Israel and Prophecy, Dissing, Hissing, missing?

Hi friends, I recently received an open letter asking a high profile, female, Bible expositor and teacher for a public apology but I did not hear what Kay Arthur allegedly said. Nor did I hear the context or tone it was said in, nor am I in an inside loop to see or know what her reply to this alleged event, and this letter (if indeed she received it) would be. That said, I do offer my own response to the letter as a covenant-based, non-traditional dispensationalist myself. My inserts in the letter are preceded with an asterisk (*) so you can know the contribution I am making to the information below. I realize mine is a minority view and that not giving the current nation of Israel any preference is currently widely en vogue among evangelicals, but I offer my thoughts briefly and hopefully for edification. Also I am speaking for myself and not any organization(s) I am loosely or officially affiliated with. See below FYI.

Yours in Christ Jesus gladly,
Joe B. Whitchurch

GFM IVCF, Indiana T.L.
M.A. Christian Thought:
Systematic Theology &
Philosophy of Religion
jbw@ingradiv.com
http://ingradiv.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: various ones Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 4:15 PM
To: various ministry friends and others
Subject: Fwd: Kay Arthur Open letter

Very insightful and worth studying.

CE
************************************
Dear Kay Arthur,

I sincerely appreciate the reply from your assistant, Becky Lucarelli, and the openness it implies. What I write does not come from a callow, carping critic. I write out of great concern for you and the many people you influence. Please take this in a spirit of love from a fellow Christian who has been involved in ministry for over fifty years. We all need to have input from those who are both competent to address an issue and committed to Christ and to the good of others.

You made a statement, which I had heard about secondhand before and heard firsthand in your own voice on the Monday night news segment on a local Christian station. What you said about preferring Israel over the United States is based on gratuitous assumptions and has very serious, far-reaching implications that you may have not thoroughly considered. I want to emphasize that I am a dispensationalist who rejects "replacement theology," and I believe that God has a special, covenant purpose for Jews which will come to fruition in the Millennium. We should not invoke biblical passages that pertain to the Tribulation and the Millennium to shape our perspective of Israel today.

* Apparently as a pre-tribulation rapture-believing person, the author of this letter takes the view that whatever kind of Israel may exist in the tribulation or millennium, we have no idea whatsoever whether or not it has any continuity with the Israel we see in the world today. This is a politically 'safe' kind of agnosticism about the current significance of the current nation of Israel. I am one who leans toward a pre-trib view myself, valuing primarily the "He could come at any moment" themes and teachings of the NT primarily for such a leaning. I do not view this radical agnosticism about a possible even likely continuity as being much other than being 'politically safe'. My guess is that the writer's convictions about the future and Israel, if they are what he says they are, will still be roundly criticized should he muse them openly or publicly, and likely with the same themes less one (American patriotism) that he attributes to Kay Arthur. JBW

I hope you will carefully read my OPEN LETTER TO HAL LINDSEY. He has moved to my area, near Palm Springs, and I gave him and the pastor of the church that he has joined a copy of my OPEN LETTER. It was triggered by a message that I heard him give three months ago.

* Hal Lindsey in all caps above is an interesting kind of 'guilt by association' technique. If one is wanting to rebuke Kay, and if one's letter is worth study for theology and I assume methodology, this technique seems rather unwarranted and not so exemplary. That said, while I believe Hal has made theological speculation errors in the past, the tainting by association and caps doesn't affect me so much. I know a LOT of evangelicals who have made significant theological, cultural, and speculative errors. I don't know many who have been used evangelistically and in terms of speaking about prophetic Scripture as much as Hal has been used of God inspite his frailties. JBW

I am deeply concerned about the egregious errors of so-called Christian Zionism. I will briefly state some of the errors.

* 'Egregious erros' and 'so-called' and 'Zionism' all seem borderline pajorative in this letter's overall context. JBW

First, Genesis 12:3 has nothing to do with the State of Israel, per se, that was founded in 1948. I know this statement will strike you as absurd, but hear me out. Contemporary Israel is a nation-state, and all historians recognize that nation-states are a modern phenomenon, having come to efflorescence in the nineteenth century. Genesis 12:3 did not envisage the political entity that is Israel today. It refers to people, not to political structures. It refers to the covenanted physical and spiritual seed of Abraham.

