WHO ARE THE TRUE PEOPLE OF GOD? – PART 2

A PERFECT SPECIMEN OF THE NEW ISRAEL

Having demonstrated through his books and YouTube videos that Stephan Joubert has a strong affinity for symbolism, I thought it would be a great idea to create a composite photo of Joubert that symbolizes his entire philosophy of Replacement Theology and Antisemitism.

Nicht ein Scheitern? (Not a failure?)

I say then, has God rejected and disowned His new Israel? Certainly not! For I too am a new Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the Emergent Church Tribe. God has not rejected His [chosen] new people whom He foreknew.

INTRODUCTION

After thoroughly eviscerating the Old Testament and the unconditional covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3 in his first video, “Who are the true people of God,” Stephan Joubert aims to delegitimize the Jew’s heritage in the present-day State of Israel by accusing them of murdering Jesus Christ.

His wording is exceptionally nuanced and polished, which may prevent many viewers from recognizing how cleverly he utilizes God’s New Covenant (New Testament) to dismiss the earlier covenant established with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Old Testament, which conveys the blessings and curses of God on those who reciprocally bless or curse his chosen people. [Genesis 12:3].

The word “radical” dominates Joubert’s lexicon. He has even authored “Jesus Radical, Righteous, Relevant.” This radical work of deception, which could be regarded as the magnum opus of his grotesque imagination, encourages its audience to…

 “…  think in a radically different way about Jesus by exploring where exactly He fits into Christianity, the church and their lives. Author Stephan Joubert unlocks readers’ minds with a refreshing approach that enables them to determine where they belong in God’s kingdom, His church and His world.”

Joubert begins with his customary intro to lament the contemporary predicament faced by numerous Christians. He highlights how many have succumbed to an interpretation “about the Bible” rather than engaging in a reading “from without the Bible,” emphasizing the distinction between eisegesis (the practice of interpreting a text by reading into it one’s ideas, biases, or meanings), and exegesis (to draw out the meaning that’s inherent in the text itself).

As highlighted in the first article of this series, it ironically is this very behaviour for which Stephan Joubert is to be held accountable. He takes great pleasure in telling his audiences that he and his ekerk are devoted exegetes, while at the same time, he encourages them to exercise their imagination, which the Bible deems as extremely sinful and malevolent. Those who believe that imagination can aid in accurately interpreting the Bible in an exegetical manner are severely deceived.

In his introductory remarks, Joubert states the following.

Good evening and welcome to our second Bible School, dedicated to the theme “The People of God in the Bible.” Our source is the Bible. We engage with it directly, avoiding the tendency to cherry-pick pet verses that appeal to us to create a personal theology regarding the people of God.

This has led to a common issue where individuals have formed their own versions of the Bible by extracting a few verses from the Old Testament related to Israel and hastily connecting them to a contemporary group sharing the same name. The essential question remains: how does the New Testament articulate the concept of the people of God?

As noted previously, there is a vibrant ongoing dialogue regarding the identity of the people of God in our present society. Many people cite texts such as Genesis 12, which declares that God will curse those who curse Abraham’s physical descendants, but they often miss the subsequent verses that highlight God’s promise to bless all nations in and through Abraham.

Moreover, while they may reference verses from Isaiah that support the notion of an eternal covenant, they tend to overlook the substantial body of prophetic literature (about 80%) that primarily addresses judgment against Israel of that time.

To reiterate, a radical difference exists between the Old and New Testaments in the understanding of who constitutes God’s true people, prompting an earnest consideration of Hebrews 1 and verse 1. Although there is a degree of continuity, there is also a radical discontinuity. [DTW: Joubert’s use of “radical” to make “continuity” and “discontinuity” look like congenial hand-holding buddies is inappropriate. The etymology of “radical” simply does not allow it. If there is still ’a degree of continuity, as Joubert says, then discontinuity cannot be labeled radical, because the word “radical” indicates that there has come a complete and final breakdown (excision) between the two, in this instance the Old and New Testaments.]

Negligence of the New Testament and focusing exclusively on certain Old Testament texts to validate the concept of a unified historical people as God’s chosen one’s results in a distortion and misapplication of biblical teachings.

To put it in a nutshell, the New Testament conveys that God’s people have shifted from a geographic framework to a non-geographic one, moving from a national and regional context to an international scope, and from a local presence to a global one.

The new people of God reside within the Kingdom of God, which is universal in nature, and the gigantic change is known as the New Testament.

In the Gospel of Luke, chapter 22, Jesus explicitly stated that He was establishing a New Testament during the institution of the Lord’s Supper. The Apostle Paul, in 2 Corinthians 3, identifies himself as a minister of this New Testament, contrasting it with the First Testament brought forth by Moses. It is important to note that Paul did not criticize the First Testament; rather, he acknowledged its glory while also pointing out that it ultimately led to death.

As a prominent Jew, Paul recognized the limitations of a strictly nationalist Jewish perspective. He articulated in 2 Corinthians 3:7 that the ministry of Moses culminated in death, despite its glorious nature. He further elaborated on the necessity for Moses to cover his face, drawing a parallel to the contemporary Israelites who similarly require such coverings.

While the ministry that rendered judgment was indeed glorious and shone with splendour in the context of the Law (verse 10), it ultimately lacked the life-giving vibrancy of the New Covenant. Paul asserted his commitment to the New Covenant of God, as also affirmed in Hebrews 8:19. The author of Hebrews emphasizes that the Old Testament, in a specific sense, failed to fulfil the anticipated promises. [Joubert again quotes from Hebrews 1].

THE BLIND OFTEN SEE BETTER THAN THOSE WHO CLAIM THEY CAN SEE (JOHN 9:38)

The saying, “There are none so blind as those who refuse to see,” aptly applies to Stephan Joubert. It is crucial to point out that Joubert makes a significant mistake in using the Mosaic Covenant from the Old Testament and the New Covenant from the New Testament as proof that Israel’s breaking of the Old Covenant led to God rejecting His chosen people. Additionally, he completely overlooks the other covenants that God made with Israel, particularly the unconditional covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob found in Genesis 12:1-3.

The promise regarding the land has no connection whatsoever with the Mosaic Covenant and vice versa. It follows that Israel’s repeated breaking of the Law did not cancel God’s promise of the land to them. Consequently, Joubert’s argument that Israel eventually forfeited her right to the Promised Land due to her perpetual disobedience to the Mosaic Covenant holds no water. Both the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant in the New Testament are conditioned upon faith alone by the recipient.

In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul articulates the divine intent behind the Mosaic Law, particularly concerning the promises made by God to the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The question he poses at the outset of verse 21 of Galatians chapter 3 serves as compelling evidence that the promises inherent in the covenant with Abraham are fundamentally distinct from the Mosaic Law, and thus cannot be blended with it, much less rendered void, especially the promise concerning the Promised Land which God has given to his true people, the Jews (the twelve tribes of Israel).

Is the law then against the promises [plural] of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we [Israel] were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our [Isreal's] schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we [Israel] might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we [Israel] are no longer under a schoolmaster. (Galatians 3:21-25).

