When the late 19th- early 20th-century fervor over the Second Coming arose, there was no nation of Israel. Jews were scattered all over the earth. There were a few living in the land known as Palestine. Larger scale immigration to the land began after 1881 as Jews fled eastern European pogroms.
Second Coming fervor did not depend on the existence of Jews in a nation called Israel. However, as more and more Jews returned to the land, American and British evangelicals and Pentecostals began to see the references to Israel in Biblical references to eschatology. Rather than spiritualizing Israel, they understood a modern Israel, both the nation and location, as the key player in end-times prophecy.
Israel's emergence as a nation in 1948 and its conquest of Jerusalem in 1967 completely changed the landscape. Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth, originally published in 1970, articulated this position for the masses. In our circles (not among my Lutheran friends, however) it is an article of faith that when the Bible refers to Israel in prophecy, it is the current nation that is being referred to.
Therefore, the re-emergence of Israel is proof that we are now in the last days. Israel will exist until the end, be nearly destroyed by the Anti-Christ, and saved at the last minute by the return of Christ. I heard one man teach that if Israel gave up any land that it had conquered, then the promises of the Bible must not be true. Therefore, giving up land can not happen.
Further, the modern, secular, Christian-persecuting nation of Israel is seen by this branch of the Church as the inheritor of God's blessings and that this nation must be supported in all its decisions. The Arab nations (Muslims) are always wrong and Israel (Jews) are always right.
Excuse me a minute, but I have some questions: Just because a group of Jews move into the historic land of Israel, from which they were driven 19 centuries previously, why does it necessarily follow that the resulting nation is the inheritor of God's blessings? If an Israeli nation does exist in the land at the end times, how can we say that it will not be this nation, but one that comes into existence 100 or 1000 years from now? Is the Old Testament theology of the land still valid in the New Testament or has the Land been fulfilled in a different way as many other OT concepts have been? (This is a subject that I would appreciate feedback on now and that I want to address another day.)
I think the argument that the modern nation of Israel is necessarily God's nation is based on a circular argument: We originally believe that we were in the last days. The nation was established. The existence of the nation proves that we are in the last days.
I believe in the second coming. Jesus may return before I finish writing this blog entry. But there is nothing that is happening in the world today--including the existence of Israel--that demands its happening is imminent. You and I, like many before us, may die without seeing its fulfillment. This does not mean that he is not returning, only that we have no idea when.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the reason for the obsession with modern Israel as a "sign of the times" in the A/G (and other evangelical denominations) is pretty simple: We insist on THIS Israel being the Israel of prophecy because it gives our own time period a more significant place in the narrative of redemptive history. We can read large portions of the Bible as though they were written specifically about us, which of course makes us feel special and important.
ReplyDeleteI'd say there are other factors at work here as well. Judging from the fact that evangelicals can't seem to film enough end times themed movies or write enough end times novels, it seems that we just like the sensationalism. Fighting the antichrist and the mass carnage of the tribulation offer opportunities for good action scenes, while still retaining a level of sanctity. Doom and gloom sell, and people can't get enough of it. Evangelicals, like most people, like a good thriller. The sense of immediacy that modern Israel, with its "miraculous" military victories over multiple Arab armies and its Six-Day Wars provides heightens the thrill.
If apocalypticism really does arise as a result of the relative deprivation and marginalization (real or perceived) of once powerful religious groups (a la Paul Hanson), then it could be that evangelicals look to modern Israel as an eschatological sign as a sign of vindication and hope in an increasingly evil world in which they feel that they are being increasingly persecuted.
For Pentecostals, specifically, the fact that modern Israel re-appeared on the world scene right around the same time as the Pentecostal movement began. Yeah, Israel didn't gain independence until 1948, but Palestine was designated as the Jewish national homeland right after WWI. Zionism originated in the late 19th century, and there was steady Jewish immigration to Palestine in the late 19th-early 20th centuries...the same time period when Pentecostalism appeared. So, if the Pentecostal movement is a restoration of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit prior to the Second Coming--the "latter rain"--as most early Pentecostals believed, the rebirth of Israel at approximately the same time would seem rather significant. Their eschatology did not depend on it, but the rebirth of Israel seemed like drammatic confirmation of it. Of course, most Pentecostals have now dropped restorationism in favor of continuationalism, but I think by the time that happened the fixation on modern Israel as prophetic Israel had already become embedded in the Pentecostal psyche.
Great stuff, guys.
ReplyDelete