* Did the author previously say that he believed their would be a national Israel identity that would turn in faith to Christ Jesus as Messiah? And does he not say similarly again at then end of his letter, regarding his understanding of Romans 11 the last several paragraphs of that chapter? If so, I would agree with him about this. But since anything that happens between now and the future is a modern phenomenon nation-state, how is it that anything that might exist in the future escapes not being what he says it will be, because it is a modern nation-state? Isn't this defining the terms, then eliminating the possibility via ones previous definings? I do not recall the name of this fallacy of reasoning but it is study-worthy. But not overly convincing. Clearly there is NT warrant for the 'seed' having reference to people of faith, and the Church is grafted into this historic work of God again according to Romans 11, but there is far more here than meets the 'define it out of bounds -name it- then declare it out of bounds'. This link might assist with further understanding though I have nuance issues with some of this material as well, but at least it isn't wholesale dismissive via definition of 'modern nation state'. http://www.yephiah.com/promises.html JBW

Second, it is therefore anachronistic to read the term "Israel" in the Bible as if the current nation-state of Israel is its equivalence. Even most of the population of Israel in the Bible were not of the spiritual seed of Abraham.

* The first sentence above illustrates my point in my paragraph above it. The second point is interesting because God has historically punished Israel (even prior to modern nation-state days) and apparently in those days of Babylonian exile and Assyrian exile the majority of the people dwellers in national Israel even then, do not fit the definition of the spiritual seed of Abraham. E.g. they didn't have a living faith in God (Yahweh). Not sure the point here other than to put-down people who live in any country named Israel. JBW

Third, a careful study of the remnant in the entire Bible shows that it is the seed of Abraham. Even then, it is only secondarily the seed of Abraham, for Christ is his preeminent Seed in whom and from whom the Abrahamic covenant must be understood (Galatians 3:16). From Genesis to Revelation, it is the remnant of true believers, whether in Israel or subsequently in the professing church that is the seed of Abraham. "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:29). This church-age remnant consists of Jews and Gentiles who savingly trust in Christ, in whom there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Galatians 3:28). Even the Israel that will enter the Millennium is a relatively small remnant (Romans 11:25), for two-thirds of the Jews in the land of Israel will perish during the Great Tribulation (Zechariah 13:8, 9), and all unbelieving, Christ-rejecting Jews will be purged and removed from the earth by divine judgment at the end of the Tribulation (Ezekiel 20).

* Somehow I am questioning whether the original forwarder or secondary forwarder of this email really want me to study the sentence beginning with 'Even the Israel that will enter the ..." above. (-: If I'm not mistaken the 1/3rds of populations destroyed in the great tribulation seem to be global, e.g. not singling out Israel per se. In fact if you read Rev.7:1-8 or chapter 12 it seems as if Israel at that time will have special protection. I know in this day when a global flood (Genesis 6) is questioned and a localized one preferred, and environmentalism would never allow a view of God orchastrating judgment even generally, and certainly not on the physical earth itself, that such a description is of judgment and protection of Israel are challenging, but this is my reading and it doesn't seem convulted to get this from the text. Not a reading that says 'the Jews are really going to get it and not be so significant anyway'. Is this kind of argumentation worth studying? JBW

Fourth, the contemporary State of Israel is largely secular—rejecting Christ and deriding the Bible as a hodge-podge of mythical folklore—and both its secularists and its so-called observant Jews reject Christ, thereby putting themselves outside the Abrahamic seed in both its primary (Christ, the Seed) and secondary (true believers who constitute the Body of Christ) senses. The Christian community in the State of Israel today is a very small remnant, constituted by "messianic Jews" and other ethnic individuals, including some Palestinians and ex-patriots who are residing in Israel. Therefore, if we want to fulfill the mandate of Genesis 12:3, we must focus our blessing on our fellow believers in Israel and in the rest of the world. A radically skewed view of Scripture ignores or twists the teaching of Romans 9-11. The passage teaches that the Jewish remnant in the church age are those Jews who receive Christ as Savior, Lord, and Messiah just as Gentile believers do (Romans 10:12).

