Who Really Stands with Israel?

American Vision ^ | 6/07/2006 | Gary DeMar

[topcat54]

David Brog has written Standing with Israel: Why Christians Support the Jewish State. The ten reviews I read on Amazon were quite favorable, and it is being advertised on WorldNetDaily. The fact that the Foreword was written by John Hagee, author of Jerusalem Countdown, From Daniel to Doomsday, Beginning of the End, and Final Dawn over Jerusalem, is a clear indication that the book’s thesis fits with the modern-day prophetic system known as dispensational premillennialism. I doubt that the book covers what this article reveals.

In my debate with Tommy Ice at American Vision’s Worldview Super Conference (May 26, 2006), Ice pointed out that one of the unique features of the dispensational system is that near the end of a future, post-rapture, seven-year tribulation period, Israel will be rescued by God. After nearly 2000 years of delayed promises, God will once again come to the rescue of His favored nation. Ice and other dispensationalists imply by this doctrine that they are Israel’s best friend, and anyone who does not adopt their way of interpreting the Bible is either anti-Semitic (Hal Lindsey) or a methodological naturalist (Tommy Ice).

In the debate, I wanted Tommy to explain how a belief in Israel’s glorious future results in the slaughter of two-thirds of the Jews living at the time the Great Tribulation nears the end of its seven-year run. I quoted the following dispensational writers to show that there is no glorious future for “all Jews who are under siege,” to use Tommy’s words, in the dispensational version of the Great Tribulation.

• According to the Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible, of which Tommy is an editor, “Prior to Israel’s conversion, Zechariah [13:8] predicts that two-thirds (‘two parts’) of the Jewish people in the land will perish during the tribulation period. Only one third of the Jewish population will survive until Christ comes to establish His kingdom on earth” (991).
• In his book The Living End, Charles Ryrie writes the following in a chapter he titles “A Bloodbath for Israel”: “Jacob’s trouble [Great Tribulation] is that coming period of distress described by Jesus as He spoke to His disciples on the Mount of Olives. Jeremiah labeled it ‘Jacob’s trouble’ and said it would be unique in all history (Jeremiah 30:7). Jesus called it a period of unprecedented tribulation (Matthew 24:21). This will be the time of Israel’s greatest bloodbath” (81).
• In his Israel in Prophecy, John Walvoord writes: “The purge of Israel in their time of trouble is described by Zechariah in these words: ‘And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith Jehovah, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part into the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried’ (Zechariah 13:8, 9). According to Zechariah’s prophecy, two thirds of the children of Israel in the land will perish, but the one third that are left will be refined and be awaiting the deliverance of God at the second coming of Christ which is described in the next chapter of Zechariah” (108).
• Eugene Merrill, in his Exegetical Commentary: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, writes: “The restoration and dominion cannot come until all the forces of evil that seek to subvert it are put down once and for all. Specifically, the redemption of Israel will be accomplished on the ruins of her own suffering and those of the malevolent powers of this world that, in the last day, will consolidate themselves against her and seek to interdict forever any possibility of her success. The nations of the whole earth will come against Jerusalem, and, having defeated her, will divide up their spoils of war in her very midst” (342).

There are geopolitical implications to the dispensational system that some people have picked up on.

Convinced that a nuclear Armageddon is an inevitable event within the divine scheme of things, many evangelical dispensationalists have committed themselves to a course for Israel that, by their own admission, will lead directly to a holocaust indescribably more savage and widespread than any vision of carnage that could have generated in Adolf Hitler’s criminal mind.(1)

Dispensational theology as it relates to Israel is alarming to some Jewish leaders as well. Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, asks, “To what extent will a theological view that calls for Armageddon in the Middle East lead [evangelicals] to support policies that may move in that direction, rather than toward stability and peaceful coexistence?”(2) The most probable scenario is that prophetic futurists will sit back and do nothing as they see Israel go up in smoke since the Bible predicts an inevitable holocaust. It is time to recognize that these so-called end-time biblical prophecies have been fulfilled, and Zechariah 13:7–9 is certainly one of them. Those Jews living in Judea prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and who fled before the assault on the temple were saved (Matt. 24:15–22).

1. Grace Halsell, Prophecy and Politics: Militant Evangelists on the Road to Nuclear War (Westport, CT: Lawrence Hill & Co., 1986), 195.

