David Wood’s Islamic Dilemma: Reflections

Conversations between Christians and Muslims often circle around a familiar set of questions: What does the Qur’an say about earlier scriptures? How reliable is the Bible? And what happens when the two traditions make competing claims?

One argument that regularly surfaces in these discussions is David Wood’s “Islamic Dilemma.” It’s simple, provocative, and easy to explain — which is exactly why it gets so much attention.

David Wood is an American Christian philosopher and apologist known for his debates with Muslim scholars and his critiques of Islamic theology. He co‑founded Acts 17 Apologetics and became widely recognized through public debates and online content engaging with Islamic claims. 

Wood is also known for his long, formative friendship with Nabeel Qureshi — a relationship that began in university as intellectual sparring partners and grew into a deep personal bond that shaped both of their journeys in apologetics.

This post is about unpacking the Islamic Dilemma argument, looking at how Muslim scholars respond, and reflecting on how da’wah (Islamic outreach) often presents the issue to the public.

What Is the “Islamic Dilemma”?

David Wood’s argument rests on two observations.

1. The Qur’an speaks positively about the Torah and the Gospel.

Examples include:

• Qur’an 3:3–4 — God revealed the Torah and the Gospel as guidance and light.
• Qur’an 5:47 — Christians are told to “judge by what God revealed in the Gospel.”
• Qur’an 10:94 — Muhammad is told that if he is in doubt, he should ask those who read earlier scripture.

These verses appear to affirm the authority of the scriptures available in the 7th century.

2. But the Bible contradicts Islamic teachings.

For example:

• Jesus’ crucifixion
  Affirmed throughout the New Testament (e.g., Mark 15, Luke 23, John 19)
  Explicitly denied in Qur’an 4:157
• Jesus’ divine identity
  Affirmed in John 1:1, John 20:28, Colossians 1:15–20
  Rejected in Qur’an 5:72 and Qur’an 112:1–4
• Jesus as the Son of God
  Central in Matthew 3:17 and John 3:16
  Denied in Qur’an 19:35 and Qur’an 5:116

From this, Wood frames the dilemma:

If the Bible is reliable, Islam contradicts it.
If the Bible is corrupted, the Qur’an is wrong for affirming it.

How Muslim Scholars Respond

Muslim scholars offer several responses, each grounded in a different interpretive approach. And importantly, many Muslims find these rebuttals compelling because their worldview prioritizes revelation as the highest source of truth. In this framework, God’s speech defines reality, and empirical evidence is interpreted through that lens.

This difference in starting point is crucial for understanding why the same argument can look strong from one perspective and weak from another.

1. “The Qur’an affirms the original revelations, not the later texts.”

In this view, the Qur’an praises the original Torah and Gospel — the revelations given to Moses and Jesus — not necessarily the versions circulating in late antiquity.

Within a revelation-first worldview:
If God revealed earlier scriptures, then those revelations must have been true. Whether surviving manuscripts match them is a secondary question.

From an empirical worldview:
Verses like Qur’an 5:47 and 10:94 appear to refer to the scriptures available in Muhammad’s time, creating tension with the “lost originals” idea.

2. “The Qur’an praises the moral guidance of earlier scriptures, not their doctrines.”

This interpretation says the Qur’an affirms the ethical teachings of earlier books — justice, charity, monotheism — without endorsing every theological claim.

Within a revelation-first worldview:
It preserves Qur’anic authority while explaining doctrinal differences.

From an empirical worldview:
Some verses (e.g., Qur’an 5:68) seem broader than ethics alone, making this reading feel narrow.

3. “The Bible was textually corrupted before Islam.”

This is the most common da’wah response.

Within a revelation-first worldview:
The Qur’an criticizes earlier communities for distorting their message (e.g., Qur’an 2:75, 4:46), so corruption feels like a natural conclusion.

From an empirical worldview:
Manuscripts from the 2nd–4th centuries match today’s New Testament closely. The Qur’an never explicitly says the text was altered. No historical evidence shows a major rewrite.

Where Da’wah Apologetics Complicate Things

Many da’wah speakers (equivalent to evangelists) confidently assert:

• “The Bible was changed.”
• “The original Gospel is lost.”
• “Christians corrupted their scripture.”

But they rarely mention:

• The thousands of early manuscripts
• The textual stability of the New Testament was well established by the time the Qur'an was compiled
• That the Qur’an’s criticism focuses on interpretation, not textual alteration
• That many Muslim academics reject the popular da’wah narrative

Because revelation is prioritized over empirical evidence, these omissions often don’t feel like omissions within the da’wah mindset. But the practical effect is that audiences walk away with a distorted picture of the historical data.

How Worldview Shapes the Strength of the Dilemma

The strength of the “Islamic Dilemma” depends entirely on the worldview one brings to it.

From an empirical worldview:

• Manuscript evidence matters.
• Historical continuity matters.
• Claims of textual corruption are weak.
• Qur’anic affirmations of earlier scripture create real tension.

From a revelation-first worldview:

• Revelation is the highest authority.
• God’s word defines truth, not manuscripts.
• Qur’anic statements are interpreted through that lens.
• Empirical evidence is secondary or reinterpreted.

