I totally agree with you: God is faithful to Israel. So to me, the question is, Who is Israel? Is Israel ethnic, genealogical, national, religious, or some hybrid? Is Israel defined by Torah observance, descent, election, or covenant status regardless of faith? Or is the true Israelite the one who trusts God and walks so closely with Him that he recognize Him when He comes into the world? I note that Jesus called Nathanael a "true Israelite, indeed."
I agree the NT gives multiple angles on the cross and Jesus. Where I draw the line is this: multiple applications, yes — but not multiple origins. Paul contextualized on Mars Hill (Greek poets, Greek language), but he didn’t detach Jesus from Israel’s God or relocate the story’s source. Translation isn’t relocation.
On the “OT God vs Jesus” tension: I get why people feel it, but the caricature doesn’t hold. The OT repeatedly shows God as patient and covenant-faithful — and Jesus speaks bluntly about judgment too. Marcion noticed tension, then “solved” it by splitting God in two. Scripture doesn’t.
So for me the Jewish/covenant frame isn’t an optional lens — it’s the soil the whole message grows from.
And genuinely — thank you for the time and care you’ve brought to this dialogue. It’s refreshing to engage a deep thinker.
In Scripture, Israel is first and foremost the physical descendants of Jacob (Israel) — an actual ethnic people God formed and bound Himself to by covenant. That definition never changes.
What the text then distinguishes is faithfulness within that people. When Yeshua calls Nathanael “a true Israelite indeed” (John 1:47), He’s affirming Nathanael’s integrity as an Israelite by lineage, not redefining Israel as a spiritual category. Nathanael is a son of Jacob whose heart aligns with the covenant.
If Ephraim (10 lost tribes) is dispersed into the goyim (nations) how would God bring them back? If I have two half filled cups: 1st cup grape juice is Ephraim and 2nd cup is goyim...they are poured into a single cup. Now how does God bring back Ephraim out of the mixture of water? He would have to bring the goyim also! Yeshua as King is the representative of Israel and dies nullifies the Saini marriage contract and when resurrected is the first reborn Israelite. Make sense?
Ethnic Israel doesn’t vanish in dispersion—Paul keeps them a distinct category all through Romans 9–11 (“my kinsmen according to the flesh”). Gentiles being grafted in doesn’t mean they become ethnic Israel; grafting changes covenant standing, not bloodline. And God doesn’t need Israel to be “traceable” to regather them—He regathers by His own knowledge and covenant call (the Shepherd knows His sheep), drawing the scattered back through repentance and faith. So yes: Israel is restored and the nations are brought near under one King—but not because ethnicity gets erased, and not because Sinai is annulled; it’s renewal and reunification in Messiah.
How do you interpret the following: “Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.” (Luke 3:8). It seems like what matters is the determination of a true Israelite is not physical genetics or ethnicity but spiritual fruit.
John isn’t denying ethnic Israel—he’s confronting covenant presumption. “We have Abraham” is not a magic shield. God can keep His promise to Abraham without anyone who refuses to repent—He can raise up “children” from stones if He wants. The point is: lineage isn’t enough, fruit matters. But that doesn’t mean genetics/ethnicity is irrelevant or “replaced.” It means ancestry without obedience is dead religion, and God won’t be held hostage by it.
I've been searching your posts. I don't know if you are approaching this as a Messianic Jew or a Gentile. Can you point me to one or two posts that lays out your thinking on why a Gentile Christian should care about Torah and Judaism? I can't seem to find a reason that I, as a Gentile, should be concerned with it. It is not a matter of salvation and to take on the Old Testament is to pick up a lot of baggage. Jesus spoke of the danger of putting new wine in old wineskins. The church dealt with the Jewi-Gentile issue in Acts 15. It seems like that was the ideal time to really emphasize the importance of Torah to the Gentile believer, if it was necessary, but they didn't do that. Thank you for your time.
Thanks for taking the time to sort this out — that’s huge to me.
I’m writing from a "Messianic Jewish" frame (ethnic Jewish — not “religious” — identity; Jewish Messiah; Jewish Scriptures). And I agree with you on one key point up front: Torah-keeping isn’t a salvation requirement, and Gentiles don’t need to “become Jews.”
So why should a Gentile believer care at all?
Because following Jesus means stepping into Israel’s story. The New Testament doesn’t float above Torah — it assumes Torah as the biblical vocabulary for things like sin, holiness, covenant, worship, and ethics. If we detach Jesus and the apostles from that Jewish context, we usually end up with a different Jesus and a different gospel — just in Christian packaging.
On Acts 15: the council’s point wasn’t “Torah is irrelevant.” It was, “Don’t put conversion and a full yoke on Gentiles up front.” Then Acts 15:21 signals an ongoing learning posture (“Moses is read every Sabbath”). In other words: don’t crush new Gentile believers on day one — start them walking.
My Acts 15 post is scheduled for January 27, and it addresses a lot of what you raised directly. After that, I’m also going to write a separate article that unpacks this question even more plainly: what it means for Gentiles to honor Torah without turning it into legalism, identity takeover, or salvation-by-obedience.
One more head-scratcher to sit with: where does the Bible ever say Jesus and the God of Israel aren’t the same? Not in logic, not in identity, not in principle. The New Testament isn’t introducing a “new God.” It’s the same God from Genesis to Revelation — same character, same covenant faithfulness. Nothing changed in that regard.
I appreciate the push — these are exactly the right questions to be asking. And I always enjoy the conversation.
Many people have told me this before, but it’s true — if you slow down, set the presuppositions aside, and read the text in context (remembering it’s a thoroughly Jewish set of writings), the New Testament starts to clarify itself in ways most of us were never taught.
Thanks for clarifying your background, it makes a little more sense now. I’ve visited several Messianic congregations in Atlanta and I always enjoyed my time there.
Just after the ascension, as the witnesses were trying to sort everything out, to understand the meaning of Jesus, it was natural that a community would form around the continuity of Israelite covenant and the Messiah. The Gospel of Matthew seems to come from that community, so it certainly had its place among so many that shared that faith. I agree it forms a rich tapestry that provides great meaning to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
My point would be that there are other meanings and contexts as well, For example, when Paul preached to the Athenians on Mars Hill, he didn’t raise the issue of the covenant or the Messiah. Instead, since he was speaking to the Stoic and Epicureans, he quoted Stoic philosophers and poets to them, something they would understand as Greek Gentiles. It made more sense to speak to them about the Logos and the Logos becoming flesh.
Maybe detachment from the Jewish context does present a different meaning to Jesus – but is there only one? Several meanings for the cross are presented in the New Testament – atonement, substitution, ransom, revelation of God’s nature, and victory over spiritual forces, to name just a few.
Many people notice the differences between the character of God in the Old Testament and Jesus. I’m not saying they’re different, I am saying I understand where those people are coming from. Sometime the OT God comes off as a surly curmudgeon, impulsive, a vindictive hothead, always threatening to wipe people out. It that respect, he seems very human. He seems a far cry from the Christ of peace and love. Marcion, for example, noted it and declared them to be two different persons. The Catholics painted him as a heretic, of course.
Thank you for your detailed explanations. I will await your post on Acts 15 and your further articles.
Question: What if you’re not dealing with a head-on declaration that God has replaced the Jews, but instead has preferred the grafted in branch to the root? I think that’s more of the implied level that I experience. Subtle jabs at Israel‘s unfaithfulness, pointing out the continued rejection of the Messiah, replacement of covenant language with gentile thought, reminders to lend our support to Israel because they need us, etc. Just this Sunday, a teacher told the congregation that we would be elevated to “kings and queens” so we could commune with God and that is what it meant “to rule and reign” with God, a clearly gentile understanding of what it means to rule and reign, not at all connected to Adam and Eve’s, original command to rule the Earth. I’m convinced that ruling and reigning looks more like farming than sitting on a hierarchy of never ending thrones.
Cathy, yes, that “preferred branch over the root” posture is exactly how replacement theology usually lives in the room: not as a an out right mantle, but as a tone. Paul’s Romans 11 logic won’t allow it. The Gentiles don’t replace the root, and they don’t get to critique the root from above it , they’re supported by it.
I’m with you on “rule and reign.” In Scripture, dominion is stewardship before it’s ever status. Eden “rule” looks like tending, guarding, cultivating, more like farming than thrones. When church culture turns reigning into hierarchy cosplay, it quietly replaces covenant categories with Gentile ones.
