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

….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.

[TylerR]

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?

[Bert Perry]

….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?

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

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

[Jim]

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

Comment removed - issued resolved.

[Jim]

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?

[Paul J. Scharf]

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.

I have made my points, and I am officially signing off on this one!

Every Blessing,

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.