{"id":18944,"date":"2016-11-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2016-11-06T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/replacement-theology-what-we-should-know\/"},"modified":"2023-08-03T08:48:04","modified_gmt":"2023-08-03T13:48:04","slug":"replacement-theology-what-we-should-know","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/replacement-theology-what-we-should-know\/","title":{"rendered":"Replacement Theology: What We Should Know"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[64],"series_event":[562],"sermon_service_type":[472],"speaker":[450],"class_list":["post-18944","sermon","type-sermon","status-publish","hentry","book-psalms","series_event-topical-morris","sermon_service_type-main-service","speaker-gabe-morris","no-post-thumbnail"],"acf":{"sermon_title":"Replacement Theology: What We Should Know","sermon_date":"20161106","sermon_month":"11","sermon_year":"2016","sermon_notes":"","sermon_slides":6161,"sermon_mp3":4040,"sermon_id":"116161038573","series_or_event":562,"service_type":[472],"speaker":450,"books_of_the_bible":64,"chapter_and_verse":"94:14","sermon_transcript":"SUGAR LAND BIBLE CHURCH\r\n\r\nGabe Morris\u00a0 11-6-15\r\n\r\nReplacement Theology: What we Should Know, Psalm 94:14\r\n\r\nGood morning.\u00a0 Can we take our Bibles and turn to Psalm 94:14.\u00a0 While you turn there I\u2019d like to thank the Lord for giving me another opportunity to preach to you guys again. I\u2019m always amazed that God gives little ole\u2019 me opportunities to preach.\u00a0 Today we\u2019re going to talk about something that is heavily debated in the body of Christ; some of you may be well aware of this doctrine, some may not.\u00a0 Christians have been more and more divided about this very topic, believe it or not, this century.\u00a0 It is the issue of\u00a0 replacement theology.\u00a0 I\u2019ve entitled this sermon\u00a0 replacement theology: What we Should know.\r\n\r\nYou\u2019ve heard Andy talk about\u00a0 replacement theology before, spread out in his sermons, and believe it or not, before coming to this church or even before going to seminary I was very ignorant of this idea of\u00a0 replacement theology.\u00a0 I heard about it here and there but I could never proficiently discuss it with a proponent or an opponent for that matter.\u00a0 And I\u2019m sure most of you heard about it from this pulpit, but my goal today is to fill in those gaps for those of you who are unaware of this doctrine.\u00a0 And my prayer is that we can all be better informed and encouraged to know how to better serve the Lord and His people.\r\n\r\nCan we pray; Heavenly Father, we love and we honor You this morning. In Your Word you have already expressed Your heart concerning the church and concerning the nation of Israel.\u00a0 So Father, grant us awareness and understanding as we wrestle with this idea of\u00a0 replacement theology, and help\u00a0 us to share our faith and love to our fellow brethren and sisters who may have a contrary view concerning this.\u00a0 And it\u2019s in Jesus\u2019 name we pray, and God\u2019s people said Amen.\r\n\r\nI want to tackle this topic asking the various questions, who, what, when, where, why questions.\u00a0 We\u2019re going to ask five questions: What is\u00a0 replacement theology?\u00a0 What and why did the church begin to sway in the direction of\u00a0 replacement theology?\u00a0 Why is it dangerous for the body of Christ?\u00a0 What is the root of it?\u00a0 And lastly, does the Bible disprove\u00a0 replacement theology.\r\n\r\nWe obviously will not finish all of these points so this will be part 1 of 2; this will be a topical message so forgive me if at first it sounds more like a history lesson.\u00a0\u00a0 There\u2019s a lot of information, believe it or not, that we should know and understand about\u00a0 replacement theology, hence the title.\u00a0 So let\u2019s begin.\r\n\r\nLet\u2019s begin with the first question: what is\u00a0 replacement theology? \u00a0\u00a0Replacement theology in its simplest form is the idea that the Gentile church has replaced the nation of Israel.\u00a0 It is the view that Israel, or the Jews, because of their rejection of their Messiah recorded in the Gospels they have been permanently replaced by the church, the church now called New Israel, or The True Israel, or The True People of God, and thus Israel has no eschatological future in the plans of God.\u00a0 Israel has essentially forfeited all of God\u2019s promises given to them in the Old Testament.\u00a0 And now, as we speak today, the church has appropriated or assumed the role as the beneficiary of those promises.\r\n\r\nIn some circles this idea is also known as fulfillment theology or supersessionism<\/em>.\u00a0 Supersessionism, which comes from the Latin word supersede, super meaning on or upon, and Seder, which means to sit.\u00a0 This carries the idea of a person sitting on another person\u2019s chair displacing the latter. \u00a0\u00a0Replacement \u00a0theologians and promoters believe, they actually believe this, that God has thrown off, cast off, disowned, rejected, renounced, discarded, abandoned and forsaken the nation of Israel (those are buzzwords) never to inherit what was promised to them in God\u2019s covenants.\r\n\r\nFor example, the Abrahamic Covenant where God promised them land, seed and blessing\u2026 and just as a side note advocates of\u00a0 replacement theology, they choose to be identified as fulfillment theologians because of the negative connotations that\u00a0 replacement theology has.\u00a0 To them, to take a seat that rightfully belongs to someone else seems to be the more political correct route.\u00a0 \u00a0For example, new covenant theologian, Steve Lehrer, doesn\u2019t use the term \u201c replacement theology.\u201d\u00a0 He says this, quote: \u201cInstead I would rather use the term \u2018fulfillment theology.\u2019\u00a0 Israel was simply a picture of the true people of God which the church fulfills.\u201d\u00a0 See that?\u00a0 Close quote.\u00a0 What he just said is essentially\u00a0 replacement theology.\r\n\r\nThis leads to our second question: when did the church begin to sway in the direction of\u00a0 replacement theology?\u00a0 Dr. Wayne House, a theologian I admire, also an opponent of\u00a0 replacement theology, in his research he said this, [quote] \u201c replacement theology was a consensus of the church from the middle of the second century A.D. to the present day, with few exceptions.\u201d \u00a0[close quote]\r\n\r\nSo the research shows that this doctrine dominated pulpits and pews since the mid second century.\u00a0 So why is this so?\u00a0 What gave rise to\u00a0 replacement theology? Well, there\u2019s basically four significant reasons why the church swayed in this direction, and the first reason was the historical strained relationship between the Jews and the church.\u00a0 If we look back on Israel\u2019s history, particularly in the Bible, we know that the Jew (by and large) rejected their Messiah, you read that in the Gospels.\u00a0 But as the first century progressed very significant changes took place in the church and with Israel.\u00a0 For one there was, of course, the persecution of the church, the martyrdom of all the apostles, with the exception of John, he was not martyred, he was persecuted but not martyred.\r\n\r\nWe know that Peter and Paul died martyrs around 66 A.D.\u00a0 Christianity was the new and hated kid on the block, not to mention the struggle and differences between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians, and Judaism.\u00a0 We see that struggle in the book of Acts.\u00a0 Now what we have to remember is that the very first band of Christian members were what?\u00a0 Were Jewish!\u00a0 They were Jewish; this is where the idea of Judeo-Christianity comes from.\u00a0 In Acts 2, when the church was birthed there was approximately 120 followers of Christ, right?\u00a0 This includes the disciples, all Jews.\u00a0 And when the Apostle Peter gave his famous sermon the Bible says 3,000 souls were saved.\u00a0 And his intro to begin that sermon, \u201cmen of Judea and also live in Jerusalem.\u201d\u00a0 In fact the very first Gentile convert was all the way in Acts 10, right?\u00a0 Cornelius.\r\n\r\nHere is the oldest Christian symbol ever to be found in Jerusalem, dating back to the first century.\u00a0 From the bottom up you will see the fish, the symbol of the church emerging from the Jewish root, represented by the Menorah and the Star of David.\u00a0 And the fish became a symbol of the Christian church.\u00a0 If you notice this symbol is called the [can't understand word], an acronym for Jesus Christ, God\u2019s Son and Savior.\u00a0 And so every time you see this fish on the bumper of someone\u2019s car just remember that its missing its Jewish roots.\u00a0 The fact that the church started off Jewish is very significant because as we will talk later, this plays a major role in the terms of the church separating from its Jewish roots.. as we will talk about shortly.\r\n\r\nSo regarding Israel, meanwhile in the first and second centuries a great tension between Rome and Israel increased; the Jewish people began to rebel against Rome, the Roman Empire.\u00a0 Despite being under Roman rule for so long the Jewish people thrived; they actually thrived economically, and were a significant part of Rome\u2019s population.\u00a0 Israel\u2019s prosperity led to Rome\u2019s extortion of the Israelites through heavy tax burdens,\u00a0 [can't understand word] taxes.\u00a0 Rome\u2019s disdain was obvious, so obvious to the point Roman rulers began to take over high priest\u2019s appointments, position.\r\n\r\nDeep tension became so high to the point where zealots grew in huge numbers and any Jewish leader who was found against the rebelling of Rome was murdered.\u00a0 So the fed up Jews rebelled against Rome resulting in what\u2026 you guys may remember this, that the rebelling against Rome was the great revolt in 66 A.D.\u00a0 And in retaliation to that revolt the destruction of the temple came about in A.D. 70; we all know that.\u00a0 Rome surrounded and ransacked Jerusalem, destroying its temple.\u00a0 The Jewish historian, Josephus, actually became a mediator between Israel and Rome with no success; he claimed 1.1 million Jews were killed in that siege; 97,000 Jews were captured and sold into slavery.\r\n\r\nIt was one of the worst times in Jewish history; no city, no temple, no way to worship and perform their sacrifices, the Jewish people were scattered.\u00a0 The destruction of A.D. 70 was the first of three attacks on Israel, 135 A.D. being the third and final attack, what they called the Bar-Kokhba\u2019s revolt.\u00a0 And then after that the Romans built a new town on Jerusalem\u2019s ruins calling it Aelia Capitolina.\u00a0 And no Jewish person was to set foot in that city, lest they die.\r\n\r\nThis is a picture of the ark of Titus built sometime in 81 A.D. by the Emperor Domitian to honor his older brother, Titus.\u00a0 This was to commemorate Titus\u2019 victory which included the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.