How to Calculate Pi by Throwing Frozen Hot Dogs
Throwing a pie in someone's face is good. Throwing food at pi is better. Believe it or not, of all the countless ways to approximate the most prolific irrational number in the universe, there are none quite as interesting or as surprisingly satisfying as throwing perfectly good food around your kitchen. In fewer steps than it takes to circumscribe your house in a circle of baguettes, you, too, can easily add a slice of pi into your dinner menu tonight. The best part is...it really works!

Steps
Select your food item to throw. There are a couple of qualifications. First, it must be long, thin, and straight, like a frozen hot dog, for example. There are lots of other items that fit this criterion including Otter Pops, celery sticks, and churros. (If you simply can't come to grips with throwing perfectly good food, see the Tips section for some additional ideas.) Second, it must be a reasonably stiff item. Third, it should be somewhere between six and eighteen inches long. The experiment can be performed otherwise, but read on, and you will see why this size is optimal.
Select the spot from where you will throw your mathematical cuisine. You will probably need about 6-10 feet in front of you as you will be throwing straight ahead.
Clear the area. The place at which you are throwing should be devoid of objects that your food item could possibly run in to. So, if you are throwing in your kitchen, consider moving the table into another room or at least throwing in such a way that your food won't hit the table during its flight.
Measure the length of your projectile (i.e. your frozen hot dogs). A tape measure should do the trick. Be as accurate as you can, even down to the millimeter, for best results.
Lay down masking tape in parallel strips across the floor as far apart as your projectile is long. The strips should be perpendicular to the direction you will be throwing (see picture below). Do about 6-10 strips if your item is 6-18 inches long; fewer, if longer; more, if shorter.

The throwing set-upGet a piece of paper and across the top make a column for “Tosses” and another column for "Crosses." The "Tosses" column is to keep track of how many times you throw your food item. The "Crosses" column is to keep track of how many times your item, once it lands and stops moving, is laying across one of the lines.
Now, get into position, and THROW YOUR FOOD! Throw just one item at a time. Once it is at rest, observe whether or not it is crossing one of the lines. If it is, put a tick under "Crosses" and a tick under "Tosses." If it isn't, just put a tick under "Tosses." Repeat this as many times as you like. You should start seeing some interesting results by around 100 to 200 throws (it doesn't take as long as it sounds, especially if you use a pack of 10 frozen hot dogs so you're not out retrieving the one hot dog after every throw).
Once you are done throwing your food, multiply the number of tosses by two and divide by the number of crosses. For example, if I threw 500 times, and it crossed 320 times, I would calculate 500 x 2 / 320. And, as if a miracle has occurred, you will have an approximation for pi! Now, don't you feel less stressed?

Tips
For those who are troubled by throwing perfectly good food, consider throwing sticks, dowels, bats, or a very stiff person. In fact, any item will do so long as it is long, thin, straight, and stiff.
If room is a concern, consider just drawing lines on a piece of paper and dropping toothpicks onto the paper from about three feet up. This definitely is not as refreshing as throwing food across the room, but it works.
The more the merrier! If two or three throw food together, you will get a better approximation faster because you will be able to get more throws in a shorter amount of time.
As long as you have your calculator, you could just press the "pi" key.
For the mathematically-inclined, this experiment is actually real! The proof and other details can be found at mathworld.wolfram.com: Buffon Needle Problem

Warnings
Remember that this is an experiment, so the idea is not to TRY and get the food to land on one of the lines. Just throw it randomly towards the lines. It should still land amongst them, but don't jinx the experiment by encouraging your dinner to land onto the tape.
Resist the temptation to use bananas. Not only are they not really straight, but they really won't last more than 50 throws before creating a big mess. Really.

Things You'll Need
Pen and Paper
Masking Tape
Calculator
Long, Thin, Straight, Stiff Food. Preferably a pack of frozen hot dogs

So it does appear that Haggard has been ousted by his church as leader. I wonder what will happen as far as his spiritual healing goes? It breaks my heart that another high profile evangelical Christian has fallen, even if I did not fully agree with his theology. It is going to be very interesting to see who the NAE picks as their next leader as well as who New Life Church gets as their next pastor. We so need to keep these things in prayer.

Disgraced pastor fired by church

RAW STORY
Published: Saturday November 4, 2006


Print This Email This


Embattled Evangelical Rev. Ted Haggard, who admitted yesterday to purchasing methamphetamines and soliciting a 'massage' from a gay escort, has been removed from his position at the New Life Church, according to a statement released by the church on Saturday.

While Haggard announced a leave of absence from the New Life Church on Friday, he was officially fired by the church board Saturday afternoon.

Excerpts from the New Life Church statement:

#
"We, the Overseer Board of New Life Church, have concluded our deliberations concerning the moral failings of Pastor Ted Haggard. Our investigation and Pastor Haggard's public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct.

The language of our church bylaws state that as Overseers we must decide in cases where the Senior Pastor has "demonstrated immoral conduct" whether we must "remove the pastor from his position or to discipline him in any way they deem necessary."

In consultation with leading evangelicals and experts familiar with the type of behavior Pastor Haggard has demonstrated, we have decided that the most positive and productive direction for our church is his dismissal and removal.In addition, the Overseers will continue to explore the depth of Pastor Haggard's offense so that a plan of healing and restoration can begin.

Pastor Haggard and his wife have been informed of this decision. They have agreed as well that he should be dismissed and that a new pastor for New Life Church should be selected according to the rules of replacement in the bylaws. That process will begin immediately in hopes that a new pastor can be confirmed by the end of the year 2006. In the interim, Ross Parsley will function as the leader of the church with full support of the Overseers.

A letter of explanation and apology by Pastor Haggard as well as a word of encouragement from Gayle Haggard will be read in the 9:00 and 11:00 service of New Life Church."

Haggard admits buying meth, says he got massage from accuser

LAST UPDATE: 11/3/2006 3:30:39 PM





COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) - A Colorado church leader admits that he bought methamphetamine from a gay prostitute, and that he got a massage from him.

The admission from the Reverend Ted Haggard comes after Mike Jones accused him of paying for sexual encounters with him over the course of three years. As a result of the charges, Haggard resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, which has 30 million members. He has also stepped down as leader of his 14,000 member New Life Church while the church investigates the charges.

Haggard told reporters that he bought the methamphetamine for himself. He says, "I was tempted, but I never used it." Haggard told reporters he bought the meth because he was curious -- but that he then threw it away.

He also says he never had sex with Jones. He says he received a massage from him after being referred to him by a Denver hotel.

Earlier, members of Haggard's church insisted that the charges were politically motivated -- coming just days before voters in Colorado and seven other states vote on amendments banning gay marriage. Jones admits that he went public with his claims because of the fight over the amendments -- and because Haggard and his church publicly oppose same-sex marriage.

Finally, a post not about Haggard...

Christian references infuse music, but...
By Ricardo Baca
Denver Post Pop Music Critic
Article Last Updated:11/02/2006 06:34:53 PM MST


As Page France singer Michael Nau sings about burning bushes and Jesus rising through the ground on his band's latest record, "Hello, Dear Wind," it's easy to be presumptuous.

They're a Christian band, right?

Technically, maybe, but perhaps not. As indie rockers from Nau to Sufjan Stevens are proving, that label is slippery - and confusing.

Much of Christian music's integration into the pop culture mainstream comes via the rockers who happen to be Christian - as opposed to the Christian rockers who wear their faiths on their sleeves and crosses around their necks. Each group of musicians is writing about what makes them tick, but one crafts its art with more subtlety, yet its intentions are never fully hidden by metaphor.

But how does a band choose the path of subtlety over outright preaching?

"It's a really big choice for a lot of Christian musicians: Are we a Christian band or are we Christians in a band," said Andrew Beaujon, a journalist and the author of "Body Piercing Saved My Life," an unbiased look at Christian rock. "You have to make the decision of what's the purpose of Christian music."

Is it a conversion tool? Or is it simply art? Indie rockers from Dave Bazan (Pedro the Lion), Jeremy Enigk (The Fire Theft, Sunny Day Real Estate), Jeff Mangum (Neutral Milk Hotel) and Sufjan Stevens have developed secular followings regardless of their faiths - and it's not always an easy road with certain listeners turned off by any mention of a god.

Which is where Page France comes in. The Maryland band's music is soft and sweet, melodic and melancholy, literate and lush - and heavily laced with Christian symbols, ideals and history. When the band plays the Hi-Dive tonight, it will surely play through the delightfully saccharine, xylophone-inflected "Junkyard," a chamber-pop delight that could be interpreted a number of ways, secular or religious.

But it could also take

Page France's music is soft and sweet, melodic and melancholy, literate and lush - and heavily laced with Christian symbols, ideals and history. on other tracks from "Hello, Dear Wind" - such as "Jesus" or "Bush," songs that, while artfully vague, are more pointed references to Nau's spirituality. Nau admits his writing comes in thematic sets, but insists they're straight from the subconscious.
"I didn't write ('Hello, Dear Wind') with a theme in mind or an agenda of any sort," Nau said recently from his home in western Maryland. "It was more of a stream-of-conscious kind of thing. I wrote all the songs in two weeks while we were recording, so I was definitely in the same mindset while writing it all."

Nau is weary of queries about religion's role in his music, something that is made obvious by the way he defends his creative process.

"I didn't intentionally adhere to any theme, and I wasn't trying to stress any point," he said, "but naturally, there's a theme within those songs."

From "Jesus," his lyrics are both sweetly naïve and knowingly staunch: "Jesus will come through the ground, so dirty/With worms in his hair and a hand so sturdy/To call us his magic, we call him worthy/Jesus came up through the ground, so dirty."

As the Pitchfork Media review of the record pointed out, "Nau's Jesus would rather sing and dance than condemn." And that childlike subtlety is perhaps what draws secular fans. David Lewis knows these artists' difficult plights all too well. As director of Riot Act Public Relations and Artist Management, he has worked with Page France and Dave Bazan. He has encountered critical resistance ranging from magazine journalists to his own family.

When Lewis was first working the Page France record, he lent it to his sister Kathryn. "She took it in her car, and she had the prototypical arc where she played it, got past the sweetness, really got into the music and then she heard the lyrics and 'Jesus came up from the ground,' and she immediately turned it off," said Lewis. "She said, 'It's not for me - too overwrought with Christian themes."'

Her reaction is typical, as the blogosphere is abuzz with baffled music fans debating their stance on the Page France "issue." But even with "Jesus," it's obvious Nau isn't out to convert anyone; that lack of proselytizing is what often brings fans over the line. Lewis' sister came to accept the record as great piece of music.

"On some level, those of us who aren't Christian are so bombarded with images and rhetoric that when we hear the word 'Jesus' it has much more to do with a personal motif than it has anything to do with the biblical or Christian right ideology," Lewis said. "When I see 'The 700 Club,' I get really upset because Pat Robertson represents a different side of this. But with indie rock, we can stand to be a little bit more open-minded and listen to things on face value."

Beaujon said he witnessed the spread of new fault lines after the 2004 re-election of President George W. Bush.

"David Bazan from Pedro the Lion won't even say he's a Christian because of what (evangelical Christianity) has come to mean culturally," said Beaujon. "Part of the cost of the political polarization is that Christianity has become a really loaded term, and it's hard for people to reconcile the basic fact that rock 'n' roll came out of the church."

Consider the upbringings of Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry and other early rockers: Gospel music and the Christian church - often a Pentecostal version of it - were seminal influences.

"If this is the environment you come from, and if your faith is important to you," Beaujon said, "you're gonna write about it."

But writing about it puts a musician in a precarious position. Many bands, including The Fray, who hail from Denver and are enjoying nationwide popularity, purposefully avoid religious issues in their music regardless of their devout faith. Other musicians' message is a baseball bat to the head. Then there are those in the middle - Page France, Stevens, Bazan & Co. - whose moderate approach leaves them scrutinized from both sides.

"Dave Bazan has been pigeonholed, and I worry about Page France in the same sense," said Lewis. "Here's a band that makes beautiful music. They're just being sincere, but when you go into a public sphere, you have to be ready to deal with that."

Pop music critic Ricardo Baca can be reached at 303-954-1394 or rbaca@denverpost.com.

Haggard's accuser fails lie detector
By Mike McPhee
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated:11/03/2006 08:31:24 AM MST


Ted Haggard's accuser failed a polygraph test early this morning about the truthfulness of his accusations that he had had a three-year homosexual affair with the influential Colorado Springs minister.

The test was given to Michael Jones, 49, an admitted male prostitute, who made the allegations on the Peter Boyles Show on radio station KHOW Thursday morning.

The shocking allegations were denied by Haggard, who told KUSA-9News he never took part in a homosexual affair and had always been faithful to his wife, with whom he has 5 children.

So Boyles invited Jones to take a polygraph test at 5 a.m. this morning.

The test administrator, John Kresnik, said Jones' score indicated "deceptions" in his answers. However, Kresnik said he doubted the accuracy of the test he administered because of the recent stress on Jones and his inability to eat or sleep, according to KHOW producer Greg Hollenback.

Kresnik suggested that Jones be re-tested early next week after he was rested.

A Mega-Scandal for a Mega-Church
One of America's most powerful evangelicals is accused of paying for a male prostitute even as his state approaches a referendum on gay marriage
By RITA HEALY/DENVER
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Friday, Nov. 03, 2006
"I did not have a homosexual relationship with a man in Denver," Ted Haggard said with a calm specificity during an interview with a Denver TV reporter on Wednesday night as controversy broke around him. " I am steady with my wife. I'm faithful to my wife." Nevertheless, the pastor of one of the most prominent mega-churches in the country — and one of President George W. Bush's advisors on evangelical issues — has taken a leave of absence from his own 14,000-member New Life Church and temporarily resigned as president of the 30-million-member National Association of Evangelicals, which represents more than 45,000 evangelical churches across the U.S., after Mike Jones, a gay massage therapist — and self described professional male escort in Denver — told local radio and TV stations that he sold Haggard gay sex for three years. Jones also said that Haggard used drugs with him. Haggard was one of Time's 25 Most Important Evangelicals in 2005. Last night, New Life Church's acting senior pastor Ross Parsley told Denver's KTTV News that Haggard had confessed to some of the alleged indiscretions. In a statement released Thursday, Haggard said, "I will seek both spiritual advice and guidance."

In an interview with Time, Jones described the alleged relationship as "strictly sex" and "no emotions." He says the encounters occurred "about once a month." Jones says that Haggard "never brought up anything about what he did for a living. He always went by the name Art. The only thing he brought up about his personal life was that he was married. He never talked about the church, nothing. He said he was from Kansas City." Jones says he did not discover who "Art" was for "about two and a half years." Then, he says, "one time I was watching the History Channel and they were doing a show on the antichrist, and lo and behold his face popped up as an expert. I went, omigod it's Art, that's the guy I'm seeing." Jones says he decided to expose Haggard because of the alleged hypocrisy. "Here's a guy who put himself on a really high pedestal for millions and millions of followers, and he let them down. And his family." He adds, "I could have blackmailed him. God, I could use the money. I could have blackmailed him; that would have been really easy to do. But I didn't. So no, there's no backing behind me at all. I came out on my own." The Rocky Mountain News says that Jones appeared in bankruptcy court last year and told the judge he's an unemployed fitness consultant. Haggard claims not to know who Jones is. "What did you say his name is again?" he asked a reporter at one point

For now, four senior pastors who do not belong to the New Life Church will be investigating the allegations by Jones. Haggard says they have the authority to discipline him, fire him or exonerate him of the charges. An attorney for the New Life Church says that Haggard's stepping aside is purely pro-forma and not an admission of wrongdoing until the investigation is concluded. The pastor has intimated that the allegations may be an electioneering ploy. He supports Amendment 43 on the Colorado state ballot on Nov. 7, which would add a new section to the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Another question on the ballot> — Referendum I — would allow gays and lesbians to form legally protected domestic partnerships. While Haggard is not seen as a firebreather on the issue, and insists he supports the civil rights of all groups, he has expressed no interest in supporting Referendum I. At this point, one poll shows that Amendment 43 has 53% support; while Referendum I has 47%.

Jones too says that the elections may have played a part in their relationship. However, he believes that Haggard stopped seeing him after August of this year because the vote on marriage was approaching and the clergyman did not want to risk being caught in a compromising position. "My gut feeling is that the elections were coming up and we have the two amendments and he decided to lie low. And the whole [Congressman Mark] Foley thing was coming out. The last three times I saw him, I knew who he was. I never said anything. We really didn't talk."

Haggard had also been receiving attention for his appearance in the documentary Jesus Camp, a film about the religious training of children in Pentecostal seminars. Haggard put out the word to evangelical groups to avoid the film. In it, he is seen telling a crowd, "We don't have to have a debate about what we think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible." Shortly after that, Haggard looks mockingly into the camera to say, "I think I know what you did last night. If you send me a thousand dollars, I won't tell your wife." The crowd responds with peals of laughter. Then he says with a wide smile, "If you use any of this, I'll sue you."

Kent Lemburg, a gay massage therapist, says he knows Jones. "He'd always advertise himself in the back of Out Front," a local publication that is a directory and guide to the local gay scene. "He's a body builder. He definitely is an escort."

In an ad in Out Front's website, there is a photograph with a bare-chested man called Mike who purports to have appeared in Men's Health, Playgirl and a number of gay skin magazines. It also says, "Performers from Broadway shows call upon my services when on tour. If you would like an incredible massage by a handsome, athletic, masculine man, please call me. Hey, I'm also a nice guy."

Yeah Yeah I know. Lots of stories here on Ted Haggard. I'm following this story pretty close because I know how high the stakes are. I am posting stories that reveal any new info as I find them. I'll try not to post stories that simply repeat what has already been said.

The reason the stakes are so high here is that Haggard is the new poster boy for Evangelicals. I'm not a real big fan; I'm thinking we could have a much better person in there, but nevertheless, que sera sera. Keep tuning in.

Report: Voice Expert ID's Ted Haggard's Voice
By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 03:45:00 AM EST
Update: Church says Haggard confessed to some, but not all, of the allegations against him. My speculation: He confessed to buying meth from Jones.

**********

Denver's 9 News tonight reports a voice expert has analyzed paid escort Mike Jones' voicemail evidence against Ted Haggard and concluded the voice is Haggard's.

Jones turned over two voicemails to the station which had them analyzed by Richard Sanders, who it says is an expert voice analyst.

The first voice message, left on August 4 at 2:18 p.m., says:

"Hi Mike, this is Art. Hey, I was just calling to see if we could get any more. Either $100 or $200 supply. And I could pick it up really anytime I could get it tomorrow or we could wait till next week sometime and so I also wanted to get your address. I could send you some money for inventory but that's probably not working, so if you have it then go ahead and get what you can and I may buzz up there later today, but I doubt your schedule would allow that unless you have some in the house. Okay, I'll check in with you later. Thanks a lot, bye."


The second voice message, left on August 4 at 5:10 p.m., says:

"Hi Mike, this is Art, I am here in Denver and sorry that I missed you. But as I said, if you want to go ahead and get the stuff, then that would be great. And I'll get it sometime next week or the week after or whenever. I will call though you early next week to see what's most convenient for you. Okay? Thanks a lot, bye."

Here's the video of the newscast. Jones claims Art is referring to methamphetamine in the messages. The station reports that Haggert's middle name is Arthur.

Here's the video of Haggard's 10 minute interview with the station in which he denies the allegations. He seems downright friendly about it and quite willing for the Church's investigation to take over.

He also says that while he supports the gay marriage amendment, he has not opposed the civil union referendum on the Colorado ballot, believing that's a societal matter. He says he has always supported civil rights. He does believe, however, that G-d's preferred plan for men and women is heterosexuality.

Report: Voice Expert ID's Ted Haggard's Voice
By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 03:45:00 AM EST
Update: Church says Haggard confessed to some, but not all, of the allegations against him. My speculation: He confessed to buying meth from Jones.

**********

Denver's 9 News tonight reports a voice expert has analyzed paid escort Mike Jones' voicemail evidence against Ted Haggard and concluded the voice is Haggard's.

Jones turned over two voicemails to the station which had them analyzed by Richard Sanders, who it says is an expert voice analyst.

