Thank you Phillip. You are right about the timeliness of the topic. Though Replacement Theology is not new, it surely seems to be picking up steam in our day. So grateful for the sovereignty of God now more than ever.
Many thanks, Stuart! I had not heard this term but certainly have heard of this erroneous belief. It's the same kind of thing I've heard from Christians who arrogantly say, "the Jews killed Jesus." We all killed Jesus because each and every one of us has sinned and He died for everyone. Both covenants, the old and the new are still in effect, and thanks be to God for His unchanging love.
Excellent analysis Stuart. That is one reason we cannot trust theological systems such as Calvinism or Arminianism. They allegorize the word of God! I can’t believe that people can look at Israel today tegarding all the prophecies and see that there theology is so wrong! They have gutted the Scriptures and blasphemed the character of God!
Thank you Chuck. Very grateful for your insights. Replacement Theology is an assault om God’s character, as you mentioned. Can He be trusted to keep His promises? Yes He can. Replacement Theology does, in fact, as you observed, “blaspheme the character of God.” With regard to His promises, to Israel, and to the church, I run to Numbers 23:19. '“God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”
I recently heard of a third position. The three being, 1) The covenant still applies to Israel, 2) the Church replaces Israel, and 3) the covenant only applies to the tribe of Judah. Do you know where that idea may have come from? What could someone possibly base that on?
You bring up an interesting twist. The “Judah-only covenant” position is a fringe perspective. It claims that God’s covenant promises apply to the tribe of Judah only.
The origin of this view, unsupported by Scripture, probably has to do with the situation after the Babylonian captivity, when the tribe of Judah became the most notable tribe returning to the Land.
Also, the name “Jew” comes from Judah and came to be used for Israelites in general.
But the Scriptures consistently present God’s covenants as being made with the entire nation of Israel, all twelve tribes, and not just one. For instance, even in the New Testament, long after the Babylonian exile, the “twelve tribes” are spoken of (Acts 26:7; James 1:1). This clearly indicates that Israel was never reduced to a single tribe.
The Judah-only covenant position is not a historic Christian position and seems to be based on a misunderstanding of Israel’s history. It is certainly not based on the clear teaching of Scripture.
It all boils down to the faithfulness of God. The enemy is constantly trying, ever so subtly, to get us to doubt His Word. Thank you for reminding us of that, Pastor Stuart.
Very well said Susie. You are so right. It is the character of God, His reliability, His faithfulness, His integrity that is at stake. If Israel’s sin exceeds God’s grace… we are all in big trouble!
Thank you Stuart - Replacement Theology looks like a handy tool (weapon) for the antichrist to use in his assault on Christianity and for his future (but thank God, short), global take over during the Last Days of Earth as we know it!
Amen, Brother Stuart! The question that I have for those who have the church replacing Israel is, “How has the church faired better than Israel throughout history?” Israel’s disobedience spans a lengthy time frame. Have the churches done better? Within a short time frame of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection you have the church at Corinth with issues of factions in the assembly, incest and lack of church discipline, lawsuit abuse among the membership, abusing the Lord’s Supper, chaos in worship and abuse of spiritual gifts. The churches of Galatia and their defections from the gospel was another very serious issue that Paul addressed. Paul couldn’t even get into his customary greeting to them without pronouncing serious results that would accompany their actions if repentance didn’t occur. 5 of the 7 churches in the book of Revelation to John from Christ had varying degrees of rebuke from the Lord. To each there was the command of repentance. These churches that I have mentioned were not goat barns. They were indeed true local churches that belonged to Christ and yet we see such great sin amongst them. It is clear to me that the church is much like Israel in one aspect. They both have wheat and tares mixed up together amongst them. As it was with Israel there was a faithful remnant (1 Kings 19, Romans 11). So it seems it was in some of those churches. In Acts 20 Paul warned the Ephesian elders about those grievous wolves that would attack from outside, but he also warned of those who would arise up from among them and the damage that would be done. The church finds its ultimate protection in Jesus. It is Jesus promise (Matthew 16:18) to keep and protect His church that has guaranteed the perseverance and preservation of His churches throughout history. Also, as you have pointed out it is God’s promise to Israel and His covenants with them that ensure their future blessings.
I like the idea of the uncircumcised being seen as circumcised through obedience and thus being seen as Jews. Romans 2:25-30. This might be the replacement crowd’s strongest proof text. I hate that history is filled with “Christians” persecuting Jews. It has always seemed insane to me that some Christians worship a Jewish Messiah and dislike Jewish people and I know the history of why this happened too. Love all, serve all.
Very insightful comment Jeff. Thank you for it. I think I will address, in an upcoming article, the Romans 2 passage you mentioned. As you correctly observed, it is often wrongly used in support of Replacement Theology.
I agree AND when writing against wrong theology I find presenting their best arguments first avoids the temptation to straw-man them. I think Romans 2 fits better in our view then the RT camp, but it is a good proof text for their side and should be dealt with by someone more knowledgeable than me.
Thanks, Stuart. An excellent, very timely and necessary topic to address.
Thank you Phillip. You are right about the timeliness of the topic. Though Replacement Theology is not new, it surely seems to be picking up steam in our day. So grateful for the sovereignty of God now more than ever.
Many thanks, Stuart! I had not heard this term but certainly have heard of this erroneous belief. It's the same kind of thing I've heard from Christians who arrogantly say, "the Jews killed Jesus." We all killed Jesus because each and every one of us has sinned and He died for everyone. Both covenants, the old and the new are still in effect, and thanks be to God for His unchanging love.
