Replacing “Replacement theology”: Part 2

Pouring petrol on a fire you’re trying to put out causes the flames to leap up and spread, the heat becomes unbearable, and everyone has to step back. And it won’t cool down until the new flames are controlled. Similarly, acts of violence in the Middle East destroy the prospect of peace.

This post looks at how should we think about the nation of Israel today. It is based on a presentation by Dr Darrell Bock of the Dallas Theological Seminary.

Review

In Part 1 we went through Israel in the scripture and the point that I was making was that God had made certain commitments, rooted in His character and in His promises, rooted in an oath that He gave to the original recipients of Israel through the covenants: the Abrahamic covenant, the Davidic covenant, and the new covenant that says that Israel has a place in God’s program that involves a people, a land, and eventually blessing on all the earth through Abraham’s seed. That seed ultimately culminates in the Christ, in the Messiah, being the source of blessing in the world. Christ is the fulfillment of God’s promise and everything that represents blessing comes through Him.

But we also made the point that in Romans 9-11 and in the “until” passages (Lk. 13:34-35; Mt. 23:37-39; Lk. 21:23- 24 and Acts 3:18-22), there is an indication from the Fulfiller and those who are taught by Him that Israel has a place in the future of God. Acts 3 makes this very clear in talking about heaven must hold the one who is to come until the restoration of all things. And if you want to know what the restoration of all things looks like, just read your Hebrew scriptures. And Israel is all over that story from beginning to end. And there’s nothing about the way in which Gentile inclusion expands the promise and represents the fulfillment of the promise to bless the world through the seed that cancels out the benefits to the original recipients. Although in order to receive blessing, they have to be responsive to the one who God has sent. Romans 9-11 anticipates that that will happen by declaring the expectation that just as unnatural branches have been grafted into the root of the tree (a reference to Gentiles), so, God is quite capable of taking natural branches (a refence to Jews) and grafting them back into the tree and Paul sees that coming in the future. So that is the case for Israel as a people and Israel as a nation.

I mentioned Isaiah 19:23-25 that there’s a highway that runs from Egypt through Israel to Assyria with all those groups being called people of God that looks at the consummation. I could add to that Isaiah 2:1-4 which talks about the coming of peace to all the nations. The interesting thing about that passage is if you go to the United Nations in New York, across the street from the United Nations building, Isaiah 2 is cited on a stone which is designed to be what the United Nations is supposed to be about which is really interesting.

The nation of Israel today

How should we think about the nation of Israel today, particularly in view of the fact that the bulk of the nation is not in a position of belief? What does that mean for the promise we looked at in Part 1?

How should Christians think about the situation that’s going on and particularly for Palestinian believers? When we ask the question from the standpoint of Israel’s promised presence in the land from scripture and the progression of the promise there is a qualifying thought. That qualifying thought is that what is said of Israel here is not said for the sake of Israeli nationalism but for the sake of the gospel and the reconciliation of peace it seeks. Ephesians 2:11-22; 3:6 (see Appendix) talks about the fact that those who were far off have now been brought into blessing and participate in it as part of the work of reconciliation that God is doing across people. God is in the business corporately of taking estranged peoples, Jews and Gentiles, and bringing them together in Christ as a way of getting to peace. We often don’t think about this in relation to our salvation. We tend to think about our salvation in individualized terms, but at a corporate level, that’s part of what God is doing. And the interesting thing about Ephesians 2:17-29 is it says, “Whether you are near or far off, you’ve been brought into the household of God”. Which means both the Gentiles and the Jews have been brought into something fresh that God is doing by giving His Spirit to the people of God through the Messiah.

It says Israel has a responsibility to treat its neighbors well. Her moral obligations always exist. The hope for ultimate peace in the region as Isaiah 19 foresees it remains in view (with a highway going from Egypt through Israel to Assyria). This is where the ethnic cleansing going on and the use of nonproportional violence become problematic. This is not genocide as total eradication of people is not the point. But there is a kind of displacement going on that raises questions. The displacement potentially violates issues related to justice and mercy while also exceeding the normal humanitarian standards for international conflicts. Ultimately, through Christ who is the source of fulfillment and blessing, the land is said to be a place of blessing for all, even if it is destined for Israel to occupy much of it.

Now, let me use an example to talk about what we’re thinking about. When we come to the consummation and when Christ comes back and He establishes peace, there will be a peace in the entire world and not just in Israel but with all the nations. And the example I like to use of both oneness and differentiation is the European Union. When I did my first sabbatical in Germany before the European Union had been fully formed, whenever I drove between Germany and France, when I reached a certain railroad track that was the border between the two countries, I had to stop and talk to someone and show them my passport to go from Germany into France. And you have borders in countries usually because borders are ways of marking out the territory owned by a people and protecting them. After the European Union was formed, I made the same drive seven years later and all of a sudden when I got to the railroad tracks, I didn’t have to stop and talk to anyone anymore. They had brought themselves together and said we’re all European. We belong to the European Union, and you can move from territory A to territory B without having to check in.

And I foresee in the future a place where the world is blessed. Everyone is connected to Christ and we’re moving from point A to point B in a context of peace, eventually in the new heavens and the new earth (the eternal state). I think it’s also going to be the case for much of the millennium. And so, there’s a role for Israel in the land, but the point of Israel in the land is she’s able to live at peace with the nations around her. That’s where this is headed. So, this is reconciliation and peace. That is the point. That’s why I say it’s not about Israelite nationalism for them to receive the land. It’s part of the picture of the work of reconciliation that God is doing through Christ.

Now another qualification on all of this is also necessary as it is a complicating factor as well as a catalyst for many of the elements of the regional violence. The additional factor is especially important in thinking about our present situation. The current conflict is not just about the Palestinians in Israel. There is a third party that has wreaked much havoc in the region. This is Hamas, Hezbollah, and their sponsor, Iran. They want to remove Israel from the region totally and have done all they can to attempt to do this. I know there are deep debates about what has taken place and how that happened over the last 100 years or so. That is what is said by those who defend Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. They try and bring up what they say are injustices of the last 100 years plus. So, anyone looking at the region should not forget that their goal is Israel’s eradication from the land. This is a real and crucial political, theological, and ideological perspective that often justifies violence for many of those who seek to fight for Palestinian interests. This is also a major part of the recent cycle of violence that began with the brutal attack of October 7, 2023. The expression “from the river to the sea” means no place for Israel in the land. It is about removing Israel’s presence. It is still the official position of many who fight against Israel. So, to embrace this idea is to ignore commitments God has made to Israel. To say this is not to affirm that all Israel has done in response to the violence is to be supported. The use of violence even in defence of one’s well-being should be proportional and basically in self-defence. Some of what has been taking place in my view does not fit that standard for engaging in conflict. It also merits critique and, in some cases, needs to be called out as unjust and as such is sinful. The current situation in the Middle East is a mess to which both sides have contributed.

Complicating everything is that the theological explanation I have given is rooted in a faith that not everyone in the region shares, including most of those who live in the region. This means that those most impacted by what is going on are coming from radically different orientations to the land and judgments about the issues of justice and mercy tied to it. These differences in even the starting point adds to the mess that disturbs the region. The story of conflict here is an old one, not just involving the last several decades or even the last few centuries, but millennia. All sides are now contributing to the cul-de-sac of violence that now exists. In saying this, I am not making a claim about moral equivalence for the violence in the region. I deeply believe Israel is fighting in self-defence for her existence. Palestinians also have legitimate human rights concerns that have lingered with the failure to resolve displacement that came with the establishment of Israel in May 1948. I think that part of the reason we are in the violent cycle that we’ve been in is the displacement that came when Israel was established in 1948. For many that problem was not solved and that’s part of what has produced the Palestinian frustration in the region. If the violence coming from Hamas and and Hezbollah stopped, so would most violence in the region. I’m suggesting that even the question of who is more responsible for the violence misses the point since sin is rampant in the region. What is needed is for the violence to subside so the solution for how to change the region can be pursued.

Another real current problem is that even a hint of what that could or should look like is not even on the table. Without a vision for what could be, people dig in and defend their turf or fight for it violently, leading to more violence.

Christians should defend Israel’s right to exist because they should be able to be permitted to live in the land in peace. God gave them that land. That land is theirs. However, the Palestinians also have rights as humans that need to be recognized. Christians, whether Palestinian, Messianic, or of former Muslim faith, also need to be the source of concern for those who share faith in Christ. This is why we have to lend our ear to hear from all sides of the church, even hear things we may not agree with. Christians need to understand how the violence even in the latest cycle, is also rooted and catalyzed in part by an ideology that denies Israel’s right to exist and is hostile to both Judaism and Christianity. That reality is why Israel has felt so threatened, seeing the violence against her as a real and complete existential threat requiring a full defence. That threat supported by Islamic jihad ideology from many, not all, Muslims and some Muslim nations, is what has caused the depth of her reaction. When people with distinct senses of privilege collide, conflict, even intense conflict, results. Nonetheless, Christians also need to appeal to a need to limit the level of violence in the region, no matter where it comes from. They also should support efforts to be sure all people have access to food and shelter. This is one basic way to apply justice and mercy to the region. It also is a litmus test for the presence of evil. Are basic human needs being met and to what degree?

Two initial goals must be the ability to maintain a ceasefire and the seeking of a guarantee from both sides for the renunciation of violence which has been an ongoing problem in the region. Then people can work on how to have everyone in the region figure out how to live together. These goals require stepping back from the current level of violence. The current tensions point to the international need to allow Israel to live in peace in the land, determine how to deal with the genuine issues that exist for Palestinians, and a call for refraining from the use of violence that triggers an eye for eye and tooth for tooth (or what some people say an eye for three eyes or a tooth for your whole mouth) response in the region. Nothing positive can take place in the current violent context. The reconciliation that Christ seeks in the face of human violence requires these moral commitments.

Let me make one other point. I tell people that when the issue in the Middle East is framed as simply Israel and the Palestinians, it’s been mis-framed. And it’s been mis-framed because you aren’t dealing with two entities, you’re dealing with three. And the third entity really messes up the mix. That’s the point I’m trying to make in talking about the dilemma that Israel finds herself in as she tries to defend her existence in the midst of pressure.

Objections to Part 1

Let me deal with some objections to the views that I’ve taken.

Objection 1. Some people say that Jesus is Israel. End of story. So, the only way you get to Israel is through Jesus.

Now, what happens with some of these statements is they’re half correct, which means they’re also missing something. In one sense, Jesus is the representation of the nation. The suffering servant that Jesus is designed to function in a way that Israel was originally called to function but failed to function in that role. And so, Jesus becomes the picture of the suffering servant in Isaiah 40 and the passages that follow, including Isaiah 53. But when we come to Romans 9-11, we’re not talking about Jesus being Israel. In Romans 9-11, we’re talking about unbelieving Israel for whom Paul says he wished he could be a curse so that they would come to salvation. He’s willing to sacrifice himself for the sake of his unbelieving brethren. And nothing about the movement of those three chapters has changed unbelieving Israel as being a major subject that Paul is talking about as he works through the fact that not all Israel is Israel because not all Israel is believing Israel. As he deals with the fact that Jews are currently in unbelief, as he talks about Gentiles having been included, as he talks about the fact that there’s always a remnant that remains out of Israel. And then he goes into the illustration of if you as Gentiles, as unnatural branches have been grafted into the tree of promise, God can certainly take natural branches and do the same. So, Gentiles don’t be arrogant. And so that is the movement of Romans 9-11. And the topic is not Jesus as Israel. The topic is the hope for Israel that extends into what God will do graciously in the future as He calls them back to Himself. And as they respond to the one that God has sent, enter into the blessing that Jesus was always making available to them.

Objection 2. Others say that Christian Zionism is somehow a form that is dismissive of gentile involvement and gentile participation that is ethnically nearsighted or ethnically focused just on Israel and not everybody else.

But the frame in which Israel is functioning in relationship to God’s plan is a part of reconciliation that involves everybody.

Objection 3. The land and the promises about the land somehow apply to the entire world. So, the issue of a land for Israel is no longer relevant.

This is what I call “either or” thinking rather than “both and” thinking. Sometimes we get in trouble in theology when we make an “either or” out of a “both and”. Blessing that God brings is cosmic. It’s not just with the world, it’s with the creation as a whole. And everybody will inherit the blessing of a harmonized creation in the end. But that doesn’t exclude the fact that within that cosmos, there are going to be, pockets of peace that represent the buildup across all of it that allows for peace to penetrate the entire creation. And one of those pockets is what Isaiah 19, for example, is describing. That is peace between Egypt as a people, Assyria as a people, and Isaiah as a people. Only you don’t say it that way. It’s Egypt as God’s people, Assyria is God’s people, and Israel as God’s people. Each with their own identity. On the one hand, we haven’t cancelled out identity in that process. I can’t see and appreciate the reconciliation if I wipe out the identities of what it is that God has brought together. That’s important. And so, yes, there is a blessing that extends over the entire cosmos, but no, it is not so ethnically focused that there is such a special treatment for one group that they’re differentiated from the blessing that everyone else gets. Ephesians 3:6 talks about Gentiles and Jews being co-heirs of the promise. They share in the promise. There’s a prefix in Greek, syn, which is the word “together”. And in Ephesians 2, we’re raised together in Christ. We’re seated together in Christ. And in Ephesians 3, Jews and Gentiles are co-heirs of the promise. So, this is not ethnically exclusive. It’s a reminder that those who are on the outside currently have a hope and will experience a re-entry into the promise in the future. That is not to be denied to them, which means that their existence and their well-being now is necessary for that to happen then.

Objection 4. The church is Israel.

This is half‑true and half‑false. The church shares in the blessings given to Israel — that’s Ephesians 2 and 3 — but the church does not erase Israel’s identity. Gentiles are grafted in, not swapped in. The root remains the same. The natural branches remain the same. The grafting imagery only makes sense if Israel continues to exist.

Objection 5. The land promises were conditional. Israel broke the covenant, so the land is no longer theirs.

Again, this is partially correct. The Mosaic covenant was conditional. But the Abrahamic covenant — the one that gives the land — is not conditional. It is rooted in God’s oath, not Israel’s performance. The prophets repeatedly say Israel will be disciplined, scattered, judged — but also restored. Restoration assumes continued covenant commitment.

Objection 6. Modern Israel is secular, so it cannot be the Israel of prophecy.

This misunderstands how prophecy works. Prophecy does not require Israel to be righteous before God acts. In fact, most prophetic restoration passages assume Israel is not righteous when God intervenes. Ezekiel 36 says explicitly that God restores Israel not because of their righteousness, but because of His name.

Objection 7 Supporting Israel means ignoring Palestinian suffering.

Supporting Israel’s right to exist does not mean ignoring Palestinian suffering. Both truths must be held together. Israel has a right to live in the land. Palestinians have a right to live with dignity. Violence from Hamas and Iran complicates everything, but does not erase the need for justice and mercy for Palestinians.

Objection 8. Christian Zionism is political, not biblical.

Some forms are political, yes. But the biblical case for Israel’s ongoing role is not political — it is theological, rooted in covenants, prophets, and the New Testament’s own expectation of Israel’s future turning to God.

Objection 9. If Israel has a future, then the church is secondary.

No. The church is the multi‑ethnic people of God in Christ. Israel’s future does not diminish the church. The church’s existence does not erase Israel. Both exist in God’s plan. Both share in the promises. Both are reconciled in Messiah.

Objection 10. The New Testament never speaks of Israel’s future.

Romans 11 says Israel’s hardening is temporary. Jesus speaks of Israel welcoming Him in the future – “You will not see me again until you say…” (Mt. 23:39; Lk. 13:35). Acts 3 speaks of the restoration of all things promised in the prophets. The prophets overwhelmingly describe Israel’s future restoration.

