Israel's death penalty

 

Israel's controversial amendment to its Penal Law 1977 has brought the death penalty back into focus. For Christians a prudent approach should be to first see what the bible has to say about it. 

First, the biblical case for capital punishment is real.  

The foundational text is Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed.” This isn’t part of the later Mosaic Law. It’s given to Noah — meaning it’s addressed to all humanity. The reason God gives is profound: humans bear the image of God. Murder isn’t just a crime against a person; it’s an assault on the divine image. That’s why many Jewish and Christian thinkers have treated this as a universal moral principle rather than a temporary legal code.

Then comes the Mosaic Law, which prescribes the death penalty for a range of offences. But what’s often missed is how many safeguards the Torah builds in: two or three witnesses, no circumstantial evidence, no bribery, and the witnesses themselves must cast the first stones. Rabbinic tradition later made executions extremely rare — a Sanhedrin that executed more than once in 70 years was considered “bloodthirsty.” So the Law affirms the legitimacy of capital punishment but restricts it heavily.

The prophets never condemn the death penalty itself. What they condemn is corrupt courts, bribery, and the execution of the innocent. Their critique is moral, not legal.

So what about Jesus? Did He overturn all this?  

Surprisingly, the answer is no — at least not in the way people often think.

Take the famous story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus doesn’t say the law is wrong. He exposes the hypocrisy and illegality of the mob trying to stone her. He applies the Law’s own requirements: the witnesses must be righteous and willing to cast the first stone. When they can’t, the execution collapses. Jesus chooses mercy, but He doesn’t declare the death penalty immoral.

In Matthew 5, Jesus says explicitly that He didn’t come to abolish the Law. And in His conversation with Pilate, He acknowledges that the Roman governor’s authority — including the authority to execute — ultimately comes from God. He critiques Pilate’s misuse of that authority, not the authority itself.

Paul is even clearer in Romans 13: the state “does not bear the sword in vain.” The sword isn’t a metaphor for parking tickets. It’s the symbol of execution. Paul sees the state as having legitimate, God‑given authority to punish evil, even with death.

So does Jesus abolish the death penalty?  

No. But He radically reshapes how His followers relate to it. The state may execute; the church may not. Christians are called to mercy, forgiveness, and non‑retaliation — even when justice allows for death. The gospel pushes us toward compassion, not vengeance.

The real debate today isn’t whether the Bible permits the death penalty. It’s whether modern states can apply it justly — and whether Christians should support it in practice.

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.  
   
   

An inheritance with Israel -- Berkowitz

Michelangelo's Ezekiel

Lest there be any doubt about how the new relationship between Gentile believers and the covenanted children of Israel, let us turn to Ezekiel 47. Here the prophet looks far ahead of his own time, and even of our present age. He prophecies concerning the coming Messianic age, when Yeshua will be seated on the throne of David in Jerusalem. This will also be the time, according to Ezekiel, when the final land inheritance is divided among the people of Israel.

However, we see in Ezekiel 47:21-23 that there will be others desiring to live among the people of Israel. These are Gentile believers. The Lord at that time will instruct Israel with the following word regarding the distribution of the inheritance:

    "You are to distribute this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who have settled among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. In whatever tribe the alien settles, there you are to give them his inheritance," declares the sovereign Lord.

Do you see what God is teaching here? He's instructing the Israelites regarding the relationship with those who have come to live among them. They are so grafted in that they are to be considered native-born Israelites, with full rights of inheritance. One thing this implies for our study is that if non-Jewish believers may be entitled to a parcel of land among the people of Israel and the Messianic Kingdom, surely they can be permitted to enjoy the blessings of the Torah among the people of Israel right now!

Source:  Berkowitz, A. and D. (2000). An inheritance with Israel. Torah Rediscovered. FFOZ, Inc.

Israel at 70: A miracle in disguise

A J Heschel

To mark the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the modern state of Israel, here are some of Heschel's thoughts on its establishment.

Unprecedented.  A people despised, persecuted and scattered to all corners of the earth, has the audacity to dream of regaining authenticity, of being free in the Holy Land.

