Regarding the topic “Who is Israel?”, Sam said: “It’s a tough issue”.

I would agree wholeheartedly with that statement. I was dispensational for 20 years, but now I know that the modern state of Israel is not a fulfillment of prophecy after all. Yet, I still feel like we should support Israel.

William Bell brings to the table another view. In the podcast, he did not come right out and say we should abandon Israel, but one is left wondering what else could be concluded from the things he said or from the list of books above. His view is obviously one that has been developed through thoughtful analysis of history, but I also detected a certain edge buttressing his argument. He is emotionally committed to his view.

While the subject of whether to support Israel or not is certainly an emotional one, it raises some more general questions for me relative to my role as a Christian within culture. There is no doubt that if one judges the formation of modern Israel with the morals and ethics found in the bible, then the legitimacy of Israel fades away. But why stop there? Is there any nation that passes the test? Our own nation is peppered with less than admirable actions. Does that mean I should withdraw my support for the USA?

One can take this out of the arena of international conflict and weigh the actions of a nation towards its own citizens. I’m certainly not happy about the direction our current government is taking our country. I think the debt they are piling up is immoral. Does this mean that I should advocate the dissolution of the USA? I don’t think so.

We live in a messy world and we are constantly forced to choose between the lesser of evils. I don’t see this changing anytime soon. When Bell looks at Israel, he sees an aggressor against innocents. When I look at Israel, I see a valuable ally in the war against radical Islam.

Since there are different ways to look at support of Israel, my hope is that we can divorce that topic from Preterism. I would hate to see Preterism labeled as “that view which advocates the dissolution of Israel”. I think the truth of He came, He conquered, and He finished it deserves a higher place than the muck and mire of international politics.

We addressed that a bit. I said, "it's a fact." We can discuss the illegitimacy of the creation of the JudenStaat, but, that doesn't change the fact: it is here. That's when William moved to the "two state" idea. A co-existence and equality. I don't think William was advocating a complete abandonment. I don't either, for the same reasons. However, a move in the direction of "co existence" seems optional. It is messy, no doubt. Who knows where we will be in 200 years. That's when we suggested that, first, what has to be done, is to define Israel according to the Bible, and defeat the notion that modern day Israel is somehow related to Bible prophecy. That's the first thing that I CAN do in this mess. This, as I imagine, would have ripple effects, and if it found its way to the dominate view in the Church, then such would allow for a greater freedom in considering options politically speaking. The notion that we support Israel because they are "God's people" and that is "God's country" must be obliterated, first. They are people like any other people, and they need Jesus Christ like any other people. If the whole politics of Israel thought like this, and saw that their promises were fulfilled, and that these promises are fulfilled in heavenly calling, perhaps they would abandon the notion of fighting for a piece of real estate. We Christians do not have any real estate: we have inherited the earth. The whole world is ours. This kind of thinking must be broken for it is subject to the rules of the "elements of the world" and its principles.

Sam said: “That's when we suggested that, first, what has to be done, is to define Israel according to the Bible, and defeat the notion that modern day Israel is somehow related to Bible prophecy. That's the first thing that I CAN do in this mess.”


I agree 100% that we Preterists must defeat the notion that modern day Israel is somehow related to Bible prophecy. After all, 1948 is the so called “super sign” of biblical prophecy, right? 1948 is perhaps more responsible for my spending 20 years in dispensational torment (I couldn’t buy into pre-trib rapture doctrine) than any other argument presented to me in “The Late Great Planet Earth”. I suspect that many other believers are likewise gripped by this singular fact of the existence of a state called Israel in the holy land.

So, I am on board with that goal for the preterist movement. I just think that Preterism should not be identified with any political goal beyond this truth related to modern Israel. We should preach this truth and let the chips fall where they may.

martin

Hi Martin,
So where is this 'holy land' you mentioned? It seems we have to undergo a bit of revision of our own christianese that we speak first!

Robin

You got me Robin, lol. Old habits die hard, eh? The "real" holy land is the Jerusalem above.

martin

It's always a question of "what can I do right now?" That's the answer I gave, and you agreed. We are not in power, but we do have power from God to pull down strongholds, and arguments that exalt themselves against Christ. That's power, the power of truth. And, it has to start somewhere. What we need to press here against those futurists that are not Dispensatiaonlists, is about all those promises in the OT concerning Israel. It's right HERE that Full Preterism makes its case. If the Second Coming has not yet happened, and the resurrection of the dead has not yet happened, then Israel "according to the flesh" is still destined a future - you cannot have Israel being the "church", with the "church" heading towards Israel's promise of a resurrection!

You see, Dispensationalists are quite right when they insist on Paul's defense of Israel "according to the flesh" because that was his view between Cross and Parousia. If the Parousia has not happened with the resurrection of the dead, you MUST still have a future prophetic fulfillment for Israel "according to the flesh". It is only possible that the "one body" and "one nation" - the Body of Christ on earth as God's only people, made up of all nations and tribes, be seen for what it is AFTER the parousia, when the Israel question has been fully dealt with. Israel was promised a regathering to her land. Jesus PROMISED to regather together both houses. The prophets foretold it. Israel "shall be saved." What is so wierd is that a great deal of Reformed theology sees no future for Israel whatsoever, yet, have the Second Coming as future with the resurrection! These were ISRAEL's promises, not the Churches! Quite schizo.

Regarding the topic “Who is Israel?”, Sam said: “It’s a tough issue”.

I would agree wholeheartedly with that statement. I was dispensational for 20 years, but now I know that the modern state of Israel is not a fulfillment of prophecy after all.

"Yet, I still feel like we should support Israel."

With all due respect, this opinion in my judgment is to me deeply emotional. What is important to me is not to be void of emotion in expressing my views, but to be logical, reasonable and consistent with truth as best as I possibly can. If one is successful in accomplishing that, emotion may be a perfectually natural in such cases.

However, that being said, I had hoped to make it clear that at this point, the Palestinians are not so naive as to want Zionist Israel to vanish in the sea. There is much it can offer the world and even amidst the current conditions some "good things are yet coming out of Nazareth."

However, Biblically defining Israel and telling the facts of Zionist Israel's history and its relationship to the Palestinian plight is a different story in my view. Further, how can one read Moses, The Prophets and the New Testament and not see the direct conflict that a God/Christ-centered worldview inevitably results in confrontation with politics and government? If not, then we're really in trouble!

Remember the Exodus with Moses and Pharaoh, Samuel and Saul, Esther and Haman, Daniel and his fellow governors, his comrades and Nebuchanezzar, Christ, and the Sanhedrin, the Apostles and Herod, or with Caesar and the Alexandrians? By the way, the prophets actually prophesied the defeat and downfall of many governments. Should they not have?

Please don't misunderstand. I am not suggesting that we make Preterism a "political gospel." Rest assured, if it is taught, it is going to make its way into politics, economics, moral issues, etc. etc. Besides, would it be a bad thing if some of our "sun, moon and stars" in the "heavens" were Preterists versus Dispensational or Atheists?

Is it true that if we judge Zionist Israel with the morals and ethics found in the bible then the legitimacy of Israel fades away? Do we necessarily have to throw out the baby with the washwater? We cannot have two standards of righteousness for any nation. "Righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people." (Prov. 14:34)

The real question here is can Zionist Israel accept an existence where brotherly love and mutual acceptance of the Palestinian Arabs (Christian, Muslim & Religous Jews) share the same ideals, opportunities, freedoms, protections, and land?

The same question applies to America and any nation. No, I don't advocate doing away with the U.S. for its atrocities and hate crimes either. However, I do logically and emotionally support, advocate and defend the doing away of the inequities that America practiced/practices i.e. genocide of its Native Americans and enslavement and discrimination of Blacks, mistreatment of Hispanics and persecution of any and all groups.

