Replacement theology? Yes or No.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jesus is only a part of God for now. You haven't realized GOD in ALL His Glory together yet.

--

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeIsHere
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Have you seen Jesus' name changed to the "The everlasting Father" yet? Neither have I. That doesn't happen until either Jesus returns or after Jesus puts all of God's enemies under His feet and judges everyone.

---
 
Here's another one to drive home my point and that I already posted in a three part series earlier in this thread a few pages back.


  • Galatians 4:22-23 – "For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by the bondmaid, the other by the free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman, by the promise."

Ishmael was born after the flesh. Isaac was born by the promise.
Oh the irony.

If you keep reading you'll get to this:

"These things serve as illustrations..."

Okay, so Paul is using the women (Sarah, the free woman and Hagar, the bondmaid) and the children (Isaac and Ishmael) to illustrate something.

Now, you just concluded that Ishmael was born after the flesh and that Isaac was born by promise. That is factually correct. So you quote Genesis 17:19 is support of your assertion.

Genesis 17:19 - And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

But remember: Paul is creating an illustration here. Let's see how he uses the women and the children to make his point:

Galatians 4:24b "..for the women represent two covenants."
Okay, that's pretty clear. He's talking about two covenants. Let's go on to the end of the verse.

"..One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery: This is Hagar."
Hold the phone!

Hagar's children were not present at Mt. Sinai. Sarah's children were. Yet, Paul says that the Mt. Sinai covenant is akin (because he's illustrating something here) to Hagar. Furthermore, Paul wrote that Mt. Sinai bore children who were slaves! This is a serious accusation.

We better keep reading! Paul should make it clear.

Galatians 4:25 "Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia..."

Okay, I just said that. Let's go on...

"..and corresponds to the present-day Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children."
[record scratch] As an aside, do you know ho offensive this would have been to the Jews?!

Paul just dropped the hammer on the natural children of Sarah, the inhabitants of "present-day Jerusalem". So, it mattered not that they came through Isaac in the flesh. In fact, Isaac's natural offspring are as slaves. Just as Paul wrote:

"One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery..."
But there is another Jerusalem from which the children of promise come. Verse 26:

But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

Then Paul quotes Isaiah 54 to connect the present reality with the prophetic words of Isaiah:

“Rejoice, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have never travailed;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”


So Paul flips the illustration on its head: in the Genesis account, who was the barren woman? Sarah. But who was the woman with a husband. Also Sarah. So we know this is not a one-to-one retelling of the account. Remember: we are dealing with "children of promise" here.

Paul just wrote that the natural children of Sarah were born into slavery because of Sinai. Sarah has the husband (Abraham) but her children receive no inheritance secured by the promises given to Abraham by the flesh. By the flesh, no children of Sarah can inherit the promises of Christ.

Who receives the promises? The barren and desolate woman, Hagar. In the natural telling, Hagar is the slave. But by the Spirit, her offspring (the Gentiles) receive the promises of Abraham in abundance "in Christ". This is what Paul meant when he next wrote:

"Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise."

Paul is writing to the believers in Galatia (modern day Turkey). Most of them were probably Gentiles. By birth, they had no right to claim any natural inheritance from Abraham. They were not Abraham's natural offspring. But Paul frames the verses I just walked through with this passage:

"My children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you..."
This is a connection in the spirit, not in the flesh. The promises of God, secured in Christ, come through the Spirit not the flesh.

The promise was always Christ. Just like the Seed was always singular: Christ.
 
Oh the irony.

If you keep reading you'll get to this:

"These things serve as illustrations..."
Okay, so Paul is using the women (Sarah, the free woman and Hagar, the bondmaid) and the children (Isaac and Ishmael) to illustrate something.

Now, you just concluded that Ishmael was born after the flesh and that Isaac was born by promise. That is factually correct. So you quote Genesis 17:19 is support of your assertion.


But remember: Paul is creating an illustration here. Let's see how he uses the women and the children to make his point:

Galatians 4:24b "..for the women represent two covenants."
Okay, that's pretty clear. He's talking about two covenants. Let's go on to the end of the verse.

