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

Tyler, not that it matters much but I think if you read on in Fruchtenbaum you would see that he does see modern Israel as a fulfillment of Ezekiel. I personally think he is totally out to lunch in certain areas but just though I’d clarify.

“The Bible does not allow for several worldwide regatherings in unbelief; it allows for one worldwide regathering in unbelief, followed by the last one, the one in faith, which is the second one. This text only permits two worldwide regatherings from the four corners of the earth. Therefore, the present Jewish State is very relevant to Bible prophecy.”

The fact of the matter is that an exegesis of Ezekiel 36-37 does not support any such foolishness. I provided a short summary of sources to make the point that this is by no means a settled issue. None of the authors I cited provided exegesis; they discussed the issue briefly in a systematic fashion. They systematize; they don’t exegete. I don’t believe you’ll find a detailed commentary which takes this silly position, because it’s ridiculous. I think it’s a fringe interpretation made by folks who want to “find something” to support the modern State of Israel.

I dare anybody to either:

1. provide a link or citation to a detailed commentary on Ezek 36 - 37 which supports this madness (no, I’m not referring to a popular internet article or a piece for the FoI choir; I’m referring to a substantive, responsible, verse by verse exposition), or
2. provide a verse by verse commentary yourself on Ezekiel 36-37 which substantiates the idea that the modern State of Israel is a fulfillment of these prophesies, and demonstrate this from the immediate context of the passage.

I promise that I will respond to anything that is offered with my own commentary, and I leave it to the readers to judge which one does more justice to the text. If a response is offered, I’ll offer my own commentary on my own website and provide a link here.

I realize this will be offensive to people, but the idea that the modern State of Israel is found within the prophesies of Ezek 36 - 37 is perhaps one the wildest, most irresponsible and ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. It’s one of the reasons why people make fun of dispensationalists. This kind of interpretation of the text is laughable and unworthy. The only thing I’ve ever heard that’s worse than this is when a pastor friend of mine said he “saw America” in Obadiah 4 … (i.e. the eagle and the stars = America)

What is your interpretation of that passage Tyler? When is it fulfilled? Is it an all at once thing?

I do not know if the following resources clear the high bar of sophisticated exegesis that Tyler is looking for … (we might have to go to Hahhh-vahhhd for those :-)) ) but here are a few more resources (go ahead and call them silly and fringe if you want to) to consider that talk about the prophetic signficance of the modern state of Israel:

The MacArthur Study Bible - note on Ezek. 36:24

The Moody Bible Commentary - pp. 1258-1259

Future Israel by Barry E. Horner - pp. 60-61a

Israel and the Church by Ronald E. Diprose - pp. 25-27

Jews, Gentiles & the Church by David L. Larsen - pp. 17, 290

It is very interesting how the goal post keeps moving in this discussion … First, “Nobody believes that stuff! HA, HA, HA!!!” Then, “Look, there are LOTS of dispensationalists who do not even believe that! Here are some names …” (Whoops … !!!). Then, “Well, maybe all the dispensationalists DO believe that, but their interpretation is simply ‘foolish, silly, ridiculous, fringe, mad, irresponsible … did I say ridiculous, wild, laughable, unworthy, insane, imbalanced. …’”

Wow! Tell you what—here is my challenge: Please write a 150-200 pp. exegetical dissertation (8-point font, single-spaced) on Ezekiel 36 and 37, demonstrating from the Hebrew and Aramaic, using original sources not previously in print, that the modern state of Israel is completely detached from any reference to or significance of Biblical prophecy. Extra points will be awarded if the dissertation is written in classical Greek. Further additional points will be awarded for the use of Ugaritic, as well modern Hebrew or Arabic. Double points will be awarded if you translate the dissertation from classical Greek into theological German. Upon receipt, I will determine whether or not the manuscript is deemed worthy of study and/or publication. … He said with tongue firmly planted in cheeck.

Challenge accepted. I’ll collate as much of the opposite side as I can, and interact with it in my own response. As for myself, my own goalposts haven’t changed. I think DT is unfairly maligned by people who ought to know better. I also think there has been a great deal of “bad prophesy” from irresponsible DTs over the years, and this “bad prophesy” goes on a spectrum, from “a bit irresponsible” to “crazy.”

I’ll post the link here when I write my response on my website.

I’ve always been intrigued as I read about the disciples as they recognized fulfilled prophecy before their eyes during the last week of Christ’s life and then went on to fully understand what He had taught them about eschatology as they awaited His immediate return on the Mount of Olives.

Dispensationalists have at times been their own worst enemies.

Should we be surprised at this if dispensationalism is true? After all, as one of my professors famously said, the Devil is alive and well!

Part of this is (pardon the pun), the nature of the beast. No one is going to produce a late-night cable TV show presenting an extreme view of amillennialism (though we could mention a couple who have come close).