The first voice message, left on August 4 at 2:18 p.m., says:

"Hi Mike, this is Art. Hey, I was just calling to see if we could get any more. Either $100 or $200 supply. And I could pick it up really anytime I could get it tomorrow or we could wait till next week sometime and so I also wanted to get your address. I could send you some money for inventory but that's probably not working, so if you have it then go ahead and get what you can and I may buzz up there later today, but I doubt your schedule would allow that unless you have some in the house. Okay, I'll check in with you later. Thanks a lot, bye."


The second voice message, left on August 4 at 5:10 p.m., says:

"Hi Mike, this is Art, I am here in Denver and sorry that I missed you. But as I said, if you want to go ahead and get the stuff, then that would be great. And I'll get it sometime next week or the week after or whenever. I will call though you early next week to see what's most convenient for you. Okay? Thanks a lot, bye."

Here's the video of the newscast. Jones claims Art is referring to methamphetamine in the messages. The station reports that Haggert's middle name is Arthur.

Here's the video of Haggard's 10 minute interview with the station in which he denies the allegations. He seems downright friendly about it and quite willing for the Church's investigation to take over.

He also says that while he supports the gay marriage amendment, he has not opposed the civil union referendum on the Colorado ballot, believing that's a societal matter. He says he has always supported civil rights. He does believe, however, that G-d's preferred plan for men and women is heterosexuality.

Pastor Ted Haggard...Out of the Closet? (8 comments )
READ MORE: 2006, Rick Santorum, James Dobson, Supreme Court
There's really only one story here in Colorado at the moment....

The president of The National Association of Evangelicals and founding pastor of the 14,000 member New Life Church, Ted Haggard, has been accused of having a relationship with a 49 year-old gay male escort for the last three years.


Given the timing, it sure does smell like a smear especially with a gay marriage amendment on the ballot here in Colorado. But.... Pastor Ted has "temporarily" resigned from his posts both at the NAE and at New Life Church. While this is not a guilty plea, it doesn't look good.

New Life Church also cancelled a rally in support of Pastor Ted organized by another Colorado Springs pastor slated for this afternoon. That doesn't look good either.

The escort in question, a Mr. Mike Jones, claims he has recorded voicemail messages from Haggard and a letter from him containing $200.00 in cash. The evidence hasn't been released yet.

Here's the thing about Haggard: while he does support the anti-gay marriage amendment he's not as strident in his rhetoric about gays as so many other figures on the Christian right. For example, Haggard was in support of the 2003 Supreme Court decision to overturn the sodomy laws. He's also said that he wouldn't advocate positions that would make it harder for people to get health insurance or visit their partners in the hospital.

Based on the scant evidence that's been released, my thinking is this: If you're perpetrating a fictional smear, why not go after a fervently anti-gay figure? There's no shortage to choose from in this state. Why choose a Pastor who, however well known, isn't really as bad as Gary Bauer, James Dobson, Rick Santorum, etc... I mean, if you're going to lie you've got your choice of targets. Why this one?

I know some might think that if you're supporting an anti-gay marriage amendment that you're 100 percent bigoted and that's probably true to a limited degree, but check out an earlier post I wrote on this as well as a few more quotes from the man himself:

Here's Haggard in the Colorado Springs Independent:



"If the state wants to provide people who are in a different type of relationship the same benefits as marriage, that's up to the community," he says. "As a Christian, I would be hesitant to do anything that would deny people medical insurance or the ability to visit their partner in a hospital."

Another:

"We believe within the church that sexuality should be only between a married man and a woman," Haggard says. "But there are many things that I teach in the church that I would never want integrated into civil law."
Like I said, the news is still breaking and while the escort of the moment has agreed to take a lie detector test, the voicemail messages and the letter are still under wraps.

If this is true, this is a. big. deal. Pastor Ted has become one of the go to guys for national media looking to take the pulse of the almighty evangelical voting block. Pastor Ted's church has been the subject of a Harper's piece, a Tom Brokaw segment and numerous other stories.

Stay tuned as this thing will either explode nationally or disintegrate in the next 24 hours...

(Hat tip to Colorado Confidential.)

Church Leader Says Haggard Admits To Some Indiscretions
Interim Senior Pastor Says Haggard Admits Indiscretions -- Raw Interview
Ted Haggard Accused
Colorado Springs
Updated: 12:26 AM Nov 3, 2006
11 News


A sudden about-face in the scandal facing New Life Church's pastor.

After Pastor Ted Haggard went public Wednesday night denying allegations of a homosexual affair, senior church officials told KKTV 11News Thursday evening, Pastor Ted Haggard has admitted to some of the claims made by a former male escort. The church's Acting Senior Pastor, Ross Parsley, tells KKTV 11 News that Pastor Haggard has admitted to some of the indiscretions claimed by Mike Jones, but not all of them.

Thursday morning, Jones went on a Denver radio talk show and said Pastor Haggard paid him for sex over the past 3 years. Jones also claims Haggard used drugs with him.

Right now, the situation is under investigation by an independent panel of leaders from four outside churches. The leaders are from Colorado Springs, Larkspur, Westminster and Louisiana. The panel's role is to decide if Haggard will be exonerated, released from his duties or restored to his pastorship.

Earlier Thursday, Haggard resigned as President of the National Association of Evangelicals, and placed himself on administrative leave as head of New Life Church. New Life Church has an estimated 14,000 members, while the NAE claims roughly 30 million members.

Dobson Criticizes Media For Reporting Haggard Allegation

Focus Chairman Calls Coverage of Unsubstantiated Rumor 'Unconscionable'

11/2/2006 1:40:00 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: State Desk

Contact: Gary Schneeberger of Focus on the Family, 719-548-5853, or culturalissues@family.org

COLORADO SPRINGS. Nov. 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Focus on the Family founder and Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., issued the following statement today addressing an allegation by a male prostitute in Denver that Ted Haggard was one of his clients:

"It is unconscionable that the legitimate news media would report a rumor like this based on nothing but one man's accusation. Ted Haggard is a friend of mine and it appears someone is trying to damage his reputation as a way of influencing the outcome of Tuesday's election -- especially the vote on Colorado's marriage-protection amendment -- which Ted strongly supports.

"He has shown a great deal of grace under these unfortunate circumstances, quickly turning this matter over to his church for an independent investigation. That is a testament to the character I have seen him exhibit over and over again through the years."

http://www.usnewswire.com/

November 2, 2006


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
From New Life Church
Colorado Springs, Colorado


Rev. Ted Haggard, Senior Pastor of New Life Church, stated today that he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations made on Denver talk radio this morning." He, therefore, placed himself on administrative leave, pending investigation, spiritual counsel, and a decision by the church's board of overseers. Pastor Haggard said, "I am voluntarily stepping aside from leadership so that the overseer process can be allowed to proceed with integrity. I hope to be able to discuss this matter in more detail at a later date. In the interim, I will seek both spiritual advice and guidance."



Under the governing structure of New Life Church, there is a board of overseers consisting of four senior pastors of other congregations. Those overseers have authority to conduct an inquiry, to discipline the senior pastor, to remove him from his position, or to restore him to ministry. The overseers of New Life Church are: Rev. Larry Stockstill, Senior Pastor of Bethany World Prayer Center, in Baker, Louisiana; Rev. Mark Cowart, Senior Pastor of Church For All Nations in Colorado Springs; Rev. Tim Ralph, Senior Pastor of New Covenant Fellowship in Larkspur, Colorado; and Rev. Michael Ware, Senior Pastor of Victory Church in Westminister, Colorado.

In the interim, New Life Church Associate Senior Pastor, Rev. Ross Parsley, will serve as Acting Senior Pastor of the church. Rev. Parsley has served in senior ministry positions at New Life Church for fifteen years. Rev. Parsley requested the community's compassion and prayers for the person who came forward with accusations, for the Haggard family, and for the New Life Church community. He also said, "New Life Church long ago adopted an overseer model of governance for situations just like this. People need to be patient and allow this process to unfold as it was designed to do."

Pastor Haggard also resigned today as President of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Evangelical leader hit with sex claims

By CATHERINE TSAI
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- The leader of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals, a vocal opponent of the drive for same-sex marriage, resigned Thursday after being accused of paying for sex with a man in monthly trysts over the past three years.

The Rev. Ted Haggard also stepped aside as head of his 14,000-member New Life Church while a church panel investigates, saying he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations."

The investigation came after a 49-year-old man told a Denver radio station that Haggard paid him to have sex.

Haggard, a married father of five, denied the allegations in an interview with KUSA-TV late Wednesday: "Never had a gay relationship with anybody, and I'm steady with my wife, I'm faithful to my wife."

In a written statement, Haggard said: "I am voluntarily stepping aside from leadership so that the overseer process can be allowed to proceed with integrity. I hope to be able to discuss this matter in more detail at a later date. In the interim, I will seek both spiritual advice and guidance."

Haggard, a 1978 graduate of Oral Roberts University, was appointed president of the association in March 2003 and has been called one of the most influential evangelical Christians in the nation.



He has participated in conservative Christian leaders' conference calls with White House staffers and lobbied members of Congress last year on U.S. Supreme Court appointees after Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement.

The allegations come as voters in Colorado and seven other states get ready to decide Tuesday on amendments banning gay marriage. Besides the proposed ban on the Colorado ballot, a separate measure would establish the legality of domestic partnerships providing same-sex couples with many of the rights of married couples.

Mike Jones, 49, of Denver told The Associated Press he decided to go public with his allegations because of the political fight. Jones, who said he is gay, said he was upset when he discovered Haggard and the New Life Church had publicly opposed same-sex marriage.

"It made me angry that here's someone preaching about gay marriage and going behind the scenes having gay sex," said Jones, who added that he isn't working for any political group.

Jones, whose allegations were first aired on KHOW-AM radio in Denver, claimed Haggard paid him to have sex nearly every month over three years.

Jones said that he had advertised himself as an escort on the Internet and that a man who called himself Art contacted him. Jones said he later saw the man on television identified as Haggard.

He said that he last had sex with Haggard in August and that he did not warn him before making his allegations this week.

Jones said he has voice mail messages from Haggard, as well as an envelope he said Haggard used to mail him cash, though he declined to make any of it available to the AP.

