Replacement Theology

This doctrine is drawn from Romans 9-11 and Galatians 3-4. I have never heard anyone who believed in this call it "Replacement Theology". The belief is that Old Testament promises are being fulfilled through the New Testament Church and are not a replacement of Israel as God's chosen people. Israel is all believers in the promise of the Savior. Jews who don't believe have been removed, gentiles that do, grafted in.

Hope this helps!

God Bless!

 

Theology of the month club.

 

Fair Question.

It is taken from the teaching of the Scriptures that the Jews have been replaced as the "Israel of God" and the "new nation" of the Church has been given administration of the kingdom of God.

To see the teaching on this, you may go to Matthew 21: 33 - 46 and study the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. Jesus' teaching here speaks of the kingdom (vineyard), the wicked husbandmen who are in charge of it (the Jews), and their being removed from oversight of it.

There is also parallel language in the Scriptures between the OT and the NT:

Ex 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

And this:

1 Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Notice the similarities in Holy Writ. Peter describes the Church in the same language as God used in the OT. The parallelism is striking, and surely those Jews of the first century who believed upon Messiah Jesus would have made the connection.

Finally, there is nothing which suggests that the New Covenant, in replacing the Old Covenant, is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. The first century believers continued those practices which they had learned as Jews, but in fulfillment in Christ. Therefore, they celebrated the Eucharist as the continuation of the Passover, just as Christ had made that change in the Upper Room with the apostles. There was still a required making of a covenant with God, but now, instead of circumcision, it was baptism. The New Covenant is the completion and continuation of the Old.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

You forget one thing Ed.
Islam expects to replace the church (i.e., the Catholic Church), as the one true religion.

The theology of "Replacement Theology" is held by those who are liberals and apostate.
DHK

 

DHK --

Instead of just giving an off the cuff response as you did, why not post up the passage from Matthew and dissect it, proving me wrong?

Your last sentence is just your opinion and is in no way either factual or proveable.

If you do not respond and exegete Matthew 21, we will assume that you have nothing of substance to say on the matter at hand.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

My answer was not off the cuff, though it was brief. If you would like some detailed answers to your questions including the one in Mat.21, take a good look at these web sites.


The Error of Replacement Theology

Here is another good site:

What is Replacement Theology?

In the above site here is an interesting quote:

God will keep His covenant with Israel. He is not a man that He should lie. What He has spoken, He will also perform.

We have the word of God today as a result of the dedication and obedience of the Jewish people. We are saved today because we have believed in a “Jewish” Messiah. All of the apostles and disciples were Jews. Sixty-four of the sixty-six books in the word of God were written by Jews.

The enemy has made numerous attempts to wipe out the Jewish people and the nation of Israel, but God has remained their defender.

While radical Muslims and Palestinians find pleasure in blowing up Jews and innocent children, Zechariah 12:9 says, “And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.”

God has His hand of protection upon the nation of Israel and the people who dwell within its borders. Leaders and peacemakers may attempt to divide the land of Israel by giving portions of it away, but God will have the last say in the matter.

After talking to many Muslims, they themselves believe that they will replace Christianity. The sad thing is that many so-clled Christians are starting to believe them. It is called "Replacement Theology."
DHK

 

And I would refer you two gentlemen to this web site

THE CHURCH IS ISRAEL NOW


I scanned the sites you gave me and without even doing an exhaustive research, I know that there are numerous errors in them.

First of all, there is the issue of the contradiction between the Matthian passage I quoted and the quotes in the rest of the N.T. If there is a contradiction, obviously SOMEONE is wrong in their INTERPRETATION, aren't they?

However, since it was JESUS HIMSELF Who stated that the Jews would be cast from the administration of the vineyard of God, then it becomes clearer that the problem is with the interpretation of the verses from St. Paul.

In a nutshell, the problem resides with the failure to realize that the name "ISRAEL" refers to God's people, not an ethnic race. God's people were the Jews. They were in the covenantal relationship with Him whereby they were the keepers of the oracles of God and administrators of the kingdom. But now, in the New Covenant, there is no longer an ethnic race to which the name "ISRAEL" applies. It is rather the Church consisting of every ethnic group on the planet.

When one takes the word "Israel" and makes it mean the same thing as "Jew", then one obviously becomes confused. This is the problem that all Zionists have.

The second and far greater problem is that the Old Covenant, which established that administrative mandate to the Jews is no longer in effect. They broke that covenant and according to Deut 28, they have been dispossessed of the rights and priviledges which go with it. When reading the promises of the OT to "Israel" one must determine if that promise is to the people of God throughout all time, or to the Jews. Lack of clarity here again produces confusion.

