Is Israel Still God’s Chosen People?

In the theological circles where I grew up a great deal of importance was placed on the nation of Israel.  That perspective still has great dominance today in many places.  “Evangelical” Christians in the U.S. are some of the strongest and least critical supporters of the Zionist cause in the world and they exert great political influence in that direction.  But, the question deserves a hearing as to whether or not Israel today deserves that kind of blind support.  My own position on this question, which I will try to explain and support, has been evolving for a long time and has only really started to solidify fairly recently. 

First, I think that we must define just exactly what we mean when we are talking about Israel.  Rather quickly I came up with six different understandings of Israel.  There was the individual in the Old Testament who had his name changed from Jacob to Israel.  Then there is the genetic people of Israel, who are the biological descendants of Jacob.  Next, there is the Old Testament nation of Israel that exited Egypt under Moses leadership and established their Kingdom in Canaan.  That nation existed from around the 12^th century B.C. until it divided after King Solomon in the 10^th century B.C.  Around 721 B.C. the northern kingdom was conquered and around 521 B.C. the southern kingdom was conquered.  Under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah there was a return to the land that lasted until about 71 A.D. though most of that time was spent under the control of larger powers.  Then there is the land of Israel.  It has come and gone and the boundaries have changed from time to time, but there in the middle east there is a geographical area that has been sometimes called Israel.  Then there is the modern political entity known as the modern nation of Israel.

It is very clear in the Old Testament that God established a very special relationship with Israel known as a covenant.  That special relationship began with Abraham and was reaffirmed with Isaac and Jacob.  It was also reaffirmed with Moses.  That covenant relationship between God and Israel forms the basis for the support of many Christians for the modern political nation of Israel.  Along with that covenant God made many promises to Israel.  Those promises included the land and a promise of continuity and national prosperity.  Those Christians who most stridently support modern political Israel, see the establishment of the modern state as fulfillment of that promise and prophecy.  Along with that they will cite also God’s promise to “bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel”.  Their eschatology demands that there be a political Israel to play a role in the “last days”.  The commitment to modern political Israel is absolute and unquestioning.  This Israel can do no wrong in dealing with neighboring nations or with those who were displaced by the creation of their state.

The ultimate theological questions that must be considered surround whether or not modern political Israel is God’s people in the world today.  Was the establishment of the Jewish state a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and a confirmation of God’s will?  Do Christians have a responsibility to support and endorse everything that Israel does?  I have come to the conclusion that the answer to both of those question is no.  Let me try to explain why I have come to believe this.  Start by understanding that God’s covenant with Israel was always stated with two sides usually stated something like, “If you follow Me and do my will then I will bless you…, BUT if you turn away from Me and become like the other nations I will curse you…”  The turning away and disobedience brought about the destructions in 721 B.C. and 586 B.C.  This is clear from the Old Testament prophets.  The return from exile under Ezra and Nehemiah was brought about by repentance of those in captivity and reestablishment of a right relationship with God went hand in hand with the physical return to the land.  IF the return to the land had been in response to divine intervention one would have expected the foundation to have been set in repentance, contrition, and prayer instead of terrorism and guerilla warfare.  IF, the return to the land after World War II had been under the covenant it should have produced a nation that was preeminently concerned with living as God’s people under His Law.  In brief, I believe it would be a nation that looks far different from what exists.

If you counted you would have noticed that I said that there were six Israels and then I only named five.  That is because I believe that the sixth Israel is the Church.  As the apostle Paul put it, the Gentile believers have been grafted in.  It seems very reasonable that this new Israel, the spiritual Israel, has now assumed the role of God’s representative people on earth.  We now are a part of the New Covenant that Jesus spoke of at the Last Supper.

This is what I have come to believe after many years of study and consideration.  I fully acknowledge that the whole realm of eschatology is a somewhat sketchy business.  I know that there are many who believe that they have it all down pat in neat charts and graphs.  I don’t think much of the rest of their theology either.  There are a number of matters of doctrine on which I am quite confident of my position.  Eschatology is far less certain.  This is what I have come to believe at this point in time.  I remain open to being convinced that I am wrong tomorrow.

