"Then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I 
				gave to your fathers forever and ever." —Jeremiah 7:7
								
				I 
				have on more than one occasion heard Bible teacher Chuck Missler 
				say that there is only one piece of real estate on planet earth 
				where God has specifically said that it belongs to a specific 
				people and that is Israel. Yet, that specified land is 
				the most contested on the entire planet. This is true because 
				God has spoken specifically on the matter. The fact that God's 
				clear Word is contested by so many means that Satan is behind 
				such a consensus.
								
				The 
				dispersion of the Jewish people in a.d. 70, their preservation 
				as an ethnically distinct people during the nineteen hundred 
				years of their scattering, and their regathering to form the 
				modern state of Israel is a miracle brought about by 
				the hand of God. The arrival of the modern state of Israel on the world scene in 1948 
				was a big boon to the premillennial understanding of the Bible. 
				This vindicates—in history—our biblical belief that God has a 
				future plan for the land of Israel and the Jewish people. In spite of 
				these developments, there are a group of evangelicals who think 
				that the current state of 
				Israel
				has nothing to do with God's biblical promises. How could anyone 
				who claims to believe the Bible hold to such error? The current 
				state of Israel is prophetically important 
				because the Jewish people have been regathered in order to 
				fulfill events during the coming seven-year tribulation period, 
				following the rapture.
								
				
				Gary North has boasted that he has a book already in his 
				computer for when "Israel
				gets pushed into the sea, or converted to Christ."[1] Lutheran 
				Don Matzat has said, "The present-day nation of 
				Israel
				is no more involved in God's plans for the future than is France, England,
Germany, the United States, 
				etc. The teaching of the New Testament is very clear—Jesus 
				fulfilled everything pertaining to 
				Israel
				and formed the New Israel."[2]
								
				
				Perpetual critic Gary DeMar adds:
								
				
				Where is this "super sign" found in the Bible? Not in the New 
				Testament. There is not a single verse in the entire New 
				Testament that says anything about 
				Israel
				becoming a nation again. Nothing prophetic in the New Testament 
				depends on Israel
				becoming a nation again. If 
				Israel
				becoming a nation again is such "a significant sign," then why 
				doesn't the New Testament specifically mention it?[3]
								
				One 
				of the most interesting books in my personal library is entitled 
				God and the Jew,[4] but (by) William Thomas Rouse. It is 
				a whole book about why Israel
				would never become a nation again. It has chapters like: "God 
				and the Rejection of the Jewish Nation," "Paul's Teaching 
				Concerning God's Rejection of the Jews," and my favorite, "There 
				Will Never Be a National Restoration of the Jews." "When was 
				this book written," you may ask? The copyright is 1946. 
				Apparently Mr. Rouse died some time in 1946 since the title page 
				refers to him as, "Late Professor of Bible . . ." He did not 
				live to see his book disproved by the events of history in 1948. 
				Similarly, many objections to Zionism will be disproved by 
				future historical events.
								
				We 
				do not have to wait on history to know what the Bible teaches 
				concerning theses issues. Since 
				Israel
				is one of the major subjects of the Bible, we can know what 
				Scripture teaches about her future.
								
				
				Modern
Israel
				IS a Work of God
								
				
				First of all, 
				Israel
				is not going to get pushed into the sea, God has other plans for 
				her. I wish the critics would show me where such a scenario is 
				found in the Bible. Those who say that modern 
				Israel
				has no more prophetic significance than France completely ignore a very 
				significant fact. 
				Israel
				is mentioned thousands of times throughout Scripture. France is never mentioned.
								
				The 
				Bible insists many times that 
				Israel
				is not finished in history. Paul said in Romans 11:1: "I say 
				then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be!" 
				Paul continues in Romans 11 by saying: "From the standpoint of 
				the gospel they [Israel] are enemies for your sake, but from the 
				standpoint of God's choice they [Israel] are beloved for the sake of 
				the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are 
				irrevocable" (verses 28–29). The New Testament teaches that God 
				cannot, therefore, will not revoke His promises from the Old 
				Testament to Israel.
								
				
				Gary DeMar cannot find a New Testament promise of Israel's future restoration. Yet I 
				have just cited a strong New Testament assertion—"May it never 
				be!"—that God has not rejected Israel. Since we believe that all 
				sixty-six books of the Bible are equally inspired and 
				infallible, then Old Testament statements of 
				Israel's national restoration 
				will do just fine. What DeMar and any opponent of Zionism must 
				come up with is any single passage that teaches that God is 
				forever finished with His chosen people. In fact, Romans 11:1 
				says just the opposite.
								