"There's some stuff on there (the voice mails) that's pretty damning," he said.

Carolyn Haggard, spokeswoman for the New Life Church and the pastor's niece, said a four-member church panel will investigate the allegations. The board has the authority to discipline Haggard, including removing him from ministry work.

"This is really routine when any sort of situation like this arises, so we're prepared," Carolyn Haggard said. "The church is going to continue to serve and be welcoming to our community. That's a priority."

Richard Cizik, vice president for government affairs for the evangelicals association, expressed shock.

"Is this something I can imagine of Ted Haggard? No," he said.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Here is an excellent analysis of Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology, and Modified Covenant Theology reposted here with permission:

I am using a comparison from the www by self-confessed hyperCalvinist Brandon Kraft. If some of his characterizations are inaccurately portraying a particular view, I can't say. But, I will make my agreement or not (on each point) based on his outline as written (not necessarily as proponant textbooks may convey).

He has formulated his own alternative, which he calls "Modified Covenant Theology (MCT)", therefore it might be more rightly called BKCT, since there may be other folks who might appropriate the prosaic: "Modified Covenant Theology (MCT)" nomenclature.

Dispensational theology (DT) is not listed in this comparison (though it is in other comparisons on the WWW).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CT vs. NCT vs. MCT - a short comparison

CT = Covenant Theology
NCT = New Covenant Theology
MCT = Modified Covenant Theology


Adam
CT: Adam was perfectly righteous before he fell.

NCT: Same as CT.

MCT: Adam was righteous according to the laws given to him but still needed the righteousness of Christ.


PRO: I agree with CT, NCT (and probably DT).

Adam's legal arrangement and the fall
CT: If Adam had kept the law he would have merited eternal life. This is known as the "covenant of works". Adam broke the covenant of works and merited eternal death.


NCT: There is no "covenant of works". If Adam had obeyed the laws given to him, he could stay in the garden but that wouldn't merit eternal life. He broke the law and merited eternal death.


MCT: There is a covenant of works. If Adam had obeyed the laws given to him, he would have stayed in the garden, but not merit eternal life. However the point of giving this covenant of works was to cause the fall to demonstrate Adam's need for an alien righteousness and point him to Christ. The Old Covenant is another form of this covenant of works.


PRO: This comparison misses some points. Since death came by sin, if Adam had not sinned then "eternal life" as apposed to "not dying" would be a fact of the creation order. Presumably, in theory, the garden condition would've continued in perpetuity.

Further, the question below the surface of this argument-point is the Supra v. Infra debate. That is, was the garden scenario merely incidental means to get to the real plan: the redemptive death of Christ. Thus, the fall was decreed in order to set in motion the work of Christ. And so, there is no "what if Adam had not sinned" contingency to contemplate.

Moral Law
CT: The "moral law" is fully expressed in the Decalogue.

NCT: There is no "moral law".

MCT: All men are cursed by some form of law, not necessarily the same laws found in the original covenant of works or the Law at Sinai. There is a "moral law" that is revealed in nature which all men are obligated to obey. The OC Decalogue shines further light on this law.

PRO: I favor the MCT articulation, but haven't fully considerded the matter.

Covenant of Redemption
CT: The three persons of the Trinity covenanted with each other for the purpose of salvation of the elect. NCT: There is no covenant of redemption. There was just an eternal decree. MCT: Same as CT.

PRO: I'm not sure what is at issue here. Obviously the Trinity is "in agreement." Beyond that, any inner-trinitarian counsel is beyond our ability to know without specific revelation.

Covenant of Grace
CT: God made a covenant of grace with Christ and His people. Christ's people are found in all ages of history including Adam. The OC is a form of the covenant of grace.

NCT: There is no covenant of grace. God redeems His elect from every age; but the OC was a law covenant; therefore the term "covenant of grace" must not be used to describe these various covenants.

MCT: There is a covenant of grace which is best understood as the new covenant instituted in eternity and constituted on the cross. All the elect of all ages are partakers of the covenant of grace. However, unlike CT, the OC at Sinai is not an administration of the covenant of Grace; but is a law covenant meant to bring condemnation.

PRO: I think I agree with MCT in this point, but, I feel I could be argued out of that agreement if someone provided a compelling reason(s).

Christ's Imputed Righteousness
CT: Christ kept the law for His people in the Covenant of Grace thus fulfilling the Covenant of Works which merited for them eternal salvation.

NCT: Christ kept the law for His people to become the perfect sacrifice, but the righteousness wrought through this obedience is not imputed to the elect. Only Christ's righteousness through "passive obedience / death" is imputed to the elect. (not all NCT people deny vicarious law keeping.)

MCT: Same as CT. However, Christ's active obedience involves far more than legal obedience; it was obedience apart from the law – obedience to the Father's will in everything thus fulfilling the covenant of redemption. Christ's righteousness is a divine righteousness which was imputed to all of His elect on the cross.

PRO: I think I agree with them all to a certain extent, which tells me they need further elaboration and sharper distinctions as to why the other views are inadequate, or simply wrong.

View of the different Covenants
CT: The covenant of grace can be found in all the covenants (excluding the covenant of works) because they are derived from the covenant of redemption.

NCT: Since there is no covenant of redemption, all covenants are related and culminate in the new covenant.

MCT: The covenant of grace is best understood as the new covenant which is an overarching covenant and represented in all other covenants excluding administrations of the covenant of works (eg. Sinai).

PRO: I think I agree with NCT.

Abraham's Seed
CT: The main heir to Abraham was Israel, the "church" of the OC. (Some would affirm agreement with NCT).

NCT: The main heir to Abraham is Christ and His Sheep (spiritual Israel).

MCT: Same as NCT

PRO: I agree with NCT and MCT.

The Holy Spirit
CT: The Holy Spirit has taken up residence in and indwelt in believers of all ages.

NCT: The Holy Spirit didn't indwell believers until after the cross. (Some would affirm agreement with CT).

MCT: Same as CT

PRO: I agree with NCT (and DT, for that matter).

The law as a rule of living
CT: The OC law is a rule for living, but only the "moral law". The ceremonial and civil laws were abolished.

NCT: All of the OC law was abolished and only the laws of the NT apply to the believer.

MCT: The OC was a covenant of works. The believer's rule of living has always been Christ regardless of what age in which they lived. The OC law was given to drive the elect to Christ and cause them to rest in His vicarious obedience to the Father, including the fulfillment of the revealed law because this truly defines righteousness in terms of His life. Commandments involving timeless principles (from all covenants) are good as a rule of conduct, but the law of God is written on the heart of every believer and thus every believer is motivated to obey the law to Christ out of love and gratitude instead of obligation.

PRO: I think I agree with MCT.

Sign of the New Covenant
CT: The sign of the new covenant is baptism just like circumcision was in the OC. Many believe babies ought to be baptized just like babies were circumcised in the OC.

NCT: The sign of the new covenant is baptism and only believers ought to be baptized.

MCT: The sign of the covenant of grace is the circumcision of the heart which is the inner testimony and assurance of the Holy Spirit in the gift of saving faith. Water baptism is an outward testimony commanded by Christ to celebrate the reality of participation in Christ's death, burial, and resurrection through Holy Spirit regeneration unto belief in the gospel.

PRO: I agree with NCT (and parts of MCT). To me it is a categorical confusion between: the sign and the thing signified, to call "the circumcision of the heart" the sign of the New Covenant, as MCT does.

I promised in my last post that I would write more although on further reflection, I'm not sure what else could be written. The events of the past few months have just further proven to me that our country is so far from being Christian, as so many people would say that it is, that it quite astonishes me. Another thing that I have been reflecting on is just how awry how concept of capitalism has gone and even in our ideas of the corporation. Since when is a corporate office in another state been able to make the best business decision for a local store? It just doesn't make any sense. Has the United States just become a big corporation?

I am reading the graphic adaption of the 9/11 Report. Some things have really stuck out to me. First of all, in the wake of 9/11, there is no way that the United States could have continued the same policy it had in regards to terrorism. The policy was passive and the events of 9/11 dictated that the U.S. had to take a more aggressive stand against terrorism. This would include preemptive strikes against anyone thought to be harboring terrorists or aiding terrorism. However, in the wake of 9/11, what has struck me so hard is that somewhere this policy went very wrong. As a matter of fact, it did not even take two years before we began to see just how wrong this policy can be in the hands of the wrong people. It is apparent to myself now, in the year 2006, that the "fact" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was wrong. At the very least, our intelligence was very wrong (and someone's head should roll for it); at the very worst, our President deliberatatly lied to us (and his head should roll for it). In my humble opinion, and I do stress that this is my own humble opinion, our President and his cabinet deliberatatly set into motion a series of propaganda and lies in order to bolster its case for a war in Iraq.

I realize that to some of you, this is shocking to hear coming from me. I questioned the war in the beginning and then came out in favor of it. But time has proven me wrong and I can only step back and say that something has seriously gone wrong. After much reflection and a bit of research, I believe that I may have part of the answer. President Truman, in his farewell address to the nation, used a term that he coined: the military industrial complex. He envisioned a time in this nation's near future when our foreign policy would be dictated by the military. His prophecy has come true. In the years following World War II, the Department of Defense is, by far, the largest section of our national budget. As a matter of fact, it is larger than the all the other departments combined. This is not because we are at war. This was an intentional build-up propagated by Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan to destroy the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Indeed, this build-up, particularly during the Reagan Administration, is one of the primary reasons for the fall of the Soviet Empire. Reagan literally outspent the Russians and the result was the fall of the Iron Curtain.

However, in the years following the fall of the Soviet Union, we faced a new enemy. Terrorism became a growing national threat. It was prodded by Saudi America's decision to let the United States use their land as a headquarters for the first Persian Gulf War. In retrospect, we should have never been involved in that war. The United States and its supporters like to use terms like "protecting our way of life" and "spreading democracy." These are really nothing more than code words for American Imperialism. In a nutshell, we have decided that our "way of life" is better than anyone else's in the world, and now we are on a military campaign to ensure than "democracy" is brought to it. Democracy is a wonderful thing. Capitalism is even a wonderful thing, but America has taken it to an extreme and capitalism is now blatant materialism. We are an arrogant people who think that sharing our materialism with the rest of the world will somehow make them a better place to live. This is wrong. And it has to be stopped. I will write more later...