"..One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery: This is Hagar."
Hold the phone!

Hagar's children were not present at Mt. Sinai. Sarah's children were. Yet, Paul says that the Mt. Sinai covenant is akin (because he's illustrating something here) to Hagar. Furthermore, Paul wrote that Mt. Sinai bore children who were slaves! This is a serious accusation.

We better keep reading! Paul should make it clear.

Galatians 4:25 "Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia..."

Okay, I just said that. Let's go on...

"..and corresponds to the present-day Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children."
[record scratch] As an aside, do you know ho offensive this would have been to the Jews?!

Paul just dropped the hammer on the natural children of Sarah, the inhabitants of "present-day Jerusalem". So, it mattered not that they came through Isaac in the flesh. In fact, Isaac's natural offspring are as slaves. Just as Paul wrote:

"One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery..."
But there is another Jerusalem from which the children of promise come. Verse 26:

But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

Then Paul quotes Isaiah 54 to connect the present reality with the prophetic words of Isaiah:

“Rejoice, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have never travailed;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”


So Paul flips the illustration on its head: in the Genesis account, who was the barren woman? Sarah. But who was the woman with a husband. Also Sarah. So we know this is not a one-to-one retelling of the account. Remember: we are dealing with "children of promise" here.

Paul just wrote that the natural children of Sarah were born into slavery because of Sinai. Sarah has the husband (Abraham) but her children receive no inheritance secured by the promises given to Abraham by the flesh. By the flesh, no children of Sarah can inherit the promises of Christ.

Who receives the promises? The barren and desolate woman, Hagar. In the natural telling, Hagar is the slave. But by the Spirit, her offspring (the Gentiles) receive the promises of Abraham in abundance "in Christ". This is what Paul meant when he next wrote:

"Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise."

Paul is writing to the believers in Galatia (modern day Turkey). Most of them were probably Gentiles. By birth, they had no right to claim any natural inheritance from Abraham. They were not Abraham's natural offspring. But Paul frames the verses I just walked through with this passage:

"My children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you..."
This is a connection in the spirit, not in the flesh. The promises of God, secured in Christ, come through the Spirit not the flesh.

The promise was always Christ. Just like the Seed was always singular: Christ.

Oh, the irony! AGAIN!

The central error in your argument is that you take Paul's illustration of two covenants and turns it into a claim that Hagar represents the Gentiles who inherit Israel's promises, while Sarah's natural descendants are excluded from those promises. That is not what Paul says in Galatians 4. Your interpretation reverses the identities of the women, confuses the Mosaic covenant with the Abrahamic covenant, and overlooks Paul's explanation of who the children of promise are.

--
 
  • Like
Reactions: cv5
Oh the irony.

If you keep reading you'll get to this:

"These things serve as illustrations..."
Okay, so Paul is using the women (Sarah, the free woman and Hagar, the bondmaid) and the children (Isaac and Ishmael) to illustrate something.

Now, you just concluded that Ishmael was born after the flesh and that Isaac was born by promise. That is factually correct. So you quote Genesis 17:19 is support of your assertion.


But remember: Paul is creating an illustration here. Let's see how he uses the women and the children to make his point:

Galatians 4:24b "..for the women represent two covenants."
Okay, that's pretty clear. He's talking about two covenants. Let's go on to the end of the verse.

"..One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery: This is Hagar."
Hold the phone!

Hagar's children were not present at Mt. Sinai. Sarah's children were. Yet, Paul says that the Mt. Sinai covenant is akin (because he's illustrating something here) to Hagar. Furthermore, Paul wrote that Mt. Sinai bore children who were slaves! This is a serious accusation.

We better keep reading! Paul should make it clear.

Galatians 4:25 "Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia..."

Okay, I just said that. Let's go on...

"..and corresponds to the present-day Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children."
[record scratch] As an aside, do you know ho offensive this would have been to the Jews?!

