What do I think about Replacement Theology or Supersessionism?

This was definitely not something I thought I needed to address. However, the more I've studied on Replacement Theology and supersessionism, the more I believe it needs to be addressed. I would like to begin by stating that this form of theology is outright heresy. I do not believe in taking away anything from the Bible. Deuteronomy 4:2 states 2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you." Matthew 5:17-18 equally encouraged by Yeshua states - 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Torah until everything is accomplished."

Everything has not been accomplished. Heaven and Earth have not passed away. Heaven and Earth will NOT pass away, but in Revelation, the same word for new "hadashah" is once again utilized, so heaven and earth will be renewed. Scripturally there is no argument. However, objections still arise from the side of Replacement Theology.

Two of these I will address today.

Some Christian Apologists assume that Ephesians 2:15 means that the Torah has been abolished. What is overlooked here is that when Christians do this, they are attempting to make a bona fide argument for the Ebionites who think that Rav Shaul's writings should not be followed because they contradict the teachings of Yeshua. So lets take a look at this argument in a fuller sense.

Lets take a look at Ephesians 2:15. What does it say? Look at Ephesians 2:14-16. It states " 14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility." In English we see from several of the versions it appears that the Torah is that which is being completely abolished according to the New International Version...which is largely associated with the King James Version. I believe the KJV to be a poorly translated version with some strong political motivations (again, good for another article).

Okay, the English Wycleffe version that we have states Ephesians 2:14-16 differently. "14 For he is our peace, that made both one, and unbinding the middle wall of a wall without mortar,
15 enmities in his flesh; and voided the law of commandments by dooms [voiding the law of commandments by dooms], that he make two in himself into a new man, making peace,
16 to reconcile both in one body to God by the cross [that he reconcile both in one body to God by the cross], slaying the enmities in himself. "

Another translation has dooms "by ordinances." What in the world does this mean?

We know from Romans 7:12 that it is stated that the Torah is holy, righteous and good. If its holy righteous and good, then it wouldn't make sense that this is the wall that is the barrier described here. Besides according to Numbers 15, there is no barrier at all, because both Gentile and Jew are under the instruction of God. So it has to be something else. So what is it? When we go back to the Greek we have the answer. According to http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Eph%202.14.pdf the word translated from Rav Shaul's writings is "
ton nomon twn entolwn en dogmasin." Whats interesting to note is that this same expression is utilized in 3 Macabbees 1:3 in relation to the "traditions of our fathers." The Rabbinical laws have been abolished. It is also utilized by Philo and Josephus as translated into the Greek for the same thing. And the term is not utilized in Genesis 26:5 "5 because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws." So what this must denote is that Yeshua tore down the man made Rabbinic traditions, the halakah, that separated the Jews from the Gentiles. Thus it is worthy of note that the enmity existing between the Jews and the Gentiles was broken down. In order to actually do away with the Torah, the word that Rav Shaul would have utilized in this instance would have been - ha patros nomos. We have also stated several times in some of my other writings a legalistic approach to the Torah vs. the following of the Torah due to love of God.

As Rabbi Eric Carlson, who contributed to Sid Roth's book The Incomplete Church states in a conversation between myself and himself regarding this enmity, "At the point in time that Eph 2 was written, Israel (Jews) had a relationship with God through His written word, just as it is today. Gentiles, were estranged and far off, they had no relationship with God through His written word. Because we had God and Gentiles did not there arose enmity (Hostility-animosity) between the two groups because one had God's word and one did not. The Law (Torah) wasn't done away with. "

