CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE ON ISRAEL: PRAYING FOR ISRAELIS, PALESTINIANS, AND HAMAS

Disclaimer: This post in no way absolves Hamas for its inhumane and evil behavior.  It addresses the root of how some popular Christian thinking influences “Christian” views toward Israel.  Besides the problem-fraught history regarding the Two-State Solution, there is a history of biblical interpretation that is overlooked or unknown to many Christians.

History of Interpretation: The root of the popular American-Christian sympathy toward Israel goes back to an Irish woman’s visions.  Seriously.  In the 1840’s a woman’s visions influenced an Irish Bible “interpreter” of biblical prophecy, John Nelson Darby, who developed a chronological scheme of God’s plans for the world called Dispensationalism.  Darby’s Dispensationalism moved into the US and Canada in the late 1800’s and has taking such a firm hold in southern American Christianity that many church goers have never been exposed to anything else!  In Darby’s dispensational scheme, which is impose on the Bible, God has separate plans for Israel than from the Church.  Although there are some earlier Christians who believed in a such a separation of the Church and Israel, Darby carried this belief further by claiming that God’s dealing with Israel was interrupted by the “Church Era” and will be renewed once the Church is “raptured” away by God.  As a result, this “prophetic” interpretation leads people to think that the current, secular nation of Israel (41% of the population claims some type of Judaism) has a major role in God’s end-time plans and must be protected by America.

New Testament View of the Church as the True Israel: As a Jewish religious movement, the first Christians recognized Jesus as God’s promised Messiah.  They saw themselves as the true Israel, the faithful remnant (OT term for those who survived judgment): “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel;” “not all accepted the good news” (Rom 9:6; 10:16.)*  The inclusion of non-Jews, Gentiles, who were “grafted in” (Rom 11:17) did not form a separate entity from “Israel” but demonstrated the fulfillment of the promises of Abraham through those recognized as “God’s people.”  Therefore, Jews, such as Paul, never converted away from Judaism to “become Christians.”  They were Christians because they were faithful Jews!  Paul considered those Jews who rejected the Messiah as “hardened,” but had hope for them.  Just as the Law did not make people righteous by obedience, but pointed to righteousness by faith; so, Paul believed that the inclusion of Gentiles should point Israelites to righteousness by faith (Rom 11:11 – 21).

Darby’s Dispensational so-called “rapture” of the Church – based on a supposed distinction God has between the Church and Israel – does not exist in biblical teaching.  The main proof text, 1Thess 4:13-18, actually presents a traditional, cultural image of a procession for an honored person: When he arrives, the people will go to meet him and usher him in with a celebratory reception.  (See Matt 25:1-10 wedding reception, and John 12:12-15, “Psalm Sunday.”)  In 1Thess 4:16-17, the dead in Christ will be the first to rise (a forgotten teaching) and then those alive will be snatched off the ground and into the clouds to meet Christ in the air to welcome His coming – not to turn Christ around and leave.

Conclusion: Modern Israel is not the “People of God” and should be treated as any other secular state: supported when necessary and held accountable when necessary.

Lord, I pray for the devastated and suffering people of Israel and for the devastated and suffering Palestinians.  I pray for the softening of the hearts of those in Hamas to turn from their evil ways.  Amen.

*I do not want to give “poof texts.”  I encourage people to take off the “blinder” of the “Church vs. Israel” scheme and to read Romans 9-11 carefully.  For example, some people will look at Paul’s mention that “all Israel will be saved” (11:26) and claim that it refers to a yet-to-come era when the “Deliverer will come from Zion” -- Paul is quoting Isaiah 59:20 – and that “all Israel” includes all ethnic Jews.  Such interpreters miss the big picture: the Deliverer has come and the era of the law has ended: “Christ brought a completion/perfection to the law” (10:4).  Moreover, Paul has already clearly qualified “Israel” to exclude those “branches” that “were broken off because of unbelief” (11:19 – 21) and to refer to the faithful remnant (11:1 – 10), since “not all who are descended from Israel [ethnic Jews] are Israel” (9:6).  One should follow the flow of thought and not impose a presupposed scheme on the text.

