Import jQuery

Jesus, Not Israel

How do you feel about the following statement from well-known Protestant preacher John Piper?


When I saw this tweet, I was a bit uncomfortable. When I saw that it was retweeted by 97 other Christians, I squirmed. Then when I read the full blog post by Jonathan Parnell, I face-palmed.

Jesus, not Israel? Is that what Christians really believe?

Hail Jesus, King of not-Israel.

Piper links to his church’s blog, where the post by Parnell starts good: citing Romans 9 as an example of the irrevocable nature of God’s election. (Unspoken: God’s election of Israel.)

But he speaks of election only to suggest that God’s choosing of Israel was done in order to elect Yeshua. Thus, Israel’s election is made irrelevant because God’s purposes for Israel are fully carried out in Yeshua. Roll the credits, because in Jesus, it’s Israel: The End.

Though he cited Romans 9, it’s as if he didn’t read it at all.

I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Messiah 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 9

To Israel belongs these things. Not belonged. Belongs. The promises of God belong to Israel. They didn’t disappear when Jesus showed up.

The problem with the statements from Parnell is not whether the nations are blessed through Yeshua – they positively are. The problem is that these statements imply a kind of subtle replacement theology: because Yeshua came, Israel is no longer the vehicle of God’s blessing, no longer relevant in God’s plans, and is just another ethnicity, and Judaism just another non-Christian religion.

God’s important people, then, are Yeshua’s followers – the Church – and if they are the important people, Israel is merely an historical vehicle to get us to the Church, and we are left with nothing but a certain replacement theology, where Jesus’ church has replaced God’s Israel.

“Jesus, not Israel” implies Yeshua ended the specialness of Israel. Consider the absurd implications: Yeshua, the King of Israel, Israel’s Messiah, prophesied by Israel’s prophets, the Holy One of Israel and son of Israel’s David, he comes and does his thing, and what’s the end result? Supposedly, the result is Israel becoming irrelevant. Some King of Israel! A King who makes his people irrelevant.

Huh? Is this making sense to anyone, or are we too occupied with retweeting popular pastors to think clearly?

Christians who want to understand why Jesus is an offence to Jews, take note. When you say, “Israel used to be special, but Jesus changed all that, so now instead of being God’s special people, you’re a heathen going to hell! Isn’t that good news?”

Even though it may not have been Piper’s intent, there remains this sense that Christendom still believes that, because of the work of Israel’s Messiah, it has replaced her. Jesus, not Israel.

Fine and chin-rubbing blog readers, am I being too sensitive? What do you think of Piper’s statement, “Jesus, not Israel”?


  1. I do not think you are being too sensitive. I wish I understood why this type of thing happens so often. I think we all want to be elite to be special, to be the chosen ones; and one way our psyche seems to try and achieve that is by lowering down others around us. If Israel and Jews are no longer special and elite, then it is the church that is only elite, special and chosen.

    I guess it is kind of like the disciples sitting around arguing who is the greatest among them. This case is subtle, because the focus is on Yeshua as being the elite one (which He is), but the sly intonation is that the church therefore is all the more relevant and Israel and the Jews are irrelevant.

  2. Wow!

    It's not subtle and it's definitely replacement theology, if in slightly different form.

    You answered it well.

    It happens because of bad teaching that has pervaded the church. Piper is well respected and many won't have the knowledge to counter him.

    Thanks for the heads up. I will share your blog post. Wow!

    It's not subtle and it's definitely replacement theology, if is slightly different form.

    You answered it well.

    It happens because of bad teaching that has pervaded the church. Piper is well respected and many won't have the knowledge to counter him.

    Thanks for the heads up. I will share your blog post.

  3. This is a systemic underlining whithin Christianity that prevails for 2000 years. So what else is new. it just shows that even so-called scholars are blind....

  4. Judah - I am appalled, but not shocked (I've read Piper's stuff before). Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

    "This is a systemic underlining whithin Christianity that prevails for 2000 years."

    Dan... on Derek's blog recently you echoed sentiments that are very much like Piper's. In fact, nearly identical to his "Jesus not Israel. In Jesus all who believe." because they nullify the flesh and blood Israel in Yeshua and replacing her with anyone who has faith:

    "We need to concentrate on Yeshua who is our real identity."

    "Blood does not play a part in our identity, only our faith."

