Does the Bible Promise the Land of Israel to the Jewish People Forever?

Many Christians today assume that God promised the land of Israel to the Jews forever, and that Christians today must therefore support the modern nation of Israel (some say we must support Israel no matter what their government does!). However, that is a new way of reading the Bible among Christians. For most of Christian history, Christians believed the prophecies concerning Israel were fulfilled in Christ, and that God no longer intended to give the land to the Jews and restore the temple and kingdom.

We must carefully consider three questions:

1. What did the promise to Abraham say in its Biblical context? 
2. Was the promise unconditional? Do the promises and prophecies actually say what many Christians now assume they said?
3. Did God actually do what some say he promised to do? What do the facts of history reveal about their fulfillment? 

1. What did the promise to Abraham say in its Biblical context?

The Promise in the Context of the Mission of God

Following the plunge of humanity into sin and wickedness, God chose Abraham to be the father of a people through whom he would work out his plan to save the world. God made a three-part promise: Abraham’s descendants would become a great nation, they would be given the land of Canaan as their inheritance from God (what we call “the Promised Land”), and God would bless all the nations of the world through them (Genesis 12:1-7; 13:14-15; 15:5-21; 17:1-8; 22:15-18; 26:2-5, 24; 28:11-15).

The story of God and his people is, to a great extent, the story of the fulfillment of that promise. Exodus and Deuteronomy tell how Israel became a nation. The stories of Joshua, the judges, Saul, and David tell how they conquer and settle the Promised Land. And the New Testament tells how all nations were blessed through Jesus, the promised offspring of Abraham. The promise to Abraham must be read in the context of that mission. The creation of the nation of Israel and their possession of the land were part of God’s mission to bless all people through them. Once that mission was accomplished in Christ, the New Testament speaks about the promise in different terms.

The idea of the “Chosen People” and the “Promised Land” became key themes in Scripture, but in the New Testament the language of God’s chosen people was expanded to include both Jews and Gentiles as part of the children of Abraham by faith in Christ (Romans 4:9-18; Galatians 3:7-9, 23-29; Ephesians 1:3-14; 1 Peter 2:9-10). The promised inheritance is no longer defined by a land for a particular people; rather, in Christ Gentiles now share in the inheritance of God’s holy people (Ephesians 1:18; 2:11-3:6; Colossians 1:11), and the Holy Spirit and heaven are our promised inheritance (Ephesians 1:13-23; 1 Peter 1:3-5).

The Promise to Aaron in the Same Context

Consider a related promise God made to Israel “forever.” When God established the priesthood of Aaron (part of the priestly tribe of Levi), he promised that Aaron’s descendants would be priests “forever” (Exodus 29:1, 9). That promise was made in the context of the creation of the nation of Israel as a holy nation on their way to the Promised Land. However, despite God’s promise to Aaron and his descendants, their priesthood came to an end in the Jewish revolts against Rome in 70 AD and 135 AD, when the temple was destroyed and the Jewish people were expelled from Jerusalem.

Jesus had predicted that the city and temple would be destroyed, but Jesus said nothing about it ever being rebuilt (Luke 19:41-44; 22:5-24). Jesus also said that worship would no longer be required at the Jerusalem temple, but God would seek those who worship in spirit and truth (John 4:20-23). The author of Hebrews said that the Levitical priesthood was superseded by the better priesthood of Jesus, and that the old covenant with its sacrifices was about to pass away (7:1-10:18). Other New Testament authors viewed all believers in Jesus as priests (1 Peter 2:4-10; Revelation 1:5-6).

The promise to Aaron that his descendants would serve as priests forever was made in the context of the covenant with Israel at Sinai, a covenant that Christians believe was superseded by a new covenant in Christ. The New Testament clearly did not view the priesthood of Aaron’s descendants as continuing into the new covenant. Similarly the promise to Abraham that his descendants would inherit the land forever was made in the context of God’s mission to bless the world through Jesus and must be understood in that context.

2. Was the Promise Unconditional?

Prophecies and Promises Have Conditions

God told Abraham to look as far as he could see in every direction, “for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever” (Genesis 13:14-15; see also Exodus 32:11-13). Many Jews and Christians today use that promise to say that the land still belongs to the Jewish people and the modern nation of Israel. However, it is important to remember (1) that the prophecies in the Old Testament had conditions, even if those conditions were not always made explicit, and (2) that the “forever” promises in the Old Testament were given in the context of a covenant relationship with God which had explicit conditions, even if those conditions weren’t explicitly named in every passage.

God made it very clear to Jeremiah that God could and would change what he had said he would do concerning any nation depending on what that nation did. Prophecies to bless or punish a nation would not be fulfilled if that nation changed its conduct.

If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jeremiah 18:7-10)

Implicit conditions are seen in God’s promise concerning David’s kingdom. God promised King David that he would establish David’s kingdom forever (2 Samuel 7:12-16), without mention of any conditions. However, later passages make it clear that the promise depended on whether David’s descendants obeyed God (1 Chronicles 28:6-9; 1 Kings 9:4-9). If David’s son, Solomon, or his heirs turned to idolatry, God would “cut off Israel from the land that I have given them” (1 Kings 9:7). As we will see, the kingdom of David ended in 586 BC, with only a brief revival around 100 BC. Despite the promise to David, his kingdom did not last forever.

“Forever” in such passages clearly does not mean “for all eternity no matter what.”

“Forever” could mean something like “for this age,” meaning until the Messiah comes and inaugurates his spiritual kingdom. When Jesus came as the “Son of David,” he did not expel the Romans and reestablish the earthly kingdom in Jerusalem, as Jews expected the Messiah to do. Rather, Jesus claimed that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). In this sense, David’s kingdom continues, but clearly not in the sense of the original promise that David’s descendants would always rule in Jerusalem over the kingdom of Israel.

More importantly, implicit in such promises is the understood, but sometimes unstated, condition that the people keep their covenant with God. David’s descendants would continue to rule as long as they were faithful to God. We could compare the similar nature of promises made in a marriage covenant. People often make wedding vows to “love forever” or “as long as we both shall live.” No one makes a wedding vow to “love you forever, as long as you don’t run off with someone else or try to kill me to collect the life insurance”—but that is an unstated, though understood, condition of the promise!

The Land Came with a Warning to Israel

The land of Canaan was inhabited by a number of tribal peoples generally called Canaanites or Amorites. God told Abraham that he may not possess the land yet; his descendants must wait 400 years until the inhabitants of the land become so completely wicked that God will act to destroy them (Genesis 15:13-16; Deuteronomy 9:4-5). When God finally did send the Israelites into the land of Canaan, he said that the Canaanites’ wickedness even included child sacrifice, and commands the Israelites not to follow in their ways (Deuteronomy 12:29-31). He warned that if the Israelites followed in their wickedness, the land would vomit out the Israelites as it did the Canaanites before them (Leviticus 18:24-30; 20:22-24).

The promise of the land of Canaan to Israel was in part an act of judgment for the evil of the Canaanites, and the inheritance of the promise by Israel was conditioned on whether or not they followed in the same path.

Moses and the Prophets Predicted that Israel Could and Would Lose the Land

Despite the promises that Israel would inherit the land forever, a number of prophecies in the Bible made it clear that they could lose that inheritance. As they prepared to enter the Promised Land, Moses warned them of the consequences of rebellion against God. They would be given over to their enemies and “be plucked off the land that you are entering” (Deuteronomy 28:48, 63). Then Moses made a remarkable statement, warning that God “will bring you back in ships to Egypt, a journey that I promised that you should never make again” (28:68). Despite the fact that Moses once had promised they would never return to Egypt, he prophesied that it would happen anyway if they turned away from God. Clearly such promises were conditional.

In Jeremiah’s famous sermon in the temple, he warned Jerusalem to look at what God did to Shiloh in the northern kingdom because of their sins. He told the people that if they would practice justice, not oppress the vulnerable, protect the innocent, and not worship other gods, then God would “let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers forever”; but if not, God would destroy Jerusalem as he did Shiloh (Jeremiah 7:5-15). The promise to live in the land forever was dependent on their faithfulness. When Israel was exiled, the prophets explained that it was because they had not listened to the prophets (Jeremiah 29:15-23; 35:15-17; Daniel 9:3-14). Even though the Israelites had been promised the land forever, they lost it, just as they had been warned.

When reading the prophecies, our focus should be on hearing what they called the people to do, rather than speculating on predictions and fulfillments. The most important message of the prophets for Israel today—and for America and any other nation—is the call to practice justice, mercy, and faith (see Isaiah 1:11-20; Jeremiah 7:1-15; 21:11-22:10; Ezekiel 16:44-52; Amos 2:6-16; 4:1-3; Micah 2:1-4; 3:9-12; 6:6-8). Many of the practices of the modern nation of Israel must be judged in the light of those prophecies.

To use questionable interpretations of predictions and prophecies to justify the modern nation of Israel, but ignore what those prophets actually demanded of God’s people, is to misuse Biblical prophecy.

3. Did God Actually Do What Some Claim He Promised to Do?

The Extent of the Promised Land

Abraham was promised the land of Canaan from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River (Genesis 15:21). These borders have been the subject of some debate, but most scholars agree that they do not mean from the Nile River in the middle of Egypt across Arabia to the Euphrates in Mesopotamia, encompassing a huge area of the Middle East (territory that never seems to have been under consideration in the rest of the Bible as part of Israel’s land). 

The “river of Egypt” referred either to the Wadi el-Arish, a brook at the border between Canaan and the Sinai; or, it referred to the eastern Pelusiac branch of the Nile that flows into the Mediterranean at the border between Egypt and the Sinai. So the territory may or may not have included the Sinai, but it did not extend into Egypt. The Euphrates River in this context did not refer to the southern portion of the river in the area of Chaldea (later called Babylonia), but to the northern portion of the river above Syria. The territory promised to Abraham extended northward beside the Mediterranean, not eastward across the Arabian Desert.

It is important to note that this promise was never completely fulfilled at any point in history.

From Joshua to the Exile

When Joshua led the Israelites into Canaan (usually dated either about 1400 BC or about 1250 BC), they did not succeed in conquering all the land promised to them (Judges 1:16-3:5). They did not even gain complete control of what might be called the heart of the Promised Land (“from Dan to Beersheba”). Most, though not all, of the land from Dan to Beersheba did come under Israelite control from Joshua until the northern tribes were carried into exile by the Assyrians in 722 BC. So Israel controlled most of the heart of the Promised Land for about 500-600 years, but not the broader territory promised to Abraham.

Under David and Solomon (around 1000 BC), conquests and treaties brought most of the territory promised to Abraham under Israelite control for less than 100 years. This was the only time in history that most—though still not all—of that territory was under Israelite control. (If the promise referred to all of the much larger territory from the Nile River in Egypt across the desert to Mesopotamia, then most of that territory never came under Israelite control at any time in history.)

David’s descendants no longer ruled most of the land after the division of the kingdom in c. 940 BC. The northern kingdom was ruled by various other dynasties and immediately plunged into idolatry, never to return to God. This left only the smaller kingdom of Judah under the rule of David’s descendants for the next 350 years. The northern kingdom was carried into exile in 722 BC by the Assyrians, and in 587 BC, Judah was carried into exile by the Babylonians, ending Israelite control of any of the Promised Land.

From the Exile to 1948 AD

As God had promised according to the prophets, some of the Israelites returned to Jerusalem from exile and rebuilt the temple (516 BC) and the city (444 BC). However, they were under the control of the Persian Empire and did not reestablish the kingdom with a descendant of David on the throne. When Alexander the Great conquered the region (c. 332 BC), the land of Israel came under the control of the Greeks. Around 142 BC, the Jews revolted against Greek rule and established an independent kingdom (known as the Hasmonean dynasty) in part of the Promised Land for a brief period of less than 100 years, until the Romans conquered the land in 63 BC. Unsuccessful Jewish revolts against Rome in 70 AD and 135 AD resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and the expulsion of the Jews from the land.

From 587 BC to the present, an Israelite kingdom only existed for less than 100 years. Including the modern nation of Israel, the Jewish people have only controlled some of the Promised Land for less than 200 years out of the last 2,600 years.

After the Romans, the land was controlled by various empires, including the Byzantines (who were Christian), various Muslim empires (some Arab, some Turkish), and finally the British. During the period of approximately 2,000 years from Roman to British rule, there was no independent nation in the land (Jewish or Arab), and there was only a relatively small number of Jews living in the land alongside an indigenous population of Muslims and Christians (mostly Arabs and Turks). During most of that period the land was known as Palestine. That was even the term used by the Jews in the late 19th and early 20th centuries who were campaigning to create a homeland for Jews in Palestine.

The modern nation of Israel was created in 1948 AD in part of the Promised Land. But it was established as a modern Western democracy, not a Biblical kingdom, and many of those who founded it were secular, non-religious Jews. Even today about half the Jews in Israel are non-religious. The faith of religious Jews is practiced in synagogues, as it has been for 2000 years, not in a temple with priests and sacrifices. It is difficult to see how the modern nation is a fulfillment of the promises and prophecies of the Old Testament.

Conclusion

Even though God promised that the Israelites would “inherit the land forever,” they clearly did not. If the Jews have to be given a Jewish state in the land today because of the promise to Abraham, why did they not have to be given the land from 586 BC to 1948 AD (a period of over 2,500 years!), and why not the whole territory promised to Abraham?

For the past 2,000 years (until the rise of modern dispensationalism made popular 100 years ago by the Scofield Bible), Christians generally have believed that the promises to Israel concerning the land, the priesthood, and the kingdom were either negated by the coming of Jesus or were brought to fulfillment in Jesus. The idea that God still intends to create an earthly kingdom and temple in the land of Israel does not come from the teachings of Jesus or the apostles—it comes from a new and very questionable reading of the Old Testament.

To say that Jews today must be given the land because of the promise in Genesis ignores much of what is said in the rest of the Bible and ignores the evidence of history that God did not in fact give Israel the land forever.

How Do You Pick a Church?

So, how do you pick a church to join? For the first time since we were newlyweds 34 years ago, Judy and I have to choose a church to attend. Since the second year of our marriage, we have chosen churches because they chose me to be their minister. For over 30 years I've watched as people chose to join our church or chose not to...or chose to leave us for another church. Now we find ourselves on the other side of those experiences and conversations.

The question for us is not just "What church should we join?" The more important question is "How will we make that decision?"

For years I've listened to all sorts of reasons why people made their choices--and many of the reasons were pretty common: We like the preaching (or we don't). We like the music (or we don't). We like the youth and children's programs (or we don't). There are people our age or in our life situation (or there aren't). The people seemed very friendly when we visited (or they didn't). The leaders hold to certain doctrinal positions important to me (or they don't).

If it sounds somewhat self-centered and consumerist, that's because it is. And everyone knows it. Americans shop for churches the way we shop for everything else in a privileged society where exactly what we want can usually be found at some store/mall/restaurant/theater/club somewhere in town.

That's not to say that all those reasons for selecting a church are completely without merit. It does make some difference if we share important beliefs with our church family (though perhaps not as much as we sometimes think). The weekly worship experience is an important part of spiritual life for many people (even if there is little Biblical support for the overemphasis placed on Sunday services in churches of almost all kinds). Most parents naturally are going to care about what the church offers for their children (even if it's far more important what goes on at home than what happens at church). And as someone who preached for 30 years, I'd like to think that good, thoughtful, informed, effective preaching makes an impact on those who listen to it every week (even if what we call preaching doesn't bear too much resemblance to the preaching of Jesus and the prophets).

And I will say that the temptation to make a consumer-like decision has proven powerful. For the last 10 years we've had small groups in our home mostly made up of people young enough to be our kids--it would be nice to have more friends our age. As a former preacher who was trained fairly well in theological studies, I've been strongly advised to be careful about which preacher I will have to listen to every week--and I can understand that advice. I am deeply committed to more equality for women in church, which I think is something the Bible teaches--so I'd like to find a church that shares that belief (only once have we been part of a church that truly shared that conviction, and I'd like to experience that again). And I confess that I'm drawn to church music that I'm...well, drawn to--music does connect at a heart level.

But we decided up front that we would not make this decision based on what church service we like or where we feel most comfortable. We will try to make this decision based on mission--on where we can best continue to follow Jesus on the journey we've been travelling. We want to listen for a sense of calling--a sense that we are needed and will have a purpose (something like the way we tried to decide which churches to serve in ministry). We want to go where we can make a difference. We want to be part of a church that can help us continue to live missionally and where we can help others to do the same.

