Peter Goeman gives a concise explanation of dispensationalist beliefs:
1. The Old Testament must be interpreted within its own context.
The meaning of the Old Testament stands on its own terms, and does not require the New Testament to interpret or re-interpret it.
2. There is a distinction between Israel and the Church.
They are distinct entities, although this does not mean that there is no relationship between them.
3. There is a future for ethnic Israel.…
Romans 11:26 (NET) — ‘And so all Israel will be saved’.
I have compiled extensive notes on this provocative phrase. The key question is whether Paul is referring to
(a) ethnic Israel (as the majority of scholars think), or to
(b) the ‘new’ Israel, comprising Jewish and Gentile believers alike. The latter view is advocated by John Calvin and N.T. Wright (along with some others), and I am inclined to agree with it.
In the course of his discussion of the question of whether the modern State of Israel has a divine right to occupy ‘the land’, Ian Paul has expressed support for this second view. …
‘Jerusalem will be trampled down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.’
This is the one passage in the NT that seems to speak of the return of Jerusalem to the custody of the Jews.
For some, the ‘times of the Gentiles’ came to an end on 14th May, 1948, when Israel became an independent state.
For Derek White, of Christian Friends of Israel, there is no doubt:
…‘The plain meaning of these words of Jesus is that the imposition of Gentile rule and possession of Jerusalem is to have an end, and that it will come again into the possession of the Jewish people as their Capital.
For many commentators, the disciples’ question was misguided. It amounted to an expectation of a political kingdom of Israel with Jesus as King. This would be equivalent to the request of the mother of James and John in Mt 20:21.
‘Such questions became them not. Theirs was to be work, not rest; suffering, not triumph.…
Bart Ehrman (Jesus, Interrupted, p44) argues that the gospels become progressively anti-Jewish and pro-Roman from Mark through to John. This, of course, assumes, with mainstream scholarship, that Mark was the first, and John the last, of the Gospels to be written.
Ehrman writes,
…‘It is significant that in John’s Gospel, on three occasions Pilate expressly declares that Jesus is innocent, does not deserve to be punished, and ought to be released (Jn 18:38; 19:6; and by implication in Jn 19:12).
‘…the Jews, 2:15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us severely.’
Several years ago a fundamentalist church in the Denver metro area gained notoriety during Lent by quoting on their marquee a small fragment of the sentence that spans 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15: “the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus.” It was a frightening throwback to the days of the Nazis who labeled all Jews as Christkillers. Only after significant publicity called attention to it, did the church take it down.…
Christian Zionist writers are apt (too apt, in my opinion) to brand those who disagree with them as peddlers of ‘replacement theology’, as teaching that the church replaces Israel in God’s purposes.
Now, I will not dispute that some non-Zionists do use the language of ‘replacement’ (or something similar), and are perhaps give the impression that, in their view, God has washed his hands of his historic chosen people. The gospel has been taken away from the Jews, and given instead to the Gentiles.…
Gal 6:16 ‘And all who will behave in accordance with this rule, peace and mercy be on them, and on the Israel of God.’
Summary
The question is whether Paul is referring to one group of people (‘on them, that is, on the Israel of God’) or two groups (‘on them, and also on the Israel of God’). The first interpretation is to be favoured.
In detail
I think that the meaning implied in the NIV and most other modern translations, is probably correct. …
In his book ‘Coming Events and Present Duties’ (1867/1879), J.C. Ryle summarises his views on prophecy and presents a handful of sermons preached on various aspects of this subject.
Concerning the future of the Jews, Ryle states:-
‘Older Younger Brother: ‘The tragic treatment of the Jews by the Christians’.
This is a 50-page booklet by Canon Andrew White (‘The Vicar of Baghdad’), published in 2014.
It has been placed into my hands by some Christian friends, and I offer here some words of summary and response.
White begins by setting out the context of his life-long ‘love for the Middle East and…hatred of all anti-Judaic polemic.’
He reminds Christians of how much they owe to the Jews:-
Their total history of salvation from the time of Abraham came through the Jewish people. …
