Replacement Theology - true or false?

[Checkpoint]

This is a controversial issue. The Church has answered "true" for most of its duration, but is now more likely to answer "false".

The debate centers around how the nation and people of Israel has been viewed by God since the coming of Jesus as Messiah and Savior.

It is basically about God's promises as found in the Old and New Covenant and how they are to be, or have been or are being, applied and fulfilled.

Questions arise, for example, as to just who are "God's chosen people".

Has Israel been "replaced" by believers, or what?

[JehovahsWitness]

Could you share your perspective on how the Biblical Prophecies/Promises are understood in light of their blasphemy?

The ancient nation of Israel failed to keep their part of their agreement with God and the special relationship was severed.

As of the first century forward, ALL messianic promise prophecies yet to be fullfilled no longer concerned natural Jews as a special people but rather refer to the "new Jews" , namely born again Christians, "spiritual" Isarael. All references to "Israel" connected with such future fulfillments are speaking of Christians (whether natural Jews or gentiles). None of the references to Jerusalem regarding the establishment of the Messianic kingdom have anything to do with the literal city in the political state of Israel or its temple site.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS




NOTE All posts I write represent my personal faith based beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 1 by Checkpoint]

The Catholic Church has traditionally understood itself to be the new Israel (Catechism of the Catholic Church 877). Just as Israel was God’s people in the Old Testament, the Church is his people now, and to many in our culture, this sounds extremely arrogant and possibly even anti-Semitic. It seems like we’re saying that God has rejected the Jews and chosen a new people to replace them. However, that couldn’t be further from the truth.

As St. Paul explains, Israel is like a tree. The Jews of Jesus’ day, as ethnic Israelites, were all natural branches in this tree, and any Gentiles (non-Jews) who join the Church are like branches that are cut off from other trees and grafted into Israel. On the flipside, the Jews who rejected Jesus were cut off from their own family tree (Romans 11:17-24). As a result, we can see that the Church doesn’t simply replace Israel; rather, in a very real sense, the Church is Israel. It is the multi-ethnic and multi-national family made up of both Jews and Gentiles that the Old Testament prophets always said Israel would one day become.

But we have to tread carefully here. As I said, the Jews who rejected Jesus were cut off from the “tree� of Israel, and this can still sound anti-Semitic if we don’t understand their history in the Bible. The Old Testament, the Scriptures of the Israelites themselves, is essentially the story of their continual disobedience and rebellion against God. Time and time again, they rejected God’s laws and went after other deities, and it eventually got so bad that God told a large portion of them, “[Y]ou are not my people and I am not your God� (Hosea 1:9). Then, in the very next verse, he promised to eventually save them and make them his people once again at some point in the future (Hosea 1:10).

Just as Israel was God’s “own possession…a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,� so too is the Church “a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people.�

https://catholicexchange.com/church-new-israel

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 12 by RightReason]

Just as Israel was God’s “own possession…a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,� so too is the Church “a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people.�

So, the Church has, effectively, "replaced" the physical nation of Israel?

The Church Jesus is building is not a named organization but an organism of spiritually living stones, 1 Peter 2:

4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him—
5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Checkpoint]

So, the Church has, effectively, "replaced" the physical nation of Israel?

Well, obviously Israel the country still exists, but as far as the Israelites being god’s chosen people, His Church is now His people.

The Church Jesus is building is not a named organization but an organism of spiritually living stones, 1 Peter 2:

That is partly true. The Church is not limited to one earthly building, rather it is all those who profess belief and faith in His Church – throughout the world. It is always a mistake, however, to think the Church is merely spiritual. Christ’s Church on earth is visible and authoritative.

[Checkpoint]

The Church is not limited to one earthly building, rather it is all those who profess belief and faith in His Church – throughout the world.

This is surely a kind of "replacement theology".

In which "faith in His Church" has replaced "faith in His Son Jesus Christ".

Don't you see that?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Checkpoint]

This is surely a kind of "replacement theology".

In which "faith in His Church" has replaced "faith in His Son Jesus Christ".

Don't you see that?

No. You are mixing up the object and the subject.

Originally God made a Covenant with His people, the Israelites. He said they were His chosen ones and He would be their God. However, when His son, Jesus Christ, came to earth, He created a New Covenant, open to any and all who would follow Him. This was the New Covenant with His Church being His people.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to Checkpoint]

This is surely a kind of "replacement theology".

In which "faith in His Church" has replaced "faith in His Son Jesus Christ".

Don't you see that?

No. You are mixing up the object and the subject.

Originally God made a Covenant with His people, the Israelites. He said they were His chosen ones and He would be their God. However, when His son, Jesus Christ, came to earth, He created a New Covenant, open to any and all who would follow Him. This was the New Covenant with His Church being His people.

The subject is what or whom?

The object is?

So?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 17 by Checkpoint]

The subject is what or whom?

The object is?

Here was your original quote:

This is surely a kind of "replacement theology".

In which "faith in His Church" has replaced "faith in His Son Jesus Christ".

Don't you see that?

.

But as you see, the analogy is off. It should be . . .

Subject: The Israelites as the chosen ones who honored the Object: God

in the New Covenant we have . . .

Subject: Christ’s Church as the new people of God who honor the Object: God

So faith in the Church has not replaced faith in Christ. What has been changed is the Subject (God’s people).

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 17 by Checkpoint]

The subject is what or whom?

The object is?

Here was your original quote:

This is surely a kind of "replacement theology".

In which "faith in His Church" has replaced "faith in His Son Jesus Christ".

Don't you see that?

.

But as you see, the analogy is off. It should be . . .

Subject: The Israelites as the chosen ones who honored the Object: God

in the New Covenant we have . . .

Subject: Christ’s Church as the new people of God who honor the Object: God

So faith in the Church has not replaced faith in Christ. What has been changed is the Subject (God’s people).

What has happened is you have replaced the object with the subject.

Our faith is not in God's people but in God Himself, and in His Son Jesus Messiah.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Checkpoint]

Our faith is not in God's people but in God Himself, and in His Son Jesus Messiah.

Not at all what I said. Our faith should be in God, His son, and the Holy Spirit as is revealed to us via Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (the Church).