Objection 11. The land promises are symbolic.

The problem is that the prophets describe the land in concrete geographic terms. Symbolism does not erase geography. Symbolism expands meaning but does not delete the literal sense.

Objection 12. The church inherits the promises, so Israel loses them.

Inheritance does not require dispossession. Gentiles share the promises with Israel, not instead of Israel. That is Paul’s entire point in Ephesians 2–3.

Objection 13. Israel’s existence causes conflict, so it cannot be God’s will.

Conflict does not determine theology. The prophets assume conflict. Jesus assumes conflict. The existence of conflict does not negate covenant promises.

Objection 14. Israel’s modern state is a political accident.

Even if one argues that, the theological question remains: does Israel’s re‑emergence align with biblical expectations? Many argue yes, because the prophets describe a return before spiritual renewal.

Objection 15. Israel’s sins mean God is done with them.

Paul answers this directly, “Did God reject His people? By no means” (Rom. 11:1).

Questions

Question 1. Israel today is just simply a nation like any other nation and it’s not the Israel of the Bible. Or, because of the mixtures that happen in the world, not everybody in Israel is a pure ethnic Jew.

The nation of Israel of the Bible is made up of predominantly the Jewish people and the Jewish hope. And the Israel of today are the descendants of what Israel in the Old Testament and Israel in the New Testament period were.

Because of the mixtures that happen in the world, not everybody in Israel is a pure ethnic Jew. None of that’s a problem for God. He knows who the Jews are. He knows who the predominantly Jewish people are even in the mix. He knows what He’s talking about when He talks about Israel. He’s talking about a community that He made commitments and promises to that has walked alongside and with the law over millennia. So, Israel as a people and Israel as a nation is a part of what is involved just like Egypt as a people and Egypt as a nation is from Isaiah 19. And just as Assyria as a people and Assyria as a nation, although it doesn’t have the name Assyria anymore. But it’s that region of the world and the countries that are involved there are also a part of this conversation. Because in the end God is going to redeem the entirety of the creation. That means He isn’t just going to save individuals. He’s going to save all the structures of humanity that are a part of the world including national structures because the only way you get to peace is not to have peace just between individuals but to have peace between groups.

Question 2. When Israel became a nation once again in our modern era, was that a fulfillment of biblical prophecy?

Some people will say yes, it’s a fulfillment of prophecy. What other people will say is, even if it’s not a fulfillment of prophecy, it shows the potential to fulfill prophecy. Either way, you’re in the same place.

Question 3. Is it as bad as the media portrays within Samaria and Judea with Jewish people settling on the land and kicking others out of land. Or is that media hype?

I don’t know. To the extent that that part of the land is contended for and you have settlers who are trying to expand within Israel, who say they have the right to do so on the one hand, but all that does is contribute to the displacement, which I’ve already suggested to you is part of what creates the tension. That’s part of what needs to be sorted out. And the way not to sort it out is to sort it out violently.

Question 4. Was Adam a Jew, as he was created in God’s image?

No, because Israel is the seed of Abraham. And Abraham came after Adam. Adam is a representative of humanity as a whole.

Question 5. I’m confused with some of the things that the Jewish people say about Zionism. Rabbi Ishro David Whis is a prominent vocal anti-Zionist leader and he’s with an ultra-orthodox religious group. Why are they so against Christians supporting Israel? Is that what Zionism means?

I think some people are against Christians because they don’t like the fact that Christians argue that for Israel ultimately to come to blessing, they need to know the Messiah. And they don’t believe that Jesus is that Messiah. And so, they’re saying well you’re sympathetic to Israel and you care about Israel, but you care about Israel on your own terms and not on the basis of who we are as Jewish people in and of ourselves. So that’s why you get that hostility.

Question 6. It’s been about 2,000 years since Jesus lived and about 4,000 years since Abraham lived, who’s to say that there isn’t some DNA of a Jew in every single one of us?

I think that’s unlikely. But what the question does raise is there are many people who come from at least a mixture of Jewish descent, that’s a result of Jewish intermarriage with people who are not Jewish. But the idea that every single solitary person has some Jewish blood in the background, that’s very unlikely given how small the Jewish population is globally in comparison to how large the world population is and also given the regions of the world that have had little or minimal contact with Jewish people.

Question 7. But they did intermarry and even the Palestinians I would have to say as neighbors would have Jewish DNA in them.

But it wouldn’t be every person.

Question 8. Are those with mixed genetics both Jew and Gentile?

There are some people who are mixed. Like for example, the Samaritans already were a mixed race back in the Hebrew scriptures. This raises the question of who really counts as a Jew and what descent counts for a Jew, which traditionally I think has come through the mother. And so, in a mixed marriage, if the child has a Jewish mother, then they’re seen to be Jewish.

Question 9. It’s a mess in the Middle East, yes, but it’s also a mess here in Australia in the church. We are deeply divided. Sometimes we are muted in what we can pray in our worship services in Christian churches. The church leadership here has been silent and out comes Kairos II which is a document of some 14 pages which seems to throw a grenade into it all and cause yet further problems between Jews and Christians. It’s a document that is just so heavily slated against Israel, against Zionism, against Jewish people. It fosters antisemitism. It comes from Palestinian Christians. And there were two of them who were invited out by the National Council of Australian churches. They spoke last week in Sydney and Melbourne and Perth. One of whom was a co-author of that document and that seems to me to be further divisive where they are given air-time and the church continues to bury its head in the sand. What do you think?

