Israel an Illegitimate State?

This is a repost from 2014. It's not intended as a personal attack on Goodgame. But given the level of anti-Israel sentiment we've seen since "Oct 7", perhaps his thinking can serve as one example of why this is occurring. Sadly, if you visit his X (Twitter) account, you'll note where he's at now. 

I mentioned in a prior post that Peter Goodgame has adopted the New Exodus concept. This involves revising the relationship between Israel and the church. He suggested I take the time to understand where his analysis of the transition between the Old Covenant and New Covenant (NC) is leading him. I was invited to an email dialogue. However, I prefer this venue.

Peter says we shouldn't be smug in our personal understanding. There are so many views that "humility is the key so that we do not deceive ourselves." I agree. However, here's the red flag. He writes:

I'm going deeper, way deeper, and far beyond the "literal interpretation" of dispensationalism that I was raised on, upon which I based my Red Moon Rising book...I'm beginning to see that eschatology is like one big parable, and just like Jesus used parables to both DISGUISE and REVEAL the truth, I now feel that eschatology works the same way. A literal reading of prophecy, especially a literal reading of OT prophecy, actually DISGUISES the truth, and has contributed to the eschatological confusion that we see in the church today, and also to the widespread problem of Christians focusing on agendas and causes that have NOTHING to do with the GOSPEL or the KINGDOM OF GOD. (Underlining mine)

New Age teachers employ the same deeper meaning methodology. Paramahansa Yogananda extensively cited Scripture. His interpretations departed from the literal and were influenced by his assumptions and worldview. Goodgame was actually raised in a Seventh-day Adventist environment in his earlier years. SDA prophecy appeals to types and anti-types, allegory and symbolism. Adventism is rooted in Historicism (and White's prophecies). When someone says they're digging for deeper meaning, what they're often doing is piling their assumptions over plain-sense texts and changing the original intent of the author.

Prophecy isn't given for private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). Paul commended the Bereans for searching out the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). Christ expected the disciples to understand what the prophets wrote about Him (Luke 24: 25-27). Robert L Thomas notes that there are some 278 OT allusions in Revelation (Revelation 1-7 p 40). We are told that Revelation was given for our blessing and understanding (Rev 1:3).

This contradicts the premise that one must delve deeper to derive a veiled meaning. The Emmaus Road Disciples might well have responded that they couldn't have understood the prophets because the texts disguised the truth.

Goodgame understands that God made a New Covenant promise to Israel. He assumes that, since Jer 31:31 was applied to Israel, the church must be its continuation to derive any benefit. Thus, if the church is the continuation of Israel then his New Exodus concept must be applied to the church rather than an "out of covenant" secular Israel. That is circular reasoning.

Paul Henebury observes the following:

Personally speaking, I don’t see why dispensationalists have pulled their hair out over the New Covenant. To me at least, the language of Luke 22:2, made as it was with those who were to become “foundations” of the church (see Eph.2:20), and repeated imperturbably by Paul in I Corinthians 11:25; when taken with the argument in Hebrews, decisively shows that Jesus, “the Mediator of the New Covenant”, made the New Covenant with the Church!  If one is expecting to find that truth in Jeremiah or Ezekiel then one is not a dispensationalist. Those prophets did not envisage “the Body of Christ,” so naturally they did not write about the relationship of the New Covenant to the Church.

Paul further notes:

Does this necessitate two separate new covenants? No indeed! It means only that the same new covenant was given to the Church as shall be given to Israel.  The New Covenant promises to Israel are not the New Covenant promises to the Church. (Underlining mine)

It's a leap of logic to assume that the same promises made to Israel apply to the church, or that they must be the same entity to derive any benefit. Supersessionists typically point to Rom 2:28-29 and Gal 3:28 where the context is salvation. Those verses do not remove gender or ethnic distinctions. That a true Jew is one who is circumcised within does not mean a saved Gentile becomes a Jew. Similarly Goodgame cites Zechariah 2:11 and concludes:

....that “many nations” will be joined to the Lord at this time and shall become the Lord’s people. In other words, many Gentiles will become Israelites when the Lord comes to dwell in Israel’s midst.

That's not what the verse says. Gentile nations who are God's people need not become Israelites. Goodgame reads into these passages what he presumes true.

In Isaiah 60, God warns of the consequences of Gentile nations and kingdoms not blessing Israel (note v12). Of those same nations, Zechariah 8:23 tells us that they will grab the sleeve of a Jewish man saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you." Isaiah 19:25 states that in that day God will say, "Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance." There is no incorporation of Egypt and Assyria into Israel as God's people. They are treated as distinct to Israel (not Israelites), yet are still God's people.

Goodgame claims there is no Scriptural warrant for a "God-led Exodus of modern day ethnic Jews back to their ancient home in the Middle East." The only "God-led Exodus" is the "New Exodus" of nations out of "Babylon." He allows for some prophecies to be fulfilled by Israel today, but these are all negative.

For example, a Jewish Temple must be rebuilt in Jerusalem so that the Antichrist can fulfill the Abomination of Desolation. He's sure of that because he's studied it. One wonders how he could be certain given a literal interpretation disguises the truth. Then there's this:

Should we give these Jews weapons and support their violence against the former inhabitants? In other words, does their claim to possess the land still stand, even though they are out of covenant with God?  No way! Israel's legal right to the land was ALWAYS conditionally based on their observance of God's ETHICAL commandments. Modern Israel is so far from this that it isn't funny, and they have been apostate from the beginning when they claimed to be a nation in 1948. (Underlining mine)

How can Goodgame have his Temple without Israel's reformation? But one can see where all this is heading. The narrative isn't new. It is popular among some Neo-Premillennialists who make similar statements. Out-of-covenant Israel is an oppressive, unethical new-kid-on-the-block. The church is "true Israel."

Note that God did not make a covenant with Israel's neighbors either. And speaking of ethics, what do we say of Hamas, the Palestinian Authority and Islamist regimes that oppress their civilians and conspire to destroy Israel? Do they have a better claim to the land?

Post-exilic Israel was not returned to the land because they repented. That occurred afterwards. Israel was returned because the 70 years of God's decree had expired. Moreover, its right to the land is unconditional and eternal (Jeremiah 7:7; 25:5; 31:31-37 and Amos 9:14-15). It is the enjoyment of it which is conditional. In Leviticus 26:27-33, God warned Israel that the consequences of disobedience would be discipline (see also Deut 4:40).

However, in Leviticus 26: 44-45, God said He would not reject them and would remember His covenant with them. God has not cast off His people whom He foreknew (Rom 11:1-2) because the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable (Rom 11:28-29).

Scripture demands Israel's presence in the land prior to Christ's return. God promised to return the Jewish people in unbelief in order to purify them (Ezekiel 20:33-38; 22:17-22; 36:22-25; 37:1-4; Hosea 5:15). Zechariah also demands Israel's presence in the land as the nations come against it (Zech 12:3, 9; 14:2-5, 16).

Dispensationalists are often accused of privileging Israel to the point of idolatry, and not focusing on the Gospel of the kingdom. The proper response is to note that modern Israel isn't perfect but neither is it the oppressor that people like Goodgame claim it to be. We rejoice that God loves Israel and plans to redeem it. We see God's faithfulness to Israel reflected in our own lives.

As for the latter point, it might be observed that unfairly demonizing Israel is also detrimental to the Gospel of the kingdom. We might inquire as to what motivates such behavior. This is important in light of the rising global hatred against Jews. The typical excuse is that criticizing Israel is not tantamount to anti-Semitism. Yet the one-sided narrative we too often see contradicts that apology and inflames Jewish hatred.

Two of the most balanced treatments of this subject can be found in David Baron's Israel in the Plan of God and Michael Rydelnik's Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict. See also Israel The Land and the People, edited by H. Wayne House and Footsteps of the Messiah by Arnold Fruchtenbaum.

Keep an eye out for a new book edited by Darrell Bock and Mitch Glaser. It has contributions by Mike Vlach, John Feinberg, Michael Rydelnik and others.

Addendum:

One way to understand where Goodgame is now coming from is to look at the books he's reading. Of particular interest is Bill Johnson's theologically problematic When Heaven Invades Earth, which I bought soon after becoming a Christian. You can read a review of Johnson's book by Bob DeWaay HERE.

An excerpt:

Johnson warns against "a powerless Word." The only way God's Word lacks power is if we refuse to believe and obey it. Johnson suggests that he and others like him who refuse to be taught the truth but relish signs and wonders have "power." The rest of us who love and believe God's Word (from Scripture, understood according to the Holy Spirit inspired authors' intent) are supposedly powerless. Johnson's teaching is false and is abusive to the Lord's flock. Ordinary Christians who cannot replicate the miracles of Jesus and His apostles are relegated to a lesser category: powerless Christians to be pitied by elitists like Johnson.

He further cites Johnson:

Those who feel safe because of their intellectual grasp of Scriptures enjoy a false sense of security. None of us has a full grasp of Scripture, but we all have the Holy Spirit. He is our common denominator who will always lead us into truth. But to follow Him, we must be willing to follow off the map—to go beyond what we know. (Johnson: 76)

But where does following "off the map" take Johnson?

Update: Goodgame's website can be found HERE. A reading of his musings, links and Twitter re-posts shows where he's at now. "Digging deeper" into a Bible one thinks is "messy" puts one beyond a slippery slope - it's a free fall.

Dr. Reluctant on the Davidic Covenant

Paul Henebury responds to Darrel Bock. Note also what he writes about the New Covenant:

This is a slightly revised version of what I wrote as a response to a question from progressive dispensationalist Darrell Bock about the inauguration of the Davidic Covenant at the first coming of Christ...keep reading

Christopher Cone - the New Covenant & the Church

Addressed to The Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics at Baptist Bible Seminary, on September 24, 2009, and later published in Journal of Dispensational Theology, December 2009, and currently scheduled to be included in a forthcoming single volume handling the issue of the New Covenant in greater detail.

Excerpt:

Though Paul does not in these passages invoke either a new and separate covenant with the church nor a shared application of the previously revealed one, some argue that he does the latter in Ephesians 2:11-3:6, a passage in which gentiles are described as, among other things, “strangers to the covenants.” (2:12) In 2:12 Paul presents five conditions of unsaved gentiles, and he does not assert that all of these conditions are reversed at the time of salvation. Notice the remedy he diagnoses: those formerly far off have been brought near (2:13), having access through Him in one Spirit to the Father (2:18). Believing gentiles have been made fellow citizens with the saints (believing Jews) (2:19). But fellow citizens of what? Are we now partakers of Jewish covenants? Are we now of the commonwealth of Israel? Have we now become “spiritual” Jews? No on all counts. The mystery is precisely identified in 3:6 that we are fellow members of the body and fellow partakers of the promise (note, not promises). We are brought near to the Jews by virtue of our oneness in the body of Christ, but nowhere in this grand section are we co-partakers or fellow citizens in any aspect outside of that body. This is according to promise. Paul’s first mention of the promise in Ephesians appears in 1:13 referencing the Holy Spirit. We could also consider the seventh aspect of God’s covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12:3) and compare this with John’s concise description of the promise – eternal life (1 Jn. 2:25). Whether the promise here references the related aspects of the ministry of the spirit, gentile blessings under the Abrahamic covenant, or eternal life, there is no stated or implied connection between the church and the covenants of Israel. Paul says we were once strangers to the covenants of promise and that now we have been brought near (eggus). Near is not inside or upon...keep reading

Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics

There are some interesting dispensational discussions on this site:

Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics

An informative note from Dr Stallard discussing the concept and hopes driving the CDH:

The Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics at Age Four Dr. Mike Stallard, Baptist Bible Seminary

Getting Back to Torah

I'm seeing an upward trend where some Christians are identifying with all things Hebrew. Some are beginning to observe the Sabbath, the Jewish feast days and Mosaic dietary laws etc. I can't think of anything intrinsically wrong with this if it's just a personal preference. But in many cases these people have put themselves under "Torah" or "Mosaic Law" as a rule of life because they've been told they're bound by Scripture to do so. Moreover, they're proselytizing other Christians to do the same. Most of these Torah proponents deny preaching "legalism" or salvation by works. What they'll usually say is that, while there's nothing anyone can do in the way of earning salvation, if we love God, we will want to obey Him and keep His Torah commandments.

I believe this trend has been facilitated by a number of pro-Torah prophetic ministries. Mark Biltz (El Shaddai), Brad Scott, Dewey Brunton and Monte Judah come readily to mind. Biltz has been mistaken for a pretribulationist - yet he is neither pretribulational nor dispensational. His Blood Moon theories have been indiscriminately promoted by prophecy websites without any caveat on his pro-Torah teachings. Closely linked to Biltz is 119 Ministries (119M), who are also pro-Torah and anti-dispensational and who derive their name from Psalm 119. Visit the 119M website and you'll be confronted by a slickly produced video accompanied by inspiring music which admonishes the viewer to "Test Everything". In fact, most of 119M's teachings are delivered via videos which one can view onsite and their DVD sales. While they offer some written articles, they are limited in scope. Essentially, what these people teach is that the Mosaic Law (ML) hasn't been abrogated but "enhanced" and that the Christian is grafted into Israel and is therefore under ML rule.

This back-to-Torah trend was more recently impressed upon me by a string of discussions on Amazon where one prolific (and published) reviewer insisted that the church was under ML obligation, and that Christians were automatically grafted into Israel upon conversion. He argued that the New Covenant was made with Israel - not Gentiles - hence Gentile believers had to become "spiritual Israelites" to benefit from the New Covenant.

Typically, these individuals have ready responses to problem passages such as Col 2:16 and Acts 15 etc. They argue that in Col 2:16, Paul was telling his readers to not let anyone judge them when they begin to observe the "Torah" laws. Yet no such innovative example is found anywhere in the NT. We get an understanding of what the real issue was in Acts 15 and a hint of it in Gal 2:12, 14.

...for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision...But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

In what way was Peter living as a Gentile and how were Gentiles being compelled to live as Jews if it wasn't the Mosaic dietary laws? The following is an example of a Torah-proponent's response to Acts 15 verse 10:

"Some Christians might read into this verse and assume that Peter is referring to the Torah/Law itself as a burdensome yoke. He just stated that the Gentiles are saved by faith in the same way that Jews are – the moment that they heard the Word and believed. Therefore, in keeping with his argument that all men are only saved by faith - not by works - he asks the obvious question (My paraphrase): “How can you be saved by faith, but then add all these extra prerequisites associated with Torah Observance to the Gospel presented to the Gentiles, especially when we Jews couldn’t keep the Law to be saved in the first place?” Such a works-based Salvation doctrine is a “yoke that no one could bear”. The Torah/Law was never designed to save anyone. It’s simply God’s standard of daily living for His people. Salvation is by Grace through Faith alone. This verse can’t be in reference to the Torah/Law itself, because all throughout scripture God’s commandments are called “liberty,” “life,” and a “delight” (e.g. Psalm 119; Romans 7:22). John says that God’s commands are “not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). So there’s either a contradiction in scripture, or, keeping with the context of the chapter, Peter is not referring to the Law itself in verse 10, but rather, a works-based Salvation doctrine that was being pushed upon the Gentiles." 

They key to Wilber's rebuttal is to paraphrase and put words into the mouths of the apostles. He tells his readers that verse 10 cannot refer to the ML because it contradicts 1 John 5:3. A different way that other Torah proponents get around Acts 15 is to state that James, Peter and Paul were only advocating an interim period so that new Gentile believers could get used to the ML. However, the context and intent becomes clear when we read through, minus the paraphrasing.

Acts 15:1) And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

2) And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

3) Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren.

4) And when they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them.

5) But certain ones of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed, stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."

6-7) And the apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

8-10) "And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

19-20) "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

28-29) For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. 

