King's Evangelical Divinity School
12 November 2010
"God's Ongoing Covenant With Israel Not an Obstacle to Peace"
Interesting comment appearing yesterday on the First Things website. (First Things is a journal exploring church and state issues, the founding editor of which Richard John Neuhaus, who was pretty pro-Israel. Neuhaus, who dies last year, was an interesting character; first a Lutheran, then a Catholic, he was listened too and influenced many Evangelicals, not least because of his conservative stance on moral issues and push for Christian participation in the public square). The comment in question explores Catholic responses to the Jewish state and maintains that God's ongoing covenant with the Jewish people is in no way an obstacle for peace in the Middle East. It is written by the Anglican scholar Gerald McDermott, a professor at Roanoke and editor of the Oxford handbook of Evangelical Theology, and McDermott's comment is well worth reading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
88 comments:
I would not agree with Bustros' comments Calvin that the covenant has been nullified - the Abrahamic one continues in Christ. I find as well that often leading clerics can appear to speak ambiguously to appeal to different audiences.
Can I ask a different question? When do you believe the promised revival amongst the Jews in the State of Israel will occur? I thought it might be 40 years from 1948, then 40 years from 1967. Now it has been 62 years since 1948 and still we see the expansionist policies that do not reflect anything we might read in the gospels (or even in the Law of Moses - see CiF link below).
The Palestinians of Israel are poised to take centre stage
Perhaps it will be 70 years from 1948? When will Christian Zionists come to realise something is wrong by this failure of Jews to turn to Christ in Israel? It was partly this disillusionment with the Zionist narrative that led me to re-examine my beliefs.
But we read that the conversion of Jews will be life from the dead for all - I do pray for revival amongst the Jews, but I can't help thinking that Christian Zionism is leading Jews to a vision of statehood that is apart from Christ. It may also be one reason why some Messianic Jews today are less willing to embrace the Church than previous generations of converted Jews.
Kind regards
Andrew S
Concerning your question, I cannot reply on behalf of CZ. In fact your constant attempt to monolithically bunch all the many shades of CZ together, as well as include me under that umbrella (as you do above), is getting rather tiresome.
I can only respond for myself, which I have done in the past here (and which you must know about because I see you posted a comment afterwards): http://www.calvinlsmith.com/2009/12/beware-overly-dogmatic-interpretation.html
"I do pray for revival amongst the Jews".
Great, something we can agree on.
"[CZ] may also be one reason why some Messianic Jews today are less willing to embrace the Church than previous generations of converted Jews."
(But it didn't last for long, as ever). No, that would be because of the bitter hatred towards Israel and even (in some quarters) the Jewish root of Christianity all too sadly expressed by some church leaders who should know better. And in the past, before Israel existed, Jewish believers were only accepted if they ditched their Jewish identity completely and became fully "Christianised" (read Anglicised, Westernised or whatever). Ironically Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef mi'Netzaret Himself would have difficulty being accepted in some churches today.
I am curious. Do you also encourage Palestinian Christians to ditch their Arab and Palestinian identity, their claim to the land, their Middle Eastern Christian history? Because a theme has emerged in many of your comments over the last year, and it all seems to be going one way.
As I've written below Calvin, I want to encourage us to consider the ethnic Jewish root of Palestinian Christians as well as their Arab and Levantine heritage. I believe this Jewish root is at least as eqally strong as Shepardi or Ashkenazi Jews and is a legitimate expression of 'Israel in Christ' in the land. (In fact I think studies have shown that ethnic Palestinians in general have a similar genetic make up with Jews).
Bearing in mind the real suffering of Jews in history I don't have a problem with Jews living in safety in the land, but the suffering of Palestinians too is tragic and tragically ironic.
Andrew
I think the ethnicity issue you raise is a red herring. I state why in the comment section (where you raise it again)back here: http://www.calvinlsmith.com/2010/11/what-shoud-we-do-about-this.html
Andrew
12 Messianic Jews in 1948, 10-15,000 today, which is more than at any other time since Acts was written. Outside Israel, too, more Jewish people have turned to Jesus as Messiah over the last 20-30 years than at any other time in history. That tells me that the state of Israel is not God's great mistake, and encourages me to keep praying for and to keep preaching to Israelis and Diaspora Jews. By the way, you really should drop the
"expansionist" canard, you really have no excuses for this since Mike Moore put you right so emphatically (http://fromthetopcom.blogspot.com/2010/01/is-israel-expansionist.html#comments).
James - I praise God for 15,000 Messianic Jews in the land. But that cannot be said to have any influence over the policies of the state, or make Israel as a whole Christian. As for Jews coming to Christ outside of the land, again that is to be praised, but it then begs the question of the spiritual significance of the State of Israel.
I will concede the possibility that God may desire a majority ethnic Jewish state in the land, but not in terms of expansionism. Calvin though sees Jewishness as not ethnic, but presumably religious. If so then, then why should Christians support and give spiritual significance to a religious Jewish state when we are at the same time seeking to bring Jews to Christ?
I believe giving Jews (in an ethnic sense) a homeland (the original 1948 goal as many thought) where they can live in peace and security is more of a worthy goal. However, when this tips over into expansionism and the denial of a homeland for Palestinians it becomes more problematic. In other words, I would suggest that an inclusive Jewish homeland is acceptable, but an exclusive one is not because it will become a racist apartheid state if it is allowed to grow unchecked.
I make no apologies James for using the word 'expansionism' because that is how I see it. See how settlements are expanding in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. See how the Bedouin are removed. See how Palestinian buildings without planning permission are taken over by Jews unjustly - supported by the state. See how Israel uses Palestinian violence to expand the borders (i.e. the wall built on Palestinian land). Israel did pull out of Gaza, then gave Gaza a Shoah. Now there is a several hundred metre buffer zone on Palestinian land inside Gaza. I predict the inside of that will become the new border in years to come. So stealthily Israel is expanding and driving Palestinians out by making their lives intollerable. Palestinians have realised that violence only speeds up their loss of land.
Andrew S
"Shoah", Andrew? That disgusting abuse of Holocaust memory automatically disqualifies you from being taken seriously.
James - Shoah was a word an Israeli Government minister used threateningly prior to the bombing of Gaza - I haven't made this up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1580339/Israeli-minister-vows-Palestinian-holocaust.html
Andrew, with respect I think you have misunderstood Zionism. It is not a competing ideology to the gospel.
You can be a religious zionist committed to jesus just as you can be an orthodox anglican committed to jesus.
Unless you think some nationalities are better than others?
Given that you don't speak hebrew in blog comments, I don't understand why you used the word "shoah" here, other than to taunt jews with the horrors of auschwitz.
If you want to talk about gaza, do so by all means, it is certainly worth discussing. I certainly agree with your desire for palestinians to have a prosperous and peaceful nation.
But your use of holocaust-imagery tells me that you see the palestinians as somewhat of a distraction, with the real issue being the cosmic evil of jewish victims-turned-evildoers.
Unless of course you were just being clumsy?
Andrew,
I knew about that - it was a criminally stupid thing for the minister to say and he should have resigned or been sacked.
But if Israel had carried out threatened "shoah", it would have built gas chambers and murdered 6 million people. It didn't - it killed about 1,500 people, a good number of whom were terrorists, in a three-week war provoked by Hamas bombarding the south of Israel with rockets for years. Since you know this, this suggest to me:
(a) That you lack compassion for Israeli pain; and
(b) that you either clumsily, or deliberately, use Holocaust language to demonise the state of Israel and hurt her Jewish supporters whom you know read this blog. Either way, you really should be ashamed of yourself.
Hold on, because an govt official incompetently uses the word, that means you can?
I agree it was a completely stupid and morally wrong thing for the official to say.
As reprehensible as it was, it is logically consistent for israeli natives to speak hebrew. It isn't remotely logical for you to throw in random hebrew words for effect.
You can't abuse the word "shoah" because an israeli minister did it first.
Come on, you're not in primary school any more, andrew, you're a fully grown vicar!
That tells me that the state of Israel is not God's great mistake, and encourages me to keep praying for and to keep preaching to Israelis and Diaspora Jews.
There is simply no way that you can know this. The Bible does not tell us that modern day Israel is part of God's plan for his people called through Jesus. You are speculating.
Trying to make some kind of a connection between the Holocaust and Israel's war on Hamas in Gaza is just disgraceful. Frankly I am sickened by this kind of inversion of history when opponents of Israel wickedly invert history and paint Israel as the Nazis. This minimizes and defiles the memory of those who died in that attempted genocide.
"It isn't remotely logical for you to throw in random hebrew words for effect." ?
Shalom !
Yes, I wanted to ask you about this Andrew, as you've used the term "Shoah" a few times here now. Whatever the Israeli official said, do you seriously compare Israel's relations with the Palestinians with the Holocaust?
Shalom, amen and hallelujah have a natural use, as does shoah in the appropriate context, eg with reference to antisemitism or holocaust memorial day. Otherwise not!
What ever I say here I am only going to inflame this debate, when I am trying to concilatory. Sorry I wasn't aware some words are banned a la 1984 New Speak.
In terms of scale there is no comparison. There aren't 6 million Palestinians in Gaza. But what of action and intent? Some have compared Gaza to an open prison camp. When people are tunnelling to get material in how does that look in comparison to WWII POW camps? Not good I would suggest?
This is what troubles me. An Israeli minister threatened Gaza, then they received a bombing campaign that left many non-combatants dead, women and children. This looked premeditated aggression to me way beyond a proportionate response. If we are to 'know' people by their fruit (Matt 7:16; Gal 5:22) then I don't see the fruit of Christ in the Government of Israel, and I wonder why so many Christians can't see the problem.
Our Christian duty is to work for peace, justice and reconcilliation between different groups, not to take sides amongst those who equally deny Christ (Islam and Talmudic Judaism).
Andrew S
Oh Andrew, I'm not trying to censor you, use whatever words you like. I simply wish for you to be aware of how you look when you invoke the israel-nazi comparison.
It looks a bit like you want to taunt Jews and the jewish collective memories of their six million dead.
But of course, you simply find these sort of word games "ironic".
Not the fruits of the spirit at all, Andrew S, might I suggest?
Andrew, I am greatly surprised that, while acknowledging there is no comparison between Gaza and the Holocaust in terms of scale, nonetheless you imply a similarity in "action and intent". Do you honestly compare the situation in Gaza with how the Nazis systematically gassed and murdered six million Jews?
Calvin - leave aside comparisons of Zionism with Nazism because they are not directly relevant. Clearly the two ideologies are very different. But at an individual level many Palestinians are suffering in Gaza because of the very tight restrictions, bombed houses, phosphorus bombs etc. And yes Hamas may share some of the blame.
Andrew S
Andrew, it would have been far better simply to have conceded you made a mistake and moved on. To continue maintaining a comparison between Gaza and the Holocaust makes it difficult to continue debating with you seriously.
Calvin - A mistake to look upon Palestinians as human? I am simply asking us to look upon the suffering of Palestinians in the same way we look upon the suffering of Jews, as worthy of our concern and compassion. So if caring for the downtrodden is a crime I plead guilty.
Andrew
No Andrew, a mistake to liken Gaza to the Holocaust, while the implication anyone here (except you) doesn't regard Palestinians as human is tacky. And the issue was not about "caring for the downtrodden" but rather your unacceptable attempt to liken events in Gaza with the Nazi extermination of millions of Jews. Like I said, better to have conceded your language was inappropriate and moved on. Instead you continue to make things worse.
Calvin - I see the holocaust as primarily a human tragedy, just as I see the situation in Gaza as a human tragedy. My problem is that I refuse to see either in terms of an ideological narrative. I would ask you to consider to what extent the holocaust is part of the zionist ideological narrative, is this why you are angry with me because I don't share this ideology? I can't help feeling that the holocaust is being used as an ideological tool to support the expansion of the State of Israel to the extent that it is driving Israel towards the next holocaust.
Instead I want to see a peace settlement in the land between both sides so that Jews can live in peace and security.
Andrew S
"I am simply asking us to look upon the suffering of Palestinians in the same way we look upon the suffering of Jews, as worthy of our concern and compassion."
No you're not, you're comparing the effects of war to the Holocaust, but you know that the comparison is morally flawed, so you hide behind a morally-flawed Jew as your proxy.
Pretty slimey tactics, Andrew.
What's more, I don't see any evidence of you caring for the Palestinians at all.
Pray tell how exactly you are helping the Palestinians?
to what extent the holocaust is part of the zionist ideological narrative
Could you show me where Theodor Herzl wrote about the Holocaust? Cheers.
I'm not angry, merely surprised an educated person seriously likens Gaza and the Holocaust in terms of "action and intent". You talk of narratives, but with respect, your position feeds into the very anti-Israel narrative which downplays the Holocaust. Your compassion for the Palestinians is commendable, but your attempt to do so by portraying the Jewish state as its Nazi tormentor is unacceptable. As I said earlier, it make serious debate with you very difficult.
BTW, like CZ your understanding of political Zionism lacks nuance. It comes in various forms, including non-expansionism (at its most basic Zionism simply means a homeland for the Jews in the ME).
I'm not angry, merely surprised an educated person seriously likens Gaza and the Holocaust in terms of "action and intent". You talk of narratives, but with respect, your position feeds into the very anti-Israel narrative which downplays the Holocaust. Your compassion for the Palestinians is commendable, but your attempt to do so by portraying the Jewish state as its Nazi tormentor is unacceptable. As I said earlier, it make serious debate with you very difficult.
BTW, like CZ your understanding of political Zionism lacks nuance. It comes in various forms, including non-expansionism (at its most basic Zionism simply means a homeland for the Jews in the ME).
Calvin - so you have all jumped on my words to try and prove me guilty of something akin to holocaust denial or anti-semitism - all I have done is to point out how an Israeli government minister used the word 'Shoah' in threatening language, a threat that was later acted upon in a 22 day bombing campaign that left many women and children dead.
As I have said before I am not the one trying to turn this into an ideological debate, but one focussed upon Christ's teachings and compassion for all sides. What I am trying to do is to get Christian Zionists to think more deeply about their theological approach to the State of Israel, and to get people to ask questions in light of the Old and New Testament teachings that relate to the Messiah and the Church's mission
Matt28: 18 "Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
My challenge to CZists is that some are failing in this mission by not speaking out, but instead seek to justify all the states actions as God ordained.
Andrew S
Andrew S, my challenge to you is not to taunt jews with their collective memories of the holocaust.
I would also challlenge you to obey jesus and demonstrate the fruits of the spirit, of which I sadly see little evidence, based upon your comments thus far.
What I am trying to do to yourself is get you to reconsider some of your un-christlike opinions about israel and zionism.
I think, however, as an ACZ unwilling to admit where you have clearly got something wrong, you are failing in your mission to be truthful and honest in debate because you are on a mission instead to delegitimise israel.
Joseph - unlike the Christian Zionism of Darby and Hagee I believe the Jewish people are entitled to spiritual blessings, as well as earthly blessings (have you read what their teaching entails?). I believe that the dividing wall of hostility (Eph.2:22) has been removed between Jews and Gentiles who together are to receive the blessing of Abraham in Jesus Christ (Gal.3:14).
Unlike some Christian Zionists I beleive that a Jewish state may have legitimacy within its 1967 borders as a majority ethnic Jewish, but inclusive state.
I believe that expansionism against Palestinians is heaping up a greater offence that militant Islamists will not forgive. Therefore unlike some Christian zionists I do not wish to drive the Jewish state towards the next holocaust in this way, but wish a peace settlement between both sides.
So who loves Jewish people more? Those who wish Jews to receive their promised spiritual Abrahamic blessings, or those who seek to give them earthly blessing only? Those who seek the peace and security of Jews, or those who wish to drive to war?
Andrew S
Andrew stop knocking down straw man arguments which, as far as I am aware, no-one posting here holds. Your comparison of Israeli policies with the Holocaust is simply despicable. If you want anyone here to take you seriously, I suggest you change tack.
"Unlike some Christian Zionists I beleive that a Jewish state may have legitimacy within its 1967 borders as a majority ethnic Jewish, but inclusive state."
But Andrew, that is what I believe too. I would welcome a Jewish state on 48-67 borders. I'm not sure why you are arguing with phantom Christian Zionists that are not here. If you want to dispute Christian Zionists, why don't you go to a Hagee-supporting blog?
I believe that expansionism against Palestinians is heaping up a greater offence that militant Islamists will not forgive.
Do militant Islamists "forgive" anything? Further, are you allowing militant Islamists authenticity as moral arbiters and judges?
"Therefore unlike some Christian zionists I do not wish to drive the Jewish state towards the next holocaust in this way, but wish a peace settlement between both sides."
Of course, one noble way of doing this is presenting Israel is a more reasonable way to the Islamists, as you are seeking to do.
The problem is that Islamists such as Hamas say that the problem is Israel's very existence. They believe God wants them to kill all the Jews.
In fact, Hamas and Hezbollah are on a divine mission to bring about the End of the World by and creating chaos in the Middle East. If you condemn this in Christian Zionism you should also condemn this in militant Islamism, to be consistent.
"So who loves Jewish people more?"
Obviously you, Andrew! I cede to your philo-Semitism! You are clearly overflowing with love for the Jews!
Joseph - Of course I condemn the ideology of Hamas and Hizbollah and Iran for that matter. They are murderous regimes. Iran stole an election and killed some of the opposition supporters. Chrtistians are routinely denied their human rights in muslim lands. Yes, Islamists have their own vision of armageddon that needs to be brought out into the open and challenged.
And just because someone speaks out against the policies of the Israeli government doesn't equate to hatred of Jews. Did the Old Testament prophets hate God's people because they challenged the leadership of Israel; for instance Elijah's challenge to Ahab?
But I would suggest that if the State of Israel seriously proposed a peace settlement that gave land back to Palestinians then Hamas and Hizbollah would come under enormous pressure to accept an Israeli state from the Palestinians (and possibly some world governments may have influence) - because they too wish to have peace and there is still a Christian presence in Palestine that could bring influence.
But sadly, I would suggest that western governments have lost some of their moral authority because of the way they lied to go to war in Iraq. Being secular our leadership has lost faith in preaching God's word to Islam and thus appealing to a latent humanity in everyone, but can only respond by force and deceipt. Islam dispises the ungodliness in the west thinking it is our weakness. So we are living in dangerous times, but there is a solution for the Jewish state (and Middle East Christians) in prayer. 'If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.'(2 Chron 7:14)
Am I setting up strawmen arguments James? I find that the teaching of many Christian Zionists I meet to be a sort of mish mash from various sources without really getting to grips with the logical outworking. So when trying to critique it I am faced with having to work with a 'fuzzy blob man' argument. If you read Calvin's book you will find contributions from different perspectives, one is even a Darbyite. Which one should I take as representing the true face of Christian Zionism? It is easier to challenge specific well thought positions by well known people, but I do recognise that there are many different aspects. Are we not told to be as wise as serpents, but as innocent as doves? To test the doctrines and not to go along with everything we hear?
Andrew
Joseph - Of course I condemn the ideology of Hamas and Hizbollah and Iran for that matter. They are murderous regimes. Iran stole an election and killed some of the opposition supporters. Chrtistians are routinely denied their human rights in muslim lands. Yes, Islamists have their own vision of armageddon that needs to be brought out into the open and challenged.
And just because someone speaks out against the policies of the Israeli government doesn't equate to hatred of Jews. Did the Old Testament prophets hate God's people because they challenged the leadership of Israel; for instance Elijah's challenge to Ahab?
