On Kanye West & Christian Anti-Semitism

Over the last week, rapper Kanye West said some ugly things about Jews. Specifically, that Jewish people aren't real Jews. In West's view, black folks are the real Jews: 

 "When I say Jew, I mean the 12 lost tribes of Judah, the blood of Christ, who the people known as the race Black really are. This is who our people are.” 

This is the theology of the Black Hebrew Israelites, a fringe Christian group that promotes a conspiracy theory: that the Jewish people have conspired to hide the truth of who is a real Israelite from the general public. In this conspiracy theory, Jews are fake Jews, and the real Jews are the black race.

West also made statements saying he's going to war with the Jews:

“I’m a bit sleepy tonight but when I wake up I’m going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE. The funny thing is I actually can’t be Anti Semitic because black people are actually Jew also You guys have toyed with me and tried to black ball anyone whoever opposes your agenda.”

 This also spurred some fringe Christian anti-Semites to show their support:

Social media and news sites reported anti-Semitic Christians showing support for Kayne West's statements.

Christian anti-Semitism like this is muddled thinking. It's self-defeating. Here's how.

Jewish material, Jewish authors, Jewish King

First, the material they cite is Jewish.

In the photo above, they cite Revelation and John. But the author of both Revelation and the gospel of John is believed to be John the Beloved, a Jew writing about Jesus the Jew. Revelation ends with Jesus the Jewish King reigning from a restored Jerusalem. Virtually all the New Testament is written by Jewish authors, writing about Jewish material and a Jewish King. Jesus, the 12 disciples, Paul, the early church: all Jews. 

Indeed, Christianity was originally a sect of Judaism called הדרך HaDerech / The Way (see Acts 9), and the first 3,000 believers were all Jews (Acts 2). And those first believers -- the nascent church -- came to faith while at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. They were there for the Jewish festival of Shavuot, a commandment in the Torah given to the people of Israel.

Weak proof texts and arguments from silence

Second, Christian anti-Semites' proof texts are weak and unstable. 

In John 8:44, Jesus disputes with certain Jewish religious leaders and has harsh words for them, saying they are of the devil. Christian anti-Semites interpret this passage to mean all Jews are of the devil. But the text can't mean that, because this would mean all of Jesus' initial followers were of the devil. Including the 12 disciples. And Jesus himself. And the whole early church.

Some anti-Semites will claim a lesser form of this argument: that only Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah are of the devil. But the text again doesn't say this. We have Jesus critiquing the religious leaders in his own millieu -- but nowhere does the New Testament condemn all Jews as being fathered by the devil as the Christian anti-Semites claim.

Revelation 3:9 is another proof text of Christian anti-Semites. In it, God corrects those who "claim to be Jewish but are liars." 

Christian anti-Semites think this passage has hidden meaning: that all Jewish people are not actually Jewish. But the text again doesn't say that. It's a form of argument from silence. And because there is no evidence for their case, one could just as well argue that it applies to Black Hebrew Israelites and anyone else who claims to be Jewish but is not.

If we're charitable and say that perhaps Revelation 3's words of correction was for Jews -- e.g. people of Jewish heritage but behave wickedly, e.g. Harvey Weinstein -- even then we have God speaking to a specific church (see Rev 3:7 - just 2 verses before the proof text). This cannot mean all Jewish people. It's directed to a specific church, and specific people within that church.

Contrary to the thrust of the New Testament

Christian anti-Semitism also fails because the main thread of the New Testament runs counter to it. Consider Romans 11: 

I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.

This text means what it says. It's not hard to understand. This verse says that God hasn't rejected the Jewish people. 

This passage even prevents us from wandering off the path; we cannot claim "Israelites" means anything other than the Jewish people, the physical descendants of Jacob. Paul says he's from the tribe of Benjamin, and these Israelites are the people God knew from before.

Paul further goes on to say that God's ultimate plan is that all Israel will be saved.

It's plain to see in the New Testament: God hasn't rejected the Jewish people, even though Jewish people have rejected the Messiah.

This runs counter to what Christian anti-Semites claim their proof texts to mean.

Confused and inaccurate

The muddled thinking of Christian anti-Semites shows up in other ways. Notice in one of Kayne West's statements he talks about the "12 tribes of Judah":

"When I say Jew, I mean the 12 lost tribes of Judah, the blood of Christ, who the people known as the race Black really are. This is who our people are.” 