America by and large agrees with that even if reluctantly forced to do so in the courts and by violent and non-violent protest. But doesn't this show that America's practice at home (if these are indeed her ideals) are being violated or at least questioned through the actions of Zionism? How can America preach love your neighbor at home but hate them in Palestine? Which is in her best interests?

Were there no legitimate reasons that the Colonists withdrew their financial support from England? Where's the old American Spirit? Furher, we've never had much of a problem with sanctions before when pressuring other nations to get their act together even for humanitarian purposes, right?

I must disagree with the view that Zionism is a response to radical Islam. How many Islamic terrorists were there in American before Zionism began? I don't deny there are radical elements in Islam which deserve to be properly addressed. It is now being widely acknowledged and conceded that Palestinian Arab terrorism is reactionary to the aggression of the Israeli occupation."

Israel's former Prime Minister, Barak once admitted as much saying: Had he been born a Palestinian, he "would have joined a terrorist organization." (Bill Maxwell, "U.S. Should Reconsider Aid to Israel," St. Petersburge Times (online), December 16, 2001, quoted in The Israel Lobby, p. 102). Thus, Zionism = cause, Arab terrorism = effect.

Here are some quotes from Zionism's founders taken from The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foregin Policy by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, in their chapter on the moral argument (A Dwindling Moral Case) Judge for yourself.

David Ben-Gurion:

June 1937: "Were I an Arab, I would rebel even more vigorously, bitterly and desperately against the immigration that will one day turn Palestine and all its Arab residents over to Jewish rule." (The Israel Lobby..., p. 98)

1941: "It is impossible to imagine general evacuation [of the Arab population] without compulsion, and brutal compulsion."

October 1937 to his son: We shall organize a modern defence force...and then I am certain that we will not be prevented from settling in other parts of the country, either by mutual agreement with our Arab neighbors or by some other means." (Malcom X used similar rhetoric in reaction to racism in America, i.e. "By any means necessary!" He was labeled a terrorist.

Menachem Begin once said that "Palestinians are beasts walking on two legs,"

Former IDF Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan referred to them as "drugged roaches in a bottle" and also said that "a good Arab is a dead Arab."

Another former chief of Staff, Moshe Ya'alon, referred to the Palestinian threat as like a "cancer' on which he was performing "chemotherapy." [what is referred to as the demographic threat]

How can one treat another humanely if they are viewed as less than human?

In addition, how would we judge Pharaoh's view of Old Covenant Israel as a "demographic threat" (Ex. 1:9) when he committed genocide against all the young males babies?

Or the Persian view of "Old Covenant Israel" as a "demographic threat" when Haman sought to exterminate all the Jews in Persia?

Or Herod during the time Christ's parents had to flee to Egypt for his safety? Is Zionism more justified than they? Is ethnic cleansing justified in Darfur, Rwanda, Poland, Auschwitz or Bosnia? With such a history, shouldn't Jews of all people be more compassionate? Didn't God tell them to remember how they were treated?

By the way, have you ever studied immigration laws?

Consider that with an Arab population in Palestine of 93% before 1948 and 7% Jews:

"The mainstream Zionist leadership, it should be emphasized, was never interested in establishing a binational state where Arabs and Jews lived side by side in a country that had no religious identity and might even have more Arabs than Jews. The goal from the beginning was to create instead a Jewish state in which Jews comprised at least 85 percent of the population."

In other words, reduce the Arabs in Palestine to 15% or less. Do you know where else an ethnic group has been reduced and kept below 15% because of immigration laws, discrimination and government policies even though in both examples the 15% have higher birthrates? No, I don't think it's coincidental.

It is not my aim to see Preterism as the enemy of any nation. If it is the gospel, how can it be? God loves all. The issue is, not all love him or his word. But why should Preterism take the rap? Preterism doesn't have a lobby for any particular nation. As Sam says, the world is ours. As Peter says, in every nation, those who work righteousness are accepted of him. Would Paul have refused to preach truth to the Galatians because he feared becoming their enemy?

Does that mean we should also question Gary Demar's work with American Vision?

There is a reason that organizations like "J-Street" (http://www.jstreet.org/) an American Jewish lobby that challenges AIPAC has arisen. It's backlash and a clear demonstration that non-Zionist Jews in America question America's support of Zionism and want a peaceful solution to the conflict. Also check out http://www.ifamericaknew.org

Lastly, the reason I read some of the books I do on this topic is because we only get a lop-sided view of propaganda from the news media. I like to look at both sides of the issue and make up my own mind. (That's how I became a Preterist)

I mean when an entire Congress refuses to even read the Goldstone Report claiming it is biased when it charges both sides with war crimes says a lot about what I'm likely to hear from the media. Yes, I have nothing but praise for Dennis Kucinich for his courage in blasting them out on the House floor.

By the way, take a look at the UN list of the Nations that voted for and against the Goldstone Report. It's quite a revelation comparing history with the present.

When I think of the IDF wanting to investigate itself to determine whether it has committed any violations of "international" law, I'm reminded of the Grecian widows who murmured against the Hebrews in the daily ministration of Acts 6. The latter agreed to let their "victims" judge them and were humble enough to accept that they would do right by them. Good people always will and they did. The Hebrews allowed the Grecians call the shots. Could the Zionists let the Palestinians call the shots in their own land or even part of it?

Thanks for your insights and challenges.

Cause and effect = sowing and reaping. You would think the Jews who returned to the land a mere 3 years after the Holocaust would have a better perspective to NOT do what had been done to them. If we are to have any effect amongst Christians, it is in exposing this fatal flaw in Zionism.

But we are in a country that has for several generations now been actively overturning our own freedoms guaranteed by our constitution. The land of the free and home of the brave is not the proud place it used to be. It will be hard for us to counsel others in what we ourselves have lost sight of. Which is why I suppose men like DeMar see the power lies in grassroots efforts. Words like honor and valor and truth need to be re-established in the minds of the people as to what such things really mean. Else it will not be long before we become another apostate nation - as we see Israel is become because she has lost sight of her beginnings.

Robin

I've been reading, "Zion's Christian Solders? by Stephen Sizer." He makes a number of good arguments in the first few chapters demonstrating that the modern state of Israel is not true Israel. But in the last few chapters he makes it clear that Jesus second coming will still be in our future, personal and visible.

To me, this is like a boxer that fights with only the left jab and never uses the right hand to deliver the knockout punch. Preterism is the right hand punch that partial-preterists are missing that would knockout the Christian Zionist movement.

Mr. Bell,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I’m guessing that any chance that I had of getting on your Christmas card list is pretty much shot at this point ;).

Nevertheless, my post was not meant to persuade folks to support Israel, but rather to plead that folks leave politics out of Preterism. If it is difficult to get large numbers of people to agree on religious issues, how much more difficult to get people to agree on religion AND politics?

My hope is to see Preterism become mainstream in my lifetime. I feel very strongly about this because the truth of the past fulfillment has literally set me free. I was in bondage for 20 years under the fear of worldwide domination by the antichrist, under the fear that I wouldn’t be able to feed myself without the mark of the beast, and under the fear that I would be on my way to the guillotine. You know, pretty much the Left Behind novels story with the exception that the rapture doesn’t happen pre-tribulation. I could never justify the pre-trib rapture with scripture. It was definitely post-trib baby.

This bondage I was in caused me to almost drop out of college. Why bother when everything’s going to hell? Luckily for me, I somehow stuck with it and graduated with a bachelors in 10 years. And marriage? Why bother? It would only mean that I would be tempted to take the mark so that I could feed my wife and children. Luckily, I did eventually get married at 41, but it is was almost two years after I discovered Preterism. I could go on, but you get the point, I was in bondage.

There are some dispensationalists that are somehow able to detach themselves from the horror of what they are preaching will happen in our generation (Van Impe). They somehow live there lives like they will die of old age but are expecting to be raptured at any moment. My brain just wasn’t wired that way and I suffered for it. I’m guessing that there are a lot of folks out there just like me. Or, at the very least they are banking on the idea that the rapture will save them from the trials and tribulations of everyday life and perhaps their next credit card bill. It is these folks that I think need to hear the truth of Preterism more than any other.

My understanding is that the majority of evangelicals in America are dispensational and they, almost by definition, are avid supporters of Israel. If Preterism is to go mainstream, it must make a dent in dispensationalism. To do that, they must be convinced that modern Israel is not a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That message will be difficult enough for them to swallow without adding to it that Israel, who they love, is the bad boy of the middle east.

That’s why I want to keep politics out of Preterism. Note, however, that I’m not advocating deception. I’m saying that there is room for different views on the situation over there. Given that, why make an issue of it? I suspect that you will disagree that there is “room” and that’s fine, but this is my position.

I will stop here with the simple confession that I haven’t spent the time to study and meditate on how Christ’s commandment to love one another extends beyond the folks I come in contact with each day. In other words, how does this command affect my involvement in the culture of my city, state, country, and world. It takes a man with big shoulders to sacrifice himself to see justice done for his next door neighbor one minute and some guy he never met half way around the world the next minute.

martin

Martin,

Thanks for this very sincere reply. I understand your point of view. There is certainly a place for it. Also thanks for sharing real life examples of how deep the struggle and experience is for Dispensationalists, how it affects their worldview and practical everyday living. I'm going to keep this post as a reminder.

One of the points Stephen Sizer makes is that many Dispensationalists never see the inhumanity of the suffering while they are focused on the theological and eschatological ramifications of their doctrine.

I tend to see all men no matter where they live or whether I know them or not as brothers made of one blood, though I have spiritual ties that transcend those of flesh.

I share your views that we must vigorously address Dispensationalism. I also believe that God can touch myriads not affected by it who will rise up and become an alternative of positive choice for the world whether Dispensationalism bows or not.

Jimmy Carter’s simple statement of the facts—November 2000
“An underlying reason that years of U.S. diplomacy have failed and violence
in the Middle East persists is that some Israeli leaders continue to ‘create
facts’ by building settlements in occupied territory. . .
“At Camp David in September 1978. . . the bilateral provisions led to a
comprehensive and lasting treaty between Egypt and Israel, made possible at
the last minute by Israel’s agreement to remove its settlers from the Sinai. But
similar constraints concerning the status of the West Bank and Gaza have not
been honored, and have led to continuing confrontation and violence. . .
“[Concerning UN Resolution 242] Our government’s legal committment
to support this well-balanced resolution has not changed. . . It was clear that
Israeli settlements in the occupied territories were a direct violation of this
agreement and were, according to the long-stated American position, both
‘illegal and an obstacle to peace.’ Accordingly, Prime Minister Begin pledged
that there would be no establishment of new settlements until after the final
peace negotiations were completed. But later, under Likud pressure, he declined
to honor this committment. . .
“It is unlikely that real progress can be made. . . as long as Israel insists on its
settlement policy, illegal under international laws that are supported by the
United States and all other nations.
“There are many questions as we continue to seek an end to violence in the
Middle East, but there is no way to escape the vital one: Land or peace?” Former
President Jimmy Cater in The Washington Post, November 26, 2000.

Please read "Edward Irving is Unnerving" on Joe Ortiz' blog "Our Daily Bread" (Nov. 12). Other interesting Google items include: "Roots of (Warlike) Christian Zionism," "Pretrib Rapture Diehards," and "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty."

