The Church is the New Israel Now . . or is it?

Ever since I accepted the Lord in 1969 I have been faced with Replacement Theology which teaches the Church has replaced Israel.  In other words, all the promises God gave to the Jewish people are now fulfilled in the Church and Christians form the "New Israel." Is this true?

Charles D. Provan has written a book The Church is Israel Now in which he attempts to support the Replacement Theology line of thinking.

Recently Mike Moore on his blog Mike's Musings critiques Provan's book and presented a very well thought out argument.  I decided to repost Mike's blog.  I encourage you to read the article and go to Mike's blog add your comments of appreciation or share you input on his blog.  You are also welcome to share your thoughts and dialogue with Louis Lapides about Replacement Theology on ThinkingOutsidetheBlog.

There's an interesting discussion about Messianic Jews on Facebook. One of the contributers recommended Charles Provan's book The Church is israel Now. I, however, am not a fan of Provan's book. 

When The Church is Israel Now was first published I sent a substantial critique of the book to the author and to his main distributers in the UK and the USA. I received no reply from either Provan or his US distributer, and the response I received from his UK distributer was a polite, two-sentence note that basically told me to get lost. I believe the reason I receive no answer is because my case is unanswerable. This is what I sent. 

Dear Mr Provan,
I read with interest your book The Church is Israel Now and believe it needs some form of response. Obviously much thought and comparison of Scripture with Scripture went into the book, which is commendable. The format of placing Old Testament Scripture against New Testament Scripture is illuminating. However, in spite of the fact that you attempt to allow the Bible to speak for itself, I believe your thesis is basically unscriptural, fundamentally flawed and very dangerous. 

In the second paragraph of your introduction (no page number) you state: ‘The only hypothesis which explains how this could be [i.e.: that the same terms used in the Old Testament to describe Israel are used in the New Testament to describe Christians] is that the Israel of the Old Testament (so called ‘Racial Israel’) had been replaced by the Israel of the New Testament, the Christian Church.’ It is a mark of humility on your part that you acknowledge your book to be a hypothesis and I would like to suggest that your hypothesis is fundamentally flawed. 

You appear to be unable to think in categories other than ‘either/or’. Your method of assembling sets of verses which show, for example, that in the Old Testament Israel was beloved of God and that in the New Testament Christians are beloved of God, and that in the Old Testament the Jews are called God’s people and in the New Testament Christians are called God’s people has its strengths but it also has great weaknesses.

For example, if your system of Scriptural interpretation was applied to the biblical teaching about God one would have to conclude that Jesus has replaced Jehovah on the grounds that in the New Testament the divine titles are all accorded to Jesus. In the Old Testament, for example, Jehovah is the King of Israel, whereas in the New Testament Jesus is the King of the Jews; in the Old Testament Jehovah is the Shepherd of his people whereas in the New Testament Jesus is the good Shepherd; in the Old Testament Jehovah is the Rock but in the New Testament Jesus is the Rock. As I have pointed out to numerous ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses, there is no title given to Jehovah which is not applied to Jesus in the New Testament. But that is not the same as a ‘transfer’ of titles. Jesus has not replaced Jehovah. Is it not at least possible, therefore, that the Church may indeed be the beloved Israel of God without having replaced the nation of Israel? 

While appearing to be scriptural, I believe your method is ultimately unscriptural in that you attempt to fit the Scriptures (no doubt unwittingly) into a preconceived framework. Nowhere is this more evident than when you aver that Matthew 21:43 ‘demonstrates ... quite clearly’ the transfer of Israel’s privileges and responsibilities: ‘Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.’ 

At first sight the words of Christ appear to support your hypothesis. But Matthew goes on: ‘When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them.’ (Matthew 21:45). Jesus was not saying the kingdom would be taken from Israel but from the rulers of Israel.

At the beginning of Matthew 21 the people of Jerusalem welcomed Christ and acknowledged him to be the Messiah, the son of David and a prophet (vv. 8-11). It was ‘the chief priests and the scribes’ alone who were displeased (vv15, 16) at the events of the day. In verse 23 the people listened avidly to Christ but the chief priests and the scribes took issue with him over his authority to teach. 