The Semite nation over in the Middle East which calls itself Israel would not even exist today if it were not for the machinations of wicked men. It was not divinely established as in the beginning, but set up of fleshly and non spiritual councils. I do not pretend to know what will come of it, but I do know this....it is not to be the kingdom as the Premillenialists claim it shall, for if Premillenialism is true, then it makes the rest of the Bible a bald faced lie and insults the work of Christ.

God simply will not allow that to happen.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

 

At least the websites that I referred you to did proper exegesis of Scripture. Your website that you referred me to is very biased and very good at pulling Scripture out of context. Let me just give one example, as it is not possible to refute all the points on this thread.

Under this topic three Scripture references are given to prove this point: Rom 2:29; Phil 3:3; Col 2:11. Let’s take a look at these Scriptures.

Rom.2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
--This verse is supposedly applied to Christians. Is the Christian here being called a Jew? Check the context. Look back at verse 17
17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
--The entire chapter was written to the Jewish people. That is who Paul was talking about in the grand scheme of things. It pays to take heed to the context in which the verse was written. It might as well read: “Behold you are called a Jew, because you are a Jew.” Really, it is a simple concept..

Phil.3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
--This speaks of those that are circumcised in the heart not in the flesh. It is speaking spiritually and figuratively. It is not speaking of a physical circumcision. Check out Romans 4:11

Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

What is the sign of circumcision? It is a seal of righteousness of the faith that Abraham had before he was even circumcised. The circumcision was simply a sign. It was a sign of the faith that brought righteousness. What kind of faith brought righteousness? Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness sake. It was his faith and faith alone, that made him righteous before God. Circumcision profited him nothing in relation to righteousness. It was only a sign.

Replacement Theology is a farce. It is totally unbiblical. The church has not replaced Israel at all. Replacement Theology is a vehicle for anti-Semitism. It tries to do away with the nation of Israel: precisely what Islam would like to do. It is a radical stream of theology believed by liberal theologians, most of whom are anti-Semitic. Islam welcomes it. In their minds they will be the next to replace Christianity. Remember that they also believe in the coming of Christ. To them it all fits in.
DHK

 

In 2Cor 3 we find that the Old Covenant is "death" and the New Covenant is "Life". Life is not the continuation of "death".

The One True Church that God started at Sinai - COULD have gone on through to the second coming SINCE they had FOREVER promises of God's teaching Word AND of His guiding Holy Spirit.

But they chose to fail - by choosing rebellion. Just as Paul predicts would happen again in 2Thess 2 among some Christians.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here is a good article on this subject:
http://www.eschatology.org/articles/israelofgod/godspeople.htm

 

Well, my goodness, I never come in here & lookie what I've found:

There is more of a spirit of unity & blessing regarding Israel in this forum than there is in the Baptist Only forums regarding the satanic apostate lie of Replacement Theology.

How about that? God Bless You, Brothers!

Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem. Shalom.

 

DHK --

Rom.2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Indeed. St. Paul proves that the true Jew is the one who is a follower of Messiah Jesus, which comes from faith in Him. But this does not deny the physical aspects of the kingdom here on earth. This spiritualizing of the Scriptures creates the same problem in John 6 by which you deny the reality of the Eucharist by appealing to the "spiritual nature" (supposedly) of that Sacrament.

This verse is supposedly applied to Christians. Is the Christian here being called a Jew? Check the context. Look back at verse 17

17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

This is interesting, for IF I remember correctly, when I stated that Romans was written to the Jews to tell them that they would be judged along with all other men, as per Romans 2: 5 - 10, you denied that the Jews were being spoken to. Could be wrong, but that's how I remember it.

Anyhow, St. Paul also goes on to say "...for they are not all Israel who are of Israel..." It was that verse, with some others, which led me to understand that God views HIS PEOPLE as Israel, and not specifically anyone of a certain Hebrew race.

The question then becomes this: HOW does one become one of HIS PEOPLE, ISRAEL?

The answer is, of course, by faith in Him, which you have shown in the verses relating to Abraham. Circumcision was an ACT OF FAITH. It is intimately united to faith (and BOY....did one have to have faith to submit to THAT!!).

Circumcision was not just a bare sign. It really and truly did something, for if it was merely a sign, it would not be said of the uncircumcized "...and he shall be cut off from his people." Circumcision, as an act of faith, really made one a part of the covenant and part of the kingdom people.

Ge 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

My covenant shall be IN YOUR FLESH. The flesh has a lot to do with the covenant, and the idea of a "faith alone" covenant is a semi-gnostic idea which denies the goodness and reality of the physical existence.

Phil.3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

This speaks of those that are circumcised in the heart not in the flesh. It is speaking spiritually and figuratively. It is not speaking of a physical circumcision. Check out Romans 4:11

Yes, there is a circumcision of the heart. The outer circumcision is a visible sign of an invisible reality. That is how all the Sacraments work in the New Covenant. Take marriage. St. Paul says that the two really become one. This is a spiritual union which is every bit real, but the best we can see of it is when the two become one physically. It is a sign of a reality that really exists. You Protestants are so afraid of using physical means to show, and be the reality of that which is spiritual.

Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

What is the sign of circumcision? It is a seal of righteousness of the faith that Abraham had before he was even circumcised. The circumcision was simply a sign.

Yes. And what is the difference between a sign and a symbol? A symbol does not have reality behind it. A sign does. For instance, a symbol makes us think of something, whereas a sign is the existence of that which cannot be seen.

A stop sign is a sign of a law. It is not a symbol. It is more. It is the physical embodiment of the law which says "YOU must stop right here at this corner before proceeding on." If you run that stop sign, you cannot say to the office, "But, sir, that is only a symbol and nothing more."

No, it is a reality, planted right there in the ground for all to both SEE AND OBEY. The law, unseen and written in a code book somewhere, exists in that sign.

In like manner, circumcision was a sign because there was a true reality associated with it. The unseen reality was the circumcision of the heart, which is by faith.
It was a sign of the faith that brought righteousness.

Faith does not bring righteousness. Faith IS righteousness:

Ro 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

The "righteousness of faith". Faith is righteousness, and those who exercise faith exercise righteousness, therefore, they are righteous and are counted as such.

Circumcision profited him nothing in relation to righteousness. It was only a sign.

Circumcision is the icon of faith. If God says to do something and you do not do it, do you really have faith?

Replacement Theology is a farce.

Tell that to Jesus. It is His plan for the ages. He said so in Matthew 21. Your unbelief doesn't change what He said in that parable at all. In fact, vs. 46 states clearly that the Jews KNEW that He was talking about them and how the "another nation" spoken of in the parable was going to replace them.

It is totally unbiblical.

No, it is totally unbaptistic and undispensational. Doesn't agree with Mr. Larkin's foldout charts. Oh well. Too bad.

The church has not replaced Israel at all.

The Church is Israel. How can you miss the similarities in the language between the two:

Ex 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

The "children of Israel" were a kingdom of priest and a holy nation. Now look at how St. Peter describes the Church in the first century:

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Every Jew who heard that or read that in their services would have understood immediately the connection between Peter's phrasing and that of the prophet in Exodus.

slam welcomes it. In their minds they will be the next to replace Christianity.

Well, considering the source, and their false demon religion, they are delusional anyway, so who cares?

Cordially in Christ and the Virgin Mary

Brother Ed

 

Romans 2:24-3-2
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
--Paul is writing to a church at Rome. Keep in mind that a church is composed of believers, whether they were Greeks or Jews formerly, it does not matter. For now we are all one in Christ. “We know no man after the flesh.” In his evangelism Paul went to the Jew first then to the Greek (Rom.1:16) In the Book of Romans Paul endeavours to show in the first three chapters the universality of sin. He shows in chapter one how sin has affected all Gentiles. In chapter two he demonstrates how sin has affected all Jews. (Thus the chapter is addressed to the Jews). In chapter three he concludes by showing how sin has affected the entire human race—both Jew and Gentile. Thus the context is very important here.

So look at these verses now in the context in which they were written (as addressed to the Jews).
Verse 25 teaches that circumcision can only profit if you keep the whole law. Since that is an impossibility circumcision does not profit. No man can keep the whole law (Gal.3:10).
If you break the law your circumcision is made uncircumcision or useless. It is unprofitable. And no man can keep the law. Thus there is no profit in circumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
--That is right. Uncircumcision has taken the place of circumcison, because circumcision could not keep the law.

27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
--Previous to this Paul said that even the Gentiles had the law of God written on their hearts. And the Jews which had the written law before them would not keep the moral law of God, which the Gentiles by nature were keeping. By nature they were fulfilling the law. By nature the Jews were breaking the law. What profit then was their circumcision.

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
--So Paul concludes that one is a Jew, only in a spiritual way, when his heart is right with God. Keeping all the letter of the law, and not the spirit of the law does not please God. God wants your heart; not your works. A man is justified by faith, not by works.

3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
--The profit of the circumcision (now used in reference to the nation of Israel) is that from them came the Word of God, from them came the prophets, who spoke the oracles of God.

Circumcision was never given to the Gentiles. It was only the sign of the covenant given to the Jews. It is symbolic for the Christian. It remains a sign for the Jew. Never does the Scripture teach that the Church will replace the Jewish nation or Israel. That is anti-Semitism and heresy.

Romans 11:
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Boast not against the branches (Israel). For you were grafted in. Be not high minded; but fear!
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
That is a warning to you brother Ed. He will not spare you if you if you continue with an anti-Semitic attitude toward Israel. Israel has not been replaced. Let’s continue.

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
--Now look at these marvellous verse in chapter 11 of Romans

Don’t be ignorant of these things!! Blindness in part is happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. The fullness of the Gentiles has not come in yet. Israel has not been replaced; they are simply blinded for a season to the truth of the gospel.

