Bookmark Jamaica-Gleaner.com
Go-Jamaica Gleaner Classifieds Discover Jamaica Youth Link Jamaica
Business Directory Go Shopping inns of jamaica Local Communities

Home
Lead Stories
News
Business
Sport
Commentary
Letters
Entertainment
Arts &Leisure
Outlook
In Focus
Social
The Star
E-Financial Gleaner
Overseas News
The Voice
Communities
Hospitality Jamaica
Google
Web
Jamaica- gleaner.com

Archives
1998 - Now (HTML)
1834 - Now (PDF)
Services
Find a Jamaican
Library
Weather
Subscriptions
News by E-mail
Newsletter
Print Subscriptions
Interactive
Chat
Dating & Love
Free Email
Guestbook
ScreenSavers
Submit a Letter
WebCam
Weekly Poll
About Us
Advertising
Gleaner Company
Other News
Stabroek News

Misrepresenting the Bible
published: Sunday | March 27, 2005

THE EDITOR, Sir:

I CALL upon the Church not to be lured into serving the political purposes of ungodly men even when these men come purporting to be representatives of God.

Every Bible reader is aware of the relationship of God with Abraham. What is wrongly preached and believed is that 'Israel' has licence to be ungodly and claim divine immunity. The teaching that God promised to Israel exclusively, all the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates, is a convenient misrepresentation of the Bible on that matter. That promise was to the descendants of Abraham. Since Abraham had two sons, it is improper to assume that it refers to one exclusively.

God promised to bless Ishmael, to make him fruitful, to multiply exceedingly, to beget twelve princes and to be made a great nation. See Genesis 17:20. Nations must have land. So any of the descendants of Abraham who claim exclusive rights to land promised in Genesis 15:18 are applying a self-serving interpretation. The declaration that the bondswoman's son will not be heir with her son was by Sarah. God's response to that pronouncement by Sarah is instructive. He reaffirmed his promise to Abraham to make a nation of the bondswoman's son because he was Abraham's son, and promised that in Isaac, his seed shall be called. Is it not more rational to interpret that this was a promise that the Christ would come through the lineage of Isaac rather than through that of Ishmael? If it is accepted that Israel's right to the land is based on that promise of Genesis 15:18, then it has to be recognised that the promise was not to them exclusively, neither can Sarah's declaration of exclusivity for Isaac overrule God's promise to make a nation out of the descendants of Ishmael.

The church should not support the politics of an exclusive occupation of Palestine by the Israelis. It should rather lead or support any plan for the peaceful coexistence of these cousins. It is my belief that it is the will of God that these cousins should operate within boundaries which permit and recognise the sovereignty of each other.

I am, etc.,

LUCIUS C. WHITE

1 Tankerville Avenue

More Letters | | Print this Page
















© Copyright 1997-2004 Gleaner Company Ltd. | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Letters to the Editor | Suggestions
Home - Jamaica Gleaner