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.

[1000 silverlings]

And what are the "plain and simple facts"? That the book was written after John had his vision on the isle of Patmos, just like it says

Rev 1:9

I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

1:10

I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet

[fortheDeclaration]

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).

Yes, and for that Atonement, it was national, not individual.

The individual had to deal with Peace and Trespass offerings.

The Day of Atonement was a once a year sacrifice for the entire nation.

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.

If a nation is God's nation, then that nation can receive intercession by the High Priest, as Moses did for the children of Israel (Ex.32:32)

Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people (Pr.14:34)

That is why nations are judged in Matthew 25, for what individuals did collectively to the Jews.

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.

No, the Prince, being in the office of the High Priest, will intercede for his nation and make representative sacrifices for them.

Paul does not say that those Jewish things are completely done.

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of any holyday, or of the new moon, of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. (Col.2:16-17)

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.

Oh yea! LOL!

And the water that flows out of the Temple is?(Ezek 47) and the trees that produce leafs for medicine are really what?(vs.12)

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.

No, Peter is simply saying this is what Joel wrote.

You will find that same expression used in Exod.16:22-23, 'this is that which the Lord hath said'

Had the Jews received Christ as a nation those propecies would have been fulfilled (once again-possible history)

Here is a link to a Jewish commentary on the 53rd Psa.

See how allegorical interpretation hides what is really being said.

8. From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them. From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken The prophet reports and says that the heathens (nations [mss., K’li Paz]) will say this at the end of days, when they see that he was taken from the imprisonment that he was imprisoned in their hands and from the judgment of torments that he suffered until now. and his generation The years that passed over him. who shall tell? The tribulations that befell him, for from the beginning, he was cut off and exiled from the land of the living that is the land of Israel for because of the transgression of my people, this plague came to the righteous among them.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=15984&showrashi=true

[xzins]

There is no singular source.

Very quickly yesterday evening, in a matter of minutes, I found quotes from Augustine, Victorinius, and John Chrysostom showing that they believed the identity of Antichrist/man of sin and the "falling away" to be future events. Since they were writing in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, we can pretty well establish that no one had clued them in that all was fulfilled in 70 AD.

Preterism is a house built on sand.

[Seven_0]

See how allegorical interpretation hides what is really being said.

Allegorical interpretation often brings out what is otherwise hidden.

[fortheDeclaration]

See how allegorical interpretation hides what is really being said. Allegorical interpretation often brings out what is otherwise hidden.

Was that an allegorical statement?

LOL!

[topcat54]

That's interesting, but it says nothing about the date of Revelation. All it tells us is that, perhaps, they accepted the Irenaeus report without question.

Would you argue that Victorinus' commentary on Revelation in general is accurate?

It's interesting that those who hold to an eschatology that can be verified over time, as we more farther and farther into the future, are so concerned about preterism. All you have to do is play a waiting game. If futurism is true then events will play out as you expect. No?

What I suspect is happening is that nervousness is setting in within the futurist camp. With every new book published and every new TV program about current events and Bible prophecy that proves to be wrong, the "faithful" of futurism become disillusioned and move to other, more biblically satisfying schools of eschatology. In some cases the sometimes connection between futurism and deficient soteriologies is recognized, and these folks move fully into the reformed/covenantal camp.

As I said, time is on someone's side. As a postmil I see the triumph of Christ and His truth in history. Futurism must give way.

[xzins]

In general, I would not be thrilled with any amill position, but it is higher on my list than some others.

Of course, the positions of Augustine, Victorinius, and Chrysostom on the AntiChrist/mos/apostasy being future is critical to preterism. It means that the early Christians were not clued in by the Apostles that ALL had been fulfilled.

We have Irenaeus' clear dating of the book, we have others who arguably came to the same conclusions as Irenaeus without relying on Irenaeus saying that it was a 90's AD book, and we have years of silence on anything that begins to resemble today's preterist dogma.

And we have full preterism being heresy.

And we have you, unwilling to state what are the absolute proofs of your preterist position. We also have the strange situation in which preterists are unwilling to present their view, but are always critics of other views.

I'd say that preterism is bound for the trashbin of history.

[Buggman]

All it tells us is that, perhaps, they accepted the Irenaeus report without question.

Perhaps, but you've not yet established either that Irenaeus was indeed their sole source or that he was inaccurate or unreliable. Remember, Eusebius refers to a "they" who recorded the time of Yochanan's exile accurately, which implies more than a single source.