God Judges Nations – All Nations

Numerous times when I have tried to raise the issue of God’s revealed will for the behavior of nations, it has been pointed out to me that the United States is not Israel and that the Laws that God established for that unique nation do not apply to the U.S..  Actually, I am in complete agreement that that assertion.  The Old Testament nation of Israel existed in a peculiar relationship with God.  Interestingly, it has been suggested more often by apologists for U.S. supremacy that the U.S. shares a similar relationship with God.  This was claimed with Manifest Destiny and at other times when it proved to be politically expedient.  But, I don’t believe it and I have never advocated that position.

However, a substantial exploration of Scripture will make it quite clear that God judges all nations and not only that one nation that He revealed Himself to in a special way.  Consider Ezekiel 16: 49-50, “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, abundant food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.  They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it.”  Sodom was definitely NOT Israel.  Yet, God says that he destroyed them for their sin.  Interestingly it is their sexual sin that most today associate with the judgment on Sodom, and that may be alluded to in these verses, but only after their neglect of the poor and their pride.  So would it not be fair to assume that if God so judged Sodom, He has seen fit to inform us of the basis for that judgment, He might also judge nations today on that same basis?  Additionally consider, God sent Jonah to Nineveh to warn them of coming judgment, He sent Obadiah to Edom, and Amos spends the first two chapters of his book warning nations around Israel of God impending judgments.  Amos 3:2 does indicate that there is a higher standard of expectation for Israel than other nations because of their additional knowledge.  But those who violate basic codes of civility that should be clear to all can expect divine retribution.

If God will judge nations, then what should be the role of His People the Church in our world and political structure today?  I believe that our role is to be salt and light in a tasteless and dark world.  I don’t believe that we need to, or even should, demand that specific aspects of Old Testament Law be implemented as national policy.  But, we should present reasoned arguments for policies that reflect values consistent with those taught in Scripture.  If God is the creator of the physical universe in which we exist, He is also the creator of all human relationships and the guidance that He provides on functioning as a society is not intended to force conformity against our best interests but to allow us to function optimally.  But, the problem is that too often those who claim to represent a “Christian” perspective on political issues do so arrogantly and frequently incorrectly.  What are Biblical values and how do we get to know them?

We must get to know the Book and seek to understand the Truths that it contains.  I will offer only a couple of specific examples.  It is absolutely clear that God is concerned with the value of Justice.  I know few people today who would say that they are opposed to justice.  But, how do we determine what is just?  For far too many in the U.S. today justice is defined intuitively.  They just have a sense of what seems fair to them.  And, no one had better challenge their sense of what is just.  Example: I saw Newt on TV just this week again raising a mantra of the “right”, that we must abolish the “death tax” more correctly called the inheritance tax.  The argument is that this tax is unjust because according to their sense of justice a person should be free to pass what they, or their parents or grandparents, have earned on to their children.  It doesn’t conform to their sense of “justice”.  But, according to God’s revealed Law to Israel, The Year of Jubilee was established to assure that neither wealth nor poverty were hereditary.  This is a demonstration of God’s sense of justice and it is not the same as that of the “right” in the U.S.  Here again, I am not suggesting that what we need to do is to establish the Year of Jubilee as national economic policy.  What I am saying is that what we may think is justice may not be what God thinks is justice at all. 

What about the value advocated by many “Christians” in the U.S. today of patriotism.  Patriotism is categorically NOT a Biblical value.  We are told to be submissive to the government where we live.  I believe that we should be responsible and active citizens.  But, we are not told to “love” our country.  And, in fact “love” of country can frequently lead to behavior that clearly violates what are clearly Biblical values.  When we place more value on the life of a person who is from our own country than one from another country, we fail to appreciate that God so loved the world.  When we exploit the resources of poor nations so that we can support extravagant lifestyles, we violate our role as stewards.  When we advocate foreign policy base on our own economic or strategic interests, instead of the interests of the nations impacted by it we fail to act in love.

As I have written before, there is and will be plenty of room to discuss and disagree on some of the applications of trying to exert Godly influence in our world.  But, there can only be real, meaningful and constructive debate if it is based on knowledge and appreciation for the fact that God has spoken to these issues.

