Thursday, January 21, 2010

Bishop of Monmouth: ‘Salvation is of the Palestinians’

The Church in Wales has a long history of standing with suffering Palestinians. When a Church-in-Wales-funded health centre in Gaza was destroyed by an Israeli rocket last year during Operation Cast Lead, the ‘Biggest Coffee Morning’ fund raising effort was just one example of its Christian response to their hardship.

But for some senior figures in the Church in Wales, support for Palestinians has included support for those who oppose Israel’s existence, to the consternation of some clergy and lay members.

An example was Archbishop Barry Morgan’s statement on the death of Yasser Arafat, when he said that he would remember Arafat not for the many civilian murders for which he was responsible, but for his ‘perseverance and resolve’.

Other concerns include the frequent input from Canon Naim Ateek of the Sabeel Centre, whose attitude towards Israel’s right to exist has been markedly ambivalent. The Canon revived the accusation of deicideagainst the Jewish state, equating Israelis with ‘Herods’ in his 2000 Christmas message. And Palestinians were synonymous with the crucified Christ dying at the hands of the Jewish state at Easter 2001.

The policies and motions of the Church in Wales do not distinguish between Palestinian attacks on Israeli citizens and Israel’s use of force to defend them, instead referring to them both as ‘revenge violence’. Palestinian aggression is blamed on Israel’s resolve to place their citizens’ safety above any other consideration and Israel’s ‘Security First’ policy condemned.

Many members of the Church of Wales are dismayed at the level of disrespect towards Jews and Jewishness tolerated in Church in Wales publications. A few years ago, for example, after complaints about an Irish joke that appeared in a parish magazine, an apology from the vicar appeared in an official press release. In another incident, Archbishop Barry Morgan himself collected up copies of their Welsh-language magazine Y Llan which contained an offensive cartoon and went on TV to apologise to Welsh Muslims.

However, no such apologies were deemed necessary when Y Llan ran an article in which a fictitious contemporary of Jesus opined that none of His disciples were of any use except Judas.

The name of this ‘contemporary’?

Abel Cohen.

And why was the phrase ‘the Jews are cowards’ allowed to remain on the Church-in-Wales Jubilee Fund website for a while year during 2002-3, despite numerous complaints – including one from Archbishop Rowan Williams in which he said the comments were ‘deplorable’ and clearly used ‘inflammatory language about Jews’.

Last year, St David’s Diocese produced a series of short films for use in the ‘Menter’ teaching course. Filmed in the Holy Land and Wales, Menter contains inspiring material for those wishing to learn or reflect upon the Christian faith. But the word ‘Israel’ appears only once.

Neither the Law nor the Prophets; neither Jesus nor His disciples are identified as Jewish. No Jews contribute or are interviewed. Instead only a Palestinian Anglican is described as ’indigenous’ and there are frequent shots of Arab Israelis and Palestinians throughout. It is as though there were no Jews in the Holy Land today.

And in his 2009 Christmas message Dominic Walker, Bishop of Monmouth, wrote that ‘God so loved the world that he sent Jesus to be born in Palestine’. Yet Jesus was a Jew, born in Bethlehem of Judea more than a hundred years before the Romans expelled the Jewish population from the province of Judea and renamed it Palaestina after Israel’s great enemies, the Philistines.

Are bishops not taught the New Testament? Can they not read that ‘salvation is of the Jews’ (Jn 4:22)?

Do they no longer read their Old Testament?

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more (Jer 31:31-34).

Are they not taught the art of exposition, the science of history or the perils of redaction?

The leaders of the Church in Wales would do well to reflect upon the true source of their salvation, for it would appear that they are in danger of uprooting Jesus from the Jewish soil which bore Him and mistaking him instead for a Palestinian called Ahmed.


Anonymous bluedog said...

Your Grace

If Archbishop Barry Morgan wants to know the truth about Yasser Arafat he should ring the President of Tunisia and ask to see a copy of Arafat's diary. See the excellent Israeli website debkafile dated 19th January 2010 @ 5.39pm for more info

21 January 2010 at 10:38  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

This is quite slanderous Your Grace, and the perils of redaction are something you might like to consider for your self. You are taking odd statements here and there and couching them in ambiguity and distorting their original meaning and placing them in your own subjective context, which is a highly political one.

You seem to know no limits Your Grace when it suits your agendas. You can be very disappointing when you behave like this, it is a most cavalier and unchristian dimension to your otherwise sensible and balanced nature.

I will pray for you.

21 January 2010 at 10:58  
Blogger Ingenieur said...

Your Grace,
Sadly it is not just the Church of Wales that refuses to acknowledge the Jewish roots of our faith. The disease is widespread and the CofE is just as culpable.

Perhaps you were still slumbering in the 19th c. when the "higher critics" - those holding the idea that no Scripture can ever be taken at its plain honest meaning -were climbing to the top of the academic heap. It was they who put forth among other heresies the notion that the church is the new Israel and that God had finished with His ancient people. [Even though this is completely refuted by Jer.31:35-37]. Today their descendants teach in all the theological colleges and give preference to persons holding such beliefs when recomending candidates for ordination.