In the first of the two parables recorded in the same chapter (vv. 28-33) Jesus revealed that publicans and prostitutes entered the kingdom before the religious leaders. In his second parable the Lord used the imagery of Isaiah 5 to make his point. In the days of the prophet, the corruption of the people led to the Babylonian captivity and the kingdom was taken away. Christ says in Matthew 21 that the kingdom will again be taken away, this time from the chief priests and Pharisees, and given to another nation (as at the time of the Babylonian captivity). 

However, Christ does not say the kingdom will be taken from Israel: Matthew records that the chief priests and Pharisees ‘perceived that he spoke concerning them’.
The common people of the nation received Christ and hence received the kingdom. After Pentecost vast numbers of the Jewish people turned to Christ. Contrary to traditional Christian thinking, the same people who cried ‘Hosanna’ on Palm Sunday did not call, ‘Crucify’ on Good Friday. That teaching has fuelled anti-Semitism in the gentile world and continues to be a reason why so many Jewish people, out of a misinformed sense of what it means to be a Jew, continue to reject Christ.

The Sanhedrin had difficulty arresting Jesus for fear of public outrage: ‘But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitudes’ (Matt 21:46).
They arrested him at night and tried him in secret so that on the morning of the crucifixion the majority of the population of Jerusalem appear to have been astonished and dismayed to discover he had been condemned: ‘And a great multitude of the people followed him ... who mourned and lamented him’ (Luke 23:27). 

Even a cursory reading of the Gospels reveals that Jesus was not rejected by the nation as a whole: 

When he had come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? So the multitudes said, This is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth (Matthew 21:10,11).
Many of the people believed in him, and said, When Christ comes, will he do more signs than these which this man has done? (John 7:3 1).

Even among the religious hierarchy, not all rejected Christ: ‘Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed on him’ (John 12.42).

The Book of Acts demonstrates that the kingdom had not been taken from ‘Racial Israel’. In Israel and the Diaspora thousands accepted Jesus as their Saviour and King.
That day about three thousand souls were added to them (Acts 2:41). 

Many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand (Acts 4:4). 

The number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem; and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith (Acts 6:7).

When the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews ... followed Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:43). 

Many of them believed; and also not a few of the Greeks (Acts 17:12).

John, of course, records that ‘his own received him not’. Nevertheless, he modifies that statement with another: ‘but to as many as received him...’ Many verses demonstrate that the picture was not as bleak as we have become conditioned to accept. There was a substantial ‘remnant according to the election of grace’ in Jerusalem, Judea and the Diaspora.

You state on page 46 that in the Old Testament, ‘Israel Is An Olive Tree’ (Jeremiah 11:16-17; Hosea 14:5-6) and in the New Testament, ‘Christians Are An Olive Tree’ (Romans 11:17-24). Though acknowledging that in Romans 11, ‘The Olive Tree under discussion ... is clearly Israel’ your bold-type sub-headings give the wrong impression. Paul does not say in Romans 11 that Christians are ‘an olive tree’. 

Gentile believers, says the apostle, are branches from a wild olive tree that have been grafted on to the olive tree of Israel. If your hypothesis is, as you believe, the only possible one, Paul’s olive tree illustration is misleading. If the Church has replaced ‘Racial Israel’ a more fitting illustration would be that one olive tree has been cut down and another planted in its place, as your own sub-headings suggest.

But God has not cut down one olive tree and planted another in its place. Nor are there two separate olive trees. Instead, God has broken off some branches from the olive tree of Israel because of their unbelief and has grafted in branches not native to the tree. This is a vital and important distinction and it is inexcusable that a book purporting to be serious biblical scholarship should fail to see that distinction.

Nowhere in the book do you take into account Romans 11:1: ‘Did God reject his people? By no means!’ Nor do you engage with Old Testament verses such as Deuteronomy 4:31: ‘For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath.’ Nowhere do you take into account Jeremiah 31:35-37:

This is what the LORD says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar – the LORD Almighty is his name: ‘Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,’ declares the LORD, ‘will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me.’ This is what the LORD says: ‘Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done,’ declares the LORD.