My Middle-East Peace Plan

Step #1-Abolish the U.N. This blatantly stupid and worthless organization has probably caused more wars that should not have happened and delayed more wars than were justified. By the way, abolishing the U.N. would also abolish any and all binding resolutions.

Step #2-Create a very strong military alliance with Israel. This alliance would be stronger than any in history, stronger than the Axis or Allied forces in World War II.

Step #3-Expand the War on Terror. Expand the war to include the countries of Iran (for building nuclear weapons), Syria (for aiding Iran and Hezbollah), and Lebanon (for being a government, like Afganistan before 2001, that supports terrorism. Granted, Hezbollah is not technically part of the Lebanese government, but they have not stood up against them to oust them either. This makes then passive supporters of terrorism and this policy has proven to be a threat to Israel.).* **

Step #4-Impose the draft. Any and all able-bodied Americans from the ages of 18-25 (and to be expanded sooner) would be enlisted in the military.

Step #5-The War on Terror will now be labeled World War III. A first and relatively simple front would be to invade Lebanon and annex it to Israel. Then using the United States and possibly some of its allies like the U.K., begin to invade and annex each country. The current political situation in Iraq confirms that the Middle East is not ready for democracy. Therefore, martial law will be declared until each country is firmly under the fist of the United States and its allies.

*North Korea could also be considered in this plan, but with the possible exception of allowing it to return under the government of South Korea, thus reuniting it with its motherland. This would be a bit harder to accomplish and may require the same polices as in the Middle East.

**Cuba could also be considered in this plan and would be a relatively simple annexation to pull off. We could easily make Cuba one of the hottest tourist destinations in the world and use the money to fund World War III.

At the end of Step 5, peace would be obtained in the Middle East.

I got a great laugh out of this!

A West Texas cowboy was herding his cows in a remote pasture whensuddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him. The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Bansunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the cowboy, "If Itell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, willyou give me a calf?" The cowboy looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at hispeacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, Why not?" The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer,connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone, and surfs to a NASA pageon the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system toget an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASAsatellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo. The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop andexports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg , Germany . Withinseconds receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has beenprocessed and the data stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excelspreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes,receives a response. Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech,miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy andsays, "You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves." "That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says thecowboy. He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks onamused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car. Then the cowboy says to the young man, "Hey, if I ca n tell you exactlywhat your business is, will you give me back my calf?" The young manthinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?" You're a Congressman for the U.S. Government", says the cowboy. "Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?" "No guessing required." answered the cowboy. "You showed up here eventhough nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You tried to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don't know a thing about cows........ Now give me back my dog."

Who Really Owns the “Holy Land”?

Robert L. Reymond

Editor’s note: This essay is an address delivered by Dr. Robert L. Reymond, Professor Emeritus at Knox Theological Seminary, to “Advancing Reformation Truth and Spirituality” (ARTS) on April 21, 2006, at DeVos Chapel, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The Challenge Facing Covenant Theology

A gigantic effort is underway today to convince the evangelical citizenry of the United States of America that the political state of Israel rightfully owns in perpetuity the so-called “Holy Land” [1] at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea by virtue of God’s bequeathing it to Abraham and his descendants in the Old Testament. This effort is being made not so much today by the secular leadership of the state of Israel as by self-acclaimed Christian scholars and televangelists who claim to speak for over seventy million evangelical Christians. These men, including Assemblies of God preacher and televangelist John Hagee, founder and pastor of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas;2 Kenneth Copeland, televangelist; Paul and Matt Crouch of the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN); Jack Hayford, founder and pastor of the Church on the Way in Van Nuys, California, and president of the Foursquare Gospel Church; Benny Hinn, pastor of the yet-to-be-built World Healing Center in Dallas, Texas; Rod Parsley, pastor of the World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio; Pat Robertson, founder and chief executive officer of the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) and the Bible teacher on the 700 Club;3 and Jerry Falwell, founder and pastor of the Thomas Road Baptist Church and founder of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, are all purveyors of that system of hermeneutics known as Dispensationalism.

Apparently convinced by this propaganda effort, President Clinton, after citing the words of his desperately ill Baptist pastor to him: “If you abandon Israel, God will never forgive you,” declared before the Israeli Knesset in Jerusalem on October 27, 1994: “…it is God’s will that Israel, the Biblical home of the people of Israel, continue forever and ever,”4 a statement that enters deeply into Biblical hermeneutics concerning the nature of the church and the kingdom of God, not to mention Biblical eschatology (note his “forever and ever”). President Clinton concluded his speech by saying: “Your journey is our journey, and America will stand with you now and always,” a statement that illustrates this nation’s deep involvement in both Middle East politics in general and its specific political commitment to Israel in the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict in particular in a way that cannot but affect the course of world politics for the foreseeable future.

In my opinion, President Clinton’s statement is bad politics based on equally bad theology. I say this because, as I shall argue in this paper, all of God’s land promises to Israel in the Old Testament are to be viewed in terms of shadow, type, and prophecy, in contrast to the reality, substance, and fulfillment of which the New Testament speaks. Consequently, contrary to John Hagee who insists that “Israel has a Bible mandate to the land, a divine covenant for the land of Israel, forever…[and] Christians have a Bible mandate to be supportive of Israel,”5 I will argue that it is we Christians, as members of Christ’s Messianic kingdom, who are the real heirs to the land promises of Holy Scripture, but only in their fulfilled paradisical character.6 Hagee terms this view “replacement theology” because, he says, it “replaces” in the economy of God the Jewish people who are, he says, “God’s centerpiece” and “the apple of his eye” (Zechariah 2:8) with the church of Jesus Christ. Of course, Hagee’s perception of ethnic Israel is in error, because ethnic Israel per se was never the center-piece of God’s covenant program since, according to Paul, God’s promises always applied only to the true spiritual Israel (that is, elect Israel) within ethnic Israel (Romans 9:6-13); and the land promises of the Old Testament, as we will show, were always to be viewed typologically. Nevertheless, Hagee has thrown down the Dispensational gauntlet; and it is high time that covenant theologians picked it up and responded to him Biblically. This is what I propose to do now. But I offer a word of caution, and it is this: Reflect carefully upon what I say before you accept or reject it. With that caveat I will now begin with a discussion of

Eden and the Abrahamic Covenant

O. Palmer Robertson begins his treatise on the significance of the land as a theological idea by stating:

The concept of a land that belongs to God’s people originated in Paradise. This simple fact, so often overlooked, plays a critical role in evaluating the significance of the land throughout redemptive history and its consummate fulfillment. Land did not begin to be theologically significant with the promise given to Abraham. Instead, the patriarch’s hope of possessing a land arose out of the concept of restoration to the original state from which man had fallen. The original idea of land as paradise significantly shaped the expectations associated with redemption. As the place of blessedness arising from unbroken fellowship and communion with God, the land of paradise became the goal toward which redeemed humanity was returning.7

In the Edenic paradise of Genesis 2 we see God, whose garden it was (Ezekiel 28:13; 31:8), and which garden was employed later as the prototypical ideal (Genesis 13:10) and type of the eschatological paradise of God (Isaiah 51:3; Revelation 2:7), placing the original pair he had created within it to tend and to keep it and to enjoy communion with him. But the paradisical nature of Eden was lost in and by Adam’s fall, and our first parents were expelled from this land of blessing. But the idea of paradise was renewed by God’s inaugurating with the guilty pair a second covenant — the covenant of grace of Genesis 3:15 — and later by his covenant with Abraham of Genesis 12:1-3 to redeem a people from their fallen condition and to transform the cosmos. Just as Adam and Eve had known God’s blessing in Eden, so also God would bless his redeemed people in a new Eden, a land flowing with milk and honey, that lay somewhere ahead of them in the future.

With the call of Abraham in Genesis 12 the covenant of grace established in Genesis 3:15 underwent a remarkable advance. The instrument of that advance is the covenant that God made with Abraham that guaranteed and secured soteric blessing for “all the families of the Earth” (Genesis 12:3). So significant are the promises of grace in the Abrahamic covenant, found in Genesis 12:1-3; 13:14-16; 15:18-21; 17:1-16; and 22:16-18, that it is not an overstatement to declare these verses, from the covenantal perspective, the most important verses in the Bible. The fact that the Bible sweeps across thousands of years between the creation of man and the call of Abraham in only eleven chapters, with the call of Abraham coming in Genesis 12, suggests that God intended the information given in Genesis 1-11 to be preparatory “background” to the revelation of the Abrahamic covenant. Revelation subsequent to it discloses that all that God has done savingly in grace since the revelation of the Abrahamic covenant is the result and product of it. In other words, once the covenant of grace came to expression in the salvific promises of the Abrahamic covenant — that God would be the God of Abraham and his spiritual descendants (Genesis 17:7) and that in Abraham all the families of the Earth would be blessed — everything that God has done since that time, he has done in order to fulfill his covenant promises to Abraham (and thereby the eternal plan of redemption).

If this representation of the salvific significance of the Abrahamic covenant seems to be an overstatement, the following declarations from later revelation should suffice to justify it:

1. It is the Abrahamic covenant and none other that God later confirmed with Isaac (Genesis 17:19; 26:3-4) and with Jacob (Genesis 28:13-15; 35:12).

2. The Scriptures state that God redeemed Jacob’s descendants from Egypt in order to keep his covenant promise to the patriarchs: “God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob” (Exodus 2:24: see 4:5).

3. Again and again throughout Israel’s history the inspired authors of Scripture trace God’s continuing extension of grace and mercy to Israel directly to his fidelity to his covenant promises to Abraham (Exodus 32:12-14; 33:1; Leviticus 26:42; Deuteronomy 1:8; 4:31; 7:8; 9:27; 29:12-13; Joshua 21:44; 24:3-4; Psalm 105:8-10, 42-43; 2 Kings 13:23; 1 Chronicles 16:15-17; Micah 7:20; Nehemiah 9:7-8).