CALLING SOMEONE A “FOOL”: NAME-CALLING IN MATTHEW 5:22

 “Idiot dwiver” was one of my daughter’s earliest expressions.  Something she learned from riding in the car with me.  (Whoops.)  I told my wife that this was better than profanity.  Is it?  What does Jesus mean in Matt 5:21 – 22?

"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.'  "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' [empty head] shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into Gehenna.”

Background: In the immediate context, Jesus has said that he came to correctly fulfill (apply) the Law and the Prophets.*  His following example uses hyperbole by shockingly putting anger and name-calling in the category of murder!  He is a attacking a casuistic approach to applying God’s law; that is: in the case of A, do X; in the case of B, do Y; in the case of C, do Z.#  Instead, Jesus is pointing to the heart, the moral foundation, from which murder comes.  Submitting to God, as properly learned through the Law, was to address the heart.

This text got me thinking about name-calling.  Names were important in this culture.  Parents might give an aspirational name (Eleazar, “God [is] helper”).  A person’s name might be changed to accompany a change of character or calling (Abram to Abraham).  Not naming someone in a story was a slur (the unnamed kinsman redeemer in Ruth who rejects his responsibility).  I think, too, of the lawyer, who refused to say “Samaritan” in answer to Jesus’ question (Luke 10:36 – 37).  In terms of magic/witchcraft, knowing and using someone’s name gave some leverage.  And, as mentioned in a previous post, “How is the Bible the Word of God” (July 30, 2023), words were important in this culture.  They were uttered by a person’s breath=spirit and, therefore, had some efficacious force to them.  Cursing and taking an oath were quite serious.

Application:  As I move to personal application, I am reminded that name-calling (“idiot dwiver”) reveals more about me than it does about the other person.  It reveals that I am willing to belittle other people and dehumanize them by reducing them to a pejorative label, one that undoubtedly makes me feel superior – “Surely, I am not like that (blank) person!”  Such a heart/moral foundation is moving me away from the cultivation of mercy, empathy, and compassion, moving me away from the intended fulfillment of the Law and Prophets.  I think that was what Jesus was getting at.

Lord, what I say reveals – to my shame -- my heart.  Forgive me.  Please cleanse my heart and my words.  Grant that I might grow in the fruit of the Spirit.  Amen.

 *I found an interesting open-source article by Michal Bar-Asher Seigal, “Matthew 5:22: The Insult ‘Fool’ and the Interpretation of the Law in Christian and Rabbinic Sources.”  The author concludes that in the context of Second Temple debates about Torah that Jesus is speaking about ridiculing someone for their interpretation of Torah.  That is possible but seems too specific in light of the other teachings in Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount” (Matt 5 – 7).
#To see that Jesus is using exaggeration for shock value here, one might note that Jesus does call someone a “fool” (moros) in Mt 23:17.

GOD’S NAME, THE THIRD COMMANDMENT: TAKING GOD’S NAME IN VAIN

A good friend of mine gave me his interpretation of the 3^rd Commandment (Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11): any business that advertises itself as “Christian” is taking God’s name in vain.  In Second Temple Jewish tradition, the proper name of God – consonants YHWH* – given to Moses (Exod 3:11-14) was not to be pronounced.  Instead, when Jews came to this name when reading a scroll, they said, “Adonai” (Lord).  In the Dead Sea Scrolls, copyists sometimes used a stamp rather than accidentally mess up writing the divine name.  Jews today often write G_d.  Even in English translations of the OT, the convention is to use the substitute LORD.  Of course, these applications are examples of stretching a proper understanding to the extreme.  So, what does this command mean?

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain [Hebrew shav'] for the LORD will not hold guiltless anyone who takes his name in vain [shav'] (Exod. 20:7 NET)

It builds on the first two.  The 1^st command, have no other gods besides/before YHWH, was moving the Hebrews, who grew up in Egypt, away from polytheism and to henotheism, the worship of just one God.  The people were not yet true monotheists (only one God exists).  God’s signs and wonders in Egypt had displayed that YHWH was superior to the Egyptian gods and goddesses; and He had delivered them.  Therefore, they should worship YHWH alone.
The 2^nd, not to make an idol or worship any, addressed the manipulative magic of their polytheistic upbringing.#  Making a representation of a god/goddess and caring for it, was believed to invoke a coercive kind of magic to get the god’s attention, favor, and action on one’s behalf.
The 3^rd commandment takes matters a step further, with the key words being “name” and “vain” (shav').  To know a god's name allowed one to know the power realm of that god and to involve oneself in that god's power by magical, manipulative means of worship.  That is a key point in Exod 3:11-14.  Moses there is demanding to know God’s name.  God’s reply was a play on the verb “to be,” (hwh) and is often translated “I am who I am” (3:14).  In other words, God refused to give such a name to Moses.  It is analogous to saying, “My name is ‘NO NAME’ because I cannot be comprehended or manipulated; I just am!”  The word shav’ (vain) has the sense of that which is unsubstantial, fleeting, vaporous, and was sometimes used in reference to the worthlessness of idols.  [Note in Psalm 24:4, the implication of the whole/perfect person not lifting up oneself to “vanity” (again, shav’) is that the person is not set on an ephemeral god/idol, but on the one substantial God.  See Sept. 25, 2023.]  Therefore, when God takes the Hebrews as His people, under His name, His people should never reference nor represent God in any false, shallow, or manipulative way.

Conclusion:
The Jewish tradition of not even pronouncing God’s name makes sense.  Taking God’s name in vain would apply to oath taking and perjury under oath, but more generally to any false representation of God's character by those speaking and acting "in his name" as his people or representatives.  So, don’t invoke the name of God at all.

In Catholic tradition, God's name is to be used only to bless, praise. or glorify.

Among all the words of Revelation, there is one which is unique: the revealed name of God. God confides his name to those who believe in him; he reveals himself to them in his personal mystery. The gift of a name belongs to the order of trust and intimacy. "The Lord's name is holy." For this reason man must not abuse it. He must keep it in mind in silent, loving adoration. He will not introduce it into his own speech except to bless, praise, and glorify it.  (Catechism, (2143)

My friend was correct.  He even took it one step further by reflecting on what it means to pray “in Jesus’ name.”  We have been granted access to the Father by sharing in the character, power, authority, and glory of Jesus’ name.  That, too, should never be taken in vain.

Lord, there is no greater privilege than belonging to you as one of your people.  Help me never to take for granted having your Name nor to misrepresent you -- as in reality I so often do.  May your Name be praised and glorified forever!  Amen.

*Probably pronounced something like Yahweh.
#To be clear, the tradition of the “God of their Fathers” existed among them, but it seems to have lost its force and was probably just recognized as one god among many.

WHERE IS PARADISE? DOES THE CRIMINAL ON THE CROSS GO TO HEAVEN?

 Note: This post is a response to a private question I received regarding the last post, “The When of Eternal Life: It Matters” (10/11/23).  Basically, the question was, When Jesus told the criminal on the cross that he would see him in “paradise” (Luke 23:42 – 43), does that not mean that he would die and go to heaven?

Short answer:
No.  In this context, “paradise” does not mean heaven as we think of it today.

Background:
Among those at this time who believed in afterlife "holding places" of the dead, there were a couple of traditions about where the dead went:
1) The underworld, Hades, (this was complemented by the depths of seas that will also give up their dead at the resurrection).  In Greek tradition, which got picked up by some Jews, there were different regions in the underworld, uncomfortable places for bad people and comfortable places for good people -- like the Elysian Fields for heroic souls.
2) In one of the levels of the heavens above -- generally the 3rd heaven, often of seven -- in which there were also different places that separated the virtuous and the wicked dead (2 Enoch).  In 2Cor 12:2-4, Paul speaks about being taken to the 3rd heaven, in Paradise, which might be what we would call a near-death experience -- I don't know.

Answer: "Paradise,” then, was a term sometimes used for the place of the virtuous dead apparently in both underworld and heavenly after-death-place traditions.  So, Jesus was saying that this virtuous place is where he and the thief would be upon their forthcoming deaths.  (See comment, too, at NET Bible.)

Application:  A couple of points strike me.  The first is the reminder that we never know the state of another person’s heart and how and when it might soften and surrender to God.  Today, it is almost unimaginable for me to pray for those in Hamas.  (I do not even like writing this.)  But, if Jesus could pray from the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34), then that is the model I must follow – like it or not.  The “evildoer” (kakourgos) heard Jesus, recognized Jesus for who he is, and he changed.
Second, I have the joyful reminder that the gates of Hades could not contain my Savior.  His resurrection foreshadows that of all the dead in Christ.  Hallelujah!

Lord, help me to pray for all of those for whom you suffered to redeem.  And, praise to you that the gates of Hades could never contain you, my Hope, my Life, my Redeemer!

THE WHEN OF ETERNAL LIFE: IT MATTERS

 Recently, I read in a popular devotional, “Today we commemorate the Transitus of St. Francis of Assisi (1182–1226), the date he passed from death into eternal life,” and I sighed.  This statement is contrary to the gospel that Jesus preached but is found in pop-cultural Christianity.
Main point: Jesus, and the early Christians, proclaimed that eternal life began NOW (an in-the-present experience) for a person who received the message of the Kingdom of God and entrusted oneself to God.  In short, when Jesus began his ministry, he proclaimed the most wonderful and astonishing news that could fall on Jewish ears,

“And after John [the Baptist] had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.’" (Mark 1:14 – 15 NAS)

To a Jew expecting that God would bring about an end to this present age of sin and suffering and start again with a “new heavens and earth,” this meant the awaited moment had come!  They assumed, as would Jesus’ disciples, that this new age, the age of the Kingdom of God, would be ushered in by the Messiah rather promptly.  Jesus, however, reshaped that expectation.  He taught that the new age would be like the planting of good seed in a field now, but that one would have to wait for the later time of harvest – his return – for the last stage and consummation of the Kingdom.
Still, Jesus taught, as particularly seen in his discussion with Nicodemus in John 3, that participation in the Kingdom of God meant being born anew/from above* (3:3,7) and entering into eternal life NOW.  In good Jewish thinking, participation in the Kingdom of God meant that one had been received into a proper and close relationship with one’s Creator and, therefore, had been reunited to Life.  [Note how Jesus speaks of “see/enter the Kingdom of God” in vv 3 and 5 and switches to “have eternal life” in vv 15 – 16, or see how the phrases are interchanged in Matt 19:16 - 24.]  As the good news of Jesus spread to non-Jews, the Jewish expression “entering the Kingdom of God” was often replaced by the Gentile-friendly phrase “entering eternal life” with the result that the former phrase that Jesus proclaimed has all but dropped from church-talk.
Unfortunately, along the road of transmission and tradition, pop-cultural Christianity also dropped the biblical sequence of salvation and adopted a sequence of a person believing, dying, and then getting eternal life despite the popular preaching of being “born again”!  (For years I have had students who could read these texts repeatedly and then turn around and talk about dying and then getting eternal life.)  But, this teaching makes a difference!  It makes a difference in who we are in Christ, our understanding of our call to serve in his kingdom, and how we see and value life now.

Lord, thank you that you have accepted me as a participant of your Kingdom now, that I am in relationship with you now, and that I have life eternal now.  Help me to live up to this gift of grace now.  Amen.

*The adverb anothen can mean “again” or “from above.”  Since John frequently employs double entendre (words that have two meanings), it is likely that he wanted to play off both meanings.

Note: A suggested subject of study: How does the gospel (“good proclamation”) that Jesus preached and sent his disciples to preach prior to his death relate to the gospel of Jesus that the Church began to preach after his resurrection?

THIS FAITH BY ITSELF, IF IT DOES NOT HAVE WORKS, IS DEAD (James 2:17)*

 Martin Luther famously did not like the Letter of James in the NT, calling it “that letter of straw.” To Luther it lacked the nature of the Gospel; it did not present “righteousness by faith.”  But James IS presenting righteousness by faith.  Entrusting oneself to God in Christ (faith/belief) results in an inseparable correlation, like two sides of the same coin.  To be “righteous” before God is to be rightly related to God AND others.

How did Jesus, and good Judaism, sum up the Law?  “Love the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:29-31).  The so-called “Ten Commandments” are first about being rightly related to God and then to others (Exod 20:1-11, 12-17).  The Lord’s prayer is first about being rightly related to God and then inclusively for self and others/“us” (Matt 6:9-10, 11-13).  In my devotional reflection on Psalm 24:4 (9/25), the requirements of being completely perfect/whole and able to come into the presence of God are balanced pairs, such as “clean of hands” (actions towards others) and “pure of heart” (internal disposition) before the eyes of God.  On the one hand, Jesus could teach that all evil deeds such as theft, adultery, and greed come from the heart and that it is the heart that makes a person unclean (Mark 7:20-23).  On the other hand, Jesus could base judgment before the throne of God upon whether a person fed the hungry, took care of the sick, etc. (Matt 25:31-46).  Jesus addresses both the heart AND one’s actions.  There is a correlation between “love God” and “love your neighbor” that cannot be separated.

God’s people are called to be holy and, therefore, both “pure of heart” and “clean of hand.”  This is what James is getting at.  He understands that Abraham entrusted himself to God and God saw that as righteousness (James 2:23 quotes Gen 15:6); but, just before that quotation he points to Abraham’s obedience (2:20-22); that is, to “have faith in God” includes faithful obedience.  Unlike Luther (apparently?) a reader of James should recognize both that James’ understanding of “righteous by faith” is complete, but that in this letter he is particularly rebuking those who profess “faith,” but it is not there to be seen in obedience.

What good is it, my brothers, if someone would claim to have faith, but not have works?  Could this “faith” save him?  If a brother or sister were existing naked and were lacking daily food, and someone among you were to speak to them, “Go in peace!  Warm yourselves and fill yourselves with food!” and would not give them their bodily needs, what good is it?  Therefore, this “faith” by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. (James 2:14-17)

Lord, it is often easier for me to profess my faith in you, than to live faithfully before you in my relationships with others.  Help me to be faithful “in heart” and “in hand.”  Amen.

*This post is a follow up to a comment and response on the post of 10/2/23 on holiness and perfection that developed the previous post of 9/25/23 on Psalm 24 about perfection and seeking God.

HOLY AND RIGHTEOUS, ME?

 Just how holy and righteous am I to be?  My good friend and author of God and Human Wholeness: Perfection in Biblical and Theological Tradition responded to my last devotion (Sept. 25) with the concern that while it is true that God looks at the heart and honors those who seek God, we must not play down “innocent or hands” and “pure in heart” as impossible demands.  The Bible does not present such perfection as impossible; and, this is not just an OT command.  Jesus never lowered the bar.  Drawing on the OT (e.g. Lev 19:2; Deut 18:13) Jesus, in the “Sermon on the Mount,” commands, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48).

I think Christians, including myself, try to find ways to sidestep this call to perfection.  Some people who adopt the forensic notion that Jesus’ righteousness is imputed to them (that is, God sees Jesus’ righteousness and not one’s own sinfulness) can lead them to such a sidestep.  They are already righteous!  This belief may serve as a corollary to the “cheap grace” practice of coming forward at church and saying the “sinner’s prayer” so that one “gets saved” and will not “go to hell,” but their lives do not change.  Another example would be those Christians who uphold a form of Dispensational theology that actually tosses out the Sermon on the Mount as not applicable to Christians!  My best excuse for self-tolerance (better: self-justification) fits a pattern of seeing myself as not quite as bad as some of those other folk.

But God is serious about the call for God’s people to be holy (distinct) and righteous in their relationships with God and others.  God works through God’s people.  It is through them that others are drawn to Christ and find blessing, healing, wholeness in relationship with their Creator.  Again, and embedded in Psalm 24, is the key answer: the practice of seeking God.  Those who truly seek God will be moving toward such perfection.  They will have the heart’s desire to change, and they will have the efficacious Presence of God to enable that change.  From them will radiate what Paul calls the “fruit of the Spirit,” love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal 5:22 – 23).

Lord, I want to be such a faithful seeker of you, your kingdom, your righteousness.  Help me.  Amen.