There can be little hope for the church in our nation, and thus for the nation itself, until these Aegean stables have been cleansed.

Only then will the trumpet of the church be able to sound a clear signal on the issues of the day: Life issues, Sexual morality, and the need to love and support the people Jesus clearly identified as "My brothers" (Mt.25).


21 January 2010 at 11:21  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

The Church in Wales does not in any way refuse to acknowledge the Jewish roots of the Christian faith. Wales once had a large Jewish community, and there has never been any discord between the Jewish people and Welsh culture. There are Welsh Jews. Wales has strong historical links with Israel. Many towns and villages in Wales have biblical names, and like wise, in Israel there are many places of reference to Welsh culture and ties.

This article is nothing more than politically motivated slander. It is suggesting division where division does not exist. Jesus Christ would see beyond the petty divisiveness of what is happening in Israel and Palestine - and so should all Christians. The Christian is one who seeks to uphold peace and offer prays and supplication to the afflicted - on all sides.

All acts of violence should be condemned, especially where death of innocents are concerned. self defence is always to be supported but this does not include the turning of the blind eye to any atrocities. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Simply choosing a side to support is something football fans do, and they can become fanatical and sometimes loose their way in a frenzy of violence. Christians are admonished to avoid such a mentality and seek the council of the Lord in prayer. We are supposed to look for the face of Jesus in everyone.

21 January 2010 at 11:52  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...


Perhaps you should calm down and look up the definition of slander.

And then have a coffee, and read the article properly. You might then see that it is clearly aimed at 'leaders' and begins with praise for the compassion of the laity for the plight of the Palestinians.

The only libel (look it up) is your appalling misrepresentation of this post as the anti-Semitism of the Welsh, and your delusion that no division exists when the evidence suggests otherwise.

21 January 2010 at 12:04  
Anonymous Preacher said...

Is it any wonder that the C of E is suffering its current malais with prelates of this ilk holding positions of power. They get too clever for their own good, when will they stop playing politics and start preaching the Gospel, there is neither slave nor free, Greek nor Jew, Israeli or Palestinian.
Only those under the cover of the Blood of Christ the Only Universal Messiah can escape the Judgement of The Almighty & hope to live in love & unity together until that time.
Time for a spring clean in the clergy? Remember that judgement begins with the house of God.
As for so called 'replacement theology' that can go in the bin first, Ingenieur, Right on target.

21 January 2010 at 12:19  
Blogger John R said...

You need to remember that your church is no longer Christian, nor has it been for some time. It's long since moved away to becoming a left wing political party with no religious beliefs or ethical positions of note.

21 January 2010 at 12:19  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

You have asked: ‘Are they not taught the art of exposition, the science of history or the perils of redaction?’

I would answer that they are.

However, what frustrates them is that the Bible doesn’t confirm the way that they want the world to be. That is why Canon Naim Ateek is a ‘liberation theologian’: life is to be seen through the eyes of the oppressed and class struggle (a Marxian concept) is the device to be used that can change the world around him.

For example, just look at all the hunger in poverty stricken nations. Why does God allow that? Why does He not just change all the rocks and boulders strewn about the place into bread? After all He changed bath tubs full of water into wine at a wedding.

But when we look at the temptation of Christ we find something else:

‘Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert, where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry.

‘The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread."
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.'"

Jesus is saying that bread alone, satisfying one’s hunger, is not enough to be satisfied with. There is something far more important…

That ‘something far more important’ we are reminded of every Sunday morning, when we eat the bread and drink the wine.

That is not to say that social change is not important. When one studies the history of Christian revivals – one is struck by the fact that social change follows upon its heels. Take for example, the history of the Wesleyan revivals in this country – they were followed by social change often expressed in Acts of parliament (for example, prison reform; the abolition of slavery, enforced by one the greatest navies that the world had ever seen: the Royal Navy). Contrast that bloodless social revolution with the bloody French revolution of 1789 (where priests were murdered at the altar). The Marxist historian E.P. Thompson (1924-1993) found it difficult to forgive the Wesley brothers because, in his view, their telling the ordinary man that Jesus loved him, prevented what would have been a similar revolution.

21 January 2010 at 12:29  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Your post clearly leaves the impression that The Church in Wales is anti-semitic. I am defending this appalling misrepresentation. There have been one or two confusing situations, which you can address individually, aiming at each individual case, but to build a collection like you have here and aim it at 'leaders of the church' is what I find appalling, it misrepresents what the church stands for. If there is something that is not clear then it should be stated as being something that is unclear and not misrepresented as deliberate 'redaction'. It is you who are deluded because I am not seeing this division you claim exists. I have only seen and heard calls for restraint and other Christian sentiments.