I agree with you that Kairos II does not represent a very biblically balanced response to what’s going on in the region. There’s a counter document that’s been circulating – “A Christian Declaration Against Kairos II”. I’ve signed on to it. It is making the point that Kairos II is not balanced and that it is one-sided. In fact, one of the objections that I got online on Facebook for doing these talks was how one-sided my take on the situation is to which I said, well, listen to what I have to say tonight. And then the second thing that I said is, would that the Middle East were so simple that it’s a one-sided problem. And so, what you have is a complex mess. When I normally talk about this in churches, I will divide the stage up into sections. And when I get a question, sometimes the way I’ll respond is to say the issues that you’ve just raised deals with this space and this topic. And here is the tension point in this conversation. I’ll get a second question. I’ll walk over to another part of the stage and say that deals with this issue in the background. I’ve already alluded to the history of what has happened in the last hundred years. That’s one element. I’ve talked about the biblical discussion which is another element. We can talk about the way in which war is decided. That’s a third element. The debate over whether genocide or ethnic cleansing or simply self-defence is taking place is another element. What makes this conversation so difficult is all these individual topics are bumping off each other at the same time. In other words, the discussion has layers. And that’s what makes the discussion hard enough because I can’t talk about one dimension of this without being aware there’s another part of the conversation happening over here and there’s another part of the conversation happening over here. And it’s all in play at the same time. It’s dynamic. That’s why I say it’s a tangled mess. And I like to say that it took us millennia to get here. So, we shouldn’t expect it to be solved in 30 minutes. This is going to take a lot of time and a lot of work. And then ultimately what the scriptures say is in the end it’s so difficult that God’s going to have to fix it.

Question 10. I’m always rather curious as to why the Israeli representatives who speak in the United Nations and in other platforms don’t bring up the scriptures (whether or not people believe them) about their right to the land when it’s all over in the Torah about God giving them the land, even Gaza?

There are two parts to the answer. The first is that not everyone is a believer who believes the Bible. And so, citing a Bible text in defence of Israel to a Muslim is problematic. Just in terms of being heard. That doesn’t make it wrong. It doesn’t make it irrelevant. That’s why we talk about it theologically. But the second reason is not everyone in Israel is a Bible believer. Many people in Israel who are ethnically Jewish are as secular as can be and the Bible means nothing to them.

Question 11. How can I as a Gentile work towards the reconciliation for all that you’ve mentioned?

The way you work towards reconciliation is to be a force for the attempt at reconciliation in two ways. The first is the ultimate reconciliation that comes through Christ. The whole premise of what I’m arguing for is there’s a mindset that comes with what it means for Christ to be connected to the gospel that we’re supposed to share – read the beatitudes. The second point I will make is that you want to try and work as much as you can to encourage people to step out of the violent cycle that exists in the Middle East. This is why I’ve been in groups that have pro-Palestinian people in it as well as people who are pro-Israeli. When we get together and we pray and we’ve had very difficult discussions with one another in the last several years since October 7^th, 2023. But when we do get together and pray together, what we will pray for is for peace in the Middle East and for the absence of the violence. As long as people are fighting with one another and killing one another, we are not going to make any progress whatsoever. So, anything that steps us back from the cycle of violence that’s in the region ends up being healthy for everybody.

Question 12. Do Jews and Gentiles have equality in salvation? And do we share equal blessing in like weight or portion?

All those who believe in Jesus are part of the church, but we all don’t get the same gifts. Some are teachers and some are pastors and apostles, and some have the gift of hospitality. What this means is when it says that we are co-heirs, it means that we all have through the Spirit the same kind of direct access to God, just like we had the same kind of need. We all had need for our sins to be forgiven. Our sins are forgiven and we all get the Spirit of God. But the roles that we have and the way in which we function within the world as a part of that salvation may have differentiation within it. It’s designed to work in such a way that we collaborate together, that we work well together, that we work in an environment of peace together. So, the reason you get a gift that I don’t have is so that I don’t have the mistaken idea that I have everything I need and I don’t need the person sitting next to me. The reason you get a gift or an ability that’s different than mine or access to certain blessings in certain kinds of ways that I may not possess is so that we can share the space together well that we share.

Question 13. Why would God want to keep Israel as a distinct ethnic identity?

God is in the business of showing His faithfulness and His grace. God made certain commitments to Israel and despite her disobedience, God never let Israel go. The picture of this in the Old Testament is the book of Hosea. So, everything about what God is doing with Israel is not being done because Israel deserves it or is inherently special in some way that other human beings are not in terms of what they bring to the table. It’s all a function of God’s goodness and grace which He is underscoring by saying, I made commitments to you despite your disobedience, I am going to reach out to you. And then lest we be proud about that, we need to all remember that the reason Christ went to the cross is because we all are disobedient before God and need what He has to offer. So, no one’s put in an advantageous position because that’s being raised. Israel is supposed to be example number one for the grace of God. Israel is chosen to be special. God went to work through Israel. God blessed Israel. Israel grumbled in the wilderness. Israel had the prophets remind her about the need to be faithful. Israel rejected the Messiah when He came. Israel sinned again and again. And yet God didn’t give up on Israel because He keeps His word. Why is that important? Because what it says to all of us is God doesn’t give up on those who turn to Him. That the offer is there for everyone and God doesn’t give up on the person who turns to Him. He keeps His word to them. And it’s not on the basis of anything I bring. It’s on the basis of what God offers. When I talk about the gospel, I sometimes try and say it this way so people will get it. You have two choices for how you interact with God. You can barter with God and say, “I’m going to try and do enough good that outweighs the bad that God will say, ‘not bad, you’re good’”. Or you can take the gift that God offers to you and says, “I’m going to do this. This is on my back, not yours, because I am doing you a favor that comes out of grace and mercy”. And accept what God offers. And recognize that, you have to fix me because I can’t fix myself. Now, which one are you going to do? You’re bartering with God with the first example. But you’re embracing the goodness of God with the second example.