And so we're asking more questions about the church's understanding of mission than doctrine. We're more concerned about what they are doing for the poor than what they are doing for their members. We're more interested in where and how they are called to serve than in how they conduct their services.

Over the years, I don't remember very many prospective members asking me those questions. I wonder how different churches would be if that is what members were asking of leaders, rather than looking for better preaching, better music, and better children's programs.

If we have to choose, we want to choose a church based on the more important questions, rather than one that has the other things we'd like. It's probably more in keeping with the way of the cross if we choose a church that doesn't have stuff we like, but is really on mission with Jesus.

But it would nice if we find both.

Two Reasons Why Bringing Dr. Brantly Home Is the Right Thing to Do (and Why Christians Should Be Ashamed for Opposing It)

[A few days after this blog was written, political pundit Ann Coulter posted a terribly offensive rant--probably no surprise if you know her style--about this topic that has stirred up a well-deserved backlash. She criticized Brantly and other Christians for going to " disease-ridden cesspools" like Liberia when they could have stayed here and done more good. It's hard to know whether to view her post as culturally arrogant, ridiculously nationalistic, or just plain racist. In any case, I'll let my comments below remain a partial answer as to why Christians should serve the poor and suffering, and why objections are clearly not Christ-like.]

Dr. Kent Brantly trained at one of the top Family Medicine residencies in the country at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth. He could have worked anywhere he wanted to go and made a profitable living caring for patients in the comfort of American upper middle class life. He chose instead to serve as a medical missionary with Samaritan’s Purse in one of the poorest areas of the world. When the Ebola virus struck people in the area he was serving, he could have returned home with his family and no one would ever have blamed him. But he chose to stay, working tirelessly to do whatever he could to save lives and relieve suffering. It is what he felt his faith called him to do. It is what he felt his medical training prepared him to do. It is what he felt his commitment as a physician required of him.  If Dr. Brantly had not contracted the disease, most of us probably would never have heard of him (just as we can’t name the many other doctors who have been doing the same thing without any fanfare).

When the news broke that he had become sick, everyone was amazed by his story, praising his incredible self-sacrifice. He was suddenly an American hero…until the announcement came that he was being brought to Atlanta to one of the best places in the world to treat this kind of disease. Now the hospital is getting hate mail, the Internet is flooded with fear and anger, and the news media is questioning the wisdom of the decision. Even though many medical experts say that America is not at risk of an Ebola breakout from Brantly’s treatment in this facility, many Americans seem unwilling to accept any possibility of any remote risk associated with treating Brantly in a facility designed to do just this. Sooner or later, it seems to me, this disease will surely find its way outside West Africa. The questions we have to ask are: Will we support those trying to fight the disease there? What will we do if they get sick? And, How will we respond when someone here in America does get sick?

I’d like to offer two reasons why Christians should believe that bringing Brantly home is unquestionably the right thing to do.

First, taking care of Brantly, even if there is some risk, is what Christian compassion calls us to do. What Brantly and others are doing in Africa, putting themselves at risk in self-sacrificial service to others, is profoundly Christian (i.e., Christ-like, following in the way of the cross). Bringing Brantly home is exactly what a “Christian nation” should do. (Of course, America is not really a “Christian nation” by any meaningful standard I can imagine, but Christians are nonetheless part of the chorus of American voices complaining about the decision.) If what Brantly and others are doing is profoundly Christian, then refusing to do whatever we can to help him is profoundly unchristian.

When the plague struck Carthage in the Roman Empire in the 3rd century, people abandoned their dying relatives and friends in the streets and even fled the city to save their own lives. But Christians, led by Bishop Cyprian, stayed in large numbers to treat the sick and dying, putting their own lives at risk to take care of, not just their own family members, but anyone who needed their mercy and care. Dionysius, another Bishop at the time, wrote this about the Christian response to the crisis:

Most of our brother Christians showed unbounded love and loyalty, never sparing themselves and thinking only of one another.  Heedless of danger, they took charge of the sick, attending to their every need and ministering to them in Christ, and with them departed this life serenely happy; for they were infected by others with the disease, drawing on themselves the sickness of their neighbors and cheerfully accepting their pains.  Many, in nursing and curing others, transferred their death to themselves and died in their stead…The best of our brothers lost their lives in this manner, a number of presbyters, deacons, and laymen winning high commendation so that death in this form, the result of great piety and strong faith, seems in every way the equal of martyrdom.

Second, and more important, ask yourself one simple question: If Brantley were your brother or son or father or friend, what would you be saying? Would you say, “He chose to go—it’s noble—but we shouldn’t take any risk whatsoever”? Or would you say, “We should do whatever we can to help someone who has risked so much to serve others?” Would you say we should leave him there to receive whatever care they can give, or we should bring him home to receive the best care we can offer? You know the answer to that question.

We have a name for offering Brantly the care we would want for our own loved ones: we call it “The Golden Rule.”

The Christmas I Stopped Singing a Lullaby

When my children were babies, I loved singing lullabys to them as I rocked them to sleep. They were mostly songs I learned from my mother and grandmother before me—“Hush little baby, don’t say a word, Mommy’s gonna buy you a mockingbird” and “Go to sleepy little baby ʼfore the Boogie Man gets you” were two of our favorites. Another favorite was one in the hymnal used in most of the churches where I grew up:

Can you count the stars of evening
That are shining in the sky?
Can you count the clouds that daily
Over all the world go by?
God the Lord, who doth not slumber,
Keepeth all the boundless number;
But He careth more for thee,
But He careth more for thee.

It was a sweet song expressing the faith that God would individually care for each little child. Holding my sleeping infant and softly singing these words was both a parent’s prayer, but also an expression of comfort and security.

Our second child was born in August of 1984—the year a terrible famine struck Ethiopia. That fall the news was full of stories about the hundreds of thousands of people dying of starvation. I sat down to our annual Thanksgiving Feast of turkey and dressing haunted by images of starving children with emaciated faces and bloated bellies. I tried to forget the images while I ate and avoid feelings of guilt for my gluttony while others were starving, but that just made me feel more guilty for trying to forget.

Then one night I began to sing that lullaby to Zack as I rocked him to sleep. I came to the third verse and the words choked in my throat—I just couldn’t get them out:

Can you count the many children
In their little beds at night,
Who without a thought of sorrow
Rise again at morning light?
God the Lord, who dwells in heaven,
Loving care to each has given;
He has not forgotten thee,
He has not forgotten thee.

I have never sung the song again. I can’t. I don’t believe it any more. It was a song of a faith that only made sense in a life of privilege and plenty. The words were not true for starving children in Ethiopia.

A few days after Thanksgiving a group of British and Irish pop and rock stars recorded a new song to raise money for famine relief.  The song was written by Bob Geldoff (of Boomtown Rats) and Midge Ure (of Ultravox). Some of the biggest names of the day participated—Sting, Phil Collins, George Michael, Duran Duran, Bananarama, and more. “Do they Know It’s Christmas?” became a huge hit in both England and America.

I first heard it riding in the car in Chicago in the middle of the bustle of the Christmas season. The lyrics were piercing, disturbing, and inspiring.

But say a prayer, Pray for the other ones
At Christmas time it's hard, but when you're having fun
There's a world outside your window
And it's a world of dread and fear
Where the only water flowing is the bitter sting of tears
And the Christmas bells that ring there are the clanging chimes of doom
Well tonight thank God it's them instead of you

Do they know it's Christmastime at all?
Feed the world
Feed the world

I lost a song that season. But I learned a better one.

Something Has Changed

The other day I went to a run-down motel to pick up the belongings of a homeless man named Dwayne who has been part of our Reunion community. He had been sharing a room there with a man who was living on meager disability checks. Dwayne paid him about $15 a day to share a room, money he earned selling The Contributor on street corners. Dwayne has been in the hospital for weeks and is now in the respite care program at Room In The Inn. The roommate is moving back to his home state, and Dwayne asked me to go get his belongings for him.

I took some boxes and plastic bags and gathered his stuff. Two small boxes of books and papers. A few large bags of clothes. An electric blanket. Some personal items. I carried it all down to my car and packed it tightly into my trunk. As I closed the lid, it suddenly occurred to me…I just loaded a man’s entire earthly belongings into the trunk of my car. The trunk of my car.

And this was not a nameless homeless person we might stop to help or serve in line at a mission. This was my friend Dwayne. I see him every week in our home. Most Wednesdays we grab a burger and talk about life. I had everything my friend owned in my trunk.

Something has changed in my ministry these last few years. I’ve been involved in some way in ministry to the poor in the city for many years—whether starting a tutoring program for inner city kids in Milwaukee, or serving on the advisory board of a Houston charity, or preaching for a church with a food and clothing pantry in Nashville. I have considered myself a compassionate person with some level of understanding of the issues faced by the poor. I guess I would have considered myself a friend to the poor.

But something has changed these last three years. It all seems more personal—which might be expected since I now work for an inner city ministry—but it’s more than just my job. And it seems more complicated—I’ve learned so much more, and realize how little I still know (my father always said that the value of an education is not what you know, but what you know that you don’t know)—but that’s not what I mean either. The change is something more than greater knowledge or deeper involvement.

What has changed is that I used to serve the poor—now they are my friends. I don’t mean I am friendly to them (I think I always was). I don’t mean that I know them by name. No, I mean we are actually friends.

They have been in our home, and Judy and I have been in theirs. We were invited to her son’s wedding. He has slept in our guest room. Her little girls call us Miss Judy and Papa. I was up in the middle of the night talking him out of suicide.  He came to our home for Thanksgiving Dinner. We’re friends.

I’d feel better about that, but I keep wondering why I was near the poor for so long, but not close to them. Is it just that we moved into a transitional neighborhood? That’s surely a part of it. But I know it’s more than that. We’ve chosen to make friends with people who happen to be poor—not because they are poor, but also not because we have a lot in common (isn’t that the usual basis for choosing friends?). We have chosen to make friends with people in our neighborhood, and our neighborhood is diverse. We’ve chosen to make friends with people we are meeting in our ministry—and we’re ministering to people from more diverse backgrounds than ever before. We’ve chosen to make friends—not just to be friendly.

And I see poverty differently now. It’s not just about political issues or social causes. It’s not just about theological positions on social justice. It’s not just about feeling compassion or showing mercy.

No, now it’s about our friends.

Why I Did This, Part 3: Scribes and Disciples

Early in my ministry, Ezra 7:10 became something of a theme verse for me:

“For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach his statutes and ordinances in Israel.”

Like Ezra, I devoted myself to study the Word of God, to do it, and to teach it to the people of God. In retrospect, if I’m honest with myself, I devoted myself more to the study and teaching, than to the doing.

To some degree, I was trained academically to be like Ezra, “a scribe skilled in the Law of Moses” (7:6), and teaching seems to be my area of giftedness—at least, if you believe the spiritual aptitude tests and the feedback of church members. And I still don’t know what to do with the sense that I am not using my primary gifts very much—one or two adjunct courses a year at Lipscomb University, and an occasional guest sermon at area churches—a reality that continues to distress my devoted wife.

In our new home in the city, we have a storage room above our garage. I built some shelves in it to hold my books, in case I ever needed access to them. Several months after we moved, I unpacked box after box of books onto those shelves—commentaries, Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and grammars, studies on New Testament backgrounds, resources for ministry—hundreds of books representing years and years of perfecting my craft as a scribe skilled in the Word. As I unpacked a long row of books on worship, I found myself beginning to weep. It seemed as though I was putting everything I had worked so hard to become on a storage shelf.

But this too was a moment of truth. Perhaps, of all the discoveries I have made about myself and my ministry, I think the most troubling is this: I have come to realize that I have lived my life more as a disciple of Ezra than a disciple of Jesus.

What does one say after that?

“Sorry” seems trite. But I am sorry. I must apologize to God for failing to do what was most important in my service of him. I must apologize to Jesus for misrepresenting his ministry—my ministry didn’t look like his ministry. I must apologize to the good people who looked to me as a spiritual leader. I believe I failed at the central task of a leader—I failed to follow Jesus myself.

Followers of Jesus do what Jesus did. I failed to do that. It’s just that simple.

Ultimately, I feel this may be the greatest failure of churches today, whether traditional or contemporary. We don’t really pay our scribes to be disciples, and so we aren’t very good at making disciples. We have focused our efforts on making believers in Jesus—either preserving and passing on the traditions of the faith, or evangelizing people to become believers. As a result, our efforts have produced a reality that I only recently have come to recognize: most churches are full of believers in Jesus, but not followers of Jesus. As Denver Moore (The Same Kind of Different as Me and What Difference Do It Make) observes, we’re a lot more focused on Bible studying than Bible doing. I helped perpetuate that reality.

For the past 3 years I have been trying to become what for 30 years I failed to be—someone who goes where Jesus went, helps those he helped, teaches what he taught, and is friends with those who were his friends. It’s not been easy—but it’s been good.

And it’s 30 years too late.

Why I Did This, Part 2: Prophets and Priests

I often felt my calling in ministry was to be something of a prophet.  Not in the sense of someone who could predict the future. And not in the sense of receiving visions from God (my ministry-related dreams were sometimes more akin to nightmares than ecstatic visions). I mean prophet in the sense of one who speaks the word of God to his people, calling them back to faithfulness and obedience.

I thought of prophets like John the Baptist calling people to repentance (though I never had the guts to call a congregation a “brood of vipers”!). I thought of Peter boldly declaring to the temple authorities that they could threaten him all they wanted, but he would not stop preaching Jesus. I thought of Jeremiah, who would have quit if it were not for the burning fire inside that compelled him to keep declaring what he knew was true. And I thought of many voices in that prophetic tradition, my father among them.

I wanted to be like them. I wanted their integrity.  I wanted their insight into the will of God. I wanted to understand God’s message to his people and faithfully proclaim it with the clarity and passion and courage that I saw in them.

I was fortunate never to face the persecution they faced. Unlike John, I never risked having my head cut off (though I lost it a few times). Unlike Peter, I never was scourged in the temple (though, like most preachers, I left a few church meetings feeling a little beaten up). Unlike my father, I never was fired by good Christian cowards moved more by fear than by the Spirit (though there were brothers and sisters along the way who lobbied for my exile).

The tensions I faced over the years were not because of crowds and kings out to silence the prophets. I think much of the tension was because of the role I was in as a full-time minister. I was a prophet who was paid to be a priest. We do not really hire preachers to preach like prophets. We hire ministers to serve the church.

I don’t mean to discount the role of the priest and minister. Priestly service was God-ordained ministry. They were charged to teach the people the Law of God; to lead the people in worship and praise; and, to call the people before God in confession and sacrifice to experience God’s forgiveness. But I felt I was called to be a preacher more than a worship leader.

For too many years I found myself saying, “I’m tired of trying to keep rich, white, suburban Christians happy.” Those are hard words. They always felt hard whenever I uttered them privately to colleagues in ministry—who always seemed to know exactly what I meant. They are hard words because those suburban Christians were truly my friends, my family. I loved them, and always will. They are hard words because—perhaps, especially because—I myself was one of those rich, white, suburban Christians. (I’m still a rich, white Christian, just not in the suburbs.) But they are also hard words because they speak a disturbing truth about the role of church leaders in our contemporary, consumer-driven church culture.

I have often heard it said that the role of a prophet was to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. But most folk come to church only wanting the first part (especially since we all like to believe that we are afflicted). I must say that comforting the grieving became one of the most meaningful parts of my ministry. But overall, maybe it was a mistake for someone who felt called to be a prophet to get a job as a minister.

Prophets in the Bible were rarely priests—Samuel, Ezekiel, maybe a few others. Typically, prophets stood outside the institutions of temple, synagogue, and monarchy. Their task was to challenge the priests, kings, rabbis, and even other popular prophets, calling them back to righteousness, mercy, and justice. Their role was to stand like Jeremiah in the temple and warn the people not to trust in the church rituals. To cry out like John in the desert that God can make Christians out of rocks. To declare like Isaiah on the Day of Atonement that God hates their worship services.

So how do you do that and at the same time fulfill your responsibility to maintain the rituals, build the sanctuaries, lead the services, and give the children of Abraham an encouraging word with which to go forth and face the afflictions of life in middle class America?

I don’t know. Maybe if I figure it out some day, I’ll return to the priesthood. In the meantime, I just need to figure out what to do with what’s left of Jeremiah’s heartburn.