This leads me to what I was reading in Exodus yesterday morning about the very intentional humanization of Moses. It's the undertone of all scripture that men are simply men. Elevating ourselves is going to lead to an unfair and actually unrighteous perspective.
You’re hitting the main thing that I struggle with on several accepted doctrines: they impune God’s character. They assert God CHANGES. Above all else, God is holy and therefore cannot change. Charnock wrote that this is the worst kind of attack.
I struggle with that too, and it took me a long time to isolate this idea. There were so many things about that doctrine that I always struggled with when it came to the Tulip framework, but at the root of it, it is about God's character. And I wish I had more time because I would unpack other denominations like Mormonism and the Watchtower that have a different view of God's character. What hits me hardest is we miss the simple fact that he says, "I am who I am," and there's going to be many that don't know what that looks like and don't know me. We have to have a deep desire to understand who he truly is and what he truly wants from us! You'll have to send me that reference, Cathy. I'll take a look at it. I've never heard that name before.
Stephen Charnock, The Attributes of God. Most intense, in-depth, difficult to read book I’ve ever attempted. I think I’ve reread the chapter on holiness at least 30 times and I still don’t understand it 100%. That’s how good it is. I understand he influenced Calvin, but when I read Calvin, I think he tried to simplify, and lost things in the translation. I am not a fan of current Calvinism’s translation of who God is. You mentioned the Tulip… That’s one of the things that I believe impunes God’s holiness. Another doctrine is cessationism and dispensationalism, its root. If God changes, then he is no longer holy.
Sergio, I am beginning to love your work and perspective. I have recently come to see the schism between Gentiles and Jews in the early church as a tragedy, a divorce with unimaginable fallout. You mentioned letting the Bible speak without a tribal alliance to guide it, and I certainly think that is where I am at as well. I am going through in order (in Psalms now) and unpacking as I go. I have found so many things that conflict with theology I have been exposed to (mostly Evangelical), and have found that covenant is the strongest through line in the whole Bible that makes everything coherent. As far as Israel, I am eternally grateful for the painstaking preservation of Torah, and I do not feel like Israel “failed” because in faithfulness or exile God continued to reveal His character through them. Where I get a little sideways is with Zionism because it seems like the nation state is using religious language to cover an anti-covenant agenda, and I do not believe the land itself was promised to these people in perpetuity, nor that the literal geography of Jerusalem is the locus of Jesus’ reign. We could probably say the same thing about Christian Nationalism. I am interested in your thoughts.
Oh, I love how you worded it, Michael, and I agree with you 100%. Anytime man gets involved with anything, it becomes agenda-driven. I think one of the keys to escaping this matrix is stepping back about 10,000 feet and looking at the big picture—which is exactly what you’re doing, my friend.
Because at the end of the day, all that really matters is how well we knew our Maker—and how well He knows us. Not because He’s got some providential knowledge, but because it’s relational. It’s intimate. It’s real.
On Zionism and Christian nationalism—think Constantine. Whenever a faith becomes accepted by the government, it’s the government controlling the faith. I don’t care which side it goes on—even Islam.
And honestly, men give themselves a whole lot more credit than we deserve. Always go straight to Scripture.
Just found you a few weeks ago and have been reading your work. I find it fascinating and appreciate the depth that you bring to the subjects you are discussing. Keep of the great work! Over the last summer I was led to write a book that delves deep into the question of "Who is Israel?" I do think that this is one of the least understood questions today. Humans like to keep things simple and tends to conflate Israel and Jews as if those two words are synonymous; they are not. If we don't understand this we misunderstand who the Bible is talking about when it says Israel or Judah. I do think this is something that you will understand and resonate with. You may wish to consider my book at https://www.blessingsandcursesbook.com. I also have a Substack where I delve into some of the things we assume to be true but have not researched for ourselves at https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com. Keep of the great work; I look forward to your next post.
Hey John, I appreciate it. I’m going to check it out, my friend. Thank you for taking the time to read the comment, and I’m always very interested in like-minded people. Thanks again!
My impression of this writing is about what it means to be Chosen.