Christian worldviews and Muslim worldviews operate with different foundations, and those foundations determine which arguments feel strong and which feel strained.

Across Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant traditions, there’s a shared conviction:

If God is the author of both revelation and the natural world, then the two cannot ultimately contradict.

This is a deep, historic Christian intuition.
It goes back to Augustine, Aquinas, the Reformers, and modern theologians alike.

So yes — the expectation is that:

• theological truth
• historical truth
• scientific truth
• empirical truth

…should ultimately align.

If they appear to conflict, Christians typically assume:

• our interpretation of Scripture is incomplete, or
• our interpretation of the evidence is incomplete, or
• we’re missing a piece that will eventually bring the two into harmony.

This is not a fringe view — it’s the dominant Christian posture.

In mainstream Islam, the assumption is:

God’s revelation is perfect, final, and unchanging.
Therefore, if empirical evidence appears to conflict with revelation, the evidence or its interpretation must be flawed.

This is not fringe. It’s built into the structure of Islamic theology:

• The Qur’an is the literal speech of God.
• It is preserved perfectly.
• It is the ultimate criterion for truth.
• Human reasoning and empirical inquiry are valuable, but subordinate.

So yes — Muslims expect harmony.

But the harmony is achieved by interpreting the world through revelation, not by adjusting revelation to fit the world.

Quite different from the Christian worldview.

Final Thoughts

Considering the two points of view is about understanding how different worldviews — one grounded primarily in revelation, the other in empirical evidence — evaluate the same claims in different ways.

A position can appear compelling from one angle and unconvincing from another. Recognizing that difference is essential for clearer, more constructive conversations about scripture, history, and faith.

God, law and treaty

God, Law, and the Treaty: A Christian Reflection on Justice and Social Harmony in New Zealand

God’s Law as God’s Character

Christians have often lived in tension with the idea of law. Paul’s warnings about “the letter that kills” and “works of the law” have sometimes been interpreted as if law itself were the enemy of the spiritual life (2 Corinthians 3:6; Galatians 2:16). But when we look at the whole sweep of Scripture, it becomes clear that law is not opposed to God’s nature. Law is an expression of God’s character.

In the Old Testament, the law reveals who God is: just (Deuteronomy 32:4), holy (Leviticus 19:2), faithful (Psalm 119:90), and orderly (1 Corinthians 14:33). In the New Testament, Jesus fulfils the law not by discarding it, but by embodying it (Matthew 5:17). Paul’s critique is not of law itself, but of law without love — law used as a weapon rather than a guide (1 Timothy 1:8). Christians, then, cannot be anti‑law. We are called to reflect God’s character, and that includes His commitment to justice, order, and covenant faithfulness.

Human Law: Necessary, Imperfect, and Inevitable

If we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), then we too must create laws — not divine laws, but human ones that aim, however imperfectly, to reflect God’s justice. Human law can be wise or foolish, just or unjust. It can unite or divide. But the absence of law is not freedom; it is chaos. Judges 21:25 describes a society without law: “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” That is not liberty — it is disorder.

Christians must therefore take law seriously. We must write laws that are practical, fair, and oriented toward the common good (Micah 6:8; Proverbs 29:4).

The Treaty as a Legal and Moral Document

The Treaty of Waitangi is not Scripture. It is not perfect. But it is a covenant — and Christians understand covenants. God Himself binds His people through covenants (Genesis 9; Genesis 15; Exodus 19), and expects His people to honour their promises (Psalm 15:4).

The Treaty represents an attempt, flawed and contested, to establish a just relationship between two peoples. The English and Māori texts differ. Chiefs debated the meaning intensely. Some warned that signing could lead to loss of authority. Others believed the Crown would act as a protector, not a sovereign. The Crown later acted on an interpretation Māori did not share. These tensions shape how New Zealanders understand justice today.

Law, Justice, and Social Cohesion in a Liberal Democracy

New Zealand is a stable, prosperous liberal democracy built on the principle that all citizens are equal before the law (Romans 2:11). But it is also built on a Treaty that promised Māori something more than assimilation into a British legal order. It promised protection, partnership, and respect for rangatiratanga — ideas that resonate with biblical themes of justice for the vulnerable (Isaiah 1:17) and faithfulness to commitments (Matthew 5:37).

These two commitments — equality and partnership — sit in tension. Christians should resist the temptation to resolve that tension too quickly.

If we emphasise equality alone, we risk ignoring historical injustice and the moral weight of promises made (Proverbs 21:3). If we emphasise partnership alone, we risk creating systems that feel, to many, like unequal citizenship — even if the legal intent is covenantal rather than racial. Both fears are real. Both deserve to be taken seriously.

The Danger of Legal Theory Without Social Wisdom

A law can be technically correct and socially disastrous. A policy can be morally motivated and still create resentment. A constitutional model can be elegant on paper and explosive in practice.

Scripture teaches this:

• law without love leads to hardness (1 Corinthians 13:2),
• law without wisdom leads to folly (Proverbs 28:16),
• law without justice leads to oppression (Isaiah 10:1–2),
• and law without unity leads to conflict (Psalm 133:1).

