Israel "is the only nation in the world that has the promise of God's protection"

11114 reads

There are 78 Comments

Steve Davis's picture

Iran may not be a match for Israel, for the US, and certainly is no match for God. I support Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East and oppose those who want to annihilate Israel.The nation of Israel created in 1948, however, is not the people of God or fulfillment of prophecy. I see no biblical promise that protects Israel as presently constituted (and this regardless of what one believes about a future Israel), 

GregH's picture

U.S. Christianity's love affair with present day Israel may be one of its most bewildering, inconsistent positions.

WallyMorris's picture

GregH wrote:

U.S. Christianity's love affair with present day Israel may be one of its most bewildering, inconsistent positions.

I would be interested in knowing your reasons why.

Wally Morris

Charity Baptist Church

Huntington, IN

amomentofcharity.blogspot.com

David R. Brumbelow's picture

I support Israel, America supporting Israel, and moving our Embassy to Jerusalem. 

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: “May they prosper who love you.  -Psalm 122:6 NKJV

David R. Brumbelow

Ron Bean's picture

There is the possibility that the Israel formed in 1948 was not the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Paul J. Scharf's picture

... we can count on the amill/replacement theology guys to post some of the first comments.

Whether intended or not, this makes it look like this is the new, cool fundamentalist position.

I fear that it influences the younger readers. Most likely, they have not seen the other side taught or modeled with great skill, and many are already looking for affirmation for their newfound zeal for the "T4G" approach to Christianity.

I suspect, however, that the replacement view does not reflect the beliefs of the majority of SI's constituency.

Church Ministries Representative for the Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Ron Bean's picture

For the record and to prevent my being shunned, I'm pre-mill.

 

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

TylerR's picture

Editor

I don't like Jeffress' sycophantic love affair with President Trump. But, I can't find anything wrong with the statements in the graphic (above).

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Bert Perry's picture

Paul J. Scharf wrote:

... we can count on the amill/replacement theology guys to post some of the first comments.

Whether intended or not, this makes it look like this is the new, cool fundamentalist position.

I fear that it influences the younger readers. Most likely, they have not seen the other side taught or modeled with great skill, and many are already looking for affirmation for their newfound zeal for the "T4G" approach to Christianity.

I suspect, however, that the replacement view does not reflect the beliefs of the majority of SI's constituency.

Last I checked, except for the 2nd coming of Christ, eschatological positions were not a big part of the Fundamentals.  In my mind, the bigger threat faced by pre-mill fundamentalists is not hearing comments by amillenialists, but rather that we will forget that argumentum ad populum is indeed a basic logical fallacy, really more suitable for the feud over the basketball court by the Sharks and the Jets than for serious theological discourse.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Steve Davis's picture

Paul J. Scharf wrote:

... we can count on the amill/replacement theology guys to post some of the first comments.

Whether intended or not, this makes it look like this is the new, cool fundamentalist position.

I fear that it influences the younger readers. Most likely, they have not seen the other side taught or modeled with great skill, and many are already looking for affirmation for their newfound zeal for the "T4G" approach to Christianity.

I suspect, however, that the replacement view does not reflect the beliefs of the majority of SI's constituency.

Can we also count on classic or otherwise dispensationists to whine about influences on the younger readers? The quote in and of itself is fine if we're talking about who's a match for whom. Of course, Israel is only a match for Iran because of US support. 

But all that's besides the point. And apart from counting constituency noses which means nothing. The point was the title that Israel is the only nation that has the promise of God's protection. I may be wrong but I don't think all dispensationalists believe that present-day Israel is a fulfillment or prophecy of holds special status in their state of unbelief. Even don't shun me premil Paul S. questions that. 

TylerR's picture

Editor

To be sure, Jeffress represents a strain of off-balance dispensationalism that puts unnecessary emphasis on the modern State of Israel.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Paul J. Scharf's picture

Bert, I think you misread my post entirely. Who said that the majority view is correct? My point was that the replacement guys see an opportunity to make inroads here on a discussion on a site that, by the majority of its contributors and advertisers, for instance, does not promote their view. It would be like me jumping out to post on a Reformed theology site.

