How are Christians Living in the Palestinian Territories Treated?

What about the fate of Christians living under the rule of the Palestinian Authority?

At a 2009 Vineyard National Leadership Conference in Galveston, Texas, Palestinian Christian Sami Awad, founder of the Holy Land Trust told his evangelical audience the Christian population in the Palestinian territories is shrinking. 

In the area governed by the PA, 27,000 Christians live among 3 million Muslims. Mitchell Bard in his book Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict, agrees with Sami Awad that the "proportion of Christians in the Palestinian territories has dropped from 15 percent of the Arab population in 1950 to less than 1 percent today."

Sami Awad, in his Vineyard speech did not qualify why the Palestinian Christian population is dwindling.  He leaves his hearers with the implication the Israeli soldiers bear the brunt of the blame.

Sami seems to forget that when Muslim authorities have control in whatever Arab country they reside, Christians do not always fair well. So tell me, Sami, how is it the Christian population in Israel proper is growing if the "Israelis are to blame for the shrinking Palestinian Christian population?" 

The Christian population declined 29 percent in the West Bank and 20 percent in the Gaza Strip from 1997. Does it have anything to do with the fact Christians are generally unwelcome in Arab countries dominated by Muslims.  Even today Islamic extremists are burning Coptic churches in Egypt as a sign of their disgust towards Christianity.

A 2004 NY Times article reported how Palestinian Christians were leaving Bethlehem and other historically Christian towns in the West Bank. Unsurprisingly, the article pinned the blame for the Christian exodus on the Israelis:

Four years of violence, an economic free fall and the Israeli separation barrier have all contributed to the hardships facing Palestinian Christians in Bethlehem, one of the largest concentrations of Christians in the region.

The Times piece failed to give the real reason for the Christian migration - official and unofficial Muslim discrimination against Arab Christians, amid a rising tide of Islamism in the Palestinian territories. Sure, it's possible the economic problems in the West Bank and the Israeli security wall  have contributed to Christians leaving the Palestinian territories. Yet it must be noted the Christian population is dwindling in the rest of the  Islamic world as well.

Like Sami Awad the NY Times article did not mention the Christian population within Israel's borders is growing. In the period 1995 – 2003 Israel’s Arab Christian population grew from 101,400 to 115,700, a growth rate of 14.1 percent.  Today there are 145,000 followers of Christ living in Israel!

Sticking out like a sore thumb Palestinian Christians like Sami Awad do not want to treat is the fact Palestinian Christians are the victims of Islamic violence in the PA.  A 2002 Boston Globe article underscored the fact Christians in the Palestinian territories are not safe:

... details were emerging of a rampage of Palestinian Muslims against Christian shops and churches in Ramallah after a road-rage slaying last Thursday. 

... police made no attempt to stop the mob, which besieged and damaged a widely respected youth center associated with the Boy Scouts of America after torching the Christian properties. Palestinian police and security agencies finally stepped in when the rioters moved on local churches. 

... "The truth is this is a problem between Christians and Muslims," said one Christian businessman. "There is no security for us. Everyone is taking the law in his own hands. 

... "This [accused] man's brother, they burned his house, his shops, his cars, and the police of Ramallah stood by and watched. This is the democracy of Palestine?" .. "The chief of security at Kalandia was in charge of this rampage," said a Muslim shopkeeper. "The mayor of Ramallah came, saw what was happening, and withdrew. I am a Muslim, but I condemn this. These are savage people." 

"We do not have democracy; we do not have security," he said. "The fault is with our leaders and our society. We need to clean up our society."

Additional information on how Palestiniann Christians are treated in Palestinian controlled areas is found in a report compiled by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs written by David Raab entitled The Beleaguered Christians of Palestine Controlled Areas.

Sami Awad must be asleep when he points his finger at Israelis for causing the migration of Palestinian Christians from the territories. Awad has a lot of explaining to do when he trashes the Israeli military for treating his people so poorly when Palestinian Muslim vigilantes are taking the law into their own hands and heaping havoc on the Christians.  Sami would rather make the IDF the culprit for their problems since they are an easier target.  Do you blame him?

Knowing this information, we see how bad Palestinian Christians look when they attempt to pin all the blame for their problems on the Israelis. They are even willing to buy into the thinking that says the Palestinians are victims of the Jewish state "much like Jesus Himself."
 Even PLO leader Yasser Arafat tried to do a makeover on the historical Jesus to transform Him into the first radical Palestinian armed freedom fighter or fedayeen.

Today Bethlehem Bible College is calling their 2012 conference Christ at the Checkpoint: Hope in the Midst of Conflict. The name of the conference Christ at the Checkpoint depicts the Jewish Jesus as a Palestinian under scrutiny at an Israeli IDF checkpoint.  How absurd! Jesus was never scrutinized by military authorities in his day for carrying weapons or having a bomb strapped to His back. What a slap in the face to Christianity and the biblical significance of Christ.

Don't forget the official religion of the PA is Islam.  The PA has not stopped Islamic clerics giving speeches in mosques in the Palestinian territory in which they brand Christians (and Jews) as infidels. What comfort does a Palestinian Christian have listening to the violent military Islamic rhetoric and actions of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbolleh?

I doubt if Sami Awad would go around to pastors conferences in the U.S. complaining about the Muslim's treatment of Palestinian Christians for fear of retaliation.  Mum is the word for Sami when it comes to the harassment Palestinian Christians experience from the Isalmic thugs who plunder the property of Christians under the watchful eye of the PA (Maariv, 12/24/01). 

Sami failed to tell his gullible Christian audience that when the Palestinian War started in 2000 Palestinian Muslims attacked Palestinian Christians in Gaza. Many Muslims at that time viewed the Palestinian Christians as a fifth column for Israel.  Christians are not treated so great in Palestine - a fact Sami Awad does not want to speak of lest he stir American Christian animosity towards Muslims.  

Why didn't Awad speak of the anti-Christian graffiti found in Bethlehem claiming, "First the Saturday people (the Jews) then the Sunday people (Christians)." Christian cemeteries have been defaced, monasteries have had their phone lines cut and break-ins at convents have occurred in the PA territories. Palestinians Christians live under pressure from Islamic extremists to swear loyalty to the PA and to support the attacks against Israel.  

Awad preaches to the Vineyard crowd that as a Christian he is to "love his enemies", the Israeli soldiers.  He never actually tells how he shows love to Israeli soldiers patrolling in the Palestinian territories.  In light of the injustices shown by Muslims towards Christians, Sami and the non-violent evangelicals need to show the love to the radicals in his own Islamic backyard of three million Palestinian Muslims. 

Perhaps the reason why Sami Awad does not speak out against mistreatment committed by Islamic activists against Christians is that he does not possess the freedom to do so? Sami and his Palestinian Christian brothers do not enjoy the freedom enjoyed by Christians who live in Israel and therein lies the great contradiction fostered by those like Lynne Hybels, Dr. Gary Burge, Colin Chapman, Don Wagner and so many other evangelicals who foster theological hostility towards Israel.  

How are Christians Living in the Palestinian Territories Treated?

Is Israel At Fault for the Shrinking Palestinian Christian Population?

At the 2009 National Vineyard Leadership Conference in Galveston, Texas, Rich Nathan, Senior Pastor of  the Vineyard Church of Columbus in Ohio, gave a talk on Learning to Love Your Enemies in the Middle East.

Nathan, a Jewish follower of Jesus, has made a dramatic change in his life by rejecting his Zionist prophetic interpretation of the Bible in "pursuit of Jesus' kingdom ministry." What this means is that Nathan has embraced a theology that is hostile towards Israel in the name of advancing the kingdom of God.

During his seminar Rich invited Palestinian Christian Sami Awad, who is working with Palestinians and Israelis to bring healing to the Middle East conflict. Awad, raised under the violence connected to the disputed Palestinian territories, is now leading a movement that encourages Palestinians Christians to  love the Israelis soldiers in order to bring about reconciliation.

During the course of Nathan's interview, Sami strongly blamed the diminishing population of Palestinian Christians due to the Israeli presence ever since 1848. Awad shared that the biggest loss he has experienced while living under "Israeli occupation,"  is a hope for the future. His options are now limited due to the presence of the Israelis. The only option in occupation, says Awad, is to leave. Therefor, since the Palestinian Christians are living in a state controlled by Israelis, they have no other choices other than to leave the country. The Palestinian Christians are victims of the situation.

Is Awad telling the entire truth when he speaks to American evangelicals, the majority of whom have little knowledge of the history of the Israeli/Palestinians conflict?

Let me try to iron out some of the wrinkles in Awad's thinking and anti-Israel propaganda he's spoon- feeding to evangelicals.

Prior to 1948 before the War of Independence, the percentage of Palestinian Christians living in the Palestinian territories was 30% but now the percentage is less than 1.5%. Today 1.2 percent of the population in the Palestinian territories is Christian.

Nathan claims this diminishing of Palestinian Christians is due to Israeli policies mostly supported by the United States especially Christians. Nathan wrongly claimed, "We as Americans supporting Israel displaced an entire population of Christians."

I'm not trying to ignore the shrinking population of Christians in the territories, but Awad uses this fact as a means to make Israel appear intolerant of Christians. This is so typical of writers, speakers and others who have an anti-Israel stance. They are quick to point out Israel's alleged faults, but fail to mention the fact Christians are extremely unwelcome in Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia. The practice of Christianity in Saudi Arabia is illegal!

Yes, Christians are a minority in Israel, but it is the only Middle Eastern country where the Christian population has grown in last 60 years!

In 1948 there were 34,000 Christians in Israel and now there are 145,000 followers of Christ in the Holy Land.  Could it be because Christians find more freedom to practice their faith in the Jewish state than in any other Islamic state?

If Sami Awad wants to bash Israel for the shrinking Christian population in the disputed Palestinian territories, then he should also acknowledge and applaud the growing population of Christian believers in the Israeli state. This is my biggest problem with Palestinian Christians. It's not what they state about Israel; it's what they leave out in their attempts to demonize Israel.

This week at church  I was handed a prayer list of  suggested prayers Christians should pray for Muslims during their Ramadan fast.  One of the prayers stated, "Pray that Muslims as well as Christians will show due respect for the 'holy places' of other religions." I thought it was an odd prayer since it assumed Christians and Jews are not showing respect for Muslim places of worship in the Middle East. Recent history tells us that Israelis and Christians have shown the most respect towards one another's sacred sites.

In the holy city of Jerusalem Christians churches have maintained custody of the Christian holy places ever since the Ottoman Empire. These rights known as the "status quo arrangement for the Christian holy places in Jerusalem" still remain in tact today.

If my memory of history serves me well, it was the Palestinian terrorists during the Palestinian War 2000-2005 that took over Christian holy places as locations to launch their armed attacks against Israeli soldiers. One example took place when Palestinians fighters hijacked the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem causing a tense standoff.  These radical Islamics staged their attack on Israeli soldiers from one of the holiest locations for traditional Christians. Where was the outcry from evangelicals and mainline denominations back then?

Also, let it not be forgotten that it was during Jordan's control of the Old City from 1948 to 1967 that Christian rights were violated.  Israeli Christians were barred from visiting their holy places by the Jordanians. Jewish worshippers were also prevented from visiting the sacred Western Wall, the only remaining section of the Herod's temple in Jerusalem.

When the Israelis defeated the Jordanians and released their grip on Jerusalem's holy sites, both Christians and Jews had access to their respected places of worship. During the 1948-1967 period the Christian population declined from 25,000 to 12,646. Since 1967 the Christian population has grown exponentially thanks to the Israeli forces. I wonder why?

Critics of Israel will point to the security fence has hurt Christians living in East Jerusalem.  At the same time these critics fail to mention that the fence was constructed in order to protect Christians. When Palestinian terrorists attack, their bombs show no discrimination between Christians and Israelis. The security fence was never meant to be a tool to persecute Christians but to save their lives.

Sami Awad and supporters of the Holy Land Trust have a long way to go to prove Israel is responsible for the shrinking population of Palestinian Christians.  Tomorrow's blog asks, "How are Christian Living in the Palestinian Territories Treated?"

Is Israel At Fault for the Shrinking Palestinian Christian Population?

The McInerney Trial: The One That Should've Grabbed Our Nation's Attention

While viewers sat transfixed watching the Casey Anthony trial on their TVs, Smartphones and iPads, a more significant case was brewing in Ventura, California.

The McInerney trial currently being tried in Chatsworth due to the pretrial publicity in Ventura, has all the sensationalistic makings of the Casey Anthony case minus the attractive mother accused of murdering her daughter.

In the Brandon McInerney case we have a growing list of hot issues:
•the 2009 murder of a gay teen in front of his fellow students during a lab class
•a 17-year-old being tried as an adult for a hate crime murder
•a flamboyantly gay middle school student permitted by school authorities to wear inappropriate gender-bending clothing to school
•the suspicious connection of a murder suspect to the Silver Strand Locals, an Oxnard white supremacist gang known for its hatred of gays
•an increasing roster of state employed teachers more concerned with their tenures than making correct decisions regarding the safety of their students.

Brandon McInerney is being tried for the February 12, 2008 murder of gay student Larry King during a lab class at E.O. Green Middle School in Oxnard.  In plain sight of at least 100 students, while some were snickering at King's feminine clothing, McInerney shot King in the back of the head two times.

Brandon McInerney

According to the 2008 article in the Ventura County Star, "McInerney is charged with murder and a hate crime in connection with the classroom shooting. King, an eighth-grader from Oxnard, dressed in a feminine manner and told friends he was gay. McInerney faces a sentence of 51 years to life if convicted of all the charges."

It would seem this would be an open and shut case.  However,  during the case which completed its fourth week, other important issues are grabbing center stage.

•King, for several weeks prior to the shooting, started to wear suede high-heel boots, tight girl's jeans and eye shadow to school.

According to the VC Star King's clothing was becoming an increasing distraction and disruption during school hours. According to California Education Code 48900.2 a student who is charged with “disrupting school activities or willfully defies valid authority” can be suspended.  Why wasn't King disciplined by school authorities?

During the court proceedings, King's former teacher Dawn Boldrin and her assistant admitted they did nothing about the fact King was violating school rules. Boldrin suspected King's clothes were outside the mandated dress code and asked her assistant to look into it. Nothing further was done by the teacher.

If a girl is wearing a revealing top or tight fitting jeans or a short skirt, the school administration would've most likely sent her home or demand she wear a gym sweatshirt the rest of the school day to cover her up. Several students rightly complained King was receiving special treatment.

Should I state the obvious? King was given a pass because he was a gay teenager and his teachers were fearful of offending him or being called a homophobic.  What other reason would there be to enforce dress code rules for heterosexuals, but not for a homosexual teen?  Isn't that discrimination against heterosexual students? 

•King's teachers were negligent out of self-protection.  King's teacher Dawn Boldrin admitted she did not want to say anything about King's dress,"I was not tenured at that point and didn't want to make a wave," she admitted under oath.

One wonders if Boldrin and the school administration had demanded King start wearing gender appropriate clothes to school whether the tragic outcome could have been avoided.

No, King's clothing and gay lifestyle does not excuse McInerney for his vicious hate crime, but perhaps his anger may have been abated if the school took proper measures consistent with the way they treat other students.  Just wondering.

In another related incident King asked Anne Sinclair, a special-education teacher, if he could use the restroom.  Sinclair said no. Meanwhile, King who was standing, had his mid-section inches away from a sitting student's face.

