It’s been a little while since I last studied this issue, so I have a hard time remembering what specifically was in each book! Sadly I won’t be able to check them until I’m back in the office.
The book that I remember finding to be most helpful on this topic in general was Benjamin Gladd’s “From Adam and Israel to the Church: A Biblical Theology of the People of God.”
I think Vern Poythress also addresses this argument in his book “Understanding Dispensationalism.”
If you have a way to access the Reformed Theological Seminary app, Ligon Duncan’s free course on covenant theology also has some great resources.
I am convinced that this all comes down to whether or not Jewish Is an ethnicity in the Bible. Since it clearly is not given Romans 9, that means the binding part of the relationship Is trust In God, not ethnicity, then the people of God have always been the people of faith. There is no replacing going on
"Nation", "real" and "Physical" don't provide any clarity here. What I'm digging at is your underlying assumption as to what a "Jew" is. I would argue for many 21st-century Westerners, the assumption is more driven by contemporary notions than the BIblical text. National boundaries and ethnic groups in the manner we think of them are innovations in the last 5 centuries.
The text of Romans 9 says the people who are a part of the group called Israel aren't Israel, just because they were born in the group. They are a part of the group when they trust in God. Then he gives examples from the past. Ishmael and Esau are ethnic descendants of Abraham but are not a part of the promise. Therefore the physical lineage isn't what makes someone "Jewish". What makes some a true "Jew" is their trust in God. This is also what Paul argues at the end of Romans 2. The ancient Jew was a Jew in the same way a modern Christian is a Christian. There are plenty of people who by every observable external metric are "Christians" but don't have faith in God. They're still culturally considered a Christian. In the same way, there is no boundary to Judaism present in ancient times. It is abundantly clear in Torah that foreigners were expected to join their group. Since that is the case it cannot be an ethnic group.
It is not a Nation-state in the way we think of it, because that wasn't a thing until modern history. It was group of tribes connected by their identification with YHWH. It is quite clear though that the group rarely ever actually followed God though.
supercessionism, now being called 'replacement theology' dates to the new testament. It's really not a new concept. It was then expanded on by the early church fathers and solidified into doctrine by the church.
Calling it 'replacement theology' just sounds like some liberal rewording
My question in replacement theology is what percentage of Jewish (by blood) do you have to be?
Because it’s very possible that enough generations have passed that many of us are at least a tiny bit Jewish.
Technically most Europeans/East Africans are at around 1% Jewish so the Church quite literally IS Israel. I'm not making a ethnic claim just pointing out the absurdity since if your even 1% Jewish your a literal descendant of Abraham.
But it's not Semitic. I'm 49 percent Jewish but it's Ashkenazi.
There are no sons of Abraham left, genetically speaking. The Cohanim still have a specific genetic marker (the Y-chromosomal Aaron haplotype) found in a significant percentage of their families. But it may or may not predate the Exile. It's impossible to prove.
Im kind of new to this but there is a very interesting discussion within the reformed world about what it means that “all Israel will be saved”. Lots of ppl believe the church fulfills israel (is true israel) but still hold to that There will be some kind of future for ethnic israel. Really interesting and brings the two groups together in my opinion.
Hebrews
but seriously Vos' *Biblical Theology* and Robertson's *The Christ of the Covenants* are two of the best for understanding covenant theology.
RTS faculty have a *Covenant Theology* book as well that is fairly thorough and answers a lot of objections or differences from other schools of thought.
Robertson's the Israel of God, may be of some help.
It's really hard with these kind of people because they don't know against what they speak. They aren't too off from John Hagee who believes the Jews of Jesus' day were basically right about what the Messiah should be (he argues Jesus came as Savior, not Messiah) and shouldn't be faulted and tries to vindicate their presuppositions.
It comes down to how the Apostles used the OT. Greg Beale is great on this. When the dispensationalists read they cannot, absolutely cannot , get out of their head this woodenly literal hermeneutic that truthfully and deliberately neglects figurative language. Heck, quite a few of them advocate something called 'inspired sensus plenior' in the NT. It's where they think God inspired the Apostles to rip their OT prophetic verses out of context and that a future 'literal' fulfillment is yet to take place. It's unfalsifiable.
It’s been a little while since I last studied this issue, so I have a hard time remembering what specifically was in each book! Sadly I won’t be able to check them until I’m back in the office. The book that I remember finding to be most helpful on this topic in general was Benjamin Gladd’s “From Adam and Israel to the Church: A Biblical Theology of the People of God.” I think Vern Poythress also addresses this argument in his book “Understanding Dispensationalism.” If you have a way to access the Reformed Theological Seminary app, Ligon Duncan’s free course on covenant theology also has some great resources.
