A recent piece in the National Review Online by Dennis Prager has taken the National Church of Scotland to task for anti-semitism. That church has come out with a new report on Israel which Prager alleges represents "a combination of medieval anti-Judaism and leftist anti-Zionism".
We have not read the report (which has now been taken off the church's website for re-editing) and we acknowledge that the Church of Scotland long ceased ceased to be a reliable guide on things taught in the Bible, having been racked with Enlightenment rationalism and humanist, epistemic autonomy. Nevertheless, it is Prager's rejection and rejoinder to the Church of Scotland's report which is worth reflecting upon.
There are at least three assertions made in the report which Prager reacts to:
The Church of Scotland report asserts that the Bible does not support the existence of a Jewish state: “There has been a widespread assumption by many Christians as well as many Jewish people that the Bible supports an essentially Jewish state of Israel. This raises an increasing number of difficulties.”Now, we suspect that Prager is engaged in a bit of hyperventilation at this point.
It asserts that justice and the existence of a Jewish state are mutually exclusive: “There is a direct conflict of interest between wanting human rights and justice for all and retaining the right to the land.”
It asserts that the Jews’ return to Israel has no Biblical basis.
Let's look at the first: that the Bible does not support the existence of a Jewish state. That on the face of it seems perfectly reasonable, if the statement were a parallel to the following: "the Bible does not support the existence of the United States, or New Zealand, or France, or Zimbabwe." It is clear that the Bible does not in any sense support their existence by declaring that the above countries explicitly have a right to exist in and throughout history. Yet indirectly the Scriptures supports all nations, acknowledging the existence of all nations and commanding them all to repent and believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. (Acts 14: 16, 17; Acts 17: 26,27; & Acts 17: 30,31). The modern nation state of Israel would be no exception.
However, it is this latter point that Prager would object to. He does assert that the Bible names Israel--the modern nation state of Israel--as being explicitly commanded and warranted in the Bible. (In fact, he would have to concede that in his view it is the only nation so named by God in the Scriptures as having an eternal right to exist, such that any who do not submit to Israel's existence would be in rebellion against the commands and precepts of the Living God.)
The problem with Prager's view (held, incidentally, by many professing Christians) is that it overlooks and obscures the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. It ignores redemptive history. Redemptive history progresses; Prager appears not to believe that it does. For example, the sacrificial cult of Old Testament Israel has been abolished by God Himself. Why? Because it became obsolete and nugatory when Christ came and offered Himself as the perfect sinless atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. Dietary laws have expired, at the command of God. Christ declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19); the point and significance of such laws was to make nations Israel distinct from all other nations. With the entrance of Christ into human history, such distinction passed. Israel no longer was to exist as a distinct nation, since the Gospel was to go to all peoples. That is the key significance of the vision given to the Apostle Peter in Acts 10.
Moreover, the Bible makes clear that Israel's services of worship at the tabernacle and the temple were always but pale reflections of the real tabernacle and the real services of worship--in heaven. Thence Christ, the high priest of the whole world, has gone. Our temple, our Jerusalem is now the real Jerusalem, in heaven. The Jerusalem of modern days bears no redemptive relationship whatsoever to the Jerusalem of the Old Covenant, even as other ancient holy sites do not (for example, the oaks of Mamre, Shiloh, or Eden.)
Prager also chooses to overlook the existence of the people of Israel in the land of Canaan was always conditional upon their obedience and faithfulness to the covenant. The Scriptures are very explicit on this point: continuation in the land of promise was conditional upon obedience and faithfulness to God (Deuteronomy 28:15-68). He also overlooks the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem by Rome in AD 66-70 was explicitly pronounced by our Lord prior to His death as a divine judgement for Israel's rejection of Messiah.
Redemptive history has moved on. It is now in the hands of Messiah--the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the King of all kings upon earth. All strands of human existence, present and future are His domain. All nations are commanded to bow to Him as their Lord (Psalm 2). The ancient land of Israel has fulfilled its purposes in the plans of the Saviour of the world.
Where does this leave the Jewish people, as distinct from the modern nation state of Israel? They are beloved of God for the sake of the fathers. Yet--and here the Bible is explicit--a blindness towards Messiah has come over them, so that the Gospel may go to the Gentiles. But that blindness will eventually be removed, and the descendants of Israel will come to embrace their (and our) Messiah (Romans 11). Thus, along with all peoples, the Christian church is commanded to love and work and long for the conversion of all Jewish people everywhere.
Let's turn to the second assertion made by the Church of Scotland's article: that justice and the existence of a Jewish state are mutually exclusive: “There is a direct conflict of interest between wanting human rights and justice for all and retaining the right to the land.”
This is nonsense. Prager is quite right to react against assertions such as these. Historical grievances cannot be the animus for settlement of contemporary disputes. Every nation upon earth is made up of people who have been displaced and unjustly exploited at some time in their past. The fact is that the modern state of Israel exists. How it came into existence is of little importance when it comes to making determinations about justice and human rights in the contemporary world. We are to lay aside bitterness, grievances, hatred and seek reconciliation. We are to forgive one another. We are to struggle to let bygones be bygones. That is the Christian ethic. Where feasible, reasonable, and possible we are to encourage restitution. We are to act lawfully now, not prosecute wrongs--real and imagined--that took place generations ago. Thus, both Israel and Arab nations are to be called to submit to the Prince of Peace: His yoke is easy and His burden is light.
The third assertion is as follows: the Jews’ return to Israel has no Biblical basis. This assertion by the Church of Scotland we believe to be absolutely correct. It has no basis under the New Covenant. But, so what? The Pilgrims journeying to Massachusetts had no Biblical basis either, in the sense of being prophetically promised. However, both the Pilgrims, and the Palestinians and Israel did then and have now obligations to obey the commands and meet the standards laid down in Holy Writ. Therefore, whilst the Jews' return to Israel had no Biblical basis (in the sense of a divine prophetic warrant), modern Israel has an abiding duty to submit to its lawful, Biblical king--Jesus Christ--and to His commands and precepts.
Now, we are well aware that the case we have made is not going to satisfy modern Israeli's, nor Palestinians or Islamists, nor American Exceptionalists, nor for that matter (we fear) the Church of Scotland. But given the persistent stubbornness of all the above to recognise Christ as their Messiah and Lord, that seems about right.
The Bible belongs to Christ, and Christ alone. It is His Word. It must not be misused in a vain attempt to provide warrant for our ambitions, quarrels, lusts and divisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment