arachnogeek

That is, according to dispensational zionist christians during the last few centuries. But not prior to that. Once again, the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history would consider your interpretation bogus, and would have believed that Paul is indeed making this argument.

This is a blatant ad hominem; attacking the character of Steven Sizer (even if we grant that he is indeed a holocaust denier, which he is not) does not in any way discredit his academic work. An ad hominem is no way to dismantle Sizer's anti-zionist ideas.

This claim should be substantiated with historical documentation. It is evident that the zionist agenda did not emerge until recently in history. This is one of the reasons I believe it can easily be discredited. One only needs to read the early church fathers, the reformers, and many other Christian theological literature to arrive at the conclusion that this theological framework is new. It is highly unlikely that the Lord would have allowed all of Christendom for 1700 years to be utterly ignorant of the truth about His 'chosen people' Israel. Before Darby and Scofield, Dispensational Zionism hadn't fully developed. If there is really no other way to see it, if one is being faithful to the Word of God, would you then go ahead and state that the Church universal was deceived for 1700 years about this very issue? Would you go as far as to say that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan and many other heroes of the faith were all deceived on this issue? Even today, there are many pastors and theologians (Dr. James White, Dr. Voddie Baucham, Dr. Wayne Grudem, Dr. Sizer, Dr. John Piper) who do not interpret the Word of God through your lens, and claim that they remain faithful to it. In fact, they would claim that the Dispensational Zionist interpretation is not faithful to God's Word. To say that 'there is really no other way to see it, if one is being faithful' isn't helpful, considering there's a swathe of theologians, pastors, and whole denominations who aren't dispensational in there approach to Israel's role.

That's a good place to start!

This is a paper I wrote in 2012 for an intro to the OT class. (This is terrible formatting because I simply copy and pasted and had to deal with spacing issues. A NON-DISPENSATIONAL APPROACH TO THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT Thesis: God’s covenant with Abraham and His promises to the nation of Israel do not reflect an ethnocultural plan of salvation; rather, they are imputed unto Abraham’s spiritual descendants and heirs of the promises through faith and covenant fidelity. The Abrahamic covenant is perhaps one of the most significant tenet found in the Old Testament, acting as a hinge for many theological principles, as well as playing an important role in the New Testament. Assuredly, the promise given to the first patriarch “[...] provides the foundations of redemption for all who by faith are the descendants of Abraham” (McComiskey, 1985, p.15). In response to such a statement, it behooves oneself to come to a deeper knowledge and appreciation for the subject, as well as to recognize that the implications are consequential. The Abrahamic covenant can be examined by observing the promise given to him on five occasions found in Gen. 12, 13, 15, 17, and 22. In these passages, the Lord’s promise to his servant Abraham includes an assurance of his descendant’s existence and greatness on the earth, as well as a blessing on them and a curse on those who oppose them. Additionally, God promised him that the blessings of the promise would not only relate to Abraham’s offspring but to all of mankind. Further blessings of the promise included the inheritance of the land of Canaan, and that kings would descend from him. It is important to note that although the promise was exclusive to the house of Israel (Abraham’s line), the blessings would be reaped by all “the families of the earth” (Gen. 12:3, NKJV). As mentioned earlier, Abraham was told of a curse and a blessing that would be appropriated to the nations who either opposed or blessed his descendants. Given the cultural and sociopolitical context of Abraham’s time, this promise would surely have been interpreted in a literal sense. In other words, it would not have been spiritualized or symbolized to explain away the bloodshed that would later occur between Israel and the nations. Richards (1998) assumes Abraham believed “God Himself [would] personally intervene, to provide those who support Abra[ha]m with blessings, and to repay those who trouble [him]” (p.26). Most importantly, the promise to Abraham was accompanied by covenant provisions. These provisions were meant to reinforce and materialize the promise, thus giving assurance of its fulfillment to Abraham and his offspring. Although Abraham was required to obey and leave his fatherland, as well as to carry out other tasks, the covenant provisions point to God’s sovereignty. Indeed, according to Robertson (1980), the covenant is only realized because “God assumes to himself full responsibility in seeing its realization” (p.146). In Genesis 15, there is a clear emphasis on two distinct covenant provisions; the myriad children of Abraham and the promised land. Abrahams’ descendants are likened to the number of stars in the heavens (v.5), and the land to be possessed stretches all the way from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates river (v.18). Since Abraham’s wife (Sarah) was barren at the time of the promise, both of these provisions seemed problematic; they required offspring, without it, the land would not be possessed as promised, and the covenant would crumble. However, this is precisely why God established his covenant with Abraham, despite his family circumstance. According to Wood (1970), “God waited until Sarah was past her natural time of bearing children so as to demonstrate that Abraham’s promised posterity would truly be of supernatural origin. Isaac was to be uniquely God’s child, though born to Abraham and Sarah.” (p.44). Already, there is a sense in which God’s plan for the nation of Israel began with a work of God; it was theocentric rather than centered on man. The promise concerning the land is equally important to that of Abraham’s offspring; it entails great significance, especially with relation to Israel’s salvation. Indeed, Holwerda (1995) describes the promises of salvation as having an “unbreakable tie to the land” (p.88). In direct parallelism to Abraham’s faith concerning his future offspring, the author adds; “promised land is grasped by faith, not by strength” (p.89). Yet another crucial facet to the Abrahamic covenant is the sign of the covenant; circumcision. God ordered Abraham to circumcise every male from his household as a sign of the covenant between them, designed to last throughout the ages (Gen. 17:10). Circumcision was a means to set God’s chosen people apart from the neighbouring nations. One should notice that Ishmael was also circumcised, alongside foreigners and slaves in the household of Abraham. Perhaps to begin with, circumcision was not entirely ethnocultural, but rather inclusive in nature. Israel’s inheritance of the promise given to Abraham was not merely a reward for achieving a level of righteousness acceptable in the sight of God, or for being a holy people, set apart from the other nations. Rather, the proper term used for their inheritance is a ‘gift’. Unlike a reward, a gift is not typically merited by one’s own efforts; it is freely given out of the abundance of one’s generosity and grace. It is important to keep in mind that the people of Israel are called “aliens and tenants in the Lord’s land since they have no permanent title to it and possess it with no absolute legal right to it (Leviticus 25:23). Thus the land never ceases being a gift, even when Israel possesses it.” (Holwerda, 1995, p.93). Nevertheless, there were mandatory covenant stipulations put in place by God. One could say that the covenant conditions found in Deuteronomy are a continuation or a development of the Abrahamic covenant. Thus, Israel was demanded to obey the commands of the Lord, as well as to avoid immorality and to be holy. Failure to do so would result in being cut off from the benefits of the promise given to Abraham. Consequently, the promise concerning the land was dependent on Israel’s covenant fidelity. As alluded to earlier, there is a pattern found throughout scripture which speaks of the inclusivity of the Abrahamic covenant. Although the covenant was established with Abraham and the promise was given to his descendants, there are various examples of foreigners who were adopted into the family of Israel despite their ethnicity or status. Sizer (2007) affirms this in stating: “Israel as a nation always incorporated people of other races, and this extended not just to their identity and right of residence but also to their inheritance of the land and right to worship God in the temple.” (p.46). Indeed, Moses spoke against racial exclusivity, in demanding that the people of Israel accept the Edomites as their own without despising them (Deut. 23:7-8). The prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah were swift in encouraging acceptance of non-native Israelites. For instance, the prophet Ezekiel exhorts the people of Israel concerning the land; "It shall be that you will divide it by lot as an inheritance for yourselves, and for the strangers who dwell among you and who bear children among you. They shall be to you as native-born among the children of Israel; they shall have an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.” (Ez. 47:22) Even the psalmist David recognized God’s desire for foreigners to partake in the covenant; “I will record Rahab and Babylon among those who acknowledge me. Philistia too, and Tyre, along with Cush, and I will say ‘this one was born in Zion’” (Psalm 87:4, NIV). Evidently, the notion of racial purity and covenant exclusivity is utterly refuted in the Old Testament alone. Another aspect worthy of thoughtful consideration (regarding the inclusivity of the covenant) is that the inclusivity may have served as a foreshadow of the gentile’s future redemption in Christ. Perhaps the notion of salvation for gentiles was not as foreign as it appeared to have been to first-century Jews experiencing the aftermath of Christ’s death and resurrection. A recent phenomenon has stemmed in the Christian world, one that interprets the Abrahamic covenant ultra-literally. This movement is called Christian Zionism; it is largely supported and