Unlike Joubert who mixes the promises of God to Abraham and the Mosaic Covenant to Moses in one package, Paul makes a very clear distinction between God’s promises not based on conditions (“I will” instead of “You shall not”) and the Mosaic Covenant whose success depended on the allegiance of two parties – God’s unfailing trustworthiness and the people’s obedience. The latter was, of course, the fly in the ointment that sent off the Mosaic Covenant on a disastrous course.

The Mosaic Law is God’s standard showing man’s complete inability to keep it. It works like a mirror that reflects your life before the face of the most holy God and urges you to seek someone who can accomplish it on your behalf. Hence Paul’s magnificent enunciation, “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”

The fact that the disciplinarian [the Law] was replaced by faith does not, under any circumstances, nullify God’s promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob because they are not based on faith but on God’s unconditional faithfulness and for the sake of honouring his name among the nations.

The promise outlined in Genesis 12, which states that “in Abraham, all the families of the earth are blessed,” can only come to fruition when, as the above passage elucidates, individuals within those nations choose to believe. Until such a time, every non-believer is subject to a curse, as clearly expressed in 1 Corinthians 16:22 and John 3:18.

If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema (accursed) Maranatha. (1 Corinthians 16:22).

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18).

Stephan Joubert’s feeble endeavour to invoke the phrase “and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” to counteract the curses stated in the earlier verse (Genesis 12:2) is clearly inconsistent with biblical doctrine and reflects an ocean full of imaginative shrewdness.

Therefore, a thorough examination of Stephan Joubert’s views on the New Covenant is necessary for a precise understanding of his imaginative way of thinking.

PLAYING THE PERCENTAGE GAME – 80% VERSUS 20%

To support his perspectives on Replacement Theology, Stephan Joubert craftily plays the percentage game. He estimates that merely two or three verses in Isaiah affirm that all of God’s people will inherit the land eternally, while around 80% of the proclamations made by Old Testament prophets counter God’s everlasting promise of the land to His people with the judgments they issued against Israel.

It’s noteworthy how fervently Joubert relies on the statistics provided by the Old Testament prophets about God’s judgments on Israel to back his anti-Israel stance. Yet, as we will discuss further, he later disregards their predictions regarding Israel’s future restoration and national salvation.

It is quite astonishing to consider that the 80% of predictions made by the prophets, who spoke solely when inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21), could somehow undermine the 20% of predictions regarding Israel’s everlasting claim to the land that God has granted to His people.

The reality that the prophets of the Old Testament only delivered messages when prompted by the Holy Spirit demonstrates that it was the Holy Spirit, rather than the prophets themselves, who forecasted the 80% or 20% details regarding the eternality or judgments concerning Israel as a nation. Surely, Joubert would never claim that the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself by suggesting that 80% of judgments invalidate the 20% of prophecies affirming Israel’s eternal status as a nation.

This idea ridicules God’s constant faithfulness and the significance of His Son, in whom all promises are confirmed as certain and unwavering (2 Corinthians 1:20). Stephan Joubert’s infamous portrayal of God’s alleged unreliability suggests that the eternality of God the Son could also be questioned, implying that the promises of God, which are eternally rooted in His Son, might not be reliable. It’s not only anti-Semitic but also anti-God (anti-Christ).

A Son lacking the ability to safeguard and fulfil all the commitments made by His Father, including the assurance regarding Israel’s everlasting possession of the Promised Land, represents the most diabolical deception ever devised by Satan. This idea is, in fact, profoundly diabolical. How can individuals place their faith in Him for salvation when some of the Father’s promises in Him cannot be affirmed as true and certain?

Henceforth the Son of God, Jesus Christ, cannot be trusted for anything, not even his affirmation that He has the words of eternal life as Peter succinctly said of Him in John 6 and verse 68. I have always doubted whether Stephan Joubert, his co-workers, and his ekerk followers follow and worship the genuine Jesus Christ of the Bible and not another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4).

The Holy Spirit will never concede to the lie that God has rescinded his promises regarding the land to Israel and consequently dishonour the Son in whom all his promises are yes and amen. Those who believe such a lie serve another Jesus and have received another spirit and another gospel.

The reliability of God’s Word cannot be evaluated through numerical assessments or ratios. It is unwise to compare truth with falsehood and conclude that a higher ratio provides the ultimate answer. The core of truth is determined by the unique characteristics of the individual making the promises, instead of how often they express opposing views.

A person might make a single promise of peace and goodwill while already having made many more aggressive statements. However, the latter cannot diminish the singular promise given, as truth is embodied in a Person named Jesus Christ, rather than being measured by statistical analyses.

Jesus Christ never prayed to His Father to sanctify His followers in percentage-driven truths. (John 17:17). However, anything is possible with Joubert when he can shamelessly proclaim that Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and even atheism contain certain percentages of truth.

If they can share some truths, as Joubert posits, they can surely share a cup of coffee, can’t they?

SJ’s MISINTERPRETATION OF PAUL’S VIEW OF ISRAEL

The claim made by Stephan Joubert that he and his congregation are always in unwavering agreement with God’s Word seems to serve as a mere pretext for promoting ideas that are fundamentally opposed to his professed beliefs. If the Apostle Paul were alive today, he would undoubtedly experience a deep sense of shame and righteous anger upon hearing Stephan Joubert’s statement.

The new people of God are in the Kingdom of God, which is universal in scope. This monumental transition is called the New Testament, a term that Jesus Himself used when He instituted the Lord’s Supper, indicating the beginning of a New Testament. In his writings in 2 Corinthians 3, Paul describes himself as a minister and servant of this New Testament, contrasting his mission with that of Moses, who was responsible for the First Testament.

Paul did not disparage the First Testament; he stated that it was filled with glory, but it brought about death. Therefore, Paul the greatest Jew himself realized you cannot cling to a narrow Jewish view.

The error in this interpretation is twofold. Firstly, it reveals Joubert’s misunderstanding of the distinction between a conditional covenant, exemplified by the Mosaic Covenant with its stipulations of “You shall not,” and an unconditional covenant, represented in the Abrahamic Covenant by its unfailing assurances of “I will.”

Therefore, it is evident that the promise God extended to Israel regarding her perpetual inheritance of the land is completely unrelated to the Mosaic Covenant, which Joubert designates as the First Covenant. As a result, failure to adhere to the Mosaic Covenant cannot serve as evidence for the belief that God has supplanted His people with the church.

The Mosaic Law itself was not a direct cause of death; instead, it was the failure to fully comply with the Ten Commandments that resulted in death. Disobedience to God, whether in the context of the Mosaic Law or by grace through faith, leads to death. This is emphasized by the stern warning in the New Testament:

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. [John 3:36]. 

Stephan Joubert deliberately steers away from mentioning these facts because it would harm his agenda wanting to prove that at least ten tribes of Israel no longer exist. Moreover, the command to “repent and believe the Gospel” signifies that disobedience to God carries consequences, which in this case can be interpreted as “bear the burn(t).”

In his writings, Paul addresses both the Mosaic and Abrahamic Covenants. He clarifies that the Mosaic Covenant was intended merely as a tutor to guide individuals toward Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:24-25). This suggests that it did not possess the inherent capacity to provide eternal life; rather, it directed attention to the One who fulfilled the Law and can grant eternal life.

The New Testament does not abolish the Ten Commandments; rather, it stands as an everlasting testament to the fact that God alone is good (Mark 10:18) and that mankind is hopelessly incompetent to fully comply with the Law’s demands. The Ten Commandments serve as a mirror, reflecting the sinful and deceitful nature of the human heart in the presence of a holy God, demonstrating that even the most commendable human deeds are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:55).

The Abrahamic Covenant stands in stark contrast to the Mosaic Covenant, as it does not require its beneficiaries to make any contributions towards the realization of its provisions, whereas the Mosaic Covenant demands absolute compliance with God’s directives in all its facets. As outlined before, the Mosaic Covenant incorporated a binding clause of “thou shalt not,” while the Abrahamic Covenant was devoid of any such requirement, focusing solely on the commitments made by God in His “I will” pronouncement.

It is essential to remember the profound omniscience (foreknowledge) of God, who proclaimed,

 “. . . I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.” (Isaiah 46:9-10).

Before the creation of the world, God already knew which of the individuals among the Israelites would not depend on the Mosaic Law for their righteousness, thereby identifying those who of their own free will and choice would attain salvation at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

Paul was acutely aware of this truth and could assert with unwavering confidence that all of Israel (the remnant), who will have endured the severe trials of the seven-year tribulation known as Jacob’s trouble, will be saved at the Second Advent of Christ. They are the ones who will ultimately inherit the land promised by God and assume leadership over all nations during Christ’s Millennial reign of peace on earth, as stated in Romans 11:20. (Jeremiah 31:6-10; Zechariah 12:9-14).

Stephan Joubert’s portrayal of Paul as the greatest Jew who allegedly admitted that one cannot hold onto a restricted Jewish viewpoint regarding God’s promises to Abraham and his descendants, is difficult to align with the biblical Paul, who proclaimed, “Has God cast away his people (and replaced them with a new people consisting of all believers of the church)? God forbid.” (Romans 11:1-2).

Joubert’s frivolous audacity in misrepresenting God and His fidelity is also evident in his assessment of Paul as the greatest Jew in history who supposedly refuted God’s promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. However, Stephan Joubert maintains in almost all his YouTube presentations that he and his ekerk are the most devoted and detailed biblical exegetes on the planet.

SJ’s RADICAL NEW TESTAMENT

Stephan Joubert’s dangerous affinity for the term “radical” has radically changed the message of the Gospel. He is firmly convinced that the New Testament offers a perfect new paradigm, one that completely overshadows and replaces the Old Testament, but also one that has replaced the people of God (Israel) with the church.

To fully comprehend Joubert’s perspective, it is essential to first define “radical.” In essence, “radicalism” suggests that traditional practices, rituals, and outdated modes of thought are no longer applicable, thereby requiring an entirely new shift. The recurring mistakes made by Joubert have resulted in his division of the Old and New Testaments, thereby significantly disrupting the inherent continuity between them.

A few examples from Scripture may throw some light on how Stephan Joubert aims to defend his New Testament radicalism. To affirm his radicalness that Israel forfeited her Promised Land, Joubert says the following rather aberrant nonsense.

“We already hear the undertones of a universal Gospel when the Magi of the East recognized Jesus.”

Could it be that Joubert is unaware of Rahab the harlot, who, through her faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob she had learned about, stated,

. . . I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath. (Joshua 2:9-11; Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25).

Use your imagination, as Joubert usually encourages his followers to do, and think for a moment of the astonishing issue in which a whore outdoes the profound knowledge of a prominent professor like Joubert. She humbly acknowledges that God has given the land to Israel, while Joubert struggles to accept that all the promises of God are indeed yes and amen in His Son. The statement made by the whore was rooted in faith, while Stephan Joubert’s replacement theology stems from a lack of sincere faith.

This raises the question: to which one of these two individuals did God attribute his righteousness – the harlot who boldly hid and preserved the lives of the two spies in Jericho and thus received God’s full approval or Stephan Joubert?

If you need to speak of the undertones of a universal Gospel, you must at least begin with Rahab the harlot and not the Magi from the East. The significance of her part in establishing the “undertones” of the universality of the Gospel is that she, a harlot, was given an honorary place in Jesus Christ’s lineage (Matthew 1:5). Therefore, she was instrumental in bringing the universal Saviour who instituted a universal Gospel into the world. And bear in mind, this all took place in the Old Testament, not the New.

THE DANGERS OF A PRECONCEIVED MINDSET

Any reliance on preconceived notions as a fixed framework to shape and define one’s entire mindset is one of the most perilous interpretative methods of biblical eisegesis. This type of thinking is heavily influenced by imaginative impulses, a concept that Stephan Joubert often promotes among his ekerk followers, as he views intuitive imagination as a divine gift.

This belief is a key aspect of mysticism, which Johan Geyser’s Mosaïek Kerk in Fairlands, Johannesburg has been endorsing and practising for a significant time, with Joubert frequently serving as a guest speaker.

It is important to revisit Joubert’s rigorous radicalization of the New Testament, who contends that it has effectively superseded numerous practices and doctrines of the Old Testament. He passionately attempts to employ these radical shifts, including the cessation of the temple and especially the Levitical sacrificial system, to support his assertion that God has declared a final Ichabod over the nation of Israel (or at least the ten Northern Tribes).

While Joubert accurately describes the present era in terms of the temple and animal sacrifices, referred to as “the times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24), we cannot utilize this as definitive evidence to assert that God has irretrievably concluded His relationship with His people and has substituted them with the church.

Conversely, a temple will be constructed once more during the 1000-year reign of Christ, where animal sacrifices will again be offered as a hindsight reflection on Christ’s ultimate sacrifice on the cross, akin to how the sacrifices in the Old Testament foreshadowed Christ’s final atonement for sins.

The Lord promised in Ezekiel 37:26-28,

Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

We can draw several conclusions from these verses. The promises are given for a time still future after Israel returns to the land and looks to the Lord at his Second Coming on a National Day of Repentance.

The sanctuary mentioned will last forevermore. It could not, therefore, refer to the Temples of Zerubbabel or Herod, for those Temples were short-lived. Furthermore, Israel as a nation had not then turned to the Lord (Zechariah 3:9). We can therefore conclude that the Temple of which the prophet wrote is the Millennial Temple, the one that will be in existence when our Lord rules over the earth.

SJ’s SACRILIGIOUS TIRADE AGAINST THE OFFERINGS IN LEVITICUS

To offer readers a glimpse into one of Joubert’s radical and blasphemous adaptations of Old Testament traditions, this quote from his lips will be sufficient. He scornfully describes the sacrificial system of the Levites in the Old Testament as nothing more than a joke.

The shoulders of those poor animals that were sacrificed at the temple just weren’t strong enough to bear their sins. In the end the temple was just a bloody disgrace, a sacrificial joke. And the joke was on God’s people!

The phrase “The joke was on them” signifies that those who sought to play a trick or prank on someone else ended up being the ones who were deceived, shamed or made foolish. This concept embodies a reversal of roles, where the pranksters experience the consequences of their own actions. According to this definition, the involvement of at least two entities is necessary for a scenario to be labelled as “the joke was on them.”

In this instance, the entities are God and Israel. Joubert’s portrayal suggests that Israel, as the people of God, who are the true wrongdoers endeavoured to deceive and humiliate God through their offerings of animal sacrifices. Yet, their actions, which involved the killing of “poor animals,” were revealed to be nothing more than a “bloody disgrace, a sacrificial joke.”

