1. Replacement/Fulfillment Theology Supersessionism debunked

2. Replacement Theology This course is designed to combat the belief of replacement or fulfillment theology.  The aim is primarily to establish a proper view of Scripture, and not to attack or assail they who hold an improper view.  My reason for combat is that there are more than improper views of Scripture, but dangerous mindsets that are more than unbecoming of a Christian.

3. Defining Supersessionism Supersessionism is the belief that either Jesus, or the Church, or both have superseded Israel, and therefore the Jewish people themselves mean nothing beyond what any other pagan nation signify. Israel is no longer the chosen people; God has moved away to focus upon the Church alone.  Also known as replacement theology  This also suggests the land has no importance.

4. Jesus and the Jews Because the Jewish people have forsaken the notion of Jesus being messiah, some going so far as even claiming Jesus never existed, they are considered by some replacement theologians as eternally cursed, and by others as simply a different kind of paganism.

5. Jesus and the Jews It is accepted by some that the Jews can come to God through Jesus, but in order to do so, they must cease from being Jewish and become part of the Church. In this, it isn't simply that they are seen as “pagan”, as they would claim, but that there is something detested about being Jewish. Anti-Semitism and arrogance are the heart of replacement theology. You don't ask a man to stop being Gentile when they come to Christ, so why would you then claim that you must stop being Jewish?

6. Shem and Japheth In Genesis 9:15-17, we read the blessings of Noah to his sons. Ham and Canaan receive curse, and are declared to be a servant unto his brethren forever. To Japheth, Noah declares that he shall be enlarged, which is certainly the case when you read the nations associated with Japheth. To Shem, it is said that his blessing is that his brother Japheth shall enter his tent, and that in entering that tent shall come under the authority of Shem.

7. Shem and Japheth The question of replacement theology is whether that prophecy of Genesis 9:25-27 finds fulfillment in Israel or in Jesus.  If in Israel, then it is not the Jew that must enter the Church to be saved, but the Gentile who must become part of “the commonwealth of Israel”, and live by whatever definition/character the Bible posits that phrase to have.

8. Replacement Theology From the definition of replacement theology, it doesn't seem at first glance to be too harsh of a position. I would like to claim something much more extreme than the mere definition merits. This is a salvation issue; you cannot truly be a Christian and yet hold to replacement theology. The two statements are as contradictory as saying, “This sentence is false.”

9. Crackpot Conspiracies Something else that replacement theology will sometimes employ are the anti-Semitic beliefs that the Jews are attempting to take over the world and promote a one-world government, in which their antichrist will be the ruler of the world, and this will commence the Tribulation of Revelation. This conspiracy theory has been handed down from the so-called church fathers, enforced brutally by the Catholic church, and is even to this day demanding Jewish lives through Muslim extremists, neo-Nazis, and on the horizon there is more bloodshed in the name of “Christ”.

10. Crackpot Conspiracies When we will believe a conspiracy theory is the reason that the Jews got the land in 1948, and this 'inheriting' of the land was in utter opposition to God, we begin to make theological statements that demand Scriptural attestation.  Just where do you find reason to believe that human beings can thwart the judgment of God by establishing themselves as a nation again, especially if God's intent was that they never be a nation? Either God is sovereign, and therefore He is Judge, or man is sovereign, and therefore God is nonexistent.

11. Basis of Replacement Theology The only basis by which replacement theology can stand is that we have something the Jewish people don't: salvation through Jesus Christ.  Even this argument is obviously flawed, for we were outside of Christ and without hope in the world for at least some length of time in our lives. Why is there opportunity for our salvation, but not theirs?

12. Basis of Replacement Theology The only basis by which replacement theology can stand is that we have something the Jewish people don't: salvation through Jesus Christ.  Another flaw is that it puts our theology as the foremost authority, instead of God. What is it to you if God desires that the Jewish people would go to heaven simply because they are children of Abraham? Are you going to argue with God's generosity? This question gets at the heart of the issue.

13. Fulfillment in Christ It is on the basis that God has fulfilled all of His prophecies and covenants in Christ that replacement theology stands. Only arrogant hatred of the Jew can produce anti-Semitism otherwise. Because I am attempting to address some of the actual theological issues, I will ignore the arrogant hatred until the end of this study.  Is there another way that we can interpret Romans 10:4?

14. Supersessionism as Theological Grid God created perfection (Gen 1-2) Adam sinned (Gen 3) God provided a plan of redemption that finds fulfillment in Christ (New Testament)  This, at best, sees Israel as a long progression toward redemption, but nothing more than that. At worst, it sees Israel and the Old Testament as a footnote. This negates the Old Testament's worth and value, simply because it is believed that the New Testament is when you get into “the good stuff”.

15. Supersessionism as Theological Grid Perfection, fall, and redemption as pattern  Gen 1-3, Adam was clothed with skins as redemption  Gen 4-6 begins with Cain killing Abel, and ends with the flood  From Noah through to Abraham we have a covenant established  From Abraham to Moses we have a covenant established  From Moses to David (or Jesus) we have a covenant established

16. Supersessionism as Theological Grid The view just expressed is called 'dispensationalism'. It looks at these patterns as different “dispensations” in which God deals with humanity differently in each era. Traditionally, dispensationalism holds to the Jews still being God's people, but they still often hold to God working differently through the new covenant, and therefore God's true people are the Church, and Israel is only in “intermission” until they be saved at seeing Jesus in the clouds.  Replacement theologians would enforce dispensationalism in regard to saying each era supersedes the previous.

17. Supersessionism as Theological Grid Dispensationalism is only different from replacement theology in that they believe that one day all Israel will be saved – but in no other point.  Admittedly, most replacement theologians are not dispensational in nature, but the parallels are too obvious to not mention. To say that Israel is the people of God, but not like the Church, is to say that Israel is not the people of God, or that the Church is not the people of God. There cannot be two 'peoples' of God.

18. Spiritual Israel Romans 9:6  The line is traced back to Romans 4-5, and sometimes to Romans 2:28-29, where Paul claims that those who have faith in Christ Jesus are the offspring of Abraham. God is more concerned with us, the spiritual seed of Abraham, than with the natural, because the natural has not faith.  Romans 9:6, and so Romans 11:26 can't mean natural Israel

19. Stripped of the Kingdom Matthew 21:43  Therefore I tell you that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. Note that it is Jesus who says this. Note that Matthew only uses the phrase “Kingdom of God” four times. Therefore, this statement is emphasized all the more.

20. Titles and Roles Various places in the New Testament give certain titles and roles, which God originally pronounced to Israel, to the Church.  1 Peter 2:9  Revelation 1:6  1 Corinthians 6:19  John 8:31-41, Romans 4, Galatians 3

21. Paul's Treatment of Israel In 1 and 2 Corinthians, Paul uses Israel as an example that they did not have faith, did not inherit, but we have.  In 1 Corinthians 10:1-5, he even makes the point that their bodies were scattered through the wilderness  In 2 Corinthians 3:7-15 he makes the point that Moses' veil rests upon the hearts of all Jews  Depending on if you believe Hebrews was written by Paul, we see similar treatment in Hebrews 3-4.

22. Talmud or Torah? In Marching to Zion, Texe Marrs and Stephen Anderson examine the issue of replacement theology. Their opening argument is that the Jews don't follow the Bible, but the Talmud.  Within the Talmud are many blasphemous statements against Jesus

23. Talmud or Torah? The Jews say they follow the Torah, and yet don't believe in the creation, don't believe in the Garden of Eden, don't believe in Adam and Eve, don't believe in the tower of Babel, don't practice circumcision, don't believe in the Exodus story, don't believe God came down upon Sinai, and don't believe in heaven or hell.  What part of the Torah do they actually believe?

24. The Jews Killed Jesus 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, Acts 3:13, 17 The Jews are the children of the devil, and therefore hate Jesus.  John 8:31-41

25. Church Fathers The church fathers were all replacement theologians and anti-Semitic, and we should be too.  Invariably, every church father of protestantism was a replacement theologian until about 200 years ago.  The first mention of Israel being the people of God is with Scofield and Darby

26. Blessing Israel Genesis 12:2-3 is for Abraham, and Abraham alone. Nothing in the New Testament establishes this covenant as being eternal, and so most people get their teaching that we should bless Israel from Scofield notes instead of the Bible.  Galatians 3:7-9, 14-16, 18, 28-29, 4:22- 26, 28-29

27. Exile Why have the Jews been exiled and kicked out of the countries they are in, suffering terrible persecution for the last 2000 years?  Because they have blasphemed Christianity.

28. Zionist Conspiracy The Zionist State was not established by God, but by men like the Rothschilds, who were originally bankers who funded both sides of many wars simply to gain their wealth. They are part of a much larger Lucifarian Illuminati conspiracy to establish a one-world government and an antichrist ruler of that government.

29. Synagogue of Satan There are two churches mentioned in Revelation 2-3 that are being persecuted by the “synagogue of Satan”. They are noted as being people who claim to be Jews, but are not Jews.  It isn't hard to figure out who the synagogue of Satan is considering there is only one religion in the world who have synagogues, and that the Bible says the true Jew is one inwardly.

30. Messiah When you look at what the Jews expect the messiah to be, it looks just like the antichrist that we know to be arising:  World ruler who brings peace  Unites all nations and religions  Great warrior and vindicator of Israel  Etcetera

31. Heavenly Zion Zion and Jerusalem are not physical places, but are now heavenly places. We aren't concerned any longer with the physical place, because in the New Heaven and New Earth, the heavenly Jerusalem and Zion come down. It is the earthly Jerusalem that is in bondage and the slave woman, but the heavenly that is free, of whom we are.

32. The Real Question There are often quite elaborate cross-references made throughout the New Testament to establish this belief of replacement theology. The question is not one of “proof texts” and whether they are able to build a better argument than someone else.  The real question is this: Is it true?  Who cares how ingenious some of these theological filters are if it isn't true? Who cares if they can quote the whole Bible and make it all seem like it fits perfectly if it is not true? What determines truth, theological formula or God?

33. The Whole of Scripture Covenant Language  Eternal Covenant (Gen 9:16)  Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 12, 15, 17)  Sinai Covenant (Exo 19-20)  Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:14)  “New” Covenant (New Testament)

34. The Whole of Scripture Spurgeon has said, “Covenant is the basis of all theology, and ought to be the chief point of study among believers.” Genesis 3:15  Cain and Abel/Seth  Ham/Canaan and Shem/Japheth  Babel and Abraham  Ishmael and Isaac  Esau and Jacob  Egypt/Moab/Philistine/Assyria/Babylon/Rome and Israel

35. The Whole of Scripture Through the seed of the woman, we find the Kingdom of God. Through the seed of the serpent, we find the kingdom of darkness. Notice the first obvious mention of the seed of the serpent (Cain) ends with the establishment of a city. This is traced straight to the plains of Shinar with Babel, which is the root of the name “Babylon”.

36. The Whole of Scripture Even the prophets declare that all of the pagan nations shall behold God and shall not be cut off at the coming of Messiah.  Isaiah 2:2-4, 66:18-24  Micah 4  Zechariah 8:20-23, 14:16-17  Malachi 1:11  Daniel 7:12

37. The Whole of Scripture If it is only the kingdom of darkness that is destroyed, then it is only the ultimate kingdom of darkness: the kingdom under the Antichrist. The seed of the woman is the Kingdom of God upon this earth. Through that seed, which we know to be Christ, redemption comes. Through that seed, which we know to be Christ, the Gentiles enter the Kingdom. The question is whether the Jews are a part of this Kingdom forever, or if the descendants of Abraham are solely the spiritual descendants of Abraham.

38. The Whole of Scripture To trace the covenant from Genesis unto the end of the Bible, we find that the development is never in expectancy of Israel being outside of that covenant.  Even within the New Testament, we have statements from Jesus about “the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place”, and therefore persecution breaking out upon the people of God. Yet, if Christians are the sole people of God, then why would the abomination of desolation (as spoken by Daniel) have any significance? Doesn't that strictly imply a Jewish persecution? Jesus even says that they in Judea should flee to the mountains, which once again causes us to wonder about the whole earth bit that we see in Revelation. This “flight” mirrors what was spoken in Amos 9, specifically regarding “the wicked kingdom” (Israel) being sifted through all nations. Notice as well that even in Luke, the passages heralded by many replacement theologians as the destruction of Jerusalem alone (70 A.D.) that Jesus declares, “Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.”

39. The Whole of Scripture The point here is quite simple that it is impossible not to understand. If Jerusalem matters to Jesus in such a way that it is the place He returns, which Zechariah even declares that He vindicates (Zech 14), then the replacement theologian has a lot of explaining to do. Replacement, covenant, divestment, and fulfillment theologians have done an awfully poor job explaining why Jesus would return to a place that means nothing to Him anymore. Why Jerusalem instead of Rome, NYC, or Hong Kong? If it means nothing, why not the middle of the desert somewhere? Why specifically to Jerusalem, specifically gathering the elect to Him there (which reflects passages like Isaiah 49:18, 22-26), rather than some other place? Does Jerusalem mean nothing, or does it mean something?

40. The Whole of Scripture We cannot simply conclude that Jesus is the seed of the woman, for Romans 16:20 tells us that we shall crush the head of the serpent.  Therefore the seed of the woman must be a people – Israel. Who is Israel? Let us not forget Romans 9:6. Yet, let us not forget that Romans 9:6 comes immediately after Romans 9:1-3. What could it be that causes such anguish for Paul? Is this Jewish compassion toward his brethren, or an apostolic distinctive?

41. The Whole of Scripture The problem of Romans 9:6 is that for the next 10 times that Paul mentions “Israel” it is not “spiritual Israel”. For the next 10 times, we read of natural Israel, which takes us all the way to Romans 11:26, where the question can be asked of whether it is natural or spiritual Israel. Well, what was the context of the statement? For the past 10 times, it has been natural Israel. Even at the beginning of Romans 11, Paul is speaking of natural Israel, and all through Romans 11 he is addressing the fact that the “natural” branches have been cast off “temporarily”. If you have a qualm with that, then take it up with God, but stop saying that Romans 11:26 needs to be read in light of Romans 9:6. It needs to be read in light of Romans 1-11:25. Through that whole sweep, you find over and over again that Paul makes statements that cannot mean anything other than the natural branches are still important, and are still the people of God.

42. The Whole of Scripture Romans 1 begins with the Gospel being distinguished as promised beforehand by the prophets, who was according to the flesh the son of David. It is entirely a Jewish – more accurately, a Hebrew – Gospel.  This is why Romans 1:16 would say that it is “to the Jew first”.

43. The Whole of Scripture Romans 2 ends with a Jew being one inwardly, and circumcision and issue of the heart.  Let us not forget Romans 3:1-5, though. Were the people who followed Absolom not Israelite because they didn’t follow David? Were the Israelites that followed Baal and Jezebel no longer Israelite because they weren’t a part of the 7000 who did not bow the knee to Baal? No. Just because a Jewish person does not have the heart circumcision does not make them anything other than Jewish. It does not nullify their inheritance. Rather, the issue boils down to the purposes of God in the eschatological scheme. Paul is making a distinction, yes, but that distinction is no more than distinguishing between the Levites and the other tribes.

44. The Whole of Scripture Romans 2 ends with a Jew being one inwardly, and circumcision and issue of the heart.  There are still the apostate, those who have rejected truth and cleaved unto the lie. Yet, they are still elect. Personal salvation is a side issue, because we’re not dealing with individual salvation. We’re dealing with the question of whether natural Israel is still significant or not.

45. Pattern of Sodom, Israel, and Judah Ezekiel 16 discusses the sins of Sodom and northern Israel, comparing Judah’s sin with both.  Ezekiel maintains that Judah beheld the things that came upon Sodom and Israel, and yet performed more sins, and worse sins, than both of them combined.  God’s question is this: How can you watch me judge them, and then perform the same kind of wickedness and not think I’m going to judge you?

46. Pattern of Sodom, Israel, and Judah Ezra  In Ezra 4:1-5 we read of “adversaries” that come to the people and say they have worshipped the Lord since they were taken away into Assyria. Who could this possibly be? The only people they could be are the northern Israelites that were taken into captivity. Yet, Ezra says, “You have no part with us in building a temple to our God.”

47. Pattern of Sodom, Israel, and Judah Ezra  The difficulty is that I find nowhere in the previous commands of God that this should have been the attitude. First, there is no mention that Ezra prayed to seek the Lord’s counsel. Second, they did not say, “If you do these things, then you can join us in repairing the wall. But the repairing of the Temple must be done by us.” Third, God has always accepted the foreigner and sojourner. I understand they are called “enemies”, but that doesn’t mean that the proper reaction was taken.

48. Pattern of Sodom, Israel, and Judah Ezra  How many people do you know with that kind of mentality in the Body of Christ? Because they aren’t Baptist, or KJV only, or Charismatic, or Catholic, or Protestant, etc they are separated and outside, and therefore have no part with us. That mentality does not stem from a jealousy for the glory of God, nor from a love of the truth. It is elitism.

49. Pattern of Sodom, Israel, and Judah Ezra 9-10  This man is weeping over the sin of intermarriage and then coercing people to divorce their spouses. Revile and denounce the Gentile women in the very lineage of King David, and therefore Jesus as well, Rahab and Ruth! May the Lord rebuke Boaz rebuke Bathsheba, the woman born of a Hittite! And may the Lord rebuke Boaz and David for marrying them! Does this sound like the heart of God? Does this sound like the way God views the Gentiles who come to Him?

50. Pattern of Sodom, Israel, and Judah Replacement Theology  This is the root of replacement theology. The people so desperately want to be Israel that they repeat the very sins and arrogance of Israel. Judah saw the Samaritans, from Northern Israel, as less than, under, and rejected. And yet Christians repeat that same disposition by calling Israel rejected, less than, and accursed. Even after the atrocities of church history, we still don’t relent.

51. Pattern of Sodom, Israel, and Judah Replacement Theology  I can’t help but wonder if part of the reason we have so much corruption, so much denominationalism, so much carnality at work in our ministries and churches comes down to the fact that we wanted to be Israel, and so God let us have our heart’s desire. We have so coveted their promises and covenants that we got their curses and bondage too.

52. Pattern of Sodom, Israel, and Judah There is a pattern in Scripture for they who claim themselves to be the only people of God. Just when they have lifted themselves above the others, judgment comes and destroys everything. What are we doing that is different than Judah’s pride? Where has the cycle been broken? Is it truly enough to say that because we’re in Christ that there is no longer any worry? Does it truly stand to reason that the new covenant means there is no more judgment?

53. Pattern of Sodom, Israel, and Judah Of course, this is not a refutation of the position. We still need to go through the points of replacement theology and explain the inconsistencies. We still need to establish the proper view. Mind you, I am not a Zionist, and so I’m not interested in saying that we need to support Israel and send the Jew to that “safe-haven”. What I contend for is that salvation is of the Jews, just as Jesus told the woman at the well, and that the mission of Jesus was unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and that God’s larger mission unto the Gentiles is only second to the primary mission unto Israel.

54. Pattern of Sodom, Israel, and Judah Is it God’s prerogative to choose whom He shall choose, or is it unfair that God has that opportunity to choose? If God should declare that Israel is His people, then would our scoff and claims of unfairness make that declaration null and void? If God were to truly desire that Israel be the people through whom blessing shall come to all nations, is that such an insult that we should vent with frustration in the manner that many do?

55. Pattern of Sodom, Israel, and Judah The point here is to expose the heart. What kind of root of anti-Semitism is there in your heart? Is there any? The litmus test is found here. If in your theology God cannot choose that people, and keep that people as His people, regardless of their disobedience and hard hearts, then your theology of replacement is based upon arrogance, hatred, and ignorance.

56. People of God When speaking of national Israel as “the people of God”, what is not meant is that they have a salvation outside of Christ Jesus and faith. Instead, what is meant is that God has an eternal promise toward them. They are the elect nation, and therefore are ever and always “the people of God”. This isn’t about salvation outside of faith in Jesus Christ, but rather the expectant hope of one day “all Israel shall be saved”.

57. People of God Election is not determined by salvation in Christ, but upon covenant. Romans 11 does indeed say that they have been cast off, but the conclusion is that “all Israel shall be saved”. If that doesn’t mean “all Israel”, then it doesn’t mean anything. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot divorce the term “Israel” in Romans 11:26 with the “Israel” of Romans 11:25. If the blindness has come upon the natural Israel in Romans 11:25, then it must be the natural Israel that will be saved in Romans 11:26.