New Zealand’s current debates about co‑governance, Treaty interpretation, and constitutional identity are not merely legal debates. They are debates about belonging, identity, fairness, and fear. If people feel unheard or sidelined — Māori or non‑Māori — social cohesion frays. Christians should be the first to recognise this danger (Romans 12:18).

A Christian Path Forward: Justice With Peace, Truth With Unity

Christians are called to hold together what the world often tears apart:

• truth and reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18),
• justice and mercy (Matthew 23:23),
• law and love (Romans 13:10),
• equality and covenant faithfulness (Galatians 3:28).

A Christian approach to the Treaty must therefore ask a deeper, more constructive question:

How can New Zealand honour the Treaty as Māori understood it,
without creating enduring hierarchies of citizenship or fuelling racial polarisation?

This is where the real work begins — not in slogans, but in design.

Design matters.
Co‑governance may be appropriate in specific domains such as taonga, natural resources, and Treaty‑based institutions. But one‑person‑one‑vote majoritarian democracy must remain sacrosanct in Parliament and in the general law that governs all citizens equally.

Communication matters.
People need to understand why a 50/50 model exists in a particular domain, and they need reassurance that such arrangements are not a blueprint for every institution in the country.

Restraint matters.
Political actors on all sides must avoid rhetoric that dehumanises, catastrophises, or frames neighbours as enemies. “A gentle answer turns away wrath” (Proverbs 15:1), and in a tense national conversation, restraint is not weakness — it is wisdom.

And above all, Christians must recognise that legal theory alone cannot carry this.
If institutions are designed without regard to how actual humans perceive fairness, resentment will grow. That is as true for Māori as it is for non‑Māori.

Conclusion: God’s Law, Human Law, and the Treaty Today

God’s law is perfect (Psalm 19:7). Human law is not. But Christians are called to bridge the gap — to write laws that reflect God’s justice as best we can, and to live under them with humility (James 1:22–25).

The Treaty is part of that calling in New Zealand. Not as a weapon, not as a tool for division, and not as a racial boundary. But as a covenant that must be interpreted with wisdom, fairness, historical honesty, and a commitment to unity.

Christians should not fear this work. We should lead in it — because we know that justice and peace are not enemies, but companions (Psalm 85:10). And because we know that law, when shaped by love, can be a blessing rather than a burden (Romans 13:8–10).

Keeping Torah isn't "Becoming Jewish"

When Believers with Gentile Upbringing Keep Torah: Why It’s Not “Becoming Jewish” but Returning to the God of Israel

For centuries, Christians have wrestled with a deceptively simple question:
Should Believers with Gentile Upbringing keep the Torah?

Most people assume the answer is obvious — “No, that’s Jewish stuff.”
But that assumption rests on a modern misunderstanding: the idea that Torah commandments are ethnic markers rather than God’s revelation of a godly life.

Once you clear away that confusion, the whole picture changes.

The Real Problem: Commandments Became Ethnic Markers

Circumcision, kosher laws, Sabbath, and festivals are not cultural badges.
They are commandments — divine instructions given to shape a holy people.

But over time, these commandments took on a second function:

• They became boundary markers separating Jews from Gentiles
• They became identity signals in a hostile world
• They became ethnic shorthand for “who belongs”

This sociological layer eventually overshadowed the commandments’ original purpose.

So when modern observers see Gentile believers keeping Torah, they instinctively think:

“They’re trying to be Jews.”

But that reaction reveals more about our categories than about Scripture.

Torah Observance Doesn’t Make You a Jew — Faith Does

This is the heart of the matter.

If Torah observance made someone Jewish, then:

• Abraham wasn’t a Jew
• Ruth wasn’t a Jew
• Rahab wasn’t a Jew
• The mixed multitude at Sinai weren’t Jews

Yet Scripture calls them all part of Israel.

Why?

Because Jewish identity begins with faithful allegiance to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not with ethnicity or ritual performance.

As one rabbi put it to me:

“Can you call yourself a Jew if you do not love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength?”

This is the essence of the Shema.
This is the essence of Abraham’s story.
This is the essence of Hebrews 11.

Faith creates identity.
Obedience expresses it.

Paul’s Actual Concern: Gatekeeping, Not Torah-Keeping

Paul never says:

• “Gentiles must not keep Torah.”
• “Torah is abolished.”
• “Commandments don’t matter.”

He says the opposite:

• “The Torah is holy, righteous, and good.”
• “We establish the Torah through faith.”
• “Keeping God’s commandments is what matters.”

Paul’s fight is not against Torah.
It’s against using Torah as a membership test.

He opposes circumcision for Gentiles as a requirement for belonging, not as a way of life for those who already belong.

He dismantles ethnic gatekeeping, not God’s commandments.

Acts 15: The Most Misunderstood Chapter in the New Testament

Most Christians read Acts 15 as:

“Gentiles only need four rules.”

But James adds a crucial line:

“For Moses is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” (v21)

This means:

• Gentile believers would be in synagogue
• They would hear Torah weekly
• They would learn how to live a godly life
• The four prohibitions were entry-level, not the whole expectation

The Jerusalem elders weren’t restricting Gentile discipleship.
They were starting it.

