In my view NO!!!!
Why should we reject the replacement view?
But the replacement theologian will
respond to say – we are not imposing this doctrine on Scripture, it arises from
new revelation that is available from the inspired writers of the New
Testament. Progressive revelation means that we must re-read the Old Testament
in the light of the more recent revelation provided by the New. LaRondelle has
stated, “the New Testament is the authorized and authoritative interpreter of
the Old Testament”.[3] On
this basis, supercessionists feel comfortable in rejecting a literal
interpretation of Old Testament texts, and are able to say that the literal
texts relating to Israel
are now finding their spiritual fulfillment in the Church.
The difficulty with this view is
that the clear statements of the Old Testament have to be re-interpreted on
very flimsy grounds. It suggests that with the New Testament in our hands we
are able to say that God did not mean what He said then but that He meant
something else. If that is the case, would He have not included a statement to
that effect in the New Testament? But there is no text that says that Israel has been
permanently rejected, and been replaced by the Church. This statement, of
course, would be challenged by those that hold the replacement view. They
contend that there are such texts. Essential to their case is Galatians 6.16. “And as many as walk according to this rule,
peace and mercy be upon them,
and upon the Israel
of God”. For their position to hold,
this has to be translated as the NIV84 translates it: “Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God”.
They require the Greek word ‘kai’ to be translated ‘even’ and not ‘and’,
thus making those who walk according to the rule previously advertised, “the Israel of God”. Yet the most
common use of ‘kai’ is ‘and’ (the continuative or copulative (joining)
sense). The second most frequent use is
the adjunctive sense ‘also’. The sense
of ‘even’ (the explicative sense) is very rare.
Thus the NASB; NRSV; ESV; ASV; NKJV; KJV and Darby all translate it
‘and’. The Greek scholar Marvin Vincent explains, “The καὶ and may be simply connective, in which
case the Israel of God may be different from as many as walk,
etc., and may mean truly converted Jews. Or the καὶ may be explicative, in which case the
Israel of God will define and emphasize as many as, etc., and will
mean the whole body of Christians, Jewish and Gentile. In other words, they who
walk according to this rule form the true Israel of God. The explicative καὶ is at best doubtful here, and is rather forced, although clear instances of it may
be found in 1 Cor. 3:5; 15:38. It seems
better to regard it as simply connective”[4]
(my emphasis). To rely on a verse that is not rock solid in its meaning is
weakening to their case.
Moreover, every other reference in
both Old and New Testaments that uses the word ‘Israel ’ uses it in its ethnic
sense. You would have to have compelling reasons to change its meaning in
Gal.6.16 and the context does not provide those compelling reasons.