New Discussion of Israel Merely Retrenches (book review)

[EarlyActs]

A title came to my attention yesterday by McDermott, ISRAEL MATTERS. He seems to be getting people crossing to the land side from those who think there is not. Another one-liner calls it a non-dispensational support for the land promises (we must assume this goes into modern times).

I would direct our attention to the blurb at Amazon, to notice something. It is a retrenchment of what has otherwise been refuted, but without any supporting lines. So this means it is not really intended as an appeal to think it out, but for one person of influence to simply say, they have gone 360.

To compare this to my book, I show a substantial problem on the back cover by referencing a counter of modern replacement theology (not things which counter the modern view, but the fact that there was an identified replacement by zealots in the 1st cent. by Paul). I also have a historical lock on my book: the direction the zealots went went tragically and logically into the disaster of the 60s in Judea. It did not need to.

I may be wrong but do not sense any awareness by the author of this dimension of the NT, nor subtle realities like claims of the letter of Hebrews and how they would impact what matters.

I would have welcomed an affirmation of the land claim apart from prophecy or covenants etc, because 3500 years after the fact is a little late to start complaining.

 

[EarlyActs]

Book Notice: ISRAEL MATTERS: WHY CHRISTIANS MUST THINK DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THE PEOPLE AND THE LAND, by Gerald R. McDermott

Gerald McDermott wants you to know that you don’t have to be a dispensationalist to believe that the Bible prophesies that Israel will again be restored to her land. You may have listened to our interview with him already. Here we let him introduce his thinking himself—the “Introduction” to his...

www.booksataglance.com

 

[EarlyActs]

McDermott writes that the book does not go as deep as he could. But that would be bc there is little deeper to go to.

For ex., all the OT visions of the restoration include the outpouring of the Spirit . This has been identified in Acts 2. Modern Israel knows nothing of this, even if we did need to look further than Acts 2.

 

[Ghada]

A title came to my attention yesterday by McDermott, ISRAEL MATTERS. He seems to be getting people crossing to the land side from those who think there is not. Another one-liner calls it a non-dispensational support for the land promises (we must assume this goes into modern times).

I would direct our attention to the blurb at Amazon, to notice something. It is a retrenchment of what has otherwise been refuted, but without any supporting lines. So this means it is not really intended as an appeal to think it out, but for one person of influence to simply say, they have gone 360.

To compare this to my book, I show a substantial problem on the back cover by referencing a counter of modern replacement theology (not things which counter the modern view, but the fact that there was an identified replacement by zealots in the 1st cent. by Paul). I also have a historical lock on my book: the direction the zealots went went tragically and logically into the disaster of the 60s in Judea. It did not need to.

I may be wrong but do not sense any awareness by the author of this dimension of the NT, nor subtle realities like claims of the letter of Hebrews and how they would impact what matters.

Recent history stuff aside, the land promised to Abraham and his natural seed has not yet been given by God to Abraham, much less his natural seed.

And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

The Almighty God personally promised to give it to Abraham first, not just his natural seed. He'll simply do so at His return to resurrected Abraham. (Resurrected Job will also get to see His Redeemer standing on earth).

I would have welcomed an affirmation of the land claim apart from prophecy or covenants

How can a land claim based solely upon promise, covenant, and prophecy, ever be apart from that promise, covenant, and prophecy?

And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

etc, because 3500 years after the fact is a little late to start complaining.

Actually, that's about the time they began complaining. And not just in the wilderness. They already started complaining in Egypt when they had no straw to make brick.

That's some pretty devoted slavery, if you ask me.

 

[EarlyActs]

McDermott uses two worn down defenses of his 'realization':

1, that the 'gifts and calling' is the last word of Rom 11.
It is amazing how many people have trouble nesting this line inside the whole argument. One cognitive mistake is that it is the last line! No, the last line or last/closing argument is that the mercy of God has been expressed in Christ. God has bound all mankind over to sin so that he may have mercy on all--in Christ. This raises the Gospel of Christ to the highest event of history, above anything that can happen in the future.

The other mistake is that the 'gifts and calling' would somehow be other than the Gospel! IOW, they think it would be the land or a chance to observe Judaism again. But this is Paul, who wrote Eph 2-3, taught Acts 13, 26, maybe Hebrews; he wants them to be the missionaries of the Gospel he mentioned in the first half of Rom 11! Someone is not putting 2 and 2 together.

2, that 'there is neither Jew nor Greek' is not a valid reason to neglect the race-nation.
The problem here is we don't grasp the scope of justification by Christ, Paul's burning passion. Of course there are differences between men and women biologically, or Israel and Gentiles racially. But not "in Christ"--in justification by faith. Otherwise, we have no common ground in Christ, and we should all be out promoting trans-gender (disregard for gender) and be for every cause of modern Israel!

McDermott's book does not appear to be aware of what novelist G Eliot pulled off by her major media blitz for 18th century Jews returning to Israel, nor of what Luther truly wanted Israel to become, like Rom 11 says.

See my review of McDermott's book at Amazon.com.

 

[Ghada]

Another one-liner calls it a non-dispensational support for the land promises (we must assume this goes into modern times).

It's from promise and prophecy of Scripture, that we know Abraham and his remaining natural seed will recieve the land promised to Him by the Almighty God. Not from any Christan teaching or tradition.

Some believe Christians must be a dispensationalist in order to believe all God's promises are kept by Him. Dispensationalism is not necessary to believe the risen Lord Jesus Christ will keep His promise to Abraham. No more than trinitarianism is necessary to believe Jesus Christ is both Lord and God.

Gen 17:8And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

God will give to Abraham the land he was a stranger in, which he did not recieve before he died.

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

No need for 2nd centruy trinitarianism, nor 18th century dispensationalism, to believe and trust all doctrine and prophecy of Scripture is by the true God that cannot lie.

To compare this to my book, I show a substantial problem on the back cover by referencing a counter of modern replacement theology (not things which counter the modern view, but the fact that there was an identified replacement by zealots in the 1st cent. by Paul).

You have a problem with the Lord giving the land on earth to Abraham, that He promised to give to Abraham?

I also have a historical lock on my book: the direction the zealots went went tragically and logically into the disaster of the 60s in Judea. It did not need to.

Of course not. They could have recieved the Lord when He came unto them, or then repented and believed on His resurrection.

Zealots don't care about anything, but their own zealotry.

Jhn 11:48If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

They crucified the Messiah that was threatening their personal power of God's people, and lost their nation by the same zeal for their own power.

I would have welcomed an affirmation of the land claim apart from prophecy or covenants etc,

That's what the Jews sought when they lost it to Rome, and what the Israel's now have by power of national will. No one can deny the Israeli nation doesn't matter, no more than any other powerful nation on earth today.

But, the promise and prophecy of Jesus Christ coming again, and giving resurrected Abraham the land he saw and walked on in the flesh, has nothing to do with such national land possessions today.

Gen 13:14And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.

Gen 13:17Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee. Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD.