Zionism Undermines our Gospel

[JD731]

God is the first Zionist. It is his idea.

Psalm 48:2
Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.

Psalm 78:68
But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved.

Psalm 125:1
They that trust in the Lord shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth for ever.

This is a political kingdom that is coming on earth and Mt Zion is the seat of his government of the whole world.

 

[John of Japan]

You have weird compartmentalization going on here. I have read a number of books on hermeneutics in my Bible studies at school, good and bad, but the better ones do not divorce theology from parables. They might teach that we don't make parables "walk on all four legs" (I forget which one put it that way). But we certainly can draw theology from parables. It was the obtuseness of the Disciples that they did not draw proper theological conclusions from the Master's parables and metaphors. And you are doing the same thing.

You need to relearn how to interpret parables. You have tried to make the story of the Good Samaritan a political treatise about Israel and the Palestinians. Here's a blog by a Bible scholar about that very parable and exactly how folks like to make it political: Interpreting Parables | Dr. Mike Lester.

You don't have to agree with me that parables are not for theology. (Almost all my hermeneutics books are at home, so I can't get any quotes about that.) However, surely you will agree with him and other scholars that a parable only has one central meaning. If there is only one central meaning, you can't change the meaning into whatever you want to. Exegeting the Good Samaritan should take us to loving a genuine neighbor (not a people group) who someone has antipathy towards.

Now, if I ever come across an individual Palestinian Arab who needs help, I'll be there for him.

 

[Van]

I think you know what I meant. Yes, of course, God's Word will always eventually do what He intends. Yet still, Christians on a personal level can still undermine the Gospel message that they are giving out in their personal spheres of influence. Good grief, do I have to type everything out like a lawyer?

Sir, me thinks thou protest too much!

The linked article was not about flaws in our personal presentation of the gospel. It was anti-semitic and thus non-Christian. Did you note that the article accused Israel of "ongoing genocide?"

 

[asterisktom]

Sir, me thinks thou protest too much!

The linked article was not about flaws in our personal presentation of the gospel. It was anti-semitic and thus non-Christian. Did you note that the article accused Israel of "ongoing genocide?"

Well of course I did. If what happens in Palestine, the killing and emptying, is not genocide I like to know what is. Get out your dictionary.

 

[John of Japan]

Why don't we actually define "genocide," since asterisktom seems to think it is happening in Gaza, following the far left usage of the term. Here is is: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide). That is not what is happening in Gaza. The IDF does have the capability of destroying every single non-Jew in Gaza, but they have not. So genocide is not happening there.

Interestingly, here is a Democrat who had to take back her statement using the word, since she had used it wrongly (like asterisktom): Troy Jackson apologizes for "genocide" remarks—Where other Democrats stand. Here is another case of that, this time by the House #2 Democrat: Katherine Clark, No. 2 House Democrat, takes back Gaza ‘genocide’ comment

 

[Deacon]

[snip]. They might teach that we don't make parables "walk on all four legs" (I forget which one put it that way). .... [snip]

Bernard Ramm! Great stuff!

"Determine the one central truth the parable is attempting to teach. This might be called the golden rule of parabolic interpretation for practically all writers on the subject mention it with stress. “The typical parable presents one single point of comparison,” writes Dodd. “The details are not intended to have independent significance.” Others have put the rule this way: Don’t make a parable walk on all fours."
Ramm, Bernard. 1970. Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics. Third Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. p. 283.

 

[asterisktom]

Bernard Ramm! Great stuff!

"Determine the one central truth the parable is attempting to teach. This might be called the golden rule of parabolic interpretation for practically all writers on the subject mention it with stress. “The typical parable presents one single point of comparison,” writes Dodd. “The details are not intended to have independent significance.” Others have put the rule this way: Don’t make a parable walk on all fours."
Ramm, Bernard. 1970. Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics. Third Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. p. 283.

Thank you for sourcing this.

