This blog serves as an outreach for Pastor Randy Powell of the First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA. Feel free to ask questions or send me an e-mail at pastorpowell@hotmail.com
God's promise to Abram about the land of Canaan is the foundation for a conversation about the challenging history and complicated present of this land and its people that leads to two resolutions: (1) The Jewish people have a right to live in this land, (2) everyone else who lives in this land deserves basic human rights and freedoms.
{“In war, whichever side may call itself the victor,
there are no winners, but all are losers.” - Neville Chamberlain That
quote would probably be better remembered if it wasn’t from Neville Chamberlain. The former British Prime Ministers is best
remembered for appeasing the maniac Adolf Hitler before WWII started. But Chamberlain wasn’t wrong. He was about Hitler in particular, there was
no bargaining with that evil man, but he was right about war. Even when it is necessary, even when it could
be deemed a righteous act of defending the weak against the strong, one doesn’t
“win” a war, one survives it, and hopefully limits the damage. That’s the situation that Israel has been
facing since October 7th of 2023: it can’t win, the only question is
how costly will survival be both to the Israelites themselves and to the Palestinians. The essay below is attempting to reason through
to that conclusion.}
Almost exactly six months ago, Israelis awoke to a
nightmare. Civilians in the southern part of the country, areas near the border
with Gaza, were under a brutal, ongoing attack. It would become the deadliest
day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust and a prelude to unspeakable
suffering on both sides of the border.
{To think and talk about the costs of the war against
Hamas that followed after October 7th is not to minimize the horror
of that day. The same is true for the
tragedies of 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. In each case an act of sudden evil caught a people
off-guard and led to a forceful and far greater response. In each case, moral questions were raised by
how the aggrieved party responded and by the unintended consequences of those
responses. The original moral evil in
all four instances has no excuse, no justification, no sympathy.}
Six months after Hamas launched that deadly rampage, knowing
that Israel’s response would be ferocious, there are only losers in this
terrible war.
It’s hard now to find many winners with the death toll
mounting among Gazans and hunger growing in the strip. And with Israeli
hostages still held captive, perhaps in dank Hamas tunnels.
{As it was with WWI, WWII, and the War on Terror, so
it has been in Israel and Gaza. War
takes on a life of its own, one action leads to another, one cost justifies
another. WWI left an entire generation
decimated and cynical, it weakened institutions that were necessary for
civilization leaving them unable to stop the march toward WWII. WWII gave us not only the firebombing of
entire cities, but the atomic bomb and the Holocaust as well. The scale of the War on Terror was much
smaller than WWI and WWII, but it still left us with the Patriot Act, drone
strikes across the globe, seemingly endless war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
the shame of Abu Ghraib. Looking back
upon history, each response appears solidly unavoidable, each war a product of choices
made at the time that felt reasonable, but if that is indeed true and such
death and destruction was the inevitable result of what had preceded it, we
still must count the cost to both the innocent who suffered alongside the perpetrators
and how fighting those wars changed us as well.
It is in this vein that All Quiet on the Western Front and
Slaughterhouse Five were written, among many others. And so, it is entirely reasonable to look at
the Israel/Hamas War after six months and count the cost, to remind ourselves
that history teaches us that we should not expect to find any winners.}
For Hamas, the fact that war continues may count as a
victory, but thousands of Hamas’ fighters — the exact number is disputed — have
been killed. Hamas may be decimated, perhaps unable to hold on to power, but
that’s no victory for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is under
growing global pressure and besieged by protesters at home, and whose legacy
will be forever darkened.
Even US President Joe Biden has paid a price, caught in an
election-year political vise between those who think he is too supportive of
Israel and those who think he has been too critical.
The strife has also detonated a worldwide explosion of
antisemitism, reviving a hatred that had lain lightly dormant. It’s causing
anxiety across Europe, and leading some American Jews to conclude that one
country where they had felt safe is no longer a haven, as they face
antisemitism from the left and the right. Anti-Muslim bigotry has also
increased.
This awful chapter started on October 7 last year, when
Hamas terrorists breached what was supposed to be a secure border and
slaughtered Israelis in their beds, in their living rooms, in their cars, at an
outdoor music festival and bus shelters and parks.
They raped countless women with horrifying brutality.
Israeli security forces were nowhere to be found for hours.
Hamas — the Iran-allied group that rules Gaza — killed more than 1,200 Israelis
and dragged back hundreds more as hostages. The area lay in ruins. Israelis’
sense of security had been shattered.
Today, it is Gaza that lies in ruins, tens of thousands of
Palestinians killed by Israel in its quest to uproot and destroy Hamas. As
Israel crushes Gaza, its global reputation is getting shattered. But still the
IDF believes around 100 Israeli hostages remain captive of Hamas and other
militants in conditions that one shudders to imagine.
This week’s Israeli strike on a World Central Kitchen (WCK)
convoy, killing seven aid workers, adds to the calamity of this convulsion in
the perennially unstable crossroads of the Middle East. Amid the outrage and
heartbreak, WCK’s founder, celebrity chef José Andrés, accuses Israel of
targeting his staff. Israel has apologized, saying the convoy was
misidentified. Israel has fired two officers and reprimanded senior commanders
after an inquiry into the strike.
{The cost has been high. Evil like that unleashed on October 7th
against innocent men, women, and children always leads to a ripple effect of
costs, nearly always spirals out of control.
Inevitable? Perhaps, but still
horrific, still worthy of lament.}
There was never any question that Israel would respond to
October 7. It had been attacked by a group that promised it would repeat the
massacre of Israelis and is backed by Iran, a country whose leaders have vowed
to destroy Israel. The attack led some there to conclude that whatever price
Israel should pay for absolute victory — including in global public opinion —
it is worth paying. Besides, the attackers kidnapped hundreds of its citizens,
including women, children and the elderly. Israel needed to save them.
{I remember the days after 9/11. There was never any doubt that wherever these
terrorists were hiding, American bombs and bullets would find them. That day’s shock and horror gave rise quickly
to songs and slogans about stomping on terrorists, and to a sudden rise in
anti-Islamic sentiment among a people who previously had spent little time
thinking about Islam. Likewise, Israel
was going to respond, and with much greater force than Hamas had employed
(because of the limits of Hamas’ resources, not a limit on its hatred, they’ve
stated many times their desire to kill all Jews).
This is not the response envisioned by Jesus when he
commanded us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. Even if a government needs to respond with
war to protect its citizens, the hatred that war gives birth to in the hearts
of the people who were attacked is a tragedy.
Few times in Church history has the response to evil been forgiveness
and mercy. Individuals have responded to
their own suffering, even martyrdom, with Christ-like forgiveness, but rarely has
this translated to a whole people.
Sadly, when our nation experienced tragedy similar to what Israel has
just lived through, the Church in America wasn’t able (much of it wasn't willing) to be a voice of reconciliation after 9/11, myself included. The desire for justice, even messy justice
that says, “Kill them all, let God sort them out” is a powerful
enticement. The path of peace after
injustice is brutally hard, for this reason we are in awe of those like Nelson
Mandela who choose it instead of vengeance.}
In the immediate aftermath, world leaders expressed support
for Israel. But when the death toll in Gaza starting climbing, as Hamas knew it
would, international support for Israel turned to withering criticism. In the
most painful irony of all, Israel — the country that became home to Holocaust
survivors, under attack by a group whose original charter outlined a genocidal
ideology and a vow to destroy Israel — was itself perversely accused of
genocide.
{Entirely predictable.
