This is from 2011. Some of the links have gone stale. But given the current times and criticisms of Israel and its Christian supporters, I thought I'd repost it.
As mentioned previously, I’ve listened to a 2009 lecture delivered by Gary Hoag to a Denver Seminary audience. It was based on Craig Blomberg’s manuscript (Dr Blomberg being ill at the time). The title of the talk was “Inappropriately Privileging Israel: Why Historic Premillennialism Trumps Dispensationalism".
You can listen to it HERE
Dr Blomberg co-edited “A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to "Left Behind" Eschatology”. The book received strong criticism by reviewer Erik Swanson for improperly engaging DP:
“Not only does this book misunderstand DP, but the authors misrepresent DP as well. They (mis)represent DP as simply a popular movement, fueled by popular culture and imagination, not backed by solid exegesis and theology.”
I bring this up again because I sympathize with Erik Swanson’s frustration. That same approach characterizes the lecture. If you’re going to legitimately challenge another system, you should accurately interact with its beliefs and strengths; otherwise you’re just knocking down straw men.
Firstly, as an ex-posttribber, I’m unimpressed by the “academic & exegesis” vs the “comfortable populist” inferences that Dr Blomberg draws when he compares posttribulationism with pretribulationism. It smacks of elitism. Also, note that apantesis isn’t a magic gotcha word. Kevin Zuber has a study on it HERE, or refer to his essay in “Dispensationalism – tomorrow & beyond” (p 343). And a comparison of tereo ek in Rev 3:10 and John 17:15 isn’t helpful to post-trib either - read Richard Mayhue’s essay HERE.
Lastly, Erik Swanson answered Dr Blomberg’s wrath of God points in the review above. In fact at one stage Dr Blomberg states the church must go through the Tribulation and endure persecution and martyrdom then later claims tereo ek in Rev 3:10 means protection within!
Contrary to Dr Blomberg, Jerry Falwell’s “brand of dispensationalism” is not representative. That “America doesn’t exist to support a distinctively Jewish state in Israel” may well be true. Mature dispie scholars would vouch for the wisdom of a “separation between church and state”. But why raise that issue?
Many “religious organizations” routinely lobby the US government for political and monetary aid for other countries. Palestinian aid is sought out by certain “Christian” groups (e.g. Sabeel). And people like Stephen Sizer and Gary Burge, and organizations such as the World Council of Churches and National Council of Churches have sought the boycotting of Israeli products. What do we make of church groups who vie to influence government decisions on pro-life, gay marriage etc? Wouldn’t these activities cross over the "separation between church & state" guidelines? Why is support for Israel singled out?
I’m not sure why he even mentions Two Covenant Theology. Even if one or two “popular” dispies may hold to it; it is not the correct dispensational view. There is only ONE way to be saved and that is by grace through faith. Note Tony Garland’s article HERE and this ESSAY
He uses the term “the shifting sands of dispensationalism”. Disp was formalized in the 19th century when theologians began to take a literal approach to the OT. Since then it has gone through further refinements and developments. Covenant Theology (which isn’t that much older) has also evolved and changed. The same is true of Reformed Theology. In fact if one carefully looks at a Who’s Who of HP from the Early Church Fathers to date, one will see changes in modern day HP.
Dr Blomberg chides outright replacement theology by pointing to sufficient OT evidence indicating that national Israel has some future in the Millennium. He even points out that RT has led to anti-Semitism. This is an important admission which I’ll explore in a later post. He affirms that George Ladd is a scholar who overshadows the rest and, like Dr Ladd, he fails to see a necessity for either a Temple, or national Israel in Palestine prior to the Millennium. He punctuates that point several times.
Note here that people like J C Ryle, Horatius Bonar, Renald Showers, Arnold Fruchtenbaum etc have shown “biblically” that Israel must, once again, be a nation prior to the Millennium. Dr Fruchtenbaum identifies several OT verses pointing to a gathering into the land in unbelief in “Footsteps of the Messiah”.
Contra-arguments to Gen 12:1-3 are typically raised by proponents of replacement theology and Dr Blomberg does the same. They argue that the church, as Abraham’s spiritual heir, is the ultimate recipient of these verses and not a prophetically irrelevant Israel in a state of unbelief. In a lengthy process of circular reasoning they insert the church and remove Israel. (Acts 3:13, 25-26; Rom 11:25-29)
His comments on Ezekiel’s Temple (ET) confuse me. I’m not aware of any dispies who teach that ET is premillennial. I don’t see how you can merge ET into the New Jerusalem or why you’d want to in the first place. If you’re able to recognize clear OT Scripture to confirm a future for Israel then surely you can use that same “exegesis” on a literal comparison of the differences between ET and the New Jerusalem.
Even when he acknowledges OT prophecies regarding Israel in their land during the Millennium he attempts to apply the NT to make the Gentile church share the same territorial benefits, which he then extends to all the earth (Matt 5:5). He appears to have a problem with a uniquely Holy Land with a Jewish flavor and any type of Temple. This isn’t just replacement theology; it is absorption theology or a sort of socialist theocracy where whatever national Israel owns, so must the Gentile church.
While he briefly addresses the excesses of those who are pro-Palestinian and those who are pro-Israel, it’s quite obvious that Christian Zionism and national Israel are his primary targets. His language implies that Israel oppresses Palestinian Muslims and Christians; hence he lectures against blindly supporting Israel.
Yet a fact-check will show that Palestinians and Christians living in Israel fare much better than in Israel’s Muslim-dominated neighboring countries! He seems unaware of the dynamics driving the Arab-Israeli conflict and the existential threat to Israel. Aside from theological considerations, there are legitimate reasons for supporting Israel even if it is secular and imperfect.
But that he promotes blatant replacement theologians like Gary Burge and Colin Chapman as the “best guides” to refer to theologically ultimately explains his position on Israel both biblically and from a secular viewpoint. Burge and Chapman re-interpret the OT via the NT. These men have also written glowing reviews for anti-Israel activist and revisionist Stephen Sizer’s book “Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?”
Dr Paul Wilkinson has written about Sizer and his supporters HERE. I also recommend his book “For Zion’s Sake”. A more balanced approach to Sizer’s book is Dr Michael Rydelnik’s “Understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict – What The Headlines Haven’t Told You”.
