Why I Am A Christian Zionist

[Guest shiloh357]

Why I Am A Christian Zionist

 

 

            Christian Zionism is rooted in the Bible, which declares God’s eternal covenant with the Jewish people.  Our assertion that the Jewish people have a biblical right to their historic homeland generates no small controversy, and this is due in part to both a misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches regarding the future of Israel from a prophetic standpoint, as well as a lack of understanding regarding the history and dynamics of the current conflict.  As a result Christian Zionism, itself has been mischaracterized.   The purpose of this paper is to clarify what Christian Zionism is and what it is not, and why I believe it to be both biblically and intellectually sound.

 

What is Christian Zionism?

 

            First, Christian Zionism needs to be defined and to do that Zionism itself must be defined.   Zionism is:

·         The National Liberation movement of the Jewish People.

·         It is the modern expression of the ancient longing by the Jewish People to return to their land and live as a free people once again.

·         It is the desire to secure a modern state for the Jewish nation.

·         It is the conviction that the Jewish people have the right to live in freedom and security in its homeland.

·         It is the determination to aid and encourage the return of any and all Jewish refugees of the Diaspora who wish to return home.

·         It is the concern for the safety and security of that modern state, and the desire to see it strong enough to defend itself and the Jewish people as a whole from any present or future existential threat.

 

Zionism, despite every attempt by Israel’s enemies to say otherwise, is not anti-Arab, or “anti” anything else.   The above definition of Zionism could apply, in principle, to the wishes and desires of any other people to life in freedom, security, prosperity in their own nation, free from persecution or any other threat.  Christians who support Israel are supporting the above.   I am a Christian.  I am also a Zionist.  A Christian Zionist is one who believes that the above-captioned desire of the Jewish people to return to their Land and the right of the Jewish people to return to their Land is ultimately based on the promises made by God to the Jewish people.   We believe those promises to be irrevocable, unconditional and firmly rooted in the eternal covenant made by God to Abraham (Gen. 17: 8,9).  That is the basis of Christian Zionism.

 

What Christian Zionism Is Not

 

            To be clear, Christian Zionism is not anti-Arab.  We do not hate the Arab people.  We stand against any ideology that sets itself against the biblical right of the Jewish people to live in their homeland.   Christian Zionism is not a geo-political movement.  It is not enough for us who love Israel to simply support Israel from a political basis; rather we affirm that Israel’s chief claim to the Land is a Divine promise made by God to Abraham and His descendents through Isaac and Jacob by means of an eternal covenant.  

 

            As Christian Zionists, we do not support unconditionally every policy, decision, or action by the Israeli government.   While we love Israel unconditionally, unconditional love must not be confused with unconditional support.   That is, perhaps, one of the biggest misunderstandings about what it means to support Israel.

 

            Furthermore, Christian Zionists typically do not believe that our support of Israel is based on a misguided belief that we are in any way hastening the second coming of Christ.  God has already set in his time, when the second coming can occur and there is nothing any one can do to either delay or hasten that event.  Our support for Israel, generally speaking, has no ulterior motive such as the second coming or any type of apocalyptic fantasy as the basis for our support of Israel against terrorism.  While I am sure that there are individuals that can be found who do have such ulterior motives, they do not represent true Christian Zionism and should not be used as the standard by which this movement is measured.

 

God is a Zionist

 

            I am a Zionist because God is a Zionist.  Zionism is biblical.  That may sound strange to some, but Israel is God’s nation and as long as this earth exists (Jer. 31: 35-36).  God makes a promise which is found three times in the Bible, and is given directly to Abraham and his descendents:

 

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.  (Genesis 12:1-3)

 

This promise regarding blessing and cursing is reiterated twice more in Gen. 27:29 and Num. 24:9.  The promise is made to Abraham, to Jacob and finally pronounced upon all the children of Israel.  To date, God has never rescinded this promise.

 

            God loves Israel with an unconditional love, and Christian Zionists, we seek to emulate that love for Israel:

 

For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations; And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.

(Deuteronomy 7:6-10)

 

That love is not only unconditional but is also perpetual.  Notice what God says about Israel in the prophetic future:

 

And the word of the LORD of hosts came, saying, "Thus says the LORD of hosts: I am jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I am jealous for her with great wrath. Thus says the LORD: I have returned to Zion and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem, and Jerusalem shall be called the faithful city, and the mountain of the LORD of hosts, the holy mountain. (Zechariah 8:1-3, ESV)

 

 

          The word used “jealous” can also be properly rendered as “zealous.”   God is has an intense jealousy over Israel. It is akin to the jealousy that a man or woman has for their spouse, which is inflamed if there is a feeling that the relationship might be threatened.

 

When God says He is jealous for Zion, He is speaking of a  passion and singular exclusive love one would have for their spouse. He loves Israel to the point that He is willing to fight for her against anyone foolish enough to want to do her harm.

For thus said the LORD of hosts, after his glory sent me to the nations who plundered you, for he who touches you touches the apple of his eye:
(Zechariah 2:8)

          There are two possible and valid ways of understanding the latter portion of this verse, namely the part that says, "he who touches you touches the apple of his eye."