That policy you link to, I have read:

2. That the Governing Body believes that the best way to achieve longer term security and a lasting basis for peace is for both sides to recognise the legitimate aspirations, rights and needs of the other, and to make that the basis for their political policies.

3. That while the Governing Body recognises the legitimate right of both sides for their own defence, it believes the present ideology of ‘Security first’, as developed and expressed by the current policy of the State of Israel, has raised the level of threat to the Palestinians and thus escalated the violence, with its consequent threat to the security of all families and individuals within the State of Israel.

And I am agreeing with it.

Time for coffee (and toast).

21 January 2010 at 12:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Canon Naim Ateek is a liberation theologian and said this in his Christmas Message 2000:

‘But the original sin is the violence of the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank including East Jerusalem. When the Israeli leadership calls daily for the termination of the violence, for us this means, the occupation must end. It is the occupation that is evil and violent. It is partheid in its ugliest form. Once the occupation ends, the violence will end. There is no other proper sequence. The sooner the Israeli leadership understands this, the quicker we will achievement an enduring peace.’

Let’s read the critical portion again: ‘Once the occupation ends, the violence will end. There is no other proper sequence.’

That is nonsense.

The rich Arab states (who support the Palestinians) could end the violence overnight by inviting the Palestinians to live in their states.

Moreover, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a sub-set of a far lager conflict, the Arab-Israeli conflict. That, in turn is a sub-set of a greater conflict: a Muslim Caliphate (that will incorporate the geographical area once occupied by Alexander the Great).

Israel, committing any act which weakens its security will not end the violence and therefore that is not a ‘proper sequence’ (for the problem is a sub-set of a far larger problem; for example, the goal of the militants in Pakistan indicates this).

21 January 2010 at 12:59  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Off topic, but only slightly. The primary Jew haters - with the assistance of their European dhimmi accomplices - continue with their legal jihad today: the show trial of Geerts Wilder. Pray for justice. And whatever the outcome, make sure his trial isn't in vain. Lets get Fitna seen far & wide.

21 January 2010 at 13:32  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

Excellent post, Your Grace. Keep up the good work in highlighting these issues for those who have ears to hear.

Unfortunately, the Church in embracing replacement theology forgets Genesis 12.3 and indeed many other parts of the Bible, notably 2 Thessalonians 2, where the Church's own falling away is predicted and hence the rise of the man of sin.

21 January 2010 at 13:45  
Anonymous Fran said...

DDIM HOffi writes

"There have been one or two confusing situations, which you can address individually, aiming at each individual case, but to build a collection like you have here and aim it at 'leaders of the church' is what I find appalling, "

DIDI, this doesn't read like 'one or two confusing situations'. It reads like an unthinking slide into partisanship by important councils and individuals within the Church in Wales.

You criticise His Grace. Yet you don't challenge any of the 'situations' he catalogues. Nor do you suggest alternatives to the conclusions he draws.

In fact yours is simply an ad hominem attack on His Grace because he has drawn attention to something you apparently would prefer to remain hidden.

You may be a member of the Church in Wales with some responsibility for the policies, events and materials described in His Grace's post. If so, perhaps you might reflect upon reasons for the drift away from Christianity's Jewish roots which have disquieted both His Grace and some loyal members of the Church in Wales.

21 January 2010 at 14:14  
Anonymous graham wood said...

The use of the term "replacement theology" is misleading and confusing. It is no part of NT language and should not be used.
Replacement theology is really New Covenant theology by another name.
Christians now live under the New, not the Old, AS A COVENANT.
The promise of Jeremiah 31:31 has now been fulfilled.
Not for one moment does that teach or or infer that the God's purposes for His people is to be diminished or even less, discarded as set out in Romans 10 & 11.
The argument that the LAND promise (Genesis 12:5-7) still remains is however mistaken.
God perfectly fulfilled that promise to the letter, and not one of the Lord's good promises to the house of Israel failed. Every one was fulfilled (Josh 21:41-45)
The "land" therefore should no longer be an issue from a Biblical standpoint.
The Jewish roots of our faith remain, but the "fruit" is the New Covenant and the New Israel (Gal6:16)

21 January 2010 at 14:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent post, Your Grace. Some nasty little streaks of anti-semitism appear in unexpected places.

Edward Sutherland.

21 January 2010 at 14:28  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...


"It reads like an unthinking slide into partisanship by important councils and individuals within the Church in Wales."

You are confirming what I said. It is not the case though. As for offering alternatives, I am stating that it is delusion and political spin. His Grace is like a football fanatic and can not see beyond his pathalogical subscription to the Conservative Party and it's policies, no matter how deficient they may read.

The church in Wales is far from being on track as it were, but sliding into partisanships of war it is not (that seems to be for others to concern themselves with). It denounces violence, which is a Christian ethic.

21 January 2010 at 14:39  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...


You are becoming increasingly mypoic in your ludicrous assertions. If you really think 'His Grace is like a football fanatic and can not see beyond his pathalogical subscription to the Conservative Party and it's policies, no matter how deficient they may read', you quite plainly have read nothing of his recent posts on education in which he took great issue with a key Conservative policy proposal.

