The Israel of God and The Imposter Nation: A Response to Toby Sumpter
*Authors note: you can find this article originally published on the Anchored Hope Substack
Introduction: A Rebuke to Sentimental Theology
Recently, Toby Sumpter wrote an article titled “Israel Is Our Apostate Brother.” In this article, Toby calls upon the church to show a certain sentimental affection toward the modern state of Israel and so-called ethnic Jews. He appeals to “natural affection” as the thrust of his argument and presents it as a necessary component of the church toward this nation. However, as we’ll see, far from being a legitimate exhortation, it is a kind of manipulative tactic meant to rend the heart and make the Christian feel sympathy for those who murdered our Lord. It assumes that covenantal blessing could linger in a nation that has long rejected the Messiah, and that because they, at one time, claimed to follow God but did not (Matthew 21:28–32), those who now follow Christ by faith are obligated toward the apostate. Or it assumes that although God has abandoned Israel of old, whatever people come along and decide to call themselves Israel today are owed the undying loyalty of all Christians everywhere due to an assumption of relation. This, however, is the very confusion that Scripture warns against: to mistake the shadow for the substance, the type for the reality, and the flesh for the Spirit.
As I’ll show, the Israel of the Bible—the nation chosen to reveal God’s glory—was not merely misguided in expectation; it was judicially and finally condemned and destroyed by God in AD 70. The temple fell. The priesthood ended. The sacrificial system ceased. The covenantal system was terminated (Matt. 23:38; Luke 21:20–24). To treat any modern political entity or nation-state as the continuation of that nation is to blind oneself to the decisive work of Christ and the judgment of God. For instance, how could we conclude that the Jews of our day are at all the Jews of the bible when they do practice sacrifice? Both Leviticus 17:11 and Hebrews 9:22 show that without the shedding of blood, there is no atonement for sin. But alas, where is the Jewish Sacrificial system? It does not exist. Therefore, we do not have the Jews of the bible; we have a group of impostors claiming for themselves an inheritance that belongs to the Church. Jesus said, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down” (Matthew 24:2).
We must speak clearly: the Israel of today is not the Israel of the covenant of God. She is not the heir of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in any salvific, covenantal, or theological sense. She is not the Israel “beloved for the sake of their fathers.” Any suggestion otherwise is both sentimental and scripturally indefensible.
The End of the Old Covenant in AD 70
Christ Himself warned the Jewish nation: “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people bearing its fruits” (Matthew 21:43). This prophecy of judgment was precise and final: this people were excised out of God’s covenant by force and with finality. When Jerusalem fell in AD 70, the temple was utterly destroyed, and with it, the Old Covenant economy (Matthew 24:2).
Hebrews 8:13 declares, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Emphasis mine). To be sure, when Paul says “the first” covenant, he is speaking of the Mosaic covenant, i.e., the first covenant made with the biblical nation of Israel. But we who are good covenant theologians are aware that it was not the very first covenant. God established the covenant of grace long before the Mosaic covenant, first with Adam, then Noah, then Abraham, which covenant has never and will never vanish away. Nevertheless, what we call the “Old Covenant,” namely the Mosaic, did not linger beyond its fulfillment; it was not “paused” or “suspended” for some future restoration; it vanished away. God was exceedingly gracious and astoundingly patient with Israel. But God’s patience does eventually dry up (Nahum 1:3), and when it does, his justice is final: the national Israel that rejected her Messiah is no longer recognized in the plan of salvation apart from faith in Christ, whom they reject. They have vanished.
Luke 21:20–24 recounts this judgment: the siege of Jerusalem was a divine act, not merely a political misfortune. The destruction of that city marked the covenantal death of the nation (and her further dispersion into the surrounding nations was the nail in the coffin)—her relationship to God as the chosen people was irrevocably severed and destroyed. Therefore, to claim that the modern Israeli state has inherited covenantal blessing is to deny the finality of God’s word. Toby even says, “It seems that our Father got tired of our older brother’s insolence and kicked him off the family estate for about two thousand years. And now (apparently), since 1948, the Father has allowed him to move back onto the estate.” This is a startling statement. Certainly, land was given as a covenantal blessing, was it not? Genesis 12:7, 13:15, 15:18-21, 17:8; Deuteronomy 1:8, 28:11; Joshua 21:43, 45 all illustrate the point that God gave the land to Israel as a covenantal inheritance. So, to receive it requires inclusion in the covenant, right? To have the blessing requires belonging to the covenant, correct? So to make the claim Toby is, one must assume that God is giving, not only general blessings to the just and the unjust like rain and grain, but actual bona fide covenantal blessings to an apostate, which, as Toby says, “means someone [who] has fallen away or rejected a faith formerly embraced.” In other words, to assume that God has now given back covenantal blessings to the nation of Israel is to say that God has gone back on his judgment of these people, which is blasphemous.
