Replacement Theology

[Daniel Marsh]

Please define Replacement Theology from primary sources of those who teach it with links to the texts being quoted, so the quotes can be checked in context.

 

[topher694]

 

[com7fy8]

I think, Daniel, that there are different ways that people define "replacement theology".

A correct theory which I find in the Bible is >

The New Testament replaces the Old Covenant. We have our "better covenant" which Hebrews 7:22 says we have with Jesus. Even so, the New Covenant includes things of the former covenant, but fulfilled and used in better ways. So, the better covenant does not abolish the earlier one, but fulfills it. So, it depends on how we mean "replacement".

But I would say a clearly wrong meaning of replacement would be any idea which says we Gentiles have replaced the Jews. Because Jesus used Jews to start us Gentile background believers in salvation. Plus, Jews still are welcome to trust in the Messiah (Ephesians 1:12) and bless us > Romans 11:15.

 

[ewq1938]

But I would say a clearly wrong meaning of replacement would be any idea which says we Gentiles have replaced the Jews.

True. Gentiles have joined Jews that accept Christ through a grafting and Jews that don't accept Christ are removed/pruned from the tree they were born a part of. So, no one is replaced but simply some Jews are removed (removal theology) and some gentiles are added/grafted.

 

[crossnote]

I think, Daniel, that there are different ways that people define "replacement theology".

A correct theory which I find in the Bible is >

The New Testament replaces the Old Covenant. We have our "better covenant" which Hebrews 7:22 says we have with Jesus. Even so, the New Covenant includes things of the former covenant, but fulfilled and used in better ways. So, the better covenant does not abolish the earlier one, but fulfills it. So, it depends on how we mean "replacement".

But I would say a clearly wrong meaning of replacement would be any idea which says we Gentiles have replaced the Jews. Because Jesus used Jews to start us Gentile background believers in salvation. Plus, Jews still are welcome to trust in the Messiah (Ephesians 1:12) and bless us > Romans 11:15.

True but we need to remember that it was the Mosaic (conditional) Covenant that was surpassed by the New but it did not surpass the Abrahamic (unconditional) Covenant...

Galatians 3:17 (KJV) And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

I believe it is at this point RTs usually make their error.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Please define Replacement Theology from primary sources of those who teach it with links to the texts being quoted, so the quotes can be checked in context.

The term "replacement theology" is a pejorative description. It is only used by those in opposition to the Church becoming Israel. It is typically used by Dispensational futurists.

 

[com7fy8]

True but we need to remember that it was the Mosaic (conditional) Covenant that was surpassed by the New but it did not surpass the Abrahamic (unconditional) Covenant...

Do you mean the New Covenant in Jesus' blood does not surpass the Abrahamic Covenant?? I would think "surpass" means to be better than and to do better than.

And I think the Covenant of Jesus is better than what is in the Abrahamic Covenant, since Romans 8:29 says we are destined to be conformed to the image of Jesus, plus in the Lord's prayer in John 17 Jesus claims how we are loved even as our Father loves Jesus.

And I don't think these blessings are mentioned in the Abrahamic Covenant.

So, I'm not sure what you mean. Even if they both are unconditional, the newer one can be better. Also, how we understand the Abrahamic Covenant can be surpassed by knowing the New Covenant.

So, if I understand this right @Daniel Marsh > the New Covenant would not replace the Abrahamic Covenant, but it would/might surpass how we have understood the promises to Abraham.

This could get interesting . . . in case the LORD has promised land to Abraham, among other things. Ones might take this to mean only to Israelites. But what about how the New Covenant says we who are of faith are children of faithful Abraham (Galatians 3:7,9 & 29)? Could this mean we in Jesus are promised the land??? Paul says > "all things are yours", in 1 Corinthians 3:21-22.

Daniel, I get this by what I am finding in the Bible. So, I am not offering this based on any writer that I know of, just in case there is anyone who has published anything like this.

 

[com7fy8]

The term "replacement theology" is a pejorative description.

I think I have seen what you mean.

But . . . . . . we can use it with a right meaning!

And in any case, we do not replace the Jews, because Jesus used Jews to start the ministry of salvation through the Messiah. So, we with Gentile background have been joined together with the Israelis who are the ones who started the ministry of Christianity after Jesus ascended to Heaven. Therefore, these Israelites who have believed have not at all been replaced by us who were Gentiles!

So, possibly it is a perjurious term.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I think I have seen what you mean.

But . . . . . . we can use it with a right meaning!

And in any case, we do not replace the Jews, because Jesus used Jews to start the ministry of salvation through the Messiah. So, we with Gentile background have been joined together with the Israelis who are the ones who started the ministry of Christianity after Jesus ascended to Heaven. Therefore, these Israelites who have believed have not at all been replaced by us who were Gentiles!

So, possibly it is a perjurious term.

I think you are missing an important point. the Church is now one with both Jews and Gentiles. It is the congregation that existed in the Old Testament and continued in the New Testament with a New Covenant. There was never a replacement it is superseded. Supersede is from the 16th-century Latin for "sit on top," and it often means to replace with something better.
Theologically it is referred to as Supersessionism.

 

[crossnote]

Do you mean the New Covenant in Jesus' blood does not surpass the Abrahamic Covenant?? I would think "surpass" means to be better than and to do better than.

And I think the Covenant of Jesus is better than what is in the Abrahamic Covenant, since Romans 8:29 says we are destined to be conformed to the image of Jesus, plus in the Lord's prayer in John 17 Jesus claims how we are loved even as our Father loves Jesus.

And I don't think these blessings are mentioned in the Abrahamic Covenant.

So, I'm not sure what you mean. Even if they both are unconditional, the newer one can be better. Also, how we understand the Abrahamic Covenant can be surpassed by knowing the New Covenant.

So, if I understand this right @Daniel Marsh > the New Covenant would not replace the Abrahamic Covenant, but it would/might surpass how we have understood the promises to Abraham.

This could get interesting . . . in case the LORD has promised land to Abraham, among other things. Ones might take this to mean only to Israelites. But what about how the New Covenant says we who are of faith are children of faithful Abraham (Galatians 3:7,9 & 29)? Could this mean we in Jesus are promised the land??? Paul says > "all things are yours", in 1 Corinthians 3:21-22.

Daniel, I get this by what I am finding in the Bible. So, I am not offering this based on any writer that I know of, just in case there is anyone who has published anything like this.

One would have to wait on the details as far as how it gets unpacked...

For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
(Rom 11:29)

Besides I never said the NC surpasses the Abrahamic but only the Mosaic. I don't believe the NC nullifies the Abrahamic as they are both built on Promise received by faith. The Land promised to Abraham and his descendants may very well be the difference..

 

[Grip Docility]

Please define Replacement Theology from primary sources of those who teach it with links to the texts being quoted, so the quotes can be checked in context.

Supersession is the correct and acceptable Theological term.

 

[Grip Docility]

This is the Messianic Jewish record of how it came into light and I will be sincere... I agree with this, because Paul actually warns against Supersession.

Replacement Theology | Jewish Voice Ministries International

 

[Grip Docility]

Another quaint way of saying “Replacement or Supersession” Theology is “Holocaust Theology”.

 

[Grip Docility]

Galatians 6:16 is the only actual verse that is attempted to proof Supersession Literal.

Magically, I have a couple posts on this.

In deep study of Galatians 6:16, context and correct Greek rendering put forth 2 very likely meanings... based on the word (Kai) which translates to “and”

There are three Kai’s in the verse.

The final Kai is where the argument comes in. 2 of the possible renderings are in diametric dispute. The third rendering is in dispute with only one of them.

The following two views are supported by this view. Kai renders the entire verse without break and refers to the unity of God’s Israel through Christ.

Supersession (Minor View)

Israel of God is referring to the Heavenly Jerusalem where we are all one in Jesus.

Supersession (Major View)

Israel of God is the complete replacement of National Israel.

Dispensational (Minor View)

The Kai is rendered to “And”... thus the verse reads “And the Israel of God”... Taking into context the Unity of the Jews that believe, in stark contrast to the Unbelieving Judaizers that Paul has been railing against and called cursed.

Dispensational (Major View)

The Kai is rendered to the rare form “Even”, thus making it, “Even the Israel of God”. This suggests Paul is attempting to show mercy and Love to the Jews that he has railed against that are enemies of the gospel.

The Kai to the “Even” rendering is rare and seems out of place towards the Enemy of the Gospel Jews as Paul has just suggested extreme circumcision for them (AKA castration)... as well as rendered them cursed.

The Kai to the “And” rendering is very common and shifts location only by contextual understanding. As the “and“ located in the “BOC is Israel sense”... fits the context of Jews and Gentiles unifying in the BOC and not holding one another in division.

The Kai to the “And”, as in, “and Mercy to the Israel of God”, Nods recognition to the Jews that are unifying with the BOC, in support of Unity contextually discussed and contrast to the cursed of Israel that are Judaizing.

Which one is right? That’s for each of us to decide, in respect to scripture and the 1 John 2:27 of the matter.

