Zionism, Replacement Theology, or Other

[Ernie]

I have heard it taught.

Using the term Replacement Theology? And as a belief that the teacher held?

Replacement theology was strongly, openly, and unapologetically taught by some of the more conservative element in the fellowship I grew up in (OGBBC).

Did they use the term "Replacement Theology"?

[JohnH]

Rich and powerful people often live under an exaggerated sense of self importance and bankers fund all types of projects. The anti semitic part is suggesting that Jews are secretly controlling events. The simple fact that Jewish bankers provided the funds is not antisemitic nor is it that meaningful.

Did TM ever claim it was a secret?

TM shared the fact of the Rothschilds buying up land and basically funding the early Zionist project (a non-controversial fact; the first time I visited Israel I stayed at 22 Rothschild Blvd, a road named in honour of that family, complete with a historical plaque telling their story).

Then you said “you cross the line into anti-semitism”.

[RDD]

I was with you up to the last phrase. In my opinion, there is where you cross the line into anti-Semitism.

To be fair, though, that is who funded the original settlements in Palestine which made the establishment of the political State of Israel possible. It shouldn't be considered antisemitic to observe this (and there is nothing particularly wrong with wealthy bankers who decide to buy up land and share it with people in their ethnic group to go settle there; it certainly seems preferable to funding a war or stealing the land and so forth).

Thanks for the link. That had interesting information that I was unaware of.

[RDD]

I do not mean to be a hit-and-run poster. I just get distracted with other things. I have a lot of reading to catch up on.

In Romans 11, Paul gives an illustration of a wild olive tree in which God cut off the natural branches and grafted in new branches. How is that not a replacement?

[Neto]

I do not mean to be a hit-and-run poster. I just get distracted with other things. I have a lot of reading to catch up on.

In Romans 11, Paul gives an illustration of a wild olive tree in which God cut off the natural branches and grafted in new branches. How is that not a replacement?

My understanding of his illustration was that wild BRANCHES were grafted into a (cultivated) olive tree. Although wild branches are now a part of the tree, the stump is still Israel. So to me, replacement would be where the entire tree (Israel) is uprooted and burned, and a wild olive tree (the non-Jewish Church) is planted in its place. This is the way some Christians view the opportunity still given to the Jewish people - they can be grafted into the Gentile Church, but God's promises to Israel as God's chosen people have been done away with, and are no more.

[Nomad]

I do not mean to be a hit-and-run poster. I just get distracted with other things. I have a lot of reading to catch up on.

In Romans 11, Paul gives an illustration of a wild olive tree in which God cut off the natural branches and grafted in new branches. How is that not a replacement?

Its a matter of ones interpretation but to me its not indicating "replacement". The natural branches (Israelites) remain natural branches (Israelites) and the wild branches (Gentiles) remain wild branches (Gentiles). As opposed to the wild branches (Gentiles) turning into natural branches (Israelites)...which is what you are saying if you believe in replacement theology.

But again...its a matter of interpretation and you have to read the olive tree analogy in light of the rest of the context in chapter 11 surrounding it. I see the tree as representing the Abrahamic Covenant rather than Israel...or the Church, or Christ, since being established into the Church and Christ does not differentiate between "Jew" or "Gentile" as this tree illustration does in Romans 11.

[Valerie]

The Jews were exiled around the world.
Whether Zionism was political or not it “seems” that God perhaps allowed the Jews to return to their original land.
Sometimes it is very confusing and hard to know what God is doing verses man in this.
The Jews when exiled remained their own separate people wherever they were. Anabaptists can at least identify with this (think maintaining German language after coming to America and to this day (or PA Deutsch) to retain their ethnicity distinction.

For myself it’s really hard to rule out what God may be doing with them in these last days - I mean the 6 day war in 1967 is said to gave some miraculous accounts favoring the Jews success.

Apostle Paul taught in Romans 11:

24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

This seems to indicate that when the full was of the Gentiles is complete- something will be happening among the Jews.

It’s so hard to know! Was Israel becoming a nation again part of His plan or solely man’s idea? There are a lot of Messianic Jews these lady 50 plus years who seem to support the land returned to them. But then not to the displacement of Christians that were living there already, correct?

Jews suffered such persecution, and after the Holocaust the nations “voted” in favor of an Israeli state.

I don’t wish to be on the wrong side of this -

[Ernie]

Using the term Replacement Theology? And as a belief that the teacher held?

Replacement theology was strongly, openly, and unapologetically taught by some of the more conservative element in the fellowship I grew up in (OGBBC).

Did they use the term "Replacement Theology"?

Heirby, do you have an answer to this question???

And do you have a name for your beliefs?

[Heirbyadoption]

Using the term Replacement Theology? And as a belief that the teacher held?

Replacement theology was strongly, openly, and unapologetically taught by some of the more conservative element in the fellowship I grew up in (OGBBC).

Did they use the term "Replacement Theology"?

Some of them, yes. Unashamedly. I DO know it seems to have originated (at least among our folks) among some of our central Indiana congregations - not sure if maybe you can pinpoint the date or location of its rise among any particular Menno groups? Always wondered just how it got in among us initially...

As for my beliefs? "Scriptural."

[Ernie]

Replacement theology was strongly, openly, and unapologetically taught by some of the more conservative element in the fellowship I grew up in (OGBBC).

Did they use the term "Replacement Theology"?

Some of them, yes. Unashamedly. I DO know it seems to have originated (at least among our folks) among some of our central Indiana congregations - not sure if maybe you can pinpoint the date or location of its rise among any particular Menno groups? Always wondered just how it got in among us initially...

Ok. That is the first time I have heard of someone referring to their own beliefs as "Replacement Theology".

As for my beliefs? "Scriptural."

Come on, now. Be a good sport!