Therefore, God reversed the intended mockery upon Israel, His chosen people, to demonstrate that the joke was on them and not on Him. The idea that the sacrificial system instituted by God in Leviticus was a means for Israel to ridicule Him, with God then reversing the situation to mock them instead, is an egregious form of blasphemy.

Stephan Joubert appears to be experiencing a severe case of semantic psychosis, a linguistic disorder characterized by conceptual disorganization, a deficiency in discerning content and context, insufficient referential cohesion, and illogical reasoning. Despite his frequent assertions of having a profound exegetical understanding of the Bible, it is ironic that he continually fails to substantiate his creative imagination of its content.

This grave diagnosis can be inferred from his complete inability to differentiate between the meanings of “bloody disgrace,” “sacrificial joke,” and “most holy.” Joubert fearlessly and aggressively derides the sacrificial system presented in Leviticus, referring to it as “a bloody disgrace” and “a sacrificial joke,” whereas God, who is infinitely holy, categorizes all the sacrifices as “most holy” offerings. A cursory review indicates that the expression “most holy” appears 46 times in the Bible, with Leviticus accounting for 13 of those instances. An example of this can be found here:

Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy. [Leviticus 6:25]

One may wonder why God referred to all the sacrifices as “most holy.” First and foremost, it is important to note that God did not intend for the animals to bear the sins of His people on their shoulders. A closer investigation into Joubert’s irreverent concept of “sin shoulder-bearing” suggests a subtle effort to shift focus away from the essential role of blood in the sacrificial system. Surely, Joubert must be aware of God’s statement in Hebrews 9:22, “And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission [of sin].”

This decree serves as evidence that the blood of the sacrificial animals mentioned in Leviticus, rather than their shoulders, foreshadowed the blood of Christ He shed on the cross for mankind’s sins. It is only in this regard that the blood of the sacrificial animals was counted as holy as God Himself vowed:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Leviticus 17:11).

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having a high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. (Hebrews 10:19-22).

SJ‘S RADICALIZATION OF HEBREWS 1 VERSE 1

Hebrews 1 and verse 1 is a magnificent revelation of how God speaks to mortal man.

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

There are two ways to interpret this passage. One perspective is to consider God’s discourse through His Son as a momentous revision that radically overshadows the declarations made by the Old Testament prophets. The other perspective is to confirm that every nuance of His word, as expressed through His Son, resonates perfectly with the writings of the prophets. However, the same words spoken by the prophets have achieved a far more glorious and substantial value through His Son.

This sublime glory is illustrated in Paul’s affirmation of Christ’s authority over all creation, His creative power in the formation of heaven and earth, the brilliance of His glory as the exact image of the Father, His role in keeping all things through His powerful word, His accomplished work to cleanse us from our sins,  and his exalted position at the right hand of God on high. All these attributes make Him so much more glorious in His capability to convey God’s truth than all the Old Testament prophets.

Paul highlights that if the messages from God relayed by the prophets of old were completely trustworthy (2 Peter 1:20), it stands to reason that we should have an even stronger unwavering faith in the word of God as expressed through His Son, who is the incarnate Word of God.

It is to be expected that Stephan Joubert endorses the first mentioned stance of radical revisionism, which is said to have rendered the traditional spoken word of God, as expressed by the prophets, obsolete. The extent of Stephan Joubert’s rebellion against God’s sacred words delivered by the Old Testament prophets is so profound that it surpasses the very limits of blasphemy, a feat that even Satan would struggle to match.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin as Jesus said in Matthew 12:31. Joubert audaciously dismisses the infallible role of the Holy Spirit in the conveyance of prophecy and instead attributes it indiscriminately to the dreams of the prophets which ultimately were dashed to pieces. This is what he said:

Consequently], the writer of Hebrews explains that God had to speak through Jesus in a new way and that Jesus became the new route. [DTW comment: This statement is one of his most indiscriminate comments he has ever made. It assumes that God created two divergent paths: one for the Jews in the Old Testament, which was a sad failure, and another, as represented by Jesus, intended exclusively for the church in the New Testament. Jesus Christ has always been the only Way to God in the Old and New Testaments. There has never been an old road that has been replaced by a new one].

Jesus transcends the Old Testament narrative, culminating in His death. While His sacrifice on the cross was an important event and for which we should be deeply grateful, it is essential to understand that Jesus brought forth a revolutionary new covenant and a new family of believers called His new people.

This is the very gospel that articulates the meaning of Jesus’ role as the Messiah for Israel. I urge you to pay close attention to this message to avoid me being labelled a false teacher, but it has failed to a great extent. Jesus was greeted with hostility upon His arrival, which eventually culminated in His crucifixion on a wooden cross, and His murder by the very leaders of the people He had come to save.

The genealogy of Jesus is outlined in Matthew 1, which illustrates his heritage as an Israelite (a Jew). He is shown to be a descendant of David, with his lineage going back to Abraham. Nevertheless, King Herod’s reaction to the announcement of the Messiah’s birth indicates an impending conflict, while the arrival of the wise men from the East signals the unfolding of a universal gospel, as they recognized Jesus’ significance as the Savior of mankind.

The Gospel was not first recognized as a universal truth when King Herod realized that the wise men, representing the Gentiles, were honoring Jesus as their Savior. The foundation for a universal Gospel of salvation had already been established by the sacrificial blood of an innocent victim, as indicated in Hebrews 9:22, after the fall of Adam and Eve.

It is important to note that Adam and Eve obviously could not be associated with any nation; rather, they represented all of humanity. Nations did not begin to appear on the scene until after the great flood with the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

It is therefore a great farce to claim that the gospel did not take on a universal context until Jesus became flesh. Several Gentiles who came to faith in the Old Testament serve as proof that the gospel had already taken on auniversal meaning in the Old Testament. Here are some examples: Rahab (Joshua 2:1-21; 6:22-25); Ruth (Ruth 1:16); Naaman (2 Kings 5:1-19); the Ninevites (Jonah 32:1-10).]

To impose his radical new presentation of the Gospel to the exclusion of the Jewish nation as God’s chosen people, whom Joubert claims to have been replaced by the Church, he mentions the instance when the Syro-Phoenician woman begged Jesus to cast out a demon from her vexed daughter, and He replied, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” and “It is not suitable to take the children’s bread and cast it to dogs.” (In those days, Jews referred to Gentiles as dogs) [Matthew 15:21-24]. Her determination demonstrated her unwavering faith in Him, which eventually led Him to act on her behalf as she had begged.

For reasons of his own, Joubert then makes a huge leap to Luke 13:34-35 where Jesus’s heartrending lament over Jerusalem is recorded,

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” [Luk 13:34-35]. 

Joubert  deliberately substitutes the words “Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, ‘Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord’” with “You will not see me again  until you see me coming on the clouds as the Son of man.” At first this may seem somewhat trivial but Joubert’s deliberate omission of the phrase “until the time comes when you shall say ‘Blessed is He that comes in the Name of the Lord’” completely alters the true meaning of this passage.

The text illustrates the humility of Jesus Christ concerning salvation, as noted in Matthew 11:29. He does not impose Himself upon individuals nor does He unilaterally save the elect, as suggested by Calvinism and Islam’s Allah. Instead, He desires that lost sinners seek Him willingly and of their own free will for salvation, as indicated in Romans 10:13.

