Posted on 10/26/2007 9:00:59 PM PDT by topcat54
Replacement theology has become dispensationalism's latest prophetic boogeyman. If you want to end a debate over eschatology, just charge your opponent with holding to replacement theology. What is “replacement theology,” sometimes called “supersessionism,” and why do dispensationalists accuse non-dispensationalists of holding it? Here’s a typical dispensational definition:
Replacement Theology: a theological perspective that teaches that the Jews have been rejected by God and are no longer God’s Chosen People. Those who hold to this view disavow any ethnic future for the Jewish people in connection with the biblical covenants, believing that their spiritual destiny is either to perish or become a part of the new religion that superseded Judaism (whether Christianity or Islam).1
“Replacement theology” is dispensationalism’s trump card in any debate over eschatology because it implies anti-semitism. Hal Lindsey attempted to use this card in his poorly researched and argued The Road to Holocaust.2 He wove an innovative tale implying that anyone who is not a dispensationalist carries the seeds of anti-semitism within his or her prophetic system. This would mean that every Christian prior to 1830 would have been theologically anti-semitic although not personally anti-semtic.
As Peter Leithart and I point out in The Legacy of Hatred Continues,3 it’s dispensationalists who hold to a form of replacement theology since they believe that Israel does not have any prophetic significance this side of the rapture! Prior to the rapture, in terms of dispensational logic, the Church has replaced Israel. This is unquestionably true since God’s prophetic plan for Israel has been postponed until the prophetic time clock starts ticking again at the beginning of Daniel’s 70th week which starts only after the Church is taken to heaven in the so-called rapture. Until then, God is dealing redemptively with the Church. Am I making this up? Consider the following by dispensationalist E. Schuyler English:
An intercalary4 period of history, after Christ’s death and resurrection and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, has intervened. This is the present age, the Church age. . . . During this time God has not been dealing with Israel nationally, for they have been blinded concerning God’s mercy in Christ. . . . However, God will again deal with Israel as a nation. This will be in Daniel’s seventieth week, a seven-year period yet to come.5
According to English and every other dispensationalist, the Church has replaced Israel until the rapture. The unfulfilled promises made to Israel are not fulfilled until after the Church is taken off the earth. Thomas Ice, one of dispensationalism’s rising stars, admits that the Church replaces Israel this side of the rapture: “We dispensationalists believe that the church has superseded Israel during the current church age, but God has a future time in which He will restore national Israel ‘as the institution for the administration of divine blessings to the world.’”6
Dispensationalists claim that their particular brand of eschatology is the only prophetic system that gives Israel her proper place in redemptive history. This is an odd thing to argue since two-thirds of the Jews will be slaughtered during the post-rapture tribulation, and the world will be nearly destroyed. Charles Ryrie writes in his book The Best is Yet to Come that during this post-rapture period Israel will undergo “the worst bloodbath in Jewish history.”7 The book’s title doesn’t seem to very appropriate considering that during this period of time most of the Jews will die! John Walvoord follows a similar line of argument: “Israel is destined to have a particular time of suffering which will eclipse any thing that it has known in the past. . . . [T]he people of Israel . . . are placing themselves within the vortex of this future whirlwind which will destroy the majority of those living in the land of Palestine.”8 Arnold Fruchtenbaum states that during the Great Tribulation “Israel will suffer tremendous persecution (Matthew 24:15–28; Revelation 12:1–17). As a result of this persecution of the Jewish people, two-thirds are going to be killed.”9
During the time when Israel seems to be at peace with the world, she is really under the domination of the antichrist who will turn on her at the mid-point in the seven-year period. Israel waits more than 2000 years for the promises finally to be fulfilled, and before it happens, two-thirds of them are wiped out. Those who are charged with holding a “replacement theology viewpoint” believe in no inevitable future Jewish bloodbath. In fact, we believe that the Jews will inevitably embrace Jesus as the Messiah this side of the Second Coming. The fulfillment of Zechariah 13:8 is a past event. It may have had its fulfillment in the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Contrary to dispensationalism’s interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, Jesus' disciples warned the Jewish nation for nearly forty years about the impending judgment (Matt. 3:7; 21:42–46; 22:1–14; 24:15–22). Those who believed Jesus’ words of warning were delivered “from the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10). Those who continued to reject Jesus as the promised Messiah, even though they had been warned for a generation (Matt. 24:34), “wrath has come upon them to the utmost” (1 Thess. 2:16; cf. 1 Thess. 5:1–11; 2 Pet. 3:10–13).