* I think I pretty much agree with what is stated above though I do wonder whether underground Messianic convictions are not growing very significantly in Israel. I have heard reports from people on the ground there that a number of Nichodemus types exist even in high places there. And I wonder whether the spectacular mega church growth in the USA doesn't mask a gross biblical ignorance and lack of discipleship and understanding of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and doesn't condone a lot of folklore paganism dressed up in christian-marketing terminologies. My guess is the author and readers will agree it is sadly so. JBW

Fifth, Scripture nowhere teaches that we should have ultimate or even penultimate loyalty to the nation-state of Israel. It clearly teaches that our ultimate loyalty should be to Christ, for "in everything he should have the supremacy" (Colossians 1:18).

* Again we are back at 'define it not so, then conclude it not so'. Historically from Biblical times through modern times, the continued existence of Jewish people and more recently again, a nation of Israel is frankly just plain miraculous. And those who have persecuted Jews or the nation of Israel historically, or even those who have multiple times attacked her and outnumbered her and surrounded her in recent wars since 1948 and including the 6-Day war in 1967 have been soundly well...I'd say judged but we might just say 'roundly defeated' and inspite of incredible advantage out, e.g. against Israel. Are we to believe Hitler and his advantages or the Soviet treatment of Jews and both of their treatment of Jews and Christians had *nothing* to do with God's activity in blessing and cursing? I suppose again it is safe these days to NOT say so, but among Christian, Bible believers, in light of what Scripture teaches, belief in God's providence (for crying out loud), we are suppose to believe and teach that it all means exactly nothing? Well...be safe. I guess I'll just have to disagree and entrust myself to God's mercy on such matters should I be giving Him too much credit for intervening in the world today.

Therefore, if you had said, "If I have to choose between the United States and Christ, I would choose Christ," you would have been right and thoroughly biblical. Or if you had said, "If I have to choose between the United States and the Body of Christ, I would choose the Body of Christ," you would have been right and thoroughly biblical. "We ought to lay down our lives for our brothers" (I John 3:16). The State of Israel is neither Christ nor Christ-honoring; nor is it part of the Body of Christ. To make a statement like yours is a reverse and perverse form of "replacement theology," for it substitutes the State of Israel for Christ and His Body.

* I think this is where the writers patriotism is clouding and emotionally charging his rhetoric. Clearly if I was a principled person living in Syria or Iran today, I would prefer the freedoms of Australia or the UK to my own country. I believe even Jesus said that more preferential faith was found in areas outlying his own political districts and Jewish people influenced territories in his own day. Of course those weren't political statements but statements of fairness, openess, comparison, affirming the good and not blindly following the status quo. Did Kay call for insurrection in the USA or did she call for Christians to not join the bandwagon of Israel bashing? Did she spit on the USA flag? Goodness. In some even sadly evangelical circles, she'd likely get more respect if she did! I think we are over-reacting here. Is she endorsing specific evil deeds done in Israel? Does the author in his rightful love of country endorse such deeds in the USA with a history of influence from the New Testament teaching and followers in its midst? Does not the Scripture teach that those who have been given much are held to a higher level of responsibility? Does any nation have more access to the NT and programming and we? How has Israel fared in light of certain Presbyterian boycotts, multiple invasive wars by groups of countries who don't believe she should exist? How has she fared against serious replacement theologies that have a 'biblically correct vindication motive' for proving she fails and falls and stays (according to these) where she should have stayed after 70AD? Well, she is a principled democracy and a friend of the USA and free people, showing tremendous restrain in the Gulf War, and more recent wars, is voting to give up land more and more, and the reward...more suicide bombers and Hamas elected in Palestine. If such were our plight, geography, victimization, etc I do not even for a fraction of a second believe we as the USA would be half or 1/4 as principled and restrained and deferring to the UN etc. I know it is hypothetical and the writer likely loathes the question but in light of actual full-testamental heritages from 1948 to today, who do you think God might be preferring? I wish I could say with confidence it is the good ole USA and my home denomination and my ethnicity and my my my, but hello, what do you THINK? My guess is you would say, even knowledgable as you appear that it is all a big moral equivelence thing. Israel is just like Syria and Iran and Hamas. Do you listen to middle eastern media. Have you seen the approved ads they run in our non-Israel coalition Arab Muslim States? Here are a couple links, the first to middle east media watch and another about how children are taught. The first is the Middle East Media Research Institute and this is right to the source and flabergastingly amazing. You want to talk about hate-speech, eek and ish. http://memri.org/video/index.html the next one is a web based item but the link on teachkids is well...have a look. http://www.persecution.org/newsite/storydetail.php?storycode=216&PHPSESSID=b http://teachkidspeace.com/flash.php and a USA university -Columbia I believe- speech of note, here http://tinyurl.com/z734z JBW

Sixth, the Bible teaches that we should render to Caesar the things that are Caesars. This means that we owe loyalty to the governmental authorities and country of which we are citizens, and that loyalty supersedes allegiance to any other government or country, Israel included. Your statement giving precedence to the State of Israel is a violation of Scripture and it is quasi-treasonous. Of course, if any government or authority commands a belief or action contrary to Christ, we must put Christ first. Acts 5:20 says, "We must obey God rather than men." This was said to those who opposed Christ and sought to silence the apostles. In fact, it was political-religious leaders in Israel who sought to do this. The apostles, therefore, opposed the government of Israel in their day no less than they opposed obeisance to the idolatries of the Roman empire. They were not victims of the wrongheaded notions of "Christian Zionism," however—which notions afflict countless undiscerning Christians today. As American citizens, our loyalty to our country, with the foregoing qualification, must be to the United States above any other nation, the State of Israel included. I am patriotic but I am not a jingoist for my country, the United States, but your statement reveals a lamentable jingoism for Israel.

* There was no Jewish national government in Jesus' day. Is your complaint of 'quasi-treasonous' really about now following King Jesus first and unrivaled? If so, I affirm it. Or is it about not having the USA be second? If so I encourage you to bloom and be a blessing where you are and be a responsible citizen but not let nationalism blind you to virtues elsewhere. JBW

If you or anyone else gives overriding loyalty to the State of Israel or any other country, the only honest, unhypocritical thing to do is to renounce American citizenship and emigrate to that country and become one of its citizens. The United States is far from being perfect, but it is still the best country in the world, and our democracy is far better than the putative and questionable democracy of the State of Israel, which defines itself as a Jewish-Zionist State, thereby denying the very pluralism that is essential to a true democracy.

* In a word, exaggerated overstatement again, and coming across as powerfully subjective. JBW

Your statement about the precedence of Israel is not only anti-biblical but it is also far more disastrous than you apparently suspect. It is very damaging to the Body of Christ. It will provoke more persecution of Christians in the United States and elsewhere in the world. We will be viewed as a traitorous fifth column that should be opposed and oppressed. That is what statements like yours will bring about.

* Whenever Christians are Christians and speak the truth, it will unintendedly provoke persecution. Frankly this is another part of the 'last days' (referring to the time immediately prior to the return of Christ and not the wider and more Biblical understanding of all the days from Pentecost to the return) NT teaching. Increased persecution. I'm not saying 'cause it' but I'm not sure existing as a Christian under Muslim law or existing under such law as a Jew doesn't necessitate persecution for other reasons. How do spell, Satan? Rev 12 again. JBW

Right now in Muslim countries the beleaguered, small communities of Christians are being blamed by their fellow-citizens for the heinous caricatures (heinous in Muslim eyes) of Muhammad.

* And whose fault is this? Think about it. You appear to be saying it is the cartoonist's fault. Are you a Muslim missionary? Love can be blind. If you are one, then I give you more latitude for love sake but friend, the fault is in Islam just as the fault for Christ hating, crucifix submerged in urine funding by the USA's NEA is the fault of pagan secularism.

Now add your statement to the fray. As word of your statement filters out to the world, it will add even more fuel to the flames. And who suffers? Our fellow-members of the Body of Christ for whom we should lay down our lives.

* I got your answer to my question immediately above. It will be Kay Arthur's fault. Thank you. JBW

You seem more intent on supporting the State of Israel and elevating it to some plateau of value that the Bible does not recognize. Suppose that our fellow Christians in other lands— especially Muslim countries—made the statement that you made and said, "If I have to choose between Egypt (put the name of any other Muslim country here) and Israel, I would choose Israel." They would not survive one day.

* Maybe if our missionaries just cut the words Jew, Jewish, 12 tribes, and Israel out their Bibles all together? Or maybe just never read it? Or just avoid the prophetic like the plague? Didn't Jesus say something about those who are ashamed of His words at His coming and where His shame will be before His holy angels? JBW

I lived in the Middle East for four years, and I know what I am talking about. Muslims will attribute your sentiment to the Christians who live among them, even if those Christians repudiate what you have said. You cannot imagine the untold suffering statements like yours and other Christian Zionists bring to fellow members of the Body of Christ.

* If it wasn't for this it would be for buying clothing from a western firm, or paying taxes in a western nation because all Christians and westerners are beer drinking drunks. Frankly, it is time for Islam to grow up and for Christians to ceise the 'dumbing down'. BTW, I lived in Zambia when after we bombed Lybia, the RSA bombed ANC in the city where I lived. Yes, I know about 'guilt by association' and you are doing a good job of it with Kay, in the name of 'not doing it.' JBW

If your statement should not be made a universal maxim among Christians, this also shows it to be blatantly wrong. It is your private opinion, and because of the freedom we have in the United States people are free to believe whatever nonsense they like. They are not rationally entitled to believe wrongheaded notions when the Bible, evidence, and logic do not support them. But a person who is in a position of substantial influence, as you are, is flagrantly irresponsible in making such a statement.

* It seems to me that unless we are going to start euthenizing the mentally ill, that people do have a right (in a political sense) to rationally believe whatever they want. If they act-out against just law, they will bear consequences but I'm not going to deprive a Christian Science cult person the right to believe all matter and evil is illusion. Are you? JBW

You may be well-meaning, but you know that sincerity is not guarantee of truth or goodness. Suppose one of our congressmen made a statement like yours, it would clearly be a case of treason and he or she would be thrown out of office or worse.

* Ahem, did you hear what they said about France and Germany when they decided the war they backed wasn't turning up WMDs? Goodness, one even assaulted a policeman recently. Unless they are principled or overseen by principled politicians, they can and do say whatever they want with minimal consequences. Don't kid yourself or exaggerate your accusations. JBW

Christian leaders, like yourself, should be extremely careful in what they say, for their statements have a way of reverberating throughout the world (consider the effect of some of the fatuous and reprehensible things Pat Robertson has said). Muslims, in particular, tend to take the statements of such visible Christians as indicative of the entire Christian community.

* Muslims in particular need to 'get over it' and read widely, and their Imman's need held accountable for violence and inciting riots. And by invoking Pat Robertson, I'm only surprised you didn't put his name in all CAPS like you did for Hal L. above. In the context of Pat's interview with a woman raped and brutalized by a dictator's thugs, I cut him some slack though I appreciate, even if late, his retraction. But again we are into 'guilt by association'. Why not toss in Jerry Falwell or Dallas Seminary or whatever? So, you are a dispensationalist. Interesting. Where do you find fellowship where you are not in a constant state of aggitation? (-: JBW

"Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check" (James 3:1, 2). This applies even more powerfully to those whose public sphere of influence is especially great. I pray that you will have the grace to recognize the relevance of this passage to your statement and respond in humility. Even if you believe what you stated—and I think that such a belief is contrary to the word of God—you should have considered the consequences of publicly expressing such an opinion. To state it publicly was hardly a responsible thing to do, especially in view of its potential damage. Besides, there was nothing of value that could come from stating such an opinion.

* How about awakening the western evangelicals to the whole council of God, some international news awareness, and the shame of the continued demonizing, marginalizing and placing at-risk that our government (which we are responsible to influence) is doing to Israel in the name of Muslim radical appeasement? I think something good could come of it. JBW

In order to combat the immense harm that your statement is bringing, please have the humility to public admit that you were wrong to make it. For the sake of the Lord and the Body of Christ, retract that statement and make it clear that although you believe that God has a special, covenantal role for the Jewish people, your loyalty as a Christian is ultimately to Christ and as an American citizen to the United States and not to Israel. If you do not do so, and do so soon, you will reveal that you have either no understanding of the relevant facts or that you do not care that such a statement brings reproach on the name of Christ and brings persecution to Christians everywhere.

* I humbly disagree. Perhaps she will find some nuancing point for which to apologize but I do not see a substantive need for apology in anything you have stated above and your ultimatum doesn't seem to reveal a lot of theological diversity respect or humility. I am wondering what you think of Kay being a female and a Bible teacher? In addition to the Red White and Blue overstatements, I wonder if there isn't more afoot here than meets the eye. JBW

Pat Robertson is to be commended for finally apologizing publicly for his insensitive and gratuitous comment about Ariel Sharon. He made an unfortunate mistake, and I think your statement is much worse than his. Please have the courage to apologize and set the record straight—unless you want to persist in misleading people and hurting the Body of Christ. No one can compel you to do this; it is your choice, but remember that "we who teach will be judged more strictly."

* Of all the things Pat has said, you bring this one to mind. You do seem to wish Israel will totally give itself away. Do you feel the same regarding the USA and our borders? Just curious. JBW

Furthermore, if no retraction is forthcoming in the next few days, I will be compelled to use whatever resources I can muster—including fellow dispensationalist scholars—to expose the horrendous error

* Horrendous error? Amazing. JBW

that you and other Christian Zionists have espoused and propagate. Christian Zionists do not understand the hermeneutical priority of the New Testament in understanding the diachronic and synchronic role and meaning of Abraham’s seed. We are not living in Old Testament times, nor in the Tribulation, nor in the Millennium when the redeemed remnant of Jews will be the special vehicle of God’s blessing in the world. We are in the church age in which the Body of Christ is His special means of blessing the world. We need to understand the implications of this, especially in terms of the perspective we should have regarding Jews and the State of Israel.

* I agree with levels of continuity and discontinuity related to Abraham's seed if this is what the author is referring to. To some extent it is us in the body of Christ, other aspects seem for future, some related to property. I agree with the now and the not-yet of the kingdom of course the details we may have differing views concerning and I respect your right to those views and to share them as you believe appropriate with biblical backing as you best exegete the texts. I also agree with the last two sentences as well though I believe we should have as much concern with how Jewish people view our attempts to contexualize the gospel to them, as we do to Islamic peoples and sensitivities. On that point let me propose a test for you in the dear old USA which I also love. Take ten neighbors, all fly a USA flag at the top of the mast in front of their house. Each of the ten gets to fly their national heritage home country flag underneath the USA flag as is appropriate. Which house will be vandalized, the one with the Palestinian flag, the one with the Syrian flag, the one with the Zimbabwe flag, the one with the .... you name it flag....OR the one with the Jewish flag and the Star of David? Now, if you've answered honestly, what was it you were griping about again? JBW

I am not anti-Semitic nor do I want to hurt the State of Israel. Christians should believe and act like New Testament believers, however. I plead with you to read my OPEN LETTER TO HAL LINDSEY. It will present a more comprehensive case for a New Testament perspective than I have written in this letter.

* Hey Mark, take it up with Hal, OK? It amazes me that people still love to loathe him even after all these years since he's had a best seller. Let go of it Mark. (-: Thanks. JBW where JBW = Joe Whitchurch jbw@insightbb.com and wishing all the best in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Sincerely in Christ,

MMH, Ph.D.