2. Quoted in Jeffery L. Sheler, “Odd Bedfellows,” U.S. News & World Report (August 12, 2002), 35.

Gary DeMar is president of American Vision and the author of more than 20 books. His latest is Myths, Lies, and Half Truths.

Permission to reprint granted by American Vision P.O. Box 220, Powder Springs, GA 30127, 800-628-9460.

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues, do NOT make it personal!

[xzins]

I remember that. I was a soldier in Germany, and sat around worrying about family for a while.

I figure if you're gonna go, better to Oz than to Atlantis. Obviously, you feel differently. I've never been a big fan of water sports. :>)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[P-Marlowe]

I figure if you're gonna go, better to Oz than to Atlantis. Obviously, you feel differently. I've never been a big fan of water sports. :>)

California isn't going to sink into the ocean. California is going to rise up and the rest of the country is going to sink into the ocean.

[Buggman]

California isn't going to sink into the ocean. California is going to rise up and the rest of the country is going to sink into the ocean.

There's a Jack Bauer joke in there somewhere . . .

[fortheDeclaration]

For example, do we really need to set aside most of the NT teaching to think that far in the future a temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices reinstituted "to atone for sins" (Ezekiel 45:15,17,20) just so we can apply Ezekiel 40-48 to the second coming?

Context will clear up any confusion.

The Atonement is not for personal sins, but for the nation (Ezek.45:17)

The approach by some seems to be that unless we can take a prophecy and find some historical event that lines up precisely as if we were reading the Jerusalem Post, then the prophecy cannot be applied, and must therefore, by default, refer to the second coming. Does this approach have warrent from Scripture? Is this the technique used the NT writers? Not exactly. Just look at the way, for instance, that Peter applies the Joel 2 prophecy to the events of the day of Pentecost. He calls it "the day of the Lord". Was Peter mistaken in his association of Joel with Pentecost?

If Peter thought that it was the events of Joel 2, then he was wrong, because none of them happened.

What Peter was saying is that had the Jews repented of killing their Messiah, the events of Joel would have happened, because the Lord would have returned (Acts.3:19)

[topcat54]

Not making it personal, as the thread attests. Just making it clear to my good friend that he needs to do the research for himself, and not take my word that I interpreted the material correctly.

But thanks for the advice.

[topcat54]

The Atonement is not for personal sins, but for the nation (Ezek.45:17)

Sorry, but the language of 45:17 is really no different than the language found in Leviticus and elsewhere regarding the temple sacrifices (cf. Lev. 16:16,17).

Besides, nations don't commit sins, people commit sins. They may do it collectively, but it still requires atonement for individuals, just as it requires repentance for individuals.

But the problem you are running into is that you are trying to literally interpret a passage that can only be understood by spiritually applying it to the work of Jesus Christ, when He, the "prince" in this passage, makes atonement for the people by His own sacrifice on the cross.

We read, "Then it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel."

Jesus came and made a sin offering for the house of Israel. All of those from the nation who trust in Him are saved from their sins. This is the remnant Paul's speaks of in Romans 9-11. Ezekiel's temple is a picture of this great atonement made for us by the work of Our Prince. Looking for a literal temple with literal sacrifices far in the future only distorts Ezekiel's message to the nations.

If Peter thought that it was the events of Joel 2, then he was wrong, because none of them happened.

Alright then, I see where you are coming from.

"But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:" (Acts 2:16). Note the word is. Not "could have been" or "should have been", but "is". Peter was plainly declaring that Joel 2 was being fulfilled in the midst on that Pentecost day. That's the "literal" reading of the passage anyway.

[topcat54]

If you post the above kind of pap, then it's fair for everyone to totally discount your comments on the subject.

Absolutely true. That's why I recommended to my good friend and others that you read the material for yourself. I'm already painted by y'all as a biased observer.

"Go right to the source and ask the horse. He'll give you the answer that you'll endorse."

[xzins]

It is your responsibility to support your own arguments with facts. Either do that or concede the point about the date of Revelation.

[P-Marlowe]

That's why I recommended to my good friend and others that you read the material for yourself. I'm already painted by y'all as a biased observer.

And so is Gentry!

You are the one who seems convinced by Gentry's book. Why don't you go to the book and pull out the evidence that Gentry has that Revelation was written prior to AD95?...