				An 
				Everlasting Promise
								
				
				Zionists often point to the many times that the biblical text 
				speaks of God's guarantee of the 
				land of Israel to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and 
				their descendants as an everlasting promise. For example in 
				Genesis 13:14–15 the Lord said to Abram: "Now lift up your eyes 
				and look from the place where you are, northward and southward 
				and eastward and westward; for all the land which you see, I 
				will give it to you and to your descendants forever." (Italics 
				added.) Later in Genesis, when the Lord sealed His covenant 
				promise to Abram by requiring circumcision, he said: "And I will 
				establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants 
				after you throughout their generations for an everlasting 
				covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. 
				And I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the 
				land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, 
				for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God" (Gen. 
				17:7–8). Similar everlasting promises are repeated many times 
				throughout the Old Testament (Gen. 13:14–15; 17:7–8; 48:4; Ex. 
				32:13; Josh. 1:4, 9; 2:1; 2 Sam. 7:13, 16, 24–26, 29; 1 Kings 
				2:45; 8:15; 9:3, 5; 10:9; 2 Kings 21:7; 1 Chron. 16:17; 17:12, 
				14, 22–24; 27; 22:10; 23:25; 28:24; Isa. 34:17; 55:3, 13; 59:21; 
				60:21; 61:8; Jer. 17:25; 25:5; 32:40; 50:5; Ezek. 16:60; 37:25, 
				26, 28; 43:7, 9; Joel 3:20; used dozens of times in the Psalms).
								
				How 
				can anyone who claims to be a Bible-believing individual not 
				agree with the clear meaning of God's everlasting promises to 
				His people Israel? The same Hebrew word 
				translated everlasting is used many times to describe God 
				Himself. Anti-Zionist Gary DeMar writes mockingly about the 
				Zionist belief that God's promise to Abraham is an everlasting 
				one.[5] DeMar never tells his readers what he believes 
				everlasting means, instead, he lashes out at others by beating 
				up a straw man of his own construction.
								
				
				Some of the critics of Zionism argue that the word everlasting 
				is used of many things in the Old Testament that have not and 
				will not last forever. Examples that they give include: many of 
				the specific temple ritual that the Levitical priests were to 
				engage in were to be carried out forever, yet they have not been 
				able to do them since the temple was destroyed in a.d. 70; 
				ancient land boundaries were to remain in place forever; that 
				the Aaronic priesthood would last forever, yet it has been done 
				away with according to Hebrews and replaced by Christ's 
				Melchizedekian priesthood; the Mosaic covenant is said to be 
				everlasting, but it has been replaced by the New covenant, etc. 
				Therefore, in the same way that everlasting is used of the 
				things mentioned above and did not really mean everlasting, so 
				also, the references to an everlasting land promise to Abraham, 
				Isaac, Jacob and their descendants does not mean forever.[6] So 
				what does everlasting really mean in its original Hebrew?
								
				The 
				Hebrew ('olam) is the word often translated by the English word 
				everlasting and occurs 439 times in the Hebrew Old Testament [7] 
				and "20 times in the Aramaic parts of the Old Testament."[8] It 
				is "probably derived from 'alam, 'to hide,' thus pointing to 
				what is hidden in the distant future or in the distant past."[9] 
				Most scholars agree that "the basic meaning . . . is farthest 
				time, distant time."[10] The precise nuance of the word "is a 
				relative concept in the context of the given temporal horizon 
				for 'olam in reference both to the future and especially to the 
				past."[11] Maranatha!
								
				
				ENDNOTES
				
								
				
				--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
				
								
				[1] 
				Personal letter from Gary North to Peter Lalonde, April 30, 1987 on file.
								
				[2] 
				Don Matzat, "The Great Premillennial HOAX," Issues, Etc. Journal 
				(Internet edition, www.issuesetc.com/resource/journals/v1.htm).
								
				[3]
Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction: A Biblical 
				Consideration of The Left Behind Theology (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), 
				pp. 202-03.
								
				[4] 
				William Thomas Rouse, God and the Jew (Dallas: Helms Printing 
				Co., 1946).
								
				[5]
Gary DeMar, "The 
				Abrahamic Covenant: Fulfilled or Postponed?" (Parts 1 and 2), 
				located on the AmericanVision.org website. See at 
				www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/08-22-05.asp.
								
				[6] 
				In addition to those like Gary DeMar, some who have made similar 
				arguments are the following: Roderick Campbell, Israel and The 
				New Covenant (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing 
				Company, 1954), pp. 199–205; George L. Murray, Millennial 
				Studies: A Search for Truth (Swengel PA: Bible Truth Depot, 
				1951), pp. 26–30; William W. Baker, Theft Of A Nation (Las 
				Vegas: Defender's Publications, 1982), pp. 89–92.
								
				[7] 
				From a search conducted by the computer program Accordance, 
				version 7.4.2.
								
				[8] 
				G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, 
				Editors, Theological Dictionary of The Old Testament, Vol. X 
				(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), p. 531.
					
					
					 [9] R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Bruce K. Waltke, 
					Editors, 2 Vols., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament 
					(Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), vol. II; p. 672.
					
					
					 [10] Willem A. VanGemeren, Editor, New International 
					Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, 5 Vols., 
					(Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1997), vol. 3; p. 346.
					
					
					 [11] Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon 
					of the Old Testament, 3 Vols., (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson 
					Publications, 1997), vol. 2; p. 854.