Wrestling With God

I'm sure many of you are familiar with an incident that occurred in the life of Jacob, son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham, in which Jacob spends the night wrestling with some unidentified man who ultimately changes Jacob's name to Israel. Some commentators have pegged the mystery man in the story as a preincarnate appearance of Christ, and I am inclined to agree.

In the story, Jacob is on his way to meet his brother Esau, many years after Jacob and their mother Rebekah conspired to deceive an elderly Isaac into giving Jacob the blessing he intended to give Esau (Gen. 27). Although both brothers have prospered handsomely since that time, Jacob is understandably afraid Esau will seek to kill him out of a deep-seated desire for revenge. So, he is planning his moves carefully and preparing generous gifts to bestow upon Esau when they finally meet face to face.

Let's pick up the narrative in Genesis 32:

Hence Jacob's name was changed to Israel, which in Hebrew is typically translated as "one who struggles or wrestles with God"...which is precisely what Jacob did that night.

Of course, Jacob's new name also became the name of the nation of people that arose from his line of descendants, and the name "Israel" turned out to be appropriate indeed because that's exactly what God's Chosen People have done since the days of the Patriarchs. Just as their namesake before them...

They have wrestled with God.

But Jacob and the nation that arose from him are certainly not the only people who have wrestled with God. In the broadest sense of the word, we all have—both saved and unsaved. We all wrestle with the Holy Spirit, who convicts us of sin and draws us to Christ. The only difference is that some of us ultimately yield to the Holy Spirit's leading and come to believe the gospel in faith and trust Christ for our salvation, and some don't.

And even after we do get saved, God still has to put us in a full nelson from time to time to get us back on track.

Recently, however, it appears that one particularly dangerous doctrine has been rearing its unscriptural head to a greater degree as many otherwise good people blindly and foolishly acquiesce to the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas protests that are sweeping the country and, sadly, some of the nation's most prestigious universities. Not only that, but many who may not necessarily approve of these anti-Israel protests are becoming increasingly gun shy when it comes to showing open support for Israel due to very real fears of violent repercussions at the hands of what are little more than deluded, demonically manipulated thugs. The result?

A growing number of believers today are "wrestling with God" as they become increasingly hesitant to openly support Israel.

This increasing reluctance to openly show support for Israel and the Jewish people is a major boost for a pernicious doctrine that has done great damage to the Church, and it is luring increasing numbers of otherwise good believers into its clutches. That doctrine is the teaching that the Church has replaced Israel in the plan of God, and so there is no biblical mandate whatsoever for Christians to support the modern-day nation of Israel or the Jewish people in any way. Its purveyors claim modern-day Israel is an accident of history that got palmed off on a gullible Church. And the name of that doctrine?

Replacement theology.

It's also known as supersessionism, meaning that the Church has superseded or taken the place of Israel. Personally, however, I tend to dislike using that word because even though I consciously know it doesn't mean that, there is certainly nothing "super" about it. This patently unbiblical doctrine has become a plank in the platform that underlies today's burgeoning anti-Israel sentiment, and it needs to be rooted out and exposed as the pack of lies that it is by scripturally competent believers at every opportunity.

And this article is part of my own small effort to that end.

What I want to do in this article is show you from Scripture why several of the arguments commonly offered in support of replacement theology are simply contrary to what God's Word clearly teaches. Although I suspect that many of you are already familiar with the bulk of the points I will make in this article, it is sometimes helpful to have such ideas swept into one neat pile, so to speak, perhaps to show someone else you know who may not be as tuned in to the Word as you are and who might benefit from seeing scriptural refutations of some of the claims of this insidious doctrine with their own eyes.

This article is certainly not meant to be comprehensive—these are just a handful of the issues that often come up in discussions with those who adhere to the doctrine of replacement theology (whom I will sometimes refer to as RTs in the remainder of this article for simplicity), along with some passages of Scripture that clearly refute the doctrine of replacement theology if read in a literal, straightforward manner. Although I didn't consciously try to put them in any certain order, these points generally fall into two basic groups:

1. Passages of Scripture that are being misinterpreted by those who hold to replacement theology (RTs), and other Scripture that clearly supports the fact that those passages are being mishandled.