Would you argue that Victorinus' commentary on Revelation in general is accurate?

Irrelevant, since its not as if there's a more "accurate" preterist commentary from the same era in competition with it, nor is there a source from the same era that puts the date of the Revelation in the 60s.

It's interesting that those who hold to an eschatology that can be verified over time, as we more farther and farther into the future, are so concerned about preterism.

Dude, you're the one who keeps posting these articles. We're just pointing out that they and preterism in general doesn't hold up under scrutiny. If you can't handle the scrutiny, stop putting your stuff under the microscope.

What I suspect is happening is that nervousness is setting in within the futurist camp.

Ah, the classic argumentum popus psychologios: When you don't have a leg to stand on factually, start trying to divert attention to your opponent's supposed motivations (aka the Circumstantial Ad Hominem).

[topcat54]

And we have you, unwilling to state what are the absolute proofs of your preterist position.

Eschatology is a secondary issue. While every idea has implications, whether you are a futurist or preterist or historicist does not affect your standing in Christ. Thus, there are no "absolute proofs" when it comes to an issue such as this. If there were, then one of us would be well-received within the larger body of Christ and the other would be on the outside as a heretic, like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. (I realize you have been working hard to call me a heretic, but have refrained so far from doing so.)

I have no wish to separate from brothers over the matter of the second coming. As long as you can affirm a visible, personal second coming of Christ at the end of the age to coincide with a bodily resurrection and judgement of all men, then you're OK in my book. That's because there are no "absolute proofs" that your eschatology is wrong and mine is right (or vice versa).

You don't seem to see it that way. Thus the futility of these discussion. I guess I'm done.

[xzins]

(I realize you have been working hard to call me a heretic, but have refrained so far from doing so.)

Oh for Pete's sake, YOU are the one who said you reject FULL preterism and that FULL preterism is heresy.

As for me, I'd be more than glad to sit down with you over a cup of coffee and have a great conversation.

[Seven_0]

I'd say that preterism is bound for the trashbin of history.

A lie will quickly take root in the soil that this world has to offer, but the truth needs fallow ground. The hard fought battles that out fathers fought and won on doctrine, must be fought by each generation. We may put preterism away for a while, but it will be back.

[Alex Murphy]

Eschatology is a secondary issue. While every idea has implications, whether you are a futurist or preterist or historicist does not affect your standing in Christ. Thus, there are no "absolute proofs" when it comes to an issue such as this.....

I have no wish to separate from brothers over the matter of the second coming. As long as you can affirm a visible, personal second coming of Christ at the end of the age to coincide with a bodily resurrection and judgement of all men, then you're OK in my book. That's because there are no "absolute proofs" that your eschatology is wrong and mine is right (or vice versa).

You don't seem to see it that way. Thus the futility of these discussion. I guess I'm done.

Amen, topcat - I share your sentiments, and hearby charge you with theft for stealing the words right outta my mouth.

I also have to give Lee N. Field credit where credit is due - he predicted this would devolve into a flamefest, and he was right. I shoulda listened to him.

[P-Marlowe]

That's because there are no "absolute proofs" that your eschatology is wrong and mine is right (or vice versa).

However, IF the Book of Revelation was written after AD70, then your preterist eschatology cannot be correct. Your eschatology is absolutely contingent upon a pre-AD70 Book of Revelation. Period.

The futurist position is ambivalent as to when the book of Revelation was written, however its position is made stronger with proof that it was not written until near the end of the reign of Domitian. And we have both extrinsic and intrinsic proof of that fact.

I guess I'm done.

So stipulated.

[Lee N. Field]

I also have to give Lee N. Field credit where credit is due - he predicted this would devolve into a flamefest, and he was right. I shoulda listened to him.

It always has before. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. And, what-da-ya-know, the thread is rapidly approaching 400 posts.

[Alex Murphy]

You are a wiser man than I, Lee. Next time, I shall endeavor even more earnestly to get in and get out peaceably, even while I'm putting in my two cents.

Apologies to all if my rhetoric got in the way of God's truth and grace.

[Lee N. Field]

Hey, man, we gotta keep trying. Repeat Galations 3:29 often enough, maybe it'll sink in.

[Alex Murphy]

Repeat Galatians 3:29 often enough, maybe it'll sink in.

Add a dash of Romans 9:6-8, and mix thoroughly :). Thanks, Lee.

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.
- Galatians 3:26-29

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."
That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
- Romans 9:6-8