Hopefully Jason won't mind that I decided to post his comment to my last blog and then comment back to him
Jslimbaugh said...
Greetings -It is to me an interesting, if not mystifying, development that many professing Christians in our day are turning their backs on Israel.
Support for Israel does not mean that we condone every action or support every policy. But we cannot forget the prophecy that the Lord Himself gave to Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation: "I will give this land to your descendants as an EVERLASTING possession."
The Lord stripped the land from its prior inhabitants and gave it to the children of Israel. At various times, this inheritance right has been challenged...at other times, God punished the children of Israel via exile. But Israel has always come back into her God-ordained inheritance.
Indeed, the Diaspora was prophesied - the longest and farthest reaching exile. And we see clearly in Zechariah Ch.12 that Israel would again come back into their inheritance closer to the end of all things:"I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding nations reeling...on that day when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock."
Later in the chapter, this crisis is linked to Israel's recognition of the Messiah.
The one who fights Israel - with sword, tongue, or even in heart - is fighting God.
The current turn from Israeli support among Christians is in tandem with the turn of so many Christian youth towards thinking that embraces the world, embraces the flesh, and embraces liberal ideologies that SEEM to mirror Christianity on the surface, but are founded on the spirit of anti-christ and lawlessness.
Blessings,
Jason
My Reply:::
Jason,
You say support for Israel does not mean we condone every action. What does support for Israel look like? The nation of Israel is a secular state. In what sense do God's promises to God's people apply to a secular state? I'm not denying that they do; I'm just questioning where the connection is between Old Testament promises and the current state of Israel.
For example, Old Testament prophecies (given while the people were in exile) about the people returning to the land are nearly always put into the context of the Messiah coming to deliver them. Jews have now for over 2,000 years been waiting for the Messiah to come and return them to their land. In fact, when the state of Israel was established in 1948, many (if not most) Orthodox Jews in America were against it and at first refused to return to Palestine/Israel. Their reason for being against the establishment of the nation was that their expectation was that their return to the land would be the work of the Messiah, not their own doing.
To be quite honest, despite having studied them some I find those Old Testament (OT) prophecies about the return to the land to be quite confusing. The people of Jesus' time thought they understood those prophecies, and so when Jesus did the Messianic/prophetic act of riding into Jerusalem on a donkey (to fulfill the prophecy from Zech. 9 that everyone obviously knew), the people recognized this act and began welcoming him as the king (using the language of Zech. 9). The people seem to think (because this is how they've understood the prophecies) that if Jesus is the Messiah then he will return them to their land, which of course would involve expelling the Romans and such (most of the Jews did not live in Palestine at the time but were still spread out because of the exiles a few hundred years previous).
However, instead of Jesus being happy that they have figured out who he is and are welcoming him as Messiah and king, he weeps over the city. And he says, "If you had known in this day, even you, the things that make for peace!"
Jesus' way to peace is the way of the cross, not the way that the people had understood the prophecies. This is the lesson that Martin Luther King, Jr. learned and attempted to teach us.
I am not trying to say that God has discarded Israel and has no use for them. However, I believe that to use interpretation of OT prophecies concerning Israel's return to the land as a reason to support the modern, secular state of Israel is a dangerous step to take, particularly when the modern state of Israel is practicing apartheid. I believe that to support Israel's removal of, and domination over, the Palestinians makes Jesus weep, and say - "If only you knew the things that make for peace."
Whatever God's plans are for his people the Jews in the end times, there is nowhere that God calls us to fight on their behalf or to attempt to put them in power by our own means. What we are called to, over and over and over and over throughout the whole Bible, is to do justice, to help the poor and the widow, and to walk humbly with our God.
7 comments:
So, Who IS Israel now, I'm confused. Is it all "Jewish" folk?
If so, maybe God moved that land to Hollywood?
On a more serious (maybe) and literal (very) note; does the Everlasting part of the promise mean somewhere physical that very well may physicaly pass away some day via earthquake, global warming, supernova, or is it talking Everlasting as in eternal maybe like heaven or something?
I don't know. I'm not a scholar, I just used to live near them.
Jason,
I think you really only discussed one stream: the religious. None of your other streams stand up on their own (though, as you noted, you of course could not be as comprehensive as that might have required).
A couple of minor points - and then a bigger one:
First, your ethnic stream was very weak. It was really just religious. Similar, but opposite, claims are easily made from the Muslim point of view. It is therefore a matter of religious perspective. (Not that you were saying it wasn't a matter of religious perspective, just that I don't see what it is that you were saying that was not religious and would necessitate mentioning a third "stream.")
I think you made a couple of good points in your political stream, but for me your argument hinged upon this statement: "That is, until the UN sought to establish it, at which time the Palestinians resorted to violence and they never stopped." That is, of course, true, but it is as true for the Israelis as it is for the Palestinians. There have been extremists on both sides that have disrupted the peace process every time they got close to agreements. Remember, an Israeli Prime Minister was assassinated by ISRAELIS for getting too close to making peace with Palestinians. Both sides have extremists that have used terrorism as a way to disrupt peace, but one peoples plans such terror from a place of prosperity and control, while the other plans such terror from a place of desperation.
It seems to me that the only truly good point you made was your religious argument, which as you noted was "peppered" throughout. I have a lot of respect for your position, and I completely understand where you are coming from. What you write is what I was taught growing up. It was what I felt and knew up until the time that I went to Israel and lived there for 4 months. I envisioned getting in touch with the roots of my religion in profound ways, which I did, but not in the ways I expected. I had not given a thought to the Palestinians before going there. Once there, I was struck by the Palestinians' plight, their struggle, and their graciousness. But that is a different story, unnecessary to my point here.
My point here is that I have a lot of respect for your position, and I think that you very well may be right that Israel's current holding of the land is God's plan and that that plan includes the securing of the remainder of the land. However, I do not KNOW that, and God certainly has not suggested to me that I should be fighting for that.
So what I am deeply bothered by in your argument is this quote, "To answer one of your questions, this is what support for Israel looks like: to recognize their right to exist and to extend intercessory and moral support to their occupation of the entire territory." I agree with Israel's right to exist (on both political and religious "streams"), but my moral support of Israel is not tied to my ability to figure out "a Divine plan that defines the ambiguities of Scripture a bit more clearly." Rather, my moral support of Israel is to encourage them to listen to their own prophets about treating others with respect, about being good to the strangers in the midsts, for they know what it is like to be strangers in a strange land. My moral support of Israel is to encourage them to be moral in proclaiming the release of prisoners and to doing justice to their neighbors. God's blessing and God's guarantee of the land are based upon such moral imperatives.
God has not revealed to me his divine plan and asked me to choose a side. God has of me to do justice and righteousness. To love my enemies.
People have been guesing wrongly (interpreting prophecy wrongly) about what God's intent is for Israel for over 2,500 years, and (often sadly) basing their actions upon these wrong interpretations. I do not believe the scripture's purpose in any place is to reveal to us God's plan at the end of time. Rather, it is to reveal to us that God is in control and does have a plan. That's why where there is such revelation, there is no requirement given to us concerning it. However, where there is revelation about how to live our lives, how to be ethical, there are always many requirements given.
My disagreement with you in regards to the Israeli/Palestinian situation is in regards to the natonal policy of Israel and whether it is fundamentally immoral or not. Let me begin by saying that I most certainly do not have a problem with the actions of the individuals with your previous post in regards to their efforts to forgive and build bridges between individual Israelis and Palestinians. This seems, however, to make my point from earlier about confusing the roles of individuals and the role of government. In fact, the only thing I suppose that I would disagree with about the no more taking sides group is that they seem to be insinuating that you cannot both try to build relationships with individuals and seek to make it clear that you do not seek their destruction while simultaneously strongly supporting the administration and government of one country and condemning the other.
To argue that both sides have extremists and using the word apartheid may have grains of truth to these descriptions, but they are grossly misleading based on my understanding of the ongoing conflict. Hamas has it in their charter that Israel should be wiped out for crying out loud! Yet why were they recently placed into the position of power in the palestinian parliament? This vote took place AFTER (not screaming just emphasizing) Sharon forcibly removed Israeli settlers from land that was then handed over by Israel to the Palestinians.
Apartheid may be a technically accurate definition, but it paints a mental picture of a white racist minority oppressing the peaceful black majority in South Africa. This is hardly the social situation in Israel.
Also, you cannot talk about the Palestinian/Israeli problem without bringing in Syria, Iran, and their funding of Hezbollah. Hamas and Hezbollah may be fundamentally different organizations but they have the same basic goals.... to annihilate Israel (or technically all Jews).
I know that you know more about this from a first hand perspective than I do, and I do not throw these statements at you lightly. I know you surely must be aware of this and still have reasons to believe the way that you do, but I need to hear them specifically from you.
Finally, uh oh, here comes Dennis fatigue again. :)
I know of a man named Brother Andrew who smuggled Bibles into China and is now at work in Israel/Palestine in an attempt to preach the gospel. He spoke on the Bible Answerman show last year about his book Lightforce which deals with his wacky misadventures in Israel and Palestine. He spoke of a time when he voluntarily traded himself for a hostage that a palestinian was holding in order to introduce himself into the situation and more specifically Jesus into the people's lives involved in this situation. I am not sure I have the guts to even aspire to be like him, but my point about mentioning him is that he is an example of someone who is taking Christ as an individual to others, but he wouldn't have volunteered himself and three strangers to be traded because this involves others into the equation. The equation fundamentally changes when you do that. (aka government)
"Apartheid may be a technically accurate definition, but it paints a mental picture of a white racist minority oppressing the peaceful black majority in South Africa. This is hardly the social situation in Israel."
"Peaceful" may not be an apt description of all Palestinians currently (perhaps no longer even the majority), but the comparison to S. Africa is most certainly apt, in my opinion. The social situation has at many times in the last 50 years been almost identical. I'm also not sure "peaceful" accurately describes all of the blacks of S. Africa's history under white rulership.
Dennis, I think our disagreement once again comes down to your belief that Jesus teachings are suppose to be applied only on a personal level. I too believe they are suppose to be applied on a personal level, but I also think that if you can find a way to apply them on a social level they can be just as transformative there. I think this is the secret of Martin Luther King Jr.'s message. His approach to social change was firmly grounded upon Jesus' teachings, just pick up any book of his sermons. The connection between his social vision and his theology is seamless.
Now - it is true, I think, that if our primary concern is self-preservation (which is the primary logic of our evolution-influenced, capitalistically individualistic society) then we will never be able to apply Jesus' teachings on a social level. They simply won't work. Jesus' teaching necessitates risk; it necessitates laying our lives down for those we love. We have some understanding of this in our culture, as long as it is protecting our own. But Jesus says that to love your neighbor as yourself. Who is our neighbor, we ask? The hated Samaritan, Jesus answers. Jesus says no one has greater love than the one willing to lay down his live for those whom he loves. And Jesus says to love your enemies, to love the Samaritan.
So - as long as we are all-consumingly concerned with the protection of our selves, we will not be able to transform society or create peace. Jesus' way involves great risk. In fact, it involves complete risk. We cannot, of course, force that upon our society. Which is what I think your argument is. I think, however, that we should push society in that direction as far as possible. We tend, instead, to make the personal / societal split that you make. We relegate such truths to only a personal realm. When we do this, however, we first of all deny Christ's lordship over all creation. Second, we implicitly support a secular, evolution-influenced concept of ethics that begins and ends with self-preservation.
If we imagine a continuum from self-preservation to self-sacrifice, we place our own selves on the side of sacrifice, and we encourage society to remain on the side of self-preservation. I think the Bible is clear that the power of the gospel comes through the slaying of the lamb, and the power of the kingdom comes as we participate in similar self-sacrifice. I see no reason why we cannot, should not, attempt to move society along the continuum away from self-preservation and toward self-sacrifice. I think MLK showed us that there need not be such a split. And I see nowhere in the Bible that such a split is even acknowledged, much less encouraged. I find such a split to be a fully modern phenomenon.
Do you have concern for stopping abortion in America? Or any other social concern? What is the difference? If the Gospel only works on interpersonal levels, why attempt any social change? I don't know what your stance is on gay marriage, but if you are against it - how is your logic concerning that social change consistent with your being against encouraging social change in our understandings of going to war? If your social decisions can't "involves others into the equation" then how can you be against abortions and want to force your religious belief on others (again, I'm not certain what your exact stance is on the matter, but I'm using that as an example)?
OK, let me try to clear this up for you. It is exactly the self-sacrificing choices made by Brother Andrew, my friends that I mentioned who are missionaries in Ghana, and countless others who devote their lives to service to Christ that "pushes society in that direction as much as possible." This is because I am interested in doing this through spiritual conversion of unbelievers.
I do seek to implement Christian based legislation through, but this is on a fundamentally different level of importance for me than the previous issue I just mentioned. I do not equate this with asking others to put themselves into a position of self-sacrifice with me. Jesus died on the cross alone. It was not until the disciples chose to die for Him that they became martyrs. Besides isn't your statements about MLK more appropriately aimed toward the palestinians?
I am not sure what you mean by self-preservation, but I beieve the Bible allows for self-defense. Because I believe you don't have a problem with self-defense either, could you explain further what you have in mind with that term?
Secondly, Mandela never even espoused the idea of annihilating the evil white minority when he was in prison even though I do believe their actions were fundamentally immoral, and he certainly never called for that since gaining freedom, yet Hamas has called for exactly that and they have as much power in their government now as the democrats do in ours.
Post a Comment