Dispensationalists: Why is This Version of Israel THE One of Prophecy?

[preachinjesus]

Four pages and only one attempt to answer the OP. Thanks to Webdog. Now can a dispy please explain why today's Israel is the Israel prophesied in the last days before Christ's return?

Though I'm a progressive dispensationalist, I don't accept that the political Israel of current is the same as spiritual Israel of the OT. So I guess I answered the OP from that perspective.

The dispensationalists who affirm what you're getting into usually start with the unfulfilled Abrahamic covenant that, though extended by the Church, will only be fulfilled in the re-establishment of the Nation of Israel (regardless of form or faithfulness) prior to the pre-tribulational rapture of the Church. The re-established Nation of Israel plays a key role in the Tribulation with a number of eschatological acts being performed around and within its borders.

The current National Israel is an extension of the OT Israel insofar as it is comprised of genetic descendants of Abraham (Jews are of the Tribe of Judah.) Also given their genealogical link they thus are inheritors of the Abrahamic Covenant which (according to Dispensational Pre-Millennial/Pre-Tribulationalists) is binding and unconditional. Thus the Jews are the natural inheritors of the Abrahamic promise of a great nation, land, and progeny.

Therefore any promises of the OT for Israel which are currently unfulfilled, these transfer to the re-established Israel for prophetic accomplishment at the end of the age. Revelation becomes a key in the (mis)interpretation of the role of Israelite concepts (tribes, male virgins, heavenly kingdom images, etc.)

I don't know, but that is just my take.

 

[preachinjesus]

They are preparing as we speak. What aren't you buying?

Though this wasn't directed at me...I'll toss in...the need for a new Temple. If Hebrews is correct we don't need a new Temple for sacrifices. Why would God permit this? Why is God bound by a physical object determining His eschatological plan?

 

[Iconoclast]

Amy.G

This doesn't answer my question at all. What do you think Paul means when he says that Israel will be blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in?

In this passage Paul is speaking about Israel. He is explaining what has happened to them. To understand it at all ,you need to slow down a bit and look carefully at it.

He did not say this....as you write it:

when he says that Israel will be blinded until

what it does say is blindness ...IN PART....Has happened to Israel. That speaks of a remnant....not all were blinded.
Gentiles being grafted in with the remnant form the new Israel.

You guys keep dancing around this verse and the reason is because it clearly shows that there are Gentiles and there is Israel.

If a gentile was saved in the OT....did they stay seperate from Jsrael...or become a part of that nation?

They are not one and the same. The Jews have been blinded. They will stay blind UNTIL the full number of elect Gentiles has come in. Then they will be un-blinded

.


you speak of elect gentiles...elect jews have a remnant.

Israel is NOT the church. The church is NOT Jacob. It's no wonder there is so much confusion about end times because so many want to mix Jews, Gentiles, and the church into one big pot.

Does eph 2 mix them???

I'm no scholar, but good hermeneutics demand that we ask WHO is speaking, WHO is being spoken to, and WHY. If God makes a promise to Israel, it is NOT a promise to the church or anyone else

We have to see who the promise was made to...yes!:thumbs:

And all through the NT, the church is always referred to as the CHURCH. Israel is always referred to as ISRAEL.

acts 7:38
not the same as the nt church, yet it also was a called out assembly

 

[webdog]

Though this wasn't directed at me...I'll toss in...the need for a new Temple. If Hebrews is correct we don't need a new Temple for sacrifices. Why would God permit this? Why is God bound by a physical object determining His eschatological plan?

Of course we don't need a temple...but blinded jews do. He is not bound by anything He hasn't foretold through prophecy....and He permitted many atrocities by Israel throughout history, no?

 

[preachinjesus]

Has anybody answered my question yet: What do these verses mean to the Amil or the Preterist?

Romans 11:25-26 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Though I am neither an Amillennialist or Preterist (neither is defensible in light of NT eschatology and a coherent read of Revelation) I would suggest we need to read Paul's entire argument across Romans 7-12. The key here is that, for Paul, he is going to make a distinction between spiritual Israel and political Israel. There are Jews, and genetic descendants of Abraham in Israel, who are pagans and not worthy of salvation. (I'd also point out that even the OT there are passages detailing how to dismiss unfaithful Israelites.)

Perhaps to directly answer the question I'd have to ask: are all Israelites/Jews going to be saved at the end of world just by benefit of their genes? What about people who are 1/2 Israeli?

It seems clear (well to me) that Paul is speaking about those who have been faithful to the ways and Word of God.

A closing question: Since the ushering in of the New Covenant, can anyone receive salvation apart from faith in Jesus Christ?

 

[webdog]

Isn't this thread directed at dispy's? Why are so many non posting?