However, a substantial exploration of Scripture will make it quite clear that God judges all nations and not only that one nation that He revealed Himself to in a special way.  Consider Ezekiel 16: 49-50, “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, abundant food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.  They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it.”  Sodom was definitely NOT Israel.  Yet, God says that he destroyed them for their sin.  Interestingly it is their sexual sin that most today associate with the judgment on Sodom, and that may be alluded to in these verses, but only after their neglect of the poor and their pride.  So would it not be fair to assume that if God so judged Sodom, He has seen fit to inform us of the basis for that judgment, He might also judge nations today on that same basis?  Additionally consider, God sent Jonah to Nineveh to warn them of coming judgment, He sent Obadiah to Edom, and Amos spends the first two chapters of his book warning nations around Israel of God impending judgments.  Amos 3:2 does indicate that there is a higher standard of expectation for Israel than other nations because of their additional knowledge.  But those who violate basic codes of civility that should be clear to all can expect divine retribution.

If God will judge nations, then what should be the role of His People the Church in our world and political structure today?  I believe that our role is to be salt and light in a tasteless and dark world.  I don’t believe that we need to, or even should, demand that specific aspects of Old Testament Law be implemented as national policy.  But, we should present reasoned arguments for policies that reflect values consistent with those taught in Scripture.  If God is the creator of the physical universe in which we exist, He is also the creator of all human relationships and the guidance that He provides on functioning as a society is not intended to force conformity against our best interests but to allow us to function optimally.  But, the problem is that too often those who claim to represent a “Christian” perspective on political issues do so arrogantly and frequently incorrectly.  What are Biblical values and how do we get to know them?

We must get to know the Book and seek to understand the Truths that it contains.  I will offer only a couple of specific examples.  It is absolutely clear that God is concerned with the value of Justice.  I know few people today who would say that they are opposed to justice.  But, how do we determine what is just?  For far too many in the U.S. today justice is defined intuitively.  They just have a sense of what seems fair to them.  And, no one had better challenge their sense of what is just.  Example: I saw Newt on TV just this week again raising a mantra of the “right”, that we must abolish the “death tax” more correctly called the inheritance tax.  The argument is that this tax is unjust because according to their sense of justice a person should be free to pass what they, or their parents or grandparents, have earned on to their children.  It doesn’t conform to their sense of “justice”.  But, according to God’s revealed Law to Israel, The Year of Jubilee was established to assure that neither wealth nor poverty were hereditary.  This is a demonstration of God’s sense of justice and it is not the same as that of the “right” in the U.S.  Here again, I am not suggesting that what we need to do is to establish the Year of Jubilee as national economic policy.  What I am saying is that what we may think is justice may not be what God thinks is justice at all. 

What about the value advocated by many “Christians” in the U.S. today of patriotism.  Patriotism is categorically NOT a Biblical value.  We are told to be submissive to the government where we live.  I believe that we should be responsible and active citizens.  But, we are not told to “love” our country.  And, in fact “love” of country can frequently lead to behavior that clearly violates what are clearly Biblical values.  When we place more value on the life of a person who is from our own country than one from another country, we fail to appreciate that God so loved the world.  When we exploit the resources of poor nations so that we can support extravagant lifestyles, we violate our role as stewards.  When we advocate foreign policy base on our own economic or strategic interests, instead of the interests of the nations impacted by it we fail to act in love.

As I have written before, there is and will be plenty of room to discuss and disagree on some of the applications of trying to exert Godly influence in our world.  But, there can only be real, meaningful and constructive debate if it is based on knowledge and appreciation for the fact that God has spoken to these issues.

Numerous times when I have tried to raise the issue of God’s revealed will for the behavior of nations, it has been pointed out to me that the United States is not Israel and that the Laws that God established for that unique nation do not apply to the U.S..  Actually, I am in complete agreement that that assertion.  The Old Testament nation of Israel existed in a peculiar relationship with God.  Interestingly, it has been suggested more often by apologists for U.S. supremacy that the U.S. shares a similar relationship with God.  This was claimed with Manifest Destiny and at other times when it proved to be politically expedient.  But, I don’t believe it and I have never advocated that position.