Part of it also is the nature of the movement itself. Dispensationalism, from its inception, has been a “bottom-up,” lay-oriented movement. That brings good and bad with it. The downside includes the fact that we have the “just-me-and-my-Bible/church-history-began-wth-D.L. Moody” crowd among us, as well as some clever imitators, sensationalists and charlatans.

However, I do not include people like Tim LaHaye, or ideas like the significance of the modern state of Israel, among the extremes that our movement has attracted.

We do have an interesting dynamic and tension in our movement. After all, how do you reconcile the fact that the dispensational movement, broadly defined, includes both Dallas and Grace Seminaries (think of their heyday, sort of like TMS today, only times two) as well as someone like Jack Van Impe? How do we handle the fact that sometimes even some of our more serious scholars cross over and present in some of these more “popular-level” venues?

Having been raised an amillennial Lutheran, I can you that I never had to struggle with such things there. Yet, all in all, I can also say that I would NEVER go back, in spite of the warts of the dispensational movement. If you are looking for perfection, brother, just hang on for the Kingdom!

Walvoord, Thomas, Ryrie and Pentecost represent the best that revised dispensationalism has offered to date. Despite the sneers of the critics, they haven’t interacted much with their works. I’ve heard wonderful things about Vlach’s book on the Kingdom, and I plan to read it this year. Vlach’s book on replacement theology is also excellent.

“Israel is an island of democracy, where human rights and responsibilities are recognized and honored,” Sibley said in written comments. “There are excellent reasons for the tremendous and historic ties between the United States and Israel. Israel allows both Jews and Arabs full and equal rights and privileges, including participation in the government, universities and business. So it is a stabilizing influence in the Middle East. Christian communities in other countries in the Middle East are suffering persecution and death. What a stark contrast to the religious freedom in Israel.”

In addition, Sibley said, “the modern State of Israel is also a testimony to the truthfulness of God’s Word and the faithfulness of God to His promises. He is gathering the Jewish people from the four corners of the earth back to the Land of Israel, even as He promised in Isaiah 11:11 and Ezekiel 36-37. In Romans 11, Paul says that God’s promises are irrevocable, so when we see the modern State of Israel, we can take comfort that His promises to us are certain, as well. Furthermore, to see the vibrant and growing remnant of Jewish believers in Jesus (Yeshua) here in Israel is also to be assured of His faithfulness.”

http://www.bpnews.net/50890/israel-embassy-protests-draw-baptist-reacti…

David R. Brumbelow

It seems to me that there are at least some arguments for why the 1948 restoration might be part of Ezek 36-37. Calling it names like “foolishness,” “silly,” “ridiculous,” “irresponsible,” “laughable,” and “unworthy” seems unlikely to engender good will and foster dialogue.

Perhaps we can press in a bit this way:

1. Do you agree that Ezek 36:24-31 (in particular) indicate that Israel is restored to the land and then (after the restoration) is made clean by God?
2. Why would 1948 not be that restoration?
3. If not 1948, what would convince you that it was the restoration prophesied in Ezekiel?

If, by “exegesis,” you mean that the date of 1948 and the idea of the modern state of Israel (as opposed to the OT theocracy/monarchy) is not in Ezekiel 36, then perhaps your point would be stronger. But I don’t think that really qualifies as an objection to the meaning of the text and its application.

If I were speaking to Paul in person, I’d say the same thing. He and I have had extensive discussion about this over the past 24 hours (offline), and he doesn’t think I’m being cruel and heartless to him. I’ll post the link here when I respond to the issue.

On another note, if you want to provide reasons why you support that interpretation of Ezek 36 - 37, then I’ll listen and interact with them when I respond.

[Paul J. Scharf]

…..

It is very interesting how the goal post keeps moving in this discussion … First, “Nobody believes that stuff! HA, HA, HA!!!” Then, “Look, there are LOTS of dispensationalists who do not even believe that! Here are some names …” (Whoops … !!!). Then, “Well, maybe all the dispensationalists DO believe that, but their interpretation is simply ‘foolish, silly, ridiculous, fringe, mad, irresponsible … did I say ridiculous, wild, laughable, unworthy, insane, imbalanced. …’” …..

My goal post has been the same since my first comment (which I’m glad has engendered debate).

“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),”

I don’t think I ever questioned that dispensationalism teaches the 1948 restoration of Israel as fulfillment of prophecy. I probably taught that myself. And there are some dispensationalists who hedge their bets, maybe this is it. Whatever your exegesis of the Ezekiel passages, there is absolutely no evidence that this points to Israel in 1948 - except that what took place was historically significant and holds tremendous importance for Israel and the world. You may think Ezekiel refers to 1948 Israel, believe it, hope it, preach it, squeeze it into a theological system. But you can’t know it. Israel today in unbelief is not the people of God. God has his people - the Church. Boum! Field goal between the posts!