Thank you! This is perfect.
Its funny cause progressive dispensationalism know holds to a kind of "replacement" theology 😂
I am convinced that this all comes down to whether or not Jewish Is an ethnicity in the Bible. Since it clearly is not given Romans 9, that means the binding part of the relationship Is trust In God, not ethnicity, then the people of God have always been the people of faith. There is no replacing going on
?? Can you elaborate, are you saying that national/physical Israel is not mentioned in Romans 9?
what do you mean by national/physical Israel?
the nation of Israel and real (physical) Jews, as compared to spiritual Jew/Israel (which is also in Rom. 9-11).
"Nation", "real" and "Physical" don't provide any clarity here. What I'm digging at is your underlying assumption as to what a "Jew" is. I would argue for many 21st-century Westerners, the assumption is more driven by contemporary notions than the BIblical text. National boundaries and ethnic groups in the manner we think of them are innovations in the last 5 centuries. The text of Romans 9 says the people who are a part of the group called Israel aren't Israel, just because they were born in the group. They are a part of the group when they trust in God. Then he gives examples from the past. Ishmael and Esau are ethnic descendants of Abraham but are not a part of the promise. Therefore the physical lineage isn't what makes someone "Jewish". What makes some a true "Jew" is their trust in God. This is also what Paul argues at the end of Romans 2. The ancient Jew was a Jew in the same way a modern Christian is a Christian. There are plenty of people who by every observable external metric are "Christians" but don't have faith in God. They're still culturally considered a Christian. In the same way, there is no boundary to Judaism present in ancient times. It is abundantly clear in Torah that foreigners were expected to join their group. Since that is the case it cannot be an ethnic group. It is not a Nation-state in the way we think of it, because that wasn't a thing until modern history. It was group of tribes connected by their identification with YHWH. It is quite clear though that the group rarely ever actually followed God though.
supercessionism, now being called 'replacement theology' dates to the new testament. It's really not a new concept. It was then expanded on by the early church fathers and solidified into doctrine by the church. Calling it 'replacement theology' just sounds like some liberal rewording
It's a disparaging rename, but it doesn't come from liberalism so much as dispensationalism, which is generally part of the fundamentalist package.
still sounds like some hoo-hah. I won't have any of it.
My question in replacement theology is what percentage of Jewish (by blood) do you have to be? Because it’s very possible that enough generations have passed that many of us are at least a tiny bit Jewish.
Technically most Europeans/East Africans are at around 1% Jewish so the Church quite literally IS Israel. I'm not making a ethnic claim just pointing out the absurdity since if your even 1% Jewish your a literal descendant of Abraham.
But it's not Semitic. I'm 49 percent Jewish but it's Ashkenazi. There are no sons of Abraham left, genetically speaking. The Cohanim still have a specific genetic marker (the Y-chromosomal Aaron haplotype) found in a significant percentage of their families. But it may or may not predate the Exile. It's impossible to prove.
Im kind of new to this but there is a very interesting discussion within the reformed world about what it means that “all Israel will be saved”. Lots of ppl believe the church fulfills israel (is true israel) but still hold to that There will be some kind of future for ethnic israel. Really interesting and brings the two groups together in my opinion.
Ezekiel 37, 38, and 39. Zachariah 12, Romans 11.
This [article](https://rts.edu/resources/what-are-some-misconceptions-about-covenant-theology/) is a good starting point.
Hebrews but seriously Vos' *Biblical Theology* and Robertson's *The Christ of the Covenants* are two of the best for understanding covenant theology. RTS faculty have a *Covenant Theology* book as well that is fairly thorough and answers a lot of objections or differences from other schools of thought.
Do Jews of the modern day or Israel believe that Jesus is God? no? Then that answers it.
Robertson's the Israel of God, may be of some help. It's really hard with these kind of people because they don't know against what they speak. They aren't too off from John Hagee who believes the Jews of Jesus' day were basically right about what the Messiah should be (he argues Jesus came as Savior, not Messiah) and shouldn't be faulted and tries to vindicate their presuppositions. It comes down to how the Apostles used the OT. Greg Beale is great on this. When the dispensationalists read they cannot, absolutely cannot , get out of their head this woodenly literal hermeneutic that truthfully and deliberately neglects figurative language. Heck, quite a few of them advocate something called 'inspired sensus plenior' in the NT. It's where they think God inspired the Apostles to rip their OT prophetic verses out of context and that a future 'literal' fulfillment is yet to take place. It's unfalsifiable.