Does Matthew 21:43 Support Replacement Theology?

One text often used by supersessionists to support the idea of the permanent rejection of national Israel is Matt 21:43.[1] In this verse, which Frederick Dale Bruner calls “one of the most important verses in Matthew,”[2] Jesus addressed the unbelief of the leaders of the nation Israel and announced his rejection of them because of their stubborn unbelief: “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruit of it.”

What is the significance of Jesus’ words in Matt 21:43? Supersessionists often assert that Jesus was making two major points. The first was that the nation Israel had been permanently rejected as the people of God. The second is that the “nation” to whom the kingdom would be given is the church.

This view that Matt 21:43 teaches the replacement of Israel with the church was held in the Patristic Era. As Origen declared, “Our Lord, seeing the conduct of the Jews not to be at all in keeping with the teaching of the prophets, inculcated by a parable that the kingdom of God would be taken from them, and given to the converts from heathenism.”[3] Irenaeus and Chrysostom, too, believed this text taught the permanent rejection of the Jews.[4] This understanding of Matt 21:43, though, goes beyond just the Patristic Era. According to W. D. Davies and Dale Allison, this view that Matt 21:43 teaches the replacement of national Israel with the church is “the dominant interpretation in Christian history.”[5]

This view of Matt 21:43, however, is improbable for several reasons. The first problem concerns the identity of the “you” from whom the kingdom would be taken. Several interpreters have pointed out that the “you” probably refers to the current leaders of Israel and not the nation as a whole as supersessionists have claimed. M. Eugene Boring, for instance, states: “Who is represented by the ‘you’ from whom the kingdom is taken? Who is the ‘nation’ to whom it is given? In the context, the addressees are clearly the chief priests and Pharisees . . . i.e., the Jewish leadership, not the people as a whole.”[6] Making a similar point, David D. Kupp writes, “Jesus’ growing antipathy to the Jewish leaders has never spelled outright rejection of the Jewish crowds, the people of Israel. Even in 21.43 the target audience is explicitly the leaders, not the people.”[7]

Boring and Kupp appear correct in their observations. Matt 21:45 states that the religious leaders “understood that He [Jesus] was speaking about them.” Anthony J. Saldarini argues that the supersessionist view is more in line with supersessionist presuppositions than with the actual meaning of Matthew 21:43: “This reading, which fits later Christian supercessionist interpretations of Jewish-Christian relations, is beset by several problems, the most obvious of which is that Matthew makes the chief priests and Pharisees apply the parable to themselves (21:45), not to Israel as a whole.”[8]Since the context indicates that Jesus was speaking specifically to the religious leaders of his day, the supersessionist assertion that Jesus was announcing the permanent rejection of the nation Israel appears unlikely.

Another problem with the view that Jesus is declaring the permanent rejection ofIsrael is that other sections of Matthew’s gospel appear to reaffirm or hint at a future forIsrael. As Sanders has pointed out, Matt 19:28 “confirms the view that Jesus looked for the restoration of Israel.”[9] M. A. Elliott asserts that in Matthew’s gospel “nothing explicit is found regarding the rejection of Israel.”[10]

A second problem concerns the supersessionist view that the nation to whom the kingdom would be given is the Christian church.[11] The context of Matthew 21 makes it unlikely that the “nation” of whom Jesus is referring is the church. As Turner writes, “In verse 46 it is clear that the religious leaders believed Jesus was talking about them, not Israel as a whole. Thus it is reading too much into this verse to view it as indicating the replacement of Israel by the Gentile church.”[12] Saldarini points out that theologians who interpret “nation” as the church “are reading in second-century Christian theology” into Matt 21:43.[13]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The following authors have expressed the idea that Matt 21:43 teaches the rejection of the nation Israel and/or Israel’s replacement by the church: Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 157; R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, TNTC, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985; reprint, 1987), 310; John Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991), 190–91; Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1930), 172; Zorn, Christ Triumphant, 30; George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 114; Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans. William V. Dych (New York: Seabury, 1978), 337; Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, trans. H. de Jongste (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1962), 352–53; Francis Wright Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew: A Commentary (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981), 431; LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy, 101; John Bright, The Kingdom of God (Nashville: Abingdon, 1953), 226. Other texts have been used to support this idea of the permanent rejection of Israel. Diprose mentions John 8:30–59 as a possible supporting text for replacement theology. In this text Jesus stresses that the Jewish leaders were not children of Abraham but children of the devil (see 8:44). Ronald E. Diprose, Israel in the Development of Christian Thought (Rome: Istituto Biblico Evangelico Italiano, 2000), 36–38. Diprose also mentions 1 Thess 2:15–16. The latter part of verse 16 states concerning the Jews, “But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.” (55). Bright mentions Matt 8:11 as being parallel to Matthew 21:43. Bright, The Kingdom of God, 226.

[2] Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, vol. 2 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 770.

[4] See Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.36, ANF 1:514; Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, 68, PG, 58:631–34; See also Apostolic Constitutions 5.16, ANF 7:446.

[5] W. D. Davies and Dale Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew 19–28, ICC, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997), 189.

[6] M. Eugene Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” NIB, vol. 8 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 415.

[7] David D, Kupp, Matthew’s Emmanuel: Divine Presence and God’s People in the First Gospel(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 95. According to D. A. Carson, “Strictly speaking, then, v. 43 does not speak of transferring the locus of the people of God from Jews to Gentiles, though it may hint at this insofar as that locus now extends far beyond the authority of the Jewish rulers . . . instead, it speaks of the ending of the role the Jewish religious leaders played in mediating God’s authority.” D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” EBC, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 454. Luz writes, “Is Jesus announcing the supersession of Israelby the Gentile Church in the history of mankind’s salvation? . . . No, because in this context he is quite clearly speaking to Israel’s leaders and to no one else. No, because ethnos—that same Greek word for ‘people’ that means, in the plural, ‘nations’ or ‘Gentiles’—cannot simply be equated with ‘church.’” Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, trans. J. Bradford Robinson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 119. See also David L. Turner, “Matthew 21:43 and the Future of Israel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 159:633 (2002): 56.

[8] Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 59.

[9] E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 103. By Israel’s restoration, Sanders means “Jewish restoration” (116).

[10] M. A. Elliott, “Israel,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, eds. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 359. Elliott also writes: “Some adherents of this new school of Jesus research hold that the major presupposition for Jesus’ ministry was the widespread eschatological doctrine of the restoration of Israel, and that Jesus both addressed this concern and understood his ministry in the light of the expectation” (360).

[11] According to Frederick Dale Bruner, “A strong exegetical tradition says that the church is not the ‘nation’ to whom Matthew’s Jesus promises that the kingdom ‘will be given.’” Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, vol. 2 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 771. Emphasis in original.

[12] Turner, “Matthew 21:43 and the Future of Israel,” 57. If the “nation” in Matt 21:43 is not the church, who is it? Two alternative explanations have been offered. First, Turner argues that the “nation” is “the Matthean community as an eschatological messianic remnant whose leaders will replace the current Jerusalemestablishment and lead Israel in bearing the fruit of righteousness to God” (59). This “Matthean Christian Jewish community” is allegedly “led by Jesus’ apostles” (61). See also Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, 63. Others have understood the “nation” of Matthew 21:43 as referring to a future believing generation of Israel. See Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology(Tustin, CA: Ariel, 1994), 60.

The first problem concerns the identity of the “you” from whom the kingdom would be taken. Several interpreters have pointed out that the “you” probably refers to the current leaders of Israel and not the nation as a whole as supersessionists have claimed.

Another problem with the view that Jesus is declaring the permanent rejection ofIsrael is that other sections of Matthew’s gospel appear to reaffirm or hint at a future forIsrael. As Sanders has pointed out, Matt 19:28 “confirms the view that Jesus looked for the restoration of Israel.”

I think Paul’s teaching in Romans regarding the vine and branches to which “you” were grafted in go a long way explaining Israel’s place in God’s plan.

I agree.

I thought this particular study was interesting in that the author is focused on Matthew. It's good to remember when Supersessionists attempt to use:

Matt. 21:43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

to say that the church is the nation that just 2 verses later the object of Jesus point is mentioned.

Matt. 21:45 Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them.

Also, if we look at The Revelation of Jesus Christ it makes sense why 12,000 witnesses are taken from the 12 tribes of Israel. They will share the Gospel of the Kingdom with Israel and create the fruit.

If not the “nation as a whole” then who was the “nation” to which the kingdom was now going to be given?

Jesus’ words at Matthew 23:37-39 show his words were addressed to the nation as Jerusalem was representative of the whole nation.

Cities were often compared to women in the Bible and the citizens the cities’ children.

Just a short time later Jesus provides a warning sign that Jerusalem, not just the religious leaders, was to be destroyed, “your house is abandoned to you”, and it was.

A heavenly king of the line of David, a nation of heavenly king/priests, a high priest who made one sacrifice for all time. That is what spiritual Israel would look like, a nation.

Those who want to confine God's kingdom to the earth must have forgotten that it was the kingdom of heaven Jesus preached not the kingdom of a U.N. mandated territory calling it's self Israel.

God made a covenant with Israel-forever, in His words. If those words in the Jewish Bible are untrue, then so are the words in that same Bible that Christians claim predict the arrival of Jesus. You cannot have it both ways-either the whole thing is true, or the whole thing is bunk. Most importantly, how can anyone say that God would break His word?

Besides, is it beyond imagination that God could make one covenant with the Jews and a separate one with the Gentiles? Is the omnicient, all-powerful Creator limited in this manner?

I wonder what the replacement theologians think of the poor prophet Hosea.

God told Hosea he wanted to illustrate how he remained faithful while Israel did not, so he commanded him to marry a prostitute.

So then, did God change his mind? Did he retract the other promises and covenants he made? I don’t think so.

When Jesus told the Parable of the Prodigal son, who was the prodigal son? Who was the older bother in the field (clearly the prodigal son is the gentile nations, and the older brother is Israel).

DId God not say he wanted to gather all the nations, and Jesus himself repeat the lament, Jersusalem, Jerusalem.......(if you know the rest of this verse you know God weaps over Jews in particular who chose darkness). It’s bad enough for a gentile to choose darkness, but God made a promise to Israel, and he is not slack concerning his promises.

Summary: Man is not faithful, but God is. I hope God does not judge me by righteous standards, but rather sees me through a lens cloaked in the blood of my Savior. So likewise should it be for every tongue and tribe, including the Jew.

Does Matthew 21:43 Support Replacement Theology?

It has been a while since I have had the time to do much more than quickly surf for the latest workings of the destroying left.... But this thread caught my attention.

Matthew 21:31 Christ tells who ultimately will not enter 'the kingdom', and it is not specific to 'race, nationality or nation'. "......Jesus saith unto them, "Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

So the you is any and all of the religious communities since the beginning up to the appointed time that when they 'heard' the truth rebelled. Race, nationality or even gender is NOT relevant. There is NO 'replacement' of what was written down by Isaiah in chapter 45.... First of which is listed Cyrus, NOT of Jacob, that was God's anointed. This chapter lays out in simplicity that Christ's specific address to the religious community that sought to 'kill' Him does NOT undo, or as modern religiosity seek to conjure up 'replace' anyone.

Isaiah 45:17 But Israel shall be save in the LORD with an everlasting 'salvation': ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, T H A T whosoever believeth IN Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Fortunately for all, God is the only perfect 'judge' and only HE can know with a surety who does what in full knowledge or in trained ignorance...

Thanks for the ping, wmfights.

This is an excellent article, and makes some points that are basically inarguable. God does indeed tell us that Jesus was referring to the religious leaders, not the Jewish people, when He said that He was taking the kingdom away from them, and since He never specifies what the "nation" is that He will give the kingdom to, anything we may believe it is is an assumption, nothing more.

If it is the Church, then we have the "kingdom" only temporarily, as the Church age will end at the Rapture. It actually makes more sense to believe that the "nation" spoken of by Christ refers to the nation of Israel, since, after all, Israel is the only option that can be referred to as a "nation". The Church is not a nation, but is made up of those from around the world that have chosen to be part of God's family. The Church is not a nation, is a spiritual body.

