Ehud Netzer and the Herodium

Yesterday brought sad news regarding the death of Ehud Netzer, one of the giants of Israeli archaeology. He died in a tragic accident at the Herodium, a site he has been excavating for the past 35 years.

Ehud Netzer spent much of that time trying to find the tomb of Herod the Great. He focused on the Herodium because the ancient Jewish historian Josephus said that was where Herod was buried. Many doubted Josephus' account, but Ehud Netzer did not. He looked on the top of the cone-shaped hill and around the bottom of the hill, but his search seemed to be in vain. Then he excavated on the side of the hill...and in 2008 made his remarkable discovery. He found the tomb--with Herod's smashed sarcophagus still inside!

It looks as if many of the secrets of the Herodium are still waiting to be uncovered. National Geographic produced an excellent DVD on the discovery of Herod's tomb, and they have also posted and update on their website that includes pictures of the recently excavated theater, including Herod's royal theater box. The picture above is from their website and shows the excavations taking place on the side of the hill.

Why did it take so long to discover Herod's tomb? Perhaps because everyone was thinking too small. They were looking for a simple mausoleum--a stand-alone structure. Herod had much grander plans. Much like the ancient pharaohs of Egypt, he wanted his larger-than-life reputation to extend beyond his death. So he buried the theater, which had only been used for a few years, and turned the entire hill into a pyramid-like tomb...with his mausoleum located halfway up the slope. How impressive is the site? It stands out like an ancient volcanic peak and can be seen from Bethlehem, and even from the southern end of the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem.

If you are planning a trip to Israel anytime soon, ask the tour host if your group will be going to the Herodium. It needs to become a must-see stop for any trip. And if you aren't planning on visiting Israel in the near future, click on the links above--especially the link to the National Geographic article. Read the entire article and look at all the pictures. It will give you a new perspective on Herod the Great, the one in charge of all Judea when the wise men came to announce the birth of a new "King of the Jews."

Did the U.N. Create the State of Israel?

Jeremy Hammond, founder of the Foreign Policy Journal, wrote an article in his journal titled, "The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel." In the article he tries to show that the U.N. decision to partition Palestine into two countries--one Jewish and one Arab--was an illegal decision that deprived the Arab majority of Palestine their right to self-determination. Thus, he argues, Israel cannot claim legal standing as a nation based on the U.N. vote to establish a Jewish state.

I have several problems with the article, including his misleading use of statistical data. For example, he sees huge inequity in the fact that "Jews owned less than 7 percent" of the land prior to partition but were "awarded 55.5 percent of the total area for their state." He fails to note, however, that an extremely large percentage of the land partitioned to Israel was in the modern Negev. This land was desert, almost completely devoid of any inhabitants.

But before I could write a response I came across another article that provides a strong rebuttal to Hammond. It was written by Dr. Mordechai Nisan, a lecturer in Middle East Studies at Hebrew University, and is titled "Is UN Creation of Israel a Myth? Ask Foreign Policy Journal." Dr. Nisan does a masterful job answering the arguments of Jeremy Hammond. One key point in the article is the truth that, ultimately, the U.N. didn't create Israel. The state was created because the Jewish population fought for their right of self-determination against an Arab population unwilling to accept a Jewish state in their midst.

I strongly encourage you to read both articles. Anyone interested in the Middle East needs to understand the historical issues surrounding the establishment of Israel. I believe Hammond's article illustrates a growing attempt on the part of some to delegitimize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Those who believe God's land promises to Israel are still valid also need to know other ways to answer critics who won't accept the message of the Bible. And Dr. Nisan helps provide those answers!

Are the Jews God's Chosen People?

Last week the Vatican wrapped up a two-week synod on the Middle East. In its concluding message the synod took issue with Jewish groups (and, by extension, evangelical Christians) who use the Bible to justify Israel's right to the land. At a concluding news conference, Greek-Melchite Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros was asked about that part of the statement. His response is very significant:

"The concept of the promised land cannot be used as a base for the justification of the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of Palestinians. The justification of Israel's occupation of the land of Palestine cannot be based on sacred scriptures....We Christians cannot speak about the promised land for the Jewish people. There is no longer a chosen people. All men and women of all countries have become the chosen people."

During the conference, a document resurfaced that first circulated about a year ago. It is called the Kairos Palestine Document, and it is largely a polemic against supporting Israel. At one point the document singles out those who hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible as the basis for Israel's right to the land. "This is precisely the error in fundamentalist Biblical interpretation that brings us death and destruction when the word of God is petrified and transmitted from generation to generation as a dead letter. This dead letter is used as a weapon in our present history in order to deprive us of our rights in our own land."

So does literal interpretation make the Bible a "dead letter"? And does such interpretation actually harm the followers of Christ now living in the Middle East? If true, those are serious charges. But I have four major concerns with the position espoused by the conference and the Kairos Palestine Document.

First, I believe the position presented on literal interpretation reveal a flawed understanding regarding the message of the Bible. It confuses the eternality and immutability of God's Word with "petrification." And it seems to make the interpreter the ultimate arbiter or right and wrong by allowing them to select those portions of the Bible that match their beliefs while disregarding the rest.

Such an approach to interpreting the Bible can ultimately place someone in opposition to God Himself because the written word, like the living Word, is "the same yesterday and today and forever." Both reveal the character of God Himself, and God has declared "I the LORD do not change" (Mal. 3:6). Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away" (Luke 21:33).

Second, I believe that by not accepting the clear teaching of the Bible they have reached a conclusion that is ultimately contrary to the character God and the clear message of His Word. I don't have sufficient time to trace the consistent message of the Bible as it relates to God's promises to the Jewish people, including a promise to inherit the land of Israel. But let me share the one passage in the New Testament where the Apostle Paul specifically talks about the relationship between Israel and the church--Romans 9:11. Paul ends this section by acknowledging that Israel and the church are currently on opposites sides of the equation when it comes to the gospel message...that Jesus is indeed the Messiah and the Son of God. But Paul quickly adds, "But as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable." Note carefully Paul's words. The nation of Israel is an "elect" nation because of the promises made by God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Why? Because God's promises are "irrevocable." The replacement theology behind the synod and the earlier document is contrary to the unchanging character of God.

Third, I believe the conference and the Kairos Palestine Document fail to acknowledge the true oppressor of the church in the Middle East--Islam. I would ask them to compare the religious freedom of Christians in Israel to the religious freedom of Christians in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Gaza. Even in those instances where freedom of movement is denied to Christians in Israel--as when Palestinians Christians are denied entrance to Jerusalem--it is not because of their faith. Rather, such restrictions have taken place in response to Palestinian suicide bombers. I believe the conference failed in its obligation when it singled out Israel for harsh condemnation while failing to condemn the evil actions done in the name of Allah. Perhaps it's because these Christian leaders can condemn Israel with less fear of retribution. Israel tolerates nonviolent dissent, Islamic countries do not.

Fourth, I believe a false dichotomy is being presented in the conference and the document. To support Israel's right to its land does not make one anti-Palestinian. When Israel possessed the land in the Old Testament, God expected them to protect the rights of the non-Israelites in their midst (Exod. 23:9). When looking toward Israel's ultimate fulfillment of God's promises, the prophet Ezekiel wrote, "You are to allot [the land] as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who have settled among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel" (Ezek. 47:22).

I believe Christians need to read the Kairos Palestine Document and compare it to Scripture. Then we all ought to take a stand for the truth as it is presented in the whole counsel of God's Word. And to those who are on the other side in this issue, may I suggest the following. In your call for justice and equality, you could gain more support from within the evangelical community if you would also stress the following:

1. Acknowledge that the Jewish people do have a right to live in the land, and that a Jewish state upholding the rights of all its citizens has as legitimate a right to exist as a separate Palestinian state upholding the rights of all its citizens.

2. Remember your role in the present age is not to inaugurate God's kingdom through political action. Rather, God has called you to be a witness to His love and reconciliation through Jesus Christ. Acknowledge that your mission is to live for Him in such a way that your Jewish neighbors will come to accept Jesus as their Messiah, your Muslim neighbors will come to accept Jesus as the Son of God...and both will come to know Him as their personal Savior.

3. Affirm that the Word of God is the basis for truth and that, like God Himself, it remains unchanged "yesterday and today and forever."

Two sides to every story

I'm a lifelong Bugs Bunny fan, and a situation today reminded me of the 1950 cartoon, "Homeless Hare." In that cartoon Bugs fights to defend his rabbit hole from a construction worker trying to build a high-rise building over it. Bugs wins in the end...and tells the audience why his home was worth fighting for. "After all, a man's home is his castle."

So what made me think of that classic cartoon? Actually, it was a visit by former President Jimmy Carter to a group of protesters in East Jerusalem. Carter, and other members of a group called "The Elders," spoke to the protesters in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of Jerusalem. According to an account of the meeting in the Jerusalem Post, "Carter addressed the crowd, stating that he does not believe that destroying houses or evicting families from homes they have inhabited for generations are just actions that can lead to peace."

And now perhaps you can see why the Bugs Bunny cartoon came to mind. On the surface it would appear that Carter was voicing a classic American value--one shared with the likes of Bugs Bunny--when he stood to support those protesting the forced eviction of families and the destruction of their homes.

But is this the whole story?

In an interesting twist, I also came across another story today about the destruction of 22 Arab houses in the area of Silwan in Jerusalem. The article, in Arutz Sheva, was an interview with Edna Friedman who holds the Israeli Heritage portfolio in the Jerusalem municipality. She provided a different perspective on why the homes in Silwan were being demolished. "For centuries, including under Ottoman, British and Jordanian rule, the Gan Hamelech compound was open, forested space – preserved by the ruling powers for its historic and archaeological value....Beginning in 1967, however, Arab squatters began building illegal structures in the compound, and today there are some 120 buildings there. It is these illegally built squats that are at the heart of the controversy in the Silwan neighborhood today, as demonstrators riot against Israel's intentions to clear the site of the illegally built structures...."

So the buildings being destroyed in Silwan are not homes that had been inhabited for generations. They are relatively recent, and they were constructed illegally. That's certainly a different perspective than one would get from listening to President Carter. But isn't it still wrong to single out just the homes of Arab residents? It might be, were that true. But it's not.

Friedman sets the record straight. "This is not about discrimination against Arabs, but I believe that the law must be enforced for everyone. If the authorities can move against Beit Yehonatan, a Jewish-owned building in the neighborhood, on the grounds that it is too tall and that zoning laws prohibit a multi-story building, certainly the laws have to be enforced against Arabs who built homes illegally."

I'm disappointed President Carter chose to present just one side of the story in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The situation is complex...and simplistic generalizations won't help resolve complex issues.

What is fascism?

I read an op-ed piece, "Fascism in Jewish state?" that focused on the issue of whether Israel should require a loyalty oath for new citizens. At one point the article equated Israel's proposed loyalty oath with other forces in the country promoting "hatred and nationalism."

The article got me thinking about what we mean when we describe a person, movement, or idea as fascist. In the article, the word was used to stigmatize those in Israel who believe new citizens ought to swear loyalty to the government as a "Jewish and democratic state." By using the word fascist the writer conjured up powerful memories of the horrors of World War II. But just what is a fascist...and is the term appropriate for Israel's debate over a loyalty oath?

In 1944, during World War II, George Orwell wrote an article "What Is Fascism?" that still rings true. After explaining the many ways the word had been misused, he finally, and almost comically, noted that "almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’." Orwell ended the article with a word of caution that people today would be wise to heed. "All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword."

