Replacement Theology Found in Scripture?

[from scratch]

Back to the OP: anti-semitism is not a Scriptural precept

Who is being anti-semitic? I read nothing against the Jews prior to your post.

 

[from scratch]

The term Replacement Theology is used by people who don't understand Covenant Theology.
The Church does not replace Israel, the Church has always been Israel.

I would disagree that the Mosaic covenant was a codicil to the Abrahamic covenant based on Deut 5:3. That passage states the Sinai covenant to be an entirely independent covenant from Abraham's covenants. It in no way amends the Abrahamic covenants.

 

[Tangible]

All tree grafts are made into root stock not mature trees. Yes it is expressed as tree grafting. Mature trees are not grafted. The tree that a Christian is graft into is Jesus and not Israel. Jesus is the Root Stock. Even a Jew must be graft into this Root Stock to posess salvation.

A similar passage can be foun in John 10 about their being one fold.

Horticultural side note: scions may be grafted onto rootstocks or onto mature hosts.

Just keeping it real.

 

[from scratch]

Speaking to Gentile Christians, Paul warns them not to feel superior because some Jews were rejected. Abraham's faith is like the root of a productive tree, and the Jewish people are the tree's natural branches. Because of faithlessness, some of the Jews have been broken off, and Gentile believers, who were branches from a wild olive tree, have been grafted in. Both the Jews and Gentiles share the tree's nourishment based on faith in God; neither can rest on heritage or culture for salvation.

"Continue to trust in His kindness" refers to steadfast perseverance in faith. Steadfastness is the proof of the reality of faith and a by-product of salvation, not a means to it.

Where does the Christian get their nourishment? Is it from Israel or Jesus Christ the Root? It is true Israel is also synbolized as an olive tree. A tree includes all its branches. Without branches there is no tree.

Consider these verses -

16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

It is the Root and not the tree that provides nourishment. Jesus is not Israel. Perhaps the phrase fatness of the olvie tree throws some off by the terminology. And for common understanding verse 24 doesn't help much. All tree grafting is done into root stock and not trees.

 

[from scratch]

Replacement Theology in essence is a coined idea in the minds of Dispensationalists toward those who believe Israel is realized in the Church.

In other words, in their minds, this his how they view us: "Since they believe that the Church has replaced the Israel, this means they believe in "replacement theology", because they do not believe that Israel has any more role or function in God's end-time prophecies, and are basically anti-semetic"

This is how those who charge us of subscribing to "Replacement Theology" look at it. With all due respect, I believe it is a warped pear of lenses they are looking through.

The problem is, they fail to grasp the bigger picture of what is really transpiring here.

Israel has not been replaced by the Church. The House of Israel, which is the Vineyard, was taken away from the Jewish Nation, and GIVEN (not replaced) to the Church. Israel has always been spiritual, even in the Old Testament.

The Jewish Geopolitical Nation = the "Old Husbandmen" or "vinedressers" for the "House of Israel"--the "Vineyard".

According to Matthew 21:43, the Kingdom of God (Israel) was taken FROM them (Jewish Nation) and GIVEN (not replaced) to a nation (the gentiles/church) bringing forth the fruits thereof.

See Isaiah 5:1-9 (especially verse 7) and Isaiah 61:1-11 (especially vss. 4 & 5).

As we can see, the prophecy in Isaiah 61:1-11 foretells of a day when strangers would stand up and feed the flock, and they would be the "husbandmen" or "vinedressers" of the Vineyard (the House of Israel). They would come and plow the fields, and tend the garden.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Christ in Matthew 21:33-43 was clearly alluding to Isaiah 5:1-8 and 61:1-11.

The Christian Church = the "New Husbandmen" or vinedressers for the "House of Israel"--the "vineyard".

This Church comprises of Jews and Gentiles alike---men from every nation under heaven which God has called.

We are saved ONLY "in Christ" (Romans 3:24). And the "Church" is the "body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27; Eph. 4:12).

The Nation of Ancient Israel, when they were following God, were considered "the church in the wilderness" (Acts 7:37-39)

God's "congregation".

