There was a fascinating article in a recent Sunday Miami Herald, (curiously placed in the paper's "Tropical Life" section), that attempted to resolve the 'conflict of faith' it perceives in Christian support for Jewish Israel.

Noted the Herald's Alexandra Alter, "Evangelical support for Israel has increased dramatically in recent years, Christian and Jewish leaders say. Christian groups who view Israel as a fulfillment of God's prophecy are now emphasizing theological ties to Judaism, subsidizing Israeli settlements in the West Bank and building political alliances with pro-Israel Jewish groups."

"But scholars and community leaders say efforts to gloss over theological differences often fail to bridge deep divisions between Christian conservatives and Jews. "

Alter identifies one of those 'deep divisions' by using Pat Robertson's 'Sharon got a stroke for pulling out of Gaza' comments and Kay Arthur's 2003 comment on 60 Minutes that Rabin's assassination was the result of God's displeasure over the Oslo Agreement as examples of mainstream Christian conservative thought.

According to Alter, "views espoused by Christian conservatives such as Arthur and Robertson have proved damaging to interfaith relations even at a time of unprecedented dialogue and cooperation between the two faiths."

This is where it gets fascinating. According to Alter, most of the 'Christian Right' are Dispensationalists, or what she calls 'modern Christian Zionists'.

Writes Alter, "Christian Zionism -- the belief that the modern state of Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy -- grew out of the 19th century theological movement called premillennial dispensationalism."

This is what I found fascinating. Her entire article springs from this single 'fact' -- that it "grew out of a 19th century theological movement."

This 'movement' claims Alter, was invented by JN Darby in the 1830's. According to Alter, the main doctrine of this movement can be summed up in a paragraph:

"Modern Christian Zionists see the state of Israel as the staging ground for the countdown to the second coming, when Jesus will return to battle the Antichrist. Jews and other non-Christians will face conversion or death."

Unsurprisingly, that summary was followed by a quote from the director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee:

"For that group, the destruction of the Jews is the endgame," said David Elcott.

Is it all true? Are believers in Bible prophecy really adherents of a recent manifestation of some kind of political form of Christianity called 'Christian Zionism' invented by a former Anglican priest named JN Darby?

If you ever wondered why Bible prophecy gets such a cold shoulder in so many Christian churches, now you have some understanding of why. That is what many pastors learn in seminary.

But is it true?

Allow me first to address David Elcott's error. It is the national redemption of the Jews that is the 'endgame', not the destruction of the Jews. Now, to Darby . . .

The evidence says that Darby, at most, simply articulated the system the way the early Church understood it and the Bible lays it out.

What is commonly called Dispensationalism is, in brief, the understanding that God dealt at different times in different ways throughout history as part of a process of unfolding revelation. Darby identified seven distinct Dispensations:

The Age of Innocence - before the fall of man in the Garden when God interacted freely and personally with man.

The Age of Conscience, between the fall and the Flood, during which time God allowed man's conscience to rule without Divine interference. The result of this was "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5)

The Age of Human Government -- from Noah to the Tower of Babel. It ended when man attempted independence from God by building a tower to prevent another flood judgment.

The Covenant Age -- also called the Abrahamic Age when God set aside His Chosen People as the Children of Promise.

The Age of the Law -- the time from Moses until Pentecost

The Church Age -- the Age of Grace when the New Covenant changed the equation from one of God requiring righteousness to that of God granting righteousness by grace through faith in the completed Work of Christ.

The Kingdom Age -- the Millennial 1000 Year Reign.

Without an understanding of Dispensationalism the Bible becomes fraught with contractions. Which is it? An eye for an eye? Or turn the other cheek?

How can John promise the Church that it cannot be overcome by the enemy because 'He that is in you is greater than he that is in the world' in 1st John 4:4 -- and THEN turn around and say that, during the Tribulation Period, "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them:" (Revelation 13:7)?

Unless they are two different dispensations. Which they obviously were even BEFORE Darby pointed it out in the 1830s.

Things that are different are not the same.

John 4:4 addresses the Church Age, whereas Revelation 13:7 addresses those living during the final seven years of the Age of the Law.

That is also why the Church cannot be present during the Tribulation. If so, God would have to break His promise as written in 1st John 4:4 in order to keep His promise as written in Revelation 13:7. Is there another way to understand it?

As to the argument that Darby 'invented' a NEW doctrine of Christian Zionism unknown before the 19th century, for it to make sense, one has to accept the following statement as fact:

It was a 'movement' -- based on twenty-four hundred year-old prophecies of Israel's rebirth -- that was 'invented' -- twenty-six hundred years AFTER Israel had ceased to exist as nation -- but more than one hundred years BEFORE Israel actually fulfilled those then-twenty-FIVE hundred year-old prophecies.

To make that argument work, Darby had to know -- in 1830 -- that Israel would be restored in the future. But, for it to be a 'new' 19th century doctrine, one also has to assume Darby arrived at that conclusion independent of Bible prophecies in existence twenty-five hundred years previously.

Otherwise, the 'new' doctrine would really be 2500 years old -- leaving only its articulation as 'new'.

Alter's commentary was a shining example of a secular effort to address the reality of Bible prophecy without having to acknowledge the reality of its Author. Because even the secular world can no longer deny the fact Bible prophecy is being fulfilled in this generation. The best they can do is explain it away somehow.

One cannot deny the existence of Israel, and one cannot deny the antiquity of the prophecies that foretold that event taking place.

But accepting it at face value provokes a major intellectual challenge. How does one accept the reality of Bible prophecy while denying the existence of its Author? It takes work.

But some people are willing to take on the job, unaware that, in so doing, they become part of prophetic fulfillment themselves:

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." (2nd Peter 3:3-4)

SOURCE: Omegaletter