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covenants, believing that their spiritual destiny is either to perish or become a part of the new religion that superseded Judaism (whether Christianity or Islam).1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.
***I guess I should edit my affirmed text more.***
Ya think?!!!
***Though technically, he probably has a point on that score. Will we be known as Christians or children of God?***
I’m sure in the delirium known as Dispensationalism there is some significant distinction between “Christian,” a mere derisive label by those not the children of God, and “children of God.” I’m actually all a tingle as to why you think this is significant. I’ll probably regret the answer later, but I am curious at the moment.
***I still don’t know of a single Dispy who believes that.***
Ok, one more time...
There were no Christians in the Old Testament and there will no Christians after the Rapture, since only Christians make up the bride of Christ (Eph.5:30) ~ post 198
If only Christians get to be joined to the Messiah, then every OT saint and every saint from after the “Rapture” will NEVER be joined to the Messiah. This means that such prefigures of Christ such as David will NEVER have their long looked for Messiah. But, there is this cool consolation prize: dirt.
God to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, David, et. all.: Sorry, but you will never be joined to the Messiah. But, there is this cool consolation prize. Gabby (Gabriel), open door #2 and let’s show them the dump truck full of what they get to have for all eternity.
I increasingly see that Replacementarians are from the school of theology Dr Walter Martin talked about . . . illustrated by the old saw . . .
Can God create a rock too big for Him to move.
God is NOT into nonsense.
Maybe it’s my fever or some such but I’ve about had my fill of such nonsense for the moment.
Outrageous.
Amen.
“An Idol being put in after the destruction is not what Matthew says.”
Take that argument up with Martin Luther, for he was the one who made that statement.
Martin Luther knew both Luke and Matthew weren’t about some future “third” temple event because he obviously knew that there is no “third” temple mentioned anywhere in the Bible, and for very good reason — because Christ is the Temple.
Read Matthew 24 and Luke 21 again objectively. If you do that, then you will see that both Gospel writers were relating the same message, the same warning, the same signal to flee the city — i.e. the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and the end of the Mosaic Age (not the “end of the world” as people like LaHaye would have you believe).
Are you sure that you understand what you are quoting???
Romans 9:7 says: "Neither, because thay are the seed of Abraham are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called".
Ishmael was the child of the flesh. Isaac was the child of promise and all the 12 tribes descended from Isaac.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." -- Galatians 3:28
Notice in Romans 9:2-4, Paul talks about his sorrow over those of his own race:
9:2-4 “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.”
Why do you suppose he was in such distress if “all Israel will be saved” (as dispensationalists interpret the phrase)?
Again, just two verses later:
Romans 9:6: “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.”
Paul was distraught over those of his own race rejecting Christ and he made the point that their bloodline didn’t make them Israel.
I don't know about you but I have never been in a church yet that didn't have males and females in it ...
But like Isaac, Jacob was also the child of promise [that the elder shall serve the younger]. Ishmael and Esau were children of the flesh, but Isaac and Jacob [Israel] were children of the seed of Abraham as well as children of God's promise.
or in other words, the flesh prevaileth nothing, it is the Spirit that saves.
And that Spirit says:
"Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I [Paul] also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, the tribe of Benjamin" [Romans 11:1]
Yes, and some men are bonded and some men are free. But what is Paul saying to us here -- that there is no indenture and we're all one sex?
No, he's saying labels don't mean anything. Distinctions don't mean anything. The ONLY thing that matters now and forever is God's grace through faith in Christ.
"All one in Christ Jesus."
His people are not the disbelieving Jews whom Paul laments. His people are those God has graced with faith.
Tabsternager in post 228 states it clearly...
Notice in Romans 9:2-4, Paul talks about his sorrow over those of his own race:
9:2-4 "I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel.
Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises."
Why do you suppose he was in such distress if "all Israel will be saved" (as dispensationalists interpret the phrase)?
Again, just two verses later:
Romans 9:6: "It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel."
Paul was distraught over those of his own race rejecting Christ and he made the point that their bloodline didn't make them Israel.
I think Paul is saying that a Jew is a Jew from the heart, from the inside out, who values his heritage, knows where he came from, and followed in the ways of his people -- not just someone who had Jewish blood. Many back then and throughout history have been Jewish in name and blood only and cared little about Torah, and Moses, and Isaiah, their heritage, their covenants, and the promises to them, the things that made them uniquely Israel before God.
Gosh, I think that is a terrible reading of the Gospel. Paul isn’t criticizing Jews for not being better Jews. He’s criticizing Jews for not believing in the only name that saves, Jesus Christ.
That's not so. Paul is lamenting over his people Israel because he too was an Israelite.
“His people” was not referring to Paul’s people but to the quoted verse which speaks of God’s people — “Hath God cast away his people? God forbid...”
But Paul is distinguishing between fleshly Israel and the Israel of God like right here:
"28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." [Romans 2]
Not so. The "his people" are the "Israelites" of which Paul is one. Read it:
"Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I [Paul] also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, the tribe of Benjamin" [Romans 11:1]
God's people are not the same as Paul's people. Some are; but not all. Paul's people, his lineage, as he says, are those of the physical circumcision, the Jews.
God's people, all believing Jews and Gentiles, are those whose hearts have been circumcised.
"For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." -- Romans 2:25
And which Jew or which Gentile can keep the law perfectly?
NONE.
So the physical circumcision means nothing and profits nothing.
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." -- Romans 2:28-29 "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Take that argument up with Martin Luther, for he was the one who made that statement. Martin Luther knew both Luke and Matthew weren’t about some future “third” temple event because he obviously knew that there is no “third” temple mentioned anywhere in the Bible, and for very good reason — because Christ is the Temple.
My goodness, you sound like a Roman Catholic appealing to a Church Father!
The Temple that is described in Matthew is not the Lord's Body since no abomination of desolation can stand in it!
As for the Temples mentioned in the Bible, the Temple (Herods) was the one that was started when the Jews returned to the Land (Haggi 2:9).
Now, as for a third temple that is the temple rebuilt during the Tribulation and the anti-Christ will sit in claiming he is God (2Thess) and that is what the Lord is referring to in Matthew 24.
There is 4th Temple, in the Millennial reign as well,where Christ will sit and the Son of David (Ezek.40-48)
Read Matthew 24 and Luke 21 again objectively. If you do that, then you will see that both Gospel writers were relating the same message, the same warning, the same signal to flee the city — i.e. the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and the end of the Mosaic Age (not the “end of the world” as people like LaHaye would have you believe).
Read what the passage actually say and stop trying to twist the readings into something the do not say.
The Lord points back to Daniel and the abomination of desolation (Dan.12:11) and when that is set up in the Temple, that causes the Temple to become defiled and sacrifices to cease.
Luke is talking about the events of 70AD, Matthew isn't.
They are talking about two different events and that is why they read differently, one making mention of the Abomination of desolation and one not.
One in the past, and one in the future.
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.