O, hang on. You have read them, because you have made comment. It is curious that your memory has become so selective, which rather confrms that your instinct is simply to berate ad hominem.

21 January 2010 at 14:55  
Anonymous Fran said...

DDIM to Fran

"You are confirming what I said. It is not the case though."

And your evidence for your statement is ......? Well none so far.

Why not provide some reasons for your rejection of His Grace's conclusions, so that we can reflect upon them?

21 January 2010 at 15:25  
Anonymous Fran said...

Graham Wood

"The promise of Jeremiah 31:31 has now been fulfilled.

The argument that the LAND promise (Genesis 12:5-7) still remains is however mistaken."

Why should that be? Because it doesn't suit your theology? The Bible is clear that this piece of land was allotted to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as an everlasting inheritance (Psalm 105 vs 10-11 et al)

This does not say that only Jewish people may live there; nor does it mean that Israel has carte blanche to oppress other people.

But to deny the clear meaning of Scripture, saying that God has revoked the unconditional covenant made with Abraham is far more damaging to Christian Theology than challenging so called 'New Covenant Theology.

After all, if God broke His promises made under the Abrahamic Covenant, He can break them under your New Covenant.

21 January 2010 at 15:36  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Evidence for what? There is nothing to disprove. No one has said anything that needs to be defended against in the light of what accusations are being leveled here. If you want me to believe that it is anything other than delusion then you convince me if you like.

And if His grace finds himself at odds with Tory policies, then he can feel hearted because he is not on his own.

If you think I am berating willy nilly then maybe it is because we are just worlds appart. I am more than happy to concede this much.

21 January 2010 at 15:38  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

As you are doubtless aware, I am not one of your biggest fans but I think that this post is accurate, well written and somewhat restrained in it's tone when one considers the levels of 'Judaphobia' exhibited in the C of W and, lamentably, the C of E.

All hail the Lion of Judah.

21 January 2010 at 15:47  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

See what is happening. By drawing together various statements and twisting the context we now have every ad hominem berater levelling accusations of 'Judaphobia' at the Anglican Church. Oh Perfect! Who exactly this benefits is beyond me at this moment in time.

21 January 2010 at 16:04  
Anonymous Fran said...


What is happening is that readers have been given information and are drawing their own conclusions.

Why you should continue to whine is beyond me, for you disdain every invitation to justify your objections to the conclusions His Grace infers from the events he chronicles or even to challenge the veracity of those events.

Instead, you devise your own conspiracy theories about his motives.

If you have counter evidence, why not present it?

21 January 2010 at 16:14  
Blogger Ingenieur said...

G. Wood claims, "The argument that the LAND promise (Genesis 12:5-7) still remains is however mistaken".

The best rebuttal of this is modern history - "Can a nation be formed in a day?" Yes, but only by a miracle, i.e. God's mighty move on 14 May 1948, and then in 1967, that made fools of all those who said that future prophecies were to be interpreted allegorically, and not literally.

The unambiguous prophecies of Zech. Chs.12-14, still awaiting fulfilment, demand that Israel be re-gathered to its promised land.


21 January 2010 at 16:20  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Specify exactly what it is you wish me to counter with evidence and I will oblige with more whining. I have read the conclusions and provided my opinion but what specifically do you want evidence against?

21 January 2010 at 16:21  
Anonymous Fran said...

'but what specifically do you want evidence against?'

That the Church of Wales is NOT permitting its concern over Palestinian suffering to slide into support for those who wish for Israel's destruction; and that there is not a growing tendency amongst senior figures in the Church in Wales to present Jesus within the 'Palestinian narrative' at the expense of His Jewish roots.

21 January 2010 at 16:35  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Well excuse me but I fail to see how anyone can form this opinion based upon something the Sabeel Center has to say, and a ficticious character in an article in the Llan, and the fact that Israel was only mentioned once in a series of short films about the holy land and Wales; oh, and a comment that was allowed to stay on a website. They are all isolated and petty and do not support your own conspiracy theory, which by the way, His Grace has already refuted the existence of. I mean, what do you want me to say here? I am an ad hominem berater don't you know, and we have to be called names and spat upon quickly.

21 January 2010 at 16:45  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Response to Fran and Ingenieur.

" The Bible is clear that this piece of land was allotted to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as an everlasting inheritance (Psalm 105 vs 10-11 et al)

Indeed so, and that is precisely the point. The promise was given, and then fulfilled to the letter
Joshua took the entire land as I said, so God did not break a single promise that he gave. Many scriptures attest this.
However, the "everlasting inheritance" promise was later qualified as conditional - i.e. that if Israel went after other gods and broke the covenant then they would be dispossessed of the land.
Hence their exile into Babylon, and later the events of AD70 and the destruction of Jerusalem.
The New Testament never speaks in a single instance of the land promise first given to Abraham, though it has much to say about Abraham himself. Why is this?
Because the formation, history and institutions of Israel were types and shadows of spiritual realities that found their fulfillment in the days of the Messiah (Heb 8:1-5)
Israel's rejection of her Messiah was a further fulfillment of the prophecy that Jesus himself gave concerning their ejection (see Matt. 21: 33-46.
You say:
"This does not say that only Jewish people may live there; nor does it mean that Israel has carte blanche to oppress other people."