Before critics of replacement theology throw stones, they need to take a look at their own prophetic system and see its many lapses in theology and logic.
Read Part Two of this article...
2. Hal Lindsey, The Road to Holocaust (New York: Bantam Books, 1989). The address for Bantam Books is 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York.
3. Gary DeMar and Peter J. Leithart, The Legacy of Hatred Continues: A Response to Hal Lindsey’s The Road to Holocaust (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1989).
4. Inserted into the calendar.
5. E. Schuyler English, A Companion to the New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), 135.
6. Thomas Ice, “The Israel of God,” The Thomas Ice Collection: www.raptureready.com/featured/TheIsraelOfGod.html#_edn3
7. Charles C. Ryrie, The Best is Yet to Come (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1981), 86.
8. John F. Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1962), 107, 113. Emphasis added.
9. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, “The Little Apocalypse of Zechariah,” The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack, eds. Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2003), 262.
Also sprach Scofield!
That wasn’t the question
“And we see nothing like what we see in the Bible.”
Ever been to a “rave” concert? Jesus says to Peter, “get thou behind me Satan...”. Paul says, “To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” The occult and horror movies and books desensitize the culture into accepting deviance as normal and we think the demonic isn’t as operative today as in the time of Christ? Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mgabe, Rwanda, Sudan, Islam, abortion, homosexuality, and we think the demonic isn’t operative?
Matthew was written to a primarily Jewish audience. That does not mean it was written exclusively to Jews in some future imaginary time and place. Remember, the Olivet Discourse, for example, was precipitated by His disciple, i.e., Jewish Christians. He was answering their question and the answer was relevant for them.
If Matthew was written to a primarily Jewish audience, then that who must be seen as it primarily being directed to.
When the Sabbath is being mentioned and references made to the Book of Daniel, He is speaking to Jews who will deal with the anti-Christ of the future (2Thess.2)
For example, we have seen how Luke in his gospel interprets the Hebrew phrase "abomination of desolation" for the gentile readers. Same message, same intention, different audience.
I think we have gone over that and Luke is not interpeting anything regarding the 'Abomination of desolation'.
He mentions desolation, he doesn't say anything about the Abomination that causeth desolation'
That is simply a bit of 'scripture wresting' on your part.
We see the same thing with the "kingdom of" phrases. Matthew consistently uses the phrase "kingdom of heaven" while Luke uses "kingdom of God" to speak of exactly the same things. The examples are too numerous to mention all of them: "From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’" (Matt. 4:17) "Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.’" (Mark 1:14,15) "Another parable He put forth to them, saying: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field,’" (Matt. 13:31) "Then He said, ‘To what shall we liken the kingdom of God? Or with what parable shall we picture it? It is like a mustard seed which, when it is sown on the ground, is smaller than all the seeds on earth;’" (Mark 4:30,31) There is no justification to say that Matthew was written exclusively to Jews. That is a dispensational fantasy.
And where are the Kingdom scriptures that aren't repeated in the other Gospels, such as the gathering of the fish?
Amazing, how you guys always look for similitaries but never differences?
(3) Since the kingdom of heaven is the earthly sphere of the universal kingdom of God, the two have almost all things in common. For this reason many parables and other teachings are spoken of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew, and of the kingdom of God in Mark and Luke. It is the omissions which are significant. The parables of the wheat and tares, and of the net Matthew 13:24-30,36-43,47-50 are not spoken of the kingdom of God. In that kingdom there are neither tares nor bad fish. But the parable of the leaven Matthew 13:33 is spoken of the kingdom of God also, for, alas, even the true doctrines of the kingdom are leavened with the errors of which the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Herodians were the representatives. (See Scofield "Matthew 13:33") . (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/srn.cgi?book=mt&chapter=006
[ No, a Christian would not be concerned about fleeing on a sabbath day, once it was revealed to him that those days meant nothing, as they had by 70AD. ]
It mean nothing to them, but it meant everything to folks who controlled the street and sold food, etc which they would need to set out on a hasty journey. But I don’t expect you to get it with those dispensational blinders you are wearing.
If it meant nothing to them, then the Lord would not have told them to pray that they would not have to flee on it.
Those who were to flee were not to stop and buy groceries along the way!
Just one little thing. Literally speaking Abraham was never called a "Jew". He is called the father of many nations (Gen. 17:5). We are also told in Romans 4 that Abraham exercised his faith while yet uncircumcised. So technically he was a gentile when he believed in Jesus.
I guess Peter was just kidding when he warned us to beware of Satan as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.(1Pe.5:8)
Have any of those events I gave you happened or not?
Just one little thing. Literally speaking Abraham was never called a "Jew". He is called the father of many nations (Gen. 17:5). We are also told in Romans 4 that Abraham exercised his faith while yet uncircumcised. So technically he was a gentile when he believed in Jesus.
Yes, but he became a Jew (Hebrew) by becoming circumcised and that was the sign of the Jewish race, the miracle of the birth Isaac, from a dead phallus.
"Then He healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He did not allow the demons to speak, because they knew Him." (Mark 1:34)
Don't confuse demonic activity as we see it in the Bible with plain old brimstone-deserving sin.
yes, and racially David is descended from plenty of Gentiles
Well, that is according to Scripture, since no one in the future after the Rapture will be considered the 'body of Christ'.
Was anyone in the OT considered as having his body as the temple of God?
That is why a Christian today doesn't need a building to worship in, he is the church building.
All well and good, but you apparently refuse to answer what I asked you first. Anyone can play “look over here!” thus distracting from the matter at hand. Answer mine and I will answer yours.
Racially, everyone is descended from a gentile since we are from Adam and Noah's sons.
David was a Jew, distinct from Noah and Abel or do you deny that also?
I was responding to a post regarding those verses which deal with future events.
Now, have those events occured or not?
Stop evading the question.
Fact remains that he was never called a Jew "literally". But eh was called the father of many nations and even today everyone who believes in Jesus is considered the offspring of Abraham. I guess that makes us all Jews by your definition.
The "dead phallus" line is intriguing. If Abraham had a "dead phallus" how was Ishmael conceived? I think you are confused about Sarah’s barrenness.
I see, so the Branch has arrived yet, that’s future is it?
What is a Jew?
It just gets better and better
Fact remains that he was never called a Jew "literally". But eh was called the father of many nations and even today everyone who believes in Jesus is considered the offspring of Abraham. I guess that makes us all Jews by your definition.
Abraham is considered the father of the Hebrew people and that is to whom he line of promises were made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and his 12 sons.
They were called Abraham's seed by Christ himself (Jn.8:37)
We are Abraham's spiritual heirs, since we have believed the way he did (Rom.4)
not his physical heirs.
The "dead phallus" line is intriguing. If Abraham had a "dead phallus" how was Ishmael conceived? I think you are confused about Sarah’s barrenness.
WOW!
Are you kidding me?
Abraham was over a hundred years old and Sarah 90, both were passed the age of conceiving children and that is why both laughed when told they would! (Gen.17-18).
Abraham submitted to circumcision in faith, believing that God would give him an heir from his own body.
Now, cut it out, you know that there are differences between Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Esther etc.
Have those events happened yet or not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.