Why?... Because there isn't any!

I perused his entire chapter on extrinsic evidence and found none. Now if you have the evidence post it. Otherwise admit that you don't and we can all move on.

You are the one who asserts that the Book of Revelation was written before AD70. The burden of proof is on you. We have already provided the evidence that it could not have been written prior to AD90 and that evidence has not been refuted. All evidence points to the end of the reign of Domitian. None of the evidence points to 63 AD. NONE!

Your house of cards is built upon the fact that the book of Revelation could not have been written after AD65. That card has been removed. Your house is scattered across the floor.

Perhaps it is time to reassess your eschatology.

[topcat54]

Gentry's purpose it to cast doubt upon the "unanimous" evidence that has been the talking point/spin among futurists. This he does quite convincingly. He doesn't need to produce some other "anti-Irenaeus" in other to make his point. That would only make traditionalism, rather than the word of God, supreme in matter of faith and practice. He spends more time examining the internal evidence and demonstrating how it all consistent with an AD60's date for Revelation.

But you can see that just by reading the book.

Perhaps it is time to reassess your eschatology.

Let's see. I've been futurist premil (aka dispensational), and gave that up first as the least satisfying and biblical. I then sojourned through amillennialism, but found that a bit too otherworldly. I've been a (orthodox) preterist postmil for most of these years. What else is there?

[topcat54]

It is your responsibility to support your own arguments with facts. Either do that or concede the point about the date of Revelation.

I have supported my argument by referring to Gentry, Robinson, and others. I am quite comfortable with the position that they have articulated is a reasonable, scholarly explanation of the evidence. I've not come across a futurist that has spent as much research time on the subject. They seem content to simply regurgitate what others was claimed. (But if you have one I would certainly like to read their material.)

I can see where this is headed. You're not going to sucker me into giving y'all a Cliff Notes version of the books.

[P-Marlowe]

Gentry's purpose it to cast doubt upon the "unanimous" evidence that has been the talking point/spin among futurists.

That is the Johnny Cochran method. It sells with OJ jurors.

He spends more time examining the internal evidence and demonstrating how it all consistent with an AD60's date for Revelation.

Can you at least admit before all posters and lurkers that when it comes to extrinsic evidence, there is absolutely none which points to a date for the book of Revelation around 63AD? Can you simply admit that so that we can move on?

Just admit it. How hard is that?

[Alex Murphy]

Let's see. I've been futurist premil (aka dispensational), and gave that up first as the least satisfying and biblical. I then sojourned through amillennialism, but found that a bit too otherworldly. I've been a (orthodox) preterist postmil for most of these years. What else is there?

I kinda like blue-duncan's optimistic premillennialism myself. If there's another eschatology that I would ever consider, it'd be that one.

There is one other that I can think of. I call it ecclesiastical fatalism. It's an awful lot like dispensationalism, except it's not as self-delusional.

[topcat54]

Just admit it. How hard is that?

You don't get it. Gentry analyzes the external evidence and casts doubt on your singular traditional source. As I said, he does not need to produce an "anti-Irenaeus" in order for his analysis to make sense. That would elevate traditionalism to the level of Scripture, requiring a pope to make a call on extra-biblical issues.

We're just repeating ourselves. I won't concede your point. Why don't we drop it?

[P-Marlowe]

We're just repeating ourselves. I won't concede your point

As soon as we are all on the same page we can drop it. Can we all stipulate that there is no extrinsic evidence which points to a date for the Book of Revelation earlier than AD90?

All Gentry does is attempt to cast doubt on the evidence that exists. He does not present any extrinsic evidence of an earlier date. He just attacks the evidence that exists. Now if you can show me even one shred of extrinsic evidence from Genty's book or from anywhere else that specifically points to a date of the book of revelation prior to AD70, then produce it. Cut and paste from Gentry's book. Show us where he presents it. The burden is on you. If you can't meet that burden, then admit it and we'll all move on.

Why don't we drop it?

In other words, you've lost the argument. I'll stipulate to that.

[Alex Murphy]

As soon as we are all on the same page we can drop it.

Stop pinging me to your responses, effective immediately and hereafter, irregardless of thread. And stop badgering the witnesses.

[P-Marlowe]

Sorry, I was using TC's ping list.

You may stop pinging me as well.

Thank you.