What Does the Bible Say about Modern Israel?

With recent events in the Middle East, we are seeing diverse reactions among Christians related to the modern nation called Israel.  While many of these reactions are made confidently and enthusiastically, they also include diverse forms of confusion regarding what the Bible really has to say about the modern Israeli state. 

In reality, Scripture says nothing at all about the modern Israeli state.  Instead, the perspective of Scripture, and of the first 19 centuries of Christian theologians, was that Israel was always the Church, and the Church has always been Israel.  This isn’t some sort of “replacement theology,” as some would accuse, because this does not assert that one has replaced the other, but that since the moment God called Abraham in Genesis, they have been one in the same. 

The message of the entire book of Hebrews is that the temple, priesthood, law, and nation of Israel were all pointing us forward to Jesus, and are ultimately fulfilled in Jesus, and the book of Romans repeatedly shows that ancestry creates no special status with God, and it is trust in Jesus which saves even those descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  God’s people are those who trust in Jesus, whether they do so beforehand, in anticipation of His coming, or by trusting in the accomplished fact of His death and resurrection, regardless of ancestry or geography. 

For a finite time, a particular geographic location and ancestry largely characterized God’s people, but even during that time their land and genealogy were not exclusive.  Consider the example of Old Testament saints like Rahab and Ruth or the Israelites who were scattered across nations while still hoping in the coming Savior.  Consider that at the time of Elijah, God says that there were only 7000 among them (those who had not given in to idolatry) who were His people, or the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, British, and others who ruled that land between the time of Jeremiah the prophet and the present day. 

It was only in the 1840s that a man named John Nelson Darby first invented the idea that the end times involved a restored earthly nation in that land.  When a nation sharing the name and location of Israel was founded in the wake of World War II, followers of his new teaching began to spread the idea that it was coming into fulfillment. 

Whatever good reasons, from geopolitical strategy to mercy for those harmed by war, we might have for supporting this earthly nation, let us not be deceived by this only 150 year old notion that there is any spiritual or eschatological significance divinely associated with our secular ally who is currently under attack. 

Worst Advice Ever!

My article from this week's edition of the Rockford Squire:

In a countdown of the worst, yet most repeated, advice observed by humanity, “Follow your heart” is absolutely a frontrunner to win the top spot. 

Scripture describes all kinds of hearts—righteous and unrighteous, honest and deceitful.  The Psalms and Proverbs are filled with prayers for a clean heart and admonitions to be upright in heart precisely because the heart of humans is not by its own virtue upright or clean.  The prophet Jeremiah describes the human heart saying, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (17:9)  The false prophets of Jeremiah’s time were giving people precisely this advice to “follow your heart,” and Jeremiah warns about them in this way:  “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord… To everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, ‘No disaster shall come upon you.’” (23:16-17)

 

Consider our present experience with this same advice:  You know your own motivations, and how often can you observe, especially in hindsight, that they were impure.  You know your own actions, and how often is your heart inclined to value immediate satisfaction over what is right or what is beneficial.  How many hearts are inclined to believe things about themselves or about the world that are simply contrary to observable fact?  How many infidelities have been committed or marriages severed because one or both spouses decided to “follow their heart”?  The observable consequences to blindly following one’s heart do not speak well for the wisdom of the advice. 

 

Thanks be to God that scripture never instructs us to simply follow our hearts.  The heart by its own devices would not only fail to lead us to righteous action, but it would then lead us to despair in our failures and lose hope.  Instead of an inward-looking religion that points us within ourselves for answers, Scripture and the Christian faith reverse the direction and point us outside ourselves—to Christ and His cross as the solution to the errors of following one’s heart, to Baptism as the way in which the heart is cleansed, and to the Lord’s Supper as the food which strengthens the heart and preserves it to eternal life. 

 

This outward-looking orientation overcomes our selfish inclinations, provides certainty in the forgiveness of our sins, and looks to God’s Word to guide the Christian and his heart. 

What does the Bible have to say about aliens or extraterrestrial life?

My article from this week's edition of the Rockford Squire:

During my first decade as a pastor in Iowa, I had a regular “Ask the Pastor” column in the local paper where I answered over 200 reader-submitted questions.  Since I’ve heard one question asked many places in past weeks, it seems like a good time to return to those roots here:

What does the Bible have to say about aliens or extraterrestrial life?

I guess the short answer would be, “They are not mentioned.”  However, there is a great deal of teaching in scripture that would inform how a Christian would think about the possibility. 

To begin with, we know from observation of that natural world that the conditions necessary for life to exist and survive are extremely narrow.  When one considers the precise combination of the placement relative to the sun, rotation, and revolution of the earth, the tilt of its access, the necessary atmospheric conditions, availability of oxygen, water, and nutrients, and all the other factors necessary to sustain life, the odds of this occurring even once are in the trillions-to-one.  Odds of the existence of an environment with different elements sustaining a different sort of life are similarly slim. 

