How Do You Explain Israel?

Posted on by

If you are an amillennialist (and at the moment I am going to remain undeclared, at least on the blog here), what do you think about the fact that Israel came back to be a nation once again in 1948? This is a key piece of evidence touted by premillennial dispensationalists that their system of thought, and approach to understanding “Biblical” prophecy–using their literalist hermeneutic–is viable and sound. The way things are shaping up in that region, presently, do indeed look like the picture and scenario that dispensational premillennialists believe to be how the “end” will look, just prior to the second coming of Jesus.

Anyway, I am just curious to hear how amillennialists (in particular)–but anyone can respond–understand the nation of Israel’s existence (and the various miraculous wars [like the 1967 War]) relative to your own eschatological paradigm. I understand that many just don’t have any thoughts on this, but that’s not really good enough; that’s somewhat of a cop-out. Do you think there is any theological significance to the existence of the nation of Israel today? Why or Why not?

8 thoughts on “How Do You Explain Israel?”

  1. Hello Bobby,

    You are right that our thoughts on the present day state of Israel are important for our witness to Jesus and His Kingdom whether we realize it or not. For a few years now I have been involved in a ministry to Muslim refugees from the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, etc.) as well as some who come to the United States from places like Jordan for higher education.

    I had the opportunity to talk about the uniqueness of Jesus and His Kingdom in contrast to the kingdoms of the world with several Palestinians who also have a viewpoint on Israel (go figure, right?) We spent considerable time at this, and we were getting somewhere over a period of six months – even if just attempting to make the separation from American foreign policy on several issues. Then, in an effort to get the church involved in this kind of ministry, we took along an interested person who subsequently destroyed in fifteen minutes the groundwork we had laid those past months. Instead of being a disciple of Jesus’ Kingdom, he was a “disciple” of right-wing American politics. His theology did not emphasize in the least the implications of the Kingdom of God today, and he filled this vacuum with what he’d been taught to be “responsible” politics.

    In trying to come to terms with this, we had to work through how the Kingdom of God manifests itself today via our witness to it as the Church, as well as how the present state of Israel might fit into this. I don’t believe that Dispensationalists (at least those of my congregation which is mainly “Schofieldian Dispensational”) have a nuanced Biblical “take” on this at all. In fact, when I asked our preacher about how he’d go about witnessing to my Palestinian friends, after he had preached on Hosea 3, the answer in effect was “they are SOL.” Really no answer at all. A bit crass, but that is where many in popular Dispensationalism reside in their attitudes and posture.

    Many times I get the distinct feeling when you attempt to bring in the biblical details rather than remain in the “caricature” on any side of a dispute, those you are challenging think you stand opposite them, and they re-entrench themselves in the caricature they have of the opposition. This of course goes both ways. We were determined to try to find a way that honors the scriptures without letting our “mission” dictate our theology (although, as I’ve found, Paul is particularly sensitive to how his theology affects the “mission.” Most of what he writes is the implications of Jesus’ cross for a disciple’s life of representation today). Here are a few thoughts that came out of this:

    1. Jesus does not correct the disciples take on the Kingdom in Acts 1:6-8, but redirects their attention to what they are called to. Many times in our church the former is preached over against the “Replacement Theologians” rather than where Jesus is placing the emphasis here (Incidentally, this may also shed some light on Paul’s teaching about governing authorities in Romans 13, ie. how God uses the these “servants for good” (Rome, Assyria(!), Babylon(!))). The “refocus” is not negated by my church, but it is filled out with the most minimalist of understandings of the gospel message.

    2. What Paul writes about the promise to Abraham can be seen as “expansive” on the original (Romans 4:13), harkening back to when Epypt and Assyria would be called “My People” (Isaiah 19). This again does not negate the promises of God to believing Jews – but they are the ones that will receive the promises that are all “yes” in Christ (2Cor.1:20). Even if they are now “enemies of God” for our sakes, as well as “beloved for the sake of their forefathers” because of election (Romans 11), Paul eventually says all must be “in Christ” for the promises to be effectual. At rock bottom, I have a “mission” to process, and all, regardless of the sovereign outworking of God’s plan, are welcome. The church represents God’s future now, in its reconciled and reconciling mission.