  5. I agree. This isn't subtle at all. This is in-your-face supersessionalism. He's saying, "Jesus came and made Israel go bye-bye." I mentioned the rift between Christianity and Judaism on my blog yesterday and sadly, Piper and those like him are a big reason why that 2,000 year old chasm still exists as it does.

  6. Gene,

    From what you write I can only cocure that your identity is not the Messiah. You put more weight on the flesh....Paul didn't: Phillip. 3:5-7.

  7. I dont see it as being replacement theology. I would rather call it affirmation theology (my term).

    Piper is clearly showing how HaShem focuses down through the ages to this own Son, THE anointed One. It is a matter of historical and theo-logical distinctiveness and what work the different people and Israel had to do in place-in-time, not replacement.

    To say that Piper made/makes Israel nothing in his post is to impose something not intended. I am sure Piper affirms the place of the Patriarchs and Israel in God's scheme of salvation, and does not diminish their importance.

    Remember, God was working toward establishing his son as the King of Israel, and as such is the King of the Israel of God.

    Dont panic - all is 'not lost' - far from it. Think about it, work on it, open the mind to the full expanse of God's work/ing throughout history and what he desires to accomplish through Yeshua. Need to be careful not to have 'replacement-phobia'.

    To be sure, to focus attention on anyone of the Patriarchs, or Moses, or the Prophets or the Apostles or the Nation or a Preacher or a Pastor at the expense of Yeshua and his Father is idolatry.

    What would the Lord make of our comments?


  8. Piper's teaching is not biblically sound. His teaching bothered me years ago when a good friend of mine in another state was touting his teachings as wonderful. His teaching has always bothered me, so although this is shocking, it is a teaching built on false or assumed foundations much like many doctrines taught in Christian circles.

    The teaching is not Torah based, not Tanach based and certainly is offensive.


  9. BenyYoch writes:
    "Think about it, work on it, open the mind to the full expanse of God's work/ing throughout history and what he desires to accomplish through Yeshua. Need to be careful not to have 'replacement-phobia'."

    Think about it? Work on it? Open the mind? What is this gibberish?! Why should we "be careful not to have replacement-phobia"? What's the worst that could come from us assuming that Christianity is ignorant of the importance and permanence of Israel in the plan of G-d?

    Also, pray tell, who is the "Israel of G-d"? Do I even want to know?

  10. I don't go in for Christian bashing anymore than I do Jew bashing, but in this case (and I think the Pastor involved in well-meaning) has a blind spot. The teaching that grace replaced the law and thus Christianity replaced Judaism (once Judaism had done its job to point to Jesus Christ) is a deeply woven thread in the tapestry of the church. Most Christians don't consider themselves doing wrong by adopting a supersessionist viewpoint, they just think that's what the Bible says. Unfortunately a subtle kind of arrogance has crept into the church.

    On the Lev Echad blog, blogger Asher addresses this, referencing Micah 6:8:

    "It has been told to you, O man, what is good, and what God requires of you: only to act justly, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God."

    Regarding humility, he says (and he's speaking of Jews here, but we can apply this easily to the church):

    "if we are certain that God is always on our side, it's easy to become arrogant and cruel; it's important not to look down upon others while striving to live righteously."

    We need to be very careful how we understand the Bible and particularly how we choose to elevate ourselves as disciples of the Master. Certainly, Jesus taught that only the last would be first and that one to exalts himself will be brought down by God. In reading the original blog post that started this all off, I see that the intent was not to be arrogant, but to inspire evangelism. Nevertheless, it is based on a glaring assumption that does not bear close examination.

    Before proceeding in any direction, we must look at who we are first. The Messiah is the first born of God and the first born son of Israel. In many ways, he is the best of Israel and the guide for both God's chosen ones and for the nations who cling to Him. The King cannot detach himself from the people of his Kingdom. Even Paul went first to the Jew and only afterward to the Gentile. Paul also said that in the end, all of Israel will be saved.

  11. Agreed. As disciples of Yeshua, Christian bashing isn't for us. We can, however, point out problems in the Church and work towards fixing them.

  12. Many people say replacement theology is wrong, but unfortunately they didn't understand it and live further with it, thinking that Israel in the end would convert to church.

  13. How is it that Piper can be a Calvinist when it comes to individual election, but basest form of Arminian when it comes to a nation's?

