Does Matthew 21:43 Support Replacement Theology?

[Bear]

Does Matthew 21:43 Support Replacement Theology?

By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.


One text often used by supersessionists to support the
idea of the permanent rejection of national Israel is Matt 21:43.[1]
In this verse, which Frederick Dale Bruner calls "one of the most
important verses in Matthew,"[2] Jesus addressed the unbelief of the
leaders of the nation Israel and announced his rejection of them
because of their stubborn unbelief: "Therefore I say to you, the
kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation
producing the fruit of it."

What is the significance of Jesus' words in Matt 21:43?
Supersessionists often assert that Jesus was making two major points.
The first was that the nation Israel had been permanently rejected as
the people of God. The second is that the "nation" to whom the kingdom
would be given is the church.

This view that Matt 21:43 teaches the replacement of Israel with the
church was held in the Patristic Era. As Origen declared, "Our Lord,
seeing the conduct of the Jews not to be at all in keeping with the
teaching of the prophets, inculcated by a parable that the kingdom of
God would be taken from them, and given to the converts from
heathenism."[3] Irenaeus and Chrysostom, too, believed this text
taught the permanent rejection of the Jews.[4] This understanding of
Matt 21:43, though, goes beyond just the Patristic Era. According to
W. D. Davies and Dale Allison, this view that Matt 21:43 teaches the
replacement of national Israel with the church is "the dominant
interpretation in Christian history."[5]

This view of Matt 21:43, however, is improbable for several
reasons. The first problem concerns the identity of the "you" from
whom the kingdom would be taken. Several interpreters have pointed out
that the "you" probably refers to the current leaders of Israel and
not the nation as a whole as supersessionists have claimed. M. Eugene
Boring, for instance, states: "Who is represented by the 'you' from
whom the kingdom is taken? Who is the 'nation' to whom it is given? In
the context, the addressees are clearly the chief priests and
Pharisees . . . i.e., the Jewish leadership, not the people as a
whole."[6] Making a similar point, David D. Kupp writes, "Jesus'
growing antipathy to the Jewish leaders has never spelled outright
rejection of the Jewish crowds, the people of Israel. Even in 21.43
the target audience is explicitly the leaders, not the people."[7]

Boring and Kupp appear correct in their observations. Matt
21:45 states that the religious leaders "understood that He [Jesus]
was speaking about them." Anthony J. Saldarini argues that the
supersessionist view is more in line with supersessionist
presuppositions than with the actual meaning of Matthew 21:43: "This
reading, which fits later Christian supercessionist interpretations of
Jewish-Christian relations, is beset by several problems, the most
obvious of which is that Matthew makes the chief priests and Pharisees
apply the parable to themselves (21:45), not to Israel as a whole."[8]
Since the context indicates that Jesus was speaking specifically to
the religious leaders of his day, the supersessionist assertion that
Jesus was announcing the permanent rejection of the nation Israel
appears unlikely.

Another problem with the view that Jesus is declaring the
permanent rejection of Israel is that other sections of Matthew's
gospel appear to reaffirm or hint at a future for Israel. As Sanders
has pointed out, Matt 19:28 "confirms the view that Jesus looked for
the restoration of Israel."[9] M. A. Elliott asserts that in Matthew's
gospel "nothing explicit is found regarding the rejection of
Israel."[10]

A second problem concerns the supersessionist view that
the nation to whom the kingdom would be given is the Christian
church.[11] The context of Matthew 21 makes it unlikely that the
"nation" of whom Jesus is referring is the church. As Turner writes,
"In verse 46 it is clear that the religious leaders believed Jesus was
talking about them, not Israel as a whole. Thus it is reading too much
into this verse to view it as indicating the replacement of Israel by
the Gentile church."[12] Saldarini points out that theologians who
interpret "nation" as the church "are reading in second-century
Christian theology" into Matt 21:43.[13]

Thus, Matthew 21:43 is not a supporting text for replacement
theology.