And so all Israel shall be saved There is an Israel. As a nation they will be saved. This is future tense, and yet to happen. They are still a physical nation, not simply a spiritual nation. They will be saved at the end of the Tribulation Period when Jesus comes again.

In verse 27 The Word of God plainly declares that God’s covenant is with them, the Jews, not with the Catholic Church. He will take away their sins, not the Catholic Church. His covenant is with Israel, not the Catholic Church. It can’t be much more clear than that, can it?
DHK

 

Romans 2:24-3-2
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.


Paul does Not say "you MUST break the law and the name of God MUST be blasphemed by your breaking the law - since you are human. This is the lot of ALL of God's children that they cause God's name to be blaphemed by their own breaking the law". (As many have hoped he would say)

Rather Paul condemned them for breaking the law and stated that their law breaking was so aggregious that God's name is blasphemed among non-believers due to THEIR law breaking.

In fact - in Romans 2 Paul presents BOTH the case of the rebellious Law Breaking child of God AND the case of the Obedient Law Keeping Child of God who is truly God's child.


26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

The text does not anticipate "Oh be quiet Paul - there is NO SUCH person therfore ALL are uncicumcised spiritually for ALL are in rebellion against God's Law - breaking it and causing His name to be blasphemed".


27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:


Here again - Paul presents the "succeeding" case of the faithful obedient child of God that "fulfills the Law" by actually obeying instead of rebelling against the Savior of the World.

The text does not anticipate "no such thing Paul! There is no such thing as one who by obedience is fulfilling God's Law - there is only open rebellion against God our Savior".

Paul declares that it is the "succeeding" case that is TRULY a child of God.

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


And yet how this gets twisted around!!

In Chapter two Paul addresse BOTH the cases of the JEWS and the Gentiles stating that there would be "DISTRESS and trouble" for the JEW FIRST and also to the gentile AND that there was a heavenly reward that would be given "To the Jew FIRST and also to the Gentile".

Paul points out in chapter two "IT IS NOT the hearers of the LAW that are just before God but the DOERS of the Law WILL be JUSTIFIED" 2:13.

He then goes on to show MORE succeeding cases - (than those obedient ones he shows in vs 4-12).

In Vs 13-16 Paul shows that EVEN among those without the Bible - there is the New Covenant promise of the Law written on the heart - successful cases of obedience instead of open rebellion.

Thus chapter two deals with BOTH the cases of the Jews AND the Gentiles "explicitly" IN the explicit language of the chapter.

Odd that those who object to that - never guote the OFT repeated phrase in Chapter 2 "To the JEW FIRST AND ALSO to the Gentile" that explicitly shows BOTH the succeeding AND the failing cases among BOTH the Jews and the Gentiles.

Thus the context is very important here.

 

I never even addressed verse 24, and so your point is??


26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

I didn't say that it did. The verse teaches that the ccircumcision, (i.e., the Jews) could not keep the law. You have said essentially the same thing in different words. However the uncircumcision kept the righteousness of the law compared to the Jews, even when they never had the law. It was a comparison that Paul was drawing for the Jews. They had the moral law of God written on their hearts, and in spirit kept it, as opposed to the Jews who could not keep their own law.


27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

You are confused. Not even by obedience can one fulfill the law of God, for no one can be percectly obedient. That is why Christ died for our sins. We cannot but sin. It is in our nature to do so. It is impossible to keep the law. The law points us to our sinful nature.
So the true Jew was not just one who was one outwardly, but also inwardly. In other words, they of the Old Testament were saved in the same way that we are saved in the New Testament: by faith and faith alone.


29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

This is how you get twisted around because perhaps you do not believe in salvation by faith alone. He is a Jew which is one inwardly--spiritually, not in the letter--not of works, but of faith.
DHK

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here again - Paul presents the "succeeding" case of the faithful obedient child of God that "fulfills the Law" by actually obeying instead of rebelling against the Savior of the World.

The text does not anticipate "no such thing Paul! There is no such thing as one who by obedience is fulfilling God's Law - there is only open rebellion against God our Savior".

Paul declares that it is the "succeeding" case that is TRULY a child of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHK - none of you responses above actually deals WITH the text of Romans 2 showing how your view works IN The text of chapter 2.

I was very careful to take EACH DETAILS in the chapter 2 text and SHOW my point IN the text.

Paul is making the argument FOR obedience in Romans 2. You did not address a SINGLE ONE of his statements on obedience in that chapter. I addressed several of them and showed how HE explicitly specified BOTH the cases of Jews AND Gentils in the SUCCEEDING cases as well as giving FAILING cases.

You simply ignored the details IN the text that did not "please you".

That is not a compelling form of debate - by any measure.

In Christ,

Bob