Covenant Theology is Not Replacement Theology

[JB Horn]

• 

I am continually amazed in the number of people that believe replacement theology is the same as covenant theology. I was reading a blog today written by a dispensationalist who accused all Calvinist in believing in replacement theology. It is not important what John Calvin believed as far as dispensationalism and covenant theology or replacement theology when discussing what we refer to as Calvinism. When we discuss Calvinism we refer to the acronym T.U.L.I.P. which does not address covenant, replacement, or dispensationalism.

Paul explains the grafting of the Gentiles to the Jewish root of Israel, and he makes it very clear that grafting is not replacement. For some reason members of the body of Christ want to put up a wall between Gentiles and Jews, and between Israel and the Church. I don't understand why it is so hard for some to believe or comprehend that Israel is and was from the start the church. Paul tells us in Eph 2:11-22 at the wall that divides Jews in the Gentiles has permanently been destroyed. The Law has been replaced with the New Covenant this is not the Church replacing Israel, Jerusalem or the Jewish people. There is no more Jew or Gentile Rom. 10:12; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11.

Let's try this for an analogy, if I take a bucket of water from my well and I poured that bucket of water into Lake Erie, have I replaced Lake Erie with my well water? No of course not. This whole argument reminds me of the problem Paul was addressing in the book of Galatians. It appears to me that there those who still put themselves and their traditions ahead of the body and the mission given to us by Christ.

Blessings
JB

[philer]

• 

I haven't heard of this replacement theology before, not that it isn't what some believe. israel was physical ,but now it is a spiritual
people. The sacrifice of christ was to benefit those who believe ,making one a jew inwardly not outwardly or physically. The sacrifice of christ was to make a better way replacing temples made with hands,earthly priests , and to remove the ceremonies of the temple ,washings etc. . There were many who portrayed to the jews  errantly the whole law of GOD or commandments was done away with which understandably would lead them to believe that this was a false doctrine or faith or religion. The intention was to bring the physical isreal to accept the ultimate sacrifice of christ acknowledging that they could not please GOD in the flesh remained in there sins needing the grace of GOD to forgive their sins vs the sacrifice of animals,and the gentiles to know they could be accepted just as sinful as their counter part physical isreal , without the ceremonies ,temple, etc. but giving way for both to repent ,believe and be baptised and forgiven and believe in  the law of GOD written in their hearts because GOD knew of our physical weaknesses and rebellion we needed a way of being forgiven .  We find paul and peter dealing with this issue ,paul preaching to the gentiles and sometimes the jew, and peter preaching to physical israel , trying to bring them together ,even though peter at one time had difficulty with paul ,i think did come to understand.  The main point of contention appears to be the law , and misunderstanding on both sides, physical isreal coming to terms with the ultimate sacrifice of christ  replacing earthly priests and temples ,and the gentiles coming to terms with being sinners needing christ for the forgiveness of their sins just as the jews do because they cannot please GOD in the flesh or obey perfectly and are weak , but for both flat out rebellion would not be accepted by the GOD because the law of GOD remains ,because the law is not for the man who obeys the law but the sinner.  I'm sure many would disagree, i fully expect that , but i hope there are not many that believe in this replacement theology which you speak of , but many seek division for a variety of reasons ,it would not surprise me this too is out there .

[JB Horn]

• 

I haven't heard of this replacement theology before, not that it isn't what some believe. israel was physical ,but now it is a spiritual people.

Would it be correct to say that you believe the church has replaced the Jews as the chosen people of God?

[philer]

• 

i think it's more about terminology and perspective. what occured in the new testament was nothing new, the gentile could always become part of isreal should they believe and keep the law of GOD, isreal wasnt replaced if you will but how one became isreal changed , making them isreal in the flesh only ,but not spiritually, so were they replaced ? no they were still physical isreal ,were they spiritual isreal ,the true isreal or what you call the church? no but they were never spiritual isreal so they in that sense could not have been replaced.  i don't know if that answers your question.