Sinclair described this incident as sexual harassment - a violation of section 212.5 of the California Education Code. King made the incident even worse when he started doing a dance moving back and forth on his legs indicating his need to use the bathroom.

Asked why the special education teacher did not report this act of sexual harassment, as required by state law, she answered, "Other times, when I tried to report things, it wasn't being addressed. And I was not tenured at that point and I was looking out for my tenure, to be perfectly honest."

Like Boldrin, this state employee was thinking more about her tenure and retirement than the welfare of a student on the receiving end of sexual harassment.

How surprising since other Ventura County schools such as Conejo Valley Unified School District schools will cite a student who uses sexting with sexual harassment and report the student to the police for distributing child pornography - whether they are the perpetrator or on the receiving end.

Once again, a case can be made Larry King was given special treatment because he was gay.  His teachers wanting to save their tenure and not want to be politically incorrect by reporting a homosexual student may have contributed to a series of incidents that fueled McInerney's hatred for King.

•King's teacher also gave the middle school student a homecoming dress. How can a female teacher give one of her male students a dress? Was she condoning King's gay clothing in the context of school, and if so, why wasn't she disciplined for this action?  Did she ask King's parents permission before giving the boy such a controversial gift?

Is this another case where a gay person is given a pass out of fear by his superiors who want to avoid being labeled anti-gay?  Can a male heterosexual teacher give one of his female students a dress? What if a male teacher gave a female pupil a blouse that was revealing?

The McInerney case is far from over. It has yet been proven whether McInerney belonged to a white supremacist gang known as the Silver Strand Locals or that gang is racist.

Despite all these issues, McInerney is guilty of committing a hate crime and murdering Larry King in cold blood in front of numerous witnesses.

Let's not forget the school administration should still be on the witness stand for their special treatment of a student because of his sexual orientation . . . a treatment that would not be given to a heterosexual pupil.
We may never know how much their negligence fueled the hatred of McInerney towards King despite the fact the 17-year-old bears full responsibility for the death of his fellow student.

The McInerney Trial: The One That Should've Grabbed Our Nation's Attention

Nakba Day Holds Key To Lack of Peace in the ME

What is Nakba Day?  I myself never heard of it until recently, and yet I discovered this Palestinian "Day of Mourning" holds the key as to why there is no end to the Middle East conflict.

Nakba Day occurs on May 15th, the day after the Gregorian calendar date for Israel's Independence Day. In Israel, Nakba Day events observed by Arab citizens have been held on Yom Ha'atzmaut (Israel's Independence Day), which is celebrated in Israel on the Hebrew calendar date (5 Iyar or shortly before or after).

While Israelis are celebrating their Day of Independence, on Nakba Day Palestinians are mourning the establishment of Israel.  Mitchell Bard, in his book Myths and Facts : A Guide to the Arab/Israeli Conflict suggests, "Had the Palestinians . . . accepted the UN partition resolution in 1947, the state of Palestine would have been celebrating its birthday" (pg. 257).

Al Nakba means "The Catastrophe" referring to the creation of the State of Israel.  Yet what Palestinians complain about the most is the "occupation" of the territories Israel captured in 1967 after three Arab nations (Syria, Jordan and Egypt) threatened to destroy Israel and drive the Jewish people into the sea. If the "occupation" is the major issue for the Palestinians, then why isn't "The Catastrophe" observed in June on the anniversary of the Arab defeat in the Six Day War?

This day of mourning for Palestinians actually started in 1998 when PLO head and terrorist Yasser Arafat kicked it off.  Following Arafat's declaration of recognition for the day, over one million Arabs participate in marches and other events on this day each year.

Palestinian children observing Nabka Day

The significance of this day is further explained on the Virtual Jerusalem website:

The 1948 Palestinian exodus, also known as Nakba, meaning the "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm", occurred when approximately 725,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during this bitter war.

If you look up NAKBA online, the search returns numerous Palestinian websites claiming to explain this phenomenon in Palestinian history and eliciting sympathy and even financial donations for the numerous Palestinian refugees in the Arab countries who are descendants of the original refugees from Israel's 1948 War of Independence. 

Those who support a full return of the refugees to Israel forget that this would mean the end of Israel since the number of returnees would spell the end of the Zionist project population-wise. The Palestinians right of return to Israeli territory is an impossibility as they would outnumber and overtake the Israeli population.

To understand the hostility towards Israel contained in Nakba Day, one needs only observe one of the customs that occur in Palestine on this day. Again, I quote Bard on a Nakba Day custom:  "traffic stopped and people stood straight and silent as sirens of mourning sounded, intentionally mimicking the Israeli practice on Holocaust Remembrance Day" (pg. 257).

In this custom Palestinians are comparing the creation of Israel with the Holocaust!

I challenge Palestinian Christians to confront this satanically inspired attitude of their Palestinian brothers towards Israel. I want to know if Sami Awad and others who are part of his non-violent movement and his organization Holy Land Trust,  also equate Israel's creation as a catastrophe on the par with the Holocaust? What do these non-violent Palestinian Christians do on Nakba Day?