For nearly 2,000 years and many times a day in joy and sorrow we pray for you, Jerusalem, and our prayers never turned pale.  What is it we implore the Lord every Sabbath as we are about to open the Ark to take out the Torah?

Merciful father,
Deal kindly with Zion,
Rebuild the walls of jerusalem,
Truly, in thee alone we trust
High and exalted king and god, eternal god.

Despoiled and dispersed, abased and harassed, we knew we were not estranged forever.  We mourned you, we never wept you away.  Hope was hatched in the nests of agony.

The love of this land was due to an imperative, not to an instinct, not to a sentiment.  There is a covenant, an engagement of the people to the land.  We live by covenants.  We could not betray our pledge or discard the promise.

When Israel was driven into exile, the pledge became a prayer; the prayer a dream; the dream a passion, a duty, a dedication.

Intimate attachment to the land, waiting for the renewal of Jewish life in the land of Israel, as part of our integrity, an existential fact.  Unique, sui generis, it lives in our hopes, it abides in our hearts.

It is a commitment we must not betray.  3,000 years of faithfulness cannot be wiped off.

To abandon the land would make a mockery to all our longings, prayers and commitments.  To abandon the land would be to repudiate the Bible.

Israel reborn represents a breakthrough into whole new areas of experience and understanding stop it defies conventional conceptions, ordinary expectations.  Its essence is a proclamation.

This is why the return to Zion is a source of embarrassment to so many of us who depend for intellectual efficacy upon conformity with mental habits.  In our scientific investigations, we use conceptual models in order to characterise an empirical situation under investigation; we are guided by the principle of generalisation, seeking to fit a particular object to a universal model.  The relation between model and things modelled is a relation of analogy.

In other words, our mental habit is to think in terms of sameness and to assume that things under consideration are mere copies, repetitions, and to disregard the unprecedented, distinctness, uniqueness.  We operate with established forms, with rubrics.

This is indeed the modern religious predicament.  The mysterious events so central to Judaism and Christianity seem so strange because they are unprecedented.

The return to Zion is an unprecedented drama, an event sui generis for which there is no model, no analogy.

The State of Israel is a surprise, yet the modern mind hates to be surprised.  Never before has a nation been restored to its ancient hearth after a lapse of 1,897 years.  This extraordinary aspect is bound to carry some shock to the conventional mind, to be a scandal to the mediocre mind and a foolishness to the positivists.  It requires reordering of some notions.

Here lies a lesson of importance.  It is the homogenisation of history that often deprives us of understanding.

Genuine history is not mere repetition, moving in a circle.  It is a fresh attempt, a new arrival.  The Bible begins with the words “At the beginning…” To Greek mythology, for example, where the assumption is that the world has always been in existence, the concept of beginning was inconceivable.  Jewish understanding further implies that also in history there can be novelty, beginning.

Israel is a miracle in disguise.  Things look natural and conceal what is a radical surprise.  Zion rebuilt becomes a harbinger of a new understanding, of how history is intertwined with the mystery.

Israel is the opposite of a commonplace, it is an extraordinary place, and it is on the verge of the extraordinary that we may encounter the marvel Israel as a novelty is not an absolutely new beginning, but a resurrection in Ezekiel’s sense.  It is in accord of a divine promise and a human achievement.

Source: Heschel, A J (1967).  Israel: An Echo of Eternity. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.  New York.  Pages 43-44; pages 49-51.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Abraham Joshua Heschel was a Polish-born American rabbi and one of the leading Jewish theologians and Jewish philosophers of the 20th century. Heschel, a professor of Jewish mysticism at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, authored a number of widely read books on Jewish philosophy and was active in the American civil rights movement.

Israel at 70: The Promise

A J Heschel

To mark Israel's 70th anniversary of its establishment, here are some comments about Israel's establishment from Abraham Heschel:

The Bible is the book of anticipations.  The ground for the hope is in the promise.  The future has a face, and on its face to see the glory.

There is evil, there is anguish.  There is death, agony, exile.  But beyond all darkness as the dawn.

“On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast… And he will destroy on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, avail that is spread over all nations.  He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people who will take away from all the earth; for the Lord has spoken.  It will be said on that day, “low, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us stop this is the Lord; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation”” (Isaiah 25:6-9).

