Has the Church Replaced Israel? Replacement Theology Debate

I am glad that my opponent agrees that our understandings of the meaning of "nation" are crucial to this discussion. My contention, however, is that my opponent does, in fact, mischaracterize my view. Before criticizing my view as one that I "certainly don"t take seriously", my opponent should make sure the view he is criticizing is actually mine. In fact, he mischaracterizes my view, as follows: "God did not choose or intend to choose Israel in the first place." While I"m sure I often could improve my wording, I believe it should be clear that my opponent misquotes me here. The fact is I never made that statement (which should be clear from the record). Furthermore, I stated clearly that I DO believe God called Israel (as is clear in the following quotes from my earlier posts): "I believe the church has not replaced Israel so much as it is a fulfillment of what God called Israel to do in the first place." "I believe when God called Abraham"" "I believe that God, indeed, did call Abraham to enter into covenant"" So, with that clarification, let's agree that the issue is not WHETHER God called Abraham (and, by extension, Israel). This is not in dispute. Where we disagree is about the details. WHY did God call Abraham, and just WHAT did he call him to do, and WHY did he call him to do it? My premise is that God did NOT intend for the covenant to include the usual geo-politico-military nation that most of us might expect. My premise is that God intended for "nation" to be applied in a broader (yes, metaphorical) sense. Maybe it would help at this point to deal with the issue of why the Bible would use the term "nation" at all. If God wanted it to be understood metaphorically, why not explain it clearly from the get-go or use a different term? The term "nation" as it was originally used in Hebrew comes from the Ugaritic term for "people" or "clan", and was associated mainly with "kinship as the basis for the group" (so Hamlin in INTERPRETER"S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, Vol 3, Abingdon, 1962, p.515). In the time of Abraham (around 3500 years ago), a concept of a geo-political state, as it were, was not well developed, and people just sort of spread out and began to hang out in groups. The very idea of how different peoples came to take on different cultures and languages and how the history of "nations" progressed was uniquely emphasized in the Hebrew tradition which was to become the basis for the OT. In no other contemporary writings can we find such a preoccupation with the progress of "groups" of people and the role of a particular group (Israel) within that larger historical context (Hamlin, IDB, p 515). Israelite culture gave us nothing if not a sense of teleological linear history (history with long-range purpose). Just before Abraham, there was the Tower of Babel (Gen 11). This story assumes that all humankind was originally all part of a family of many "groups" (i.e., "nations"), which separated and went their separate ways mainly because they were unfaithful to God. Note that the Hebrew conception was not opposed to various "groupings", as such, but the ideal was that these groups would be able to get along and live at peace with each other (Hamlin, IDB, p 515). It is because of pride that these groups grew to be at odds with each other, but the Hebrew ideal was that all these groups ("nations") should learn to come back together and be at peace. This kind of universal, global aspiration can be found virtually nowhere in contemporary traditions, as so eloquently expressed in Isaiah (remember, "nation" as a term at this time was interchangeable with "people" or "group"): "And many peoples will come and say, 'Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may teach us concerning His ways and that we may walk in His paths.' For the law will go forth from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples; and they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war." (Is 2:3-4) So the biblical record reflects an unusually noble sentiment, especially for that time period: nations were meant to all live together in peace. Even the Hebrews thought of themselves in not completely homogeneous ways, but accepted that they were a type of merger--that God had called them out from among the nations to be a model of cooperation for others to follow and join rather than a homogeneous nation separated from everyone else (Hamlin, IDB, p 515). As the concept of a geo-political nation developed, some groups began to grow bigger and stronger, and began to impose their culture on others. People distrusted and hated the "others", as it were. The same pride that caused the division at the Tower of Babel pervaded all peoples (since they were all descended from these common ancestors). So, people ("nations") in general were prone to defining themselves (and their groups) in terms of their own measures of greatness (like how much land they occupied, how much food they had, how much livestock, how many people they "owned", how big their armies were, and so on). Bigger and stronger was better. So it is no surprise that the Hebrew group followed suit. The entire OT, in fact, is the tension between these two great themes: will Israel return to the ideal plan of God, or will they follow after other nations (and their idols)? The grand theme of the Bible has always been, "Will we continue to be selfish and narrow about seeking our own power, or will we see a bigger picture of the whole world living together in peace?" Every person and "nation" throughout history must answer this question. So, when God promises that Abraham will become the "father of a great nation" and that "through him, all the nations will be blessed", there is no reason to believe that God meant this "nation" to be a geo-politico-military entity. Even if we grant that Abraham and many of his descendants thought more in those terms, I still believe God wanted them to be more imaginative. By analogy, say my little church of 100 members wanted to grow in number to become a huge congregation of, say, 3-4000 members, with a huge and beautiful building to go along with it. Let's say someone stood up and said, "God is speaking to me and promising that we will become a mega-church so we can be a blessing in the world." We all listen and say "Amen" and feel inspired. During the next few years, we all work diligently to bring in new members, and we begin to see some growth. But, just about the time we reach 300 members, some members die off. Others move to another city. Others are called to become missionaries. So we are now back to 100 members. But we keep trusting God's promise, so we keep working. In a few years, we're back to 300 members, but, like last time, we lose several members again. Meanwhile, several of the members who moved away or became missionaries report that they have started churches in other cities. When we actually tally up all the new churches' memberships, we count over 4,000 members. So, one Sunday morning, a member stands up and says, "Hey everyone, I know we're all disappointed that we never became the mega-church we thought God promised, but maybe we were taking it too literally! Just look at what has happened. Our little church has remained small, but our members have gone out and reaped a huge harvest. THIS IS the mega-church God promised! We just needed to open our minds!" If members bowed their heads in disappointed and insisted on their own narrow view, they'd miss out on all this joy. I believe this analogy helps explain my view of what happened with Israel. Rather than see his plan culminating in the church, many insist the "literal" Israel IS what God promised. I will try to address more points in the next round (space!). Back to my opponent.