Amen indeed. But for the love of God where would any of us be. Thank you for your comment Graydon.
Excellent analysis Stuart. That is one reason we cannot trust theological systems such as Calvinism or Arminianism. They allegorize the word of God! I can’t believe that people can look at Israel today tegarding all the prophecies and see that there theology is so wrong! They have gutted the Scriptures and blasphemed the character of God!
Thank you Chuck. Very grateful for your insights. Replacement Theology is an assault om God’s character, as you mentioned. Can He be trusted to keep His promises? Yes He can. Replacement Theology does, in fact, as you observed, “blaspheme the character of God.” With regard to His promises, to Israel, and to the church, I run to Numbers 23:19. '“God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”
Hi Pat,
This is Stuart. Thank you for subscribing. Very much appreciated. Numbers 23:29… Wonderful truth!
Blessings to you,
Stuart
I recently heard of a third position. The three being, 1) The covenant still applies to Israel, 2) the Church replaces Israel, and 3) the covenant only applies to the tribe of Judah. Do you know where that idea may have come from? What could someone possibly base that on?
Hi Roger,
You bring up an interesting twist. The “Judah-only covenant” position is a fringe perspective. It claims that God’s covenant promises apply to the tribe of Judah only.
The origin of this view, unsupported by Scripture, probably has to do with the situation after the Babylonian captivity, when the tribe of Judah became the most notable tribe returning to the Land.
Also, the name “Jew” comes from Judah and came to be used for Israelites in general.
But the Scriptures consistently present God’s covenants as being made with the entire nation of Israel, all twelve tribes, and not just one. For instance, even in the New Testament, long after the Babylonian exile, the “twelve tribes” are spoken of (Acts 26:7; James 1:1). This clearly indicates that Israel was never reduced to a single tribe.
The Judah-only covenant position is not a historic Christian position and seems to be based on a misunderstanding of Israel’s history. It is certainly not based on the clear teaching of Scripture.
Blessings to you my friend,
Stuart
It all boils down to the faithfulness of God. The enemy is constantly trying, ever so subtly, to get us to doubt His Word. Thank you for reminding us of that, Pastor Stuart.
Very well said Susie. You are so right. It is the character of God, His reliability, His faithfulness, His integrity that is at stake. If Israel’s sin exceeds God’s grace… we are all in big trouble!
Comment below by Ken not Dianne ...Thx!
Thank you Ken. Blessings to you.
Thank you Stuart - Replacement Theology looks like a handy tool (weapon) for the antichrist to use in his assault on Christianity and for his future (but thank God, short), global take over during the Last Days of Earth as we know it!
People who believe in this Replacement Theology and say they believe the word of God just need to revisit the last chapter of the Bible
“They should not add or take away “ period. That’s pretty simple and straightforward.
Thank you for teaching us to be cautious of new teachings.
Well said Debbie!
Amen, Brother Stuart! The question that I have for those who have the church replacing Israel is, “How has the church faired better than Israel throughout history?” Israel’s disobedience spans a lengthy time frame. Have the churches done better? Within a short time frame of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection you have the church at Corinth with issues of factions in the assembly, incest and lack of church discipline, lawsuit abuse among the membership, abusing the Lord’s Supper, chaos in worship and abuse of spiritual gifts. The churches of Galatia and their defections from the gospel was another very serious issue that Paul addressed. Paul couldn’t even get into his customary greeting to them without pronouncing serious results that would accompany their actions if repentance didn’t occur. 5 of the 7 churches in the book of Revelation to John from Christ had varying degrees of rebuke from the Lord. To each there was the command of repentance. These churches that I have mentioned were not goat barns. They were indeed true local churches that belonged to Christ and yet we see such great sin amongst them. It is clear to me that the church is much like Israel in one aspect. They both have wheat and tares mixed up together amongst them. As it was with Israel there was a faithful remnant (1 Kings 19, Romans 11). So it seems it was in some of those churches. In Acts 20 Paul warned the Ephesian elders about those grievous wolves that would attack from outside, but he also warned of those who would arise up from among them and the damage that would be done. The church finds its ultimate protection in Jesus. It is Jesus promise (Matthew 16:18) to keep and protect His church that has guaranteed the perseverance and preservation of His churches throughout history. Also, as you have pointed out it is God’s promise to Israel and His covenants with them that ensure their future blessings.
Thank you for sharing your excellent insights Scott. Much appreciated.
I did not realize the long history of this view. I assumed it was a fairly modern conceit. Thank you, stuart!
Yes, though Replacement Theology has been around for some time, it is surely picking up steam in our day.
I like the idea of the uncircumcised being seen as circumcised through obedience and thus being seen as Jews. Romans 2:25-30. This might be the replacement crowd’s strongest proof text. I hate that history is filled with “Christians” persecuting Jews. It has always seemed insane to me that some Christians worship a Jewish Messiah and dislike Jewish people and I know the history of why this happened too. Love all, serve all.
Very insightful comment Jeff. Thank you for it. I think I will address, in an upcoming article, the Romans 2 passage you mentioned. As you correctly observed, it is often wrongly used in support of Replacement Theology.
I agree AND when writing against wrong theology I find presenting their best arguments first avoids the temptation to straw-man them. I think Romans 2 fits better in our view then the RT camp, but it is a good proof text for their side and should be dealt with by someone more knowledgeable than me.