Why Galatians 6:16 is important to understand.

It is in an Epistle to a Gentile Gathering... yet also mentions Judaizing Jews, Converted Jews and lets be honest, Jews of the Spiritually Circumsized nature (IE members of the BOC)

In its full Galatians Context, it draws from conflict with integration of Jews and Gentiles into the BOC (Body of Christ) and the impact of old covenant thinking with new covenant thinking.

The topic that comes to light in Galatians 6:16 is the single, possible usage of Israel as a descriptor for the BOC.

The major theological issue with using BOC and Israel as synonyms, is that it would be the only place this is done in all of scripture.

The most honest answer I can give, from a perspective of renouncing my Carnal pet theology, is that it is referring to the Heavenly gathering of Jews and Gentiles, Paul has previously mentioned as “The Jerusalem Above” in Galatians 4:26 which he uses in “Spiritual Metaphor”, but is now using towards Jews and Gentiles, that have placed their full Salvic hope in Christ.

God doesn’t make mistakes, so the very fact that this verse can be properly rendered to mean the Heavenly Located Body of Christ that consists of Jews and Gentiles and is governed by The True King of the Jews, and simultaneously as a reference to National Israel that has placed their Salvic hope in Christ, that is integrating with the Gentile Body of Christ, leads us to the conclusion that God meant this to be possible as the multiple meanings of the verse don’t conflict upon themselves with proper theological understanding.

The third rendering of this verse, that would elude to a future grafting in of many of the “Unbelieving Jews” at the close of Time, could also be acceptable as it too has support in Romans 11, Joel 3, Acts 1, Zechariah 14 and Revelation 20 - Revelation 21

 

[Grip Docility]

To actually find the sharpest Examples of what you are looking for to source... there are several places to reference.

1) Roman Catholic Theology -> the teaching is that the Church is Israel

2) Reformed Covenant Theology -> the teaching is that the Church is Israel

3) SDA Theology -> The Church is Israel

4) Watch Tower Society -> The Church is Israel

5) Mormon Theology -> The Church is Israel

6) Lutheran Theology -> The Church is Israel

These are a few theologies that you can research that have underpinning teachings that the Church is Israel

 

[Grip Docility]

Hope this helps...

Also, within Reformed Theology... Supersession is taught within Covenant Theology.

The reason these theologies hold to this idea is to support Special Election of a sort that needs to usurp Israel’s Election as a nation and Genetic People to pass the verses of election into the Church.

 

[Grip Docility]

Passages like Ephesians 2 are utilized, but fall apart to support Supersession in full Exegesis.

Romans 9, Romans 10 and Romans 11 are attempted for use, but again, in full Exegesis... split the groups as separate.

Example...

1) Body of Christ
2) Believing Israel that Converted to the BOC
3) Unbelieving Israel that is currently Cut off.
4) Gentiles that are part of the BOC

 

[klutedavid]

I think I have seen what you mean.

But . . . . . . we can use it with a right meaning!

And in any case, we do not replace the Jews, because Jesus used Jews to start the ministry of salvation through the Messiah. So, we with Gentile background have been joined together with the Israelis who are the ones who started the ministry of Christianity after Jesus ascended to Heaven. Therefore, these Israelites who have believed have not at all been replaced by us who were Gentiles!

So, possibly it is a perjurious term.

I thought Israel was grafted out and the Gentiles were grafted into the root, Jesus Christ.

Romans 11:25
For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, so that you will not be wise in your own estimation that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Paul is the eternal optimist, this partial hardening has been underway for two thousand years.

 

[Grip Docility]

Abraham is Promised Isaac... and in this... the BOC is Bound to Abraham... or all born of New Covenant Faith in Christ. Abraham is the Patriarch of Faith. (Abraham is called a “Hebrew”, which means (To Cross Over). Descendants of Abraham can be called Hebrews. (Hebrew means to Cross over)

Jacob was Named Israel by The Angel he wrestled with... and in such is the First Patriarch of Israel. (Israel means... Contend(ed)(s) with God). Descendants of Jacob are Israelites and because Jacob is also a descendant of Abraham, Israelites are simultaneously Hebrews.

Moses is the most Famous Patriarch of Israel.

 

[ewq1938]

I thought Israel was grafted out and the Gentiles were grafted into the root, Jesus Christ.

Only unbelieving Israel was removed. The faithful ie: Jewish Christians remain as natural branches. Only believing gentiles were grafted in, joining faithful Israel.

No one is replaced. No one is superseded.

Faith in Christ allows believing Jews to remain on the tree and allows believing gentiles to join the believing Jews on the same tree.