Indeed so, I quite agree.
As it happens the modern State of Israel is a mixture of atheistic, secular, and militaristic components.
But God has some of his ancient people there who do indeed believe on the Messiah, but that has nothing to do with any tenure of the land.
As Paul says: "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace" (Rom. 11:5) Praise God for that !

21 January 2010 at 17:19  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

I thought the Welsh were methodist/non conformist, rather than Anglican, hence their sing songy voices and choirs.... anyway if regardless, it seems terrible that any church would be against the State of Israel's right to exist and the various anti-semetic remarks made by these Bishops and leaders of the Welsh Church.

21 January 2010 at 17:22  
Anonymous Conrad Red said...

Your Grace, perhaps the Hoff is really the Bishop you refer to or at least works for the Church of Wales as the post which appears to say that the Anglican Church of Wales being anti-Israel and Jewish is getting him quite het up.

21 January 2010 at 17:26  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

It has gotten to the point regarding the Church of England; and the Church of Wales, apparently; if, as a Catholic, I had to choose between the CofE/CofW and Israel, I would choose Israel. We Christians are, after all, Jews version 2; and I'm not convinced the CofE/CofW is inherently Christian.

21 January 2010 at 18:10  
Anonymous len said...

The Palestinians,
Palestinians are the newest of all the peoples on the face of the Earth, and began to exist in a single day by a kind of supernatural phenomenon that is unique in the whole history of mankind, as it is witnessed by Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist that acknowledged the lie he was fighting for and the truth he was fighting against:

“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”
“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”.
“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.
. . . . . . .
The church needs to become more aware of its jewish roots,
'The Samaritan woman said, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshipped on this mountain; and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” Jesus responded, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.”
(John 4:19-22)

21 January 2010 at 18:10  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Jewish bag Lady - There is a distinction between Israel as in the Jewish people and the nasty little political entity calling itself Israel. The former undoubtedly has a right to exist. the latter does not. Peoples have a right to exist, not countries.

21 January 2010 at 19:03  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Jeremy Hyatt said ... "the nasty little political entity calling itself Israel" I know, what a stark contrast Israel is to all the other lovely, tolerant, democratic, law-abiding, peace-loving middle-eastern political entities!

21 January 2010 at 19:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What must they think of Joshua and his Israelite army for crossing the Jordan and conquering canaan, what must they think of the one who directed Joshua to do that? The owner of the land, the very owner whom stated that he would restore the land to his lads int he last days. What bible do they read?

21 January 2010 at 19:55  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Graham Wood

I follow you up to a point, but what of the birthright that Jacob stolen from his brother, and the covenant that God made when he renamed him Israel? And Israel was assimilated so are the modern day Jews aikin to this birthright, because Judah was not, and is it not Judah that gives us the modern Jews? Not that this is any excuse for some of the comments here because the covenant is for those who have faith in Christ.

21 January 2010 at 19:56  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Star Trek is now on so you will have to call me names in my absense.

21 January 2010 at 19:58  
Anonymous graham wood said...

This is getting into quite a theological discourse!

You said:
!I follow you up to a point, but what of the birthright that Jacob stolen from his brother, and the covenant that God made when he renamed him Israel? ........."

IMO that did not invalidate the Covenant God made with Abraham.
The Lord renewed that covenant with Isaac, Jacob, and Joshua, and Moses.

I do not think it was Judah who was the natural progenitor of modern Israelites, especially after the diaspora.
It is a fact that after AD 70 they were dispersed all over the world, and intermarriage with Gentiles took place ever since.
It is also interesting that there are probably more people of Jewish stock in London and New York than in Israel.
When the nation of Israel was reformed in 1948, the mass of immigrants were no longer pure bred Jews, but rather largely 'Ashkenazim - i.e. whose ancestors lived in German lands.
As you probably know many others came from Russia and Eastern Baltic, USA, UK - you name it!
Fully agree with your last point - and this includes believing Jews !

21 January 2010 at 20:23  
Anonymous treforus said...

Fret not.The CinW is not the established Church here in Wales but a minority sect against which our forefathers struggled for freedom one hundred years ago.

It has an Archbishop who pronounces grandly on politics as if he was the supreme pontiff himself but sadly seems surprisingly silent on matters spiritual.Perhaps that is why his churches are empty.

21 January 2010 at 20:38  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

treforus said... "It has an Archbishop who pronounces grandly on politics as if he was the supreme pontiff himself but sadly seems surprisingly silent on matters spiritual.Perhaps that is why his churches are empty."

Sounds familiar to us too!