But to take it a step further, if God has, as Toby claims, “allowed [Israel] to move back on to the estate,” this would be a reversion back to the old way and a rejection of the fulfillment that has occurred since the resurrection of Christ. In the first place, Paul in Hebrews warns us that we must never go back to old ways. The entire book of Hebrews is a warning against Christians from going back to the ways of the Jews. For example:
Hebrews 10:4: “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins”. This verse establishes the fundamental inadequacy and temporality of OT sacrifices.
Hebrews 10:9: The author explains that Jesus “sets aside the first [covenant and its sacrifices] to establish the second [the new covenant]”.
Hebrews 10:10: This verse declares that “we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time”.
Hebrews 10:18: “Now where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin”. This concludes the argument that Christ’s sacrifice eliminated the need for any further sin offerings.
Hebrews 10:26: “For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins”. This serves as a stern warning to those considering abandoning Christ’s perfect sacrifice to return to the old covenant in any sense or fashion.
But further, the promise of land was never a promise of one small geographical area. Toby’s perspective necessarily elevates, in unbiblical fashion, the desire of the Jews over against the true purpose of God. God’s promise to Abraham did include a specific land (Genesis 15:18–21), but it is also stated that “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:1–3) and “in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 22:17–18). The inspired Apostle, Paul, (given the full light of revelation in which Christians now live) interprets this promise as Abraham being “heir of the world“ (Romans 4:13). So, God never intended his promise to Abraham to stop at that small parcel of land. So this notion that God has returned his people to “the estate” is simply bogus and would be a reversal, nay, negation of Christ’s fulfillment. To believe this is to fundamentally misunderstand not only what God was telling Abraham, but also what Christ accomplished: the conquering of the whole world. But to believe this also requires one to be dispensational! (cue the gasp!) Why? For one, this belief is a central tenet of dispensational eschatology, not a covenantal view. Two, it requires one to believe that Israel and the church are two distinct entities that God still cares for, and this should be repugnant to the Christian ear, because God has one people.
The True Israel of God
The only Israel that now exists is spiritual, not ethnic. Galatians 3:28–29 makes this plain: “There is neither Jew nor Greek…for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” Paul’s insistence could not be clearer: the promises of God belong to the people of faith, not to any bloodline or political entity. This point was made explicitly evident when Christ gave the great commission, which was not really new (Isais 42:6), but only now it is being obeyed by those who actually love God, and not by those who merely give lip service. The true Israel of God is those who are baptized into the Trinity and obey all that Christ commands.
Who does Jesus say are his brothers? It certainly isn’t those who deny him, or those who curse his name, and it certainly wasn’t those who killed him, and it certainly wouldn’t be those who now despise him and despise his bride. No, Jesus tells us who they are. “But [Jesus] replied to the man who told him, ‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ and stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:48-50). Does modern Israel do the will of the Father?
Ephesians 2:11–22 further clarifies that the Church is now the household of God, reconciled through the blood of Christ. The walls of separation have been torn down; the temple’s shadows have given way to the reality in Christ (Heb. 10:1–10). The Church, not the modern nation of Israel, bears the identity, inheritance, and vocation of Israel. Who is Israel except those who are engrafted onto the vine of Christ, who is true Israel (John 15:1)? Who is Israel except the church, who Paul declares to be “the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16)? Who is the true Israel except those who are declared to be a “chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God” (1 Peter 2:9-10 emphasis mine)? The language Peter uses intentionally draws from Old Testament descriptions of Israel to indicate that the nation is no more, and he uses it to describe the church as the true spiritual continuation of God’s chosen people.
For the sake of clarity, I am not speaking about supersessionism. I do not believe the church has replaced Israel and inherited all the covenantal blessings. Neither am I articulating dispensationalism (as my brother Toby is), where it is believed Israel and the church are two distinct peoples with different destinations. The view I am espousing is often called Progressive Covenantalism. I prefer to call it Continuing Covenantalism, but you can’t win every battle. With Continuing Covenantalism, we see that Jesus is the ultimate culmination of all the covenants that God has made with Israel in antiquity. Additionally, it is understood that there has only and will only ever be one overarching people of God. In other words, the people living before Christ who were faithful to God and his word were Christians, and the people living after Christ, faithful to God and his word, are spiritual Jews. And lastly, there is no future role for the nation of Israel because the promises of God are now inherited by all those who are in Christ. Period.