The initial support followed by eventual criticism as the death and
destruction continued is the exact same pattern that America experienced after
9/11. The primary difference between the
two stories is that the reality of global antisemitism gave Israel a shorter runway between sympathy
and criticism, i.e. a much briefer window to respond to terrorism before
criticism, justifiable or not, began to mount.}
As always, the greatest suffering, the biggest losers, have
been civilians on both sides. Palestinians in Gaza are enduring a living
nightmare. The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza says more than 30,000 have
been killed in the conflict. The figures don’t distinguish between combatants
and civilians, but there’s little doubt that horrifyingly large numbers of
them, including children, have been killed. The territory is a wasteland.
Gazans are caught between the cynicism of Hamas, the
geopolitical concerns of their Arab neighbors and Israel’s determination to win
at any cost. Hamas leaders, comfortable in exile, proclaimed early on that they
are “proud to sacrifice martyrs.” Hamas fighters embedded themselves in Gaza’s
population, including in hospitals, essentially daring Israel to kill civilians
to get to them.
In most wars, civilians would have been allowed to flee the
fighting, but the people of Gaza were not allowed to leave the territory
whether they wanted to or not. Hamas urged them to stay. Egypt, worried about
whether Israel would allow the people to return and concerned about instability
on its soil, closed its border to all but a small number of Palestinian
civilians.
The cruel fact is that the lives of Palestinians have not
been the highest priority for anyone in this war.
{It has always been this way in human history,
innocent civilians always pay the highest price in war. It has also always been true that the evil
men who sow the seeds of war rarely are the ones who pay the consequences, that’s
one of the reasons why they’re willing to start down that path in the first
place.}
Complicating the situation is the political crisis in
Israel, which preceded the October 7 attack. Netanyahu — a political survivor
who faces corruption charges — already presided over the most right-wing
government in Israel’s history. Before the war, tens of thousands of Israelis
took to the streets in nearly 10 months of weekly protests against a plan that
would have severely weakened Israeli democracy by stripping the Supreme Court
of much of its power.
Netanyahu was, in my view and others’, already the worst
prime minister in Israel’s history even before October 7.
Polls have found that most Israelis want him gone. Now Benny
Gantz, a member of the war cabinet but also the leading opposition figure
before the war, has called for new elections in September. Recent polling says
say he’s Netanyahu’s most likely successor.
Devastation in Gaza as Israel wages war on Hamas
The fact that Netanyahu is heading the government during one
of the most dangerous, most damaging times in Israel’s history only adds to the
disturbing nature of this conflict. Israel is not in good hands.
Would another leader, a different government, have been able
to conduct the war with fewer civilian deaths, with less damage to Israel’s
global standing, without eroding the vital relationship between Israel and the
United States? I suspect the answer is yes.
{Few leaders are up to the task of shepherding their
people through a time of war and at the same time minimizing the cost that it exacts
from both their own people and the civilians on the other side. While it is true that Netanyahu has numerous
critics both in Israel and beyond, I think the essay strays in this section
away from the salient and necessary conversation about the cost of war itself.}
If there’s any glimmer of hope in this dispiriting landscape
it is that the young Abraham Accords — which normalized relations between
Israel and some of its Arab neighbors — have survived the toughest of stress
tests. That augurs well for the long run, for more stability of the region,
eventually.
{What lies on the other side of this war? None know for certain. If there is a path to a wider peace between
Israel and its neighbors, it will feel like a miracle. We can hope that the horrors of this war will
make it harder to start the next one.}
It opens the door to the possibility that once this war is
over, once the post-war phase — whatever that looks like — also comes to an
end, there could be a new architecture that leads to peace. For that to happen,
however, two of the many losing protagonists in this conflict, Hamas and
Netanyahu, cannot remain in power.
{We have set aside time in our worship services each
Sunday since October 7th to pray for Israel and Gaza, for the Jews
and the Palestinians, for Christians, Muslims, and followers of Judaism in the
Holy Land. As I lead these prayers, my
focus is primarily upon those suffering from the war, on both sides, pleading
to God to protect them. I also pray for
a just and lasting peace, admitting in my prayers that I don’t know how we get
from here to there. Which leaders would
it require and what choices would they need to make? That answer is in God’s hands alone. I don’t know if peace is possible with
Netanyahu as the Prime Minister of Israel, because nobody really knows the
answer to that question. And so, rather
than calling for specific steps, my prayers leave the “how” in the hands of God,
and focus instead on the ordinary people whose lives have been forever changed
by this violence, may they be protected, comforted, and healed, and may peace
prevail even after the horrors of war.}
{Lastly, talking to my Bible Study group and leading
FB Live prayers just after October 7th, I said, “There are no good
choices left.” I then explained that whatever
the government of Israel did next, the choices would all be bad, and the cost
high. The same calculus existed for the
Palestinians, they would only have bad choices left to them after what Hamas
had done. That wasn’t prophecy, simply an
awareness of history because humanity has seen this cycle play out over and
over again. Unfortunately, this time
hasn’t been an exception to the rule, this war has been like so many others
that preceded it. Whatever happens next,
let us pray for those in need, let us hope for justice and peace.}
Having taken the trip of a lifetime to visit Israel and the Holy Land this previous May, I instantly ordered this book when I came across it this fall. What then are my takeaways about Lawler's book?
1. He isn't writing from a Christian, Muslim, or Jewish perspective, this book isn't designed to bolster the claims of universal truth from any of them.
Archaeology being what it is, one part science and one part storytelling, Lawler's approach serves him well on this front. He is able to talk honestly about both the finds that confirmed the narratives of each group, and the ones that confounded them, as well as present the characters who organized, funded, analyzed, or protested the digs under Jerusalem beginning in the 19th century according to the reputation their actions have earned, whether that be of a villain or a hero.
2. Even if you have visited Jerusalem, as I have, there is bound to be something shocking and/or wonderful in this book for you to still learn.
Part of me wishes I had read the book before we went, so I could have looked for some of the sites whose digs he describes, another part of me is glad I went there with less pre-conceived notions so I was able to soak in whatever my eyes were telling me.
3. While the book is written and published, the story of archeology under Jerusalem is, if anything, accelerating.
It was remarkable how much of the book takes place in the 21st century, and how many of the excavations he describes are still ongoing to this day. More "shocking discoveries" in Jerusalem are inevitable, as are, sadly, more explosions of anger and violence because of them.
4. Our tour guide in Israel emphasized over and over the layered nature of the area's history, how the new was built on top of the old again and again. In Jerusalem, as emphasized in my recent seminar {What Every Christian Should Know About: The Holy Land} the layers run very deep, and each tells a story even if those digging are only interested in a fraction of it.
Overall, I'd highly recommend this book to anyone seeking to better understand the city in which much of the Bible's events take place, and the place where many of its pages were written.
In addition to the unexpected roles of prophet and priest, the long-awaited Messiah would also be what the people hoped for: An heir to David's throne. At the time this prophecy was given, however, the people of Israel were facing the greatest crisis of their nation's history with the impending doom of God's judgment in the form of Babylon's invading armies close to hand. Yet even while the prophet Jeremiah was sent to warn them of this coming destruction, God also shared with Jeremiah this promise of hope in the coming of the Messiah.
But, what about the promised kingdom, how can Jesus be the Messiah without ruling on David's throne? Indeed, Jesus was not concerned during his sojourn among us about establishing a physical kingdom in defiance of Rome, rather he wholly invested his time (and ultimately his very life) in establishing a spiritual kingdom. However, when Jesus returns it will be to rule, to establish the righteous and just kingdom that Jeremiah promised, those promises stand and will be fulfilled.
