Sukkot Miracle: Hamas Leader Sinwar is Dead

Photo from this morning: Yahya Sinwar, Hamas leader and October 7th mastermind, dead in the rubble, killed by the Israeli military. 

On October 7th 2023, which happened to be the last day of Sukkot, Hamas carried out the October 7th atrocity, resulting in the largest single day loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust. The mastermind of the attack was Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.

And now, today, on the first day of Sukkot 2024, Israel has killed Yahya Sinwar.

Sinwar carried out his butchery on Sukkot and is now dead on Sukkot a year later. We're witnessing a divine moment. God's fingerprints all over this.

Sinwar launched this war on the last day of Sukkot. Israel eliminated him on the first day of Sukkot. ✡️ Everything is a work of God.

— Eretz Israel (@EretzIsrael) October 17, 2024

What are the chances? Sinwar launches the horrific massacre of Oct 7 on the last day of Sukkot in 2023; then, after evading every Israeli attempt to locate and kill him for a year, he is killed "accidentally" in a confrontation with the IDF on the first day of Sukkot 2024.

— Dr. Michael L. Brown (@DrMichaelLBrown) October 17, 2024

The timing was not planned by humans; the IDF had no intel that Sinwar was in the building. After reconnaissance spotted multiple figures moving stealthily among buildings, the IDF sent a drone into the building. It recorded a masked man injured and resting on a couch, his face hidden by a bandana. 

See Sinwar's unprecedented "resistance" seconds before his elimination. pic.twitter.com/CKjM8J4Px4

— Mosab Hassan Yousef (@MosabHasanYOSEF) October 17, 2024

The IDF shelled the building and opened fire. Hours later when the IDF entered the building, the masked figure's identity was revealed to be the October 7th mastermind.

Sinwar's body was found with cash and a false ID, indicating he may have been attempting to flee Gaza.

The contents of Sinwar's pockets, courtesy of Israel's Channel 12. Note the occupation listed on the false ID.

Sinwar joins a host of powerful men who tried and failed to erase Israel, often bringing calamity and destruction on themselves:

• Pharaoh Ramses II of Egypt
• King Tiglathpilnesser III of Assyria
• King Shalmaneser V of Assyria
• King Sargon II of Assyria
• King Sennacherib of Assyria
• King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon
• Haman the Agagite of Persia
• King Antiochus Epiphanes of the Seleucids
• Emperor Titus of Rome
• Emperor Hadrian of Rome
• Fuhrer Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany
• Hamas chairman Ismail Haniyeh of the Palestinians
• Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah of Lebanon
• and now Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar of the Palestinians

History teaches this simple lesson: if you try to harm the Jewish people, God will harm you.

An Israeli believer friend wrote some important, appropriate notes on Sinwar's death.

Sinwar is dead. The graphic pictures of his intact corpse leave no doubt, as the face is unmistakably his. And DNA tests have now positively identify the corpse as his.

His story and the story of the worst massacre of Jews since WW2 is filled with tragic twists and turns, and no shortage of bitter ironies.

The first bitter irony is that Israel saved his life with state-of-the-art surgery when he was diagnosed with a brain tumor that would have killed him if left untreated, while he was a prisoner in an Israeli jail.

The second irony was that he, together with 1,000 of the most murderous of Hamas' terrorists, were released from Israeli prisons in 2011, in exchange for a single Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, who was captured and taken back to Gaza as a hostage in 2006. For six years his family and a growing number of their allies urged the government of Benjamin Netanyahu to "pay any price" to ransom him. While every Israeli citizen feared for Shalit's welfare and wanted to see him safely returned home, many saw the risk and folly in releasing 1,000 of the most experienced and hardened terrorist to rejoin the front lines of Hamas' jihad against Israel. This wasn't the first time that Israel released thousands of murderers to restore a single person--sometimes a dead citizen--to their family. And each and every time, without exception, it led directly to the deaths of tens or hundreds of other Israelis in the years that followed. Sinwar's release in 2011 for a single individual led, directly, to the torturous deaths of thousands of others on October 7, and since then.

A third tragic irony is that for months before the attacks of Oct. 7, dozens of female field intelligence soldiers arrayed along the frontier between Israel and Gaza faithfully observed Hamas' preparations for the attacks and correctly interpreted the gravity of what was being planned. But when they reported their findings to their male commanders, they were dismissed as the ramblings of a bunch of anxious teen girls with oversized imaginations. Therefore, the Middle Eastern chauvinism that famously affects many of Israel's neighbors seems to have infected not a few men in the ranks of Israel's own armed forces, with deadly consequences. 

The story, of course, continues, as the end is not within sight.

Another Israeli friend writes about the significance of Sinwar's death on Sukkot:

One more note from me, on a personal level. On Yom Kippur last week, I talked to my kids about repentance. I read for them Ezekiel 18, where God says he doesn't delight in even the death of a wicked person, but would rather that they repent and live. How does that relate to Sinwar's death?

While God doesn't delight in anyone's death, we can celebrate that justice is served. A man who orchestrated the murders, tortures, rapes, kidnappings, and executions of hundreds of innocent people deserves the death penalty. He has now received it poetically on the Hebrew anniversary of his demonic depravity.

God says Sukkot is a day for us to rejoice. We can rejoice that justice is served and that perhaps we're a step closer to the release of the hostages and the end of the war.

A Pronomian Christian Must Be A Zionist

On the Pronomian Theology group, a frequenter asks,

My answer is no, it's logically inconsistent to be Pronomian without being a Zionist.

I'll explain why, but let's first define terms.

• Pronomian: a Christian who holds to the ongoing validity and applicability of God's law. Pronomians believe that salvation is by faith and that keeping the commandments is how we practice faith and love God.
  
  In the context of the Messianic movement, Pronomian Christianity can serve as an alternative to Hebrew Roots and Messianic Judaism. An alternative to Hebrew Roots, because much of Hebrew Roots has been polluted by wild-eyed conspiracies and bad theology. An alternative to Messianic Judaism, because Messianic Judaism is meant for Jews. Or it can function as a descriptor: pro-Torah Messianic Jews and pro-Torah Hebrew Roots Christians may both identify as Pronomian.
   
• Zionist: A person who believes Jews should have the right to return to the land of Israel.

It is really just that. If someone tells you it is something more, they are probably misinformed or they are lying to you for political reasons.

It's worth mentioning what Zionism isn't.

Zionism isn't the belief that the modern nation of Israel is inerrant. It doesn't mean you can't critique policies or laws of the state of Israel. I've done so my whole life and consider myself an ardent Zionist.

Zionism isn't colonialism. Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel going back nearly 4,000 years. Zionism is a return to Israel, not a colonial project.

Zionism isn't a license to mistreat Muslims, Christians, or other minorities in and around Israel.

Zionism just means that Jews should be able to return to Israel. That's it.

Back to our question, can a person be Pronomian but reject Zionism? Put another way, can a person believe the Law is applicable, but believe Jews have no right to return to Israel?

My answer is no, that view is logically inconsistent:

1. Pronomians believe God's Torah is still relevant and applicable.
2. God's Torah promises the land of Israel to the Jewish people.
3. Therefore, Pronomians must be Zionist.

To claim to be Pronomian but not Zionist is inconsistent. It means you reject parts of the Torah where Jews are promised the land of Israel.

If you doubt this, consider the anti-Zionist far-left Jews who, when reading the Torah, will skip over or mumble parts of the Torah that promise the land of Israel to Jews:

English version they did is just as funny https://t.co/rnoehbtmr2

— Aharon Acharon Chaviv (@achaviv) November 20, 2023

In their case, they are not pronomian. They may pay lip service to the Torah, but their application of it omits the central parts of the Torah where God gives the land to Israel. Some practice a form of airy spiritual, feelings-based Judaism (tikkun olam-ify everything!) that is embarrassed by the actual text of the Torah. But mostly, it's people whose lives don't conform to the Bible in meaningful ways. Typically, their lives are not much different than the lives of secular non-Jews. None of it can be described as pronomian in practice.

If we pronomian Christians claim to take the Torah seriously, we must accept that God has promised the land of Israel to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

"But Jews aren't all of Israel"

When I posted my answer to the Pronomian Theology group, the woman asking the question responded,

Do you think the Land promises made to Abraham’s descendants or Jacob’s descendants apply exclusively to Jewish people, that is, those who identify by ancestry, birth, or conversion with Judaism?

I know this is a potentially fraught can of worms to open, but… “Jews” aren’t promised the Land in Scripture. Israel is. (“Jewish” as a religion or national identity didn’t exist when the Land promises were made.)

If Zionism is about a Jewish right of return, then that’s a modern political question, not theological. [...]

But to be a Zionist because “Jews deserve a homeland” (19th century ethnonationalism) is not the same as to be a Zionist because “God promised the Land to the tribes of Israel” (a theological covenant claim).

I think a Zionism that’s based on Jewish nationalism rather than God’s covenant with Israel is political, not spiritual. I’m skeptical of that since Yeshua’s kingdom is not political.

There's a lot to unpack in these objections. The first is that the land of Israel was promised to Abraham's descendants, which includes but is not limited to Jews. The New Testament states, for example, that believers in Israel's Messiah are the seed of Abraham. Does that mean the land promises are extended to Christians? I don't think so, though I admit my thinking and study on that particular question is still shallow. Even so, this is irrelevant to the question of whether Pronomians should be Zionists. The question remains because Jews are at least part of Israel.

This person also notes that Israel was promised the land, not Jews. Jews weren't known as a distinct people per se; they existed as subgroups within Israel. The tribe of Judah, primarily, with the tribes of Levi and Benjamin secondarily. These groups later were identified as the Kingdom of Judah after King David's reign. Following the Assyrian captivity, Judahites (Jews) became the only surviving group of Israelites with significant numbers.

It's true there may be other peoples with Israelite lineage. Bnei Manashe of India, Beta Israel of Ethiopia, and numerous other groups claim, with varying legitimacy, descent from Jacob. And of course, Two House theology believes that there are more descendants of Jacob mixed in with the nations of the world. I consider these interesting but irrelevant to the question at hand. The question is whether one can be a Pronomian Christian without Zionism. And unless we deny Jews are part of Israel -- something that only extreme anti-Semities do -- we must concede that Zionism is Biblical and central to the Torah.

If you claim to be Pronomian, if you believe the Law is applicable and relevant to God's people, then you must be a Zionist and confirm that Jews should be able to return to the land of Israel.

C.S. Lewis on Substitutionary Atonement

God providing a sacrifice in place of Isaac

How does Messiah's death reconcile us to God? 

It's a central argument of Christian faith: people should follow Jesus and turn from their sins because his death reconciles us to God. 

But how does it reconcile us to God?

A common answer to this question is substitutionary atonement. In this theory, God, being a just judge, must punish sin. A judge who doesn't punish criminals isn't just, after all. This theory says Jesus died in our place: people deserve death because of their sins, and God, being a righteous judge, has to punish sin. But Jesus voluntarily took the punishment instead. God's wrath and justice are satisfied, and humans are reconciled back to God.

Making my way through C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, he addresses this in a way that surprised me.

C.S. Lewis says the important part isn't the way Jesus reconciles us to God, the important part is the reality that Jesus has reconciled us:

Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what the point of this dying was. According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and so silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make. What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor any other is Christianity. The central Christian belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work.

You might ask, what good is Jesus' death if we don't understand how it reconciles us to God?

Lewis answers with an analogy. A man can eat his dinner without understanding exactly how food nourishes him. A man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works: indeed, he certainly would not know how it works until he has accepted it.

This is one of those, "Well, rationality and intellect must bow to God too" moments. I don't care for these moments. But I don't want to make my rationality into God, so it must bow too.

Lewis elaborates,

We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself. 

He digs a bit deeper into the substitutionary atonement theory:

The one [theory] most people have heard is the one I mentioned before - the one about our being let off because Christ had volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person instead? None at all that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense. On the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not. OR if you take the "paying the penalty", not in the sense of being punished, but in the more general sense of "standing in the racket" or "footing the bill", then, of course, it is a matter of common experience that, when one person has got himself into a hole, the trouble of getting him out usually falls on a kind friend."

Ha, alright C.S.! I don't find his "why didn't God just forgive straight away" line of thinking convincing - it seems to me the answer is clear: because God must punish sin for Him to be just. 

But I do like Lewis' reasoning that is it like footing the bill. The "kind friend" aligns well with the idea often championed in Messianic Jewish circles: that the merit of Messiah is credited towards us in our standing before God. We are in debt to God by our rebellion, but if we are in Messiah, God views us through the merit and righteousness of Messiah.

My big takeway here is the reduced importance of substitutionary atonement theory. In my mind's eye, I had always understood that to be crucial to understanding the work of Messiah. But I find convincing Lewis' argument that what matters is that Christ brings us near to God by erasing our sins. Theories about why this is true are of secondary importance.