A Pro-Israel Piece May 17
In the interest of presenting both sides, I am posting an article by a friend and former student, Noel Rabinowitz, that defends Israel's right to expand in the land. It is a short piece and part of a web page run by Michael Brown. Both are messianics who teach at schools in the USA. Mike speaks around the country as well.
I also think you may find the web site this is a part of as interesting as well. The post is a nice short defense of the Israeli point of view.
Here is the link.
http://voiceofrevolution.askdrbrown.org/2010/05/16/resetting-the-middle-east-history-button/
and an excerpt:
"Despite extraordinary pressure from the White House, Netanyahu remains resolute regarding Israel’s right to build in East Jerusalem.
There are two reasons for this. First, Israel has a historical claim to the territory, a fact recognized by the international community. Second, Israel fought a series of defensive wars over the territory and the current borders are legitimate under the rules of international law.
Obama and other opponents of Israel’s sovereignty need to acquaint themselves with the history of Jerusalem and international law regarding the annexation of territory captured during a defensive war. If they did, they would discover the following:..."
Secular vs Covenant Beneficiary Israel
Dr. Bock, What is your position on the [OT] concept of God blessing those who -- today -- treat Israel right and cursing those who treat Israel wrong. Previously you mentioned "two" Israels: 1) Covenant Beneficiary Israel 2) Secular Israel Is the promise of blessing and cursing in effect today based on Israel primarily being a 'secular Israel'? How does your progressive dispensationalism help you answer this question? Brett
Israel
A good and complex question. My basic position is that Israel as a nation and people have a future and a right to a homeland (This seems to be given to them in Gen 12). I also see Jesus as a beneficiary in such a promise as the seed who activates the covenant promises. This means the door is open for reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles on a whole host of issues. To seek to eradicate Jews obviously runs against a text like Gen 12. To be supportive of her as a people is in line with it. But with respect to secular Israel I do not have to think everything Israel does is right (or defend it). She still is responsible to God to live in ways He has called her to live (including acting justly). This means I can support and love Israel as a people and defend her right to exist in peace without endorsing all the current largely secular nation does. Jesus said Israel's house was desolate until she recognizes the one who comes in the name of the Lord (Luke 13:34-35). So Israel remains in need of her Messiah.
a dissertation questions the common understanding of σταυρός
A doctoral dissertation from Sweden by Gunnar Samuelsson (University of Gothenburg) are making the headlines in Sweden and elsewhere by stating that Jesus did not die on a cross.. Here is the abstract from his disputation: This study investigates the philological aspects of how ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew/Aramaic texts, including the New Testament, depict the practice of punishment by crucifixion. A survey of the ancient text material shows that there has been a too narrow view of the “crucifixion” terminology. The various terms are not simply used in the sense of “crucify” and “cross,” if by “crucifixion” one means the punishment that Jesus was subjected to according to the main Christian traditions. The terminology is used much more diversely. Almost none of it can be elucidated beyond verbs referring vaguely to some form(s) of suspension, and nouns referring to tools used in such suspension. As a result, most of the crucifixion accounts that scholars cite in the ancient literature have to be rejected, leaving only a few. The New Testament is not spared from this terminological ambiguity. The accounts of the death of Jesus are strikingly sparse. Their chief contribution is usage of the unclear terminology in question. Over-interpretation, and probably even pure imagination, have afflicted nearly every wordbook and dictionary that deals with the terms related to crucifixion as well as scholarly depictions of what happened on Calvary. The immense knowledge of the punishment of crucifixion in general, and the execution of Jesus in particular, cannot be supported by the studied texts. Dr Bock: Whats your take on this? Sincerely Magnus Nordlund
dissertation
In a word: bunk. Check out Crucifixion by Martin Hengel. It works through the texts and ancient testimonies about how severe crucifixion was.
a final thought whether Jesus died on a cross
Well, Gunnar's expertise lies in classical greek and latin - and bold statements have been made that the result of his dissertation - is going to change our previous lexical (our greek lexicons have to be changed) understanding and meaning of the word stavros and its verbal counterpart.. Since the dissertation is new (just a week ago it was released) I have not yet heard any comments from the prominent exegets from the larger universities in Sweden (such as Uppsala and Lund).. Funny though, it has been the secular media that has highlighted Gunnar's dissertation... If Gunnars thesis will make history; we just have to wait and see... Ive emailed Gunnar asking to buy a copy of his account (the dissertation is written in english) and I have just ordered Hengels book on the subject.. One problem with Hengels book in comparable with Gunnars is that Hengels is older (1977). Gunnar has probably read it and reacted against it in his dissertation (I would assume)... Magnus
Dissertation
Magnus:
The issue is that lexical usage can vary in meaning but the question is whether the correct context is invoked for the various possible meanings. One reality is that Jewish tradition and Roman tradition recognizes the crucifixion of Jesus. If they really got it wrong, then why is not that point made in these materials?
Dissertation link
Those who want some insight into this issue can go to:
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2010/05/if-samuelsson-is-right-about.html
There is some initial discussion there. It strikes me that what is happening is that a word that is a picture is being read far too literally for the picture (suspension) ignoring how criminals were executed in the historical context.
Post new comment