The Narrow Path Ministries

I heard John Hagee on tV the other day. He was speaking on
replacement theology and the fact that he was very against it.
Any comments very appreciated.

I think he believes national Israel still has a separate covenant with God and the believers in Christ have not replaced Israel. The problem is that Hebrews says the Old Covenant was abolished and even if that means it was abolished for christians and not jews there still would leave the problem that the Siniatic Covenant was not for salvation but for blessings and cursings in this life only.

Hi, Steve,

The problem is that Hebrews says the Old Covenant was abolished....

Could I trouble you for the verse reference here?

...there still would leave the problem that the Siniatic Covenant was not for salvation but for blessings and cursings in this life only.

Of course, I would quibble to some extent on this point - but if you were correct, and the two faith communities had different purposes, it would be even easier for one not to be understood as replacing/supplanting the other.

Shalom,
Emmet

MLH,

I don’t know if you had a specific question about this, but you will find that there is already much said about this topic in this forum.

But in a nutshell, “replacement theology” exists only in the minds of those that hold that the modern political nation of Israel is still God’s chosen people and that God is not done dealing with them yet. They would say something like “it’s the belief that God threw out the Jews and replaced them with the gentile church”, or “they steal all the promises made to the Jews and give them to the church”.

The truth is, Christians who hold the view that these people term “replacement theology”, actually don’t believe that God threw out the Jews and replaced them with the church. Rather, in the New Covenant, the Israel of God (Gal 6:16) is now defined as a spiritual nation (1Pet 2:9) and not a political one. It is made up of both Gentiles and Ethnic Jews (Eph 2:11-22). It’s called the church, or the ekklessia, the same as it was in the OT.

God didn’t replace Israel, He super-sized it…..with Gentiles. Ethnic Jews are not thrown out, they are welcomed into it as much as the Gentiles are and we are all one in Christ. God doesn’t have two flocks, only one (John 10:16). All the promises given to Abraham and the nation of Israel in the OT apply to those who are in Christ (Gal 3:29, 2Cor 1:20). That is….His bride…..His body…..His church. Hope that helps a little.

Lord bless.

Christopher.

I had intended to express myself on this issue, but you have just written all that I had wanted to say.

Thank you.

The problem is that Hebrews says the Old Covenant was abolished....


Could I trouble you for the verse reference here?


Sure Emmet, " By calling this covenant new , he has made the first one obsolete , and what is obsolete and aging will soon disapear." Heb 8.13

Christopher wrote:But in a nutshell, “replacement theology” exists only in the minds of those that hold that the modern political nation of Israel is still God’s chosen people and that God is not done dealing with them yet”.

Just to clarify, that is the position of some non-replacement theology folks, but not all.

Like most dispensationalists, I believe that:

- "Israel" (and other words like "Jerusalem", "Jew", "Kingdom", etc.) means the same thing in the apostolic writings (NT)as it means in the Tanakh (OT).

- God has got specific promises/plans for Israel which have yet to be fulfilled, and will indeed be fulfilled in a literal manner.

Unlike most dispensationalists however, I believe that:

- God is still dealing with Israel as He has been for the past 2000 years.

- The church is comprised of a believing remnant of Israel throughout all ages, as well as believing Gentiles throughout all ages.


Ely

Thanks Ely for clarifying your position.

I won't pose any challenges to your points since I think that's already been covered by Mort and yourself in another thread.

My main point was to reveal the inaccuracy of such a pejorative term like "replacement theology" which is typically used only to mock and belittle another viewpoint.

I haven't seen that from you though. I enjoyed reading the discussion between you and Mort and I thought it maintained a very charitible and respectful tone.

Lord bless.

Christopher wrote:Thanks Ely for clarifying your position.

I won't pose any challenges to your points since I think that's already been covered by Mort and yourself in another thread.

My main point was to reveal the inaccuracy of such a pejorative term like "replacement theology" which is typically used only to mock and belittle another viewpoint.

I haven't seen that from you though. I enjoyed reading the discussion between you and Mort and I thought it maintained a very charitible and respectful tone.

Lord bless.