I never cease to be amazed at the circular reasoning people will indulge in to defend their theology. Blogger Doug Cox took issue with Dr Paul Henebury’s review “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith” by Robert Reymond. Aside from a little reading miscomprehension of Dr Henebury's clear statement, he makes the following argument that he feels supports his view:
Judah and Israel are names that apply to the church. But because dispensationalists deny this, they are blinded to the fact that Christ has been reigning in the lives of the saints for the whole age of the church.
Amos 9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
By quoting this prophecy in Acts 15, James identified the church with the tabernacle of David, which throttles dispensationalism! (Emphasis mine)
The cross referencing of Acts 15 with Amos 9 and Joel 2 with Acts 2 is a common strategy used by critics of dispensationalism to attempt to show that 1) Dispies aren’t always literal, 2) the NT re-interprets the OT and 3) The church is now true Israel.
Dispensationalism denies that Judah and Israel are names for the church because...well...it just isn’t biblically supported. In fact, apart from making assertions and a “near enough is good enough” approach to Scripture, Cox cannot produce a single text to support that contention.
Alistair Donaldson joins the foray in his thinly-disguised anti-Israel polemic “the last days of dispensationalism”. Of the Amos 9-Acts 15 connection he states:
“The connectedness between the events taking place in James’s time and the words of Amos is clear – people from the nations are being incorporated into the people of the true Davidic King. There is a direct correspondence of the two; there James equates the present events as being fulfillment of Amos’s words. In doing so he has interpreted Amos in a nonliteral (sic) manner and therefore establishes within the text of Scripture itself an interpretive principle that is in direct contradiction to Ryrie’s literalism...It should be noted from this example that James is willing to attribute the fulfillment of the prophet’s words within the church age despite the dispensational insistence that what is spoken to national Israel must be fulfilled in national Israel.” (pp 24-25)
James does nothing of the kind. Donaldson is making him say more than the text intends. Here are the biblical references, just to put things into perspective:
“In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David, And wall up its breaches; I will also raise up its ruins And rebuild it as in the days of old; That they may possess the remnant of Edom And all the nations who are called by My name," Declares the LORD who does this. “Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "When the plowman will overtake the reaper And the treader of grapes him who sows seed; When the mountains will drip sweet wine And all the hills will be dissolved. Also I will restore the captivity of My people Israel, And they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them; They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, And make gardens and eat their fruit. I will also plant them on their land, And they will not again be rooted out from their land Which I have given them," Says the LORD your God. Amos 9:9-15
"Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written: `After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up; So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, Says the LORD who does all these things.' Act 15:14-17
While digressing somewhat, I should point out that Donaldson is an amillennialist (p 146). He believes that Revelation’s apocalyptic genre allows him to “symbolize” the resurrection of the martyrs in Rev 20:4 (p 141). If you “symbolize” that resurrection then you don’t have to deal with the problem that the saints are “regenerated” post-martyrdom. Donaldson can’t fathom how one thousand years could possibly contain all those myriad OT prophecies if they were literal (pp 129-130) though he doesn’t substantiate this assertion. In fact most OT prophecies (and Revelation events) occur pre-millennium (Zec 14 etc). Comparatively less detail is given about the millennium itself. Amils like Donaldson will consistently redefine or dispute plain statements such as the nature of the 144,000, the incarceration of Satan, the resurrection of the martyrs and the length of the millennium on pretext of apocalyptic genre. Given that dispies take these statements at face-value (while considering symbolism) and amils seek another understanding – one wonders what category each falls under when considering Rev 22:18-19.
Typically, neither Donaldson nor Cox comment on Amos 9:14-15. In “Evidence from Jeremiah” (p116) in “A Case for Premillennialism: A new Consensus” Walter Kaiser notes:
“Nowhere can it be shown that most, all, or even some of the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or David, have been nullified, modified, exchanged, or transformed in value.”
Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for a light by day, The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, Who disturbs the sea, And its waves roar (The LORD of hosts is His name): "If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the LORD, Then the seed of Israel shall also cease From being a nation before Me forever." Thus says the LORD: "If heaven above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel For all that they have done, says the LORD. Jer 31:35-37
In “ISRAEL – The Land and the People” (chapter 9) John Jelinek notes:
“What is revealed at first in Scripture (or precedes in God’s revelation) is not contradicted by what follows in Scripture. What OT authors wrote had a comprehensible meaning for their contemporary audiences and has a revelatory significance in its own right. What these audiences understood depended on both the prophetic message itself and the previously revealed prophetic messages from God. It is a problematic hermeneutic that must either resignify the OT message or see some aspect of an OT theme reiterated in the NT before it can lend legitimacy or permanency to its relevance. Language that says one thing concerning authorial intention but actually means something else is some form of allegory....A historically sensitive study reveals that the NT develops OT teaching as divine history progresses, but the teaching of the OT is not lost in the process. Promises that are made to Israel, therefore, must be fulfilled by God. God can do more than He promised, but He cannot do less. The primary question of the exegete of texts on the land of Israel must ask is, Do I have sufficient biblical data to indicate that God is doing more or less than He promised with respect to the land promises to Israel? At least the original promises concerning the land must be fulfilled, lest God be found unfaithful.”
In “Systems of Discontinuity” Feinberg writes:
“No NT writer claims his new understanding of the OT passage cancels the meaning of the OT passage in its own context or that the new application is the only meaning of the OT passage. The NT writer merely offers a different application of an OT passage than the OT might have foreseen; he is not claiming the OT understanding is now irrelevant.” (p 77)
In “Has The Church Replaced Israel?” Mike Vlach notes:
“Claims that Acts 15 and Hebrews 8 teach that the NT has reinterpreted the OT expectation of a restoration of Israel are not persuasive. James quotes Amos 9 in Acts 15 as one example of an OT prophet who predicted that Gentiles would be saved without having to become Jews. The issue at hand here is Gentile inclusion in salvation, not whether Israel’s restoration is being fulfilled entirely with the church. The purpose of this passage is primarily soteriological and not eschatological. Hebrews 8 shows that Jesus is the mediator of the superior new covenant. But it is difficult to see how the inauguration of the new covenant means that national Israel has been separated from this covenant.” (p 204)
"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah--not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." Jer 31:31-33
And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins." Rom 11:26-27
See also Acts 1:6-7; Acts 3:25; Rom 11:28-29.
Could it be any clearer?
I strongly recommend Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s “Israelology” for those who want to explore these issues. He elaborates on Joel 2-Acts 2, Amos 9-Acts 15, David’s throne and David’s booth.
One can’t take a “near enough is close enough” attitude to Scripture by leaving out verses like Amos 9:14-15 and ignoring the plethora of OT promises to Israel (by no means an exhaustive list). To assume that it’s OK to do that because one thinks the church is now Israel is both unbiblical and an exercise in circular reasoning.
Far from “throttling dispensationalism”; these people are strangling the promises of God to Israel!
P.S. Doug Cox states:
“Dispensationalism of the classical kind denies that the government is upon Christ’s shoulder, and denies that he reigns upon the throne of David, and that he has ordered it, and established it, for whole age of the church–what blindness!”
Dispies respond:
THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST IN THE APOCALYPSE
When and Where Does Christ Sit Upon the Throne of David?
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Was Renald Showers Wrong?
It’s understandable that people get frustrated when their eschatological view is misrepresented. One leading prewrath proponent has complained that Renald Showers and Jimmy DeYoung misrepresented the prewrath position. He writes:
First, DeYoung kept confusing prewrath with midtrib, which just goes to show you that DeYoung is ignorant with “prophecy today.”...But DeYoung was not the only ignorant one, for Showers spoke of the prewrath as the position that believes that the rapture will occur about “3/4″ into the 7 year period, which is not true.
Ironically, a link was originally provided to a chart which depicted the prewrath rapture at about ¾ of the way through the 7 years. The chart was subsequently removed and the link now points to “Page Not Found!” Official laminated prewrath charts can presently be purchased HERE. Or you can just go online and check some out HERE or HERE. Scroll down to the section “The Timing of the Rapture” HERE for a clarification of the prewrath position.
Dr Showers has a reputation for being meticulous so I was keen to listen to the interview. Note that he wrote an in-depth critique of the system (The pre-Wrath Rapture View) and has interacted extensively with it. You hear him immediately responding to DeYoung’s question regarding “midtrib, prewrath”. What Dr Showers actually said was that the prewrath view is the rapture won’t occur until “maybe three fourths to two thirds through the 7 year tribulation period.” And I think that that is a fair summation of the view. He was merely distinguishing its approximate timing as distinct to the midtrib view, rather than going into detail.
A lengthier and more detailed summary can be found on page 7 of his prewrath book where he states that it occurs, “sometime between the middle and the end of the seventieth week.”
What exacerbates misunderstanding is that just about all prewrath charts (see above) have depicted the rapture point at about ¾ into the 70th week. Elbert Charpie is, perhaps, unique in that he thinks it might occur very early in the last half. However, one would think that a reasonable amount of time needs to elapse for Satan’s wrath (the Great Tribulation) to be administered. It’s also true that an article at the Pre-Trib Research Centre calls it The Three Quarters Rapture Theory which may aggravate those sensitive to that generic description. And to be fair to prewrath proponents, Dr Ice should have been a little more specific.
My limited experience has been that the system has sometimes been misrepresented but I doubt these instances have always been intentional. I remember having niggling questions after reading Marvin Rosenthal’s book. Several prewrath proponents I consulted seemed also somewhat confused over key issues such as the shortening of the Great Tribulation, the location of Christ in relationship to the church after the rapture and the resurrection of beheaded tribulation saints in Rev 20:4 etc. This may be one reason why PRI has offered special courses on the prewrath view for the benefit of its proponents.
As an aside, an exception was taken over Showers’ views of imminency and his comparison of the 4th seal of Revelation to the Ezekiel 14:21 “four severe judgments”. Dr Showers details compelling arguments in favor of imminency and God’s wrath (regardless of Hebrew or Greek expressions) at the 4th seal in “Maranatha, Our Lord Come!” and his abovementioned prewrath critique.
I can well appreciate the motivation for a non-pretribber to restrict the contents of the 4th seal to God’s disciplinary measures inaugurated to somehow “refine believers”. Yet, despite the elaborate attempt at expositing that position, one only has to read Ezekiel 5 to see that God’s anger and wrath (judgment) are associated with “plague, sword, famine and wild beasts.”
So it will be a reproach, a reviling, a warning and an object of horror to the nations who surround you, when I execute judgments against you in anger, wrath, and raging rebukes. I, the LORD, have spoken. When I send against them the deadly arrows of famine which were for the destruction of those whom I shall send to destroy you, then I shall also intensify the famine upon you, and break the staff of bread. Moreover, I will send on you famine and wild beasts, and they will bereave you of children; plague and bloodshed also will pass through you, and I will bring the sword on you. I, the LORD, have spoken. Eze 5:15-17
Why would it be any different at the 4th seal when Death and Hades are empowered to kill a fourth of the earth’s population using the same means? Renald Showers is right on the money. His two books speak for themselves.
Further reading:
Zechariah's Horses
First, DeYoung kept confusing prewrath with midtrib, which just goes to show you that DeYoung is ignorant with “prophecy today.”...But DeYoung was not the only ignorant one, for Showers spoke of the prewrath as the position that believes that the rapture will occur about “3/4″ into the 7 year period, which is not true.
Ironically, a link was originally provided to a chart which depicted the prewrath rapture at about ¾ of the way through the 7 years. The chart was subsequently removed and the link now points to “Page Not Found!” Official laminated prewrath charts can presently be purchased HERE. Or you can just go online and check some out HERE or HERE. Scroll down to the section “The Timing of the Rapture” HERE for a clarification of the prewrath position.
Dr Showers has a reputation for being meticulous so I was keen to listen to the interview. Note that he wrote an in-depth critique of the system (The pre-Wrath Rapture View) and has interacted extensively with it. You hear him immediately responding to DeYoung’s question regarding “midtrib, prewrath”. What Dr Showers actually said was that the prewrath view is the rapture won’t occur until “maybe three fourths to two thirds through the 7 year tribulation period.” And I think that that is a fair summation of the view. He was merely distinguishing its approximate timing as distinct to the midtrib view, rather than going into detail.
A lengthier and more detailed summary can be found on page 7 of his prewrath book where he states that it occurs, “sometime between the middle and the end of the seventieth week.”
What exacerbates misunderstanding is that just about all prewrath charts (see above) have depicted the rapture point at about ¾ into the 70th week. Elbert Charpie is, perhaps, unique in that he thinks it might occur very early in the last half. However, one would think that a reasonable amount of time needs to elapse for Satan’s wrath (the Great Tribulation) to be administered. It’s also true that an article at the Pre-Trib Research Centre calls it The Three Quarters Rapture Theory which may aggravate those sensitive to that generic description. And to be fair to prewrath proponents, Dr Ice should have been a little more specific.
My limited experience has been that the system has sometimes been misrepresented but I doubt these instances have always been intentional. I remember having niggling questions after reading Marvin Rosenthal’s book. Several prewrath proponents I consulted seemed also somewhat confused over key issues such as the shortening of the Great Tribulation, the location of Christ in relationship to the church after the rapture and the resurrection of beheaded tribulation saints in Rev 20:4 etc. This may be one reason why PRI has offered special courses on the prewrath view for the benefit of its proponents.
As an aside, an exception was taken over Showers’ views of imminency and his comparison of the 4th seal of Revelation to the Ezekiel 14:21 “four severe judgments”. Dr Showers details compelling arguments in favor of imminency and God’s wrath (regardless of Hebrew or Greek expressions) at the 4th seal in “Maranatha, Our Lord Come!” and his abovementioned prewrath critique.
I can well appreciate the motivation for a non-pretribber to restrict the contents of the 4th seal to God’s disciplinary measures inaugurated to somehow “refine believers”. Yet, despite the elaborate attempt at expositing that position, one only has to read Ezekiel 5 to see that God’s anger and wrath (judgment) are associated with “plague, sword, famine and wild beasts.”
So it will be a reproach, a reviling, a warning and an object of horror to the nations who surround you, when I execute judgments against you in anger, wrath, and raging rebukes. I, the LORD, have spoken. When I send against them the deadly arrows of famine which were for the destruction of those whom I shall send to destroy you, then I shall also intensify the famine upon you, and break the staff of bread. Moreover, I will send on you famine and wild beasts, and they will bereave you of children; plague and bloodshed also will pass through you, and I will bring the sword on you. I, the LORD, have spoken. Eze 5:15-17
Why would it be any different at the 4th seal when Death and Hades are empowered to kill a fourth of the earth’s population using the same means? Renald Showers is right on the money. His two books speak for themselves.
Further reading:
Zechariah's Horses
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Misrepresenting Dispensationalism
A few days ago I read where one individual lumped dispensationalists in the same bucket as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and rabbinical Pharisees who didn’t understand the prophets. He was convinced that the push for the restoration of Israel was a “diabolical” and “political Zionist agenda” which will give rise to the Antichrist and the falling away of many Christians etc.
This low view of dispensationalism isn’t isolated. In another forum I made the mistake of disagreeing with an Amillennialist’s conclusions that God was finished with Israel as a nation; that the resurrection in Rev 20:4 was spiritual and that Satan was currently bound. I was promptly informed that I was “clueless” and needed prayer for my salvation.
What drives these attitudes?
There was a discussion over at Dr Reluctant’s that touched upon how dispensationalism is sometimes misrepresented. The names Ferguson, Sproul and Gerstner came up. I’ve noticed that Gerstner’s “Wrongly Dividing” (which I haven’t read) is cited freely by a smattering of authors and assumed to be thorough scholarship. One of the contributors to Paul’s discussion noted several flaws to Gerstner’s work, and he’s right.
There have been several responses to Gerstner (and others) by dispies. In particular, I’d encourage people to read John Witmer’s review of his book HERE and HERE. Note that you need a subscription with Galaxie but it is a worthwhile investment.
In some cases I suspect that passion to defend a particular understanding of the “truth” has over-ridden objectivity. This is where an author will deliberately refer to non-representative fringe and sensationalist cases against another system. One stark example of this is where Reverend Barbara Rossing (The Rapture Exposed) thanked her friends for sending her newspaper stories that presumably helped her research against the “Left Behind” genre. The almost obligatory mine-quoting of John Hagee, as if he was the dispensational model, is another one. And, of course, there’s the indiscriminate repetition of the Darby-MacDonald myth.
Rossing’s biblical scholarship is appalling – especially her interpretation of the book of Revelation. Yet she’s considered by some to be an authority against dispensationalism. At one point she refers to Christ as “Lambkin” and claims that the fundamentalists have misrepresented Him and misinterpreted the book of Revelation. Yet she simply ignores verses that portray God as being wrathful against the earth dwellers. You can read an exposé of Rossing’s book by Dr Kevin Zuber HERE.
In her book, Rossing included Dr Robert Gundry’s input on Thessalonians and John 14 to counter pretribulationism. It lent her academic credibility and her book is still considered “authoritative” by contra-dispies. Yet many of her readers wouldn’t be aware that Gundry’s anti-pretribulational contentions have been challenged. Ironically, Gundry – a premil, posttrib “dispensationalist” - would have disagreed with Rossing’s ultra-liberal approach to Revelation. One wonders whether he was aware of the full thrust of that book when permission was granted for his contributions to be published there. The scope of Rev. Rossing’s work went far beyond disputing the pretribulational rapture.
Often polemicists will feed off each other. Someone quotes Gerstner because it confirms their position, influencing someone else to adopt that same quote of Gerstner's, who got it wrong to begin with. They’ll frequently use whatever secondary sources suit their view without fact-checking. A critic will claim to have been formerly involved in the dispensational system, yet misrepresents it. Examples of this are some of David B Currie’s comments in his “Rapture” book and some of the ex-dispie critics who formulated the 95 Theses Contra Dispensationalism. All this leads someone with an existing inclination against dispensationalism to feel justified in trusting whatever is offered up by the polemicist.
Even within the premil camp it’s common to read that “dispensationalism has too many contradictions” or “there’s too sharp a distinction between Israel and the church” although the reasons are seldom clearly articulated. Perhaps this blurring between the church and Israel is rapure-timing driven. I note that at the moment this event occurs, that distinction suddenly sharpens for all views.
Earlier, I asked what drives these attitudes. I don’t think it is always just a biblical disagreement with dispensationalism. I think there are some extra-biblical reasons that I can only guess at. But even in some cases where legitimate biblical differences are present, I think that that disagreement is driven by personal presupposition.
This low view of dispensationalism isn’t isolated. In another forum I made the mistake of disagreeing with an Amillennialist’s conclusions that God was finished with Israel as a nation; that the resurrection in Rev 20:4 was spiritual and that Satan was currently bound. I was promptly informed that I was “clueless” and needed prayer for my salvation.
What drives these attitudes?
There was a discussion over at Dr Reluctant’s that touched upon how dispensationalism is sometimes misrepresented. The names Ferguson, Sproul and Gerstner came up. I’ve noticed that Gerstner’s “Wrongly Dividing” (which I haven’t read) is cited freely by a smattering of authors and assumed to be thorough scholarship. One of the contributors to Paul’s discussion noted several flaws to Gerstner’s work, and he’s right.
There have been several responses to Gerstner (and others) by dispies. In particular, I’d encourage people to read John Witmer’s review of his book HERE and HERE. Note that you need a subscription with Galaxie but it is a worthwhile investment.
In some cases I suspect that passion to defend a particular understanding of the “truth” has over-ridden objectivity. This is where an author will deliberately refer to non-representative fringe and sensationalist cases against another system. One stark example of this is where Reverend Barbara Rossing (The Rapture Exposed) thanked her friends for sending her newspaper stories that presumably helped her research against the “Left Behind” genre. The almost obligatory mine-quoting of John Hagee, as if he was the dispensational model, is another one. And, of course, there’s the indiscriminate repetition of the Darby-MacDonald myth.
Rossing’s biblical scholarship is appalling – especially her interpretation of the book of Revelation. Yet she’s considered by some to be an authority against dispensationalism. At one point she refers to Christ as “Lambkin” and claims that the fundamentalists have misrepresented Him and misinterpreted the book of Revelation. Yet she simply ignores verses that portray God as being wrathful against the earth dwellers. You can read an exposé of Rossing’s book by Dr Kevin Zuber HERE.
In her book, Rossing included Dr Robert Gundry’s input on Thessalonians and John 14 to counter pretribulationism. It lent her academic credibility and her book is still considered “authoritative” by contra-dispies. Yet many of her readers wouldn’t be aware that Gundry’s anti-pretribulational contentions have been challenged. Ironically, Gundry – a premil, posttrib “dispensationalist” - would have disagreed with Rossing’s ultra-liberal approach to Revelation. One wonders whether he was aware of the full thrust of that book when permission was granted for his contributions to be published there. The scope of Rev. Rossing’s work went far beyond disputing the pretribulational rapture.
Often polemicists will feed off each other. Someone quotes Gerstner because it confirms their position, influencing someone else to adopt that same quote of Gerstner's, who got it wrong to begin with. They’ll frequently use whatever secondary sources suit their view without fact-checking. A critic will claim to have been formerly involved in the dispensational system, yet misrepresents it. Examples of this are some of David B Currie’s comments in his “Rapture” book and some of the ex-dispie critics who formulated the 95 Theses Contra Dispensationalism. All this leads someone with an existing inclination against dispensationalism to feel justified in trusting whatever is offered up by the polemicist.
Even within the premil camp it’s common to read that “dispensationalism has too many contradictions” or “there’s too sharp a distinction between Israel and the church” although the reasons are seldom clearly articulated. Perhaps this blurring between the church and Israel is rapure-timing driven. I note that at the moment this event occurs, that distinction suddenly sharpens for all views.
Earlier, I asked what drives these attitudes. I don’t think it is always just a biblical disagreement with dispensationalism. I think there are some extra-biblical reasons that I can only guess at. But even in some cases where legitimate biblical differences are present, I think that that disagreement is driven by personal presupposition.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Quick CATC2 Follow-Up
Following the latest Christ At The Checkpoint conference, Jan Markell of Olive Tree Ministries made some critical observations. One noted irony was that immediately after CATC2, the Palestinian Authority closed one of the Christian churches, presumably because of its support for Israel. You can read about it HERE and HERE.
Another low point was Dr. Manfred Kohl’s reaction following Pastor Wayne Hilsden’s presentation. According to israel today Magazine:
“Wayne received applause from the audience following his address, and several of the day's other speakers and presenters expressed satisfaction with what he had said. However, the very next speaker, Dr. Manfred Kohl, laid into Wayne's theology in no uncertain terms.
“While he did not address Wayne personally, Kohl labeled the literal reading of scripture Hilsden had just presented as the theology of fools who delight in their own idiocy. (Emphasis mine)
"How can [Christians] be so stupid in their interpretation of the Bible and at the same time be so excited about our interpretation?" asked Kohl. "Apparently the two expressions are not mutually exclusive." (Emphasis mine)
I don’t want to weigh in on the pros and cons of whether Pastor Wayne should or shouldn’t have involved himself. However, I applaud his humble efforts and may God bless them!
Yet after noting the tampering of Dr Feinberg’s essay from a previous conference and Dr Kohl’s vitriol, I would suggest caution in any future involvement with the CATC organizers. They have an agenda and they won’t be dissuaded from it.
Another low point was Dr. Manfred Kohl’s reaction following Pastor Wayne Hilsden’s presentation. According to israel today Magazine:
“Wayne received applause from the audience following his address, and several of the day's other speakers and presenters expressed satisfaction with what he had said. However, the very next speaker, Dr. Manfred Kohl, laid into Wayne's theology in no uncertain terms.
“While he did not address Wayne personally, Kohl labeled the literal reading of scripture Hilsden had just presented as the theology of fools who delight in their own idiocy. (Emphasis mine)
"How can [Christians] be so stupid in their interpretation of the Bible and at the same time be so excited about our interpretation?" asked Kohl. "Apparently the two expressions are not mutually exclusive." (Emphasis mine)
I don’t want to weigh in on the pros and cons of whether Pastor Wayne should or shouldn’t have involved himself. However, I applaud his humble efforts and may God bless them!
Yet after noting the tampering of Dr Feinberg’s essay from a previous conference and Dr Kohl’s vitriol, I would suggest caution in any future involvement with the CATC organizers. They have an agenda and they won’t be dissuaded from it.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Tampering at the Checkpoint
What is it about modern Israel that offends some Christians to the extent that they feel compelled to unfairly demonize it? Why does someone like Stephen Sizer make it his life’s mission to go around telling fibs about Israel, or exaggerating incidents, or only presenting one side? Why do organizations like Bethlehem Bible College set up propaganda agitating events like the Christ at the Checkpoint conferences featuring the usual anti-Israel reactionaries?
Regardless of their explanations for the innocent “Christ at the Checkpoint” title – it is designed to bring Christ into the Israeli checkpoint equation and shame Israel and the Christian Zionist. It puts Jesus at that checkpoint alongside the Palestinian and evokes the familiar, “What would Jesus say or do?” question.
Here’s a clue – when Hamas, the PA and Hezbollah stop trying to kill Israelis, the Checkpoints and Wall will disappear. When they recognize Israel as a sovereign Jewish state and put away their guns and missiles they will have peace and a State. It’s not that complicated to grasp.
In response to the International Messianic Jewish Community concerns over the possible inflammatory nature of the conference, the folks at Bethlehem Bible College came up with a number of bullet points. Here’s one:
“8. We do not accept the expansion of God’s Kingdom on earth through military means, and therefore we do not see the bloody wars of the Middle East as positive signs towards the establishing of the Kingdom of God. God’s Kingdom is established through obedience to Christ’s Great Commission.”
This sort of propaganda asserts as fact a number of false premises about Christian Zionists and dispensationalists as a whole.
But quite apart from the question as to whether obedience to the “Great Commission” will bring about God’s Kingdom – Scripture please – their chosen methodology is bizarre and ineffective. In what sense are they bringing Christ to the Jews or to Hamas and the PA? In fact their relentless trumped up attacks on Israel’s integrity (see Sizer’s blog) are doing the opposite of Matt 5:9 by fomenting the conflict. Moreover, their activism is creating tensions within Israel and making it difficult for Messianic Jewish ministries to evangelize other Jews.
The conference promoters invite pro-Zionist and dispensationalist participation. Yet future participants should take note to tread carefully when interacting with these individuals. John Feinberg delivered a paper in PDF format explaining the dispie position and Hanna (Yohanna) Katanacho felt obliged to do some post-conference “tampering” to the document by highlighting segments in red and adding his own terse comments.
I don’t know if Dr Feinberg is aware of the doctoring but I’m certain that, had Katanacho contacted him directly, Dr Feinberg would have been happy to straighten him out. As it is, the tampering reveals several things about Katanacho. One is his unethical behavior in this regard and another is his apparent unfamiliarity with OT texts despite impressive credentials.
He also denies Jewish ethnicity. In response to the following statements by Dr Feinberg: “Dispensationalists specifically believe four things about these covenants. They were addressed to those who are ethnically, biologically Jewish. They contain promises that include spiritual blessings for ethnic Israel, but also social, political, and economic blessings...” Katanacho attached this comment: “How can you be biologically Jewish?”
So Katanacho, like other anti-Jewish/Israel clergymen, seeks to divorce Israel from any prophetic relevancy and ownership of the land by disputing their ethnic origins. Palestinian Lutheran priest Mitri Raheb also uses this strategy. In fact, Jews can trace their ethnicity better than most other races. See Wendy Wippel’s study HERE for just one example and note the comments in the Raheb link. Ironically, Palestinians who allegedly have “just as much Jewish DNA” exhibit little interest in identifying themselves as such. While people like Katanacho get away with questioning Jewish DNA; in Australia, anyone who dares undermine the Indigenous ethnicity of someone who is outwardly more white than black, will immediately find themselves classified a social pariah.
If you can’t successfully remove the DNA from Jewish blood you can always remove them from the covenant by questioning the Old Testament’s reliability and developing a subjective “new hermeneutic” with that low view of the inerrancy of the OT. Sabeel’s Naim Ateek does - and the late Michael Prior did - just that, as Dr Paul Wilkinson aptly demonstrates in Prophets Who Prophesy Lies In My Name.
“When confronted with a difficult passage in the Bible … one needs to ask such simple questions as: Is the way I am hearing this the way I have come to know God in Christ? Does this fit the picture I have of God that Jesus has revealed to me? … If it does, then that passage is valid and authoritative. If not, then I cannot accept its validity or authority.” ~ Naim Ateek (Justice, And Only Justice pp. 81-82). (Emphasis mine)
On page 57 of “For Zion’s sake” Dr Wilkinson notes that Prior accused the OT of having “scandalous biblical texts” full of “menacing ideologies and racist, xenophobic and militaristic tendencies”. According to Dr Wilkinson, Prior claimed that a “straightforward reading” of the Joshua narrative mandates ethnic cleansing and genocide. You can read more of Prior’s ideas in his essay Confronting the Bible’s Ethnic Cleansing In Palestine.
Of course, the anti-prophetic supercessionist who takes an inerrant view of the Old Testament has to manage a different strategy. And that’s an entirely different ball game.
Regardless of their explanations for the innocent “Christ at the Checkpoint” title – it is designed to bring Christ into the Israeli checkpoint equation and shame Israel and the Christian Zionist. It puts Jesus at that checkpoint alongside the Palestinian and evokes the familiar, “What would Jesus say or do?” question.
Here’s a clue – when Hamas, the PA and Hezbollah stop trying to kill Israelis, the Checkpoints and Wall will disappear. When they recognize Israel as a sovereign Jewish state and put away their guns and missiles they will have peace and a State. It’s not that complicated to grasp.
In response to the International Messianic Jewish Community concerns over the possible inflammatory nature of the conference, the folks at Bethlehem Bible College came up with a number of bullet points. Here’s one:
“8. We do not accept the expansion of God’s Kingdom on earth through military means, and therefore we do not see the bloody wars of the Middle East as positive signs towards the establishing of the Kingdom of God. God’s Kingdom is established through obedience to Christ’s Great Commission.”
This sort of propaganda asserts as fact a number of false premises about Christian Zionists and dispensationalists as a whole.
But quite apart from the question as to whether obedience to the “Great Commission” will bring about God’s Kingdom – Scripture please – their chosen methodology is bizarre and ineffective. In what sense are they bringing Christ to the Jews or to Hamas and the PA? In fact their relentless trumped up attacks on Israel’s integrity (see Sizer’s blog) are doing the opposite of Matt 5:9 by fomenting the conflict. Moreover, their activism is creating tensions within Israel and making it difficult for Messianic Jewish ministries to evangelize other Jews.
The conference promoters invite pro-Zionist and dispensationalist participation. Yet future participants should take note to tread carefully when interacting with these individuals. John Feinberg delivered a paper in PDF format explaining the dispie position and Hanna (Yohanna) Katanacho felt obliged to do some post-conference “tampering” to the document by highlighting segments in red and adding his own terse comments.
I don’t know if Dr Feinberg is aware of the doctoring but I’m certain that, had Katanacho contacted him directly, Dr Feinberg would have been happy to straighten him out. As it is, the tampering reveals several things about Katanacho. One is his unethical behavior in this regard and another is his apparent unfamiliarity with OT texts despite impressive credentials.
He also denies Jewish ethnicity. In response to the following statements by Dr Feinberg: “Dispensationalists specifically believe four things about these covenants. They were addressed to those who are ethnically, biologically Jewish. They contain promises that include spiritual blessings for ethnic Israel, but also social, political, and economic blessings...” Katanacho attached this comment: “How can you be biologically Jewish?”
So Katanacho, like other anti-Jewish/Israel clergymen, seeks to divorce Israel from any prophetic relevancy and ownership of the land by disputing their ethnic origins. Palestinian Lutheran priest Mitri Raheb also uses this strategy. In fact, Jews can trace their ethnicity better than most other races. See Wendy Wippel’s study HERE for just one example and note the comments in the Raheb link. Ironically, Palestinians who allegedly have “just as much Jewish DNA” exhibit little interest in identifying themselves as such. While people like Katanacho get away with questioning Jewish DNA; in Australia, anyone who dares undermine the Indigenous ethnicity of someone who is outwardly more white than black, will immediately find themselves classified a social pariah.
If you can’t successfully remove the DNA from Jewish blood you can always remove them from the covenant by questioning the Old Testament’s reliability and developing a subjective “new hermeneutic” with that low view of the inerrancy of the OT. Sabeel’s Naim Ateek does - and the late Michael Prior did - just that, as Dr Paul Wilkinson aptly demonstrates in Prophets Who Prophesy Lies In My Name.
“When confronted with a difficult passage in the Bible … one needs to ask such simple questions as: Is the way I am hearing this the way I have come to know God in Christ? Does this fit the picture I have of God that Jesus has revealed to me? … If it does, then that passage is valid and authoritative. If not, then I cannot accept its validity or authority.” ~ Naim Ateek (Justice, And Only Justice pp. 81-82). (Emphasis mine)
On page 57 of “For Zion’s sake” Dr Wilkinson notes that Prior accused the OT of having “scandalous biblical texts” full of “menacing ideologies and racist, xenophobic and militaristic tendencies”. According to Dr Wilkinson, Prior claimed that a “straightforward reading” of the Joshua narrative mandates ethnic cleansing and genocide. You can read more of Prior’s ideas in his essay Confronting the Bible’s Ethnic Cleansing In Palestine.
Of course, the anti-prophetic supercessionist who takes an inerrant view of the Old Testament has to manage a different strategy. And that’s an entirely different ball game.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
With all due respect...
While looking into an unrelated matter, I stumbled onto Jamin Hubner’s commentary of Joel Rosenberg’s article on the Vatican’s “pronouncement on Israel”. Borrowing from Rosenberg’s title he re-worded his response to “With All Due Respect, Rosenberg’s Latest, Painful Pronouncement On Israel is Wrong”.
He starts off with the following observations:
“The unsound theology of historic (sic) Dispensationalism has produced many bad fruits. There’s the rotten apple of eisegesis forged by the faulty hermeneutical principles of unnecessary literalism.[1] The foul-smelling equivocation of cosmic escapism with the gospel.[2] And the sour notion of two separate destinies for Israel and the church [3], a seven year tribulation, the re-institution of sacrifices, and so on and so forth.”
What? –no heresy? Perhaps he meant historic premillennialism. Either way, where do you begin to respond to a bunch of subjective statements like this? At another point he states:
“...Second, Rosenberg forgets that, if modern Israel is the Israel of Scripture, covenant curses (e.g. losing the land) apply to the nation as much as covenant blessings (e.g. possessing the land). If that’s the case, then an argument must be given to how modern-day Israel has upheld God’s law. Because, as any student of Middle-Eastern history knows, the formation of the modern-day state of Israel is anything but pretty.[13] Beyond general secularism and violating other general biblical prohibitions (e.g. borrowing from other nations instead of lending, Deut. 28:12, etc.), Israel is guilty of committing countless war atrocities that qualify and surpass the covenant obligations in Scripture. Mass murder. Torturing men ages 14-60s. Unjust use of water supply and the abusive treatment of aliens and foreigners. The creation of millions of refugees. And so on and so forth.[14] In short, if Christian Zionists are going to try and apply the Old Covenant to modern-day Israel, they at least need to be consistent.”
Whenever I read this sort of diatribe, I suspect something other than scholarship has entered the foray. One issue these people typically ignore is this; if modern, secular Israel has no covenant rights to the land because it doesn’t uphold “God’s law” then what do we say about the two Palestinian leaderships? How does Hamas’ and the PA’s refusal to recognize Christ’s divinity, their antipathy (and violence) towards Christians and Jews and their refusal to acknowledge any Jewish existence in Palestine equate to greater rights to the land covenant (Lev 18:27-28)?
Note that Christians represent a diminishing minority of Palestinians. This isn’t a function of Israeli hegemony despite the propaganda churned by the likes of Sabeel. See also Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s article HERE. It’s significant, I think, that Hirsi Ali has come under fire for that article. She has been labeled an "Islamophobe" – not just by the secular media, but by various members of the clergy. Significant too, is the thundering silence towards Islamic extremism (notably the latest violent aftermath to the burning of the Korans) by both Islamic leaders and the anti-Israel clergy. While one cannot take the “religion of peace” to task without being “labeled”, it apparently remains fair sport to demonize Israel.
Hubner directs us to Burge and Goldschmidt as backups to these incriminations and reassures us we can use them or “or any other standard textbook on the subject.” One wonders what other standard textbooks he has in mind. Fred Butler’s thoughts are worth reading HERE.
I haven’t read Goldschmidt but do know that he’s come under fire for his soft approach to Islam in contrast to his treatment of Israel. In fact he co-authored his book with Lawrence Davidson. You can read about Davidson’s impartiality HERE and HERE.
I’ve mentioned Dr Gary Burge before. Again, Barry Horner’s “Territorial Supercessionism: A Response to Gary Burge” should be carefully read in light of the above.
I invite people to visit Palestine Facts for a slightly more balanced view of Israel’s birth and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The following articles and video will also add a different perspective to Hubner’s assertions:
Deconstructing "Israeli Apartheid"
Amira Hass' Water Woes
Film Review: The Forgotten Refugees
In a nutshell video: Debunking the Palestine Lie
Israel and Jerusalem in International Law: The Importance of San Remo Make sure you watch the film!
More later
He starts off with the following observations:
“The unsound theology of historic (sic) Dispensationalism has produced many bad fruits. There’s the rotten apple of eisegesis forged by the faulty hermeneutical principles of unnecessary literalism.[1] The foul-smelling equivocation of cosmic escapism with the gospel.[2] And the sour notion of two separate destinies for Israel and the church [3], a seven year tribulation, the re-institution of sacrifices, and so on and so forth.”
What? –no heresy? Perhaps he meant historic premillennialism. Either way, where do you begin to respond to a bunch of subjective statements like this? At another point he states:
“...Second, Rosenberg forgets that, if modern Israel is the Israel of Scripture, covenant curses (e.g. losing the land) apply to the nation as much as covenant blessings (e.g. possessing the land). If that’s the case, then an argument must be given to how modern-day Israel has upheld God’s law. Because, as any student of Middle-Eastern history knows, the formation of the modern-day state of Israel is anything but pretty.[13] Beyond general secularism and violating other general biblical prohibitions (e.g. borrowing from other nations instead of lending, Deut. 28:12, etc.), Israel is guilty of committing countless war atrocities that qualify and surpass the covenant obligations in Scripture. Mass murder. Torturing men ages 14-60s. Unjust use of water supply and the abusive treatment of aliens and foreigners. The creation of millions of refugees. And so on and so forth.[14] In short, if Christian Zionists are going to try and apply the Old Covenant to modern-day Israel, they at least need to be consistent.”
Whenever I read this sort of diatribe, I suspect something other than scholarship has entered the foray. One issue these people typically ignore is this; if modern, secular Israel has no covenant rights to the land because it doesn’t uphold “God’s law” then what do we say about the two Palestinian leaderships? How does Hamas’ and the PA’s refusal to recognize Christ’s divinity, their antipathy (and violence) towards Christians and Jews and their refusal to acknowledge any Jewish existence in Palestine equate to greater rights to the land covenant (Lev 18:27-28)?
Note that Christians represent a diminishing minority of Palestinians. This isn’t a function of Israeli hegemony despite the propaganda churned by the likes of Sabeel. See also Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s article HERE. It’s significant, I think, that Hirsi Ali has come under fire for that article. She has been labeled an "Islamophobe" – not just by the secular media, but by various members of the clergy. Significant too, is the thundering silence towards Islamic extremism (notably the latest violent aftermath to the burning of the Korans) by both Islamic leaders and the anti-Israel clergy. While one cannot take the “religion of peace” to task without being “labeled”, it apparently remains fair sport to demonize Israel.
Hubner directs us to Burge and Goldschmidt as backups to these incriminations and reassures us we can use them or “or any other standard textbook on the subject.” One wonders what other standard textbooks he has in mind. Fred Butler’s thoughts are worth reading HERE.
I haven’t read Goldschmidt but do know that he’s come under fire for his soft approach to Islam in contrast to his treatment of Israel. In fact he co-authored his book with Lawrence Davidson. You can read about Davidson’s impartiality HERE and HERE.
I’ve mentioned Dr Gary Burge before. Again, Barry Horner’s “Territorial Supercessionism: A Response to Gary Burge” should be carefully read in light of the above.
I invite people to visit Palestine Facts for a slightly more balanced view of Israel’s birth and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The following articles and video will also add a different perspective to Hubner’s assertions:
Deconstructing "Israeli Apartheid"
Amira Hass' Water Woes
Film Review: The Forgotten Refugees
In a nutshell video: Debunking the Palestine Lie
Israel and Jerusalem in International Law: The Importance of San Remo Make sure you watch the film!
More later
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Touching On Evolution & Hermeneutics
I’ve already mentioned that I was raised in the RCC. My first years were spent being taught by the nuns and I must admit they actually did a fine work of presenting the Gospel message to me and I understood Christ died for my sins, and that He was my savior. It was there I was taught that the OT sacrifices – especially the Abraham-Isaac story – pictured Christ’s future sacrifice. It was also there I was taught a literal Adam and Eve.
When I reached my teens I found myself in a secular school and confronted with the “fact” of evolution. Now I’m not particularly bright but those nuns had done a great teaching job and I immediately saw the ramifications of evolution; a mythical Adam and the need for a savior or even a creator. In search of an answer I consulted the priests and ministers who taught our half-hour weekly Christian Education classes. Sadly, getting answers from them was not fruitful. They wouldn’t or couldn’t refute evolution yet avoided addressing the implications of subjectively choosing which portions of the Bible were to be understood as truth or literal events. Those men were no better than social workers dressed up in clerical garb.
Later, I spent some time in a church which produced some impressive refutations of evolution. Unfortunately, that same organization also claimed to be the true spiritual Israel and the only authentic church led by a modern day apostle – in other words, it was a cult. On the one hand we were encouraged to diligently study the inerrant Bible in a literal manner for ourselves, yet on the other hand we were fed various “codes” to use. For example, whenever we came across the word “Israel” in the OT or NT we mentally inserted – not just the word “church” – but the name of that particular organization. That exercise never sat comfortably with me.
That I later embraced the New Age and other erroneous ideas is the subject of another story. I must take full blame for having gone down that path. Had I been more diligent and discerning I would have found my answers years ago. Except for the grace of God, I might still be lost in it.
Now I’m back on track and I see the same two issues plaguing some Christians. One is the compromise of evolution and the other is hermeneutics.
Some Christian evolutionists take an elitist stance. They assume creationists are in denial and/or cannot meet the so-called academic challenge of evolution. Creation Ministries International addresses the implications surrounding Christians accepting the evolution hypothesis in Evolutionary syncretism: a critique of Biologos. Also worthwhile reading is CMI’s Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2. CMI is run by scientists like Jonathan Sarfati. They aren’t exactly intellectual lightweights – many of the technical papers they write are peer reviewed. Spend enough time reading at their website and you will see CMI successfully interacting with skeptical “boffins” who write in questions hoping to trip them up. There is no valid scientific excuse for a Christian to embrace evolution. The ramifications of doing so are dire.
The other issue comes down to how some Christians deal with scriptural references which would seem to contradict their theology. The amillennial treatment of Revelation (literal thousand years & binding of Satan) and a multitude of OT references to Israel’s future and relationship to the church, are uppermost in my mind here. One good example is how Kim Riddlebarger deals with Isaiah 65:20 HERE. Essentially, he appeals to the likes of Motyer and argues that Isaiah had to use “metaphors” to express what he couldn’t fully comprehend about the glorious future. Of course, Riddlebarger et al take the view that Isaiah couldn’t have understood it because his report doesn’t comply with their own understanding of how it should read.
During some recent online discussions I’ve been called “blasphemous”, “heretical” and “clueless” for rejecting supercessionism and Amillennialism. The individual even offered to pray for my salvation. I’m glad we weren’t discussing the rapture! Sadly, this attitude is a growing trend.
I feel greatly indebted to Paul Henebury’s recent outstanding work in addressing (and exposing) the methodologies people use to get around OT passages which don’t comply with their respective theologies. I encourage people to visit his blog and spend some time studying his commentaries. A great place to start is HERE and then work your way to recent installments.
Other notable articles by Paul:
Forty Reasons For Not Reinterpreting The Old Testament By The New: The First Twenty
Forty Reasons For Not Reinterpreting The Old Testament By The New: The Last Twenty
When I reached my teens I found myself in a secular school and confronted with the “fact” of evolution. Now I’m not particularly bright but those nuns had done a great teaching job and I immediately saw the ramifications of evolution; a mythical Adam and the need for a savior or even a creator. In search of an answer I consulted the priests and ministers who taught our half-hour weekly Christian Education classes. Sadly, getting answers from them was not fruitful. They wouldn’t or couldn’t refute evolution yet avoided addressing the implications of subjectively choosing which portions of the Bible were to be understood as truth or literal events. Those men were no better than social workers dressed up in clerical garb.
Later, I spent some time in a church which produced some impressive refutations of evolution. Unfortunately, that same organization also claimed to be the true spiritual Israel and the only authentic church led by a modern day apostle – in other words, it was a cult. On the one hand we were encouraged to diligently study the inerrant Bible in a literal manner for ourselves, yet on the other hand we were fed various “codes” to use. For example, whenever we came across the word “Israel” in the OT or NT we mentally inserted – not just the word “church” – but the name of that particular organization. That exercise never sat comfortably with me.
That I later embraced the New Age and other erroneous ideas is the subject of another story. I must take full blame for having gone down that path. Had I been more diligent and discerning I would have found my answers years ago. Except for the grace of God, I might still be lost in it.
Now I’m back on track and I see the same two issues plaguing some Christians. One is the compromise of evolution and the other is hermeneutics.
Some Christian evolutionists take an elitist stance. They assume creationists are in denial and/or cannot meet the so-called academic challenge of evolution. Creation Ministries International addresses the implications surrounding Christians accepting the evolution hypothesis in Evolutionary syncretism: a critique of Biologos. Also worthwhile reading is CMI’s Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2. CMI is run by scientists like Jonathan Sarfati. They aren’t exactly intellectual lightweights – many of the technical papers they write are peer reviewed. Spend enough time reading at their website and you will see CMI successfully interacting with skeptical “boffins” who write in questions hoping to trip them up. There is no valid scientific excuse for a Christian to embrace evolution. The ramifications of doing so are dire.
The other issue comes down to how some Christians deal with scriptural references which would seem to contradict their theology. The amillennial treatment of Revelation (literal thousand years & binding of Satan) and a multitude of OT references to Israel’s future and relationship to the church, are uppermost in my mind here. One good example is how Kim Riddlebarger deals with Isaiah 65:20 HERE. Essentially, he appeals to the likes of Motyer and argues that Isaiah had to use “metaphors” to express what he couldn’t fully comprehend about the glorious future. Of course, Riddlebarger et al take the view that Isaiah couldn’t have understood it because his report doesn’t comply with their own understanding of how it should read.
During some recent online discussions I’ve been called “blasphemous”, “heretical” and “clueless” for rejecting supercessionism and Amillennialism. The individual even offered to pray for my salvation. I’m glad we weren’t discussing the rapture! Sadly, this attitude is a growing trend.
I feel greatly indebted to Paul Henebury’s recent outstanding work in addressing (and exposing) the methodologies people use to get around OT passages which don’t comply with their respective theologies. I encourage people to visit his blog and spend some time studying his commentaries. A great place to start is HERE and then work your way to recent installments.
Other notable articles by Paul:
Forty Reasons For Not Reinterpreting The Old Testament By The New: The First Twenty
Forty Reasons For Not Reinterpreting The Old Testament By The New: The Last Twenty
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