At best, the claim that ‘the Church is Israel now’ demonstrates an utter disregard for the apostle’s warning to the grafted-in branches of the Olive Tree not to boast themselves against the natural branches. At worst, your hypothesis appears a particularly arrogant example of theological anti-Semitism. If it falls into the hands of Jews it will serve only to alienate them from the Church which has supposedly replaced them because it will confirm their historical contention that the Church is anti-Jewish.

The Church is Israel Now appears to me a classic example of adding two and two together to make five. To your credit you acknowledge that your conclusion is a ‘hypothesis’ (albeit the only possible one) according to which, when ‘the Israelites obeyed God, God loved them. But when they turned from Him He hated them, stripping them of their Israelite status.’

While it is true that in certain Old Testament passages, God speaks of His hatred for disobedient Israelites those passages must be modified by other statements. If God’s love is conditional upon obedience, it is difficult to pinpoint a time when God could possibly have loved ‘Racial Israel’. Indeed, nowhere are God’s declarations of love greater than in the book of Hosea when Israel, the bride of Jehovah, is likened to a brazen whore.
If God’s love is conditional, where does that leave the Church! If God’s love is conditional there is no hope for any of us.

Followed to its logical conclusion your hypothesis would leave Christians without assurance of salvation. If God, without warning, transferred all ‘Racial Israel’s’ privileges to Christians, what confidence can Christians have that he will not at some future date transfer our benefits to others?

Apart from a reference to a select number of verses in Romans 11, one would think you were unaware of the chapter’s existence, for nowhere do you consider what Paul means when he says that Israel is the people God ‘foreknew’, that ‘the Israelites are beloved for the fathers’ sakes’ or that God’s ‘gifts and calling are without repentance’.

The book’s subtitle, ‘The Transfer of Conditional Privilege’ reveals a lack of understanding of the unconditional nature of God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15.

Moreover, there is a failure to understand that the Church is not a new entity which came into being on the Day of Pentecost. Israel is God’s qahal, a Hebrew word that in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament is rendered ekklesia, the same word translated ‘church’ in English versions of the New Testament. Ekklesia means basically ‘that which is called out’ and the Christian church, or congregation, has been called out of the world and gathered to Messiah. But the Lord’s calling out of a people for his name did not begin at Pentecost. According to Stephen, in Acts 7:38, God had an ekklesia in the wilderness.
Until the time of Paul’s missionary enterprise the ekklesia consisted mainly of the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, though there were notable exceptions such as Rahab of Jericho, Ruth the Moabitess, Uriah the Hittite and Naaman the Syrian.

In the 2,000 years since the time of Christ the majority of the ‘called out’ have been Gentiles. Paul’s illustration in Romans 11 is that Israel is an olive tree, the branches of which are individual believers. Some of the native branches have been ‘broken off through unbelief’. But whether the branches are natural or wild, both are joined to the same tree.
This renders the theory that the Church has replaced Israel a nonsense. How can Israel replace Israel? How can the Church replace the Church?

Neither is the church God’s ‘new’ Israel. On the day of Pentecost ‘the church’ entered a new phase, when the gospel would be proclaimed to all nations beginning at Jerusalem. ‘With Pentecost’, writes Kai Kjær-Hansen, ‘God’s church for the last days begins its ministry’.

Shadows have been replaced by reality; the partial has been superseded by the fullness, and the preparation by the fulfilment. At Pentecost, as at the erection of the tabernacle and the dedication of Solomon’s temple, the glory of God descended and filled his temple ‘made without hands’.

Gentile believers must eschew fruitless and arid replacement theology and return to the New Testament’s emphasis on fulfilment. We must acknowledge with gratitude that we who were once ‘without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world’ are now ‘no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone’.

The language of replacement is inappropriate to the discussion. It promotes that Gentile arrogance against which Paul warned in Romans 11, whereas the recognition that we Gentiles have become ‘fellow heirs [with Israel], of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel’ will promote humility, wonder and a longing for the natural heirs of the blessings to enter into the fullness of their inheritance.