  14. Apostate is as apostate does (or says) --paraphrase of Forrest Gump.

  15. These are very serious issues & questions! I am presently in Israel for 3 months with my family doing service work. Being here, the controversy of Yeshua & Israel & how they relate becomes much more practical & intense. Some of the group we are part of (gentile believers) have recently expressed the belief that Israel (at least the religious portion) is "saved" in it's present state. The reasoning is that Yeshua made Himself equal with YHVH, Israel worships YHVH, therefore Israel really (although inadvertently) has received it's Messiah/Savior. I can't see this as supported in Scripture at all - to the contrary, the Apostolic Scriptures very strongly communicate that Yeshua is the ONLY link between heaven & earth, between this age & the age to come & that He must be intentionally accepted as Messiah & be trusted in as such (John 6:29).

    This experience has really sobered me & made me evaluate the importance of valuing the King of Israel supremely. Paul is a great example of this. Prior to his "conversion" to Yeshua as Messiah, his identity was that He was saved by being "in Israel"; afterward, His whole hope/confidence was that he was "in Messiah Yeshua".

    The authors (almost all of them Israelites) of the Apostolic Scriptures, the Talmud of the followers of Yeshua, clearly elevate the importance of valuing the King of Israel, Yeshua, above the land/people of Israel without denigrating the latter in regard to God's purpose. There is NO intrinsic hope in Israel; the hope that comes/will come to the world through Israel has it's source in the covenant loyalty of God of Abraham/Isaac/Jacob & His Messiah alone. I fear a "romantic", unthinking attachment to Israel which does not discriminate based on the words of Yeshua & His followers.

    All this to say that I have been deeply challenged while in Israel regarding the absolute importance of Yeshua in regard to everything that comes from our Father. He is far above Israel in His importance to us. Having said that, He is the King & Glory of Israel so obviously, Israel will be elevated above all nations as it learns to submit to His leadership & thereby serve the nations.

  16. John Piper is just "getting his inner Calvin on" - no surprise. If challenged that this equates to Supercessionism, he would no doubt deny it.

    Rather than challenge such silly theological nonsense, I would simply challenge men like Piper to use just scales. A follower of John Calvin will more times than not favor their THEOLOGY over the Person of Yeshua, although never admitting it. TULIP is sweeter on their lips than the King's Name.

    It reminds us of the Golden Calf incident: where the people thought that they could create HaShem in THEIR image...

  17. Regarding your last comment Rick, to be fair, we all create God in our own image, interpreting God through our own preferences and personality.

  18. Judah, Thanks for pointing this out... Israel still matters! There are to many prophecies that you would have to completely throw out to say that Israel doesn't matter. Also many prophecies of them coming to Messiah Yeshua, like Zech 12. Paul spoke of it in Romans 11...

    Rom 11:12 Moreover, if their stumbling is bringing riches to the world — that is, if Isra'el's being placed temporarily in a condition less favored than that of the Gentiles is bringing riches to the latter — how much greater riches will Isra'el in its fullness bring them!

    Rom 11:14 in the hope that somehow I may provoke some of my own people to jealousy and save some of them!
    Rom 11:15 For if their casting Yeshua aside means reconciliation for the world, what will their accepting him mean? It will be life from the dead!

    Rom 11:25 For, brothers, I want you to understand this truth which God formerly concealed but has now revealed, so that you won't imagine you know more than you actually do. It is that stoniness, to a degree, has come upon Isra'el, until the Gentile world enters in its fullness;
    Rom 11:26 and that it is in this way that all Isra'el will be saved. As the Tanakh says, "Out of Tziyon will come the Redeemer; he will turn away ungodliness from Ya`akov

    Also anyone who makes it to heaven will have to enter one of the 12 gates of the sons of Israel (Rev 21:12)

    Great article Judah, Thanks for the post.

    - JMH

  19. Also anyone who makes it to heaven will have to enter one of the 12 gates of the sons of Israel (Rev 21:12)

    I should probably resist the temptation to ask this question, but I'm not going to.

    Does anyone believe that we don't go up to Heaven but "Heaven" comes down to us? (Sorry for going off-topic, Judah). We have a clear picture of the "New Jerusalem" coming down to earth and thematically, it makes more sense for the Bible to end where it Eden with God dwelling among men and women. I don't think we go anywhere in the end, I think God rejoins us here in the world He created for us. JMHO.

    End of Monday morning "rant". You may now continue with your regularly scheduled blog.