          First is  the most common understanding that he touches Israel touches the apple of God's eye. The "apple" is the very center and the most sensitive part of the eye. The implication is that God is very sensitive and protective of Israel and to come against Israel is to set ones' self at enmity with God and God, by virtue of the Abrahamic Covenant is bound to defend Israel to the death. To "touch" Israel in a violent manner is incur the wrath of God. One must needs be careful how he "touches" Israel. God uses very interesting imagery when He wants us to understand His love and passion for Israel. For example:

And I will be to her a wall of fire all around, declares the LORD, and I will be the glory in her midst.'"
(Zechariah 2:5)

          The second understanding of Zechariah 2:8 and just as valid is that he who touches Israel, touches the apple of his own eye. In other words, those who seek Israel's demise are only ensuring their own demise. No man, no nation, can break God's covenant with Israel. They can only succeed in breaking themselves against it, to their own destruction. So to "touch" Israel in the sense of cursing Israel, is to bring ones's self under God's curse. That is a place you don't want to be. So, either way you understand Zech. 2:8, to "touch" Israel in the sense of cursing Israel is to bring a curse and destruction upon yourself. It is possible that there is an intended "double" understanding intended by God in that verse.

God’s Prophetic Promises

 

            I am a Christian Zionist because I believe in God’s prophetic promises for Israel.  The Bible teaches in many places both old and New Testament that Israel will be exiled scattered and regathered in the last days, to her land.  I am not going to write out all of the prophecies, but Israel’s end time restoration to the Land is ubiquitous throughout the entire word of God.  Here are some examples:

 

The Jewish People will always be God’s People; Jer. 31:35-37

 

• God Promises the Jewish People’s return to the land (Jer. 30:3 Isa. 43:5-7; Eze 36: 24; Eze. 37:11-14)
• God’s promise to reunite all twelve tribes of Jacob/Israel  (Jer. 3:18; Eze. 37:15-23; Hos. 1:10-11)
• The Lord promises both a physical and spiritual restoration of Israel  (Jer. 31:31-34 Is. 40:1-2; Eze. 36:24-28 Zec. 12:10 Amos 9:14-15)

 

One passage worth singling out is the passage in Amos 9:

 

And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God. (Amos 9:14-15)

 

This was never true of Israel either preexile or post Babylonian exile.  It is true of Israel today.  Israel, currently has the 4^th most powerful military in the world behind the US, Russia and China.  Israel cannot be uprooted and multiple wars have been fought to bring about the collapse of Israel, to no avail. In spite of the attempts of Israel’s enemies to destroy Israel, Israel has not only continued to survive, but has gone on to outstrip her enemies in every field of endeavor, and has only gotten stronger and more prosperous in the face of threats of annihilation.  As I previously indicated, you cannot break God’s eternal covenant with Israel.  All you can do is break yourself against it.

 

            The promises of God for Israel’s restoration are being fulfilled in our day, and as such continue to highlight the integrity of God’s word.   God keeps His promises and Israel is a showcase of the faithfulness of God.   God’s faithfulness to His word demonstrates that all of God’s promises can be trusted and that He will do exactly as He promised. 

 

            It is impossible to explain the existence of modern Israel apart from the hand of God.  Israel did not have the military hardware or the numbers to defeat the Arab/Muslim onslaught of 1948; in fact, most countries were rooting for the other side.  The Arab world with the assistance and training of the British Empire could not destroy the fledging nation.   In fact, all three of Israel’s major wars (1948, 1967, and 1973) are not even studied by the Generals of WestPoint, where all wars of antiquity and modern times are studied.   Yet, these three wars fought and won by Israel are not studied.  Why?   Because their outcome cannot be explained militarily.   There is no reason, from a tactical, militaristic standpoint, why Israel should have won.   Israel should not have, from a military point of view, been able to exist 24 hours after declaring nationhood.  The military experts in the US had predicted defeat for Israel in ’48, ’67 and ’73.   Israel’s existence defies the odds, and defies reality.   It would have been enough of miracle for Israel to merely survive, but Israel has gone on to bless the world in every scientific and technological field of endeavor.  God has and is keeping His promises Israel.   It behooves us as Christians to recognize God’s promises to Israel and to align our thinking with God’s thinking on this matter.

 

Israel’s Restoration in The New Testament

 

The New Testament is not at all in contradiction with a literal understanding of Israel’s end time restoration.  I am not gong to list every place where the New Testament affirms a literal and final restoration of Israel, but I will hit on just two or three places given in the New Testament that show us that the saints of in the New Testament understood the literal restoration of Israel and were at no time corrected by God in their understanding.

 

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

(Luke 1:30-33)

 

Notice 5 promises made to Mary concerning Jesus:

 

• He shall be great.
• He shall be called the Son of the Highest.
• He shall be given the throne of David.
• He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever.
• His Kingdom will have no end.

 

Two of the promises are already true and have come to pass, namely that He is called great and the Son of God.  The throne of David is an earthly throne.  It is always connected to earth and is never referred to as being in heaven.  So Jesus is not currently sitting on the throne of David.  Secondly, when Jesus is sitting on the throne He will be ruling over the house of Jacob.   Jacob is Israel.   God, in the Scriptures, uses the terms “Jacob” and “Israel” interchangeably.  Jacob is representative of the twelve tribes of Israel and always refers to the physical descendents of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob.  Jesus is not currently reigning on the throne of David over the house of Jacob, so this is, even for us still in the future.   Finally it says that this kingdom where Jesus will be reigning over the house of Jacob on David’s throne will be eternal, without end.  All of these promises is meant to be understood literally.  There is nothing in this that is meant to be understood metaphorically.  Furthermore, in Mary’s response we see nothing but a literal understanding of what the angel promised concerning Jesus.

