Do Dispensationalists share in the guilt of bloodshed related to Israel?

Dave L said:

Do Dispensationalists share in the guilt of bloodshed related to Israel?

I’m interested in how their support for the State of Israel fits into the plan to preach the gospel to all nations.

Paul teaches all of God’s promises are yes in Jesus. How can the ancient promises apply to those who exist solely because of their hatred and rejection of Jesus?

Does Dispensationalism teach two gospels? One for the church and another based on OT Law for the Jews? Where in the future another temple will replace the gospel with Judaism?

I have many more questions. But these first come to mind.

Click to expand...

Dispensational theology is entrenched in many denominations. It is the heart of the Scolfield Bible and exclusively taught in most if not all seminaries across the nation. I was once one who actually encouraged Jews to move to Israel because they are the chosen and most loved of all God's people and needed to be there to fulfill the end of time scenario. Then one day God laid a burden on me. It was BIG.

Why would you send people to their death?

I right then and there abandoned Dispensational theology. I really did not understand why, I just knew it was very wrong and very much in error. From there I picked up the pieces of the puzzle from a fresh perspective. I do not get into any debates with those who are from this system, it is futile. Only God can open the eyes to the truth. All one needs to do is pray for it.
Be blessed.

Dave L said:

Those who rejected Christ are not biblical Israel.

Click to expand...

And yet, in the passage I quoted from Rom 11, Paul calls them Israel who are, as he puts it, "enemies of the gospel." That would seem to directly contradict what you are stating.

public hermit said:

I have similar questions, I think. I am not sure if this is considered Dispensationalist, because I'm not real familiar: I have heard Christians say they are hoping for the temple to be rebuilt and the sacrificial system re-instated. To me, that makes no sense coming from a Christian. Why would they want the sacrificial system put back in place? Was the sacrifice of our Lord not sufficient? Has their eschatological ponderings overshadowed their grasp of the efficaciousness of the cross? It's strange to me, but maybe I am missing something. It has happened before.

Edit: I can't make a determination concerning bloodguilt. Guilty of faulty judgment or bad hermeneutics, maybe.

Click to expand...

the entire NT deconstructs this idea that God's chosen people are a unique ethnic tribe, then all of a sudden Revelation comes up and we forget it all and throw blind support to the nation of Israel.

Dave-W said:

That is totally unbiblical and a lie from hell. Remember, the gifts and callings of God are IRREVOCABLE. If the Jewish people are Israel, they are that FOREVER.

Click to expand...

Mat 3:9
And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.

God may call whatever he wishes Israel.

DamianWarS said:

the entire NT deconstructs this idea that God's chosen people are a unique ethnic tribe, then all of a sudden Revelation comes up and we forget it all and throw blind support to the nation of Israel.

Click to expand...

For myself, as a Christian I am discriminating when it comes to the modern State of Israel. If they do good, wonderful. If not, I don't act like it is part of the divine plan and so it's okay. It is befuddling to me that so many who base their eschatology on the OT prophets act like they have never read the OT prophets. Why did God exile Israel and Judea? It wasn't because whatever they did was fine and part of the divine plan. I doubt that has changed. I doubt God is okay with all that the modern State of Israel does simply because they are God's chosen people, or because evangelicals or whatever have certain eschatological expectations. They don't get a blank check, no one does.

Dave L said:

That generation legally circumcised before Calvary.

Click to expand...

Can you show from scripture that "before Calvary" has anything to do with it?
Don't bother - the answer is NO. You cannot.

public hermit said:

For myself, as a Christian I am discriminating when it comes to the modern State of Israel. If they do good, wonderful. If not, I don't act like it is part of the divine plan and so it's okay. It is befuddling to me that so many who base their eschatology on the OT prophets act like they have never read the OT prophets. Why did God exile Israel and Judea, it wasn't because whatever they did was fine and part of the divine plan. I doubt that has changed. I doubt God is okay with all that the modern State od Israel does simply because they are God's chosen people. They don't get a blank check, no one does.

Click to expand...

I suspect this blind support towards Israel, rebuilding the temple, reestablishing sacrifices, etc... will build towards the antichrist and recruit/ensnare a lot of Christians to its cause.

DamianWarS said:

I suspect this blind support towards Israel, rebuilding the temple, reestablishing sacrifices, etc... will build towards the antichrist and recruit/ensnare a lot of Christians to its cause.

Click to expand...

That would be ironic, to say the least.

Scripture is stronger that all the reasonngs of mere men.

3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. Romans 9:3-5

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! Romans 11:11-12

25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins." 28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:25-29

public hermit said:

That would be ironic, to say the least.