    How have I decided to deal with all this when it comes to representing Jesus and His Kingdom in witness?

    1. No matter how it turns out, the promise for the believer in Jesus the Messiah is that we will all have a place in the New Creation. But….

    2. This requires a radical change in identity. For the follower of Jesus, Paul uses the language of identity “in Him” to describe this. This of course is just as much a challenge to Americans as it is to Palestinians (and Israelites!). If Paul can call his own pedigree “dung” how much more do we need to think through our loves in this world. Our message is going to necessarily broach the subject of nations (ethnic, not geographical) and our idolatries of nation (geographical and ethnic).

    3. If Islam even believes that God is sovereign over the nations as Christians do, then we have to accept with “patient endurance” (that phrase so much emphasized in the book of Revelation) these times of God’s forbearance over His enemies (which includes and included all of us!) so that they have a chance to repent as we do/did. God’s promise is all will be “set right” with His just and right judgments within His saving intention.

    Anyway, you can at least see how one thinks about the current state of Israel really does matter. I don’t claim to have the final word concerning the first part of Jesus’ answer to his disciples, but I will continue to struggle through this, as I’ve seen first hand what all worldly nations (including the current state of Israel) do to people at present. That this current state of affairs is not the final word gives great weight and hope to our message that Jesus says needs to be our focus. That focus speaks to all half-baked and caricatured ideas presented in our theologies today.

    Mark

  2. Hi Mark,

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

    We grew up next to some Christian Palestinians, and you guessed it; they were amillennial, and quite frankly didn’t like the Jews!

    I too have worked with Muslims and evangelism with them. What part of the country do you work in?

    I would say that all sides have their newbies, their zealous w/o knowledge, etc.

    While I appreciate all of the time you put into your comment, and there isn’t anything I really disagree with, at all; you still didn’t really answer the question that I was looking for. What do you think about the existence of the nation of Israel, with the strictures that premil dispies interpret that through? It is undeniably amazing that they are a nation, once again! It is undeniable that there are miraculous events surrounding her continued existence, and so I am looking for how you, as I am assuming an amil, interpret that? Is it just coincidence? Is it the Lord’s protection over the nation of Israel? And why the spite for the nation of Israel? Out of all the nations of the world there is no other nation that has been the brunt of ridicule and persecution like Israel and the Jews? Why? Do you see a spiritual component to this? Or not? These are the kinds of questions I was looking to get answered through this post.

  3. A good question, one which has been on my mind for a long time. Having been very thoroughly exposed to the mid-20th-century version of dispensationalism in both the popular and academic forms, having also been exposed in biblical and theological studies to a general sort of eschatological agnosticism which some people would wrongly label amillennialism, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with all the existing frameworks in their treatment of β€œthe future of Israel” and have gone back to the text, currently Ezekiel 37-39 and Apocalypse of John, Rom. 9-11, and cannot at this point claim to have found any clear way of making sense out of the facts on the ground in Modern Israel. Charles Feinberg’s classic treatment of Ezekiel 37-39 and the Modern state of Israel as the dry bones converted into lifeless bodies (without Spirit) doesn’t seem hold up well under close examination. At this point I am not trying to evaluate the various hermeneutical frameworks, I have doing that for four decades, but my current project is simply to make sense out of Israel as a secular nation in 2011 which looks like it will be going to war with ancient enemies, I don’t see anything like that scenario in biblical prophecy. I have not posted (blogged) on this subject, simply because I don’t have anything new to add to the discussion.

  4. C. Stirling,

    Thanks. I think some herm frameworks proximate the issues better than others. There are passages of Scripture that dispies would proffer in re. to the idea that Israel would be at war with the nations (like Ps 83; Rev 12 etc). I don’t, myself find this convincing, at this point.

    My current views strongly reflect those articulated by Richard Bauckham in his book “The Theology Of The Book Of Revelation.” While this book doesn’t have to do exactly with this question, it does provide the kind of broader herm that I would now approach this question through. But then the reality on the ground with Israel throws me a bit into a quagmire. It seems all too easy for theologians just to not deal with this real question; what about the reality of the nation of Israel, and the fact that she exists? That is a big question, and one that I don’t think we should “stay” agnostic on.

    Thanks for your feedback!

    I am starting to think that folks just don’t know what to think (unless they are premil dispy Christians) on this issue.

  5. Bobby,

    I have read most everything by Bauckham, including β€œThe Theology Of The Book Of Revelation.” I would not be able at a moments notice to explain his framework, it’s been a while and he is a subtle thinker. Today I ran down an article in cyberspace by a guy I had never heard of

    Toward the Fulfillment of the Gog and
    Magog Prophecy of Ezekiel 38–39
    Jiri Moskala

    It was worth reading just a review of the hermeneutical options. He doesn’t really address your question.

    An older article also available on the web:

    Ralph H. Alexander: β€œA Fresh Look at Ezekiel 38 and 39,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 17/3 (1974)

    He doesn’t answer the your question either. Meanwhile I am reading some things on the war of independence Israel 1948.

  6. C. Stirling,

    Thank you for the heads up on that article, I’ll have to check it out sometime. I found Bauckham’s thesis about the epistolary nature of Revelation to be substantial for providing a very fruitful way for understanding and interpreting the book itself. I will always be studying these things, and yet I find myself very close, probably, to Bauckham at this point.

  7. I’m a little late to the discussion, but I wanted to throw out a couple thoughts.

    I am an Optimistic Amillennialist – kind of a combination of an Amil and Post-Mil view, if you will.

    I don’t see Israel as being replaced but expanded. Israel was rejected but is grafted back in to the root just as Gentiles are grafted in to the Root, that is Christ. Both Israel and Gentile are on the same level playing field they BOTH need to repent and believe in Jesus the Messiah.

    Now, looking at Romans 9-11, I see that God has not utterly forsaken Israel but is looking to engraft a remnant into the root. This means there has to be, well, a remnant to be grafted. The nation of Israel, as we know it today, isn’t special in and of itself; they are still religious pagans that need to repent and believe in Jesus.

    But God is faithful unto Himself and His promises, and He has promised that a remnant will be grafted in. The nation of Israel is testament that God will fulfill His promise of an engrafted remnant.

    As an aside, yet a part of my point, we do well to remember that one of the key reasons why Jesus was crucified was over hermeneutics. His hermeneutical scheme came into conflict with that held by the Pharisees and the Sadducees. These two power groups practiced a β€œliteral” hermeneutic, so much so that they could not understand the prophecies Jesus applied to himself (see John 5:39-47; 8:39-47). Jesus had to teach the disciples how to read the Old Testament (Luke 24:25-27, 44-45; Acts 1:6-8). The point is this: The hermeneutical principle for understanding the Old Testament writings was and is the Gospel not literalism! Let me ask that the β€œliteralists” explain or answer the following:

    How can John the Baptist be literally Elijah (Matt. 17:12-13)?

    If the promise to David in II Sam. 7:12-16 is fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 2:29-32), then it is not a literal fulfillment according to any normal use of the word β€œliteral.”

    If, as Paul says, the resurrection of Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises of God to Israel (Acts 13:29-32), then literalism cannot be sustained.

    If, according to Heb. 12:18-24, the Jewish Christians have already come to β€œMount Zion and to the city of the living God” through faith in Jesus, this is the only Zion that matters.

    To be sure, some of the prophecies associated with the first coming of Jesus were fulfilled in a rather literal way (Micah 5:2 and the Messiah being born in Bethlehem or the Messiah being born of a virgin, see Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:22-23). But these examples do not establish β€œliteralism” as the basic hermeneutic. Again, the Gospel requires that we allow Christ to be the hermeneutic principle.

    With this in mind, the problem in the MIddle East is a hermeneutical problem. Everyone is looking at it from a “literal” standpoint. I mean, if you reject Jesus as the Chief Cornerstone and the Foundation of our faith, then I guess all you have left is a literal hermeneutic.

    But the issue of nation of Israel’s existence is nothing more than God preparing a remnant with which to engraft into the Root that is Christ.

    I don’t know that this answers your question, but I think it’s the start of an answer.

    Good discussion!

Comments are closed.