Should Christians support Israel? Part 3
May 28, 2011
To understand today's conflicts in the Middle East is not possible without a clear understanding of the roots of the conflict in the book of Genesis. One must also know how that conflict progressed throughout biblical history. Once we know and understand this, we then have some hope of supporting the right side.
The bottom line is that our primary support and allegiance should go to Jesus Christ alone. All other allegiances must remain subordinate. So the question is this: What side would Jesus support? Indeed, what side DOES Jesus support?
In looking at the New Testament conflict, we find that He Himself was in direct conflict with the leadership of Judea. John 1:11 says, "He came unto His own [tribe], and His own received Him not."
Even so, there were some who DID receive Him, for verses 12 and 13 continue,
(12) But as many as received Him, to them gave He the power [authority] to become the sons of God, even to those who believe on His name, (13) which were born [begotten], not of blood[line], nor of the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God.
The conflict was between those who received Him and those who did not. Those who received Him are the ones who were eligible "to become the sons of God." These are begotten (impregnated) by the Holy Spirit. These have a "holy seed" in them, which is "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col. 1:27).
The sons of God are not a bloodline, John says, nor were they born by an act of will on the part of fleshly man--as is normal in an earthly sexual act. They are begotten of God, and all of them, whether male or female in the flesh, are Marys bringing forth part of the body of Christ. The birth of this collective body is prophesied in the feast of Tabernacles.
The problem arises, however, that Abraham had two wives, and we too follow the same prophetic pattern, for we are either a Hagar or a Sarah. What kind of child are we carrying? Do we carry an Ishmael or an Isaac? The answer does not depend upon the heavenly Father of this child, for both Ishmael and Isaac were fathered by one man. It depends on who the mother is. You are that mother.
If you identify with Hagar, then that "child" in you is a son of its Father but is not the inheritor of the Kingdom. If you are truly a Sarah, then that which is in you is Christ (anointed) and is an inheritor.
How does one know who is a Hagar and who is a Sarah? This is a heart matter, but there are outward signs by which we may discern the difference. The chief evidence is whether or not the child in you is fleshly or spiritual. In the matter of eschatology, the child in each of us shows an affinity with its mother, so if the child honors Hagar as its mother, then it is likely to be a child of the flesh. If it honors Sarah as its mother, then it is likely to be a child of promise.
We must go back, then, to Galatians 4 and observe Paul's affinity. He declares that the true believer's affinity is with Sarah, which (he says in 4:26)) is the heavenly Jerusalem. The conflict in the Galatian church was with certain (Christian) teachers who had come up from Jerusalem, attempting to put these Christians back under bondage to the old Jerusalem, claiming that Jerusalem was their "mother church." They claimed that true Christians were really just Jewish proselytes and must submit to the temple rules--as did the Christians in Jerusalem, until that city and temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.
We have the same problem today in Christian Zionism and the "Messianic" movement. There is an attempt to make Christians into Jewish proselytes. Such Christians are expected to support Hagar-Jerusalem with money and political support. They are taught that God's elect (chosen ones) are those of fleshly genealogy (Jews), rather than those who are begotten of God apart from bloodline.
Further, they are taught that a fleshly temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem shortly, and that cohens (Jewish priests) will be re-established to sacrifice animals once again in that temple. They are taught that the "Age of Grace" will end shortly and be replaced by an "Age of Law," by which they mean that the Old Covenant and its provisions will be the eternal order of the ages soon.
In other words, the New Covenant was a temporary plan. Salvation (at least for Jews) is by the Old Covenant, they say. The sacrifice of Christ was not really "once for all," but only a temporary place-filler until animal sacrifices could be reinstated as the eternal requirement. The Melchizedek priesthood, of which Jesus Christ is High Priest, was necessary only for a while until the cohenscould once again build a temple and resume their animal sacrifices.
Those who hold such eschatology and support Hagar are in danger of being cast out with the bondwoman and her son (Gal. 4:30). Once again, I do not deny that they have a heavenly Father. My problem is with the "mother" of their child.
For a more complete understanding of this issue, read my books on Galatians and Hebrews. It is my belief and concern that the same problem that troubled Paul so much in the first century has resurfaced in the 20th century.
Jesus came as the heir of King David, who was given the promise of the Scepter. Like David, his throne was usurped by "Absalom" with the help of Ahithophel (2 Sam. 15:12). In the New Testament account, this prophetic story was replayed. The priests (cohens), after killing the prophets for centuries, played the role of Absalom, saying, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him and let us sieze on his inheritance" (Matt. 21:38).
Judas played the role of Ahithophel in betraying Jesus, son of David. Then, even as Ahithophel hanged himself (2 Sam. 17:23), so also did Judas (Matt. 27:5).
When David returned to reclaim his throne from Absalom, it prophesied of the second coming of Christ. In the return of David, Absalom was killed (2 Sam. 18:17). He was not promoted to a cabinet position in David's kingdom. So also, when Christ returns, the cohens who usurped His throne will not be given rulership positions in the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.
To say otherwise is to distort the Scripture and negate the Word of God.
My concern is for the Judases of today. How is it that a disciple of Christ, one who not only saw the miracles of Jesus but performed them as well (Matt. 10:4-8; 11:1), could actually betray Him? For that matter, how could Ahithophel, the friend of David, betray him by supporting Absalom as he usurped the throne? It is baffling, but it is part of the prophetic story.
The story today no longer centers around the Scepter of Judah, but around the Birthright of Joseph. Today, another Judas has arisen to support the Zionist effort to usurp the Birthright and the Birthright name Israel. The Jews are not Israel, nor is their state the fulfillment of the prophecies given to Israel. It is a usurpation of Joseph's inheritance (1 Chron. 5:2).
Joseph's Birthright was about Sonship, for Gen. 49:22 says, "Joseph is a fruitful bough" [ben, "son"]. That phrase carries a numeric value of 888, same as Jesus (in Greek). He is the true Joseph of today, the inheritor of the Birthright. The sons of God are the true inheritors with Him. They are the chosen ones, the elect of God. They need not become Jews to possess the Birthright.
So let us not join forces with the usurpers who, like Judah, came up with the idea of selling Joseph into slavery (Gen. 37:26). He envied Joseph's Birthright and wanted it for himself.
So let us support true Joseph and true Israel.
This is the third part of a series titled "Should Christians Support Israel?." To view all parts, click the link below.
Dr. Stephen Jones