 

[preachinjesus]

Of course we don't need a temple...but blinded jews do. He is not bound by anything He hasn't foretold through prophecy....and He permitted many atrocities by Israel throughout history, no?

Fair enough, a question in reply: since the New Covenant is any saved by any other means that explicit faith in Jesus Christ?

 

[Amy.G]

Amy.G
Gentiles being grafted in with the remnant form the new Israel.

There is no such thing as a "new" Israel.

 

[Amy.G]

Fair enough, a question in reply: since the New Covenant is any saved by any other means that explicit faith in Jesus Christ?

No. The tribulation is a time for the Jews specifically in which God will turn their hearts to Jesus, the Messiah they rejected.

 

[preachinjesus]

No. The tribulation is a time for the Jews specifically in which God will turn their hearts to Jesus, the Messiah they rejected.

So no one else will be saved during the Tribulation?

 

[Iconoclast]

Isn't this thread directed at dispy's? Why are so many non posting?

Originally Posted by webdog
Of course we don't need a temple...but blinded jews do. He is not bound by anything He hasn't foretold through prophecy....and He permitted many atrocities by Israel throughout history, no?

As many have offered...the basic dispensational ideas have been partially cast off.It is a bit unstable.
Another issue is they are looking to re-create what already existed in the first century.The temple,sacrifices,etc.
Israel is still under God;s judgement...yes..

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

 

[webdog]

Fair enough, a question in reply: since the New Covenant is any saved by any other means that explicit faith in Jesus Christ?

No, and this is how they will be saved when the abomination that causes desolation takes place half way through Jacobs Trouble. They will turn to the one they pierced.

 

[A Faithful Sidekick]

Because God PROMISED a kingdom to Israel. They have yet to receive it, but one day they will because God does NOT break His promises.

Obviously you didn't read the rest of the post you responded to. If the Temple is rebuilt and animal sacrifices resume, will God accept those sacrifices in lieu of the blood of Christ?!? I can think of nothing that would be more offensive to the Lamb of God, than to preside over animal sacrifices as though His own sacrifice was insufficient to wash away sins.

 

[kyredneck]

Why is Israel "after the flesh" significant, then? ....

"65 million American Evangelical cultists" is why.

[edit to add] Christian Zionism: The new heresy that sways America (2004)

"Estimates as to the size of the movement as a whole vary considerably. While critics like Crowley claim, ‘At least one out of every 10 Americans is a devotee’, that is between ‘25 to 30 million’, Christian Zionists such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell claim weekly access to 100 million sympathetic Americans.[4] What ever the true figure, all are agreed, that number that is growing in size and influence.[5] They are led by 80,000 fundamentalist pastors and clergy, their views disseminated by 1,000 local Christian radio stations as well as 100 Christian TV stations.[6] Doug Kreiger lists over 250 pro-Israeli organisations founded in the 1980s alone.[7]"

 

[thomas15]

There is a major difference in their approach, but to each his own. Plus, their goal is not to demonstrate covenant theology. Even further, not all amills believe in the theological covenants that you seem to hate so much. It is not so much progressive amillism so much as progressive covenantalism (new covenant theology). Theology is so fluid, that I wouldn't dare put the likes of Beale or Schreiner in any camp. I don't know them well enough. I just know I like what I read from them.

First of all, I don't hate covenants, the Bible has them. What I'm saying is the Bible doesn't teach the covenants (grace, works, redemption) that covenant theology uses as a base of operations. If there are such covenants, Jehovah in His wisedom has not put that information in His Word which makes their existance pure speculation on the part of theologians. Over the past year I have posted many times the challange to show said reformed covenants with little response. I search the puritanboard and even they cannot satisfy the question from a Biblical perspective, they have to rely on the historical creeds and writings of the reformers.

By your own admission, theology is fluid. If that is the case then why do I not see you defending dispies who are subject to a never ending stream of criticism from the reformed crowd in threads like this one where the claim is that dispies have painted themselves into a supposed corner and that Bock's Progressive scheme is way different than Scofield's classic scheme, a claim this is based more on shouting by the fans of replacement theology rather than Biblical texts?

My reading Schreiner in a purely Baptist context such as in Believers Baptism (NAC- Holman Academic) compared to his NT Theology one gets the impression that he has trouble sleeping at night and probably keeps Walter Kaiser Jr on speed dial. Don't get me wrong, he is a great writer and deep thinker, but....

And, I will state plainly to you Tim that I get the nagging feeling the New Covenant Theology is an attempt by those who have difficulties seeing the big 3 covenants (works/redemption/grace) in the Bible but for the sake of their academic reputation and personal comfort level among the brethern don't want to be associated with us dispy rubes. Sorry if I offend you my brother but there it is.

