My first part defined replacement theology, and disputed those who say it “increases prejudice” against the Jews. But I did get to one point that countered the doctrine successfully—namely, the fact that believing in it would discourage you from reading the Old Testament, and its promises to Jews. The idea is, these were largely irrelevant. But I point out the advantages for everyone to read the Old Testament. Now let’s continue with the debate in Part II.
My second point against replacement theology is a very big
point; it’s a game-ender. The theory requires
that many verses, not just end times verses, be called “allegories,” and not to
be taken literally. Allegories are stories that have hidden spiritual meanings,
not to be taken word-for-word, but just the kernel of moral truth it is
teaching. For instance, Bunyan’s
fictional novel Pilgrim’s Progress is an allegory about the path to
salvation. There wasn’t a guy named
“Christian” taking a journey with a heavy bag.
In thinking of moral “kernels,” you should be noticing that the bag he
lugs around represents his sin. You
would also notice that his path to Christianity is in view, and that it is a
journey, not a one-time confession.
But I don’t recommend that line of thinking when it comes to
God’s Word. Read it literally to get all of God’s truth. Let’s look at a few
verses for examples. In Joel 3:1-5:
“For behold, in
those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and
Jerusalem, I will gather all the nations and bring them down to the Valley
of Jehoshaphat. And I will enter into judgment with them there, on behalf of my
people and my heritage Israel, because they have scattered them among the
nations and have divided up my land, and have cast lots for my people, and have
traded a boy for a prostitute, and have sold a girl for wine and have drunk it.
“What are you to me, O Tyre and Sidon, and all the regions of Philistia? Are
you paying me back for something? If you are paying me back, I will return your
payment on your own head swiftly and speedily. For you have taken my silver and
my gold, and have carried my rich treasures into your temples. ...
If we literally interpret
the verses, it says all the nations that persecuted the nation of Israel will
be judged. They scattered” the Jews, and introduced corrupted practices into Israel
(“traded a boy for a prostitute…sold a girl for wine…”) God will judge the
Gentile oppressors of Jews—like Tyre, Sidon, or Philistia, and God will restore
wealth to the people of Israel.
If the passage is
interpreted by “allegorization,” or considered an allegory, then we ignore reference
to Jewish land, “Judah” or “Jerusalem,” and focus on how Christians, not Jews,
have been persecuted, and how God will destroy non-Christian people for what
they’ve done. As you can see, you have
to ignore what was literally written and look for the hidden
meaning.
Another bad result from
wandering off the literal meaning, is that it wanders off into strange
places. In a theory fractured off from
replacement theory called “British Israelism,” England (and perhaps several countries
in Europe) is really the lost 10 tribes of Israel. So today the Queen of England is sitting on
the throne of David. So that conveniently means the throne of David really is
perpetual, as God “promised.” (I’ve talked In other blogs about bad results
from wandering off the literal meaning).
One other bad result of the
belief in replacement theology is that it could weaken the belief in the
Millennium. If we take it literally,
it’s an actual thousand years Jesus is king on earth (Revelation 20). In the
Millennium we know this for sure: we start
out with no wicked people, just righteous people. Jesus is still a person, and
on the throne of David, in Jerusalem. He
sets up righteous economics, politics, etc. This isn’t heaven, because we still
have a sin nature. Despite the
perfection of the system of justice, of the economy; etc, some people will still
want to rebel against Jesus. They get
their day (or their hour) right after Satan is freed at the end of the thousand
years, and he stirs them up to a final battle with Christ. Then there is final judgment, and then heaven
and hell--permanently. The end of
Revelation flows very chronologically, and includes this.
Amillennialists,
which includes most replacement theology buffs, ignore the thousand years. They argue that the millennium began with the
resurrection of Jesus and will last until the second coming. During this time
(now 2100 years), living and deceased believers reign spiritually with Christ,
Who is in heaven. This is spiritual, not physical; those dead Christians are souls
only; they’re in the intermediate state, awaiting their physical resurrection
and the renewal of all things, and Satan is bound in the sense of being bound
at the cross while the gospel goes out to the nations (Matt. 12:29). See how mystical all this is getting? In amillennialism, Jesus does not get a
throne in a physical Jerusalem, despite what Scripture says.
Their
view of the thousand years has wandered seriously far from the literal meaning.
(See Gnosticism for other mystical meanings awarded to those “really smart
people” who “understand deep things”).
Here
is where I stand: Because of this
wandering from the literal, and this alone, I cannot abide with the replacement
theology. It’s dangerous to wander from
the literal meaning, and you can see the strange results above.