2. Passages of Scripture that, when read in a plain, contextual manner, would seem to clearly refute the tenets of replacement theology. However, these are ignored or allegorized into oblivion by RTs.

And by the time we're finished, my prayer is that there will be no doubt in your mind that God's Word clearly and emphatically tells us we should love, honor, bless, pray for, support, protect, and defend the nation of Israel and God's (still) Chosen People the Jews, the woke winds of liberal left-wing politics notwithstanding. And we will be blessed if we do so.

Israel was God's Chosen People and the apple of His eye four millennia ago, and you can believe me when I say that nothing has changed His perfect plan or His eternal promises since then.

Yes, blessing and cursing—certainly one of the best-loved passages of Scripture in the entire Old Testament for many believers (this writer included):

This promise was given to Abram (later changed to Abraham) when God first told him to leave his father's house and go to a land that He would show him—and Abraham obeyed in faith.

You...yeah, you: Before we go on, think for a moment. According to RTs, the word "you" in the first two clauses of this verse refer strictly to the man Abraham: If you bless the man Abraham, God will bless you. If you curse him, God will curse you...right? OK, so who does the word "you" refer to in the third clause? If we want to maintain a shred of consistency, it must also refer to the man Abraham, and him alone. Now, I don't know about you, but this man Abraham—who died roughly four millennia ago—didn't do anything personally, all by himself, to bless me or my family. Any takers on that one? (crickets chirping...) My point is that it's patently obvious that all three "yous" in this verse refer to Abraham's entire bloodline, which includes the Jews and all of Israel, which includes Jesus, who blessed me by atoning for my sin.

But the question at hand is whether this promise only applies to Abraham personally, or to Abraham's descendants—and hence to the Jewish people all the way up to and including the modern nation of Israel.

As with many such spurious claims about the meaning of particular passages of Scripture, I really don't have to do much work of my own to refute this. All I have to do is follow the Golden Rule of biblical interpretation:

Let Scripture interpret Scripture.

Why? Because God's Word will typically do the work for us, if we'll just stand back and get out of its way.

First of all, notice that the promise apparently also applied to Abraham's son Isaac, because Isaac applied it to his son Jacob:

Even though the context clearly seems to be in reference to all Jacob's descendants, at the very least this proves the promise didn't apply to Abraham alone: It applied equally well to his son Isaac and to Isaac's son Jacob, which is sufficient to punch a gaping hole in the argument put forth by RTs...to whom we can truthfully say:

So Genesis 12:3 only applies to Abraham himself, eh? Sorry, but God's Word clearly says otherwise.

OK, so there's that. But oh my...it gets better. In Numbers 22–24, we read about a prophet for hire named Balaam, and how he was summoned to speak to Balak, King of Moab. The Israelites had already defeated the Ammonites and now were eyeing the Moabites, and Balak was desperate to find a way to avoid the fate of his Ammonite neighbors.

He sends for Balaam, a known prophet in the area, for the purpose of cursing Israel on behalf of the Moabites—and naturally, Balaam would be royally compensated for his efforts...cha-ching. God tells Balaam point-blank not to go, but he disobeys and goes anyway.

As Balaam is riding his donkey on his way to meet with Balak, however, for some strange reason his donkey repeatedly refuses to proceed. After beating the donkey several times, the donkey finally speaks to Balaam and questions why he is beating it, and then God opens Balaam's eyes and he sees the Angel of the LORD standing before him, blocking the donkey's path with sword drawn. The angel informs Balaam that his actions are perverse, and if the donkey hadn't stopped him, he would have slain Balaam and let the donkey live. Balaam is repentant, and asks if he should just go back home. The angel tells him to proceed and speak with Balak, but to only speak the words the angel would give him to speak.