Please leave your comments on this article or on the subject of Replacement Theology. Thanks.

The Church is the New Israel Now . . or is it?

Messianic Leaders Respond to "Christ At the Checkpoint" Conference

RANCHO MIRAGE, Calif., Feb. 17, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by Messianic Jewish Alliance of America:

As representatives of the international Messianic Jewish community, we raise deep concerns about the anti-Israel and, indeed, unbiblical nature of the Christ at the Checkpoint conference soon to be held in Bethlehem.

The Messianic Jewish community has noted the growing opposition to Zionism and the state of Israel within some elements of the Evangelical Christian world. Such opposition ignores the profound and ancient connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel, and the modern history of the founding of the state of Israel. Equally troubling, this opposition is often linked to a resurgent supersessionism, the doctrine that the church replaces Israel as God's covenant partner. This theology, which has led historically to anti-Semitism and the tragic oppression of the Jewish people, appears to permeate this entire conference.

The conference is being promoted internationally and features speakers from around the world, including prominent American and European Christians, several of whom have a decidedly anti-Israel bias. We address the following to the conference organizers as evidence of our concerns:

• Your conference title, "Christ at the Checkpoint," places the Israeli border checkpoints as the central issue of Christian concern. You frame the entire story of Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of Israel's alleged oppression and abuses, with no historical or political context provided, and no allegations of oppression or abuse on the part of any Palestinians or other Arabs historically or currently.
• You state a desire for "hope in the midst of conflict," and for peace and reconciliation among followers of Jesus. Sadly, both the structure of your conference, with its one-sided focus on the Israeli "occupation," and the anti-Israel record of some of its key representatives, work against peace and reconciliation.
• Your website features speakers who repeatedly raise "the grim reality" of "the occupation" as virtually the only challenge that Palestinian Christians face.
• Your conference objectives discredit Zionism alone of any political movement, thereby undermining your own talk of peace and reconciliation, which would require seeing both perspectives.
• You claim to "stand resolutely against all forms of violence and racism, regardless of the perpetrators," but the only form that you mention is Zionism. There is no mention of the violence perpetrated against Jews by Palestinians, including Hamas, which regularly attacks Israeli civilians.

In the tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there are two claimants to justice, Jews and Arabs, and true reconciliation efforts must recognize this reality. We urge you, therefore, to be true to your own affirmations and disassociate from all anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish expressions during your upcoming conference. You have taken a stand against Zionism as "ethnocentric." We disagree with this characterization and challenge you instead to take a stand against anti-Semitism, against jihad, against fascism in the Arab world, and against the cult of child martyrdom, as promoted by many opponents of Israel, including several that have hosted visits by your organizers.

We urge you to state support for peace efforts between Israel and the Arab world that recognize the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, and its right to firm and secure borders, without any threat of terrorism.

We urge you to remember the terrible history of Christian supersessionism, which led to invalidating the Jewish people and their unique covenant with God, stripping away the Jewishness of the Biblical message of redemption for all through the Messiah Yeshua (Jesus), and promulgating Biblical interpretation that demonized the Jewish people and inevitably resulted in centuries of Christian anti-Semitism and persecution of the Jewish people.

And, finally, we urge you to remember the words of that famous Rabbi, Paul of Tarsus, who wrote these words to Gentile Christians concerning their relationship with the early Messianic Jews and the Jewish people:

But if some of the branches are broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root that supports you. Do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. (Rom. 11:17-18)

Paul Liberman, President
Joel Chernoff, General Secretary
Messianic Jewish Alliance of America

Howard Silverman, President
Russell Resnik, Executive Director
Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations

Jeff Forman, Chairman 
International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues

John Fischer, President
Joel Liberman, Executive Director
International Messianic Jewish Alliance

CONTACT: Joel Chernoff, joelchernoff@mjaa.org, 610-304-2237
Russ Resnik, rebrez@umjc.org, 505-440-2265
www.MJAA.org
www.UMJC.org

 http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/messianic-jewish-leaders-respond-to-christ-at-the-checkpoint-139539453.html

Messianic Leaders Respond to "Christ At the Checkpoint" Conference

Introducing Scripture Solutions

People have asked where they can obtain copies of my sermons, links to articles and updated information on projects I am involved in.  To fulfill these requests, ScriptureSolutions.com is a new website I am launching today.

