Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?

[ReformedWretch]

By Stephen Sizer

The term 'Zionism' was first coined in the late nineteenth century, and referred to the movement for the return of the Jewish people to an assured and secure homeland in Palestine. Ironically, this vision was largely nurtured and shaped by Christians long before it received widespread Jewish support. The origins of "Christian Zionism" lie within nineteenth century British premillennial sectarianism, but by the early twentieth century it had become a predominantly American dispensational movement, and pervasive within all main evangelical denominations. The contemporary Christian Zionism movement emerged after the "Six Day War" in Israel in 1967, and it has had a significant influence on attitudes towards the ongoing Palestinian"“Israeli conflict in the Middle East.

Evangelicals are increasingly polarized over whether Christian Zionism is biblical and orthodox or unbiblical and cultic. Stephen Sizer provides a thorough examination of the historical development, variant forms, theological emphases and political implications of Christian Zionism. His excellent and informative survey is interwoven with critical assessment that repudiates both nationalistic Zionism and anti-Semitism. (Paperback, 298 pages)

Thoughts?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I think it worth distinguishing between political and religious Zionism. One need not adhere to erroneous views of prophecy (a la Hal Lindsey) to support the political entity of modern Israel for pragmatic reasons and the temporal right of Jews to have a homeland of their own.

[Edited on 6-17-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I think it worth distinguishing between political and religious Zionism. One need not adhere to erroneous views of prophecy (a la Hal Lindsey) to support the political entity of modern Israel for pragmatic reasons and the temporal right of Jews to have a homeland of their own.

[Edited on 6-17-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

What temporal right is that, and who has bestowed this right?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I think it worth distinguishing between political and religious Zionism. One need not adhere to erroneous views of prophecy (a la Hal Lindsey) to support the political entity of modern Israel for pragmatic reasons and the temporal right of Jews to have a homeland of their own.

[Edited on 6-17-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

What temporal right is that, and who has bestowed this right?

I may not have worded my statement as precisely as I should have. No one in the world has "rights" despite what the Declaration of Independence says. All men are sinners and have no claim upon God as to where they live, including Americans.

However, all men of every nation ought to be able to live in peace. The Jews were expelled unustly from Palestine 2000 years ago -- yes, I believe it was God's righteous judgment, but Rome was not just in their actions. Jews returned in peace to Palestine beginning in the 19th century, and the world saw fit to divide the land between Jews and Arabs in 1947 so that Jews might be able to live in a country of their own following the Holocaust. I believe the Jews have just as much right to live in Palestine as anybody else, if not more, given the history of the land. I am not asserting prophetic claims on their behalf with respect to the land, but merely historical and sovereign claims. They fought wars and won them. The Arabs lost. Between Arab and Jewish claims to Palestine, Jewish claims have better legal and historical merit. The conduct of the Jews compared with Islamic terrorists also gives Israel a moral high ground. The state of Israel is not a godly state by any means, but on pragmatic grounds it has just as much right to exist as Saudia Arabia or any other nation. That's all.

[Edited on 6-18-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Peter]

to all Zionism

The Jews did not "peacefully return to Palestine", they aggressively colonized and stole it from the Palestinians and waged terroristic campaigns against the British.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

This discussion always turns into an anti-Semitic so I think I shall retire from this thread.

[Edited on 6-18-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Bladestunner316]

Its a shame america is carried away by political zionism due to christian fundimentalists ala robertson , lindsay, etc....

 

[Anton Bruckner]

Originally posted by Peter
waged terroristic campaigns against the British.

Now that is very much denied and ignored. Fact is terrorism was waged by the Jews against the British, and now terrorism is waged by the Palestinians against the Jews.

Only when the above truth can be acknowledged instead of both parties pretending to be morally above the other, then true progress can be made.

 

[Puritanhead]

The Wittenberg Door says it all.

 

[Texas Aggie]

Wether through violence or peace... God's promise to Abraham includes the land from the Nile to the Euphrates.

There will be a lot of ticked-off Arabs as this unfolds and don't think that we as Christians will not get ropped into the ordeal (you may just get your head sawed off with a bread knife). Take a look at the videos of Johnson, Berg, Pearl & Armstrong.

Your God is the same God as Abraham, Issac and Jaccob. The covenant He made with Abraham will come to fruition regardless of any effort to aid or hinder the matter in the region. The mere fact that Christian Zionism exists shows that it is a decree of God (for what purpose... I don't exactly know).

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
Wether through violence or peace... God's promise to Abraham includes the land from the Nile to the Euphrates.

There will be a lot of ticked-off Arabs as this unfolds and don't think that we as Christians will not get ropped into the ordeal (you may just get your head sawed off with a bread knife). Take a look at the videos of Johnson, Berg, Pearl & Armstrong.

Your God is the same God as Abraham, Issac and Jaccob. The covenant He made with Abraham will come to fruition regardless of any effort to aid or hinder the matter in the region. The mere fact that Christian Zionism exists shows that it is a decree of God (for what purpose... I don't exactly know).

Didn't God extend those promises to include the whole world, not some mere strip of Palestine? Didn't Paul say that those promises found their fulfillment (or are finding their fulfillment) in the New Covenant administration?

Romans 4:13
For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.

Now, do secular, Christ-denying Jews (and no, I am not being anti-semitic) inherit the whole world, or do Christians?

Romans 4:16-17
16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring"”not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 as it is written, "œI have made you the father of many nations""”in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.

Now, does Paul see his mission as implementing Christ' message with these promises in mind, finding their fulfillment in Christ, or do we see a future reinstation of a group of people who are no longer God's people inheriting a land that is no longer relevant?

Which scenario is biblical?

 

[john_Mark]

Andrew, a question.

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
This discussion always turns into an anti-Semitic so I think I shall retire from this thread.

[Edited on 6-18-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

Was there something anti-semitic in a post above? I am asking because I think the term "anti-semitic" gets thrown around alot. Especially, when one is quesitoning modern day Israel's claims to land, etc. It seems that one cannot even suggest that they may not be entitled to x, y or z or that they are not completely innoncent in actions x, y or z and the anti-semite labels come out.

Are only modern day Israeli's semites?

 

[Texas Aggie]

Jacob,

Just my perspective on this issue (I may be way out in left field)...

Abraham (as well as his descendants) are in no obligation to God whatsoever to accomplish anything in order to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant. This includes acceptance of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I see the Jews as physically occupying the land between the Nile and the Euphrates.

Now, with that said.... I see that we (the elect) are also heirs of the covenants. We have been made partakers of each of these divine covenants (including blessings as well as cursings). They directly apply to us (the church).

God justifies us through faith... preached long before the gospel to Abraham (all nations shall be blessed). So then we which are of "faith" (given by God) are blessed also with faithful Abraham (Galatians ?).

Naturally, Christians will inherit the entire world. When?... whenever God's will unfolds after the last days. Sometime between now and then, the Abrahamic covenant will be fulfilled.

 

[Bladestunner316]

if abraham is not obligated to then why would Pual use him as an example of faith by grace? all men are obligated to believe in Christ all men can fulfill that and not all men are chosen to fulfill that.

 

[Texas Aggie]

Abraham is not obligated based on the terms of the covenant God initiated to him (and God does not change). Abraham, nor his seed, are bound to do anything to fulfill the terms of the covenant.

Paul uses him as an example because Abraham (the idol maker, Abram) was "accounted" to Him as "righteous".... just as we are through "faith." This is the "favor" given to us by God just as it was accounted to Abram the idol maker.

All men are obligated to obey the law of God. Obviously, all men will not believe in Christ because they are not made partakers of the New Covenant (initiated by God only... just as the Abrahamic covenant).

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by john_Mark

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
This discussion always turns into an anti-Semitic so I think I shall retire from this thread.

[Edited on 6-18-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

Was there something anti-semitic in a post above? I am asking because I think the term "anti-semitic" gets thrown around alot. Especially, when one is quesitoning modern day Israel's claims to land, etc. It seems that one cannot even suggest that they may not be entitled to x, y or z or that they are not completely innoncent in actions x, y or z and the anti-semite labels come out.

Are only modern day Israeli's semites?

I'm sending you a u2u.

 

[Bladestunner316]

texas,
seem's I was confused by your previous post.Im sorry.

blade

 

[Texas Aggie]

No problem blade... I may be the one confused. This is just my perspective on the issue and like I said earlier, I may be way out in left field.

 

[Bladestunner316]

I was just thinking that you were saying OT saints and modern jews dont need to believe in Christ only us?

 

[Peter]

"Abraham (as well as his descendants) are in no obligation to God whatsoever to accomplish anything in order to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant. This includes acceptance of Jesus Christ. "

How does this follow---------------> "Therefore, I see the Jews as physically occupying the land between the Nile and the Euphrates"

The promise was not about land, it was that the faithful (Abraham's seed, Jews and Gentiles w/o distinction) would be counted righteous by their faith Gal 3.

 

[Texas Aggie]

Peter,

It follows because God does not change and His promise to Abraham will be fulfilled, regardless of what the Jews do (or do not do). I´m not sure what you are questioning? Take a look at the terms of the Abrahamic covenant. The promise of the Abrahamic covenant did involve land (Gen 15:18, Gen 28:3-4, Gen 28:13, Josh 1:4).

The Jews have no obligation. Only God Himself is bound to this covenant (Gen 15:17). I suppose the only requirement Abraham had was to leave his home and travel to the land God would show him.

Galatians 3 just defines the New Covenant as it relates to Abraham. Just as Abraham was counted righteous... so are the elect by faith (which is a gift of God).

 

[Peter]

Matt, who is Abraham's seed? Gal 3:16

 

[john_Mark]

Let's say that the modern day Jews biblically have a right to said land that's in contention. This is one argument that Christians (mostly Dispensationalists?) use to validate their partnering and support for Israel. Let's say this is 100% true.

What I am wondering is where are we biblically commanded to step in as such and give undying support for modern day Israel? I know the Scriptures that say what God is going to do, but I am asking about our responsibilities. Seems our example of Christ bringing the Gospel to the point of Him being rejected by His own falls short today. As Christians aren't bringing the Gospel to the point of being rejected. Rather, other social & political avenues are employed. So I don't get it.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
Jacob,

Just my perspective on this issue (I may be way out in left field)...

Abraham (as well as his descendants) are in no obligation to God whatsoever to accomplish anything in order to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant. This includes acceptance of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I see the Jews as physically occupying the land between the Nile and the Euphrates.

Now, with that said.... I see that we (the elect) are also heirs of the covenants. We have been made partakers of each of these divine covenants (including blessings as well as cursings). They directly apply to us (the church).

God justifies us through faith... preached long before the gospel to Abraham (all nations shall be blessed). So then we which are of "faith" (given by God) are blessed also with faithful Abraham (Galatians ?).

Naturally, Christians will inherit the entire world. When?... whenever God's will unfolds after the last days. Sometime between now and then, the Abrahamic covenant will be fulfilled.

While I do not intend to exhaust this aspect of covenant theology, a few comments might help:

We see the temporal fulfillment of this during the Israelite occupation of Canaan. In the new Covenant we see the eschatological fullfilment of the people of God (Matthew 5) inheriting the earth.

Israel has been divorced and in exile. If she returns to her husband--God-- she only furthers her iniquity:

According to Jeremiah 3:1-10 God has judged Israel and views that judgment as a divorce. As her husband God is applying the divorce law of Deut. 24:1-4. Therefore, if Israel even attempts to return to the Lord, she furthers her sins. How was she to repent and return to her husband?

God through Paul solves this dilemma in Romans 7. When the husband dies the woman is free to remarry. Paul is describing how God can be both just and the justifier. When Jesus the Husband of Israel died Israel was free to remarry another husband. But Christ did not just die, he was raised again. He is not only the First Husband, but the Second as well.

Israel died in 70 AD and rose again (as the Church)* and the Resurrected Bride can now marry her Resurrected Husband. Having divorced (seen in the death of Israel via Titus the Roman) Israel Christ has now entered into covenatn with his new Bride. The New Adam has married the New Eve (the Church) and together they rule the earth.

The question as to whether secular Israel gets the land is a moot question.

 

[Peter]

That's interesting Jacob, but I think its a little more simple then that. Ro 7 is about death to sin I believe, the principle could be translated but needlessly. Ro 9-11 describes the fate of the Jews. They are cut off except for a remnant. Eventually they will be fully brought in, but I don't think we can see this as a national restoration or "remarriage". As for the promise of Abraham, the promise was made to those in Christ, Jews and Gentiles alike. If it is insisted the temporal aspect of the promise extends into the NT then Palestine belongs to Christians not Jews.

[Edited on 6-25-2005 by Peter]

 

[Texas Aggie]

Abraham's seed is anyone who can be traced physiologically to his loins. This is how a Jew can be "in" Abraham or they refer to "our father Abraham."

From my perspective, the covenant was established with Isaac (Gen 17:19). This was subsequently passed to Jacob and so on. The promise to Jacob was confirmed (Genesis 28:13). Looks like God also changed Jacob's name to Israel (Genesis 35:10). Jacob had 12 sons (establishing the 12 tribes).

Not so sure Israel has been divorced since this was a covenant made by God with no conditions placed on Abraham or his descendants. This would be God breaking a covenant with Himself.

Jesus Christ was a Jew. We (the elect) were placed "in" Christ from before the foundation of the world. Although not physiologically "in" Abraham, we have been placed spiritually "in" Christ (descendant of Abraham). As a result, we are made heirs of the Abrahamic covenant (as well as all the covenants). We will also have the land from the Nile to the Euphrates.

 

[RamistThomist]

Not so sure Israel has been divorced since this was a covenant made by God with no conditions placed on Abraham or his descendants. This would be God breaking a covenant with Himself.

Isaiah 51
Thus says the Lord: "œWhere is your mother's certificate of divorce, with which I sent her away? Or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities you were sold, and for your transgressions your mother was sent away.

Jeremiah 3:8
She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore.

And to clinch it, Matthew 21:43,
Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.

Unless the secular Israelis seek God-in-Christ on HIS terms and enter into the Kingdom as equal with the Gentiles, then they share in the promises of God (like inheriting the whole earth). In fact, the only future dealings God will have with secular Israelis will be converting them so that they can share in his new Creation.

 

[Texas Aggie]

I do not see this as an inheritance of the kingdom for secular Jews. This is merely a land deed and a means to develop a nation (one that Christ would come from... and the way that all nations will be blessed).

The borders of Canaan do not extend to the Euphrates in ancient Assyria or Persia.

Romans 11:25-29 indicates to me that the covenant is still in effect.... the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

To be honest with you, I'm not too concerned about the condition of the Jews as it relates to the Abrahamic covenant. I do believe we (the elect) are heirs to all the divine covenants... to me this is important.