Balaam obeys and proceeds to meet with Balak; but when he attempts to curse Israel for him, he instead blesses them. Balak is stunned and understandably upset, and a second attempt at cursing Israel is arranged—same result: Balaam blesses Israel. Balak is now beside himself, and angrily gets Balaam to try a third time, and here are the words of Balaam the third time around:

This confirms that God's promise applies to Abraham's bloodline—the nation of Israel—not just Abraham himself, nor just him, his son, and his grandson.

By the way, we have seen the results of this promise play out in real life many times. For example, when Israel declared itself an independent nation on May 14, 1948, it became official when the British Mandate on Palestine expired at midnight that night (technically the 15th). At 11 minutes past midnight, the very first phone call they received was from a representative of U.S. President Harry Truman, and it was to inform them that the United States officially recognized the newborn nation of Israel. And that phone call came as a very pleasant surprise to the Jewish leaders, since they were anxiously preparing for an attack from the surrounding nations that would begin in a few hours.

And whaddya know...

God arranged for Truman to win the 1948 presidential election in the most stunningly improbable manner, and God blessed the United States like few countries in history over the next several decades, turning it into a prosperous superpower and the envy of the entire world.

But my, how times have changed. Now the U.S. is clearly beginning to become subject to the flipside of that promise...and deservedly so.

I addressed this exact same point in an article eight years ago entitled "Hidden in Plain Sight." Since I haven't changed my mind about any of this since 2016 and I can't say it any better than I did then, I decided to simply insert that one section of that article here.

One of the most misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misapplied verses of Scripture in the entire New Testament is Matthew 21:43—a verse that has almost single-handedly given birth to Christianity's collective dismissal of the prophetic significance of the re-establishment of the nation of Israel (1948), and has fueled such heresies as replacement theology, dominion theology, ad infinitum, ad haeresis.

As we pick up the narrative in Matthew 21, Jesus has entered Jerusalem and has presented Himself as the Jews' prophesied Messiah. He is teaching in the temple, and during the course of His teaching some of the religious leaders of Israel—Pharisees and chief priests—confront Jesus in a fairly combative, antagonistic manner:

Jesus knows their hardened hearts will never accept Him, and so He doesn't hesitate to stick it in their ear with the Parable of the Two Sons and the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, both of which are clearly intended as condemnations of the religious leadership of Israel for their hard-hearted rejection of their promised Messiah and their historic mistreatment of the prophets God had sent them in times past.

When He's finished, Jesus looks these highly venerated religious leaders in the eyes and says:

Strong words indeed. But what exactly did Jesus mean? It's not hard to see how many people could read this verse out of context and interpret it to mean the kingdom was being taken away from Israel and given to...oh, let's see, who can we give the kingdom to...think think think...oh, the Church, of course!

"After all, we're the ones who are gonna produce its fruit, right? We're the ones who are gonna go out and preach the gospel and win the world for Christ, aren't we?"

This interpretation (which didn't emerge until the second century) effectively gives the Church a license to view itself as taking Israel's place in the plan of God and as the recipients of all their promised blessings.

But is that what Jesus meant? Did Jesus really mean that God was done with the Jews, and that the promise of the kingdom God had made to them was being revoked and transferred to the Church? It's a question that needs to be addressed in a straightforward biblical manner, since this has become the official position of a substantial portion of mainstream Christianity.

To gain a clearer understanding of this verse, there are two key points that need to be examined in Jesus' statement, and the first is this:

1. From whom was the kingdom being taken?

Those who adhere to replacement theology insist Jesus meant the kingdom was being taken away from Israel as a nation. This interpretation, however, fails to stand up to closer scrutiny.

