Preface: I regularly attended Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis for over eight years. The senior pastor there, Dr. John Piper, is a gifted and eloquent speaker, but I often detected a not-so-subtle theological bias in his teaching that suggested that God had no abiding interest in the State of Israel or in the Jewish people. For example, in a sermon he preached (“Son of God, Son of Man”,” Dec. 2008), Dr. Piper said the following:
Jesus is where we meet God. If you want to say, “Where on the planet today is a holy place that I can do a pilgrimage and be in the house of God?” Answer, “Jesus!” You want to go to a holy place on the planet? Stand still and come to Jesus. There aren’t any holy sites in the Christian religion. Zero. I’ve never gone to Israel mainly for that reason. Please, when I’m here 30 years don’t give me a free trip to Israel – fix my car! I got no problem with you going to Israel. I don’t want any emails. There’s just no more Jesus in Israel than there is in your pew right now. – John Piper, Sermon delivered December 7, 2008
Note that the (ahem) “expurgated version” of this was published on the DGM website as:
Now Jesus is the new Beth-el. He is the place where God is present. Heaven has opened, and Jesus has appeared. And from now on, Jesus will be the place where God appears most clearly among men, and where men find their way into fellowship with God. There are no holy geographic places any more designated by God as his meeting place with man. Jesus is that meeting place. [Edited revision of this part]
Now I understood the basic point of Dr. Piper’s comment, namely, that we don’t have to make some sort of “pilgrimage” to find Yeshua — that we can encounter His (risen) presence wherever we are, etc. Nonetheless, there was something odd about the way he preached this — an almost sardonic tone that I detected. Not that I was altogether surprised by his sentiment…. After all, Dr. Piper had gone on record saying that he considers the Jewish people “a non-covenant-keeping people” without divine right to the land promised to the descendants of Abraham (see this article). But after hearing him publicly disparage God’s faithfulness to the Jewish people (i.e., by implying that historical Israel is of no real significance), my heart grieved deeply. After much prayer, I decided it was time for me to personally meet with him to discuss his views of the Jewish people and ethnic Israel. The following are just a few remarks about that meeting. If I find more time, I will post some additional comments.
The Paradoxical Insecurity of Covenant Theology
On June 2nd, 2009, I met with Dr. John Piper (of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis) to discuss his theology of Israel, or “Israelology,” as it is sometimes called. I wanted to know why, in particular, Dr. Piper said (during a sermon I attended) that he “would rather have his car fixed than to get a free trip to Israel for his 30th anniversary” (i.e., as Bethlehem’s senior pastor). As a Messianic Jew, I found this comment deeply offensive coming from a man who professes to have faith in the One born “the King of the Jews” (Matt. 2:2). How could a pastor of a well-respected Evangelical church express an almost callous indifference to Israel’s past, present, or future? Is not the God Dr. Piper claims to believe in explicitly called the LORD God of Israel (Exod. 5:1, Psalm 41:13, Luke 1:68, etc.)? Did not God tell Moses that this was His Name forever (Exod. 3:15)? Is not God repeatedly called the “King of Israel” (Isa 44:6, John 12:13)? Indeed, does not the word “Messiah” itself indicate a regal title given to the anointed King of Israel? And does not the New Covenant itself (בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה), as foretold by the prophet Jeremiah, explicitly promise the perpetuity of Israel forever (Jer. 31:31-37)?
Thus says the LORD (יהוה), who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar– the LORD of hosts (יהוה צְבָאוֹת) is his name: “If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel (זֶרַע יִשְׂרָאֵל) cease from being a nation (גּוֹי) before me forever.” Thus says the LORD: “If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel (זֶרַע יִשְׂרָאֵל) for all that they have done, declares the LORD. – Jeremiah 31:35-36
According to the great prophet Jeremiah, if you saw the sun shine today or the stars in the night sky, you can be assured that God’s promise to preserve the “offspring of Israel” — i.e., zera Yisrael — is in effect. Indeed, in the world to come, heavenly Jerusalem will have the names of the twelve tribes of Israel engraved upon its gates (Rev. 21:12). Note well that this is the only occurrence in the entire “Old Testament” that the New Covenant (בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה) is explicitly mentioned… It is a foundational passage of Scripture for those who claim to be followers of the Jewish Messiah…
As I discussed some of these truths with Piper, I was sure he was going to argue that God had rejected Israel because he regards the “church” as “reconstituted Israel” or else to claim that ethnic Israel had forfeited their status as God’s people because they failed to keep covenant with God (first by failing to keep the terms of Sinai, and later by rejecting Yeshua as the Messiah). Dr. Piper surprised me, however, since he claimed that the nature of the Abraham covenant, i.e., the “Covenant Between the Parts” (בְּרִית בֵּין הַבְּתָרִים) found in Genesis 15:9-21, is a conditional, rather than an unconditional covenant. This theological “move” by Dr. Piper allowed him to claim that ethnic Israel ”failed” to keep the terms of that covenant (of faith) and therefore is (present tense) subject to Divine Censure or curse. In other words, the rejection of Israel in God’s plan is not on account of their failure to keep the terms of the Sinai covenant, but rather because they have failed to keep the Abrahamic covenant… This is a puzzling position, to be sure, since it negates the point the Apostle Paul made regarding the idea of “Justification by Faith” in the Book of Galatians and subtly adds an element of “works” righteousness into the idea of being declared righteous by faith alone…
At any rate, the paradox of Dr. Piper’s position — despite his commitment to Calvinism — is that it leads to a lack of assurance of salvation, since “eternal security” is based on human merit, after all. This “works righteousness” is alien to the true intent of Scripture and reveals a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the New Covenant itself (i.e., Jer. 31:31-38). It reveals a confusion between the historical covenants by regarding them as functions of fictive covenants posited by Covenant Theology itself (see below)…. If God breaks His promises to Israel, why do Christians like John Piper think that He won’t break His promises to the Church?