 

Another passage worth examining is the prophecy of Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist:

 

And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, And hath raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he swore to our father Abraham, That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.  (Luke 1:67-75)

 

            Zechariah first refers to the horn of salvation spoken of by the prophets.  He is referring to 2 Sam 22:3, Ps. 18:2 and Ezekiel 29: 21.  It is God Himself, who is the horn of salvation.  Therefore, it is clearly Jesus being referred to in this passage.  Furthermore Zechariah under the unction of the Holy Spirit prophesies that this horn of salvation is raised up in the house of David so that “we” (the children of Israel) should be saved from their enemies and from the hand of them that hate “us.”  Zechariah then connects this final deliverance (which has yet to come) with the covenant that God made to Abraham.  Zechariah is clearly looking into the future of Israel; not something that had already happened, but something yet to happen.  Even in our day, this passage has not come to complete fulfillment where Israel is concerned. Israel has not been completely delivered from those who hate her, as history readily attests, but this will happen which is why a literal restoration of Israel is pictured in this passage.

 

Finally, notice what is said in Acts chapter one:

 

When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. (Acts 1:6-7)

 

It is clear that the apostles having been raised as Jews understood the Scriptures to indicate a literal restoration of Israel, particular a restoration of the Kingdom to Israel.  They asked Jesus if He was, going to take on the role of Messiah and fulfill that restoration, and Jesus was response was “it is not for you to know the times or the seasons…” Jesus’ answer was not, “No.”   Jesus made no attempt to correct their understanding of His role as Messiah or of the prophetic future of the nation of Israel.

 

            I could go on about how the New Testament confirms a literal restoration of Israel, but those three examples are sufficient for the purpose of this paper. 

 

            I am a Christian Zionist, because the Bible confirms God’s end time prophetic role of Israel in the earth, because God’s promises for Israel demonstrate His faithfulness and thus, show us that God can be trusted to keep his promises to us.  I am a Christian Zionist because God is a Zionist, and the Bible declares that Israel’s enemies are God’s enemies.  In the end, the world will see that there is a God in Israel and that Lord fights for Israel.

[B3L13v3R]

 Read this in it's entirety to the family.
We have an abundance of "replacement theologians" in our area, along with "Dominionist" that side with Israel only to "hasten the second coming of Christ."
You did a great job clarifying and eliminating both even if only by their associated mindsets.

With the hodgepodge of what a "Zionist" supposedly is these days, this is what the "real" meaning of one should look like.

Looked up the Scripture verses you mentioned, and thought their cross references great for this brother.

[arachnogeek]

This is a paper I wrote in 2012 for an intro to the OT class. (This is terrible formatting because I simply copy and pasted and had to deal with spacing issues. 

A NON-DISPENSATIONAL APPROACH TO THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
Thesis: God’s covenant with Abraham and His promises to the nation of Israel do not reflect an ethnocultural plan of salvation; rather, they are imputed unto Abraham’s spiritual descendants and heirs of the promises through faith and covenant fidelity. 

 

    The Abrahamic covenant is perhaps one of the most significant tenet found in the Old Testament, acting as a hinge for many theological principles, as well as playing an important role in the New Testament. Assuredly, the promise given to the first patriarch “[...] provides the foundations of redemption for all who by faith are the descendants of Abraham” (McComiskey, 1985, p.15). In response to such a statement, it behooves oneself to come to a deeper knowledge and appreciation for the subject, as well as to recognize that the implications are consequential. 
     The Abrahamic covenant can be examined by observing the promise given to him on five occasions found in Gen. 12, 13, 15, 17, and 22. In these passages, the Lord’s promise to his servant Abraham includes an assurance of his descendant’s existence and greatness on the earth, as well as a blessing on them and a curse on those who oppose them. Additionally, God promised him that the blessings of the promise would not only relate to Abraham’s offspring but to all of mankind. Further blessings of the promise included the inheritance of the land of Canaan, and that kings would descend from him. It is important to note that although the promise was exclusive to the house of Israel (Abraham’s line), the blessings would be reaped by all “the families of the earth” (Gen. 12:3, NKJV). 

    As mentioned earlier, Abraham was told of a curse and a blessing that would be appropriated to the nations who either opposed or blessed his descendants. Given the cultural and sociopolitical context of Abraham’s time, this promise would surely have been interpreted in a literal sense. In other words, it would not have been spiritualized or symbolized to explain away the bloodshed that would later occur between Israel and the nations. Richards (1998) assumes Abraham believed “God Himself [would] personally intervene, to provide those who support Abra[ha]m with blessings, and to repay those who trouble [him]” (p.26). 

    Most importantly, the promise to Abraham was accompanied by covenant provisions. These provisions were meant to reinforce and materialize the promise, thus giving assurance of its fulfillment to Abraham and his offspring. Although Abraham was required to obey and leave his fatherland, as well as to carry out other tasks, the covenant provisions point to God’s sovereignty. Indeed, according to Robertson (1980), the covenant is only realized because “God assumes to himself full responsibility in seeing its realization” (p.146).

     In Genesis 15, there is a clear emphasis on two distinct covenant provisions; the myriad children of Abraham and the promised land. Abrahams’ descendants are likened to the number of stars in the heavens (v.5), and the land to be possessed stretches all the way from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates river (v.18).  Since Abraham’s wife (Sarah) was barren at the time of the promise, both of these provisions seemed problematic; they required offspring, without it, the land would not be possessed as promised, and the covenant would crumble. However, this is precisely why God established his covenant with Abraham, despite his family circumstance. According to Wood (1970), “God waited until Sarah was past her natural time of bearing children so as to demonstrate that Abraham’s promised posterity would truly be of supernatural origin. Isaac was to be uniquely God’s child, though born to Abraham and Sarah.” (p.44). Already, there is a sense in which God’s plan for the nation of Israel began with a work of God; it was theocentric rather than centered on man. 

    The promise concerning the land is equally important to that of Abraham’s offspring; it entails great significance, especially with relation to Israel’s salvation. Indeed, Holwerda (1995) describes the promises of salvation as having an “unbreakable tie to the land” (p.88). In direct parallelism to Abraham’s faith concerning his future offspring, the author adds; “promised land is grasped by faith, not by strength” (p.89). 
    Yet another crucial facet to the Abrahamic covenant is the sign of the covenant; circumcision. God ordered Abraham to circumcise every male from his household as a sign of the covenant between them, designed to last throughout the ages (Gen. 17:10). Circumcision was a means to set God’s chosen people apart from the neighbouring nations. One should notice that Ishmael was also circumcised, alongside foreigners and slaves in the household of Abraham. Perhaps to begin with, circumcision was not entirely ethnocultural, but rather inclusive in nature. 

    Israel’s inheritance of the promise given to Abraham was not merely a reward for achieving a level of righteousness acceptable in the sight of God, or for being a holy people, set apart from the other nations. Rather, the proper term used for their inheritance is a ‘gift’. Unlike a reward, a gift is not typically merited by one’s own efforts; it is freely given out of the abundance of one’s generosity and grace. It is important to keep in mind that the people of Israel are called “aliens and tenants in the Lord’s land since they have no permanent title to it and possess it with no absolute legal right to it (Leviticus 25:23). Thus the land never ceases being a gift, even when Israel possesses it.” (Holwerda, 1995, p.93). Nevertheless, there were mandatory covenant stipulations put in place by God. One could say that the covenant conditions found in Deuteronomy are a continuation or a development of the Abrahamic covenant. Thus, Israel was demanded to obey the commands of the Lord, as well as to avoid immorality and to be holy. Failure to do so would result in being cut off from the benefits of the promise given to Abraham. 
Consequently, the promise concerning the land was dependent on Israel’s covenant fidelity.

    As alluded to earlier, there is a pattern found throughout scripture which speaks of the inclusivity of the Abrahamic covenant. Although the covenant was established with Abraham and the promise was given to his descendants, there are various examples of foreigners who were adopted into the family of Israel despite their ethnicity or status. Sizer (2007) affirms this in stating: “Israel as a nation always incorporated people of other races, and this extended not just to their identity and right of residence but also to their inheritance of the land and right to worship God in the temple.” (p.46). Indeed, Moses spoke against racial exclusivity, in demanding that the people of Israel accept the Edomites as their own without despising them (Deut. 23:7-8). The prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah were swift in encouraging acceptance of non-native Israelites. For instance, the prophet Ezekiel exhorts the people of Israel concerning the land; 

    "It shall be that you will divide it by lot as an inheritance for yourselves, and for the     strangers who dwell among you and who bear children among you. They shall be to you     as native-born among the children of Israel; they shall have an inheritance with you     among the tribes of Israel.” (Ez. 47:22)

Even the psalmist David recognized God’s desire for foreigners to partake in the covenant; “I will record Rahab and Babylon among those who acknowledge me. Philistia too, and Tyre, along with Cush, and I will say ‘this one was born in Zion’” (Psalm 87:4, NIV). Evidently, the notion of racial purity and covenant exclusivity is utterly refuted in the Old Testament alone. 

    Another aspect worthy of thoughtful consideration (regarding the inclusivity of the covenant) is that the inclusivity may have served as a foreshadow of the gentile’s future redemption in Christ. Perhaps the notion of salvation for gentiles was not as foreign as it appeared to have been to first-century Jews experiencing the aftermath of Christ’s death and resurrection. 

    A recent phenomenon has stemmed in the Christian world, one that interprets the Abrahamic covenant ultra-literally. This movement is called Christian Zionism; it is largely supported and rooted in a theological framework known as dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a system of theology which categorizes the dealings and administrations of God with humanity in various periods of time. Dispensationalism encompasses various aspects of theology, but the most significant characteristic portrayed is best described by Blaising and Bock (1992) as the “distinction between Israel and the Church, including the parenthetical nature of the present dispensation of the Church within God’ national and political purpose for Israel” (p.25). Christian Zionism is considered perhaps the most noticeable offspring of dispensationalism; it is the belief that the Jewish nation is entitled to the land of Palestine according to God’s promise to Abraham. This belief is generally disguised as theological in nature but can be equally political. 

    There are many problems with Christian Zionism, but there is one in particular which cannot be ignored; the problem of restoration. According to the covenant God made with Abraham and the house of Israel, possession of the land was always accompanied by obedience to God’s law. Again, Israel’s relationship to the land was solely dependent on covenant fidelity. On numerous occasions, Israel was thrown into exile for disobeying the law of God and not keeping his statutes and commandments. 

    A proper understanding and interpretation of scripture would not lead to the belief that modern day Israel is entitled to the land in Palestine. In describing Christian Zionists’ beliefs, Sizer claims that they have “reversed the clear and unambiguous process outlined in the promises and warnings of the Law and Prophets who teach that repentance leads to restoration, not the other way around” (p.85). Clearly, one would have to ignore the covenant stipulations outlined in the Old Testament altogether to arrive at the conclusion that Eretz Israel merits the land promised to their ancestors in the days of the old covenant. Even Jesus alienated himself from that idea, in that he “rejected the [...] widespread belief that the restoration would begin with another iteration of one of the definitive theophanic events which led to Israel’s original conquest of the Land” (Bryan, 2002, p.45). 

    Some would argue that if indeed Eretz Israel does not merit the land, God’s promise and covenant with Abraham were not kept. To the contrary, God kept his promises and fulfilled them, as scripture reveals in both the Old and New Testaments. For instance, the Lord’s promises concerning the land were fulfilled in the days of Joshua: 

    "So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. [...] Not a word failed of any good thing which the Lord had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.” (Joshua 21:43;45)

When examining the above scriptural passage and accepting it as true, one simply cannot argue that the Lord’s promises concerning the land need future fulfillment. 