[1] The following authors have expressed the idea that Matt 21:43
teaches the rejection of the nation Israel and/or Israel's replacement
by the church: Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology,
Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 157; R. T. France, The Gospel
According to Matthew, TNTC, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985;
reprint, 1987), 310; John Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of
Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth &
Hyatt, 1991), 190-91; Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the
New Testament, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1930), 172; Zorn, Christ
Triumphant, 30; George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 114; Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian
Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans. William V.
Dych (New York: Seabury, 1978), 337; Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of
the Kingdom, trans. H. de Jongste (Philadelphia: Presbyterian &
Reformed, 1962), 352-53; Francis Wright Beare, The Gospel According to
Matthew: A Commentary (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981), 431;
LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy, 101; John Bright, The
Kingdom of God (Nashville: Abingdon, 1953), 226. Other texts have been
used to support this idea of the permanent rejection of Israel.
Diprose mentions John 8:30-59 as a possible supporting text for
replacement theology. In this text Jesus stresses that the Jewish
leaders were not children of Abraham but children of the devil (see
8:44). Ronald E. Diprose, Israel in the Development of Christian
Thought (Rome: Istituto Biblico Evangelico Italiano, 2000), 36-38.
Diprose also mentions 1 Thess 2:15-16. The latter part of verse 16
states concerning the Jews, "But wrath has come upon them to the
utmost." (55). Bright mentions Matt 8:11 as being parallel to Matthew
21:43. Bright, The Kingdom of God, 226.

[2] Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, vol. 2 (Dallas:
Word, 1990), 770.

[3] Origen, Against Celsus 2.5, ANF 4:431.

[4] See Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.36, ANF 1:514; Chrysostom,
Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, 68, PG, 58:631-34; See also
Apostolic Constitutions 5.16, ANF 7:446.

[5] W. D. Davies and Dale Allison, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew 19-28, ICC, vol. 3
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997), 189.

[6] M. Eugene Boring, "The Gospel of Matthew: Introduction,
Commentary, and Reflections," NIB, vol. 8 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995),
415.

[7] David D, Kupp, Matthew's Emmanuel: Divine Presence and God's
People in the First Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996), 95. According to D. A. Carson, "Strictly speaking, then, v. 43
does not speak of transferring the locus of the people of God from
Jews to Gentiles, though it may hint at this insofar as that locus now
extends far beyond the authority of the Jewish rulers . . . instead,
it speaks of the ending of the role the Jewish religious leaders
played in mediating God's authority." D. A. Carson, "Matthew," EBC,
vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 454. Luz writes, "Is Jesus
announcing the supersession of Israel by the Gentile Church in the
history of mankind's salvation? . . . No, because in this context he
is quite clearly speaking to Israel's leaders and to no one else. No,
because ethnos-that same Greek word for 'people' that means, in the
plural, 'nations' or 'Gentiles'-cannot simply be equated with
'church.'" Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, trans.
J. Bradford Robinson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995),
119. See also David L. Turner, "Matthew 21:43 and the Future of
Israel," Bibliotheca Sacra 159:633 (2002): 56.

[8] Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 59.

[9] E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985),
103. By Israel's restoration, Sanders means "Jewish restoration"
(116).


[10] M. A. Elliott, "Israel," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels,
eds. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 359. Elliott also writes: "Some
adherents of this new school of Jesus research hold that the major
presupposition for Jesus' ministry was the widespread eschatological
doctrine of the restoration of Israel, and that Jesus both addressed
this concern and understood his ministry in the light of the
expectation" (360).

[11] According to Frederick Dale Bruner, "A strong exegetical
tradition says that the church is not the 'nation' to whom Matthew's
Jesus promises that the kingdom 'will be given.'" Frederick Dale
Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, vol. 2 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 771.
Emphasis in original.

[12] Turner, "Matthew 21:43 and the Future of Israel," 57. If the
"nation" in Matt 21:43 is not the church, who is it? Two alternative
explanations have been offered. First, Turner argues that the "nation"
is "the Matthean community as an eschatological messianic remnant
whose leaders will replace the current Jerusalem establishment and
lead Israel in bearing the fruit of righteousness to God" (59). This
"Matthean Christian Jewish community" is allegedly "led by Jesus'
apostles" (61). See also Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish
Community, 63. Others have understood the "nation" of Matthew 21:43 as
referring to a future believing generation of Israel. See Arnold G.
Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology
(Tustin, CA: Ariel, 1994), 60.

[13] Saldarini, 60.

http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/page/page/4362539.htm

[Doug]

Post by Bear
Does Matthew 21:43 Support Replacement Theology?
By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.
One text often used by supersessionists to support the
idea of the permanent rejection of national Israel is Matt 21:43.[1]
In this verse, which Frederick Dale Bruner calls "one of the most
important verses in Matthew,"[2] Jesus addressed the unbelief of the
leaders of the nation Israel and announced his rejection of them
because of their stubborn unbelief: "Therefore I say to you, the
kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation
producing the fruit of it."
What is the significance of Jesus' words in Matt 21:43?
Supersessionists often assert that Jesus was making two major points.
The first was that the nation Israel had been permanently rejected as
the people of God. The second is that the "nation" to whom the kingdom
would be given is the church.
This view that Matt 21:43 teaches the replacement of Israel with the
church was held in the Patristic Era. As Origen declared, "Our Lord,
seeing the conduct of the Jews not to be at all in keeping with the
teaching of the prophets, inculcated by a parable that the kingdom of
God would be taken from them, and given to the converts from
heathenism."[3] Irenaeus and Chrysostom, too, believed this text
taught the permanent rejection of the Jews.[4] This understanding of
Matt 21:43, though, goes beyond just the Patristic Era. According to
W. D. Davies and Dale Allison, this view that Matt 21:43 teaches the
replacement of national Israel with the church is "the dominant
interpretation in Christian history."[5]
This view of Matt 21:43, however, is improbable for several
reasons. The first problem concerns the identity of the "you" from
whom the kingdom would be taken. Several interpreters have pointed out
that the "you" probably refers to the current leaders of Israel and
not the nation as a whole as supersessionists have claimed. M. Eugene
Boring, for instance, states: "Who is represented by the 'you' from
whom the kingdom is taken? Who is the 'nation' to whom it is given? In
the context, the addressees are clearly the chief priests and
Pharisees . . . i.e., the Jewish leadership, not the people as a
whole."[6] Making a similar point, David D. Kupp writes, "Jesus'
growing antipathy to the Jewish leaders has never spelled outright
rejection of the Jewish crowds, the people of Israel. Even in 21.43
the target audience is explicitly the leaders, not the people."[7]
Boring and Kupp appear correct in their observations. Matt
21:45 states that the religious leaders "understood that He [Jesus]
was speaking about them." Anthony J. Saldarini argues that the
supersessionist view is more in line with supersessionist
presuppositions than with the actual meaning of Matthew 21:43: "This
reading, which fits later Christian supercessionist interpretations of
Jewish-Christian relations, is beset by several problems, the most
obvious of which is that Matthew makes the chief priests and Pharisees
apply the parable to themselves (21:45), not to Israel as a whole."[8]
Since the context indicates that Jesus was speaking specifically to
the religious leaders of his day, the supersessionist assertion that
Jesus was announcing the permanent rejection of the nation Israel
appears unlikely.
Another problem with the view that Jesus is declaring the
permanent rejection of Israel is that other sections of Matthew's
gospel appear to reaffirm or hint at a future for Israel. As Sanders
has pointed out, Matt 19:28 "confirms the view that Jesus looked for
the restoration of Israel."[9] M. A. Elliott asserts that in Matthew's
gospel "nothing explicit is found regarding the rejection of
Israel."[10]
A second problem concerns the supersessionist view that
the nation to whom the kingdom would be given is the Christian
church.[11] The context of Matthew 21 makes it unlikely that the
"nation" of whom Jesus is referring is the church. As Turner writes,
"In verse 46 it is clear that the religious leaders believed Jesus was
talking about them, not Israel as a whole. Thus it is reading too much
into this verse to view it as indicating the replacement of Israel by
the Gentile church."[12] Saldarini points out that theologians who
interpret "nation" as the church "are reading in second-century
Christian theology" into Matt 21:43.[13]
Thus, Matthew 21:43 is not a supporting text for replacement
theology.

According to Psalm 147, God's word was given only to Israel.

Psalm 147:19-20
He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.
He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they
have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.

The scriptures of the NT were not given to those who were Jews after the
flesh, but to the Church. Many of the epistles of Paul, for example,
were addressed to churches in Gentile lands, consisting of both Jewish
and Gentile converts, who had become one in Christ. OTOH, the Jews after
the flesh never accepted the NT as holy scripture. This shows the Church
is the true Israel.

Jesus said, "salvation is of the Jews," showing that those who are in
his kingdom have become "Jews" spiritually.

John 4:22
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is
of the Jews.

The Church is called his bride, and so becomes "one" with Christ, who
was a Jew.

Ephesians 5:30
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

If we are of his bones and flesh, how can the Church not be Israel?

The Church is called "the mother of us all," (Galatians 4:26). How could
believers not be Israel, if we are her children?

Jesus said his ministry was to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the
house of Israel.

Paul showed that the Gentile believers have been "made nigh" to the
commonwealth of Israel by the blood of Christ. Thus they inherit all the
promises given to Israel, through Christ.

Ephesians 2:11-13
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh,
who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision
in the flesh made by hands;
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise,
having no hope, and without God in the world:
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by
the blood of Christ.