 

[asterisktom]

Why don't we actually define "genocide," since asterisktom seems to think it is happening in Gaza, following the far left usage of the term. Here is is: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide). That is not what is happening in Gaza. The IDF does have the capability of destroying every single non-Jew in Gaza, but they have not. So genocide is not happening there.

By your bizarre definition, or extrapolation from your dictionary entry, genocide never happened at any time in history. Because there has never been a case where all of any people group have been killed. Not in the Holocaust, nor the Holodomor, nor in Rwanda or in the Armenian Genocide. In your misguided exoneration of the IDF you not only lower the bar, you obliterate it.

This is from Wikipedia:
"The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as:

... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Yes, this is Wiki. Don't focus on that. The Genocide Convention certainly has legitimacy. What is more, their definition of the term is more accurate than your Merriam-Webster. The definition of the GC includes intent. And this intent to destroy all of the people who live in Palestine has been clearly stated by leading figures in the IDF as well as Netanyahu's government. If need be, I can share these.

 

[asterisktom]

You need to relearn how to interpret parables. You have tried to make the story of the Good Samaritan a political treatise about Israel and the Palestinians. Here's a blog by a Bible scholar about that very parable and exactly how folks like to make it political: Interpreting Parables | Dr. Mike Lester.

You don't have to agree with me that parables are not for theology. (Almost all my hermeneutics books are at home, so I can't get any quotes about that.) However, surely you will agree with him and other scholars that a parable only has one central meaning. If there is only one central meaning, you can't change the meaning into whatever you want to. Exegeting the Good Samaritan should take us to loving a genuine neighbor (not a people group) who someone has antipathy towards.

Now, if I ever come across an individual Palestinian Arab who needs help, I'll be there for him.

I actually did meet and talk to more than one. I wish you could meet them. Maybe I don't. I am currently in a Muslim-majority country, Malaysia, and have spent time in several others. While I am strongly opposed to their religion I also notice that most of them are very kind. Many of them have only a slight connection to the Koran, certainly would not follow those most bellicose and devilish passages in that book.

You say I "have tried to make the story of the Good Samaritan a political treatise about Israel and the Palestinians"! You still don't get it. My focus in the OP was what that parable teaches us Christians, that we are to love our neighbor. You keep deflecting the focus away from yourself - and all of us who name the name of Christ.

You berate me for trying to draw theology and politics out of this parable. Well, the underlying foundation of this parable, the Great Commandment, Matt. 22:37-39, assumes both of these elements. We are to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, [THEOLOGY] and second, to love your neighbor as yourself [PEOPLE - POLITICS]. Our Lord said that "on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets,".

You get your exegetical methodology from faulty sources if they lead you to focus so narrowly on one interpretation of a parable, yet do not recognize that they lead to other weighty truths. And my view here is not a private one. A number of commentators say the same. Albert Barnes, for instance, finds seven distinct, powerful lessons where you would only find one. Check out his comment on this parable and you will see.

 

[asterisktom]

Bernard Ramm! Great stuff!

"Determine the one central truth the parable is attempting to teach. This might be called the golden rule of parabolic interpretation for practically all writers on the subject mention it with stress. “The typical parable presents one single point of comparison,” writes Dodd. “The details are not intended to have independent significance.” Others have put the rule this way: Don’t make a parable walk on all fours."
Ramm, Bernard. 1970. Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics. Third Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. p. 283.

But I hope you realize that what Bernard Ramm rightly warns against is not really what John of Japan is proscribing. The details of the Samaritan Parable (the wounding, the different men involved, the oil, the wine, the road - even the Samaritan's animal! - can be - and by a number of Church Fathers have been - assigned separate meanings. Much of this is vary far-fetched.

But the various details of a parable are not the same as the various applications of that same parable. This is not making the parable "walk on all fours". It is letting it walk wherever it needs to walk, stepping on shoes in the process.