Click to expand...

it's already a controversial issue and I know Christians who would be offended by my apathy for this sort of support to a point they would question where my loyalties are. Yet I ask them about efforts into reaching these people with the gospel and they seem to blow it off like the gospel isn't meant for them because of prophecy. So what happens when these events start to unfold? the temple is being built, the sacrificial system is being reinstated and then from the pulpit, there's an announcement for a special offering for this cause? Do I sit there and let the offering plate go on by or do I get up and walk out?

DamianWarS said:

it's already a controversial issue and I know Christians who would be offended by my apathy for this sort of support to a point they would question where my loyalties are.

Click to expand...

If they question your loyalties, then they have confused the Modern State of Israel with Jesus Christ. In other words, they have too closely identified the two so that not showing loyalty to one entails not showing it to the other. Ask them, "Are Jesus Christ and the modern State of Israel identical?" Surely, they will say, "No." Ask, "Are all the actions taken by the modern State in line with what we know in the Person, work, and teachings of Jesus Christ?" If they say "Yes," you can give them examples to the contrary. Then you have all you need to show that your loyalty to one can never be the same as your loyalty to the other. Of course, they may not find a well-reasoned argument convincing, so...

DamianWarS said:

Yet I ask them about efforts into reaching these people with the gospel and they seem to blow it off like the gospel isn't meant for them because of prophecy.

Click to expand...

That is a good sign their soteriology is unhealthy. Do they think the cross was not for Jewish folk, too? Do they not know the very first Christians were many times Jewish? Am I being naïve, or would some good grounding in traditional theology be really helpful. Put down the Tim Lehaye and get back to the roots.

DamianWarS said:

So what happens when these events start to unfold? the temple is being built, the sacrificial system is being reinstated and then from the pulpit, there's an announcement for a special offering for this cause? Do I sit there and let the offering plate go on by or do I get up and walk out?

Click to expand...

That's a lot of projection, but I would find a community with some better teaching. Personally, I would not sit under a teacher that makes eschatology the emphasis to the detriment of a more cruciform proclamation. I don't mean to say eschatology should be neglected, but it should be approached with a bit more humility than I have seen by those who make it their stock and trade. But, that's just me.

Dave-W said:

Do Dispensationalists share in the guilt of bloodshed related to Israel?

Click to expand...

No more than anyone else.

public hermit said:

I have heard Christians say they are hoping for the temple to be rebuilt and the sacrificial system re-instated. To me, that makes no sense coming from a Christian....................maybe I am missing something.

Click to expand...

You are missing something it seems to me.

Dispensation proponents take the things in Revelation concerning the Millennial reign of Christ literally. Likewise they take the idea of the anti-Christ seating himself in the temple literally. Likewise they take the statements about Israel finally coming to the Christ they had once rejected literally.

Christians are looking forward to the Jews reinstating sacrificial worship in a new temple because it will show that God is moving the Jews toward that mass end time conversion to Christ during the Tribulation period.

They are not hoping for Israel to "get serious again about their religion" in order for that religion to replace Christ. They are hoping for Israel to get serious about religion so that they will understand how they have and are going wrong when the anti-Christ desecrates their temple.

Likewise, dispensationalists generally believe that the surviving Jews who are alive on earth when Christ returns (along with the saved of other nations who are not killed by anti-Christ) will populate the Millennium in order that it might be fulfilled what is written about an end of days rebellion against the rule of Christ when Satan is loosed again.

Of course those who are not dispensationalists scoff at most of these thing believing that the things in Revelation are only to be taken figuratively and or that they were fulfilled in 70 A.D. and such.

To each his own I suppose. But no one should accuse dispensationalists of wanting to replace Christ's sacrifice with animal sacrifice in order to achieve salvation. That's a straw man charge against them.

But - as an aside - since God instituted the law and animal sacrifices in order to show that men could or would not keep them but instead rebelled against God at every turn, and in order to look forward to Christ's obedience and death that fulfilled those types ----- why does it seem so unlikely or any more egregious to so many that God might do something similar during the Millennium - only looking backward rather than forward? Every time an innocent lamb is slain - men will literally (not just prophetically) look upon the One who was slain for the sins of the world.

How very much more offensive would be a rebellion against God at the end of the Millennium than the one in Eden.

Why does God do any of these round about things in history when He could just do them directly?

Likely it has something to do with things happening in the heavenlies with principalities and powers and the like.

I suppose He'll explain it in His good time.

Or not.

Again - this was an aside. It was not meant to be reflective of the thoughts of all dispensationalists.

Dave-W said:

SOME of Israel accepted the Messiah

Click to expand...

The Prophesied Remnant did.

More properly, function in the spirit of antichrist. Not that they themselves are antichrist.

Click to expand...

I Guess John was Wrong then?:
1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

That is totally unbiblical and a lie from hell. Remember, the gifts and callings of God are IRREVOCABLE. If the Jewish people are Israel, they are that FOREVER.

Click to expand...

Demonstrably False.

Genesis 17:14
And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

How can God say to a physical descendent of Abraham/Jacob that he has broken his covenant if, as you claim, DNA is the ONLY requirement of the covenant?

Not circumcised? Not Israel.
DNA was a useless argument against it.

Still is.

It is abundantly clear that other violations of the covenant also served to "cut off" individuals from among the people of God (Lev 18:29; Num 15:30-31; Ex 12:15,19; Ex 31:14; Lev 7:20-27; Lev 23:28-30). Such a person was at that point considered a heathen and not a child of Abraham. This practice of exclusion from the covenant society continued down to Ezra's time (Ezra 10:8) and even to Christ's day (Jn 9:22; Jn 12:42; Mt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor 5:1-2,5,11-13).

In reality, conformity to God's covenantal commands, above all else, determined one's status as a member of Israel. Put another way, a person's identity with Israel was derived from and maintained by obedience----for the natural-born citizen's privilege as Israel could be nullified through disobedience, and the foreigner's status as an alien of Israel could be removed through obedience.

DNA is irrelevant.

Israel survive past the first century EXCLUSIVELY in the believing remnant sect of the Nazarenes.

The rest were "cut off from the people".

His student said:

You are missing something it seems to me.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your willingness to help me understand.

His student said:

Dispensation proponents take the things in Revelation concerning the Millennial reign of Christ literally. Likewise they take the idea of the anti-Christ seating himself in the temple literally. Likewise they take the statements about Israel finally coming to the Christ they had once rejected literally.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand this much. My concern is having a too exact timeline of events. It doesn't leave room for what God might actually do. Keep in mind, 1st century religious leaders had the prophetic scriptures concerning the 1st appearing of our Lord. But, many of them missed it because it didn't look like what they were expecting. And, they too were taking things very literally, in the sense that the Messiah would come and reinstate a very literal kingdom of Israel. The Messiah that actually came didn't fit the expectation and so they missed it. I take that as a fair warning.

His student said:

Christians are looking forward to the Jews reinstating sacrificial worship in a new temple because it will show that God is moving the Jews toward that mass end time conversion to Christ during the Tribulation period.

Click to expand...

Theologically and practically speaking, it sounds counter-productive to the goal of communicating Christ. If they have the sacrifice system back in place, why would they look to any other? What they have wanted would once again be in place. Why would that help them accept what they already reject? The idea does fit the assumed timeline, but it doesn't make much sense. To me, anyway.

And, as I stated previously, the idea that a Christian would want the sacrificial system that pre-figured Christ put back in place, is odd at best. How is that not a step backwards?

His student said:

To each his own I suppose. But no one should accuse dispensationalists of wanting to replace Christ's sacrifice with animal sacrifice in order to achieve salvation.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. But, as I stated, it is confusing. How does it look to others when on the one hand we say Jesus Christ is the one necessary and sufficient sacrifice for human sin, and then on the other hand we are promoting the reinstatement of the ancient sacrificial system. Or better, how does one square the inconsistency within their own understanding. I can't do it. The fact that it fits a certain eschatological understanding does not overcome how badly it smacks against the gospel.

His student said:

But - as an aside - since God instituted the law and animal sacrifices in order to show that men could or would not keep them but instead rebelled against God at every turn, and in order to look forward to Christ's obedience and death ----- why does it seem so unlikely or anymore egregious to so many that God might do something similar during the Millennium - only looking backward rather than forward?

Click to expand...

Those sacrifices prefigured Christ. He has come and gave himself. It has happened. To go back is to either reject his sacrifice or to treat it as somehow not sufficient. Keep in mind the animal sacrifices were never sufficient to begin with. Right?

I am not into GUILT, but sometimes I think both Dispensationalism and and Covenant Theology open the way for EISOGESIS, people having a pre-conceived notion that steers interpretation of scripture, instead of letting scripture itself lead the way.

His student said:

Dispensation proponents... Likewise they take the idea of the anti-Christ seating himself in the temple literally.

Click to expand...

Which I find quite odd, since there is not one single scripture that teaches the Biblical Antichrist ever sits in a temple.

So I'm unclear by what basis someone can take that idea literally, when no such Biblical teaching exists?

Dave L said:

Study Circumcision in the OT. And what it meant. And study how Jesus abolished it as a Jewish rite on the cross.

Click to expand...

I believe that Paul allowed Timothy (this was after the cross) to be circumcised...so this proves your statement wrong. Acts 16

To qualify that, thess 2 talks about a man of sin sitting in a temple of God, but I doubt if that is a stone temple in Jerusalem. There is a thread about that somewhere.

parousia70 said:

Which I find quite odd, since there is not one single scripture that teaches the Biblical Antichrist ever sits in a temple.

So I'm unclear by what basis someone can take that idea literally, when no such Biblical teaching exists?

Click to expand...

The verse used is 2 Thessalonians 2:4