I’m on holiday at the moment, but I could not sit comfortably without saying anything about the latest violence that has erupted against Gaza.
Israel is now in it’s third day of air-strikes in the densely populated Gaza strip. The first nine hours of the strike saw 100 tons of bombs dropped and the death toll at the time of typing stands in excess of probably 250 Palestinians and the number of wounded is somewhere upward of 400. There are Israeli ground forces amassing on the border of Gaza with artillery strengthening as well. The government has passed an order for a call up of reserves, bolstering the number of troops significantly and Israel’s defence minister, Ehud Barak, has called this an “all-out war” on Hamas, stating that this is just the beginning.
The stated aim of the attack is to bring Hamas to the point of never being able to fire rockets at Israeli border towns again.
I agree with an Egyptian newspaper editorial that looks at the leaders of Hamas as being partly responsible for the latest Israeli assault on Gaza as they remained silent while militants continued to fire rockets towards Israeli towns from within Gaza. Hamas’ provocation is entirely irresponsible. Hamas could not expect to fire rockets into Israel, a state known for strong military reactions to such provocation and not expect a backlash. By not stopping the militants, Hamas has placed it’s own people, the Palestinians, in danger and thus, their irresponsible actions need to be condemned.
That said, Israel’s reaction is unprecedented and unwarranted. There is no way the latest strike could rightly be justified. The force being used is phenomenally out of proportion to the provocation and demonstrates the continuation of a failing policy of violence. It amounts to nothing more than a disgusting massacre that is simply responding to something that, in comparison, was just a slap in the face.
The latest violence was sparked when Palestinian militants fired 60 rockets towards Israeli border towns, ending a 6 month cease-fire and interrupting mediation efforts that Egypt was involved in. That barrage of rockets killed 1 Israeli.
In response, Israel has engaged in an assault that has the dead and wounded on the Palestinian side well over 600 – including women and children. That number is climbing. In an area as densely populated as Gaza, even when targeting suspected military structures, it is inevitable that such strikes will also kill civilians. A ground invasion will only increase this as fighting would be in the streets and civilians would get caught in the cross-fire.
During the air-strikes, Palestinian militants have launched more rockets, killing 2 more Israeli civilians.
It’s not hard to see that this is not a fight between well armed militants and a well armed state – it is a fight between poorly equipped and desperate militants and a well funded, highly equipped state military.
Proportions aside, Israel’s stated aim is bound to fail and I find it hard to believe that they actually believe their own rhetoric. Much of me wonders if the stated aim of stopping militants from firing any more rockets is simply a marketing ploy to cover other motives.
The idea seems to be that crushing violence will destroy the capacity of the militants. This comes after a very long siege that Israel has subjected Gaza to, greatly reducing their capacity to survive. The logic is highly flawed and history demonstrates that such violent retaliation only curbs the threats for a time and in the long run only fuels the anger and hatred that compels people towards violence as an answer.
This retaliation may slow Hamas for a time, but it will only foster more desperation on the part of a people that feel like they have their backs against the wall. More people will sign up to the cause of the militants and I would expect to see more suicide bombers as the measures to fight back get more desperate. Hamas has been irresponsible in its provocation of Israel, but Israel, the bigger player in this act, has unleashed a fury that can only lead to disaster. All other nations need to play their part as well. The Arab nations that have influence in their dealings with Hamas and the various militant Palestinian groups need to pressure them to stop their provocative acts while the U.S needs to show an even handed approach. Rather than simply cautioning and warning Hamas, they need to enact justice by calling Israel to account for its inhumane and violent retaliation.
Most of all, the only understanding that can be gained here is that violence begets violence. The Christian message would have us seeking a higher ideal in how we treat our enemies, not just at an individual level, but also at a state level. Turning the other cheek, turning our swords into ploughshares and loving our enemies – these are not pie in the sky ideas, but practical realities that can be pursued.
We must do our utmost to encourage, support and strengthen all groups in the area who promote, engage and actively work towards peace and understanding between the two sides. Violence is the act of both the oppressor and those who are caught in desperation with no more answers.
Related posts:
If a country is under continued attack from an organization which has that country’s destruction as one of it’s founding principles, how else would you suggest they respond? Note that this is not just a “phenomenally out of proportion” reaction to the recent 60 rockets in one day – more than 3000 Hamas rockets and mortars have hit Israel this year alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks_in_Israel_in_2008).
This is not a slap in the face – this is an ongoing campaign of violence which any government in the world would have to respond to.
Israel has attempted to minimize civilian casualties (out of 320 killed and 1400 injured, only 62 were civilians). This included broadcasting radio warnings, dropping leaflets, and phoning locations which were to be bombed.
While any civilian casualties are tragic, given the circumstances I’m struggling to see what else Israel could do. Even some other Arab nations, such as Egypt, have blamed Hamas rather than Israel for the conflict.
Do you have some practical suggestions of something else they could have tried instead?
Thanks for stopping by, Jay and thanks for commenting.
I’m not going to make any excuses for Hamas. I think they are an irresponsible, extremist organisation who are putting the well being of their people at risk to pursue a ridiculous goal. As I have stated in the post, I think they need to look at their own actions and understand the part they have played in this latest onslaught.
In saying that, I can understand why the population elected them.
In terms of the discussion around the 3000 rockets when trying to compare the aggression of the two sides and use that as a justification for the latest Israeli attack, it gets very interesting when looking at actual casualties.
I think the rocket attacks are senseless, but desperate people do desperate things.
Whilst some of those rockets have caused fatalities and injuries, the majority have not. The fact of the matter is that Palestinian militants are not well equipped enough to do any sizeable damage. What they can do is inflict fear and that’s exactly what they engage in with the rocket attacks from Gaza on southern Israel.
If we look at actual damage inflicted over the past year, Israel comes out on top as inflicting more damage on Gaza than what is done against them, both in terms of actual casualties, injuries and overall subjugation of a people group.
The siege of Gaza that was engaged in 2008 as a way to bring the area to its knees and combat militants is immeasurable, but condemned by most human rights groups around the world as it directly violates such international codes as the Geneva Convention.
So far, all Israel’s militant approach has led to is more desperate people willing to use desperate measures to try and better their people’s circumstances.
For what it’s worth, here’s my thoughts on a change of approach from Israel that could actually lead to peace and cut groups like Hamas off at the knees.
Hamas was voted in because the Palestinian people thought Fatah was making too many concessions in peace negotiations. Despite that, research shows that the majority of Palestinians still want to live peacefully alongside the Israelis in a two state solution. The majority of Palestinians do not support the violent activities of the militants or the stated aims of Hamas.
How to achieve peace, give the majority of Palestinians what they want – their own independent state. Withdraw all Israeli settlements from the West Bank, divide Jerusalem and create a unique city that operates as the capital of two states. Destroy the wall, allow Palestinians to operate their own territory and allow refugees from the 1948 war to repatriate to the Palestinian state. Allow them to govern their own resources and remove the Israeli military presence from the West Bank.
Undertake these negotiations and withdrawals with Fatah and thus strengthen their standing amongst the majority of Palestinians – then allow for Palestinian elections. I have a sneaking suspicion that if such agreements could occur between Israel and Fatah, Hamas wouldn’t get a look in at another election and the anger and desperation that feeds recruitment to militant organisations would be abated.
It’s a big but possible dream. At some stage these two groups will live alongside each other peacefully, the question is, how much blood must be shed before they can achieve that.
In essence, I think looking to the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 is the way to go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative
It was an initiative that all parties (including all Arab states and Hamas) agreed upon at the time, but it is yet to gain any real momentum. All it needs is full acceptance by Israel.
As we move from 2008 to 2009 it is worthwhile pondering why do countries like Iran, and groups like Hamas want to wipe Israel of the face of the earth?
What is the problem for them?
Being hunted and destroyed regularly throughout their history seems to be normal for the Hebrew people including right through until the 21st century. Why is this?
For Israel and the Hebrew people to reflect on their history, I am not suprised at their reluctance to trust anyone, and I amazed that they would even consider and seek peace with those they know will destroy them given half a chance. Unfortunately their worst fears are proved founded over and over again. No wonder they react.
Hi Peter, Thank you for your thoughts.
“Most people agree that the German people are responsible for the rise of Hitler, because they voted for a political movement that called for war, Aryan supremacy and anti-Semitism. But people forget that the Palestinian people are choosing a very similar movement to the Nazi party.”
While not condoning violence, there are obviously consequences for electing a terrorist organisation into government.
If civilians are killed despite Israel’s attempt to avoid that happening it is not Israel’s responsibility.
As political philosopher Michael Walzer noted in 2006: “When Palestinian militants launch rocket attacks from civilian areas, they are themselves responsible – and no one else is – for the civilian deaths caused by Israeli counterfire.”
Hamas and the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation is not wanting to partition only part of Israel, they want all of it, look at its map) is clearly out to destroy all of Israel; and if the numbers of those killed are not on a one to one ratio or if I fire a rocket at you that allows you to fire a rocket at me, has little to do with “disproportionate” force being used. The object of firing a missile is to cause harm and as much as possible. I’m sure that it was not the intention of the 9/11 planners to bring down the World Trade Centre, it just happened but what a coup for them. War does not work on a tit for tat basis.
Hi Peter, Could it be that the Jews are the apple of Gods eye?
“If civilians are killed despite Israel’s attempt to avoid that happening it is not Israel’s responsibility.”
Not an argument I’d want to rely on when standing before my God for judgment.
“Could it be that the Jews are the apple of Gods eye?”
Could it be that God loves the Palestinians, the Jews, the Nazis, you, me? The Jewish people have clearly throughout the OT been given strict warnings on what would happen if they did not love those around them the way they were called to. Remember they were blessed to be a blessing.
I don’t condone the violence on either side, and think everyone involved is in the wrong. But there is no two ways about it, if you’re claiming to be God’s people (which I personally believe ALL people are, not one group), then your job is to stop the violence, not retaliate, open dialogue, and if it leads to peace – give away rather than clawing back land. I imagine if the Israeli nation did that, they truly would be the apple of God’s eye (as would anyone else who was prepared to act in love).
Before you say that it’s not possible to hold back when you know some attacks will continue – just think what was achieved in ending segregation in the states. People took the violence, did not retaliate, relied prayerfully on God and non-violent means of seeking justice. And they were honoured for that.
You are right when you say God loves us all equally, The Jews were not called to be Gods people through their own “goodness” they weren’t given their land because they were loved by God more than anyone else. They have not been allowed to go back into their land because of their righteousness.
God doesn’t love us because of the things we do. It’s called unconditional love.
They are unconditionally the apple of God’s eye.
When the Jews sinned and as a result were thrown out of the land, God didn’t play favourites either. In Deuteronomy it talks about blessing and curses, the choice is always there. If we turn our back on God we will suffer the consequences, yes God loves us but He is also a God of Justice. That being the case according to scripture, God doesn’t break his word, “God is not a man that He should lie”
He made an everlasting covenant with the Jewish people, which others explain away by saying it’s symbolic for something else or refers to a different group of people etc anything but read it clearly for what He is saying. Remember Abraham had a sleep when God made the covenant.
God has made promises to them which are being fulfilled today. While God loves the Arab peoples and has also blessed them His intention is not that they take over Israel. The line was to go through Isaac not Ishmael.
Any Christian or country that supports the Palestinians or anyone else for that matter dividing and ruling Israel is themselves responsible for encouraging them to stand in the way of God’s plans for the land. They could well be at war with God Himself.
For the record Israel has constantly given back land for the purpose of peace.
Total pacifism is probably a personal choice but it is definitely not biblical.
Psalm 105: 6-11: “Oh ye Seed of Abraham His servant, Ye Children of Jacob His chosen ones. He is the Lord our God: His Judgements are in all the earth. He hath remembered His Covenant forever: The Word which He commanded to a thousand generations: The Covenant which He made with Abraham, and His Oath unto Isaac; and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a statute: To Israel for an everlasting Covenant, Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan: The lot of your inheritance;”
I support the Arab peace plan which includes the division of Israel according to the borders prior to 1967. I support the division of Jerusalem so it effectively becomes the capital of two states.
I do not believe the modern, secular, military state of Israel has given any land “away”, I believe they have simply given back what was wrongfully taken in the war of 1967.
I also believe the promises of the Old Testament were shadows of things reinterpreted in the New Testament. I believe the writers of the New Testament clearly show their belief that the promises were actually much larger than how they had been interpreted. Israel itself became a bigger reality. The temple became a bigger reality. The sacrifices became a bigger reality. The priesthood became a bigger reality, including the high priest, and the land became a bigger reality. I don’t believe what appears in the Old Testament was merely symbolic, but rather a small shadow of the greater reality as evidenced in the thought of the writers in the New Testament.
I don’t believe inherited bloodlines or any block of land is of any significance to God any more… especially not when held by any secular, human state forged by the warring methods of man and maintained through human military might and oppression that also engages in the oppression of Christ followers who non-violently protest against it (yes, the modern, military secular state of Israel is guilty of arresting and beating our own Christian brothers and sisters who have spoken out against it). The historical suffering of the Jews in no way grants them the right to become the military oppressor.
There is no redemption to be found in violence. Violence begets violence and both sides are simply continuing a cruel and destructive cycle with one causing deaths and injuries far beyond the capabilities and destruction than the other can cause.
It will not change until one side determines to absorb the violence of the other and seek peace through love of the enemy, seeking the best for the enemy and the sacrifice of ones own well-being for the good of all. I believe the actions of Christ that have lead to the path of redemption for all things also offers the way of peace at a political/state level. Sacrifice is the reflection of Christ and as a Christian, it is the path towards peace that I most support. One side must do it and I personally believe the bigger player in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is the most well equipped to do so.
I have to admit I don’t know the definition of ‘
total pacifism’, but I don’t believe that was what I was advocating. I also firmly believe that what is Biblical is turning the other cheek, handing over your cloak if someone steals your shirt & loving your enemy. No matter how hard or impossible it seems, that’s the standard. There’s nothing I can find in scripture to support retaliation / murder / warfare of any kind (from any people group). Wouldn’t it be amazing if one group stood up as people of God and literally laid down their weapons. Put aside the generations of hate & bitterness and simply refused to fight. Stood firm in their convictions when those around them threw just one more barbed comment, punch, bullet, rocket. Left it to God to judge & took it as their mission to truly love their enemies. To clothe them, feed them, provide room for them in the land. Biblically I can’t see that there is any other choice. I felt so sad last night watching the news when they said that Israel would be prepared to halt their attacks if Hamas did nothing for 48hrs – essentially Israel asked for 2 days to do what they wished to the area, while people died, and if the people allowed such attacks, they’d relent – for a while. I imagine that God wept at that. ‘God’s people’ showing zero mercy, zero love, zero forgiveness. I wonder how Palestinian people are supposed to see Jesus in that? I wonder how anyone is supposed to see Jesus in that.
I don’t know enough about OT scripture to comment on what you said about an ‘everlasting’ covenant – but it has raised red flags for me that hopefully someone else can comment on.
Great comment Flendolyn. Your thoughts are a sentiment I support 100%
Romans 11:23 – 25
23 And if they (the Jewish people) do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
24 After all, if you (the Gentiles) were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
Romans 11:29 – 32
29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.
30 Just as you (the Gentiles) who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience,
31 so they (the Jewish people) too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you.
32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
As clearly stated, God has allowed a partial, temporary hardening of Israel until God’s non-Jewish people have been brought to Him. Paul does not say that the tree was replaced, nor even that the branches that were broken off were replaced by wild ones. And even if one might consider it that way, Paul says: “All right, but do not be arrogant!” For just as God has brought you to himself by grace, God can and will bring the Jewish people back to himself by grace at the appointed time. For all who believe in Him, Jews or non-Jews, Jesus stated: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit– fruit that will last” (John 15:16) Let us not forget that God clearly chose the Jewish people first. For Jews above all, “God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable.” (Romans 11:29)
Frank, all of your approaches at best indicate a lack of awareness of the full counsel of God, and question His character. At worst, you declare God to be a liar. There is no indication in Scripture that the original calling and role of the Jews has been revoked. Non-Jewish Christians have been enjoined to the roles that the Jews fulfill, but it is a misconception to believe that the Christians have replaced the Jews in these roles.
The Jews will return from the four corners (north, south, east west) of the earth in two phases: the first phase is the return in unbelief. The second phase is the return as believers. The first return has only taken place since the twentieth century. The full restoration of Israel to its land with full peace and security will require the return of the Messiah.
The Muslims can not offer peace, because their faith dictates that all the land of Israel must be regained for Allah, no compromise is permissible (except for a temporary (Hudna) cessation of hostilities) – The Islamic Movement (Hamas) Charter states that “the Land of Palestine is Islamic Waqf (property).” By saying this they have changed a potentially solvable territorial conflict into an insolvable conflict for Israel. Hamas are packaging Islam to be at war with the Jews and are looking forward to implementing Allah’s promise whatever time it may take.
Jerusalem and the Temple Mount lie at the heart of this conflict. It is Satan who contends for these places, knowing their centrality in God’s end time purposes. It’s Mount Moriah in Jerusalem , that Jesus, will return to reign for a thousand years. Today, the contention surrounding Jerusalem and its pivotal role in the Middle East conflict is the clearest sign that we are living at the end of the age. The issue of Israel’s restoration goes much deeper than theology or intellectual understanding, ultimately it is ‘spiritual’. The spirit that opposes the re-establishment of Israel is the spirit that opposes the return of Jesus. It is the spirit of Satan himself.
The challenge for the Christian is to love the Jews without hating the Arabs and to love the Arabs without hating the Jews.
Hi Flendolyn
“There’s nothing I can find in scripture to support retaliation / murder / warfare of any kind (from any people group).”
Let me help you, these are all instances where your God commands war against or destruction of a group of people. (Murder is different, it has nothing to do with war.)
(I’m not saying any of these instances have anything to do with the current situation with the Palestinians in the Middle East.)
‘This is what the LORD Almighty says: “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkey”’
(I Sam 15.2-3)
‘Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Take full vengeance for the sons of Israel on the Midianites; afterward you will be gathered to your people.” And Moses spoke to the people, saying, “Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian, to execute the Lord’s vengeance on Midian. A thousand from each tribe of all the tribes of Israel you shall send to the war.” So there were furnished from the thousands of Israel, a thousand from each tribe, twelve thousand armed for war. And Moses sent them, a thousand from each tribe, to the war, and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war with them, and the holy vessels and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand. So they made war against Midian, just as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed every male.’
(Numbers 31:1-7)
‘When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations — the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire.’ (Deut 7.1-5)
‘However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them — the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites — as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.’
(Deut 20.16-18)
‘For I the LORD do not change.’
(Malachi 3:6)
“I also believe the promises of the Old Testament were shadows of things reinterpreted in the New Testament. I believe the writers of the New Testament clearly show their belief that the promises were actually much larger than how they had been interpreted. Israel itself became a bigger reality. The temple became a bigger reality. The sacrifices became a bigger reality. The priesthood became a bigger reality, including the high priest, and the land became a bigger reality. I don’t believe what appears in the Old Testament was merely symbolic, but rather a small shadow of the greater reality as evidenced in the thought of the writers in the New Testament.”
Also Frank, could you please explain these concepts more clearly perhaps using scripture to support them.
“Holy writ, of any origin can be a complicated topic.”
Hi Frank, I just had to quote you from a previous post, if this how you read the bible I would have to agree.
Isn’t it dangerous to take the words of God, place a particular theology over them and then come out with something completely contrary to the plain meaning of what God is saying?
Psalm 105: 6-11: “Oh ye Seed of Abraham His servant, Ye Children of Jacob His chosen ones. He is the Lord our God: His Judgements are in all the earth. He hath remembered His Covenant forever: The Word which He commanded to a thousand generations: The Covenant which He made with Abraham, and His Oath unto Isaac; and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a statute: To Israel for an everlasting Covenant, Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan: The lot of your inheritance;”
Flendolyn, there are a number of covenants between God and Mankind.
The one that Esther is referring to is the covenant that God has with Abraham and his descendants. It is an unconditional and everlasting covenant.
Gods sworn oath to give the land to Israel as an ‘everlasting possession’ is referenced 46 times in Scripture.
The actual covenant is described in Genesis 17.
Hi all, thank you for the continued discussion and taking the time to express your thoughts and ideas.
David, thanks for noting the wonderful passage Paul wrote in his letter to the church in Rome. I find Paul to be a wonderful thinker, adept at linking and weaving his thoughts together. Romans 11 is a fine example of this, especially when placed together with his whole section of thought from Romans 9-11 and then within the entire letter itself.
Needless to say we see different conclusions in the passage you have quoted. It would take too long for me to go into detail about my thoughts around the quoted passage, except to say that I am in complete agreement with the commentary of it offered by Bishop N.T Wright in The New Interpreter’s Bible commentary series. He unpacks the passage extremely well and relates it to Paul’s wider thoughts. His exegesis and commentary on Romans is fabulous.
I also agree with one of his concluding reflections on Romans 11:
To further express my thoughts without having to write an essay myself (something I don’t have time for right now, as your latter request would demand, David allow me to also recommend Bishop Wright’s article – Jerusalem in the New Testament:
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jerusalem_New_Testament.pdf
Esther,
I totally agree with you on this:
Except I find the idea of a “plain meaning” to be a little naive. The natural question is, a plain meaning according to whom? If you isolate the passage, it would seem very simple – but when placed in light of many other passages, the depths of possible interpretation suddenly become a lot more colourful and then the idea of a “plain meaning” is betrayed by our preconceptions, cultural understandings and various other things.
I see my own thoughts around this in the past to have been somewhat arrogant – where I believed I could just come to the text as a 20th/21st century western male and assume that the way I understood everything in the Bible was the same way a 1st century Christian would have. People like Bishop N.T Wright have taught me that there are many more nuances to everything than I had even begun to understand and that the reality was way bigger and more significant than I had understood. Needless to say, many of my thoughts around such matters have changed over the years. I used to think that the establishment of the modern state of Israel was by divine appointment, that we were in the “end times”, that the temple was to be rebuilt in Jerusalem and manned by a Levitical priesthood whose bloodline had remained pure and that Christ would return and reign from there etc etc. I would have been described as a dispensationalist. This is no longer true of me, but nor could I be described accurately as holding to replacement theology. I think both overarching ideas, Dispensationalism and Replacement Theology, miss the mark
This is a topic that 3 of you (Peter, Esther and David) and I will have to respectfully disagree on. A comments section on a blog does not provide the space or time needed to enter a lengthy discussion about the theology of the matter and all the nuances in the Bible relating to it, though I am sure such a discussion would be wonderful as you seem like well informed people, plus disconnected commenting on a blog does not allow for all the colour of human discussion and does not allow us to be understood properly – things can be misread.
So from here, I will ask for your prayers – that I would remain humble and open to the leading and prompting of God – that where I need correction, that such correction would be clearly illuminated in a way that would enable me to be transformed where necessary – that I would always approach discussion with an open mind and be willing to listen – that love for all, including my enemies would drive all my actions – and ultimately that I would continue to be shaped into the image of the King, Jesus Christ even where that means pain and sacrifice.
May the lord bless and keep you.
and just when it was getting really interesting….
Frank could you quickly answer one question before you go back to being on holiday .. Who or what do you think is the greater reality that was Israel?
Thanks Esther
There’s a brilliant series of talks out by Mark Strom of Laidlaw College (formerly BCNZ). The first in the series – ‘The symphony of scripture’ are a fantastic place to begin to look at how the OT & NT work together, and the way in which things like the temple became Jesus himself etc etc. I’d highly recommend them as a starting point if you’re wanting to look into the reasons behind my opinions a little more. It wouldn’t surprise me if the everlasting covenants about the land were not about the strip of land currently being fought over, but about a much larger reality regarding the whole earth – and that God has promised it to his people (be they Christian, Jew, Palestinian Christians – all that follow Him). I imagine the everlasting covenant is more about the new earth spoken of in Rev 21. But whenever I get too sure about what the Bible is telling me about what is to come, I like to remember just how shocked and surprised people were with Jesus – the perfect fulfilment of what was promised, yet nothing like what anyone was expecting!
Frank,
Bishop Not Totally Wright is wrong.
I’ll save my fabulously serious comments for your new article – Israel & Israel in the Bible.
I didn’t realize there are, I mean were, um I mean ‘was’ maybe two, Israels.
Cheers.
Flendolyn,
I don’t like to think just how shocked and surprised people we be with Jesus – the perfect fulfillment of what is promised, yet nothing like what many will be expecting when he returns to bring judgment on the nations attacking Jerusalem and to show mercy upon Israel!
Did someone just open a window in here…?
David, there were more than 2 – There was the person called Israel (more commonly known as Jacob), there was the ethnic people group corporately known as Israel (descendants of Jacob), there was the land (that came to be known as Palestine), there was the northern Kingdom after the nation divided into two (Judah and Israel) and of course there is the Israel of God
I look forward to your response to the latest post. Hopefully you can offer me something new. I’ve read a few commentaries that would disagree with my position and read plenty of stuff on the net that offers rebuttals to it, breaking down the verses I have pointed to. I haven’t found any of it convincing or very thorough. I’m guessing you’ll be able to go a bit further than their scholarly efforts
As stated in the post though, I won’t be entering a lengthy discussion on the matter. The post was written to convey some of my thoughts and reasoning, not to enter a long drawn out debate.
Esther, I don’t get it… sorry for being a bit slow… you’ll need to explain that last comment to me.
David – I’m not sure you understood the intent of my last sentence. It was a reminder to myself of the humility needed when speaking of what God will or will not do in the future. The Bible is full of people who spoke with ignorant authority on what they believed He would or would not do in future – and low and behold they were the very people who did not recognise Him when He arrived. They were expecting a warrior and instead received a servant. Do you think there’s any danger that you may be thinking along the same lines? I don’t write that to be antagonistic, and it doesn’t require a response, just something for you to think through yourself.
The single most influential thing I learned at uni was that you don’t know what you don’t know. Always important to hold that one alongside any opinion.
Meant to say also – I’d be interested in knowing peoples sources / references. We have those Frank has provided, but none from anyone else. I’d be keen to read what it is that is influencing your opinions. Always good to study up on both sides of an argument
Flendolyn,
my comment was to draw a comparison to the first and second comings of Jesus. (Suffering Servant, Conquering King).
“ The Bible is full of people who spoke with ignorant authority on what they believed He would or would not do in future – and low and behold they were the very people who did not recognise Him when He arrived. They were expecting a warrior and instead received a servant. Do you think there’s any danger that you may be thinking along the same lines?”
I understand that many people were incorrect and didn’t recognise the Messiah for who He is. There were also many people (for example the prophets) who did recognise the Messiah for who He is. In order for us to walk on the narrow road and enter through the narrow gate, an understanding of Gods Word is certainly helpful. Ignorance will not be an excuse that the Lord will accept.
If you look at Franks article Palestinians and Christian Reductionism, Peter recommends some good literature, including the Bible.
Also you will clearly have to find a university that gives you some better tuition for your money.
Daniel 2:21 – 22
21 He changes times and seasons;
he sets up kings and deposes them.
He gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to the discerning.
22 He reveals deep and hidden things;
he knows what lies in darkness,
and light dwells with him.
Priceless.