Replacement Theology

[humble_in_doubt]

Then, what will we have left to learn? Don’t you think that there is no learning in chit-chatting of common beliefs? There is a lot of learning in controversy.

that’s a peculiar assertion (I’ve honestly never heard that idea applied to religion before). I’m struggling to figure out what we learn through religious controversy that’s of any value to mankind?

Certainly complacency and passiveness do not serve man well in striving to learn anything. If everyone is afraid to disagree with one another it will have a chilling effect on progress, but that applies to things that are real, not fantasy and mythology. For instance if a group of scientists are collaborating on a project, certainly they have to appoint a devils advocate, they need to encourage new and conflicting ideas, etc. if they hope to succeed and push beyond the current boundaries of knowledge. However, to propose this should apply to religion, something that is (empirically speaking) not true, seems fallacious to me.

In fact religious controversy is one of the major causes of strife in the world today. I do not say it’s the only cause, but it is the only area of conflict that isn’t amenable to reasonable solutions. For instance both Islam and Christianity believe that only through their respective religious systems can anyone have any hope of salvation. Moreover, they are both duty bound by their scriptures to push their religion on others (and evangelism has taken many forms throughout history, usually very hostile and aggressive forms; albeit contemporary Christianity has been largely tempered by Western values such as equal rights and liberty).

So on balance I’m not sure I can agree with your statement, though I do empathize with the situation your people face (albeit I do not believe any of the miraculous events your bible depicts ever really happened, nor do I believe god exists … so I suppose I view this problem from a different angle as compared to religious folks).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

"Another is St. Paul in Romans 9:6-8: "For all are not Israelites that are of Israel, neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham, children; but “in Isaac shall thy seed be called.’ That is to say, not they that are the children of the flesh, are the children of God, but they, that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed.”

The question is how these statements can be reconciled with God’s often repeated promises to the Jews, which seemed to be eternal and irrevocable in nature. As St. Paul states in Romans 11: 28-29: “but as regards election they [the Jews] are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”

the point being is the only way to resolve this contradiction is to assume at some point in future history god will actively intervene in human history and convert the Jewish people to Christianity.

Most scholars would simply say yes god’s gifts and his calling are irrevocable, yet the Jews misunderstood the meaning of election in the first place. As the verse infers, not all who are Abraham’s seed (meaning ethnic Jews) are “Israel” (drawing a distinction between “Israel of the promise and Israel of the flesh” … and more broadly speaking between those who live according to the flesh and those who live according to faith).

The apparent contradiction can be resolved when one makes a few careful distinctions. In the passage from Matthew, John the Baptist is not talking about lowering the Jews from their status, but of raising up others. In so doing, God would not be violating His promise; He would simply be sovereignly extending extraodinary graces to others, a right that Jesus emphasizes in an exactly apropos parable: “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?” (Matthew 20: 15). Thus the threat of John the Baptist is not that God will remove the Jews from their position in God’s order, but that He might well raise others to the same level."

Taken from the “Salvation is From the Jews”.

no christian theologian worth any salt would ever say god removed the Jews from their position in his order. That is, however, pretty close to classical replacement theology (which is grounded on the idea of foreseen faith and merit, or Arminian soteriology).

The more common response is that ethnicity was never meant to demarcate the people of god, but rather Israel is something spiritual (and evidence of membership is faith in Jesus Christ). When you read the gospel of John the picture becomes more clear (albeit some of the ambiguous language in Rom. 11 has caused quite a bit of confusion among Christians).

There is no room in Johannian theology for the non-believer. In other words according to John (who often quotes Christ in support of this proposition) if one does not believe in Christ they can have no expectation of salvation. Indeed, they were destined for perdition.

So it’s not right to say Christians replaced Jews. Rather according to New Testament theology it must be said that Jews who don’t believe in Christ aren’t really Jews at all (and were never part of spiritual Israel in the first place, but rather were destined for wrath along with unbelievers).

The entire New Testament affirms this view … however, the nuance kicks in with Paul’s language in Rom. 11 (as you pointed out), which was clearly referring to the ultimate salvation of ethnic Jews (as distinguished from Israel of the promise, or spiritual Israel). The fact is the only way to make Paul’s language in that chapter consistent with the rest of scripture, again, is to assume that ultimately god will turn the Jewish people to Christ.

When or how this will happen is unclear (though there’s some indication it might occur after all of mankind is resurrected from the dead). Even Martin Luther didn’t close the door on a second chance at salvation. However, much of this question revolves around eschatology. Catholics and Lutherans generally don’t give much weight to the idea of a millennial kingdom (and for that matter Calvinists don’t either). However, it seems to me it’s difficult to reconcile Paul’s language in Rom. 11 without also adopting Premillennialism (and frankly I think on balance scripture does reveal a future millennial kingdom where Christ will rule for a thousand years). The thing is most reformed, lutheran, and catholic scholars think the language in Revelation is figurative and shouldn’t be construed literally. When I was christian I did agree that yes the language is figurative, yet illustrations of some sort of millennial kingdom were clear enough that rejection of premillennial eschatology seems like a serious theological error.

Frankly I’m surprised Catholics reject it (since the early church was very superstitious and premillennial in its eschatology). They were actually a very apocalyptic group; but anyways I’m digressing

 

[josie_L]

Frankly I’m surprised Catholics reject it (since the early church was very superstitious and premillennial in its eschatology). They were actually a very apocalyptic group; but anyways I’m digressing

The early Church was not apocalyptic (in that they were seeing boogeymen of their own imaginings) but it was suffering under persecution. When John wrote the Book of Revelation, the CC was onto its second wave of persecution under Domitian (evil man that he was!!!). You are correct about the Book of Revelation though, it is hard to understand. I will endeavor to post my opinions of Revelation at a later date. I can’t really put my thoughts in order at the moment.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

The early Church was not apocalyptic (in that they were seeing boogeymen of their own imaginings) but it was suffering under persecution. When John wrote the Book of Revelation, the CC was onto its second wave of persecution under Domitian (evil man that he was!!!). You are correct about the Book of Revelation though, it is hard to understand. I will endeavor to post my opinions of Revelation at a later date. I Can’t really put my thoughts in order at the moment.

The first Christians were premillennial in their eschatology (and they believed the end of the world was imminent). This is a well known & undisputed fact; and it was their understanding of Revelation prophecy that formed their eschatology. However, it’s not to say their persecution didn’t play a role in their apocalyptic worldview … but again it was their understanding of scripture and the teachings I assumed they were exposed to that was the main force behind their eschatology (although I never said they were imagining boogymen or anything like that … you might more accurately compare them to contemporary fundamentalist groups who have a very apocalyptic worldview).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Replacement Theology

Replacement Theology is as old as Christianity itself, considering that the etimology of the expression acquired its real meaning with the rise of Christianity.

Some people object to the focusing on Christianity for the reason why Replacement Theology originated, because the Jewish People was not the only ancient people with the original claim to be God’s chosen People.

It’s true that a few other ancient peoples upheld the same claim, but there was never one to rise with the claim that a people had been replaced by another as God’s chosen People.

Christianity became the first religious organization to rise with the claim that a change had occurred in the designs of God, which would define the rejection of the Jewish People, and resplacement with Christianity.

The classical NT document, which would give rise to this Christian policy is found in Galatians 4:21-31.

Paul would compare God’s Covenant with the Jewish People as Hagar, who was Sara’s slave girl, and the Jews as her son, who was rejected even to share with Isaac, the inheritance of Canaan. On
the other hand, he compares Christianity to Sara and Christians to her son Isaac.

To conclude, Paul appeals to cast out the slave girl together with her son for the obvious reason that Israel, the Jewish People, would never be an heir with the son of the one born free.

That’s the picture of Replacement Theology and not simply a people claiming Divine election. A group of Interfaith Scholars have classified Replacement Theology as a kind of Antisemitism.

Ben

Actually, replacement theology is older than Christianity itself. It is prophesied in the Old Testament.

Jer 31:31 Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juda:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, the covenant which they made void, and I had dominion over them, saith the Lord.
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it in their heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least of them even to the greatest, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

It appears a new covenant, or replacement theology as you prefer to refer to it, was prophesied long before Christianity. Why? Because it was the covenant which they made void. It appears to say “made” void, in the past tense…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have made two already. And I do advocate making babies. Since, lots of babies, as you suggest, only contributes to make us poor, I have decided to increase Judaism by doing what we have been assigned for, according to Isaiah 42:6, “Light unto the nations.” This way, I have brought nine souls into Judaism. Two biological children and nine spiritually begotten.

In case you don’t know, Judaism was very much a missionary faith until Christianity was adopted by the Emperor Constantine, and as Christianity acquired power of life and death, its first decree was to condemn to death any Jew who was was arrested prozelytizing. Since then the Jewish authorities forbade any missionary work done by Jews. Since today the Church has no longer that power, I feel free to speak.

It appears that you are telling us of past conversions and hopes for more conversions, now that you are free to speak, or proseltyze. Is that your purpose here on a Catholic forum?

 

[josie_L]

There is no room in Johannian theology for the non-believer. In other words according to John (who often quotes Christ in support of this proposition) if one does not believe in Christ they can have no expectation of salvation. Indeed, they were destined for perdition.

So it’s not right to say Christians replaced Jews. Rather according to New Testament theology it must be said that Jews who don’t believe in Christ aren’t really Jews at all (and were never part of spiritual Israel in the first place, but rather were destined for wrath along with unbelievers).

That’s not quite right, here let me quote from this wonderful book entitled “Salvation is From the Jews”:

"Yet a second sort of blessing, a blessing of nature (refering to the Jews) promised to “the seed of Abraham”, would continue to flow through the propagation “according to its own kind” suggested by the word “seed”, and thus would remain with the Jewish race, despite their lack of faith in Christ. St. Paul seems to be alluding to this duality of blessing in his famous metaphor of the branches grafted onto the olive tree (Romans 11:16-24):

“the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off (the Jews), and you a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place (the Gentiles) to share the richness of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. You will say, “Branches were broken of so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe . . . For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.”

“In this metaphor, the sap of the olive tree is the “blessing by choice”, while the intrinsic nature of the branch (cultivated vs. wild) is the “blessing by nature.” The Gentiles are described as wild branches, that is, not sharing the blessings by nature, which have been grafted onto the tree, thus receiving the blessing by choice, just as a grafted limb receives the circulating sap of the tree. On the other hand, the Jews - the “cultivated branches” because of their blessing by nature - have been cut off for their disbelief, thus being separated from the flow of the sap, that is, from receiving the blessing by choice. However, they still maintained their as cultivated branches, since the blessings by nature belongs to the “seed” that reproduces “according to its kind”. Therefore when they do come to the faith and thus are grafted back on to “their own” olive tree, how blessed they will be, since they will then receive the blessing by choice originally intended for them, which is perfectly matched to their blessing by nature from which they were never separated.”

 

[humble_in_doubt]

That’s not quite right, here let me quote from this wonderful book entitled “Salvation is From the Jews”:

"Yet a second sort of blessing, a blessing of nature (refering to the Jews) promised to “the seed of Abraham”, would continue to flow through the propagation “according to its own kind” suggested by the word “seed”, and thus would remain with the Jewish race, despite their lack of faith in Christ. St. Paul seems to be alluding to this duality of blessing in his famous metaphor of the branches grafted onto the olive tree (Romans 11:16-24):

“the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off (the Jews), and you a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place (the Gentiles) to share the richness of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. You will say, “Branches were broken of so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe . . . For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.”

“In this metaphor, the sap of the olive tree is the “blessing by choice”, while the intrinsic nature of the branch (cultivated vs. wild) is the “blessing by nature.” The Gentiles are described as wild branches, that is, not sharing the blessings by nature, which have been grafted onto the tree, thus receiving the blessing by choice, just as a grafted limb receives the circulating sap of the tree. On the other hand, the Jews - the “cultivated branches” because of their blessing by nature - have been cut off for their disbelief, thus being separated from the flow of the sap, that is, from receiving the blessing by choice. However, they still maintained their as cultivated branches, since the blessings by nature belongs to the “seed” that reproduces “according to its kind”. Therefore when they do come to the faith and thus are grafted back on to “their own” olive tree, how blessed they will be, since they will then receive the blessing by choice originally intended for them, which is perfectly matched to their blessing by nature from which they were never separated.”

yeah but nothing you said here contradicts my previous statement … so I am quite right (sorry … I like to be right; but only because I almost always am).

OK seriously though … indeed this is what Paul says (sort of) but you haven’t addressed John & of course you can’t take Paul in isolation. What I did was to reconcile the two in the best way possible (although I actually think Paul and John aren’t too hard to reconcile … though Paul went deeper in his theology than any other apostle and IMO it’s important to realize that).

Anyway if you read the gospel of John in isolation there’s not a single word in it that could possibly give us any indication that any non-believer has a hope in heck of being saved (and you can read John all day long & you will see I’m right). So then what of Paul’s discourse in Rom. 11?

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son (John 3:18).

Ahhh those famous words quoted so often by Christian apologists. On balance John’s gospel is one of monergistic predestination that is very harsh towards unbelievers of all sorts (including and perhaps especially Jews). You can try and soften his words all you please, but his words speak for themselves. If you are to say scripture represents the infallible word of god (and Catholics do say this) then you must view Paul as “adding” to John, not contradicting him. Therefore, it must be true that Paul’s statements regarding the ultimate salvation of the Jews means that god will ultimately bring them to Christ (and that must mean that he will do so after the resurrection of mankind, since I’ve never heard of an observant Jew who suddenly professed Christ on his deathbed).

Simple exegesis (its been a while … but I’m still pretty good at it). I’m not quite sure whether the CC would agree with me (since frankly Catholic theologians are all over the place on these sort of tough theological questions, and I would doubt the church has formulated a rigorous doctrine on this question … but you should be able to answer that better than me).

I think frankly that the book you’re alluding too isn’t very good (or at least it’s not an honest representation of scripture). It sounds very typically Catholic though (trying to soften the blow of scripture, as they did with Augustinian theology). The problem is with the analysis provided by that book is it’s very fleshy. I’m not sure how to explain this quite right … but it goes to the problem I’ve always had with Catholic theology (even when I was Catholic). It seems to miss the spiritual nature of the Christian religion, and has promulgated a doctrine using very worldly and material themes.

For better or worse it’s worked for the CC (so I’m not going to berate it). However, like I said it just doesn’t feel like genuine Christianity (it’s more like the worldly version of it, which has been successful in creating a very practical institution geared toward ensuring the survival of your religion).

 

[josie_L]

yeah but nothing you said here contradicts my previous statement … so I am quite right (sorry … I like to be right; but only because I almost always am).

Well, maybe I’m nit picking but then again maybe I’m not, this is what I meant by not quite right, you said:

So it’s not right to say Christians replaced Jews. Rather according to New Testament theology **it must be said that Jews who don’t believe in Christ aren’t really Jews at all **(and were never part of spiritual Israel in the first place, but rather were destined for wrath along with unbelievers).

Now, that part that I emboldened states something quite different than what I quoted:

"Yet a second sort of blessing, **a blessing of nature (refering to the Jews) promised to “the seed of Abraham”, **would continue to flow through the propagation " according to its own kind" suggested by the word “seed”, and thus would remain with the Jewish race, despite their lack of faith in Christ. St. Paul seems to be alluding to this duality of blessing in his famous metaphor of the branches grafted onto the olive tree (Romans 11:16-24):

So you see, by the blessing of nature alone, Jews would still be Jews (that cannot be taken away from them), even though they lack faith in Christ.

P.S. I will deal with the rest of your post on the morrow, I’m too tired to think right now. By the way, please visit the “sin boldly” thread, you will see my response to you, and I added a special surprise which I know you will bust a gut watching.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Well, maybe I’m nit picking but then again maybe I’m not, this is what I meant by not quite right, you said:

So it’s not right to say Christians replaced Jews. Rather according to New Testament theology **it must be said that Jews who don’t believe in Christ aren’t really Jews at all **(and were never part of spiritual Israel in the first place, but rather were destined for wrath along with unbelievers).

Now, that part that I emboldened states something quite different than what I quoted:

"Yet a second sort of blessing, **a blessing of nature (refering to the Jews) promised to “the seed of Abraham”, **would continue to flow through the propagation " according to its own kind" suggested by the word “seed”, and thus would remain with the Jewish race, despite their lack of faith in Christ. St. Paul seems to be alluding to this duality of blessing in his famous metaphor of the branches grafted onto the olive tree (Romans 11:16-24):

So you see, by the blessing of nature alone, Jews would still be Jews (that cannot be taken away from them), even though they lack faith in Christ.

P.S. I will deal with the rest of your post on the morrow, I’m too tired to think right now. By the way, please visit the “sin boldly” thread, you will see my response to you, and I added a special surprise which I know you will bust a gut watching.

yes I did say that … but that wasn’t the end of the story. Now I see how Martin Luther get’s hammered so often by you guys

I also then discussed Paul’s statements in Rom. 11, and opined that he added to Johannian theology. When I said the statement you referred to it was only to point out that if we subtract Rom. 11 from the equation, that is what we would have. However, add in Rom. 11 and we have an entirely different picture (and one that requires some sort of premillennial outlook, even if a figurative hybrid).

 

[Sam_777]

Christianity became the first religious organization to rise with the claim that a change had occurred in the designs of God, which would define the rejection of the Jewish People, and resplacement with Christianity.

Then what is your opinion about Islam which (according to Allah) has replaced both Judaism and Christianity?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Then what is your opinion about Islam which (according to Allah) has replaced both Judaism and Christianity?

I said that Christianity was the first. There is quite a defference in time between the First and the Seventh Century. If you ask me, Islam learned with Christianity. Their claim has been plagiarized from Christianity.