\u00a0 Underneath this ark, you see where that lady is standing, she\u2019s looking at this release right here, a release of the spoils from the siege of Jerusalem.\u00a0 This was erected to ridicule the Jews and represent the diaspora.\u00a0 Notice the Menorah there, apparent and proudly displayed.\r\n\r\nAnd until 1948 when the State of Israel was born the Jews refused to walk through this ark.\u00a0 Of course, the Jews were scattered throughout the world, known as the diaspora, Jerusalem was no more.\u00a0 And the Jews had no place to call home.\u00a0 Not surprisingly immediately after the fall of Jerusalem anti-Semitism soared.\u00a0 To many of the Gentile Christians this looked like the end of Israel as they knew it.\u00a0 From the outside looking in there was no hope for Jerusalem.\u00a0 In fact, there were many Jews that fled Jerusalem before Rome\u2019s siege; they were labeled as deserters to Israel, disloyal to Israel.\r\n\r\nIn addition to that Judaism went through major changes at that time, after the fall.\u00a0 There was no temple, of course, there was no blood sacrifices and other competing systems.\u00a0 We read in the Bible, like the Sadducees, the Zealots, the Herodians, the Essenes, they eventually died out.\u00a0 The adherents of Judaism, in order to keep their religion pure and from extinction, they pushed the Jewish Christians out, outside their walls.\u00a0 Okay.\u00a0 House, in his studies says after A.D. 70 he says this:\u00a0 \u201cThe person who has the most impact on the new beginnings of Judaism was a man named Rabbi<\/em> Yochanan ben Zakkai<\/em>\u00a0 who according to one tradition, escaped from the zealot held city of Jerusalem in a coffin, before its fall.\u00a0 What\u2019s important is that his survival and move to [can't understand word] pronounced [sounds like: jahmnia] with the encouragement of Rome helped solidify Pharisaic Judaism\u2019s control over the life and doctrine of Jewish life in the empire after the fall of Jerusalem.\r\n\r\nNow at this time Christianity was soaring, it was building up, and with this solidification of religious expression, House goes on, the [can't understand word] rabbis were not willing to share this status with Christians and so calls the Roman government to understand that Christianity was not part of Judaism.\u00a0 As [can't understand word] said, as Christianity spreads, however, the Jews made it plain to the government that the followers of the Mosaic Law and the followers of Christ were not one and the same.\u00a0 This collaboration of Ben Zakkai in Rome allowed these rabbis the power of Rome to enforce their brand of Judaism over world juries, a fact that should not go unnoticed in light of the waves of persecution the early church would have to face.\u201d\u00a0 [close quote]\r\n\r\nSo tension grew and grew between the Jews and the Christians further widening the gap of hatred towards each other.\u00a0 And as the years progressed Christian persecution was at its height.\u00a0 The conflict between Christian and Jews became so bad, Philip Johnson, a historian, says, \u201cBy 132 A.D. rising Christians and Jews were seen as open opponents and even enemies.\r\n\r\nHere\u2019s an example of the effects of the continual conflict between the Jews and the church.\u00a0 Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, said this: \u201cFor if we are still practicing Judaism we admit that we have not received God\u2019s favor.\u00a0 It is wrong to talk about Jesus Christ and live like Jews, for Christianity did not believe in Judaism but Judaism in Christianity.\u00a0\u00a0 So because of this huge and perpetual rift between the Christians and the Jews this was a beginning of the formation of\u00a0 replacement theology.\u00a0 It was slowly, slowly developing there.\r\n\r\nWayne House says this:\u00a0 As the church\u2019s membership became more and more Gentile the influence of the Jewish community became less pronounced.\u00a0\u00a0 The church\u2019s knowledge of Jewish Christianity became miniscule and as a result this strained relationship affected the Christian apologists who are on the horizon, many, many Christian apologists, a big factor in the rise of\u00a0 replacement theology.\r\n\r\nThis brings us to our second point, an important factor that contributed to the rise of\u00a0 replacement theology and that was a perceived anti-Semitism in the New Testament writings.\u00a0 It\u2019s reasonable to conclude that when one reads the New Testament, particularly the Gospels, he or she may read certain themes into it, like the Jews being responsible for killing their Messiah; the Jews from the Old Testament to the New being stubborn, unbelieving, disloyal to their God; Judaism as an old and legalistic practice and other things of that nature.\r\n\r\nThe Gospel writers certainly don\u2019t hold back and hide the fact that the leadership of Israel utterly rejected their Messiah.\u00a0 As a result of these historical developments in regard to Israel the church and the divide between the two became wider and wider.\u00a0 Naturally the writings of anti-Semitism and\u00a0 replacement theology, naturally this would increase.\u00a0 Second century writings, this letter, called The Epistle of Barnabas<\/em>, the writer Barnabas argued that only the Christian could make sense of the Bible; the carnal Jews, with their earthly mindset, have failed to recognize the hidden message of their own Scriptures and thus had eternally forfeited their entitlement to the covenant promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.\u00a0 That was a book by Andrew D. Robinson.\r\n\r\nThis was a quote from Ignatius of Antioch, he says, \u201cThose who partake of the Passover are partakers with those who killed Jesus.\u201d\u00a0 This was written 50-117 A.D.\u00a0 Notice this quote by Origen; he was a contributor of the early formation of Christian doctrine.\u00a0 He said this: \u201cWe may thus assert in utter confidence that Jews will not return to their earlier situation\u201d meaning their right standing with God, \u201cfor they have committed the most abominable of crimes in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race, hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed.\u00a0 The Jewish nation was driven from its country and another people was called by God to the blessed election.\u201d\u00a0 See how the influence of newspaper exegesis affected Origen?\u00a0 This perception of anti-Semitism and hatred of the Jews and the perceived anti-Semitism in the New Testament carries to the modern day.\r\n\r\nA book that\u2019s usually blamed for anti-Semitism is the book of John.\u00a0 One Catholic scholar, Rosemary\u00a0 Ruether said this in her book called Faith and Fratricide<\/em>, \u201cThe theological roots of anti-Semitism,\u201d she urged that John, she\u2019s talking about the Gospel of John, \u201cuses the Jews to symbolize a fallen universe of darkness.\u00a0 They are the very incarnation of the false apostates, principle of the fallen world alienated from its true being in God.\u201d\u00a0 Close quote.\r\n\r\nLawry said this, he found a direct line of development from John\u2019s portrayal of the Jews as the spawn of the devil to a Nazi picture book for children whose first page is headed, he said something in German, [can't understand German words he says]. \u00a0\u00a0It means the father of the Jews is the devil.\u00a0 [can't understand name], another author, sees John, the Gospel of John as a message of condemnation for the Jews.\u00a0 [can't understand name]\u00a0 another scholar, writes, calls it a diatribe against the Jews and of the Jewish faith.\u00a0 So there was no shortage of anti-Semitism here, a perceived anti-Semitism in the New Testament, mixed in with the next contributing factor made its grip on the church even tighter, and that was the allegorizing of Scripture.\r\n\r\nIn second century Rome, because of the significant rise in Christianity, there arose two major institutions or schools of study; the biblical exegesis and the study of theology.\u00a0 One of their functions as a school was to settle a religious conflict in their region.\u00a0 The first one was the school of Alexandria.\u00a0 Alexandria was a very important city next to Rome itself.\u00a0 This school was located near the coast of Egypt, and despite the existence of other smaller schools in the area the school of Alexandria was recorded the first Christian school ever to be founded.\u00a0 Now this school became famous in their institution.\u00a0 Now just because this is called a Christian school, Christian learning of that era, attracting the educated, the philosophers, the scientists and the like, they were traditionally founded late second century, so between 150-200 A.D.\u00a0 The other school was the school of Antioch, located in Syria, north of Damascus.\r\n\r\nNow we have to remember, despite being Christian schools they both adopted a different method of approaching Scripture.\u00a0 The school of Alexandria, for example, was renowned for their allegorical method of interpretation; allegorical interpretation by definition is consisting of or pertaining to allegories, figuratively.\r\n\r\nAccording to Roy Zuck, in his book Basic Bible Interpretation<\/em>, \u201cAllegories arising is searching for hidden or secret meaning underlying but remote from and unrelated in reality to the more obvious meaning of text.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, allegorizing ignores the plain, the obvious and literal meaning of a text and attaches to it a foreign meaning.\u00a0 The allegorizing method, we must remember, was the preferred method of the Greek philosophers of that day.\u00a0 That was the way things were interpreted.\u00a0 That\u2019s how they interpreted their own Greek poets.\u00a0 This method had a tremendous impact on Jewish philoso\u00adphers, Judaism, and the Christian church.\u00a0 It infiltrated the church.\u00a0 In regard to the church the school of Alexandria produced men like Origen, some of the quotes we just read.\u00a0 Every passage of the Bible to Origen has three meanings; a literal one, a moral one, and a spiritual meaning.\u00a0 Origen says that the literal meaning was unimportant; it was earthly, it was sensual, carnal and Jewish he said, and not always true he says.\r\n\r\nThese three methods we still see today in the church; that\u2019s how strong this grip was on the church.\u00a0 You say what\u2019s an example of moralizing Scripture?\u00a0 Well, let\u2019s take David, for example.\u00a0 David was a courageous\u2026 he was courageous when he confronted Goliath.\u00a0 Right?\u00a0 So you too must be courageous.\u00a0 That\u2019s moralizing.\u00a0 Paul, when Paul went of his missionary journeys he reasoned with the Gentiles, the Bible says.\u00a0 So when\u00a0 you develop your evangelism strategy you need to look for likely places where non-Christians hang out, like the bar, you know\u2026 moralizing Scripture.\r\n\r\nAt first glance moralizing methods seem harmless. After all, the facts are there, that\u2019s true; the virtue or action is probably commended in other places of Scripture.\u00a0 So what\u2019s the problem?\u00a0 The problem is authorial intent.\u00a0 If we want to be faithful to the text we must remain faithful to the intention of the author.\u00a0 And who was that?\u00a0 The Holy Spirit.\u00a0 He wrote the text, not us.\u00a0 Is David and Goliath there in the Bible in order to teach us how to be courageous?\u00a0 Or is it there to teach us that God is a living God and that the battle belongs to God, not Israel.\u00a0 And does he not say He will not deliver by sword or by spear, 1 Samuel 17: 46-47, [\u201cThis day the LORD will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 [47] and that all this assembly may know that the LORD does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the LORD\u2019S and He will give you into our hands.\u201d]\r\n\r\nI would agree to the latter.\r\n\r\nWhat does spiritualizing the text look like?\u00a0 Well, spiritualizing is converting the text to a spiritual analogy.\u00a0 For instance, in the book of Joshua, chapter 6, God knocked down the walls of Jericho, did He not?\u00a0 So God wants to knock down the walls in your life: spiritualizing.\u00a0 Jesus calmed the storms of the sea, did He not?\u00a0 So He wants to calm the storms of your life: spiritualizing.\u00a0 Jesus cast out demons, do you want your demons to be cast out?\u00a0 That\u2019s spiritualizing.\r\n\r\nThe problem here, again, is authorial intent; it not only takes the authority off the Holy Spirit, it places it on the interpreter.\u00a0 It changes the intended meaning.\u00a0 Today the contemporary church is rife with spiritualizing Scripture, God\u2019s Word.\u00a0 Does Jesus want to calm the storms in your life?\u00a0 I\u2019m sure He does, but is that the question?\u00a0 The question is, is that what the verse talking about.\u00a0 I don\u2019t think that\u2019s the case.\u00a0 If we respect the literalism, when Mark says \u201cstorm\u201d he means nothing more, nothing less than storm.\u00a0 If we respect context we learn that Jesus is revealing to the disciples who He is, the sovereign God that controls all things, even nature; by calming the storm Jesus assumed the authority of God, that only God has.\u00a0 Psalm 89:9 says this: \u201cYou rule the swelling of the sea; When its waves rise, You still them.\u201d\u00a0 He was assuming the position of God; he was revealing that to the disciples.\r\n\r\nHow about allegorizing, allegorizing the text of Scripture?\u00a0\u00a0 Allegorizing basically discards the plain obvious meaning of words and in the time of the Church Fathers the parts of Scripture that received the most allegorical abuse were the parables, the parables of Jesus Christ.\u00a0 What\u2019s a parable?\u00a0 A parable is a saying or a proverb, a metaphor, a story, intended to communicate truth by comparison.\u00a0 It\u2019s relatable to its hearer.\u00a0 The parables concern how God is at work, right, in history and in the lives of believers.\u00a0 Now parables in the New Testament, we must remember, were basically judgments given to unbelieving Israel and a blessing to the disciples.\u00a0 He concealed truth from Israel, concerning the kingdom, Matthew 13:11 says that, and he revealed to them truth about the kingdom, to the disciples.\u00a0 Matthew 10:10-11 says, \u201cAnd the disciples came and said to Him, \u2018Why do You speak to them in parables?\u00a0\u00a0 [11] \u00a0Jesus answered them, \u2018To you\u201d the disciples \u201cit has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them\u201d unbelieving Israel, \u201cit has not been granted.\u2019\u201d \u00a0And when Jesus said this statement, by this time the leadership of Israel had already rejected Him as their Messiah.\u00a0 So as we read the parables we must read it in that light.\r\n\r\nEveryone here has heard of the parable of the good Samaritan; right, I hope, in Luke 10:25-37.\u00a0 This parable was a lesson about God\u2019s love.\u00a0 In its context this illustrates the Old Testament verse,\r\n\r\n\u201cYou shall love the Lord with all your mind, strength,\u201d right, and \u201clove your neighbor as yourself.\u201d The parable of the good Samaritan.\r\n\r\n[Luke 10:25, \u201cAnd a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, \u2018Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?\u2019 [26] And He said to him, \u2018What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?\u2019\u00a0 [27] And he answered, \u2018You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.\u2019\u00a0 [28] And He said to him, \u2018You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 [29] But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, \u2018And who is my neighbor?\u2019\u00a0 [30] Jesus replied and said, \u2018A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead.\u00a0 [31] And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. [32] Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. [33] But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, [34] and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them;<\/em> and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. [35] On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, \u2018Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.\u2019 [37] \u2018Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers hands.\u2019 And he said, \u2018The one who showed mercy toward him.\u2019 Then Jesus said to him, \u2018Go and do the same.\u2019\u201d]\r\n\r\nThis parable revealed the lack of love in that lawyer\u2019s heart.\u00a0 He was the one that asked the question, \u201cWho is my neighbor.\u201d\u00a0 And his neighbor was, of course, the Samaritan.\u00a0 Right?