Ultimately I believe John Piper’s replacement theology comes from his veneration of the saints of the Reformation and to later Christian scholars who devised the theosophical paradigm called “Covenant Theology.” This system of theology, not unlike theoretical Kabbalism, claims that it understands God’s purposes and actions — even before the creation of the universe itself. The idea of “covenant” (בְּרִית), in particular, is more a philosophical construct than a genuinely Biblical doctrine, inductively discovered…. Indeed, the “great covenants” of Covenant Theology (i.e., “Works” and “Grace”) are not historically rooted interventions into the human experience made by the LORD God of Israel at all, but rather are theological fictions devised by those who claim to give a meta-narrative account for “God, the universe, and everything in it.”
I may write about this more at a later time, but Christians should be aware that Dr. Piper’s “Presbyterian-Baptist” theology is decidedly not traditional Evangelicalism, but rather a nuanced version of Reformed theology that has its roots in anti-Semitic European theological traditions.
For more information about this issue, please visit www.hebrew4christians.com. In particular, you might want to see the articles:
Why don’t you write here any of what the conversation you had w/ Piper entailed? I don’t see any quotes above from your meeting with him.
I didn’t want to quote him directly, since our meeting was private. If you are questioning the credibility of my statements, I would recommend you contact John Piper directly. He should validate what I’ve shared here.
I don’t know who you are, but I love you!! I am very glad you had a chance to talk to pastor Piper. I am currently investigating the roots of “European based anti-semitism” and I am shocked at what I am finding!! I am a country church pastor in rural Wyoming(30 yrs. old) and I just recently dealt with some dear folks who were ex- mennonites that could not stomach or stand my firm commitment to literal interpretation and my eternal belief that God is not in fact done with His Chosen People!! Through this we lost about 17 people in our small congregation. I verbally told these men that “as long as God gives me the ability to preach and teach I will teach about His promises to His people! As I look through the book of Exodus I am awe struck by how many times the words “I will” are used. If i recognize and observe who is speaking and what he says after the “I will” I am greatly enriched!!
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Thank you for writing, Jared. Your congregation is fortunate to have you as its pastor, despite the anti-semites in your midst!
And now — this really comes as no surprise to me — Dr. Piper has invited the notorious “pragmatist” Rick Warren to be a keynote speaker at the The 2010 Desiring God National Conference.
OY VEY.
http://www.h4cblog.com/john-piper-defends-rick-warren
For corroboration of the quote from Dr. Piper, see this site and note it’s open Replacement Theology position:
http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2008/12/10/why-not-to-visit-israel/
Thanks for putting this out there. I have been seeing this for some time now- this slide of the church becoming anti-Israel.
The Bible is so clear of God’s promises to Israel- over and over again. I find it amazing that these Christian leaders are turning away from literal interpretations and putting in their own interpretation. The Word is clear about adding and/or taking away from Scripture.
Dangerous times for those who take these liberties.
It is no secret that I find serious fault with Piper’s soteriolgy. The lack of assurance he embraces because of the Reformed version of security (namely perseverance of the saints) allows for no real security in the promise of God for eternal life based on the finished work of Christ and the sole, and sufficient condition of salvation-which is faith alone in Christ alone-and no corresponding assurance of salvation for a saint. The fatalism found in authentic Calvinism complicates and exacerbates the problem even more.
As a dispensationalist I see a number of problems in his eschatology as well, not the least of which is his posture toward national or ethic Israel. While I do not subscribe to Israel “right or wrong” policies (any more than I accept the notion of America “right or wrong”)to deny ethnic or national Israel a positive place in God’s temporal and eternal plan is to deny (however unintentional) the clear teaching of God’s holy and infallible word. Thanks for explaining and highlighting this in a gracious manner. John Piper is a brother in Christ but that does not mean we need to accept his teachings “right or wrong”. In Christ, George
Shalom George. Thank you for your excellent comments.
You should listen to Piper’s teaching on Romans 11. You will discover that he doesn’t really hold to a “replacement theology” but believes that there is a future purpose for Israel as a nation.
Also, you are really putting a lot of words in his mouth by quoting him saying, “don’t send me to Israel, fix my car instead” and interpreting it as “express an almost callous indifference to Israel’s past, present, or future?” Wow. That is a deep and broad conclusion. I would hate to have you make judgments about my heart after such a statement.