There is a simple and excellent reason why the creation of the Church and the instituting of the New Covenant, both at the direction of Jesus Christ, is not a replacement of Israel: God's promises are irrevocable. What God has promised cannot be undone. God promised Abraham that he would bless his descendants, always, and so that promise will remain in effect until the end of time.
That doesn't mean God can't change the way in which his blesses Israel, hence the culmination of the Mosaic Law which Jesus fulfilled, and the bringing of God's new covenant people, Jew and Gentile alike, into one family by faith through grace.
What is the relationship between the Church and Israel? In order to understand the purpose and mission of the Church, it is necessary that we understand how it fits into God's redemptive plan. Paul provides answers to this question through the analogy of broken off and grafted-in branches with a common olive tree root.
Contrary to the false teachings of the First Fruits of Zion (Hebrew Roots Movement), the root is NOT the Law of Moses, but rather the promise to Abraham which preceded it by over 400 years. God built the Church upon a promise, not a Law, upon his grace {See the book of Hebrews for the fullest development of these themes in Scripture}.
How then do we relate to Israel? Those Jews who believe in Jesus are our brother and sisters in Christ, those who reject Jesus are the children of God who have wandered from home, and we as God's adopted children must treat our position with humility, and those whom God has promised to one day restore (the Jews that don't believe in Jesus) as family.
When the majority of the Israelite people in Paul's generation rejected Jesus as Messiah, did God give up on them? Absolutely not. God continued to work with the faithful remnant (see previous sermon in this series) and remained faithful to his promise to Abraham by reserving a future time of restoration.
But what did God do in the meantime? The era in which we now live is known as the Church Age, is was proceeded by the era of the Mosaic Covenant, and will last until the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom. During this era God's work with the Gentiles, aside from its straightforward purpose of leading countless people to salvation, is also a method of using the jealously of God's covenant people (i.e. the descendants of Abraham, that is, Jews) to draw them toward faith in Jesus. Why? Because God's love for them, as a people called to his purpose, remains.
 |
| Masada: Looking across to the Dead Sea to the mountains of Moab |
 |
| The Jordan River, we've got two bigger river flowing through Franklin |
 |
| Looking across the Sea of Galilee, we'd call it a lake here. |
Because important things in the Bible, and especially in the life of Jesus, took place around (as well as upon and in) these bodies of water, they have an outsized place in our collective imaginations that looms larger than what familiarity with them would have otherwise given.
Another way to look at it, however, is to wrap your mind around how important these two bodies are water are in this land precisely because freshwater is scarce. The Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River have been vital to life in the Holy Land for thousands of years, and remain so today, even if they look unremarkable to those who, like me, grew up on a peninsula surrounded by the Great Lakes.
The picture from the top of Masada emphasizes that the Jordan River Valley, like its namesake river, isn't all that wide (further upstream it is narrower even than this). As we journeyed south from the Sea of Galilee toward Jericho, it was easy enough to see both side of the river valley from our bus windows. At times the two hilly/mountainous regions that the river runs between were no more than a couple miles apart, the fertile valley (thanks to the river) between them only a farm or two wide.
For Americans, in particular, used to the vast Great Plains, the Mighty Mississippi, and trips in the car where you can drive for hour after hour without seeing much change in the landscape, this truncated scale takes getting used to.
Lastly, while it is indeed a small land when compared to other places on the planet, the events described in the Bible were taking place at a walking pace, we might be able to drive from Galilee to Jerusalem in considerably less time than it takes to cross Ohio on I80 (mores the pity: it is obligatory to make as many Ohio jokes as possible when you grew up in the Mitten), but it still took a goodly number of days to make that journey on foot.
When his Covenant people rejected the Messiah, how did God respond? Did he reject them and walk away? No, God continued to be faithful by working with the remnant that did accept Jesus. God did the same thing in Elijah's day, working with a faithful remnant to continue through a period of darkness (i.e. the reign of Ahab).
The same thing holds true in the Church Age. During generations of turmoil or faithlessness, God has held true with his remnant. Whatever comes in the future, God will continue to keep his promises to the Church, continuing to work with those who by grace have been called.
There were many things that Nicole and I experienced during our seven days in Israel this May, all manner of insights and wisdom were available to us as we toured site after site connected to the stories of the Bible, and the life of Jesus in particular. I won't try to list them all here, they're better one at a time with context, so let me just share one observation that jumped out at me again and again during our trip:
The Church is global.
I know, I already knew that, and I hope you did too, but it is the kind of truth that sometimes slips from our minds and hearts as we naturally focus in upon the needs and issues facing our own slice of that global entity and begin to think that most Christians look, think, and act as we do.
At many of the sites we visited, such as the one pictured above at the Church of the Primacy on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, there were these pavilions set aside that tour groups could reserve for a time of instruction, prayer, or worship. In other words, there are so many groups coming to these places to visit them that those who are the custodians of these sacred spaces have invested resources into setting aside spaces for them. We often saw them being utilized, and took advantage of a number of them ourselves (such as at the Garden Tomb, pictured below)
What these pavilions don't immediately reveal is the great diversity of peoples making use of them. English was the minority language in use, people who look like most of our group were not the norm, and frankly the Western Church was less often represented than the South American, African, and Asian. While waiting to visit various places we had fascinating interactions with brothers and sisters in Christ from Brazil, Nigeria, India, and South Korea.
In fact, just after the picture above was taken, our group celebrated communion at the Garden Tomb site, and while we did so we could hear a nearby group lifting up, "In Christ Alone" in song through deeply accented English. Thanks to the layout of the area, we couldn't quite see them, but a number of us began to quietly sing along; it was beautiful.
Statistics about the Global Church are useful, they paint a two dimensional picture, but actually standing in the midst of men and women from all over the world to whom Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, all as eager to learn about the places he visited as we were, really drives home in a powerful way the wondrous breadth of the universal Church.
Having extolled the wonders of God's love for those who have been called to faith in Jesus in chapter 8, the Apostle Paul begins a 3 chapter exploration of those close to his heart who have not believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: His own people.
What kept the first century Israelites from accepting Jesus as the Messiah?
It wasn't a lack of preparation, Paul runs through that extensive list. And it wasn't a failure on God's part to fulfill his Word, as Jesus was the ultimate fulfillment of prophecy after prophecy. So what happened?
In this introductory message we see that far from being a unique generation, the one that rejected Jesus is symptomatic of not only the Israelites as a whole throughout their history, but importantly, of humanity as a whole too. The reaction to Jesus would have been similar in any nation in any generation.
What do we do? Love those who have not yet believed, witness to them, and keep praying for them.
A little bit of biblical interpretation can be a dangerous thing when placed in the service of an agenda. In this case, the Hebrew Roots Movement in the form of the First Fruits of Zion and their Torah Clubs, want to convince the Church that contrary to Christian orthodox understanding, the root that gentile believers in Jesus Christ have been grafted onto is Israel (the Mosaic Covenant in particular) and not the Abrahamic Covenant (God's redemptive plan for Jews and Gentiles from the beginning).
"What is not debatable is that all, believers already have citizenship in Israel through faith in Messiah. Non-Jews are grafted into Israel. Non-Jews are made part of the commonwealth of Israel." - Boaz Michael, Founder and President of FFOZ
Why does the difference between the promise to Abraham before he became the father of many nations, and the promise to the Israelites at Sinai when God called them to be a people set apart for his purpose, matter so much? The answer is simple: If Christians are grafted onto God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 {"I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”}, the basis of that relationship with God, faith, predates both circumcision in the life of Abraham (by decades, see Romans 4:9-12) and the giving of the Law of Moses to Israel by 430 years (see Galatians 3:17). The only way, then, to insist that the New Covenant was designed to require gentile Christians to live like Jews (keeping the Law of Moses, or Torah), is to interpret passages like Romans 11 in a way contrary to not only the context itself (see Romans 4 where the FFOZ view of Romans 11 falls apart), but the tenor and tone of the New Testament in general (see Paul in Galatians, or Hebrews), and the way in which they have been understood throughout Church history.
The change, from viewing the root as the promise to Abraham to that made to his descendants at Sinai, may seem small enough to those who don't see the implications right away. To say that gentiles are grafted into Israel rather than into the faith demonstrated by Abraham, a faith in a promised Messiah rather than trust in a legal code, does in fact change the relationship between the Church and God in fundamental ways. Let us look at Romans 11.
Romans 11:17-24 New International Version
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
Looking at this passage, the first question when pondering the analogy as the FFOZ views it should be: How can Israel be the root that nourishes the plant AND the branch that was cut off for unbelief at the same time? Does the Apostle Paul normally make such sloppy illustrations? No, he does not.
The second question should be: Was Israel (the Mosaic Covenant) the beginning of God's redemptive plan, or a subsequent iteration? Aside from the promise to Eve in Genesis 3:15 (And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”), the first substantial movement toward God's redemption of humanity is the calling of Abraham, by faith, and the establishment of God's covenant with Abraham, one that promises blessings to all nations. This is the root of Romans 11, this is the foundation upon which God built both the Old Covenant at Sinai and the New Covenant established by Jesus. In the New Covenant, Christians join Abraham in sharing in God's promise by faith, they are NOT called to share in Israel's Law, which is a branch that grew out of the Abrahamic faith-based root. It makes no sense to claim that Israel (Mosaic Law/Torah) is the root of the New Covenant when both Galatians and Hebrews go to great lengths to demonstrate the superiority of the New Covenant and its connection not to Moses and Sinai but to Abraham.
So what we have here with the Torah Clubs (FFOZ) is the re-interpretation of a passage to arrive at a pre-determined outcome that twists the original purpose, and traditional view, back on itself to arrive at a nearly opposite conclusion. In our research as a ministerium, we saw this flawed hermeneutic being utilized again and again. The self-proclaimed goal of this movement is to put the yoke of the Mosaic Law upon the necks of gentile Christians, twisting scripture is the methodology used to promote it. This is both unacceptable and exceedingly dangerous, that other Christian and self-proclaimed 'Christian' individuals and groups make similar eisegetical (reading into the text) self-serving interpretations in other places relating to other issues {looking at you, Prosperity Gospel and 'Christian' Nationalism} is no defense for the FFOZ, it simply reminds us that abuse of God's Word is an equal opportunity error.
This is not a harmless Bible study, this is a movement that believes it was chosen by God to reform the Church, turning it into something it never was, and something it was never meant to be. We, as Christians, are the heirs of the promise to Abraham, not the Law of Moses.
One of the reasons why heresy never dies, apart from the ongoing darkness of the human heart and mind, is that subsequent generations are ignorant that our ancestors in the faith faced substantially the same false teachings, rejected them, and triumphed over those advocating false teachings. For example: If the modern Church were more familiar with Athanasius I of Alexandria's complete success in refuting Arianism, the Church would have readily recognized this same heresy when it resurfaced in the 19th century among the Jehovah's Witnesses, its people would have shunned this new teaching (even more than they did), and perhaps it would not have established itself to ensnare the unsuspecting as it does to this day. But I digress, the Church, as a whole, does do a poor job of remembering its history and learning from it (as does humanity as a whole).
Which brings us to the modern heretical ideas gathered under the umbrella of the name: Hebrew Roots Movement. While this movement has within it much variety, and little to no structure or hierarchy, it shares in general the repetition of the errors of several groups that the Early Church Fathers confronted and whose teachings were rejected as unorthodox by the Church. One such group was the Ebionites. The Hebrew Roots Movement and the Ebionites share some theological reasonings and conclusions, but not all. So why bring them up together? They both professed the desire/need/requirement for gentile followers of Jesus Christ to embrace the Mosaic Law as part of righteous discipleship. In as much as the Early Church Fathers addressed this error then, we can apply their wisdom to its modern revival.
The following are among the many relevant excerpts from these writings, with the links to the full PDF so you can examine it further:
Ignatius of Antioch, d - 108 AD, Letter to the Magnesians, chapter 8
Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace. For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word {Emphasis mine}
Commentary: Here Ignatius, a second generation Christian that traditions says learned directly from the aged Apostle John, states point-blank that living according to the Jewish law, and all that it entails, is proof that a disciple of Jesus Christ has not received grace. To Ignatius it was clear that trying to live under the Law of Moses, and the grace of faith in Jesus Christ, were incompatible.
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, chapter 10
It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God...It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism. For Christ is one, in whom every nation that believes, and every tongue that confesses, is gathered unto God. And those that were of a stony heart have become the children of Abraham, the friend of God; and in his seed all those have been blessed who were ordained to eternal life in Christ. {Emphasis mine}
Commentary: Two strong statements here, (1) that the Hebrew Roots Movement has it backwards when it claims Christianity must return to its roots in Judaism, rather Ignatius reminds his readers that those living under the Law of Moses were called by John the Baptist, and then Jesus himself, to repent and believe. It was not business as usual, not simply a reform of Judaism put forth by Jesus, but a new covenant that he came to establish. Ignatius believed this so strongly that he, (2) declares that Judaism itself, the religious practice built around the Law of Moses, has "come to an end." {Given the antisemitism that arose long after Ignatius, we need to be reminded that this is a theological statement only regarding the efficacy of New Covenant's ability to abrogate the Old , NOT a call to deny the religious rights of those who choose to follow Judaism in our world today, something we should all be willing to strive to protect.}
Justin Martyr, 100-165 AD, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 10
“Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed, than this, that we live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do?...{Trypho's criticism of Christianity:} "But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments. Have you not read, that that soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day? And this has been ordained for strangers and for slaves equally. But you, despising this covenant rashly, reject the consequent duties, and attempt to persuade yourselves that you know God, when, however, you perform none of those things which they do who fear God." {Emphasis mine}
Commentary: In Justin Martyr's dialogue with the Jewish apologist Trypho (most likely a fictionalized version of those with whom the author had spoken), we see clearly that Justin Martyr is portraying Christianity, then in only its second generation, with many leaders who had learned directly from the eyewitness Apostles themselves, as having nothing to do with the ceremonial aspects of the Law of Moses (Sabbath keeping, circumcision, festivals). Trypho goes so far as to claim that the Christians "despised" the Mosaic covenant and rejected all the duties it entails. IF (it isn't true, but for the sake of the hypothetical) as the Hebrew Roots Movement claims, the Early Church practiced Judaism by the design and purpose of Jesus and the Apostles, it didn't last long {there is no evidence they ever did}, by the second generation the line between Christianity and Judaism was clearly drawn, the rejection of the Law of Moses for gentile believers firmly established in the surviving documentation. {FYI, the Hebrew Roots Movement often claims that this 'change' occurred only much later under Emperor Constantine, 200 years after Justin Martyr, a position that is absurd on its face.}
Epistle to Diognetus (author unknown), 130 AD, chapters 3-4
But as to their scrupulosity concerning meats, and their superstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about circumcision, and their fancies about fasting and the new moons, which are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice,–I do not think that you require to learn anything from me. For, to accept some of those things which have been formed by God for the use of men as properly formed, and to reject others as useless and redundant,–how can this be lawful? And to speak falsely of God, as if He forbade us to do what is good on the Sabbath-days,–how is not this impious? And to glory in the circumcision of the flesh as a proof of election, and as if, on account of it, they were specially beloved by God,–how is it not a subject of ridicule? And as to their observing months and days, as if waiting upon the stars and the moon, and their distributing, according to their own tendencies, the appointments of God, and the vicissitudes of the seasons, some for festivities, and others for mourning,–who would deem this a part of divine worship, and not much rather a manifestation of folly? {Emphasis mine}
Commentary: This letter's unknown author considered the very idea that Christians should concern themselves with the kinds of things that Paul wrote against in Galatians to be, "utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice".
