It may be my fatigue- I have a hard time focusing right now but I didn't think you were joking. Even if you were, it helps to say so. I know it's easier to approach a difficult subject by making it a joke, but for those of us like me who are coping with brain fog- it helps to be clear and get to the point of what you actually mean.
One thing we CAN agree on is that Israel according to Ezek 38 does live in security- even though it's a false sense of security as Gog Magog invades. But the Bible doesn't say anywhere HOW that peaceful false security is achieved. Some say America, some say thru a false sense of security due to the IDF, others suggest it's a Psalm 83 scenario with Israel defeating their evil neighbours.
HOWEVER I hope that you really do look at what covenant means. And how that fits within God's plan for Israel. I think that might help bring you back to a more clear understanding of God's promises and plans for Israel as outlined in the Bible.
I know you've come out of Reform theology so that may still be part of how you see things.
I would love it if you'd take Andiamo's suggestion, and go thru Romans 11 prayerfully to see how this ties things together- God has a plan and purpose for the Church and for Israel.
Understanding that makes the promises to Israel make sense. The problem with Reform theology is that a lot of Reform teaching replaces Israel with the Church. They take the blessings of Israel for the church, and teach that God is done with Israel or has set them aside.
Sometimes Reform Theology expresses it as Covenantal Theology in which the Church replaces Israel in the covenants of the Bible or they see 2 main covenants- the Law and then the Church (Grace). This usually means the Church replaces Israel.
Before i could finish half of this Margery, I just have to stop and say, I really love you dear sister. It is really a treasure your expressions, heart, attitude (meaning good but also being who you are in the real), and being so open and straight. You share your real heart. And this is very precious to me. For me it's not about seeing eye to eye so much as it is how we actually see with our hearts. Just had to say that ahead of anything else. Reading the rest now.
Now that I am have finished reading I want to hug you even more dear sister. In my response I would like to start here. I don't exactly mind if when I am kidding sometimes it not be noticed. I don't mean that in any disrespectuf way. I'm not trying to trick or hide with jokes or back track to them for cover. So because your heart is so open and real and endearing, I will share this with you. There are two components to Trump and Gaza Resort. 1) It would not shock me if things get that silly. And 2) Because I think that, and because my sense upon Trump is upon the wings of an act of God, I have to not take myself so seriously. I state it clearly and plainly here. I believe Trump to be the first seal and is a part of that act of God. But wow, if I am wrong that is really quite a neck to stick out. Not so much that I care for my own neck. I'm fine with being way out there...lol. But for others, its not something kind to expect others to take my first seal view at face value. I do. But as hot as I am on that, I appreciate the heart of others to see other wise more. In part because I may be wrong. But also in part because others matter more than my views when it is a sticking out neck like view.
So since that is the case with me here, it was kind of more a joke on myself. Do I think that Trump as the first seal means a Gaza Resort? No. I mean, maybe...lol...knowing Trump. But I don't really think that is likely. But in my own Trump as first seal brain fog, I could probably believe that...lol. I could. But I don't. Because I don't take myself too seriously on that. That has no impact on how firm my belief in that is. But what matters more than that is the things I know about Christ and much clearer things about His person and gospel.
I'd have to see my original comment saying that, but the things I say are typically hyper contextual. Meaning, what I am saying in that post has much to do with what is going on with that post. For example, I would likely say "Maybe Gaza would become a resort" most likely because I am using that statement serving as a literary expletive. Like it I would say something like that to do one of two things typically. 1) Realize that what thing I am saying other than Gaza as a Resort may look that ridiculous to others. As if you could say, "I bet this guy believes Gaza will be a resort if he thinks B or C." Another reason I might use that form of expression is 2) To make the point I am saying other than that more palatable by comparison. So I guess its as much a literary device. If I can find that quote I make i'm pretty sure that is what is going on in all of that. So saying I was joking was more of a way to downplay its releveance. Now I could be mistaken because I'm not sure on the quote. I don't remember and too tired to search like that. But to say that it is a joke is true. But it was more than a joke. It likely served as a literary device moreso. But it takes a lot more words to say that then, "It was a joke." But by doing so it is not meant to run from doing that or saying that. It's just my point in the post I am confident was not so that I could say, "I think Gaza will be a resort." Its like saying the following to me: "Maybe Trump will take down globalism and fully restored global economics to great healthy effect and rid us of the central bank. Or, maybe he'll just make Gaza a Resort." Do you see in this set up of expression what the resort is doing there? I would bet money something like that is going on in that post.
. . . . .