    In light of what has been determined thus far, it is important to consider the New Testament’s verdict on the issue. The apostle Paul, for instance, handles the Abrahamic [covenant] principally by means of a promise-fulfillment schema, taking up the various strands of the Abrahamic promises and pressing them in new directions. He interprets the promise of seed Christologically and universalises the promises of land and of blessing to the nations. Because of this stress on the nations/Gentiles, the Abrahamic material is ripe for Paul’s exposition of his law-free gospel to the Gentiles.” (Cartledge&Mills, 2001, p.64). 

The book of Galatians speaks clearly concerning Paul’s interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant. For instance, Paul describes the Gentiles as being partakers of the promise of Abraham, simply by placing their faith in Christ (Gal. 3:7-9). His argument “implies that Christians, as the true descendants of Abraham and the heirs to the promises, are also the heirs to the covenant made to him” (Mckenzie, 2000, p.99). Paul continues to exhort the Galatians in stating that “there is neither Jew nor Greek [...]” (Gal. 3:28), rather, all become one in Christ Jesus and are partakers of the promise. In the book of Romans, Mckenzie affirms Paul’s argument, in that the “true Israelites are not those who are physically descended from Abraham, but those who share Abraham’s faith” (p.106). Indeed, Mckenzie’s statement is supported by scripture; “It is not the children of flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants” (Rom. 9:8). Paul’s argument is found elsewhere (Eph. 2:12, 2 Cor. 3:7-18) in the New Testament, and one must understand these matters in their proper context, which is the freedom and inclusive salvation for those who are of faith in Christ, the seed of Abraham. 

    One must wonder how these truths apply to the majority of Christians living in a twenty-first century America, as opposed to a first century Middle Eastern society, wherein Jewish Christians were confused as to how the covenant had been established and what the implications were. After all, that is the reason why Paul worked so ardently to refute some common misconceptions rampant in the early Church. Unfortunately, the first-century Jews were not the only ones in history subject to faulty interpretation of scripture; there are many Christians today, as mentioned earlier (Christian Zionists) who hold to the belief that Eretz Israel is distinct from the true Israel described in Romans 9:8. 

    This belief is extremely common, and is increasingly becoming synonymous with American Evangelicalism. According to popular American Evangelical thought, the state of Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and is therefore in complete alignment with God’s will. This infers that Christians must stand with Israel and endorse her every move. It also demands Christians to stand in apathy or even hostility towards the enemies of Israel, namely Arabs. This tragic and erroneous line of thought has helped to permit the displacement of thousands of Palestinians from their homes to expand Jewish territory. Illegal Israeli settlements have been ‘justified theologically’ by popular Christian leaders who vehemently support Israel. Sizer (2004) does not hesitate to describe the belief that the Jews remain God’s chosen people as resulting in the “uncritical endorsement of and justification for Israel’s racist and apartheid policies” (p.252). Shockingly, this travesty is all rooted in a poor understanding and faulty exegesis of the Abrahamic covenant. 

    Upon carefully considering the above ramifications, one may safely conclude that God’s covenant with Abraham and His promises to the nation of Israel do not reflect an ethnocultural plan of salvation; rather, they are imputed unto Abraham’s spiritual descendants and heirs of the promises through faith and covenant fidelity. Additionally, distorting this truth through a dispensational and Zionistic approach (if taken to the extreme) can lead to serious negative consequences. 

 

   REFERENCE LIST

Bock, D., & Ware, B., & Saucy, R., & Glenny, W., & Burns, J., & Lowery D., et al. (Blaising, C.,     & Bock, D., Ed.). 1992. Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church. Grand Rapids, MI.:     Zondervan. 

Bryan, S. 2002. Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgment and Restoration. Cambridge, UK:     Cambridge University Press. 

Holwerda, E. 1995. Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two? Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B.     Eerdmans. 

Lohfink, N. 1991. The Covenant Never Revoked: Biblical Reflections on Christian-Jewish     Dialogue. Mahwah, NJ. Paulest Press.

McComiskey, T. 1985. The Covenants of Promise: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants.     Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Book House. 

McKenzie, S. 2000. Covenant. St. Louis, Missouri. Chalice Press. 

Mills, D. 2001. Covenant Theology. Waynesboro, GA. Paternoster Press. 

Richards, L. 1998. Every Covenant and Promise in the Bible. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas     Nelson. 

Robertson, O. 1980. The Christ of the Covenants. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Book House.

Sizer, S. 2004. Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon. Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsity     Press. 

Sizer, S. 2007. Zion’s Christian Soldiers? The Bible, Israel and the Church. Downers Grove, IL.     InterVarsity Press. 

Wood, L. 1970. A Survey of Israel’s History. Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan. 

    

[Guest shiloh357]

Quote

 A recent phenomenon has stemmed in the Christian world, one that interprets the Abrahamic covenant ultra-literally.

No, we do not interpret it "ultra literally."  We interpret it literally.  There is no such thing as "ultra literally."

Quote

This movement is called Christian Zionism; it is largely supported and rooted in a theological framework known as dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a system of theology which categorizes the dealings and administrations of God with humanity in various periods of time. Dispensationalism encompasses various aspects of theology, but the most significant characteristic portrayed is best described by Blaising and Bock (1992) as the “distinction between Israel and the Church, including the parenthetical nature of the present dispensation of the Church within God’ national and political purpose for Israel” (p.25). Christian Zionism is considered perhaps the most noticeable offspring of dispensationalism; it is the belief that the Jewish nation is entitled to the land of Palestine according to God’s promise to Abraham. This belief is generally disguised as theological in nature but can be equally political. 

That the Jewish nation is entitled to the Land of Israel (not Palestine) is based on Scripture and is affirmed by the dispensational view.  Dispensationalists didn't invent that view.   

Quote

 There are many problems with Christian Zionism, but there is one in particular which cannot be ignored; the problem of restoration. According to the covenant God made with Abraham and the house of Israel, possession of the land was always accompanied by obedience to God’s law. Again, Israel’s relationship to the land was solely dependent on covenant fidelity. On numerous occasions, Israel was thrown into exile for disobeying the law of God and not keeping his statutes and commandments. 

 

Quote

A proper understanding and interpretation of scripture would not lead to the belief that modern day Israel is entitled to the land in Palestine.

Actually the only truly Christian and biblical view is that modern Irsael is the fulfilment of biblical prophecy.  There is really is no other way to see it, if one is being faithful to the Word of God.
    

Quote

In describing Christian Zionists’ beliefs, Sizer claims that they have “reversed the clear and unambiguous process outlined in the promises and warnings of the Law and Prophets who teach that repentance leads to restoration, not the other way around” (p.85).

Ah yes, Steven Sizer, the Holocaust denier.  An anti-Semite and the antithesis of a Christian scholar especially given his participation in the anti-Semitic Christ at the Checkpoint gathering.  

 

Quote

 

Clearly, one would have to ignore the covenant stipulations outlined in the Old Testament altogether to arrive at the conclusion that Eretz Israel merits the land promised to their ancestors in the days of the old covenant. Even Jesus alienated himself from that idea, in that he “rejected the [...] widespread belief that the restoration would begin with another iteration of one of the definitive theophanic events which led to Israel’s original conquest of the Land” (Bryan, 2002, p.45). 

    Some would argue that if indeed Eretz Israel does not merit the land, God’s promise and covenant with Abraham were not kept. To the contrary, God kept his promises and fulfilled them, as scripture reveals in both the Old and New Testaments. For instance, the Lord’s promises concerning the land were fulfilled in the days of Joshua: 

    "So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. [...] Not a word failed of any good thing which the Lord had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.” (Joshua 21:43;45)

 

No, the Bible has a lot more to say on the matter and promises a scattering and regathering of the nation to their biblical homeland from the four corners of the world, never to be uprooted again.

Joshua 12:43-45 does not address anything other than the promise to initially give Israel the Land.  The Bible makes a lot of promises regarding Israel's possession of the Land AFTER Joshua.  And God even promises that He will restore Israel to their land in a state of unbelief.

 

 

Quote

When examining the above scriptural passage and accepting it as true, one simply cannot argue that the Lord’s promises concerning the land need future fulfillment. 

Yes, we can.  Because there scriptures that come AFTER Joshua that speak to Israel's prophetic future in connection to their final and full possession of the Land during the Millennial reign of Christ.

Quote

In light of what has been determined thus far, it is important to consider the New Testament’s verdict on the issue. The apostle Paul, for instance, handles the Abrahamic [covenant] principally by means of a promise-fulfillment schema, taking up the various strands of the Abrahamic promises and pressing them in new directions. He interprets the promise of seed Christologically and universalises the promises of land and of blessing to the nations. Because of this stress on the nations/Gentiles, the Abrahamic material is ripe for Paul’s exposition of his law-free gospel to the Gentiles.” (Cartledge&Mills, 2001, p.64). 

That has nothing to do with who Israel is. There is no universalization of the particular regarding the Land.   And Paul is making no such arguments in Galatians.  That is a complete perversion of Pauls' argument.

Quote

The book of Galatians speaks clearly concerning Paul’s interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant. For instance, Paul describes the Gentiles as being partakers of the promise of Abraham, simply by placing their faith in Christ (Gal. 3:7-9). His argument “implies that Christians, as the true descendants of Abraham and the heirs to the promises, are also the heirs to the covenant made to him” (Mckenzie, 2000, p.99). Paul continues to exhort the Galatians in stating that “there is neither Jew nor Greek [...]” (Gal. 3:28), rather, all become one in Christ Jesus and are partakers of the promise. In the book of Romans, Mckenzie affirms Paul’s argument, in that the “true Israelites are not those who are physically descended from Abraham, but those who share Abraham’s faith” (p.106). Indeed, Mckenzie’s statement is supported by scripture; “It is not the children of flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants” (Rom. 9:8). Paul’s argument is found elsewhere (Eph. 2:12, 2 Cor. 3:7-18) in the New Testament, and one must understand these matters in their proper context, which is the freedom and inclusive salvation for those who are of faith in Christ, the seed of Abraham.

Paul's argument in Galatians surrounds the Judaizing heresy that GEntiles had to convert to the Jewish religion in order to be saved, in addition to placing faith in Jesus.  That is what Paul is dealing with and that is the context of Galatians.  Nothing in that book is setting aside the Jewish people as the true descendants of Abraham.   All Paul is arguing is that Gentiles are the seed of Abraham by faith.  He is not setting aside the Jewish people.  It's not an either/or proposition.  

Quote

 This belief is extremely common, and is increasingly becoming synonymous with American Evangelicalism. According to popular American Evangelical thought, the state of Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and is therefore in complete alignment with God’s will. This infers that Christians must stand with Israel and endorse her every move

No, it doesn't.  We don't support Israel unconditionally.

 

Quote

. It also demands Christians to stand in apathy or even hostility towards the enemies of Israel, namely Arabs.

No, it doesn't.  Christian Zionism is anti-Palestinian terrorism, not anti-Arab.  Many Arabs have embraced Christ and love and support Israel.

 

Quote

This tragic and erroneous line of thought has helped to permit the displacement of thousands of Palestinians from their homes to expand Jewish territory.

Actually, it was Arabs who displaced the Palestinians, not the Jewish people.  History bears that out.  

 

Quote

Illegal Israeli settlements have been ‘justified theologically’ by popular Christian leaders who vehemently support Israel.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank are not "illegal." 

 

Quote

Sizer (2004) does not hesitate to describe the belief that the Jews remain God’s chosen people as resulting in the “uncritical endorsement of and justification for Israel’s racist and apartheid policies” (p.252). Shockingly, this travesty is all rooted in a poor understanding and faulty exegesis of the Abrahamic covenant. 

Israel's policies are neither racist or apartheid.   That's because Israel has over 2 million Palestinian citizens who enjoy full benefits of citizenship.  If Israel were "apartheid," no Palestinians would be allowed inside Israel.   If Israel were racist, they would not treat injured Palestinian terrorists back to health in Israeli hospitals staffed with Jewish doctors.  They would not allow Palestinians to own busineses and benefit from the tourism industry if they were racist.   And Steven Sizer has no moral ground to accuse Israel of being racist as he is a holocaust denier, which is the most racist thing that a person can toward the Jewish people. 

  

Quote

Upon carefully considering the above ramifications, one may safely conclude that God’s covenant with Abraham and His promises to the nation of Israel do not reflect an ethnocultural plan of salvation;

I guess it's a good thing that Christian Zionism has never held to the covenant with Abraham and the promises to Israel as an ethnocultural plan of salvation.  Most of the critics of Christian Zionism only show their complete and utter ignorance of the subject matter with such nonsense.

 

Quote

rather, they are imputed unto Abraham’s spiritual descendants and heirs of the promises through faith and covenant fidelity. Additionally, distorting this truth through a dispensational and Zionistic approach (if taken to the extreme) can lead to serious negative consequences. 

There is no distortion.  It's just faithfulness to the Word of God.

[arachnogeek]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Dispensationalists didn't invent that view.   

This claim should be substantiated with historical documentation. It is evident that the zionist agenda did not emerge until recently in history. This is one of the reasons I believe it can easily be discredited. One only needs to read the early church fathers, the reformers, and many other Christian theological literature to arrive at the conclusion that this theological framework is new.

It is highly unlikely that the Lord would have allowed all of Christendom for 1700 years to be utterly ignorant of the truth about His 'chosen people' Israel. Before Darby and Scofield, Dispensational Zionism hadn't fully developed. 

 

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Actually the only truly Christian and biblical view is that modern Irsael is the fulfilment of biblical prophecy.  There is really is no other way to see it, if one is being faithful to the Word of God.

If there is really no other way to see it, if one is being faithful to the Word of God, would you then go ahead and state that the Church universal was deceived for 1700 years about this very issue? Would you go as far as to say that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan and many other heroes of the faith were all deceived on this issue? 

Even today, there are many pastors and theologians (Dr. James White, Dr. Voddie Baucham, Dr. Wayne Grudem, Dr. Sizer, Dr. John Piper) who do not interpret the Word of God through your lens, and claim that they remain faithful to it. In fact, they would claim that the Dispensational Zionist interpretation is not faithful to God's Word. 

To say that 'there is really no other way to see it, if one is being faithful' isn't helpful, considering there's a swathe of theologians, pastors, and whole denominations who aren't dispensational in there approach to Israel's role. 

 

 

[arachnogeek]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Ah yes, Steven Sizer, the Holocaust denier.  An anti-Semite and the antithesis of a Christian scholar especially given his participation in the anti-Semitic Christ at the Checkpoint gathering.  

This is a blatant ad hominem; attacking the character of Steven Sizer (even if we grant that he is indeed a holocaust denier, which he is not) does not in any way discredit his academic work. An ad hominem is no way to dismantle Sizer's anti-zionist ideas. 

[arachnogeek]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

d Paul is making no such arguments in Galatians.

That is, according to dispensational zionist christians during the last few centuries. But not prior to that. Once again, the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history would consider your interpretation bogus, and would have believed that Paul is indeed making this argument. 

Edited June 28, 2018 by arachnogeek

[arachnogeek]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

And Steven Sizer has no moral ground to accuse Israel of being racist as he is a holocaust denier, which is the most racist thing that a person can toward the Jewish people. 

  

No, the most racist thing that a person can do toward the Jewish people is assert this:

"Everyone else, whether Buddhist or Baha'i, needs to believe in Jesus...but not Jews." John Hagee

This is where dispensational zionism leads to. It claims there are two plans of salvation, one for the jews and another for the Church. 

In reality, the Church is the true Israel. Amen 

[Guest shiloh357]

6 hours ago, arachnogeek said:

This claim should be substantiated with historical documentation. It is evident that the zionist agenda did not emerge until recently in history. This is one of the reasons I believe it can easily be discredited. One only needs to read the early church fathers, the reformers, and many other Christian theological literature to arrive at the conclusion that this theological framework is new.

That is a logical fallacy.   The fact that Zionism is of recent origin doesn't mean that is wrong. 

It is a logical fallacy because you are appealing to age or tradition as if what is older is better and that is simply not the case.  Old ideas can be bad ideas. Going back to Aristotle, the earth was believed to be stationary and sun rotated around the earth.   Heliocentrism is more recent than geocentrism.   If we applied your logical fallacy to science, then those who believed in geocentrism were right and Galileo was wrong simply because Galileo's heliocentric view was new.   The fact that dispensationalism more recent, doesn't mean it is wrong.   It isn't wrong and that can be demonstrated from even a cursory view of Scripture.  

