What about Israel?

I see that two of my friends are currently in Israel. I had a student last week actually ask me what my thoughts on Israel were (Don't they know that I expend considerable energy trying to be ambiguous about my own thoughts so they can make up their own minds? ;-) So here is my three point outline:

1. Jewish individuals have a special place of honor.
Here are some verses from Paul:

• "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means!" (Rom. 3:1-3, NRSV)
• "For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah." (Rom. 9:3-5)

2. Currently, "not all Israelites truly belong to Israel" (Rom. 9:6)
That is to say, while ethnic Jews deserve a certain honor, Paul did not consider them truly part of the people of God if they had not accepted Jesus as Messiah. "Not all of Abraham's children are his true descendants." (Rom. 9:7)

Those Jews who have not accepted Jesus as Messiah, Paul would say, are not currently part of Israel. God has not rejected his people (Rom. 11:1), but those Jews who do not believe are currently grafted out of the tree (11:17, 21). Meanwhile, Gentiles who believe in Jesus have been grafted into the tree, into the people of God. In short, Gentile Christians are true Israelites according to Paul, while unbelieving Jews are not truly Israel.

What that means is that a Palestinian Christian who believes (of which there are many) is a true Israelite, while an Israeli who does not believe is not a true Israelite at present, according to Paul. The true children of Abraham, according to Paul and John, are those who have faith that God raised Jesus from the dead (e.g., Rom. 4:11-12). "Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith." (Rom. 3:29-30)

I am quite willing to believe that God was behind the re-establishment of Israel as a state in 1948, but it is important to remember that Israel is not a Christian state. Jews deserve a certain honor from us as Christians, but the State of Israel is no more truly Israel from Paul's standpoint than the Sanhedrin was in his day.

3. "All Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:26)
Paul suggests that around the time of Jesus' return, there will be a mass conversion of Jews to Christ. Although some have tried to dodge this interpretation, I consider it contextually obvious. The verse previous speaks of a "hardening" that has come upon "part" of Israel until the full number of the Gentiles come in. Then verse 26 speaks of "all" being saved. The contrast between part and all suggests naturally that there will be a transition from part being hardened to all being saved.

This is corroborated by the verses that follow. The calling of God on Israel is irrevocable, Paul says in 11:29. So the enemies at present are still beloved because of their ancestors (11:28). They are now disobedient, but they will receive mercy (11:31). I remain befuddled that any competent scholar could interpret this series of verses any other way.

But it hasn't happened yet. That means that, while we must deeply respect Jewish individuals, the State of Israel has no special right standing before God. Its actions must be evaluated against the same standard of righteousness as the Palestinians or anyone, for "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love" (Gal. 5:6).

Indeed, Paul's very point in Romans 1-3 is not blandly that all individuals have sinned, but that, before the judgment seat of Christ, being a Jew does not give you a pass. "All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law" (Rom. 2:12) and finally, "all have sinned and are lacking the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).

Christians thus should deeply respect Jewish individuals, but not confuse the current State of Israel with the Israel of promise. It is the Christians of the Middle East, of whatever ethnicity, who are our brothers and sisters, for in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek... or Palestinian (Gal. 3:28).

Christians and Israel today (6)

... continued from Tuesday.
_____________
... How should we as Christians today appropriate this teaching?  For one thing, the temple and Jerusalem were in fact destroyed within a generation.  Contrary to Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, and a host of prophecy teachers, the gospels were not talking about some temple that is yet to be rebuilt. [1] Although parts of these "end times" sermons have not yet happened, the bulk of them have.

This is a very important point.  As far as political Israel is concerned, this teaching is almost completely a matter of the past.  Generally speaking, we should not use the material in the gospels in our thinking about the politics of the Middle East. People calling themselves Christians have of course in the past had both inappropriately negative and positive views on Jews and Israel.  For much of Christian history, people calling themselves Christians used material in the gospels as an excuse to hate and even persecute Jews.  It seems beyond question that these sorts of forces within Christianity are important background to the Holocaust.

But Jesus could not be anti-semitic because he was a Jew himself--for that matter his humanity remains a Jew for all eternity. [2]  We have seen in previous chapters that Jesus’ earthly ministry had as one of its top priorities the restoration of the lost sheep of Israel, not the abandonment of Israel.  He surely directed his action in the temple toward the leadership of Israel, especially its priestly establishment, not Israel itself as a nation.  His critique was a prophetic critique from the inside, not a final condemnation from the outside. [3]

It is not controversial to think that the four gospels as we have them all date from the time after Jerusalem was destroyed.  Words that sound quite combative in foresight do not sound the same in hindsight.  It is thus quite possible that some of the words that sound most anti-Jew were originally more explanations of Jerusalem's destruction looking back.  “His blood is on us and on our children” (Matt. 27:25) reads best as a foreshadowing of what happened forty years later when Jerusalem was destroyed. It certainly did not give a green light for all history to kill any Jews you find because of some racial guilt.

By the same token, other Christians today show an inordinate amount of favoritism for the political nation of Israel.  I think it is appropriate for us to honor Jews today because "Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah (Rom. 9:4-5). However, we cannot confuse political Israel today with the Israel about which Paul said, "all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:26). Israel's state of belief today is no different than it was at the time of Paul.

My point is that while it is appropriate for Christians to give a certain kind of honor to Jews, both Jews as individuals and as a nation are to be treated with the same expectations and obligations of any other person or nation.  We and they must love their neighbor as themselves, including the Muslim Arab world.  Israel as a nation must be expected to live in the world with justice the same as the Palestinians and all other peoples.  Injustice does not get a pass because of your race.  It is ironic to realize that, at least until recent times, there were far more Christians among Palestinians than among the Israelis, yet so many American fundamentalist churches effectively hate the one and blindly support the other.

For historic Christians, of course the greatest point of application in the "end times" passages in the gospels is the continued expectation that Christ will again return to earth.  It is a faith that we not only have to wait until the next world to see justice done but that, in God's good time, Christ will return and hit the reset button on humanity as well.  Since prophecy usually only becomes clear in hindsight, we will have to wait to see what all that entails in relation to Israel at that point.

[1] Tim LaHaye, Left Behind series; Hal Lindsey, Late Great Planet Earth.

[2] See Terence Donaldson, Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament: Decision Points and Divergent Interpretations (Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2010) for a survey of interpretive issues.

[3] Cf. Luke 13:31-35.

Jesus in the temple (4)

... continued from yesterday.  This series is on Jesus and Judgment.
_________
3. Judgment of Israel
So far in the chapter, I've argued that Jesus did likely teach that judgment was coming to those alive on the earth, even if it was not the focus of his preaching.  Additionally, Jesus seems to have had a prophetic message of judgment against the temple leadership of Israel, at least in the final week of his ministry.  The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke all understood Jesus' words and actions in this regard to predict the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

More than anything else, it was probably Jesus' action in the temple during passion week that set in motion the concrete political mechanisms that ended in the crucifixion.  Jesus certainly came into conflict with various people during his ministry, as we saw back in chapter 4.  But it doesn't seem likely that he tangled much with the temple leaders or chief priests until that day he walked into the temple courts and overthrew the tables of those who were changing money and selling animals for sacrifice.  More than anyone else, these were the people who had the kinds of connections with the Romans that could get a person killed.

On the one hand, it was generally necessary to have such a service. [1] It simply wasn't practical for someone to bring a goat or lamb with them for sacrifice from half way around the Mediterranean.  And to buy such things, money was needed (again, bringing something with you to trade from around the world wasn't practical) and it would need to be exchanged to the right currency.  Clearly something about the scene angered Jesus, but it surely was not the practice of buying and selling itself. Surely it was the way they were doing it--or where--that angered him.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke all link Jesus' action to two Scriptures.  The first is Isaiah 56:7, "My house will be called a house of prayer."  Instead, what Jesus saw was Jeremiah 7:11: "a den of robbers."  Some focus primarily on the first verse to explain what angered Jesus.  The context of Isaiah 56:7 is all the nations of the world coming to worship at the temple.  In fact, Mark 11:17 gives the part of the quote that says the temple should be a house of prayer for all nations.

So some see Jesus angry primarily because of where they were selling things.  Foreigners who might otherwise worship God in the temple courts were instead confronted by buying and selling there.  At the same time, it is surely significant that neither Matthew nor Luke give the part of the quote that says, "for all nations."  They were likely using Mark as a source and yet seem to have deliberately left this part of the quote out.  Also, the Gentiles were arguably not the focus of Jesus' earthly ministry (cf. Matt. 10:5).

So others might focus more on the second Scripture from Jeremiah.  It comes in the context of the approaching destruction of the temple in 586BC.  There is of course a striking similarity here in the sense that Jesus is also remembered as predicting the destruction of the temple, which took place in AD70.  Jeremiah's complaint is the the priests of his day had made the temple into a "den of robbers."  Jeremiah accused the leaders of day of hiding their injustice behind the temple.  They were murderers, adulterers, thieves, perjurers, idolaters, and yet somehow thought the fact that they ran the temple would protect them from coming judgment (Jer. 7:9-10).

This second focus does indeed fit the emphases of Jesus ministry very well, as we have seen. Of course the gospels are not video recorders. They are unpacking the event.  One may or may not talk too much when you are angrily overturning tables and chasing people.  And the kinds of things that spark anger are usually more complex and emotional than a matter of logical argument and ideas.

Accordingly, both the answers above may have some truth to them.  Jesus is confronted by a scene of merchandising when the temple should be for worshiping God.  And it should be for everyone, not just for those who have the coinage necessary to buy sheep and doves.  The situation evokes key elements of his prophetic message for Israel, especially the way those who are rich and powerful couldn't care less about the vast majority of the people, the lost sheep of Israel...

[1] So E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism ***.

The "Palestinian" Gag

From The Associating Press:

In one of the longest running gags of recent times, the "Palestinians" have finally admitted to a joke started in 1948 when the United Nations created the nation of Israel.  "We had just been hanging out in the countryside at the time," said one of the many Arabs who was in on the joke.  "We saw that the 'Jordanians' had made up a name for themselves... (Don't tell anyone but they're really Arabs with a made up name too)... and the Jews were calling themselves Israelis.

"So my Dad and some other guys got together at a pub in Jericho and had this great idea of calling ourselves, 'Palestinians.'  Get it, we were in Palestine," he continued with a chuckle.  "For a while we thought we might actually get a whole country out of it.

"Then some crazies started bombing things and killing people and it all went Ramallah.  Frankly, I'm glad it's all over.  It's been hard keeping up the joke all these years.  We'll all be abandoning the desert and going back to Arabia in the next week or two."

Israel's Destiny 3

More excerpts...
___________
So God’s plan, Paul says, is that Israel currently reject Jesus as Messiah, which in some way must have facilitated the Gentile mission in Paul’s mind. Paul also saw the acceptance of the gospel by Gentiles as somehow making his own people jealous. He does not spell out exactly what he meant, but he apparently believed it would somehow eventually lead ethnic Israel back to God, to belief in Jesus as Messiah.

His argument thus reaches its climax in 11:25-32. Part of Israel is currently experiencing a hardening (11:25). There is no question what Israel Paul has in mind here. He is talking about the “hardened” part, those ethnic Jews who have not believed in Jesus. He is talking about the “natural branches” that God has grafted out, unbelieving Jews. The purpose, as he has said, is so that the “full number” of the Gentiles can come in.

But then, Paul says, “all Israel will be saved.” Again, Paul’s statement may be difficult for us to process, but it is not ambiguous. It is the contrast between “part” and “whole.” Right now part is hardened. Then all will be saved. Some have ripped this statement out of its literary context as if to say by “all Israel will be saved” Paul is simply saying that all true Israel will be saved, hearkening back to 9:6. But not only would such a meaning be pointless to say—“all the saved will be saved.” It ignores the clear train of thought. Right now part is out. Then all will be in.

Christ will thus take away the current sins of Israel (11:27). He will “turn godlessness away from Jacob” (11:26). Paul is not very clear about what he is saying. He says that “The deliverer will come from Zion,” referring to Jesus. But is he talking about Jesus coming out of Zion in the future or about Jesus previous coming out of Zion? [1] Is Paul saying Israel will believe around the time of Jesus’ return from heaven, perhaps in preparation for Christ’s return or as a consequence of his return? Or is he simply quoting a passage that generally indicates the Jews will believe in their messiah?

Either way, Paul is clearly pointing to the eventual salvation of Israel. Right now, they are God’s enemies because of what he is doing with the Gentiles (11:28). But they are still the elect of God, the chosen ones. “God’s gifts and his call is irrevocable” (11:29), meaning that God will never turn his back on Israel. He might destroy a generation, but he will not break his word to Abraham. The Gentiles have received mercy because of Israel’s disobedience (11:30). But eventually Israel will also receive mercy because of what God is doing with the Gentiles (11:31), and God will then have mercy on everyone (11:32).

So it is not too difficult to understand what Paul was saying in these verses. What is difficult is for us to know what to do with them today! No doubt a certain kind of Christian expectation about the destiny of Israel played a role in the reestablishment of Israel as a nation in 1948. Is this political restoration what Paul was predicting?

[1] Interestingly, Paul seems to have modified the Old Testament quotation slightly, something New Testament authors regularly felt free to do.  The Greek Paul was reading said, “The redeemer will come because of Zion.”  Paul—or the tradition he was using—changed it to “The redeemer will come out of Zion.” 

Does Israel have the moral high ground?

This article in the Washington Post thinks so. I certainly have no time for Hamas. But is Israel doing the right thing? I've wondered if this is a last ditch Israeli smack down before Obama takes office, and they have to play nice nice. But then again, Obama hasn't had anything to say about it either, as many have noticed.

What do you think? I don't know enough of what's really going on behind the scenes and on scene really to guess much.