God’s great reward

I was reading over what theologians call the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 15. I was especially struck this time with the notion that God’s provision for Abram – and us – far outshines anything we can envision for ourselves.

Dr. Constable’s notes on Genesis indicate God was determined “to give Abram great ‘reward.’” This was in light of Abram’s recent victory over the four kings, rescuing Lot and all Lot’s estate. Yet Abram refused any spoils of war. What was Abram’s response to the victory? We can learn from his response.

When Melchizedek, king of Salem, came out to bless Abram upon his return to the Promised Land, they shared in a worshipful celebration giving God blessing. Abram’s response was to worship God in light of the victory and then he turned over first-fruit gifts to Melchizedek, broadening his worship of God and demonstrating he understood the source of the victory and the source of his provision.

Scholars write that Abram put himself in a vicious loop of violence when he defeated the four kings, which likely would have put him into a life of retaliation and defending against retaliation, which was the custom for this period of time.

Yet, that doesn’t seem to be what’s on Abram’s mind. Abram is “legitimately concerned about God’s provision for the Promised Land as well as his need for an heir,” (Constable). God meets with Abram and reassures him of the promise of a seed and a great nation. This reward of a seed and a nation, this God-given reward, would make the spoils of war seem minuscule.

Then, when we continue reading, we see that Abram wasn’t questioning God, but communicating his legitimate concern. We can be happy in the report that Abram believed God’s promise and it was this belief that God accounted righteousness to Abram.

Trust is God’s word, His promise, is what results in justification; and, worship of God is what results in our sanctification.

What greater reward of our trust in God than our being rescued from the penalty of sin through belief in the promise of Jesus Christ? All other rewards pale in comparison.

The Roman church continues its anti-Zionist, supersessionist rhetoric

In October 2010, at a special Vatican meeting on the Middle East, Cyrille Bustros, a native of Lebanon and a bishop in Newton, Mass., claimed, “We Christians cannot speak of the ‘promised land’ as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people.”

This was part of the Greek-Melkite bishop’s comments during a recent news conference where attendees presented the final document that emerged from a Vatican synod of Middle Eastern bishops.

I’m not sure what scriptures Mr. Bustros is studying, but I know the Bible teaches that God’s covenant with Israel cannot be broken and that the Apostle Paul clearly illustrates a future for the actual Israel of the Old Testament. To me, it’s apparent that Mr. Bustros has not embraced the idea the Apostle Paul teaches that we are no longer Jew nor Greek or that our alliance is no longer with our nation, but our alliance is with Christ – Mr. Bustros is clearly Lebanese first.

The notion of supersessionism isn’t new thinking. Both Justin Martyr and Augustine are reported to take this position in their writings. But, when studied as a whole, the Bible clearly teaches that God has a plan for Israel and that plan includes the land that was promised. In Luke 21:24, God teaches us that “Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” This is an indication that Jerusalem will be restored. God also teaches us of the eternity of His promises in Romans 11:28-29, “From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

Supersessionism is the view that the church is the new or true Israel that has replaced or superseded national Israel as the people of God. If the Roman church has replaced Israel, then Mr. Bustros might be correct in his assessment that there is no exclusive right that Israel holds for the promised land. However, this simply isn’t the biblical case.

Because God does not break His covenants, those who say the church has replaced Israel as God’s chosen people then have to deny the traditional and orthodox interpretation of the Old Testament and deny there is a prophesied future restoration for national Israel. They also have to claim that the New Testament reinterprets the Old Testament rather than is a continuation of God’s revelation of His will (Ezk. 36-37; Deut. 30:1-6; Jer. 30, 31, 32; Matthew 23:37-39; Luke 13:34-35; Acts 3:19-21; Romans 11).

Charles Spurgeon apparently felt that the future of Israel’s sure role in God’s plan was not considered enough by either theologians or the laity. He wrote, “I think we do not attach sufficient importance to the restoration of the Jews. We do not think enough of it. But certainly, if there is anything promised in the Bible it is this.”

In case that was too vague for some, the famous Old Testament scholar Walter C. Kaiser Jr., wrote succinctly, “To argue that God replaced Israel with the church is to depart from an enormous body of biblical evidence.”