Irenaeus, 130-202 AD, Bishop of Lyon: Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) chapter 26
Chapter XXVI.—Doctrines of Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and Nicolaitanes. (pg. 73 on the PDF)
2. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions
with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel
according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate
from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular
manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined
by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the
house of God. {Emphasis mine}
Commentary: Irenaeus here writes against the Ebionites, a sect he most strongly rejected as heretical, describing among their various flaws the, "observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law". To Irenaeus, that the Ebionites claimed to be following Jesus Christ while still living a lifestyle of Judaism, was at the heart of why they should be opposed.
Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), book 4, chapter 13
as He does Himself declare: “Unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” For what meant the excess referred to? In the first place, [we must] believe not only in the Father, but also in His Son now revealed; for He it is who leads man into fellowship and unity with God. In the next place, [we must] not only say, but we must do; for they said, but did not. And [we must] not only abstain from evil deeds, but even from the desires after them. Now He did not teach us these things as being opposed to the law, but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us the varied righteousness of the law. That would have been contrary to the law, if He had commanded His disciples to do anything which the law had prohibited. But this which He did command—namely, not only to abstain from things forbidden by the law, but even from longing after them—is not contrary to [the law], as I have remarked, neither is it the utterance of one destroying the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and affording greater scope to it.
2. For the law, since it was laid down for those in bondage, used to instruct the soul by means of those corporeal objects which were of an external nature, drawing it, as by a bond, to obey its commandments, that man might learn to serve God. But the Word set free the soul, and taught that through it the body should be willingly purified. Which having been accomplished, it followed as of course, that the bonds of slavery should be removed, to which man had now become accustomed, and that he should follow God without fetters: moreover, that the laws of liberty should be extended, and subjection to the king increased, so that no one who is converted should appear unworthy to Him who set him free, but that the piety and obedience due to the Master of the household should be equally rendered both by servants and children; while the children possess greater confidence [than the servants], inasmuch as the working of liberty is greater and more glorious than that obedience which is rendered in [a state of] slavery.
4. Inasmuch, then, as all natural precepts are common to us and to them (the Jews), they had in them indeed the beginning and origin; but in us they have received growth and completion. For to yield assent to God, and to follow His Word, and to love Him above all, and one’s neighbour as one’s self (now man is neighbour to man), and to abstain from every evil deed, and all other things of a like nature which are common to both [covenants], do reveal one and the same God. But this is our Lord, the Word of God, who in the first instance certainly drew slaves to God, but afterwards He set those free who were subject to Him, as He does Himself declare to His disciples: “I will not now call you servants, for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends, for all things which I have heard from My Father I have made known.” For in that which He says, “I will not now call you servants,” He indicates in the most marked manner that it was Himself who did originally appoint for men that bondage with respect to God through the law, and then afterwards conferred upon them freedom. And in that He says, “For the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth,” He points out, by means of His own advent, the ignorance of a people in a servile condition. {Emphasis mine}
Commentary: Here Irenaeus offers the rationale as to why the Mosaic Law must be rejected as incompatible with faith in Jesus Christ: Jesus fulfilled the Law, setting us free from it to live according to the Spirit. After Pentecost, we don't NEED the Law's tutelage anymore.
Tertullian, 155-220 AD, An Answer to the Jews, chapter 2
For why should God, the founder of the universe, the Governor of the whole world, the Fashioner of humanity, the Sower of universal nations be believed to have given a law through Moses to one people, and not be said to have assigned it to all nations? For unless He had given it to all by no means would He have habitually permitted even proselytes out of the nations to have access to it. But—as is congruous with the goodness of God, and with His equity, as the Fashioner of mankind—He gave to all nations the selfsame law, which at definite and stated times He enjoined should be observed, when He willed, and through whom He willed, and as He willed...For the subsequent superinduction of a law is the work of the same Being who had before premised a precept; since it is His province withal subsequently to train, who had before resolved to form, righteous creatures. For what wonder if He extends a discipline who institutes it? if He advances who begins?...And let us not annul this power which God has, which reforms the law’s precepts answerably to the circumstances of the times, with a view to man’s salvation. {Emphasis mine}
Commentary: Tertullian answers an objection offered by the Hebrew Roots Movement in their claim that the Mosaic Law is permanent. Is God not God? Cannot he who instituted the Law also reform it and then declare it fulfilled? Cannot God give a new and better way according to his purpose and wisdom? The giving of the Law of Moses at Sinai is not a straightjacket limiting God's will moving forward.
Origen, 185-253 AD, Contra Celsum, Book 2, chapter 4
Now, certainly the introduction to Christianity is through the Mosaic worship and the prophetic writings; and after the introduction, it is in the interpretation and explanation of these that progress takes place, while those who are introduced prosecute their investigations into the mystery according to revelation, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest in the Scriptures of the prophets, and by the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. But they who advance in the knowledge of Christianity do not, as you allege, treat the things written in the law with disrespect. On the contrary, they bestow upon them greater honour, showing what a depth of wise and mysterious reasons is contained in these writings, which are not fully comprehended by the Jews, who treat them superficially, and as if they were in some degree even fabulous. And what absurdity should there be in our system — that is, the Gospel— having the law for its foundation, when even the Lord Jesus Himself said to those who would not believe upon Him: If you had believed Moses, you would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how shall you believe My words? Nay, even one of the evangelists— Mark — says: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who shall prepare Your way before You, which shows that the beginning of the Gospel is connected with the Jewish writings. What force, then, is there in the objection of the Jew of Celsus, that if any one predicted to us that the Son of God was to visit mankind, he was one of our prophets, and the prophet of our God? Or how is it a charge against Christianity, that John, who baptized Jesus, was a Jew? For although He was a Jew, it does not follow that every believer, whether a convert from heathenism or from Judaism, must yield a literal obedience to the law of Moses. {Emphasis mine}
Commentary: Here Origen counters yet another false narrative leveled against Christianity by the Hebrew Roots Movement: Christianity, in its orthodox form, disrespects the Law. Origen dismisses this charge, rightly proclaiming the value of God's work prior to the Incarnation, and at the same time, rejecting the notion that acknowledging the debt that Christianity owes to Judaism (as Paul does in Romans) in any way obligates Christians to obey the Law of Moses.
Eusebius, d 339 AD, Church Historian: Church History, volume III, chapter 27
Chapter 27. The Heresy of the Ebionites.
1. The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ.
2. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.
3. There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law.
4. These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.
5. The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord's days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour.
6. Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews.
{Emphasis mine}
Commentary: Here the great historian of the Early Church, Eusebius, writes about the Ebionites, once more detailing their desire to live in adherence to the Mosaic Law, a stance that was rejected in the generations before Eusebius wrote of it.