rooted in a theological framework known as dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a system of theology which categorizes the dealings and administrations of God with humanity in various periods of time. Dispensationalism encompasses various aspects of theology, but the most significant characteristic portrayed is best described by Blaising and Bock (1992) as the “distinction between Israel and the Church, including the parenthetical nature of the present dispensation of the Church within God’ national and political purpose for Israel” (p.25). Christian Zionism is considered perhaps the most noticeable offspring of dispensationalism; it is the belief that the Jewish nation is entitled to the land of Palestine according to God’s promise to Abraham. This belief is generally disguised as theological in nature but can be equally political. There are many problems with Christian Zionism, but there is one in particular which cannot be ignored; the problem of restoration. According to the covenant God made with Abraham and the house of Israel, possession of the land was always accompanied by obedience to God’s law. Again, Israel’s relationship to the land was solely dependent on covenant fidelity. On numerous occasions, Israel was thrown into exile for disobeying the law of God and not keeping his statutes and commandments. A proper understanding and interpretation of scripture would not lead to the belief that modern day Israel is entitled to the land in Palestine. In describing Christian Zionists’ beliefs, Sizer claims that they have “reversed the clear and unambiguous process outlined in the promises and warnings of the Law and Prophets who teach that repentance leads to restoration, not the other way around” (p.85). Clearly, one would have to ignore the covenant stipulations outlined in the Old Testament altogether to arrive at the conclusion that Eretz Israel merits the land promised to their ancestors in the days of the old covenant. Even Jesus alienated himself from that idea, in that he “rejected the [...] widespread belief that the restoration would begin with another iteration of one of the definitive theophanic events which led to Israel’s original conquest of the Land” (Bryan, 2002, p.45). Some would argue that if indeed Eretz Israel does not merit the land, God’s promise and covenant with Abraham were not kept. To the contrary, God kept his promises and fulfilled them, as scripture reveals in both the Old and New Testaments. For instance, the Lord’s promises concerning the land were fulfilled in the days of Joshua: "So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. [...] Not a word failed of any good thing which the Lord had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.” (Joshua 21:43;45) When examining the above scriptural passage and accepting it as true, one simply cannot argue that the Lord’s promises concerning the land need future fulfillment. In light of what has been determined thus far, it is important to consider the New Testament’s verdict on the issue. The apostle Paul, for instance, handles the Abrahamic [covenant] principally by means of a promise-fulfillment schema, taking up the various strands of the Abrahamic promises and pressing them in new directions. He interprets the promise of seed Christologically and universalises the promises of land and of blessing to the nations. Because of this stress on the nations/Gentiles, the Abrahamic material is ripe for Paul’s exposition of his law-free gospel to the Gentiles.” (Cartledge&Mills, 2001, p.64). The book of Galatians speaks clearly concerning Paul’s interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant. For instance, Paul describes the Gentiles as being partakers of the promise of Abraham, simply by placing their faith in Christ (Gal. 3:7-9). His argument “implies that Christians, as the true descendants of Abraham and the heirs to the promises, are also the heirs to the covenant made to him” (Mckenzie, 2000, p.99). Paul continues to exhort the Galatians in stating that “there is neither Jew nor Greek [...]” (Gal. 3:28), rather, all become one in Christ Jesus and are partakers of the promise. In the book of Romans, Mckenzie affirms Paul’s argument, in that the “true Israelites are not those who are physically descended from Abraham, but those who share Abraham’s faith” (p.106). Indeed, Mckenzie’s statement is supported by scripture; “It is not the children of flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants” (Rom. 9:8). Paul’s argument is found elsewhere (Eph. 2:12, 2 Cor. 3:7-18) in the New Testament, and one must understand these matters in their proper context, which is the freedom and inclusive salvation for those who are of faith in Christ, the seed of Abraham. One must wonder how these truths apply to the majority of Christians living in a twenty-first century America, as opposed to a first century Middle Eastern society, wherein Jewish Christians were confused as to how the covenant had been established and what the implications were. After all, that is the reason why Paul worked so ardently to refute some common misconceptions rampant in the early Church. Unfortunately, the first-century Jews were not the only ones in history subject to faulty interpretation of scripture; there are many Christians today, as mentioned earlier (Christian Zionists) who hold to the belief that Eretz Israel is distinct from the true Israel described in Romans 9:8. This belief is extremely common, and is increasingly becoming synonymous with American Evangelicalism. According to popular American Evangelical thought, the state of Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and is therefore in complete alignment with God’s will. This infers that Christians must stand with Israel and endorse her every move. It also demands Christians to stand in apathy or even hostility towards the enemies of Israel, namely Arabs. This tragic and erroneous line of thought has helped to permit the displacement of thousands of Palestinians from their homes to expand Jewish territory. Illegal Israeli settlements have been ‘justified theologically’ by popular Christian leaders who vehemently support Israel. Sizer (2004) does not hesitate to describe the belief that the Jews remain God’s chosen people as resulting in the “uncritical endorsement of and justification for Israel’s racist and apartheid policies” (p.252). Shockingly, this travesty is all rooted in a poor understanding and faulty exegesis of the Abrahamic covenant. Upon carefully considering the above ramifications, one may safely conclude that God’s covenant with Abraham and His promises to the nation of Israel do not reflect an ethnocultural plan of salvation; rather, they are imputed unto Abraham’s spiritual descendants and heirs of the promises through faith and covenant fidelity. Additionally, distorting this truth through a dispensational and Zionistic approach (if taken to the extreme) can lead to serious negative consequences. REFERENCE LIST Bock, D., & Ware, B., & Saucy, R., & Glenny, W., & Burns, J., & Lowery D., et al. (Blaising, C., & Bock, D., Ed.). 1992. Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church. Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan. Bryan, S. 2002. Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgment and Restoration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Holwerda, E. 1995. Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two? Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdmans. Lohfink, N. 1991. The Covenant Never Revoked: Biblical Reflections on Christian-Jewish Dialogue. Mahwah, NJ. Paulest Press. McComiskey, T. 1985. The Covenants of Promise: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Book House. McKenzie, S. 2000. Covenant. St. Louis, Missouri. Chalice Press. Mills, D. 2001. Covenant Theology. Waynesboro, GA. Paternoster Press. Richards, L. 1998. Every Covenant and Promise in the Bible. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson. Robertson, O. 1980. The Christ of the Covenants. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Book House. Sizer, S. 2004. Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon. Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsity Press. Sizer, S. 2007. Zion’s Christian Soldiers? The Bible, Israel and the Church. Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsity Press. Wood, L. 1970. A Survey of Israel’s History. Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan.