58. Tearing Down the Arguments For Replacement Theology

59. Matthew 21:43 Matthew 21 begins with the triumphal entry. We then find Jesus cleansing the Temple. From there, we read of the fig tree withering. Then, Jesus’ authority is questioned. Lastly, Jesus gives the parable of the tenants. Contained within all of these stories are dialogue and teachings by Jesus necessary to examine if we desire to consider the one verse in question.

60. Matthew 21:43 The whole chapter is focusing around Jerusalem. It is focusing around Jesus being opposed by the religious rulers, which is nostalgic of Matthew 2:2, when all of Jerusalem was lamenting with Herod at Jesus’ announcement.

61. Matthew 21:43 When we read of the fig tree withering, Matthew strategically places this story between two dealings with the Pharisees and the oppression that they are bringing upon the people. The fig tree represents an entire religious system that is established upon the backs of the oppressed. While the people in Jerusalem continue to get richer and richer, the people out in the smaller towns and villages are getting poorer and poorer. While the Jews have an outward righteousness, the reality is that they have built an empire unto themselves. To that kind of religion that cares about money more than people, Jesus curses.

62. Matthew 21:43 When we come to the parable of the tenants, Jesus has already answered the attacks of the religious leaders. First is a parable about two sons. The first was told to work in the vineyard, but he said he would not. Later he changed his mind and went. To the other son, the father says the same thing. This son says he will, but then never goes. Which obeyed his father’s order? Jesus then concludes that the tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the Kingdom of God ahead of the Pharisees.

63. Matthew 21:43 Immediately following this is the parable of the tenants. These tenants are in charge of a vineyard. Does this sound familiar? The vineyard was the same thing that the father told his two sons to work. This time, the owner of this vineyard sends for his harvest, and his servants are shamefully mistreated. Finally, the owner sends his son. They kill him. What do you think that the man will do? In verse 31, Jesus concludes the parable by saying that the tax collectors and sinners are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. He concludes the second parable by saying the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. Who are the people who will produce its fruit? They are the tax collectors and prostitutes. Were the tax collectors and prostitutes Gentiles? No, in none of the Gospels does Jesus hang around Gentile tax collectors and prostitutes – they are all the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Yet, if that weren’t enough, we can look at verse 45 where the chief priests and Pharisees knew that Jesus was talking about them. Clearly the context is not about Israel being replaced, but about the Pharisees.

64. Matthew 21:43 The whole point that Jesus is getting at is asking the Pharisees what they would do to the wicked son, and what would they do with these wicked tenants? As you have said regarding these tenants, so shall it be done to you.

65. Romans Doesn’t Romans seem to indicate that it is about spiritual Israel? Paul even says, “A man is not a Jew if he is one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.”  Keep reading. The very next verse, which is the start of a new chapter, says, “What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.”

66. Romans In response to the claim that we aren’t supposed to become Jewish, Paul then says later in Romans 3, “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.” Why would Paul speak about upholding the law in one place, and then condemn following the law in another? You see, on one side there are those who claim that we’re supposed to become Jewish in order to truly be in the faith, and on the other there are those who were claiming that Israel has no part anymore. To both Paul says that they are wrong. It would be like if I said a real man is one who treats his wife and family with love and respect, one who isn’t afraid to show his emotions, one who isn’t afraid to stand for God against any and all opposition. If I then say, “Now, let me talk to you men,” does that then mean that I’m not talking to the men who don’t live up to that? No, just because I say that true manliness is something doesn’t mean that males who don’t live up to that are not men, nor that women who live up to that are now male.

67. Romans When we get to Romans 4, and we read about how we’re saved by faith, and Abraham is the father of us all because of our faith, we shouldn’t neglect the fact that Paul also mentions obedience to the law. For example, we read in verse 16, “Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring – not only those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.”

68. Romans When we get to Romans 9, it makes perfect sense why Paul weeps and even wishes himself accursed for his brethren’s sake. They are indeed his brethren, and not only according to the flesh. They are the children of Abraham, and therefore still heirs of the promise. Because of verses like Romans 4:16, which the replacement theologian will not give you a reasonable exegesis, if they even are willing to acknowledge it at all, we cannot limit Israel to being “spiritual Israel”. Paul is in anguish over the physical descendants, because they are not replaced and now completely outside of God.

69. Romans We then read in Romans 9:6 that “not all Israel is Israel”. This is true, but what about 9:31? What about Romans 10:1? Is he speaking about natural Israel or spiritual? He is speaking about natural. And what about Romans 10:16, or 10:19, or 10:21, or 11:1? Is he speaking of natural or spiritual Israel in these cases? In all of them he is speaking about natural Israel. And what About Romans 11:7, or Romans 11:25? Paul is speaking about natural Israel. This continues in all of the other occurrences from Romans 11:7 through 11:25.  Just because a “special Israel”, or “spiritual Israel” is mentioned in Romans 9:6 does not mean that every mention of Israel after this is special Israel. Likewise, just because election speaks to this remnant, this “special Israel”, that in no way limits election only to the church.

70. Romans Paul concludes in Romans 11:28, “As far as the gospel is concerned, they are the enemies of God for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs.” I’m flabbergasted that so often the first half of that verse is quoted in regard to replacement theology, but they won’t finish the verse. Notice the parallel here. Paul is saying that the selfsame people who are the enemies of God – national Israel – are the very people loved by God concerning election. Somehow they are the enemies of the Gospel, and at the same time the elect of God who are loved on account of the patriarchs.  This is another moment when I say you cannot have it both ways. If you want to say that Israel has been rejected, and that we are the elect, then why do we find any kind of verse like this, or any of the before mentioned verses in Romans 9-11, that would suggest God’s heart and disposition toward Israel of the flesh?

71. Talmud or Torah? Within the issue of Jews following the Talmud instead of the Torah, this is correct. No one who claims the Jewish people to be the people of God condone their current beliefs or religion. No one would say that the Jewish people are following God in their ghetto culture and tradition of the sages in exile. Rabbinic Judaism is a response to the destruction of the Temple, and therefore is almost nothing like biblical Judaism.

72. Talmud or Torah? Discussing the issues of the blasphemous words spoken against Jesus, we can find quite clearly that Jesus Himself says that this will be forgiven, but the blaspheme of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. No practicing Jew, whether conservative, orthodox, or reformed would blaspheme the ruach hakodesh.

73. Talmud or Torah? As far as the Jews not believing the Torah, once again this has almost nothing to do with them being the people of God or not being the people of God. Tell me when they as a people have not been stiff necked and hard hearted. Even the Torah proclaims from Exodus through Deuteronomy that they didn’t believe God. He is performing miracles in their midst, and they still aren’t willing to believe Him or trust in His words. Some grumble constantly, one breaks the Sabbath, they build a golden calf at the base of Sinai while God is still on the Mount with fire and smoke, and even in the book of Numbers these sorts of stories continue. If this is attested to the Jews in the Torah, from their very inception as a nation, and yet God doesn’t cast them off, then we must ask why. It isn’t as though God doesn’t attempt to cast them off as His people (Exodus 32-34).

