A Palestinian State - Part 1

The following is an article I wrote earlier this year as a summary of a book I read called From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish conflict over Palestine by Joan Peters (2002 JKAP Publications, USA). What was a 12-page article I have broken down into 8 parts to be posted over the coming 8 weeks. While it isn’t devotional reading, it relates to a topic that I believe should be a focus of every serious Bible student, namely, Jesus’ second coming. It of course also addresses a much-reported and hotly-debated issue in world affairs today: the ongoing struggle in the Middle East. I hope that this will prove informative reading and provoke you to further Bible study. I welcome any feedback and would be happy to email you the article in its entirety for you to print or pass on to others.

~

And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it. Zechariah 12:3

Recently there have been renewed calls for a Palestinian state in the Middle East.

The ongoing struggle between Israel and the Palestinians—and all of Israel’s Muslim-Arab neighbours—has had far more news media coverage over the years than any other local conflict. The Middle East crisis weighs heavily not only on the nations involved, but every nation of international significance.

Thousands of years ago, God, speaking through Zechariah said that’s exactly how we should expect it to be in the last days. God’s work in the world is on an individual level with each of us, on a corporate level with us as the church, but (and we easily forget this) it’s also on a national level with all the nations of the world. This of course includes Israel. Since the rebirth of the Jewish nation in 1948, God’s words to Zechariah have been remarkably fulfilled—Israel, and in particular Jerusalem, really has become a very heavy stone for all peoples.

It can be easy to assume, and most do, that because it’s (generally speaking) one nation versus half a dozen others, the aggressor is Israel. But there is a lot more to the history of this conflict than most know about. I’ve recently finished reading a book called From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine, written by secular journalist Joan Peters (first published in 1985). Being a historical book of almost six hundred pages and having been written by a very wordy journalist, it was a difficult read and very slow going, but what she uncovered and presented in her book is truly astounding. It has taken me some time to collect my thoughts and write a summary of her book, but I feel it is really important that I share this so that others can hear about the true origins of the Arab-Jewish conflict. Knowing these origins explains so much of today’s situation in Israel, and it is very important for Christians to have clarity on this issue in a time when there is great controversy in the church over Israel and her place in God’s plans for the future (eschatology).

You won’t find out about the origins of this conflict from the popular news media. The common understanding of events—the one presented by the press, and believed by the majority—goes like this: “The Arabs, Palestinian and otherwise, have nothing against Jews—Arabs and Jews lived harmoniously in Arab lands before 1948; it was only the alien European ‘Zionists’ who came back after two thousand years to usurp the property of the Palestinian Arab native throngs. AND when Palestine became Israel in 1948, Jews forced the exodus of millions of Arabs from their plots of land inhabited by them from time immemorial” (p. 5-6). This commonly believed scenario is based on the following premises:
­- The “Palestinian people” had an identity with the land, and this identity goes back thousands of years.
­- In 1948, “alien” Jews returned after two thousand years, displacing these “Palestinian Arabs” and forcing them to flee their homeland.
­- It is Arab land—the Arabs were there first.
­- The modern-day state of Israel comprises the totality of Palestinian land (and there is no other Palestinian land in which the “Palestinian refugees” could resettle).
­- The “Palestinians” who today suffer poverty and oppression in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are descendants of Arabs who had lived in the disputed land for thousands of years before Jews displaced them.
­- Israel is responsible for the current plight of the “Palestinians refugees”—therefore Israel is principally responsible for the ongoing strife in the Middle East today.

This was the perspective of Joan Peters as she approached her book. In fact, in her words, “the book was originally meant to be solely an investigation of the current plight of the ‘Arab refugees’” (p. 3). She explains in the introduction her original intentions for her research, but how the data she uncovered eventually compelled her not only to change her perspective on the Middle East, but the focus of her book entirely. So rather than documenting the plight of the “Palestinians”, what her book did was to document how far the popular understanding of the origins of the Arab-Jewish conflict is from historical reality. It’s these discoveries that she made that I want to share with you.

Prepare to have many of your assumptions challenged.

This Coming Fellowship - 06/09/2008

For you "Timothy's":

Having received a "snail-mail" invite to this coming Fellowship, it's probably stuck on the fridge, or in your "in-tray". If you haven't received a invite in your post box, but you have been to a Timothy Fellowship before, please take this as your invite! So for your convenience (since we seem to plugged into the web these days), here are the details again:

When: Saturday the 6th September 2008, 5.30pm till 9.30pm
Where: Eddies Cafe, cnr Dorene Street & Rothesay Ave, St Marys (South Australia).
Teacher: Rev. Dr. Noel Due, Senior Pastor at Coromandel Baptist Church (http://www.corobaptist.org.au/), Noel was previously Lecturer in Pastoral Theology at Highland Theological College, Scotland (http://www.htc.uhi.ac.uk/).
Topic: New Testament theology of the Atonement.
Cost: $20 (includes 2 course dinner, drinks, supper and free resources)

Any questions? Have you crashed into this web page somehow and would like to know more? Would you like to attend? Please email: timmyfellows@gmail.com

Remeber to visit this website regularly for updates, and don't forget to comment on what you read.

A Mighty Fortress...

The Reformation is not primarily dealing with the Doctrines of Grace, though the Reformation saw a return to Sovereignty. The Reformation was a reform of a group of "saved folks" (Protestants) who heeded the words of God: "come out of her my peoples". These chosen souls separated from the Roman Catholic system, protesting against that system, and they began to build their lives on one pillar alone - Scripture. Was that the end? Maybe not...

From the book "Is the Reformation over?" by Scott Manetsch:

"So, is the Reformation over? It depends on what one means by “Reformation.” If one means the particular constellation of religious, political, and social events in sixteenth-century Europe that brought renewal to western Christianity, then of course the Reformation is over. But if one means the fundamental doctrinal divide separating official Roman Catholic Christianity from classic Protestant Christianity, then most certainly “no,” the Reformation is not over."

So often we act as if the Scriptures no longer need defending, "let's just teach positive things" some say, but Jude said, "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered". This is not our bread and butter, but contending for the faith never stops. We need to ensure we stay "Protestant", that we stay seperate, that we understand the gap that exists and proclaim it, or we will (like many already today) be absorbed back into a religious life, dictated to us by a man, rather than God.

John Newton on TV?

Introducing "Wretched TV". It's not available over here but some of the episodes are on Youtube. Mr Mr Todd Friel is the host, I'm not sure this is exsactly what John Newton had in mind when he wrote "that saved a wretch like me", but it is a good show. Though Mr Friel takes some getting used to with his sarcasm and big hand movements, the topics he deals with are important and even serious, especially a current show dealing with the Lakeland, Florida "Revival" under Todd (Bamm) Bentley.

Take a look:

Contextualization or Capitulation? (Part 3)

by Dr Noel Due

The balancing act in contextualization is to speak properly into the shared cultural context of speaker and hearer at that point (e.g. Paul with the philosophers on Mars’ Hill) without giving way to syncretism.

Depending on which dictionary you use, syncretism means ‘the fusion or combination of different forms of belief or practice’; ‘the reconciliation of differing systems of philosophy or belief’; or ‘the fusion of diverse religious beliefs and practices’. In the ancient world (now making a reentry in spades) Gnosticism was the prime example of syncretistic belief and practice. It is therefore no coincidence that this occupied much of the theological and intellectual battle ground of the first centuries of the church. That it demanded so much time and attention from the early church fathers indicates how pervasive and troubling syncretism can be.

Paul’s letter to the Colossians has much to do with the concepts of wisdom and mystery. This emphasis is largely necessary because (by a sort of reverse engineering) we can adduce that the problems in the Colossian congregation related to distortions of these ideas. Throughout the New Testament the gospel is spoken of in similar terms (the ‘wisdom’ of God in the cross is a ‘mystery’ to the wisdom of the world). On the one hand, any language and means of communication is open to misunderstanding which must be clarified, but on the other hand a subtle cultural shift can occur where language does not simply ‘adapt’ or ‘accommodate’ to the culture, but is captured by it. Syncretism captures all language and practice in this way.

In the example of the letter to the Colossians, we see an instance of how the apostolic gospel had to confront and clear away the syncretistic tendency that had sought to capture it. The wider socio-religious context of the Colossians was a world in which esoteric wisdom formed a way to ensure safe and secure existence in a cosmos full of hostile powers. It seems that the Colossians had started to syncretise the wisdom/mystery of Christ with their cultural understanding of wisdom/mystery as means for controlling hostile powers and manipulating spiritual forces magically. They were fusing gospel terms and apostolic practices with those of their own folk religion.

How do we know whether our contextualised communication has become captive to cultural syncretism? There are a few helpful indicators:

• Firstly, syncretism by definition undermines the uniqueness of Christ and the finality of the revelation he has brought (or better, the revelation, which he is). Among the Colossians, Christ was in danger of being regarded as ‘one of many’ or perhaps the ‘greatest of most’, but the matchlessness of his person and work were alike under threat. Where the uniqueness of Christ is diluted we draw him into our human systems of philosophy and religion. In particular we seek to draw him into our own systems for our own ends, in that we attempt to bring the (now modified) person and work of Christ into a system by which we may gain his benefits without organic faith-union with him as the only Saviour and Lord.
  
• Secondly, syncretism offers an alternative understanding of the universe and the way in which we are called to live within it. Among the Colossians, Christ was in danger of being ‘slotted into’ an existing philosophical system of cosmic beings and hierarchies. In the Colossians’ situation we have an example of an existing understanding of the universe to which the person and work of Christ was being brought captive. Such alternative understandings are finally shaped by the wisdom of this age rather than that of the age to come. Its drift in this regard will be twofold. On the one hand it will lead to utter pragmatism (how do I use this system to get what I want?) and on the other it leads to an interpretation of the person and work of Christ which is ‘from below’ rather than from above (i.e. the weight falls on interpretation not revelation).
  
• Thirdly, syncretism confuses our worship. In the Colossians’ situation, Christ was being worshipped, along with other angelic/spiritual beings, and all were being given comparable devotion. In principle there is nothing new here, since all of the Old Testament ‘high places’ provided Israel with opportunities with syncretised Yahweh/Baal/Asherah worship for example. Wherever this trend emerges, the purity of worship in Spirit and in truth is undermined. The church is given competing (and finally, mutually exclusive) bases of trust, which then rob God of his glory and lead astray the hearts of the Bride to shower their affections on other lovers.
  
  The contextualization/syncretism continuum is not simply an issue for cross-cultural communication, but is a real issue for the development of Christian life and worship amongst indigenous believers of every culture. The complexities that cluster around the issue are not reducible to a simplistic solution, but wherever the apostolic gospel is taken seriously, they must be addressed. Finally, the matter must be addressed by the apostolic content of the gospel, rather than by questions of form or style.
  
  (To be continued...)

The Reformation Continues...

You may be wondering, "When is Nathin going to post all his own material?". The answer is, "When I stop coming across great video's!".

There is a reformed Baptist Missionary organisation Heart Cry Missionary (www.heartcrymissionary.com) that has reached out to many areas around the globe. Hope you can visit their website sometime. They've recommended an "African Spurgeon" named Conrad Mbewe on their sermon links. He's worth a listen:



Recently I've been hearing reformed preachers (in sermons that I podcast) state that they are seeing a steadily increasing amount of Christians adhering to the 'Doctrines of Grace'. If this is your observation, please comment below.

Contextualization or Capitulation? (Part 2)

by Dr Noel Due

Paul’s appearance before the philosophers of Athens at Mars’ Hill (recorded in Acts 17) is often taken as a prime example of the way in which apostolic preaching contextualized the gospel message. There can be no doubt that Paul’s preaching does here appear within a particular context, and there can also be no doubt that he was able to engage very effectively with his hearers on that occasion. That he was deeply familiar with the cultural setting in which he stood is also beyond doubt. But is this an example of no strings attached contextualization (in which Paul may be said to seek common ground with the pagan world views he was encountering); or even half way house contextualization (in which Paul was seeking to move in their direction a step or two so that they would move a step or two in his)? Or do we find something different happening here, something far more declaratory and kerygmatic than we may at first think?

In the wider context of Paul’s travels, we find that he did not end up in Athens because of a penchant to minimize misunderstanding and to maximize cooperation based on finding common ground with his Greco-Roman/Jewish hearers. Paul comes to Athens via Berea, after being almost lynched in Thessalonica, which, in turn, had followed on imprisonment in Philippi. The track record would suggest that Paul and his companions had not made the bridges formed by their contextualized ministry easy ones to cross!

In the closer context of the chapter we find that Paul’s ministry had begun, as it habitually did, with his own people, the Jews. Yes, his spirit was provoked by the idolatry of the city (Acts 17:16), but his response was to engage in direct evangelistic work among the Jews of the local synagogue and ‘God-fearers’ (i.e. Gentiles who had an interest in Judaism, who had abandoned certain aspects of paganism and who often supported local Jewish communities, but who had not converted fully to Judaism). The Epicurean and Stoic philosophers of the city encounter Paul in this phase of his ministry. They understood him to be speaking of two new gods, ‘Jesus’ and ‘Resurrection’. In Greek, the first is, naturally enough, masculine proper noun, and they had taken the second (a grammatical feminine noun) to be a female deity/consort of Jesus. Hence, they assumed he was proclaiming other gods who could be added to their pantheon (Acts 17:17-18). Paul was thus brought to the Council of the Areopagus in order to expound his existing evangelistic teaching (Acts 17:19-21).

The contents of Paul’s speech make interesting reading, given this setting. Firstly we notice that the ‘unknown God’ he has come to proclaim is probably the God of the Jews. He was ‘unknown’ because He had no image, and, from a Greek point of view, his knowledge was ‘closed’ to those outside of Judaism. Given that Paul had been at work among the Jews and God-fearers, this makes natural sense of the text. But even if another ‘god’ was in view (i.e. a god some how understood by general revelation), Paul does not let that ‘god’ go undefined for long. The ‘Unknown God’ is none other than the God of the Scriptures. Paul’s depiction of Him in Acts 17:24-28 is nothing less than a description of Yahweh. Moreover, this description ends with His absolute claim to exclusive worship (Acts 17:29), and this on the basis of the coming judgement (Acts 17:30-31).

Secondly, we notice that the proclamation does not end with Old Testament affirmations of God, but moves right through to the man, Jesus, and his resurrection. Paul has brought his hearers full circle. They heard him proclaiming Jesus and the resurrection. They asked what he was talking about and brought him to a Greco-Roman ‘please explain’ in a public assembly. And Paul answered. Jesus and the resurrection are the culmination of the actions of the God of the Jews. In Jesus the times of ignorance have both come to an end and been judged. Therefore there is no excuse for idolatry or unbelief. All people everywhere must turn from false religion to worship the true God, through Jesus whom he raised from the dead.

Thirdly, we notice that the use of the pagans’ own poets is thus in contradiction of their message, rather than in affirmation of it. Paul quotes two ancient poets (Epimenides and Aratus) ‘in him we live and move and have our being’ and ‘we are his offspring’ respectively. The significance of these quotations is that they do not apply to Zeus (to whom they most likely referred) or to any other ‘god’. Paul is using these poets to say that the worship rendered to Zeus or any of the other so called gods should have been rendered to Yahweh i.e. to the Father of our Lord Jesus, the man who would come to judge the world. Ultimately, embracing idolatry is a rejection of our true Father.

Fourthly, we notice that the proclamation of the resurrection was a cause for great division and ridicule. The Stoic and Epicurean philosophers had brought Paul there, and these had contradictory understandings of the universe. For the Stoics, there was a sort of post-material existence, but entirely devoid of matter. The thought of resurrected body was not just absurd, but abhorrent. For the Epicureans everything was made of atoms—the remote and apathetic gods included—and upon death the atomic substance of all things was reabsorbed into the (virtually eternal) realm of material things. The thought that (a) there should be a ‘god’ who was so concerned about human affairs that he would intervene (in judgement or grace) was ridiculous and (b) that he should raise up the dead for such a judgement was entirely meaningless.

Finally, we see that there were ‘some who believed’ (Acts 17:34). This means that the message he brought (and doubtless expounded in other settings as well) demanded a response and men and women actually were brought to new birth through it.

What may we take from all this? A few brief points:
Apostolic preaching created new conceptual categories and demanded that old ones be jettisoned.
Cultural communication does not leave culture ‘sovereign’ over the revelation of God.
Evangelistic work is full of content. It proclaims Jesus as the Christ, and this as the fulfillment of Old Testament revelation.
There will always be a mixed response and we should not capitulate to culture in the hope of avoiding conflict with it.
Preaching the gospel apostolically will of necessity involve the proclamation of things that existing cultural wisdom deems to be foolish.

(To be continued…)