Dispensationalists hold that Israel is entitled to their biblical homeland based on what Scripture says, not based on a personal view that they are accused of having invented.  Dispensationalists take a literal view of Scripture on this matter and a literal approach (because no other approach is rational) demonstrates that Scripture affirms a prophetic future for Israel which includes a restoration back to their ancient homeland. 

And modern history is vindicating this view, as Israel is in the process of being restored back to their biblical homeland just as Scripture foretold.  Modern Israel is living proof that God is faithful to His promises.

Quote

It is highly unlikely that the Lord would have allowed all of Christendom for 1700 years to be utterly ignorant of the truth about His 'chosen people' Israel. Before Darby and Scofield, Dispensational Zionism hadn't fully developed. 

For 1,700 years the church was ignorant and the Jews were cast as the villains of the New Testament and church has bitterly persecuted the Jewish people.  They projected their hatred of the Jews on to God.   Church history is a bloody history particularly where it concerns how the institutional  Church all the way up to the Holocaust either persecuted the Jews or gave its blessing to the persecution of the Jews.

Again, you are appealing to age and that is simply not a good or rational argument to make. 

Quote

 

If there is really no other way to see it, if one is being faithful to the Word of God, would you then go ahead and state that the Church universal was deceived for 1700 years about this very issue? Would you go as far as to say that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan and many other heroes of the faith were all deceived on this issue? 

Even today, there are many pastors and theologians (Dr. James White, Dr. Voddie Baucham, Dr. Wayne Grudem, Dr. Sizer, Dr. John Piper) who do not interpret the Word of God through your lens, and claim that they remain faithful to it. In fact, they would claim that the Dispensational Zionist interpretation is not faithful to God's Word. 

 

The Bible teaches the restoration of Israel to their biblical homeland.  Anyone who rejects that, no matter their status, notoriety or whatever standard of measure you wish to use, is not being faithful to Scripture on this matter if they reject what the Bible says.   The only view that is based on a faithful interpretation of Scripture is the view that modern Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.  Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong.

5 hours ago, arachnogeek said:

This is a blatant ad hominem; attacking the character of Steven Sizer (even if we grant that he is indeed a holocaust denier, which he is not) does not in any way discredit his academic work. An ad hominem is no way to dismantle Sizer's anti-zionist ideas. 

Yes, it pretty much discredits his academic work.   Anyone who aligns themselves with those who deny the historicity of Holocaust has no intellectual credibility and demonstrates why anti-Zionism is really nothing more than an expression of anti-Semitism and a blatant hatred of Jewish people. 

5 hours ago, arachnogeek said:

That is, according to dispensational zionist christians during the last few centuries. But not prior to that. Once again, the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history would consider your interpretation bogus, and would have believed that Paul is indeed making this argument. 

Again, you are engaging in the logical fallacy of appealing to age, which is simply not a cogent argument.

The overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history are not the plumline against which truth is measured.  Truth is not based on a majority vote. Something is true or not, independent of who believes it or how many believe it.   Truth is truth.  The Bible is replete with examples of where the majority got it wrong.

And Paul isn't making that argument.   Pauls' argument in Galatians had NOTHING to do with who is counted as "Israel."   One only needs to follow the line of thought and literary context of the book of Galatians to see that.  He is talking to Gentiles about why the don't need to convert to the Jewish religion and why faith in Jesus alone is sufficient for salvation.  

Besides, Abraham wasn't an Israelite.  He wasn't even a Jew.  Abraham was justified by faith as a Gentile 25 years before he was circumcised, which is why Paul is appealing to Gentiles that they can be justified before God as Gentiles and do not need to be circumcised and convert to the Jewish religion in order to be saved.   That has exactly ZERO to do with who Israel is. 

 

5 hours ago, arachnogeek said:

No, the most racist thing that a person can do toward the Jewish people is assert this:

"Everyone else, whether Buddhist or Baha'i, needs to believe in Jesus...but not Jews." John Hagee

This is where dispensational zionism leads to. It claims there are two plans of salvation, one for the jews and another for the Church. 

 

John Hagee is not the mouthpiece for Christian Zionism.   John Hagee's views are his alone.  To paint Christian Zionism with such a broad brush based on what John Hagee says is intellectually dishonest and demonstrates a weak, shallow argument.  

Quote

In reality, the Church is the true Israel. Amen 

That is not true.  The NT uses "Israel" 71 times.  Of those 71 occurrences of the word, "Israel" 100% of the time, the word is never spiritualized to refer to the Church.  In the New Testament, the Church and Israel are racially separate.  The idea that the Church is now Israel is a false teaching that dates back to anti-Semitism of the early church that viewed Israel as the emblem of God's contempt and that God had replaced Israel with the church.   It is called "Replacement Theology" and it is a racist, anti-Semitic heresy.     

[arachnogeek]

17 hours ago, Davida said:

"ad hominem"? for a Holocaust denier?  Sorry but no Jew hating Holocaust denier ie. like Steven Sizer has any credibility, nor respect, nor should he or his ignorant ideas be defended by a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who is the KING OF THE JEWS.    Steven Sizer  has been completely discredited because of his radical , anti-semitic Holocaust denying views and his unrepentant anti-Jewish hatespeech he disseminated  claiming that Israel was responsible for 9/11 attacks.  Very disappointing that anyone who calls themselves a Christian would be a Holocaust denier.

Do you know what an ad hominem even is?