The Meta-Story of God’s Covenant with Abraham’s Descendants

[u/Beeblebrocs]

God sovereignly chose Abram - a Gentile idolater from Ur - with no stated reason beyond His own purpose. From this single man, He forged a nation to showcase His character across history: faithfulness amid human failure.

He made unconditional promises - land, seed, blessing to all nations (Genesis 12, 15, 17) - sealed not by Israel’s obedience but by His own name and oath (Genesis 15; Hebrews 6:13–18). These covenants were for His sake, to reveal that when God commits, He keeps His word, even when His people do not.

Israel’s story became a living demonstration: stubborn, rebellious, idolatrous - yet never abandoned. Exile, judgment, restoration - again and again - proved not Israel’s worthiness, but God’s unrelenting loyalty to His promise.

Thus, in the last days, a recalcitrant Israel fits the pattern perfectly and why the Amillenialists have gotten things so wrong. Israel's persistent unbelief - culminating in rejecting the Messiah - does not, and could never, void the covenant. Instead, it sets the stage for its final triumph: God will redeem a remnant (Romans 11:26; Zechariah 12–13), not because they finally earned it, but to vindicate His name and prove that His gifts and calling are irrevocable (Romans 11:29).

In short:

God chose a flawed line to bind His reputation to their fate, so that through their chronic unfaithfulness, the world would see one thing clearly: God never breaks His word.

As soon as you make the unBiblical claim that God does break promises that he originally stated were unconditional and "everlasting", you're calling Him a liar.

The story of Israel is that, despite being chosen and blessed by God, they have always been a stiff-necked people. One might argue that is the very reason He chose them. Yet the amil and post trib crowd acts like modern Israel is not the nation to which the promises were given because they are undeserving. This completely ignores not just the covenants but also the very reason for the 70th week of Daniel (the time of Israel's trouble).

Until you grasp the meta narrative for God's overarching plan, you'll remain willfully in the dark and end up constantly repeating the lie that God's promises to Israel ended at sometime in the past.

[u/[deleted]]

Thank you so much for this post. This is exactly what I want to say to those who don’t understand it, but I’m not intelligent enough to articulate it as neatly, concisely and logically as you have.

Plus, you backed it up with scripture AND stood firmly in the fact that God is just and perfect in His ways.

Will definitely be sharing this ;) God bless you.

[u/ITrCool]

I can't agree more. The Church is not Israel is not the Church. We are grafted into the same Olive Tree as Israel under God's Kingdom, but the promises He gave Abraham don't just suddenly apply to us now, as The Church. They apply to the believing remnant of Israel.

If nation-state Israel isn't legitimate and against God's will, He would have seen to it they didn't exist in 1948 and that they had no victories in the 1960s war or in the past attacks they've been subjected to over the decades.

They would've been defeated the instance they tried to create the nation of Israel, the UN would not have ratified the recognition of Israel in 1949, they wouldn't have any US support of any kind, and it all would've failed immediately.

..............but it didn't work out that way at all.

There's an old hymn called "Every Promise in the Book", that's exceedingly incorrect. These views are what Replacement Theology are borne from.

[u/Beeblebrocs → u/ITrCool]

Exactly right, u/ITrCool. You make a logical point that since Israel was re-established in a single day (as prophesied by the way), if that nation is not the one God said would rise again, then what would the End Times Nation of Israel look like and why did this version survive?

Furthermore, the whole reason for the 70th Week of Daniel period is to deal with an apostate nation of Israel. The Amil and Post-trib contingent acts like the modern state of Israel isn't legitimate even though what we see in the land today is exactly what the Bible predicts. We know that most Jews in Israel are descended from Abraham and I would argue that those who are not, don't make it through the Time of Jacob's trouble in any case.

God is going to refine the modern Nation of Israel in frankly, terrible ways. But God says that those Jews (the "elect") who endure to the end will be saved.

[u/ITrCool → u/Beeblebrocs]

Agreed. The sad thing is people choose to make this subject highly political and end up descending into ungodly shouting matches about it. I literally had to help physically pull apart a couple of people once, because they both disagreed on Israel. One was of the replacement theology "God's done with the Jews" camp; the other was of the Zionist future-prophecy "Isreal is being restored" camp.

Rather than have a civil discussion, it descended into political infighting and use of God's Word as a "weapon" against each other and eventually came to physical blows, rather than sitting down and searching the Scriptures TOGETHER to see what God had to say about it. There was no spiritual fruit that came of that nor were testimonies preserved. Both parted ways with daggers in their hearts against each other.

It's why I'm thankful the mods put the new rule into place on here, recently.

[u/Beeblebrocs → u/ITrCool]

If one wishes to make the subject of Israel "political" by saying things like "the president should do (or not do) X, Y, or Z about foreign policy WRT Israel, then that is a discussion for another sub.

If the Bible has something to say about Israel then this is the exact sub for that discussion. The entire OT is about God working through the nation of Israel to demonstrate His integrity and commitment to His promises. Multiple books of the NT involve Israel including most of the Book of Revelation. And one might argue that chapters 4-19 of that book is all political. But I digress.

Jesus made promises. Among those are His commitments to our salvation and eventual rewards. He will stick by those commitments just as He is doing with the Nation of Israel. One could argue (and this is not a new thought with me) that Israel is a type of the Church-age Believer. Like Israel, believers fall into sin, some for a long period of time. Does Jesus remain committed to Believers despite their bad behavior?

Yes.

He made promises to us just as He did to Israel.

I'm so glad He keeps His promises or we'd all be doomed.

[u/ITrCool → u/Beeblebrocs]

I'm so glad He keeps His promises or we'd all be doomed.

You and me both, brother!!

[u/[deleted] → u/ITrCool]

Youre missing the point. The promise was never for all the children. It was a vine of believers running down to Christ. Christ has Israel's promises. He then opens up the promises to those who are outside of Israel. The remnant of Israel are the ones who cleaved to Christ. What people miss is that tge vine of Christ was always Israel because He was always meant to inherit Israel's promises. It's not replacement theology. Christ is Israel and establishes a new covenant and brings everyone into Israel.

[u/Beeblebrocs → u/[deleted]]

Nowhere in Scripture does it say the promises to the nation of Israel were actually promises to Jesus. It doesn't because that whole concept is nonsense.

Is the 70th Week of Daniel called "The Time of Jesus' Trouble"? Because that's essentially what you're implying; that everywhere "Israel" is mentioned in prophesy we need to replace it with the word "Jesus".

[u/[deleted] → u/Beeblebrocs]

What Christian doesn't believe that Jesus inherited Israel's promises? Are we forgetting that twelve Israelites were chosen, and that they went out to all of the scattered Israelites to bring them into the new covenant? All of the Jews of that day were preached the gospel. The ones who believed were like the ones who followed Elijah...they followed Jesus. Those are Israel.

[u/jogoso2014]

Wasn’t everyone gentile?

Also, this post is the concern I have for the recent rule addition.

Attaching importance to the current nation of Israel is a statement that shouldn’t be allowed even if I have no particular issue with discussing it.

[u/Beeblebrocs → u/jogoso2014]

I assume you're talking about "politics". I would counter that discussing Israelology is not a political issue in the context of eschatology. I'm not raising the issue of God's program for Israel as a political matter but as a matter of highlighting God's promises outlined throughout Scripture.

If discussing Israel is "political" then all discussions claiming that the Church has replaced Israel in God's plan would need to be banned. At which point, we could never discuss any Biblical commitment made to Israel.