Has the Church Replaced Israel? Replacement Theology Debate

I wish I had more space to address my opponent's references, but sometimes a good counter is a different argument. It would do little good to deal with scriptures he has presented because we have yet to resolve our definition problem. We disagree about the definition of "Israel". I am claiming that "nation" referred more to a "group" of people and had less to do with what has become the ethnocentric, political entity we know as Israel today. I believe this problem compels us toward metaphor, but the irony is that if we research "nation" in the OT, its meaning actually comes closer to the NT view of the church than it does to the common political view. I'm not sure where my opponent stands here. Sometimes he agrees that the NT application is a metaphor for the church. But he still insists there is a separate Israel. He concedes that Israel doesn't have to be understood as a political entity, but he still believes that Israel also IS a political entity with God's blessing. I am confused. If God called out a people for himself, and if he intended for that group to NOT be an ethnocentric political entity, but a cooperation of people based solely on their relationship to God, then the biblical scenario culminating in the church makes perfect sense. I don't understand what role my opponent believes this "separate" entity is supposed to play. It does little good for me to counter my opponent's scriptures if we don't agree on the meaning of Israel. I could use the same passages he is using to justify my view, while he'll just continue to insist they apply to the political nation. So, much of my portion of the debate is persuading my opponent that God never intended for his original promise to be applied to a political entity. Furthermore, my opponent has not acknowledged his mischaracterization of my stance on God's call to Abraham. I stated several times that I DO believe that is what happened, but my opponent just ignores this and claims I do NOT believe it. We are not debating WHETHER God called Israel. Where we disagree is on the WHY. The core of our disagreement lies in one big issue: how do we understand the MEANING of God's plan for Israel? Did he intend for Israel to be an ethnocentric political entity, or did he intend for it to be a borderless cooperation of people that would do his bidding throughout the world? If we can't resolve this issue, no amount of quoting scripture will help. Israel's formation was not mono-ethnic. There is no such thing as a "pure ethnicity" anywhere in human history. The Israelites were formed from various "nations" or "peoples" (as any peoples were formed), including Arameans (Dt 26:5), Hittites and Amorites (Ez 16:3), Egypt (Gen 41:50), Kenites (Ex 18:11), and Gibeonites (Josh 9:3). "The MIXED MULTITUDE (Ex 12:38) that went up from Egypt with the Hebrews also testifies to the heterogeneous nature of early Israel. To these we should add the Palestinian HABIRU, who joined the Israelites at Shechem (Josh 24), and the CANAANITES (I Sam 7:14)." (Hamlin, IDB, p 515) If more people embraced that God never intended for Israel to be an isolated political entity, but a vanguard for international harmony, we would not only solve the issue of this debate, but would come much closer to solving the problems of the entire human race. I'd like to walk through the Bible quickly and sketch out a case for why the church is really the "new Israel": 1. Tower of Babel (Gen 1-11): God creates everything and wants humans to live in harmony with him and with each other, but humans are selfish and fall from God's glorious plan. This leads to language division and hatred among all peoples. 2. The Promise (Gen 12:1-3): God reaches out for people to enter into covenant. Abraham heeds the call, and so Israel (as a called gathering of people) is born. But this is not about Israel. A key part of the promise is that this will lead to ALL people being blessed (that all peoples would find their way back to what God originally planned for them: to live in harmony rather than hatred). 3. The Promise Remembered (Ex 2:23-25): Soon after Abraham's descendants begin their journey with God, sin leads to slavery in Egypt. Eventually, they turn back to God to make good on his original promise; God responds by promising to lead them out of Egypt and back to the "promised land" where they again can embark on the original plan (note that they are his people whether they live in the "promised land" or not). 4. Wandering Back (Ex-Dt): Israel wanders the wilderness back to their homeland and becomes a more coherent "group", but this certainly is NOT based on politico-military definitions. Their "separateness" is as a wandering people with no territory, and is based solely on following God's precepts (this is when the 10 commandments and other laws were formed, which still serve as a basis for much of the world's moral understanding). 5. The "Kingdom" (1 Sam 8:4-9,19-20): It should be clear from this passage that, upon their return home, God was NOT pleased with his people's insistence that they appoint a king. He only grants their wish because they are too stubborn to listen to his plea that He would be their king. But, as the geo-politcal idea was now becoming established, the Israelites wanted to be like all the big nations around them (a stark image of human nature in general; not much has changed!). 6. David (1 Sam 18:7): David was successful at forging faith-based heroism. This had lots of wonderful qualities, but also led to more conflating of God's promise with political expectations. It is incredible that God did not permit Israel's grandest hero to build the great symbol of Israel's faith, the temple. Why? Because David was a man of war! God wanted his people to be peacemakers (1 Chron 22:7-10). 7. More Division (much of the OT prophets): Once again, because of the emphasis on geo-political themes, God's own people couldn't even get along with each other (just like at the Tower of Babel!). 8. The Empires: Throughout the entire biblical scenario, the only time in Israel's history it was a legit political entity was during the reigns of David and Solomon. The rest is marked by division and a conquered status by far more powerful empires (Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Greece). Today's Israel has legit political status, but it is hardly a "great" nation as compared with the world's big players. Not a convincing fulfillment of God's promise. 9: Jesus: It is ironic that often those who oppose replacement theology are quick to point to passages like Is 9 as metaphorically foreshadowing Jesus (prince of peace, mighty counselor), but they insist that similar passages referring to Israel should be applied literally to the political entity. When Jesus arrives, Israel is once again under foreign rule (Roman Empire). Practically every page of the NT abounds with references to the Jews longing for a messiah who would "restore the kingdom". But this is mostly a reflection of the same old misunderstanding. People never learn. O Come, O Come, Emmanuel is a beautiful carol, but is sadly demoted if we apply it to a worldly kingdom. 10. The Misunderstanding (Lk 24:13-27, 44-47): These verses indicate that most folks misunderstood God's promise. When Jesus is crucified, everyone goes home dejected ("we had hoped he would be the one to redeem Israel"). But the risen Christ gets his disciples to finally understand the scriptures: that HE (and his way of living) is the fulfillment of God's plan. 11. The Church: The entire NT is an effort to persuade the Jews (and everyone) that the church is what God had in mind all along: a borderless nation spreading God's love to all. The church is born at Pentecost. People from all over the known world gather and are united in symbolic breaking of the language barrier, and commit to bringing the news of peace to the world, an astounding antithesis to what occurred long ago at the Tower of Babel. Now back to my opponent.