That doesn't make sense. There are not 12 tribes of Judah. Judah was one of the 12 tribes of Israel. Maybe West misspoke. Or maybe he just has really muddled thinking here and doesn't (yet?) know the Bible well.

If we interpret him charitably, we could say he meant the "lost 12 tribes of Israel." Even that doesn't make sense, as only parts of 10 tribes have been lost.

And what of West's statement about "the blood of Christ, who are known as the race Black"?

This is racial superiority nonsense.

If "the blood of Christ" determines who is a Jew, then those Jews were never lost, were they? Or does he mean that all black folks are Jews regardless of their faith? (In which case, why does he talk about the blood of Christ at all?) It's hard to tell what he means; it's too muddled. 

The blood of Christ has nothing to do with races or racial purity. Rather, it's the shed blood of Messiah, poured out for the forgiveness of humanity's sins. It has nothing to do with human bloodlines or racial superiority. As a lifelong student of the Bible, I can't think of a single passage that would even hint at what West is claiming.

Mired in conspiracy theories

You'll notice Christian anti-Semites will refer to a website GoyimTV. This is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory website that promotes Nazi propaganda about Jews.

Sidebar:

Goyim גוים is a Hebrew term that means "nations" or "gentiles." It is not derogatory in the Bible. In Genesis 17, for example, God blesses Abraham and promises that he will be the father of many goyim (nations). God's promise to Abraham is that he will be a goy gadol גוי גדול, a great nation. And Psalm 67 says God's salvation will be made known among all goyim. But anti-Semites have weaponized this term, claiming Jews use it derogatorily towards non-Jews.) 

GoyimTV promotes conspiracy theories that blame Jews for the world's evils, including COVID:

A friend in Los Angeles had this dropped off on their doorstep today. Unreal. pic.twitter.com/t2KhkBHfei

— Jason Leopold (@JasonLeopold) October 23, 2022

Conspiracy theories often end up blaming the Jews, which is a reason why Christians and Messianic folks should avoid them. It really does end up in anti-Semitism with Nazi overtones. It results in violence against Jewish people.

Conspiracy theories are almost always false. If truth matters to us, we should avoid them. We do a disservice to the reputation of God by embracing false things.

Summary

Christian anti-Semitism is self-defeating. It uses Jewish texts as its supporting material. Its proof texts are weak, out of context, and against the grain of the rest of Bible.

Christian anti-Semitism's philosophy is muddled and contains strange non-sequiturs and is mired by rampant conspiracy theories. It makes the Jewish Jesus out to be against his own people. It brings shame to the reputation of Messiah.

When Kanye West released his "Jesus Is King" album not long ago, I was happy to see he had come to know the Lord and declared it publicly. Many celebrities keep their faith private for fear of backlash from the secular culture. Not Kanye West. It's wonderful to see someone with such influence in the secular world speak boldly about Jesus. But with his anti-Semitic comments, it's clear he's immature in his faith and misled by the Black Hebrew Israelite cult. 

I'll be praying that West repents of these wicked views against Jesus' own people, the Jewish people. I hope you'll pray for him too, dear Kineti reader.

Thoughts of an Israel-hating Christian, and how to combat Christian anti-Semitism

Today marks Yom Yerushalayim – Jerusalem Day – in Israel, with thousands of Israel-supporters taking to the streets and celebrating.

A Israeli Messianic musician friend shared some photos of the event:

(Ah. Folks, stuff like this makes me long for the land. I’ll be visiting Israel in a few months, so at least that’s something.)

Support for Israel is all over the Messianic and Hebrew Roots Christian sections of the web today, with blog posts, tweets, Facebook status updates all celebrating Israel.

But it’s on the following Facebook status I encountered anti-Israel sentiment from a Christian fellow named Peter Sander:

I’ll bet many of you fine Kineti readers have encountered such people. We can generally characterize them like this:

• Politically left-of-center
• Atheist, liberal Christian, or liberal Jewish
• If Christian, supersessionist
• Morality guided by feelings

I’d like to dissect a few of Peter’s arguments, then tackle how we, as Yeshua’s disciples, ought to respond to inflammatory statements like Peter’s.

By the end of this post, we’ll have a good idea what it is that the other side believes, how to properly refute their arguments, articulate our own beliefs, and do so in a way that is upstanding for Yeshua’s disciples.