Dispensationalists like Michael J. Vlach and John C. Whitcomb, who deny
that the Church is the Israel of God, and want to deprive Christians of
the promises they are entitled to, have the spiritual status of
uncircumcised Gentiles. Or else, what does circumcision mean? It
distinguishes between Jew and Gentile. Paul called the Church "the
circumcision."

Philippians 3:3
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and
rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Promoters of Dispensationalism are enemies of the true Israel, and
invaders in the land, who were foretold in the prophecies of Joel,
Ezekiel 38, and Zechariah 14. The armies of Gog, described in Ezekiel
38, include horses, which represent those who lack understanding.

Psalm 32:9
Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding:
whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near
unto thee.

Horses have riders, and the invaders have J. N. Darby and C. I.
Schofield, and the theory of Dispensationalism, as their riders. They
look for a carnal, temporal fulfillment of Bible prophecy, alien to the
gospel of Christ, which they impose on the scriptures. They seek to make
captives of the believers, and snare them in their false doctrines,
which is a major factor in the formation of thousands of cults, and
sects, and denominations, where Christians are scattered.

Jeremiah 5:8
They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his
neighbour's wife.

They seek to "take a spoil," Ezekiel says, and deprive the people of God
of their promises, which they apply to the Jews! They fulfill the
prophecy of Peter, who said false teachers would come, and "through
covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you." (2
Peter 2:3)

Ezekiel also says they come against the "prophets of Israel." (Ezekiel
38:17) They misinterpret the prophets, and obscure and garble the
message of the prophets intended for the Church!

Post by Bear
[1] The following authors have expressed the idea that Matt 21:43
teaches the rejection of the nation Israel and/or Israel's replacement
by the church: Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology,
Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 157; R. T. France, The Gospel
According to Matthew, TNTC, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985;
reprint, 1987), 310; John Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of
Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth &
Hyatt, 1991), 190-91; Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the
New Testament, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1930), 172; Zorn, Christ
Triumphant, 30; George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 114; Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian
Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans. William V.
Dych (New York: Seabury, 1978), 337; Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of
the Kingdom, trans. H. de Jongste (Philadelphia: Presbyterian &
Reformed, 1962), 352-53; Francis Wright Beare, The Gospel According to
Matthew: A Commentary (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981), 431;
LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy, 101; John Bright, The
Kingdom of God (Nashville: Abingdon, 1953), 226. Other texts have been
used to support this idea of the permanent rejection of Israel.
Diprose mentions John 8:30-59 as a possible supporting text for
replacement theology. In this text Jesus stresses that the Jewish
leaders were not children of Abraham but children of the devil (see
8:44). Ronald E. Diprose, Israel in the Development of Christian
Thought (Rome: Istituto Biblico Evangelico Italiano, 2000), 36-38.
Diprose also mentions 1 Thess 2:15-16. The latter part of verse 16
states concerning the Jews, "But wrath has come upon them to the
utmost." (55). Bright mentions Matt 8:11 as being parallel to Matthew
21:43. Bright, The Kingdom of God, 226.
Word, 1990), 770.
[3] Origen, Against Celsus 2.5, ANF 4:431.
[4] See Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.36, ANF 1:514; Chrysostom,
Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, 68, PG, 58:631-34; See also
Apostolic Constitutions 5.16, ANF 7:446.
[5] W. D. Davies and Dale Allison, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew 19-28, ICC, vol. 3
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997), 189.
[6] M. Eugene Boring, "The Gospel of Matthew: Introduction,
Commentary, and Reflections," NIB, vol. 8 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995),
415.
[7] David D, Kupp, Matthew's Emmanuel: Divine Presence and God's
People in the First Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996), 95. According to D. A. Carson, "Strictly speaking, then, v. 43
does not speak of transferring the locus of the people of God from
Jews to Gentiles, though it may hint at this insofar as that locus now
extends far beyond the authority of the Jewish rulers . . . instead,
it speaks of the ending of the role the Jewish religious leaders
played in mediating God's authority." D. A. Carson, "Matthew," EBC,
vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 454. Luz writes, "Is Jesus
announcing the supersession of Israel by the Gentile Church in the
history of mankind's salvation? . . . No, because in this context he
is quite clearly speaking to Israel's leaders and to no one else. No,
because ethnos-that same Greek word for 'people' that means, in the
plural, 'nations' or 'Gentiles'-cannot simply be equated with
'church.'" Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, trans.
J. Bradford Robinson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995),
119. See also David L. Turner, "Matthew 21:43 and the Future of
Israel," Bibliotheca Sacra 159:633 (2002): 56.
[8] Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 59.
[9] E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985),
103. By Israel's restoration, Sanders means "Jewish restoration"
(116).
[10] M. A. Elliott, "Israel," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels,
eds. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 359. Elliott also writes: "Some
adherents of this new school of Jesus research hold that the major
presupposition for Jesus' ministry was the widespread eschatological
doctrine of the restoration of Israel, and that Jesus both addressed
this concern and understood his ministry in the light of the
expectation" (360).
[11] According to Frederick Dale Bruner, "A strong exegetical
tradition says that the church is not the 'nation' to whom Matthew's
Jesus promises that the kingdom 'will be given.'" Frederick Dale
Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, vol. 2 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 771.
Emphasis in original.
[12] Turner, "Matthew 21:43 and the Future of Israel," 57. If the
"nation" in Matt 21:43 is not the church, who is it? Two alternative
explanations have been offered. First, Turner argues that the "nation"
is "the Matthean community as an eschatological messianic remnant
whose leaders will replace the current Jerusalem establishment and
lead Israel in bearing the fruit of righteousness to God" (59). This
"Matthean Christian Jewish community" is allegedly "led by Jesus'
apostles" (61). See also Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish
Community, 63. Others have understood the "nation" of Matthew 21:43 as
referring to a future believing generation of Israel. See Arnold G.
Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology
(Tustin, CA: Ariel, 1994), 60.
[13] Saldarini, 60.
http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/page/page/4362539.htm

[Bear]

Post by Doug

Post by Bear
Does Matthew 21:43 Support Replacement Theology?
By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.
One text often used by supersessionists to support the
idea of the permanent rejection of national Israel is Matt 21:43.[1]
In this verse, which Frederick Dale Bruner calls "one of the most
important verses in Matthew,"[2] Jesus addressed the unbelief of the
leaders of the nation Israel and announced his rejection of them
because of their stubborn unbelief: "Therefore I say to you, the
kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation
producing the fruit of it."
What is the significance of Jesus' words in Matt 21:43?
Supersessionists often assert that Jesus was making two major points.
The first was that the nation Israel had been permanently rejected as
the people of God. The second is that the "nation" to whom the kingdom
would be given is the church.
This view that Matt 21:43 teaches the replacement of Israel with the
church was held in the Patristic Era. As Origen declared, "Our Lord,
seeing the conduct of the Jews not to be at all in keeping with the
teaching of the prophets, inculcated by a parable that the kingdom of
God would be taken from them, and given to the converts from
heathenism."[3] Irenaeus and Chrysostom, too, believed this text
taught the permanent rejection of the Jews.[4] This understanding of
Matt 21:43, though, goes beyond just the Patristic Era. According to
W. D. Davies and Dale Allison, this view that Matt 21:43 teaches the
replacement of national Israel with the church is "the dominant
interpretation in Christian history."[5]
This view of Matt 21:43, however, is improbable for several
reasons. The first problem concerns the identity of the "you" from
whom the kingdom would be taken. Several interpreters have pointed out
that the "you" probably refers to the current leaders of Israel and
not the nation as a whole as supersessionists have claimed. M. Eugene
Boring, for instance, states: "Who is represented by the 'you' from
whom the kingdom is taken? Who is the 'nation' to whom it is given? In
the context, the addressees are clearly the chief priests and
Pharisees . . . i.e., the Jewish leadership, not the people as a
whole."[6] Making a similar point, David D. Kupp writes, "Jesus'
growing antipathy to the Jewish leaders has never spelled outright
rejection of the Jewish crowds, the people of Israel. Even in 21.43
the target audience is explicitly the leaders, not the people."[7]
Boring and Kupp appear correct in their observations. Matt
21:45 states that the religious leaders "understood that He [Jesus]
was speaking about them." Anthony J. Saldarini argues that the
supersessionist view is more in line with supersessionist
presuppositions than with the actual meaning of Matthew 21:43: "This
reading, which fits later Christian supercessionist interpretations of
Jewish-Christian relations, is beset by several problems, the most
obvious of which is that Matthew makes the chief priests and Pharisees
apply the parable to themselves (21:45), not to Israel as a whole."[8]
Since the context indicates that Jesus was speaking specifically to
the religious leaders of his day, the supersessionist assertion that
Jesus was announcing the permanent rejection of the nation Israel
appears unlikely.
Another problem with the view that Jesus is declaring the
permanent rejection of Israel is that other sections of Matthew's
gospel appear to reaffirm or hint at a future for Israel. As Sanders
has pointed out, Matt 19:28 "confirms the view that Jesus looked for
the restoration of Israel."[9] M. A. Elliott asserts that in Matthew's
gospel "nothing explicit is found regarding the rejection of
Israel."[10]
A second problem concerns the supersessionist view that
the nation to whom the kingdom would be given is the Christian
church.[11] The context of Matthew 21 makes it unlikely that the
"nation" of whom Jesus is referring is the church. As Turner writes,
"In verse 46 it is clear that the religious leaders believed Jesus was
talking about them, not Israel as a whole. Thus it is reading too much
into this verse to view it as indicating the replacement of Israel by
the Gentile church."[12] Saldarini points out that theologians who
interpret "nation" as the church "are reading in second-century
Christian theology" into Matt 21:43.[13]
Thus, Matthew 21:43 is not a supporting text for replacement
theology.

