Theologically conservative and evangelical Christians are once again looking at the issue of replacement theology and concluding that the Bible does NOT justify belief that the church replaced Israel regarding God's promises: John and Charles Wesley were convinced Israel would again be gathered to God per His promises, though for a time their eyes would be veiled to the Messiah:

Quote:

---

The Wesleys
The following are hymns written by Charles Wesley and accepted for inclusion in the early hymnals They clearly show that both John and Charles Wesley prayed for the Jews, looked for them to have their land again, and longed for them to come to know their Messiah. How delighted they would be that they are once again in the land God gave them- a real answer to prayer.
ALMIGHTY God of love (Diademata)
Set up the attracting sign,
And summon whom thou dost approve
For messengers divine;
From favoured Abraham's seed
The new apostles choose,
In isles and continents to spread
The dead-reviving news.
Them, snatched out of the flame,
Through every nation send,
The true Messiah to proclaim,
The universal friend;
That all the God unknown
May learn of Jews to adore,
And see thy glory in thy Son,
Till time shall be no more.
O that the chosen band
Might now their brethren bring,
And, gathered out of every land,
Present to Zion's King!
Of all the ancient race
Not one be left behind,
But each, impelled by secret grace,
His way to Canaan find.
WE KNOW IT MUST BE DONE,
For God hath spoke the word:
All Israel shall the Saviour own,
To their first state restored;
Rebuilt by his command,
Jerusalem shall rise;
Her temple on Moriah stand
Again, and touch the skies.
Send then thy servants forth,
To call the Hebrews home;
From East, and West, and South, and North,
Let all the wanderers come;
Where'er in lands unknown
The fugitives remain,
Bid every creature help them on,
Thy holy mount to gain.
An offering to their God,
There let them all be seen,
Sprinkled with water and with blood,
In soul and body clean;
With Israel's myriads sealed,
Let all the nations meet,
And show the mystery fulfilled,
Thy family complete!

http://www.methodistfriendsofisrael.com/the-wesleys/

---

And how did replacement theology develop?

Quote:

---

Editor's Note: Much of the anti-Semitism in the world today can be traced to a concept called "Replacement Theology". This principle presents the thesis that the church has replaced Israel in God's plan. 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.

Aurelius Augustinus, the bishop of Hippo (354430), better known as Saint Augustine, was a leader of the Church during the fourth and fifth centuries AD. Under his influence, Christianity embraced a doctrine of antiSemitism.

From Augustine teachings, the Church came to a view that the Jews were a lost race without hope of redemption. The Church determined that Israel had forfeited her covenants by rejecting Christ. This concept produced a dramatic shift in early Church politics, worldviews, and eschatology.

The leaders of the Church of Rome began to teach that all the future messianic promises of natural Israel were transferred to the new spiritual Israelthe Church.

What follows is Part One of a two part series on the errors of Replacement Theology. The author, Dr. William Welty, is the Executive Director of the ISV foundation and also serves as Research Analyst in Advanced Communication Technologies and Adjunct Professor of Middle Eastern Studies on the faculty of Koinonia Institute.

All Biblical citations are taken from the International Standard Version (ISV) translation of the Bible.

---

Paul refutes replacement theology in Romans

Quote:

---

Romans 911: The Apostle Paul's Refutation of Replacement Theology
The Apostle Paul answers the errors of Replacement Theology in the ninth through the eleventh chapters of his letter to the Christians who were living in Rome. He writes in Romans 9:45 that to the Israelis alone:

Quote:

---

4 belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To the Israelis belong the patriarchs, and from them, the Messiah descended, who is God over all, the one who is forever blessed. Amen.

---

In the post-Crucifixion world of the first century, A.D., the Apostle Paul reminds us that God's plan for Israel has never been abandoned. Paul informs us in Romans 9:68:

Quote:

---

6 Now it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all Israelis truly belong to Israel, 7 and not all of Abraham's descendants are his true descendants. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that descendants will be named for you." 8 That is, it is not merely the children born through natural descent who were regarded as God's children, but it is the children born through the promise who were regarded as descendants.

---

His comments in Romans 9:7 that "not all of Abraham's descendants are his true descendants" serve as a reminder that there is more to being Jewish than merely being a descendant of Abraham. It will be this truth that forms the basis for the salvation of the non-Jews to whom Paul directed the majority of his evangelistic efforts. Paul also reminds us that God is righteous to take this posture with respect to belief in him. In Romans 9:1416, he writes:

Quote:

---

14 What can we say, then? God is not unrighteous, is he? Of course not! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will be merciful to the person I want to be merciful to, and I will be kind to the person I want to be kind to." 16 Therefore, God's choice does not depend on a person's will or effort, but on God himself, who shows mercy.