74. Talmud or Torah? This is Paul’s whole argument over and over again. Romans 11:22 tells us to behold the goodness and severity of God. What is that in connection with? It is in connection with Israel and God’s dealings with that people. If they are cast off, then by what means do we stand? If God’s faithfulness runs out for them, then how can we trust it won’t for us? If they don’t have “once saved always saved”, then how can we claim it? This is an issue of covenant and God’s faithfulness. If they are cast off because of their disobedience of the covenant, then by what means can we claim God will not abandon the “new covenant”?

75. The Jews Killed Jesus The Jews killed Jesus; this can be answered three ways:  Jesus said that no one takes His life; He lays it down (Jn 10:18)  Jesus isn’t dead, but alive. If all we have is a crucified messiah, then we deserve to be mocked. Yet, if Jesus truly raised from the dead, then who cares? It doesn’t matter if it be the Jews, the Romans, or some other entity that killed Jesus, the point is that He had to die according to the Scripture, and He was buried three days according to the Scripture, and that He was resurrected after three days according to the prophetic Scripture (1 Cor 15:3-4)

76. The Jews Killed Jesus  At the trial before the Sanhedrin, there is enough evidence to suppose that there were Sadducees, Pharisees, and common laymen in the gathering. Yet, at the trial before Pilate, we only find attestations of the chief priests (all being Sadducees) and elders/rulers being present. This implies that the only people condemning Jesus to Pilate were the Roman officials, Jewish leaders elected by the Romans, known as the Sadducees or chief priests. There is no evidence of the common layman or the Pharisee being present, and therefore there is no way to truly posit that the Jews killed Jesus. At best, the Sadducees killed Jesus.

77. The Jews Killed Jesus  In regard to Acts 3 and 1 Thessalonians, I only need to remind you of the cliché that is rampant today: your sin is the reason Jesus died. Once again, let us consult what Scripture has taught even from the Old Testament. Jesus died, not because of Jews who hated Him, but because He was to be cut off, but not for Himself (Dan 9:26). When Isaiah said that our iniquities were laid upon Him (Isaiah 53:4-5, 8), we cannot say that was only the Jews. If you want to claim the conclusion of that statement (by his wounds we are healed), then you must also claim responsibility of the guilt and condemnation.

78. The Jews Killed Jesus Certainly the prophets also called the people of Israel the seed of serpents (Isaiah 1:4, 57:3-4, Matthew 3:7, 23:33), but what was the context of those statements? Is this declaring that Israel is truly the seed of serpents and therefore condemned forever? How, then, can we interpret such passages as Jeremiah 30-31, where the prophet talks about Israel’s incurable wound, and how they are forever rebellious, and there is no remedy for their wickedness, only to conclude that God will heal their wound, change their heart toward righteousness, and remedy their iniquity?

79. Church Fathers In regard to the church fathers, I think that we need to be very careful. Let me give a couple suggestions:

80. Church Fathers The point is that we cannot accept the words of church fathers simply because they’re so-called church fathers. It is the Scripture and the Scripture alone that we say is inspired in an authoritative way.  It is also important to note that they promote these men as “protestant” church fathers. John Chrysostom, Peter the Venerable, Augustine, Jerome, etc were all Catholic church fathers. It isn’t until you reach Luther and Calvin that you have “protestant” church fathers, of which Luther was not anti-Semitic until he became sick in his old years and began losing it mentally.

81. Church Fathers Not all of the people through church history are anti-Semitic, and even Luther (who is quite heavily praised in this video) only spoke viciously against the Jews at the end of his life when he was beginning to lose his mind. What about the church fathers who are not replacement theologians? Zionism is simply not a new phenomenon, even though it be a rare belief within Christianity through the ages.  Scofield was not the first to teach Zionism. A more biblical form of Zionism was taught a couple decades before him by David Baron, and another contemporary would be Adolf Safir. What about Joseph of Tiberias (285-356)? What about John Owen (1616-1683), John Gill (1697-1771), Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661), the Wesley brothers, Increase Mather (1639-1723), John Cotton (1585-1652), Mordecai Manuel Noah (1785-1851), Ezra Stiles (1727-1795), Asa McFarland (1795-1830), or David Austin (1732-1801)? Are they not the true “protestant” church fathers?

82. Church Fathers There are a lot of things that even Stephen Anderson would disagree with in regard to Luther and Calvin, and yet here it is heralded that we should agree with them simply because they are church fathers. Make your choice, Mr. Anderson. Do we follow everything the church fathers taught, or do we throw out their teaching if it contradicts Scripture? This once again gets to the fundamental question: What does the Bible say?

83. Blessing Israel Genesis 12:2-3 is definitive. This is obviously not only for Abraham, but God certainly claims that it shall be to his seed Isaac as well (notice 12:7, 15:4-5, 17:7-8, 19, 27:29, 28:14). Over and over in Genesis does the perpetuation of that statement to Abraham occur, but not just to Abraham.

84. Blessing Israel Galatians 3-4  When we read Galatians, we need to understand that it is not nullifying Israel, nor the law necessarily, but nullifying salvation through works. This passage is Paul's exegesis of Genesis 12-17. When you go back to Genesis, you find that the whole point is that Ishmael isn't chosen, but Isaac. That is the point that Paul is making here. It isn't according to the works that Abraham did (sleeping with Hagar), but according to the promise. Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of that promised seed, but if it is only Jesus and excludes Israel, then we have no hope either, for it is only Jesus and not the “people” (plural) of God.

85. Blessing Israel Galatians 3-4  Genesis 49:18-19 – Ephraim called a “fullness of Gentiles” There has always been a number of Gentiles within Israel, and it is no different now. There has always been a believing remnant within Israel, and it is no different today. This is the fundamental message of Romans 11 and Ephesians 2: you have been grafted into something already in existence, and are not something original, nor replacing what has already existed for thousands of years.

86. Exile In regard to the Jews being persecuted and suffering judgment, this is everything that the prophets have always spoken according to their disobedience. The Torah itself claims this much. The reason we can rest assured that God still has a prerogative for that people is because of the persecution. If they are still under the covenant curses, then how can we claim they are not also under the covenant blessings? If they be under the covenant at all, then they are still God’s people. Persecution doesn’t speak to their replacement, but their eternal choosing.

87. Exile If we claim that God doesn’t care about the Sinai covenant anymore, and the Jewish people must come to Christ to be His people, then why is there the insistence that God sent His judgment in A.D. 70 by scattering them all? Why is there judgment at all if God is done with them? Hasn’t their judgment already been filled in their rejection of their own Messiah and the handing over of the kingdom to “they who will bear its fruit”? You cannot have it both ways. Either the Jew is no longer in covenant relationship with God, and therefore not the people of God, and therefore God doesn’t send judgment upon them based on the covenant, or they are indeed the people of God.