Keeping the terms “academic” & “exegesis” in mind, read Barry Horner’s (Future Israel) response to Gary Burge. Many points that Dr Horner raises about Dr Burge re NT authorship etc are a concern.
Based on Dr Blomberg’s lecture and his advocacy of Gary Burge’s theology, even if I were to revert to posttribulationism, I could never consider myself an HP. It’s not about rapture timing, though Dr Blomberg clings to that distinction. It’s about God’s faithfulness to His word. It’s about taking the clear OT references to Israel’s future literally. On this basis, Dr Blomberg’s lecture fails to live up to its objective.
I’ll explore Dr Burge’s stance on Israel in a later post.
Showing posts with label Stephen Sizer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stephen Sizer. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 22, 2025
Saturday, December 10, 2016
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
What Will Christian Leaders in Bethlehem Say?
Article by CAMERA's Dexter Van Zile:
It’s crunch time for Palestinian Christian leaders, especially those living in the city of Bethlehem.
Palestinian terrorists are murdering and crippling Israelis in the streets of Jerusalem by running them over in cars. They are stabbing unsuspecting Israelis to death.
Leaders in the allegedly “moderate” Palestinian Authority are accusing Israel of contaminating Muslim holy sites and calling for more violence against Israelis.
They are starting to talk like Hamas about the impossibility of allowing Jewish sovereignty on land previously governed by Muslim rulers...keep reading
It’s crunch time for Palestinian Christian leaders, especially those living in the city of Bethlehem.
Palestinian terrorists are murdering and crippling Israelis in the streets of Jerusalem by running them over in cars. They are stabbing unsuspecting Israelis to death.
Leaders in the allegedly “moderate” Palestinian Authority are accusing Israel of contaminating Muslim holy sites and calling for more violence against Israelis.
They are starting to talk like Hamas about the impossibility of allowing Jewish sovereignty on land previously governed by Muslim rulers...keep reading
Friday, August 8, 2014
Young Evangelical Anti-Israel Activism
I thought this was worth posting:
In 2010, a film was released that perfectly encapsulated the erosion of Evangelical Christian support for Israel. The film, With God on Our Side, featured a young man learning about the Palestinian struggle and coming to see Israel not as evidence of God’s faithfulness, but as a mean and heartless nation enabled by American Evangelicals who have embraced Zionist ideology.
The film’s narrative of peace-loving Palestinians mistreated by heartless Israelis and their Christian Zionist supporters has been repackaged and promoted again and again by anti-Israel activists in some of the most influential Evangelical institutions in the United States. These activists, often in high positions, have found eager disciples in places like the megachurch campus of Willow Creek and the academic halls of Wheaton College, one of America’s preeminent Evangelical institutions. And they have been able to exploit the resources of popular Evangelical development organizations like World Vision...keep reading
(Hat tip Andy Woods)
In 2010, a film was released that perfectly encapsulated the erosion of Evangelical Christian support for Israel. The film, With God on Our Side, featured a young man learning about the Palestinian struggle and coming to see Israel not as evidence of God’s faithfulness, but as a mean and heartless nation enabled by American Evangelicals who have embraced Zionist ideology.
The film’s narrative of peace-loving Palestinians mistreated by heartless Israelis and their Christian Zionist supporters has been repackaged and promoted again and again by anti-Israel activists in some of the most influential Evangelical institutions in the United States. These activists, often in high positions, have found eager disciples in places like the megachurch campus of Willow Creek and the academic halls of Wheaton College, one of America’s preeminent Evangelical institutions. And they have been able to exploit the resources of popular Evangelical development organizations like World Vision...keep reading
(Hat tip Andy Woods)
Friday, July 4, 2014
Jesus was a Palestinian - Palestinian Liberation Theology
Melanie Phillips looks at a darker side of pro-Palestinian theology.
Within the Protestant world, many churches are deeply hostile to the State of Israel. They present the Palestinians as victims of Israeli oppression while ignoring the murderous victimization of Israeli citizens at their hands. This much is generally known. What is less known is the even more disturbing fact that this perverse animus is increasingly fed not by the politics of the present moment but by theology...keep reading
As an aside; soon after three Israeli teenagers were abducted, two self-described Christian Peace Activists tweeted the following message.
"The abduction of three yeshiva students in the West Bank last Thursday was ordered in advance - by Israel."
Sizer will likely be more familiar to observers than Alice Bach. The latter was an academic at Case Western University who blogs with The Electronic Intifada and has written for the Huffington Post. Biblical authority isn't exactly prominent in Bach's personal theology. She has also drawn the attention of Campus Watch, among others.
Further resources:
The full story behind the kidnappings
Within the Protestant world, many churches are deeply hostile to the State of Israel. They present the Palestinians as victims of Israeli oppression while ignoring the murderous victimization of Israeli citizens at their hands. This much is generally known. What is less known is the even more disturbing fact that this perverse animus is increasingly fed not by the politics of the present moment but by theology...keep reading
As an aside; soon after three Israeli teenagers were abducted, two self-described Christian Peace Activists tweeted the following message.
"The abduction of three yeshiva students in the West Bank last Thursday was ordered in advance - by Israel."
Sizer will likely be more familiar to observers than Alice Bach. The latter was an academic at Case Western University who blogs with The Electronic Intifada and has written for the Huffington Post. Biblical authority isn't exactly prominent in Bach's personal theology. She has also drawn the attention of Campus Watch, among others.
Further resources:
The full story behind the kidnappings
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Zionist Churches an Abomination?
“There are certainly churches in Israel/Palestine that side with the occupation, that side with Zionism. One of my burdens is to challenge them theologically and show that they’ve repudiated Jesus, they’ve repudiated the Bible, and they are an abomination.” ~ Stephen Sizer
Read the article from Rosh Pina Project HERE
Sizer apologizes and then rescinds. Also a link to the Moody Bible hosted Radio Debate with Sizer and Michael Brown at Rosh Pina Project HERE
Well done, Dr Bown!
Read the article from Rosh Pina Project HERE
Sizer apologizes and then rescinds. Also a link to the Moody Bible hosted Radio Debate with Sizer and Michael Brown at Rosh Pina Project HERE
Well done, Dr Bown!
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
A Response to the St. James Church Christmas Stunt
From Gatestone Institute:
Within hours of her release, Wafa al-Biss was speaking to Palestinian children, urging them to put on suicide vests and kill as many Jews as possible. And some people wonder why the Israelis need a security barrier.
It is a lie to say that Israel is an apartheid state and that the wall is an apartheid wall. It is a security barrier, just like dozens of others around the world, none of which is ever called an "apartheid wall."
The clergy and congregants of St. James have open, tolerant hearts, yet not, it seems, for Jews or Israelis. They venerate Palestinians above other suffering people and fail to distinguish between Palestinians who suffer from the conflict and those whose hate for Jews drives them to violence...keep reading
Excerpt:
"The Christians who berate Israel in this fashion have two biases. First, they seem to be in favor of a style of Christianity that takes Christ's vocation for the poor — a value that has led to so much good throughout history — and blends it with political strategies that may sound well-intended, but that often harbor dark and corrosive side-effects. It has for some time seemed natural to many Christians to follow a political path that disparages the norms of stable society by taking decent liberal values to extremes, by elevating the rights of gays above the rights of the majority, or women above men, disruption against the state (something that led to violent action in the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s), a hatred for colonialism, that has led to a wider hatred of the West and its values, a love for the Third World that results in turning a blind eye to things such as honor killings and executions for apostasy, and a concerted hatred for Israel that slips all too easily into anti-Semitism in a bizarre reflection of the far right. What it adds up to is a striving for political correctness above all other values."
Within hours of her release, Wafa al-Biss was speaking to Palestinian children, urging them to put on suicide vests and kill as many Jews as possible. And some people wonder why the Israelis need a security barrier.
It is a lie to say that Israel is an apartheid state and that the wall is an apartheid wall. It is a security barrier, just like dozens of others around the world, none of which is ever called an "apartheid wall."
The clergy and congregants of St. James have open, tolerant hearts, yet not, it seems, for Jews or Israelis. They venerate Palestinians above other suffering people and fail to distinguish between Palestinians who suffer from the conflict and those whose hate for Jews drives them to violence...keep reading
Excerpt:
"The Christians who berate Israel in this fashion have two biases. First, they seem to be in favor of a style of Christianity that takes Christ's vocation for the poor — a value that has led to so much good throughout history — and blends it with political strategies that may sound well-intended, but that often harbor dark and corrosive side-effects. It has for some time seemed natural to many Christians to follow a political path that disparages the norms of stable society by taking decent liberal values to extremes, by elevating the rights of gays above the rights of the majority, or women above men, disruption against the state (something that led to violent action in the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s), a hatred for colonialism, that has led to a wider hatred of the West and its values, a love for the Third World that results in turning a blind eye to things such as honor killings and executions for apostasy, and a concerted hatred for Israel that slips all too easily into anti-Semitism in a bizarre reflection of the far right. What it adds up to is a striving for political correctness above all other values."
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Christian Slaughter
I suggest that Christian slaughter and persecution should be a hot topic for the upcoming Christ At the Checkpoint Conference in 2014. It won't - but it should be! It would also be nice if Vicar Sizer added the topic to his impressive and growing list of audio & literary efforts.
Two of the most tragic Islamic attacks on Christians, killing several women and children, took place in the month of October, one in Syria another in Egypt...On October 21 in Syria, the U.S.-supported Islamic rebels invaded and occupied the ancient Christian settlement of Sadad for over a week, till ousted by the military. During that week, “the largest massacre of Christians in Syria,” in the words of Orthodox Archbishop Alnemeh, took place. Among other things, 45 Christians—including women and children—were killed, several tortured to death; mass graves were discovered; all of Sadad’s 14 churches, some ancient, were ransacked and destroyed; the bodies of six people from one family, ranging from ages 16 to 90, were found buried at the bottom of a well (an increasingly common fate for “subhuman” Christians)...keep reading
Two of the most tragic Islamic attacks on Christians, killing several women and children, took place in the month of October, one in Syria another in Egypt...On October 21 in Syria, the U.S.-supported Islamic rebels invaded and occupied the ancient Christian settlement of Sadad for over a week, till ousted by the military. During that week, “the largest massacre of Christians in Syria,” in the words of Orthodox Archbishop Alnemeh, took place. Among other things, 45 Christians—including women and children—were killed, several tortured to death; mass graves were discovered; all of Sadad’s 14 churches, some ancient, were ransacked and destroyed; the bodies of six people from one family, ranging from ages 16 to 90, were found buried at the bottom of a well (an increasingly common fate for “subhuman” Christians)...keep reading
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Dr. Paul Wilkinson on Christian Palestinianism
Courtesy of The Berean Call for a limited time:
This video is featured in the January 2012 Berean Call Newsletter and was recorded at the 2011 Berean Call Conference
Click Here
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Hanegraaff defends Sizer
There has been a long growing list of notables rushing to defend Stephen Sizer against allegations of anti-Semitism. You can track them all at his blog where he has kindly catalogued them for his readers' benefit. I guess word travels fast and they've surprised the good vicar with a cheery word on his behalf. One recent defender is Hank Hanegraaff who writes:
"I recognize him [Sizer] as a gifted exegete and a much needed voice respecting unnecessary roadblocks erected on the path to peace in the Middle East. He consistently and even-handedly warns against the grievous sin of turning a blind eye to anti-Semitism as well as the abomination of turning a blind eye to a Zionist theology that divides people on the basis of race rather than uniting them on the basis of righteousness, justice, and equity..."
And this:
"Moreover, I find it wholly ironic that courageous men such as Dr. Sizer are uncharitably charged with anti-Semitism while precious little is said respecting the unbalanced perspectives of Christian Zionists who communicate that directly following their own glorious rapture a numberless multitude of Jews will be slaughtered in a bloodbath that they say will exceed even the horrors of the Holocaust. Indeed, those who dare question their notion of a pretribulational rapture followed by a Holy Land holocaust, in which the vast majority of Jews perish, are shouted down as peddlers of godless heresy. The ultimate pejorative phrase has even been coined for those who deny the heart of their Zionist eschatology. They are dubbed “replacement theologians” and are said to be guilty of spreading “the message of anti-Semitism.” Indeed, popular dispensationalists are blunt in their denunciations: “Replacement theologians are now carrying Hitler's anointing and his message.” Little wonder then that this charge is now being gratuitously directed at Dr. Sizer."
