An Apologetics Organization Gets Itself Cornered

[EarlyActs]

I have been in contact with a regional apologetics organization for a few years, listening in to monthly zooms of special speakers. I talked with them about my presenting NT history specifically as I have studied (master's level) about the Jewish revolt in relation to the gospels. The general reply was that this was not science but rather a theology.

So I was a bit surprised this month to see the newest listing of speakers, mostly about science, but including one pastor teaching 'Israel has not been replaced.' I await a response, but I believe the organization has created a corner for themselves in which they reduce their credibility; it is suddenly OK to have a theology, provided they want to believe that.

But one of the features of this exchange is that a misguided proposition is hiding the real question. There has been no replacement of Jews as evangelists, which is what Acts 2-4 is all about. The question is asserting that you must agree to 'side' with Israel as a race-nation (again, ie, in modern times), which the NT does not.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I have a couple of minor concerns with the original post, but they probably can be cleared up easily enough.

1. The original post seems to be less about apologetics and more about a particular organization, specifically your personal experience with that organization and how they may have cornered themselves. There is no obvious connection to Christian apologetics as a discipline, strategy, method, etc. Could you make that connection more clear?

2. Given the recent rise in antisemitism, it's crucial that we approach topics having to do with Israel with extraordinary care, especially as Christians. Since discussions around Israel can be particularly sensitive normally, but even more so lately, I wanted to highlight that the language in your final paragraph—specifically the phrase about having to "agree to ‘side’ with Israel as a race-nation"—could be open to misinterpretation.

To ensure clarity and avoid unintended offense, I would encourage rephrasing it in a way that better reflects your intended point. For example, you might consider:

• "The question seems to imply that one must support modern Israel as a distinct nation with ethnic or national significance, but the New Testament nowhere requires Christians to ‘side with’ ethnic Israel in a political or nationalistic sense."

(However, while the NT does not place on us such a requirement, it does affirm the Jewish people's unique role in God's plan and encourages a posture of respect, prayer, and evangelism. I would also point out, in support of your comments, that while some Christians interpret passages like Romans 11 as implying a continuing support for Israel in some form, that is a theological interpretation rather than an explicit NT command.)