Notice what Matthew writes two verses later:

It is clear from the context of the entire chapter that Jesus is specifically condemning the religious leaders of Israel, if the testy, in-your-face exchange he had just had with them and the blistering parables he had just not so subtly directed their way are anything to go by. And in these last two verses of the chapter, we see that they got the message loud and clear:

They knew Jesus was saying the kingdom was being taken from them, the religious leadership of Israel—the very ones who should have recognized Jesus for who He was and led the nation of Israel in receiving Him.

After all, it was they who rejected Jesus, not all of the people of Israel, and God would hold them accountable as leaders for their willful refusal to properly interpret their own Scriptures that clearly and unmistakably pointed to Jesus as their prophesied Messiah. There were in fact multitudes of ordinary Jews in the area who came to embrace Jesus as the Messiah, in spite of being censured by their religious leaders. Christians today often forget that in the beginning, the Church was composed almost entirely of Jewish believers, and make no mistake—they were Jewish believers who paid a heavy price for their newfound faith.

The fact that Jesus didn't mean the kingdom was being permanently revoked from Israel as a nation is evident in other places in the Gospels where Jesus clearly talks about Israel receiving its promised kingdom at a future time. In fact, we only have to back up two chapters to see an example of this:

Here, Jesus is telling His Jewish disciples that they will sit on thrones and judge the tribes of Israel during the coming kingdom. Well, that doesn't make much sense if the kingdom has been taken from Israel and handed over to the Church, wouldn't you agree?

If you insist the kingdom has been taken from Israel as a nation, the only possible way to massage this into something intelligible is to argue that the Church has simply replaced Israel because God's done with the Jews. So, whenever you see the word "Israel" in the New Testament, just cross it out and insert the words "the Church." Yeah, that's the ticket.

I guess somebody forgot to tell Jeremiah:

The sun still shines by day. The moon and stars still shine by night. The waves still roar. So Israel is still a nation before God. And unless God is a liar and a welcher, His promises to His people are just as ironclad and unshakable today as they were when He made them to Abraham.

There are many in the Church today—not to mention the world—who will blow a gasket trying to convince you otherwise. Don't listen to them.

2. To whom was the kingdom being given?

As strong as this first point is, it's not enough for people who have made up their minds that God has transferred the blessings promised to Israel over to the Church. They are not easily dissuaded from this heresy because it inappropriately elevates, glorifies, and empowers the Church. As an added bonus, it gives them a high-sounding, Christianized outlet for their pent-up hatred for the Jews.

Many of them would be inclined to argue something along these lines:

"Well, the religious leaders of Israel represented the nation, so the kingdom was still, in a sense, being 'taken from Israel.' Just because Jesus was addressing the religious leaders at the time doesn't change that. And the kingdom was still being given to the Church, a people who would produce its fruit. How 'bout them apples, Mr. Jew-Lover?"

And it sounds like a good argument...that is, until you take a closer look at the Greek word Jesus used to refer to this future recipient of the kingdom.

In Matthew 21:43, Jesus said the kingdom would be given to a people (singular) who would produce its fruit, and He uses a form of the Greek word ethnos (which is where we get the English words "ethnic" and "ethnicity"). Now, when ethnos is used in the plural in the Bible, it normally refers to the Gentile nations of the world. When it is used in the singular, however, it refers to a particular race, people, nation, ethnic group, etc. But regardless of what sense it is used in, it always carries ethnic connotations.

And that's the rub. There is simply no way that the Church is any sort of ethnic group. None. Zero. If the word had been used in the plural, you just might have an argument (a faulty argument that could still be refuted, but an argument nonetheless). But with ethnos being singular, the argument for it referring to the Church simply dries up and blows away. POOF...it's gone.

There is no ethnicity associated with the Church, because there is no ethnicity associated with Christ, who transcends and dispenses with all ethnic divisions. As born-again believers, we are one in Christ:

Ephesians 2:11–18 and Colossians 3:9–11 say essentially the same thing. Believers are one in Christ, and in the body of Christ ethnicities are out the window. The Church, which is never called an ethnos, is normally referred to in the New Testament as an ekklesia (assembly, congregation; a group called out from the world to God). The Church doesn't have an ethnos bone in its body.

And if that doesn't clinch it, then Paul does when he quotes Deuteronomy 32:21 in his letter to the Romans:

In other words, that which is not an ethnos. That's the Church, and it drives Jews batty when we go on and on about Jesus being their Messiah. By the way, the "nation (ethnos) void of understanding" that angers Israel could possibly be a reference to the Arab people surrounding them in the Middle East.

"Well, Mr. Jew-Lover, what about Peter calling the Church a 'holy nation'? There's your word ethnos, bud. Guess that blows your little theory, huh?"

Here's the passage in question, and Peter is clearly speaking of the Church:

When Peter uses the phrase "holy nation," he is harking back to Exodus 19:6, where God is establishing His covenant with the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai. When God said if Israel would obey His covenant that they would be to Him a "holy nation," He meant "nation" literally, because Israel is a nation: an ethnos in the literal sense. Here, however, Peter is merely drawing a spiritual parallel between Israel and the Church, and is not calling the Church a literal ethnos (because it isn't). In other words, Peter is clearly using the word ethnos figuratively in verse 9.

As a confirmation of this, note that in these two verses, Peter uses the Greek word laos three times, which usually refers to God's people rather than a literal ethnic group. At the same time, it should be noted that there is nothing in Matthew 21:43 that suggests that Jesus is using the word ethnos figuratively—there is no indication that He is using the word with anything other than a literal meaning, and so it simply cannot refer to the Church.

Now that we have ruled out the Church, there is only one single ethnos that Matthew 21:43 can possibly be referring to: Israel.

Israel—as a people, as a nation, as an ethnic group that God has promised to give the kingdom to some day, after a remnant of them return to Him with all their hearts after being purged in the Great Tribulation. When Christ returns at the Second Coming, a believing remnant of Jews will be gathered into the land (Matt. 24:29–31), and they will be ushered into their long-awaited kingdom just as promised in His Word.

Oh, you wanna talk about producing the fruit of the kingdom? Straight up:

The 144,000 Jewish evangelists that God will seal and send out to preach the gospel to the post-Rapture world are going to make today's Church look like giggling teenagers passing out tracts at a local supermarket.

And the hard-hearted hypocrites who rejected their Messiah and plotted to have Him executed two thousand years ago?

They'll have no part in that kingdom.

Since so many Christians have bought into the idea that the Church has replaced Israel in God's plan, it's easy to see how they can read a passage of Scripture like Revelation 7:4–8 and see 12,000 Jews sealed from 12 specific tribes of Israel and insist without blinking an eye that they really represent the Church in some convoluted way, because, after all, God has washed His hands of the Jews, right?

Note that some Bible teachers I greatly respect (Arnold Fruchtenbaum, for one) believe Jesus is emphasizing that the kingdom will be given to a different generation of Israel. That is, He is telling us that the kingdom is being taken away from that generation of Jews and will be given to a future generation. In a sense, however, this is little more than my argument with a slightly different spin. This is my argument with a fresh coat of paint. After all, the Jewish remnant and the 144,000 Jewish evangelists who will preach to them during the Tribulation are certainly a different generation from the Jews of Jesus' day, are they not? So, I basically agree with Arnold's spin on this verse.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Those who espouse replacement theology are drawn to some of Paul's writings in the book of Romans like kids to an ice cream truck, because Paul does admittedly use some rather subtle phraseology that must be read thoughtfully and that is susceptible to misinterpretation by those who are so inclined. And a prime example of this is the following passage:

RTs interpret verse 29 to mean that when a Gentile gets saved, that person becomes a "true Jew" or a "spiritual Jew." But regardless of what term you use, the point is that they become a Jew in God's eyes. As a result, the Gentile believers of the Church have become "spiritual Israel" and have replaced physical Israel, since God has no more use for them.

