Where did the idea of "Replacement Theology" come from?

I imagine the same place as "absolutely no drinking under any circumstances" and "you can't go to the beach" and "men must have shaved heads" and "women must have long hair", etc.

 

It probably originated in the 3rd or 4th centuries when the promises of God to the nation of Israel were not fulfilled. The people assumed that they must be fulfilled some other way. Therefore they developed replacement theology. See ISBE on the millennium for a brief discussion of this. See also Showers' There Really Is A Difference.

 

Hi,
I truly believe it is satanic in nature. Satan has tried to kill off the Jews for a very long time. He hates the Jew. He knows that they will play a very important role in the tribulation, bringing many to Christ.
I know there are Christians that hold to this teaching, but I hope they will reconsider.

hcl

 

HCL, I agree that "replacement theology" is sloppy exegesis and contrary to the totality of Scripture. However, not all "replacement theologians" are anti-Jew or even against the modern state of Israel.

 

I believe it has something to do with Paul refering to the Church as the "new Israel" and "true Israel" and that not everybody by birth is a child of Abraham but those who are children of the promise.

 

Pete, that would be fine except that Paul never calls the "church" the true "Israel".

If you are thinking of Galatians 6, read it again.

Like the consistency of replacement theology, I am out.

 

Then who are the Israel of God in Galatians 6:16?
BTW this is a great topic, glad someone brought it up.

 

Israel. It is a different group than addressed in the previous statement (those who walk by this rule) and therefore is contrasted with them, not equated with them.

 

The Israel of God refers to the NT peole of God including both believing Jews as well as Gentiles. See Ro. 3:29; 9:6. Check the context.

 

"It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendents are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, 'It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.' In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring."
* Romans 9:6-8

"Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: 'All nations will be blessed through you.' So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. . . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
* Galatians 3:7-9, 29

It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Hopefully from just these two passages you can see why some brothers and sisters differ with you.

Rev. G

 

True anti-semitism would be to purposely withhold the gospel from Jews. IMO

 

Don't forget however that the promise made to Israel in teh OT were unbreakable promises. They depended only on the character of God. If those promises are broken, God is at stake. Therefore the Israel of God is still Israel. The NT passages never contradict it; to the contrary they maintain the distinction between Israel and the church. Remember Gal 3:17 -- that the Law (and its breaking) did not make the promise void. The promise is still good. Never forget it.

 

I do not believe in full replacement theology. But I have a few comments to make, because I like to make people think.

Jer 31:31 says "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah". Yet this "new covenant" is basically what defines and establishes the church, as specificall explained and quoted in Heb 8:8-13. It is not a covenant that is still future.

Hos 1:10 says "Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God." Yet Paul finds fulfillment of this in the church, as explained in Rom 9:24-26.

Phil 3:3 says we are the circumcision, Gal 3 says we are the children of Abraham.

Somewhere in my notes I have a larger list of OT "Israel" prophecy fulfilled in the church, I'll see if I can find it as it might be interesting to discuss.

Yes, there is still a distinction between "Isreal" and the "church", and I'm not saying that the two words are interchangeable in the New Testament, but I also believe the distinction is not as sharp as many believe.

[ October 03, 2002, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

This is where I believe you are wrong. The church does not fulfill the promises. There are some promises that the church is a partaker of. On what grounds do you say the church fulfills certain promises?

 

The difference between "fulfill" and "partake" is very blurry.

Genesis tells us that circumcision was an "everlasting" covenant. How is the promise that it will be an everlasting covenant fulfilled today? (Keep in mind that Paul tells us that physical circumcision is nothing.)

 

But, circumcision of the heart is.

 

Exactly. The promise that circumcision being everlasting is now being fulfilled, not any longer in physical circumcision of "Israel", but in spiritual circumcision of those who are in the church. Rom 2:28-29.

 

Election was never about race but grace. Israel is not "replaced" as in displaced. Israel the nation is included in Isarael the epopel of God.

 

I agree. I'm not talking about election. I'm talking about God's promise that circumcision was an "everlasting" covenant. In the OT, if you were under that covenant, you were considered part of Israel. Today, if you are under that covenant, you are considered part of the church. That's all I meant.