Has the Church Replaced Israel? Replacement Theology Debate

Thanks to my opponent for his final round. Now I will try to: 1. Not make any new arguments. 2. Comment on Rm 9-11. 3. Recap my position. 1. THE BIG MISUNDERSTANDING: I contended that the geo-political construct we know as Israel was not what God meant when he made his promise. The political state is more a product of a great misunderstanding (and routine politics) than it is a fulfillment of God's promise. To bolster this argument, I not only used sound biblical scholarship and pertinent biblical references to elucidate the broader meaning of "nation" (as a people called to be God's people to do his bidding throughout the whole world), but I also summarized the biblical witness to this misunderstanding. While I admit that many biblical passages appear to support the political view, I tried to show that these passages could well be understood as a record of the big misunderstanding, or even a product of it. Just because the Bible makes violence sound like it is sanctioned by God (Pss 109, 137) doesn't mean we are to believe that God actually sanctions such things. We need a more discerning view. My contentions are: 1. "Israel" and "nation" are NOT to be understood in ethnocentric, geo-political terms. 2. Many people misunderstand this. 3. The Bible itself (as well as much biblical scholarship) gives ample evidence attesting to both 1 and 2. Luke refers to Jesus "opening the minds" of the disciples so that they (FINALLY) understood this great mystery only after the resurrection, that their expectation of an "earthly" messiah was misguided (Lk 24), and that He was ushering in the fulfillment of the promise (Lk 4:16-21), and that (so Luke in Acts) the church was, in fact, the fulfillment of the promise. I contend that most of Acts and the NT is a huge attempt to convince everyone of this fact. People are frustrated by the fact that the political Israel appears to fulfill the promise weakly, as it never did become, and still is not, a "great" nation. But, if they would allow that maybe they are misunderstanding the promise, they would finally understand, like Luke, Paul, and the disciples, that God's promise is being fulfilled by the church. My opponent keeps referring to a "kingdom" that Jesus will bring to Israel. But Jesus' kingdom is already hard at work far beyond Israel's borders. Sometimes we need to stop worrying so much about Jesus' second coming and focus more on his first one. The church today is one of the largest "nations" in the world. It is really the only "nation" of its kind. It has no earthly headquarters. It has no earthly borders. It has no earthly government or rulers. It has spread throughout the world, far more by voluntary conversion than can be claimed for any other creed. Most charities, schools, and hospitals the world over, by a huge majority, were started by the church. The church may have many failings, but it has championed the civil rights of minorities, of women, and of oppressed people everywhere. To the extent that the church waged actual earthly war (the Crusades) or established itself in an earthly government (the Vatican or anywhere Christianity has been a state religion), or coerced conversion (inquisitions, state decrees), it was falling right back into the same old misunderstanding. Are you kidding? Wage war to spread God's love? This kind of approach is not revolutionary or inspired. This is the way nations have done business since the beginning of history. God wanted to do a new thing (Is 43:19). Borderless love and forgiveness is anything but business as usual. It is revolutionary. THAT is what God wanted all along, and what culminated in the church. "We're Marching To Zion" is a great hymn, but it does not mean we're literally marching to a place in Jerusalem. The church is not perfect, but it IS the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham. Far from being despondent that God has broken his promise with Israel, I stand in awe of the wondrous way he has fulfilled his promise. 2. ROMANS 9-11: My opponent claimed I could not explain this passage away. It should come as no surprise that my interpretation of this passage is not the same as my opponent's. In fact, I believe this passage supports my view! The passage doesn't make much sense unless we acknowledge Jews were hanging on to a geo-political vision. The Jews (and Jewish Christians) in Rome were concerned that Jerusalem really was not emerging as the center of religious activity. Luke's ACTS is all about how the church spread out from Jerusalem into all the world, ending up in what was considered the center of their world at the time (Rome). Jewish politics and religion were taking a back seat, and Jerusalem was becoming less significant. Since many of them were still steeped in the "big misunderstanding", they were trying to hang on to the view that their territory was what gave shape to God's promise rather than a grouping of faithful peoples. When the Christians began to preach that the church was, in fact, the "new" Israel that was spreading out to the whole world, many thought God was breaking his promise. So one of the main goals of the church was to explain that the "true" Israel was not geo-political, but made of ANYONE who would follow Christ. Paul says, "For not all descendants of Israel are truly Israel, nor, because they are Abraham's offspring, are they all his true children...it is not those born in the course of nature [i.e., bloodline, and, we might add, political ties] who are children of God..." (Rm 9:7-8) He assures that this is not a transfer or replacement...it is NOT that the Gentiles have been given the promise and the Jews are being rejected...it is that the same promise made to the Jews is now being extended to everyone. All have fallen short, and all are offered salvation through Christ, and anyone is welcome. It is difficult for me to understand this passage unless we assume Paul is trying to convince the Jews that the promise has NOT been broken, but is being fulfilled in the church. Jesus himself taught that the promise was not an ethnic inheritance: "...do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father,' for...from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham." (Mt 3:9) I agree with my opponent that Rm 11:1 ("Has God rejected his people?") reflects a real concern. But Paul is trying to show that God's offer of his promise to the Gentiles is NOT a rejection, but calls for a new understanding. "Everyone that calls upon the Lord will be saved." (Rm 10:13). 3. GOD'S PURPOSE: My opponent agreed that God wants to save everyone, but that the "world peace" theme is not relevant. My reading of scripture is that personal salvation and global peace go hand in hand. The vision of harmony is the direct antithesis to the division emerging from the Tower of Babel (Gen 11). Isaiah's vision for harmony (Is 2:3-4), his "prince of peace" (Is 9), his "The wolf and the lamb shall graze together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox" (Is 65:25), all are majestic tributes to God's purpose for the world. The biblical message is that we strive for peace in all the wrong ways. The only hope for the world is Christ, because his gift of love and forgiveness, not armies, laws, politics, money, is the ONLY way to achieve real peace. Jacob_A, that'll preach! My opponent then quotes the verse about Jesus saying he came "not to bring peace, but a sword" in an attempt to prove that global peace is NOT a divine aim! To paraphrase from an earlier round (#JMcEnroe), surely he can't be serious! The irony is that this verse refers to how conflict often results when anyone follows Christ and joins the new Israel, the church. I'd love to keep going, but there simply is not enough space, so I rest my case. Again, I'd love to keep the conversation going (with Jacob_A or any others), but, for now, I'll close with the hope that we all learn from this debating experience. Thanks again to Jacob_A for an enjoyable challenge!