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

But the promise of the NC was a new heart of repentance for the group of people with whom the OC failed. This can be none other than the nation of Israel. Jeremiah 31 specifies them as a nation. It also promises a restored and safe Jerusalem. Why do you ignore the issues of the OC's relevance, the relevance of the nation, and the relevance of Jerusalem. How can you say the promise of the NC have been fulfilled when the promise is more than one and when neither promise has been fulfilled? How can you so glibly do away with the "house of Israel and the house of Judah" who will not cease from "being a nation before" until the sun, moon, and stars cease their orbit and until the earth and heavens can be measured? God says that Israel "as a nation" would not be cast off until this happens. Yet you say they have. Why?

Why don't you go verse by verse through Jer 31:31-40 and tells us what you think it means? Deal with every word in its context.

The church is contrasted with the nation of Israel in numerous NT passages. Isreal is defined vastly different than the church in both the OT and NT. The church is defined as the body of Christ. It is true that Jews who believe in this age are a part of the church. That was not true in the OT and it will not be true in the future. Zech 10-12 promises a return of the national Jews, not some kind of spiritual Jews. What do you think Zech 10-12 is talking about if not the national Jews?

 

I agree with all this. I am not ignoring it.

Because the NT says the NC is here. God promised a new covenant, God delivered a new covenant. Maybe we're misunderstanding each other.

First, I am not saying they have been cast off, I'm saying the definition is not as many assume. Many NT passages affirm (as do I) that "Israel" is not to be understood in only a nationality way, but also in a spiritual way. God promised a NC to the "house of Israel". God delivered it to the national house of Israel, but most (not all) rejected it. Thus the true house of Israel is the national Jews that accepted Christ. *This is the church*. Gentile believers were grafted into this. It is not an either-or scenario, the "church" today *is* the faithful "house of Israel" with Gentiles grafted in. We Gentiles were once aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, but now we are not. You're part of the "house of Israel" whether you like it or not! Second, I am not saying anything glibly.

There are many words, too many for me to deal with all of them here. Which ones in particular are you interested in?

Context. *Israel* is contrasted with "Israel" in numerous NT passages as well.

Christ only has one body, and Christ's blood is what redeems saints of any age. The new covenant is in his blood, and his blood purchased the church. Heb 9:15 says his death was also "for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament", so that covers the OT. Heb 13:20 says the blood is an everlasting covenant, so that covers future saints.

I will have to look at this passage again. Anything in particular you want me to focus on?

[ October 08, 2002, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

But my point is that the NC involves more than simply atonement. It involves the salvation of national Israel because of their nationality and in their nationality (as opposed to being made a part of the church) and a restoration of national Israel to the land promised to their fathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). That requires a future national repentance and national restoration as prophesied in Zech 12.

This is not a sufficient argument. The "house of Israel" was not many houses but the nation itself. I am not a part of the nation of Israel. I agree that end time Israelites will be more than simply ethnic Jews; they will be spiritual Jews. But they will also be ethnic Jews becasue that is what God promised. You say, Thus the true house of Israel is the national Jews that accepted Christ. *This is the church*. I say, that is contrary to everything the NT teaches. In the NT, the Jews are incorporated into the church. The true house of Israel is still a nation of ethnic Jews that will receive the full promise of the NC from God.

With regards to Jeremiah 31, I think the whole passage is important. That is why I encourage you to study through it verse by verse. This passage makes it clear that the NC cannot be in effect today inasmuch as what we see today is nothing at all resembling what God said it would be. We do not see a great spiritual awakening of Jews. We do not see the restoration and peace of Jerusalem. Therefore, whatever today is, it is not the NC of Jer 31. The words of the text are subordinated to theology all too often. That is my concern.

Both true but unrelated. I don't deny either. I maintain that Christ only has one body -- the NT church.

IN Zech 10-12, I should have said more specifically 12-14. However the whole passage is worthy of serious reflection on this issue, particularly 12:10ff. It speaks of a time when the nation will turn to Christ and will accept him as their Messiah and then will be restored under his kingship on the earth.

What is your millennial position. I don't believe you ever mentioned it.

 

Hi Pastor Larry,

I said "Thus the true house of Israel is the national Jews that accepted Christ. *This is the church*." You replied:

Can you provide some references as to where the NT is contrary to what I said? All I can find is what led me to say that. The apostles and first believers were Jews. Acts 10:45 says "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 11:1-2 says the Jewish church even challenged Peter that Gentiles be allowed in. And the whole point of Pauls ministry was to evangelize and bring Gentiles into the church that was already established.

I'm on the fence between premill and amill. I see strong scriptural support for amill and partial preterism in the gospels and epistles. Rev 20 is a bit of a snag, I'm not entirely satisfied with the amill take on it, and if it was not present I would be wholly amill.

BTW, I have read those passages in Jer and Zech many times, but I will do so again.

 

My point is that in the OT, nationality is everything. In the NT, it is nothing. Gal 3 and Col 3 say that there is no longer national priority in the church. However, that does not contradict the OT covenants that are still national in nature. I cannot be an amill because the OT passages too clearly reference the national regathering of the Jews to their promised land. To say that those promises simply no longer exist seems to me to ignore the clarity and force of the OT texts. Revelation 20 is nothing but icing on teh cake, IMO. It is unanswerable I think but it is icing. I have always said that I am a premillennialist because of the OT, not because of the NT. It seems to me that that whole amill/postmill position depends on recharacterizing the text to say something other than what it actually says. It depends on redefining the words to mean something that the original author would have never intended and something that the original reader would have never understood.

Consider Acts 1, where the disciples asked if this was the time he was going to restore the kingdom to Israel. Think first about why the disciples asked that question. Where did they get the idea of a kingdom? The obvious answer is from the OT. Then we must look to see what the OT says about the kingdom. It says a lot, much more than can be said in this post. I recommend alva J McClain's The Greatness of the Kingdom as a starting point. The disciples clearly expected a kingdom such as the premills today expect. In fact that was the subject of their preaching. Consider espeically Acts 3:19-21 which is explicitly premillennial, speaking of a time of delay followed by a restoration of all things.

Second, think of Christ's answer: If Christ was a postmill, he would have said yes. If he was an amill, he would have said, you misunderstood the kingdom. Yet he said neither; he allowed the disciples to go on thinking that their conception of the kingdom was right. If they were wrong, Christ would have been misleading them. Christ's only response is that it was not for them to know the time of the kingdom. He was conceding that they understood the nature of it; they simply didn't understand the timing of it.

Amill/postmill only arose after several centuries where believers did not see the return of the kingdom as they thought it should be. So amill/postmill did not arrive as a result of careful exegesis of Scriptures but rather as a result of reading the times and rethinking theology based on current events. There are many arguments that can be made against post/amill views. These are just a scant few.

With regard to the church and Israel, be careful not to read into the text things which are not there. FOr instance, the NT says that the church is made up of Jews and Gentiles on equal footing; Yet the NT does not say that the Church takes the place of Israel in the fulfilment of hte OT covenants. That is read in in many places because of the presupposition; not because of the exegesis. We do not disagree that Jews and Gentiles are one in the body; we do not disagree that Christ only has one body; we do not disagree that the blood of Christ covers all believers of all times. But none of those are the issue. The issue is, Can the promises made to one group unconditionally be fulfilled in another group? The answer, we believe, is no.

As for the NT and OT, many post/amills believe that they are interpreting the OT in light of the NT. This has several problems. First, it denigrates the perspecuity of the OT. It implies that the OT has no value (or at best a misleading value) apart from the NT. We believe that the OT stands on its own as authoritative, understandable revelation. Second, it tacitly asserts that progressive revelation was a bad things rather than a good thing since the OT revelation was insufficient to bring about what God intended. It, in effect, says that the OT was simply a place holder for the good stuff to come, that God made all kinds of promises to Israel as a nation that he never intended to fulfill. He repeatedly used these promises as motivation for Israel to remain faithful. While I know they would not say this about their own position, I think they are issues that have not been sufficiently wrestled with. I think they are too quick to dismiss the clarity and force of these OT texts.

When you read those OT passages focus on the party involved and how it is described and the results. Focus on how specific and how clear the promises are and whether or not they have been fulfilled as they read. If it requires great redefinition of clear words and ideas, then it is suspect, IMO.

I must run ...

 

Here is a message well worth listening to that addresses these issues. It is rather long but well worth the time. There is actually a series of messages here on this general topic with respect to the Abrahamic covenant.

Go to this page and listen to the Sunday, August 18, AM message entitled, "Restoration For His Name's Sake (Ezekiel 36:16-37:28)."

The page is Sermons

 

I *knew* I shouldn't have answered you question about the millennium.

OK, to be brief:

I am not saying those promises no longer exist. I am saying that maybe you're misapplying them.

Even other strong premillers (authors) have stated that premill hangs only on Rev 20. I'll have to dig through my notes. And it is not unanswerable, it has been answered for 1600 years.

Where is "1000 years" mentioned in the OT?

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Amill does not deny a future restoration, or a future kingdom. In amill, when Christ returns, everthing is restored and the *everlasting* kingdom is established. Amill simply sees no need for the "1000 years" to be between Christ's coming and the everlasting kingdom.

I have never said otherwise to either point. I am not saying the church replaces Israel. I am saying the church is the continuation of faithful Israel.

Then it should be relatively easy for you to show where the church was not Jewish to start with.

The issue is: is it really "another" group in the first place?

Brian

 

Is it possible to disagree with another person's doctrinal position without characterizing it as "evil", etc.

SheEagle911, I seem to remember that you chastised me(and rightly so ) about 4 months ago because I went overboard in criticizing the dispy premill position with some unkind remarks. Remember?

Ken

 

I am trying to be brief too ... but I am a preacher ... how brief can I be????

As for promises, I don't think there is more than one legitimate application of hte words. Once you delve into a polyvalence theory of meaning, you have jeopardized the very possibility of rational communication. I know every one wants to apply the promises differently. That is not the question. The question is, Is it correct to do so? I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how it is possible to do that.

As for Rev 20, the only thing Rev 20 adds is the time frame. As for being answered, I disagree that it has for 1600 years. I don't find the answers satisfying in any way because they depend on changing the plain meaning of the text. But I would agree that if any amill position on the kingdom can be supported, it probably from Rev 20. I see more flexibility there than in the OT to be sure. The "kingdom" in amill thought is not the kingdom promised in the OT. That is why the amill position on the kingdom is, IMO, an unbiblical one (meaning not derived from Scripture; not meaning evil). As I mentioned in Acts 1, the disciples got their idea of the kingdom as an earthly kingdom from the OT and Christ did nothing to correct them. Why not?

This phrase demonstrates exactly what I am saying with recharacterization. "Israel" was specifically defined as the seed from Abraham's loins. Someone not born as an heir of Abraham was specifically excluded. Yet you want to come along and change the teaching of Gen 15. I do not think that can be done with legitimacy. The children of faith are Abraham's spiritual seed to be sure. But that does not account for the land promise of the AC. You say at the end, "Is it really another group to begin with" to which I respond, how can it not be if group A is defined as those descendants of the "one who will come forth from [Abraham's} own body" (Gen 15:4) and group B is defined as Jew and Gentile including the hated dogs, the Samaritans.

As for the church being Jewish to start with, I do not believe that was in question. But the point is that Gentiles are admitted to the church on equal standing with the Jews, which is the reason you ahve the apostolic confirmation in Acts 8 (Samaritans) and Acts 10-11 (Gentiles).

 

I guess you won't mind now if I talk about the evil of dispensational premillennialism,
eh?

But seriously, it has been shown that it is being of the spiritual seed of Abraham, the true children of God, that counts, not the physical seed.

Ken

[ October 09, 2002, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Dear SheEagle, I enjoy reading your posts! I also am a "lover of Israel", and believe that replacement theology is evil. It states that God has rejected the Jews and replaced them with the church. It is bad for Israel, the church and for God. A theology which teaches that the Jews are rejected finds encouragment in Jewish suffering. As Pascal phrased it,

The condition in which one sees the Jews is moreover, a great proof of the Religion. For it is an astonishing thing to see that people subsisting for so many years, and to see them always in a state of misery; it being necessary for the proof of Jesus Christ, both that they subsist as a proof, and that they be wretched,
because they crucified him.

As well as finding encouragment in Jewish degredation, the church has also activly promoted it.
In 1081 Pope Gregory VII wrote as to Alphonso VI of Castille: “We admonish your
Highness that you must cease to suffer the Jews to rule over Christians and exercise
authority over them. For to allow Christians to be subordinate to Jews, and to be subject
to their judgement, is the same as to oppress God’s Church and to exalt the synagogue of
Satan. To wish to please the enemies of Christ means to treat Christ himself with
contumely”. Thomas Aquinas agreed with this and preached the idea that Jews must be
compelled to live in perpetual slavery.

On March 5, 1233, Pope Gregory XI wrote to the archbishops and bishops of Germany.
He wrote that German Jews were not living in “the state of complete misery to which
they had been condemned by God”. Jews were not living in “the yoke of perpetual
enslavement because of their guilt”.

Pope Innocent III re- stated this in a letter to the Archbishop of Seus and the Bishop of
Paris (15 July 1205): “The Jews are condemned to eternal slavery”. Pope Paul IV in
1555 published a Bull (Cum nimis absurdum) again declaring that Jews were condemned
by God to eternal slavery. This attitude was carried over to a certain extent into
European Protestantism. In 1538, Landgrave Philip of Hesse wished to give the Jews in
Hesse a definitive status. Martin Bucer, who exercised a deep and permanent influence
on Calvin, (who was in exile in Strasbourg, in Bucer’s close proximity, at this very time)
joined with six Hesse clergy to write that Jews should not be allowed to raise themselves
above Christians, but should be confined to the lowest estate (that is, slave labour).

It also defames God. Luke states that Jesus came to deliver his people, to reign over the house of Jacob forever, on the throne of David. Was Jesus unable to do God's will? Was he rejected and a failure? Did he then in turn cast of Israel, and say hi to the church as plan b? No! Our weakness is not greater than God's love. He remains faithful even when we are unfaithful. His gifts and calling are irrevocable, and so, all Israel shall be saved.
We worship a God who never gives up on us, who forgives and redeems us. When I fail and think God will reject me, I remember Israel, and experience anew the mercy of our God.

Replacement theology demonises Israel, encourages the church to be a thief and a murderer, and says that Jesus was a failure. I agree with you, this is an evil theology.
God bless, Colin

 

So...are ya'll saying that anyone who does not agree with ya'll is going to hell?

Ken

 

I didn't read that into what they said Ken. There are many things we don't agree with that don't necessarily send someone to hell.
Murph