Israel at 60
Posted by Neil on May 8th, 2008
2008
May 8
Israel has begun celebrating her 60th anniversary, which of course, is great cause for celebration for Israelis and Jews around the world. This also extends to many American Evangelicals - particularly those of the dispensational camp.
Although not all in Israel are celebrating. Pictured here is Palestinian Ahmed Elaian, 86 at the time, showing the keys of his home in Israel, on the 57th anniversary of Al Naqba, or day of catastrophe, in the Kalandia refugee camp near the West Bank town of Ramallah, Saturday May 14, 2005. (AP Photo/Muhammed Muheisen)
May 8th, 2008 at 11:00 am
2008 - 1948 = 60
1342 - 2008 = 666
Clement VI become pope in 1342!!
The rapture will be judgment on them all!
May 8th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Wow, it doesn’t look a day over 59…
This would be a great time for Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory, tear down ALL the settlements, stop building walls, tear down the old ones…in short, stop the economic genocide (and other kinds) they’ve been inflicting on the Palestinian people.
If Israel would take these steps, proactively, they would be in a much better space to negotiate a true peace with Palestine and the rest of the Arab world. This would also undermine Iran’s saber-rattling in the region.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
“If Israel would take these steps, proactively, they would be in a much better space to negotiate a true peace with Palestine and the rest of the Arab world. This would also undermine Iran’s saber-rattling in the region.”
This is one region there will never be peace in this age, no matter what man can do or propose. BTW, Iran’s saber-rattling will not subside… their clearly stated goal is not compromise but annihilation. Same for Hezbollah… and for Syria… and for Jordan…
May 8th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
A solar eclipse makes the moon look red, it is called a blood moon eclipse. There are very rare 4 blood red moon years. There was one in 1492, and then not another until 1949 (year after Israel became a nation). Then there was one in 1967 (year Jerusalem was again Israel’s), and there is only one 4 blood moon year (Jewish calendar) in this millenium and it will occur in 2014-2015.
That 4 blood moon year will be especially rare since all 4 eclipses fall on major Jewish feasts.
http://66.155.114.80/video/Dsl/5904-D.wmv
May 8th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Seriously? Jordan wants annihilation? What Conservapedia entry did you get that from, please?
This is part of the problem with many Americans’ limited understanding of that part of the world…George and his ilk conflate all the groups as if they are one entity hellbent on destruction of Israel, “freedom,” and Amurka, and I understand that those of weak self-confidence need to be defined by an “other,” an “enemy,” in order to feel strong, but these things simply aren’t TRUE in the reality-based world.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Break for Terror,
“I understand that those of weak self-confidence need to be defined by an “other,” an “enemy,” in order to feel strong, but these things simply aren’t TRUE in the reality-based world.”
As you have defined Israel? and *news-flash* “George” is no friend of Israel.
News flash ** George ** is no friend of Israel.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I have not defined Israel as “enemy.”
I just don’t look at Israel through blinders that excuse it from all wrong-doing because God supposedly “gave it” to the Jews.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Tearing down the walls would only serve to have more Israeli civilians killed (which the walls have severely curtailed), and with the stated aims of most of the other entities in the region being the annihilation of Israel, if I were in their shoes, I wouldn’t unilaterally disarm and declare the world to be puppies and butterflies.
When Israel removed the settlements and left the Gaza Strip, sure enough it became a haven of terror. While I think the Israeli government has committed a number of crimes against Palestinians (many of whom have no longer claim to the land occupied by the state of Israel than its Jewish inhabitants), the answer to the problem is not to exchange land for (no) peace.
Having been there and seen first hand several of the contested areas, I’d say that even if they “gave back” the West Bank, they’d be completely stupid to vacate the Golan Heights. The GH region is unassailable from the south and west if it is fortified, and basically becomes Syria’s base of operation against Israel. The Druze who occupy it are pro-Israel Arabs, who prefer Israel protecting them over Syria oppressing them.
Bottom line: Short of promising to drown themselves in the Mediterranean, there is nothing Israel can do to ‘bring peace’ to the region.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I don’t give them carte blanche, either, but I believe that the UN gave them most of the land they’re sitting on 60 years ago, and their neighbors immediately attacked them. The parcels of land “taken” by Israel in 1967 and in the Yom Kippur War are strategic in nature to their security (particularly the Golan) and shouldn’t be given back until significant de-escalation takes place - particularly on the part of Iran, Syria and Lybia - and stays that way for a good long time.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Just as in the Old Testament Israel the nation still makes mistakes and does things that they should not. But as the Jewish people as a whole God still has a plan through Abraham, what that plan will look like is up to God alone.
Trying to keep up with all the politics in the Middle East is like trying to count the salt granuels in the shaker.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Fixed it.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Different but same - Miaggi.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
An interesting thought: what would modern day media do in the face of Joshua destroying Jericho and killing everything that breathes? What kind of field day would they have with Saul’s orders to slaughter Agag and his Amalekites?
May 8th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
except that the other major result of the walls is the continued economic isolation of the Palestinian people. so, of COURSE there will be continued terrorism when, from the Palestinian perspective, they’re starving to death, and on the other side of a high wall is one of the most gluttonously wealthy nations in the world, one that, by the way, was just sorta parked there sixty years ago.
this goes back to what i said about the utter foolishness of lumping all “terrorist” groups together, like George does. remember, Hamas was elected in the elections that we forced on them (because some in the US are foolish enough to think that elections = democracy), not because they’re “terrorists,” but because they provide services to the people who have been left behind Israel’s walls.
it’s such a complex situation, and we are foolish to buy into the line that every “terrorist” group and/or Middle Eastern nation just wants to “wipe Israel off the map,” as was mistranslated from a Mahmoud comment.
um, so Israel shouldn’t have to do anything? surprise, surprise, Israel hasn’t lived up to an international agreement since its inception, why should they start now?
May 8th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
and yet you seem to have all the answers…in one simple solution
May 8th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
You know, this is another negative side effect of dispensational eschatology. Its impossible for a Christian to generally support Israel, or a specific Israeli position without people assuming that its for a religious reason.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Tim, the problem is that so many Christians run around declaring their support for Israel, all the while ignoring the plight of the Palestinians. Those ridiculously stupid “This Christian Supports Israel” bumper stickers say it all: “I am an ignorant American who actually doesn’t really like Jews, but because I think the Bible says that Israel has to exist for Jesus to come back, then I support Israel, even though I really couldn’t spell three cities in the region or explain the difference between Hamas and Fatah.”
And no, Joe, I didn’t provide a “simple” answer at all, in any place, at any time, so I really don’t know where on earth you got that. I listed several things Israel could do to make it sort of look like they actually care about the plight of the people around them. Most Muslim Arabs are moderates, and they have completely valid points to make about the situation their Palestinian friends and family find themselves in today, and yes, Israel is to blame for much of it.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
“You know, this is another negative side effect of dispensational eschatology.”
There are many flavors of dispensationalism, to which do you refer and blame for people’s assumptions?
May 8th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Actually, most of the Arab (secular and muslim) nations around Israel could have already done something about this when the UN set aside Israel as a place for displaced Jews from around the world. It was the Arab nations that refused to allow the “palestinians” (most of whom had been there a relatively short time) to cross their borders, choosing instead to make a political football out of them - stating that Israel’s existence was illegitimate and that the “palestinians” would have their land back once the Jews were kicked out.
If given the opportunity to leave permanently, many of the Palestinians would do so gladly, but no country will have them. It IS a complex situation, but the ball is primarily in the hands of the Palestinians right now. If they were to choose a course of non-violence (like MLK and others in the US Civil Rights movement), Israel would not be able to stand against them for long.
To echo Tim’s point, it is truly and utterly sad that dispensationalist Christians have wrecked the ability to support Israel without it seeming to be for religious reasons. Even Paul C’s comments above (May 8, 2008, 2:12 pm) echo this sick side-effect of off-the-rails eschatology.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Can there really be real peace without Christ?
Regardless of eschatology….that’s something I think about.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
My fuzzy eschatology is that things will wax worse and worse and then Christ comes. (That doesn’t mean I should help it get worse) It will take me a week to figure out the exact particulars!
May 8th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Do you not see the 3/5-human mindset you’re operating from? It really doesn’t matter how long the Palestinians had been there (I refuse to impugn their dignity as you do by putting it in quotes), they LIVED THERE. Then the West did some of its famous myopic map-drawing and parked the Jews there.
BS. Palestinians can’t even AFFORD the ball, how can they possibly have it in their court? Oh, and the Palestinians, let’s remember, are the oppressed ones, not poor little insanely wealthy Israel with its undeclared nuclear arsenal and a blank check from idiot America.
Yes…but this is what is meant when people talk about getting religion out of politics and back where it belongs, in peoples’ private lives. For whatever reason, three religions hold all different beliefs about that godawful strip of sand, and nothing will ever get any better until or unless people check their dogma at the door and relate to each other as human beings.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
“relate to each other as human beings.”
That is the key. I as a Christian do not see nations or people groups, I see souls for whom Christ died and loves. When we get into the particulars of who was there first and who commits more atrocities we have a horizontal view of the world which relagates everyone to equal views.
Equal views = constant arguing.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
The ones that cause Christians to view Israel as something other than just another nation on the face of the earth.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Ah, yes
because there’s so little where else to go…
May 8th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Ummm….. to be fair the 3/5 compromise was an attempt to keep power out of the hands of pro-slavery forces.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
my god, that’s tacky…
and Tim, i know the history of the 3/5 compromise, but that’s not the point i was making.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
perhaps i was being too generous using the 3/5 metaphor, come to think of it.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Oh I know, but there’s no reason to abuse the names of men who were opposing slavery in the name of rhetoric.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:25 am
“The ones that cause Christians to view Israel as something other than just another nation on the face of the earth.”
So Tim, the blind “Bless Israel” religious fervor (Hagee) aside, are your suggesting your theology just views Israel and the Jews and their miraculous 1948 birth, etc., as just coincidence? Are you saying you believe God is done with Israel and the Jews and treats them as no different than Belize?
The New Testament never says we should support the nation of Israel in anything, but there are hints of a future in God’s plan, yes?
May 9th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Providing some context:
Source
Neither side trusts the other to do the right thing.
Often what is viewed as Terrorism from the outside is viewed as survival from the inside.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Pretty much, the same as the miraculous rebirth of Japan as a world super power, and the conquest of Alexander the Great, and the many other odd shifts in nations. The one concession I would make on this issue is the reason the Jewish people were still around to make a nation out of was because of the traditions, and reverence for the law and the prophets.
Treating Israel as special makes the cross incoherent, and testifies to the efficacy of the old covenant as sufficient.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:55 am
The New Testament never says we should support the nation of Israel in anything, but there are hints of a future in God’s plan, yes?
Well, I would say no more than the future for the rest of the world. I mean god dearly loves the Jewish people still, I believe, but I believe He dearly loves everyone. If one thing is clear in the NT, it’s that the blessing originally available to Israel through its covenant with God are now available to all.
In fact, in Hebrews it says that the first covenant God made with Israel is obsolete. I guess I have a hard time understanding what people think God still “owes” Israel.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Chris L.,
I find your map and comment to be a fitting juxtaposition to my picture of an 86 year old man who still has the keys to his house that was taken from him by (mostly) European Jews.
These two pictures belie the macro and micro elements of the issue.
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Two separate issues: God dealing with Israel and God dealing with Jews. My answer is long, but easy to read and follow- I think.
I hold a Th.M. from Dallas Seminary, so ya don’t get much more dispensational than I was… operative word being “was.”
It start with a study through Hebrews where I saw our true High Priest take his seat in the truest tabernacle/temple (chpt 8). I saw the old covenant declared obsolete (chpt 8). I saw that the old covenant, the sacrifices, the temple itself were bit a symbol that pointed to Christ (chpt 9). I saw that God no longer deals in region geography like Mt Sinai or Mt. Zion but in Christ (chtp 12). This started putting cracks in my dispensational mindset.
Then I was assigned a sermon during a series in Ephesians. My text was 2:11-21. This really messed with my dispensational mind. In this passage Paul describes a complete breakdown of the old Jew vs Gentile distinction. the two are now one. God now has only one chosen people - and the basis of that choosing is Christ not race.
At this point I had to deal with my doubts, so I studied Galatians and saw that all who are in Christ are Abraham;s offspring (chpt 3).
I noticed Peter told gentiles that they were the people of God, chosen people, a holy nation, based on Christ’s blood, not a blood-line (chpt. 2).
So I had to study through Romans, the dispensation holy of holies. And I found Paul telling them the same things he told the Galatians and Ephesians: the promises are not based on being physical descendants of Abraham, but spiritual… those in Christ are regarded as descendants (chpt 9).
it took me some time to actual say out loud to anyone that I was no longer a dispensationalist - but I can no longer see a two-fold people of God based mostly on race.
Granted, Romans 11 requires a belief that God will still do a work of some kind among the Jews - but that’s another story all together.
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 8:49 am
I would submit that if the entirety of history was viewed as one piece of evidence, the Jews would have a substative case for incredible mistreatment. The Palestian misfortunes are recent therefore garner a more subjective view without being juxtaposed against the historical treatment of the Jewish people.
God Himself proclaimed the Jews would be hated because of their worship of the one true God. This does not mean they are now saved (Tim) which would render the cross as a competitor, but it does mean that they have an historical covenant through Abraham. In the end, if God does reach down in some fashion to this people, there hope will only be in Yeshua so it will be the cross that saves them.
If God has no particular interest in Israel, then who cares what happens in the Middle East? If the average local church has periodic problems with unity and conflict, why would any rational human being ever believe peace could be achieved anywhere? It cannot, only band aids my friends unless you can remove the sin in men’s hearts.
Check out the Christian blog world and then tell me there is a path to peace in the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter. Followers of Jesus Christ can’t stand each other, so Muslims and Christians and Jews can live in peace. Yea, and Marcus Borg will be the featured speaker at the 2008 Shepherds Conference!
May 9th, 2008 at 8:58 am
I will also admit that my thinking is effected by two other elements. I have a friend, a brother-in-Christ who is Palestinian. He lives in Jerusalem. He was the first to challenge me that my “loyalty” lay more with a secular state than brothers and sisters in Christ.
The second was spending time on the Rapture Ready bulletin board. They are, by and large, a bunch of racists who think all the Palestinians should be content to be “packed up and shipped” (their words) to other Arab lands. I found that attitude appalling.
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Chris L.,
My above comments about racists should in no way been seen as applying to you in any way.
i say this because you made reference to Palestinians being relocated to other lands and I did not want you or anyone else to connect the dots between you and the folks at rr-bb.
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Neil,
No problem - I have a friend in Jerusalem who is a missionary there, and he has challenged much of my thinking about the situation, as well. He’s in my blogroll.
He commented that the real sticking point with the PA would be Jerusalem…
May 9th, 2008 at 9:18 am
In regards to Israel, we must realize that this nation still holds a distinctive position in God’s plan. The Bible is very clear on this.
For example…
Romans 11:25: “For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.”
Acts 15:15-16: “And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After these things I will return, And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up…”
The foolishness of some of the comments above that Israel is no different from Belize or another country is just, well, foolish.
I am not one of the “Rapture Ready” crowd (though I believe we are living in the end times) but at the same time, the restoration of Israel is an absolute miracle that should give us an indication as to the times we’re living in.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:20 am
exactly. one person’s terrorist is always someone else’s freedom fighter, and there is blood on both sides, but Israel has prospered beyond anyone’s wildest dreams, but they’ve done so to the detriment of the people around them.
my brother happened to be in Israel yesterday during their celebrations. his impression of Jerusalem was that it was the most pitiful Disney-fied over-commercialized Six Flags over God experience, and he was appalled at the racist things the Israeli tour guides said about the Palestinians. niiiiiiice.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:23 am
i would suggest, again, that there should be a clear dividing line between peoples’ private religious beliefs and public policy.
the flipside of that foolishness is to formulate political opinions and foreign policy positions based on what one thinks the Bible says.
the world is crying out for some grown-ups…
May 9th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Apparently it’s not so clear.
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 9:28 am
i actually think a lot of peoples’ beliefs about places and nations, from a religious perspective, are wishful thinking at best.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Regarding Romans 11: This requires a belief that Gd will deal with Jews, but necessarily the geopolitical nation of Israel.
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 9:33 am
I wonder how those there to hear James quote these Old Testament passages would have interpreted them. At the time the temple was still standing, so why quote a prophecy that it would be rebuilt? Unless of course what James had in mind was the same thing the author of Hebrews had in mind - Christ.
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Neil, why would you say it’s not so clear? The early church didn’t dispute this fact.
Break the Terror - I would not say that the politicians will ever base their decisions on what the Bible says… They are, as usual, self-serving on all sides. However, it does not disqualify the fact that God’s plan will unfold in spite of the failures of men.
You said, “i would suggest, again, that there should be a clear dividing line between peoples’ private religious beliefs and public policy.”
Isn’t that the definition of a politician?
Part of His plan is the salvation of the nation of Israel, at least in some part.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:35 am
For the record, I’m not anti-Israel. I just think they are as guilty if making things worse as they are of trying to defend themselves…
Then again, I guess I’m spouting “foolishness”, so take it for what it’s worth…
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Paul,
In Acts 15, Paul was using that Scripture to explain that Jesus had fulfilled that prophecy. Paul was explaining that it was part of God’s plan from the get-go to eventually include Gentiles, and that the Jewish believers should not make it difficult for Gentiles to become Christian. I don’t see your point.
As far as Romans 11 goes, I would say it affirms that God did not abandon the Jewish people even though they abandoned Him. He still is holding out hope for them, but it is only through Christ.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Paul C.
In regard to the quote from Acts 15, James is referring to an event that had already occurred: Namely the work of Christ. The controversy that they’re discussing is the inclusion of the gentiles which is part of the re-building of the temple. Jesus directly references this when he says “destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days”.
Neil has already presented a great many issues that dispy eschatology creates, namely a two fold plan of salvation, one fold of which is crossless and testifies to the sufficiency of the old covenant.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Is the nation of Israel a people (the Hebrews/Jews), or is it a plot of land on which a secular (primarily) Jewish state has been created? The danger of reading prophecy with one eye and watching the news with the other, is that you often attempt to make the prophecy self-fulfilling, resulting in either a) trying to force God’s hand; or b) messing things up worse because the prophecy is not literal or has already been fulfilled.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Phil! Quit stealing my material!
May 9th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Considering that dispensationalism is pretty much a recent phenomenon (chronologically) and an American/British phenomenon (geographically) - you’d have to say that most of the Christian throughout time and even in the present don’t see this the way you do - therefore, not so clear.
I’m not sure what you mean by the early church did not disupte it - dispute what?
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 9:39 am
no, you’re not.
example: that horrific over-reaction to Hezbollah a couple of years back.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Considering the make-up of the early church its difficult to argue with that statement. Not to mention the continued work of Christ on all people including Israel.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Chris L.,
I read a book (which I subsequently loaned out and never got back) that gave that very thesis. That Christians (primarily American Evangelicals) decided to come down out of the stands and start forcing the direction of the game.
In other words, they decided “This is what God wants, so we’re gonna get involved” - politically speaking.
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Thanks, I am trying to walk the line between those that see Israel doing no bad, and those seeing her doing no good.
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 9:43 am
The problem with Israel right now is that they have become much like the Israel of King Solomon - wealthy and powerful, but the oppressed have become the oppressors.
I wonder what would be written about the US and its treatment of Native Americans had the media and technology of today been available two hundred years ago…
May 9th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Phil - regarding Acts 15, I believe it was James speaking, not Paul. The point this scripture makes is that by rejecting Christ, the tabernacle of David (God’s presence and overshadowing of the nation) has fallen down. However, God has not abandoned them completely, despite their rebellion, and will re-establish the ruins (faith in God through Christ) at some point in the future.
Regarding Romans 11, I agree. It is only through Christ.
Consider that God has allowed blindness for Israel. Once the fulness of Gentiles has been brought into the fold, God is able to lift the veil that is shielding the Jews from accepting Christ.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Tim,
Yeah, but at least you got it right. I mistakenly attributed that quote to Paul for some reason…
May 9th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Paul,
Yeah, I must have had Paul on the brain.
I don’t disagree with this. It’s just that the phrase “the fullness of the Gentiles” is a bit tricky, and there’s a lot of ink spilt over what it means exactly.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:47 am
“I wonder what would be written about the US and its treatment of Native Americans had the media and technology of today been available two hundred years ago…”
- very good point (as a Canadian myself, we are pretty much as guilty as the US in our nation’s continued treatment of native Canadians).
So all this seeming outrage at how Israel is treating the Palestinians when your own backyard has the same, if not worse, taking place even today… that’s hypocritical.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Israel the nation (ethnos) was indeed Israel the people. Today any Jew who is not saved through Jesus Christ will wind up in hell, just like any Gentile. But there are many references that hint at God doing something special to the Jews at some later date. It is true that sometimes that has lead to a blanket endorsement of everything Israel does.
By any natural view Israel should have succommed to Arab attack at her very conception, and additionally in 1967 and 1973. I contend divine intervention in all three of those events which does not mean, as in the OT, that God approves of everything the secular state does. BTW - there are many non-Jews who are Israeli citizens too.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:49 am
This is one danger of just quoting verses without context. If you take Paul C’s verse at face value - as if it were a prophecy in Acts for a future fulfillment - it might make a case. But simply seeing the verse in context shows us that James was proclaiming the prophecy fulfilled - in Christ”
I want to be careful not to do two things - belittle dispensationalists (like calling them “dispy”) - it always annoyed me when the folks at rr-bb called the Palestinians “Pals” - it was so condescending. But it fit their racist mentality.
Also, we cannot judge a “system” by those that misapply it, but I was horrified to read about the re-institution of the sacrificial system in some/most dispensational systems. Talk about a slap in the face of the Christ.
I must have been absent the day we talked about that at DTS.
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 9:51 am
It’s only hypocritical if you think it’s OK here and not there. If you think it’s wrong in both cases you’re being consistent.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Since when is Dispy derogatory?
May 9th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Good point Chris L,
If you read about how the Israelis treat even the Palestinians living within their original borders it’s appalling… reminiscent of how “we” treated blacks in the deep south prior to the Civil Rights Movement.
If ya want to be depressed - do a google images search on that wall. Sure they have a right to defend themselves, but it’s apparent from how and where it is being constructed that it is also devised to be completely humiliating and demoralizing at the same time.
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 9:58 am
“Derogatory” is in mind of the reader - so maybe it is not. I did not mean to say you were being derogatory.
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Let us remove the veil. Only a handful of people really care about the plight of the Palestinians, the rest of the world including us speak about the situation as political and religious parlance and go about our business, including the Arabs.
We Americans and the American church care supremely about one people - us. Everyone else gets the non-sacrificial leftovers if we are so inclinded. We can see debt ridden building erected while people die around the world of hunger and disease and we think we have accomplished God’s will. We have even invented short term mission trips to soothe our conscious because we can always come home and dine sumptously.
I admire those missionaries who have left all and dwell in the midst of the fields and who do not have much time for doctrinal badminton because they are busy about the Father’s work. We here in America have created a Christian Disneyworld where we can enjoy the capatalistic hedonism while talking religion at the gate. I love this game!
May 9th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Phil, why is there so much debate on the phrase “fulness of the Gentiles”? When the last Gentile is saved who in God’s plan, He will return to build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen - Israel.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Which is absolutely consistent with my covenantal view of Scripture - that all the promises were (and will be fulfilled Christ, not geographically or geopolitically.
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 10:04 am
I thought you said the tabernacle was “faith in God through Christ?”
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 10:16 am
which is what we in the West should have been doing all along.
exactly…as a white man of European descent, i’m pretty ashamed of some of my forefathers (well, not mine specifically…we descend from 18th century peasants in Alsace-Lorraine, but racially…) have done and continue to do to decimate the Native American populations.
Bingo. Bingo bingo bingo bingo bingo. And uprisings happen when walls, literal or figurative, are built between the haves and the have-nots. Let’s not be naive enough to believe that this is completely a religious issue. I would suggest, rather, that it’s an economic issue that rabid religious people (on all three sides) co-opt for their own purposes.
Has anyone stopped to consider the implications of this dispensationalism, i.e., the way it provides a pathetically convenient moral cover for Western imperialism?
We must always ask ourselves, when considering dogma, “yes, please, and who does this benefit, exactly?”
May 9th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Paul,
OK, I’ll take a shot at it. I think that if you look at Romans 11 in the context of the entire book, you get the idea that the theme that Paul is getting at is that God has decided to open up the opportunity of salvation to everyone. Gentiles will be “grafted in”. So when Paul says, “And so all Israel will be saved”, I think all refers to all believing Jews and Gentiles, not the nation-state of Israel.
So I would say that the “full number of the Gentiles” is Paul saying that when Jewish people see enough Gentiles come to salvation, at some point they will come to their senses and see that, yes, Jesus is the Messiah.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:26 am
to expand on this: this is the biggest problem with discourse, especially on foreign policy, but in many areas, that we encounter, and it’s spoken from the highest office in our land. “you’re either with us er agin’ us!”
um, no. that’s a 4th grade response, which is appropriate only if you’re in the 4th grade.
to criticize Israel quite rightly for over-reacting consistently, for marginalizing a population, etc., doesn’t mean one is “against” Israel. it means one has a grasp on reality.
likewise, to criticize the government of the United States in a time of war doesn’t make one a “traitor,” but rather means that one is paying attention and holding the government to account, since they, like, work for us.
to make an attempt to wade through the murky waters of various violent groups from the Muslim world, and attempt to distinguish between those who actually attacked us, and those who have their own agendae that have nothing to do with us is not to “side with the turrurists,” it’s to be a responsible citizen who does one’s homework before spouting one’s mouth off.
we have to get over this “us vs. them” mindset. it’s pithy, and also, it gets people killed.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Paul,
I agree with your take on Romans 11. I will add the caveat that I have seen Dispensationalists (usual rank amateurs) say the vine we gentiles are grafted into is Israel… which, of course, is incorrect.
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Ingrid, and CRN.com pitches a fit because Ravi doesn’t use Jesus’ name as some sort of magic word yet at the same time allies herself without hesitation, and with no stated reservation to people who teach that there is salvation without Christ, and without the cross.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Except this kinda flies in the face of Hebrews and Romans 9.
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 11:04 am
“These verses” are Romans 11. But it is NOT impossible since her interpretation (Paul speaking of national Israel) is in the vast minority both historicall and currently.
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Tim,
While Dwayna’s post puts forth all the expcted arguments, where does she posit salvation apart from the cross?
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 11:20 am
“where does she posit salvation apart from the cross?”
Hardly any dispensationalists except extremists like Hagee suggest Jews are saved without Christ, but even men like Hagee say they are saved like the OT Jews which of course was consummated at the cross. It is just a matter of misguided allegiance based upon an eschatological.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Christ is the tabernacle of God - not Israel.
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 11:44 am
She concludes this about OT verses: “Thus, this verse is a foreshadowing of Israel in the future Messianic Kingdom.”
May 9th, 2008 at 11:45 am
The church is primarily Gentile, however many Jews have come to Christ in these last 100 years. Some of us believe this too is a sign, a precurser for “all of Israel (Jews)” turning to Messiah.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:48 am
I don’t think anyone would disagree with that, but I would add to it that the early church was mostly of Jewish descent.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:54 am
But in the final mystery, there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ. The overarching theme of dispensationalism is that the Jews rejected their Messiah in the first several hundred years and will again turn to Him in the end.
That should not mean favoritism to Israel or even Jews. Paul calls the evil dogs etc., that doesn’t seem like favoritism. I owe no allegience to Israel or America for that matter, only Christ. And with that I fall short. I still believe some act of divine grace will come upon the living Jews in the end.
All the Jews? Maybe just those who are believers in the God of Abraham even though only faith in Christ will save.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:56 am
POSTMODERN DOG!
j/k
May 9th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
While out for lunch I heard a radio-preacher, not sure who. He was calling the Tribulation Temple the Third Temple and the Millennial Temple the Fourth Temple… and all the attending talk about making vestments and the like.
What stood out to me was his comment that God knows that his house is currently empty and in ruins, but will be be rebuilt. WOW - what a narrow view of God, not to mention his house… whom we are living stones (to be metaphorical about it).
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Neil - as in many things, God can be multi-layered in His prophetic emblems. Some of His teachings have both metaphorical truths as well as earthly tangible revelations.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I do believe that the Church has replaced Israel as God’s chosen people. There is so many verses that point to this. This is called Replacement Theology and it is *not* exclusively preterist doctrine.
What I haven’t seen in this discussion yet is the apparent fact that today’s Jews really do not have much in common with the Hebrews of Christ’s day as much as they have with the Khazar’s of the region north of the Black Sea. The Roman’s killed over 1 million Jews in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and only a bit over 100,000 Jews escaped (the Christian ones who were forewarned by John’s Revelation.) I suppose they were the 144,000 witnesses- the ones who escaped.
This is what so annoying about Joel Rosenberg and those like him, the pro-Israel neo-conservatives. They ignore these things and mindlessly point to Ezekiel 36-39 as prophecying about our day and Israel. Since the Bible isn’t chronologically in order, Esther-Ezra-Nehemiah show the fullfillment of the Ezekiel prophecies. So plumb simple.
Israel is a modern day construct of Rothschild (connections to Illuminati) that has nothing to do with God. It is a way of trying to “undo” Christ’s work of bringing salvation to the world.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Timothy,
You go farther than I am willing to go.
I guess I too could be accused of holding to Replacement Theology - though I reject the term because it’s almost always pejorative (as used by Dwayna and the folks at rr-bb) and it’s not very accurate.
I do not this the church has replaced Israel. I believe God has expanded his dealings with the world so that all believers are his chosen people.
A subtle difference, but I think significant.
Neil
May 9th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
“Israel is a modern day construct of Rothschild (connections to Illuminati) that has nothing to do with God.”
Don’t forget the Bildaburgers! Tim, you are a dinosaur! A Rothschild sighting in 2008, I thought you had all disappeared. Welcome back!
May 9th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Rick, try this on for size: http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=190
He also has articles: “Jews Are NOT The “Chosen People”
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=60
“THE STATE OF ISRAEL IS NOT A FULFILLMENT OF BIBLICAL PROPHECY” http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=65
May 9th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Hi its tough for me to post here,you guys are veryyyy clever and i’m terribly out of my depth,but i felt i wanted to say something..
I truly believe that the Jewish people are the chosen people of God, and that the promised made to them will be fulfilled to a remnant in the end times ..
I personally agree with most of Art Katz ideas about Israel and the Jewish people, and maybe some of you would consider reading some of his excellent essays..
This isn’t to say i agree with everything that Israel does,or least we forget what’s done to it..It is a terribly confusing situation, and as Joe said will their ever be peace without Christ, i think not..
Tim you said “What I haven’t seen in this discussion yet is the apparent fact that today’s Jews really do not have much in common with the Hebrews of Christ’s day” Whats the point of that quote ?.
Also would it be a more democratic country if it was Palestinian
May 9th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
“Also would it be a more democratic country if it was Palestinian”
wasn’t said to belittle the behavior towards the Palestinians…But i do think its naive to think the country would be all sweetness and light if Israel pulled out of particular areas..
May 9th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Democratic country = whoever controls the media and has the most money tips the scales.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
You think Rick? So theres no differences between a country that allows a vote or not?
May 9th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
scub that Rick i didn’t read ur post correctly …
May 9th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
There is a difference.
A totalitarian country suffers at the overt direction of the dictator.
A democratic country suffers at the subtle deception of hedonism and the self deluded assumption that they govern themselves.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
But least one as more chance of changing the government ..
But as the Irish say it doesn’t matter who you vote for, your still left with the Government :-p
May 9th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Rick and andy,
This is not a democratic country… it is a republic… don’t you remember the pledge of allegiance… “and the republic for which is stands…”
thanks for your attention.
iggy
May 10th, 2008 at 6:29 am
A republic = a democracy with an elected bourgeoisie whose mission is to get rich, convince the proletariat they are being represented, and prepare for the next election which will be completely about all the issues which they promised to address in the former election.
There, Iggy, fixed!
May 10th, 2008 at 7:15 am
I’m English cheers
May 10th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Well, Andy, at least you guys have a monarchy. That really helps streamline the government!
May 10th, 2008 at 7:23 am
lol
May 10th, 2008 at 8:10 am
That’s much better Rick… = )
iggy