Furthermore, it ensures that the entire house of Jacob, though only a remnant, must still exist to make His return to earth possible, as Romans 11:25 clearly spells out. Christ’s return, in contrast to Joubert’s interpretation, which refers to the faith of the Syro-Phoenician woman in conjunction with the unbelief of Jerusalem and their rejection of their Messiah, to supposedly illustrate the process of transferring all of God’s promises from Jews to non-Jews, is specifically aimed at the Jews and not the church.

The born-again Christians (the true church) return with Christ at His second coming after the rapture and the subsequent seven-year tribulation (Jacob’s distress – Jeremiah 30:7) to judge the nations that have treated His people so badly. (Joel 3:2).

In addition, his use of the title “Son of Man” in Luke 13 further complicates matters for Joubert and his flights of fantasy. The slightest modification of the text changes its meaning and disparages the Holy Spirit who inspired the apostles to convey God’s message. That said, Joubert’s lily-white boasting of his incorruptible contextual exegesis of the Bible and that he never chooses verses to fit his own agenda, flies out the window.

But wait, it gets worse when Joubert unashamedly mocks the Holy Spirit who inspired the Old Testament prophets to utter God’s prophecies. He goes on to say,

The disintegrated Israel and the land Isaiah dreamt would be a destination for the nations to converge in Jerusalem, and Ezekiel’s dream of a new temple was shattered to pieces. Yet the New Testament, embodying the New Covenant, revitalized this hope. Within the New Testament, Jesus is recognized as the new temple, making the physical edifice redundant, as Jerusalem evolves into the foundation from which the gospel is spread.

Both Isaiah and Jeremiah wrote about the convergence of all nations in Jerusalem to honour the Name of the Lord.

The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. [Isaiah 2:1-3].

At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart, [Jeremiah 3:17] [like Stephan Joubert and his ekerk followers].

According to the Bible, a matter is considered fully established and reliable when supported by the testimony of two or three witnesses, as stated in Deuteronomy 19:15. This principle is mirrored in modern legal contexts, which often require at least two witnesses for validation. For instance, in the case of wills and testaments, many jurisdictions necessitate the presence of two witnesses to ensure the document’s legitimacy.

The above two passages from Scripture contain three witnesses: Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Holy Spirit. It is essential to remind our esteemed professor that the divinely ordained Old Testament prophets did not prophesy of their own volition or their own fanciful daydreaming; instead, holy men prophesied only when they were moved by the Holy Spirit. [2 Peter 1:20].

Nonetheless, Joubert impudently shrugs off the indispensable role of the Holy Spirit and instead attributes the perfectly attuned two prophecies by Isaiah and Jeremiah to their own fanciful daydreaming calling their Holy Spirit inspired prophecies shattered dreams.

The main reason why Joubert prefers to tread this dangerous path is his equally dangerous rejection of a literal Millennial age of peace on earth when Jesus Christ will rule over the whole house of Jacob [Israel], and all the remaining nations from the throne of his father David in Jerusalem [Luke 1:32-33, Psalm 2].

It will be at that time when all the nations will annually go up to Jerusalem to worship Jesus Christ and those who fail to comply will forfeit rain during their seasonal rain periods. [Zechariah 14:17]. No rain, only pain shall be the result of their rebellious actions.

In the final analysis, Stephan Joubert’s contemptuous referral to the Old Testament prophets’ predictions as merely shattered daydreams, stems from his preposterous views on prophecy. He considers a prophecy that remains unfulfilled within the timeframe of a generation [20 to 30 years) as divination and damnable sorcery, and thus blameworthy of the serious indictment in Deuteronomy 18 and verse 10.

With such an outrageous view he reveals that he has no pangs of conscience to be at variance with the One he claims to be radically following. While he sneers at the Old Testament prophet’s prophesies as shattered daydreams, Jesus Christ whom he claims to follow had the utmost respect for their Holy Spirit inspired predictions. His profound respect for their prophecies was firmly established in his heart, prompting him to intentionally reveal himself to two of his apostles as they journeyed to Emmaus. These apostles, engulfed in a state of deep despondency, were engaged in conversation about the events that had transpired in Jerusalem following his resurrection.

It is so important to compare Jesus Christ’s proper respect for the Old Testament prophets’ prophecies with Stephan Joubert’s deep-rooted disrespect that we need to quote word for word their conversation on the way to Emmaus.

Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him. And He said to them, “What kind of conversation is this that you have with one another as you walk and are sad?” Then the one whose name was Cleopas answered and said to Him, “Are You the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have You not known the things which happened there in these days?” And He said to them, “What things?” So they said to Him, “The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened. Yes, and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. When they did not find His body, they came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said He was alive. And certain of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but Him they did not see.” Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. Then they drew near to the village where they were going, and He indicated that He would have gone farther. But they constrained Him, saying, “Abide with us, for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent.” And He went in to stay with them. Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened, and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight. And they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?” [Luke 24:13-32].

There are two vitally important things to note from the above magnanimous passage. The first is Christ’s emotional indictment “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. The second is “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?”

The reason for Stephan Joubert’s dismissal of “all that the prophets have spoken” regarding Christ’s suffering and his ascension into glory, is that he does not feel a passionate stirring within him when Christ points to the Old Testament Scriptures to substantiate his death, burial, resurrection and ascension, rather than the New Testament, which [and Joubert should know this] was not even written then. This implies that Joubert is in dialogue with another Christ, not the Christ of the Bible (2 Corinthians 11:4), The Christ of Emmaus and the Christ recognized by Joubert are two radically different persons. (No pun intended).

Joubert may contend that his dismissal of the predictions made by the Old Testament prophet as meagre fanciful dreams does not extend to the events surrounding Jesus Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, but rather relates only to Israel as a people replaced by the church. If this is indeed his position, it would only serve to compound the absurdity of his replacement theology.

This perspective implies that God engages in contradictory statements and is willing to deem certain Old Testament prophecies obsolete while preserving others. What sort of Christian would be audacious enough to label God as an untrustworthy deceiver? Naturally, Joubert would refrain from making such a blasphemous assertion directly.

However, he has developed a canny way to avoid outright blasphemous statements by deliberately excluding some of the most palpable scriptural passages that prove beyond any doubt that God has not replaced his chosen people, Israel, with the church. For instance, what does Joubert make of these following texts.

For I am the Lord, I do not change; Therefore, you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob. (Malachi 3:6).

The unchanging nature of God is the very foundation for the unwavering reliability of all His promises to Israel. Those who challenge His faithfulness, suggesting that He arbitrarily alters His commitments—especially to sidestep long-term prophecies that span beyond a single generation (20 to 30 years)—are not truly honouring the God of the Bible. This includes the misguided claims of individuals like Stephan Joubert, who dismiss such prophecies as mere divination and sorcery.

Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. [Jer 31:35-37]

Stephan Joubert’s repetitive and illusory assertion that Israel has ceased to exist can be likened to a dull person who, while walking, keeps his gaze directed at his feet and the ground, failing to lift his eyes in wonderment at the vast array of the sun, the moon, the stars and the planets—celestial bodies that God has ordained as eternal witnesses to the enduring and eternal existence of Israel as a nation.