In the end, there is a vast host of Early Church commentary related to the subject of the Law of Moses. Looking across the breadth and depth of it, one would search in vain to find orthodox voices in support of anything resembling the notion put forth (to varying degrees) by those within the Hebrew Roots Movement, that the Mosaic Law has any kind of claim to obedience upon the gentile followers of Jesus Christ. If we did not have available to us the wisdom of the Early Church Fathers to illuminate how they practiced their faith, that the Hebrew Roots Movement is dangerously wrong on this issue could still more than sufficiently be demonstrated from the Gospels, the book of Acts, and the letters of the New Testament itself. We have enough internal evidence, from God's Word, to close the case, the external evidence from Early Church history is to us an added layer of certainty, demonstrating that our interpretation of scripture is in alignment with that of our ancestors in the faith. The Early Church sounded rejected the notion, put forth by various sects they rightly deemed heretical, that followers of Jesus Christ are in any way obligated to live under the Law of Moses.
Additional Resources:
Psalm 47:7-8 New International Version
7 For God is the King of all the earth;
sing to him a psalm of praise.
8 God reigns over the nations;
God is seated on his holy throne.
God as "King of all the earth" is a foundational aspect of the Judeo-Christian worldview. God has no rivals and certainly no equals. The position and dominion of God is secure, always has been, always will be. And yet, 'Christian' Nationalism brings the Kingdom of God down into the trenches, pitting nation against nation, viewing the rise of America (or England, the Holy Roman Empire, Rome, etc. before us) as the flowering of God's purposes, and the potential fall of the favored nation as the withering of God's will. How can this be? Does God not rule the whole earth? Is his purpose not accomplished in every nation?
One of the reasons why 'Christian' Nationalism fails to see the big picture is egocentrism, the belief that God's will must revolve around us and our nation because we're just that important (as compared to other peoples and nations of the world, whom God evidently cares much less about). This was, at times, a flaw of ancient Israel as well, one that Holy Scripture punctures in the story of the prophet Jonah. The entire book of Jonah is a withering rebuke of Israelite nationalists whose concern about humanity stopped at the boundary of their own ethnicity. God's concern did not end there, however. As the prophet Jonah throws a tantrum while watching God's mercy against Nineveh unfold, the book ends with this line:
Jonah 4:11 New International Version
And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?”
The view of Jonah was far too narrow for God, spending three nights in the belly of the great beast of the sea didn't cure him of his folly, so the book ends with us wondering if he hardened his heart following God's rebuke, or repented.
Likewise, the Gospels contain numerous examples in the actions and words of Jesus that refute the notion that God's focus on one nation means that others fall through the cracks. Two prime examples being Jesus' discussion with the Woman at the Well and the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
Lastly, there is one caveat to this discussion, one that will be dealt with numerous times in the texts yet to come in this series: Israel had a covenant with God. Abraham's descendants did have a relationship with God that held promises of great favor AND a stricter level of scrutiny regarding their actions. Israel is the exception to the rule, but as Jonah learned the hard way, the special status of Israel did not remove the other nations of the world from God's concern.
In the end, the Church is NOT Israel, and America is NOT Israel. Whatever promises God made to Israel remain with them, they are not transferable. 'Christian' Nationalism fails, in part, because it seeks to focus God's concern on one nation (the one we happen to live in, imagine that), viewing the world in terms of power politics and national rivalries as they impact that one nation. God's concern is higher, deeper, and much broader.
I saw this image shared on Facebook this week. As someone who has previously highlighted various verses in my Bible, I don't take issue with the desire to make it easier to find a passage in the future, or to remember what one thought about a passage with a note in the margin. This is not that. To draw an American Flag on top of the words of Scripture raises serious questions, to put it here at 2 Chronicles 7:14 points us in the direction of why someone might do this.
2 Chronicles 7:14 New International Version
if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Why is this interpretation/application of 2 Chronicles 7:14 both erroneous and dangerous?
1. It ignores the context
1 & 2 Chronicles are, as the name suggest, a chronicle of the of the Kingdom of Israel (after the schism, Judah), from the reign of King Saul to the Exile to Babylon. It was written after the Exile as a history for the people who had returned to the Promised Land, offering them understanding as to why things had happened in their past, and hope for the future. The specific context of 7:14 is that the LORD is speaking to King Solomon after the dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem. In that conversation, God promises to Solomon that when the Israelites fail to obey the Covenant, there will be a chance for them to return to God through repentance. Why? Because God has promised them in his Covenant both blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience, and God is faithful to his word, if they repent he will heal them.
2 Chronicles 7:14 is a promise from God to Israel. It is a promise derived from, and inherently connected to, the Covenant that began with Abraham and was expounded further upon to Moses, David, and now Solomon. It was not a promise for any surrounding tribe or nation at that time, nor any other nation later in history. In fact, as Genesis unfolds Abraham learns that Isaac, and Isaac alone, is the Child of Promise. In the next generation, God specifically chooses Jacob over Esau, once against showing that it is God's sovereign will that matters.
Romans 9:10-15 New International Version
Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
2. It ignores the grammar
America is not 'my people', they are not 'called by my name'. I know that millions of Christians believe that we are, but there is no legitimate way that how these terms are used by God when he spoke to Solomon could be stretched to now include the United States. Why? The descendants of Abraham were specifically called by God, set apart by God, and made into a tribe and nation by God. They were 'my people' in every possible way. Where is the parallel to America? At what point, and in what way, were the people who inhabit this land called by God to be here? The Israelites bore the name of God, wherever they went they represented God to the world around them, their distinctive practices in the Law of Moses setting them apart. Where is the parallel to America? In what way, historically or in the present, are the American people distinctive culturally in a way that marks us out as God's people? When considering American distinctives, are ANY of them marks of a people who belong to God?
Numbers 6:27 New International Version
“So they will put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them.”
In addition, 'their land' is a reference to the Promised Land. It can be no other land in the context of God's conversation with Solomon. It didn't mean any other geographic place on earth. To say that God's promise also applies to England, Spain, Australia, South Korea, or America is to ignore what the text originally intended and decide, on our own, that it can be extended globally.
For a longer treatment of this issue steeped in scriptural analysis see: The Myth of a Christian Nation - by Gregory Boyd: a summary and response
3. It replaces the Church with America in the hearts and minds of Christians
The promise of 2 Chronicles 7:14 is an Old Covenant promise, not a New Covenant promise. That alone should give us pause as to why it would be applied by Christians to their own circumstances. Beyond that, the promise is made to God's people, not to a nation state. When American Christians (or Christians in any other nation) utilize this verse to talk about their country, they're blurring the line of belonging between the Kingdom of God / Family of God to which they belong as followers of Jesus Christ, and the Kingdom of this World to which they belong as earthly citizens.
Even if the promise of 2 Chronicles 7:14 were applicable to the New Covenant people, it would apply to the Church not any nation. Why? When God instituted the New Covenant through the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels and the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost he did so with peoples called out from every tribe, language, and nation. The wonder at Pentecost of hearing the Gospel in their own languages by Jerusalem's diverse pilgrim crowd illustrated this new emphasis.
Galatians 3:26-28 New International Version
So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Revelation 7:9 New International Version
After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.
It is unfortunate that after the favor placed upon Christianity by Constantine that the idea of Christendom developed. Many of the evils that Christians were involved in from that point on involved protecting Christendom, a 'Christian nation' or collection of Christian nations, from worldly threats. Christendom as a concept opened up Christians to the embrace of the idea of winning converts with the sword, of utilizing evil 'that good may result' because of supposed political necessity, of conquering 'in Jesus' name' and shouting 'God wills it!' as they slaughtered infidels.