ScriptureSolutions.com contains many of the messages I have given over the past years. These are sermons that are biblically based and centered on giving the listener wise and easy-to-follow responses to God's word.

I have a strong convictions the Word of God is being neglected in many pulpits today and too much erroneous theology is being taught by individuals who dare to call themselves teachers of the scriptures.  In the name of progressive theological thought the Bible is taking a beating by those who are subjecting the biblical text to their own thinking rather than place their own thinking in submission to the precious Word of the Lord.

As a result of errant teaching Christians are hearing messages that question the basic tenets of the faith regarding the authority of the Scriptures, salvation, the person of Christ, Jesus' second coming and the relationship of Christianity to other religions.  The church is suffering from the poor teaching of a new generation of Christian "intellectuals" who question conservative Christianity in favor of a more progressive, emergent brand of the faith.

Young, biblically uneducated followers of Jesus are being duped by the teaching of today's misguided Christian intelligentsia and I am deeply concerned.  Hence, the need for ScriptureSolutions.com.

In addition to my commitment to the expository teaching of the Scriptures, I provide a strong emphasis on the Jewish background of the Scriptures in my messages.  Many passages in the New Testament have been wrongly interpreted by well-meaning biblical scholars due to their lack of sensitivity to the first century Jewish influence on the New Testament.  Let us not forget the majority of the New Testament was penned by Jewish followers of Jesus who remained committed to their Jewish roots and customs.

Currently, a strong opposition to the preeminence of Israel exists in the teaching of both evangelical traditional and left leaning progressive theologians.  The list of theologians who fail to see God has a present-day plan for the Jewish people is growing.

A need exists to take a stand on the biblical importance of Israel from both the Jewish Scriptures and the New Testament. Apart from any political commitment to Israel or due to the fact Israel is America's only democratic ally in the Middle East, the Bible is clear on God's unending commitment and covenants He has made with Israel.

Furthermore, since I have earned two master degrees in Old Testament and Semitic Languages, I am devoted to focusing on the continuity of the Jewish Scriptures with the New Testament.  Too many teachers of God's word either omit preaching from the Old Testament, use the Old Testament merely as a resource to prove the Messiahship of Jesus or fail to see the value of the Jewish biblical text as profitable for today's Christians.

It is my conviction the Old Testament text must be understood first as though there is no New Testament. With that deep comprehension of the Jewish text,  the expositor needs to bring New Testament truth as a light to bear on the older covenant.

One cannot start with the New Testament and work backwards to interpret the Old Testament.  Instead, the Old Testament principles must be understood first before interpreting the New Covenant.

Replacement theologians who believe the church has superceded Israel and all the promises God made to Israel has been fulfilled in the Church are commonly deficient in Old Testament theology. These biblical academicians ignore Old Testament passages that contradict their erroneous view of Israel evidenced through the blurry lens through which they interpret the New Testament.

In a strong sense, Scripturesolutions.com is also an apologetics website - a messianic research institute of biblical theology.  Please feel free to re-post the blogs you find to be helpful in defending the faith to others.  Suggestions for additional articles are always welcome.

ScriptureSolutions.com will grow as I add more sermons, write more resources, share new projects and grow in my own understanding of the messianic faith.

My goal is to shape ScriptureSolutions.com into a refuge for an individual to utilize where they can be sure they will be hearing messages based on the centrality of the biblical text and not religious gimmicks or contemporary, unbiblical trends that sweep through the church like a tornado leaving the wreckage of innocent lives in its path.

ScriptureSolutions.com should be a haven for individuals who are not committed to Christianity, but are searching and asking questions.

If churches or groups want to invite me to come speak or present a series on a contemporary topic, ScriptureSolutions will provide an avenue to contact me.

I close with the mission statement of ScriptureSolutions.com with the hope you'll visit the site over and over, read the blogs, download the messages and share your comments:

Recognizing the lack of a biblical focus in many churches and ministries throughout the United States, Scripture Solutions is dedicated to an expository perspective on the Word of God as communicated through the sermons and printed materials of Louis Lapides.

 In addition, Scripture Solutions has set its sights on shedding light on much of the questionable teaching in today’s congregations and seeks to enlighten believers about false doctrine permeating Christianity both on an individual and corporate level.

Introducing Scripture Solutions

Did God Lie to Israel About Promising Them a Homeland? Part 2

Does it matter whether or not God keeps His promise to give Israel a homeland?  Yes. But why?

First, the trustworthiness of the Lord is at stake.  Can God's word be trusted?  Since God went into such detail in the Jewish Scriptures concerning the geography of the land He promised Israel, to discover these promises are no longer applicable would change the way we perceive God's veracity.

Second,  in explaining the claims of Jesus to Jewish people, the Jewish individual would be surprised that the promise of the land of Israel is no longer on the table, but has now been reinterpreted or no longer applicable.

Finally, any view of prophecy must take into account the centrality of Israel to the prophetic timeline as described in the Holy Scriptures.

I have found replacement theologians who believe the Church or Christ has replaced Israel in the New Testament era, are not amenable to be called "replacement theologians."  Some of them like evangelical  Professor Gary Burge of Wheaton College prefers to be tagged as a Reformed theologians. Burge's aversion to being called a "replacement theologian" is a decoy meant to distract his readers from the fact no matter what he say, he still fits the description of a replacement theologian.

In a 2010 radio conversation on Moody Radio, Dr. Burge and Michael Rydelnik, head of the Jewish Studies program at Moody Bible College both theologians shared their views on what they believe the Bible teaches about the land promises given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Old Testament.

Burge is adamant that in the New Testament God changed His focus from a geographical or territorial framework to His spiritual promises to the whole world.  God is no longer concerned with the boundaries of Israel but rather His concern is that the gospel message reaches beyond the boundaries of the Jewish homeland to all the earth. The territory of Israel is no longer significant to God.

To get a better grasp of the scriptures used by Burge and other replacement theologians, we go back to the original promise made to Abraham found in Genesis 12:1-3:

The LORD had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

“I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; 

I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.

I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; 

and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

Notice that God commanded Abraham to go to a specific place . . . a  land.  Then the Lord promised Abraham that He would cause His offspring to increase into a great nation. Most important is the final promise:  all the peoples of the earth will be blessed through Abraham.  Through Abraham and his offspring, the world will experience blessing.

Once more in Genesis 13:14-17 the Lord is more specific about the land promises to Abraham and his descendants:

The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, “Look around from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever. I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you.”

Nowhere in the text does it say that the universal blessing provided by Abraham's seed replaces the land promises as Burge claims. The Wheaton professor quotes from Hebrews 11:9-12, 16 to make his point:

By faith he [Abraham] made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise.  For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

  And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she[b] considered him faithful who had made the promise. And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.

Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

According to Burge in Hebrews 11, the New Testament switches the focus from Abraham seeking territory on earth to seeking a heavenly home.  Notice some of the problems this interpretation creates:

First,  the other promises God made to Abraham about having descendants as numerous as the stars still holds true in Hebrews 11.  In fact, the writer of Hebrews makes it clear the descendants are not Abraham's spiritual seed but his physical seed since the author mentions the descendants came from Abraham and Sarah through the miraculous childbirth of Isaac.

Second, it is no surprise that Abraham was looking forward to "the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God," and that his descendants were also looking beyond the land as the ultimate destination of the human soul but to a heavenly homeland. Yet that does not cancel out the promises made to Abraham and his seed about the land.  Why can't Israel be promised an earthly homeland with the greater hope that in the afterlife they will enter into an eternal homeland into the presence of the God of Israel?  Why does one have to cancel out the other?

Replacement theologians must grapple with several other New Testament passages in Romans that reiterate God's commitment to fulfill His covenants with Israel which include the promise of land:

  What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God. What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar.

Romans 9:3-4  For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.

