Sermon Video: Why the Church cannot replace Israel: God's plan includes them, Romans 11:25-32

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.

Sermon Video: Grafted Branches - The Church and Israel, Romans 11:16-24

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.

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #30 - John 17:16 & 18:36

 

John 17:16  New International Version

They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.

John 18:36  New International Version

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Admittedly, it has been a while since I've posted something in my self-imposed series of 62 scripture passages that refute "Christian" Nationalism.  The last post prior to this one was in January, and those of you who read my blog will understand what I've been writing about since them: The First Fruits of Zion.  To compare the two issues (Nationalism vs. the Hebrew Roots Movement, i.e. FFOZ) is a study in contrasts.  "Christian" Nationalism is a big idea with a long history that poses an existential threat to not only America but Europe as well, whereas the HRM is a much more niche idea that most people are unaware of, and one that despite the grandiose vision of its leaders is very unlikely to affect world history.  On another level, "Christian" Nationalism is more nebulous, its influences and harms in the local church and in our denominations more difficult to pin down as it floats on the jetsam with a host of other dangerous political ideas and movements.  In contrast, the HRM {FFOZ being one example}, when one does encounter it as we have here in Venango County, barges into local congregations, pulls individuals out of fellowship, and causes acute local harm.  All that is a long-winded explanation why I needed to prioritize writing about the dangers of FFOZ (an ongoing process as I continue preparing my seminar for this Fall) when its dangerous activity is front-and-center in our Christian community.  So what brought the idea of "Christian" Nationalism back into focus, at least for now?  The urgency come from a new effort being put forth to legitimize and defend this ideology, primarily in Reformed Baptist circles (not my pond, but adjacent to the one I swim in, and I know it well enough).

The effort in question: The Statement on Christian Nationalism and the Gospel is a very populist/libertarian (they don't mesh well, I know) and isolationist political essay wrapped in the notion that this is the true vision of Jesus Christ for not only his Church, but every nation on the planet as well in this age.

The contradiction between Jesus' words in John's Gospel and the statement linked above could not be more stark.  The authors of the statement envision Jesus Christ reigning and ruling over this world, here and now, when he made no such claim.  In essence, they believe they can establish at least a version of the kingdom that Jesus promised that he would establish when he returns, but of course Jesus did not encourage, let alone command, his followers to be about this task.

If you take the time to read the statement, a number of eye-opening claims may stand out to you.  When I read it, two of the inherent problems of this philosophy, regarding which "Christian" Nationalism does NOT have any moral answers came to the forefront: (1) What about the non-Christians living in the nations that follow this vision?  They will either become second-class citizens who are forced to live against their beliefs, and/or be expelled from the land.  While the authors thankfully denounce ethnic homogeneity, they implicitly are endorsing national religious uniformity.  History has such an example in Spain after the Reconquista where both Muslims and Jews were given the "choice" between fleeing as refugees and converting.  Let me save you the suspense, it was a brutal process that gave the Inquisition a chance to shine.  You may be saying, "Where in the statement is this?"  It isn't, but that is the inevitable conclusion when you state that the civil government should enforce the Ten Commandments (the one on the Sabbath is awkward given that Christians worship on the Lord's Day, that is Sunday).  The key one here is the taking of the Lord's name in vain, i.e. blasphemy.

WE AFFIRM that the Christian Nationalist project entails national recognition of essential Christian Orthodoxy (Article II) as a Christian consensus under Jesus Christ, the supreme Lord and King of all creation, and the establishment of the general equity of the second table of the Ten Commandments (laws 5-10) as the foundational law of the nation, with warnings informing citizens of the consequences of blaspheming the One, True, and Living God often resulting in second table violations, namely, the harming of our neighbors’ lives and property.

WE DENY that laws against public blasphemy coerce conversion or hinder religious liberty in private.

Once non-Christians in America (or Europe, this movement is more advanced there in Russia and Hungary) are muzzled with blasphemy laws {i.e. the 1st Amendment is neutered}, the second moral quandary of "Christian" Nationalism will rear its ugly head: (2) The government will be in the business of defining orthodoxy within Christianity and punishing those who run afoul of that judgment.  Throughout the statement there are references to promoting and defending historic Christian orthodoxy, and while I have great confidence that we can come to a working definition of such for ecumenical purposes within the Church {that is freely chosen associations}, as a Baptist (in the historic sense) I have zero confidence in having that definition interpreted and enforced by a politician or judge.

So, first the blasphemy laws will silence or expel the non-Christians, then they will come for the not-sufficiently orthodox people who claim to be Christians {Again, the government would be making these judgment calls through arrests and trials of those who violate the law against blasphemy}.

Can this really be what Jesus wanted his Church to become?  Is this in any way a part of the Kingdom of God that he proclaimed would be marked by love and self-sacrificial servanthood?  

Lastly, and this should not be missed when you read the statement: the authors admit they're not willing to prioritize democracy or the republic.  They think that "Christian" Nationalism will work just fine under dictators {See: Putin and the wanna-be dictator Viktor Orban}.

WE DENY that the separation of authority between the Church and the State means there must be a separation of God and the state. We further deny that there can ever be a separation between religion and state., as everyone possesses views about ultimate reality, purpose, and cause, which inform their morality and preferred policies. We deny the idea that a nation’s laws do not impose morality and religion.

Read the statement, and read John 17:16 and 18:36, the disconnect is powerful.

Sermon Video: Why God made Israel jealous - Romans 11:7-15

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.

Thoughts from our trip to Israel #2: Size is relative

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.

Size is relative, that's a phrase you'd heard before, and one that hits home when you see with your own eyes the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River.  In many parts of the world, especially places with much higher yearly precipitation totals, neither of these bodies of water would be all that remarkable.  A decent sized lake, albeit a deep one, and a narrow river, wouldn't feature prominently into the narrative of very many historical moments if they weren't located in a place as significant as this one.

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.