So why did they keep differentiating between "Jews" and "Gentiles"?

In Acts, the Apostles recognized a practical distinction between Jews with ethnic heritage and new Gentile converts. 

Gentiles, though spiritually grafted into Israel, could not be assumed to know Torah theology or practice; they needed instruction from scratch. 

For convenience, the early church often still called them “Gentiles,” creating classificational confusion given Gentiles’ historic exclusion. 

Paul pushed against this confusion—“neither Jew nor Greek… you are all one” (Galatians 3:28)—without fully redefining “what makes a Jew,” leaving practical categories in use.

So Should Gentile Believers Keep Torah?

Here’s the answer that fits the Torah, the prophets, Jesus, Paul, the Apostles, and Acts 15:

Gentile believers should not keep Torah to become Jews.
They should keep Torah because they belong to the God of Israel.

Not as:

• ethnic performance
• cultural assimilation
• salvation by works

But as:

• covenant faithfulness
• obedience
• discipleship
• love for God
• alignment with His revealed way of life

They’re not trying to “become Jews.”
They’re living as members of Israel’s family, grafted in by faith.

They’re not trying to earn salvation.
They’re trying not to be lawless.

They’re not adopting identity markers.
They’re honouring commandments.

The Punchline

The confusion comes from assuming Torah = Jewish ethnicity.

But Scripture teaches:

Torah = God’s revelation of a godly life.

And Scripture teaches:

Faith = the doorway into Israel’s family.

So when Gentile believers embrace Torah, they’re not crossing ethnic lines.  
They’re stepping into the life God revealed for His people.

Not to become Jews.
But because they already became Jews by faith and belong to Israel’s God.

Christian Zionism: A Theological Debate

Christian Zionism is a theological movement within Christianity that interprets the modern state of Israel and the Jewish people’s return to their ancestral land as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. It is controversial because it sits at the intersection of faith, politics, and identity: critics argue it risks conflating divine covenant with nationalism, neglecting justice for Palestinians, or erasing Jewish distinctiveness, while supporters insist it affirms the permanence of God’s promises—including the physical land of Israel—as central to the biblical narrative. The essay that follows explores these tensions in depth, presenting both criticisms and rebuttals across five major themes, and situating the restoration of Israel in 1948 as a partial fulfillment of prophecy with ongoing eschatological implications. It aims to clarify why Christian Zionism provokes such passionate debate and how its theological claims continue to shape contemporary discourse.

1. Modern Israel ≠ Biblical Israel

Criticism A:  Modern Israel is not the Covenantal Israel of Torah
Opponents of Christian Zionism argue that the modern state of Israel cannot be equated with the covenantal Israel of Scripture. They point to passages such as Deuteronomy 28:15, which warns that covenant blessings are conditional upon obedience, and Jeremiah 7:4–7, which cautions Israel not to rely on heritage or temple rituals alone, but to practice justice and obedience. These texts suggest that land and covenant promises are not automatic entitlements but contingent on faithfulness.

Rebuttal A: Disobedience and prototypical fulfillment
Disobedience among some believers, whether of Jewish or Gentile heritage, does not delegitimize the modern state of Israel as a candidate for the promised land. Scripture shows that disobedience leads to judgment and exile, yet God preserves the covenant: “I will not reject them… I will remember the covenant” (Leviticus 26:44–45). The modern state of Israel can be viewed as a prototypical, incomplete stage in the unfolding promise, anticipating fuller covenant obedience and spiritual renewal (Ezekiel 36:26–28).

Criticism B: Spiritualization of the land
Some claim Christians no longer need a territorial Israel because the promise has expanded globally: “inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5); “heir of the world” (Romans 4:13). In this view, Israel is now worldwide and spiritual, untethered from geography

Rebuttal B: Faith as true Israel
Paul’s theology reframes Israel’s identity around faith rather than ethnicity. In Romans 9:6–8, he insists, “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel… it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise.” Likewise, Galatians 3:29 declares, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise.” Christians are grafted into Israel’s olive tree (Romans 11:17–24), meaning the covenant promises extend to them. Crucially, those promises are not merely spiritual: they include the physical land promised to Abraham (Genesis 15:18–21; 17:8).

Rebuttal C: Land still central
Global expansion does not erase the specific land. Genesis 17:8 names Canaan as an everlasting possession. The worldwide scope rests on, rather than replaces, the territorial promise. The land functions as the epicenter and anchor of God’s global plan; spiritual Israel remains linked to a physical territory.

2. Neglect of Justice for Palestinians

Criticism:
Critics of Christian Zionism argue that it privileges Jewish entitlement to the land while neglecting biblical commands to care for the stranger and pursue justice. They cite Leviticus 19:34 and Isaiah 1:17. From this perspective, Israel’s covenantal identity requires hospitality and justice toward non-Jews living in the land. Critics claim that Christian Zionism, by focusing narrowly on territorial promises, risks sanctifying injustice and ignoring the plight of Palestinians.

Modern context:
The Leviticus command presumes foreigners living among Israel—sharing space and protected by covenant law. Yet the present reality undermines coexistence:

• Gaza: There are no Jews living there.
• West Bank under the Palestinian Authority: Jewish presence has been nearly eliminated outside of contested settlements.
• Wider Muslim world: Historic Jewish communities (e.g., Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Morocco) have been reduced to near zero through expulsion, persecution, or forced emigration.

Rebuttal:
Christian Zionism affirms that covenant promises coexist with justice. Micah 6:8 demands justice, mercy, humility. Ephesians 2:14–16 declares Christ has broken down the dividing wall, reconciling Jew and Gentile. Justice is reciprocal: Israel must treat foreigners with justice, and foreigners must accept living among Israel. Excluding Jews violates the spirit of Leviticus 19.

Additionally, the promises believers inherit explicitly include land. Genesis 17:8 states the land of Canaan is an everlasting possession. Heirs of Abraham (Romans 9:6–8; Galatians 3:29) share spiritual blessings and territorial inheritance. The absence of Jews in Gaza, the West Bank, and much of the Muslim world stands as counter-testimony against invocations of biblical justice that practice exclusion.

3. Apocalyptic Motives

Criticism:
Some contend Christian Zionism is driven by end-times speculation rather than solidarity with Jews, citing Jesus’ caution that “the end is not yet” (Matthew 24:6–8) and the apostolic warning that times and seasons are not for believers to know (Acts 1:7). Instrumentalizing Israel for apocalyptic scenarios reduces Jewish identity to a prophetic role.

Rebuttal:
God’s promises are enduring, not merely eschatological. Genesis 17:7–8 establishes an everlasting covenant—including the land of Canaan. Romans 11:29 affirms the irrevocability of God’s gifts and calling. Believers adopted into God’s family (Romans 8:15) participate in these promises. Christian Zionism can therefore rest on covenant permanence that encompasses both spiritual renewal and physical territory, rather than speculative timelines.

4. Undermining Jewish Identity

Criticism:
Jewish critics warn that redefining Israel to include Christians risks erasing Jewish distinctiveness, invoking Paul’s caution: “Do not be arrogant toward the branches… the root supports you” (Romans 11:18).

Discussion of Jewish identity (two strands):

• Torah-based identity: Philosophies, behaviors, worldviews, and customs rooted in Torah—covenantal theology, ritual, ethics, and the worldview formed by Moses’ law.
• Post-Tanakh lived experience: History, customs, and traditions forged after the biblical period—rabbinic development, diaspora languages and liturgies, communal structures, responses to exile, persecution, and assimilation.

Torah is the unifying foundation; lived experiences are the diverse expressions.

The New Testament distinction between Jews and Gentiles (Acts):
In Acts, the Apostles recognized a practical distinction between Jews with ethnic heritage and Gentile converts. Gentiles, though spiritually grafted into Israel, could not be assumed to know Torah theology or practice; they needed instruction from scratch. For convenience, the early church often still called them “Gentiles,” creating classificational confusion given Gentiles’ historic exclusion. Paul pushed against this confusion—“neither Jew nor Greek… you are all one” (Galatians 3:28)—without fully redefining “what makes a Jew,” leaving practical categories in use.

Synagogue abstentions to enable Torah learning:
Acts 15 mandates immediate abstentions—“from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” (Acts 15:20)—so Gentile converts wouldn’t be excluded from synagogue fellowship. Exclusion would deprive them of being “taught Moses,” since “Moses is preached in every city… and is read in the synagogues every Sabbath” (Acts 15:21). These abstentions were pragmatic: they kept Gentile believers within the synagogue, where gradual Torah instruction could occur.

Why Gentile entry doesn’t weaken Jewish identity:
Requiring Gentile converts to remain within synagogue parameters preserves Jewish identity: Torah instruction stays central, and the covenant community grows without erasing distinctiveness. Paul’s grafting metaphor (Romans 11:17) underscores inclusion without replacement: wild branches share nourishment from the cultivated root. Recognizing Christians as spiritual Jews strengthens Torah-based theology and practice—the principal reason for preserving Jewish particularity—while honoring the diverse lived experiences of Jews worldwide.

Importantly, the inheritance Gentiles receive includes the physical land of Israel. That geographic continuity sustains Jewish particularity not only in theology and practice but also in covenantal territory. As Gentile believers learn and uphold Torah’s framework, they contribute to the survival of Torah-centered life within a land-bound covenant, rather than diluting it.

5. Zionism as Secular Nationalism

Criticism:
Modern Zionism’s origins are often secular and political. Critics warn against sacralizing nationalism, invoking Jesus’ “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36) and Paul’s “Our citizenship is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20). They argue Christian Zionism confuses divine covenant with political ideology.

Rebuttal:
Abraham’s covenant is rooted in faith, not ethnic nationalism. Abraham is “father of all who believe” (Romans 4:11–12), and “by faith” he went to the promised place as an inheritance (Hebrews 11:8). The land grant is covenantal: “from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates” (Genesis 15:18–21). While the modern state of Israel is undeniably political, the land promise is theological and everlasting (Genesis 17:8). Christians, as heirs of Abraham (Galatians 3:29; 6:16), inherit spiritual blessings and the territorial promise.

Thus Christian Zionism distinguishes between secular nationhood and divine covenant: the state is a contingent political form; the land promise is an enduring covenantal reality. The contemporary restoration can be viewed as a stage in the unfolding of biblical promises, without collapsing theology into ideology.

6. The modern state of Israel (1948) as partial fulfillment

Temporal fulfillment:
Many see the re-establishment of Israel in 1948 as a historical realization of regathering promises:

• Isaiah 11:11–12: The Lord gathers the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
• Ezekiel 37:21–22: God brings Israel out from the nations back to their land and makes them one nation.
• Amos 9:14–15: Israel is replanted in the land, never again to be uprooted.

Eschatological implications:
These texts often also anticipate deeper spiritual renewal and messianic consummation:

• Ezekiel 36:26–28: New heart, new Spirit, dwelling in the land under God’s rule.
• Zechariah 12–14: National repentance, apocalyptic conflict around Jerusalem, and the Lord’s kingly reign.

Interpretive approaches (brief comparison):

• Evangelical Christian Zionists: See 1948 as a providential regathering and stage-setting partial fulfillment, expecting further spiritual renewal and messianic consummation.
• Rabbinic Jewish perspectives: Emphasize the mystery of divine providence and human responsibility; some see 1948 as redemption beginning (atchalta de’geulah), others caution against premature eschatology, yet affirm the centrality of land, people, and Torah.
• Secular historians: Frame 1948 through political, demographic, and geopolitical lenses—Zionist movement, post-Holocaust realities, British withdrawal—without theological claims, while acknowledging the extraordinary historical nature of the event.

7. Conclusion

The debate over Christian Zionism ultimately returns to a central biblical conviction: God’s covenant with Israel endures, and His promises — including the promise of the Land — remain active. The arguments explored in this essay point toward a coherent theological framework in which the modern restoration of the Jewish people is not merely a political development but a continuation of God’s covenantal faithfulness.

For Christians, this is not a matter of detached observation. The New Testament teaches that believers in Christ are “Abraham’s seed” and “heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29). Paul goes further, describing Gentile believers as “grafted in” to Israel’s olive tree (Romans 11) and even calling them “the circumcision” in a spiritual sense (Philippians 3:3). In other words, Christians are not simply spectators to Israel’s story — they are spiritual Jews, incorporated into the covenantal family that began with Abraham.

This does not erase or replace the Jewish people’s unique identity or their ongoing covenant with God. Rather, it means that Christians share in the blessings of that covenant while honouring the original recipients. And if Christians are spiritually joined to Abraham’s family, then the promises God made to that family — including the promise of the Land — are not irrelevant to them. They become a source of hope, assurance, and theological coherence. God’s fidelity to Israel is a living demonstration of His fidelity to all who belong to Abraham through faith.

This perspective also carries moral weight. If God is actively restoring the Jewish people to their homeland, then Christian solidarity with Israel is not merely political preference but a recognition of shared covenantal identity. It affirms that God keeps His promises, that history is guided by His purposes, and that the Church stands in gratitude toward the people through whom the Scriptures, the prophets, and the Messiah Himself came.

Christian Zionism, at its best, is therefore not triumphalism but trust — trust that the God who scattered Israel has also gathered her, and that His purposes for the Jewish people remain central to the unfolding drama of redemption. While Christians may differ on how these convictions should shape contemporary policy, the theological foundation remains firm: the God of Israel has not abandoned His people, and the restoration we witness today invites awe, humility, and renewed confidence in His promises to all who share in the faith — and the family — of Abraham.

Appendix: Key passages tying spiritual inheritance to territorial promise

Core land grant:

• Genesis 15:18–21: Specific boundaries promised to Abraham’s offspring.
• Genesis 17:8: Land of Canaan as an everlasting possession.

Heirs by faith (land included):

• Romans 9:6–8: Children of the promise define true Israel.
• Romans 11:17–24: Gentiles grafted into Israel’s olive tree, sharing the root.
• Galatians 3:29: Those in Christ are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.

Covenant permanence despite disobedience:

• Leviticus 26:44–45: God remembers the covenant even in exile.
• Romans 11:29: God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable.

Unity without erasure of particularity:

• Galatians 3:28: One in Christ; categories don’t define status.
• Acts 15:20–21: Abstentions to remain in synagogue, “taught Moses.”

Eschatological consummation in the land:

• Ezekiel 36:26–28: New heart and Spirit, dwelling in the land.
• Zechariah 12–14: Repentance, conflict, and divine kingship centered in Jerusalem.

Conclusion

The debate over Christian Zionism exposes tensions between theology and politics, justice and inheritance, identity and inclusion. Critics caution against equating the modern state with biblical Israel, neglecting justice, indulging speculative eschatology, erasing Jewish distinctiveness, or sacralizing nationalism. Rebuttals emphasize faith as the marker of true Israel, the unity of Jew and Gentile, the permanence of God’s promises, and the centrality of Torah and lived Jewish heritage.

Crucially, when Christians inherit the promises, those promises include the physical land of Israel—anchored in God’s covenant with Abraham. The expansion to the nations does not erase geography; it radiates from it. Gentile inclusion preserves Jewish identity by keeping Torah instruction central, and by honoring the diverse lived experiences of Jewish communities worldwide. The modern state of Israel, though politically imperfect and incomplete, can be understood as a prototypical stage toward the consummation of ancient promises—anticipating fuller obedience, reconciliation, and renewal.

God and Suicide: "Choose Life!"

 

This week, we received news that no parent wants to hear:  Our daughter, our beloved daughter, is suicidal.

After hearing her speak with the Child, Adolescent and Family Emergency (CAFE) Team, to our horror, we hear that she has attempted it twice already.

A couple of days before, she had taken herself over to our youth leader's home and shared that she wanted to kill herself, and that she had been using a compass to harm herself already.

Alarmed, her youth leader said, she had to confide in someone, and if it was her, they would need to work out a plan together to keep her safe.

While she told her story, she mentioned that she had had thoughts about how her suffering could be ended and the relief of closure could be.

Our dear daughter had been assailed by long COVID eighteen months ago. The symptoms were deeply distressing. It began with photosensitivity, acute and continuous muscle pain, and nervous exhaustion. 

The condition affected her cognitive ability in strange ways. Through tears, she explained how she could read and explain individual words on a page, but she couldn't tell us what the page said as a whole.  For an A-grade student, this was horrifying.  

Social isolation featured in the first year. She did not have the energy to carry on a conversation and sleep seemed the only way to temporarily escape the pain.

As time passed, she made slow but incremental improvements. To the point she was attending school four out of five days a week, and she was likely to complete her university entrance exams this year. But she was still a long way from what she was capable of before she became ill. The muscle pain has so far never completely left her.

Unfortunately, her hope for a complete recovery began to fade as she watched her friends advance through their lives ahead of her, and she became the object of her own pity.

And the thoughts of obtaining closure became more attractive as time passed.

This is uncharted territory for us.  Our first port of call is the Scriptures.

Prophecy can come in many forms. One form can be subvocal thoughts.

God can speak by this means. But so can others (Ephesians 6).

In 1 Thessalonians 5:19-23, Paul commands us not to ignore these thoughts ("Do not quench the spirit, Do not despise prophecy") but instead to be discerning ("test all things"), to retain what is good ("hold fast to what is good"), and to discard what is not good ("abstain from every evil").

Even Jesus experienced suicidal thoughts when he was urged to throw himself from a great height. He immediately recognised them for what they were and rejected them (Matthew 4:6-7).

Suicidal thoughts are easy to discern because they are contrary to God's ways, for across the ages, God's clarion and enduring voice can be heard urging us to "Choose life!" (Deuteronomy 30:19).

In addition to praying for her to gain this insight, we are also praying that God will break down her despair by meeting her directly and rebuilding her hope and joy through encouragement and fellowship.  We know our friends are praying faithfully.

In the meantime, we navigate the processes set out under our health system too, so far she is responding well, and her youth leader is saying our daughter is quite a different person.  It's nice to hear that she is engaging with the other teenagers in the group and she is exchanging banter with her siblings.

Nonetheless, the hospital advisors said that our daughter knows she is strikingly attractive and she can hide a lot behind a winning smile.  Stay vigilent they advised.  We shall.

How to undelete documents in Logos Bible Software

The other day I must have pushed the wrong button because my Notes disappeared.

After a day or two of grieving over all the notes I'd put together over many years, I wondered if anyone else had had a similar problem.

Even tho its a mystery to me how it got deleted: This is how to undelete things:

Documents.Logos.com lets you store your study notes, presentations, sentence diagrams, reading plans, and more—all in one place. And if you delete an important document, it’s easy to get your work back.

Here’s how to undelete files:

1. Log in at Documents.Logos.com with your Logos.com credentials.
2. Using the dropdown menu in the top-left corner, filter documents by visibility.
3. Select “Deleted” to see all your deleted documents.

The Ethics of Israel's conduct in the Israel-Gaza war 2023-2025 - A christian perspective

 

The events of October 7 have drawn Israel into a significant conflict with the Gazan people.  

Gaza has suffered considerable loss of life, injury and destruction of their cities and communities.

Daily images of dead or suffering children and now starving children has swayed world opinion against Israel.  

Last week the UN passed a resolution for an immediate ceasefire when a wavering USA decided not to exercise its veto power and instead abstained.

Many Christians feel conflicted when it comes to deciding what position to take.

1. Aren't Christians meant to love our enemies? (Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27,35)
2. Aren't we meant to turn the other cheek? Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29)
3. Doesn't one of the ten commandments require us not to kill? (Exodus 20:13)
4. Doesn't God love both Israelis and Gazans equally (John 3.16)?

Taken alone, they seem problematic.  As C S Lewis says, if we saw a vulnerable loved one about to be violently struck by another, would we really stand by and watch even though we had the power to stop it?

What guidance can the bible give to resolve this quandary?

It turns out Romans 12:9ff and Romans 13:1-9  help to resolve this quandary.

Romans 12:9ff echoes many of the passages cited above in Exodus, Matthew, Luke, and John.  And it discusses these things as how an individual might deal with enemies, and persecutors.

Romans 13:1-9 takes us into the realms of civic society and government authorities.  As a collective, we cede authority to governments to act on our behalf.  This passage makes it clear what their duties and responsibilities are:

1. To protect the vulnerable from wrongdoing (Romans 13:3)
2. To punish wrongdoing (Romans 13:2-4)
3. To prevent further wrongdoing (Romans 13:5)

In Israel's case, how is it to act in response to the October 7 massacres in the light of Romans 13?

1. It must act to protect the vulnerable.  Therefore it used deadly force on the day, to neutralize the terrorists and to prevent them killing any more Israeli citizens.  
   
   
2. Israel must punish the actors for wrongdoing.  This means Israel must seek out those responsible for the October 7 atrocities and hold them to account.  And if these suspects are unwilling to be taken alive, then Israel is left with few options except to use deadly force if it wishes to prevent further wrongdoing.
   
   
3. For Israel preventing further wrongdoing is ultimately the biggest problem.
   
   * Preventing Hamas from carrying out another October 7 massacres must be a high priority.
   
   * However, Hamas is determined to annihilate Israel.  Co-existence is unacceptable to them.
   The 700+ km Gazan tunnel system allows Hamas to hide from Israeli military action by turning Gazan hospitals, UN facilities, civilian buildings, and infrastructure into battlefield cover.  This has resulted in widespread destruction of these assets because Hamas has turned them into legitimate military targets.  
   
   * War is ugly and cruel.  Civilian deaths are inevitable.  That is why war should be avoided as much as possible. Yet war is sometimes inevitable and warranted.(Ecclesiastes 3:8).  And when it is required, as Churchill says, we must be resolute.  If this war and the subsequent peace are not won, then Israel will embolden others to repeat Hamas' crimes.
   
   * Like WW2 Germany, Hamas is waging a total war.  They have created a society where the division between civilians and combatants is heavily blurred.  The doctrine of Hamas is the nemesis of all Jews (and ultimately Gentiles too) and martyrdom is taught to children from a young age.  The values and heritage of Gazans involve a fundamentally erroneous worldview, a worldview that believes that their land was taken from them when they have never exercised Manua Whenua over it. 
   
   Correcting this may take a generation or more to do.  There is no quick fix answer to a problem that runs so deeply.  It is also a worldview that much of the world has come to accept as fact in direct contradiction to the historical record.
   
   * Israel must therefore remove Hamas from power, prevent it from ever taking power again and then administer Gaza until a new generation emerges that is willing to accept co-existence with Israel. 
   
   * For many the fact that Israel is acting in self-defence is fair but the disparity of deaths on either side is sufficient to conclude that Israel is reacting disproportionately, and therefore unjustly, to Hamas' crime.  But a layperson's understanding of disproportionality in war under international law is wrong. Proportionality under the Geneva Conventions is related to the military objective not a naive comparison of war dead figures.  Israel's military objective is to prevent another October 7 being repeated.  Hamas has already publicly declared that October 7 is the first of many to come.  From Israel's point of view, Hamas must be destroyed. Hamas' total war strategy puts everyone in Gazan society in harm's way.  Even prominent leaders in the Arab world have criticized Hamas for doing so. 
   
   * We should also be aware that the Gaza Ministry of Health produces these figures and Hamas controls this ministry.  It must be seen as an organ within Hamas' propaganda machine.  All its figures do not differentiate between civilians and combatants, implying that they too recognize Hamas' total war doctrine.  Nor do they account for the peacetime mortality rate.
   
   * In a similar argument, partly fuelled by thoughts about a perceived lack of proportionality, the accusation of Genocide is also directed against Israel.  Again, what constitutes genocide from a layperson's understanding is quite different from the definition used under international law.  Even the learned justices at the International Court of Justice are loath to conclude that genocide has been committed so quickly.  An outcome of their deliberations will likely be a more refined definition of genocide because the current one allows any killing to be construed as genocide, and if so, it robs the word of its intended meaning.  Ireland has realised that the charge of Genocide will be difficult to prove and has applied  to the ICT to change the definition of Genocide. For anyone who believes in the rule of law, this is troubling.
   
   * For God, he does love both Israelis and Palestinians equally.  Perhaps our experiences as Parents may be analogous and help our understanding here.  When we have two children having a fight. 
   
   What do we do when there is a risk that one or both could be physically harmed?  We separate them.  But when the siblings are now whole ethnic groups involving millions of people on either side, what then?  Then separation is needed on a scale that is logistically quite different.  And how do you stop the fighting when one side wants to stop so they can regroup and repeat October 7 another day? And the other side does not want to stop because they don't want another October 7? 
   
   Unless the world is willing to risk the lives of its own citizens to keep them apart then it must allow protagonist Israel to subdue antagonist Gaza so that a lasting peace can be built.
   
   * Ultimately a lasting peace must deal with the root cause and that is, we have two tangata whenua, two indigenous peoples, both were offered statehood.  One accepted and said we will give co-existence a shot.  The other rejected statehood multiple times, and repeatedly opted for a winner takes all, fight to the death.  Until co-existence is acceptable to both sides, then peace is just a utopian dream.