Additionally, the imagery of Romans 11 must be understood in the same light. Paul speaks of “natural branches” cut off and “wild branches” grafted in (Rom. 11:17–24). It must be understood that these events were fulfilled in the first-century remnant: the unbelieving Jewish nation was broken, and the believing remnant—alongside Gentiles—was grafted into the covenant people of God (hence the need for the letter to the Hebrews to encourage those who had become Christians to not listen to the taunts of apostate Israel due to the destruction that was soon to fall upon them). The promise of “all Israel shall be saved” (Rom. 11:26) was fulfilled in Christ and His immediate followers, not postponed to some distant ethnic restoration in 1948. The modern nation of Israel, therefore, stands outside this covenantal blessing and wears the moniker “Israel” falsely.
Rebutting the “Apostate Brother” Analogy
Toby’s metaphor of the Jews as an “apostate older brother” is sentimental but misleading. Not only is it misleading, but to make the claims he does necessarily distracts from those whom God has declared are actually the true Israel: the church. In other words, the arguments fomenting from his fingers are like knife thrusts to the life of Christ’s bride. Israel is not Christ’s bride; they hate Christ. Not only that, they hate Toby and they hate me. But they also hate his church, they hate his bible, they hate his nation, because it is Christian. Above all, they hate his Christ. Sadly, Toby isn’t teaching biblical truth; he is kicking his foot on the threshold, preventing the Church from shutting the door on the Jews because of misplaced loyalties to his Lord and his Lord’s wife.
The analogy of the apostate brother presumes that natural, familial affection continues alongside covenantal inheritance. “Well, they’re still God’s covenant people—albeit apostate,” so the thought goes, “so we must still have affection for them.” But, as mentioned above, Jesus very clearly redefines family, and he shows us this in no uncertain terms: “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matt. 12:50). Familial or ethnic ties do not guarantee lifelong covenantal blessing. At all. Full stop. And it is a covenantal blessing to be beloved by the church. Blood is not thicker than covenantal fidelity. Blood does not supersede my obligation to the family of God.
“So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” Galatians 6:10
What is the household of faith? Well, it’s the church, of course. And Paul specifically tells us here that this household is permanent in importance. When a man is evaluating who to serve, the church must be viewed as his responsibility, his family, his own people, closer than blood. Israel isn’t even part of the equation.
His priorities are/should be: God, wife, children, church, blood family, nation, universal church. If he lives in any other nation other than modern Israel, then Israel never even makes the list except to pray for persecuted Christians that live in her, and for either the nation’s repentance or God’s swift justice.
“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially the members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” 1 Timothy 5:8
Regarding this verse, Toby says, “In other words, there is a natural instinct to care for those nearest to you that even unbelievers ordinarily understand.”
Tucked in this statement is subtle (or not so subtle) manipulation, fyi, that if you don’t care for Israel the way Toby wants you to, then you know less about God and his word than unbelievers.
So, the question must be asked: Is he really saying that Israel is “nearest” to the church? Is he really claiming that this political body of unbelieving, Christ-hating, idol-worshiping pagans is “nearest” to the church and deserves the unmitigated care of God’s people?
To quote Tobey again, “The question answers itself.”
And it must be said, because I can hear the detractors now: “bUt WhAt iF yOuR mOm WhErE aPoStAtE?” If my mother were apostate, I would still love and honor her, because I am explicitly commanded to do so (Exodus 20:12). However, her hatred of Christ would necessarily strain the relationship to a significant degree. Nowhere, however, am I commanded to honor Israel, and nowhere am I promised that if I do, I will be blessed. Equating my mother to Israel is not only a terrible “yo mama joke” but it is also a horrible doctrine.
However, there will be some who don the Ted Cruz costume and claim that the bible says that “those who bless Israel will be blessed!” But Cruz was mistaken, and so would anyone else making this claim. The text says, “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3). The promise that “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” was not a promise for Israel but was a specific prophecy of the Messiah—who was a descendant of Abraham—through whom all the world would be blessed, namely, Jesus Christ. In Galatians 3, Paul explicitly connects the Abrahamic covenant to Christ, stating that the “seed” through whom the nations are blessed is Christ, and that all who have faith in Christ are considered Abraham’s offspring and heirs to the promise. In this way, the “blessing” is re-centered not on a physical nation-state, but on the Church, which is the spiritual Israel of God. Those who are “in Christ” become the true children of Abraham by faith and are grafted into the family of God.
But I digress. To call modern Israel “our apostate brother” is to confuse flesh with faith. The old covenant brother was terminated by God’s judgment in AD 70. There is no covenantal or salvific status left for any nation or ethnic group apart from union with Christ. Modern Israel may occupy the same land, speak a Semitic language, and try to trace itself to an ancient peoples—but none of this constitutes true Israel in God’s sight, and even their true heritage is extremely dubious. And as a Christian—as a true Israelite—I want to see everything the way my God does.