When the Roman church takes an institutional position in favor of replacement theology (which it has), it simply is an expression of its anti-Zionist viewpoint and is clearly not aligned with the Bible. Whether viewed from a secular or spiritual viewpoint, the self-determination, and subsequent self defense, by the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland is part of the expressed plan of God.

Admittedly, there could be confusion on the part of members of the Roman church. The Second Vatican Council took the position that there existed an eternal covenant between Israel and God and that covenant was linked with the land of Israel. Yet, the Roman church has since issued calls for Israel’s withdrawal of occupied lands, removal of border barriers between Israel and the West Bank and support for a sovereign Palestinian nation. It naively stated that Israel would live peacefully and in security if it would only withdraw from conquered land it won in war. How could the Roman church believe this in light of the codified objective of Islamic groups to eradicate the nation of Israel? This call to return to pre-war boundaries is not biblical and goes against God’s desires (Joel 3:1-2; Gen. 15:18-21; Ex. 23:31a).

In all practicality, this is either an official departure from the Second Vatican Council or the Roman church is taking both positions in the polemic. Regardless, this is in opposition to the biblical position.

In his “12 Reasons Why Supersessionism/Replacement Theology Is Not a Biblical Doctrine,” Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D., points out that “the New Testament does not call the church ‘Israel,’ and nowhere does the New Testament state the nation of Israel has been permanently rejected by God.” He also states in his conclusion, “Various texts such as Matt. 19:28; 23:37–39; Luke 13:35; 21:24; 22:30; and Romans 11 refute supersessionism in that they teach or reaffirm the Old Testament expectation of a restoration of Israel.”

This shouldn’t surprise me because the scriptures teach that all nations will stand against Israel, and all will be defeated. In this case, all includes the United States. Unfortunately, I see it happening far sooner than I would have expected due to the influence of global anti-Zionist institutions, such as the Roman church, the United Nations and a spineless European Union.

No division of Israel’s land can be tolerated

There’s no political, social, religious or even militaristic reason a person or entity should advocate for any division of the land that God promised to the ethnic decedents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Why? Those who do will incur God’s judgment.

For behold, in those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all the nations and bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat then I will enter into judgment with them there on behalf of My people and My inheritance, Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations; and they have divided up My land, (Joel 3:1-2).

The United States (its government and its people) should be very careful not to advocate any division of the land promised to the Jews as described in Genesis and Exodus, which includes the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza and every inch of Jerusalem. The boundaries are described as:

On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates: the Kenite and the Kenizzite and the Kadmonite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Rephaim and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Girgashite and the Jebusite," (Gen. 15:18-21).

I will fix your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River Euphrates, (Ex. 23:31a).

If someone believes there should be both a Jewish state of Israel and an Arab state of Palestine, then they clearly are not reading the Holy Scriptures. The Bible clearly teaches us that this land is not to be divided for any reason, even for what some claim as peace.

When someone advocates that Israel should return lands acquired in conflict, they do, at best, not understand that the land does not belong to any other but whom the Creator (its original owner) has deeded it for a homeland – the ethnic race descended from Jacob.

Then God appeared to Jacob again when he came from Paddan-aram, and He blessed him. God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; you shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name." Thus He called him Israel. God also said to him, "I am God Almighty; be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come forth from you. The land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, I will give it to you, and I will give the land to your descendants after you," (Gen. 35:11-12).

There is no event in history that can abrogate God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. No collection of governments or majority of people can nullify this covenant. But, did the Almighty end the agreement Himself? This cannot be. If God can break His covenants, then what word of His can be fully trusted? No, God cannot break His covenant with the Jews and they have full right and deed to the land God promised as described in His word.

Finally, this covenant God made with Israel cannot be spiritualized to mean that it is now transferred to the church of true Christians. This supersessionism cannot be supported by any normal or logical exegesis of God’s revelation in His word. This erroneous teaching has led many well-meaning Christians to think God is done with Israel as an ethno-political entity. We learn this simply is not the case when we study Romans 9-11 and the Revelation. Yet, this has not stopped hundreds of years of false teaching by some denominations, which leads many of their congregants to anti-Zionism, which as Martin Luther King Jr., so aptly points out, is actually nothing more than anti-Semitism.