By the way, I subscribe to The Journal of Dispensational Theology and enjoy reading it. That and BibSac. If you have articles in either I would be interested in reading them.

 

[Greektim]

First of all, I don't hate covenants, the Bible has them. What I'm saying is the Bible doesn't teach the covenants (grace, works, redemption) that covenant theology uses as a base of operations. If there are such covenants, Jehovah in His wisedom has not put that information in His Word which makes their existance pure speculation on the part of theologians. Over the past year I have posted many times the challange to show said reformed covenants with little response. I search the puritanboard and even they cannot satisfy the question from a Biblical perspective, they have to rely on the historical creeds and writings of the reformers.

Those are the covenants to which I was referring. I have to admit, I have a hard time finding a biblical basis for those theological covenants. As far as the biblical covenants go, I base much of my biblical theology and redemptive history on them. So I call myself covenantal, but it needs to be qualified for some.

By your own admission, theology is fluid. If that is the case then why do I not see you defending dispies who are subject to a never ending stream of criticism from the reformed crowd in threads like this one where the claim is that dispies have painted themselves into a supposed corner and that Bock's Progressive scheme is way different than Scofield's classic scheme, a claim this is based more on shouting by the fans of replacement theology rather than Biblical texts?

I have a hard time defending dispies when they still think of us believing "replacement theology". And Bock's scheme is way different than Scofield's. Reading Bock and the other PDs demonstrate as much.

My reading Schreiner in a purely Baptist context such as in Believers Baptism (NAC- Holman Academic) compared to his NT Theology one gets the impression that he has trouble sleeping at night and probably keeps Walter Kaiser Jr on speed dial. Don't get me wrong, he is a great writer and deep thinker, but....

Baptist does not equal dispensational. That is a misunderstanding.

And, I will state plainly to you Tim that I get the nagging feeling the New Covenant Theology is an attempt by those who have difficulties seeing the big 3 covenants (works/redemption/grace) in the Bible but for the sake of their academic reputation and personal comfort level among the brethern don't want to be associated with us dispy rubes. Sorry if I offend you my brother but there it is.

That is exactly what New covenant theology is as far as the theological covenants you mentioned. But it has nothing to do with avoiding dispensationalism b/c the NCC theologians don't adhere to dispensational teachings either. NCC is to Covenant Theology as Progressive Dispensationalism is to Classic Dispensationalism (or revised for that matter).

By the way, I subscribe to The Journal of Dispensational Theology and enjoy reading it. That and BibSac. If you have articles in either I would be interested in reading them.

I have non in BSac. That is a hard journal to get something published in. They have a long waiting list. And with my theological shift, I am ashamed of the articles I did write for the JODT. That said, one of my articles mentions Bock in the title (it is all about PDism). But you have to understand, I was a fundamentalist back then and the uber-dispensationalist. I probably was not as well researched as I could have been, nor was I as gracious as I should have been. If you can find my first article, then you'll be able to find my second one. I have another article published in Conspectus, the journal for South African Theological Seminary. It's about Ruth, so I'm not so ashamed of that one.

 

[thomas15]

Obviously you didn't read the rest of the post you responded to. If the Temple is rebuilt and animal sacrifices resume, will God accept those sacrifices in lieu of the blood of Christ?!? I can think of nothing that would be more offensive to the Lamb of God, than to preside over animal sacrifices as though His own sacrifice was insufficient to wash away sins.

Perhaps the sacrifices are not intended to atone for sins? Is that a possibility? Did you know that during the last supper, Jesus and the apostles ate meat that was processed at the temple? And what exactly was Paul doing in Jerusalem Acts ch. 21?

If the Bible teaches that there is going to be another temple with animal sacrifices then, guess what, there is going to be another temple with animal sacrifices your protests not withstanding.

 

[thomas15]

Tim, I appreciate your candid response.
Tom

 

[kyredneck]

....If the Bible teaches that there is going to be another temple with animal sacrifices......

Totally the opposite:

.... Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever....Mt 21:19

21 And a strong angel took up a stone as it were a great millstone and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with a mighty fall shall Babylon, the great city, be cast down, and shall be found no more at all.
22 And the voice of harpers and minstrels and flute-players and trumpeters shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft, shall be found any more at all in thee; and the voice of a mill shall be heard no more at all in thee;
23 and the light of a lamp shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the princes of the earth; for with thy sorcery were all the nations deceived.
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth. Rev 18

 

[mandym]

Just because Israel goes back to the sacrificial system does not mean that God endorses it. That is a strawman argument that no one is making. (More false representations by cals). Israel, not having accepted Yeshua, will go back to the sacrificial system until they do.