But
I think there has been some opposite wanderings among evangelical, especially
dispensational believers. (I have another blog on dispensationalism). They want
to place Jews at the center of the thousand years, and have people worshipping
at a new temple in Jerusalem, even doing animal sacrifices there. I can’t see us going to Old Testament sacrifices
at temple. Christ was the last sacrifice; Scripture is clear on that.
Speaking
of the Jews again, let’s avoid replacement theology and stick with the nation Israel
when Scripture says Israel. I have some
tough verses to clinch it: Here is Paul in Romans 11 with God’s Words. When you
read it, it seems clear that Israel has not been shoved out of the nest
forever. He poses a blunt question and
an od plans to use this equally blunt answer:
…has
God cast away His people? Certainly not!
Later he says,
….have they
stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall,
to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the
Gentiles.
I think “have they stumbled?”
is asking about the permanent state of the corporate nation Israel. Is their
sin so grievous that God has cursed the whole nation permanently? After all,
rejection of Christ and attributing the Spirit’s works to the devil was a
“spiritual death offense.” No, sending to hell, again, is done by individual
choice. God has two purposes for
everything that happened: First, Israel’s sin, pretty much as a nation, made it
possible for God to turn to the Gentiles when He sought to add to His
children. So His salvation was invited
to the Gentiles. God’s second purpose,
though, was to make Israel jealous (as you see above. See also Romans
10:19). God knew that Gentile Christians
would be happy in close relationship with Him.
He hoped such would provoke many Jewish people to become jealous of
this, and come to Him, as well
And then Paul, in Romans
11, states a shocker: at some future date, virtually the entire nation of Jews living
at that time will be saved (unfortunately, given Scriptural reference, there
wouldn’t be too many still alive). It
would be some miracle event. As Romans
11:5b-26 says:
….blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness
of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will
be saved, as it is written “The
Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He
will turn away ungodliness from Jacob”…
Replacement
theologians, of course, believe that the verses say that all Gentile Christians
will maintain their salvation and be saved.
Not for the agnostic Jews getting saved; that would be impossible.
But believing literally, instead, we believe
that God will indeed save all the Jews of that time. How? The
Jews living in end times, will have something special and miraculous happen
that they will repent and cry for mercy from Jesus. It doesn’t say, “a large minority;” it says
ALL. Keep sticking to that literal definition. It will amaze the whole world. We can’t picture it; we feel they don’t
deserve it. In Christ’s days, they warped
God’s laws, they helped to kill Jesus; now they are secular agnostics trying to
destroy Christianity. Can God turn all these people around? Well, God saved the Ninevites, the worst of
pagans; yet at another time He killed everyone on earth except 8. He's capable of doing anything, and capable
of doing the unexpected. We can’t play judge; we need to just focus on recognizing
and eliminating our own sin.
Well,
we may seem far afield from discussing replacement theology. I was making a point that wandering from
literal interpretations allows us to color God’s Word with the taint of our prejudices. Like Occam’s Razor, we should always start
with the obvious; do literal rendering first.
Wandering from the literal is too dangerous.
Are
there Scriptural rebuttals to replacement theology? Mr. Matsen goes hard after such “proof,”
asserting that God promised a seed, or generations, as well as land, and
throne, to the Jews FOREVER. So it says in Genesis 12, 13,15, 17, and 28. I would like to believe his point, but I
can’t. Mr.
Matsen uses “forever” without considering context, as we shall see, is an
effort to argue that the Jews have an unshakeable promise with God, making it
impossible for the Gentiles to unseat them or replace them.
But
is it possible that somehow the word “forever” cannot mean “every moment from
here on out,” because the Jews had a serious interruption in forever; they had no
land and no throne for almost 2000 years.
Another problem I have with assertions Mr. Matsen makes in Genesis 15:8-18:
And he (Abram)
said, “Lord God, how
shall I know that I will inherit it?”
9 So He said to him, “Bring Me a three-year-old heifer, a
three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young
pigeon.” 10 Then he brought all these to Him and cut
them in two, down the middle, and placed each piece opposite the other; but he
did not cut the birds in two. (This is a ritual for an upcoming covenant).
12 Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon
Abram; and behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him. 13 Then
He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be
strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them,
and they will afflict them four hundred years. 14 And
also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall
come out with great possessions. 15 Now as for
you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be
buried at a good old age. 16 But in the fourth
generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the
Amorites is not yet complete.”