Whether one loves America or not, America is NOT the Church. It never was, it cannot be. We blur the lines of allegiance, obligations, and fidelity at our peril.
4. It raises America in our hearts and minds toward a place of idolatry.
I love this country, and count it a great blessing to have been born in this land and have its citizenship, but that blessing cannot compare to having been called by the Spirit of God to become of follower of Jesus Christ, joining the Family of God and becoming a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven. In every way, our faith requires that our allegiance to God come first. If my nation, tribe, community, family choose to abandon God, sin against God, or ignore his call to live righteously in this world, I must choose what faith require over those bonds. Have Christians done this consistently and properly throughout history? Sadly no. They have too often thought of themselves as Dutchmen, Englishmen, Russians, or Americans first, and only secondarily as Christians. This is, to not mince words, idolatry. Whenever devotion to any other unit (family, community, tribe, nation) rises in importance and obligation above the total commitment to the Cross and the Gospel that God demands of those whom he has redeemed, it is sinful idolatry. We may not want to hear this, but we must.
I hope that America has a long and glorious future, but I have no idea if this will be. God has made no such promises to this nation or any other outside of ancient Israel. I have no idea if America will be a force for good in our world, if it will embrace its potential and reject its flaws. I do know, with certainty, that the Church will endure until the Day of Judgment. I do know that God's Spirit will continue to work in its people, globally, because he has indeed promised that he will do so, that his Church will triumph and bring glory to his name. As flawed as it can be, and as often as its people have failed to live up to their calling, the Church's future is secure.
Matthew 16:18New International Version
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
5. Reading America into Old Covenant texts is a form of antisemitism.
Antisemitism is the darkest stain on the dress of the Bride of Christ. That it is an inexcusable evil goes without saying. There is a long standing tendency for Christians to disregard the Covenantal promises made by God to Abraham's descendants and to appropriate them as their own. Does this fly in the face of Paul's impassioned argumentation in Romans? Yes, but it has happened anyway.
To read America into 2 Chronicles 7:14 is to lessen the uniqueness of God's call to Israel. It downplays God's choice of this people, and decides to replace it with another people of our choosing. We, the Church, cannot replace Israel in God's plans, to go beyond that false theology and think that America can stand beside Israel and claim the same promises (conveniently ignoring the curses), or worse yet replace Israel as the sole recipient of those promises, is folly, arrogance, and antisemitism.
Conclusion
Patriotism can be a good thing, but it also potentially very dangerous, especially to Christians. Love of country can be a good thing, but it is also potentially very dangerous when it skews our thinking. America is not the Church and America is not Israel, and 2 Chronicles 7:14 does not belong to either of one of them.
Would God 'heal this land' if repentance swept the nation? Yes, but not in the same way that 2 Chronicles 7:14 promises (good harvests, freedom from illnesses, rest from enemies), and not because we are 'his people' or 'called by his name'. Repentance would lead to a form of healing because the very nature of existence reflects the nature of God, thus always making evil a dead end path and righteousness a blessing. This dynamic is true for every individual and every grouping of people, whether they know God or not. To invoke 2 Chronicles 7:14, and claim its promise as our own, goes beyond this, leading to both false hope in promises God has not made to us, and distortions of the necessary boundaries between our Heavenly and Earthly citizenships.
2 Chronicles 7:14 Isn’t About American Politics - by Russell Moore
Further writings from me on related topics:
Mark Meadows, Ginni Thomas, and the blasphemy of thinking God is on your side.
The irrefutable rejection of Christian Nationalism by the New Testament
Ronald Reagan was wrong, America is not a "city on a hill", it never could be.
The blasphemous "One Nation Under God" painting by Jon McNaughton
Rejecting Idolatry: No, Mike Pence, we will not, "Fix our eyes on Old Glory"
Amos was an ordinary man, a farmer from Judah, chosen by God in the 8th century BC to go to Israel to warn the people of the impending wrath of God. Israel was the name given to the 10 northern tribes that broke away from the Davidic dynasty following the death of Solomon (due to the arrogance of Solomon's son Rehoboam). The Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrian Empire in 722 BC, less than two generations after the warning given to it by Amos.
With the idea of Justice prominent in our conversations as Americans and as Christian Americans, it benefits us to consider what the Justice of God looks like. What provoked the wrath of God against his Covenant people of Israel and Judah? What offenses were the prophets commanded to condemn?
The text below is excerpted from the book of Amos, its nine chapters can be read in twenty or thirty minutes; please do so. These texts appear in the order they are given, not arranged thematically. My commentary will appear in bold after each text.
Amos 2:4-5 (NIV)
4 This is what the Lord says:
“For three sins of Judah,
even for four, I will not relent.
Because they have rejected the law of the Lord
and have not kept his decrees,
because they have been led astray by false gods,
the gods their ancestors followed,
5 I will send fire on Judah
that will consume the fortresses of Jerusalem.”
Judah is not the focus of Amos' ministry, but his prophecy begins by announcing God's wrath against the surrounding peoples, primarily for their violence toward neighboring peoples, including the people of Judah to the south. Judah's sin is more specific, involving idolatry and the worship of false gods. Although Judah was a troubled society, their kingdom endured until 586 BC when Jerusalem was sacked by the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar, they too committed the same type of sins that Israel will be charged with by Amos, and God sent them prophets as a warning in turn.
Amos 2:6-8 (NIV)
6 This is what the Lord says:
“For three sins of Israel,
even for four, I will not relent.
They sell the innocent for silver,
and the needy for a pair of sandals.
7 They trample on the heads of the poor
as on the dust of the ground
and deny justice to the oppressed.
Father and son use the same girl
and so profane my holy name.
8 They lie down beside every altar
on garments taken in pledge.
In the house of their god
they drink wine taken as fines.
Here begins the indictment: (1) selling the innocent for silver, (2) trampling the poor, and (3) denying justice to the oppressed. The society of Israel systematically oppressed the poor, taking advantage of them both in business and in the courts of law. These themes will be repeated throughout Amos' prophecy. In addition, the people of Israel indulged in sexual immorality ('Father and son use the same girl') and mocked God by coming to his altar while retaining a garment taken in pledge (an act forbidden by the Law, Exodus 22:26-27). Lastly, they were drinking wine in God's house that had been taken as fines (presumably unjust fines). These last two point toward a pattern of false/insincere worship. God will not be mocked. Galatians 6:7 (NIV) Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. To worship God while in the middle of conducting sinful behavior, will not be tolerated.
Amos 2:11-12 (NIV)
11 “I also raised up prophets from among your children
and Nazirites from among your youths.
Is this not true, people of Israel?”
declares the Lord.
12 “But you made the Nazirites drink wine
and commanded the prophets not to prophesy.
God was not silent when these injustices and blasphemies occurred. His response was to send prophets, but the people made a mockery of the Nazirites (who had taken vows not to drink alcohol) and told the prophets to be quiet. This idea will be repeated in Amos, the powerful do not like to be reminded of their sins (anymore than the rest of us, but they have the power to silence their critics).
Amos 3:1-3 (NIV)
1 Hear this word, people of Israel, the word the Lord has spoken against you—against the whole family I brought up out of Egypt:
2 “You only have I chosen
of all the families of the earth;
therefore I will punish you
for all your sins.”
3 Do two walk together
unless they have agreed to do so?
