For the week of September 13, 2025 / 20 Elul 5785
Ki Tavo
Torah: D’varim/Deuteronomy 26:1 – 29:8
Haftarah: Isaiah 60:1-22
Foreigners will rebuild your walls, and their kings will serve you. Though in anger I struck you, in favor I will show you compassion. (Isaiah 60:10)
Frankly, I don’t get it! I don’t understand how it could be that so many people who claim to love and respect the Bible are entirely clueless about God’s relationship to the Jewish people. It’s not that I don’t understand, since I have spent so much time—perhaps too much time—grappling with various expressions of Christian antisemitism. I am aware of a significant portion of the historical background and theological dynamics that influence this misguided thinking. But still, it’s not as if God hasn’t made himself clear on this issue.
I admit that some of the ways the people of Israel are characterized and criticized throughout both the Hebrew Scriptures and New Covenant Writings can lead people to draw some fairly negative conclusions. But that’s only if you ignore the rest. About a month ago, I commented on how these misreadings of such passages trouble me. Still, I know that some of these passages are seriously harsh.
This week’s parsha (weekly Torah portion) is one of the sections of Scripture that lists God’s blessings for obedience and his curses for disobedience. That the leaders and people of Israel were under a cloud of God’s disapproval for much of biblical history is clear. The threat of judgment increased over the years, culminating in exile. The return from Babylon provided little comfort as the prophetic warnings didn’t wane.
Israel’s precarious state under the Sinai Covenant, as given through Moses, continued into the New Covenant Writings. If anything, the coming of the Messiah shone an even more intense light upon Israel’s inability to live up to God’s standards. This doesn’t mean that there weren’t exceptions, of course. From Abraham and Joseph to Moses and Joshua, to Samuel and David, to Elijah and Elisha, to Isaiah and Jeremiah, to Peter and Paul, and all the other named and unnamed holy ones, Israel always had a remnant of faithful, godly men and women (see Romans 11:5). Tragically, however, these didn’t prevent God’s wrath from falling upon the nation more than once.
But is that the entire picture of God’s relationship to Israel? God didn’t seem to think so, as is evident in this week’s accompanying reading from the prophet Isaiah. Despite God’s judgment upon Israel, he will restore them. As we read, “Though in anger I struck you, in favor I will show you compassion” (Isaiah 60:10).
I wonder if people simply have a hard time grasping the reality of the tension that exists between God and his ancient covenant people. It’s a lot easier for people to understand a much more straightforward narrative of disobedience and rejection. Moreover, it appears that some regard Israel’s disobedience as proof of their being impostors, as if God was biding his time until the “authentic” Israel would emerge in the Messiah. That might make an interesting story, but it’s not the biblical one.
I am aware of how specific biblical passages are used to support such a notion, but that overlooks the Bible as a whole. Why can’t people see that God’s promises of restoration only make sense if they are spoken to the very people who are under the threat of judgment? God, through Isaiah, is clear: “Though in anger I struck you, in favor I will show you compassion.” The ones guaranteed favor are the ones he is angry with. The threat of judgment due to disobedience under the Sinai Covenant was always in tension with the unconditional promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. No matter how bad things get for Israel and whatever the resulting consequences, God’s covenant loyalty to Israel as a nation continues. If you don’t get that, you don’t get the God of the Bible.
Scriptures taken from the English Standard Version
For more on this topic see the following “Thinking Biblically” podcast episode:
The reason is perhaps mid era church preachers misunderstanding the term Jews (the antagonistic ones in Judea) in the gospel by John as to mean all Israelites. Church has failed to teach the clarification in the epistle to Romans. The covenant blessings for the Israelites are irrevocable.
Straightforward conclusion after a suitably nuanced elaboration of the tension in Scripture on these matters. Well spoken.
Nothing in the Old Testament can prove the land promises matter today nor that there is a faithful remant apart from the church which began with 12 Jewish disciples. One would need a New Testament era passage anticipating Roman exile and such literal land promises. Romans 11 is not clear in the least in those specifics for those who regard their interpretations as biblical nor leaning upon sentimental biases. The faithful remnant were exclusively those who made Jesus Christ their LORD along with the mixed ethnic multitude who followed after.
Paul is clear that the Hebrew Scriptures are foundational in understanding Messianic faith (see 2 Timothy 3:16-17). If one’s understanding of God is supposedly based on the New Testament, thinking that it somehow supersedes the Hebrew Scriptures, then they are undermining the New Testament’s intent.
Citing 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is valid but broad; it affirms the Old Testament’s authority but does not prove that specific promises (e.g., land) remain unchanged or that a distinct remnant exists apart from the church. Moreover your claim that prioritizing the New Testament undermines its intent is overstated and not well-substantiated. The New Testament often reinterprets Old Testament promises (e.g., Hebrews 8:13, Galatians 4:21-31), suggesting that it has hermeneutical priority in understanding fulfillment in Christ.
Clearly we disagree on how the NT functions with regard to Hebrew Scripture and how Messianic fulfilment works. While the coming of the Messiah and the gift of the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit) has great and wonderful implications, they don’t negate God’s covenant faithfulness to literal Israel. Claiming, for example, that Paul resolves his concerns about his “kinsmen according to the flesh” by equating generic believers with God’s promises to Israel makes no biblical sense, be that in the context of the Book of Romans or the rest of the Bible. For a fuller, though brief, handling of Israel’s identity on Romans, chapter eleven, see my book: https://amzn.to/47FfGSW
Bottom line: Your claim that the New Testament upholds literal land promises for ethnic Israel lacks clear support, especially in Romans 11, which focuses on salvation through faith, not land or national restoration. Paul’s concern for his “kinsmen” (Romans 9:3) is about their salvation in Christ, not a distinct covenant role. Equating believers with Israel’s promises aligns with Galatians 3:29 and Ephesians 2:11-22, where the church inherits God’s promises. Without explicit New Testament evidence for a land promise to unbelieving Jews, your interpretation risks misleading readers by prioritizing ethnicity over faith.
However the New Testament reflects Hebrew Scripture’s messianic fulfilment, it does so without undermining God’s promises to the forefathers, which includes peoplehood and land. This is not “prioritizing ethnicity over faith.” It’s an affirmation of God’s hesed, his covenant loyalty. If you wish to continue the discussion, please contact me directly.
More on this topic is available on my latest “Thinking Biblically” pocast episode here: https://youtu.be/e3Cou7MKG0U