The original replacement theology

[Interplanner]

Futurism chafes at "replacement theology" because it does not really deal well with the letter to Hebrews. But there is something else we should pay attention to before all that.

The original replacement theology issue had completely different components to it. The original problem was in Judaism. It was the belief that the Law set aside the promises of the covenant with Abraham. Paul uses two terms for how Judaism related to the covenant:

to set aside (Gal 3:17)
to do away with (same)

In Judaism as it formed between the testaments, this gave them permission to overlook the Gospel as embedded in the promises to Abraham, already articulated up in v8. This overlooking was the "veil" of 2 Cor 3-5.

The inheritance of the Gospel promised to Abraham does not come through the Law. it comes through faith in the promise. It is not about Israel being its land, either. It is about people gaining justification by faith as v8 says. The Abrahamic promise foresaw the Gentiles hearing the Gospel. That age came when Pentecost happened.

 

[Interplanner]

If we realized what this switch was about, the current one about the church would not seem important.

 

[Dunbar]

Technically, the Jews who are in Israel today would be classified by the new testament as spiritual Gentiles because they are uncircumcised in heart. Which begs the question what is more important - a physical circumcision or a spiritual one, an ethnic claim to being part of Israel or a spiritual one?

Also Jesus' claim to being the messiah by a strict blood descent could be called into question because Ruth the Moabite and Rahab the Canaanite were in his family tree. These women had no physical or ethnic claim to being part of Israel so it has to be by faith or a spiritual connection. And this is exactly what Paul says when he lists Rahab as model of faith in Hebrews 11.

 

[Old Timer]

Futurism chafes at "replacement theology" because it does not really deal well with the letter to Hebrews. But there is something else we should pay attention to before all that.

The original replacement theology issue had completely different components to it. The original problem was in Judaism. It was the belief that the Law set aside the promises of the covenant with Abraham. Paul uses two terms for how Judaism related to the covenant:

to set aside (Gal 3:17)
to do away with (same)

In Judaism as it formed between the testaments, this gave them permission to overlook the Gospel as embedded in the promises to Abraham, already articulated up in v8. This overlooking was the "veil" of 2 Cor 3-5.

The inheritance of the Gospel promised to Abraham does not come through the Law. it comes through faith in the promise. It is not about Israel being its land, either. It is about people gaining justification by faith as v8 says. The Abrahamic promise foresaw the Gentiles hearing the Gospel. That age came when Pentecost happened.

While it has always been true that men are justified by faith.. that has nothing to do with the fact that the Israel of the scriptures are literal and physical descendants of Jacob.

Not complicated..

What replacement theology is in any case.. is simply ignoring the simple biblical facts concerning Israel (Jacob) and plugging in some other entity that has absolutely no biblical basis for being Israel..

Like for example..

The church of God.. a completely NEW Heavenly entity which didn't exist in the OT and which has absolutely nothing to do with the seemingly countless OT ordinances which Israel performed under the dispensation of the LAW of Moses... right HERE on EARTH...

The church of God has a heavenly citizenship.. not an earthly one as Israel does.

Yet men insist that the true Israel isn't Israel and that the church of God is Israel..

Truly amazing.. although not so much when you think along the lines of what the rulers of the darkness of this world would have all men digest and believe.

 

[Interplanner]

Actually, the point of Gal 3 is the same as Rom 9-11 and elsewhere: it always was by faith, it never was identified with descendancy, and there were always substantial exceptions to descendancy including Isaac's conception.

The Law in Gal 3 "replaced" the Promise; the Gospel era returns to the terms and intended recipients of the Promise: those who have faith. Abraham saw Christ's day (the Gospel) and squealed in delight.

 

[parousia70]

Like for example..

The church of God.. a completely NEW Heavenly entity which didn't exist in the OT and which has absolutely nothing to do with the seemingly countless OT ordinances which Israel performed under the dispensation of the LAW of Moses... right HERE on EARTH...

Acts 7:37-39


37This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
38This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,

 

[Old Timer]

Acts 7:37-39


37This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
38This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,

So what you're saying is that the church is not new, it's the same old church that always existed.

 

[Old Timer]

Maybe new wine is put into old skins... although that doesn't sound right...

 

[Old Timer]

See folks, the church is just the same old Israel of the past.. Nothing new here.. Just same ol same ol..

 

[parousia70]

So what you're saying is that the church is not new, it's the same old church that always existed.

You are correct. The Faithful remnant Israel, known as "the Church" in Moses day as well as Jesus' day, has always been the faithful remnant Israel.

Separation theology would have the opposite be true, but scripture confirms separation theology is incorrect on the matter of the Church of Israel.

 

[Old Timer]

You are correct. The Faithful remnant Israel, known as "the Church" in Moses day as well as Jesus' day, has always been the faithful remnant Israel.

Separation theology would have the opposite be true, but scripture confirms separation theology is incorrect on the matter of the Church of Israel.

I get it, the church of God is nothing new, it's just the same old Israel of the past.

New wine is put into the old..

How could anyone have missed this?

 

[parousia70]

I get it, the church of God is nothing new, it's just the same old Israel of the past.

The Continuation of Israel is ALWAYS counted by the Faithful Remnant, and in Moses day as well as Christ and the apostles' day, that Faithful Remnant Israel is known as "The Church"

New wine is put into the old..

As you said before, that "new wine old skin" statement does not fit the bill.

How could anyone have missed this?

Previously held bias prevents a lot of folks from seeing things as they are.

 

[Old Timer]

Paul's words take on the same old meaning here..

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is an Israelite: old things remain the same; behold, nothing has become new..

 

[Old Timer]

And why..? ..because men ignore the simple warning from the Apostle to the Gentiles.

That's why.. And they become wise in their own conceits just as Paul says.

Because God forbid that Israel actually is Israel.. and delivered in the time of the end..

Anything but that..

 

[parousia70]

I am 100% affirming Biblical Israel's deliverance in the Biblical "time of the end".

I know you don't want that to be true, but I can't help you with that.

You'll have to work that out on your own.

 

[Old Timer]

I am 100% affirming Biblical Israel's deliverance in the Biblical "time of the end".

I know you don't want that to be true, but I can't help you with that.

You'll have to work that out on your own.

The only problem is that there is no scriptural support for what you just said, simply because you have already made it clear that ALL scripture has been fulfilled and that your only basis for a coming of Christ in the future is a creed.

Sad but true, and so I understand that you have no biblical basis for anything in the future.

 

[Old Timer]

Not to mention (again) that you believe the church is Israel and nothing new.. Just the same ol thing as in the OT..

New wine is put into Old skins after all.

 

[Old Timer]

Imagine that folks.. Parousia says that every jot and tittle of scripture has been fulfilled.. And it's perfectly fine that he posts in a Christian forum... eschatology no less.

I guess the preterist forums are to boring for him.. And he can't stay away from the future.

 

[Interplanner]

OT, what indication do you have that the apostles were aware of the distant future deliverance you are speaking of? Not your own readings of the OT, but the apostles. Where do they mention it when they are 'near' the topic?

 

[Old Timer]

OT, what indication do you have that the apostles were aware of the distant future deliverance you are speaking of? Not your own readings of the OT, but the apostles. Where do they mention it when they are 'near' the topic?

That the Day of The Lord shall come as a thief in the night and as travail upon a woman with child...

First, understand that the Day of The Lord is future..

Second, understand that Israel's deliverance comes in that Day.. as does many other things..,

They're called the things which shall be hereafter.. you may recall the Apostle John writing of these things.