This is a key point that is often overlooked: God holds his own people MORE accountable than the rest of humanity. When we talk about Justice, in society, we hope for equality and fairness, but when we consider God's Justice, we need to be very aware that God is both more stern and more gracious to his people. He is willing to forgive our sins, if we repent, but highly intolerant of our immorality if we harden our hearts. I know that many of my fellow Christians consider America to be the New Israel (Replacement theology), thinking of us in the same Covenant terms that were given by Moses to the people. The theology of this position is flawed, and that can be demonstrated by examining Paul's letter to the Romans, but there's an important reason to be glad we aren't the New Israel: We wouldn't survive God's wrath. Israel was held to a higher standard than their neighbors, no nation in our world today would survive such scrutiny.
Amos 4:1 (NIV)
4 Hear this word, you cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria,
you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy
and say to your husbands, “Bring us some drinks!”
The upper class women of Israel were as involved in crushing the poor as their husbands, laughing at the situation in a way worthy of Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake!"
Amos 4:4-5 (NIV)
4 “Go to Bethel and sin;
go to Gilgal and sin yet more.
Bring your sacrifices every morning,
your tithes every three years.
5 Burn leavened bread as a thank offering
and brag about your freewill offerings—
boast about them, you Israelites,
for this is what you love to do,”
declares the Sovereign Lord.
This section shows God's sense of humor. In this case, biting irony. The people were still obeying the FORM of correct worship while their hearts were far from God. They oppressed the poor and needy during the week and worshiped the LORD on the Sabbath. Such worship is not only fruitless, it actually offends and angers God. The prophet Isaiah makes this clear, "Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals I hate with all my being. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them." (Isaiah 1:14) Once again, if America were the New Israel, it wouldn't matter how many people were in church on Sunday morning when God considered our nation's ample inequality, injustice, and immorality (sins that God's people sadly participate in all too readily). As it is, we cannot hope to receive God's blessing as a nation if we don't address the issues of injustice in our society.
Amos 5:10-12 (NIV)
10 There are those who hate the one who upholds justice in court
and detest the one who tells the truth.
11 You levy a straw tax on the poor
and impose a tax on their grain.
Therefore, though you have built stone mansions,
you will not live in them;
though you have planted lush vineyards,
you will not drink their wine.
12 For I know how many are your offenses
and how great your sins.
There are those who oppress the innocent and take bribes
and deprive the poor of justice in the courts.
The pronouncement against injustice continues: (1) injustice in the courts through false testimony, (2) heavy taxes upon the poor, (3) the taking of bribes to deprive the poor of justice. Looking at a list like this, I'm struck by the animosity toward the idea of social justice in America. Many Christians, and a not a few prominent Christian leaders, demonize the idea of seeking equality before the Law, calling it a political ploy or a Leftist plot {See: Taking the name of the LORD in vain: PragerU's "Social Justice Isn't Justice"}. And yet, God cares about these issues enough to make them the FOCUS of the warning of his chosen prophet that judgment is at hand. I'm not saying that those advocating for social justice are without error (in their tactics or judgments), but how can the very IDEA of seeking equality in the face of injustice be against the will of God? The Scriptures say otherwise.
Amos 5:14-15 (NIV)
14 Seek good, not evil,
that you may live.
Then the Lord God Almighty will be with you,
just as you say he is.
15 Hate evil, love good;
maintain justice in the courts.
Perhaps the Lord God Almighty will have mercy
on the remnant of Joseph.
How can God's people avert the disaster heading their way? Repent and administer true justice. This is one piece that is often missing in the discussion of America's history of racism. IF we truly have repented of the way in which our ancestors treated Blacks, Indians, and various other minorities, we would now be actively seeking to "maintain justice in the courts." In other words, the sincerity of our repentance, as a people, is not judged by our claims of sincerity but by the results of our actions. Actions speak louder than words. The verdict on whether or not America retains systemic racism will show itself in the way in which our justice system treats ALL the people. IF we have repented, we will live in a way that proves it. {This is what true repentance always looks like in the Bible, without follow-up actions that prove it is genuine, the repentance is not considered legitimate.}
Amos 5:21-24 (NIV)
21 “I hate, I despise your religious festivals;
your assemblies are a stench to me.
22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.
23 Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.
24 But let justice roll on like a river,
righteousness like a never-failing stream!
Harsh words from God (via Amos) about the value of the worship of the people. God does NOT accept worship from a people mired in immorality. Why? Because God is holy, his people must seek righteousness, must "hate what is evil; cling to what is good." (Romans 12:9) If they do not, no amount of worship, offerings, or singing will be accepted by God. What is the antidote to false worship? "let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!" And yet, churches that involve themselves in helping the poor, in seeking racial harmony and reconciliation, often by working for a more just and fair legal system, are accused of abandoning the Gospel. The Word of God warns us of the frailty of a path that focuses upon worship and ignores injustice, of one that claims to follow God on Sunday, but ignores the needs of the people in our community the other six days of the week. The Gospel call for salvation by grace through faith must always remain central to our ministry, but that message is made COMPLETE (by actions that demonstrate the sincerity of our faith) when we work for righteousness in our community.
Amos 7:10-13 (NIV)
10 Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent a message to Jeroboam king of Israel: “Amos is raising a conspiracy against you in the very heart of Israel. The land cannot bear all his words. 11 For this is what Amos is saying:
“‘Jeroboam will die by the sword,
and Israel will surely go into exile,
away from their native land.’”
12 Then Amaziah said to Amos, “Get out, you seer! Go back to the land of Judah. Earn your bread there and do your prophesying there. 13 Don’t prophesy anymore at Bethel, because this is the king’s sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom.”
Was Amos welcomed with open arms? Nope. The leadership in Israel were not pleased with Amos' warning and told him to go home. Why? Because the sacred space at Bethel, and the authority of the king couldn't be bothered with hearing from God. There is irony here, of course, that those in leadership should be most keen to hear from God, but are in fact the least. Why? Because their hearts are hard, and because they benefit from the oppression of the poor. That dynamic is true in every society in human history, ours included.
Amos 8:4-6 (NIV)
4 Hear this, you who trample the needy
and do away with the poor of the land,
5 saying,
“When will the New Moon be over
that we may sell grain,
and the Sabbath be ended
that we may market wheat?”—
skimping on the measure,
boosting the price
and cheating with dishonest scales,
6 buying the poor with silver
and the needy for a pair of sandals,
selling even the sweepings with the wheat.
Lastly, Amos broadens the indictment of oppression of the poor with examples: (1) the eagerness of the merchants to get back to business as soon as the Sabbath is over, (2) the dishonest business practices that cheat the customers. I've also read that the term Economic Justice is an affront to Justice, an insult to God. That doesn't seem to be the case here. The prophet of God is concerned with something as commonplace as dishonest scales. Should not the Church of Jesus Christ concern itself with the ways in which the poor in our nation are treated? Should not issues of homelessness, housing, education, addiction, and the need for a living wage be our concern? God-honoring Christians can disagree about HOW to address such issues, about which political or legal solutions are best, but we have been given no wiggle room as to the question of whether or not we should CARE about these things.
What does the book of Amos illustrate to us about God and Justice? (1) God cares about legal injustices, (2) God cares about economic injustices, (3) God holds the rich and powerful accountable for these injustices, (4) God will not accept worship from his people if they are involved in perpetuating these injustices, and (5) the rich and powerful are unlikely to appreciate being called to task by a prophetic voice speaking the Words of God.
Social Justice? Racial Justice? Legal Justice? Economic Justice? God cared about them then, and their lack provoked his wrath. God does not change. God cares about them now, their lack still provokes his wrath. The prophet Amos was called to bring to the people's attention these failings, we honor God when we do likewise in our time and place.
