Fake Israel, Fake Jews, Anti-Zionism etc

Over the years I've interacted with Christians who I'd classify as strongly anti-Semitic and/or anti-Zionist. While I don't want to pigeon-hole anyone, I've come to suspect that too often there's a link between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Most of these extreme examples have come from people who hold to Amil-Postmil-Preterist positions. Hence they also subscribe to Replacement Theology.

Note: I am not saying that RT is the cause of anti-Semitism or that all proponents are anti-Semitic.

But there have also been samplings from Futuristic Premillennialists who don't necessarily hold to RT. These FP examples have tended not to be as virulent as the former, though in some cases they are. However, I have detected an animus against modern Israel within some who identify as dispensational posttribulational and non-disp posttrib, even while not being overtly anti-Semitic. I have no idea why this should be so.

More recently one of these folk raised the Khazar Myth. I've come to the conclusion that no evidence will satisfy certain people. They want to believe what they want to believe. They can explain it all to the Lord one day. In response, watch Chris White's excellent rebuttal of that myth HERE.

Links addressing associated topics:

Blessing & Cursing Israel

Fake Modern Israel

An Unholy Tribulation Temple?

Does the NT re-interpret the OT?

Does the NT really re-interpret the OT?

This topic came up in a conversation today with an amillennialist. The progression of the argument is fairly standard. An amil guy will wander into a forum and defend someone like Sizer. He'll inform the others that Israel is all done for a numbers of reasons (political and doctrinal) which is all really motivated by the belief that the church is the "New Israel." When the OT heavy artillery texts are introduced, the amil will reach into the bag of tricks for the "NT re-interprets of the OT" defense.

Here are some great links which challenge that notion. Fred Butler has conveniently put Paul Henebury's work into a PDF file HERE.

You can access Dr. Henebury's work directly on his site Part One & Part Two

Dr. Michael Vlach's work on the topic may also be accessed HERE.

A New Exodus?

When I first got into the study of prophecy (not too long ago), I found some of Peter Goodgame's points interesting. He was one who tended to stretch the boundaries (thinking outside the box) so I (wisely) treated him with caution.

Sad to say that it now seems he's imploded. His new stance on Israel is hardly innovative. And, despite his denial, it is replacement theology - albeit using the "fulfillment" narrative.

The Israel of God and the end of RMR 

Why Dispensationalism Still Matters - Baptist Bulletin

I thought this was an excellent summary:

Two of the more common hermeneutical and theological viewpoints within the world of Bible-believing Christianity are dispensationalism and covenant theology. [1] Each position represents a version of Biblical orthodoxy. Both perspectives generally affirm the major doctrines of the Christian faith, such as the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, the deity of Christ and the Virgin Birth, salvation by grace through faith in the blood atonement of Christ on the cross, the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the grave, and the visible and literal second coming of Christ. Thus it is possible for the two camps to recognize the members of the opposite group as spiritual brothers in Christ. However, they disagree strongly on many significant theological points. In particular, these disagreements often involve how one views the expression of continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. Lurking behind this issue are certain hermeneutical and theological commitments by the two sides. In light of these commitments, this article is an attempt to articulate some of the major differences between the two views from the vantage point of a traditional dispensationalist...keep reading

Hat tip to Kathryn D.

Paul Henebury on Dispensationalism

Lindsay Kennedy recently interviewed "Dr Reluctant" on the topic of Dispensationalism.

The discourse is in two parts and can be accessed HERE.

While you're there, take a look around Telos Ministries. Lots of great material.

Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics

There are some interesting dispensational discussions on this site:

Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics

An informative note from Dr Stallard discussing the concept and hopes driving the CDH:

The Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics at Age Four Dr. Mike Stallard, Baptist Bible Seminary

The Hermeneutic of Reinterpretation

It’s no wonder we have so many differences in understanding Scripture. Take these quotes for example:

The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New Testament. In principle it is quite possible that the prophecies addressed originally to literal Israel describing physical blessings have their fulfillment exclusively in the spiritual blessings enjoyed by the church. It is also possible that the Old Testament expectation of a kingdom on earth could be reinterpreted by the New Testament altogether of blessings in the spiritual realm. (Historic premillennialist George Ladd)

But eschatological themes are reinterpreted in the New Testament, where we are told these Old Testament images are types and shadows of the glorious realities that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ…This [literal interpretation of the Bible] leaves dispensationalists frequently stuck in the awkward position of insisting on an Old Testament interpretation of a prophetic theme that has been reinterpreted in the New Testament in the light of the messianic age which dawned in Jesus Christ. (Amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger)

Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament…Their selective and dualistic hermeneutic leads Christian Zionists to ignore how Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament. (Anti-Zionist Stephen Sizer)

Jesus spent His whole ministry redefining what the kingdom meant. He refused to give up the symbolic language of the kingdom, but filled it with such a new content that, as we have seen, he powerfully subverted Jewish expectations. (Theologian N. T. Wright)

Redefining? Re-interpreting? These “theologians” are dead serious! I’ve been reading self-proclaimed ex-dispie Kim Riddlebarger’s “A Case for Amillennialism” and have a potential bald spot from where I’ve been scratching my head re his methodology.

The OT has some specific and detailed statements that address the future of Israel. If the NT redefines or re-interprets these then it is nothing more than abrogation.

If Ladd is correct that the NT reinterprets the OT, his hermeneutic does raise some serious questions. How can the integrity of the OT text be maintained? In what sense can the OT really be called a revelation in its original meaning? (Paul Feinberg)

If NT reinterpretation reverses, cancels, or seriously modifies OT promises to Israel, one wonders how to define the word "progressive.‟ God‟s faithfulness to His promises to Israel must also be explained… It appears exceedingly doubtful that the NT reinterprets the OT. . . . This comes perilously close to conflicting with such NT passages as Matt 5:18 and John 10:35b. (David L Turner)

The quotes above have been taken from an article at Mike Vlach’s website. You can read it HERE.

Dr Paul Henebury makes some observations of his own. Here’s one of them:

By assuming, without sufficient warrant, that the New Testament must be used to [re]interpret the Old Testament, CT in practice denies to the OT its own perspicuity, its own integrity as inspired revelation, and creates a “canon within a canon.”

Read the rest of Dr Henebury's post HERE.