~r~ ,moral
Has the Church Replaced Israel?
ing the Reformation. The literal approach stands in D o you care about Israel and think you un-
derstand replacement theology? Would you contrast to what is referred to as an "allegorical ap-
be willing to think again for a moment? The proach" to the Scriptures.
stakes are high. Replacement theology, or the errone-
ous belief the Church has replaced Israel in God's heart The allegorical approach assumes God's words, partic-
and prophetic plans, is much more than an anti-Jew- ularly those in the New Covenant, are essentially sym-
ish, institutionalized historical mistake. Replacement bolic. Accordingly, biblical text generally assumes a
theology is robbery of the revelation of God's very na- representative, but not literal, meaning. For instance,
ture! It surreptitiously supplants a loving and faithful, simple terms such as "book," "tree" or "chair," would 5Tmcb'a Y~f#inshv, a./brnm'
intimate Creator and Redeemer with a Sovereign of generally not refer to an actual book, tree or chair. a//orney, and her busfJamt
mysterious caprice. Those who embrace replacement Rather, they symbolize hidden spiritual mysteries Ker#~l, are Do//),lles,~'kltl/c"
theology today also embrace---whether thev know it Jews. 7bgelaer /he.l' sere'e as that need not be at all connected to any correspond-
Oirec/ops gLg, ht olZion, a or not---a whole method of Bible interpretation and ing material object. In like fashion, the words "Israel"
mhdsh:~' lhe~'./'oundedj'or application that has led to various spiritual heresy or "Jew" (particularly in the New Covenant) do not
lhe pur/)ose qf leactoing lhe through the millennia. This is because, at its founda- pertain, according to allegorist teaching, to the literal
d.mr& abou/ /srad and ils tion, replacement theology teaches that God cannot be descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Instead they
,leuish too#. u'#h in/erce<~" taken at His Word, literally Let me explain. symbolize the Gentile Church---if the context happens
soo' and ez wngelislic o/if- to be favorable. Combine this errant method of inter-
tea& Io l,{~e Jeu'MJ Peol)le. Within the Bible itself, through the writings of Mo- pretation with an anti-Jewish bias, and replacement
Sand~w has u'ri/ten several ses, the Prophets, and authors of the New Covenant- theology follows as the next "logical" step. Sadly, the
boobs on//oese subjec/s. --most importantly Yeshua (Jesus)---we are given the whole approach stems from faulty (and non-Jewish)
\]~Tlld Olt1 lllOt'g (t\[ fundamentals of Bible interpretation and application. assumptions about our Heavenly Father. Allegorists
n nn./&#~/o/}ion org
We are taught the words of Scripture should gener- assume that Yahweh is so far removed and aloof from
ally be understood according to their usual and logi- humanity that He can communicate only in language
cal, literal meaning, while also taMng into consider- that is inherently difficult, if not near-impossible, for
ation grammatical structure and historical-cultural His people to understand.
context. We see in the Scriptures that God wants very
much to communicate with humankind. Therefore, Certainly the Bible is interspersed with genuine sym-
He means what He says, and He says what He means. bolism and allegory. But allegory is the exception rath-
This so-called "literal approach" to understanding the er than the rule. We know it exists where the writers of
Bible was adhered to by the rabbis, Scripture tell us so, or where a literal rendering of the
biblical text would make no sense, or where the gram- Author Sandra discarded early in Church history,
matical-historical-cultural context of a passage points Teplinsky but restored to varying degrees dur-
4 Jewish Voice Today May/June 2005
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20