17 And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark…18 On
the same day the Lord made
a covenant with Abram, saying:
“To your descendants I have given this land, from the river
of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates—
Note
that Abram/Abraham did not get any of these promises, but his descendants would,
at some future time, get them, but then, no, they lost it, but after that, yes—so
only some Israelis got this blessing, but none when there was an
interruption. When you read the Old
Testament, you read how the land and throne got taken away because of their
sin. So, these conditions are the
parameters of God’s promise to Abram. They are not an “unconditional” promise,
as Calvinist-tinged preachers assert. If they became idolaters, He took away
the blessing and suspended the covenant.
I have to add that because Abram was asleep and God was alone when He
made the covenant, did not automatically make it unconditional. God can impose a conditional covenant. The facts of history put the lie to unconditionality.
God had a greater plan.
(That
does not make me a cynic about God “playing” with the word ‘forever.’ I
stress this above all the rabbit holes I have gone down in this paper; the
covenant, to the extent partially filled thus far, will have a final
fulfillment for the nation Israel in the future. The physical Jews will have a Millennium, a Jerusalem
with all the blessings of peace and Jesus on the throne. (But not animal
sacrifices under Jesus’ rulership). God will bless His chosen people again when
Christ comes a second time, and brings in a Millennium. And Christ gets a future throne. As far as
land, the Jews got a partial promise in 1948. God will add to it to the wide
boundaries promised in Genesis; a land much larger than they have ever
possessed.)
So
“forever” doesn’t mean what some people think.
I can’t resist bringing up Deuteronomy 31. In verse 6, Moses (note that) says to
the people of Israel:
Be strong and
of good courage, do not fear nor be afraid of them; for the Lord your
God, He is the One who goes with you. He will not leave
you nor forsake you.”
Sounds
pretty unconditional, right? But only 10
verses later, God says to Moses:
“Behold, you
will rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play
the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land, where they go to
be among them, and they will forsake Me and break My covenant
which I have made with them. 17 Then My anger shall
be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them,
and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured….. 18 And I
will surely hide My face in that day because of all the evil which they have
done, in that they have turned to other gods.
Moses is quoted as saying
God would not leave nor forsake them. (How many modern pastors quote this, and
ignore the context?) He didn’t proclaim
God’s condition: When they turned evil, He did forsake them, see 10 verses
later. This just points out, more forcefully,
that God will be with us, too, under a condition: as long as we are actively
pursuing faithful works (fruits of the Spirit), and are pursuing a relationship
of love and obedience with Him. Many,
many New Testament verses say this. God can
cut us off. (see other blogs, John
15:1-6).
I must add that the word “everlasting”
before words like possession and covenant must also be carefully handled. Let’s
look at Genesis 17:7-8:
And I
will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after
you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to
you and your descendants after you. 8 Also I
give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are
a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession;
and I will be their God.”
So history disagrees with
Mr. Matsen’s effort to make a point against replacement theology with the word
“forever.”
Mr. Matsen does admit that
much of the covenant God made with Israel lies in the future. We can agree on that, as well as on finally rejecting
replacement theology (but for different reasons). Here’s some cherished verses I would like to
end with. From Ezekiel 36:22-28:
“Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the
Lord God: “I do not do this for your sake, O house of
Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the
nations wherever you went….and the nations shall know that
I am the Lord,” says the Lord God, “when I am hallowed in you before their
eyes. 24 For I will take you from among the nations,
gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse
you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I
will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the
heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I
will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and
you will keep My judgments and do them. 28 Then you
shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My
people, and I will be your God.
Praise our Mighty God.
two phrases partially say,
the Jews had to agree to make God their God too. If they forsook that, God is free to temporarily
forsake them (remember the Deuteronomy 31 verses). In the end times, God is good for all these
blessings—but most are future; you have to be heavenward to get it, in the
Millennium and beyond. That covenant is everlasting the way you want it.
So history disagrees with
Mr. Matsen’s effort to make a point against replacement theology with the word
“forever.”
Mr. Matsen does admit that
much of the covenant God made with Israel lies in the future. We can agree on that, as well as on finally rejecting
replacement theology (but for different reasons). Here’s some cherished verses I would like to
end with. From Ezekiel 36:22-28:
“Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the
Lord God: “I do not do this for your sake, O house of
Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the
nations wherever you went….and the nations shall know that
I am the Lord,” says the Lord God, “when I am hallowed in you before their
eyes. 24 For I will take you from among the nations,
gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse
you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I
will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the
heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I
will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and
you will keep My judgments and do them. 28 Then you
shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My
people, and I will be your God.
Praise our Mighty God.
No comments:
Post a Comment