4. When we come to the New Testament it is no different. Both Mary and Zechariah declared the first coming of Jesus Christ, including the very act of Incarnation, to be a vital part of the fulfillment of God’s gracious covenant promise to Abraham. Mary in Luke 1:54-55 said: “He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants forever, even as he said to our fathers.” Zechariah in Luke 1:68-71 said: “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, because he has come…to remember his holy covenant, the oath he swore to our father Abraham.”

I may note in passing that, whereas Christians today mainly celebrate only the Incarnation of God’s Son at Christmas time, Mary and Zechariah, placing this event in the covenantal context of Scripture, saw reason in Christ’s coming to celebrate the covenant fidelity of God to his people. In their awareness of the broader significance of the event and the words of praise that this awareness evoked from them we see Biblical theology at its best being worked out and expressed.

5. Jesus, himself the Seed of Abraham (Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16), declared that Abraham “rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56).




6. Peter declared that God sent Jesus to bless the Jewish nation in keeping with the promise he gave to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, in turning them away from their iniquities (Acts 3:25-26).

7. Paul declared that God, when he promised Abraham that “all peoples on Earth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:3), was declaring that he was going to justify the Gentiles by faith and was announcing the Gospel in advance to Abraham (Galatians 3:8). Accordingly, he stated that all believers in Christ “are blessed [with justification through faith] along with Abraham” (Galatians 3:9).

8. Paul also declared: “Christ became a Servant of the circumcision…in order to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs so that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy” (Romans 15:8-9).

9. Paul further declared that Christ died on the cross, bearing the law’s curse, “in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, in order that we [both Jews and Gentiles] might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Galatians 3:13-14).

10. Paul expressly declared that the Mosaic covenant and law, introduced several centuries after God gave his covenant promises to Abraham and to his Seed (Christ), “does not set aside the covenant previously established by God [with Abraham] and thus do away with the promise” (Galatians 3:16-17).

11. Paul also declared (1) that Abraham is the “father of all who believe” among both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 4:11-12); and (2) that all who belong to Christ “are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” that God gave to Abraham (Galatians 3:29).

12. Finally, Christ described the future state of glory in terms of the redeemed “taking their place at the feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 8:11).

What this all means is that the promise of God, covenantally given to Abraham, that he would be the God of Abraham and of his spiritual descendants after him forever (Genesis 17:7-8) extends temporally to the farthest reaches of the future and encompasses the entire community of the redeemed and the renewed cosmos. This is just to say that the Abrahamic covenant, in the specific prospect it holds forth of the salvation of the entire church of God, is identical with the soteric program of the covenant of grace. It also means that the blessings of the covenant of grace that believers in Christ enjoy today under the New Testament economy are founded upon the covenant that God made with Abraham. Said another way, the “new covenant” whose Mediator is Jesus Christ is simply the administrative “extension and unfolding of the Abrahamic covenant”8 in redemptive history. The church of Jesus Christ, then, not ethnic Israel, is the present-day expression of the one people of God whose roots go back to Abraham.

These passages also highlight the unity of the one covenant of grace and the oneness of God’s people in all ages over against the discontinuities injected into redemptive history by the Dispensational heresy that lies at the root of all the bad “land theology” being espoused today concerning Israel’s so-called “perpetual divine right” to the land of Palestine.9 That is to say, God’s redemptive purpose, first disclosed in Genesis 3:15, once it had come to expression in the terms of the Abrahamic covenant, was continuously advanced thereafter by the successive covenants with Israel, David, and finally the new covenant. Accordingly, in his letter to the Gentile churches in Galatia Paul described those who repudiate Judaistic legalism and who “never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,” that is, Christ’s church, as “the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:12-16). In his Ephesian letter Paul told those Gentile believers that God had in Christ made them citizens of Israel and beneficiaries of the covenants of the promise (Ephesians 2:11-13). And in his letter to the Philippians Paul declared that those “who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh” are “the [true] circumcision” (Philippians 3:3). Clearly, the church of Jesus Christ is the present-day true Israel of God.

The Typological Nature of the Land Promises

Undoubtedly, temporal, earthly promises of land were given to Abraham and his descendants in the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 12: 7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 17:8). But the land promises were never primary and central to the covenant’s intention, and God never envisioned literal fulfillment of these promises under Old Testament conditions as primary. Rather, the fulfillment of the land promises must be viewed as arising from the more basic and essential redemptive promises, and for their fulfillment they await the final and complete salvation of God’s elect and the recreation of the universe in the Eschaton (Romans 8:19-23). I say this because the Bible declares that Abraham dwelt in Palestine “as in a foreign country” (Hebrews 11:9), and he never inherited any land during his lifetime (Acts 7:5), which is just to say that Abraham believed that the fulfillment of God’s land promises lay antitypically in the eschatological future.

Was this really Abraham’s understanding of God’s land promise? Or did he think that God’s promise merely entailed the small portion of land bounded on the west and the east by the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan Valley and generally on the north and the south by the Sea of Galilee and the southern tip of the Dead Sea? Hardly. Was his faith such that he would have been satisfied in knowing that someday his offspring would inherit the land “from the river of Egypt [not the Nile River but the Wadi el Arish] to the great river, the River Euphrates” (Genesis 15:18)?10 Again we must respond, hardly. His entire life experience of walking by faith and not by sight (see the recurring phrase “by faith Abraham” in Hebrews 11:8, 9, 17) taught him to look beyond the temporal circumstances in which he lived. To understand Abraham’s concept of God’s land promise to him, we must give special heed to the divinely revealed insights of the writers of the New Testament. Just as Paul declared that the events of Israel’s redemptive history were “types” for believers during this age (1 Corinthians 10:6), just as Paul said the religious festivals of the old covenant were “a shadow of the things to come” (Colossians 2:17), just as the author of Hebrews stated that the administration of redemption under the old covenant was “but a shadow of the good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1), so also he taught, in Hebrews 11:8-16, that Abraham knew that God’s land promises in their fulfillment entailed something far more glorious, namely, a better and heavenly homeland whose designer and builder is God, than the land of Palestine per se that served only as the type of their fulfillment:

By faith Abraham…went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God….

These all died in faith, not having received the things promised,11 but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and have acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the Earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland…a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city..

Quite plainly, Abraham understood that the land promised to him actually had both its origin and its antitypical fulfillment in the heavenly, eternal reality that lay still in the future. Possession of a particular tract of land in ancient times might have significance from a number of perspectives with respect to God’s redemptive working in the world, but clearly the land promise under the Abrahamic covenant served simply as a type, anticipating the future reality of the coming of the Messianic kingdom with the Messiah himself assuming the throne of David in Heaven, and ruling the universe after his resurrection and ascension, and reigning until all his enemies have been put under his feet.

How was it possible for Abraham to have the view of the land promise that the New Testament ascribed to him? What led him to “spiritualize” the promise to make it entail future heavenly, kingdom realities? The answer lies in the fact that he took seriously God’s promise to him that “in [him] all the families of the Earth would be blessed” (Genesis 12:3).12 Therefore, he perceived that the promise to him and his offspring, who is Christ (Galatians 3:16), entailed that in Christ “he would be heir [not of Palestine but] of the [glorified] world [kosmou]” (Romans 4:13). Plainly, Abraham under-stood that God’s land promise meant that God would restore the entire cosmos to its former paradisical glory and in that he placed his hope and patiently waited for it. His faith and understanding would have been satisfied with nothing less!

Moses too, and his contemporaries, wandered in the wilderness of Sinai for forty years, and died in faith, not having received the promise (Hebrews 11:39).

Under Joshua’s leadership the Israelites conquered the land, receiving in a limited fashion the paradise God had promised. But it quickly became obvious that this territory could not be the ultimate paradise. Undefeated Canaanites remained in the land as “hornets.” And because of Israel’s sin throughout the united and divided kingdom periods, finally the land was devastated by the Neo-Babylonians; the indwelling Glory departed from the Solomonic Temple (Ezekiel 9:3; 10:1-22), which Temple was then destroyed; and the people were banished and came to be known as lo-ammi, meaning “not-my-people” (Hosea 1:9). The once fruitful land took on the appearance of a desert, a dwelling place of jackals, owls, and scorpions. Paradise, even in its old covenant shadow form, was taken from them.

Even the restoration after the Babylonian captivity, under Ezra and Nehemiah, designated by Biblical scholars as the Second Temple Period, could not be paradise. But the return to the land and the rebuilding of the Temple pointed the way to it. The glory of that tiny Temple, Haggai prophesied, would someday be greater than the glory of the Solomonic Temple. What did this hyperbolic language mean? It meant that God had something better for them than a temporal land and a material temple. The promise of the land would be fulfilled by nothing less than a restored paradise on a cosmic scale! As Isaiah predicted, someday the wolf would lie down with the lamb, the leopard would lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion would live in peace, and a little child would lead them. The nursing child would play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child would place his hand on the adder’s den, and the Earth would be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the places of the sea (Isaiah 11:6-9). No more would sin and sorrow reign nor thorns infest the ground. Then, writes Paul in Romans 9:25-26:

Those who were not [God’s] people [not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles, Romans 9:24] [he] will call “my people,” and her who was not beloved [he] will call “beloved.” And in the very place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” there they will be called “sons of the living God.”

Jesus’ Teaching About the Land and the Future of Ethnic Israel

When Christ came two thousand years ago, the Biblical doctrine of the land experienced a radical advance. By inaugurating his public ministry in Galilee of the Gentiles along the public trade route (Isaiah 9:1, cited in Matthew 4:12-16), Jesus was making a statement. That land would serve as the springboard to all nations. The kingdom of God — the central theme of Jesus’ teaching — would encompass a realm that extended well beyond the borders of ancient Israel. As Paul so pointedly indicated, God’s promise to Abraham meant that he would become heir of the whole world (Romans 4:13). Jesus’ pointing his ministry toward the whole of the world rather than confining it to the land of Canaan cleared the way for the old covenant “type” to be replaced by the new covenant “antitype.” Teaching that the kingdom of God had appeared in its grace modality with his first coming and that it would appear in its power modality at his second coming, he transformed the imagery of a land flowing with milk and honey into a rejuvenation of the whole of God’s created order. It was not Canaan as such that would benefit in the establishment of Messiah’s kingdom: The whole cosmos would rejoice in the renewal.13

Now what did Jesus teach about the future of ethnic Israel? In his parable of the wicked farmers (Matthew 21:33-45, Mark 12:1-12, Luke 20:9-19), Jesus tells the story of a landowner who leased his vineyard to some farmers and then went into another country. When the time arrived for him to receive his rental fee in the form of the fruit of the vineyard, the landowner sent servant after servant to his tenants, only to have each one of them beaten or stoned or killed. Last of all he sent his son — Luke says his “beloved son”; Mark says “yet one [other], a beloved son” — saying: “They will respect my son.” But when the tenants saw the landowner’s son, they said: “This is the heir; come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.” This they did, throwing his body out of the vineyard. When the landowner came, he destroyed the tenants and leased his vineyard to others. The interpretive intentions of the parable are obvious on the face of it: The landowner is God the Father; the vineyard, the nation of Israel (Isaiah 5:7); the farmers, Israel’s leaders; the servants, the prophets of the theocracy (Matthew 23:37a); and the son Jesus himself.