A Lie from the Pit – Prosperity Theology

In my last post I mentioned, what I perceive to be, probably the most deceitful teaching at large in the Church today.  That is Prosperity Theology.  It goes by a number of different names and catch phrases, name it – claim it, seed giving, God wants you to be rich, etc.  They all boil down to basically the same thing.  It is taught by many of the TV preachers from Benny Hinn, to Kenneth Copeland, to Creflo Dollar, Richard Roberts, Paul Crouch, etc.   They all boil down to essentially, God wants all of His followers to be rich and the way that you can get yours from God is to give.  If you give then you will get.  Plant the seed.  If you want to harvest money, you have to plant money.  I mentioned before that I believe that there are striking parallels between this teaching today and the sale of indulgences in Europe prior to the Reformation.  I will elaborate.

First, the appeals of each are directed primarily to the poor and the Biblically ignorant.  Indulgences were not marketed to the wealthy but to those who had very little to begin with.  The prosperity teachers demonstrably derive the major portion of their income from the underclasses.  Think about it.  There is little appeal to gain wealth for those who already have what they need.  But, if you don’t know how you are going to pay the rent, the promise of abundance is great.  Second, both are based on nothing solid in Scripture and in fact ignore some very clear teaching in Scripture.  Third, the appeal is one based on emotional response rather than reason and the demand is generally made for an immediate response. 

In point of fact, I will assert that in at least two regards prosperity teaching is MORE evil than was the sale of indulgences.  At least the appeal of the sale of indulgences was to gain benefit for someone else.  Indulgences were marketed with the promise of freeing from the suffering of Purgatory the souls of deceased loved ones.  The appeal of prosperity teaching  is simply the personal acquisition of wealth.  And, at least the proceeds of the sale of indulgences were directed for the construction of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome.  Much of the gain from prosperity teaching buys mansions, fancy cars, and jet planes for the teachers themselves.  They callously justify their lavish lifestyles by saying that it is evidence of the “truth” that they teach and they are living the life that God desires for all.

If in fact, this were solid Biblical teaching one could expect that it would be taught at times other than when it accompanies an appeal for contributions to the one who is doing the teaching.  One would also expect that people would be encouraged to think about what has been said carefully, look into the Scripture and pray it through before making a decision to give.  I have never seen that done.

Please be aware of just how pervasive this teaching as become.  All that needs to be done is to watch Christian Broadcasting Network or Trinity Broadcasting Network.  A large percentage of the programming will include this teaching when they appeal for giving.  It is also seen on the smaller and local levels.  A few years ago a survey was done of those who consider themselves pentacostal/charismatic/full-gospel to determine what single belief was most common to those believers in those groups.  I would have expected to hear that it was speaking in tongues, Holy Spirit baptism, healing, or signs and wonders.  Ahead, of all of those was belief in prosperity teaching.  Something has gone very wrong in that part of the Body, but it is not only present there.  It is all over.  And to make matters worse we have been exporting this as well.  For obvious reasons, it has gained influence in the third world, among the poorest people. 

In the first half of the 16^th century the sale of indulgences in Europe was the single biggest factor leading to the Reformation.  Martin Luther confronted this abuse of the Catholic Church at the risk of his life.  He and others believed the issue was that important.  I believe that an equally strong response is appropriate to this evil that has gained such a deep foothold in the Church today.  But, few dare to speak out boldly.  Several years ago I was in a seminar lead by John Perkins.  He spoke to the evil of prosperity teaching.  When he allowed time for questions, I asked if it would be fair to declare this teaching a “lie straight from The Pit”.  John said he did not believe that was an overstatement.  I agree completely.

Economics in the Church

Contrary to what many might conclude based on the lack of intelligent discussion of the topic among Christians, the Bible has a great deal to say on the subject of economics.  The Old Testament Law is full of mandates on economic matters.  The Old Testament prophets pronounce strong condemnation of  the lack of economic justice.  And, the New Testament as well addresses economic practice in the Church.  For the context of this post, I am going to limit my comments to the issue of economics in the Church based on the New Testament practice and teaching.  More may follow later on the broader issues.