This is what God decrees and yet Joubert unashamedly accuses God to his face,

You are a liar and a deceiver. Unlike all the other pro-Israel contenders (anti-antisemites) who randomly cherry-pick only the verses from the Bible that confirm Israel’s eternal existence, I have read and studied all the other verses. These passages make up more than 80% of your judgements and obliteration of Israel while less than 20% speak of her eternal existence. Tipping the scale from an 80% to a 20% ratio in favour of Israel’s existence is absurd.

Do you really think your wisdom and knowledge beats mine, Professor Stephan J Joubert, who holds a DD degree from the University of Pretoria (1987) and a PhD from Radboud University in Nijmegen, Netherlands (2012), who has authored over 47 Christian books, including “Jesus – ‘n Radikale Sprong,” that was awarded the prestigious Andrew Murray Prize in 2010, and is the editor of one of the largest e-church ministries worldwide?

Do you really think so? You must be joking. In fact, the joke is on you because Israel has vanished from the face of the earth. They were “ein scheitern,” (a dismal failure). Oh, you’ll probably want to throw Isaiah 49 verse 15 at me to convince me otherwise, which says, “But Zion says, The Lord has forsaken me, and the Lord has forgotten me! Can a woman forget her suckling, that she does not take pity on the son of her womb? Though they should forget, yet I will never forget you!?”

Oh, you’ll probably want to throw Isaiah 49 verse 15 at me to convince me otherwise which says the following, “But Zion says, The Lord has forsaken me, and the Lord has forgotten me! Can a woman forget her suckling, that she does not take pity on the son of her womb? Though they would forget, yet I will never forget you!?” No, no, you are wrong because Isaiah 49:15 is part of the 20% that is far overshadowed by the 80%. The church, the new Israel, is a resounding success as you may have gathered from the pristine scholarly way I mistreat and manhandle your eternal word.

Hey Joubert, listen to how cool God refutes your insipid meanderings.

Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘This is what the Lord GOD says: “It is not for your sake, house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went. (Ezekiel 36:22).

Joubert frequently emphasizes to his followers that ekerk thoroughly examines all texts before drawing any conclusions about end-time events. He asserts that this practice is essential to prevent misinterpretations based on isolated verses and to avoid incorrect assumptions. However, he himself falls into the same trap he criticizes in others. I have never once heard him mention any of the quoted verses above in his two videos “Who are the real people of God?”

In the Old Testament, the phrase “for My holy name’s sake” often appears in the context of God’s covenantal faithfulness and His actions on behalf of His people, Israel.  As a matter of interest, it was a man who reminded God to hallow his Name in the site of fallen man when He vowed to destroy Israel as a nation and to make of Moses a new nation of Israel. The following incident happened in the aftermath of Israel’s worship of the golden calf while Moses was on Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments.

Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. [Exodus 32:10-14].

Moses earnestly interceded with God, imploring Him not to destroy Israel who had grievously sinned in their veneration of the golden calf, based on two compelling arguments.

• God’s immutable covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God loves it when we remind Him of His promises (Isaiah 62:6-7). This is not due to any deficiency in His memory, but rather to affirm our steadfast faith in His covenants, particularly those with Israel. Stephan Joubert will never be able to remind God of His promises, as he does not believe in the solid Rock on which these promises stand (Isaiah 46:9-10).

The scripture from Isaiah 46:9-10 makes it clear that those who do not trust in the eternal reliability of God’s counsel are, in effect, denying that He is the only living true God, unmatched by any other.

In the following statement, Joubert’s lack of faith in the unchanging character of God and His equally enduring promises (covenants) becomes apparent. After having quoted from Ephesians chapters 2 and 3, he makes this astonishing foolish observation:

 This is the new mystery which God revealed to Paul . . . So, Paul introduces a new mystery [which is], God has a new people (a new nation). . . Many people fixate on a few everlasting promises they quote out of context from the Old Testament just to equate the historical Israel that no longer exists with modern-day Israel.

Whoa! This anti-Semitic statement will no doubt incite the Hamas terrorists back in Gaza even more to eradicate modern-day Israel. Joubert is giving them a new incentive to destroy Israel..

So, let’s play Joubert’s infamous game of imagination. Imagine Moses having taken God’s covenantal promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob out of context and instead should have prayed as follows,

Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will NOT multiply your seed as the stars of heaven BUT DESTROY THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE “EIN SCHEITERN” (A DISMAL FAILURE), and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto THE PALESTINIANS WHOM I SHALL RAISE UP AS A NEW PEOPLE, and they shall inherit it for ever.

• . . . and I will make of thee a great nation. Now, Moses who was a very humble man, humbler than anyone else on the face of the earth (Numbers 12:3), when he heard this, jumped up with joy and shouted, “Thank you Lord. How cool of you to destroy your people and make of me a brand-new people whom I am sure will never follow in the footsteps of your old, annihilated nation. No, no, no, rest assured, I won’t tell the Egyptians or anyone else what you have done for your holy Names’ sake. I will only tell them to feast your eyes on me, Moses, who led my people out of their bondage in Egypt. I am the new Israel.”

God’s holy Name and His pre-eminence as the one true living God among the nations was of paramount importance to Moses, who was even willing to have his own name erased from the book of life. Paul mirrored this sentiment when he remarked, “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” [Romans 9:3].

God’s choice of Israel was not based on their being a super nation or superior to others; it was for the sake of his holy Name and nothing more. God, in His foreknowledge, knew that His people (Israel) would consistently profane His Name among the nations. Yet, He sovereignly chose them for the honour of His holy Name.

The question that will probably remain unanswered is: Would any other nation have done any better or would they too be “ein scheitern,” (a dismal failure as Joubert would say).  Conversely, Stephan Joubert seems to show little concern for the continual disrespect, defamation, and disparagement shown for God’s holy Name among anti-Semitic individuals and nations, with the church often being the most egregious offender.

SJ’s NEW LAND

Concerning the land, everything that God has decreed to happen in the future stands as undeniable proof of its veracity in the present. For instance, the land of Israel is referred to in the Bible no less than ten times as “my land.” The land belongs to God and He sovereignly chooses to whomsoever He wishes to give it as an eternal inheritance. His choice was Israel.

After liberating them from their enslavement in Egypt, He leased it to Israel, giving Joshua and Caleb the honour to conquer the land in his Name, Sadly Israel quickly sunk into the abyss of idolatry, the very same idolatry God severely judged the Canaanites for, leaving Him no other choice but the release his curses in Deuteronomy upon them. (Deuteronomy 28:1-68). These curses are truncated in 2 Chronicles 7:19-22.

But if ye turn away, and forsake my statutes and my commandments, which I have set before you, and shall go and serve other gods, and worship them; Then will I pluck them up by the roots out of my land which I have given them; and this house, which I have sanctified for my name, will I cast out of my sight, and will make it to be a proverb and a byword among all nations. And this house, which is high, shall be an astonishment to every one that passeth by it; so that he shall say, Why hath the LORD done thus unto this land, and unto this house? And it shall be answered, Because they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, and laid hold on other gods, and worshipped them, and served them: therefore hath he brought all this evil upon them. [2 Chronicles 7:19-22].