But what I could hug you most for is your great heart toward me dear sister in the differences we might hold on Israel and the Abrahamic Covenant. I cherish your heart in expressing all of that. Really, I do. I understand why you might say that. I do. So I think it is helpful to share something further. It is true that the Reformed world is the godfather of replacement theology along side its bigger RCC big brother. I agree this is true. But something that is not clear in society as much is that Macarthur is not a typical reforemed pastor. If I had to guess, and lets say the old school understanding about how popes would use the Jesuits to infiltrate protestants (some even go as far as to believe us believing Revelation is future and not past--as preterist--would call us deceived because we believe as futurists), maybe Macarthur is the evangelical version of how to bring low hanging Reformed fruit to evangelicals. Because that is exactly what played out in par exellence. But I bring that up to stress that even though i was in the Reformed sector, Macarthur is infamous for being thought of as a leaky dispensationalist because of his stance on Israel. Unlike most reformers (including RC Sproul), Macarthur said, "The thing about dispensationalism that is correct is that if you get Israel wrong, you get everything wrong." That is paraphrased. But the only thing that makes Macarthur a dispensationalist is his stance (which is our stance) on Israel. So I did have the good graces of God to be under that teaching. I never believed in replacement theology.
So that level of thinking about Israel that is common, as you know, in the Reformed camps, was not the lane of Reformd theology I was exposed to for decades. I am grateful for that. Amen. But I don't really see the eternal Abrahamic Covenant (AC) differently than you in my estimation. The fork in the road, to me, here is not that I don't see the same covenant you might. But how evangelicalism can tend to assign a role to it I don't see as functional. And more our own ideas we put on it. For example, are the countries involved (including Rome) guilty of breeching the AC in the first century? Or centuries since? No. Not in that sense. It was what God wanted within His perameters of His covenant He graciously provided for Israel. Did Israel get their land because they honored the AC? No. Did Israel honor the AC covenant to remain protected now for almost a century? No. The reason I make a disction as I have is just that I don't believe that negotiations regarding Gaza and two-state solutions = intension to disperse Israel. Which is the warning in Joel 3:2 we use for that. Just like Israel not being a nation having any land for 2,000 years how God chose to honor the AC, so too has the two-state solution providentially been a habitual theme for Israel since they have been back in their own land.
But what tends to happen, and it is understandable why, is that we look at Israel and believe that if nations like America or Saudi Araba, or Omar, or Qatar end up imposing some form of a two-state solution, that may in some cases be to squeeze out and disperse them. Sure. I believe that sentiment exists in shackling up Gaza as we have for decades. But there are two running thesis I believe clearly in operation:
1) Israel is a powder keg in the middle east. And confusion over how to reduce tensions has been in play for a long long time. From a diplomatic standpoint, earnest efforts to use the two-state solution in Israel's well-known condition in the middle east do not amount point blank to dispering Israel
2) Israel coming into full stature (per Ez 37). That is not to say God is not affording certain protections all along the way though. And I believe it is a danger too for nations who use two-state solutions to negotiate for the purpose of dispering Israel. In that case I believe that nation would qualify for triffling with the AC.
You may disagree with that. But the reason I said it was because I believe there are many areas where the church at large might assign diplomatic intension and superimpose that on the AC as "dispersement." Is Israel were participating in honoring their side of the covenant I would have never started what I did. Because that would mean there is something God is honoring from them. And how that might look in the context of the AC, would lead me to believe the showy active heart of God toward Israel be a severer level of protection that would publically shame those countries.
I believe what we are witnessing with Israel being on the scene is God restoring Israel in part toward her eventual function within the covenant. When we can tend to confuse diplomatic supervision of Providence by God upon Israel with thinking two-state solutions = Joel 3:2, I believe those are two different things. But we tend to take Joel referencing Israel in the tribulation language with diplomacy (on some levels) during the age of grace, I believe. Margery, in closing I will say this. I understand there are definately risks for nations to monkey with any land belonging to Israel because of AC. So yeah, I hope the USA by negotiation does not stary into something outside of God's provision for Israel (provision included in their discipline), because I also believe that would be a dangerous place to be because of AC. Amen. But to me, placing what a two state solution looks like in respect of AC does not mean how we are seeing that is perfectly able to distinguish the gold from the dross regarding AC and the Lord. Is God guilty to dishonoring the AC by removing Israel from their land for 2,000 years? No. Because He owns the covenant. I believe it is of tender heart to see the AC being broken if there is an imposing of a two-state solution. But that bingo card number on that issue I don't see is for the church to discern. We don't have discussions in the church on the differences of dispersment and diplomacy. But those are different. And if it is difficult for us to recognize this distinction, I would submit it potentially is possibly even more so in its finer points. And not something necessarily the church can use as an eschatological tool (running the two-state solution as lens or filter by which to assess eschatology in attempt is the notion here). Gotta go to bed. But that would be kind of how I would lay that out.
Blessings.
www.barrons.com