Steve, I do not think it is fair to call such an observation whining.

The traditional dispensational view, as far as I have heard it espoused by every single one of its leading teachers (too many to list), is that modern-day Israel is the Israel of Ezekiel 36 and 37:1-2—returned to the land in unbelief and an unregenerate state, in preparation ("stage-setting") for regeneration and possession of the land in belief.

Go ahead and list for me all the great dispensational teachers who proclaim that modern-day Israel has no relation to the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Then we'll start counting noses.

Church Ministries Representative for the Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Ron Bean's picture

My dispensational teachers frequently said that after the ascension of Christ the next thing on God's prophetic calendar was The Rapture and, maybe, Israel's establishment and implementation of underskin identification devices and bar codes and the rebirth of Russia and the rise of China and the European Common Market and the blood moons and the Andromeda Effect..............

 

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

TylerR's picture

Editor

I'm an Maranatha Seminary grad, and was taught a reasoned and passionate form of dispensationalism there (thanks, Dr. Oats!)  and I've never heard what you wrote (below):

The traditional dispensational view, as far as I have heard it espoused by every single one of its leading teachers (too many to list), is that modern-day Israel is the Israel of Ezekiel 36 and 37:1-2—returned to the land in unbelief and an unregenerate state, in preparation ("stage-setting") for regeneration and possession of the land in belief.

I think we come from different dispensationalist camps. I am grieved that so much of dispensationalism is stereotyped as "Left Behind: theology. There are good, solid, wonderful teachers out there who do outstanding jobs defending the system. Robert Thomas' Revelation commentary is the best thing on Revelation I've ever read. Mike Vlach is doing outstanding work. Leon Wood, Peter Steveson, Walvoord, Gleason Archer (EBC) and Dwight Pentecost (BKC) all contributed outstanding commentaries on Daniel. There are responsible teachers out there. Unfortunately, there are more John Hagee's than Dwight Pentecost's around.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Bert Perry's picture

....I think your second comment confirmed the truth of my first comment.  You're afraid that people will see this and believe it to be normative or the "hot new theology", and you then point to the preponderance of views being on the premill side.  That's classic argumentum ad populum, and (ironically) it's one of the big reasons our circles often get so worked up about new ideas coming to town; we simply don't remember how sound thinkers process them.  Hence too many of us are indeed going into battle unarmed.

And to the question of Israel's position, count me as a person who is pre-mill but is very open to the notion that modern Israel does not fulfill prophecy because 80% of the population is secular.  The prophets seem to assume that mass repentance and turning to God is necessary. 

Count me in with Tyler as well in regretting that there are far more people spreading....nonsense about the matter around (e.g. Hagee) than sound analysts like Pentecost.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Paul J. Scharf's picture

TylerR wrote:

I'm an Maranatha Seminary grad, and was taught a reasoned and passionate form of dispensationalism there (thanks, Dr. Oats!)  and I've never heard what you wrote (below):

The traditional dispensational view, as far as I have heard it espoused by every single one of its leading teachers (too many to list), is that modern-day Israel is the Israel of Ezekiel 36 and 37:1-2—returned to the land in unbelief and an unregenerate state, in preparation ("stage-setting") for regeneration and possession of the land in belief.

I think we come from different dispensationalist camps. I am grieved that so much of dispensationalism is stereotyped as "Left Behind: theology. There are good, solid, wonderful teachers out there who do outstanding jobs defending the system. Robert Thomas' Revelation commentary is the best thing on Revelation I've ever read. Mike Vlach is doing outstanding work. Leon Wood, Peter Steveson, Walvoord, Gleason Archer (EBC) and Dwight Pentecost (BKC) all contributed outstanding commentaries on Daniel. There are responsible teachers out there. Unfortunately, there are more John Hagee's than Dwight Pentecost's around.

Please do not lump me in with John Hagee. You can lump me in with the Left Behind theology (whatever you mean by that), as Tim LaHaye was a kind, gracious and scholarly man who did more for a "reasoned and passionate form of dispensationalism" than the two of us together will ever dream of doing.