If there is any teaching at all in Church congregations today on the topic of economics, or giving, it is generally limited to one of two perspectives.  The very most evil of these two is the horrendous heresy of “Prosperity Theology” under one of its various labels.  This is not only not Biblical, it is an error that has many parallels to the selling of indulgences at the time of Martin Luther.  In fact it can be argued rather convincingly that it is even a greater evil than the one that precipitated the Reformation.  The second perspective that is commonly taught is that the Biblical requisite for giving in the tithe.  It is my belief that the tithe is also NOT intended to be the pattern of giving intended for the Church today.  I believe this because: A) Giving a tithe was never taught by Jesus in the Gospels nor is it taught anywhere in the rest of the New Testament.  B)  What Jesus did teach about giving was quite different from tithing.  He taught stewardship of all that we have and He illustrated giving by holding up as an example the widow who gave all that she had.  C)  Implicit in the concept of giving a tithe, is the assumption that by giving 10% we have fulfilled our obligation and the remainder is ours to do with as we choose.  So a Mitt Romney, though he is a Mormon and that distinction for another discussion and he is just being used as an example of a mindset, can report income of $43 million and give $4.3 and be left with $38.7 million to do as he wishes with.  D)  In the New Testament there were no church building to be constructed or maintained so much of what tithe teaching suggests the tithe be used for didn’t even exist during that portion of Church history.  In the Old Testament, no tithe or portion of a tithe was ever to be used for buildings.  I am not suggesting that therefore buildings are bad or that congregations should not own buildings, only that they should not be used as justification for teaching tithing.  E)  There is other teaching in the New Testament which offers a very different perspective on giving from the tithe that is generally ignored and I believe it needs to be taught and heeded.

I need to emphasize again for purposes of this writing, I am speaking only to the issue of economics within the Church.  To start, as much as many would like to, we cannot ignore the practice of the Church at Jerusalem in the early chapters of the book of Acts.  We are told that the members of the congregation there sold their possessions and brought the proceeds to the apostles for distribution to those who had need.  It also states that they held all things in common.  The word for common is the base of the word fellowship in Greek.  Those who are uncomfortable with this kind of communalism like to suggest that Ananias and Sapphira demonstrated the fact that this kind of utopianism didn’t work, and imply that the practice went away after that failure.  I would point out that there is no reason behind the assumption that the communal practice ended in Jerusalem after Ananias and Saphira, and quite to the contrary it was still in practice after that as evidenced by the need to appoint deacons chapters later.  The deacons role was specifically to distribute resources according to need.  So there was giving in the Church at Jerusalem and it seems to have been for two purposes, to provide sustenance for the apostles and to provide for the physical needs of the poor among them.  It is also very clear that the expected giving was not a tithe from everyone, but much more than that from some and nothing at all from others.

Some years later, the Church at Jerusalem was going through some very difficult economic times.  As Paul travelled he gathered offering in other cities from the believers to be sent to Jerusalem to meet their needs.  In writing to the Corinthian Church in the eighth chapter of his second letter to them, Paul sets forth a principle.  “I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their want, so that their abundance may supply your want, that there may be equality.  As it is written,’He who gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered little had no lack.’”  I am well aware that this is a very different perspective from the economic perspective of our culture at large.  This is very much why I wrote in my earlier blog about practicing different values from the culture in which we live.  Equality is Paul’s word and not mine.  It is Paul who is teaching redistribution of wealth.  It is Paul’s principle that economic resources should be flowing consistently from excess to need.  And Paul makes no provision for accumulation.  I have a good friend who put things very well when he said, “There is nothing wrong with making a lot of money.  The question is, are you a conduit or a reservoir?” 

I believe that the key principle for giving in the New Testament is – EXCESS SHOULD ALWAYS BE FLOWING TO NEED.  Now, I will admit that there is plenty of room for discussion as to how we should define excess and need.  I would welcome that discussion, but it hasn’t even started.  I can name examples in the very city where I live where resources taken from the neediest members of a congregation went toward buying extravagant homes for pastors.  Unfortunately sometimes the flow of resources goes in the wrong direction.  I believe that the resources possessed by the Church are sufficient to meet the needs of the Church.  But the problem is that the resources are often in the wrong places.  When Benny Hinn flies in his private jet and stays in hotel suites costing several thousand dollars a night, that takes resources from real needs.   I know well members of the Body who have lost homes because of outrageous medical bills.  Some members of the Body drive the latest BMW while others can’t afford a ten year old Toyota.  Something in this picture is very wrong.  What exactly would it look like if the Church practiced New Testament economics?  I am not completely certain.  But, it would be very different from the way it is today.