\u00a0 The Samaritan was the hero; he helped the man in need.\u00a0 And Jesus\u2019 answer to the Lord\u2019s question, regarding who is his neighbor, this parable reveals to the lawyer that he must also love those in his heart that he chooses to hate.\u00a0 You must love them\u2026 the parable of the good Samaritan.\r\n\r\nThat says this is an example of the allegorical interpretation and how far it can take someone.\u00a0 One author studied Origen\u2019s interpretation of the parable and he says this, this is what Origen says: \u201cThe man who fell among thieves is Adam.\u00a0 As Jerusalem represents heaven so Jericho, to which the traveler journeyed, is the world.\u00a0 The robber are a man\u2019s enemy, the devil and his minions.\u00a0 The priest stands for the law; the Levite the prophet, the Good Samaritan is Christ Himself, the beast on which the wounded man was set is Christ\u2019s body which bears the fallen Adam.\u00a0 The inn is the church; the two pence, the Father and the Son, and the Samaritan and the Samaritan\u2019s promise to come again is Christ\u2019s Second Advent.\u201d\u00a0 That\u2019s allegorical interpretation for you.\r\n\r\nNow if we interpret the parable of the good Samaritan with an allegorical approach what happens?\u00a0 Christ\u2019s lesson, original lesson, intended for love for a neighbor disappears.\u00a0 The parable of the prodigal son, the lesson here Jesus is trying to convey, in its context what\u2019s happening?\u00a0 Jesus is hanging around the sinners, the tax collectors, right?\u00a0 And then He gives this story about the Prodigal Son; the Pharisees were angry at Jesus for hanging around these guys; they were grumbling.\u00a0 Why is this guy hanging around with sinners?\u00a0 And so the lesson here is that God gladly receives the repentant sinner.\u00a0 Right?\u00a0 In this case the tax collector and the sinner.\r\n\r\nThat said, here is an allegorical interpretation from the church Father, Tertullian.\u00a0 You guys know the Prodigal Son right, the elder son in the story is the Jew; the younger is the Christian, the patrimony of which the younger claimed his share is that knowledge of God which a man has by his birthright.\u00a0 The citizen in the far country to whom he hired himself is the devil.\u00a0 The robe that\u2019s bestowed on the returning prodigal is that sonship which Adam lost at the fall.\u00a0 The ring is the sign and the seal of baptism.\u00a0 The feast is the Lord\u2019s Supper.\u00a0 The fatted calf slain for the feast is Jesus Christ.\u00a0 You see how far this can get?\u00a0 Allegorizing can get completely out of hand.\u00a0 So that\u2019s a problem; authorial intent is lost, you become the final authority.\u00a0 Allegorizing is completely subjective and it has no boundaries.\u00a0 It can vary among interpreters, it removed Scripture from its context leaving ample room for manipulation; it suppresses and even erases intended meaning.\u00a0 Allegorizing is reckless, it\u2019s disrespectful so the Scripture.\r\n\r\nBut what\u2019s a safe way?\u00a0 What\u2019s a safe way to interpret Scripture?\u00a0 Let\u2019s use an everyday example.\u00a0 How do you process and interpret everyday interaction with people?\u00a0 Literally, right?\u00a0 The plain way.\u00a0 Can you imagine if married folks communicated with their spouses allegorically?\u00a0 That would be very interesting.\u00a0 Could you imagine how much trouble you would be in if you interpreted your mortgage contract allegorically?\u00a0 Or your tax return?\u00a0 Or the law?\u00a0 Or the Constitution?\u00a0 Big trouble!\u00a0 The correct way to understand and interpret Scripture is through the normal plain and literal manner.\u00a0 This is also so say you respect figurative language, symbolic language when the immediate context demands it.\r\n\r\nAgain let\u2019s take an everyday example.\u00a0 When your wife says, \u201cI\u2019m so hungry I could eat a horse,\u201d we\u2019ve all heard that before.\u00a0 When she says that you don\u2019t call PETA, you know, cruelty to animals.\u00a0 No, you fix her a sandwich, she\u2019s hungry; normal, literal interpretation, respect context, respect history, respect language and the rules therein.\u00a0 That\u2019s called grammatical and linguistic interpretation.\u00a0 You know there\u2019s rules to language.\u00a0 We respect authorial intent, what the author intended.\u00a0 We respect original language.\u00a0 We respect culture and times.\u00a0 There\u2019s a world of difference between first century culture and our culture.\u00a0 We must honor that.\r\n\r\nSugar Land Bible Church is clear on this issue.\u00a0 In our position statement concerning hermeneutics (hermeneutics is a fancy word, it means the art and science of interpretation), it says the goal of the biblical interpreter is to discover what the text (the Bible) meant to the mind of its original author and for his intended audience; the means of accomplishing this by applying a literal, grammatical, historical approach to interpretation.\u00a0 By literal, grammatical and historical we mean a customary socially acknowledged meaning of a word or phrase within its context.\u00a0 The Bible uses figurative and poetic language and these portions should be interpreted accordingly.\u00a0 However, we reject any attempt to allegorize or spiritualize Scripture, [can't understand words].\u00a0\u00a0 Praise the Lord for a position statement like that.\r\n\r\nA [can't understand word] of thumb to remember concerning interpretation, I\u2019m not sure who said this but I heard it called\u2026 it was called the golden rule of interpretation, and Andy quoted it many times so you know it\u2019s right\u2026 right!\u00a0 It says this: When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense.\u00a0 Therefore take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context studied in light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truth indicate clearly otherwise.\u00a0 I\u2019ve also heard a high and lofty scholar, he says: Those who consistently follow that golden rule usually end up dispensationally.\u00a0 That\u2019s a good rule to follow, I think, if you ask me.\r\n\r\nMoving on; allegorical interpretation was a major factor in the rise and development of\u00a0 replacement theology.\u00a0 The strained relationship between Judaism and the church to perceive anti-Semitism found in the New Testament were all contributing factors of\u00a0 replacement theology.\r\n\r\nThis brings us to our fourth and final reason of what contributed to the rise of\u00a0 replacement theology in the church and that was Rome\u2019s conversion to Christianity in the fourth century by Emperor Constantine.\u00a0 In 306 A.D. Constantine, as we all know, ended Christian persecution and finally made Christianity a recognized religion, the official religion of Rome.\u00a0 This would ultimately open the door wide for anti-Semitism.\u00a0 This Edict of Milan made that possible, ending all oppression and penalties on Christians.\u00a0 And although this edict ended that it opened the way for hostility, persecution towards the Jewish people.\u00a0 [Edict of Milan, a proclamation that permanently established religious toleration for Christianity within the Roman Empire. It was the outcome of a political agreement concluded in Milan between the Roman emperors Constantine I and Licinius in February 313.]\r\n\r\nConstantine turned the hostility towards the Jewish people; he restricted their religion, he restricted their practice.\u00a0 Not to mention the Catholic Church soared in power.\u00a0 Synagogues were outlawed.\u00a0 If Jews were convicted of breaking laws they were burned; they were withheld, they were restricted to serve in offices, in the military.\u00a0 Something that I wasn\u2019t aware of before studying this, the Council of Nicea, that\u2019s probably a familiar word to some, the first ever ecumenical council of the church convened by Constantine himself.\u00a0 It was to settle Christian doctrine, but that\u2019s not all.\u00a0 It says, \u201cparticularly a doctrine concerning the nature of the Son in relationship to His Father\u201d that was what they were supposed to settle, that was true.\u00a0 But the Council also had the Jewish people in mind with a mindset to oppress them.\u00a0 So what they did was the Council took the Jewish celebration of the resurrection from the Jewish first fruits and changed it to Easter, with the goal of disassociating it from Jewish roots.\u00a0 Fascinating!\r\n\r\nTheologian David Regan said in his research, said that the Council was recorded saying: For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of Jews, henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people.\u00a0 In addition to calling them \u201codious people\u201d the council also referred to Jews as political or polluted wretches, a most hostile rabble and parasite.\r\n\r\nNow because Constantine gave his stamp on Christianity the church became not only increasingly dominant but vicious anti-Semitic.\u00a0 Fourth century Christian apologetics came out of the woodwork with force.\u00a0 Here\u2019s John Chrysostom, known as the golden mouth.\u00a0 He said this:\u00a0 The synagogue is worse than a brothel\u2026 it is a den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts\u2026. the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults\u2026 the refuge of brigands debauchees, and the cavern of devils.\u00a0 It is a criminal assembly of Jews\u2026 a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ\u2026 a house worse than a drinking shop \u2026 a den of thieves, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and an abyss of perdition.\u201d\u00a0 \u2026 \u201cI would say the same things about their souls\u2026\u00a0 As for me, I hate the synagogue\u2026 I hate the Jews for the same reason.\u00a0 [From The Roots of Christian Anti-Semitism<\/em>, by Malcolm Hay]\r\n\r\nA little anti-Semitic there, do you think?\u00a0 This continues throughout the second and third centuries.\u00a0 Enter Church Father Augustine of Hippo, considered one of the greatest influences on Church Fathers.\u00a0 \u00a0This guy has the biggest impact and the tightest grip on the church\u2019s theology, particularly in eschatology.\u00a0 He was a Juggernaut of the allegorical approach and he was responsible for the systematizing of the doctrine of amillennialism.\u00a0 Amillennialism means no future, no literal thousand year reign of Christ.\u00a0 He put it on the map.\r\n\r\nHere\u2019s Michael Vlach in his book, Has the Church Replaced Israel?\u00a0 <\/em>A Theological Evaluation<\/em>.\u00a0 He said, \u201cConcerning Israel\u2019s role in the plan of God, Augustine argued that national<\/em> Israel pre-figured spiritual<\/em> Israel to Christian people: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, three fathers and one people.\u00a0 The fathers three, as it were in the beginning of the people; three fathers in whom the people was figured: and the former people itself the present people.\u00a0 For in the Jewish people was figured the Christian people.\u00a0\u00a0 There a figure, here the truth; there a shadow, here the body: as the apostle says, \u2018Now these things happened to them in a figure.