Is the evangelical world, influenced by liberation theology and embracing Palestinians as the underdog, any more enlightened than the anti-Zionist secular politicians? With the theological hostility spawned by the likes of Stephen Sizer and Gary Burge, conservative Christians are falling into the anti-Christian Zionism camp and are being deceived into supporting a terrorist mentality fostered by the PA that refuses to accept the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

The real question is what have the Palestinians done to foster peace in the Middle East?

In a column in the Jewish Journal David Suissa brilliantly argues that Israel, despite all its attempts to make peace with the Palestinian is "sitting isolated and hated, while the uncompromising Palestinians, who . . .  joined forces with the terrorist group Hamas, [are] sitting pretty in top of the diplomatic world - and delegitimizing the Jewish state at every turn."

In every attempt by the Israelis to reach a peace accord with the Palestinians one issue is always a major stumbling block - for Palestine to affirm Israel's right to exist as a nation. This dream will never happen as long as Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abba describes Israel's decision to to create a Jewish state in 1948 as a "crime" (Jerusalem Post May 15, 2005).

Jewish Journal writer Suissa declares we need to see the naked truth about the Middle East conflict,

The reason there is no peace has little to do with Israel's refusal to make more concessions, and everything to do with the Palestinian refusal to accept the existence of a Jewish state -- settlements or no settlements.

The speech [Obama's June speech about Israel] forced us to confront the worst-kept secret in the Middle East: Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is a mirage. The conflict is about existence, not borders. The Palestinians would have had their own state 63 years ago if they could make peace with the Jews. But how could they make peace with those they have been taught only to hate?

Nakba Day Holds Key To Lack of Peace in the ME

Is the Modern State of Israel A Fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy?

Tell Aviv

If Jeremiah the prophet took a drive through the modern state of Israel, what would be his reaction?  Would he be happy with the modern state of Israel?  According to Rev. Dr. Gary Burge, an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and New Testament scholar at Wheaton College and Graduate school, the "modern injustices that occur in the state of Israel" prohibits him from seeing the nation as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

From reading the Book of Jeremiah, we learn the prophet was used by God to chastise the nation for their injustices - seeking after other gods (Jeremiah 2:28); lying (Jeremiah 5:1); lack of fear of God (5:22); neglect the poor and orphans (5:28); filled with false prophets (5:31) and so forth. To punish His faithless nation, God promises to bring a foreign nation (Babylon) against Israel to judge them.  In Jeremiah 5:15 we read:

"People of Israel,” declares the LORD,
“I am bringing a distant nation against you—
an ancient and enduring nation,
a people whose language you do not know,
whose speech you do not understand.

To Burge modern Israel is a merely secular state not founded on biblical principles not much different from the Israel of Jeremiah's day.  He warns in a 2010 radio conversation on Moody Bible Radio that Christians should be careful about claiming the modern state of Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy.  Giving divine validation to modern Israel, says Burge,  flies in the face of the prophecies Jeremiah made to Israel in the pre-exilic period.

In response we only need to consult the entire context of the prophetic message concerning Israel in the Old Testament. The prophet Ezekiel like his contemporary Jeremiah was well aware of the national sins of Israel. Ezekiel 36:17-19 records:

“Son of man, when the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight. So I poured out my wrath on them because they had shed blood in the land and because they had defiled it with their idols. I dispersed them among the nations, and they were scattered through the countries; I judged them according to their conduct and their actions.

Ezekiel also speaks of the Lord scattering the Jewish people among the nations for a period of time due to their uncleanness before the Lord.  But in vv. 22-24 the Lord tells the prophet He will regather His people from the four corners of the earth not because Israel earned God's blessing but in order to honor His name:

I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Sovereign LORD, when I am proved holy through you before their eyes.“‘For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land.

In a similar pattern in Ezekiel 37:11-13 the Lord  describes the scattered people of Israel as dry bones in need of spiritual regeneration.  However, previous to their spiritual revival the God of Israel brings the Jewish people in their unbelief back to the land regardless of their spiritual condition:

Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 

At that time the Lord will then cause a spiritual reawakening to happen to Israel as described in Ezekiel 37:14, "I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD.’”

God's blessing of Israel by bringing them back into the land is unconditional and not dependent on how deserving they are.  Once the people of Israel are back in the land as they are now, they will come to know the Lord.

Gary Burge is adamant concerning modern Israel being compared to ancient Israel, deserving of God removing them from the land once again and dispersing Israel among the nations.

As we look deeper into the beliefs of the Wheaton professor, we learn Burge has more than theological problems with modern day Israel.

In Burge's book Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and Palestinians (2003 Pilgrim Press), we learn from  Dexter Van Zile, Christian Media Analyst for CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), that "this book is a combustible mixture of misinformation and theologically justified hostility towards modern Israel."

If anything comes forth from Burge's writings and lectures about Israel, it is the fact that he betrays his own hostility towards the Jewish nation based on his Replacement Theology.

What's most disturbing is that Burge's book has been endorsed by mainline and evangelical church leaders and publications.  He understandably received a sympathetic review from the liberal Protestant new source Christian Century. 

Surprisingly,  Christianity Today, the major magazine publication for evangelical Christianity,
Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and Palestinians, gave Burge's book the "award of merit" in its 2004 Book Awards.  David Neff, longtime editor of CT, praised Burge's book and wrote a glowing account that appears on the book's back cover.