Natural affection is certainly biblical, but in its application toward the nation of Israel, it has been grossly misapplied. Certainly, Paul should have had natural affection for Israel (Romans 9:3)—he was a Hebrew by birth. Only a twit would have a problem with that. But I’m not a Hebrew by birth. I’m an American by birth. What Paul shows us is a principle, not a directive. We are to love our own; we are to have natural affection for our own. We also need to think in categories. Nationally/ethnically, I’m an American—I wasn’t born in Israel in the 90s, I was born in the great state of Florida. Therefore, I care nothing for Israel. On the other hand, I do have significant affection for America. I love America so much that I devoted nearly 10 years of my life to serving in her Navy. I wrote a blank check to serve and defend this land. I would never do that for Israel. Additionally, I have familial loyalties to my people: my wife and children, my church, and the universal church. I am just like Paul: I have great affection for my kinsmen. The Jews, however, are not my kinsmen, spiritual or otherwise.
It must also be stated at this point that nowhere are we told that Israel is our elder brother. Toby relies on parables that use this brother dynamic to paint a picture of the reality of what God is doing. However, if we read the scriptures holistically, biblically, we come to understand that the analogy of two warring brothers is just that—an analogy. The point of Jesus’ parable was not to highlight the supposed brotherliness between Jews and Gentiles (because there wasn’t any), but to depict the embarrassing loss of inheritance by the Jews. In fact, in scripture, we are told that Jesus is our elder brother, not Israel. Hebrews 2:11 shows that Jesus is not ashamed to call us his brothers. Romans 8:29 says, “for those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” Because Jesus is the firstborn from the dead, and then we are adopted by God and become his sons and daughters as well, we understand that it is Christ, and Christ alone, who is our elder brother—the faithful brother we are to look to and follow.
The Modern State: Political, Not Covenantal
This aspect of the discussion is, in my opinion, the most cringy. For someone who stands with such a wonderful ministry, how he could falter on this point boggles the mind. The Israel that has existed since 1948 is a political entity, not the Israel of God. These Israelites are not biologically or religiously continuous with the biblical nation in any sense, salvific or otherwise. They are not ethnic Israel. Further, the land promises that Toby believes were reinstituted by God, were actually fulfilled in Christ (Psalm 2), not in the modern territorial state (Galatians 3:16). Modern claims to divine favor apart from faith in Christ are a reversion to unbelief, echoing the same errors that provoked God’s judgment in the first century (Hebrews 10:26–29). I mean…puh…I really am having a difficult time understanding how Toby can’t see this…
The Church must treat the modern state of Israel as any other nation under Christ’s sovereignty and potential judgment: accountable to God, not exalted as covenantally privileged, a pagan land full of idolaters, etc. Christians may pray for the salvation of all peoples, but to bow to sentimentality or political considerations is to compromise the primacy of Christ and His kingdom. We’re trying to build a Christian land in America, and bending our spiritual knee (and likely our physical knee) to a foreign land that would ring Christ’s neck given the chance, is not the way to do it. In fact, allowing any foreigners into our land, whether through spirituality, religion, money, influence, or familial connection, IS A JUDGEMENT FROM GOD! “You country lies desolate; your cities are burned with fire; in your very presence foreigners devour your land; it is desolate, as overthrown by foreigners” (Isaiah 1:7). We need to wake up to the enemy that we are allowing in to our land—and regrettably the church seems to be the welcoming committee, and Toby is carrying the “welcome” banner.
Conclusion: The Triumph of the New Jerusalem
Hebrews 12:22–24 and Revelation 21:2 proclaim the reality: the Israel that matters is the bride of Christ, composed of everyone and anyone who will bend their knees to him, thus being united by faith. The promises of the land, of blessing, and of covenantal inheritance are all fulfilled in Christ, not in any ethnic or political entity, whatever. Stop thinking otherwise. It is wrong, ignorant, and treacherous.
Postmillennial confidence allows us to say with clarity: the Church will extend the kingdom of God across the nations. The modern state of Israel, like all earthly powers, stands under the rule of the risen King. They will either receive his kindness through submission or his scornful laughter due to their continued rebellion. The issue with Toby, however, (as I see it) is that while he claims to be a partial-preterist and a postmillennialist, he maintains a futuristic reading of Romans 11. So when he reads this passage and sees that one day all Israel will be saved, he concludes that this has yet to be fulfilled and will be sometime in the distant future. And he believes this despite all evidence to the contrary. The church needs to be unified, but that simply cannot happen until the church actually knows who the church is. Unfortunately, Toby is setting the clocks backward with this one.
The only true Israel is spiritual, covenantal, and eternal—the body of Christ, the new Jerusalem descending from heaven.
“For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.”
— Romans 9:6
