Replacement Theology

[Ben Masada]

Replacement Theology

Replacement Theology is as old as Christianity itself, considering that the etimology of the expression acquired its real meaning with the rise of Christianity.

Some people object to the focusing on Christianity for the reason why Replacement Theology originated, because the Jewish People was not the only ancient people with the original claim to be God's chosen People.

It's true that a few other ancient peoples upheld the same claim, but there was never one to rise with the claim that a people had been replaced by another as God's chosen People.

Christianity became the first religious organization to rise with the claim that a change had occurred in the designs of God, which would define the rejection of the Jewish People, and resplacement with Christianity.

The classical NT document, which would give rise to this Christian policy is found in Galatians 4:21-31.

Paul would compare God's Covenant with the Jewish People as Hagar, who was Sara's slave girl, and the Jews as her son, who was rejected even to share with Isaac, the inheritance of Canaan. On the other hand, he compares Christianity to Sara and Christians to her son Isaac.

To conclude, Paul appeals to cast out the slave girl together with her son for the obvious reason that Israel, the Jewish People, would never be an heir with the son of the one born free.

That's the picture of Replacement Theology and not simply a people claiming Divine election. A group of Interfaith Scholars have classified Replacement Theology as a kind of Antisemitism.

Ben

[cnorman18]

Welcome to the forum, Jonah. I suspect we'll have some interesting conversations.

Maybe we can have our own usergroup: "Jewish ex-ministers."

CN

[McCulloch]

Welcome to the forum, Jonah. I suspect we'll have some interesting conversations.

Maybe we can have our own usergroup: "Jewish ex-ministers."

Or maybe we can witness a few of those Jewish theological disagreements we've heard about.

[cnorman18]

Welcome to the forum, Jonah. I suspect we'll have some interesting conversations.

Maybe we can have our own usergroup: "Jewish ex-ministers."

Or maybe we can witness a few of those Jewish theological disagreements we've heard about.

Two Jews, three opinions; here are my two:

(1) Oh, no worries there. He's Reform and I'm Conservative.

(2) In front of goyim? Feh! Meshugah.

[Jonah]

Yes. Thanks for the welcome. A fellow convert I used to know went to classes sponsored by the local JCC. The classes were taught by mainly Conservative and they used to joke at him that Reform Judaism is just playing with dreidels. I can see some Conservative points at times. I have read of though and know of a couple converts to Reform that found they needed to move onto Conservative. I understand their motivation, although it would not be mine.

On the thread topic. The ELCA, from whence I came, has a particular virulent brand of replacement theology in a corner pocket. It has a Palestinian sister denomination in Israel (Palestine)/Jordan which is claiming that the Palestinian Christians are NOW the morally proper inheritors of the title "Israel" in terms of the whole Exodus epoch. I could go on, but I'm trying to keep my stomach acid down.

[cnorman18]

Yes. Thanks for the welcome. A fellow convert I used to know went to classes sponsored by the local JCC. The classes were taught by mainly Conservative and they used to joke at him that Reform Judaism is just playing with dreidels. I can see some Conservative points at times. I have read of though and know of a couple converts to Reform that found they needed to move onto Conservative. I understand their motivation, although it would not be mine.

Interesting. I have been told I ought to move to Reform; my approach and my practice/observance have moved more in that direction than Conservative since I converted in 2001 - largely in the last few years, and as a result of my participation on this forum.

On the thread topic. The ELCA, from whence I came, has a particular virulent brand of replacement theology in a corner pocket. It has a Palestinian sister denomination in Israel (Palestine)/Jordan which is claiming that the Palestinian Christians are NOW the morally proper inheritors of the title "Israel" in terms of the whole Exodus epoch. I could go on, but I'm trying to keep my stomach acid down.

Yeah, yeah, and there was never any Temple on Temple Mount (as they busily shovel away the evidence that there was). There was no Ancient Israel, and we are its heirs. Mass murder of innocents is justified, but not defense against it, not even benign security measures. Etc., etc., etc.

(sound of barfing)

We'd better talk by PM about that; there is a lot of knee-jerk anti-Israel sentiment around here, and I avoid the topic.

Welcome to the tribe.

[kayky]

What is ELCA?

[Jonah]

sorry kay, it's the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America...the largest Lutheran group, but shrinking by the hour, I think.

cnorman, yes. The Temple Mount. omg. Our family was in Israel several years ago before the Gaza pull out and we went through the Kotel tunnel that goes from the western wall over to the Via Dolorosa. Israeli archaeologists were doing their own mad digging under the mount. Strange. I've been up there on the mount a couple of times when I was on the Christian side back in college...our college had cheapo trips back then that were great. Strange to think I would be taking my life in my hands going up there now.

[Ben Masada]

I always thought of the term "chosen" to apply to "job". Israel was chosen for a specific job, and my Reform Judaism bent tells me that job is to simply be Israel toward tikkun olam. As I mentioned in my comments on the disposable world thread, I would have liked that Christianity would have the same sense of choseness or election, and I see no reason why Christianity could not have just seen iteself as a particular extension or version to the nations of "the job". I have read that Maimonides had this view to some extent.

You haven't said anything different from what I have been saying here all along. That according to Isaiah 42:6, Israel has been assigned as light unto the nations of the world. There is no defference between this assignment and the job of tikkun olam. The problem is that the world, especially Christianity with its policy of Replacement Theology, won't coorperate with Israel for demanding that this role has been replaced by Christianity.

[kayky]

You haven't said anything different from what I have been saying here all along. That according to Isaiah 42:6, Israel has been assigned as light unto the nations of the world. There is no defference between this assignment and the job of tikkun olam. The problem is that the world, especially Christianity with its policy of Replacement Theology, won't coorperate with Israel for demanding that this role has been replaced by Christianity.

Progressive Christians do not believe in God as described in the Old Testament. Thus, we do not believe in a "chosen" people that can or cannot be replaced.

"Replacement Theology" is a belief held by fundamentalist Christians. The irony of your complaints is that fundamentalist Christians are the most supportive of Israel.

[Ben Masada]

You haven't said anything different from what I have been saying here all along. That according to Isaiah 42:6, Israel has been assigned as light unto the nations of the world. There is no defference between this assignment and the job of tikkun olam. The problem is that the world, especially Christianity with its policy of Replacement Theology, won't coorperate with Israel for demanding that this role has been replaced by Christianity.

Progressive Christians do not believe in God as described in the Old Testament. Thus, we do not believe in a "chosen" people that can or cannot be replaced.

"Replacement Theology" is a belief held by fundamentalist Christians. The irony of your complaints is that fundamentalist Christians are the most supportive of Israel.

Because these so called progressive Christians think that the only way to contemplate God is from the anthropomorphic poit of view. God is incorporeal.