---

God's willingness to base salvation on the requirement to believe stands opposed to being related to Abraham. In Romans 9:2326, the Apostle Paul asks the following not-so-rhetorical question:

Quote:

---

Can't he also reveal his glorious riches to the objects of his mercy that he has prepared ahead of time for glory including us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but from the gentiles as well? As the Scripture says in Hosea,
"Those who are not my people
I will call my people,
and the one who was not loved
I will call my loved one.
In the very place where it was told them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called children of the living God."

---

http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2015/2362/

---

Chuck Missler on unconditional covenants in the Word of God:

"Replacement Theology" is a rudimentary way of dismissing the opposing and original viewpoint through misrepresentative semantics.

Replacement Theology on one end, and then John Hagee's Dual Covenant Theology on the other end.....

tehmackdaddy said:

---

"Replacement Theology" is a rudimentary way of dismissing the opposing and original viewpoint through misrepresentative semantics.

---

Please elaborate when you speak original viewpoint. I would be glad to hear it.

I'd recommend you read the book of Hebrews.

When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Tying antisemitism to St Augustine is weak. If you're going to go that route at least pick St John Chrysostom's Against the Jews. Although since it's mostly scriptural quotes it's kind of hard to argue with.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I'd recommend you read the book of Hebrews.

When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Tying antisemitism to St Augustine is weak. If you're going to go that route at least pick St John Chrysostom's Against the Jews. Although since it's mostly scriptural quotes it's kind of hard to argue with.

---

It's hard to argue with agenda-driven cherry-picking that the Nazis found endlessly useful?

Replacement theology drove a lot of the Protestant separatist groups. The entire 17th century sometimes reads like, "We're the new Israelites." "No! We're the new Israelites!" "No you aren't!"

That's a pretty weak argument even for you. Godwin in one post? Really?

Nazis drank beer too.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I'd recommend you read the book of Hebrews.

When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete.

---

"A new testament."

UTExan said:

---

tehmackdaddy said:

---

"Replacement Theology" is a rudimentary way of dismissing the opposing and original viewpoint through misrepresentative semantics.

---

Please elaborate when you speak original viewpoint. I would be glad to hear it.

---

Israel was the church under the Old Testament. Gentiles were grafted in and adopted under the New Testament and unbelieving Jews were cut off. The inheritance is given to the believing Jews and Gentiles.

"Replacement" is incorrect and only used by dispensationalists to discredit covenant theology. "Grafted" or "transferred" are better terms.

k2aggie07 said:

---

That's a pretty weak argument even for you. Godwin in one post? Really?

Nazis drank beer too.

---

It's not Godwin if the Nazis literally used the source you mentioned to justify their beliefs. Then it's an example of how ****ing disturbing the source is.

It's Godwin.

St John's writings have been around for 1600 years, and you think the Nazi's use of them somehow indicts them?

Like I said -- weak.

PS I've never heard of St John Chrysostom being cited by Nazis for antisemitism, so that's new to me too.

Quote:

---

PS I've never heard of St John Chrysostom being cited by Nazis for antisemitism, so that's new to me too.

---

OP: Augustine hated Jews
k2: Weak. You should use Chrysostom instead. He really hated Jews.
Watson: Nazis used Augustine.
k2: Really weak. Wait, Nazis used Chrysostom?

Your obsession with Chrysostom is noted.

Well, in that verse the quoted part is implied. The literal reading is "In saying, 'new,' He has made obsolete the first; and that which is growing old and aging (is) near vanishing."

But, the preceding verses v6 speaks of "a better covenant" and v8 says "a new covenant" so the implied target of new as covenant is quite justified. The word "covenant" there is not testament, if that's what you mean (not sure?). Covenant is diatheke, the same word used for example in Matthew 26 "this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins" and Acts 7:8 "And He gave him the covenant of circumcision".

Hebrews 8:6 literally says "He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted upon better promises." I have no idea how any person can read that and think that Christ merely re-affirmed the Law given to Moses.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

PS I've never heard of St John Chrysostom being cited by Nazis for antisemitism, so that's new to me too.

---

OP: Augustine hated Jews
k2: Weak. You should use Chrysostom instead. He really hated Jews.
Watson: Nazis used Augustine.
k2: Really weak. Wait, Nazis used Chrysostom?

Your obsession with Chrysostom is noted.

---

At least recount it faithfully.

Quote:

---

OP: Augustine hated Jews
me: cmon, if you're going to be ignorant at least use the low hanging fruit of the thing literally called "Against the Jews"
Watson: Nazis used Augustine. Chrysostom
k2: Godwin.

---

The problem is neither St Augustine nor St John were antisemitic by any stretch of the modern definition. They weren't against Jews as a race or as a people but as a religion -- a religion they thought was false. We've had the discussion about St John's Adversus Judaeos fairly recently here.

chuckd said:

---

UTExan said:

---

tehmackdaddy said:

---

"Replacement Theology" is a rudimentary way of dismissing the opposing and original viewpoint through misrepresentative semantics.

---

Please elaborate when you speak original viewpoint. I would be glad to hear it.

---

Israel was the church under the Old Testament. Gentiles were grafted in and adopted under the New Testament and unbelieving Jews were cut off. The inheritance is given to the believing Jews and Gentiles.

"Replacement" is incorrect and only used by dispensationalists to discredit covenant theology. "Grafted" or "transferred" are better terms.

---

Hebrews 8:

Quote:

---

Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds[b] I will remember no more."[c]

---

That does not cut off Israel and Judah, but rather offers them the same grace and salvation offered to Christians and Messianic Jews now. And which, according to the Hebrews 8 passage cited above will be experienced by Israel and Judah at a future time (something alluded to by the Wesleys).

The fruit of much of early Calvinist theology was intolerance of Jews (and other sects, for that matter), but let John Calvin tell it:

Quote:

---

Calvin wrote, "I have had much conversation with many Jews: I have never seen either a drop of piety or a grain of truth or ingenuousness nay, I have never found common sense in any Jew." [13]
Calvin is also quoted as calling Jews "profane dogs" who "under the pretext of prophecy, stupidly devour all the riches of the earth with their unrestrained cupidity." [14]
He also stated that "their rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone." [15]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankviola/shockingbeliefsofjohncalvin/#APWdsGV30xtE6THw.99

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Well, in that verse the quoted part is implied. The literal reading is "In saying, 'new,' He has made obsolete the first; and that which is growing old and aging (is) near vanishing."

But, the preceding verses v6 speaks of "a better covenant" and v8 says "a new covenant" so the implied target of new as covenant is quite justified. The word "covenant" there is not testament, if that's what you mean (not sure?). Covenant is diatheke, the same word used for example in Matthew 26 "this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins" and Acts 7:8 "And He gave him the covenant of circumcision".

Hebrews 8:6 literally says "He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted upon better promises." I have no idea how any person can read that and think that Christ merely re-affirmed the Law given to Moses.

---

Heb. 8 may render diatheke 'covenant', but Heb. 9 does not. In fact, it is impossible to.

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new [diatheke], that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first [diatheke], they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a [diatheke] is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

It's clear here that diatheke is a will or testament (which is what the word means). Matthew 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." The confusion lies in the fact that there is no Greek word that can accurately convey the meaning of berith.

Quote:

---

That does not cut off Israel and Judah, but rather offers them the same grace and salvation offered to Christians and Messianic Jews now. And which, according to the Hebrews 8 passage cited above will be experienced by Israel and Judah at a future time (something alluded to by the Wesleys).

---

I did not say it cut off Israel. I said it cut off unbelieving Jews. And a future redemption of natural Israel is not foreign to Reformed writers (e.g. John Murray's commentary on Rom. 11 which I'm happy to share).

k2aggie07 said:

---

It's Godwin.

St John's writings have been around for 1600 years, and you think the Nazi's use of them somehow indicts them?

Like I said -- weak.

PS I've never heard of St John Chrysostom being cited by Nazis for antisemitism, so that's new to me too.

---

I think his words indict themselves. That's why the Nazis found them and Luther's writings so useful. That's not Godwin. Godwin would be comparing something with no Nazi connections to what the Nazis did. This is pointing out that the actual Nazis found John useful for their purposes.

I've quoted this before.

Quote:

---

Anti-Semitism is a complex issue in the Fathers, since the position of the Jews, over the centuries, has changed from that of a sometimes violently anti-Christian religious and social force to that of a victimized people. The same Jews who mistreated and victimized the early Christians, something often overlooked in contemporary historical sources, have in our times been the victims of mistreatment themselves...Ultimately, then, as I shall emphasize below, we should not glorify or vilify the Jewish people, but understand them in historical context: sometimes as persecutors themselves, sometimes as the persecuted.

...As well, it must be remembered that the Fathers of the Church view Jews as the adherents of a religion, as a spiritual entity, not merely as a race. And even when they use the word race, they also mean it in a spiritual way, not simply as we use it today. (Thus "Judaizers" was an accusation made against non-Jews as well as Jews. And sinners are sometimes called a "race.") These distinctions are lost on contemporary dilettantes, who think that the curse on the Jewish race applies exclusively to people of a single blood line, rather than to any person who, like the hypocrites of the Jewish establishment of Christ's time, perpetuate anti-Christian sentiments.

....Calling any Church Father anti-Semitic on the basis of ostensibly denigrating references to Jews, therefore, is to fall to intellectual and historiographical simple-mindedness. Applying modern sensitivities and terms regarding race to ancient times, as though there were a direct parallel between modern and ancient circumstances, is inane. This abuse of history is usually advocated by unthinking observers who simply cannot function outside the cognitive dimensions of modernity.

---

I think you're getting caught up on a word without meaning.

It's probably closer to say that a distinction in modern English vernacular between testament and covenant is where the error lies.

Here's an etymology entry on Testament:

Quote:

---

Use in reference to the two divisions of the Bible (early 14c.) is from Late Latin vetus testamentum and novum testamentum, loan-translations of Greek palaia diatheke and kaine diatheke. Late Latin testamentum in this case was a confusion of the two meanings of Greek diatheke, which meant both "covenant, dispensation" and "will, testament," and was used in the former sense in the account of the Last Supper (see testimony) but subsequently was interpreted as Christ's "last will."

---

It makes very little sense for the scripture to use the same word, referring constantly first and second, but then in one sense describe a covenant, in the next chapter switch to will, and then subsequently switch back to covenant.

John Owen on Heb. 9:15

Quote:

---

But before we proceed unto the exposition of the whole or any part of it, a difficulty must be removed from the words as they lie in our translation. For an inquiry may be justly moved, why we render the word [diatheke] by a "testament" in this place, whereas before we have constantly rendered it by a "covenant." And the plain reason of it is, because from this verse unto the end of the chapter the apostle argues from the nature and use of a testament among men, as he directly affirms in the next verse. Hereby he confirms our faith in the expectation of the benefits of this [diatheke], that is, "covenant" or "testament." We may answer, he doth it because it is the true and proper signification of the word. [Diatheke] is properly a "testamentary disposition of things;" as [suntheke] is a "covenant." For in the composition of the word there is nothing to intimate a mutual compact or agreement, which is necessary unto a covenant, and is expressed in [suntheke]. However, there is a great affinity in the things themselves: for there are covenants which have in them free grants and donations, which are of the nature of a testament; and there are testaments whose force is resolved into some conventions, conditions, and agreements, which they borrow from the nature of covenants. So there is such an affinity between them as one name may be expressive of them both.

---

...

Quote:

---

The word [berith] could not be more properly rendered by any one word than by [diatheke]. For it being mostly used to express the covenant between God and man, it is of such a nature as cannot properly be termed [suntheke], which is a covenant or compact upon equal terms of distributive justice between distinct parties; but God's covenant with man is only the way and the declaration of the terms whereby God will dispose and communicate good things unto us, which hath more of the nature of a testament than of a covenant in it.

---

LXX translators agree when they use [diatheke] to translate [berith], not [syntheke].

k2aggie07 said:

---

I've quoted this before.

Quote:

---

Anti-Semitism is a complex issue in the Fathers, since the position of the Jews, over the centuries, has changed from that of a sometimes violently anti-Christian religious and social force to that of a victimized people. The same Jews who mistreated and victimized the early Christians, something often overlooked in contemporary historical sources, have in our times been the victims of mistreatment themselves...Ultimately, then, as I shall emphasize below, we should not glorify or vilify the Jewish people, but understand them in historical context: sometimes as persecutors themselves, sometimes as the persecuted.

...As well, it must be remembered that the Fathers of the Church view Jews as the adherents of a religion, as a spiritual entity, not merely as a race. And even when they use the word race, they also mean it in a spiritual way, not simply as we use it today. (Thus "Judaizers" was an accusation made against non-Jews as well as Jews. And sinners are sometimes called a "race.") These distinctions are lost on contemporary dilettantes, who think that the curse on the Jewish race applies exclusively to people of a single blood line, rather than to any person who, like the hypocrites of the Jewish establishment of Christ's time, perpetuate anti-Christian sentiments.

....Calling any Church Father anti-Semitic on the basis of ostensibly denigrating references to Jews, therefore, is to fall to intellectual and historiographical simple-mindedness. Applying modern sensitivities and terms regarding race to ancient times, as though there were a direct parallel between modern and ancient circumstances, is inane. This abuse of history is usually advocated by unthinking observers who simply cannot function outside the cognitive dimensions of modernity.

---

---

I haven't called him anti-Semitic. It's a term that didn't exist until (historically-speaking) recently. His writings, however, created the specific charge of deicide that was used as an excuse for murdering millions of Jews throughout the last 19 centuries and he blames the Jews in broad terms. You can try and parse what he said and contextualize it. All good things to do with any historical figure. But you cannot escape what he said and the implications of it. If you're trying to absolve him of blame for what followed in his footsteps, you have to argue that John was a fool who didn't understand the power of words or the necessity of adding context.

Quote:

---

But you cannot escape what he said and the implications of it.

---

I don't feel any need to escape from what he said.

Anyone's writings can be twisted and misused from their purpose. He bears no culpability for the actions of evil people.

The fact that you don't understand that isn't really surprising though, because you're also a person who blames "Christianity" for wars and other evils.

Ok...diatheke is the word used here. So basically, the person is arguing to translate it to covenant by suggesting that diatheke includes suntheke, so he really meant to say suntheke? Seems convenient.

Ok, I read it again. I see the point in the distinction between the two words.

St Paul is talking about the new and old covenants.

Then he highlights this with an illustration using the common practice of testament (i.e., a last will and testament).


Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments

Quote:

---

With the Greek word diatheke the matter stands somewhat differently. The rendering of berith by this word amounted to a translation compromise. Diatheke at the time when the Septuagint and the New Testament came into existence not only could mean 'testament', but such was the current meaning of the word. It was, to be sure, not its original meaning. The original sense was quite generic, viz., 'a disposition that someone made for himself' (from the middle form of the verb diatithemi). The legal usage, however, referring it to a testamentary disposition had monopolized the word. Hence the difficulty with which the Greek translators found themselves confronted. In making their choice of a suitable rendering for berith they took a word to whose meaning of 'last will' nothing in the Hebrew Bible corresponded. And not only this, the word chosen seemed to connote the very opposite of what the Hebrew berith stood for. If the latter expressed unchangeableness, 'testament' seemed to call up the idea of changeableness at least till the moment when the testator dies. Moreover the very term 'testament' suggests the death of the one who makes it, and this must have appeared to render it unsuitable for designating something into which God enters. When notwithstanding all these difficulties, they chose diatheke, weighty reasons must have determined them.

The principal reason seems to have been that there was a far more fundamental objection to the one other word that might have been adopted, the word syntheke. This word suggests strongly by its very form the idea of coequality and partnership between the persons entering into the arrangement, a stress quite in harmony to the genius of Hellenic religiosity. The translators felt this to be out of keeping with the tenor of the Old Testament Scriptures, in which the supremacy and monergism of God are emphasized. So, in order to avoid the misunderstanding, they preferred to put up with the inconveniences attaching to the word diatheke. On closer reflection these were not insurmountable. Though diatheke meant currently 'last will', the original generic sense of 'disposition for oneself' cannot have been entirely forgotten even in their day. The etymology of the word was too perspicuous for that. They felt that diatheke suggested a sovereign disposition, not always of the nature of a last will, and restored this ancient signification. And in this way they not merely overcame an obstacle; they also registered the positive gain of being able to reproduce a most important element in the Old Testament consciousness of religion.

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

But you cannot escape what he said and the implications of it.

---

I don't feel any need to escape from what he said.

Anyone's writings can be twisted and misused from their purpose. He bears no culpability for the actions of evil people.

The fact that you don't understand that isn't really surprising though, because you're also a person who blames "Christianity" for wars and other evils.

---

If your writings encourage a behavior or a belief, you bear some responsibility for that. John's writings can be contextualized to an extent. But not to the point where you can hand wave away the charge of deicide against the Jews, however he wants to define that broad term. The fact is he did not really specify what he meant and who fell into or out of that term. Nor did he limit the implications of his writings. He bears responsibility for that.

St John was a pacifist. So he didn't encourage any of the behavior exhibited. Sorry.

k2aggie07 said:

---

St John was a pacifist. So he didn't encourage any of the behavior exhibited. Sorry.

---

You must hate RICO cases.

Yeah, it was dog whistle anti-semitism that he countered with pacifist homilies in order to keep his rap sheet clean.

Jesus did the same thing you know. Nobody buys this "forgive them for they know not what they do" act to hide the real idea behind Christianity.

Jeez.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Yeah, it was dog whistle anti-semitism that he countered with pacifist homilies in order to keep his rap sheet clean.

Jesus did the same thing you know. Nobody buys this "forgive them for they know not what they do" act to hide the real idea behind Christianity.

Jeez.

---

There were riots in Antioch and a synagogue was destroyed after his sermons on the Jews. But yeah, his hands were clean because in other writings he gave pacifist homilies.

[citation needed]