21 January 2010 at 20:52  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

I don't know why you Laugh your ass off.

Issac intended his birthright for Esau, but his brother Jacob stole it and was renamed Israel - Israel was the tribe which eventually became assimilated by the Asyrians - The lost Ten Tribes of Israel. Before this the Jews had split into two kingdoms and Judah was the last remaning kingdom, but the promise was to Israel not Judah.

21 January 2010 at 21:31  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Did many Israelites move to Judah?

As for the suggestion that many fled from Israel to Judah during the Assyrian invasion, are there any Scriptures to back this up? Conjectures about increasing sizes of Jerusalem are all well and good, but WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURAL REFERENCE? The Bible says :-
"For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they departed not from them; Until the LORD REMOVED ISRAEL OUT OF HIS SIGHT, as he had said by all his servants the prophets. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day" (2 KINGS 17:22-23).
"Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight: THERE WAS NONE LEFT BUT THE TRIBE OF JUDAH ONLY" (2 KINGS 17:18).
"I know Ephraim, and Israel is not hid from me: for now, O Ephraim, thou committest whoredom, and Israel is defiled. They WILL NOT FRAME THEIR DOINGS TO TURN UNTO THEIR GOD: for the spirit of whoredoms is in the midst of them, and they have not known the LORD". (HOSEA 5:3-4)
There is NO ROOM in any of the warnings to Israel for a temporary escape route to Judah. Neither are there Scriptures to back up this position.
So God REMOVED ISRAEL out of His sight. Returning to Jerusalem, where Judah were still in some shape or form following God, hardly counts as being 'removed out of His sight'. If you read the books of Amos and Hosea (prophets to the Northern Kingdom before their captivity in Assyria), you will clearly see God's INTENT TO REMOVE THEM FROM THEIR LAND and ‘sift them among all nations’ (AMOS 9:9). Only a REMNANT (literally the leftovers) was to stay. There is NO RECORD WHATSOEVER in the Bible of Israel returning to Samaria as a nation.

21 January 2010 at 21:36  
Blogger Ingenieur said...

The lost Ten Tribes of Israel are not lost to God!

They re-appear in the events of the end-times, where they have a role to play. See Rev.7


21 January 2010 at 21:40  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...


This may well be the case, but seeing how we are Christians who follow Jesus the son of God - who was in fact God in the flesh on Earth, then we have to assume that whatever role this is, it probably includes the modern state of Israel which is in error of belief. We are to be Christians, who have compassion for all and who do not distinguish between Jews or Arabs but who see all as brothers and sisters - it is God's place to judge, so do not judge so quickly or be ye judged yourself. We should present ourselves as ambassadors of mercy to the afflicted whom ever they may be.

21 January 2010 at 22:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the Hoff clearly shows his true colours, after spending several posts attacking his grace's views on the Welsh Church.

As for Hyatt,from his own mouth he also agrees that the Palestine terrorists have no right whatsoever to a state.

21 January 2010 at 22:21  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

So the Hoff clearly shows his true colours

Specify what you mean.

As a Christian I have been given a prime directive:

To love God with all heart mind and soul, and to love my neighbour as I love myself.

These are what I consider to be my true colours. I have tried to explain why it is wrong to think of the modern state of Israel as being 'chosen' and allowed to commit atrocities against the prime directive. I am a believer in Christ, Jesus Christ - this is what Christians do. Terrorism in any form is unchristian, and cannot be condoned. Where there is death, then so should our prayers be, but not to kit up with our favourite colours and sit by the TV with popcorn and fizzy pop. They are both as bad as each other - they need to stop, just like the Church in Wales policy states.

21 January 2010 at 22:48  
OpenID agyapw said...

"Neither the Law nor the Prophets; neither Jesus nor His disciples are identified as Jewish.

That truly is sinister - reminiscent of the so-called "German Christians" in Nazi Germany. For example, a New Testament scholar, Walter Grundmann, who claimed in a 1940(!) book that Jesus wasn't Jewish. Far better to acknowledge, with the courageous Karl Barth, that "The Word did not simply become any 'flesh'... It became Jewish flesh. The pronouncements of New Testament Christology ... relate always to a man who is seen to be not a man in general, a neutral man, but the conclusion and sum of the history of God with the people of Israel."
One really does have to wonder at the motives behind the presentation of the gospel in the way you describe in this video. The whole sense and import of the gospel is lost when it becomes abstracted from its Jewish context. Are they ashamed of Christ's Jewishness? Me genoito!

22 January 2010 at 00:00  
Blogger Ingenieur said...

The "error of belief" which would better be called the error of unbelief is certainly not confined to the descendants of Israel.

God has given "many convincing proofs" that Jesus is risen, after dying for the sins of all men. That is why ALL men will find themselves without excuse on the Day of Judgment.

Another "prime directive" is to go forth as Christ's ambassadors to make disciples of all nations.

Therefore the more-enlightened DnH should be loving both Gentiles AND JEWS into the Kingdom, but sadly his writings betray more than a little prejudice.