In May 2007 Hank Hanegraff, host of Bible Answer Man, conservative Christian talk show promoted and sold Burge's book on his website informing his listeners that it was "an incredible book that you need."

As a result of his book, Burge has earned credibility in the evangelical world and is a sought after commentator about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  Can you imagine Burge, with his theological hostility towards Israel as a reliable source of information about the Middle East conflict?

The Wheaton scholar is president of Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding (EMEU), under whose guidance has been responsible for "immersion" trips for American Christians to learn more about Israel through the eyes of Palestinian Christians. In other words, EMEU is an organization whose goal is to indoctrinate Christians to become anti-Israel.

At a Presbyterian Church (USA)  conference in 2005 to explain the 2004 General Assembly's decision to pass a divestment resolution against Israel, Burge was one of the featured speakers.

Burge also lectured at "Challenging Christian Zionism: Theology, Politics, and the Palestine-Israel Conflict," sponsored by Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem. Van Zile says of Sabeel that it has "been a persistent source of anti-Zionist agitation in mainline Protestant churches in the United States since its founding in 1994. The organization subjects Israel, Jews, and Judaism to intense scrutiny while remaining nearly silent about Arab and Muslim extremism in the Middle East.

In a CAMERA article, "Mainline Churches Embrace Burge's False Narrative," Dexter Van Zile lists some of the falsehoods found in Burge's book:

• Rev. Dr. Burge attributed a quote to David Ben-Gurion that had been exposed as false and fabricated several years before publication of Whose Land? Whose Promise? 
• Rev. Dr. Burge falsely stated that Israeli-Arabs are denied membership in Israel’s labor movement, when in fact, one of the books he cites reports that Israeli-Arabs had been allowed full membership in Israel’s largest union – the Histadrut – since 1959.
• Rev. Dr. Burge falsely reported that Israeli-Arabs are barred from the service in Israel’s military.
• Rev. Dr. Burge falsely reported that Israeli-Arabs are prohibited from joining Israel’s major political parties.
• Rev. Dr. Burge mis-characterized UN Resolution 242 as requiring Israeli withdrawal to its “pre-1967 borders” when in fact it does not.
• Rev. Dr. Burge portrays Hezbollah as a “resistance organization” when in fact its political agenda and leaders clearly state the organization is dedicated to the destruction of Israel – a fact he omits in his description.
• Rev. Dr. Burge portrays the founding of the PLO as an attempt to resolve the problem of Palestinian refugees created by the 1948 war when in fact its founding was motivated by a desire for the destruction of Israel.

From Burge's book and his readiness to condemn the modern state of Israel, it becomes clear the professor is not providing an analysis of Israel but an grossly erroneous indictment of the nation. 

Is the Modern State of Israel A Fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy?

Did God Lie to Israel About Promising Them a Homeland? Part 3

When it comes to Christians supporting Israel, we have to ask ourselves an important question.  Do I stand for Israel because of my love for the Jewish homeland and its people, or do I support Israel only because Israel's salvation is the key component to hurrying the return of Jesus?

Sadly, I think the latter is  mostly true. When I tell evangelical leaders and lay people about the current anti-Israel "Evangelical Intifada" taking place in the church, I often fail to observe a serious reaction. I witness a response that tells me a large segment of evangelicals don't care whether Israel is being trashed by some evangelicals unless it takes place in their own house of worship.

I also observe Christians who listen to anti-Israel speakers or view pro-Palestinian films like Little Town of Bethlehem and With God on Our Side, do so with an attitude of malaise. It is the rare Christian who is going to do the research and reading it'll take to refute and burst the propaganda bubble surrounding these films and lectures.

I would hope that my blogs and the writings of so many other evangelicals (see my Blog Log) who see the serious of the anti-Israel invasion of the evangelical church will cause the church to wake up.

One of the battle fronts of this "Evangelical Intifada" is theological.  Names like Stephen Sizer, Vicar of Christ Church in the UK and Wheaton College New Testament professor Gary Burge are among the theologians who espouse the scriptural nuts and bolts of the anti-Israel invasion.

In a recent radio conversation with Michael Rydelnik, Jewish Studies department head at Moody Bible College, Burge states the covenants God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have been fulfilled in Christ.  Christ, according to Burge, is the true seed of Abraham.  The promises Christians experience in Christ have been "elevated above the promises made to Abraham".  No longer is God concerned with the land of Israel, but is more focused on the whole world.

If Burge is correct, then the nation of Israel should not be of any concern to the writers of the New Testament after the coming of Jesus.  The major focus should be on Christ and the church - not one nation, especially Israel.

In Galatians 3:9 Paul writes,  "Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

Burge correctly notices God's focus today is urging all humanity to find salvation through Israel's Messiah.  Burge fails to understand the verse quoted by Paul from Genesis 12:3 simply states Lord's intent from when He first chose Israel as His people - to bless the whole world through the people of Israel.  Through progressive revelation, the prophets revealed this blessing would come through one seed of Israel - the Messiah.

However, the salvation of the earth brought through the messianic seed of Israel is not at cross purposes with God's other covenants with Israel.

In Romans 9:4-5 Paul writes concerning  the people of Israel, "Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen." Paul traces God's plan to bring the Messiah forth from Israel who will bless all of humanity.  Yet Paul never says the other covenants God has with Israel will be nullified once the Messiah comes. Only theologians like Sizer and Burge spout forth that false belief.

Paul says later in Romans 11:25-27 He will bring Israel into the blessings of the New Covenant and will forgive their sins.  This is a promise that will be fulfilled with the nation as a whole but in the meantime the God of Israel is saving a remnant of  Jewish people as they place their trust in Yeshua (Romans 11:5).

Further evidence is found in the prophetic passages of the New Testament that describe Israel back in the Promised Land after the present diaspora. In Matthew 24:15-16 Jesus quotes from the Hebrew prophet Daniel (9:27) that in the last days prior to his return, “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." For this passage to be fulfilled, a Jewish temple must be standing in Israel. Consequently, the rebuilding of the Temple can only occur if the Jewish people are back in the land.


For those Reformed theologians and adherents of replacement theology who see these events as already fulfilled in the first century, then they would be forced to conclude Jesus has already returned. In the passage after the mention of the "abomination that causes desolation," Jesus adds, “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other"(Matthew 24: 30-31).

From these New Testament passages we can only conclude the Jewish people will be back in the land prior to the return of Jesus when the abomination [the Antichrist] stands in the Jewish Temple to desecrate it (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).

The presence of the Jewish people in the land of Israel prior to Jesus' return fits with other passages in the New Testament.  In Acts 1:11 in harmony with Zechariah 14:4 the scriptures teach the Messiah's feet will stand on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. In Zechariah 14 the prophet is speaking to the Jewish people and telling them the nations of the earth will come against Israel (vs. 2) but the Messiah will come to Jerusalem to defeat their enemies.  How can such a passage be fulfilled unless the Jewish people are back in the land?  Despite the New Testament's focus on the gospel going forth to all humanity (1 Timothy 2:4), God's dealings with the people of Israel never cease.

In the radio interchange between Rydelnik and Burge, the Moody Bible College professor brings out the fact Israel is mentioned in the Book of Revelation in harmony with Matthew 24 and the Old Testament prophets.  The Jewish Temple is mentioned in Revelation 11 as being rebuilt prior to Jesus' return. In Revelation 12:5 Israel is seen under the figure of a woman who gives birth to "a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”  In this passage Israel becomes an object of Satan's hatred and is persecuted by the devil or dragon.

In response Burge answers like most scholars who refuse to see the obvious by saying, "scholars debate the images seen in the Book of Revelation." I'm sorry to inform Gary Burge but when God gives instructions to measure His temple  describing the altar and the outer court of the gentiles (Revelation 11:1-2), the interpretation of the text is not figurative but literal.

Where will Burge stop with his excuse of referring to the use of figurative language in Revelation to avoid acknowledging Israel's place in prophecy?  Is the return of Jesus in Revelation 19:11-16 figurative or literal?

My next blog on this subject will deal with the question whether the modern state of Israel is a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy?

Did God Lie to Israel About Promising Them a Homeland? Part 3

Did God Lie to Israel About Promising Them a Homeland? Part 2

Does it matter whether or not God keeps His promise to give Israel a homeland?  Yes. But why?

First, the trustworthiness of the Lord is at stake.  Can God's word be trusted?  Since God went into such detail in the Jewish Scriptures concerning the geography of the land He promised Israel, to discover these promises are no longer applicable would change the way we perceive God's veracity.

Second,  in explaining the claims of Jesus to Jewish people, the Jewish individual would be surprised that the promise of the land of Israel is no longer on the table, but has now been reinterpreted or no longer applicable.

Finally, any view of prophecy must take into account the centrality of Israel to the prophetic timeline as described in the Holy Scriptures.

I have found replacement theologians who believe the Church or Christ has replaced Israel in the New Testament era, are not amenable to be called "replacement theologians."  Some of them like evangelical  Professor Gary Burge of Wheaton College prefers to be tagged as a Reformed theologians. Burge's aversion to being called a "replacement theologian" is a decoy meant to distract his readers from the fact no matter what he say, he still fits the description of a replacement theologian.

In a 2010 radio conversation on Moody Radio, Dr. Burge and Michael Rydelnik, head of the Jewish Studies program at Moody Bible College both theologians shared their views on what they believe the Bible teaches about the land promises given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Old Testament.

Burge is adamant that in the New Testament God changed His focus from a geographical or territorial framework to His spiritual promises to the whole world.  God is no longer concerned with the boundaries of Israel but rather His concern is that the gospel message reaches beyond the boundaries of the Jewish homeland to all the earth. The territory of Israel is no longer significant to God.

To get a better grasp of the scriptures used by Burge and other replacement theologians, we go back to the original promise made to Abraham found in Genesis 12:1-3:

The LORD had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

“I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; 

I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.

I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; 

and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

Notice that God commanded Abraham to go to a specific place . . . a  land.  Then the Lord promised Abraham that He would cause His offspring to increase into a great nation. Most important is the final promise:  all the peoples of the earth will be blessed through Abraham.  Through Abraham and his offspring, the world will experience blessing.

Once more in Genesis 13:14-17 the Lord is more specific about the land promises to Abraham and his descendants:

The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, “Look around from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever. I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you.”

Nowhere in the text does it say that the universal blessing provided by Abraham's seed replaces the land promises as Burge claims. The Wheaton professor quotes from Hebrews 11:9-12, 16 to make his point:

By faith he [Abraham] made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise.  For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

  And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she[b] considered him faithful who had made the promise. And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.

Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

According to Burge in Hebrews 11, the New Testament switches the focus from Abraham seeking territory on earth to seeking a heavenly home.  Notice some of the problems this interpretation creates:

First,  the other promises God made to Abraham about having descendants as numerous as the stars still holds true in Hebrews 11.  In fact, the writer of Hebrews makes it clear the descendants are not Abraham's spiritual seed but his physical seed since the author mentions the descendants came from Abraham and Sarah through the miraculous childbirth of Isaac.

Second, it is no surprise that Abraham was looking forward to "the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God," and that his descendants were also looking beyond the land as the ultimate destination of the human soul but to a heavenly homeland. Yet that does not cancel out the promises made to Abraham and his seed about the land.  Why can't Israel be promised an earthly homeland with the greater hope that in the afterlife they will enter into an eternal homeland into the presence of the God of Israel?  Why does one have to cancel out the other?

Replacement theologians must grapple with several other New Testament passages in Romans that reiterate God's commitment to fulfill His covenants with Israel which include the promise of land:

  What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God. What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar.

Romans 9:3-4  For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.

Romans 11:28-31 they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.  Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[a] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you.

In all three passages from Romans, Paul makes it clear God has not taken away His promises and covenants He has made with Israel.  God is faithful to His promises. Yes, the nation of Israel will find their fullest blessing of eternal life through acceptance of their Messiah Jesus. In the meantime, Paul warns gentile Christians like replacement theologians in Romans 11:20-21, "But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either."  

Gentile Christians are to beware of becoming conceited not only in their attitude towards Jewish people but also in their theology that replaces God's promises He made to Israel and transferring them to the Church.  Replacement or Reformed theology is arrogant in their attempt to ignore God's commitment to Israel despite their present and temporary rejection of their Messiah. God is not finished with Israel yet.  Romans 9:4 is stated in the present tense which means the covenants and promises belong to Israel now and they have not been relinquished.

Another passage referred to by Burge in the Moody Radio conversation is Matthew 23: 37-39 where Jesus weeps over Israel due to their rejection of Him as their long awaited Messiah:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”

Jesus speaks of the destruction of the Temple and by inference the third major diaspora of the Jewish nation. Because He did not mention the land, says Burge, it is no longer important. A "holy geography" is no important to God, but the salvation of Jewish souls.  Yes, Burge is correct. Again, the focus on Israel's salvation  as a nation or as individuals does not cancel out His land promises.

Instead of focusing on the land promises,  says Burge, God now "sees the whole world as holy territory," as stated in Romans 4:13, "It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith."

n Romans 4;!3  Paul is broadening and clarifying the promises given to Abraham that his seed would bless the whole world.  He is not changing the Old Testament text. Rydelnik states that according to Daniel 7 the Messiah will rule over the world when He comes to earth and will sit on His throne located in Jerusalem. Just as the Abrahamic Covenant is concerned with the whole world (Genesis 12:3), Yeshua will rule over the earth with His immediate rule over Israel and through the Jewish nation will rule the nations.

The seed through which this blessing comes is the Messiah Jesus (Galatians 3:19). The blessing given to the world is the offer of salvation through Jesus which comes to people through the declaring of the good news of salvation through Yeshua (Acts 1:8).  God now focuses on the whole world not just one territory, Israel.

Didn't the Lord tell the disciples to take the gospel beyond the borders of Israel into the whole world? (Acts 1:8).  Burge fails to make the distinction between the declaration of the gospel message to the whole world and the declaration of specific territory to one nation.  One does not rule out the other except in the mind of the Wheaton professor dead set to deny Israel its promises. There is no evidence that God chucked the land promises to Israel for the mission of bringing the gospel to the whole world.  Both are true.

Let it not be missed throughout the Jewish Scriptures, the God of Israel described the whole world will acknowledge Him as seen in Psalm 9:11, "Sing the praises of the LORD, enthroned in Zion; proclaim among the nations what he has done."

God is other-nation conscious throughout the Old Testament (Psalm 18:49; 22;27). Right now, the Church is given the mission of declaring the Word of God among the nations but the time will come when Israel will step back into its God-given role as seen in Revelation 7 when144,000 Jewish people declare the New Testament message to the gentile nations prior to Jesus' return to earth.

In the Book of Revelation, which is concerned with end time events prior to the return of the Messiah, the focus of the book is centered in Israel.  When confronted by Rydelnik about Israel's presence in John's revelation, Burge gave the standard line when a scholar can't answer a question or is cornered, "Well, there is a lot of debate over the interpretation of the Book of Revelation."

In another blog I will address this issue in greater detail. However, do not miss the fact when Israel is clearly described back in the land and in the center of God's program, the replacement and Reformed theologian will always fall back on the fact "this matter is up to debate" instead of dealing with the actual texts where Israel is mentioned.

Burge's ploy of not dealing with the obvious placement of Israel in the Jewish homeland prior to Jesus' return is a dead giveaway. Though he claims to love the Jewish people, like many replacement theologians, he exposes the truth that he has little regard for God's covenant promises to Israel except to deny them.

Did God Lie to Israel About Promising Them a Homeland? Part 2