But is that what Paul is saying? Have all Gentile believers, who are circumcised in the heart and the spirit, become "true Jews" in the eyes of God? Has the Church—that is, the body of all born-again believers—taken the place of physical Israel, who apparently has no further role in God's program?

One could say that the question boils down to this:

Does Paul mean that Gentiles become Jews in the eyes of God when they get saved and thus the Church has replaced Israel, or does he mean that when physical Jews get saved they become "true Jews" or "spiritual Jews" or "the Israel of God" as in Galatians 6:16 (see point no. 4)—a group of born-again Jews that are simply a subset of all physical Jews?

It's that second thing, because it is quite clear that Paul, unlike those who follow the path of replacement theology, sees Jews and Gentiles as absolutely separate, distinct groups. Neither becomes the other in any way, and the entire book of Romans bristles with this notion at every turn. For example, earlier in Romans Paul writes:

So it's (a) then (b), with (a) and (b) being separate and distinct groups. "The Greek" is a reference to Gentiles, and it is obvious not only here but throughout the book of Romans that Paul doesn't comingle these two groups anywhere in his teaching. And that's the heart of the matter:

Those who believe that born-again Gentile members of the Church have become Jews or Israel in some way are comingling these two distinct groups in a way that must be read into anything Paul wrote.

What causes confusion for RTs, however, is the fact that although Paul never comingles Gentile believers with Israel, he does clearly distinguish two groups of Jews: those who reject the truth that Christ is their Messiah, and those who come to faith in Christ as their Messiah...and that leads us to the next point:

First, lets look at that verse and the one that precedes it:

With all due respect to the KJV-Only crowd, there have been several occasions over the years when I have been justifiably critical of the English translation of the venerable King James Version of the Bible, but not this time. Oh no. In this case, I happily offer praise and kudos to the KJV crew because they nailed it, and got it clear, straight, and true.

Sadly, the same cannot be said for a number of other English translations.

And as I noted above, the vortex of this cyclone centers on one simple, harmless little word:

 < and > 

On second thought, maybe it's not so harmless, because the questionable translation of this one little word has led legions of believers into the waiting arms of the demonic doctrine of replacement theology, which attempts to rip God's eternally Chosen People out His plan and out of His promises.

The last phrase of verse 16 in Greek is:

...καί έπί τόν Ίσραήλ τοϋ Θεοϋ.
(...kai epi ton Israel tou Theou.)
...and upon the Israel of God.

The Greek word kai means "and" and is translated that way in the vast majority of cases. OK, pop quiz for all you grammar mavens out there:

Q. If a sentence reads "I sent the email to the tech group and the engineering group," how many groups was that email sent to? One or two?

A. Two. The word "and" clearly indicates that the "tech group" and the "engineering group" are two separate, distinct groups, whatever meaning those two names are intended to convey. They're clearly two different groups, no matter what you call them. That's how the sentence should be interpreted.

That's pretty straightforward, but the problem is that certain modern English translations use a variant translation of kai that, while grammatically legitimate, is far less common. Kai does have a couple of specialized usages that appear occasionally, one of which is to indicate an equivalence between two entities or groups (equivalence that should normally be quite clear from the context). When used in this manner, it is sometimes translated into English as "even," or in some cases a dash is inserted into that spot in the sentence. In other words, if my example sentence were changed to read:

Ex. "I sent the email to the tech group—the engineering group."

Now what do you think? One group or two? That's easy—one. Now it sounds like the writer is only talking about one single group, and he's just giving you a wee bit of additional information about which group he is referring to for clarity. Maybe they are called the "tech group" by some people, but maybe others call them the "engineering group" and the writer doesn't want there to be any doubt in the reader's mind about what group he is talking about.