His quote about Jesus being in your pew is absoluteness biblical and I think Jesus would himself agree with him as he instructed the woman at the well that it isn’t on this mountain or in Jerusalem that we will be worshiping, but in Spirit and in truth.
For someone who attended his church for many years, I am pretty shocked at the emotional response to a simple statement.
Jake, I spent many years over at BBC, and served on the worship team there every week for years. My remarks should not be construed as casually stated or as mean spirited… I was THERE when Dr. Piper preached through Romans, so I heard firsthand how he attempted to “walk the line” by not completely stepping over into the realm of “replacement theology.” I held my breath during each of his sermons on Romans 9-11. And while you are correct that technically speaking Piper did not come out and openly advocate Replacement Theology, practically speaking he so removed the present status of the Jews from consideration that he might as well have done so… After all, he certainly regards Israel today as a matter of theological indifference (he’s on record saying as much) and therefore the fate of Israel is left to an abstract future when they will be converted to become “Christians.” It might be more accurate to refer to his position as “virtual replacement theology,” since the present status of the Jews and Israel apparently make no existential difference to his theological commitments.
Incidentally, both my wife and I were present when Dr. Piper expressed his indifference to Israel from the pulpit. When he said that “he would rather have the church fix his car” than to send him to Israel for his 30th anniversary, both of us were upset and shocked…. Don’t you understand how this sentiment would be deeply offensive to those who love Israel and believe that God is sovereignly working through that people to fulfill the promise of Zion? How do you think a Jew might feel if he or she heard this being said from the pulpit? Would he regard Dr. Piper as a friend of the Jewish people or a lover of the LORD God of Israel? Teachers from the pulpit should be held to a higher standard, since they have the rhetorical advantage of shouting out their doctrines in soliloquy to their audience in the pews… They should therefore be charged with the heavy burden of being all the more careful when they claim something represents “God’s truth.” They should speak from the pulpit with fear and trembling before the LORD God of Israel… It is extremely dangerous for anyone to impugn God’s faithful love to Israel… Even the New Covenant itself cannot be understood apart from the vision of Zion’s great future (Jer. 31:31-37).
Often it is not what is said that matters, but what is left UNSAID. There is an assumption in the theological culture at BBC that Israel and the Jewish people are relatively insignificant for Christians today. There is little passion for the vision of Zion, no real heeding the words of the prophets who repeatedly promised Israel consolation and a future and a hope. Oh sure, “one day, over the rainbow, all Israel will be saved,” but that means little more than “one day, the end will come and the world will be saved.” In other words, the present miracle of the Jews being regathered in their ancient homeland is not of much practical significance… etc. etc. Ultimately what you believe about Israel and Zion will affect ALL other areas of your theology.
The Bible is a collection of JEWISH literature. It cannot be rightly outside of its Jewish context. You mentioned the Samaritan woman at the well whom Yeshua spoke with. Keep reading his response to her: “Salvation is from the Jews.” The whole idea of “Christ” is Mashiach – the title given to the anointed King of Israel… Yeshua was born the King of the Jews. He is NOT presently ruling and reigning from the throne of David (even though He indeed has all authority in heaven and on earth). That day is yet to come… Christians are graciously grafted into the covenants and blessings given to Israel, not the other way around. Even the Heavenly Jerusalem will have the names of the tribes of ethnic Israel inscribed upon its gates… Again, this is a HUGE issue, and those who disregard its significance are willfully choosing to disregard the full counsel of revealed truth.
Finally, Jake, I personally met with Dr. Piper and discussed all these issues with him. As I mentioned above, he essentially ratified his thinking when I talked with him. I did not reach a hasty conclusion, nor was I unfair. I had spoken with him before on this subject. And during my private meeting with him later, I pleaded with him to reconsider his thinking, and gave him numerous articles I’ve written, books, etc. I even offered to start a small group that would explore these issues at BBC. None of what I said was received, despite my best efforts to humbly share the truth God has revealed to me.
I could say more, but honestly, I’m done with this subject and question. I share my experience with those who have “ears to hear,” not to argue the point with people…. I mean no ill will to Dr. Piper and realize his teaching has helped many people over the years. May the LORD bless him and help him. However, if the question of replacement theology bothers you, I would recommend that you contact Dr. Piper yourself and discuss the subject of Zion and the present status of the Jewish people with him directly.
Subsequent to my last response in this thread, some John Piper fans have attacked me using ad hominem reasoning, emotional appeals, and other disingenuous means. For example, in a recent email, I have been accused of being arrogant, full of spite, rude, etc., because I felt compelled to ask Dr. Piper to rethink his theological assumptions. To all those who wish to criticize me, I appeal solely to the LORD God of Israel who knows the truth.
So please – all Dr. Piper devotees and defenders – it’s enough. I will not be baited into argument with you further regarding John Piper’s theology, nor will I respond to comments left here that are meant as personal attacks. I will simply repeat a basic principle that I believe is entirely warranted by the Scriptures themselves: Ultimately what you believe about Israel and Zion will affect ALL other areas of your theology…. If you have questions about the implications of this statement in relation to Dr. Piper’s philosophy, I would encourage you to pray and search the Scriptures for the truth.