[JB Horn]

• 

i think it's more about terminology and perspective. what occured in the new testament was nothing new, the gentile could always become part of isreal should they believe and keep the law of GOD, isreal wasnt replaced if you will but how one became isreal changed , making them isreal in the flesh only ,but not spiritually, so were they replaced ? no they were still physical isreal ,were they spiritual isreal ,the true isreal or what you call the church? no but they were never spiritual isreal so they in that sense could not have been replaced.  i don't know if that answers your question.

It does thanks.

Here is what we are talking about when we use the term, 'replacement theology.' This is from http://www.gotquestions.org/replacement-theology.html

Question: "What is replacement theology / supersessionism?"

Answer: Replacement theology (also known as supersessionism) essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. Adherents of replacement theology believe the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and God does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel. All the different views of the relationship between the church and Israel can be divided into two camps: either the church is a continuation of Israel (replacement/covenant theology), or the church is completely different and distinct from Israel (dispensationalism/premillennialism).

Replacement theology teaches that the church is the replacement for Israel and that the many promises made to Israel in the Bible are fulfilled in the Christian church, not in Israel. So, the prophecies in Scripture concerning the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Promised Land are “spiritualized” or “allegorized” into promises of God's blessing for the church. Major problems exist with this view, such as the continuing existence of the Jewish people throughout the centuries and especially with the revival of the modern state of Israel. If Israel has been condemned by God, and there is no future for the Jewish nation, how do we explain the supernatural survival of the Jewish people over the past 2000 years despite the many attempts to destroy them? How do we explain why and how Israel reappeared as a nation in the 20th century after not existing for 1900 years?

The view that Israel and the church are different is clearly taught in the New Testament. Biblically speaking, the church is completely different and distinct from Israel, and the two are never to be confused or used interchangeably. We are taught from Scripture that the church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the day of Pentecost and will continue until it is taken to heaven at the rapture (Ephesians 1:9-11; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). The church has no relationship to the curses and blessings for Israel. The covenants, promises, and warnings are valid only for Israel. Israel has been temporarily set aside in God's program during these past 2000 years of dispersion.

After the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), God will restore Israel as the primary focus of His plan. The first event at this time is the tribulation (Revelation chapters 6-19). The world will be judged for rejecting Christ, while Israel is prepared through the trials of the great tribulation for the second coming of the Messiah. Then, when Christ does return to the earth, at the end of the tribulation, Israel will be ready to receive Him. The remnant of Israel which survives the tribulation will be saved, and the Lord will establish His kingdom on this earth with Jerusalem as its capital. With Christ reigning as King, Israel will be the leading nation, and representatives from all nations will come to Jerusalem to honor and worship the King—Jesus Christ. The church will return with Christ and will reign with Him for a literal thousand years (Revelation 20:1-5).

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament support a premillennial/dispensational understanding of God's plan for Israel. Even so, the strongest support for premillennialism is found in the clear teaching of Revelation 20:1-7, where it says six times that Christ's kingdom will last 1000 years. After the tribulation the Lord will return and establish His kingdom with the nation of Israel, Christ will reign over the whole earth, and Israel will be the leader of the nations. The church will reign with Him for a literal thousand years. The church has not replaced Israel in God's plan. While God may be focusing His attention primarily on the church in this dispensation of grace, God has not forgotten Israel and will one day restore Israel to His intended role as the nation He has chosen (Romans 11).

By the way in Joel 3 God speaks of a specific people and a specific land.

1 Yes, in those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, 2 I will gather all the nations and take them to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. I will enter into judgment with them there because of My people, My inheritance Israel. The nations have scattered the Israelites in foreign countries and divided up My land. 3 They cast lots for My people; they bartered a boy for a prostitute and sold a girl for wine to drink. 4 And also: Tyre, Sidon, and all the territories of Philistia-what are you to Me? Are you paying Me back or trying to get even with Me? I will quickly bring retribution on your heads.