God WILL have a "remnant" of literal ethnic Jews according to Romans 11. But every Jew that is saved will be considered in God's eyes as being "grafted into the parent stock"--that is, ultimately, Jesus Christ. No Jew will be saved by being connected to a separate tree. It's the same tree. God does not have two brides, He has one. It is by the filling up of the Gentiles into the House of Israel (the vineyard) that will constitute the "all Israel" that shall be "saved".

God is not a polygamist. There is only ONE bride, and there is only ONE TREE, and that is Himself, for which the Church represents His body.

Thus we see that Israel was not replaced, nor can ever be replaced. Only those Whom God has given the keys to the House can be replaced. The keys can be taken away from them, and given to another housekeeper. The keys were definitely taken away from the Jewish Nation.

Jews will only be saved as individuals, but only after they accept Christ as their personal Saviour. No Jew that is saved will have been saved independently from the body of Christ, as a separate "entity" outside of the Church.

By my active participation with SDA people I will never be convinced Replacement Theology is not actively taught in their church.

 

[from scratch]

Your problem is that you are seeing them accorrding to the flesh, I mean, sure, paul used the israel word, but lets remember...


Rom 9:8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.


Now, when Jews come in, like how Paul and others did, they must realize that everywhere Kaul uses Abeaham, like in Rom 9, it takes down ethnocentricity, or law, or Judaism, nationalism, circumcision, or racisim, unless you can prove otherwise.

faith and grace, and they have to come in like all the other jews for 20 centuries now.


look here, to be in Abe they must walk PRE CIRCUMCISION, they can't be heirs by judaism!



Rom 4:12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

This is part of what Acts 15 deals with.

 

[from scratch]

Once a jew is saved, it is>>>>>>>>>>>

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.


Promise to be an heir of Abraham.



29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise

 

[Tangible]

Where does the Christian get their nourishment? Is it from Israel or Jesus Christ the Root? It is true Israel is also synbolized as an olive tree. A tree includes all its branches. Without branches there is no tree.

Consider these verses -

16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

It is the Root and not the tree that provides nourishment. Jesus is not Israel. Perhaps the phrase fatness of the olvie tree throws some off by the terminology. And for common understanding verse 24 doesn't help much. All tree grafting is done into root stock and not trees.

Your anecdotal proofs are problematic. A tree can have no branches and still be a tree, as for grafting, see above.

 

[from scratch]

But he also calls gentiles the elect in Rom 11:7, and Col 3:12, and he also shows the Jews that they have to leard about coming in by faith in Rom 9:30 they way of the gentiles, and they too can learn something esle, here is an equalizing verse against jewish pride also, no one can boast, see rom 3:27.


11:31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now[e] receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

Same as here, no partiality.

Rom 2:11 For God shows no partiality.

Speaking of boasting we find the following passage:

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

We are His workmanship and not ours. And it is a gift, not a reward for activity (work).

 

[from scratch]

the Jews were called branches also, not the tree, the branches.


19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”

Those branches are not broken off of the same tree. They are broken of Israel and graft into Jesus when they accept Jesus as Messiah (Saviour/Redeemer).

 

[from scratch]

Your anecdotal proofs are problematic. A tree can have no branches and still be a tree, as for grafting, see above.

Please show picture of a tree that has no branches and is still called a tree. At best it might be called a dead tree. The word snag comes to mind. I know of no tree that doesn't have branches. I am agricultural based. I would love to see any quote calling a branchless tree (if you will) a tree.

 

[Tangible]

Please show picture of a tree that has no branches and is still called a tree. At best it might be called a dead tree. The word snag comes to mind. I know of no tree that doesn't have branches. I am agricultural based. I would love to see any quote calling a branchless tree (if you will) a tree.

A branchless what?

 

[from scratch]

Horticultural side note: scions may be grafted onto rootstocks or onto mature hosts.

Just keeping it real.

Maybe a scion may be graft into a branch on a tree, but not the tree.Slight difference. The graft and the stock into which it is graft must be the same approximate size. The is no grafting into the side of a tree trunk as is being implied.