The evil state of the world, with its ugliness and violence, will not endure for ever.  At the end of days, and a climax of days, there will be a new dawn of history.  Redemption all come, cleansing the world from war and hatred.  This is God’s pledge and Israel’s hope.  At the same time, biblical eschatology and all our hopes for the future are mysteriously centred in the Holy Land.

There is a unique association between the people and the land of Israel.  Even before Israel becomes a people, the land is preordained for Israel.

Even before there was a people, it was a promise.  The promise of the land.  The election of Abraham and the election of land came together.  The promise of the land to the patriarchs as the leit motif in the Five Books of Moses.  Israel’s claim upon Canaan goes back to the earliest period of its history and was thought of as having as origin in the will of God, since it was to the Lord that this land belonged and he alone could dispose of it.

Beyond the promise of the land and increasing prosperity, the promised Abraham was a blessing for all the families of the earth.  The gift of the land is in earnest of a greater promise.

The granting of the land of Canaan to Israel by the Lord is a scene reflected upon again and again.  “Then he brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey” (Deuteronomy 26:9).  Thanksgiving for this grant remained alive and never-ending praise throughout Biblical history.

Pagans have idols, Israel has a promise.  We have no image, all we have is hope.

Israel reborn as a verification of the promise.

History goes on in time as well is in space, and according to biblical faith, the promise of redemption of all peoples involves the presence of this people in this land.[i]

For Christians, the idea of a promise should immediately bring to mind Paul’s words: “the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.[ii]”

---

[i] Source: Heschel, A J (1967).  Israel: An Echo of Eternity. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.  New York.  Pages 43-44; pages 49-51.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Abraham Joshua Heschel was a Polish-born American rabbi and one of the leading Jewish theologians and Jewish philosophers of the 20th century. Heschel, a professor of Jewish mysticism at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, authored a number of widely read books on Jewish philosophy and was active in the American civil rights movement.

[ii] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Eph 3:6). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

Ephesians 2:15: Is the law abolished?

We are currently doing a bible study on Ephesians through our church.

Ephesians 2:14–16 (ESV) says:

¹⁴For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility

¹⁵by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

¹⁶and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

Nearly every commentary I reviewed, followed the view that the law had been abolished.  Really?  How does this reconcile with Jesus' position in Matthew 5:17 (ESV):

¹⁷“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Or that Jesus calls those that do not know him as "lawless" in Matthew 7:23 (ESV):

²³And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Or that James the Righteous says to Paul that there is a vicious rumour that Paul is teaching all to forsake the law.  In order to dispel this myth, James has hatched a plan for Paul to go up to the temple and to pay for the sacrifices on behalf of two Nazirites. 

Paul accepts the plan but is recognized along the way.  A riot ensues and he never gets there.  Ultimately he is arrested, appeals to Caesar and ends up in Rome, where he writes this Epistle.

Thomas Lancaster says that most translations are flawed. He offers the following alternate translation:

 "for He Himself in our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity..."

The KJV places a similar emphasis on enmity rather than on the law itself.

Lancaster writes: 

How does the Torah cause enmity between Jew and Gentile?  We have already seen how the Oral Law, the rabbinic interpretation of Torah, excluded Gentiles.  The Greek word for "regulations" speaks specifically to those man-made contrivances, not to the actual Torah.  According to those Oral commandments and regulations, one needed to make a formal conversion to Judaism before participating in Israel.  The dividing wall of the Temple is itself an architectural innovation based on rabbinic interpretations.  in first century Jerusalem, the dividing wall of hostility was more than just a metaphor. 

But the written Torah actually sets up parameters for participation in Israel, such as circumcision, Sabbath observance, and abstaining from adultery.  Those are all commandments and ordinances found in Torah. 

Observance of the commandments and ordinances is compulsory for Israelites because the Torah is Israel’s covenant with God.  The Gentiles, however, as strangers to the covenants of promise, are oblivious of these laws.  The result is a sharp distinction between Jew and Gentile.  Add to that the first century theological supposition that Torah was only for Jews, and it created a very distinct and clear line of separation between Jew and Gentile. 