But I would suggest that if the State of Israel seriously proposed a peace settlement that gave land back to Palestinians then Hamas and Hizbollah would come under enormous pressure to accept an Israeli state from the Palestinians (and possibly some world governments may have influence) - because they too wish to have peace and there is still a Christian presence in Palestine that could bring influence.
But sadly, I would suggest that western governments have lost some of their moral authority because of the way they lied to go to war in Iraq. Being secular our leadership has lost faith in preaching God's word to Islam and thus appealing to a latent humanity in everyone, but can only respond by force and deceipt. Islam dispises the ungodliness in the west thinking it is our weakness. So we are living in dangerous times, but there is a solution for the Jewish state (and Middle East Christians) in prayer. 'If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.'(2 Chron 7:14)
Am I setting up strawmen arguments James? I find that the teaching of many Christian Zionists I meet to be a sort of mish mash from various sources without really getting to grips with the logical outworking. So when trying to critique it I am faced with having to work with a 'fuzzy blob man' argument. If you read Calvin's book you will find contributions from different perspectives, one is even a Darbyite. Which one should I take as representing the true face of Christian Zionism? It is easier to challenge specific well thought positions by well known people, but I do recognise that there are many different aspects. Are we not told to be as wise as serpents, but as innocent as doves? To test the doctrines and not to go along with everything we hear?
Andrew
Fruit of the spirit? Let he who has not been investigated by the police for harassment cast the first stone!
I guess that counts out paul, peter, john and jesus then!
That paul, what a hypocrite! Harping on about "fruits of the spirit" when he was in jail of all places!
Joseph - Of course I condemn the ideology of Hamas and Hizbollah and Iran for that matter. They are murderous groups / regimes. Iran stole an election and killed some of the opposition supporters. Christians are routinely denied their human rights in Muslim lands. Yes, Islamists have their own vision of Armageddon that needs to be brought out into the open and challenged. And just because someone speaks out against the policies of the Israeli government doesn't equate to hatred of Jews. Did the Old Testament prophets hate God's people because they challenged the leadership of Israel; for instance Elijah's challenge to Ahab, or the challenge to the Baal worshippers on Mt Carmel?
I would suggest (in hope) that if the State of Israel seriously proposed a peace settlement that gave land back to Palestinians then Hamas and Hizbollah would come under enormous pressure to accept an Israeli state from the Palestinians (and possibly some world governments may have influence) - because they too wish to have peace and there is still a Christian presence in Palestine that could bring influence. There is a serious problem on the ground though with 300,000 now dwelling in Palestinian areas – that will be a difficult problem to resolve because presumably they have already formed their own communities.
But sadly, I would also suggest that western governments have lost some of their moral authority because of, for instance, the way we lied to go to war in Iraq. Many of us have been very un-happy with that action and have concern about policy in Afghanistan as well. Being secular, western government have lost faith in appeals to moral righteousness when challenging Islamic regimes, but can only respond by force of arms and deceit. Islam despises the ungodliness in the western culture, believing it is our weakness. So we are living in dangerous times, but there is a solution for the Jewish state if they are really God’s people (and it applies to Middle East Christians as well) in prayer. 'If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.'(2 Chron 7:14)
Am I setting up strawmen arguments James? I don’t think so. I find that the teaching of many Christian Zionists I meet to be a sort of mish mash from various sources without really getting to grips with the context of the sources. So when trying to critique it there is a sort of 'fuzzy blob man' argument. If you read Calvin's book you will find contributions from different perspectives, and I would ask which one should be taken as representing the true face of Christian Zionism? It is easier to challenge specific well thought positions by well known people, and I have frequently recognised that there are many different aspects. Are we not told to be as wise as serpents, but as innocent as doves? To test the doctrines and not to go along with everything we hear?
Andrew
Joseph - Of course I condemn the ideology of Hamas and Hizbollah and Iran for that matter. They are murderous groups / regimes. Iran stole an election and killed some of the opposition supporters. Christians are routinely denied their human rights in Muslim lands. Yes, Islamists have their own vision of Armageddon that needs to be brought out into the open and challenged. And just because someone speaks out against the policies of the Israeli government doesn't equate to hatred of Jews. Did the Old Testament prophets hate God's people because they challenged the leadership of Israel; for instance Elijah's challenge to Ahab, or the challenge to the Baal worshippers on Mt Carmel?
I would suggest (in hope) that if the State of Israel seriously proposed a peace settlement that gave land back to Palestinians then Hamas and Hizbollah would come under enormous pressure to accept an Israeli state from the Palestinians (and possibly some world governments may have influence) - because they too wish to have peace and there is still a Christian presence in Palestine that could bring influence. There is a serious problem on the ground though with 300,000 now dwelling in Palestinian areas – that will be a difficult problem to resolve because presumably they have already formed their own communities.
But sadly, I would also suggest that western governments have lost some of their moral authority because of, for instance, the way we lied to go to war in Iraq. Many of us have been very un-happy with that action and have concern about policy in Afghanistan as well. Being secular, western government have lost faith in appeals to moral righteousness when challenging Islamic regimes, but can only respond by force of arms and deceit. Islam despises the ungodliness in the western culture, believing it is our weakness. So we are living in dangerous times, but there is a solution for the Jewish state if they are really God’s people (and it applies to Middle East Christians as well) in prayer. 'If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.'(2 Chron 7:14)
Am I setting up strawmen arguments James? I don’t think so. I find that the teaching of many Christian Zionists I meet to be a sort of mish mash from various sources without really getting to grips with the context of the sources. So when trying to critique it there is a sort of 'fuzzy blob man' argument. If you read Calvin's book you will find contributions from different perspectives, and I would ask which one should be taken as representing the true face of Christian Zionism? It is easier to challenge specific well thought positions by well known people, and I have frequently recognised that there are many different aspects. Are we not told to be as wise as serpents, but as innocent as doves? To test the doctrines and not to go along with everything we hear?
Andrew
Pathetic, Lee - Joseph courageously exposed the antisemitism of an increasingly discredited Anglican minister who had no answers other than to set the police on him.
That Paul, eh, what a hypocrite, going on about the fruits of the spirit when he was in jail - of all places!
"Joseph - Of course I condemn the ideology of Hamas and Hizbollah and Iran for that matter. They are murderous groups / regimes. Iran stole an election and killed some of the opposition supporters. Christians are routinely denied their human rights in Muslim lands. Yes, Islamists have their own vision of Armageddon that needs to be brought out into the open and challenged. And just because someone speaks out against the policies of the Israeli government doesn't equate to hatred of Jews."
Sure.
"Did the Old Testament prophets hate God's people because they challenged the leadership of Israel; for instance Elijah's challenge to Ahab, or the challenge to the Baal worshippers on Mt Carmel?"
Not at all.
I think we're in agreement on both these points, and I welcome your condemnation of Iran and her terror proxies.
"If you read Calvin's book you will find contributions from different perspectives, and I would ask which one should be taken as representing the true face of Christian Zionism?"
Well, was there anything in Calvin's book that congratulated John Hagee?
The crux of your argument seems to be that all pro-Israel Christians are closet Hagee-ites.
If you could provide some evidence to back up your insinuations, that would be swell.
Andrew, let's summarise.
You said:
"I believe that expansionism against Palestinians is heaping up a greater offence that militant Islamists will not forgive."
Then I asked you:
"Do militant Islamists "forgive" anything? Further, are you allowing militant Islamists authenticity as moral arbiters and judges?"
And you said:
"But sadly, I would also suggest that western governments have lost some of their moral authority because of, for instance, the way we lied to go to war in Iraq. Many of us have been very un-happy with that action and have concern about policy in Afghanistan as well. Being secular, western government have lost faith in appeals to moral righteousness when challenging Islamic regimes, but can only respond by force of arms and deceit. Islam despises the ungodliness in the western culture, believing it is our weakness."
To me, that is a very equivocal answer.
I didn't ask you whether Western secularists should count genocidal Islamists as moral authorities - rather, I asked whether you thought they were.
Your response was to complain about Western secularism, and how weak you think it looks compared with Islamic law.
That is a wholly irrelevant answer.
Perhaps I should ask you again:
Do you consider militant Islamists to be appropriate moral arbiters and judges?
Before you answer, let me give you a taster of society under Hamas, via the (decadent Western) US State Dept report on Religious Freedom 2010:
"During the reporting period, terrorist organizations including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad carried out attacks against Israeli citizens, mostly in the form of indiscriminate rocket and mortar attacks from the Gaza Strip. The attacks were in part religiously motivated and attempts to recruit for and justify the attacks often relied on religious statements and imagery. Terrorists also often issued statements that contained anti-Semitic rhetoric in conjunction with the attacks.
Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization, maintained control of Gaza throughout the reporting period and enforced a conservative interpretation of Islam on Gaza’s Muslim population. For instance, Hamas operated a women’s prison during the reporting period to house women convicted of “ethical crimes” such as “illegitimate pregnancy.” Hamas’s “morality police” during the reporting period punished women for riding motorcycles and dressing “inappropriately.” Couples in public are routinely stopped, separated, and questioned by plainclothes officers to determine if they are married; premarital sex is a crime punishable by imprisonment. A 19-year-old male remained in prison without trial during the reporting period because he is homosexual, according to Human Rights Watch."
I know you've already condemned Hamas ideology, which I welcome, but you seem to think Hamas are people who "too want peace".
I would respectfully disagree with you here.
James, leaving aside the question of whether Stephen Sizer is antisemitic (irrelevant for this discussion), the question is whether Joseph harassed him or not. I would say that being investigated by the police is a pretty serious thing. And I would consider that Joseph may have wanted to think about his behaviour. Indeed, it seems he did, because there was a long pause in his posts on the subject.
Now, the central point is really this, though. I think that a Christian would try to take the plank out of his own eye, before trying to remove the speck from his neighbour's eye. Especially someone with such a chequered record.
Joseph, comparing yourself to Jesus is a bit rich. If you want to grandstand and imagine that you're an apostle, I guess that's fine. But it doesn't show much humility.
Lee, with respect I'm struggling to understand the relevance of your comments. You indicate being investigated by the police somehow implies someone doesn't have the fruit of the Spirit, whereupon several others pointed out how if this was the case major Bible figures would also fall at this hurdle. Neither have I seen Joseph does not compare himself Jesus. Was this an off-the-cuff comment not thought through?
James, concerning Revd Sizer are you absolutely sure he is anti-Semitic? He has certainly taken a strong pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel stance and arguably demonstrated cases of poor judgment (notably some of the platforms he has shared). I ask because I seem to recall someone discussing this at the LST conference during one of the papers. Anti-Israel most certainly, anti-Semitic is another issue. Your thoughts on this?
You probably don't understand the logic since you seem only to use Joseph as your proxy in your spat with Stephen Sizer. You indulge his dubious behaviour and promote his websites. He is Ed Balls to your Gordon Brown.
"James, leaving aside the question of whether Stephen Sizer is antisemitic (irrelevant for this discussion), the question is whether Joseph harassed him or not."
Yeah, but the police concluded "No", so that should be the end of your discussion, surely?
They told me that themselves, they said having met me and spoken to me they were happy to let the matter go.
That's a good thing, however they still asked me to take down my blog for associating Rev Sizer with Holocaust deniers, which is a bad thing because Rev Sizer chose to associate himself with Holocaust deniers by recommending their writings.
"Now, the central point is really this, though. I think that a Christian would try to take the plank out of his own eye, before trying to remove the speck from his neighbour's eye. Especially someone with such a chequered record."
Hmmm. Let's follow your logic for a second, Lee.
Following your own advice, may I ask you to describe the plank which is stuck in your own eye?
" And I would consider that Joseph may have wanted to think about his behaviour. Indeed, it seems he did, because there was a long pause in his posts on the subject."
Rather, I was thinking about how best to respond to the event. I didn't blog about Rev Sizer's theology and actions for a while because I felt intimidated by the police presence, not because they had said anything of moral value.
In the end, the Guardian, the BBC, the Index on Censorship and the Jewish Chronicle carried the story, with support from celeb scientist Ben Goldacre, TV magician Derren Brown, the atheist magazine New Humanist, and an assortment of Jewish and Christian community figures.
So I think I was right to pause and reflect before announcing how I felt Rev Sizer had abused his position of authority.
HI Calvin
Of course, being anti-Israel does not necessarily make on anti-semitic - that would be a ridiculous inference to draw. All I would say, though, is that if Rev Sizer isn't consciously antisemitic, then he shows a remarkable (and, sadly, repeated) carelessness about the sources he uses and the language he chooses. Here are some bits and pieces I've written over the years:
http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/if-i-was-stephen-sizer-christian-antizionist-james-mendelsohn/
And one from David Hirsh of the University of London, on Rev Sizer's use of the term "people in the shadows" in a national newspaper:
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=259
" Rev Sizer chose to associate himself with Holocaust deniers by recommending their writings."
Or, alternatively, he didn't check his sources before quoting from them, which indicates poor scholarship. Only he knows. Either way, it does rather dent his credibiility.
Joseph, let me suggest to you that your behaviour was not viewed by all reasonable people as appropriate behaviour towards another person. Many people view it in fact as having been harassment. The police may have decided to let the matter drop, which was probably sensible, because it seemed, at least for a time, that the experience was chastening for you, and seemed to have a prompted a change.
In any case, the question ou have to ask yourself is whether your behaviour was becoming of a member of the body of Christ, especially towards a brother. Now, that is true of all us in various ways and at various times. No one is perfect. The issue is your 'holier-than-thou' comments towards Andrew Sibley.
Lee, firstly you say:
"In any case, the question ou have to ask yourself is whether your behaviour was becoming of a member of the body of Christ, especially towards a brother"
Then you say:
"The issue is your 'holier-than-thou' comments towards Andrew Sibley."
Well, Lee, I can't help but feel you think you're holier than me! We can go round in circles with this logic, if you like :-)
But I'm intrigued:
" The police may have decided to let the matter drop, which was probably sensible, because it seemed, at least for a time, that the experience was chastening for you, and seemed to have a prompted a change."
You seem to know an awful lot about this incident ;)
Dare I ask, do you attend the same church as one of the police people involved in instigating proceeding? Or perhaps, are you a personal acquaintance of the reverend? I wouldn't like to assume anything.
I asked Rev Sizer himself earlier this month about the role that policemen who attended his church played in the debacle, his answer was tremendously equivocal. Perhaps you know more though.
Joseph, I actually don't in any way think I'm holier than you. I'm a despicable sinner rescued only by the sacrifice of Jesus.
I haven't made any accusations against you nor tried to make out that I'm somehow better than you. All I have done is try to counsel you to check your behaviour to Andrew, and to be more introspective.
With regard to the incident, I know only what I've read, on the websites you mention as well as on those of the self-appointed crusaders against perceived and invented antisemitism in the church. I don't know Stephen Sizer personally, professionally or in any other context. I have never been to his church and I have never met him, nor any police officers involved in your case nor at his church.
Another commentator, who is not a CZ of any shade or colour, on Rev Sizer's sources/language/terminology:
http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/toben-zundel-and-stephen-sizer/
Personally I would have thought that an evangelical minister citing Holocaust deniers in his writings was rather more worthy of being challenged than Joseph's perceived or invented holier-than-thou attitude to Andrew. Perhaps that's just me, though.
Lee, if you say so, sure. Thankyou for your counsel.
James, when it comes to sin, we are all as guilty as each other. No sin is worse than another - they are all reflections of our having turned away from God. There are no gradations.
Perhaps I deserve 'holier than thou' attitudes. I can behave like a dog with a bone sometimes ;o).
There are some interesting points here. Joseph seems to have moved a little to find parts of the 'With God on our Side' DVD to be of interest, and agrees with some of it.
However, the criticism about who hosted the film, or who Stephen Sizer has met with, shared platform with, who he quotes etc is really all ad hominem. It doesn't address the main arguments in his book or defend the theology of CZism, so in one sense it is a pointless form of argumentation. I do though acknowledge that we have to be careful to check our sources sometimes, as someone interested in Israel research and Biblical prophecy there are a lot of websites that are dodgy and it takes time to sort the wheat from the chaff, and it is not always easy getting it right through pressure of time, deadlines etc. So some slack is required here because I think motives are in the right place. There is some advantage of sticking with well known authors and well known publishing houses, but that is not always where the cutting edge work is to be found.
Andrew
"You probably don't understand the logic since you seem only to use Joseph as your proxy in your spat with Stephen Sizer. You indulge his dubious behaviour and promote his websites. He is Ed Balls to your Gordon Brown."
Lee, your holier-than-thou approach seems somewhat hollow, even hypocritical in light of the above (rather uncharitable) comment. Yes, we've all sinned, but you seem to be trying to use that as a basis to quell debate (but only debate from one side, it seems). I note you've done this before on this blog, then graciously recanted, so I'm not absolutely sure why you seem to be at it again. Meanwhile, your comment above hardly accords with the very gracious dealing with fellow Christians you call for. It is then, with respect, somewhat ironic you refer to the plank in the eyes of others.
BTW, I have no "spat" with Sizer, I simply disagree profoundly with his theology. But that aside I rarely discuss his theology here now as I consider others in that camp have become more influential of late.
I suggest we all get back to the issues and try to bring something productive of this. Here are some suggestions:
1. Andrew and Joseph seemed to find some common ground on enemies of Israel. Would be nice to hammer this out as a basis for parameters in future debates.
2. Language has been an issue here, generating heated debate. It would be helpful to find out what issues are "no go" areas to help ensure future debate is productive, for example, comparing the Gaza war with the Holocaust, or assuming all anti-Israel Christians are anti-Semitic.
3. Trying to establish what, exactly, are the main issues for people on either side of the debate. Once that is done, it would be useful to categorise them into negotiable and non-negotiable categories. This would also aid future debate.
These are just some suggestions.
Andrew,
Here is where I think we agree:
*Christians emphasising pro-Israel politics as their divine mandate, rather than being faithful the core gospel message, have lost focus.
*Christian Zionism can be a dangerous ideology which justifies all sorts of morally wrong behaviour, and turns human suffering into gory entertainment (case in point, the Left Behind video games).
*There are dangerous Islamist ideologies in which Jews should be murdered to bring about the liberation of Palestine and the End of Days.
*We need a pragmatic, compassionate political and spiritual approach to the situation, rather than taking sides unthinkingly.
Here is where I think we disagree, and I think we are down to two issues:
*Any Christian sympathy for Israel is Christian Zionism, and thus Calvin & Co. are all closet Hagee-ites.
*The Holocaust is comparable in scale or intent to Cast Lead.
However, you don't seem particularly "clingy" (for want of a better word) to either of these last two points, and as Calvin suggested, let's work on the common ground for dialogue and commend it as a positive step.
Allow me to address your point about Stephen Sizer. Firstly I agree with what you say about the need to check our sources, I also agree with you that it is important to focus on the main arguments Sizer uses and not just on the errors he made in his sourcing.
Broadly, I agree with lots of what Sizer says about the pitfalls of apocalyptic Christian Zionism, as I agree with you on these issues.
I know Sizer has written books on CZ, to which I think Barry Horner and Paul Wilkerson have given excellent responses.
Wilkerson in particular is commendable for his defence of John Nelson Darby, whom Sizer paints as a sort of fruitcake-heretic, when actually he was very mainstream and mightily used by the Lord.
I disagree with replacement theology, that is, I believe "Israel" is not to be allegorised by the church, or just functions as an earthly metaphor for a heavenly people, but is its own entity in its own right.
The discussion about what Israel means in the light of the New Testament is fascinating, and should be discussed by all serious theologians.
However, my main concern with Sizer is how he operates in the political sphere, outside of theological circles.
Sizer is concerned about the political impact of hardline Christian Zionists, and the writings on Seismic reflect my concerns about the political impact of hardline Christian anti-Zionists.
If you've seen the film WGOOS, there isn't much theology in it, it's only really Sizer and Gary Burge insisting that no mainstream theologian believes that separate covenants still apply to the church and Israel. Other than that it's anti-Zionist political polemics. If it was mainly a theological film then White, Pappe and Finkelstein probably wouldn't feature.
The reason I don't deal with Sizer's theology so much is that I don't think that the problematic theological ideas come from him. Rather, he has summarised pre-existing ideas about Israel the theological entity and applied them to Israel the modern political entity.
I do occasionally write about Sabeel/Amos Trust from a theological point of view, mainly to note how themes historically associated with antisemitic motifs seems to appear in their narratives. It worries me that Sizer supports both Sabeel & Amos Trust.
However, the serious theology about that needs to be robustly challenged is, I think, found in John Stott and NT Wright, whose writings Sizer occasionally leans on.
I am preparing some thoughts about the theological assumptions behind Christian anti-Zionism, which I hope to share with you once it's finished.
Criticisms of Christian anti-Zionism should not be read in a vaccuum, but you should compare them alongside criticisms of Christian Zionism, think about what other Christians are saying on the matter, pray, then settle on what you believe is the most Christ-like approach.
Joseph - I don't have a problem with love or sympathy for Jews, in fact I share it. My problem is with seeing the 'State of Israel' as having a spiritual legitimacy as true Israel. I believe true Israel is now the church in a legal, spiritual and ethnic sense. In Romans 1:16, Paul asserts that the gospel was to the Jews first. In other words, the Church of Israel is founder by and for Jews to receive spiritual and earthly blessings, and gentiles have been grafted into it.
I don't think Calvin is a closet Hagee-ite. Those who believe in Jewish evangelism are different and I recognise this.
It isn't important for me to see the suffering of Palestinians in light of the holocast, as long as we recognise it as real and an important question to address.
I think you need to understand my approach to JN Darby. I was brought in the Devon Plymouth Brethren (PB) and Darby was one of the 19th C founders. Some of my great-great grandparents were in the Devon Brethren from around that time. However, there was a split between the Open Brethren who followed Muller and Newton's Bristol fellowship, and the Exclusives who followed Darby (and some of the Open were more exclusive than the Exclusives). Part of the reason for the split was to do with a rejection of Darby's theology concerning Jews. George Muller was initially an evangelist for the London Jews Society, but mantained that the gospel was for all. My theology now is probably quite similar to Muller's.
I always considered myself to be part of the Open PB grouping, although when growing up I read Hal Lindsay and the Darbyite eschatology and thought it to be of interest, although not completely convinced because I felt a pre-trib rapture was reading too much into the text and was not Scripturally supported.
I also became influenced by the House Church movement of Arthur Wallis (a Devon PB preacher) and co. Later I studied the cause of division between Darby and Muller and came to realise there was a problem with Darby's teaching. I kept an open mind about the significance of the State of Israel initially waiting to see whether it would convert to Christ, but having studied further John Calvin's type of Covenantal theology I am much more sceptical now about the State of Israel's spiritual status before God. Although I can accept the need for and place of a Jewish homeland living in harmony with Palestinians. When I look at Darby's teaching now I think it is a radical departure from the Reformation and from New Testament teaching - Hagee's teaching I think is closest to Darby's today.
Andrew
All I can really say is that Darby is not responsible for Lindsey et al who came after him, but re. Darby's life, I am out of my comfort zone - it is obviously a subject you know better than I.
I think we're all agreed that we need to recognise the suffering of the Palestinians too, and speak up about it. There are ways of doing this which are perhaps wiser than others, that doesn't mean we should stay silent though.
I'm not sure about the overall spiritual significance of the state of Israel. However, a friend shared with me a verse that applies to the modern state of Israel, Acts 17:26 -
"From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live."
All I know is that it isn't a mistake or an anomaly that there exists a Jewish state today.
Yes, the State of Israel exists because of God's sovereign plan (his permissive will), but then by the same logic so does North Korea and Iran.
I concede that it is possible that the State of Israel will in the future experience a national conversion to Christ and then come into God's directive will.
Andrew
Sure - there aren't people calling for North Korea or Iran's destruction though!
Perhaps some extreme Christian Zionists do, but that just proves the point that such rhetoric is not normal.
By contrast, many people today do call for Israel's destruction, unable to separate their criticisms of Israeli policy from the need of the Jewish state to exist, whilst they have no such troubles with Iranian or North Korean policies.
Perhaps some extreme folks call for the destruction of Israel, but that just proves the point that such rhetoric is not normal.
Also, there are plenty of people who call for North Korea's destruction, or as it's more often thought of, of unification with the South.
Is this meddling with God's divine will? Not really.
The world is the way God has willed it, as Andrew says, through his permissive will.
As I said before, there is no way that we can know whether the modern state of Israel is part of God's directive will because he has actively chosen not to inform in his Word. That means we can't make pronouncements about it, and it also means that ultimately, he doesn't consider it important.
"Also, there are plenty of people who call for North Korea's destruction, or as it's more often thought of, of unification with the South."
Who? Who is out campaigning for this?
Are you serious? It's been a cornerstone of South Korean foreign policy. They have a ministry dedicated to the topic. Imagine a Ministry of Reunification in Palestine or Jordan and the reaction that would get!
Well then I would disagree with them! I still don't see your point.
There are certainly no Christians preaching from the pulpit that the foundation of North Korea was an aberration, or that North Koreans are forbidden to have their own country because they have broken a covenant with God.
So I'm curious as to why you say:
"Yes, the State of Israel exists because of God's sovereign plan (his permissive will), but then by the same logic so does North Korea and Iran."
I would certainly oppose political campaigns to destroy either of these nations.
Can I suggest that there is an inconsistency here Joseph? I think that we need to come to terms with what the Old Covenant entails - God said to Israel 'I set before you a blessing and a curse' concerning possession of land. I would suggest that there is a tendency to only want the blessing of the Old Covenant without acknowledging the responsibility that goes with it to obey the Law of Moses, and the consequences for non compliance. The good news is that Christ has fulfilled the law and wishes to write the law on our hearts offering Jews and Gentiles a New Covenant.
Off topic - I read recently that Theodor herzl nearly converted to Christ, but was persauded against it by Christian Zionists looking for a Jewish homeland.
Andrew
Andrew - can you elaborate on what you mean?
I haven't said the state of Israel exists because its leaders have particularly pleased God, but rather that God pre-ordains every nations its appointed times, including Israel - so the existence of Israel isn't an anomaly.
Yes, Herzl requested an audience with the Pope, and would have offered him a wholesale Jewish conversion to Catholicism in exchange for Vatican support for Zionism!
But then what's your point? Yes, God has pre-ordained, by his permissive will, that the present state of Israel exists. But by the same toke, he also ordained that the Rwandan genocide should occur and that Prince William should become engaged to Kate Middleton.
You simply cannot say that God, by his sovereign will, has willed that the present state of Israel should exist. The Bible doesn't say so, and anything beyond that is pure speculation.
Let's concentrate on understanding and applying what the Bible actually says, no?
Well, saying that God pre-ordains the existence of Israel is true, that is, by his permissive will he wills it. However, by the same token he also willed the Rwandan genocide and the engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton.
What you can't say is that God, in his directive will, wills that Israel exists. We simply don't know whether that's the case because the Bible doesn't say so. Any claims to the contrary are just speculation.
But then what's your point? Yes, God has pre-ordained, by his permissive will, that the present state of Israel exists. But by the same toke, he also ordained that the Rwandan genocide should occur and that Prince William should become engaged to Kate Middleton.
So the existence of the state of Israel is on the same level as the Rwandan genocide? And the royal wedding - what does that have to do with the price of fish?
The verse is clearly talking about nations of men, ie Israel's existence, not saying how and when they should commit genocides.
Are you saying the verse shouldn't be in the Bible, Philip?
"What you can't say is that God, in his directive will, wills that Israel exists. We simply don't know whether that's the case because the Bible doesn't say so. Any claims to the contrary are just speculation."
That's remarkably equivocal.
Okay, let me ask you directly Philip:
Do you think the current existence of the modern state of Israel is contrary to God's direct will?
That ought to clear up any confusion.
Hi Philip. I agree with you on the above - but Christian Zionists believe that the Bible does predict the restoration of Israel. What I have been trying to do in my book is to try and show that the OT prophecies that speak about the resotration of Israel, were speaking mainly about the Israelite Assyrian exiles of 721BC. These israelites were I believe converted through the apostles ministry, they were ones sent out by Christ to 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'
There is a place here for a debate about OT prophecy.
Andrew S
Andrew, I guess my point is more that even if we accept that the Bible predicts the restoration of Israel, it does not tell us whether the present state of Israel is the one. So, the strongest claim we could possibly make is that it might be.
Now, I think that is a stretch, but I accept that some could adopt that position. It's the position of certainty that I don't accept. Such a position is unfounded and purely speculative.
Philip, I am not asking you to accept that the state of Israel is a fulfilment of prophecy, merely that it has the same degree of legitimacy and right to exist as the UK, USA, France, Kosovo, South Africa, and any other nation.
Kosovo is an interesting choice since it is by no means universally recognised (ie, not even half the world's countries recognise it), but that's another matter.
I have never said that Israel has less or more right to exist than the UK, USA, France, etc. Nor do I believe it.
Your previous references to scripture puzzle me. If you weren't using these verses to try to show that Israel exists because of God's will, then I'm not sure what your point was?
Andrew - ok so you think the prohecies were all/mainly fulfilled BC, but you seem to have no problems seeing the recent fires in Israel as some sort of "sign of Elijah"
http://fromthetopcom.blogspot.com/2010/12/israel-inferno.html#comments
Does that not seem a trifle inconsistent?
James - I believe most OT prophecies relating to Israel were fulfilled in and through Christ and directed at the church which was founded by Jews. There are other prophecies, and the gift of prophecy and the gift of interpretation are still available today. If you read Eusebius you will see the early church read the signs and fled Jerusalem knowing the times and seasons. This ability to read signs is something we have lost today. I am simply asking a question about whether the Mt Carmel fire is a sign. Netanyahu might be getting a bit worried if it is an Elijah sign and he is compared to Ahab, but remember Ahab repented.
I have been following Sephen E Jones weblog for several years - for students of biblical prophecy it is eye openning, although read with your eyes open and search things out for yourself.
God's Kingdom Minstries blog
Andrew S
"I have never said that Israel has less or more right to exist than the UK, USA, France, etc. Nor do I believe it."
Excellent, so in your eyes, Israel has the same legitimacy as the aforementioned countries.
Glad we finally got there!
"I have been following Sephen E Jones weblog for several years - for students of biblical prophecy it is eye openning, although read with your eyes open and search things out for yourself."
Andrew do the eye-opening things include Jones' link to the website of the Holocaust denier Gilad Atzmon, which you helpfully brought to the attention of a wider audience?
http://hurryupharry.org/2010/12/07/andrew-sibley-carmel-fires-a-sign-from-elijah/#comment-538023
From Dr Jones' weblog, which Andrew says merits reading with "your eyes open":
"The sheer number of white buffalo being born since 1994 seems to defy all odds. They are not albinos, but actually white, some even having blue eyes. These are considered to be signs of soon-coming restoration and deliverance among Native Americans.
I think so, too, considering the fact that we engaged in the Jubilee Prayer Campaign in November of 1993. Likewise, back in 1984 the Lord spoke to me in a somewhat obscure manner about the importance of August 20 as a "ministry date." Ten years later (the Hezekiah Factor), the first white buffalo named Miracle was born. I think this has everything to do with the ministry of intercession and spiritual warfare that we have been doing since 1993."
So glad to see you're not picking up nutty ideas from American fundies, like those Christian Zionists do, Andrew ;)
Joseph W, I'm not sure that's the great victory you seem to think it is since I had never said anything to the contrary, and the conclusion is hardly ground-breaking. Still.
I notice you are yet to address the other point.
"I notice you are yet to address the other point."
Being?
Sorry Joseph W, I missed your previous comment - you did indeed address my point.
The Rwandan genocide and the royal engagement have nothing to do with this. But that's precisely the point. The existence of Israel is not some special, unique event of more import than others.
I'm not saying that any verse in the Bible shouldn't be in the Bible. Don't be ridiculous, and don't put words in my mouth. The verse is not talking about Israel, it is making a point about God's control of the world as part of an evangelistic talk. It is certainly not a point about whether the modern state of Israel should exist.
Do you understand the difference between God's directive will and his permissive will? I would suggest looking them up if not.
To answer your question, I have to separate between the two. No, the existence of Israel is not contrary to God's permissive will. Is it contrary to God's directive will? I don't know. Possibly so. However, what I can say, is that it does not form an important part of God's directive will, because otherwise God would have clearly told us.
Post a Comment