Appeal to emotion

This is a staple of politically left-of-center morality: the appeal to emotion. Feelings-based morality: if something feels bad, then it’s evil. Don’t we care about the helpless Palestinians?

Example: Israel built a wall. Walls symbolize division, hatred, differences, separation. The new morality is about unity, love, and tolerance. Therefore, the wall is morally wrong.

Emotional feelings trumps any sort of absolute morality. Since we can picture the injured Palestinian on the curb, bleeding and holding a young child, our emotions immediately reach out and take their side. We’re conditioned, in the west, to side with the underdog.

Peter suggests that a Jerusalem entirely under Israeli rule will result in terrible humanitarian consequences for Palestinians and other minorities in Israel.

The unspoken suggestion is a divided Jerusalem: Israel owns part, and one or more Palestinian factions own other parts.

(And among the most extreme Palestinian sympathizers, the unspoken suggestion is a unified Jerusalem under Palestinian rule.)

Here, Peter is implying that Israel will treat Palestinians badly if Israel owns Jerusalem. This is an opinion, rather than a fact, but does it hold any weight?

Not really. In a nutshell, non-Jews and minorities are generally treated well within Israel. For better or worse, Israel tolerates everything from gay pride parades to Islamic opposition political parties, while those things in Palestinian territories are non-existent, for fear of brutal retaliation from the elected Islamic factions in power, Hamas and Fatah.

Arabs and Palestinians have representation within the Israeli government. By contrast, the Palestinian factions are unilateral, Islamic governments whose charters are built not around governance of humans, but around destruction of the state of Israel. (The Hamas charter, for instance, cites the well-known racist book Protocols of the Elders of Zion, used today in many neo-Nazi groups.)

So the implication that an indivisible Jerusalem is bad for Palestinians is probably false.

But the deeper problem with Peter’s argument is its appeal to emotion.

Emotions are not a good indicator of morality. It is possible for something to feel bad, and be morally good. Take imprisonment, or capital punishment, for example. It is possible for something to feel good, and be morally bad. If this weren’t the case, prostitution would be morally acceptable.

Emotions do not clarify our judgments, but blur them. Emotions blur wisdom in our choices. A mind fully handed over to emotion, where emotions entirely drive moral choices, is not a mind worth trusting, nor its ideas worth pursuing.

Ignoring emotional pleas, for a moment, let’s ask: if Jerusalem was divided between Israel and Palestinians, would it result in more peace?

Unlikely. Historically, when Israel has transferred cities to Palestinian factions – for example, Bethlehem in 1995, or Gush Katif in 2005, the end result has not been more peace, but more violence.

Logically – again, thinking with brains rather than emotion – this outcome makes perfect sense. Hamas, one of the major Palestinian factions, cite Israel’s destruction as their raison d'être. Grant that group land and resources will result in utilization of those resources towards their ultimate goal of the destruction of Israel.

Spiritualizing-away concrete meaning from the Scriptures

While many anti-Zionists are secular or atheist, there’s been a recent minority movement among Christians to demonize Israel and side with Palestinians as the helpless victims of imperial aggression.

For such religious people who take the Bible seriously, how do you deal with Scriptures that speak of Israel as God’s land given to Israel? The first 5 books of the Jewish and Christian Bibles – the Torah – deal with this promise of a land – then called Canaan – given to a people called Israel. And everything in the Scriptures flows from that crux.

To pull off theological opposition to Israel is to explain away the crux upon which the rest of the Scriptures are built: Israel was given the land, and from that, the prophets and the kings and the writings, and these make up the whole of the Jewish bible. And the Christian bible does not negate these, but amplifies them: confirming Jewish prophecies of a time when a Davidic King – the Messiah – will rule over Israel and institute real peace in the kingdom of God.

Christianity has generally accepted Israel as a Scripturally-mandated Jewish homeland: Protestant Christianity have been perhaps the biggest supporters of Zionism outside of Jewish Zionism itself, both before and after Israeli independence in 1948. And today, Protestant and Evangelical Christianity remain the most ardent supporters of Israel.

Catholic Christianity initially opposed Zionism and the idea of a Jewish nation, stating in 1897:

According to the Sacred Scriptures, the Jewish people must always live dispersed and vagabondo among the other nations, so that they may render witness to Christ not only by the Scriptures ... but by their very existence

However, Catholicism has since repented of that sentiment, saying it was not only erroneous from a Scriptural point of view, but also led to Christian anti-Semitism and persecution of Jews. Pope John Paul II made this reversal official in 1997, when he said:

The wrong and unjust interpretations of the New Testament relating to the Jewish people and their supposed guilt [in Christ's death] circulated for too long, engendering sentiments of hostility toward this people.

With the Christian world standing for Israel and the Jewish people, how does a Christian person like Peter oppose Israel and Zionism? By reinterpreting the Bible to abstract away God’s promises to Israel, and to shift the focus away from the promises and towards other airy, subjective issues that put modern Israel in a negative light.

God promised the land to Israel? Folks like Peter will say those things are fulfilled in Christ (an airy statement without concrete meaning or clear Scriptural support), and that a bigger issue in the Scriptures is justice, thus implying that modern Israel is not interested in justice. It takes our focus off concrete promises and moves it to subjective theological issues.

In Peter’s world, moral principles like justice are used as a means to abstract away real meaning from the Scriptures. Just take the moral principle, and remove everything else, and you’re left with a view like Peter’s. It’s a poor way of reading the Bible.

Justice is indeed important, but I’m not convinced of Peter’s sincerity in focusing on justice; we never hear folks like Peter speaking up for justice when civilians are killed by Palestinian suicide bombers, or stumping for justice when Hamas launches rockets at Israeli towns, or even when Palestinian factions open fire on one another.

They don’t cry for justice then, they cry for justice only when Israel can be made the villain.

It may very well be that Peter’s motivation is not justice. It may well be that Peter is using justice as an argumentative tool, a means to his goal of demonizing Israel.

When religious folks use justice merely as an argumentative tool, it makes their cries of injustice ring hollow, discredits their integrity. It further drowns out real injustices like the ones going on in the Arab world today.

Supersessionism and replacement theology

By “tribal vindication”, Peter means to say Israel is not unlike any the millions of petty tribes formed through humanity’s history. God’s promised, long-awaited and well-deserved justice for Israel is reduced to merely human vindication and vengeance.

This is a crux of supersessionism, also called Replacement Theology, which states that Israel was at one time special to God, but after Christ, Israel is nothing special, Jewish people are just another ethnicity, Judaism just another non-Christian religion. God replaced Israel with the Church.

In Peter’s worldview of a nothing-special-Israel, the gospel is hardly good news for Jewish people. In such a view, the gospel actually becomes bad news for Jewish people: “Hey, Jewish people, God once considered you special and chosen, but now Messiah has come, and you’re reduced to nobodies. Isn’t that good news?”

This view is hard to reconcile with the Jewish bible, obviously. But even the Christian Scriptures, aside from including the whole of the Jewish bible, also speak of Israel’s special place and chosen status:

Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.

…

Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved.

...as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.

-Paul, Romans 11

Hard to remove Israel’s specialness seeing the New Testament saying this phenomenon of all these gentiles attracted to Jesus is part of a bigger plan where Israel and the nations are set right before the God of Israel. Whew!

Not to mention the thrust of the New Testament ends with Jerusalem coming out of heaven, suggesting that Jerusalem is more than just a city, but a city with a heavenly parallel, and Israel not just a fiefdom, but a nation called into holiness, and the Jewish people not just some insignificant semitic tribe, but a special people chosen by God, around whom the whole of the Scriptures revolve.

Finally, notice how Peter characterizes Scripture’s recorded vindication of Israel as “petty and sick.” This is an inflammatory statement intended again to provoke. More on that below.

Jesus as Palestinian refugee, and other offensive anachronisms

An inflammatory, emotional statement intended to provoke. It’s utterly subjective, designed to evoke an emotional response: Jesus’ face is that of a Palestinian’s: hurt, crying, looking to help the poverty-stricken, the helpless.

This rings true for some Christians, because we associate Jesus’ teachings with love, helping the helpless, aiding the poor. But it’s a non-sequitur: Jesus taught helping the poor, therefore, we should side with the Palestinians. It’s as if we ought to remove all context and look merely at financial situation. It doesn’t follow. There are poor among the Israelis, especially among immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Does that mean we should help the Israelis?

The conclusion is that we cannot use financial status alone as a means for who we support, nor as a moral guide. People can be poor, and still commit evil.