The yoke of v10 relates directly to the ML in v 5 (see also Gal 5:1). Had the issue only been a "works-based Salvation doctrine" and the yoke related to that - then vv 19-20 and 28-29 would have clarified that the ML was still a standard to live by but that salvation was by faith through grace. Yet these new Gentile believers weren't admonished to live by the ML; instead, they were given guidelines designed to foster fellowship with Jewish believers whose identity traditionally lay in the ML. Nowhere in Acts is it suggested that these guidelines are an interim getting-used-to-Torah period. In fact nowhere in the NT is there any admonishment to keep the ML. On the contrary, Torah-proponents have many problem verses to contend with. Steven Ger (Acts - Witnesses to the World p 209) points out that that Yoke "was a common rabbinic designation for the Torah, cited in the Mishnah concerning proselytes taking up the 'yoke of the commandments'".

It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. Gal 5:1-3

If the ML was meant to be the rule of life, Paul would not have made the logical argument that believers who insist on circumcision are bound to observe the whole of the ML. More importantly, he wouldn't have linked the concepts of freedom with the yoke of slavery and Christ's benefit to the believer, in that same argument. If the problem was that believers thought that ML observance or circumcision was the means to salvation - and Paul wanted to correct that, yet stress that the ML was still a rule of life - he would have framed his answer in an entirely different way.

And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. 1Co 9:20-21

At least 4 times the believer is said to be not "under the Law": Rom 6:14-15; Gal 5:18 & 1 Cor 9:20. "Under the law" can only have two meanings - "under the law" as a way of salvation or "under the law" as a rule of life. Rom 3:20 tells us that "because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight." Rom 4 tells us that Abraham and David were not saved by the law, but through faith. Romans 10:4 talks about the end (telos) of the law. Telos there means end, not goal as some would have it. See also Gal 3:23-25 and Eph 2:15. Romans 7:1-6 also teaches that - like the woman whose husband has died - we are no longer bound to the law. If the believer was still bound to the ML as a rule of life, Paul wouldn't have admonished his audience to not give freedom an opportunity to sin (Gal 5:3, 13, 18-26).

Given all this, the logical conclusion should then be that "under the law" refers to a rule of life. That's an awful lot paraphrasing the pro-ML proponent has to do to put all those Scriptural fires out!

In his doctrinal dissertation, Israelology (p 643), Arnold Fruchtenbaum points out that the Mosaic Law cannot be broken down into three parts of moral, civil and ceremonial laws (James 2:10). It is an indivisible unit. In fact, the pro-Torah proponent's own interpretation of Mat 5:17-18 has ramifications for a faithful observance of every "jot and tittle" of the 613 commandments as given in Leviticus. E.g. what do we do about stoning for various sins and what about wearing clothes made of more than one material (Lev 19:19)? Also, it's obvious that there have been changes in God's commandments. ML prohibits marriages between brother and sister but such was not the case in Genesis. It should also be obvious that expressions of God's Law existed prior to the Mosaic Covenant. Hence when Law and God's commandments are mentioned in the NT they should not be automatically thought of as referring to Mosaic Law (see Israelology pp 650-652).

Following is a link to Jim McClarty's website. I won't endorse everything there (I'm not qualified) but he has some helpful articles covering the topic of Mosaic Law and the Christian. In particular, see the articles "Jot and tittle"; "Law Vs Grace"; "New Covenant and Torah" and "Discussing Torah Observance":

J McClarty - Salvation By Grace. 

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. Rom 8:1-2

But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:23-26

For the entire law is fulfilled in one statement: Love your neighbor as yourself. Gal 5:14

But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Gal 5:18

Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. Gal 6:2

Further reading:

THE MOSAIC COVENANT 

The Law of Moses and the Law of Messiah

WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CHURCH TO THE NEW COVENANT?

NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY COMPARED WITH COVENANTALISM

Dispensationalism & “Biblical Covenantalism” – What’s in a Name?

WHAT IS THE BELIEVER’S RULE OF LIFE?

Answering the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism – Theses 90-95