It's such a simple concept but most don't grasp its true meaning. The Tanakh clearly spells out The Chosen Ones as the Jewish Israelites.
To be on display for thousands of years exposing your deeds to the world sounds embarrassing considering the nature of sin.
The beauty lies in the responsibility that you spoke of. To be Chosen is not an elitist merit badge. It's a call to the rest of the world to not be so haughty!
The Gentile Church inherited the Chosen people's root. That's all were talking about here. We should be honored to be part of that root, not to usurp what clearly has not been commanded!
Sergio, are there indications in the OT that the covenant would extend to gentiles? I’m only in Numbers, so I’ve not gotten to Jeremiah or Ezekiel. Thank you!
Amazing critiques here! Covenant in Scripture is never treated like a disposable framework. It’s marked by fidelity, patience, discipline, and restoration, not replacement. What stood out most for me was the emphasis on continuity rather than centrality: being brought near is not the same thing as taking over. Scripture consistently warns against boasting, against assuming ownership where there is only mercy. When theology starts reframing what would clearly be betrayal in ordinary human terms as “progress” or “upgrade,” something has gone wrong at a moral level, not just an interpretive one.
Whew! You have a lot going on here. You didn't waste much time hitting one of the issues I've long considered a key characteristic of replacement theology, and by extension, Reformed theology....the psychological factor. I've struggled to explain it, but you did a nice job of laying out the mechanics of it.
Most of your articles give me an AHA! moment or something new to noodle on, and this one is no exception. The first was pointing out the responsibility of being "chosen". I've mocked the idea of being chosen because of the usual responses it elicits, all of which are self-centered. But chosen-ness in Israel's case carried tremendous responsibility. Moral, cultural, sacrificial, and even genetic. God explicitly wanted Christ to come from a specific lineage. Yeshua was as Jewish as Jewish gets, in every sense of the word. The process was unlike anything humans would concoct, and we trivialize it when we try to make it anything other than scripture describes it. I'll probably never understand why folks insist on twisting Romans 11. Why would Paul use the metaphor of grafting to be any different than it is in nature? When branches get grafted from one tree to another, they don't take on the genetic make-up of the new tree's branches. They get sustenance, that's all. In Paul's analogy, the root and tree remain Israel’s patriarchal promises. Gentiles share in those blessings, but they don't become Israel themselves.
The other point that really got my attention..."Religious systems can absolutely learn to baptize betrayal… if betrayal protects the tribe." I don't want to take up any more time, so let's just say that one really struck a chord. Great article, as always.
Sergio , You are a very wise and intelligent man. I am new to your articles and I agree with your assessment and views. Very rarely do I find people like you who can “see straight “. As both a Christian and human being ,I find myself alone and never fitting into any group or organization because people can’t see the truth …they are all “blind “ and refuse to be open to the truth.They seem to prefer to live in darkness and ignorance. Thank you for trying to educate and open eyes! Wanda
Wanda, thank you for the kind words. Honestly, you just put words to how I feel a lot of the time in religious circles too. I’m really glad you’re here.
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment — I love seeing a genuine heart response. And that’s exactly what you shared. 🙏
Modern Christians do not read the Old Testament, and they only take the human dimension from Jesus Christ, not the dimension of the Messiah, because they can reduce such a "god" to the level of manipulation.... thank you for the wonderful text 💙
I love how you worded that, Ursa. That's so true. Thank you very much for taking the time to read and thank you for your comment, my friend. Have a blessed week and shalom.
I totally agree with you: God is faithful to Israel. So to me, the question is, Who is Israel? Is Israel ethnic, genealogical, national, religious, or some hybrid? Is Israel defined by Torah observance, descent, election, or covenant status regardless of faith? Or is the true Israelite the one who trusts God and walks so closely with Him that he recognize Him when He comes into the world? I note that Jesus called Nathanael a "true Israelite, indeed."
Appreciate the thoughtful pushback.
I agree the NT gives multiple angles on the cross and Jesus. Where I draw the line is this: multiple applications, yes — but not multiple origins. Paul contextualized on Mars Hill (Greek poets, Greek language), but he didn’t detach Jesus from Israel’s God or relocate the story’s source. Translation isn’t relocation.