Another statement that must be made is in regards to "Olam." Now many Supersessionistic theologians, Dr. Glenn Miller included, will rightfully admit that olam does not always mean forever. It actually means world. BUT LE'OLAM DOES MEAN FOREVER! In his article on olam, he wrongly sides with the Pharisees and the Rabbis who attempt to get rid of the Torah (funny how he never ACTUALLY quotes directly what the Rabbis state in regard to the Torah). In his references from the Talmud, he never states how they attempt to put the Rabbi's words over God's words. Rico Cortez on his website http://www.wisdomintorah.org/ has plenty of mention on the attempts of what the Rabbis were trying to do. There are no loose ends about it. It appears to me he has not formally studied very much on Jewish history. He mentions only the school of hillel, but also seems to completely disregard that there is another school of thought, the school of shammai. The school of shammai has the Pharisees that hated the Gentiles, the ones who Yeshua addresses "Woe to you o Pharisees". Rav Shaul was from the school of shammai. Yeshua was from the school of hillel. Messianic Jews know this, recognize it, and embrace it. He also believes the Pharisees to be "good Jews", but not all of them were. Yeshua who even followed the traditions of the fathers mentions many things that the Pharisees were doing incorrectly. Dr. Miller also does something that I conclude should never be done when addressing Jews. He calls Yeshua "Son of David." What I don't agree with this usage is this. Jews will read that and say, "Hey, we're right, the Messiah hasn't come yet because Mashiach ben David is the Messiah we're looking for." Well Mashiach ben David hasn't come yet. When addressing the Jews, we should utilize terms like, high priest, the tsadiyq, Elohim to get our point across of which role the Messiah has fulfilled up to this point. When Yeshua quotes from Isaiah 61:1-2, he stops in the middle of what he is reading and states "these things have been fulfilled today." We should differentiate the Messiah's roles, since Mashiach ben Yosef has already come (the high priest), and Mashiach ben David (king of kings and lord of lords), the other role of Yeshua, is coming again. For this reason I think Dr. Michael L. Brown or even Rico Cortez is a better resource to utilize on how to witness to a Jew than Dr. Glenn Miller. Again, I generally agree with Dr. Glenn Miller on so much material, but just a few nitpicks that I need to make clear that I believe significantly affects his Theology and even his ability to reach out to Jews. Supersessionistic Theologians actually state wrongly that olam means in perpetuity in hopes that this would mean that it is not forever. There is no difference because in fact, in perpetuity means forever according to Webster's dictionary. Olam can be used in different circumstances, but in reference to God as accorded to something else, olam means forever. When it is utilized in instances regarding a contractual relationship between a man and another man, as it is done in Exodus 21:6, it means for the rest of the existing life of the person involved. So it does mean forever! In the instance of the slave having his ear pierced, what this means is that he will become a part of the family, which makes him a part of that family forever. The existing covenant with God does not change ever. The word of God or the Torah has become flesh. Does the word abolish the word? Does God have an end? If we are to conclude a univocality of the word olam, then he does have a beginning and an end. So this would disqualify the God of the Bible from being God. We know thats absurdity, but it is merely the fault of Replacement theologians. The duration of God is forever, and it follows consequently, since the breath of God (ruach hakodesh) also is eternal, that anything God states is eternal. When God makes a contractual agreement with mankind, it is permanent. Secondly, does God ever completely change his instruction? We have certain areas where points are refined, but at no point is anything necessarily taken away. Even on the sermon on the mount by Yeshua, points are added, but nothing is ever completely done away with (not even on the oaths, because it is mentioned in the Torah that it is not a sin to not take an oath, but nowhere it is stated that it is required to do so. Any oath that is made must be kept however, Yeshua sees no need to swear by an oath, so it is not a sin or a changing of the Torah to state that we no longer need to take one). Third, one point never covered by Glenn Miller on his article is the term "le'olam va'ed" which definitively means forever and forever. This is utilized in reference to God's covenants with Israel, which also includes the Torah. This also is utilized in reference to God. Even a generally accurate source has its flaws :). Most of the material from Glenn Miller is found here -http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html and I have to say I am completely amazed on the lack of attention that he put on the school of shammai, given his generally accurate outlook on the Bible. 90% of this guy's work I'm completely in favor of, and I usually enjoy his attention to detail.

Thus, we have two major flaws within Replacement Theology/Supersessionism that have been covered. I will expand on this later. But the major problem I have with Replacement Theology is straight from the Bible, the verse that proceeds from Matthew 5:17-18. Matthew 5:19 states "19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." In other words, its an all or nothing!