of sin once and for all. Jesus’ ministry was short but concluded in victory over death. Shortly after Jesus ascended back to heaven, Christianity was born and churches were instituted.
Unlike the Torah[2] which God had Moses write, the New Testament came into existence from the writings of several people through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. One of the first tasks the early theologians took upon themselves was to assemble what we now call the New Testament. Appropriately named after the “new covenant” mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31, that through Jesus’ victory on the cross, this new covenant was now available to all who would believe and have faith in Him. Since Jesus satisfied the law and that all authority has been given to Him, the focus of a Christian’s life is on Him. So what still applies from the Old Testament? What changes are needed? Would there be changes? Theologians begin to emerge as Christianity separates from Judaism.
But soon some of the same dead theologians that we honored and celebrated earlier, including some anonymous authors, began to distort the Old Testament writings and what Jesus taught. In the first two centuries of Christianity many people wrote stories and attempted to pass them off as legitimate writings by claiming they were written by someone known, typically associated with the New Testament narrative. Today they are called pseudepigrapha books, meaning false author. One such book is “The Epistle of Barnabas,” while offering some fanciful Scriptural interpretations spoke often of the need to disinherit Israel. Professor Dr. Michael W. Holmes wrote in his book on the Apostolic Fathers:
The Epistle of Barnabas represents one of the earliest contributions outside the New Testament to the discussion of questions that have confronted the followers of Jesus since the earliest days of his ministry: How ought Christians to interpret the Jewish Scriptures, and what is the nature of the relationship between Christianity and Judaism? Writing at a time when the level of antagonism between church and synagogue still ran high, the anonymous author of this “essay” seeks to show by means of an allegorical interpretation of Scripture that Christians are the true and intended heirs of God’s covenant.[3]
Almost immediately, two hostile-to-Scripture viewpoints begin to emerge in the thinking of the early theologians. The first is that the Jews and Israel due to their disobedience and disbelief have been rejected and pushed aside by God in favor of the church. So in order to read that interpretation into the text (remember the method known as ‘eisegesis’) the interpreter would need to allegorize instead of a more literal interpretation. Making allegorization the second antagonistic viewpoint against the truth of Scripture.
For example, Justin Martyr wrote, “Christ is the Israel and the Jacob, even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelitic race.”[4] Irenaeus wrote, “They indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures, which do declare that all other nations partake of [eternal] life, and show that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, are disinherited from the grace of God.”[5] Origen wrote, “There were indeed other prophets of Israel in name more than truth, and there are also today in the true Israel, that is, in the church, certain false prophets and false teachers: and the Word makes this announcement to them.”[6]
Origen is considered the father of allegorical interpretation of the Bible, although embraced by others before him. Perhaps it might be more accurate to say he popularized the view. Sadly, allegorical interpretation has led to a wide variety and often fanciful interpretations. There is an expression I would like to share with you at this point as it has become an invaluable tool in my own understanding and interpretation of the Bible. The expression is simple, “The Bible is its best commentary.” Whenever there is a question as to what something means, the Bible will elsewhere explain. For example, does the Bible use allegory when it interprets itself? Now before you shake your head and say, what? Let’s look at Daniel, when he read in the book of Jeremiah about the end of desolations (their captivity in Babylon) being 70 years (see Daniel 9:2), how did he interpret that? Did he interpret the time period would be a literal 70 years or did he allegorize and come up with something else? He took it to mean a literal 70-year period.
Replacement Theology (also known by scholars as supersessionism) and Biblical allegorical interpretation are still taught and defended by many denominations and scholars today. They have strongly influenced how churches operate and the subject of eschatology (the study of end times).
Let’s first look at Israel, God is not ‘done’ with the Jews. Paul clearly stated this in his epistle to the church in Rome. Romans chapter nine reviews Israel’s past, chapter ten about the present and chapter eleven discusses their future. In chapter eleven Paul wrote: “I want you to understand this mystery, dear brothers and sisters, so that you will not feel proud about yourselves. Some of the people of Israel have hard hearts, but this will last only until the full number of Gentiles comes to Christ. And so all Israel will be saved. As the Scriptures say, “The one who rescues will come from Jerusalem, and he will turn Israel away from ungodliness. And this is my covenant with them, that I will take away their sins.” Many of the people of Israel are now enemies of the Good News, and this benefits you Gentiles. Yet they are still the people he loves because he chose their ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For God’s gifts and his call can never be withdrawn. Once, you Gentiles were rebels against God, but when the people of Israel rebelled against him, God was merciful to you instead. Now they are the rebels, and God’s mercy has come to you so that they, too, will share in God’s mercy. For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone.” (Romans 11:25-32, NLT) The point is clear here as well as several other places in the Bible, the church, while it does share many of the same blessings from God, does not and never will replace Israel. Both the church and Israel are unique, even though the individuals of both groups are saved by the blood of Jesus (since all need to accept Jesus as their Savior, no exceptions). However, their roles and destinies are indeed different. If that is misunderstood, much of Scripture will also be misunderstood.
Next, let’s look at the subject of eschatology. A subject that many Christians avoid due to its imagery and often-thought complexity. Taking Israel out of any discussion about the end times is somewhat like not using a calendar to plan a trip. Nearly every sign God gave us about the times at the end are connected to Israel. So you can see, that by taking Israel out of the equation, you will lose direction and timing. Combine that with the issue of allegorizing text you now have the potential of complete reversal of what the Bible teaches. For example, the millennium, the name given to a thousand-year period of time mentioned in the Bible (see Revelation 20:1-6) is often allegorically interpreted to be the period we are currently living in. As a result, this ‘amillennialism’ denies a time frame for which God fulfills His yet-fulfilled unconditional promises to Israel.
These issues have become the root cause of tremendous Christian polarization. I have noticed many Christians get very emotional when defending their eschatological viewpoints. I will not get into the pros and cons of the various end-time scenarios or points of view at this time (God willing, that will be a separate discussion). But needless to say, terms like rapture, tribulation, and dispensation are words that seem to stir up most Christians, sometimes in the defense and sometimes of course in the offense.
These are only a few examples that result from just two sources of textual distortion. I don’t wish to debate these issues at this time, I am pointing these issues out to show how any concept, if incorrectly interpreted, can lead to serious problems later, resulting in corrupt teaching. Perhaps the best way to understand is that the devil not only wants to encourage replacement theology, he won’t stop until theology is replaced entirely by man’s reasoning. Be it science, philosophy, or something else, he wants mankind to forget God. That’s his goal.
What does corrupt teaching look like? It might be easier to start with the question what does good Biblical teaching look like? As we have discussed already, just because it appears to come from the Bible doesn’t mean it’s sound or good teaching. Teaching must align with God’s will and intent. Confused? See this is where problems begin. If we present God’s Word incorrectly, even when read out of the Bible, such as taking the meaning out of context, it is corrupt. It is vital to follow the appropriate hermeneutical methods of interpretation, otherwise the lesson, no matter how good it sounds, has the potential of being wrong.
There are two primary forms of corrupt teachings, those that are distorted from the Biblical text and those that are read into the Bible (being added, or claim some other document is God breathed).
⇐Previous Chapter (Introduction/Index) Next Chapter⇒
[1] Jewish acronym referring to the entire Old Testament.
[2] The first five books of the Bible.
[3] Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed., p. 270). Baker Books.
[4] Justin Martyr. (1885). Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 267). Christian Literature Company.
[5] Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 451). Christian Literature Company.
[6] Origen. (n.d.). Origen Ezekiel Hominy 2. In Pearse, R. (Ed.), (2014) Origen of Alexandria exegetical works on Ezekiel (p. 69). Chieftain Publishing