has the church replaced israel

im reading a book at the moment, called "our hands are stained with blood " by dr michael l brown.one of the comments which i have heard preached is that the church has replaced the jews as Gods chosen people, also called replacement theology.what are peoples ideas on this?its also about how & who of the church has persecuted the jews,some of the leading people are the churches heros,e.g martin luther, who hitler got his blue print to get rid of the jews.did anyone know that?also what are peoples ideas on praying for israel?

Two recent additions by Art Katz, among other Katz teachings, brings distinct answers to you questions:The Mystery of Israel (A 1999 convocation tape)The Holocaust and Christian ConscienceL. W.

"One of the comments which I have heard preached is that the church has replaced the Jews as Gods chosen people, also called replacement theology."Romans 9-11 and Ephesians 2 holds a thorough answer to the Replacement theology.L. W.

There is a thread in the church history folder call "The Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith." In that thread there are several articles that deal with the distinction between the Church and Israel. The question is loaded from the beginning, but the reality is that all of the covenants belonged to Israel and that we as Gentiles were essentially kept out until God broke down the middle wall of partition between us. There were proselytes into Judaism, but there were requirements for a Gentile to come into fellowship with the Jews. However, the same God of the Jews was always the God of the Gentiles. Jews must readily accept this or opt to suggest that there is more than one God- which most will not do. The problem arose in the first century when the leadership in Israel by and large rejected Christ as the Messiah. Keep in mind that the entire early church that we read about in the first Chapters of Acts were all Jews save very few proselytes. The question USED to be can a Gentile be a believer?- now the question is can a JEW be a believer? This is how twisted things have become. Peter was on the roof when he received that revelation. Even at that- he tended at times to struggle with this and even had to be confronted by Paul the Apostle. Paul used the illustration of an Olive Tree (Romans 11:13-24). The Olive Tree belonged to Israel as theirs are the covenants and theirs are the promise of a Messiah, etc. The branches of the tree represent individual people. Paul asks "What if some of the branches were broken off?" Some did not believe and were broken off. Some did believe and remained. The evidence of believe is 'good fruit' (i.e. ye shall know them by their fruits). Some Gentiles never believed and were not grafted in- some did believe and were (are). Herein is the issue at hand- the Jews naturally remain in the tree from birth so long as they believe in their Messiah and bring forth good fruit- if they do not they are broken off. If the Gentiles do not bring forth good fruit they are broken off and the Jew- if they continue NOT in unbelief, but genuinely believe in Christ they can be grafted back in. The question at hand is, "Did the Church replace Israel?" The word Church is ekklesia. The "called out" ones- the ones who are called out of the world. Israel was called out of the world. God invites Gentiles also in calling them out of the world into His ekklesia. Within the ekklesia is Israel who throughout the Book of Revelation maintains her identity. You read about the "twelve tribes of Israel." I like to think of the believing Gentiles and believing Israel as the Ekklesia- with Israel maintaining her distinction within the "called out ones." At first look this would seem to contradict "Their is neither Jew nor Greek, etc.", but the passage also says there is neither male nor female. In a unique way their is that 'calling' wherewith they were born and called as Isreal that is irrevokable. But, no one is saved by virtue of their blood line- ALL must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Yeshua to the Messianic Jews) to be part of that Ekklesia. The greater question is WHY do not the Jews believe in the same proportion as they did in the first century. There are many reasons for this. The Jewish roots thread explores the issues. If I might recommend "Our Father Abraham" by Dr. Marvin Wilson. It is THE text book on Jewish Roots. Best Regards,-Robert

"One of the comments which I have heard preached is that the church has replaced the Jews as Gods chosen people, also called replacement theology."I have been debating with myself whether or not I ought to get involved with this thread, but have decided it would be dishonest and cowardly to stay silent. So in conscious defiance of Pro 17:28 here goes...I am a believer in, what opponents of the views I hold call, replacement theology, although I would prefer to call it fulfillment theology. This topic is probably the most sensitive we have touched here on sermonindex, so a gentle reminder for our need for patience and forebearance will not be amiss. Rather than launch into a full scale exposition of my views I'll just make a brief start.The word 'ekklesia' already had a history before it was used in our New Testament. It was used in the Greek version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (LXX). The letter to the Hebrews makes this link in the KJV. Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church (ekklesia) will I sing praise unto thee. (Heb 2:12 KJV) This is a quotation from Psalm 22 where the Hebrew has qâhâl and the LXX has ekklesia. There is another reference in Stephen's speech; This is he, that was in the church (ekklesia) in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: Act 7:38 KJV)qâhâl is used in the Old Testament more than 120 times and is frequently translated in the LXX by the word ekklesia. One of the significant places it is used is the the institution of the Passover; And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly (qâhâl) of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. (Exo 12:6 KJV) Another key instance is in regard to sin offerings; And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly (qâhâl), and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty; (Lev 4:13 KJV)In fact, as a result of the covenant at Sinai a new entity came into being; the church (qâhâl) of Jehovah. [Nu 16:3 20:4 De 23:1,2,3,8 Jud 21:5 1Ch 28:8 Mic 2:5] A similar search would produce a another list for the phrase "qâhâl of Israel".The disciples of Jesus were all proficient in Greek and the LXX became the KJV of the early Christians. They would all, therefore, have had a clear concept of the qâhâl or ekklesia of Jehovah/Israel. They understood that entry to that body was by the Sinai Covenant. What can they have understood by the astonishing words of Christ; And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church (ekklesia); and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Mat 16:18 KJV)The disciples already knew themselves to be part of the 'ekklesia of God'. How could Jesus speak of the establishing of His own 'ekklesia' in the future tense? At the moment of His speaking His own 'ekklesia' had not come into being, and yet the 'ekklesia of God' was already in existence.Somehow we have to relate these two churches; the church of Jehovah and the church of Christ. Robert makes the first a subset of the second. Many make the second an extension of the first. I believe the intentions of God declared to the first find perfect fulfillment in the second. For this view I am branded a believer in 'replacement theology'.:-(As a further gentle provocation I came across this quotation in F F Bruce; ekklesia was used in the LXX to render the Hebrew word qahal, the congregation of Israel, the nation in its theocratic character, organized as a religious community. The choice of this term was a further indication of the early Christians' conviction that they were the legitimate successors of the true Israel, bound by God to Himself in covenant-relationship from the days when Israel first became a nation. The Spreading Flame. F.F.Bruce p.71 There are some very detailed notes on the word 'ekklesia' in Bullenger's Appendix 186 in the Companion Bible; not that I commend all his conclusions.

I am a complete idiot when it comes to theology but being childlike in my reading of the scriptures and with no outside influence (no other teachings) I just understood what Paul said to mean that Israel or His bride, or the church- to mean those who believed on the Lord Jesus- in the New testament after Jesus has come inthe flesh.It does even say in 1 John 2: 22-23 "22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."This made me believe that anyone who denies Jesus is the Christ is of an antichrist spirit- including the Jews who deny Him.Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.Just thoughts here.

Paul used the illustration of an Olive Tree (Romans 11:13-24). The Olive Tree belonged to Israel as theirs are the covenants and theirs are the promise of a Messiah, etc. The branches of the tree represent individual people. Paul asks "What if some of the branches were broken off?" Some did not believe and were broken off. Some did believe and remained. The evidence of believe is 'good fruit' (i.e. ye shall know them by their fruits). Some Gentiles never believed and were not grafted in- some did believe and were (are). Herein is the issue at hand- the Jews naturally remain in the tree from birth so long as they believe in their Messiah and bring forth good fruit- if they do not they are broken off.Hi RobertYou will recall we met here earlier. ;-) My question then was 'but what is the root?'. It clearly cannot be Israel in the flesh, as they are represented by the natural branches. Do you really mean to say that physical descendents of Abraham remain in the tree as long as they don't reject their Messiah, but that Gentiles need to actively believe to be grafted in? There is a letter-long theme in Romans; For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Rom 1:16 KJV) It has an accompanying chorus that we hear twice; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (Rom 3:22-23 KJV) and again in the heart of Rom 9-11; For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Rom 10:12-13 KJV).

Dear Robert,”Our Father Abraham” by Marvin R. Wilson is not that easy to read.Are there other books which you can recommend?Lars

I am a complete idiot when it comes to theology but being childlike in my reading of the scriptures and with no outside influence (no other teachings) I just understood what Paul said to mean that Israel or His bride, or the church- to mean those who believed on the Lord Jesus- in the New testament after Jesus has come inthe flesh.Hi ChaninI think pretty much the same (not as regards your theological skills ;-) ), but there was a 'church' before this one and the question I am asking is 'what has happened to it and what has happened to the promises that were made to it?'

Hi Bro Lars,Yes it is a bit tough to read bacause the terms are very foreign to us as we are pretty used to using our traditional words and phrases. There are other books that come to mind, but i would not want to send someone reading something that I think is out of step with what God is trying to do in the non-Jews of the Church- in trying to unnecessarily mold them into Messianic Jews. Some books speak of the Talmud and Mishna as though they were good things when in reality they were products of the Pharisees and are the very cause (lamp shade effect) that the scripture cannot be seen as it should be by the Jews. Fortunately we are likely to see some books written that give a balanced view of the issues that is a little less scholarly than Wilson's book. Gary Hedrick has some pretty good info on these topics as I have read his newsletter throughout the years. www.messianicspecialties.com God Bless,-Robert

but there was a 'church' before this one and the question I am asking is 'what has happened to it and what has happened to the promises that were made to it?' From reading what Pauls says in chapter 9:But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son." And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. Doesn't this have something do do with pre-destination?Isaac was the seed of promise, wasn't Ishmael the seed of Flesh because they did not trust God for the promise. And through this seed of promise eventually came Jesus. Wasn't He the promise? And whoever rejects this promise, but instead makes "flesh" their's will not inherit the kingdom?So some jews still believed after Jesus did come(that Jesus was the promise) and some gentiles also. They became one church.Does this make any sense? :-o

Yes it is true that in Christ the 2 have become one, but God is still dealing with unsaved jews in a different way until the times of the gentiles is fulfilled. The passages in the later part of Romans go over this clearly. I do even believe thus far to the cringing of some of my evangelical fellows that people will be saved apart from Christ, in Romans it states it pretty clear that God will judge some by their consiences as a law against them.and you think I have some interesting ideas :-? I have a lot of sympathy with the latter part of this quote but you are assuming that God's election of Israel was for salvation. I don't believe it was; it was for a unique service which they forfeited as a nation as a result of their rejection of Christ. The nation's hedge was broken down and the kingdom given to another nation.I come pretty close to Campbell Morgan in my thinking of all this. Here is a selection of quotations from his letters. When I first read this book of quotations from his letters by his daughter in law I was amazed at how close;"Have the Jews a future? None whatever, save in Christ. The more I read the New Testament, and perhaps especially Paul, the clearer it becomes to me that all the promises made to them are fulfilled in Christ and the Church." Letters p289"I am quite convinced that Israel as a nation was excommunicated by our Lord from its official position (Matt 21:43) and that all the ultimate spiritual intentions of God are realized and will be fulfilled in and through the church." Letters p146"election is to service not to salvation" letters p211"There is no question whatever that all the promises of God are conditional. One has only to go over them carefully and study them to see that this is so. These conditions were not fulfilled by the Hebrew people, consequently for them, as a human race, the promises will never be fulfilled. On the other hand they will be fulfilled through Christ, who was the Seed of Abraham, and in His Church. I think a careful study of Romans 9,10,11 will show this." p291

Does this make any sense?Hi ChaninMakes sense to me. Are you sure you are a blonde? (just joking :-D )

Makes sense to me. Are you sure you are a blonde? (just joking )Ha ha. sure am! Can I just say that He uses the weak things to confound the wise. :-P

Hi Bro. Ron,My question then was 'but what is the root?'. It clearly cannot be Israel in the flesh, as they are represented by the natural branches. Do you really mean to say that physical descendents of Abraham remain in the tree as long as they don't reject their Messiah, but that Gentiles need to actively believe to be grafted in? This question is kind of a quantum leap into deep things of God. ;-) But I would first like to say that the root has to be Christ as He was promised to Adam and Eve and then to the patriarchs. “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” (Verse 7.) God also promised that he would make him the father of many nations and in him would all the families of the earth be blessed. But Isaac was the promised son, and God said unto Sarah, “and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.” The covenant and promises were unto Abraham and unto his seed after him. “He said not, And to seeds as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed which is Christ” (Galatians 3:16). Therefor the promise was made not unto seeds (plural)- but unto to His Seed, which was Christ. Moreover, we are all saved because we are in Christ and our life is hid with Christ in God. We are grafted into Christ and Christ is rooted in God as the second person of the Godhead.The Church as we know it is not the TRUE Israel and Israel is not the true Israel- Jesus Christ the eternal Son of the living God is the true Israel. Everyone else is an adopted 'son' - whether Jew, Greek, male, female. Christ is the only uniquely begotton Son of God. Therefor we are all in him by faith. He alone can be the root. In Him we live and move and have our being. IF any man be in Christ he is a new creature. I am the True Vine-, etc. Christ was born a Jew. God considers this lineage to be very important as was seen in His reaction to Esau despising His birthright. We can learn a lot from the 'begats'- but suffice it to say for now that God chose to reveal His Son through the Jewish people, His ekklesia (called out of the world ones). Many were and are still 'called' but few are chosen. God chose a people from which to demonstrate His goodness and ultimately bring forth His Son Jesus Christ. Those people were the Jews. It was done to provoke the goyim (nations) to jealousy- kind of like when you set one of your kids on your lap in the presence of the others. Naturally, all the kids should want to sit on Daddy's lap after Daddy lets Jacob sit on His lap. But Jacob didn't show that is was such a great thing to sit on Daddy's lap- and ultimately squirmed off His lap and was scattered among the nations. God then set "whoseoever would" on His lap in order to provoke to jealousy Jacob to want to come sit on ABBA's lap again. The question is- are we provoking Jacob to come sit with us on Daddy's lap- or are we mocking and jesting and making Jacob not want to sit with us on Daddy's lap. We are supposed to demonstrate the glory of being adopted as His son's and daughters by faith- for whether we are Jew or Gentile we are all His son's and daughters' by faith. Only Christ is worthy to Sit with His father in His throne- we are all their by invitation (ek). God Bless,-Robert

RobertLots of things here to talk about.The Church as we know it is not the TRUE Israel and Israel is not the true Israel- Jesus Christ the eternal Son of the living God is the true Israel. I am thrilled with this statement. I have long seen Christ's whole eartly ministry as establishing just this truth. He came from the wilderness, supported with the words of Deuteronomy in His heart, having been identified by the Dove; a symbol of Israel. I see Him establishing the rule of God in the land that Israel in the flesh never succeeded in doing. He fulfilled the Servant of the Jehovah witness that Israel after the flesh failed to do... and so on. But if He has fulfilled Israel role isn't that a kind of replacement theology?Christ was born a Jew. God considers this lineage to be very important as was seen in His reaction to Esau despising His birthright. We can learn a lot from the 'begats'- but suffice it to say for now that God chose to reveal His Son through the Jewish people, His ekklesia (called out of the world ones). Many were and are still 'called' but few are chosen.Not nearly so thrilled with this statement. ;-) This will not do. ekklesia does not mean people who have been called but not chosen. You will know the word 'eclectic' which means chosen-out-of, not potentially but in fact. You are making the word ekklesia mean the invitation; it isn't it is those who have been chosen and set apart into a body. You will know it is used of the town council in Acts 19; this is not the potential council but the elected. Is it time to examine the relationship between the words Jew, Israel as a people, Israel as a nation state? These words are not synonymous. Not all who were drawn into covenant at Sinai were blood descendents of Abraham; the classic example is Caleb. We need,surely to distinguish between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic.

You are making the word ekklesia mean the invitation; it isn't it is those who have been chosen and set apart into a body. You will know it is used of the town council in Acts 19; this is not the potential council but the elected. Hi Bro. Ron,The statement does come off that way as I should have read it back again and clarified. Certainly I agree with your take on that.

Ron,Is your intent to discuss with one or two persons who already know the issue at hand or are others to profit from your insight?You need to take much less for granted as to ability to handle this subject to make it to be of any value for the larger group of readers – including me.Please, if possible, do correct - as this subject is of great interest and importance.Lars W.

Is it time to examine the relationship between the words Jew, Israel as a people, Israel as a nation state? These words are not synonymous. Not all who were drawn into covenant at Sinai were blood descendents of Abraham; the classic example is Caleb. We need,surely to distinguish between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic.I think the issue at hand is one of God's intention and purpose in His revelation of salvation through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God set the descendants of Abraham apart by birthright and circumcision; but the birth and circumcision alone are not enough to constitute being "Of Israel." The just shall live by faith. Therefor those who "were of their father the Devil" had no right to say of themselves they had Abraham as their father even though they were a descendant of Abraham. In these things indeed we see a distinction between Israel as a nation (or a people) and Israel as the true sons and daughters of God. However, the part of Israel that rejected Christ as Messiah have maintained their identity throughout the centuries in identification as 'Jews' and have followed for near 2000 years a form of Judaism- which alledges to hope for the coming of a Messiah. Rabbinic Judaism is not the Judaism of the first century. there have been a lot of falsehood passed down and taught to children- butressed with the maltreatment of the Jews in nearly every land and age of recent history- and often in the name of Christ. We have to deal with the fact that there are Jews that exist because God has not cast away the people that He foreknew- else they had utterly had been assimilated within the nations of the diaspora. There are Jews today as there was in Paul's day and if he were here his attitude would be the same- wishing himself to be accursed from Christ for his people and kinsman according to the flesh. If that was Paul's feeling- should we not share that urgency? This issue is schrouded in mystery so it is easier to lay out the facts of what we know than to try to figure them all out. But suffice it to say that it is our responsibility to provoke the unbelieving Jews to jealousy and return to their God and His Christ. The Gospel is to the Jew first and also to the Greek. This must happen in every generation. Either chronologically or priori (depending on the translation of 'first') our priorty must be that they MUST hear the Gospel. Will Israel (the Jews) eventually be the people from which God exercises a theocratic government in the earth with Christ seated on the throne of David in Jerusalem- we shall see. I do not have a problem with this biblically at all. I agree with Art Katz that Israel (the Jews) are key to God working out His plan of redemption in the earth. The middle wall of partition (the law) has been broken down. God removed in Christ the enmity between the Jew and the Gentile by removing the laws that kept them seperated (i.e. what God hath cleansed- that call not thou common). The devil has turned this around and erected a wall of antagonism in the Gentiles against the Jews and have all but destroyed the peace that God intended to make between us. This is a tragedy of epoch proportions. There are distinctions and roles for Jew and Gentile just like there are for men and women. We must understand that there is equality among all of us- but difference in function and position. When we blur the distinction between Jew and Gentile it is no less than blurring it between men and women. The purpose and structure that God has set up- is thwarted (so it seems). The machine simply quits working and souls are lost. It has been my hope to see these issues resolved that God's people that He foreknew would have an opportunity to hear a pure Gospel message and a real opportunity to accept or reject their Messiah as He really is - as opposed to how the Church has represented Him for near 2000 years.God Bless,-Robert