Now that we have the usual non-Christians on here continuing to deny Scripture and now attempting to rob God of the honor and glory that belong to Him for His fulfillment of His promises to His people to bring them back into their own land and reestablish them as a nation and do it in one day and give that honor and glory to the godless, Christ-rejecting UN, this article is very timely.

Thanks for posting.

This is an excellent article, and makes some points that are basically inarguable.

I thought so to. I think he laid out the arguments about these passages pretty well. I especially like that he uses Scripture to explain Scripture and some common sense.

He never specifies what the "nation" is that He will give the kingdom to, anything we may believe it is is an assumption, nothing more.

What occurred to me as I read this was the relationship between this verse and the 144,000 witnesses.

Matt. 21:43 ...given to a nation bearing fruits of it.

We know that part of Israel flees when they finally recognize what's happening, but that really isn't bearing fruit. However, the witnesses stay behind and testify to the Gospel of the Kingdom. The witnesses do bear fruit.

I think most people who consider themselves Christians don't understand the significance of Jerusalem being placed under control of an "international" organization. Also, most don't consider how an eschatological view would drive a church to want to control Jerusalem. It's all being done in the name of promoting "peace".

I know for me I've learned a great deal over the years reading some threads and one of the things that I found appealing with this study is the author footnotes sources which makes it easy for people who want to get books on the subject.I think a lot of people are curious about eschatology, but are afraid to ask.

One text often used by supersessionists to support the idea of the permanent rejection of national Israel is Matt 21:43.[1] In this verse, which Frederick Dale Bruner calls “one of the most important verses in Matthew,”[2] Jesus addressed the unbelief of the leaders of the nation Israel and announced his rejection of them because of their stubborn unbelief: “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruit of it.”

The kingdom of God is NOT the same as the kingdom of Israel. Please compare the following:

Mar 15:43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

Dan 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,

Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

If the kingdom of God was Israel, then Joseph of Arimathea would not have been looking for it. Instead, Daniel prophesied that the kingdom of God would come and destroy all other kingdoms. According to our Lord, this was fulfilled when the Holy Spirit came upon the believers.

The Jews thought they had a lock on God's kingdom. In fact they rejected God as being king over them a long time beforehand. (1 Sam 8:7)

So then, did God change his mind?

God never changes His mind.

I hope God does not judge me by righteous standards, but rather sees me through a lens cloaked in the blood of my Savior. So likewise should it be for every tongue and tribe, including the Jew.

Every nation WILL be judged by our Savior and those who are covered by His blood will not face condemnation. Including the Jews.

The key is to believe the 'whole counsel of God'...

Act 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

Most any thing can be proven with scripture...

Are there verses which show that God is finished with Israel??? Yes...Are there verses which show that God is not finished with Israel??? Absolutely...

Are there scriptures which show that people can lose their salvation??? Definately...Are there scriptures which show that one can not lose his/her salvation??? Yes, without question...

So where's the problem??? It's comical to see folks pick out the scriptures which support one position while ignoring the scriptures that support the other...And then claiming to be knowledgeable bible scholars or critics...

If they can't reconcile all the scriptures, they'd be better off just listening to the people who DO believe 'all the counsel of God'...

You don't have to be an intellectual to realize that the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God are not the same...All you have to do is to believe God...

The Kingdom of God, the spiritual kingdom was taken away from Israel and given to the Gentile church...The Kingdom of Heaven, the physical kingdom, was not taken away from Israel but put on hold til the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled...

When we come across people who read Mat. 25 but can't reconcile it with Eph. 2, just ignore them...They can't lead us anywhere except into the ditch...

The kingdom of God is NOT the same as the kingdom of Israel.

Let me try and get you to see the bigger picture by asking some questions.

Do you believe there will be a Tribulation?

Do you believe Born Again Christians will live through the Tribulation, or be taken away before or during it?

When Jesus establishes his Millennial Reign are the survivors of the Tribulation the same as the resurrected saints?

The OT tells us that during the Messianic Reign that Temple practices will be instituted, why?

HD, I pinged some others because I can't post as frequently as I use to because of work. Please feel free to include Reformed that would be helpful.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.