[philer]

• 

i think i see,but disagree with some of what was quoted,in the sense of the church not being isreal i don't agree with, the church is  isreal ,we are grafted in adopted, so we cannot be the church and not isreal ,we have to be isreal if we are adopted,if we say we are not isreal we are not adopted and also then not part of the church if you will. This is not saying that physical isreal was the church as pointed out in what was quoted ,they are correct in the spiritual jew is a new thing GOD did by putting his spirit and law in us and making us a jew inwardly . The scriptures don't eliminate the physical jew as replaced but disconnected from the root until they recieve the spirit of GOD and believe in christ and repent etc, as are the gentiles ,all were sinners, on equal ground in that respect all needing salvation which had always been so , isreal is a physical group of people called isreal but they are not all isreal that are descended from isreal romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God has taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: romans 9:7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall your seed be called. romans 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

so in other words ,they (physical isreal) may have been called isreal, but they are not isreal (spiritual isreal) because they were not children of the promise. so as far as replacement? no they were never the church, or spiritual isreal . were the promises to physical isreal? according to paul the promises were to the seed or children of the promise or spiritual isreal ,so were they replaced? i would say not according to this understanding.

[JB Horn]

• 

Theologies like this pop up when man has a hard time explaining something usually because they can't understand or see God's motives. Man is impatient, and feels that they have the right to have God's plans made clear to them. As the quote explains the nation Israel had disappeared for 1900 years and man had to make an excuse for it not existing so they came up with the idea that it had been replaced by the Church. This was the only way in some men's mind to make the prophecy of Israel come true, but in 1948 God showed man how inpatient and how stupid he is. Unfortunately many churches still carry on this theology today, for instance Jehovah's Witnesses claim that the 144,000 prophesied in Revelations will be members of their church, even though John made it clear that those 144,000 would be Jewish males. In the end, the church which is the assembly of believers will be both Jew and Gentile, Romans 1:16, Colossians 3:11


"I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy."

[Fat]

• 

Theologies like this pop up when man has a hard time explaining something usually because they can't understand or see God's motives. Man is impatient, and feels that they have the right to have God's plans made clear to them. As the quote explains the nation Israel had disappeared for 1900 years and man had to make an excuse for it not existing so they came up with the idea that it had been replaced by the Church. This was the only way in some men's mind to make the prophecy of Israel come true, but in 1948 God showed man how inpatient and how stupid he is. Unfortunately many churches still carry on this theology today, for instance Jehovah's Witnesses claim that the 144,000 prophesied in Revelations will be members of their church, even though John made it clear that those 144,000 would be Jewish males. In the end, the church which is the assembly of believers will be both Jew and Gentile, Romans 1:16, Colossians 3:11


"I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy." 

The LDS preach that the American Indians were all descended from the Jews and that America was going to be the new Jerusalem. I don't know if that really comes under replacement theology or maybe we could call it relocation theology. 

Soon after the founding of the Latter Day Saint church in April 1830, Smith designated a physical location for the Saints to start to build Zion, which he taught would be the future New Jerusalem. On July 20, 1831, Smith stated that he had received a revelation that designated Missouri as the "land which I have appointed and consecrated for the gathering of the saints." The revelation further stated, "Behold, the place which is now called Independence is the center place; and the spot for the temple is lying westward…" Smith later envisioned the temple as being the starting point for the creation of a New Jerusalem: "Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation."

[Moss]

• 

Deuteronomy 9:5-7
You are not going to take possession of their land because of your righteousness or your integrity. Instead, the Lord your God will drive out these nations before you because of their wickedness, in order to keep the promise He swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Understand that the Lord your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stiff-necked people.   "Remember and do not forget how you provoked the Lord your God in the wilderness. You have been rebelling against the Lord from the day you left the land of Egypt until you reached this place.


The Lord always fulfills his promises.