On the “OT God vs Jesus” tension: I get why people feel it, but the caricature doesn’t hold. The OT repeatedly shows God as patient and covenant-faithful — and Jesus speaks bluntly about judgment too. Marcion noticed tension, then “solved” it by splitting God in two. Scripture doesn’t.
So for me the Jewish/covenant frame isn’t an optional lens — it’s the soil the whole message grows from.
And genuinely — thank you for the time and care you’ve brought to this dialogue. It’s refreshing to engage a deep thinker.
Let us continue to sharpen one another in the days ahead. I promise you, we serve the same Lord, Jesus Christ.
In Scripture, Israel is first and foremost the physical descendants of Jacob (Israel) — an actual ethnic people God formed and bound Himself to by covenant. That definition never changes.
What the text then distinguishes is faithfulness within that people. When Yeshua calls Nathanael “a true Israelite indeed” (John 1:47), He’s affirming Nathanael’s integrity as an Israelite by lineage, not redefining Israel as a spiritual category. Nathanael is a son of Jacob whose heart aligns with the covenant.
If Ephraim (10 lost tribes) is dispersed into the goyim (nations) how would God bring them back? If I have two half filled cups: 1st cup grape juice is Ephraim and 2nd cup is goyim...they are poured into a single cup. Now how does God bring back Ephraim out of the mixture of water? He would have to bring the goyim also! Yeshua as King is the representative of Israel and dies nullifies the Saini marriage contract and when resurrected is the first reborn Israelite. Make sense?
Ethnic Israel doesn’t vanish in dispersion—Paul keeps them a distinct category all through Romans 9–11 (“my kinsmen according to the flesh”). Gentiles being grafted in doesn’t mean they become ethnic Israel; grafting changes covenant standing, not bloodline. And God doesn’t need Israel to be “traceable” to regather them—He regathers by His own knowledge and covenant call (the Shepherd knows His sheep), drawing the scattered back through repentance and faith. So yes: Israel is restored and the nations are brought near under one King—but not because ethnicity gets erased, and not because Sinai is annulled; it’s renewal and reunification in Messiah.
How do you interpret the following: “Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.” (Luke 3:8). It seems like what matters is the determination of a true Israelite is not physical genetics or ethnicity but spiritual fruit.
John isn’t denying ethnic Israel—he’s confronting covenant presumption. “We have Abraham” is not a magic shield. God can keep His promise to Abraham without anyone who refuses to repent—He can raise up “children” from stones if He wants. The point is: lineage isn’t enough, fruit matters. But that doesn’t mean genetics/ethnicity is irrelevant or “replaced.” It means ancestry without obedience is dead religion, and God won’t be held hostage by it.
Hope that helps 😊
I've been searching your posts. I don't know if you are approaching this as a Messianic Jew or a Gentile. Can you point me to one or two posts that lays out your thinking on why a Gentile Christian should care about Torah and Judaism? I can't seem to find a reason that I, as a Gentile, should be concerned with it. It is not a matter of salvation and to take on the Old Testament is to pick up a lot of baggage. Jesus spoke of the danger of putting new wine in old wineskins. The church dealt with the Jewi-Gentile issue in Acts 15. It seems like that was the ideal time to really emphasize the importance of Torah to the Gentile believer, if it was necessary, but they didn't do that. Thank you for your time.
Thanks for taking the time to sort this out — that’s huge to me.
I’m writing from a "Messianic Jewish" frame (ethnic Jewish — not “religious” — identity; Jewish Messiah; Jewish Scriptures). And I agree with you on one key point up front: Torah-keeping isn’t a salvation requirement, and Gentiles don’t need to “become Jews.”
So why should a Gentile believer care at all?
Because following Jesus means stepping into Israel’s story. The New Testament doesn’t float above Torah — it assumes Torah as the biblical vocabulary for things like sin, holiness, covenant, worship, and ethics. If we detach Jesus and the apostles from that Jewish context, we usually end up with a different Jesus and a different gospel — just in Christian packaging.
On Acts 15: the council’s point wasn’t “Torah is irrelevant.” It was, “Don’t put conversion and a full yoke on Gentiles up front.” Then Acts 15:21 signals an ongoing learning posture (“Moses is read every Sabbath”). In other words: don’t crush new Gentile believers on day one — start them walking.
My Acts 15 post is scheduled for January 27, and it addresses a lot of what you raised directly. After that, I’m also going to write a separate article that unpacks this question even more plainly: what it means for Gentiles to honor Torah without turning it into legalism, identity takeover, or salvation-by-obedience.
One more head-scratcher to sit with: where does the Bible ever say Jesus and the God of Israel aren’t the same? Not in logic, not in identity, not in principle. The New Testament isn’t introducing a “new God.” It’s the same God from Genesis to Revelation — same character, same covenant faithfulness. Nothing changed in that regard.
I appreciate the push — these are exactly the right questions to be asking. And I always enjoy the conversation.
Many people have told me this before, but it’s true — if you slow down, set the presuppositions aside, and read the text in context (remembering it’s a thoroughly Jewish set of writings), the New Testament starts to clarify itself in ways most of us were never taught.
Hope that helps.
Thanks for clarifying your background, it makes a little more sense now. I’ve visited several Messianic congregations in Atlanta and I always enjoyed my time there.
Just after the ascension, as the witnesses were trying to sort everything out, to understand the meaning of Jesus, it was natural that a community would form around the continuity of Israelite covenant and the Messiah. The Gospel of Matthew seems to come from that community, so it certainly had its place among so many that shared that faith. I agree it forms a rich tapestry that provides great meaning to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
My point would be that there are other meanings and contexts as well, For example, when Paul preached to the Athenians on Mars Hill, he didn’t raise the issue of the covenant or the Messiah. Instead, since he was speaking to the Stoic and Epicureans, he quoted Stoic philosophers and poets to them, something they would understand as Greek Gentiles. It made more sense to speak to them about the Logos and the Logos becoming flesh.
Maybe detachment from the Jewish context does present a different meaning to Jesus – but is there only one? Several meanings for the cross are presented in the New Testament – atonement, substitution, ransom, revelation of God’s nature, and victory over spiritual forces, to name just a few.
Many people notice the differences between the character of God in the Old Testament and Jesus. I’m not saying they’re different, I am saying I understand where those people are coming from. Sometime the OT God comes off as a surly curmudgeon, impulsive, a vindictive hothead, always threatening to wipe people out. It that respect, he seems very human. He seems a far cry from the Christ of peace and love. Marcion, for example, noted it and declared them to be two different persons. The Catholics painted him as a heretic, of course.
Thank you for your detailed explanations. I will await your post on Acts 15 and your further articles.
Question: What if you’re not dealing with a head-on declaration that God has replaced the Jews, but instead has preferred the grafted in branch to the root? I think that’s more of the implied level that I experience. Subtle jabs at Israel‘s unfaithfulness, pointing out the continued rejection of the Messiah, replacement of covenant language with gentile thought, reminders to lend our support to Israel because they need us, etc. Just this Sunday, a teacher told the congregation that we would be elevated to “kings and queens” so we could commune with God and that is what it meant “to rule and reign” with God, a clearly gentile understanding of what it means to rule and reign, not at all connected to Adam and Eve’s, original command to rule the Earth. I’m convinced that ruling and reigning looks more like farming than sitting on a hierarchy of never ending thrones.
Cathy, yes, that “preferred branch over the root” posture is exactly how replacement theology usually lives in the room: not as a an out right mantle, but as a tone. Paul’s Romans 11 logic won’t allow it. The Gentiles don’t replace the root, and they don’t get to critique the root from above it , they’re supported by it.
I’m with you on “rule and reign.” In Scripture, dominion is stewardship before it’s ever status. Eden “rule” looks like tending, guarding, cultivating, more like farming than thrones. When church culture turns reigning into hierarchy cosplay, it quietly replaces covenant categories with Gentile ones.
This leads me to what I was reading in Exodus yesterday morning about the very intentional humanization of Moses. It's the undertone of all scripture that men are simply men. Elevating ourselves is going to lead to an unfair and actually unrighteous perspective.
To your last point: this is why I cannot agree with orthodox or Catholic traditions that elevate any human.
AMEN!
You’re hitting the main thing that I struggle with on several accepted doctrines: they impune God’s character. They assert God CHANGES. Above all else, God is holy and therefore cannot change. Charnock wrote that this is the worst kind of attack.
I struggle with that too, and it took me a long time to isolate this idea. There were so many things about that doctrine that I always struggled with when it came to the Tulip framework, but at the root of it, it is about God's character. And I wish I had more time because I would unpack other denominations like Mormonism and the Watchtower that have a different view of God's character. What hits me hardest is we miss the simple fact that he says, "I am who I am," and there's going to be many that don't know what that looks like and don't know me. We have to have a deep desire to understand who he truly is and what he truly wants from us! You'll have to send me that reference, Cathy. I'll take a look at it. I've never heard that name before.
Stephen Charnock, The Attributes of God. Most intense, in-depth, difficult to read book I’ve ever attempted. I think I’ve reread the chapter on holiness at least 30 times and I still don’t understand it 100%. That’s how good it is. I understand he influenced Calvin, but when I read Calvin, I think he tried to simplify, and lost things in the translation. I am not a fan of current Calvinism’s translation of who God is. You mentioned the Tulip… That’s one of the things that I believe impunes God’s holiness. Another doctrine is cessationism and dispensationalism, its root. If God changes, then he is no longer holy.
Alright, thank you very much. I'm going to check it out. If I'm understanding you correctly, it was written in the 1500s?
Yes! I recommend the Kindle version. It’s massive.
Yeah, I just saw that, and it's expensive lol. I have to get through Mary's books before I start reading this one.
Sergio, I am beginning to love your work and perspective. I have recently come to see the schism between Gentiles and Jews in the early church as a tragedy, a divorce with unimaginable fallout. You mentioned letting the Bible speak without a tribal alliance to guide it, and I certainly think that is where I am at as well. I am going through in order (in Psalms now) and unpacking as I go. I have found so many things that conflict with theology I have been exposed to (mostly Evangelical), and have found that covenant is the strongest through line in the whole Bible that makes everything coherent. As far as Israel, I am eternally grateful for the painstaking preservation of Torah, and I do not feel like Israel “failed” because in faithfulness or exile God continued to reveal His character through them. Where I get a little sideways is with Zionism because it seems like the nation state is using religious language to cover an anti-covenant agenda, and I do not believe the land itself was promised to these people in perpetuity, nor that the literal geography of Jerusalem is the locus of Jesus’ reign. We could probably say the same thing about Christian Nationalism. I am interested in your thoughts.
Oh, I love how you worded it, Michael, and I agree with you 100%. Anytime man gets involved with anything, it becomes agenda-driven. I think one of the keys to escaping this matrix is stepping back about 10,000 feet and looking at the big picture—which is exactly what you’re doing, my friend.
Because at the end of the day, all that really matters is how well we knew our Maker—and how well He knows us. Not because He’s got some providential knowledge, but because it’s relational. It’s intimate. It’s real.
On Zionism and Christian nationalism—think Constantine. Whenever a faith becomes accepted by the government, it’s the government controlling the faith. I don’t care which side it goes on—even Islam.
And honestly, men give themselves a whole lot more credit than we deserve. Always go straight to Scripture.
Thank you for your comment 🙏
I’ve only just read the first 2 paragraphs and already feel at home!😊🙏🏼
Love it! thank you!
Just found you a few weeks ago and have been reading your work. I find it fascinating and appreciate the depth that you bring to the subjects you are discussing. Keep of the great work! Over the last summer I was led to write a book that delves deep into the question of "Who is Israel?" I do think that this is one of the least understood questions today. Humans like to keep things simple and tends to conflate Israel and Jews as if those two words are synonymous; they are not. If we don't understand this we misunderstand who the Bible is talking about when it says Israel or Judah. I do think this is something that you will understand and resonate with. You may wish to consider my book at https://www.blessingsandcursesbook.com. I also have a Substack where I delve into some of the things we assume to be true but have not researched for ourselves at https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com. Keep of the great work; I look forward to your next post.
Hey John, I appreciate it. I’m going to check it out, my friend. Thank you for taking the time to read the comment, and I’m always very interested in like-minded people. Thanks again!
Replacement Theology is simply ridiculous.
My impression of this writing is about what it means to be Chosen.
It's such a simple concept but most don't grasp its true meaning. The Tanakh clearly spells out The Chosen Ones as the Jewish Israelites.
To be on display for thousands of years exposing your deeds to the world sounds embarrassing considering the nature of sin.
The beauty lies in the responsibility that you spoke of. To be Chosen is not an elitist merit badge. It's a call to the rest of the world to not be so haughty!
The Gentile Church inherited the Chosen people's root. That's all were talking about here. We should be honored to be part of that root, not to usurp what clearly has not been commanded!
Thanks for a wonderfully written piece!
Sergio, are there indications in the OT that the covenant would extend to gentiles? I’m only in Numbers, so I’ve not gotten to Jeremiah or Ezekiel. Thank you!
Yes! And it starts in Genesis.
“In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Genesis 12:3)
That’s the nations in view from the start.
And the Torah makes it explicit:
“There shall be one law for the native and for the sojourner who sojourns among you.” (Exodus 12:49)
Israel remains Israel. The sojourner is welcomed in.
It’s always been there :) The NT isn’t a new idea — it’s this promise coming to fullness.
Amazing critiques here! Covenant in Scripture is never treated like a disposable framework. It’s marked by fidelity, patience, discipline, and restoration, not replacement. What stood out most for me was the emphasis on continuity rather than centrality: being brought near is not the same thing as taking over. Scripture consistently warns against boasting, against assuming ownership where there is only mercy. When theology starts reframing what would clearly be betrayal in ordinary human terms as “progress” or “upgrade,” something has gone wrong at a moral level, not just an interpretive one.
Whew! You have a lot going on here. You didn't waste much time hitting one of the issues I've long considered a key characteristic of replacement theology, and by extension, Reformed theology....the psychological factor. I've struggled to explain it, but you did a nice job of laying out the mechanics of it.
Most of your articles give me an AHA! moment or something new to noodle on, and this one is no exception. The first was pointing out the responsibility of being "chosen". I've mocked the idea of being chosen because of the usual responses it elicits, all of which are self-centered. But chosen-ness in Israel's case carried tremendous responsibility. Moral, cultural, sacrificial, and even genetic. God explicitly wanted Christ to come from a specific lineage. Yeshua was as Jewish as Jewish gets, in every sense of the word. The process was unlike anything humans would concoct, and we trivialize it when we try to make it anything other than scripture describes it. I'll probably never understand why folks insist on twisting Romans 11. Why would Paul use the metaphor of grafting to be any different than it is in nature? When branches get grafted from one tree to another, they don't take on the genetic make-up of the new tree's branches. They get sustenance, that's all. In Paul's analogy, the root and tree remain Israel’s patriarchal promises. Gentiles share in those blessings, but they don't become Israel themselves.
The other point that really got my attention..."Religious systems can absolutely learn to baptize betrayal… if betrayal protects the tribe." I don't want to take up any more time, so let's just say that one really struck a chord. Great article, as always.
Sergio , You are a very wise and intelligent man. I am new to your articles and I agree with your assessment and views. Very rarely do I find people like you who can “see straight “. As both a Christian and human being ,I find myself alone and never fitting into any group or organization because people can’t see the truth …they are all “blind “ and refuse to be open to the truth.They seem to prefer to live in darkness and ignorance. Thank you for trying to educate and open eyes! Wanda
Wanda, thank you for the kind words. Honestly, you just put words to how I feel a lot of the time in religious circles too. I’m really glad you’re here.
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment — I love seeing a genuine heart response. And that’s exactly what you shared. 🙏
Excellent! Praise God for bringing us clarity and truth through your gifts Sergio.
You're too kind, Brian. Thank you very much, my friend. I appreciate you, brother 🙏
Modern Christians do not read the Old Testament, and they only take the human dimension from Jesus Christ, not the dimension of the Messiah, because they can reduce such a "god" to the level of manipulation.... thank you for the wonderful text 💙
I love how you worded that, Ursa. That's so true. Thank you very much for taking the time to read and thank you for your comment, my friend. Have a blessed week and shalom.
Haven’t started reading yet but I’m LOVING the subtitle!!!!
Thank you, Miss Cathy. Let me know your thoughts. I'm curious :)