According to Psalm 147, God's word was given only to Israel.
Psalm 147:19-20
He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.
He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they
have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.

Doug does lots of preaching but just try and get him to prove his
phony doctrine by answering some questions. Then his only response is
to ignore them or completely change the wording of scripture. Just
try asking him some questions about his post and see if you get any
answers proven with scripture, or read all the scriptures pertinent to
his post and see if they say what he claims they say.

As the example below demonstrates, Doug cannot seem to make up his
mind what God did say.

I suppose he does not recall how he handled 9:24 so I will refresh his
memory.

First, he said the word "place" is not in the Bible, I provided
evidence proving him wrong.

Second, he said that "place" was not in the interlinear Bible, using
the source he recommended, I provided evidence proving him wrong.

Third, he said well it is not really "important" if it is there or
not.

Can someone expect any creditability making a statement, "it is not
really important" what the scriptures say? Not with most of us.

How does three different assertions provide proof? It is a joke, just
like Doug.

It does not appear to matter to him what scripture says, he is going
to make it say what he wants it to say come hell or high water and I
am concerned one day he will see at least one of those entities.

As an exercise to "prove" you creditability Doug, why do you not give
a phrase by phrase commentary on Daniel 9:24-27 and provide "proof"
that your interpretations are correct?

Doug refuses to respond to this challenge because he knows he cannot
make his interpretations hold shucks let alone water.

I can, and have, provided evidence to support my accusations about
Doug and although I have challenged him many times to do the same with
his accusations, he has not done so.

It is interesting that Doug has never chosen to challenge me when I
make the statement,

And, it is not productive trying to engage in a discussion with him
when he consistently;

EDITS QUOTED MATERIALS TO SAY THINGS THEY DO NOT SAY,

QUOTE VERSES COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT,

ALLEGE VERSES SAY THINGS THEY DO NOT SAY,

QUOTE MANY VERSES THAT HAVE NO RELEVANCY TO THE SUBJECT,

DELETE MAJOR PORTIONS OF A POST HE IS RESPONDING TO,

COMPLETELY IGNORES POINTS THAT ARE MADE,

MAKES ACCUSATIONS HE KNOWS ARE FALSE,

REFUSES TO ANSWER DIRECT, SPECIFIC QUESTIONS,

WHEN PRESENTED WITH EVIDENCE THAT HE IS WRONG, HE JUST IGNORES IT AND
GOES ON TO THE NEXT DIVERSION.

Upper case is only used to draw attention.

If you think I am exaggerating, try a discussion with him and see how
you do. I have made one or more of these accusations about Doug on
numerous occasions and not once has he refuted, denied, explained or
challenged them.

If they were not true, would one not think he would be furious over
such accusations? Why is he not?

Post by Doug

Post by Bear
http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/page/page/4362539.htm

[Bear]

Post by Doug

Post by Bear
Does Matthew 21:43 Support Replacement Theology?
Thus, Matthew 21:43 is not a supporting text for replacement
theology.

According to Psalm 147, God's word was given only to Israel.

A caveat about Doug for those who are not familiar with him. It is
advisable to read judiciously the referenced material he uses in his
comments for accuracy.

Doug really likes to use the NT so may I suggest those reading his
post to remember,

Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in
Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness,
EXAMINING THE SCRIPTURES DAILY TO SEE WHETHER THESE THINGS WERE SO.

I would make the challenge for those reading Doug to prove, with
scripture, "whether these things were so". I don't believe it can be
done.

Unfortunately, Doug is not above some selective editing, deception and
dishonesty to promote his views.