The Narrow Path Ministries

Steve,

I was recently discussing Rom 11:17-24 with someone and I mentioned to him a potential problem with non-replacement theology was Rom. 11:17-24. I stated that the tree represented Israel and some of the Jewish branches were broken off, and some Gentile branches were grafted in. Therefore, the only branches left on the tree were believing Jews and believing Gentiles, thus equating the church, which would seem to favor replacement theology.

In the conversation he brought up a different perspective that I thought was interesting - he said the tree did not represent Israel, but was rather a Jewish tree of faith. So it was not that unbeleiving Jews were being cut off from Israel necessarilly, but from a tree of made up of faith filled people, including Jews and Gentiles. Thus, the non-replacement position is not affected by Rom. 11:17-24.

I think I see where he's coming from, but I am not convinced either way at this point. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Ryan

Hi Ryan,

I really don't see the difference. The true Israel (the church) is indeed the Jewish tree of faith, only with some new, non-Jewish branches added on. It is Paul's purpose to discuss the manner in which the promises of God have been fulfilled to the true Israel, which he does by showing that not all Jews are really part of that "Israel"(Romans 9:6) and that some Gentiles are (Rom.9:23-24). This is illustrated by the use of the figure of an olive tree with branches broken off and others grafted in (Rom. 11:16-24).

The idea of an olive tree with branches broken off is taken from Jeremiah 11:16, where the tree represents ethnic Israel stripped of its rebellious and unbelieving members (branches). The bit about Gentile branches being grafted in is not from Jeremiah, but is Paul's own contribution, where he seems to be saying that Gentile branches have been added to the tree to "replace" the Jewish branches that have been broken off.

Of course, the tree itself is not "replaced" with a new tree (and those accused of holding "replacement theology" never suggest such a thing). The tree in its final form has continuity with the tree at its roots. The tree has always been Israel, the covenant people of God. What Paul tells us is that the tree (Israel) is not distinctively Jewish anymore. It is made up of believing Jews and believing Gentiles...which makes it the same thing as what the New Testament calls "the church."

The church does not "replace" Israel, but the church is Israel. The tree with its present branches is the mature form of the same tree as a sapling. It is the mature, or "fulfilled" form of the same tree. Thus the amillennial position is not accurately referred to as "replacement theology" so much as "fulfillment theology." Ethnic/national Israel, in the Old Testament, is the type , of which the spiritual Israel, in the New Testament, is the antitype, or the consummation.

Yeah, what I thought about yesterday was the whole concept of the olive tree, and its reference in Jer. 11:16, which is for sure referring to Israel. Paul then uses that same illustration in Rom. 11, which would seem to naturally be referring to Israel as well. It seems obvious to me as well but I'm still working through these issues and want to look at all reasonable sides. Thanks for your comments and help.

In Chris†

Ryan