Romans 11:28-31 they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.  Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[a] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you.

In all three passages from Romans, Paul makes it clear God has not taken away His promises and covenants He has made with Israel.  God is faithful to His promises. Yes, the nation of Israel will find their fullest blessing of eternal life through acceptance of their Messiah Jesus. In the meantime, Paul warns gentile Christians like replacement theologians in Romans 11:20-21, "But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either."  

Gentile Christians are to beware of becoming conceited not only in their attitude towards Jewish people but also in their theology that replaces God's promises He made to Israel and transferring them to the Church.  Replacement or Reformed theology is arrogant in their attempt to ignore God's commitment to Israel despite their present and temporary rejection of their Messiah. God is not finished with Israel yet.  Romans 9:4 is stated in the present tense which means the covenants and promises belong to Israel now and they have not been relinquished.

Another passage referred to by Burge in the Moody Radio conversation is Matthew 23: 37-39 where Jesus weeps over Israel due to their rejection of Him as their long awaited Messiah:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”

Jesus speaks of the destruction of the Temple and by inference the third major diaspora of the Jewish nation. Because He did not mention the land, says Burge, it is no longer important. A "holy geography" is no important to God, but the salvation of Jewish souls.  Yes, Burge is correct. Again, the focus on Israel's salvation  as a nation or as individuals does not cancel out His land promises.

Instead of focusing on the land promises,  says Burge, God now "sees the whole world as holy territory," as stated in Romans 4:13, "It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith."

n Romans 4;!3  Paul is broadening and clarifying the promises given to Abraham that his seed would bless the whole world.  He is not changing the Old Testament text. Rydelnik states that according to Daniel 7 the Messiah will rule over the world when He comes to earth and will sit on His throne located in Jerusalem. Just as the Abrahamic Covenant is concerned with the whole world (Genesis 12:3), Yeshua will rule over the earth with His immediate rule over Israel and through the Jewish nation will rule the nations.

The seed through which this blessing comes is the Messiah Jesus (Galatians 3:19). The blessing given to the world is the offer of salvation through Jesus which comes to people through the declaring of the good news of salvation through Yeshua (Acts 1:8).  God now focuses on the whole world not just one territory, Israel.

Didn't the Lord tell the disciples to take the gospel beyond the borders of Israel into the whole world? (Acts 1:8).  Burge fails to make the distinction between the declaration of the gospel message to the whole world and the declaration of specific territory to one nation.  One does not rule out the other except in the mind of the Wheaton professor dead set to deny Israel its promises. There is no evidence that God chucked the land promises to Israel for the mission of bringing the gospel to the whole world.  Both are true.

Let it not be missed throughout the Jewish Scriptures, the God of Israel described the whole world will acknowledge Him as seen in Psalm 9:11, "Sing the praises of the LORD, enthroned in Zion; proclaim among the nations what he has done."

God is other-nation conscious throughout the Old Testament (Psalm 18:49; 22;27). Right now, the Church is given the mission of declaring the Word of God among the nations but the time will come when Israel will step back into its God-given role as seen in Revelation 7 when144,000 Jewish people declare the New Testament message to the gentile nations prior to Jesus' return to earth.

In the Book of Revelation, which is concerned with end time events prior to the return of the Messiah, the focus of the book is centered in Israel.  When confronted by Rydelnik about Israel's presence in John's revelation, Burge gave the standard line when a scholar can't answer a question or is cornered, "Well, there is a lot of debate over the interpretation of the Book of Revelation."

In another blog I will address this issue in greater detail. However, do not miss the fact when Israel is clearly described back in the land and in the center of God's program, the replacement and Reformed theologian will always fall back on the fact "this matter is up to debate" instead of dealing with the actual texts where Israel is mentioned.

Burge's ploy of not dealing with the obvious placement of Israel in the Jewish homeland prior to Jesus' return is a dead giveaway. Though he claims to love the Jewish people, like many replacement theologians, he exposes the truth that he has little regard for God's covenant promises to Israel except to deny them.

Did God Lie to Israel About Promising Them a Homeland? Part 2