What I liked:
A great introduction to the theology of Israel, and a history of the Messianic movement.

What I didn't like:
He doesn't prove all of his points thoroughly, and he makes some minor mistakes in interpreting the scriptures.

Summary:
This is  must-read.  An excellent summary of God's purpose for Israel today.

Introduction

I recently finished reading Your People Shall Be My People by Don Finto, and wanted to post a few thoughts on the book.

This book was given to me at an Iron Sharpens Iron conference, and then I heard it recommended again at IHOP's Israel Mandate Summit this year in Kansas City.  I decided to read it after hearing Mike Bickle's recommendation of it.

Don Finto is a Gentile pastor in Nashville, who has gone on a journey over the years of understanding God's purpose for Israel - realizing first of all that God has not rescinded His promises to Israel (nor has the Church replaced Israel in those promises), and second, that a revival is currently taking place among Jewish people who are discovering their Messiah Yeshua (known to Gentiles by His Greek name Jesus the Christ).  Since the early 70's, a Messianic Jewish movement has rapidly expanded, and it is believed that there may be as many as 10,000 Jewish believers in Messiah Yeshua in Israel today.  Most of these are keeping their identity as Jews, and observing the Torah - not in hopes of being saved by law-keeping, but out of love for God revealed in Yeshua.

Pastor Finto's book is an excellent introduction to both the theology of Israel and the history of the Messianic movement.  He also addresses the shameful and painful history of anti-Semitism in the Church, dating all the way back to the time of Constantine and the early Church councils.  Unfortunately, many of our heroes of Church history, such as Martin Luther, were virulently anti-Semitic (see Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies).  All of this is reasonably well-written and Finto does a good job of convincing the reader of his points.   Finto makes seven applications for the Church, which he lists in chapter 14 ("Blessed to be a blessing"):

1. Ask the Lord to cleanse our hearts of every vestige of anti-Semitism [including "Replacement Theology" - the teaching that the Church has replaced Israel in all Old Testament promises]
2. Become aware that the world's news media is prejudiced against God's work and God's people.
3. Seek ways to affirm Jewish people, to love them and bless them - whether or not they ever accept Jesus as Messiah.
4. Prepare for future crises. [the Bible teaches that another Holocaust is coming, and anti-Semitism globally will get worse before it gets better (Psalm 2, Zechariah 12).  Christians need to be prepared to lay down their lives for the Jews in the midst of their darkest hour, which is still ahead of them (Jeremiah 30:7)].  
5. Encourage and assist Jewish people to return to their ancestral inheritance.
6. Bless the Jewish people financially.
7. Establish prayer support groups to share in the ministry of those who are on the front lines of the battles.

I have a couple of quibbles with Finto, however.  None of these are serious problems with the book, but they frustrated me as I was reading.

Quibble #1: A Few Weak Arguments

First, there is a perpetual tendency among those who are advancing a certain viewpoint to interpret all of history through their lens.  Sometimes this leads to ridiculous claims - for example, I once heard a leader of a Messianic ministry claim that all the problems of western civilization from family breakdown to crime to drug abuse to sexual immorality were the result of the Church having neglected Messianic believers.  Finto does not go as far as this, but he does make some claims which, to me, needed stronger proof:

1. He claims that the undeniable ubiquitous division in the Gentile Church (Orthdox vs. Catholic vs. Anglican vs. Methodist vs. Baptist vs. Pentecostal vs. Nondenominational etc.) are all a result of division between Gentile Christians and Jewish followers of Yeshua. 
   
   By breaking from those who birthed us, the Church has produced one division after another.  Every new movement has resulted in a new church; each reformation, a new denomination. (Chapter 7 "Division - the DNA of the Gentile Church", Page 98)
   
   He may actually have a point here, but I think the argument is too simplistic.  You cannot quote Acts 4:32 as proof of unity in the First Century and then skip the rest of the New Testament.  Division was creeping into the Church long before 70 AD.  And in at least one case, it had nothing to do with Jew and Gentile (1 Corinthians 1:14-17)
2. He makes an argument (quite common in both Messianic and Zionist circles) that every nation that has ever acted against Israel has come under swift judgment from God.  This is a fascinating possibility, and would certainly have Biblical support (Gen 12:3 "I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you;" and Zech 2:8 "he who touches you touches the apple of His eye."), but the historical proof was lacking.
   
   Some of the examples he gave were Spain - from the most powerful empire on earth to a second-rate power after persecuting Jews in the Inquisition; and Britain - from the global superpower before World War 1 to just another European nation after reneging on the Balfour Declaration to create a Jewish state in Palestine.
   
   Perhaps there is a more detailed book that traces the history of various nation's relationships to Jews and proves out the historical background, but it would need to written by someone with a great deal of historical depth.  The examples of Spain and Britain are intriguing, but there are too many other factors involved to be convincing (for instance, the Spanish Inquisition was initiated in 1478 - before Spain became the superpower of the 16th century...)
   
   This is a complex subject theologically as well as historically - Biblically, judgment almost never fell immediately on those who persecuted Israel.  There was always a gap of some years, because God used the enemies of Israel to discipline His own people first. (For example, Assyria - Isaiah 10:5-19)  This last point seems rather unpopular among pro-Israel teachers.

Quibble #2: Biblical Timeline Confusion

Second, Finto makes some missteps in Biblical interpretation.  They are not serious problems - in fact they are rather peripheral to his point - but they were frustrations to me.

The biggest issue is in Chapter 12, "A Time to Pray."  Finto interprets Daniel 9:1 ("In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the lineage of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans—") as being 522 BC - the beginning of the reign of Darius I the Great (see timeline of Persian kings).  Thus, he interprets Daniel's prayer as asking God to finish what He had already started: God had caused King Cyrus (Cyrus II the Great) to decree that the Jews could return to Jerusalem in 538 BC, but the work in rebuilding the temple had stalled.  So Daniel's prayer, according to Finto, led to the restoration of the work on the Temple under the ministry of Zechariah and Haggai, and the completion of the Temple in 520 BC.

Finto also claims that Ezra and Nehemiah were returning to Israel at the same time (page 163).  His point is that all three men - Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah - prayed prayers of repentance for God to keep His promises to Israel.  This is a fine point, but the chronology is totally confused.

Ezra and Nehemiah lived a whole generation after Daniel, and the temple had already been completed for years by the time they came to Jerusalem.  It was under the reign of Artaxerxes that Ezra and Nehemiah returned to the land (Ezra 7:1, Nehemiah 5:14).  Daniel, Zerubbabel, Joshua the high priest, Haggai, and Zechariah were all dead by this time.  (Interesting side note: according to Jesus, Zechariah was martyred! Matt 23:35)

Daniel 5:31 and 6:1 make it clear that "Darius the Mede" is not Darius I the Great, but another Darius, who was made temporary viceroy over the province of Babylon immediately after the fall of Belshazzar.*  Cyrus himself eventually assumed direct control over Babylon as well, presumably once the province was pacified and the administration of the old Babylonian bureaucracy was integrated into the Persian system.  In Daniel 6:28, we are told that after the lions' den incident, Daniel prospered in the reigns of Darius and Cyrus.  This implies that Daniel died (or at least retired from government service) during the reign of Cyrus, before Darius I took over.  This makes sense logically (Daniel must have been at least 12 years old in 605 BC when he was taken from Jerusalem, and thus he would have been 95 by the time of Darius I), and Biblically (Daniel's last vision was received in the third year of Cyrus' reign, and it ends with the angel telling Daniel that he is going to die soon - "You shall rest..." Daniel 12:13).

At issue is what difference Daniel's intercession in Daniel 9 really made.  If Daniel was interceding for Jersualem 17 years after the prophecy of Jeremiah was already fulfilled, then his prayer was a good example of humility and faithfulness, but it did little more than thousands of others who were praying for God to bless Israel.  If, however, Daniel's intercession came at exactly the time when the prophecy was to be fulfilled, and before there was any sign that it would be, then it may well be that this one man's prayer - taking God at His word and boldly asking Him to do what He promised - literally changed history.

I think the scripture supports the latter view.  And if that is the case, we can not afford to take the responsibility of intercession lightly!

In summary, I still consider Your People Shall Be My People to be a great book, and an excellent introduction to the theology of Israel and the history of the Messianic movement.  For anyone looking for insight into God's purpose for Israel today, I would put this book at the top of the list.

* This is the traditional view of interpreting "Darius the Mede", for whom outside historical evidence has not yet been found.  Another view is that this is just another name for Cyrus.  For a discussion of the views, see the Wikipedia article on the book of Daniel.