Worse part of this argument? This is again the faulty appeal to emotion that characterizes the politically left-of-center. But it’s laced with an inflammatory statement – that Jesus’ face is that of a Palestinians – designed to provoke an angry response.

It’s difficult to remain calm in the face of offensive, inflammatory statements like these! It’s at points like these where the conversation can turn ugly, devolve and be a poor witness of our behavior as Yeshua’s disciples. The key is to remain focused on the issues and not be sidetracked into an unwinnable, emotional argument about Jesus’ face and which people group it most resembles.

Disconnecting modern Israel from the Scriptures

This argument is one both Christian and Jewish opponents of Israel take. Many such people will inevitably recognize the Scriptures are unmistakably about Israel, and thus, to oppose modern Israel, they must disconnect in their minds the people of Israel and the nation of Israel from their ancient equivalents.

This view is fantasy at best, and leads to anti-Semitism (hatred of Jews) at worst.

Peter wishes to say the modern secular, nuclear power that is the modern State of Israel is in no way connected to Israel of the Scriptures.

Peter’s more extreme allies often will go further and make implications that Jewish people aren’t even Jewish! They’ll argue, as some did at recent Christian religious conference in Israel, that Jews aren’t really Jewish, and in fact are descendants of European Khazars. This has become something of a relgious conspiracy theory common among neo-Nazi racists in the west, and utilized by anyone wishing to discredit Jewish claims to Israel.

Thankfully, Peter didn’t go so far, but only implied the lesser charge that modern Israel is disconnected from the Israel of the Bible.

To make such a claim requires both imagination and ignorance: imagination, to believe that the world’s Jewish population gathering in the same place they were given 3000 years ago, upon which the whole of the Bible is based, are entirely unrelated. Ignorance, to deliberately overlook the thrust of the Jewish and Christians Scriptures which places Israel at the center of God’s plans for humanity, culminating with God reigning as King from Jerusalem (Zech 14, Rev 22).

Acting as an upright disciple of Yeshua in internet arguments

Many internet arguments cannot be won. It’s helpful to acknowledge this when entering internet debates.

Often times we’re drawn into the mudslinging and we act the poor example of who disciples of Jesus ought to be. People peek in and see us fighting and saying nasty things about each other, and they get discouraged, and they think we’re bad people, and what they must think of Yeshua, then, is worse.

Is it possible to engage in an internet argument and remain an upstanding disciple? I think so, but I don’t recommend it for a beginner. It’s very easy to be drawn in and let the conversation devolve. Here’s my whole conversation with Peter today, you be the judge:

Notice how Peter’s inflammatory statements – accusing the poster of being a terrorist, calling support for Israel mere ‘tribal vindication’, saying Jesus has the face of a Palestinian refugee, calling Israel occupier, it’s actions illegal – these were areas where the conversation naturally would devolve.

It takes conscious effort to remain focused on the issue at hand – celebrating Israel – and avoiding taking the flamebait and devolving the conversation into mudslinging and subjective, emotional arguments.

And while not required, it helps to keep things positive. When Peter saw I wouldn’t bite his flamebait, when I wouldn’t respond in anger, he ended the conversation with an insult. I refused to take offense, and let my arguments stand.

I believe I spoke in a way that didn’t shame Yeshua’s name. I spoke in a way that was upstanding for a disciple of Yeshua. I think this approach is a way not to “win” an argument, but rather, take a stand for righteousness without spewing all the venom so common to internet arguments.

What do you think, fine Kineti readers? How do you deal with inflammatory people on the internet like Peter? Do you engage? Or is it futile?

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”?

Church: The Israel of God? Part 2

• Genesis is the story of how Israel came to be and how God chose this family out of all the others in the earth.
  
  
• The Bible then tells how God gave Israel a place to live, brought them out of slavery and into the land God promised.
  
  
• Later books witness to Israel’s struggles and triumphs; God’s own people rebelling from the covenant, only to turn in repentance, then back to rebellion.
  
  
• A famous king of Israel writes over a thousand songs exalting the God of Israel. A hundred or so made it into the Scriptures. God blessed this king and promised God’s anointed one – Messiah - would descend from him.
  
  
• The books of the prophets, written by Israel’s own, tell of God’s plans for Israel, present and future. These Israelite prophets foretell God’s plan to redeem and save Israel.
  
  
• The Messiah of Israel was born in Israel to Israelite parents. Messiah spends his much of his life centered around the Temple in Jerusalem, teaching the Torah and expounding upon it.
  
  
• Messiah’s 12 disciples – all Israelites – imitated their master as a way of life. Their deeds are written in the next books of the Bible.
  
  
• Further books describe Paul – an Israelite Pharisee – who spoke to gentiles about how to follow this Messiah of Israel.
  
  
• Finally, the Bible ends with a smash hit of a book that foretells God’s final plan of redemption through Messiah for the whole world, God setting things right, dealing final justice, with Israel taking center stage as representatives from each of the 12 tribes of Israel surround the heavenly throne.

It is hard to imagine how one can read Israel out of the Bible, or replace Israel with some other entity. Israel is the tool God has used on this earth to accomplish His plans.

Yet earlier this week, the question was raised by a Christian friend: Isn’t the Church the real Israel? And do Christians have any business supporting that old, done-away-with state of Israel that we read about in the Old Testament?

Before I address these, I want to point out that, despite our theological differences, this Christian guy who raised these questions, Brian, is a good friend and a humble guy who loves the Lord. Earlier, after reading some of the comments on this blog, he related to me,

Apparently Reformed Covenant theology appears to be Anti-Semitic to some of your readers. I lament this misunderstanding with all of my heart. I hope that you do know that I would never knowingly subscribe to a theology that advocates against the Jewish people. The intention of my post was not to bash the state of Israel.

This is why I’ve focused solely on the theology and haven’t personally attacked anyone through all this.

Reformed Covenant theology, because it replaces Israel with a new entity, must also be lumped as type of replacement theology and I’ll refer to it as such in this work.

That said, let’s refresh what we’re talking about here:

My Christian friend had wrote a long note on Facebook asserting that:

1. Christians ought not to support the state of Israel.
2. The Church is the New Israel.
3. Jews are no different than gentiles in the New Testament era.

Today I want to address these points in full.

To the first point, my friend had said,

I find it difficult to find New Testament warrant for [support for Israel] & my first thought is that Christ and His disciples had little if any stake in the political intrigues of Israel under the Romans, with the notable exception of Simon the Zealot - who is given no endorsement as such, but simply seems to have this as a qualifier to his name.

So, here is my thesis: The Church, as the true Israel of God, owes no political allegiance to any nation, regardless of Biblical prophecy about a restoration of the Jewish state.

Should Christians support Israel? The answer is yes.

Moving on. (I kid, I kid! See below. )

Politics, really?

Why should Christians support Israel? Politically? Dunno ‘bout you fine blog readers, but I come from an extended family where certain relatives support the US Republican party in the view that it is the Christian party. Seeing these abuses, I’m uncomfortable saying Messiah’s followers are obligated to offer political support for any political entity.

I’m even more uncomfortable with “owing” political support, as if indebted. While the Church has built up lots of debt to the Jews through persecution, and it’s true Christianity was forked out of Israel and Judaism, I still don’t like the argument. It too closely resembles the “your ancestors did something to my ancestors, so pay me money” kind of thing. Let’s not go there, please.

The real reason Christians should support Israel?

Israel is God’s chosen. (Replacement theologians say, “Amen”.)

And Jews comprise Israel. (Replacement theologians say, “Ame..wha? OMG Noooooes!”)

It’s kind of silly, but that’s the primary dividing line.

Where’s the Beef?!

So are the Jews still Israel?

My father-in-law once told me, “Everything changed with Jesus.” So did Jesus change Israel to mean “the Church”? If he did, there’d be a boatload of clear, unmistakable statements like,

“Hey guys, this is Jesus. Just coming in to say, my Church is the new Israel. kthxbye.”

Unfortunately for replacement theologians, there are no such statements.

There are a handful of ambivalent statements by Paul that maybe kinda sorta might be evidence, but not really. Here are 2 of the more popular ones:

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

-Paul, in his letter to Rome

Here, Paul suggests being a Jew is a good thing. And being a Jew isn’t about being one outwardly.

Some Replacement Theologians wish for this to say, “Christians, who have real hearts for God, are the New Israel. Those old Jews, who don’t really have hearts for God, aren’t really Israel.”

But unless you’re interpreting Scripture with an agenda, you’d never read it this way. “I have a theology to defend” is a terrible way to interpret Scripture. And even if one interpreted that way, the conclusion is that Christians are really Jews. I don’t think most Replacement theologians would be comfortable with this idea.

The other common one is Paul’s statement, “the Israel of God”:

Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.

-Paul, in his letter to Galatia

Replacement theologians wish for “the Israel of God” to mean Christianity and the Church, rather than Israel. (As opposed to that other Israel, now abandoned by God.) Of course, Paul never mentions Christianity or the Church here.

One might infer from this reading that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision account for membership in Israel. This may be inferred, but nowhere does this reading suggest replacement, instead, adoption and grafting-in is the theme woven throughout several of Paul’s letters, see Romans 9, 10, 11, Ephesians 2, for example.

A common assertion among replacement theologians and reformed covenant theologians is this:

With the abrogation of the Mosaic Covenant, Israel lost its status as the people of God.

I don’t rightly know how to address such nonsense. Israel broke the Mosiac covenant almost immediately upon its inception – God didn’t abandon them then. Instead, he invested a few thousand years into Israel’s redemption…only to throw it all away when Messiah came? Nonsense. Paul already addressed this foolish thinking, in a statement that makes replacement theologians squirm:

I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written.

-Paul, in his letter to Rome

Notice the lack of replacement theology in Paul’s statements. Had Paul agreed that the Church replaced Israel, his words would make no sense here:

I ask then: Did God reject his people? Of course. I used to be a Jew myself, but now I’m a member of God’s Israel: the Church. Old Israel God threw away so that he could make new Israel in the form of Christianity.

-Imaginary, Paul didn’t say this

Honestly, folks, these are the best verses I’ve seen from adherents of Replacement Theology. Maybe there’s more, but these are the best examples I’ve been given over the last few years.

No! [Gasp!] Not Zionism!

Love and support for Israel is often termed Zionism. While neo-Nazis, fundamentalist Muslims, and even certain members of the extreme left use the term “Zionist” in a derogatory manner – in the world, it is becoming increasingly unpopular to be a Zionist – the term by itself is a good name: Zion is a name for Jerusalem. In other words, Zionism is the love and support for Jerusalem. See? Not so scary.

Some Christians, especially the ugly anti-Semitic few, have a problem with Zionism.

As I told my Christian friend: God is a Zionist. It’s almost heretical to say God supports [x socio-political platform], but honestly, God loves and supports Zion. In fact, God installs Messiah as King of Zion, God himself is enthroned in Zion, salvation for Israel comes from Zion, Zion is God’s city, God shines out from Zion, God makes Zion prosper and builds the walls of Jerusalem, God lives in Zion, will save Zion, and loves Zion eternally!

The psalmist commands us to pray for Zion and for her prosperity, with the promise that God will bless us if we do.

And Messiah? Even though the people of Zion have stoned the prophets, Messiah prophesies he will return when Zion says, “Baruch Haba BaShem Adonai” (Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord).

God is a Zionist. The Scriptures are Zion-centered. Messiah will reign as king of Zion.

Apologies to you would-be Zion haters.

Conclusions

Replacement theologians, as well as like-minded Reformed Covenant theologians, perhaps unwittingly perform a terrible anti-Jewish act: they remove the relevance of Israel and replace her with Christianity and the Church.

The good news is, they have almost no evidence to support their case: the apostles never took this deviant route, and there is virtually no Scripture that can be interpreted in support of this theology without performing Scriptural acrobatics.

More good news: if the replacement theology adherents are wrong, we get the benefit of reading the Scripture as-is! That means we don’t have to fudge Scriptures where we reinterpret “Israel” to mean, “us modern-day Christians”. (Or the flipside, when a curse or judgment is pronounced on Israel, we no longer have to have a double standard of, “well, the curse was for Israel and the blessing for Christians…”) And since Israel is all over the Scriptures, that’s a pretty nice bonus.

Does support for Zion mean a blank check to the modern state of Israel? No. Please, no. Israel is run by men that make mistakes -- just like the ancient state of Israel. God is not blind – and as he loves Zion, he also corrects and judges Zion.

Likewise, we cannot be blind to Israel’s offenses. But it should not detract from our underlying love and support for her and her people, whom Paul calls God’s oldest friends, with whom God’s call is still under full warranty, never canceled, never rescinded.