88. Exile Martyr vindication does not account for God’s judgment upon Israel (as Don Preston suggests), for they are no longer “Israel”, and they are no longer God’s people in any way. Therefore, the judgments and chastisements of God cannot be considered judgments or chastisements. Either God is seeking to destroy them utterly, as He did with Assyria or Babylon, or God isn’t judging them. If God isn’t judging them, then their persecution cannot be used as a proof of their rejection. Either they are the people of God and still have prophetic significance, or the Jewish people are not the people of God and 70 A.D. was just a fluke instance of Roman Empiricism. Either God is not sovereign enough to destroy them, or He purposefully did not destroy them completely, just as the prophets have always said, which leads us back to the point that they have specific significance for our day and age.

89. Zionist Conspiracy In regard to the Illuminati and the place of Zion within it, I think that such people who believe such conspiracies are beyond reasoning. No matter what is said, it is only a proof and evidence of such a conspiracy. Whether the Illuminati are real or not, I find it incredible to put such a conspiracy at the foot of the Jews. Do they not know that when you have two Jews in the same room you have three opinions? How, then, am I to believe that you have a few thousand Jews all in unity to control the world and push us into a one- world antichrist government?

90. Zionist Conspiracy Once again, we are left at the question of who has ultimate control. If the Jewish people have so much power to thwart God’s judgment that they shall be in exile due to their sin, then how can we say that they are going to hell without Christ? They’ve already thwarted God in establishing their own Zionist State; who is to say that they can’t thwart God’s judgment to hell? Who is it that has power here?

91. Synagogue of Satan The problem of the synagogue of Satan is that the Greek word “sunagogue” does not mean “synagogue” as we know it. It was the Greek word for the place of meeting, and the ecclesia (translated often as “church”) is the people gathering.  Matthew 2:4 uses the word synagogue.  Acts 7:38, 19:35 both use ecclesia.

92. Synagogue of Satan The book of Revelation contrasts everything  Woman fleeing in the wilderness vs woman riding on the scarlet beast Both women are Israel 1 Corinthians 10:21 – No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too, you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.

93. Synagogue of Satan Table of the Lord vs Table of demons  Psalm 50:16-23  John 8:39, 44 – in relation to Jews  1 John 2:19 – in relation to the Church  3 John 9 – in relation to the Church  Acts 20:30 – in relation to the Church  Jude 4 – in relation to the Church  2 Peter 2:1-3 – in relation to the Church

94. Synagogue of Satan Table of the Lord vs Table of demons  Jeremiah 2:3  Psalm 69:17-23  Micah 3:1-3  Isaiah 65:11  Malachi 1:7-13  Hebrews 12:16-17 It is not the Jew, but the replacement theologian, who is “the synagogue of Satan”, claiming to be a Jew but is not.

95. Synagogue of Satan They who claim to eat at the Lord’s table and yet reject His people – whether in word or in deed – devour them. They are eating from the table of demons, and so shall receive their judgment. They are like Korah who was not content with being separated by the God of Israel unto himself to do His work, but also sought after the priesthood itself. These men are not content to be set apart unto God, and to remain in His love, but must also compete for being the sole beneficiaries of God. It is in Numbers 16:3, 20:4, and 31:16 that the Septuagint calls the very people of God “the synagogue of the Lord.”

96. Messiah It is said the Jews are trying to bring forth the Antichrist. Yet, if this be true, then tell me why we read of the woman being chased through the wilderness by Satan in Rev 12. Tell me why we see a call to come out of Babylon in Revelation 18, which follows immediately after the woman being persecuted and burned, etc, by the beast. Tell me why Daniel talks about the Antichrist sweeps into Jerusalem and decimates it, causing for the Jews to be scattered. Tell me why all the prophets of the Old Testament – every sing one of them – spoke of an Antichrist figure who comes through and destroys Jerusalem, scatters the people of Israel, and then a people outside of Israel takes them in, having compassion upon Jacob, and the whole people of Israel being redeemed in a single day – at a single moment – at the coming of the LORD their God.

97. Who is a Jew? In regard to genealogies, and whether or not that it matters if your Gentile or Jew, the words of Paul again seem to hit it home where he is unwilling that we think that being Jewish means nothing. Directly after saying that being Jewish is of inner character and caliber, and that circumcision is of the heart (Romans 2:28-29), Paul goes straightway into explaining that there is much benefit to being a Jew (Romans 3:1-5). Again, when it comes to the infamous Romans 9:6 declaration, let us never forget that this follows after Paul mentions that he could wish himself accursed for his brethren after the flesh. He promotes very heavily, with the strongest possible language, that being Jewish is very beneficial, and he even cries for his own damnation if it would lead to the nation of Israel’s salvation. What could bring that kind of anguish? If we say that it is because he is Jewish, then we rob the statement of any apostolic prerogative. If, however, this is an apostolic distinctive, then we must ask why Paul is so rent upon his brethren being outside of Christ, and cast off from their own roots. What mystery is it that Paul does not want us to be ignorant of (Romans 11:25) that would lead him to weep so bitterly for his own people? That question cannot be sufficiently answered if the Jewish people have been replaced and are nothing.

98. Titles and Roles Let us deal with 1 Peter 2:5-9. This is just one of many examples that give us titles and terminology specifically given to Israel in the Old Testament. How can it be that the apostles would be so slapdash to grant Israel’s call unto the Church?  Romans 11 is giving us the understanding that the “church” is the spiritual Israel that has always existed. There has always been a remnant of believing Israel, and that remnant has consisted of both Jews and Gentiles. Why is there language of being grafted in? Because there was already a “church” in existence in the Old Testament, and that “church” was the believing remnant. Hebrews 11 is our heritage. This is why Ephesians 2 speaks about we Gentiles coming unto “the commonwealth of Israel”. It isn’t that we are now Israel, but that we have been grafted into Israel. How can the church be given some of the labels only ascribed to Israel? The “church” is the believing remnant within Israel. Why wouldn’t we, as fellow heirs in Israel, not be granted the same calling and titles?

99. Heavenly Zion In regard to the New Jerusalem versus the earthly Jerusalem, let us recognize the parallel between the heavenly and earthly. You can’t say that they aren’t connected, nor that the one is “New Testament” and the other “Old Testament”.  Heavenly and earthly counterparts of the land, covenant, priesthood, sacrifices, Sabbath, Temple/Tabernacle, kingship, etc.

100. Heavenly Zion In Galatians 4:21-31, Paul is contrasting the earthly Jerusalem and heavenly Jerusalem as religious humanity – righteousness according to the Law – and regenerate humanity – righteousness by faith. We see a similar contrast in Romans 8:2, where Paul mentions both the law of sin and death and the law of the Spirit in the same breathe. The rejection of Israel as the people of God is the rejection of the grace of God. It is self-hatred, because we see that we aren't good enough and don't add up. Yet, that is the glory of the Gospel. God doesn't accept us based upon what we're able to do according to the flesh; He accepts us on the basis of resurrection.

101. Arguments Against Supersessionism Faithfulness of God  If God’s promises to Israel can be canceled, broken, or transferred, then we cannot trust God’s promises to the church. If God would divorce His bride Israel, only to then call us His bride instead, then why would we expect that God wouldn’t find another “fling” to delight in?