Question 14. What was the problem of the Palestinian refugees created when Israel became a state in 1948?

This is a very important conversation because I think part of the reason we’re in a violent cycle is because we didn’t solve this problem in the 1940s. When Palestinians were displaced, the initial effort and inclination was to try and get the Palestinians to be absorbed by the Arab countries around Israel. That was one of the ways to try and think about doing this. And in the 1940s when that was being proposed, many of the countries didn’t want to do it. Not just because of the social disruption they felt like it might cause for their own countries, but also because by doing so they would have recognized Israel’s right to exist in the land. And if there was one thing all the Arab nations were agreed upon in the late 1940s, it was they didn’t want to recognize Israel’s right to exist. That did not happen for the first time until Egypt did it in the 1970s. So that problem never got solved. And the issue of what to do with the mass of Palestinians who lived in refugee camps came out of that background.

Some of what we are dealing with at its root has to do with Israel never having been accepted as a genuine entity in the land by many. And one of the challenges that you have in the region is you have Jewish people, you have Christians (although their numbers are dwindling) and you have Muslims in the in the region. And they all see this conversation very differently.

Question 15. So that was bad response to 1948, what would have been a good response?

Had there been some willingness to absorb and to help the Palestinians, that could have helped to solve the problem. I don’t know if it would have done away entirely because you had segments of Islam that were hostile to Israel being there at all. The hard part of what you’re dealing with now is asking the question, and I don’t know the answer to this question. And that’s why I said there’s nothing envisioned on the table in terms of how to solve this problem. And so, we don’t even know what we need to work towards in order to get peace. But one of the questions that you have is how do you give the right of self-expression to the Palestinian people who are in the region? That’s the challenge of the region.

Question 16. You mentioned the cycle of violence and the different groups involved. Did not Israel pull from those borders and settlements in 2005.

Yes, they did. At various points in its history, Israel tried to indicate she was not interested in violence. That was 2005. I’m not talking about every Israeli, but I have material from some people in Israel, some of whom have governmental roles, who talk about “voluntary displacement” as if Palestinians have chosen to be displaced. They promote voluntary displacement and think that should be the policy of the Israeli government. That’s the language of ethnic cleansing, which is a problem.

Question 17. Please explain the natural and wild branches of the olive tree described in Romans 11:11-21?

The olive tree represents the promise that was originally given to Abraham. That’s why the Jewish people, the seed of Abraham, are the original branches. The point that Romans 11 is making is Gentiles were not an original part of that tree and they were grafted in. But the point that’s being made is they get access to the promise because they are connected to the promise by having been grafted in. They are co-heirs of the promise (Eph. 3:6). They were far off and now they have access (Eph. 2). That means that we get the same blessing whether we’re Jewish or Gentile when we respond to the Messiah. We get the new life. What’s the new life? It’s the Spirit within us. It’s the hope of the new covenant. That’s true of Gentiles and Jews. How do I know that? When Cornelius comes to faith, the Spirit comes down on the Gentiles. And Peter and his friends were caught off guard. Because Peter understands Jewish theology, which says the only way the Spirit can indwell someone is if God has cleansed them (Acts 15). So, the moment he sees that the Gentiles have the Spirit of God, he says they received the same gift as we did at the beginning looking back to Acts two when the Spirit was distributed and the new covenant blessing came on Jews at Pentecost. So, the Gentiles and Jews have the same blessing and the same access. There’s no rank of distinction between what they get access to because they all have access to the Spirit of God. And it doesn’t make any difference whether you were first in line or last in line. You get the same blessing.

Question 18. I think we have a similar problem in thinking here in Australia with the indigenous and a replacement and that we cannot solve this problem no matter how much money or how much effort we put in because there’s a belief that wrong has been done and there’s a holding on to that wrong. I was in Vanuatu on Pentecost and I met the man who was descended from the people who received Pedro Fernández de Quirós (Portuguese sailor who arrived in 1606) when he landed. De Quirós took two of their boys away and they never came back to the land. And this man said to me, “It was wrong what was done, but we don’t look at that. We look at what God did”. And I wonder if these problems of the displacement can ever be solved even if you give them everything because there’s going to be this belief that the wrong was done and there’s this unforgiveness.