In order to illustrate the first statement in this portion about the land, we need to turn to chapter 3 verses 1 and 2 of the book of Joel once more.

For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations [FUTURE], and parted my land [PRESENT]. [Joel 3:1-2].

The partition of the land of Israel into two separate states – one for Israel and one for the so-called Palestinians – has been a bone of contention for a very long time without any permanent solution. Notably, President Bill Clinton hosted the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, which was a major step towards a two-state solution. Then followed a series of Abraham accords facilitated by President Donald Trump in 2020, not to discuss a two-state solution, but to normalize relationships between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

This was a very shrewd new deal only Trump could think of. By bringing Abraham into the equation, he sought to cement the idea that Jews, Christians and Muslims all had the same father and hence needed to unite under the Abrahamic banner.

Joubert, who promotes the tenets of Replacement Theology, scorns the discord between Judaism and Islam over a territory that supposedly has been replaced by a universal “land,” now inhabited by the new Israel, which includes individuals from all nations (the church also known as the Kingdom-Now fraternity).

The quote from Joel 3:1-2 reinforces the fact that Israel is the land that God has entrusted to His people and that He will render judgment upon the nations in the Valley of Jehoshaphat for their rebellion in dividing His land. This further exemplifies Joubert’s intense aversion to the true followers of God and His land. Stephan Joubert will have a lot to account for in the Day of Judgment.

JS’s NEW COVENANT

It is crucial to contend from the beginning that the Gospel associated with the blood of Jesus Christ’s cross is not the New Covenant. In a word, the Gospel should not be regarded as the New Covenant. The phrase “New Covenant” itself indicates that it has replaced something “old,” specifically the Mosaic Covenant that God made with Israel at Mount Sinai, which predates the church’s institution at Pentecost by about 1413 years.

In order to apply the New Covenant to the church, it is essential to demonstrate, through some kind of strongarm twisting, that God also established the Mosaic Covenant with the church alongside Israel as a nation, if the notion that the “New” has replaced the “old” is to be upheld.

The people with whom the Old Mosaic Covenant was established must necessarily be the same nation with whom God will establish the New Covenant for it to be appropriately termed a New Covenant, and that is none other than Israel. Those who did not participate in the Old Mosaic Covenant cannot partake in a New Covenant, as there is no Old Covenant for them to renew. You cannot claim, “I have bought a new set of golf clubs to replace my old set,” if you’ve never owned an old set. This example highlights the fallacy of replacement theology. Such a scenario is untenable, and the reasoning is as follows:

Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”  Jeremiah 31:31-34]

Here are a couple of points that show why the church can’t be considered the new Israel:

1. God has promised to create a New Covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah in the future. Honestly, it takes a wild imagination to suggest that the church is the same as Israel and Judah.
2. God never made a covenant with the church’s forefathers. Why? Because He didn’t lead them out of slavery in Egypt like He did with Israel. Plus, the church can’t refer to God the Father as its husband the way Israel does. The church is the Bride of Christ, not the wife of God the Father.

These points highlight the distinction between the two!

SJ’s ONE-GENERATION PROPHECY RULE: LET’S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT

To thoroughly understand the matter at hand, it is essential first to consider Stephan Joubert’s insights regarding prophecy, particularly concerning the Book of Revelation.

Revelation is indeed a prophetic text; however, it is crucial to grasp the true nature of prophecy. It is not merely about predicting future events. A prophet does not merely declare, “I know what will occur in the future.” Such an assertion would be classified as divination. Biblical prophecy, as outlined in Deuteronomy chapter 18, provides a clear definition.

The Lord states, “But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ — when the prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, and the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the word which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.” [Deuteronomy 18:20-22].

The words of a prophet must manifest within their own generation. How can one ascertain the truth of a prophecy upon hearing it? Prophecy, fundamentally, is intended for the listeners, as is revelation. It is important to note that revelation is not solely written for our benefit; it is indeed for us, but it also extends beyond us.

This is God’s timeless and timely word, meant for all generations. We must consider the perspectives of countless Christians who have come before us. Regrettably, many individuals interpret revelation as being exclusively for their own time. Numerous publications support this notion. However, let me illustrate: you are currently in a church where, for an entire year, your pastor has been delivering inspiring prophecies.

At the year’s end, he might say, “I have some unfortunate news; the sermons were intended for people a thousand years from now.” How do you think the congregation would react? For this very reason, when John received these revelations, they were meant for individuals in the Roman Empire who were suffering greatly, facing persecution and death at unprecedented rates.

Christians endured severe hardships, likely under the reigns of Emperor Nero or Emperor Domitian. Therefore, we must remember that the Book of Revelation serves as a prophecy, revealing God’s will for both the present and the knowledge He wishes us to have about the future. However, it is not a collection of future predictions.

Let’s start with his very last sentence in which he admits that Revelation is a prophetic book but not a prediction of the future, and yet he also admits that it reveals God’s will for now and everything He wants us to know about the future.

How on earth Joubert can get the point across that Revelation is a prophetic book but not a prediction of the future that can only be imagined and figured out by someone like him with his grotesque imagination?

It’s almost like saying, that God is omniscient, just as He is also omnipotent and omnipresent, and can therefore predict one hundred percent what will happen in a thousand years (Isaiah 46:9-10), and convey it to His chosen prophets in the same way.

But He limits all these divine attributes of Himself so that the immediate listeners of His predictions should not think He is a soothsayer when His predictions fail to be fulfilled within the time frame of their generation (between 20 and 30 years).

The fundamental mistake made by Joubert is the reliance on the immediate recipients of prophecies as the definitive criterion for their eventual realization, rather than recognizing the vast omniscience of God. Faith, as articulated in Hebrews 11:1, is not predicated on observable phenomena.

The immediate audience cannot determine whether prophecies that have been anticipated for over a millennium will be fulfilled within their lifetimes. Such an expectation is not only illogical but also absurd.

The only certain knowledge available to them was God’s pronouncement in Deuteronomy 18:20-22, which guarantees that all prophecies conveyed through His chosen prophets will indeed come to pass, whilst the purported prophecies of false prophets—essentially acts of divination—will never be fulfilled.

Thus, many immediate listeners could confidently believe that God would send His Son to atone for the sins of humanity and offer eternal life.

A pertinent example is Abraham, who, nearly 2000 years before the crucifixion of Christ, answered his son Isaac’s question regarding the lamb for the burnt offering by declaring, “God will provide Himself with the lamb for a burnt offering, my son” (Genesis 22:7-8).

Abraham, as a true prophet of God, foresaw and foretold the sacrificial death of Christ for the sins of humanity, distinguishing himself from false prophets engaged in divination (Genesis 20:7).

Joubert is likely to assert that the ram, which became ensnared in a bush at the moment Abraham intended to sacrifice his son, serves as a direct fulfilment of Abraham’s prophetic declaration. If this is indeed his position, I would recommend that Professor Joubert revisit Sunday school to better understand the distinction between a ram and a lamb. About the Lamb, let us briefly return to the extraordinary moment when He introduced Himself as the Lamb of God in Nazareth. This occurred when Jesus was presented with the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue of His hometown and proceeded to read from it.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. [Luke 4:18-21].

Imagine, if you will, that Stephan Joubert was among those gathered in the synagogue, where he courageously rose to speak to Jesus. We can undoubtedly engage our imagination, which Joubert asserts is a gift from the divine, can’t we?.