\u201d\u00a0 Did you notice the allegorical approach? Continuing on, \u201cin the fourth and fifth century, a volatile mixture of these things greatly contributed to the rise of this erroneous doctrine called\u00a0 replacement theology.\u00a0 It was the dominant theology of the church.\u201d\u00a0 And sadly, believe it or not, still is.\r\n\r\nThis leads me to the third question, which is why\u00a0 replacement theology is so dangerous for the body of Christ.\u00a0 But to learn this we must wait for the other part. \u00a0Part 2, this is a very huge subject, very huge.\u00a0\u00a0 Today we just set the foundation, we set a foundation concerning\u00a0 replacement theology.\u00a0 We asked the question, what is\u00a0 replacement theology.\u00a0 When and why did the church begin to sway in the direction of\u00a0 replacement theology.\u00a0 We learned four significant reasons for the rise of\u00a0 replacement theology and they were the strained relationship between the early church and the Jews, a perceived anti-Semitism, the rampant allegorical approach, Rome\u2019s conversion to Christianity by Constantine.\r\n\r\nIt doesn\u2019t stop there, we clearly see\u00a0 replacement theology alive and well in the church today.\u00a0 Next time we convene, God willing, we will get into the meat and potatoes of\u00a0 replacement theology.\u00a0 We\u2019ll ask a final question, why is\u00a0 replacement theology dangerous to the church?\u00a0 What is its root?\u00a0 And does the Bible disprove it?\r\n\r\nI want to conclude here by giving a little insight into what our next session together might look like and show you a truth, glaring truth.\u00a0 The Bible teaches this from cover to cover and it\u2019s that God is a covenant making God, period.\u00a0 He committed Himself to a covenant with Israel, binding Himself to fulfill certain promises to Israel.\u00a0 Okay.\u00a0 Keeping promises to God is a very big thing, wouldn\u2019t you say?\u00a0 Numbers 23:19 says, \u201cGod is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? [Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?]\u201d \u00a0The book of Hebrews in chapter 6, verse 18 teaches that it is impossible\u2026 IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie.\u00a0 [Hebrews 6:18, \u201cso that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.\u201d]\u00a0 \u00a0So the idea of the church replacing Israel becomes silly; replacement theology teaches that the promises given to the descendants of Abraham have been transferred to the church.\r\n\r\nIf God can break His covenant the Bible itself begins to crumble.\u00a0 If God can break His promises then eternal salvation itself comes into question.\u00a0 Salvation is a promise, right?\u00a0 If God can break His promises naturally His trustworthiness comes into question. His grace, His character comes into question.\u00a0 Do you see how important this is?\u00a0 He made a binding covenant with Israel.\u00a0 When we started I had you turn to Psalm 94:14, can we turn there really quick?\u00a0 Everything else was intro, now we start our lesson.\u00a0 Take a look at Psalm 94:14 says, \u201cFor the LORD will not abandon His people, Nor will He forsake His inheritance.\u201d\u00a0 If that doesn\u2019t disprove\u00a0 replacement theology I don\u2019t know what does.\u00a0 He cannot break His promises.\r\n\r\nDid you know that He made a promise to unbelievers?\u00a0 He said, \u201cWhosoever believes in My Son will have everlasting life.\u201d\u00a0 John 3:16.\u00a0 God promises unbelievers eternal life if they believe in His Son.\u00a0 John 11:25-26 Jesus said, \u201cI am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, [26] and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die.\u201d\u00a0 That sounds like a promise, doesn\u2019t it.\u00a0 Then He goes on, Jesus goes on to say this: \u201cDo you believe this?\u201d\u00a0 \u201cDo you believe this!\u201d\r\n\r\nI believe this in September of 1995, I was 18 years old.\u00a0 The pastor I was listening to shared some very bad news with me; he told me that because of my sin, because of my unbelief I was not a candidate for eternal life.\u00a0 If I had died that day I would be forever in a place, absent of God\u2019s presence. Then he shared the good news, the gospel.\u00a0 He said Christ died for every sin in my life, past, present and future.\u00a0 All you do to gain eternal life is by believing on His Son; by believing what He did for us on that cross.\u00a0 I was convicted, and if you find yourself today convicted of that very fact you have not believed in Jesus Christ and there\u2019s judgment in your heart.\u00a0 The Bible says that\u2019s a good thing, the Holy Spirit is tugging at your heart.\u00a0 That\u2019s His ministry, to convict.\u00a0 My best advice to you would be to believe; believe on the Son, Jesus Christ, right where you\u2019re sitting.\u00a0 God\u2019s promise is sure; it\u2019s just as sure as His promise is to the nation of Israel.\u00a0 Amen.\u00a0 And if Scroll to top<\/a> you\u2019re unsure and you need to talk I\u2019ll be here after the service.\r\n\r\nCan we pray? Father, thank\u00a0 You for the promises that You have made in Your Holy Word concerning the church, concerning Israel.\u00a0 Thank You for Your faithfulness and keeping Your promises.\u00a0 May we be diligent to walk in that light and forever give you the glory and the praise.\u00a0 It\u2019s in Jesus\u2019 name we pray.\u00a0 And God\u2019s people said\u2026. Amen.","series_sermon_number":""},"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t