replacement theology or something..

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


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

You Might Also Like

5 Replies to “replacement theology or something..”

    1. 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 😛

  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.

    1. 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.

    2. No. It is an everlasting covenant. Forever is forever. If you think it’s not, guess what else is not forever- the eternal life we are supposed to get! Ishmael and Esau were passed up because they were not children of the promise. It’s pure and simple. The nation that was to be blessed is Israel. God never divorced the House of Judah, but He did with the House of Israel (northern kingdom). The New covenant is with the House of Judah and the House of Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34) There’s no mention of a “new” “spiritual Israel” that replaces Israel. If you were a gentile you get grafted into Israel (Romans 11, Ephesians 2:1-12).God mentions everything through the Prophets before He does anything (Amos 3:7) and nowhere is ‘replacement’ prophecied. There’s no third house of the Gentiles. You get grafted into one of the two houses mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and the House of Israel gets remarried. The two houses become one(Ezekiel 37). The House of Israel is the prodigal son, while Judah is the son who stayed with his dad and got angry when his brother for back home. Israel was scattered to the nations, and will be sifted through all of them (Amos 9:8-9) before everything’s done. At the same time, the Gentiles who are called by The Lord will be grafted in like the Egyptians were. Properly understood, those who are saved are the remnant of Judah, the remnant of the House of Israel, and the remnant of the Gentiles who cleave to The Lord. They are all united in one kingdom of Israel under the Messiah, Jesus.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.