Comments on Calvin L. Smith: Israel and the Flotilla: What About the Bigger Pic...

These are theological hot potatoes concerning Isra...

2010-07-04T13:58:30.748+01:00

These are theological hot potatoes concerning Israel and the Ecclesia.
The Ecclesia is not Israel. it is the called out ones from all nations.
Israel are the Jews dispersed throughout the world and now gathering back to their own land as promised to the Patriarch Abraham in the unconditional covenant God made,(Gen 15.18)
The Olive Tree is Israel as mentioned throughout the Bible, (7 pages of my concordance under the heading: Israel) and we know their history is a very checkered one of exile and return, of disobedience and repentance.
Before we dismiss Israel as done away with because of her transgressions, let us remember the church is not exactly pure as the driven snow,(let him who is without sin etc...)
If branches wer broken off, the tree and its roots still remain, and not all the branches were broken off, and, we from a wild olive tree(what's the metaphor for that I wonder?) were grafted in contrary to nature,(again, what's the metaphor?)
'Boast not.....Rom 11.18'
Not all the Jews rejected Jesus, the first century ecclesia was predominantly Jewish (Acts 21.20)
Remember Elijah complained of Israel forsaking the Lord, but what was God's reply? 1 Kings 19.18 and repeated in Rom 11.4-5, so we see there has always been a remnant: the true Israel or 'Israel of God' as mentioned in Gal 6.16 which rightly refers to the Jewish believers (not the church).
Again, these are very complex theological issues, many books have been written arguing for one side or the other.
I don't hold Israel right or wrong because I believe there is only one name given for men to call upon to be saved (Acts 4.12) at the same time neither do I dismiss Israel today as insignificant.
Who is going to look upon him that they have pierced and mourn in Jerusalem? Zech 12.10-11.
The 'church'- Jesus said I will built my Ecclesia and the gates of hell will not prevail(Matt16.18)
It is not a building nor organization that I need to subscribe to in order to be saved.

Correction: the verses I should have quoted concer...

2010-07-04T08:55:09.566+01:00

Correction: the verses I should have quoted concerning Israel remaining a nation for ever; are Jeremiah 31.36-37.
Also one more note about 'churches' from 2 Cor. 1.24 'not that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.'
The original translation made by Tyndale had the word 'congregation' not 'church' , that was put in later by the KJV translators for 'ecclesiastical' reasons, same as the word bishop and many more that I cannot go into on a note I'm trying to keep brief.

Correction: the verses I should have quoted concer...

2010-07-04T08:51:46.984+01:00

Chris - we need to examine the logical structure o...

2010-07-04T07:52:33.351+01:00

Chris - we need to examine the logical structure of the metaphor of the olive tree because I find some Christian Zionists do not use it consistently.

Who is the root? - is it not true Israel? Who is grafted in? - gentiles. Who are the branches broken off? - Jews who rejected Jesus.

So how can the Jews who reject Jesus be at the same time the root and the broken-off branches. Such Jews can be grafted in again into the true root of Israel, but at present how can they be part of true Israel outside of Christ? (If we maintain the coherence of the metaphor).

Secondly, you confirm my fears. That the teaching of Christian Zionism is leading Christians to give up on the Church. To put it mildly, I don't find this at all healthy. The Church is spiritually the body of Christ (and the root of Israel), whatever problems there may be with institutions and structures and Christians should love it.

And the Church is already full of Jewish culture and symbols. The communion table, the Hebrew Bible, ten commandments, Songs and hymns about New Jerusalem etc.

The 'Church' or christendom, is not the bo...

2010-07-04T00:12:04.679+01:00

The 'Church' or christendom, is not the body of 'Christ', it is an institution which has removed itself far from its Jewish roots.
The first century 'church' was predominantly Jewish, the first 'bishops' were Jewish, the brother of Yeshua, James/Jacob was the 'bishop' at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15)and the debate there was about whether gentiles should adopt Jewish customs, today the same question but in reverse, should Jewish believers become 'churched' instead of holding their own congregations with distinctively Jewish flavours. Personally I find 'churches' boring and lacking in any real 'audience' participation. I'm tired of sitting in the pew and being 'entertained' and being told when to pray and what to sing, by some 'ordained' minister. 1 Peter 5.3:'neither as being lords over God's heritage,but being examples to the flock'. instead of this 'church' hierarchy. it is no more of God than catholicism , 'churches?' give me a break!
The whole 'clergy/laity' divide is adequately explained in 'nicolaitanism' by F W Grant.

The promise was made to Abraham then confirmed to ...

2010-07-03T23:29:09.751+01:00

The promise was made to Abraham then confirmed to Isaac and again re-confirmed to Jacob/Israel.
The State of Israel has theological and spiritual significance, whether we like it or not, the political entity known as The State of Israel is not going to go away, nor will it be delegitimised, the attempts to put Israel on a par with apartheid South Africa will fail, though Israel will go through a lot of turmoil, it will still remain a nation (Jer 31.35)Israel has always been a nation,though dispersed to the ends of the earth, they have remained a distinct people, who have also contributed more to civilization than all other nations put together. The new covenant was made with Israel (Jer 31.31) the gentiles are grafted in, though some branches were broken off, they, the Jews, will be grafted back in again. When our Lord returns it will be to the mount of olives in Jerusalem, not westminster nor washington, and the Jews will recognise their Messiah as one and the same Jesus/Yeshua!

I agree with you to some extent Calvin. The scatte...

2010-07-02T07:21:46.463+01:00

I agree with you to some extent Calvin. The scattered northern Israelites were still referred to as the house of Israel (Jer 31:31) even after God had divorced them. He had not forgotten them and promised their return. I guess what troubles me is that some forms of Christian Zionism ascribe spiritual significance to the State of Israel even though it is not yet in submission to David's descendent - Jesus.

(Jer 23:5) - The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.

In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.

So why can't this also apply to Israel as a co...

2010-07-01T21:24:36.459+01:00

So why can't this also apply to Israel as a corporate entity? Isn't Israel the man prototypal of Israel the people (and not just people, but more specifically the people who are the descendents of Israel the man?)

Sorry for dual posting. I was referring to the the...

2010-07-01T21:11:29.163+01:00

Sorry for dual posting. I was referring to the theological significance of the meaning of Israel that 'he has striven or been saved by God.' Jacob struggled with an angel for God's blessing when he was fearful of meeting Esau - who for good reason wanted to kill him. In other words, in this act Jacob stopped trusting in his own cunning and instead wanted God to rule over his life and save him. I would argue exegetically that that is the correct spiritual context for those who want to use the name to live in.

I agree that labels are used differently. Sometimes Judah is labelled as Israel, perhaps even scattered Israelites are sometimes referred to as Jews in a religious sense which adds to confusion.

Mmmm. Exegetically and theologically, Andrew, Isra...

2010-07-01T18:46:58.631+01:00

Mmmm. Exegetically and theologically, Andrew, Israel has various connotations in the Bible, whether a person (Jacob), people (Jews), united nation (Israel before the Schism), a segment of the Jewish population (post-Schism Northern Kingdom), or the wider people of God to which Gentiles are grafted on.

This is an interesting observation Chris. Whether ...

2010-07-01T18:27:36.319+01:00

This is an interesting observation Chris. Whether it is possible to believe that God may desire a fresh influx of Jews into the original land of promise without seeing it as representing 'true Israel' or needing to see oneself as a 'Christian Zionist.'

I can accept the former as possibly being part of God's plan, but still have a problem with the state being called 'Israel' instead of 'Judah'. Israel was a spiritual title given to Jacob when he came into submission with God. I would suggest that the formation of a state called 'Israel' has an iconic attraction for Christians which means they don't necessarily ask in depth questions about how old testament texts need to be translated into the new covenant. i.e. 1 Peter, Ephesians, Galatians, Hebrews etc.

It was partly concern about the direction of Christian Zionism with Hagee's writing that led me to start researching and writing my book on Israel, and before I became aware of Sizer's writing. I believe it is possible to love Jews and seek to bring them to Christ, even allowing a Jewish state to exist, without being a 'Christian zionist.'

1 Peter 2:4-9 "As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame."Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,"and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
But you are a chosen people (genos = race), a royal priesthood, a holy nation (ethnos), a people (laos) belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

This is an interesting observation Chris. Whether ...

2010-07-01T18:26:04.415+01:00

This is an interesting observation Chris. Whether it is possible to believe that God may desire a fresh influx of Jews into the original land of promise without seeing it as representing 'true Israel' or needing to see oneself as a 'Christian Zionist.'

I can accept the former as possibly being part of God's plan, but still have a problem with the state being called 'Israel' instead of 'Judah'. Israel was a spiritual title given to Jacob when he came into submission with God. I would suggest that the formation of a state called 'Israel' has an iconic attraction for Christians which means they don't necessarily ask in depth questions about how old testament texts need to be translated into the new covenant. i.e. 1 Peter, Ephesians, Galatians, Hebrews etc. I guess I see the march of zionism as somehow being in opposition to the Church and that many Christians are giving up on the Church because of a strong love for the visible State of Israel.

It was partly concern about the direction of Christian Zionist teaching with Hagee's writing that led me to start researching and writing for my book on Israel, and before even became aware of Sizer's writing. I believe it is possible to love Jews and seek to bring them to Christ, even allow a Jewish state to exist, without being a 'Christian zionist.'

1 Peter 2:4-9 "As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame."Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,"and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
But you are a chosen people (genos = race), a royal priesthood, a holy nation (ethnos), a people (laos) belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

Concerning the question of christion zionists and ...

2010-06-16T10:53:45.002+01:00

Concerning the question of christion zionists and Israel's failure.
Before the term 'christian zionist' was coined those who believed in the restoration of the Jews to their homeland were simply called 'Restorationist'.
The restoration of the Jews is assured of in the Bible, however, what is not so clear is how and when. but of their gathering unto the Land; that is a promise God made to Israel.
The people of Israel and the Land of Israel are intrinsic of God's unconditional covenant to the Patriarchs.
Should any christian put their faith in political events they are sure to be disappointed, but our faith is in the sure Word of God, both written and Living, shalom from Chris,

All this aside, this thread is not closed i...

2010-06-10T13:47:20.429+01:00

All this aside, this thread is not closed if anyone wants to add anything else or raise other issues.

Well, I would have preferred not to, as it simply ...

2010-06-10T13:45:53.892+01:00

Well, I would have preferred not to, as it simply ends the current debate.

In short, my original post commented on the wider regional and strategic ramifications of the flotilla incident and the existentialist bearing this has on Israel, which is of theological importance to many Christians. Andrew commented on this existentialist aspect, asking the important question of what Israel's demise might do to the faith of Christian Zionists.

You chose not to discuss the wider stategic issues, focusing on the event itself and saying I did not much care about the deaths of people who are now without God. After that we never really got back on track. For you Israel was completely wrong in her actions, while for others violence was met with inevitable violence.

Calvin, I'm not sure this has much further to ...

2010-06-09T15:55:24.261+01:00

Calvin, I'm not sure this has much further to run...why don't you sum up the arguments, come to a judgment, and we'll leave it there?

Philip, And you wish to construct this debate wit...

2010-06-09T15:26:08.660+01:00

Philip,

And you wish to construct this debate within your own frame of reference, which is why you refer to the arguments of others as non- sequiturs.

This is not the first or second time that you have taken such an approach, nor will it be the last.

You are dismissive of the arguments of others, not a terribly conducive habit for an amicable exchange of views.

Your response is something of a non-sequitur. You ...

2010-06-09T14:40:59.626+01:00

Your response is something of a non-sequitur. You are just repeating the point I just addressed. The issue is twofold. It is not the nationality of the protagonists, but the way that you present the incident in a vacuum. And secondly, it is about whether shooting people in the head at point blank range represents best practice in riot control.

I don't know what nationality has to this, particularly not Syrian nationality.

"Putting the events into a vacuum like tha...

2010-06-09T12:55:27.693+01:00
"Putting the events into a vacuum like that distorts the picture. "

Philip,

If you don't believe me, try this.

In the middle of the night, as it was on the boat, with some 60 other people go and attack with iron bars the Syrian police and see how many of you survive....

You can see that happening in the video.

If you try to beat an armed soldier with an iron bar then the results are fairly predictable, WHATEVER the nationality of the soldier involved.

Putting the events into a vacuum like that distort...

2010-06-09T09:02:04.774+01:00
Putting the events into a vacuum like that distorts the picture. Equally you could argue that if you attack a large group of young men in the middle of the night with tear gas and rubber bullets, they're going to respond. It's only when you take into account the big picture that you can properly assess.

In any case, I would expect the response to be restrained. Certainly not to shoot people point blank in the head, repeatedly. Their are modern techniques of riot control that reduce loss of life effectively.

And to repeat the point, the death tally speaks for itself, really. No Israelis dead. Eight Turks and an American killed.

I was in Bangkok in May when the Thai army went in and killed around 60 red shirts. Only 1 soldier was killed. That also was an imbalance so high suggesting an unacceptable casualness with respect to human life.

Surely, if you try to attack armed troops with iro...

2010-06-09T01:38:52.413+01:00
Surely, if you try to attack armed troops with iron bars, lumps of wood and other weapons then they're going to respond eh ? Philip?

What do you think Turkish soldiers would do if 60 to 80 British football hooligans attack them with iron bars?

you know, nine people are dead, all of them protes...

2010-06-06T09:20:50.803+01:00
you know, nine people are dead, all of them protesters. Some shot at point blank range in the head, as reported yesterday. No Israeli soldiers are dead. I think that speaks for itself.

You're right that these weren't 'peace protesters'. But they never claimed to be. They were political protesters trying to break a blockade that they and many others see as illegal and immoral.

But in their violence, I think they were wrong. However, I think they were much more restrained than the Israelis. After all, they didn't kill anyone.

I appreciate the apology. Again, I was exploring t...

2010-06-04T15:54:45.646+01:00
I appreciate the apology. Again, I was exploring the bigger picture and what it might mean for the region, because in the long run we could well see far greater loss of life on all sides.

However, concerning the loss of life issueyou raise, I didn't want to rush to judgment as so many have until more facts came to light. Indeed, we didn't even know how many died, with Hamas claiming 20 or so at one stage for propaganda purposes.

It now transpires several of those on board sought martyrdom. We've also seen the catapults, ball bearings and other weapons, and we've seen the videos and heard the testimony from the Al-Jazeera guy concerning the beating and attempted abduction of Israeli soldiers. Real peace protestors don't act like this, as indeed the protestors on the five other ships did not.

However tragic the loss of life is (and I still don't know if just some or all of the dead were provocateurs), don't you think such actions contributed to the Israeli response? I abhor the cold-blooded shedding of innocent blood, but surely those who choose premeditated violence must expect to be responded to with violence, don't you think?

Calvin, I was just surprised at your initial react...

2010-06-02T11:28:18.380+01:00
Calvin, I was just surprised at your initial reaction, and that you didn't have anything to say about such an appalling loss of life. You say the attack was a disaster because it was bad PR and militarily. And indeed it was those things. But I think the fact that people lost their lives is much more important than both of them, especially from a Christian perspective (in my view, of course).

If you found my comment offensive, however, then I'm sorry.

ModernityBlog, I don't believe anyone question...

2010-06-02T11:24:09.732+01:00
ModernityBlog, I don't believe anyone questions that. My comment was in response to one above stating that Islamists in Syria are driving towards war with Israel. In fact, the government is controlled by a secular socialist party. That was all.

Let's not change the subject, though.