“Do you truly wish to persuade us that a prophecy recorded in the Old Testament, in the book of Isaiah, approximately 800 years ago, is being fulfilled in our hearing today? It may be wise for you to examine Deuteronomy, chapter 18, verses 20 to 22, and I implore you to read it with profound respect. This passage indicates that prophecies that do not come to fruition within a generation (20 to 30 years) are classified as divination. Yet, you have the audacity to claim that an 800-year delay in the fulfillment of this prophecy in you is not divination? What level of respect do you afford the Word of God? It seems you are not the person you purport to be; instead, you appear to be a consummate fortune teller.”

Joubert’s involvement in a perilous game extends beyond mere participation; it encompasses the intricate dynamics of allegorical symbolism. This framework illustrates the starkly contrasting perspectives on prophecy. One interpretation maintains that all prophecies that have been fulfilled are to be taken literally. Proponents of Amillennialism and the Kingdom-Now ideology tend to view these completed prophecies as literal events, as historical fulfillments are not easily interpreted through the lens of symbolic allegory. At the same time, they assert that many prophecies, which Premillennialists consider to be future events, have already been realized. This belief is termed “Preterism,” which argues that the prophecies in Revelation were fulfilled as early as 70 AD, indicating that the Millennial Reign of Christ has been ongoing since His first coming, even though more than 2000 years have elapsed. Thus, this extensive timeframe is regarded as merely a symbol or allegory of the 1000 years.

The allegorical method poses considerable dangers as it overlooks the straightforward meanings of words, thereby enabling a range of mythical interpretations (2 Timothy 4:3-4). This approach does not elucidate the true significance of the author’s language; rather, it imposes the interpreter’s creative fantasies onto the text. It transcends the established norms of language interpretation, resulting in a distortion of the original meaning of Scriptural passages and a confusing multitude of interpretations.

An illustrative case of this can be found in Stephan Joubert’s interpretation of Revelation 14, where he describes the 144,000 sealed Jews, comprising 12,000 individuals from each of the twelve tribes of Israel on Mount Zion, who bear the names of Christ and His Father on their foreheads.

Joubert posits that the original twelve tribes no longer exist and have been supplanted by the church, which he views as the new people of God. Consequently, he is compelled to interpret the entire passage symbolically. Indeed, he asserts that it is the church that receives a symbolic mark on their foreheads in Revelation 14.

A detailed analysis reveals that the 144,000 cannot be directly linked to the church for several reasons. Firstly, they do not receive a mark similar to that which Satan employs to designate his followers in Revelation 13, where a visible mark [charagma] is imprinted on their hand or forehead.

Conversely, the names of Christ and His Father are inscribed on the foreheads of the 144,000 [graphō]. The New Testament does not suggest that modern believers are marked by God in this way. Rather, they are sealed with the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption, as noted in Ephesians 4:30. The “salvation” mentioned in Ephesians cannot refer to rebirth, since those who are sealed by the Holy One have already attained salvation. Therefore, it must pertain to the Rapture that takes place before the seven-year tribulation, at which point their bodies will be transformed in an instant.

According to Verse 4 of Revelation 14, they are described as not having defiled themselves with women, signifying their virginal purity. This suggests that they are single and have never engaged in sexual relations with any woman. Consequently, the members of the church, especially true believers, cannot make this claim, as most, including Joubert, are married.

Verse 5 confirms that there is no deceit in their speech, indicating that they convey only the unadulterated truth. This cannot be applied to the members of the church, particularly when individuals like Joubert advocate for the mysticism associated with the Mosaic Church (Johan Geyser and Co), and as Rob Bell, a veritable rebel in the Emergent Church movement, purports that there exist percentages of truth within Judaism, Buddhism, Atheism, and various other belief systems.

It is important to note that the 144,000 sealed will never endorse such a demonic falsehood, as stated in John 8:44. Joubert’s claim that the 144,000 sealed represent the true church or true Israel, is nothing more than a blatant falsehood originating from hell. It would be in the best interest of Stephan Joubert and Co (Ekerk) to repent of their erroneous teachings for the sake of their souls.

CONCLUSION

Many an illogical and imaginative kind of reasoning has restrained the full counsel of God, especially regarding Israel being saved as a nation at Jesus Christ’s Second Advent to the earth. Although Stephan Joubert acknowledges that God has always reserved to himself a remnant of true believers among the Israelites who had not succumbed to idolatry (Romans 11:4), he stops short of admitting that this remnant is referred to as the whole house of Israel. (Romans 11:26), insisting that ten tribes no longer exist.

Just remember, the remnant set apart for God will find salvation (Romans 11:26b) only when Christ returns with His church—made up of people from every nation, language, and tribe—before the Rapture. This is something Joubert doesn’t agree with (Revelation 19:14). Jesus made it clear that He won’t come back to gather the remnant until they say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” (Luke 13:34-35).

Now, when you look at Romans 11:26, which says “all Israel shall be saved,” it really highlights that the church can’t be seen as the new Israel. Why? Because the church will have already been saved, raptured, gone through the Bema Throne judgment, and celebrated her marriage to Christ by that time.

Joubert struggles to grasp these events after the Rapture because he’s not on board with them. He leans towards a Dominionist view, believing in a Kingdom-Now approach, which means he doesn’t buy into the idea of a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ on Earth. Paul’s affirmation that all Israel shall be saved when Christ returns at his Second Advent in Romans 11:26 was already confirmed 575 years earlier in Zechariah when the prophet wrote:

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; All the [rest of the] families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart. [Zechariah 12:10-14].

It is evident from the above passage that all families, representing the remaining remnant of the twelve tribes, will be saved at Jesus Christ’s Second Coming to the earth. It contradicts Joubert’s position, which posits that only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin will be saved, as the ten Northern tribes are said to have perished following their supposed destruction by the Assyrians in 720-722 BC.

One of the most solid proofs that the church has not replaced Israel as the people of God, is the angel of the Lord’s appearance to Josef in a dream and saying:

Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. [Matthew 1:20-21].

There isn’t the slightest hint in the angel’s enunciation that “his people” encompassed a “groundless” or “landless” universal mishmash of believers (the church) from every nation, tribe and tongue. The term “his people” could not have been understood as a people other than the house of Jacob (Israel) by Joseph and Mary, because the church was still non-existent at that time.

Furthermore, “his people” is a direct testimony to the fact that Christ was fully human while He remained fully divine. Every human being is born into a nation. Christ Himself affirmed his full humanity when He said, “salvation is of the Jews.” (John 4:22). His people are the Jews and not a composite of a vast variety of nations known as the church. For Him to have been fully human He had to be born into a nation and that nation happened to be the house of Israel whom God sovereignly chose to be his people.

An even stronger affirmation that the Jews have remained his people throughout history is the angel Gabriel’s enunciation to Mary when he said,

“And he shall reign over the house of Jacob (Israel, albeit the remnant) for ever; and of his kingdom, there shall be no end.” [Luke 1:33]. 

If Christ’s reign is forever, then the house of Jacob must also remain forever, unless there are two opposing meanings of “forever” which is quite possible with the Emergent Church that thrives on Yin Yang paradoxes, i.e. soft-soaping lies.