Well, that's what some modern English translations do with Galatians 6:16, rendering that verse something along the following lines:

"Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God." (NIV)

"Peace and mercy to all who walk by this rule, even to the Israel of God." (BSB)

"May God's peace and mercy be upon all who live by this principle; they are the new people of God." (NLT)

Granted, the New Living Translation's version is twisted in a rather blatant manner, but I trust you see what I mean. So...follow-up pop quiz:

Q. How many groups do these translations sound like they are referring to?

A. One: Born-again believers, who can also be called the Israel of God.

And it's adiós to literal Israel. Of course, one might wonder why anyone would want to alter the English translation of the Greek wording of the last phrase of Galatians 6:16 this way, and frankly I only see one reason:

Such translators have already fallen for the lie that the Church has replaced Israel, and they are clearly seeking any potential opportunity to lure other believers into falling for it.

So don't fall for it.

Here is the passage in question:

First of all, note that when the disciples asked Jesus this question, they understood that Jesus was in fact going to establish Israel's promised kingdom at some point—they just weren't sure when. Yes, Israel's promised kingdom. So we can safely assume that Jesus had made it clear to them that He was going to do just that—return to establish Israel's promised kingdom. And even if He hadn't, the fact that the Messiah was going to inaugurate Israel's promised kingdom is well established in the Old Testament, and to their credit the disciples knew their Old Testament a lot better than most of today's believers (especially RTs, not to put too fine a point on it).

So however you look at it, it's a perfectly reasonable question. The disciples weren't spitballing Jesus, or yanking screwy ideas out of the clear, blue sky. But if the doctrine of replacement theology is to be believed and the kingdom were going to be taken from Israel and given to the Church because the Church was going to replace Israel, then it's a fairly stupid, uniformed question that reveals an astonishing level of ignorance on the part of the disciples.

And in that case, Jesus certainly would have corrected their misunderstanding and set them straight about the Church replacing Israel and the kingdom being transferred to the Church. That's kind of important, don't ya think? But what does Jesus say to them to correct this gross error in their understanding?

Nothing.

Not. One. Word. The only thing Jesus does is make a remark concerning the timing of the establishment of Israel's kingdom, which was not for the disciples to know (nor is it for us to know, incidentally) because the Father has set such things within His own authority.

There is only one thing RTs can do with passages like this, and it's the same thing they have to do with countless other passages:

 Israel 
the Church!

You know, this is what just kills me about this doctrine:

Just exactly how low an opinion of
God and His promises do you have to
have to believe replacement theology?

I mean, just what kind of God do we serve, anyway? One who is in the habit of changing His mind due to man's sin and disobedience? One who breaks His covenants and cancels His promises because of our failures or shortcomings?

I'm as serious as a spot on a chest X-ray. Because if that's the case—and it absolutely is the case if you buy into replacement theology—then our salvation and the heavenly inheritance that goes with it are in real jeopardy, I don't care what you want to call us: the Church, Israel, spiritual Israel, the "Up, Up and Away" Gang, whatever. How do we know God won't change His mind again, and dump us like last night's food scraps? And considering the fleshly carnival that large swaths of the Church have degenerated into in recent times, it's tough to say anyone could blame Him.

The New Jerusalem? Remodel it and turn it into a spa for the principalities and powers in heavenly places.

There are so many verses in Romans 9–11 that blast from the rooftop that replacement theology is a lie that all I can do is list a few sample verses to give you a taste of what I mean. The bottom line is that people who have bought into replacement theology simply have no choice:

RTs have to rip Romans 9–11 out of their Bibles—there's no other way.

The true Israel, God's Israel, the Israel of God, spiritual Israel, etc. are all those of Israel who have believed the gospel. Yes, they are saved—and no, they are not the Church.

And if the Church has replaced Israel and God's promises to them are now transferred to the Church and God is done with them, then it's sorta like, you know, He's "cast them away," wouldn't you agree?

So is Paul teaching replacement theology? God forbid.

During the Tribulation, one-third of the Jews will come to believe the gospel and be saved and will be protected until Christ returns so they can be ushered into the Millennial Kingdom. The other two-thirds will remain hardened in their unbelief and will perish (Zech. 13:8–9). This isn't just not the Church—it has nothing to do with the Church. This is 100 percent Israel—believing and unbelieving Israel who will (a) enter the kingdom and (b) perish, resp.

So yeah, all (believing) Israel will be saved (future tense)—during the Tribulation. That's the "Israel" Paul is talking about.

And that ain't the Church. To a large extent, we are being saved (present continuous tense) and our group is very nearly complete—and about to be taken out of the picture.

Wrestle with this...

I know this has been a bit of a slog, and for that I apologize. But I pray that you found it worth the effort because this article touches on some extremely important truths—and we as born-again believers and members of the body of Christ need to understand and be willing to stand rock-solid in our support of these truths. We have no business "wrestling with God" over our love and support for the Jewish people and the nation of Israel.

Not now...not ever.

Nobody's perfect: Let me be crystal clear about one thing—Israel is not perfect. They do not have nor have they ever had perfect leaders. So, I don't want anyone out there to think that anything I have said in this article suggests that God expects you to support or agree with every decision made by the Israeli government, no matter what—no questions asked. You can certainly love and support Israel and still think they are making mistakes or doing something you think is wrong or misguided.

For example, perhaps you sincerely believe Israel has pushed the Gaza offensive too far, and should put stronger efforts into reaching some kind of ceasefire agreement (and I might deign to see it differently). That's fine—that just means you have a mind of your own, and that's your view. Disagreeing with any of Israel's very human decisions in no way suggests that you don't love and support the nation of Israel and the Jewish people—you can do that and still think for yourself.

My point is simply that we have no business being influenced to waver in that support by a gaggle of deluded college kids who are busy wasting their parents' hard-earned money and chanting grand-sounding slogans and carrying signs bearing equally grand-sounding memes, the true meanings of which they are simply not equipped to fully grasp.

For example, they wave their signs and chant "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." Now, how many of those kids do you suppose actually understand and appreciate the fact that this cute, catchy little jingle is more properly and accurately interpreted as...

"We want to see every Jew in Israel dead"?

Actually, any Jew anywhere. Oh, and they want to see every square inch of Israel handed over to a gang of terrorists and the descendants of Arab refugees whom those terrorists have indoctrinated to believe that it's all really their land for some hazy (read: "fictional") historical reasons.

Do not be deceived: That's precisely what their slogans are communicating to a world that is foolish and deceived enough to listen to them.

If we kowtow to Satan's useful idiots on this, we betray what God's Word tells us in clear, black-and-white terms, and passively and unwittingly offer our assistance to the demonic realm in their unceasing (and increasing) efforts to wipe Israel off the map and kill every last Jew so their boss can put the Second Coming on ice and hang on to his pathetic excuse of a kingdom where he can strut around pretending to "be like the Most High."

So if you feel the need to wrestle with something, wrestle with this:

Understand that Satan can only hang on to his pathetic excuse of a kingdom if he can somehow rid the world of the Jewish people, because it is they who will implore God to save them at the climax of that pathetic excuse of a kingdom (Hos. 5:15). And save them He will, because...

That's the Messiah's cue to enter stage up.

Come to terms with that. Incidentally, in stage parlance phrases like "stage right" and "stage left" are not so much directions as they are areas. In other words, "enter stage up" doesn't mean Jesus is going up—it's just a theatrical way to express the idea that when God gives the cue, Jesus will enter the earthly stage from up above, when He returns to earth from heaven to establish His kingdom—the kingdom God promised unconditionally to Israel.

And since we're dabbling in stage jargon here, I'm pleased to report that it's very nearly time for the Church to exit stage up, when we are caught up to meet the Lord in the air and then proceed on to heaven where we will be with our Lord and our loved ones for eternity.

And when God gives that cue, it's gonna bring the house down.

Greg Lauer — MAY '24

Top of the page

If you like this article, share it with someone!

 MAY '24 

Site Search

Powered by:
JavaScript Kit