Posted on July 14, 2009 - by Drew
Israel -Biblical Perspectives on ‘The Land’
On July 9th, Ian McInnes from TEAR Fund attended a one day conference at Laidlaw College exploring biblical perspectives on the land of Israel. This is his brief summary of the day
Israel
The national of Israel and its modern day boarders raise strong opinions within the church and the world beyond. Israel’s capital Jerusalem and in particularly the Temple Mount – on which the Dome of the Rock sits – is perhaps the most contested city and piece of real-estate on earth today. Politicians and theologians alike grapple with the legitimacy of claims and counter claims over who should be the rightful occupiers of the temple, city and the land. Failure to reach agreement on these issues has fueled eight wars in the Middle East since 1947; and perhaps more than any other issue on earth threatens global peace as religious and racial loyalties are co-opted into the struggle or willingly fuel the arguments on both sides.
Christian perspectives
Christianity, far from being a force for moderation in the dispute, is in fact a keen contributor to the conflict. Let us explore two contending positions.
“Christian Zionism” seeks to reinstate Jews in modern Israel as a biblical imperative. A product of nineteenth century Scottish and English reformists, it gained traction among the English polity during the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and became a reality at the end of World War II. It is a view most prevalent now among American Evangelicals. Its present day proponents believe that despite the creation of the state of Israel on May 14th, 1948 God’s covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17:8; and his successive promises through the prophets are far from fulfilled. Combining a literal translation of Old Testament prophecy with New Testament teaching on the end times, they believe that only a full restoration of the Jews to Zion (Jeremiah 23:7-8) – city and temple included – will fulfill these promises and usher in Jesus second coming (Zechariah 8:3).
“Replacement theology” on the other hand believes that unfulfilled Old Testament prophecy finds its fulfillment largely in Christ. They believe the church (believing Jew and Gentile alike) “replaces” Israel (the people) as the object of God’s devotion; thus making modern Israel (the state) a matter of cultural and political, but not theological, significance. They emphasise that Gods promise to Abraham’s offspring extends beyond Canaan to include earth itself (Genesis 26:4); furthermore his offspring now encompass believers in all nations (Galatians 3:7). They believe therefore in one people of God not two (Romans 11:12), and that Jesus replaces the need for Jerusalem and the temple (John 2:19; 4:23).
There are a myriad of variations to these two polarized positions, each with implications for the legitimacy of Land claims and the Christian significance of Jerusalem and the temple. For a New Zealand Christian perspective see Israel: 5 views on people and state (vision network of NZ 2009)
Humanitarian Implications
Christian Aid agencies enter the fray simply by assisting Israelis or Palestinians in times of need (TEAR Fund attracted criticism recently for its response to the 2008 Gaza offensive). Many view this as tacit support for one theological position or the other. Whether agencies would serve their purposes better by articulating a theological position is debatable.
Related posts:
