Posted on 08/23/2005 11:39:12 AM PDT by topcat54
The return of the Jews to the land of Israel is a major pillar in dispensational theology. A great deal was made of Israel returning to the land in 1948. Hal Lindsey made his prophetic career with The Late Great Planet Earth (1970) on the claim that the rapture would take place forty years after 1948. It's now 2005, and Israel is having additional land problems, giving up the Gaza Strip. Does this mean that the timetable starts all over again? Do we look for the "rapture" any earlier than 2045? This can't be since Israel has to regain all the land of Israel for the land promises to count. What's a dispensationalist to do?So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass (Joshua 21:43-45).
There is a simple biblical solution to this dilemma: God gave the Israelites the land He had promised to give; they possessed and lived in the land; they had rest; their enemies did not stand before them; not one of the promises God made to the house of Israel failed. If the verses that introduce this article do not teach what they seem to teach, then how else could God have put it, said it, or written it if He had wanted to inform the Israelites that they had in fact possessed the land as promised?
Even after being confronted with these crystal clear words from Joshua, futurists continue to insist that they do not teach what they seem to teach. Consider the commentary by Old Testament scholar Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.:
Oftentimes students of the Bible point to three passages that appear to suggest that the promise of land to Israel has indeed been fulfilled: Joshua 21:43-45; 23:14-15; Nehemiah 9:8. These texts assert that "not one of all the LORD's good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled" (Josh. 21:45; cf. 23:14).
However, the boundaries mentioned in Numbers 34:2-12 are not the ones reached in the accounts of Joshua and Judges. For example, Joshua 13:1-7 and Judges 3:1-4 agree in maintaining that there was much land that remained to be taken.
So much for a literal interpretation of Bible prophecy. Since Numbers 34:2-12 and Joshua 13:1-7 precede Joshua 21:43-45, it seems obvious that by the time we get to the end of the book of Joshua the land was in Israel's possession even though there were nations dwelling in Israel's midst (Josh. 23:4-7). Just because other nations resided in the land does not mean that Israel did not have full possession of the land. The nations are said to be "an inheritance for your tribes" (23:4). Notice the conditions of remaining in the land: "Be very firm, then, to keep and do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, so that you may not turn aside from it to the right hand or to the left" (Josh. 23:6). Failure to follow this specific condition will mean that these nations "shall be a snare and a trap to you, and a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you" (23:13). "Has given," not "will someday in the future give."
What about Judges 3:1-4? While the land was possessed and was in the hands of the Israelites before Joshua died, some nations were left "to test Israel . . . to find out if they would obey the commandments of the LORD" (Judges 3:1, 4). It was Israel's disobedience that put the land back into the hands of her enemies. God delivers Israel through Othniel, and then we read, "Then the land had rest forty years" (3:11): Not part of the land, but the land-the land occupied by Israel-had rest.
The New Testament says nothing about there being a need to fulfill the land promises. There is no discussion about a future return to the land. The physical land of Israel has no role to play in the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant since the coming of Christ. It's not surprising therefore that Jewish Christians of the first-century saw nothing covenantally askew with selling their land:
For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, and lay them at the apostles feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need (Acts 4:34-35).
Notice that the Bible does not say that they sold their possessions or "their goods," as dispensational oriented Bible Knowledge Commentary has it. They sold their land and houses. Jesus had told them earlier that the temple would be destroyed and Jerusalem judged within a generation (Matt. 24:1-34). Jesus is the focal point of history not dirt (land), stone (temple) (John 2:19; 3:20-24; Eph. 2:19-22; 1 Peter 2:4-8), or blood (race of people) (John 1:12-13; 1 Pet. 2:9-10). Nothing in the New Testament is said about a return to the land or a rebuilding of the temple. The New Testament only describes the destruction of the temple (Matt. 23:38; 24:2) and indifference to the land (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 8:1).
A paradigm shift is taking place in eschatology. Millions of Christians are questioning the dispensationalism that they grew up with and followed blindly. Like the reformers of the sixteenth century, they are turning back to the Bible and rejecting prophetic systems for a true biblical methodology.
Bump for later.
Gary ignores quite a lot that is written in the OT and the NT about Israel.
This was not a treatise on Israel. His main point -- that the land promise to Israel was fulfilled -- is well taken by those who see modern events in the middle east as a theological diversion from the truth of Christ's gospel.
Jesus Christ is the true Israel. All those who have a part in His resurrection are the children of Abraham and spiritual Israel regardless of their ethnic background.
ping
I haven't read the article yet, but taking ONLY this in context, I disagree....
The WHOLE Bible is what we are to look at.
The prophecies in Zacharia 12 haven't been fulfilled yet, and will be. The author too conveniently picked his passages.
Zechariah 12-14 haven't been fulfilled. Jerusalem being trampled down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles ends has not been fulfilled. As I said, Gary ignores quite a bit.
His statement was, "Nothing in the New Testament is said about a return to the land or a rebuilding of the temple." That is true statement. With that you cannot disagree.
While Jesus and the apostles spoke about the destruction of the temple and the conquest of the land, they made no mention of any physical restoration. They didn't quote any of the OT prophecies so popular with dispensationalists as proving that the temple would be rebuilt, etc. The reason for this is obvious. Jesus is the true Israel, and His body, the church, is the true temple. They understood the true meaning of the OT prophecies as pointing to Jesus' finished work on behalf of His people (Luke 24:27).
That's the popular dispensational view. Many folks who see Jesus Christ as the focus of all Scripture believe the fulfillment of those prophecies is found in Christ, including the restoration of His people by His shed blood.
The physical land of Israel was but a type of the true Israel, Jesus Christ. Prophecies use the types to point to the reality, in this case to Jesus Himself.
You are interpreting the Bible out of all sense and context. Like it or not, the Jews are still God's chosen people (yes, I believe they need Christ's atonement for sin just like anybody else), and many prophecies concerning them as a nation and their land, especially Jerusalem, remain to be fulfilled.
I'm interpreting the OT the same way the apostles interpreted it. It all points to Christ, not physical Israel. You are the one who seems to have a view that is not supported by Jesus and the apostles.
"For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." (Rom. 4:13)
"By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God." (Heb. 11:8-10)
"For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them." (Heb. 11:14-16)
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel." (Heb. 12:22-24)
The NT puts all the OT land promises into proper perspective. It's not about physical Israel. It's about Christ.
I agree with some of this, but let me ask you: has the Second Coming been fulfilled?
What do you make of Romans, Chapter 11 then? It is all about the children of Israel, not "spiritualized" Israel.
Christ's physical, bodily second coming is still in the future, at a time unknown to us.
The promise of Romans 11 is that "all Israel" will be saved. I take "all Israel" to mean all those from the physical descendants of Israel that God has chosen in Christ to be saved. This is an ongoing process that will continue "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." It says nothing about a physical restoration to the land or rebuilding of the temple. They are being restored by being grafted into the root, that is, Jesus Christ, just as believing gentiles are grafted in.
If there is no physical restoration of the Jews to Israel, how can the unfulfilled prophecies of Zechariah regarding Jerusalem and the nation of Israel ever be fulfilled? Are you saying that "spiritual" Israel (i.e., saved Christians of whatever ethnic background) are going to be living in Israel and in Jerusalem when these events happen?
I don't think so. Christians are not the "house of Judah." You are trying to rob the children of Israel of promises God made only to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.