Great point! Let's assume we're dealing with 'a church'.

Is there anything wrong with our current model of doing Church? Could there be improvements made? Are the following elements biblical? 1. Tithing 2. Pastor salaries 3. Million-dollar church buildings 4. Seminary-trained pastors 5. Church incorporation Le me know what your thoughts are! Thanks

I've been thinking for a long while about the way we 'do Church' here in North America, and I haven't been able to articulate my thoughts properly with the people I've discussed it with. For the last year and a bit, I've been reading Paul's epistles and the book of Acts, as a way of immersing myself in the first-century church as best I can. I am therefore choosing to open it up for discussion in this forum, as I think everyone (I certainly will) may benefit from bouncing back ideas. I'll lay out a few questions/concerns and perhaps people will share their 2 cents! 1. Observation: The first-century Church met in homes, even before they began to be persecuted. Questions: a) Why is it that we meet in church buildings, knowing full well that they have to be kept up (i.e. heating and cooling bills, electricity, lighting, technological improvements, etc.) and mortgaged out for years on the backs of the congregation's tithes? b) Even a 'small church' of about 300 people is still quite large, given that on average, it is harder to build meaningful relationship with that many people, so why do we think that we can meet with about 2000 people on any given Sunday and think we can have proper fellowship with one other (i.e. confessing our sins to one another, praying for one another, etc.) 2. Observation: Elders were appointed by the laying on of hands, by other elders or apostles, if they met the qualifications established in Titus and 1 Timothy Questions: a) Why is it that in today's contemporary church models in North America and even globally, we pour millions upon millions of dollars into Seminaries for the training and equipping of future church leaders? b) Why is it that a typical mega church of 2000 or more has at least 20 paid staff members with various administrative positions (senior pastors, youth pastors, young adult pastors, janitors/custodians, treasurers, secretaries, etc) none of which are founded or required in Scripture? 3. Observation: The first-century church was extremely generous with their resources and money (i.e. selling their possessions to make sure others had what they needed, etc.), and they supported ministers of the Gospel (i.e. Missionaries like and Paul and Barnabas), but they didn't tithe (i.e. 10%) nor did they pay their elders/pastors. Questions: a) Why do we pay our pastors salaries and demand people to tithe 10% (at least) to the church, when we don't pay missionaries 'salaries'. If anything, isn't there more of a case to be made for missionaries having a salary rather than elders? b) Most Churches (the VAST majority) do not pay all their elders, but only pay a select few (i.e. senior pastor and other pastors). The New Testament uses the term elder and pastor interchangeably, so why is it that those who advocate for giving their pastors salaries are not consistent in doing so? Are some of their elders 'not worthy of double honour'? Concluding thoughts: When I think about all this in its entirety, I can't help but to be a bit skeptical. Could it be that we have set up a cycle wherein we have demanded tithes from people, only to build mini-empires? When a Church spends between 20-80% of their entire budget on staff, isn't that an indication that it has become self-centred and is in need of reformation? How can we (as protestants and evangelicals) point the finger at the Catholic Church for its extravagance and luxury, when we are just as guilty? Sure, we don't build cathedrals, we haven't sold indulgences, and most of our ministers don't wear fancy garments and robes. Instead, we erect massive state-of-the-art facilities off the backs of people's tithes, we fund millions to seminaries where future minister are indebted with tuition and living costs. These graduates then bring their debts with them to the congregation who happens to hire them, and the cycle resumes. Could there be another way? Perhaps meeting in homes would be a start. Perhaps elders could train other elders locally, within their own congregations, for the Lord's work, rather than outsourcing it to seminary grads who have a vested interest in performing their duties well (i.e. a salary, a raise, benefits package, etc.). Couldn't our ministers all be tent-makers and still fulfill the duties of an elder? There is a watching world out there, and it often knows the difference between counterfeit Christianity and true Christianity; let's not give it an occasion to slander the Church any longer. I would love to hear everyone's thoughts, objections, frustrations, and advice. Thanks, Chris