Paul just dropped the hammer on the natural children of Sarah, the inhabitants of "present-day Jerusalem". So, it mattered not that they came through Isaac in the flesh. In fact, Isaac's natural offspring are as slaves. Just as Paul wrote:

"One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery..."
But there is another Jerusalem from which the children of promise come. Verse 26:

But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

Then Paul quotes Isaiah 54 to connect the present reality with the prophetic words of Isaiah:

“Rejoice, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have never travailed;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”


So Paul flips the illustration on its head: in the Genesis account, who was the barren woman? Sarah. But who was the woman with a husband. Also Sarah. So we know this is not a one-to-one retelling of the account. Remember: we are dealing with "children of promise" here.

Paul just wrote that the natural children of Sarah were born into slavery because of Sinai. Sarah has the husband (Abraham) but her children receive no inheritance secured by the promises given to Abraham by the flesh. By the flesh, no children of Sarah can inherit the promises of Christ.

Who receives the promises? The barren and desolate woman, Hagar. In the natural telling, Hagar is the slave. But by the Spirit, her offspring (the Gentiles) receive the promises of Abraham in abundance "in Christ". This is what Paul meant when he next wrote:

"Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise."

Paul is writing to the believers in Galatia (modern day Turkey). Most of them were probably Gentiles. By birth, they had no right to claim any natural inheritance from Abraham. They were not Abraham's natural offspring. But Paul frames the verses I just walked through with this passage:

"My children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you..."
This is a connection in the spirit, not in the flesh. The promises of God, secured in Christ, come through the Spirit not the flesh.

The promise was always Christ. Just like the Seed was always singular: Christ.
Absolutely brother.
In Christ alone.

We can also look at slavery, slave to what? To sin. Rejecting Jesus is staying in sin slavery. Simple.

Tell me one person that reject Jesus and at the same time is a free person from sin? Even Paul himself was in sin slavery until Jesus knock him out of that slavery!!! Paul knows exactly the difference, slavery to freedom!!!!

Only Jesus set us free, this is the reason Jesus is the life, The truth, the way. We are free in Jesus! No more slavery, Hallelujah 🙌 🙏 👏
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aaron56
God made a covenant to save those who believe in His Son, then He chose people for service and then they completed their service.
Oh my I missed that, it says he believed God, all in all God the Father is in charge here in fact Jesus says he only does what the father says to. We still have 3 feast days to complete a temple to be built a throne to occupy. Ya know all that Jewish stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Revelation1v8
Oh my I missed that, it says he believed God, all in all God the Father is in charge here in fact Jesus says he only does what the father says to. We still have 3 feast days to complete a temple to be built a throne to occupy. Ya know all that Jewish stuff.

God will not allow the temple to be rebuilt, they already tried once.
 
We are the temple of God. Holy spirit dwell in us.
1 Corinthians 3
John 2

We already had that discussion and you failed. Besides Ezekiel chapters 40 through 48 go into great detail about the next temple, Revelation brings it up again. Where do you think the Anti-Christ is going to stand in order to declare Himself as God?!

Revelation 11:1 shows a temple.

11 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

--
 
  • Like
Reactions: cv5
That's a fair point, and I agree that Deuteronomy 29-30 is spoken within the context of the Mosaic Covenant.
The question I would still raise is whether Deuteronomy 30 is exhausted by the return from Babylon.

Moses says: "If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee" (Deut. 30:4),
and: "The LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart" (Deut. 30:6).
That heart-circumcision language is later picked up by the prophets and the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:26-27; Rom. 2:29).

So while I agree the immediate context is Mosaic, I am not convinced the restoration language is limited to the return from Babylon alone.
The prophets repeatedly return to these themes after the exile and still speak of future restoration.

My point is not that this proves a future national land restoration.
My point is that Deuteronomy 30 appears to reach beyond mere return from exile and into the larger work God promises to accomplish in His people.
Therefore I don't think Deuteronomy 28 settles the question by itself.
The relationship between the land promises, the New Covenant, and Israel's future still has to be demonstrated from the whole of Scripture.

The restoration to the land in Deut. 30 is part of the blessing given under the law of Moses.
If that is still in force now that would mean the curses of the law are in force also.
It is a good and merciful thing for all that the law of Moses no longer stands.
The language of "circumcision of the heart" is relevant to both the new and old covenants, because obedience through faith is required by both.
 
The restoration to the land in Deut. 30 is part of the blessing given under the law of Moses.
If that is still in force now that would mean the curses of the law are in force also.
It is a good and merciful thing for all that the law of Moses no longer stands.
The language of "circumcision of the heart" is relevant to both the new and old covenants, because obedience through faith is required by both.
I agree that the Law of Moses no longer stands as the covenant governing God's people (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 3:24-25; Heb. 8:13).
But that does not necessarily mean every promise associated with that covenant is exhausted.
The New Testament repeatedly takes promises first spoken under earlier covenants and shows their fulfillment in Christ.

So I think the question remains: Is Deuteronomy 30 merely describing a return from exile under the Mosaic Covenant, or is Moses also pointing beyond that to a deeper restoration that God Himself would accomplish?
That is the point I still think needs to be examined from the broader witness of Scripture.
 
And this is what I consider secular reasoning.....what you think.
So according to your reasoning God failed to redeem his people....I'll leave that to you to tell him. He siad he would do it for his name sake. Guess his name remains marred forever.
The prayers of Jesus and his words of forgiveness and having power over life and death were null and void.
Scripture clearly says in the old as well as the gospels that Christ would be rejected no surprise to God.
Jesus prophesied that temple would be destroyed....their house not his. He came to set the captives free, priest were to serve not rule.
God did not fail.
The redemption is in Jesus, and fulfilled in the new Jerusalem after the resurrection.

Lets consider the redemption that you seem to have in mind.
Jews to be restored to earthly Jerusalem for eternity and physical circumcision continuing without end.
Meanwhile the rest of us enter the kingdom of heaven.
Perhaps that is what you think,
but God's ways are much greater than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Churchgoer
I agree that the Law of Moses no longer stands as the covenant governing God's people (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 3:24-25; Heb. 8:13).
But that does not necessarily mean every promise associated with that covenant is exhausted.
The New Testament repeatedly takes promises first spoken under earlier covenants and shows their fulfillment in Christ.

So I think the question remains: Is Deuteronomy 30 merely describing a return from exile under the Mosaic Covenant, or is Moses also pointing beyond that to a deeper restoration that God Himself would accomplish?
That is the point I still think needs to be examined from the broader witness of Scripture.

There is a deeper restoration that God Himself will accomplish, and it is found in the New covenant.
The old covenant existed as a type and shadow of much greater and deeper things.
 
There is a deeper restoration that God Himself will accomplish, and it is found in the New covenant.
The old covenant existed as a type and shadow of much greater and deeper things.
Where I still hesitate is that the New Testament authors themselves continue to draw from Deuteronomy's restoration language.
Paul quotes Deuteronomy 30 in Romans 10:6-8 and applies it to Christ and the gospel.
Likewise, the promise of heart circumcision in Deuteronomy 30:6 is echoed in Romans 2:29.
That suggests Moses' words were not exhausted by the return from Babylon.

So I agree with you that the shadows point to greater realities.
The question is whether Deuteronomy 30 contains only a temporal restoration under Moses, or whether it already anticipates the deeper work God would accomplish through the New Covenant.
Given how the New Testament repeatedly returns to that chapter, I think the latter remains a strong possibility that should not be dismissed too quickly.
 
Lets consider the redemption that you seem to have in mind.
Jews to be restored to earthly Jerusalem for eternity and physical circumcision continuing without end.
Meanwhile the rest of us enter the kingdom of heaven.
Perhaps that is what you think,
but God's ways are much greater than that.

That's why Revelation 20 brings up the 1,000 years.
Israel to be restored in Millennial Kingdom on earth for 1,000 years.
Satan, Hell & Death are thrown into the Lake of Fire.
Everyone else judged at Great White Throne Judgement.
The permanent Kingdom of Heaven descends.

---
 
  • Like
Reactions: God-fearing
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful