Replacement Theology
 If
you have been actively pursuing the study of Bible prophecy
for any length of time you are probably familiar with
the idea of replacement theology. Put simply, it means
that God has changed His mind about the nation of Israel
and has replaced her with the church in His great scheme
of things. Though absolutely unbiblical in its premise,
yet this idea is believed and taught by a number of
people in evangelical circles. As we shall see, the
consequences of believing such teaching are very significant.
What Is It?
Basically, it goes like this. God made a number of promises
to Abraham and the nation of Israel and He intended on keeping
every one of them. However, they were all conditional promises,
and because Abraham's descendants were rebellious God decided
to exercise the default option in the covenants and give everything
to the church. As a result, Israel no longer figures in His
plan for the ages and the church is now the sole recipient
of the blessings promised to Israel and is the sole object
of His attention. This doctrine is a major part of the amillennial
belief system. If a person thinks that God is finished with
the Jew and that the church is the only kingdom God will ever
have, then the end of the world at the rapture of the church
is very easy to accept.
There are a number of well-known TV and radio preachers that
subscribe to replacement theology. Some readily admit to it,
but others seem to be more subtle in how they approach the
subject. Perhaps because there are a number of evangelical
Christians that might recoil at the thought of their favorite
TV preacher not believing Israel has any more significance
in God's plan, some preachers couch their belief system in
soft and padded tones that do not portray the harsh and oftentimes
anti-Semitic underpinnings of this idea. That is not to say
that everyone who believes Israel is no longer relevant to
God is anti-Semitic, but it is to say a number are.
So, What Difference Does It Make?
So, does it really make any difference what a person believes
about the Jew in general and Israel in particular? To answer
that question quite succinctly, yes, it does! First, it determines
how a Bible student will interpret the Old Testament covenants,
and how a person views those covenants will tend to set his
posture for interpreting everything else. When a person ignores
the unconditional covenants God made with Abraham and his
descendants, that person will no longer study scripture, particularly
Bible prophecy, with an open mind. These folks already know
what they want to believe and no amount of plain teaching
will change anything.
Consider the record in Genesis 15. Of all the important chapters
dealing with God's promises to Abram and his descendants,
this one might be considered the granddaddy of them all. Abram
had distinguished himself from Lot in chapter 14 by making
a choice based upon faith instead of upon sight. At that point
God promised him all the land in which he lived and many descendants.
However, God did nothing to formally validate His promise
as was the custom among those people in that day. In chapter
15 God once again spoke to Abram about the land and his descendants,
but this time He went a step further and sealed the covenant
with formality. He "cut" a covenant with Abram;
a binding act in those days. Normally, both parties to a covenant
would walk between the divided animals thus indicating each
had a part to uphold in the agreement. However, in this great
covenant only God passed between the pieces. That is, by this
act God clearly demonstrated that His promises to Abram and
his descendants regarding the land were unconditional. The
future actions of Abram and his descendants had nothing to
do with it - God had given that land to Abram and his descendants
through Isaac and that was that.
There are other promises that were conditional, e.g., 2 Chronicles
7:13,14. Also, the children of Israel were told that if they
did not obey the Lord their God they would be uprooted from
the land (2 Chronicles 7:19-22), but even that was not a permanent
displacement. God promised to bring them back into their land
for a permanent dwelling. Jeremiah 31:31ff records how God
will make a new covenant with His people Israel in a later
time, and that the fixed order of the universe will depart
before the "offspring of Israel will...cease from being
a nation before Me forever" (vs # 36 NASB). Ezekiel 36:22-32
is another example of an unconditional promise. There God
promised to gather them from all the nations, to bring them
into their own land, to cleanse them spiritually, to give
them a new heart and a new spirit, to put His Spirit within
them and to cause them to walk in His statutes and ordinances.
Additionally, God said, "And you will live in
the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will
be My people, and I will be your God" (vs # 28;
emphasis mine). Notice there are no conditions here. Part
of this great promise is being fulfilled today, for they are
indeed going back to their ancient homeland, even as you read
this. Other portions will be completely and literally fulfilled
in God's own time.
Why will God do this for a people as rebellious as they are?
Is it because they deserve such blessings? No. It will be
because God's own name is directly associated with those promises
(see Ezekiel 36: 32-36).
Is This The Church?
Those who teach replacement doctrine must answer some logical
questions with equally logical answers. In what way is the
body of Christ now the beneficiary of the land-grant promise
God made to Israel? Does the church need a new heart when
she is already the bride of Christ? Does the church need the
Spirit of God in some sort of different way when He already
dwells in her? Obviously, these promises can not refer to
the church in any form or fashion. To make all such promises
apply to the church requires an exercise in interpretive gymnastics
that not only goes against any established rule of scriptural
interpretation, but also defies plain, common sense logic.
God does not communicate with His people with such convoluted
means. If He had wanted us to know that He was going to do
all those things for Israel for His name's sake, He would
have plainly said so. And He has.
Consequences of Replacement Theology
Is this simply some benign issue that has no real place in
the arena of Bible prophecy and thus no real significance?
Or, is this a matter that justifiably demands our attention
and serious study? Consider what might be the results of believing
the church has taken the place of Israel.
First, it means we cannot trust God. If He has gone back
on His unconditional promises to Israel, why would He not
do the same with the promises He made to the church? Jesus
said in John 14:1-3 that He was going away to prepare a place
for us and that He was going to come again and take us to
be with Himself. Did He deceive us? I think not! Did God really
mean it when He said in Romans 8:1 that we are no longer under
condemnation, or will we, indeed, face His unmixed wrath in
judgment as the disbelievers will? No! Will those who have
died in Christ be resurrected at the rapture, and will those
us of alive at that moment be changed from the mortal to the
immortal, or is that supposed to be "spiritually"
interpreted to mean no-telling what? Again, the answer is
no. We can take Him at His word, and if we cannot do so then
He is a deceiver and we are a confused, anxious and terribly
troubled people. Perish the thought!
Second, it means that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were all deceived,
for they went to their graves believing that God meant what
He plainly said about their nation. This means that a person
who subscribes to this replacement idea would necessarily
believe God allowed Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, the prophets
and untold numbers of others to die in this horrendous morass
of deception. Can you fathom this, that Abraham was deceived
by God after he placed his trust in what He had said to him
and was called "the friend of God" (James 2:23)?
No! This not only contradicts the written word, but violates
the revealed character of God.
Third, the replacement argument has important immediate implications.
To believe the church has replaced Israel makes anti-Semitism
more acceptable. It is much easier to hate the Jews if a person
believes God has given up on them and has cast them aside
as one does a worn-out rag. A preacher once told me that the
holocaust was all a great hoax and that the Jews were back
in "that land" as criminals. This man needs to be
very careful about his belief system, for the general criminality
of the Jews is the same charge Hitler leveled against them
in his argument for their extermination.
Fourth, such an argument can be a major factor in a nation's
moral decline and eventual spiritual demise. Consider the
history of England after her decision to betray her God-given
trust regarding her post WW1 mandate over the land. At one
time the sun never went down on the British Empire due to
its vastness. No so today. At one time England was known for
her missionary zeal when she was sending out more missionaries
than any other country. In those days God's hand of blessing
was steadily upon her. Today His hand of judgment is becoming
heavy upon her. Presently Christianity is a rare commodity
in England. In fact, it has been reported that churches are
closing at a record rate while Islamic mosques are opening
at a similar record rate. This in itself can be viewed as
a terrible judgment of God upon England for her moral and
spiritual decay. Is it really that bad in England? You decide.
Who would have ever thought that the mother of the future
king of England would have been involved in an immoral dalliance
with a Muslim? And that which really reveals the depth of
England's moral and spiritual decay is that no real public
shock or outrage regarding Princess Diana's affair with Emad
"Dodi" Fayed, a mega-rich Muslim, was ever seen.
One other thought. On April 20th, 2004, former U.S. ambassador
to Morocco, Marc Ginsburg, an expert on the Middle East, stated
on Fox News that never has the Arab world hated America so
much as they do today, and the reason they hate us so much
is because of our close association with Israel. He is absolutely
correct. Look for a growing number of people in our country
to demand we distance ourselves from Israel in an effort to
show "fairness" to the Muslim world, and to placate
them in order to insure a steady and cheap supply of oil.
Whether under the current administration or a future one,
this distancing from Israel will indeed happen. Folks, the
terminal direction of our country is soon to be indicated.
Our president needs to do the right thing and to simply let
God take care of the political fallout. DLM
|
