ISRAEL, NZ BAPTIST UNION AND "TREASON": PART II
This is part two of my series addressing some of the anti-Zionist material published by the NZ Baptist Union in recent times.[1] I hope to set out my critique in such a way that even someone who rejects the Bible can understand.
The Bible reader is of course free to like or dislike what the Bible teaches. I would argue though, that what he is not free to do, with intellectual honesty, is to deny that the Bible makes certain claims. The regathering of Israel, after an extended period of dispersion, is predicted repeatedly and in the plainest and most emphatic language. Disliking such content is the reader’s right. For the evangelical, however, for those who professes a high view of the inspiration of the biblical text, denial is, in my opinion, simply disingenuous.
Those who are determined to erase Israel’s future restoration from the biblical storyline must resort to devices and techniques that are less than transparent. I hope to demonstrate that with examples from the Baptist union material.
But first, allow me to set the scene and demonstrate that the promise of the ultimate restoration of Israel, still future, is remarkably dominant in scripture.
Evangelical Christians make much of the new covenant - and so they should. But the new covenant context includes explicit, unambiguous content that is often overlooked or even denied.
Revealed at a time when Israel had reached its lowest point - deep in apostasy - the Lord promises through Jeremiah that He will one day make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.[2] It is a remarkable promise of redemption and restoration for an unworthy people. It guarantees that God will never reject Israel and Judah, despite the wicked things they have done. Even though they will be cast out of the land, the new covenant context promises that the descendants of Israel will never cease to be a nation.
In the passages immediately following, there is the clear promise that, ultimately, God will restore the Jewish people, gathering them from all the lands where they were scattered “in His furious anger”. The language is explicit and passionate. According to Jeremiah, God declares “I will rejoice in doing them good and will assuredly plant them in this land with all my heart and soul.”
Of course, these concepts are elaborated upon by almost all the prophets and the details make it clear that it cannot be the partial return from Babylon that is in view. The ultimate restoration of Israel is both are assumed and confirmed in the New Testament and Israel’s unique status and gifts are spoken of as irrevocable.
Despite all this, many Christians simply dislike the promises of the restoration of Israel. Indeed, for the last 1700 years, much of Christendom has rejected these promises and developed mechanisms of evasion and denial. The popular term for this is replacement theology, but as we will see, its proponents often strongly object to the label. More on that shortly.
Of course ideas have consequences. For Bible readers determined to deny such a central and dominant theme as Israel’s restoration, the result is confusion and degradation of the Bible’s remarkable coherence. But for the Jewish people, the consequences of Christendom taking such a path have been tragic indeed. In my view, the Holocaust was not caused by replacement theology, but without it, the Holocaust may not have happened.
Some lay the blame more firmly. The prolific Anglican theologian and historian, James Parkes, stated: …more than six million deliberate murders are the consequence of teaching about Jews for which the Christian Church is ultimately responsible… [3]
Aberrant theology and anti-Jewish propaganda led to one third of world Jewry being murdered in Christian Europe.
History offers many lessons. Some are lessons the NZ Baptist Union seems unwilling to learn. The authors and resources commended by the Baptist Union material include some of the most famous replacement theologians and Christian anti-Zionists.
Defining and engaging with replacement theology can be like nailing jelly to a wall. It often relies on euphemisms or framing fallacies, presenting in positive terms what is in fact a denial of the oaths God has sworn concerning the national restoration of the Jewish people. Though replacement theology takes many forms, what they all have in common is denial. Denial that the explicit and detailed promises to Israel will one day be fulfilled, as written.
As mentioned, such theologians really don't like the term replacement theology, presumably because of its connotations. This is understandable. If I were a car thief I might prefer to say that I'm one who engages in involuntary vehicular acquisition. But, ultimately it is not the term that is important, but what it represents.
In the Baptist material, Dr Church insists there is “…no future for earthly Jerusalem…”, that “…the New Testament knows nothing of the return of Israel…”, and denies the connection between biblical Israel and modern Israel. Yet in regard to replacement theology, he says “…I do not know anybody who believes it.”
A survey of the writings of replacement theologians finds that many insist that their view is in fact expansion, extension, fulfillment, or inclusion theology. They do have the right to name their own position. But labels such as these prompt some obvious questions.
How is it that in expansion or extension theology, the major portion of the original structure is neither expanded nor extended, but rather demolished?
How is it that in fulfillment theology, the numerous explicit national promises to Israel will never be fulfilled?
How is it that in inclusion theology, Israel’s God-sworn national and territorial promises are explicitly excluded?
The viewer can decide. Are such terms are valid? Or are they evasive and euphemistic terms for a theology that turns the biblical text on its head and impugns God’s character?
Several times Dr Church encourages his listeners to read the Bible with imagination. Two observations come to mind. Firstly, the scriptures never suggest such a thing. Secondly Dr Church is certainly following his own advice. He has an active imagination.
He says that Christians meeting on Sunday is an example of “the promised land”.
Yes, you heard that correctly.
[when] “you and I gather with God’s people on Sunday morning… …wherever Christians gather, that is the promised land…”
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob might be shocked to learn that the real estate repeatedly promised to them by the living God - and explicitly confirmed by covenant and oath - was really just a reference to Sunday morning gatherings of Christians - many of whom turn about to be the chief persecutors of Jacob’s descendants. I think Isaiah and Jeremiah would also be mystified by such a claim - after all, they along with almost all the other prophets repeatedly reference Israel’s ultimate regathering to her land.
What biblical support does Dr Church offer for the imaginative assertion equating the promised land with Christians gathering on Sunday morning? Romans 4:13, a text, that if read in context, clearly says nothing of the sort. Such luminaries as NT Wright and Gary Burge also appeal to that text to support their replacement theology. In my opinion, it only demonstrates the frailty of their arguments. In the notes I will post a link to an excerpt from my book, in which I address Romans 4:13 in reasonable detail.
More than once Dr Church claims that those who believe Israel will be regathered are “reading the Old Testament as though the New Testament had never been written.”
This is a peculiar charge. But it is also an advanced case of projection to accuse others of reading one part of the Bible as though the other part had not been written.
[Projection n. attributing to others the traits that one denies in oneself.]
It is the replacement theologian who appears to read the NT as though the OT had never been written. The OT must be silenced in order to impose replacement theology on the New.
If we assume the Bible is a coherent document, a careful reading should yield a worldview that has few difficulties with either testament. I argue in my book that the NT offers robust affirmation of Israel’s promises - promises that assure her ultimate national restoration. The replacementist must find techniques by which to silence the Old Testament or strip it of meaning and authority. I dissect such approaches in my book.
A thoughtful restorationist position that respects the language of both testaments yields a biblical worldview that is quite coherent. One that does not need to overrule meanings that were obvious to the authors and first readers of the biblical text. It also sees the Bible as remarkably self-authenticating. I would argue too, that it offers great explanatory power in regard to the tragic experience of the Jewish people - even the current massive surge in antisemitism.
In my opinion, the replacementist position turns the biblical text into an incoherent hot mess.
I have read a number of Dr Church's writings. He is to be commended for his clarity. Generally, one is left in no doubt as to what he means. The irony, however is that replacement theology presents a God who is either unable or unwilling to communicate with the same clarity as Dr Church. In replacement theology, God’s sworn oaths take on radically different meanings to those understood by the biblical authors themselves - and their first readers. With replacement theology it is difficult - I would argue impossible - to avoid the implication that in the OT, God was deceiving rather than communicating clearly.
In a future video I will address some of the mechanics of replacement theology - some of the methods used to silence or change the meaning of Israel's promises. Things like reinterpretation, fallacious reasoning and so-called Christological readings. I will use examples from material promoted by the Baptist Union, examples that I believe are worthy of the phrase used by the famous Baptist, Charles Spurgeon, "treason to God's word”.[4]
But before closing, a few comments on the dominant narrative on the Gaza conflict peddled by mainstream media and even NZ’s Baptist union. One analysis of major outlets including BBC, New York Times and CNN, found that within a four month period, at least 95% of articles relied on Gaza Health Ministry information.[5] Of course Gaza Health Ministry simply means Hamas. Perhaps even more disturbing is that those figures were used without scrutiny in almost all cases.
Would we have considered information from ISIS or the Nazis to be reliable? Then why Hamas? The culpability of mainstream media in the surge in antisemitism should be obvious.
Christian leaders, however, should be marked by discernment, caution and moral clarity. The Baptist Union’s promotion of the media driven dominant narrative suggests that those qualities may be in short supply.
ROMANS 4:13 - excerpt from "Israel in the Biblical Worldview"
1. Approx 20 such articles, podcasts episodes and statements have been published to date on https://baptist.nz/ .
2. Jeremiah 31:31 and following.
3. As quoted here: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-66019-3_98 Original: “Our own day has seen a culmination of this teaching in the deliberate murder of over six million Jews. These are the consequences of a teaching about the Jew for which the Christian Church is ultimately responsible, and of an attitude to Judaism which, though often unconscious, is still maintained by all the Christian Churches.” James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, p. 373.
4. https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/the-restoration-and-concession-of-the-jews/#flipbook/
5. https://allisraelnews.com/new-report-illustrates-how-hamas-inflated-casualty-figures-leads-to-skewed-narrative-of-gaza-war?utm_source=chatgpt.com