  20. Hi Judah

    I think that in your desire to restore the Jew to what you consider his rightful place in the plan of redemption, you downplay the role of Jesus – unwittingly, of course.

    I explain here

  21. Rick,

    One can have Calvinistic leaning and still put yeshua at the center. Tim Hegg is an example.

    BTW, guys, I resumed writing in my blog, check it out.

  22. @James, exactly!
    - JMH

  23. James,

    I agree. It is the hellenistic platonic minset of the western world that fuels the notion that we are going out of here to a party in the sky.

  24. As someone who is very familiar with John Piper's teaching, I can unequivocally say that you have misinterpreted his tweet. He is adamantly NOT a replacement theologian and has made that clear many, many times, including in the actual recent sermon about Isaac and Ishmael (available here).

    My guess is that the point of that phrase in his tweet was to point out God's election throughout history, choosing of one person over another, and in particular with the coming of Jesus, opening salvation from just Israel to all the nations.

    But he is most definitely NOT a replacement theologian, and has talked about the special nature of Israel many times, particularly in relation to Romans 11. In fact a phrase he often uses is "if you want to be saved, you must become a Jew." (I hope the meaning of that phrase is obvious to anyone familiar with Scripture)

  25. "if you want to be saved, you must become a Jew."

    Isn't that the essence of replacement theology? Non-Jews becoming Jews? And what happens when a Jew gets saved? Does he become a double Jew?

    The Bible says that we are grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel. It doesn't say we become Jews.

  26. Or to put it another way, Gentiles are adopted into the family--they don't replace the natural children or take their names.


  27. Exactly, Michael Bugg. Romans 11 describes the Gentiles, as wild branches, being grafted into the tree of Israel, with some natural branches being broken off. That is why salvation is from the Jews. We become Jews by being grafted into the Jewish tree.

    But at some point in the future, all Israel will be saved (Rom 11:26). Israel is still a distinct and special people.

  28. "Does anyone believe that we don't go up to Heaven but 'Heaven' comes down to us?" --James

    Is it that Heaven will come down to earth? Or, is it that New Jerusalem (which He went to prepare) will come down FROM Heaven so that the Kingdom of God will be on earth?

  29. I agree that gentiles join to the promises of Israel through Messiah. Ephesians 2.

    However, I would not say that we "become Jews by being grafted into the Jewish tree."

    Gentiles are not Jews. Gentiles are part of the commonwealth of Israel through Messiah, but they are not Jews.

  30. Hey Judah, Truly, you can never be “too sensitive” in the monstrous face of the many and varied replacement theologies alive and well in the Church today. While I don’t personally believe Piper meant what this could very easily be interpreted to mean, Christianity’s love affair with morphing every concept into some clever, consumable cliche or catchphrase is clearly to blame here. You can only economize a thought so far before it risks losing the intended (or all) meaning. No matter what we may think, though, the responsibility to clarify this message is Piper's alone.

    The bigger issue here is simply one of communication. As I said, the responsibility that a message is communicated effectively lay with the speaker – not his audience. Deep, theological ideas do not belong in vague, truncated tweets – and Twitter symbolizes nothing more than the utter degradation of communication and understanding within our generation – all in the name of being hip, in my opinion. Couple spouting off whatever may cross your mind with being able to reach thousands of people instantaneously, and you've got the perfect disaster. To further compound the issue, the Church has long since swallowed the line that to stay “relevant” in today’s culture, you must be vague, clever, and hip at the same time – therefore, reinforcing errant views and teaching others to do the same – all in 140 characters or less.

  31. so, i have read this, Pipers blog, read and all these comments. two things: 1. Piper never says anything against Israel, and i believe this was taken out of context. We ought not to serve a godly man up for lunch. Doesn't sound like there is any grace here for anyone. 2. A question that has been on my mind... do you all really believe that God loves a Jew that believes in Jesus Christ as Messiah, more than He loves a Gentile that believes in Christ as Messiah? Cuz that is what comes across.
    ~jeanette (i would appreciate not being insulted as this gets answered. i am sincerely wondering.)

  32. Hi Jeanette (are you the Jeanette I know in person?)

    Let me respond to your comments:

    "1. Piper never says anything against Israel, and i believe this was taken out of context. We ought not to serve a godly man up for lunch. Doesn't sound like there is any grace here for anyone."

    Piper said, when speaking of chosenness, "Jesus, not Israel." The problem with that statement is that it implies Israel is no longer chosen. That's the definition of replacement theology: Israel has been replaced by Jesus and Christianity.

    Our leaders are not infallible. That Piper is wrong about Israel doesn't mean he some horrible person unloved by God.

    It's important for us to speak out about replacement theology because it has resulted in centuries of persecution of Jewish people by Christians. Martin Luther's replacement theology and eventual hatred of Jews contributed to Germany's eventual Holocaust of the Jews, for example.

    "2. A question that has been on my mind... do you all really believe that God loves a Jew that believes in Jesus Christ as Messiah, more than He loves a Gentile that believes in Christ as Messiah? Cuz that is what comes across."

    No. No one has implied that Jesus-following Jews are more loved than Jesus-following gentiles. The issue at hand is not who God loves more. It's whether God replaced Israel when he sent Jesus.

  33. i hear you. i appreciate your response. i am one who believes that the church and believing Jews are all one in Christ. we (the believing gentiles) are the children of Abraham through the Spirit of adoption. I am wondering if you have listened the past week or more to Dr. R.C. Sproul's series on Luther? I have found it interesting. Luther's point was that we are saved by faith through grace alone. Where do you get replacement theology in what he did? Everything i have heard has not mentioned that at all. He wanted the indulgences to stop. He faced a crisis of faith...Jesus alone, or all these things he witnessed in Rome? i would encourage you to listen to his series.

    i believe that God has a plan for Israel according to what is written in Revelation. I honestly don't understand the absolute outworking of it, as none of us fully can grasp it. But that does not mean that those of us outside of Israel are no less chosen. 1 Peter 2:9 states that we are a royal priesthood, a chosen generation. That was written to ALL who believe. Christ said that there is ONLY ONE WAY to come to the Father, THROUGH Him. so, why all this division? honestly.. we are all in Christ. We all know (don't we) that salvation comes to ALL and ANY who call on the name of Jesus and confess Him as Lord?

    Piper states that all throughout time, God has chosen a line.. and narrowed it down each time. Christ is the fulfillment, but that does not negate the role of Israel (believing Israel) in the end. It seems like offense is being picked up where no offense was meant. maybe even call Piper, or email him with your thoughts/concerns.

    I struggle with how unkind some of your commenters have been. really. i hesitated to comment. Assumptions have been made regarding Christianity as a whole, calling many scholars blind. Saying that Piper is Biblically unsound. Why? Some of these comments sound outright arrogant to me. We can speak the truth in LOVE, which seems to be missing in some of the commenting here. Piper is not the heretic he is being made to be, and i would encourage anyone who is questioning this to go directly to him and have a conversation. He is local, and you just might be surprised to find out that a judgement against him has been cast prematurely.

    I, again, am not trying to be divisive, Judah. Just working through this as i see it. Thanks (and yes, it is the J that you know)...

  34. @ Jeanette - "i am one who believes that the church and believing Jews are all one in Christ. we (the believing gentiles) are the children of Abraham through the Spirit of adoption."

    I agree with everything in the above sentence except the second "the." By saying that Christians are "the" children of Abraham you put yourself in an exclusive position over the Jews--and that is the heart of Replacement Theology.


  35. @michael,
    appreciate your observations...makes me think some more. okay, here are my thoughts..

    we are the children of Abraham through the Spirit of adoption. That is what i said. nowhere in there is any superiority. I am simply stating that we are equal with the blood-line children of Abraham. One is NOT superior over the other, if you have called on the name of Jesus for salvation. Does that clarify my thought on that?

    I am thinking of it in this way.. I have many friends who have adopted. One has 3 biological children, one adopted, and another adoption in the works. They have received, with humble hearts, this daughter from Ethiopia. I know for certain that they do not look at their biological children as superior in any way to the adopted child. Nor do they look at the adopted child as superior to thier biological. I think that is the best picture i can give to express how i view it. I am humbled, and amazed that God has allowed me to be a part of His family.

  36. Yes, but you're still exhibiting classic Replacement Theology thinking by restricting God's love only to Jews who "have called on the name of Jesus for salvation." Scripture makes it clear that God's love for Israel is unconditional, just as He commanded Hosea's love for his harlot wife to be.


  37. ok... He loves everyone unconditionlaly though. Salvation, is thru Christ alone, right? So, simply because someone is Jewish, does not imply that they are trusting in Jesus Christ,God's Son, to save them from their sins...anymore than i can say that since i have Italian blood that i am an Italian citizen. I am really trying to understand this, and just clarify... i hope you can "hear" my heart in this..

  38. This is the first time you've brought up the question of forgiveness for sins. Up to this point, your questions all amounted to, "Does God love Jews or Christians more?" and your underlying assumption has been, "God loves the Gentile Christian more than He loves the Jew who doesn't believe in Jesus."

    Implicit in that assumption is that Christians have become "the" children of Abraham, and non-Christian Jews have ceased to have that distiction. Again, classic Replacement Theology.

    You have to choose for yourself whether you accept that label or whether you choose to re-evaluate your Israelology.


  39. Jeanette,

    Regarding Luther, even though he had many good teachings, such as saved-by-grace theology, he unfortunately practiced replacement theology, which developed into anti-Semitism (hatred of Jewish people).

    Luther wrote a book called On The Jews and Their Lies, and in it he wrote the following:

    "The Jews, surely rejected by God, are no longer his people, and neither is he any longer their God."

    This is the heart of replacement theology: that God replaced Israel with Christianity.

    Piper's statement that God chose Jesus, and not Israel, appears to be the same line of thinking.

    I'll contact Piper and see if he has any comments.

  40. in almost every comment i have stated salvation, that Jesus said there is One way, that Jesus came to save. He came to save us from our sins. i have brought forgiveness up. i believe He loves His children. I believe that He loves the people He has made. It says that "He is not slow concerning His promise...but that He desires that none should perish." anyway, ok. i belive in living in Biblical truth. So, i guess i can be perceived in any way, but I know in Whom i have believed, and that primary to everything is that we are all sinners, saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, forgiven of our sins, if we will bow the knee and call on Him. That is primary.
    Peace also to you.

  41. I've contacted Piper and pointed him to this discussion. I'll let you guys know if there's any response.

    For now, I'm taking off for shabbat. (One of those things Jesus did not replace! Heheh)

    Have a good shabbat and weekend, folks.

  42. "Also anyone who makes it to heaven will have to enter one of the 12 gates of the sons of Israel (Rev 21:12)" -James

    I infer you (James) are implying that the Royal Priesthood of Saints will enter New Jerusalem through the Gate of Levi.

    The simplifies that paradigm.

    Others agree? Or not?

  43. When I first saw this, I thought it was an SAT question, meaning we are to choose the one pair that is most unlike the others. But, given that we have no context or explanation of what the author means by these pairs, I will, like others here, assume that he is saying that the pattern is the same and that Israel is done away with or even hated in light of the presence of it's own Messiah and for having rejected His salvation. How absurd! Would a bridegroom abandon His Bride? Would a Righteous King hate His own people? Does Piper have a bias against Israel? Is he saying that the salvation belief thru Israel is not the same salvation offered thru Messiah Yeshua, the embodiment of all that is Israel? Piper’s view of Israel might just be rooted in a profoundly twisted replacement understanding that infects most mainstream Christian denominations. One can imagine the process continuing with things like Grace not Law; Sunday not Sabbath; Easter not Passover; New not Old, etc. Of course, the problem is rooted in the severing of the Church from it’s foundational roots in Israel. Christianity codified its’ identity by chopping off its’ roots planted in the Hebraic soil of the early Jewish believers and their idea of the congregation rooted in the Kahal(congregation) of Israel and by further defining itself as simply “not Jewish”, it then separated from all things Jewish and left God’s chosen nation Israel on the cutting floor of things not to be taught as part of the New Faith. (See numerous articles at Jewish-Christian Relations at for teaching on the history of early Christianity, especially Anne Amos’ article called “The Parting of the Ways”) The myth here perpetuated by Piper is that Israel rejected in TOTAL the salvation of Yeshua and is therefore rejected by God.

    This is false. Pauls use of the term "in Messiah" is not meant to replace the term "in Israel". The first does not nullify the later, rather it means that to place ones faith and trust in the Messiah of Israel is to be included among the people who have entered Israel’s covenants, hence, believers in Messiah are also “in Israel” having been grafted into the covenant olive tree that is the Biblical Israel. Thus, the message of the gospel is taken to the ends of the earth by those who are "in Israel" and it is the same salvation by faith message believed upon by the faithful Patriarchs and Israelites of old. Peter in Act15:10-11 says that "we believe that through the grace of Messiah Yeshua, we shall be saved in the same manner as they".


Appending "You might like" to each post.