I believe the Bible and the Bible says that the true heirs of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are the Christians who have become children of Israel through faith in the gospel, they are now kings, priests and even gods. The fleshly Israel who reject the gospel have lost this blessing
It deserves to be noted that your 'replacement theology' is not actually taught in the New Testament.
Paul makes it clear in his epistle to the Romans that: "
my kindred according to the flesh [...] are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah...I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew." (
Romans 9:3-5; 11:1-2).
There was no doubt for Paul that he was an Israelite and a Jew by birth, and that Jews of his time remained the heirs of the patriarchal 'promises' and the Sinai covenant.
Replacement theology arose later than the time of the NT. So far as the Pauline doctrine of election evidenced in the actual NT is concerned, 'Christianized' Gentiles are grafted into the Abrahamic covenant through baptism, which becomes a spiritual circumcision for them analogous to physical circumcision for Jews, and by faith in Jesus as the Messiah, which Paul understood through his exegesis as being in fulfilment of the verse in the Torah: "
your name shall be Abraham (father of a multitude); For I will make you the father of many nations" (
Genesis 17:5). This meant, for him, that the entire moral law of the Torah was binding on these converted Gentiles as interpreted and expanded by the NT (i.e. the Ten Words being the basis today still of the arrangement of catechetical teaching, the ancient first century Didache beginning with Deuteronomy's life/death choice) but not the ceremonial, cultic or other 'mitzvah'. Thus, he thought they would attain to salvation/share in the world to come, because: "
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him" (Romans 10:12).
That was really as far as Paul himself went.
For our part, the contemporary Catholic Church recognizes the enduring validity of Rabbinic exegesis:
“The Gifts and the Calling of God Are Irrevocable” (Rom 11:29)
"While affirming salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in Christ, the Church does not question the continued love of God for the chosen people of Israel. A replacement or supersession theology which sets against one another two separate entities, a Church of the Gentiles and the rejected Synagogue whose place it takes, is deprived of its foundations...
As a consequence there were two responses to this situation, or more precisely, two new ways of reading Scripture, namely the Christological exegesis of the Christians and the rabbinical exegesis of that form of Judaism that developed historically...
The document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission “The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible” in 2001 therefore stated that Christians can and must admit “that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Scriptures from the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in parallel fashion”. It then draws the conclusion: “Both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. Consequently, both are irreducible” (No.22)."
Granted, it's
not the exegetical path which the New Testament authors and their immediate successors the Apostolic and Church Fathers (late 1st century CE - sixth century CE) adopted,
however we recognize the Talmudic (tannaitic and amoraic) scriptural hermeneutic as being an interpretative tradition that is both in continuity with ancient (biblical) Israelite religion and represents a textually legitimate development of it, just not the particular path of development that the early Jesus sect and the Church took because of our distinctive theology.