22 January 2010 at 00:34  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Fairy stories anyway.

I worship Sleeping Beauty who slept for our sins and was awoken by love.

Why do so many people insist about arguing over things that they can't possibly know and in the end have no real effect on anything?

It's like arguing what's worse, to take a direct hit from a cruise missile or have a house dropped on your head. Doesn't matter a shit either way you are dead.

Why don't you stop worrying about what somebody told you that somebody said 2000 years ago that nobody can prove and just be good for the sake of it, without looking for reward in a fictional, unprovable afterlife.

22 January 2010 at 09:42  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Fairy stories anyway.

I worship Sleeping Beauty who slept for our sins and was awoken by love.

Why do so many people insist about arguing over things that they can't possibly know and in the end have no real effect on anything?

It's like arguing what's worse, to take a direct hit from a cruise missile or have a house dropped on your head. Doesn't matter a shit either way you are dead.

Why don't you stop worrying about what somebody told you that somebody said 2000 years ago that nobody can prove and just be good for the sake of it, without looking for reward in a fictional, unprovable afterlife.

22 January 2010 at 09:42  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Apologies for the double post.

22 January 2010 at 09:43  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

The Glovy is back! And I thought you had forgotten about us all!

22 January 2010 at 10:11  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Forget, me? Never.

Had a wonderful holiday though and also found out I am to be a father, which is perhaps one of the best things I have ever been told.

Although some people would deny me the right to have a family group since I lack any belief in religion and they like to believe that family is a exclusive christian concept.

22 January 2010 at 11:31  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr TheGlovner,

His Grace sincerely congratulates you on your delightful news.

22 January 2010 at 11:38  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Glovner,
Its what happens to you after the house has dropped on you thats important.
Congratulations on your news.

22 January 2010 at 13:24  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

My sincere heartfelt thanks on the congratulations.

Until the house drops there is no reason to worry about it, and since nobody can tell me what happens when it does then there is not even any point in postulating theories.

22 January 2010 at 13:50  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Rebel Saint said...

'what a stark contrast Israel is to all the other lovely, tolerant, democratic, law-abiding, peace-loving middle-eastern political entities!'

Nice try but no cigar. The odiousness of the regimes in many middle eastern countries doesn't get Israel off the hook. Many of the most odious (obvious exception Iran) are US client states. Elections in Egypt are as fraudulent as in Iran but as the Egyptian regime are good boys no-one complains.

It is however interesting to note that the pennyis beginning to drop in Washington that the Israel alliance is not in US interests. It's a disaster for the US.

Oh and where does scripture say that brutalisation, dispossession, murder are ok?

22 January 2010 at 14:13  
Anonymous Howard Parry said...

I came to this blog rather late as I was away. But I would like to say something in support of +Dominic (Monmouth). ‘God so loved the world that he sent Jesus to be born in Palestine’. Was the Bishop perhaps consciously or unconsciously quoting John Betjaman:

"No love that in a family dwells,
No carolling in frosty air,
Nor all the steeple-shaking bells
Can with this single Truth compare -
That God was man in Palestine
And lives today in Bread and Wine."

Perhaps one could argue (and His Grace certainly seems to) that the use of Palestine in this way is anachronistic, but in the context that both Betjaman and +Dominic speak people understand what is meant. The bishop was making a theological point rather than a strictly political or geographical one: that the birth of Christ earthed the divine in a specific place and time.

But in a way the Bishop is right, because Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and that is today under Palestinian authority.

And can I crave Your Grace's indulgence to point out that the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, the Rt Revd Suheil Dawani, is an Arab Christian, born in Nablus, and for many years has worked to promote dialogue, understanding and co-operation among the different faiths and denominations in Israel/Palestine. This is the true legacy of the birth of Christ in any land.

22 January 2010 at 15:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From David Lonsdale

There will be no peace in Israel as long as the promises of God regarding the promised land are ignored by the likes of Monmouth.

The land of Israel belongs to God. He repeatedly referred to it as "my land". However, he gave possession of the land to Abraham and re-affirmed the promise to Jacob.

If we know the borders of the land that God promised to Israel then we may understand the extent to which world leaders and some in the church are setting their face against God.

In regards to the land that God has promised Israel, Genesis 15:18 declares, "To your descendants [Abraham's] I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates." God later confirms this promise to Abraham's son Isaac, and Isaac's son Jacob (whose name was later changed to Israel). When the Israelites were about to invade the Promised Land, God reiterated the land promise, as recorded in Joshua 1:4, "Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates — all the Hittite country — to the Great Sea on the west."

With Genesis 15:18 and Joshua 1:4 in mind, the land God gave to Israel included everything from Gaza to Lebanon (North to South) and everything from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates River (West to East). So, what land has God stated belongs to Israel? All of the land modern Israel currently possesses, plus all of the land of the Palestinians (the West Bank and Gaza), plus some of Egypt and Syria, plus all of Jordan, plus some of Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Israel currently possesses only a fraction of the land God has promised.