Actually, I do not think that "we come from different dispensational camps." The ironic thing about your post is that Thomas, Wood, Walvoord and Pentecost, for sure, and, as far as I know, Vlach would all agree with what I am saying about the modern state of Israel. Archer was not really a dispensationalist. Never heard of Steveson.

Being a Maranatha alumnus, I would be shocked that you never heard such a view espoused there.

My question for those who see no connection between Ezekiel 36-37 and the modern state of Israel is: What do you expect to happen to the modern state of Israel? What more do you need to see happen in order to acknowledge that Israel is back in her land—in unbelief?

Church Ministries Representative for the Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Paul J. Scharf's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

....I think your second comment confirmed the truth of my first comment.  You're afraid that people will see this and believe it to be normative or the "hot new theology", and you then point to the preponderance of views being on the premill side.  That's classic argumentum ad populum, and (ironically) it's one of the big reasons our circles often get so worked up about new ideas coming to town; we simply don't remember how sound thinkers process them.  Hence too many of us are indeed going into battle unarmed.

And to the question of Israel's position, count me as a person who is pre-mill but is very open to the notion that modern Israel does not fulfill prophecy because 80% of the population is secular.  The prophets seem to assume that mass repentance and turning to God is necessary. 

Count me in with Tyler as well in regretting that there are far more people spreading....nonsense about the matter around (e.g. Hagee) than sound analysts like Pentecost.

Bert,

This is what I HATE about online discussions. We are simply on two different wavelengths here.

The latter half of my second post above STILL is not stating that the the correct view is the one held by the majority. I was simply responding to the idea, bandied about above, that there are just all kinds of traditional dispensational theology advocates who do not see modern-day Israel having any prophetic significance. My response: SHOW ME ONE. NOT A HUNDRED OF THEM, JUST ONE.

As to your second point, please, again, do not lump me in with Hagee in any way, shape, form or fashion.

Ironically, I am the theological grandson of Pentecost many times over, and he would agree with me in this discussion. I am glad that you appreciate him as much as I do.

ONE LAST QUESTION: If the prophets see Israel coming to faith WITHIN HER LAND, what logically must happen before she comes to faith?

Church Ministries Representative for the Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

John E.'s picture

Those of us who identify as such, prefer the label "fulfillment theology" and not "replacement theology." :) 

Jim's picture

Paul J. Scharf wrote:

My question for those who see no connection between Ezekiel 36-37 and the modern state of Israel is: What do you expect to happen to the modern state of Israel? What more do you need to see happen in order to acknowledge that Israel is back in her land—in unbelief?

I would expect this: "Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. 24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.[a] 28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. " Ezekiel 36:22-29

Modern Israel (and I do support it!) is largely atheistic: "Irreligion in Israel is common. Jewish atheism is the most common form of irreligion. The 2009 Avi-Chai study found 77% of Israeli Jews believe in a "higher power", while 46% define themselves as secular, of which 8% define themselves as "anti-religious""

 

TylerR's picture

Editor

If you're upset, please don't be! I think dispensationalism has been stereotyped by people who should know better for a long time.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Paul J. Scharf's picture

Jim wrote:

 

Paul J. Scharf wrote:

 

My question for those who see no connection between Ezekiel 36-37 and the modern state of Israel is: What do you expect to happen to the modern state of Israel? What more do you need to see happen in order to acknowledge that Israel is back in her land—in unbelief?

 

 

I would expect this: "Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. 24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.[a] 28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. " Ezekiel 36:22-29

 

Jim,

Please tell me WHERE ISRAEL IS when this happens.

HINT, HINT: Ezekiel 36:24

Church Ministries Representative for the Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Jim's picture

Paul J. Scharf wrote:
Please tell me WHERE ISRAEL IS when this happens.

HINT, HINT: Ezekiel 36:24

I'm not saying that God has not providentially moved (Harry Truman ... et al) ... but I just am not ready to see this Israel as the fulfillment!

I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that there are more Jews in New York than in Israel

Paul J. Scharf's picture

Jim wrote:

 

Paul J. Scharf wrote:

Please tell me WHERE ISRAEL IS when this happens.

 

HINT, HINT: Ezekiel 36:24

 

 

I'm not saying that God has not providentially moved (Harry Truman ... et al) ... but I just am not ready to see this Israel as the fulfillment!

I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that there are more Jews in New York than in Israel

Jim,

I got you...

My question, again then, is what will it take for you to become convinced that Israel is back in her land, in unbelief—and what is your Biblical basis for that answer?

Church Ministries Representative for the Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Steve Davis's picture

Paul J. Scharf wrote:

Bert, I think you misread my post entirely. Who said that the majority view is correct? My point was that the replacement guys see an opportunity to make inroads here on a discussion on a site that, by the majority of its contributors and advertisers, for instance, does not promote their view. It would be like me jumping out to post on a Reformed theology site.

Steve, I do not think it is fair to call such an observation whining.

The traditional dispensational view, as far as I have heard it espoused by every single one of its leading teachers (too many to list), is that modern-day Israel is the Israel of Ezekiel 36 and 37:1-2—returned to the land in unbelief and an unregenerate state, in preparation ("stage-setting") for regeneration and possession of the land in belief.

Go ahead and list for me all the great dispensational teachers who proclaim that modern-day Israel has no relation to the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Then we'll start counting noses.

I don't think you struck a nerve. I was pointing out the divine protection of present-day Israel. I commented because I think it’s worth discussing. You mentioned your observation that amil-replacement guys jump on this, that young readers might be inordinately influence, that the replacement view doesn't reflect the SI community.  You are still worrying about "inroads." It’s not about the "replacement" view. It’s about whether the establishment of Israel in 1948 was the fulfillment of prophecy. Many traditional/classic dispensationalists may have held, might hold that opinion. House asked the question whether “the Israel of end-times prophecy differ from the Israel of today?” (BIBLIOTHECA SACRA 166 (October–December 2009): 463–81). That’s the question.

This has been discussed often on SI. Consider this – June 16, 2015

“Isaacs: The nation of Israel has always had a key eschatological role in dispensationalism. Do you think the establishment of the modern, secular state of Israel in 1948 vindicates—or at least adds more credibility to—dispensational premillennialism over the other millennial systems (amillennialism, postmillennialism, historic premillennialism)?

Cone: 1948 was a significant date for Israel, of course, but it isn’t necessarily a prophetically significant date. Some suggest that 1948 could be a fulfillment of the first part of the Ezekiel 37 prophecy (flesh on bone, with no breath), but I think that is a tough connection to make. Still, it is significant that Israel is in the land, but if God so desires, He could allow her to be removed again. I don’t expect that to happen, but it wouldn’t violate biblical prophecy if it did.”

I agree on this point with Cone. 1948 was significant for Israel but any connection to Ezekiel 37 is dubious. The connection with prophecy is problematic whether one holds to a future restoration of Israel or not. If there is a restored Israel, it is yet future!

I’ll let the young (and old) readers decide for themselves.

TylerR's picture

Editor

I was implying nothing. By your comments, I assumed you were upset, and I was trying to defuse the situation. I think many dispensationalist's relentless focus on modern-day Israel is generally imbalanced. Even if I had been taught such minutiae of prophesy at Maranatha so as to believe modern-day Israel is a fulfillment of Ezekiel 36-37, I likely wouldn't have believed it.  

So, no hard feelings (hopefully). I just disagree about modern-day Israel. God has certainly protected her (I've read many histories of the 1948 war, the 1967 war, and the 1972 war). However, the interpretation you present seems desperate and far-fetched, to me. It sounds like something I'd read from Hal Lindsey.

Postscript - I just re-read Ezek 36-37. There is NO WAY on God's green earth that modern-day Israel is depicted here. It's astonishing people would actually believe this. I've never heard anyone say that in my life, and I think there's a reason why - it's not there. I will review all my materials, commentaries and texts on Ezekiel and dispensational eschatology this evening, to see who teaches this, and why. Perhaps I just haven't been paying attention. Perhaps I'm the odd one! I'll dig into it this evening. 

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Jim's picture

  • I'm not a replacement theology guy
  • I'm basically (perhaps like MacArthur - a "leaky one") dispensationalist
  • I support Israel
  • Not so sure Ez 36 fulfilled by 1948

Pages