replacement theology or something..

So, recently in NZ a well known (supposedly) replacement theologian, Stephen Sizer came and spoke at Laidlaw College (http://www.laidlaw.ac.nz). The video of the event is available here:

http://www.laidlaw.ac.nz/latest-news/israel-and-the-last-days-what-does-the-bible-say-video-now-available

 

Now, I havent seen the videos nor do I know (or really care) what Sizer actually says, but what I do care about is the response that people have to it. Some people have an immediate and panicy response to whether Israel is destined to inherit certain thing they believe the bible says they are meant to, such as the land they currently inhabit.

Couple of things, one is, these “promises” to Israel are promises to ALL believers, and they were meant to be revealed to us through the nation of Israel. Well, I have got bad news for you, the bible says that Israel did NOT fulfil their part of the bargin, to be a light to the world, for example, Acts 13:

13:46 Both Paul andBarnabas replied courageously, “It was necessary to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consideryourselves worthy of eternal life, we are turning to the Gentiles. 13:47 For this is what the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have appointed  you to be a light  for the Gentiles, to bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ” 

Israel was NEVER meant to be the sole inheritor of the promises of God, all humanity is. Israel is the method in history by whom God reveals his nature and his requirements, and now, it is Christians who are responsible to be a “light to the gentiles” – gentiles meaning those whom are not in the family of God – believers. Therefore the whole premise for “the bible says the land is Israel’s therefore they must have it for the end times prophecies to be fulfilled” is totally and utterly incorrect.

Whether Israel is entitled to live in the land they were given in the 40’s is a totally political, legal thing, and not a theological/escatalogical one. EVEN IF… they were given the land because of a faulty theological premise, it is still a political thing, and people should not be upset at all about the fact that the nation of Israel is “replaced” with ‘those whom believe”. The promises of God are, and have only ever been for those who believe.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Post By Geoff (51 Posts)

I live in New Zealand, am an ICT Engineer for Rhema Broadcasting Group (http://rbg.co.nz), and have a Bachelor of Ministries degree from the Bible College of New Zealand (Now called Laidlaw College, http://www.laidlaw.ac.nz) I can be IM'd at geoff at gurutoo dot com.

Website: →

Connect

4 thoughts on “replacement theology or something..

    • Jeremiah,

      Well, that would be the point. Mistakenly, yes, because Israel is a nation “legally” – the UN granted them the land they possess, etc. Theological justifications of it are based on flawed eschatology, which is in turn based on flawed theology, which is based on flawed exegesis, etc :P

  1. Thanks for the link, I’ll listen when I get some time later on.

    One of the challenges I get to my replacement position is that the Abrahamic Covenant is eternal and unconditional. Yet I am forced to consider that this isn’t really the case. Since it isn’t complete for all of Abraham’s descendents. It works great for Isaac and Jacob but not so much for Ishmael and Esau.

    We have to begin separating spiritual Israel from political Israel, since the Scriptures seem to do this easily.

    • Robert, I dont think its that complicated.

      According to Hebrews, Abraham is the father of Faith.. his descendants are not nationally selected, but by faith. Jesus also says being a physical descendant of Abraham does not mean you are truly Israel. You are truly Israel by faith in the redemption work of God. Therefore the promises to Abraham are eternal, and unconditional, and apply to the faithful, not to people who are merely Israel because they happen to be born Jewish.

      Entry into the covenant has ALWAYS been by faith, and not by nature of natural birthright, or by any deed one might do.

Leave a Reply, Please!