Despite the disclaimer of dealing with a supposed disclaimer, none of what you said shows at any point where Replacement Theology was present - it is reflective of lacking awarness of what Jewish Christianity was (unless they are anti-Semitic in believing themselves replaced) in its most raw and basic demonstration. Thus, one needs better understanding of the terms since noting where Jew and Gentile are Israel and yet still seeing Israel as the 12 tribes who don't know Messiah was what the Apostles preached.
Jewish Ethnocentrism, of course, tends to assume that the Church was something the Apostles and Yeshua noted as seperate - but that is not the case, for it was upon the Apostles Yeshua noted He'd build His Church (Matthew 16). Replacement theology deals exclusively with the idea that the Jewish people as a WHOLE have no more importance to God - one of the many expressions of anti-Semitism.
That is not, of course, has nothing to do with noting where God has included the Gentiles as a part of His people Israel (Remant Israel) and has called them the Church - part of seeing
Israel and the Church from the perspective of Remnant Theology.
Gentile believers are grafted into remnant Israel, whose holy root is the Messiah. And Gentile believers have taken the place of Jews who have not believed, but Gentiles as a whole have not replaced Jews as a whole. Only
part of Israel has been hardened (Romans 11:25). And God is able to graft Jews back into remnant Israel/the Church when they believe (Romans 11:23). Thus, the proper understanding of Israel and the Church is not replacement theology... nor its cousin of separation theology. AND the Church has not replaced national Israel. For National Israel never was a spiritual body of people, but merely a nation of saved and unsaved, like others nations. And God has a future program of prophecy to fulfill for that nation. Neither has the Church replaced remnant Israel. Paul considered himself part of remnant Israel (Romans 11:1-5), part of Christ (Romans 9:3), and part of the Church (Ephesians 5:29-30)....showing that the the Church, the Body of Christ and remnant Israel are synonymous.
Gentiles were grafted into the Church, an olive tree natural to Jewish people but unnatural to Gentiles - and it is for this reason that Paul exhorts his Gentile readership not to be arrogant about their membership within the Church (Romans 11:20).
There are different aspectsd that came up with the development of the Church - for the Church is new regarding the New Covenant's promise of the indwelling Spirit (Ezekiel 36:24-26; Jeremiah 31:31-33) - as the
mystery aspect of the Church was that non-Jews would also receive the Spirit and be placed within the same body (with believing Jews) through the Spirit (Acts 10:45, Acts 15:8; Ephesians 2:19-3:6) - a mystery because the New Covenant and the advent of the Spirit had been promised only for the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31), not for Gentiles.
But it was a mystery hidden in the Old Testament, sparingly, such as in the covenant given to Abraham, whose seed (Messiah) would be a blessing to all nations.
So the Church has new aspects which have never before been experienced for the people of God - however, the Church is not new because it is simply remnant Israel. St. Paul's olive tree solves this when seeing it as remnant Israel. Paul's olive tree metaphor is similar to his human body metaphor (Romans 12:4-5; 1 Corinthians 12:12) and the fact that he uses the two metaphors so close to one another (Romans 11 and 12) shows he is speaking about the same group of people in both.
Practically, in the body metaphor, the Messiah is the head that gives direction to the rest of the body...and similarly, in the olive tree metaphor, the tree gets its sustenance and origin from the Messiah. In both metaphors, the membership is both Jew and Gentile - in one analogy, Jewish and Gentile body parts are the focus while in the other, Jewish branches and Gentile shoots are the focus.
The olive tree is a group of Jews and Gentiles made holy by the Messiah - fitting as an accurate description of the Church (Ephesians 3:6) - for with the olive tree metaphor, Paul was writing to Gentile believers (Romans 11:13), members of the Church....although the context of the olive tree metaphor was not the Church per se. In example, in Romans, Paul's first use of
ekklesia comes in Romans 16 (Romans 16:1, Romans 16:5, Romans 16:23), where it refers to local assemblies, not the entire body of believers. Moreover, the context of the olive tree metaphor is remnant Israel (Romans 11:5, 7)--"their [Jewish people's] own olive tree" (Romans 11:24).
Logically, if Paul had confined his olive tree illustration to include Jewish people only, remnant Israel might have been something separate from the Church, or something placed within the Church. However, since Gentile believers are grafted into the olive tree, however, it is clear that remnant Israel is not confined to physical Jews only, but rather, contains the same redeemed peoples who are members of the Church.
It makes more than enough sense to see how the olive tree is remnant Israel and it is the Church, because the Church is remnant Israel. Further support for this comes from Peter's speech in Acts 3. While speaking to Jewish non-believers, he stated that Jesus was a fulfillment of Mosaic prophecy:
For Moses said, "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people." (Acts 3:22-23)
When a Jewish person believed in Jesus and was born of the Spirit, he became a member of the Church, the Body of Christ. But if a Jewish person did not believe in Jesus, he would be "cut off" (the same language used in Paul's olive tree illustration) from among the Jewish people....showing that not only Paul, but Peter also, saw the Church as being equivalent to remnant Israel.
And the early Jewish body saw that as time progressed and the expansion of the covenant to include Gentiles occurred - something that is necessary to be aware of when it comes to honoring what Yeshua said on Gentiles consider . The issue has been discussed before - (one place being where Brother pat34lee shared in-depth thoughts before on the issue, although he received a lot of hassle over it but others defended him on the issue...f
rom the thread entitled
Identity Chrisis: Slander..and
other places being
Who is a Jew? From our older son or
here/elsewhere...in #
141/#
167.)
Others already addressed the way the Messiah reached out to Gentiles and NEVER expected them at any point to become one of the tribes of Israel - nor said that was a standard. This has been shared directly in
#163 with you before - and the same thing goes for the ways the Levitical Priesthood evolved (which was already discussed with you before in
#72 /
#73 or
here in
#60 when
speaking on priests - what Christ did by going outside of the Levitical priesthood to establish His own priesthood of which all Hebrews and Gentiles could be a part of....more shared in
#258 )
Neo-Ebionites generally tend to be quick in assuming that Gentiles and Jews collectively are never called Israel - even though the 1st century Jewish believers noted Israel to be both Jews/Gentiles and the Church -. But that is a woeful understanding of what the concepts were even about. Messianic Jews have often noted this repeteadly when it comes to some of the understandings - for Israel includes BOTH believers (New Israel), and it's older brother in the faith of Abraham (Jewish people yet to accept Christ). That is why we can say there is still something special and relevant about Israel, our older brother in the faith, while also noting that the Church (Jews believing in the Gospel/spreading it and Gentiles who also recieved it from Jews and now spread it as well) are Israel.
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 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. (Romans 2:28, 29)
Counter to Replacement Theology, it is Biblical to note that there is still something particularly special about the modern day Jewish people, although the characteristics of that "specialness" are still under discussion among theologians. And there's much merit for saying that the true Israel is not Israel "in the flesh" (i.e., ethnic Judaism) or even the Israeli State of today (as many Jews in Israel have noted for some time)...but rather Israel in the spirit....and thus, the Early Jewish Christians noted how they were the TRUE Israel while also noting that others who were only Ethnic Israel still needed the Lord in order to be a part of those who'd be saved.. and note the fact that the Jewish people have not been forsaken.
Other camps in Judaism did similar with seeing themselves as the only representation of Israel - namely the Essenes and others - so it's not a new concept.