My guess is that Hanegraaff's real problem is with Scripture and not with Zionism or the rapture doctrine (Jer 31:36; Amos 9:14-15; Zech 2:8, 13:8-9). Note that even good friend Dr. Norman Geisler has taken Hanegraaff's eschatology to task HERE and HERE. Et tu Brute?
But Hanegraaff can be excused for coming across as a little emotional and throwing a bit of mud while defending his friend Sizer. After all, others have similarly attacked him and mutual friend Dr. Gary Burge for their understanding of Zionist and Israeli misdemeanors. The problem for Sizer, Hanegraaff and Burge is that a lot of criticism has come from non Zionist observers who can spot anti-Israel bias miles away:
"Hanegraaff and Burge both claim they are not anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian, but neutral in supporting peace and justice. Between being anti-Zionist, demonizing Israel, white-washing human rights abuses by Palestinian rulers in Gaza and the West Bank, and indoctrinating students to support Palestinian Arabs against Israelis, their claims of neutrality appear to be little more than posturing."
Other bloggers have noted the tendency for Sizer to obsessively focus on Israel while ignoring other Middle East issues that have affected Christians. At one point he even wrote favorably of the victorious Morsi (Muslim Brotherhood) in the Egyptian elections. That was despite several documented statements Morsi made about taking Jerusalem for Islam and destroying Israel; and we all know how pleased the Egyptians are with Morsi now.
Since the anti-Semite allegations, Sizer has half-heartedly tried to address that imbalance by posting the odd Christian-problems-in-the-Middle-East article that doesn't directly bash Israel. But his passion is to point out the failings of Zionism and Israel's hegemony. Even now he's promoting his anti-Zionist materials by having his "Seven Biblical Answers to Popular Zionist Assumptions" translated into Chinese.
Guess that makes him pretty "gung ho" about something, even if he denies it's anti-whatever!
Further reading:
Turning Churches Against Israel
UK Jews complain to Church of England over ‘anti-Semitic’ vicar
Stephen Sizer & anti-Semitism (Anglican friends of Israel
"I recognize him [Sizer] as a gifted exegete and a much needed voice respecting unnecessary roadblocks erected on the path to peace in the Middle East. He consistently and even-handedly warns against the grievous sin of turning a blind eye to anti-Semitism as well as the abomination of turning a blind eye to a Zionist theology that divides people on the basis of race rather than uniting them on the basis of righteousness, justice, and equity..."
And this:
"Moreover, I find it wholly ironic that courageous men such as Dr. Sizer are uncharitably charged with anti-Semitism while precious little is said respecting the unbalanced perspectives of Christian Zionists who communicate that directly following their own glorious rapture a numberless multitude of Jews will be slaughtered in a bloodbath that they say will exceed even the horrors of the Holocaust. Indeed, those who dare question their notion of a pretribulational rapture followed by a Holy Land holocaust, in which the vast majority of Jews perish, are shouted down as peddlers of godless heresy. The ultimate pejorative phrase has even been coined for those who deny the heart of their Zionist eschatology. They are dubbed “replacement theologians” and are said to be guilty of spreading “the message of anti-Semitism.” Indeed, popular dispensationalists are blunt in their denunciations: “Replacement theologians are now carrying Hitler's anointing and his message.” Little wonder then that this charge is now being gratuitously directed at Dr. Sizer."
My guess is that Hanegraaff's real problem is with Scripture and not with Zionism or the rapture doctrine (Jer 31:36; Amos 9:14-15; Zech 2:8, 13:8-9). Note that even good friend Dr. Norman Geisler has taken Hanegraaff's eschatology to task HERE and HERE. Et tu Brute?
But Hanegraaff can be excused for coming across as a little emotional and throwing a bit of mud while defending his friend Sizer. After all, others have similarly attacked him and mutual friend Dr. Gary Burge for their understanding of Zionist and Israeli misdemeanors. The problem for Sizer, Hanegraaff and Burge is that a lot of criticism has come from non Zionist observers who can spot anti-Israel bias miles away:
"Hanegraaff and Burge both claim they are not anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian, but neutral in supporting peace and justice. Between being anti-Zionist, demonizing Israel, white-washing human rights abuses by Palestinian rulers in Gaza and the West Bank, and indoctrinating students to support Palestinian Arabs against Israelis, their claims of neutrality appear to be little more than posturing."
Other bloggers have noted the tendency for Sizer to obsessively focus on Israel while ignoring other Middle East issues that have affected Christians. At one point he even wrote favorably of the victorious Morsi (Muslim Brotherhood) in the Egyptian elections. That was despite several documented statements Morsi made about taking Jerusalem for Islam and destroying Israel; and we all know how pleased the Egyptians are with Morsi now.
Since the anti-Semite allegations, Sizer has half-heartedly tried to address that imbalance by posting the odd Christian-problems-in-the-Middle-East article that doesn't directly bash Israel. But his passion is to point out the failings of Zionism and Israel's hegemony. Even now he's promoting his anti-Zionist materials by having his "Seven Biblical Answers to Popular Zionist Assumptions" translated into Chinese.
Guess that makes him pretty "gung ho" about something, even if he denies it's anti-whatever!
Further reading:
Turning Churches Against Israel
UK Jews complain to Church of England over ‘anti-Semitic’ vicar
Stephen Sizer & anti-Semitism (Anglican friends of Israel
Sunday, November 4, 2012
The "new" Balfour Project Website
I've been too busy with other stuff to post of late. But I've just come across this little item while researching an article for this week's Omega Letter. Apparently Rev. Stephen Sizer has stumbled across a website which deals with the shortcomings of the Balfour Declaration.
You can read the whole thing at rosh pina project:
Sizer’s Balfour Project Controversy
The anti-Zionist Balfour Project!
According to rosh pina:
However just who are The Balfour Project?
According to Whois.net The Balfour Project web site http://www.balfourdeclaration.org/ is owned by non other than…
Domain Name: BALFOURDECLARATION.ORG
Registrant Organization:Stephen Sizer
Registrant Street1:Christ Church Vicarage
Well it does look like the good vicar is being less than ethical in allowing readers of his blog to draw the conclusion that someone other than him is running this Balfour Project. Why did he not just fess-up and admit it was him?
Sizer recently came into more strife for being less than careful with his sources in To whom it may concern
It's not the first time and probably won't be the last. Play in the mud and you tend to get dirty.
You can read the whole thing at rosh pina project:
Sizer’s Balfour Project Controversy
The anti-Zionist Balfour Project!
According to rosh pina:
However just who are The Balfour Project?
According to Whois.net The Balfour Project web site http://www.balfourdeclaration.org/ is owned by non other than…
Domain Name: BALFOURDECLARATION.ORG
Registrant Organization:Stephen Sizer
Registrant Street1:Christ Church Vicarage
Well it does look like the good vicar is being less than ethical in allowing readers of his blog to draw the conclusion that someone other than him is running this Balfour Project. Why did he not just fess-up and admit it was him?
Sizer recently came into more strife for being less than careful with his sources in To whom it may concern
It's not the first time and probably won't be the last. Play in the mud and you tend to get dirty.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Hatred within Israel?
Well, it didn't take long. I see Stephen Sizer couldn't resist but post the following story "Why are Christians the target?" on his blog:
The Christian community awoke this morning, Tuesday, September 4, 2012, to discover with horror that once again it is the target of forces of hatred within Israeli society. In the early hours of the morning, the door of the Cistercian (Trappist) monastery in Latroun was burnt and anti-Christian graffiti was sprayed on the walls....keep reading
What he failed to note was Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's quick condemnation of the deed:
"Those responsible for this reprehensible act need to be punished severely. Freedom of religion and freedom of worship are among the most basic foundations of the State of Israel."
ISRAELI LEADERS DENOUNCE ANTI-CHRISTIAN GRAFFITI AT MONASTERY
The paramount difference between this incident and Christian persecution in other countries is that it is not condoned in
Saturday, June 23, 2012
More on Acts 1:6-7 etc
The reason I frequently point to the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 is because it challenges the supercessionist view. Their question was driven by a virtual tidal wave of OT passages and literal expectation. Jesus’ response is notable in that He does not correct their anticipation. In contrast to this the supercessionist response is significant because it doesn’t resolve the problem for that view. The supercessionist fabricates an answer that he feels comfortable with but ultimately doesn’t gel.
An example of this is Stephen Sizer’s “Christian Zionism, Road-Map to Armageddon?” (p169). Sizer cites John Calvin: “There are many mistakes in this question as there are words.” He appeals to O Palmer Robertson when, reflecting on Jesus’ response, he states:
“Jesus redefines the boundaries of the kingdom of God and thereby the meaning of the chosen-ness. The expansion of the kingdom of God throughout the world requires the exile of the apostles from the land. They must turn their backs on Jerusalem and on their hopes of a materialistic kingdom. They are sent out to the world but never told to return. Subsequent to Pentecost, under the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the apostles begin to use old covenant language concerning the land in new ways...”
Sizer uses 1 Peter 1:4 as an example of this “new old covenant” concept.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 1Pe 1:3-5
The context of these verses is resurrection and salvation. Sizer assumes a redefined kingdom in a text where it isn’t to be found. Salvation and resurrection are expectations found in the OT alongside the land promises to Israel. One does not cancel the other. Nowhere are the disciples told to go out and expand the kingdom (compare Acts 1:7-8 & Matt 28:19). Neither are they told to forsake the mountain of scriptural evidence of future land fulfillment for Israel as indicated in the OT; which was the same source from which they had expected a literal Messiah. Nothing is changed – compare Jer 31 with Acts 3:25-26 and Romans 11:26-29.
On p 160 he appeals to metaphorical language and the alleged redefinition of the OT by the NT (Acts-Joel-Amos). Speaking of the prophecies of the “fulfilled” return from the Babylonian exile, Sizer declares:
“While it is true that only 50,000 exiles had returned in around 538 BC, compared with the 603,550 men (excluding women and children) that had come out of Egypt a thousand years earlier (see Num 1:46), and although they returned to only a small part of their original territory and built only a small replica of Solomon’s temple, God’s prophets nevertheless describe this restoration as so wonderful that it goes that it goes well beyond the limitations of any literal realization. Haggai and Zechariah, for example, describe a glorious future where Jerusalem becomes a great city surrounded by a wall of fire and into which the Gentile nations stream to worship. As Palmer Robertson explains, the imagery here metaphorically bursts the limitations of the old covenant wineskin.”
Sizer would have made a great car salesman – “We don’t have the Ferrari you’re looking for but that VW Beetle in the back corner of our lot is a better choice.” I love the old VWs but they aren’t a patch on a Ferrari. I once owned a tricked up Karmann Ghia; as nice as it was it didn’t have the prestige or power of a Porsche 911.
What is missing from his narrative is the lack of exposition of texts that deal with God’s promises to Israel. Go to the Index of Biblical References (p 296) and you’ll find Amos 9:14 referenced on pp 154 & 158 but there is no exposition and neither is the text given. Moreover, he fails to reference v 15 and omits Jeremiah 31 entirely! Amos 9:15 declares:
“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.”
Was God speaking metaphorically?
On pp 106-108 of “Revelation 20 and the Millennial Debate”, Matt Waymeyer lists 8 biblical reasons why a restoration of Israel in the land is still future. One reason is Zech 10:8, which Sizer perhaps inadvertently acknowledges (see above). Also, the sinful nature and consistent disobedience of Israel cannot be reconciled with the passages that speak of spiritual renewal following that restoration. God said He would destroy the nations to which He had scattered the Jews, yet this hasn’t happened. The promise of the return was presented as an integral part of the New Covenant but that covenant wasn’t inaugurated prior to Christ.
Speaking of Matt Waymeyer, you can read his commentary on Acts 1:6-7 and the Restoration of Israel HERE.
Waymeyer:
According to Luke 24:45, Jesus not only taught His disciples during this time period [the 40 days], but He also “opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.” The Greek verb translated “opened” is the word used in Acts 16:14 of how the Lord “opened” Lydia’s heart to respond to the gospel. In Luke 24:45 it speaks of a supernatural opening of the disciples’ minds which enabled them to understand the things spoken about Jesus throughout the Old Testament.