Since even one occurrence of this perfect combination necessitates a creator, it follows that a second or further occurrence would also require a personal, intelligent creator.  The lack of Biblical reference to such life, or of a prophecy that we will encounter it, leans in the direction that such life either does not exist, or at least if it does we will not encounter it before Jesus returns. 

Secondly, the scriptures consistently portray Earth as the focal point of God’s creative activity, and humanity as the pinnacle of that creation.  The sun, moon, stars, and other heavenly bodies are all described in their relation to the earth, and their role is described as marking time and seasons here--as created for the benefit of earth, and not as locations of alternate creations themselves.   

Likewise, humanity is described as a unique creation of God and bearing His image in a way unique from the rest of creation.  This would lead us to conclude that even if we were to find life from other planets, it would have more in common with animal life, and be in service to earth and humanity, rather than being a parallel or rival creation to us. 

A final consideration is that the natural world is not the extent of creation, and the spiritual world contains both good and evil.  If it ever seems you’re personally encountering something extraterrestrial, consider it might be something supernatural, and ask what it thinks of Jesus.  The answer will likely reveal a lot about its nature and intentions. 

 

Are Lutherans Catholic?

My article from this week's edition of the Rockford Squire:

In our tradition of Christianity, we recite the Athanasian Creed on Trinity Sunday (8 weeks after Easter), and every year, at least a couple of people respond with shock because in that creed, we say, “Whoever desires to be saved must, above all, hold the catholic faith.  Whoever does not keep it whole and undefiled will without doubt perish eternally.  And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity…” and “…This is the catholic faith; whoever does not believe it faithfully and firmly cannot be saved.”

For some of those observers, their response is, “But we’re not Catholic, we’re Lutheran!”  That’s accurate in the sense that we Lutherans are not Roman Catholic.  On the other hand, we are very much catholic, because the word, translated from Greek and Latin, literally means “according to the whole,” and early Christians adopted this word because it expressed the fact that the Church encompasses all Christians throughout the whole world, and embraces the whole body of doctrine taught by Jesus. 

So, the Lutheran Reformers thoroughly embraced the name catholic.  In fact, they considered themselves to be restoring historic catholic teaching, while they saw the Pope as having departed from the truth.  We English-speakers often express this distinction by using “catholic” (with a small “c”) to refer to the worldwide, all-encompassing nature of the church while using “Catholic” (with a capital “C”) as a shorthand for Roman Catholic. 

Some also wonder why this creed says “catholic” while our translations of the other two creeds, the Apostles and Nicene, use the word “Christian” instead.  This is because our tribe of Lutherans was originally a German-speaking denomination.  When Luther translated the liturgy from Latin into German, there was no equivalent German word to use for catholic, so he used the German equivalent of “Christian.”  As a result, when our liturgies were translated from German into English about a hundred years ago, these creeds confessed the “holy Christian church.”  If they had been translated directly from Latin to English, they would have likely confessed the “holy catholic church” instead, much like our Athanasian Creed which didn’t take this detour through German before being translated into English among us. 

Something similar occurs with other words like Orthodox/orthodox and Protestant/protestant.  We Lutherans consider ourselves orthodox in that we have “straight teaching,” but we are not a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Similarly, some consider us protestant in that we have our origins in the Reformation, but we didn’t voluntarily abandon the Western catholic church in “protest” in the same way as the other wings of the Reformation.  So, we Lutherans consider ourselves orthodox without being Eastern Orthodox, protestant without being Protestants, and catholic without being Roman Catholic. 

Reformation Hymnody

My article from this week's edition of the Rockford Squire:

Six years ago, in 2017, a great deal of attention was given to the 500^th anniversary of the posting of the 95 Theses—an event typically credited with sparking the Reformation, an era important to many sectors of Christianity.  In my Lutheran tradition, this was really only a preliminary anniversary to 6 decades of other, even more significant milestones, which would occur following Luther’s 95 Theses through 1580, and whose anniversaries we have the opportunity to celebrate in the coming years. 

 

The year between 1523-24 was a significant year during the Reformation because it marks the year Luther authored the first of his hymns and published the first compilation of Reformation hymns.  Some of these hymns are related specifically to the Reformation, while others are based on the Catechism or the seasons and feasts of the liturgical calendar.  Some might only be seen today in Lutheran hymnals, while others, like “A Mighty Fortress is our God,” have found their way into most traditions of Christianity.

 

While studying bass in college in the late 90s, I had plentiful opportunities to participate in praise bands, and I even had a gig as a promoter for a while in the Christian music industry.  In light of those experiences, I now look back with greater appreciation for a heritage of song that spans centuries and continents rather than arising only from a particular language and a single century (or in some cases decade) of church history. 

In a typical week at St. Peter’s and our sister congregations, we might sing selections from the German Reformers of the 16^th Century, a 6^th Century African saint, a modern American author who was my seminary professor, and more.  Regardless of who wrote these, they all share in common that they point us away from ourselves and toward our Crucified Savior.  They absolve our sin, assuring us of God’s gracious forgiveness, and they connect us to a continuous heritage of truth spanning generations, languages, and nations. 

 

This motivation caused the Church to be the prime benefactor of musical creativity for most of Western history before the advent of mass media, raising up composers like Bach, Handel, and others whose music was primarily liturgical in nature, and producing a library of song that goes beyond mere fads and continues to inspire generations of composers with the same goal of supporting rich lyrical content that communicates the message of Christ to the Church and beyond. 

Duty to Defend

My article from this week's edition of the Rockford Squire:

In recent weeks, I have had conversations initiated by parishioners, acquaintances, and strangers alike, about the meaning of several sayings of our Lord, such as “Love your neighbor,” “turn the other cheek,” and “those who live by the sword will die by the sword.”  Some of them even specifically requested that I include my answers here in the newspaper!

 

On the surface, these verses might appear to command passive suffering by Christians confronted with danger, but on other occasions Jesus Himself uses a whip to cleanse the temple of greedy merchants (John 2) and instructs His disciples to buy swords (Luke 22:36), and He, along with Peter and John the Baptizer permit soldiers and centurions to continue in their vocations and even the strict Old Testament law excused from punishment individuals who kill defensively.  Even when the early church prohibited military service, it was because it required idolatry to Caesar, not because of the use of force.

 

When these passages are viewed within their context and when the reader takes the time to ensure he is not reading his personal biases into the text, we find that Scripture prescribes boundaries for the use of force, but without prohibiting its defensive use.  So, “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) prohibits violent retaliation for non-dangerous offenses rather than passivity in the face of danger. 

 

When Jesus admonishes Peter about his use of the sword at His betrayal in the garden (Matthew 26:52), Peter’s offense is not the use of force, but ignoring Jesus’ prediction that He would be betrayed and crucified and standing in the way between Christ and the Cross. 

 

To obey the command to love one’s neighbor, the Christian sometimes faces the necessary choice of which neighbor to love.  For example, a man might need to love his family first by preserving their safety, their property, and his ability to continue to provide for them by dispatching an attacker or robber, rather than showing mercy on the one who seeks to harm them or deprive them of the things necessary to sustain their life. 

 

God desires that all people would live in peace with one another, and at the Last Day, He promises to bring that to fulfillment.  Until then, He certainly warns Christians about the dangers of rebellion, revenge, and offensive use of force, but on occasions when confronted with danger, it has been the consistent witness of Scripture and church history that He authorizes the innocent to use force against the malicious in defense of self, others, or property, precisely as an act of love for those under our care and in keeping with the justice of His own character.

Firstfruits and Firstborns

My article from this week's edition of the Rockford Squire:

In the Old Testament law, it was a continual pattern that what was first was dedicated to God.  So, when harvest time came, the first portion was offered to God.  When animals were born, the firstborn belonged to the Lord.  For clean animals, they would be sacrificed, and unclean animals would be redeemed by the sacrifice of a clean animal in their place or by being sold with the proceeds given as an offering. 

We can see this even before the giving of the law to Moses when Abraham devotes the first tenth (or tithe) of his spoils in battle to God by offering it to the priest Melchizedek, and a similar principle in the common practice of Christians (who are not obligated to the laws of Moses) to give the first tenth of their income in offerings. 

While giving one’s first and best to the Lord is a wise and beneficial act, and an excellent reflection of the fact that everything one receives comes from God, it is not as if this were some sort of transaction with the divine.  One does not give in order to ensure future blessing, to satisfy divine wrath, or to make up for sin.  God’s Old Testament people gave, and we continue to give in the present as an acknowledgement of what He has done for us—not only in material things, but in a gift even greater.

The dedication of the firstborn in Israel was an acknowledgement of his passing over the firstborn of Israel in the final plague in Egypt, but more importantly both the Passover and the dedication of the firstborn were pointing forward to a greater firstborn—Jesus.  He who was the only-begotten Son of God would be the firstborn Son of Mary.  The firstborn sons and animals of Israel were set apart because the ultimate firstborn would die to pay for the sin of the world, and they were redeemed because He would redeem humanity from sin on the cross. 

In His resurrection, He would then be the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18).  He rose on the third day because He was guiltless of sin, and as evidence that His sacrifice on the cross accomplished our redemption.  He is the firstborn from the dead, because all who rely on Him as their sacrifice, and are baptized into Him, are made children of God and younger brothers and sisters of Christ, and promised resurrection just as He is risen.