And this brings me back to the original op-ed piece. The writer appears not to be in favor of Israel adopting a loyalty oath. He's certainly entitled to his opinion. But to imply that a loyalty oath sets a nation on the road to fascism is, I believe, reckless. A loyalty oath alone is not a sign of fascism. The United States requires naturalized citizens to take an Oath of Allegiance. Great Britain also requires its new citizens to take an Oath of Allegiance. So what is the real issue behind the controversy over Israel's loyalty oath for new citizens?

I believe the heart of the matter--something most in the media seem to be missing--is the debate over whether the State of Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. Requiring a loyalty oath is not tantamount to ethnic cleansing (as suggested by some critics) since the proposed oath does not apply to Arabs who already have Israeli citizenship. And requiring such an oath is not about restricting religious freedom (as some have argued) since the constitution of Israel guarantees religious freedom to Christians and Muslims. No, the real issue is whether a state that is predominantly Jewish in character can be allowed to exist in the Middle East...and whether someone wanting to be a citizen of that state ought to be required to openly acknowledge that fact.

But isn't it offensive to Arabs citizens of Israel for Israel to call itself a Jewish state? Let me answer that with a different question. How does the proposed state of Palestine want to define itself? Here are some citations from the Palestinian Basic Law as amended in 2003.

--In the Introduction, the Basic Law cites Palestinian efforts to have the world "recognize the rights of the Arab Palestinian people and their national entity, on equal footing with other nations."

--Article One states: "Palestine is part of the larger Arab world, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab nation. Arab unity is an objective that the Palestinian people shall work to achieve."

--Article Four states: "Islam is the official religion in Palestine. The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be a principal source of legislation. Arabic shall be the official language."

Later, the Law sets forth how the judiciary will render decisions "in the name of the Palestinian Arab people" (Article 97) and how the Public Prosecutor will prosecute cases "in the name of the Palestinian Arab people" (Article 107).

It sounds to me like the Palestinians expect the future state of Palestine to be identified as an Arab state founded on the principles of Islam. If someone wanted to become a citizen of that state, would it be reasonable to expect that person to publicly acknowledge and support the clearly stated principles on which the state was founded? Shouldn't Israel have the same right to expect its citizens to support the principles on which it was founded?

Israel's loyalty oath is an attempt to remind the world that any two-state solution also comes with the clear understanding that one of those two states must be recognized as a Jewish state. That's not fascism, it's equality.

Online Photos from the Middle East

I'm always on the lookout for photos from biblical sites in the Middle East. One excellent web site where you can find such photos is Holy Land Photos maintained by Dr. Carl Rasmussen, author of The Zondervan Atlas of the Bible. Dr. Rasmussen has compiled over 3,000 online photos from over 300 different locations in Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Greece, Turkey, Italy, and Cyprus. Access to the photos is free, though he does accept donations to help maintain the site. This web site is worth visiting...and bookmarking!

One final item. I know firsthand that Dr. Rasmussen continues to update his site. And how do I know this? A little over a year ago I heard reports that archaeologists were uncovering a section of Jerusalem's old wall on the edge of the Hinnom Valley. I had a free afternoon so I hiked over to the site...and ran into Dr. Rasmussen and his wife who were checking out the same discovery!

Click on the link above to visit a great site...maintained by a great guy...who has also authored an excellent Bible Atlas!

The benefits of olive oil

In Deuteronomy 8 Moses told Israel that God was bringing them into "a land of wheat and barley, of vines and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and [date palm] honey" (8:8). These eight species form a grocery list of God's promised blessings. But how valuable were these products of the Promised Land? It seems as if science continues to uncover new health benefits.

An article in today's Jerusalem Post focuses on the work of Shaul Eger, a Jewish physiologist who spent 30 years uncovering the benefits of olive oil. The article is interesting...and a good reminder of God's faithfulness to His people!