In light of this, how can one insist that the disciples were deceived in thinking that God was planning to restore the kingdom to the nation of Israel? Jesus Himself instructed them clearly, and He even enlightened their minds to understand the things He taught, so how could they be so radically misinformed about features of the kingdom as basic as its nature and recipients?
An example of this is Stephen Sizer’s “Christian Zionism, Road-Map to Armageddon?” (p169). Sizer cites John Calvin: “There are many mistakes in this question as there are words.” He appeals to O Palmer Robertson when, reflecting on Jesus’ response, he states:
“Jesus redefines the boundaries of the kingdom of God and thereby the meaning of the chosen-ness. The expansion of the kingdom of God throughout the world requires the exile of the apostles from the land. They must turn their backs on Jerusalem and on their hopes of a materialistic kingdom. They are sent out to the world but never told to return. Subsequent to Pentecost, under the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the apostles begin to use old covenant language concerning the land in new ways...”
Sizer uses 1 Peter 1:4 as an example of this “new old covenant” concept.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 1Pe 1:3-5
The context of these verses is resurrection and salvation. Sizer assumes a redefined kingdom in a text where it isn’t to be found. Salvation and resurrection are expectations found in the OT alongside the land promises to Israel. One does not cancel the other. Nowhere are the disciples told to go out and expand the kingdom (compare Acts 1:7-8 & Matt 28:19). Neither are they told to forsake the mountain of scriptural evidence of future land fulfillment for Israel as indicated in the OT; which was the same source from which they had expected a literal Messiah. Nothing is changed – compare Jer 31 with Acts 3:25-26 and Romans 11:26-29.
On p 160 he appeals to metaphorical language and the alleged redefinition of the OT by the NT (Acts-Joel-Amos). Speaking of the prophecies of the “fulfilled” return from the Babylonian exile, Sizer declares:
“While it is true that only 50,000 exiles had returned in around 538 BC, compared with the 603,550 men (excluding women and children) that had come out of Egypt a thousand years earlier (see Num 1:46), and although they returned to only a small part of their original territory and built only a small replica of Solomon’s temple, God’s prophets nevertheless describe this restoration as so wonderful that it goes that it goes well beyond the limitations of any literal realization. Haggai and Zechariah, for example, describe a glorious future where Jerusalem becomes a great city surrounded by a wall of fire and into which the Gentile nations stream to worship. As Palmer Robertson explains, the imagery here metaphorically bursts the limitations of the old covenant wineskin.”
Sizer would have made a great car salesman – “We don’t have the Ferrari you’re looking for but that VW Beetle in the back corner of our lot is a better choice.” I love the old VWs but they aren’t a patch on a Ferrari. I once owned a tricked up Karmann Ghia; as nice as it was it didn’t have the prestige or power of a Porsche 911.
What is missing from his narrative is the lack of exposition of texts that deal with God’s promises to Israel. Go to the Index of Biblical References (p 296) and you’ll find Amos 9:14 referenced on pp 154 & 158 but there is no exposition and neither is the text given. Moreover, he fails to reference v 15 and omits Jeremiah 31 entirely! Amos 9:15 declares:
“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.”
Was God speaking metaphorically?
On pp 106-108 of “Revelation 20 and the Millennial Debate”, Matt Waymeyer lists 8 biblical reasons why a restoration of Israel in the land is still future. One reason is Zech 10:8, which Sizer perhaps inadvertently acknowledges (see above). Also, the sinful nature and consistent disobedience of Israel cannot be reconciled with the passages that speak of spiritual renewal following that restoration. God said He would destroy the nations to which He had scattered the Jews, yet this hasn’t happened. The promise of the return was presented as an integral part of the New Covenant but that covenant wasn’t inaugurated prior to Christ.
Speaking of Matt Waymeyer, you can read his commentary on Acts 1:6-7 and the Restoration of Israel HERE.
Waymeyer:
According to Luke 24:45, Jesus not only taught His disciples during this time period [the 40 days], but He also “opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.” The Greek verb translated “opened” is the word used in Acts 16:14 of how the Lord “opened” Lydia’s heart to respond to the gospel. In Luke 24:45 it speaks of a supernatural opening of the disciples’ minds which enabled them to understand the things spoken about Jesus throughout the Old Testament.
In light of this, how can one insist that the disciples were deceived in thinking that God was planning to restore the kingdom to the nation of Israel? Jesus Himself instructed them clearly, and He even enlightened their minds to understand the things He taught, so how could they be so radically misinformed about features of the kingdom as basic as its nature and recipients?
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.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Supersessionism & Anti-Israelism
I’ve spent quite time commenting on how some supersessionists approach the modern state of Israel. The more I read the more confirmation I get that there’s a correlation between supersessionism and how some (not all) clergymen treat the nation Israel and Zionism.
Most would strenuously object to being classified as anti-Semitic. I know Stephen Sizer does.
Yet how do we define individuals who are committed to unfairly criticizing Israel while willfully ignoring any incriminating evidence against Israel’s enemies?
Sizer recently posted a response to certain charges made against him. Is he perhaps feeling the heat from over-exposure? His excuses are weak. For example, he claims that over the years his blog has “lamented the suffering of Christians under Islamic rule” and then he points to two token instances, and so on for the other charges.
Yet all one has to do is spend some time going through his blog to see that it’s saturated with anti-Israeli propaganda as well as self-promotion of his “Christian Zionism” book and videos. He may deny anti-Semitism or anti-Israelism but he certainly seems to be on a crusade against them. He also conveniently ignores the fact that the Palestinian problem is largely aggravated by "Islamic rule" and not Israel.
Harry’s Place blog posted two problematic articles on Sizer HERE and HERE. See also Moriel’s article.
Perhaps Rev Sizer can explain that.
Most would strenuously object to being classified as anti-Semitic. I know Stephen Sizer does.
Yet how do we define individuals who are committed to unfairly criticizing Israel while willfully ignoring any incriminating evidence against Israel’s enemies?
Sizer recently posted a response to certain charges made against him. Is he perhaps feeling the heat from over-exposure? His excuses are weak. For example, he claims that over the years his blog has “lamented the suffering of Christians under Islamic rule” and then he points to two token instances, and so on for the other charges.
Yet all one has to do is spend some time going through his blog to see that it’s saturated with anti-Israeli propaganda as well as self-promotion of his “Christian Zionism” book and videos. He may deny anti-Semitism or anti-Israelism but he certainly seems to be on a crusade against them. He also conveniently ignores the fact that the Palestinian problem is largely aggravated by "Islamic rule" and not Israel.
Harry’s Place blog posted two problematic articles on Sizer HERE and HERE. See also Moriel’s article.
Perhaps Rev Sizer can explain that.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
The Hermeneutic of Reinterpretation
It’s no wonder we have so many differences in understanding Scripture. Take these quotes for example:
The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New Testament. In principle it is quite possible that the prophecies addressed originally to literal Israel describing physical blessings have their fulfillment exclusively in the spiritual blessings enjoyed by the church. It is also possible that the Old Testament expectation of a kingdom on earth could be reinterpreted by the New Testament altogether of blessings in the spiritual realm. (Historic premillennialist George Ladd)
But eschatological themes are reinterpreted in the New Testament, where we are told these Old Testament images are types and shadows of the glorious realities that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ…This [literal interpretation of the Bible] leaves dispensationalists frequently stuck in the awkward position of insisting on an Old Testament interpretation of a prophetic theme that has been reinterpreted in the New Testament in the light of the messianic age which dawned in Jesus Christ. (Amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger)
Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament…Their selective and dualistic hermeneutic leads Christian Zionists to ignore how Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament. (Anti-Zionist Stephen Sizer)
Jesus spent His whole ministry redefining what the kingdom meant. He refused to give up the symbolic language of the kingdom, but filled it with such a new content that, as we have seen, he powerfully subverted Jewish expectations. (Theologian N. T. Wright)
Redefining? Re-interpreting? These “theologians” are dead serious! I’ve been reading self-proclaimed ex-dispie Kim Riddlebarger’s “A Case for Amillennialism” and have a potential bald spot from where I’ve been scratching my head re his methodology.
The OT has some specific and detailed statements that address the future of Israel. If the NT redefines or re-interprets these then it is nothing more than abrogation.
If Ladd is correct that the NT reinterprets the OT, his hermeneutic does raise some serious questions. How can the integrity of the OT text be maintained? In what sense can the OT really be called a revelation in its original meaning? (Paul Feinberg)
If NT reinterpretation reverses, cancels, or seriously modifies OT promises to Israel, one wonders how to define the word "progressive.‟ God‟s faithfulness to His promises to Israel must also be explained… It appears exceedingly doubtful that the NT reinterprets the OT. . . . This comes perilously close to conflicting with such NT passages as Matt 5:18 and John 10:35b. (David L Turner)
The quotes above have been taken from an article at Mike Vlach’s website. You can read it HERE.
Dr Paul Henebury makes some observations of his own. Here’s one of them:
By assuming, without sufficient warrant, that the New Testament must be used to [re]interpret the Old Testament, CT in practice denies to the OT its own perspicuity, its own integrity as inspired revelation, and creates a “canon within a canon.”
Read the rest of Dr Henebury's post HERE.
The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New Testament. In principle it is quite possible that the prophecies addressed originally to literal Israel describing physical blessings have their fulfillment exclusively in the spiritual blessings enjoyed by the church. It is also possible that the Old Testament expectation of a kingdom on earth could be reinterpreted by the New Testament altogether of blessings in the spiritual realm. (Historic premillennialist George Ladd)
But eschatological themes are reinterpreted in the New Testament, where we are told these Old Testament images are types and shadows of the glorious realities that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ…This [literal interpretation of the Bible] leaves dispensationalists frequently stuck in the awkward position of insisting on an Old Testament interpretation of a prophetic theme that has been reinterpreted in the New Testament in the light of the messianic age which dawned in Jesus Christ. (Amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger)
Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament…Their selective and dualistic hermeneutic leads Christian Zionists to ignore how Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament. (Anti-Zionist Stephen Sizer)
Jesus spent His whole ministry redefining what the kingdom meant. He refused to give up the symbolic language of the kingdom, but filled it with such a new content that, as we have seen, he powerfully subverted Jewish expectations. (Theologian N. T. Wright)
Redefining? Re-interpreting? These “theologians” are dead serious! I’ve been reading self-proclaimed ex-dispie Kim Riddlebarger’s “A Case for Amillennialism” and have a potential bald spot from where I’ve been scratching my head re his methodology.
The OT has some specific and detailed statements that address the future of Israel. If the NT redefines or re-interprets these then it is nothing more than abrogation.
If Ladd is correct that the NT reinterprets the OT, his hermeneutic does raise some serious questions. How can the integrity of the OT text be maintained? In what sense can the OT really be called a revelation in its original meaning? (Paul Feinberg)
If NT reinterpretation reverses, cancels, or seriously modifies OT promises to Israel, one wonders how to define the word "progressive.‟ God‟s faithfulness to His promises to Israel must also be explained… It appears exceedingly doubtful that the NT reinterprets the OT. . . . This comes perilously close to conflicting with such NT passages as Matt 5:18 and John 10:35b. (David L Turner)
The quotes above have been taken from an article at Mike Vlach’s website. You can read it HERE.
Dr Paul Henebury makes some observations of his own. Here’s one of them:
By assuming, without sufficient warrant, that the New Testament must be used to [re]interpret the Old Testament, CT in practice denies to the OT its own perspicuity, its own integrity as inspired revelation, and creates a “canon within a canon.”
Read the rest of Dr Henebury's post HERE.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The true Israel of God
“The doctrine of the remnant means that, within the Jewish nation as a whole, there are always some who believe and all those who believe among Israel comprise the Remnant of Israel. The remnant at any point of history may be large or small but there is never a time when it is non-existent. Only believers comprise the remnant, but not all believers are part of the remnant for the remnant is a Jewish remnant and is, therefore, comprised of Jewish believers. Furthermore, the remnant is always part of the nation as a whole and not detached from the nation as a separate entity. The remnant is distinct, but distinct within the nation.”
Arnold Fruchtenbaum: Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology
Romans chapters 9-11 have a significant place in the overall argument of the apostle Paul in the book of Romans. These chapters deal with the important issue of the apparent failure of God’s Word concerning His people Israel. This passage of Scripture is permeated with the doctrine of the “Remnant of Israel,” describing its current implications for believers as well as its eschatological implications for the nation of Israel. The present study will focus on a contextual and grammatical analysis of Romans 9-11 in order to provide a consistent interpretation of the different aspects of God’s plan for the salvation of Israel. Special attention will be focused on Romans 11:25-26 regarding the eventual salvation of Israel on a national scale...The Doctrine of the Remnant and the Salvation of Israel in Romans 9-11
The last verse of Romans chapter 10 points clearly to Israel’s rejection of God and rejection of God’s gospel. The Israelites have rejected God (Rom. 10:21). Thus, the logical question is this: HAS GOD REJECTED THEM? "Has God cast away His people?" The answer is a strong NO: God forbid! May such a thought never enter our minds! Perish the thought!...God has not cast away His people, the Israelites
Exposition of the New Covenant and its relationship to the church has traditionally proven to be a “sore spot” for dispensational interpreters. Because dispensationalism has all too frequently emphasized Scripture’s discontinuity at the expense of its continuity, dispensationalists have often had difficulty explaining the New Testament verses that seemingly apply Israel’s New Covenant to the church age. This paper will attempt to demonstrate how the New Covenant relates to the church in a way that maintains the continuity as well as the discontinuity between God’s programs for Israel and the church. In pursuance of this end, the following three areas will be explored: the Old Testament’s presentation of the New Covenant, what the New Testament presents regarding the New Covenant’s ratification and relation to the church, and inadequate views some interpreters have offered concerning how the New Covenant relates to the church...WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CHURCH TO THE NEW COVENANT?
Theologians of all kinds focus on Christ as the key to understanding the biblical covenants. Two significant characteristics of the New Covenant promised to Israel are its newness in replacing the Mosaic Covenant and its everlasting and irrevocable nature. For Israel the New Covenant promises her transformation through providing her a new heart, her final and permanent forgiveness, and the consummation of her relationship with the Lord. Through Israel God will also bless the Gentiles because of this covenant. As mediator of the New Covenant, theMessiah will be identified with Israel as God’s Son, Servant, covenant, and Abraham’s seed. Though the Messiah is not yet identified nationally with Israel, He is already identified with the church. Terminology and provisions spelled out in the NT indicate that Christ inaugurated the New Covenant at His first advent. Though the New Covenant will not be fulfilled with Israel until her future repentance, the church through Spirit baptism into Christ participates in that covenant...THE NEW COVENANT
Covenant and reformed theologians believe that New Testament believers, including saved Gentiles, are the true Israel of God. Is it really Biblical to refer to Gentile believers as Israelites? Has God created a “new Israel” that is composed of believing Jews and Gentiles of this present age?....How is the Term Israel Used in the New Testament?
We’re not dispensationalists here....We believe that the church is essentially Israel. We believe that the answer to, “What about the Jews?” is, “Here we are.” We deny that the church is God’s “plan B.” We deny that we are living in God’s redemptive parenthesis...Is R. C. Sproul Jr. Really A Jew?
Arnold Fruchtenbaum: Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology
Romans chapters 9-11 have a significant place in the overall argument of the apostle Paul in the book of Romans. These chapters deal with the important issue of the apparent failure of God’s Word concerning His people Israel. This passage of Scripture is permeated with the doctrine of the “Remnant of Israel,” describing its current implications for believers as well as its eschatological implications for the nation of Israel. The present study will focus on a contextual and grammatical analysis of Romans 9-11 in order to provide a consistent interpretation of the different aspects of God’s plan for the salvation of Israel. Special attention will be focused on Romans 11:25-26 regarding the eventual salvation of Israel on a national scale...The Doctrine of the Remnant and the Salvation of Israel in Romans 9-11
The last verse of Romans chapter 10 points clearly to Israel’s rejection of God and rejection of God’s gospel. The Israelites have rejected God (Rom. 10:21). Thus, the logical question is this: HAS GOD REJECTED THEM? "Has God cast away His people?" The answer is a strong NO: God forbid! May such a thought never enter our minds! Perish the thought!...God has not cast away His people, the Israelites
Exposition of the New Covenant and its relationship to the church has traditionally proven to be a “sore spot” for dispensational interpreters. Because dispensationalism has all too frequently emphasized Scripture’s discontinuity at the expense of its continuity, dispensationalists have often had difficulty explaining the New Testament verses that seemingly apply Israel’s New Covenant to the church age. This paper will attempt to demonstrate how the New Covenant relates to the church in a way that maintains the continuity as well as the discontinuity between God’s programs for Israel and the church. In pursuance of this end, the following three areas will be explored: the Old Testament’s presentation of the New Covenant, what the New Testament presents regarding the New Covenant’s ratification and relation to the church, and inadequate views some interpreters have offered concerning how the New Covenant relates to the church...WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CHURCH TO THE NEW COVENANT?
Theologians of all kinds focus on Christ as the key to understanding the biblical covenants. Two significant characteristics of the New Covenant promised to Israel are its newness in replacing the Mosaic Covenant and its everlasting and irrevocable nature. For Israel the New Covenant promises her transformation through providing her a new heart, her final and permanent forgiveness, and the consummation of her relationship with the Lord. Through Israel God will also bless the Gentiles because of this covenant. As mediator of the New Covenant, theMessiah will be identified with Israel as God’s Son, Servant, covenant, and Abraham’s seed. Though the Messiah is not yet identified nationally with Israel, He is already identified with the church. Terminology and provisions spelled out in the NT indicate that Christ inaugurated the New Covenant at His first advent. Though the New Covenant will not be fulfilled with Israel until her future repentance, the church through Spirit baptism into Christ participates in that covenant...THE NEW COVENANT
Covenant and reformed theologians believe that New Testament believers, including saved Gentiles, are the true Israel of God. Is it really Biblical to refer to Gentile believers as Israelites? Has God created a “new Israel” that is composed of believing Jews and Gentiles of this present age?....How is the Term Israel Used in the New Testament?
We’re not dispensationalists here....We believe that the church is essentially Israel. We believe that the answer to, “What about the Jews?” is, “Here we are.” We deny that the church is God’s “plan B.” We deny that we are living in God’s redemptive parenthesis...Is R. C. Sproul Jr. Really A Jew?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
