On Joel Hayes' YouTube podcast (Fellowship Bible Church Orlando) last Friday addressing the controversy stirred by Tucker Carlson's recent interview with J.D. Hall on Christian Zionism's origins and motives, he said:
How would you define Zionism? The way it's used by some people today you kind of get this feeling like Zionism is some secret cult that's, you know, like the Illuminati and their pulling all these strings and all this stuff.
Zionism goes back to the days of Scofield and it basically Believers who had this view that the Jewish people had the right to a national homeland in the historic land of Israel. That was basically all it was. Allowing people this view that the Jews should be able to get their land back.
I guess you would also define it as Israel having a right to exist as a Jewish state. That term 'Zionism' always confused me growing up because it just makes no sense that that would be the definition of Zionism. Zion is the mountain upon which Christ is going to rule in His Millennial kingdom.
That's Mt. Zion, so to me when you say Zionism, my mind automatically goes to Mt. Zion and the Millennial Kingdom, which to me means God is ultimately going to give them their land regardless of what happens in the age of grace.
Christian Zionists generally believe that God permanently gave the land to Israel through the Abrahamic Covenant and Israel remains God's covenant nation. But is it right now? No.
The modern state of Israel has prophetic significance? Does it? God's promises to Israel have not been transferred to the church. Well, they got that right.
My question is, is Israel entitled to the land in the age of grace after they've been set aside by God? If Israel has been set aside by God, this is what Romans 11 teaches.
Romans 11: [11] I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Here then Paul proclaims his unique apostleship: [13] For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
[14] If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.[15] For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
In verse 15 you have a clear-cut, absolutely irrefutable presentation and doctrinal declaration that we are living in an interruption of the prophetic program. They have been cast away but there comes a future point in which they'll be received again.
So, this whole period in which were living, under this dispensation of grace, is an interruption of the prophetic program; a gap in prophecy.
Israel has been cast aside temporarily, and in the future they will be received again. So, if we're living in a gap in prophecy, and Israel has been cast away (set aside for a reason and for a season) well, do they have any rights in God's eyes to land or any of the covenant promises today? Absolutely not, I would say.
Does that mean that Israel can't have their land? No, it doesn't. If circumstances worked out that they could have their land, praise the Lord. That's how it worked out after World War II.
Does that mean that it's a fulfillment of prophecy? Absolutely not. We're not living in a prophetic time; we're living in a gap of prophecy, a period of grace in which God is now in the business of reconciling Himself with all the unbelievers of the world through the gospel of grace.
Politically does this mean we are required to support them? No. Does it mean we don't have to support them either? We're at liberty to support them or not. Makes no difference. In God's eyes, Israel today is no different than any other pagan, gentile nation.
So, the whole Zionism thing is crazy. There have been a number of articles of late about dispensational theology and Christian Zionism corrupting Christianity, but Zionism has nothing to do with dispensational theology.
One of my favorite points about people who accuse Scofield of being a Zionist is, have you ever read Scofield's notes on Romans 11? He's arguing that Israel has been set aside! Why should he be a Zionist if he's also, at the same time, saying Israel's been set aside?!
*****
On this subject of "Christian Zionism" vs. dispensationalism, Richard Jordan, in his study last Wednesday, referenced Arno C. Gaebelein (1861-1945), one of the editors of the original Scofield Reference Bible, who said in a speech about Zionism, "Zionism is not the divinely promised restoration of Israel."
"So, Zionism is not the result of dispensationalism, because a dispensationalist who edited the Scofield Bible said Zionism is not the divinely promised restoration of Israel," argues Jordan. "I don't care how many times you hear people say that that's what dispensationalism teaches, a real dispensationalist says, 'Not.'
Gaebelein goes on, "Zionism is not the fulfillment of a large number of predictions found in the Old Testament Scripture which relate to Israel's return to the land. . . Indeed, Zionism has very little use of arguments from the Word of God. It's rather a political and philanthropic undertaking. Instead of coming together before God and calling upon His name, trusting Him that He is able to perform that which He so often promised, they speak about their riches, their influence, their colonial bank, their court of favor. The great movement is one of unbelief and confidence in themselves instead of God's eternal purpose."
*****
In an article entitled, "Does Jude 1:14 Endorse Enoch's Book?" Bible Hub online reports, "This verse cites the figure of Enoch, who appears in Genesis 5:21-24. Ancient Jewish writings outside of the Hebrew Scriptures, such as the Book of Enoch (also called 1 Enoch), contain expanded traditions associated with this patriarch. Jude’s brief reference has caused many to wonder whether Jude’s words endorse those extra traditions--including the Book of Enoch--as Scripture . . .
"One reason Jude’s quoting of Enoch stirs interest is that some form of Enochic traditions (portions of 1 Enoch) were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. These scrolls demonstrate that parts of the Book of Enoch were esteemed by certain Jewish groups."
Jude: [14] And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
If you'll notice it doesn't say Enoch wrote of these things. It says he prophesied of these things. That's not the same, says Columbus, Ohio preacher David Reid in a recent study.
There's something very interesting going on in Matthew 27:9 to help with this: [9] Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
If you read the Book of Jeremiah, there is no reference to 30 pieces of silver and so the sceptics . . . Have you noticed that people want the Bible to have errors? People in their heart frequently want the Bible to have errors and what's their motivation? Because then you can ignore it.
If the Bible has errors then maybe it's wrong about what it says about the lake of fire. Maybe it's wrong about what it says about eternal judgment.
Man, in his natural instinct, wants there to be errors in the Bible; he wants there to be contradictions because then the Bible's not true and all the things it says that are fearful, "I don't have to worry about them."
But here's what's going on. Zechariah 11: [13] And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
Matthew 27:9 talks about the 30 pieces of silver and says it was spoken by Jeremy the prophet (Jeremiah), but it's not in the Book of Jeremiah; it's in the Book of Zechariah.
So people say, "Look, Matthew 27:9 is wrong because that's not Jeremiah; that's Zechariah." Well, you can take that position if you want to find an error, or you can simply read what it says and what it's telling you is this: Matthew is saying that Jeremiah SPOKE it, but Zechariah RECORDED it.
It's possible for one prophet to speak something and another one to record it. Isn't that okay? God's allowed to do that if He wants, isn't He? So, Matthew 27:9 is not an error; it's simply revealing the fact that the prophecy recorded in Zechariah was actually spoken by Jeremiah.
Scripture says there can be a difference between prophesying something and writing it. Now take that principle and what does Jude actually say?
Enoch didn't necessarily write a book and, in fact, I don't think he did. He simply spoke a prophesy that the Holy Spirit decided to record a couple thousand years later. It's not any different that Jannes and Jambres.
Exodus happens, Jannes and Jambres are there when Moses is writing his five books. He doesn't record their names. Nothing requires him to; the Holy Spirit didn't need it to be included. And then the Holy Spirit decides to add that detail later on.
We talked about how Genesis and Revelation are very similar. God decided to record what Enoch spoke, not in Genesis, but in Jude near the end of the Scriptures.
I don't believe for a second that Jude is recording the Book of Enoch. What's obviously the case is the Book of Enoch is written after Jude and quotes Jude almost verbatim as evidence of, "SEE! You were quoting me!"
And I think also that whatever manuscripts exist in the old script were intentionally written that way to give the appearance of age, the same way with Archaic Mark.