If God is true to his promise, the best thing that Monmouth could do is to tell the Palestinians that they have no land rights in the land which God promised to Israel.

22 January 2010 at 18:26  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

Glovenor,your advice of 'just be good for the sake of it'is interesting.I think a lot of Christians behave as you do.They are not conscious of being good because Jesus said so.We (including
you)are imbued with Christian ethics because of our culture and traditions.The only way you will really understand this to be true is to live exclusively in a non Christian culture for several years
to realise how unconsciously Christian you really are.

23 January 2010 at 11:41  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

I would agree with you in part which comes back to a conversation I had in a previous thread where I was charged with being a godless heathen with no moral compass.

In it I tried to explain that there is no objective moral absolute handed down by god (which was the part that caused me to regarded as an worthless unbeliever). There are mearly subjective morals brought about by societal evolution but these originated not from a higher power but from a mass rule based in the good of the social group.

So the laws/morals that you say I follow that are christian I would say that while you regard them as being exclusivly christian they are in actual fact brought about by years of mob rule and societal evolution over millions of years, which is why you can also see hints of them in the animal kingdom.

This is why I can condem things that happen in other societies which they do not condem themselves, because there are no moral absolutes, just subjective morals which are imbued in your personality as you grow and develop, and since the religious history of the country I inhabit certainly has some degree of christian influence then it can certainly be argued that I unconciously follow some christian values, but these are not exclusivly christian values which is why I do not regard myself as christian as this would still require that I have a belief in god and so I go on being atheist and choose to just be good for the sake of it, not for any reward, although being good on its own usually serves up its own rewards.

23 January 2010 at 12:02  
Anonymous len said...

I think mans true identity is revealed when in a crisis situation.
When a natural disaster happens and there are shortages of food or fuel etc.
Recently during the freeze here in the UK there was panic buying, almost a stampede in some shops.
At the merest suspicion of a fuel crisis people are filling up their cars and every available container they can find.
Unsaved man has a veneer of civilization which is jettisoned when under pressure.
Man is basically a selfish creature and without God has no firm moral base.

23 January 2010 at 17:29  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"Man is basically a selfish creature and without God has no firm moral base."

Nope, got to agree in part but disagree with that, man is basically a selfish creature and without a proper upbringing with guidance from responsible role models then they have no moral base accepted by the subjective moral code laid upon them by the society they inhabit.

With regards to your other points, I would wager that some people "saved" or "unsaved" as you put it will react in the same way in the situations you provided. And others won't. If they are religious they may put it down to the moral code they say they follow given to them by their religion, if they are not, they may put it down to a moral code that was imbued in them by their role models growing up, but the underlying reason for the moral code in both circumstances is that over time these are the rules that have worked well for that particular society.

Religion just likes to claim it amongst other things as its own but this isn't true.

Before christianity came about it's not like everyone just ran around raping, murdering and stealing all day long. There were stills laws and accepted behaviour applied by the society becuase they benefited the society as a whole.

23 January 2010 at 18:02  
Blogger Rory Tory Marshan said...

I am afraid i don't prescribe to either doctrines of the church and Israel. Jer 31 is about the coming of the Holy spirit "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts."

Israel is those who are spiritually Christians not the physical country.

23 January 2010 at 22:22  
Anonymous len said...

I think the mere existance of the jewish people and their return to their homeland Israel is a testament that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has not deserted His people.
When the jews rejected their Messiah God opened up the way of salvation to the gentiles.
God is a covenant keeping God and cannot break his covenant,did the Jews break covenant, yes.
Are the Jews perfect, no.
God has likened the Jewish people to a unfaithful wife and all the misery that entails.
The Jewish people for their unbelief in their Messiah have suffered a hardening of heart and ( on the most part)do not have a revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ.
When the total number of gentiles have come to salvation God will restore His people Israel and there will be
A great mourning in Jerusalem: The repentance that comes to Israel in that day will be like a great mourning, the ultimate fulfillment of the Day of Atonement, the day of national mourning over their greatest sin - rejecting Jesus.

Professing Christians would be better employed praying that Gods will be done in Israel rather than
partaking in replacement theology.

23 January 2010 at 23:01  
Anonymous len said...

Regarding the revelation that Israel will have of Jesus Christ,

. They will look upon Me: Comparing Zechariah 12:10 with Zechariah 12:1 and 12:3 (Thus says the LORD . . . says the LORD) makes it clear that the Me they look upon is the LORD God - Yahweh - Himself. This is astounding and wonderful evidence that Jesus the pierced One is God, and that Yahweh is the Triune God.

23 January 2010 at 23:14  
Blogger Silly Kuffar said...

Didn't the Muslim Council Of Britain (MCB), through the signing of the 'ISTANBUL DECLARATION' OF WAR AGAINST "BRITISH SOLDIERS".

Trust not the ANTI-CHRIST.

24 January 2010 at 20:57  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older