Has the Church Replaced Israel? Replacement Theology Debate

Thanks to my opponent, Jacob_A, for a thorough and provocative post. I believe his points were cogent, sincere, unobtrusive, and fair (traits, I have to say, which are not that common in debates on DDO...or anywhere else). Just a housekeeping note: I'm not sure my opponent needs to be so careful about defining himself and me as "evangelical" Christians who hold scripture to be our "sole" authority (and who do so with distinct differences with Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy). While I share many "evangelical" stances, and while I believe the Bible is a unique and majestic record of God's dealings with humankind, I also believe we can learn from our Catholic and Orthodox branches. I also believe we can learn from scholars and commentaries, and also from non-Christians as well...and, yes, even from each other. I also wanted to reiterate that my stance has nothing to do with being anti-semitic. Indeed, (and I realize this is purely anecdotal) I personally know several Jews (some who are not Christians) who agree strongly with many of my following points. So, again, I just wanted to reiterate that I believe we could qualify as worthy adversaries just with some sound scholarship, regardless of which religion, philosophy, or sect we happen to subscribe to, and that interpreting Israel as being or not being the standard version of God's "chosen" has no necessary relevance to being anti-semitic (though I'm sure some views likely have been used incorrectly to bolster anti-semitic stances through the centuries...yet another MIS-application of the Bible!). Now, on with the debate. While I believe my opponent mis-charactizes my initial premise somewhat, I do believe he hits on the core of our disagreement. The mis-characterization involves the notion of "replacement" and the term "nation". I believe that God, indeed, did call Abraham to enter into convenant (i.e., contract, promise, agreement) in order to partner with God to bring God's plan to the rest of the world (Gen 12:1-3). I believe this original agreement has remained intact through the present. The "old" testament (agreement), as it were, is only "old" because it deals mainly with Abraham and his descendants (the Hebrews, who eventually formed the "nation" of Israel), and the "new" testament is new mainly because it describes the life of Jesus and the birth of the church. But, contrary to popular opinion, I believe the "old" and "new" really are all part of the same big plan: God calls people (anywhere, anytime, of any nation) to be his servants, to be his agents of love and forgiveness throughout the world. Where my opponent hits the nail on the head is that I strongly believe that everyone (early Israel, modern Israel, and pretty much everyone who has ever lived) is prone to misunderstanding and abusing God's plan. No one has a monopoly on God's blessings, and no one has a monopoly on falling short of his blessings. We all are in this together (Rm 3:23). I would like to use this round to focus on terms such as NATION (and ISRAEL, CITY, JERUSALEM), as metaphor. Many discussions such as this often revert to semantics and "stances"...and this debate is certainly well within danger of needing that sort of clarification. I don't believe people are either literalists or not. Each of us interprets scripture (and life) with both literal and figurative stances. Some of the most ultra-conservative Christians I know still insist that SOME parts of the Bible are figurative (such as some of the imagery in Daniel and Revelation). So, the question is not whether I take the Bible literally or not, but WHICH PARTS I take literally, and which parts I take figuratively. Contrary to popular opinion (even within the church), the Bible was not written by brain-dead, illiterate, uneducated, inartistic bores who simply "dictated" word for word as they "listened" to God speak. Rather, they were imaginative and masterful in their poetic and literary skills, producing some of the most majestic poetry, metaphor, narrative, and story the world has ever known (hence, the Bible's status as the No 1 best-seller of all time). Specifically, for the sake of this debate, the word "nation" and similar terms such as "Israel", "city", "Jerusalem", "Zion" are of crucial importance. These terms pack a powerful punch, especially if we acknowledge their metaphorical application. "Nation" as a concept has changed over time. A cursory reading of even general Wikipedia articles should be enough to show that the concept has several meanings and is certainly not clearly referring only to "nation-states" or modern "nations". The Israel of the OT, in fact, should be understood as being more of a "tribe" or a "people" than a nation or empire. Biblical references to Israel as a "community" or "a people" rival those using "nation" (check any concordance). For purposes of this debate, I will concede that most of the biblical readers through history (and even the biblical writers) assumed the "nation of Israel" meant (or included in its possible meanings) a political entity of sorts, with a king, a standing army, economic interests, and a semblance of territorial borders, and so on. But there also is ample evidence to suggest that many biblical uses of the terms "nation" or "Jerusalem" had a strong metaphorical character. For example, Ex 19:6 says, "You will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation". This doesn't sound exactly like the standard politico-military construct ("kingdom of priests"?). Another example: Dt. 4:34 refers to God "tak[ing] for himself one nation out of another nation," a reference to the Exodus out of Egyptian slavery. This includes a foreshadowing of things to come, perhaps, or a description of how Israel was born, but it uses the term "nation" to refer more to "a people" than to a politico-military entity (that is, the "nation" was a people even though, for a time, that "people" had no real estate of their own). This is not unlike the common Christian assertion that "the church" is not a building, but a community of people. More telling, however, is a NT use of "nation", specifically in 1 Pet 2:9: "You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God..." Bible scholar Archibald Hunter writes that Peter, "like the other NT writers...thinks of it [the church] as the true people of God...'Once you were no people' [a harsh description of a people supposed to be God's chosen], 'but now you are God's people' (1 Pet 2:10), and he ascribes to the Christian church the various titles of honor which had once belonged to old Israel ["chosen", "priesthood", "holy nation"]. The old people of God had comprised only Jews; the new one embraces both Jews and Gentiles" (INTERPRETER'S BIBLE, Abingdon, 1957, p 84). It is hard to deny that Peter here uses the term "nation" as a metaphor for the church...not as a description of the politico-military "nation" of Israel. I won't list all the references here (space!), but terms such as "Israel", "city", "Zion", and "Jerusalem" are used similarly. Ben Ollenberger speaks of Zion as losing much of its direct geographical meaning and taking on symbolic meaning even during OT times as the "dwelling place of God" and a symbol of inviolability and security (OXFORD COMPANION TO THE BIBLE, Oxford, 1993, p 830). Jesus is referred to as "Israel"'s redeemer several times in the NT, but he himself claims his "kingdom is not of this world" (Jn 18:6). Rev 21:1-2 refers to the church as "the holy city, the new Jerusalem". These are but a few of the metaphorical references to terms related to Israel. I am sure that many biblical references to Israel DID assume a political entity, but, in light of these metaphors, especially as they are used in the NT, I believe we need to be cautious about assuming God intended for his plan to be carried out by a politico-military entity per se. As I'm out of space, I'll continue to address specific points in R3. Back to my opponent.