recognizing Replacement Theology

[Dave]

It's interesting to think about replacement theology in relation to hermeneutics - methods of biblical interpretation.



The main techniques adopted by evangelicals are:<LIST>

• <LI>
• The primary meaning of a text is what it would have meant to the people to whom it was written.</LI>
  <LI>
• Passages should be understood literally unless the context indicates otherwise.</LI>
  <LI>
• Interpretations should not contradict other parts of the Bible.</LI>
  

</LIST>Replacement theology deviates from all this. It takes a non-literal approach and spiritualises or allegorises (something evangelicals normally condemn strongly as being the practice of liberals) certain passages about Israel and interprets them in a manner that is inconsistent with the rest of the bible.



It also takes a selective approach - although the promises are claimed by the church, keeping the festivals (including shabbat) is explained away and ignored, and, of course, the curses for disobeying God are left with Israel.



I don't think replacement theology is explicitly taught as such - I suspect it's just a sort of poison that has contaminated a lot of christian thought. In my experience, many people who've been exposed to it in their studies and have taken it on board don't actually realise the full significance of it. So they need to be lovingly put back on the right course, not shouted down in flames.