There is enmity engendered by the Torah between Israelite and Gentile, and the enmity is this:  Israel is God’s chosen and redeemed people, and the Gentiles are not.  Israel is in covenant with the Father and the Gentiles are not.  Every command and ordinance given to Israel marked out the parameters of who Israel was and who Israel was not.  The Torah determined who was in and who was out. 

The enmity that Messiah abolished is this separation between Jew and Gentile.  It is abolished in the sense that Messiah has brought Gentile believers into Israel.  He seats them at the table with Israel and invites them to be partakers in the New Covenant with Israel.  As Gentiles brought into covenant through Messiah begin to engage in the commandments and ordinances along with Israel, theline of distinction, the dividing wall of hostility vanishes.  The enmity between Jewish and Gentile believers caused by commandments and ordinances, is abolished in Messiah’s flesh.  How so?  Because Messiah brings the Gentiles into the fold of Israel. 

The prophet Isaiah provides a vivid illustration of this principle.  He declares tha the stranger who keeps the Sabbath and holds fast to God’s covenant will be received in the innermost courts of the temple.  His sacrifices will be received on the altar and the temple will be a house of prayer for Gentiles from every nation (Isaiah 56:7).  It was probably this very passage that Paul had in mind as he wrote of Messiah abolishing the dividing wall.  For the dividing wall, which would forbid the Gentile from entering the temple to offer sacrifice, is completely absent in Isaiah’s messianic age prophecy:  Isaiah 56:6-7.

Therefore the Ephesians passage (2:11-15), is not a contradiction of the Master’s words in Matthew 5:17 (“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Torah…), nor is it a textual justification to sin and sin boldly.  Instead, it shows us how Gentiles are able to retain their Gentile identity while at the same time being regarded as part of Israel, living out the law of Israel.

Because the enmity has been abolished, Gentiles need not find a genetic justification for keeping the laws and ordinances of Torah nor must they make a formal conversion to Judaism.  The enmity of distinction has been removed; the laws and ordinances of Torah are open to Gentiles.  The dividing wall has been removed.  Gentiles are free to move from the metaphoric Court of the Gentiles into the metaphoric Court of Israel.  They are given free access to the Torah life that identifies Israel:  they are given access to the House of God.

Thomas Lancaster, "The Mystery of the Gospel", pp 181-183.

 Perhaps his comments throws light on Paul's "Israel of God" from his epistle to the Galatians.

Robert Fisk: The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East

After nearly a year and a half, I've finally finished reading this 1,286 page tome (not counting endnotes, a bibliography and index. It is an interesting and must read for those interested in Middle Eastern affairs. Fisk writes from decades of experience as a foreign correspondent for the British newspaper, The Independent. Written in 2005, this book is a retrospective on his work and tries to makes sense of the many conflicts that he has witnessed. His frustration and disgust regarding the many injustices he perceives is palpable. Depending on one's perspective, his judgements can seem understandable or harsh. After reading the last page, and reflecting on the whole book, it seems to me that Fisk's anger stems from a naivety born from a set of flawed beliefs: 1 A western view that all the responsibilities one bears in life are individual in nature that the "sins" of a nation or the leaders of a nation, should not be carried on the shoulders of its citizens. Thus he does little to hold despots such as the Ottomans, Saddam Hussein, the Taleban and Arafat responsible for the suffering of their peoples. 2 The international competition for the world's resources is in some way distasteful and should be avoided. Thus foreign investment in Middle Eastern lands is an illegal capture of an indigenous people's resources. He pays no attention to the fact that that they might have willingly sold those rights to foreigners in return for benefits they would not otherwise have enjoyed. Often these benefits were siphoned off into personal bank accounts rather than distributed for the good of their societies. He does not sufficiently lay the blame for indigenous poverty on indigenous corruption and graft. 3 In war, "civilians" should never die. Any death of a civilian is an injustice. This is a corollary of Belief 1. The belief ignores the reality of war. To Fisk, the fact that Western manufactured arms should result in the deaths of civilians is a grave injustice. He urges that Western arms manufacturers should somehow prevent their clients from using them in a way that results in civilian deaths. His focus is on the West and only the West in this regard. He doesn't try to lobby Chinese, Eastern European, North Korean or Russian manufacturers. 4 In peace, justice should be perfect. Therefore ideas such as modus vivendi have no place in Fisk's world. For him, the creation of Israel itself is an injustice. He cannot see the linkage between the method being, albeit flawed, continuation of the more successful Greek-Turkish and Muslim-Hindu conflicts. In the latter two cases, significant displacement of peoples was accepted as a necessary step toward a lasting peace. He accepts these instances of peace making without question, even though generations of familial history must be broken in order to bring it to pass. The creation of Israel is an attempt to create a safe homeland for an ethnic group that had suffered from considerable prejudice that spanned many nations. Its creation meant the displacement of people so that millions more could live. The current Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a direct result of a flawed nation state creation process that resulted in the creation of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire. For Fisk, the fact that Israel's security fence has clearly curtailed the suicide bomber campaign of the early 2000's matters not. He just sees a tool for entrenching Israel's encroachment on Arab lands. 5 World Peace would be achieved if the West would stop interfering in the Middle East and somehow let them get on with their own lives: a form of Apartheid. At a religious level: The Muslim doctrine of Dawah means they will never leave the West alone. Furthermore, the West's liberal lifestyle, means that Muslim adherents will always see the West as a source of moral decay which must be expunged as an affront to Allah. The Christian doctrine of Mission carries the same mandate to actively promulgate the Gospel in Middle Eastern societies. To me: 1. The injustices of the Middle East should be laid at the feet of Arab and Persian leadership. It is their corruption and thirst for power that has led to their own enrichment, the emergence of an elite and the impoverishment and subjugation of their own peoples. Fisk's criticism is heavily biased against the West. 2. The West's desire to trade and to purchase resources for economic development is fair. It is only unjust when the West steps outside the normal bounds of international law. Examples of unjust behaviour should include using armed force to secure resources or to bend the will of an indigenous people to trade or obtain advantageous trading terms. 3. The roots of the Iraqi War of 2003 stem from Hussein's use of biological and chemical weapons on his own people, and his attempts to establish a viable nuclear weapons program. Hussein underestimated the amount of hysteria this could generate in the West. It may be that the Shia and Sunni portions of Iraqi society might be required in order to create a sustainable peace. There is no doubt that there are many tragedies that have resulted from the geo-political games that have been played in the Middle East. Fisk has seen many tragic events first hand. In this, I totally agree with Fisk that these tragic events are due to many injustices. However we differ on our analysis of what these injustices are and the events and motives that led to these events.

"Who is a Jew?" Revisited

My home group has been studying the Book of Galatians for over a year and a half now. Its a book that can be easily misunderstood. Most misunderstand the question that Paul is trying to answer. He isn't trying to answer a dilemma between Law and Grace. Paul is trying to answer the question: Who is a Jew?

I've finally found a succinct summary of the position I have been developing on Christian Identity. It turns out that Spurlock from Bereans Online has already beaten me to it and saved me a lot of time:

• Eph 2:1-10 Gentiles become a part of Israel by grace and faith.
• Eph 2:11-12 Are no longer Gentiles. Not "commonwealth" but citizenship enjoying the full rights and benefits of any other member of Israel.
• Eph 2:13 Ex-Gentiles have been brought near
• Eph 2:14-16 The dividing well having been removed by Christ. Spurlock refers to the "18 measures." What are they?
• Eph 2:17-21 Peace not just between God and Mankind but also peace within the house of God.
• Eph 3:1-6 Thus the ex-Gentiles are part of the same body, fellow heirs with the incumbent members and partakers of the same promises.

One king, One people, One Torah: Echad. The fulfilment of John 17:16-22.

If this is true, then even more questions arise, here's one or two:

1. If all believers are to obey the Torah, then what are we to do with 1 Corinthians 7:17-24?
2. Should all Christians be making Aliyah?
3. Where should Christians then stand on the Middle Eastern peace process?

For further reading:  who_is_a_jew.pdf (bethimmanuel.org)

Stephen Sizer in Christchurch

Stephen Sizer

I attended a "dialogue" between Richard Neville and Stephen Sizer at Laidlaw College in Christchurch New Zealand last night.

They were brought together to debate what the future of Israel might be in the "Last Days" from a biblical perspective.

Stephen Sizer is the Vicar of Christ Church Anglican Church in England.  He is well-known as a proponent of peace in the Middle East and his stiff criticism of Israeli treatment of Arabs has positioned him in many eyes as an enemy of the Israeli people.

Richard Neville is a linguist and an expert on biblical Hebrew and Greek.  He is a senior lecturer at Laidlaw.  Although not an expert in Biblical Eschatology, he was asked to bring an opposing view in this dialog.  The dialog had been held a few days before in Auckland.

Sizer alleged that Christian Zionists such as John Hagee and Tim La Haye were expecting an Armageddon and their warmongering was likely to bring it about. He argued that Christian Zionism treated the Jews as God's special, chosen people.  Financial and miltary support for Israel was fueled by this misguided idea.  This support allowed Israel to build an apartheid state, maintain its Wall which was "officially" built for security reasons and to continue its occupation of Palestine.  In Sizer's view, God intended only to build one People of God and that entry into this People was by faith and not by physical birth.  The Church is Israel.  Consequently the Jews were no longer relevant as a special people and should be treated the same as any other (heathen) nation or people group.  Although the land had been given to Abraham, possession of it was dependent on their faithfulness to God.  Their lack of faithfulness meant that they had forfeited their right to it.  The geo-political land of Israel on this earth had served its purpose and was no longer relevant.  For Christians, their home was heaven above, not an earthly one.  Since the Jews are just another heathen people group then Christians should treat the Jews and the Palestinians even-handedly, expecting them to adhere to standards of justice and respect human rights just as much as any other race or nation.

Neville reviewed Ezekiel's oracles relating to a glorious and triumphant restoration of Israel.  This had fuelled Israel's expectation of a Messiah who would restore Israel to autonomy as a Nation belonging to God.  It was difficult to maintain from the passage that this restoration was merely allegorical or spiritual in nature.  A physical restoration was what was in Ezekiel's view.  These prophecies have not been physically fulfilled.  What Ezekiel had in mind has yet to come into being.  Some authors have claimed that such a view was held by only a small extremist minority of scholars and theologians.  Neville produced a lengthy list of respected evangelical and Catholic scholars who endorsed the idea that a physical restoration of Israel had been prophecied.  He quoted N T Wright who admitted that his opinion that only a spiritual restoration of Israel was described, is a minority one. 

Sizer felt that Ezekiel's prophecy had already been fulfilled in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah but Neville pointed out that this restoration was hardly the glorious and triumphant restoration described by Ezekiel.  In fact, those who were old enough to recall the original Temple wept when they saw the comparatively humble second temple.  Sizer admitted that as far as whether or not the modern state of Israel was a fulfilment of biblical prophecy, he was "agnostic", which I guess is a high-brow way of saying "I don't know."  In his view, a genuine fulfilment would result in an Israel with a much higher set of ethics and more compassionate behaviour in respect of its neighbours.  Sizer then pointed out that Ezekiel also foretold that sacrifices would be carried out at the restored temple. Do we really want to restore temple sacrifices? Hebrews clearly says that they had ended with Jesus' sacrifice.

Neville thought that if Sizer's issue was his objection to Israel's alleged unjust behaviour toward Palestinians, then he should focus on the question of how one people should treat another rather than debating Christian identity.  I agree.

I also agree with Sizer's view that Christians are citizens of Israel.  However, Sizer then concludes that the Jews are irrelevant.  Yet in the book of Romans, Paul clearly says that this is not so (Romans 11:1).  Paul says though their part of the branch has been broken from the Olive Tree, their calling and gifting is irrevocable (Romans 11:29).  The branch can be grafted back in (Romans 11:23-24). 

Sizer's claim that Israel has built an apartheid state undermines his credibility.  Arabs willingly serve in the Israeli armed forces, Arabs take part in all strata of Israeli society, even serving in parliament and the judiciary.  When an Arab family was evicted from their home in East Jerusalem because a returning Jewish refugee could show bona fide ownership papers for the house, she made a commitment on camera that she would attend an Israeli university, train as a lawyer to seek redress.  She could never hope to do this in a real apartheid state. 

He doubts that the Security Wall was indeed built to maintain security.  Again he need merely look at the numbers of people dying because of suicide bombings before and after the wall had been completed to see how effective the Wall was in preserving life.  Yes, the Wall creates hardship.  But better to be alive and facing difficulty than mourning another death.

He concedes that there is a small minority comprised of extremists that wish to end the occupation by terrorism.  Unfortunately that position doesn't stand scrutiny with the majority of Arabs living on the West Bank and Gaza approving the use of deadly force to destroy Israel.  In 2010, a terrorist machine-gunned 19 teenagers in a Jewish school, 8 were killed.  The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that 84% of Gaza and West Bank inhabitants approved of the attack.  In the same poll 64% approved of Hamas' random rocket attacks and 75% agreed that their leaders should cease negotiating with the Israelis. 

Although billed as a biblical and theology dialogue I was disappointed that Sizer was able to use it as an opportunity to make his political allegations against Israel without anyone having the opportunity to rebut them.  To his credit, Neville restricted his material to the biblical and theological issue.  I suppose the Q&A session was an opportunity for someone in the audience to rebut Sizer's political points but the process chosen by Stephen Graham prevented this from occurring.  The audience were invited to submit questions during an intermission and then they were to be summarised and representative questions were going to be addressed by Sizer and Neville.  No questions relating to Sizer's allegations against Israel were addressed.

Sizer has in some way become embittered by what he has observed of Israeli conduct.  It has jaundiced his view of Israel and he seems no longer able to objectively evaluate Middle Eastern events.

Laidlaw should be applauded for bringing Sizer to New Zealand but they could do better by allowing a more open Q&A discussion period that allowed questions to be taken directly from the floor.  If they had, justice would have been a bit more apparent.

Christians and the Middle Eastern Conflict: Introduction

Palestine Pieta (Ben Heine)

Christians in the West can't escape from the issue as they are frequently assailed by images of the conflict on Television News and other media. Inevitably, the question has to be asked: What should be the Christian position on Palestine? Should they side with the Arabs or the Israelis?

In my church both camps can be readily encountered; two years ago we studied the book of Romans chapter by chapter, verse by verse from the pulpit. Aware that there were pro-Palestinians and pro-Israeli supporters, our leadership decided to avoid conflict by skipping Chapters 9-11 altogether. I don't know what was more sad, that our leadership lacked the courage to tackle this important topic or that AFAIK no other member of the congregation complained against this kind of censorship.

Yet many of Paul's themes hinge around the content of Chapters 9-11. Chapters 9-11 deals with the relationship between Gentile believers and the ethnic Jew. Without the benefit of these chapters, Christians are always going to end up with an erroneous conclusion on the Middle Eastern Conflict.

In order make an informed opinion, the Christian needs to view the matter from a number of perspectives:

1. A biblical perspective;
   
2. An Islamic perspective; and
   
3. An historical perspective.
   

Objections to Torah Observance: The New Covenant: What is it? Part 1

Photo by Billy Reed

The idea of the New Covenant comes from Jeremiah 31 (NKJV):

• A covenant unlike the covenant made when God led them out of Egypt, the covenant that Israel broke (vv31-2); and
  
• He will put His Law in their minds and write it upon Israel’s hearts (v33); and
  
• He will be their God (v33); and
  
• They will be His people (v33); and
  
• His people will no longer need to be teach each other about God (v34); and
  
• He will forgive them their sins (v34); and
  
• God will no longer remember their sins (v34); and
  
• God will not reject Israel: If the laws of God cease to exist, so will the nation of Israel (v36); and if one can fathom creation then God would also reject Israel (v37); and
  
• Jerusalem will be restored and the perimeter of the restored city is set out (v38-40).

This passage leads to further questions:

1. Clearly, Israel is the focus of the covenant; who is Israel?
2. Has the New Covenant been fulfilled? Is it yet to come? Has it started coming about?
3. Has Jerusalem been rebuilt?

Something else to note: the Hebrew word usually translated as "new" can be translated as "renewed" (see Strongs H2319 from H2318).

Is there such a thing as a "new covenant"; could God have only intended a "renewed" one?