To the extent that we deny some sense of empathy for the injustice and some ability to forgive for the injustice we will be locked in the cul-de-sac. You need both of those things. I need on the one hand to understand and appreciate the pain and the reality of what the injustice meant to someone, and the flip side is I need to be able to be gracious enough to forgive someone for having made a mistake. For having done something bad. So, I’m talking about the two-way thing that has to happen in order for us not to get stuck. Because if I stay a victim and I stay angry, I don’t get to reconciliation. But I can’t get to reconciliation on the other hand if I don’t appreciate the pain that has been caused and why someone’s angry. I’ve got to be able to work both sides of the street. And so, you’re right that to the extent someone doesn’t let go of their anger and their frustration, you’ve got a problem. In fact, I actually think one of the things that frustrates me about the public discourse in this area that comes from some is all they want to do is trade the past oppressor against the person being oppressed and they just want to flip sides. That doesn’t help us. That’s the same battle and the same division. The only thing that’s changed is who wears the white hats and the black hats. The only way you get to reconciliation, and this is important because one of the dangers in working with reconciliation is to say, well, you just need to get over it. You know, you just need to move past it. That’s what some people say the solution is. No, the solution is to actually engage in some effort to understand what took place and what that meant for people and to also have the opportunity for forgiveness to be offered in the midst of that conversation to work through it not around it. And that’s really important in these kinds of difficult conversations. And unfortunately, our world is so polarized with the belief being in where my tribe is what really counts that getting there is very difficult because I’m taught to defend myself and my people as opposed to making an effort to listen to someone else.

Question 19. Could you comment on the incredible rise of antisemitism around the world today and some of the things that we are seeing even from certain right-wing Christian circles?

I tell people that what we are experiencing is deja vu all over again. I think that what you are seeing from elements of the right that have turned very anti-Israel and anti-Jewish is the rise up of things that I saw when I was growing up in the 1960s that were often said about Jewish people. The conspiracy things. All the anti-Jewish tropes about the power that they have, the way in which they’ve conspired against the world. All that stuff is coming back. You know, you swat the fly and the fly comes back. That’s part of it. The other part of it is an excessive national focus that resents in the fact that (and I’m talking about United States politics now) the United States is defending Israel and spending so much money to defend Israel when they want money spent on our internal politics. That’s another thing that’s moving. Again, this is a reaction some of which is motivated by latent antisemitism that never went away and has resurfaced and other parts of it are part of the tribal concerns that people have about they’re not being taken care of and instead the money’s going over there and they don’t like it. So, it’s a combination of things. That segment of our politics has become very isolationist in how they see the world. They only see the world through an American lens. They don’t think about America’s role in the world and what that should be. They want all the attention to be on what’s going on internally in the US and so they react to all the resources that are being given to these efforts. So, I think it’s a combination of things.

Question 20. The metaphor in Romans of the olive tree, what is the tree? Is it the church? Is it Israel?

The metaphor is the promise. So, the tree is the promise. The tree is about the promise. The tree is about access to blessing. The tree is the fact that the original blessing and the original recipients of the blessing were Abraham and his seed, meaning the nation of Israel. That’s why they’re the natural branches. And then the reason Gentiles are said to be the unnatural branches is because that original promise was only indirectly involving them because the promise was the world would be blessed through the seed of Abraham. In Christian thinking that’s how Christ is the means of blessing for the world. So, we get there through Christ. So, the tree in Romans 11 is tied to the promise and the promise is made to Abraham primarily. The reason I spent Part 1 on the covenants of promise is because the promise is the storyline of the Bible. The storyline of the Bible runs through those promises. Even the career of Jesus Christ runs through those promises. God was saying, “This is what I’m committing to do for the world, and I’m going to do it initially through raising up a nation and a people who are dedicated to me and who are supposed to be dedicated to me and are supposed to be different than what’s going on in the world”. Of course, the problem was Israel only sort of did that. They didn’t do it to the degree that God was hopeful. In fact, the text in the latter part of the Hebrew scripture says, “You failed at doing this. You haven’t done it. You have shamed the name of God”. And then out of that God says, “so I’m going to send a David to do what you as a nation were unable to do”. So those promises are the storyline of the Bible. The beauty of God’s grace is He has managed on the one hand to commit Himself to bringing a broken and a strange world of people groups together. And the way He has proposed to do this is through the way in which they all need what it is He alone offers.

So, the tree is the promise of relationship with God and blessing from God. When the Bible says because of the patriarchs they mean it.

Question 21. You mentioned Egypt and the original acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist. What do you think of the Abraham Accords (agreements between Israel and several Arab states)? Do they hold any promise, any hope?

Maybe. To the extent that there are Muslim nations that are willing to recognize Israel’s right to exist in the land and to do so with the hope of peace, that helps the region. Of course, the problem is that’s not all Muslim nations. But to the extent that that happens, that’s important.

What I hear is that the reason you had October 7, 2023, was because Saudi Arabia was on the edge of recognizing Israel. Which had it taken place would have been massive for the region. And Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran didn’t want that to happen. And they knew if they attacked Israel that Israel would respond in an eye for eye and tooth for a tooth kind of way and that would push Saudi Arabia away. At least for a time they got what they wanted. But much of the diplomacy that goes on is an effort to try and build a presence for Israel in which more and more of her neighbors say, “You have the right to exist”. I think that’s in part what’s underneath the Abraham Accords. To that extent it helps us because it puts us on a path that says violence is not the way. The other reality is in the background, this is the uncomfortable part, is that the scripture seems to be pretty clear that in the end we as human beings won’t solve that problem. So even though we should aspire to this and move in this direction and go this way human beings are known for not being at their best.

Question 22. Have you heard of the Christian Identity movement which is apparently part of British Israelism? How would you counter their ideas?  

I’m not familiar with the Christian Identity movement. I was dealing with a similar question earlier when I said, “Who’s a Jew?” We talked about racial mixtures. To which my answer is, God knows who He’s talking about when He talks about restoring Israel. It may be a problem for us to identify who these people are. God doesn’t have that problem.

British Israelism is the belief that the British and other related Northern European peoples are descendants of the 10 lost tribes of Israel. And when the British went over to America they took that lineage with them.

So, it’s a form of manifest destiny and nationalism. Any nationalism that we have, no matter where it comes from, runs against the idea that the kingdom of God is made up of many tribes and many nations.

Question 23. In reformed Judaism (which adapts traditional beliefs and practices to fit contemporary life and ethics) they believe that if your father is Jewish, you to have a Jewish identity. But in Orthodox Judaism, they say, “No, your mother must be Jewish for you to have a Jewish identity”. How does this relate to the issue of identifying people who are Jewish?

My way of answering the question is not to answer it biologically, but to answer it sociologically and religiously. There are two kinds of Jews. There’s the Jewish person who has Jewish heritage biologically, but then there are the people who are Jewish who have been raised and have operated around a belief in the Torah and what it represents and live Jewishly. If a person has a biological mix but they still are connected to the promises of the Torah they are Jewish despite the mix that they have. Because they’ve connected themselves to the Mosaic promises and covenant.

Question 24. If the church has inherited Israel’s covenant role, what revealed pattern of life now guides the church’s witness to the nation?

The answer to this question is part of the second half of most of Paul’s letters. The most crisp answer is in Galatians 5, which is the exhortation to live according to the law of Christ and the law of love and to live in a way in which you are honoring people. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. You want to treat your neighbor as you wish to be treated. And then in that text it says against such there is no law. So that’s one way.

What you also get in the Pauline letters is Jewish people who by conscience seek to live out their walk with God by respecting certain days and by having a certain diet are not supposed to be denied the right to do that.

On the other hand, the person, particularly the Gentile, who doesn’t live that way and was never asked to live that way shouldn’t have to be Jewish in their practice in order to be a Christian. That’s why Paul is able in various places to say circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing (this is a shocking statement). And what he means by that is, now that the heir has come who inherits the promise and the law isn’t just about stipulations, the law was also about the promise, that when the heir comes you are set free from requirements of the law, not because they can’t be a guide but because they aren’t a means of salvation.

Question 25. What has replaced the Torah as the concrete revelation that shapes the life and the witness of God’s covenant people?

The great commandment. The great commandment is called the great commandment because when you put the 613 commandments of the Torah together, Jesus said, “This is the one that matters. It even matters more than worship and sacrifice”.

Question 26. Do the Jewish people wrestle with how Israel gets saved? Is this a question that Jewish people have historically wrestled with? Or is it a primarily a Christian question?

Some Jews wrestle with the question of being saved and others don’t. It is not primarily a Christian question. We know some Jewish people did wrestle with this question because Jesus got asked it at least twice in the New Testament from people who were Jewish. So, some do and some don’t.

Question 27. Do Jewish people generally view “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26) as a question about individual eternal salvation or is that reading largely saved by later Christian theology?

Because we live in the west, I think most people when they hear the word “salvation” by default think individualistically. In the western part of the world, generally speaking, we think about salvation as an individual exercise. We don’t think nearly enough about it as a corporate entity in which God is in the business, as Ephesians 2 says, of bringing estranged peoples together. When I was a new believer, I said, “Why is all this Jew and Gentile stuff here? I don’t get it.” I didn’t get it because I was thinking individualistically about my own salvation. The reason you get all this Jew and Gentile stuff in the Bible is because God is in the business of bringing peoples together because it’s only when you bring peoples together, you get peace. It’s only when you bring peoples together into reconciliation that you get peace. And of course, the basis for that peace is we all have the same need, and God has answered the same need graciously for all of us through Jesus Christ. And so, we share the same base. That’s part of what’s going on with salvation.

Question 28. Dr. Rosner appealed to Romans 14:5-8 to support his position given Paul’s identity as a Torah observant Pharisee. Do you think Romans 14 is teaching that the Sabbath and dietary laws are no longer relevant for believers? Or is Paul addressing a different issue within the Roman congregation?

What Paul says is that each person should walk with God in the dictates of their conscience. But he doesn’t want you fighting over days and diet. So, the person who feels that the best way to worship God, as a Jewish believer, is to follow the Torah, is supposed to be affirmed. The person who says Christ has delivered me from that and so I don’t have to do that is also to be affirmed because the important thing now is not the Mosaic covenant but what Christ brings to the person, who ends up saying to Christ “what I couldn’t do through the law, you have done for me”.

Appendix: Ephesians 2:11-22; 3:6

“Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— ¹² remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. ¹³ But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

¹⁴ For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, ¹⁵ by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, ¹⁶ and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. ¹⁷ He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. ¹⁸ For through Him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

¹⁹ Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of His household, ²⁰ built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. ²¹ In Him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. ²² And in Him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.” (Eph. 2:11-22)

“This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 3:6).

Acknowledgement

This post is based on a presentation by Dr Darrell Bock of the Dallas Theological Seminary.

Posted, September 2026

Also see: Replacing “Replacement theology”: Part 1