William,

What is your take on Islam in terms of its growing worldwide threat. In your view is its resurgence correlated with Zionism? Although I think it's clear that our Middle East policies have primed the pump of radical extremism, I wonder how much you think a peaceful solution in Israel would mean to the rest of the world i.e. would Islamic terrorism be significantly impacted for the better?

It appears Iran has aspirations of Israel's annihilation, and although possibly fueled in part by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, do you believe Iran must be dealt with? Consider the following: http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/22/iran-nuclear-w.... In my view, the title "Armageddon Time" clouds the scholarship and research presented in the article, but if we can get past the obvious apocalyptic associations, I think it might be beneficial to take this real-world problem and apply Biblical standards.

I asked Stephen Sizer these things about 18 months ago but never got a firm answer. If I am somewhat unclear let me ask it another way. If we stop our bigoted treatment of Israel, will that dry up the feeder system for radical Islamic extremists? Or are their goals independent of Israel and therefore must appropriate economic and/or military action become necessary?

Thanks William. Really enjoyed the conversation as well your extra curricular dialogue here.

Blessings,
Chuck

Chuck, I'm not at all sure that I am understanding the question about "bigoted treatment of Israel?" Should I read this as: Is the US biased in favor of Israel?", ( the obvious answer of which is yes). If so, then as stated, many are coming to believe that Islamic terrorism is backlash from the Zionists mistreatment of Palestinian Arabs which might not be possible without US support.

I do think it makes for a good camouflage of the issues. I would be willing to take a wait and see approach. Create peace in the Middle East, then see where the chips fall, i.e. Islamic terrorism. If it yet remains or escalates as an independent problem and direct threat to U.S. national interests then we'll know for sure. But to attack in the midst of the current turmoil with the assumption that it is isolated to me is either naive or sinister. It's like treating a symptom versus the cause of an illness. It's just hard for me to believe that Iran is against Jews or Christians for that matter when they allow them to live in Iran. If they were that paranoid or suspicious of them, they probably have them expelled like Rome did the Jews in Acts. The question remains. Why can Jews, Christians and Arabs live together in Iran but not in Israel?

Remember Iraq supposedly had nuclear weapons but none were found? Was it nuclear weapons or Kuwait oil interests? As the article you referenced suggested, Iran may be a threat to oil interests which far outway the religous jihadists. So how far fetched would it be to create another "diversionary enemy" to justify taking out another smaller country to insure enough fuel for a healthy petro appetite?

As a direct result of this threat to oil supplies in the Middle East, America has now increased its consumption of oil from African nations from 16 to 25%. Through it's Africom operations of establishing military bases on African soil in the name of humanitarian interests and in view of recent oil discoveries in Somalia and southern Sudan, at least one war between the Somalians and Ethopians is reportedly the result of American interests or involvement. It would be interesting to check all this out nevertheless the oil addiction seems worst than a drug addict fix.

Well, here's some recent news that tends to support the latter point. Watch and decide for yourself regarding Somalia: http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?r...

William, thanks for your thoughtful comments. You wrote, "Chuck, I'm not at all sure that I am understanding the question about "bigoted treatment of Israel?" Should I read this as: Is the US biased in favor of Israel?" Absolutely.

WB: "Create peace in the Middle East, then see where the chips fall, i.e. Islamic terrorism. If it yet remains or escalates as an independent problem and direct threat to U.S. national interests then we'll know for sure."

Good point. Cleaning it up on our end and doing the right thing would at least put a spotlight on the byproduct of Islam if the problems persist.

It seems that, although the oil interests of the U.S. in the Middle East are significant, Islam has posed serious threats since it's inception. Wasn't the world in a similar place at the time of the reformation, at least in terms of Islamic uprisings? Israel wasn't a point of contention or even a minor point of provocation.

BTW, the vid was of Obama watching a relative coach. LOL I assume the one in mind was a little farther down the play list.