102. Arguments Against Supersessionism Faithfulness of God  Genesis 15 covenant was not dependent upon Israel whatsoever, and therefore was utterly upon the faithfulness upon God. If that covenant has now been transferred or canceled, then it speaks volumes to us of our ‘god’. Paul writes in Galatians that “the law which came 430 years later cannot annul the promise.” Psalm 105:8-11 reads, “He remembers His covenant forever, the word he commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant He made with Abraham, the oath he swore to Isaac. He confirmed it to Jacob as a decree, to Israel as an everlasting covenant: To you I will give the land of Canaan as the portion you will inherit.”

103. Arguments Against Supersessionism Faithfulness of God  If you believe the new covenant superseded the old covenant, then I would like to show you the verses that follow Jeremiah 31:31-34 (where the new covenant is mentioned): This is what the Lord says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar – the Lord Almighty is his name: Only if these decrees vanish from my sight, says the Lord, will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me. This is what the Lord says: Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done.”

104. Arguments Against Supersessionism Faithfulness of God  It is also quite confusing to read Jeremiah 30. In verses 12-15 we read: Your wound is incurable; your injury beyond healing. There is no one to plead your cause, no remedy for your sore, no healing for you… Why do you cry out over your wound, your pain that has no cure? Because of your great guilt and many sins I have done these things to you.” This certainly sounds like God has rejected His people, but yet in the very next verse God picks up again, “But all who devour you will be devoured… But I will restore you to health and heal your wounds.”

105. Arguments Against Supersessionism Faithfulness of God  This begs the question: If the church can be sustained by grace, why cannot Israel also be sustained by grace? And, equally as important, why?

106. Arguments Against Supersessionism What about the prophecies in the Old Testament that did not come to pass, such as the prophecies of the return from exile?  Amos 9:9-15  Ezekiel 36:24-39  Ezekiel 37:11-28  Zechariah 12  Zechariah 14

107. Arguments Against Supersessionism What about the prophecies in the Old Testament that did not come to pass, such as the prophecies of the return from exile?  These passages go far beyond the return in Nehemiah and Ezra. 1948 does not cut it either. Beyond national establishment, every single Jew is to come to know the Lord their God personally, and there are prophecies of the whole world being affected by this restoration from exile.

108. Arguments Against Supersessionism Rather, at Jesus’ first appearance they were temporarily cast off (as shown in Micah 5:1-3), but at his second appearing they are engrafted again (as shown in Micah 5:3).  If you spiritually transfer those promises of redemption to another people, you make them null and void. Their meaning is now diminished and even ultimately destroyed.  Zechariah 12 and 14 speak of a future Israel (future to the prophet) surrounded by nations and the people of Israel crying out and God coming and miraculously bringing deliverance. There is absolutely no way that those passages could be applied rightly to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. If Israel means nothing, then these prophecies are unfulfilled, and God either lied or was not powerful enough to accomplish them.

109. Arguments Against Supersessionism Find me one place in the words of Jesus where he used the term Israel and was referring to the church.  What Jesus says in Matthew 19:28-29 is that at the renewal of all things, the apostles will be ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel. Show me one place in the New Testament that would use the phrase “twelve tribes of Israel” and it definitively means the church. Revelation 7 is too ambiguous to confirm.

110. Arguments Against Supersessionism Luke 21:24 says that Jerusalem will be trodden underfoot by the Gentiles, but don’t forget the “until”. In other words, there will be an end to the scattering and the treading down underfoot of Jerusalem. This becomes all the more important when considering that we’re told by some that these verses explicitly refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Even if I were to agree (which I don’t), it still begs the question of when the time of Gentiles should come to an end, and the restoration would be given to Israel. What else could “until” mean?

111. Arguments Against Supersessionism Matthew 23:27-29 makes it clear that Jerusalem will not see Jesus again until it welcomes Him back as Messiah.  This implies a physical return, it implies a Jewish Jerusalem, and it implies a redeemed Israel.  This is also confirmed in Acts 1, “Will you at this time restore the kingdom unto Israel?” Jesus does not say, “You fools! Are you so dumb to not understand after 40 days of me telling you about this new thing called the church that I will replace Israel and you shall be the foundational men unto them? Don’t you know that I have rejected Israel so that the Gentiles can no represent me – along with any Jews who want to come unto them?” What does Jesus say? “It is not for you to know…” Jesus’ answer seems to suppose that Israel will have the kingdom restored unto them. For they who say the New Testament says nothing of Israel’s return from exile, I would ask how they understand these passages. It seems to me quite explicitly that the disciples believed that Israel was not fully regathered and had not yet been given the kingdom. Does the book of Acts truly depict the fulfillment of this question?

112. Arguments Against Supersessionism Acts 3:21  He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore all things, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.  Read what the prophets said. They do speak of a time when the wolf would lie down with the lamb. They do speak of a time when the teaching of the Lord would go forth from Jerusalem. They do speak of a future time when Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies and would be miraculously protected. Can the city be captured without the rest of Israel also being captured? Thus, the whole nation must be going into exile at that time.

113. Arguments Against Supersessionism The word Israel is used close to 80 times in the New Testament  In no case – not a single time – is it used in explicit reference to the church. The couple times where it is arguably used in reference to the church are easily shown to not refer simply by context of the passage. Overwhelmingly, when the word Israel appears, it specifically means the Jewish people, the land, the nation, or the believing remnant of Jews within Israel. If Israel has been replaced, or if the promises have been transferred in any manner, then why wouldn’t the word “Israel” be used in regard to the church at all?

114. Arguments Against Supersessionism The word Jew in the New Testament is used over 185 times  Over and over again it is the same thing as “Israel”.  Not one time – never once – is the word “Jew” or “Jews” used in an explicit manner for the church as a whole. At best there is the imagery of being grafted in, and thus the church is part of Israel, but there is never a time when Israel or Jew is used explicitly to mean the church or Gentile believers. We have passages that speak of there being neither Jew or Gentile in Christ, the Gentiles being drawn near, the Gentiles now being a part of the commonwealth of Israel, and Jesus having sheep that “you know nothing about”, but there is not a single instance that would hint ethnic Israel is something altogether replaced. There might be distinction, but that distinction is at best the difference between the believing remnant in the Old Testament, and at worst the two peoples of God under the same head.

115. Arguments Against Supersessionism While these evidences go from least controversial to most controversial, I believe every single one can be backed up. Especially in light of going through all of the points of replacement theology, we have absolute ground to stand upon in saying that Israel is not replaced whatsoever, but has been filled like a balloon with Gentiles. This is what was meant at the beginning by calling Ephraim a “fullness of Gentiles”, and this is the mystery that Paul is declaring that the lack of will cause us to be “wise in our own conceit”.

116. The Tragic Cost of Replacement Theology Matthew 21:43  I did not give enough devotion to this text, and the blatant severance out of any context for its usage. Going back to Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells His disciples that they would rule over Israel. The question seems to be obvious. How is it possible that the twelve disciples will rule over Israel if Israel is to be replaced? It doesn’t cut it to say it is “spiritual Israel”. This is one of the tragic costs of replacement theology; it neuters serious study and scholarship, and absolutely shreds any credibility through loquacious expositions.

117. The Tragic Cost of Replacement Theology Because of the blatant rejection of any Old Testament prophecy that suggests a necessity for Israel’s future redemption, replacement advocates and theologians are dead wrong to call Christ’s first coming “the climax of the covenant”. The covenant does not reach climax in Christ, but in the Second Advent with the redemption of Israel and all nations.

118. The Tragic Cost of Replacement Theology What is the basis for skirting the issue of Israel’s future restoration, as established with the “now not yet” pattern of eschatology? Instead of engaging answers, we’re often given emotional and hypothetical responses. I don’t see any reason to believe that the “now not yet” principle of the prophet texts should be negated in regard to Israel.

119. The Tragic Cost of Replacement Theology The only difference between Old Testament and New Testament eschatology is the placement of the messiah. In the Old Testament, both advents of Christ are prophesied, but both of them are placed in the future. There is a clear antichrist figure being destroyed at the end of a final tribulation, which is the same moment of the resurrection. The New Testament agrees wholly with this, only from the perspective of Jesus' return rather than the advent of messiah entirely.

120. The Tragic Cost of Replacement Theology Even the rejection of messiah and the casting aside of Israel momentarily was prophesied:  Isaiah 53  Daniel 9  Micah 5 - “They shall smite the ruler of Israel (messiah) with a rod upon the cheek... For this cause; He (Yahweh) will given them up until the time when she who travails has given birth; then the rest of His (messiah's) brothers (Israel) shall return to the people of Israel. And He (messiah) shall stand and shepherd His flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord His God. And they (Israel) shall abide securely, for now He shall be great to the ends of the earth”.

121. The Tragic Cost of Replacement Theology The great malady, even malaise, of replacement theology is found in their rejection of Israel. God has mediated the salvation of the world through a single elect nation (Romans 11:15). It was necessary that Christ be “of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Acts 3:20, Romans 1:3). Jesus was incredibly careful to point out that “salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22). Jesus insisted that the blessing of the covenant was appropriately restricted (for the moment) “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24-26). The disciples asked, “Are you now going to restore the kingdom unto Israel?” and Jesus' response was to acknowledge the legitimacy of that question: “It is not for you to know the times appointed...” (Acts 1:6-7).

122. The Tragic Cost of Replacement Theology In his missions to the Gentiles, Paul continued to go to the Jew and the synagogues first. Why?  “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and compassion on whom I have compassion.” These issues press with great duress the doctrine of grace.

123. The Tragic Cost of Replacement Theology Paul said in Romans 11:25, “I desire that you would not be ignorant of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own conceit.” We've been ignorant of this mystery, and we've been conceited. The Jews of the Middle Ages called us “the arrogant kingdom” - and rightly so.  And, I must inquire, why such anti-Semitism from Christians, if we are indeed the “new Israel”? What do we care?

124. The Tragic Cost of Replacement Theology There was a time in history where the people believed that Jews hated Christ, and desired to continually crucify him. Therefore, people actually believed that around Passover they would kidnap children and circumcise them, using the blood drained out of these dying children to mix into their matzo. There was the belief that Jews had an intolerable odor that wouldn’t go away without drinking the blood of Christians. There was the belief that the Jewish people stole the communion wafers from the Catholic Church in order to murder the body of Christ, as symbolized in the wafer. As the story goes, when they would “murder” the wafer, it would bleed. Some believed that the Jewish people would rape and kill children for the sake of persecuting the church. Many Jews lost their lives because of this. Synagogues were burned to the ground with the Jews inside. Other entire Jewish communities were slaughtered and the synagogue converted into a cathedral.

125. The Tragic Cost of Replacement Theology Ignatius said, “It is wrong to talk about Jesus Christ and live like Jews. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity.” Justin Martyr is quoted, “We too would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all your festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and the hardness of heart… The purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours that only your land be desolated, and your cities ruined by fire, that the fruits of your land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem.”

126. The Tragic Cost of Replacement Theology Listen to the glee in Origen of Alexandria’s statement: “We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race… hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election.” John Chrysostom, who was named “The Golden Mouthed”, said this: “The synagogue is worse than a brothel… it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts… the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults… the refuge of brigands and debauchees, and the cavern of devils. It is a criminal assembly of Jews… a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ… a house worse than a drinking shop… a den of thieves, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and an abyss of perdition… I would say the same things about their souls… As for me, I hate the synagogue… I hate the Jews for the same reason.”

127. The Tragic Cost of Replacement Theology The meekest of men, a model of Christian charity, Peter the Venerable said this: “Yes, you Jews. I say, do I address you; you, who till this very day, deny the Son of God. How long, poor wretches, will ye not believe the truth? Truly I doubt whether a Jew can be really human… I lead out from its den a monstrous animal, and show it as a laughing stock in the amphitheater of the world, in the sight of all the people. I bring thee forward, thou Jew, thou brute beast, in the sight of all men.” Even John Calvin said this: “[The Jews] 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.”

128. The Tragic Cost of Replacement Theology Let me ask you: could these statements be said if the theology of these men considered Israel their brothers? If they believed that God was going to save all of Israel, as Paul obviously did believe and write, would they have the audacity to speak such hateful words? And yet, these words are indeed written and recorded for all of history to see. This might not be the disposition of all supercessionists, but it certainly is the fruit. It begs the believer to go one step further. Why is it that the Jews are no longer the people of God? They are Christ-killers. They are God-haters. You take a look at the statements above and take your pick for reasons that the Jewish people are rejected.

129. The Tragic Cost of Replacement Theology They are enemies of the Gospel for our sakes.  It takes more than cheap cliches to win the Jew to belief in Jesus. I would go so far as saying if our Christianity is too shallow to win the Jew, then our evangelism to anyone is cheap and shallow. The test of our true spiritual caliber is the engagement of the Jewish people. To engage them is equaled with engaging the principalities and powers. We might be able to convince the drug addict that they are a sinner and need God, but what about the Jewish businessman who doesn’t even raise his voice at his wife? What about the Jewish physicist, like Leonard Susskind, who has his life together, and certainly is more intelligent and knowledgeable than you or I?

130. The Tragic Cost of Replacement Theology The choice to give up Israel temporarily for the engrafting of Gentiles is a radical option  How can it be that God would actually sacrifice His only begotten Son, and then almost in the very same instant cast off His only begotten people? We stagger under the weight of knowing the high price that the Father paid in sending His Son, but why do we not stagger at the high price that He paid in giving up His very people, the Bride of His youth? For the Gentiles to have a way into the covenant, God actually put away His own Bride to take you in.

131. Conclusion Oh the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! For who has been His counselor? And who has given Him that it might be recompensed? O blessed Being, holy and true, yours is the greatness and the power, the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything in heaven and on earth is yours! Yours, O Lord, is the kingdom, for the kingdom of the world shall become the kingdom of our Lord and God, and of His Christ, and he will reign forever and ever. It is true, amen.