 

[from scratch]

A branchless what?

Exactly! A tree is not branchless.

Please review post 64 or read where the nourishment comes from in v 16-17.

 

[from scratch]

I think we have common ground. We believe in salvation by grace through faith in the Messiah, the Jewish Rabbi we all serve, the Man Christ Jesus.

'Replacement' thinking is problematic because it treats the ethnic people of Israel as if God did not have a special plan for their nation, when Paul says, "All Israel shall be saved" in a context where he is dealing with the natural branches.

I serve God (Jesus and His Father through the Holy Spirit) and not a Jewish rabbi. Sorry.

 

[Tangible]

Originally Posted by Tangible

A branchless what?
​

Exactly! A tree is not branchless.

Please review post 64 or read where the nourishment comes from in v 16-17.

The non-evasive answer is: tree.

 

[from scratch]

According to scripture, God has made a covenant with the nation of Israel.

If you have an unbelieving Jew and an unbelieving Irishman. The unbelieving Jew is a part of a nation for which God has made a covenant. What covenant has God made with the Irish? What covenant does any other nation have apart from Christ? None.

Part of God's commandments to Israel is that they hear His Prophet. That is an issue. But there are also prophecies about restoring Israel from its disobedience.

When Israel was disobedient before the Messiah came and died on the cross and rose again, God still kept His end of the covenant with Israel. After Christ dies, He still honors it. Through Israel's disobedience, Gentiles are being allowed in as fellow-heirs. The day will come when the partial blindness will be removed from Israel and the nation shall be saved.

There is a special plan for Israel, Abraham's seed according to the flesh.

A Jew must enter this covenant like any one else. The only door of this covenant is Jesus Christ. There is nothing automatic about it. That is one can not be a part of the NC without going through Jesus. This is yet another difference between the covenants.

 

[from scratch]

When they rejected the Messiah they ceased to be God's special people, set apart for his purpose. They removed themselves. Everything God promised to Israel is applied to Jesus Christ, the true seed of Israel and heir of the Promise. And since the Church is in Christ, it all applies to us.

Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.
(Galatians 3:16 ESV)

The Old Testament Church is the New Testament Israel and vice versa. It's really quite plainly laid out in scripture.

This is simply not quite true. There are two different groups of God's people. The unbelieving Jew is still God's chosen people. The Christian is in another group all together. The Jew still must go thru the Door (Jesus) to participate (be included) in the NC.

 

[from scratch]

Let's not confuse the promise to be heir of the world with God's covenant with Israel.

Consider Deuteronomy 18
17 The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name.
(NIV)

How will God approach the Israelite who does not believe the Prophet, like unto Moses, the prophet named Yeshua. Will He say to them, you are no longer Israel, and therefore this passage does not apply to you. Does God only apply this passage to the church now, since the church is Israel?

No, God made a covenant with Israel, and if a Jew does not believe in Yeshua, God will hold Him to account.

Why would Paul have told the Galatians that if they were to be circumcised, they would take upon themselves the obligation to obey the whole law if the law had been abrogated and the covenant were not still in effect? Why would Romans still speak of Jews being judged by the law?

Fortunately for the nation of Israel, the Bible contains promises of God restoring the nation after they had sinned. According to Romans 11, we are in a time now where the Gentiles are being brought it. It was God's plan to include Gentiles, not just Israelis, in the body of Messiah. Through Israel's disobedience, Gentiles are coming in.

God is using us (I am of Gentile descent as far as I know) to provoke Israel to jealousy. Therefore, He still cares for Israel. One day, the blindness will be lifted from Israel, and God will provide salvation for that nation.

There is salvation in no other name but the name of Jesus (Iesous, Yeshua). No flesh shall be saved by the works of the law.

How do you explain what you are arguing in light of Romans 11.

Isrealis are not part of the church or body of Christ. There is no Jew in Christ Jesus Gal 3:28.

 

[from scratch]

Originally Posted by Tangible

A branchless what?
​

The non-evasive answer is: tree.

No there is no such thing as a tree with no branches. Such a thing is called a root stock and not a tree.