The central teaching of the parable is obvious — as indeed it was to its original audience (Matthew 21:45): After having sent his servants the prophets repeatedly in Old Testament times to the nation of Israel to call the nation back to him from its sin and unbelief, only to have them rebuffed, persecuted, and often killed, God, the Owner of Israel, had, in sending Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Godhead, moved beyond merely sending another servant. Listen once again to the pertinent verses in this connection: Matthew 21:37: “Then last of all he sent his son.” Mark 12:6: “…having one son, his beloved, he also sent him to them last.”

From Matthew’s “last of all” and Mark’s “last” it is clear that Jesus represented himself as God’s last, his final ambassador, after whose sending none higher can come and nothing more can be done.14 The Son of God is the highest messenger of God conceivable. In sum, God had in Jesus finally (Matthew: hysteron; Mark: eschaton) sent his own beloved Son whom the nation would reject. But the rejection of his Son, unlike the rejections of those before him, was to entail neither God’s continuance of dealing with the recalcitrant nation nor a mere change of politico-religious administration. Rather, his rejection, Jesus taught, would eventuate in “the complete overthrow of the theocracy, and the rearing from the foundation up of a new structure [Christ’s church] in which the Son would receive full vindication and supreme honor.”15 His very words are as follows:

I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruit [Matthew 21:43].

What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others [Mark 12:9; Luke 20:16].

Here is a Biblical “replacement theology,” and it is Jesus himself who enunciated it: National Israel, except for its elect remnant, would be judged, and the special standing that it had enjoyed during the old dispensation would be given to the already emerging international church of Jesus Christ made up of both the elect Jewish remnant and elect Gentiles. So as Jesus predicted, Israel’s rulers rejected him and incited Rome to execute him; the Temple was soon destroyed (see Matthew 24:1-35); the people dispersed; and Israel ceased to exist as a political entity, as Moses had predicted in Deuteronomy 28:15-68 (see Deuteronomy 31:24-29). Paul declared in 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 that the Jews who “killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets…displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved — so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God’s wrath has come upon them at last [eis telos

16].” Since Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians in a. d. 50 or 51 it is unlikely that he intended by his phrase, “God’s wrath has come upon them” the destruction of Jerusalem that occurred in a. d. 70. More likely, he was referring to the divine rejection of national Israel that Jesus referred to in his parable of the wicked farmers and elsewhere (Matthew 23:38; 24:15-28), a rejection that Paul declared in Romans 11 has come to expression in God’s hardening the mass of Israel, save for an elect Jewish remnant. So once again Israel as an ethnic entity has become lo-ammi, “not my people,” only now with a finality about it save for an elect remnant (Romans 9:27-29).17 Accordingly, Paul writes in Romans 11:7-10:

Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking [that is, a righteousness before God, Romans 9:31]. The elect [remnant] obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.” And David says: “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever [dia pantos 18].”

But because God has by no means rejected every Jew, choosing in grace a Jewish remnant (Romans 11:5), today elect Jews continue to be saved by being “provoked to jealousy” (Romans 11:11, 14) by the multitudes of saved Gentiles who are enjoying the spiritual blessings originally offered to their fathers, and who accordingly through faith in Jesus Christ, their Messiah, are being grafted back into their own “olive tree” (Romans 11:23-24). The justification of Gentiles is then the primary avenue to the justification of the Jewish elect; indeed, in this way (hout?s) “all Israel” will be saved (Romans 11:26).19

Five Propositions

In light of these Biblical data we are now in a position to affirm the following five propositions:20

1.The modern Jewish state is not a part of the Messianic kingdom of Jesus Christ. Even though this particular political state came into being on May 14, 1948, it would be a denial of Jesus’ affirmation that his kingdom is “not of this world order” (John 18:36) to assert that modern Israel is a part of his Messianic kingdom. To put it bluntly, modern Israel is not true Israel at all, but is rather “the spiritual son of Hagar” (Romans 9:6-8; Galatians 4:24-25) and thus is “Ishmaelitish” to the core, due to its lack of Abrahamic belief in Jesus Christ.21 It has accordingly forsaken any legitimate Biblical claim to Palestine.

2. The land promise of the Old Testament served as a type of the consummate realization of the purposes of God for his redeemed people that encompasses “all the nations” (Genesis 12:3) and the entire cosmos (Romans 4:13). Christians as members of the Messianic kingdom of God are the real heirs, along with Abraham, of the land promise in its antitypical, consummated character.

3. Because of the inherently limited scope of the land promised in the Old Testament, it cannot be regarded as having continuing significance in the realm of redemption other than in its function as a model to teach that obedience and divine blessing go hand in hand while disobedience and divine retribution also go hand in hand.

4. The Old Testament predictions about the “return” of “Israel” to the “land” in terms of a geo-political re-establishment of the state of Israel are more properly interpreted as having fulfillment at the “restoration of all things” that will accompany the resurrection of believers at the return of Christ (Acts 3:21; Romans 8:22-23). To interpret these predictions literally would be a retrograde elevation of type over antitype.

5. The future Messianic kingdom will embrace the whole of the recreated cosmos and will not experience a special manifestation that could be regarded in any sense as “Jewish” in the so-called “holy land” or anywhere else.

Peter, the apostle to the circumcision (who surely would have had his ear tuned to any and every future privilege Jews might enjoy), when he wrote of future things in 2 Peter 3, said nothing about a Jewish millennium or about a restoration of a Jewish kingdom in Palestine but rather divided the whole of Earth history into three periods: the first period — “the world of that time” — extending from the beginning of creation to the Genesis flood (2 Peter 3:5-6); the second period — “the heavens and Earth that now exist” (2 Peter 3:7) — extending from the flood to the final Day of the Lord, at which time the Earth will be destroyed by fire (2 Peter 3:7) and the present heavens “will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved” (2 Peter 3:10); and the third period — “new heavens and a new Earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13) — extending throughout eternity future. If he had believed in a Jewish millennium following this present age 2 Peter 3 would have been the appropriate place to mention it, but he makes no mention of a millennium, much less a Jewish millennium, placing the entirety of Earth history within the three time frames.

Conclusion

What should we conclude from all this? The twin facts of ethnic Israel’s unbelief and God’s wrath exhibited toward ethnic Israel (1 Thessalonians 2:15-16) pose a problem for Christians today. On the one hand, should not our attitude toward these people through whom came not only our Old Testament Scriptures but also our Messiah and Savior according to the flesh (Romans 9:5), indeed, our very salvation (John 4:22) be one of gratitude, and should Christians not do everything in their power to treat the Jewish people as they themselves would wish to be treated? On the other hand, were not the Jewish people complicit in the crucifixion of Christ, notwithstanding Roman Catholicism’s absolution of world Jewry in that event, and has not world Jewry rejected the Savior of the world, declaring him to be one in a long line of false messiahs, and do not these same Jews, when pressed, acknowledge that they regard Christians as idolaters, worshiping as they do a “mere man”?

In response to this problem, I would first say that no Christian should advocate anything evenly remotely resembling legal discrimination against Jews because of their ethnicity or religion. At the same time, in light of the fact that the only hope of salvation for the Jewish people resides in the provisions of the Christian Gospel, it would be wrong, indeed, unloving and un-Christian, for Christians to encourage or to support Israel in the establishment and maintenance of its ethnic or religious “Jewishness” that is the ground of its hope of approbation before God. This is simply to take seriously the uniqueness and finality of Jesus Christ as the only Savior and the only hope not only of ethnic Israel but also of every race and every nation. The Bible denounces every hope for approbation before God that is not grounded in the person and work of Christ. Such approbation pursued through ethnicity or through good works is futile (Galatians 2:16). Therefore, the Jew, if he is ever to know genuine forgiveness by God, must forsake the notion that his racial connection to the patriarchs and/or his allegiance to Torah make him acceptable to God (Romans 2:17-29; Galatians 5:3-4).

It is a strange twist of thinking, if not downright disloyalty to the Gospel, for Christians to aid and abet Israel in the retention of its ethnic/religious distinctives that provide the ground of its hope for divine approbation, the holding on to which only solidifies Israel in its unbelief. And yet, in order that the blessing of Genesis 12:3 might be theirs, and in order to escape the threatened curse enunciated in the same verse, many Christians fervently believe that they must support Zionist causes whatever the cost and must rejoice with every “Israeli advance” in the world. They fail to realize, as they do so (1) that as long as they encourage the Jew to continue to hold his un-Biblical perception of what constitutes “Jewishness,”22 and (2) that as long as he continues to hold to Judaism as his religion, just so long will he continue to reject Jesus Christ who is Israel’s only hope and thus be eternally condemned. The Roman Catholic Church, in its modern efforts at aggiornamento, has not helped here either, declaring in its 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church that because the faith of the Jewish people — catechetically described as the “the first to hear the Word of God” — “unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant” (paragraph 839),23 because to the Jews belong all the privileges outlined in Romans 9:4-5 (paragraph 839), and because with Christians they “await the coming of the Messiah” (!) (paragraph 840), the People of God include the Jewish people. Never mind that the Jewish people for the most part deny the deity of Jesus Christ and thus the doctrine of the Trinity; never mind that they for the most part rejected their Messiah, the first time he came, as a misguided prophet at best and a blasphemer at worst, and had him crucified, and accordingly believe today that Christians are idolaters because we worship him whom they contend was simply a man; never mind that they see no need for Christ’s substitutionary atonement. According to Rome’s teaching they are still related salvifically to the people of God and may go to Heaven!

Again, the Christian is often told today that in his witness to his modern Jewish friends he may assume that the Jew to whom he speaks already believes the Old Testament and that it only remains to show him that Jesus Christ is the one about whom the Old Testament prophets spoke. This is surely an inaccurate appraisal of the actual situation. The great mass of world Jewry today neither believes that the Old Testament is the inspired, inerrant Word of the living God nor does it have a clue about what the Old Testament teaches. We must think more carefully here, for can one truly believe the Old Testament and not acknowledge Jesus Christ to be the Messiah, Savior, and Lord revealed therein? No one who has heard of the Messiah and his atoning work and then rejects him believes the Old Testament. Jesus himself expressly declared: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me” (John 5:46). When the modern Jew claims that he believes and follows Torah, even though he may say that he sees grace taught therein, but who at the same time also believes that he must live a certain way if he is to remain a “son” or “daughter” of Torah, he does not believe the Old Testament and is denying the saving provision of which Torah actually speaks. The Levitical sacrificial system pointed to Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, who alone takes away the sin of the world.

Christians must realize that to bring any unbelievers, including ethnic/religious Israel, to the Christian faith, they must show them the futility of any and every hope for God’s approbation apart from faith in Jesus Christ. The fact that Jews have Abrahamic blood flowing in their veins (Matthew 3:9; John 1:13), or that they are physically circumcised (Romans 2:25-29; Galatians 5:2-4; 6:15), or that they are practicing “sons and daughters of Torah” (Romans 2:17-24; 3:9; Galatians 3:10; 4:21-5:1) are all insufficient for salvation.

Thus we must conclude that just as for God “as far as the Gospel is concerned, [Jews] are [regarded as his] enemies [for the salvific sake of non-Jews]; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs” (Romans 11:28), so also for Christians they should love Jews in whose remnant God will fulfill his elective promises to the patriarchs. Christians must also do everything they can, without being arrogant toward them (Romans 11:28), to bring ethnic/religious Israel to the place where they will forsake any and every Jewish ethnic/religious distinctive in which they rest their hope for salvation. Christians must do this for the sake of Israel and out of loyalty to the cause of the Gospel.

Appendix

Biblical prophecy says nothing about modern Israel. In fact, far from the formation of modern Israel being a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, it is, if anything, a major instrumentality in the hand of God to sustain Israel in its divinely imposed hardening.

Christian Zionists claim that the establishment of Israel as a nation on May 14, 1948, fulfilled Biblical prophecies. The following Old Testament prophecies are samples from a larger group of passages that these Biblical interpreters say were fulfilled in 1948:

1. Jeremiah 29:14, it is said, predicted the founding of the modern state of Israel. But the context of Jeremiah 29 makes it clear that the predicted “restoration” after the completion of the seventy years of Babylonian exile (29:10), refers to the return from exile under Zerubbabel in 536 b.c.

2. Isaiah 11:11, it is said, speaks of a “second time” that God would restore the remnant to the land, the first being the return from Babylon in 536 b.c., the second being the establishment of modern Israel in 1948. But the context of Isaiah 11 makes it clear that Israel’s first deliverance was from Egypt under Moses (11:16) with its second restoration being from the nations into which the Jews of the Assyrian/Babylonian captivity had dispersed.

3. Zechariah 8:7, it is said, predicted that God “will save [his] people from the east country and the west country, and…bring them to dwell in the midst of Jerusalem.” It is, however, a reach to see this prediction as referring to the modern state of Israel. In fact, the passage speaks of the faithfulness and righteousness of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in that day (8:8), something that is definitely not true of present Jerusalem. Much more likely is it that Zechariah was predicting the return of exiles during the days of Ezra, Nehemiah, and after (see Ezra 7:1-10; Nehemiah 11:1-2) that, again, pointed typically forward to the antitypical new Paradise of God.

4. Ezekiel 36:24-26, it is said, predicted that Israel would be restored to the land “in unbelief” which agrees with the situation in Israel today. But the passage does not speak of a restoration “in unbelief.” God does not reward disobedience. Verse 33 states: “On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the cities to be inhabited,” clearly implying that those who are “restored” have first been spiritually cleansed, thereby meeting the requirement of Leviticus 26:40-42: “…if they confess their iniquity…; if their uncircumcised heart is humbled…, then I will remember my covenant…and I will remember the land.”

5. Amos 9:14-15, it is said, declares that this condition of permanent national establishment that would someday prevail simply was not true of any Old Testament restoration. But given the fact that James in Acts 15:16-17 applied the prophecy immediately preceding these two verses to the church of this age, the restoration envisioned here most likely describes in pastoral terms the rejuvenated cosmos.

This essay concludes in the June/July 2006 Trinity Review.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] I say “so-called” because the phrase “holy land” occurs only twice in Scripture (Psalm 78:54; Zechariah 2:12) and in both instances the word “land” must be supplied. Apart from the holy God’s manifested presence in it, there is nothing holy about the “Holy Land.” But wherever God manifests his presence that place is holy, as God taught Moses at the burning bush in Sinai (Exodus 3:1-6).

2 According to Julia Duin, “San Antonio Fundamentalist Battles Anti-Semitism,” in The Houston Chronicle (April 30, 1988), 1, Hagee does not believe that Jews must trust Christ in order to go to Heaven: “The Jewish people have a relationship to God through the law as given through Moses. I believe that every Gentile person can only come to God through the cross of Christ. I believe that every Jewish person who lives in the light of the Torah…has a relationship with God and will come to redemption.” This radically Dispensational statement is heretical in its denial that faith in Christ is universally essential for salvation.

3 Pat Robertson stated on public television on January 5, 2006, that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel suffered his massive stroke at the hand of God because he was in the process of giving a portion of Israel’s land to the Palestinians in exchange for peace. He later apologized for his statement.


4 See Vital Speeches 61, no. 3 (November 15, 1994): 70, 3.

5 John Hagee, “Most evangelicals are seeing the error of ‘replacement theology,’” online edition of the Jerusalem Post, March 20, 2006.

6 I happily acknowledge my great debt to O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (Presbyterian and Reformed, 2000), 3-31, for many of the thoughts in this section of the paper.

7 Robertson, The Israel of God, 4.

8 John Murray, Christian Baptism (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962), 46.

9 For the redemptive implications of this bad “land theology” see Knox Theological Seminary’s “An Open Letter to Evangelicals and Other Interested Parties: The People of God, the Land of Israel, and the Impartiality of the Gospel” posted on the Seminary’s websiteMailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from ""http:" claiming to be www.knoxseminary.edu under “Wittenberg Door.”

10 This particular divine promise has already been literally and explicitly fulfilled by the conquest of the land under Joshua and Solomon’s reign (Joshua 21:43-45; 23:14; 1 Kings 4:24). It does not require some future fulfillment in a Jewish millennium.

11 Abraham owned only the plot of ground, the field of Mach-pelah, that he purchased from the Hittites living in the land for a burial ground for Sarah his wife (Genesis 23).

12 Paul tells us in Galatians 3:8 that when God made this promise to Abraham he was in effect “preaching the Gospel beforehand to Abraham,” that is, he was declaring that he would justify the Gentiles by faith.

13 The thoughts expressed in the last four paragraphs I have adapted from O. Palmer Robertson, Understanding the Land of the Bible (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966), 7-13.

14 This parable also carries implications concerning Muhammad’s claim to be the last and greatest of God’s prophets, even greater than Jesus. It shows him to be a false prophet.

15 Geerhardus Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus (Presbyterian and Reformed [1926] 1978), 162.

16 BAGD, “eis telos", 812g, properly views this prepositional phrase as an adverbial expression and suggests it should be translated “forever, through all eternity” or “utterly.”

17 Robertson, The Israel of God, 174, fn. 3, rightly contends that the word “remnant” etymologically does not necessarily intend a small, insignificant number but simply that which is “left.” But when Isaiah declares: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sands of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved,” the implication is that God will harden the mass of ethnic Israel.

18 This phrase may also be translated “continually,” but “continually” conveys the same sense as “forever” in this context.

19 For my exposition of Romans 11 see my A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (second edition, Thomas Nelson, 2002), 1025-1030. There I show exegetically that just as God throughout this age is bringing the divinely determined full number (Romans 11:25) of elect Gentiles to faith in Christ, so throughout this age he is also bringing the divinely determined full number (Romans 11:12) of elect Jews (“the remnant”) to faith in Christ so that both “full numbers” are reached in this age. While Israel as a nation has no salvific covenant with God in this age, standing as it is under God’s wrath, the remnant of elect Jews, as they are saved, are grafted by faith in Christ into the “cultivated olive tree” (Romans 11:17-24), that is, the church.

20 I have adapted these with additions and alterations from Robertson, The Israel of God, 194.

21 Modern Israel must face the fact that to be the physical descendants of Abraham and to have Abrahamic blood flowing in their veins means nothing as far as acquiring God’s approbation is concerned. As John the Baptist warned: “Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our Father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (Matthew 3:9). To the Jews who said, “Abraham is our Father,” but who were seeking to kill him, Jesus, said,: “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing what Abraham did [that is, you would rejoice to see my day].... You are of your father the devil” (John 8:39-44, 56). Ethnic Jews must recall that Abraham had two sons, which means that “not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring”; rather, “it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise who are counted as offspring” (Romans 9:7-8).

22 In no uncertain terms Paul declared that “no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, and not by the letter” (Romans 2:28-29). Moreover, he taught that “the present Jerusalem,” the enslaved and doomed city, is the “son of Hagar” bearing children for slavery, whereas Christians have “the Jerusalem above” for their mother (Galatians 4:25).

23 Theirs is indeed a response, a negative one, to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To suggest that the faith of Christ-rejecting Jews is in any sense a proper response to the Old Testament revelation is surely an inaccurate appraisal of the situation. In light of the fact that the only hope of salvation for Jews resides in the provisions of the Christian Gospel, it is simply gross wrong-headedness to encourage or to support them in their “Jewishness” or in their Zionist causes.