Replies

Just for curiosity's sake, how do we know that replacement theology is wrong? The throne of Israel's earthly king sits empty, as does the Chair of Moses, and the Jewish priestly sacrifices have ceased. The Jews were scattered from their homeland, and only had it restored (artificially) in 1948. The lack of a continuous visible royal line troubles me most of all; certainly Christians see this as being fulfilled in Christ, Who will be King for all eternity (thus fulfilling the promise), but how do the Jews explain it away?

If it is as I understand it, I think that I believe that replacement theology is an appropriate view, but if someone could pass along more resources, I would appreciate it.

Frankly, even Jews believe in their own form of replacement theology, and most do not believe that the nation of Israel has any special significance because they do not believe the words of Moses and the prophets, only the writings of the Talmud and their rabbis.

The Judaism that arose after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD replaced the Mosaic Covenant which was no longer possible without a Temple for sacrifices to cover their sins. Any Jew who took the words of Moses seriously knew when the Temple was destroyed and with it all sacrifices, then they had no covering for their sins. Their scholars then resorted to allegorizing away the words "sin, sacrifice, Messiah, . . . ".

But the prophets and Jesus taught that He would return one day to restore the Kingdom to Israel and He would sit on the throne of David right there in Jersualem forever.

Read the Book of Acts. For forty days after His resurrection, He spoke of "things pertaining to the kingdom of God". Then after forty days when they all came together, they all had just one question: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" [Acts 1:7].

Did He answer them: I'm sorry but Israel has been replaced? Did He answer: "I've just been teasing you these last forty days by telling you about the Kingdom?" Did He answer: "I've changed my mind, there won't be a kingdom for Israel". Nope, Nope, Nope.

His answer was: "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His power." In other words, it is none of your business as to when it will happen because only His Father knows.

Peter then speaks of this restitution of the Kingdom to Israel in his sermon to the Jews after Pentecost: "Repent, therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus Christ . . . whom the heaven must receive until the times of the restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets since the age began."[Acts 3:19-21]

Twenty years later at the Council of Jerusalem, James affirms Peter's declaration that God would visit the Gentile nations to take out a people for His name, thne "after this I will return, and will build again the the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down, and will build again its ruins, and will set it up."[Acts 15:14-17]

And even Peter's final words to Jews and Gentiles in his 2nd Epistle were intended to stir them up to be "mindful of the words which were spoken by the holy prophets . . . ". Words like those of Isaiah 14:1: "For the Lord will yet have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land, and the sojourners shall be joined to them, and they shall cling to the House of Jacob." and Amos, and Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and Zechariah.

The replacement theologians in the Church do not have a monopoly on replacement theology. They share it with Judaism, Islam, British Israelism, Liberalism, Unitarian-Universalism, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, . . . all who do not believe that Jesus will keep his promises and the words that were spoken by the holy prophets regarding his coming to set up the Kingdom of Israel in Jerusalem.