Senator Ted Cruz recently appeared on Tucker Carlson, and what he had to say proves the vital role that a good Sunday school teacher can play (and the damage that can be caused by one who is misinformed). It also reveals the importance of actually verifying whether what you learned when you were six years old is actually correct, and asking yourself the question: “Was what I learned fifty years ago genuinely a faithful expression of what the Bible actually teaches?” Oh yes, and one more thing: it reminds us that if you’re going to base your decisions on geopolitics on a Biblical doctrine, it would be most helpful for you to understand where, if anywhere, that doctrine is to be found in Scripture.
It was the subject of Israel that was being discussed, and specifically Senator Cruz’s thoughts regarding current goings-on the Middle East. Tucker Carlson, as is his wont, was challenging Cruz, using his well-developed sense of body language and vocal inflection to indicate his overwhelming incredulity at the types of responses he was hearing, and going where few journalists dare to go (by seeking genuine, meaningful responses, and not being satisfied with meaningless talking points).
While discussing his apparently unqualified support of the modern-day nation-state of Israel, Cruz began to reminisce about what he had learned many years ago in Sunday school: “Those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed.” This is not an unusual or outlandish viewpoint to hold; such sentiments are commonly expressed in American politics and by the various Christian organizations that lobby fervently in favour of Israel, describing that country as America’s “greatest ally” and declaring that it is an absolute must that she be supported in all her endeavours. In the American “Christians for Israel” world, it is exactly this guiding principle which stands front and centre.
Tucker challenged Ted Cruz. “But where is that in the Bible?” he asked. “I’m a Christian! I have a right to know where the Bible talks about this!” (Note: Tucker does know, and he did mention the book of Genesis in the midst of his barrage of questions, which showed that he was not asking this question out of genuine ignorance). Ted Cruz, however, was unable to say where in Scripture that phrase was to be found, and when Tucker asked whether that statement refers to the modern nation-state of Israel (certainly a very good question!) Cruz merely assumed that such was the case.
Now, I like Ted Cruz, and I appreciate a good deal of his politics. He seems to be a good man, he appears to be genuine and sincere (as politicians go), and I share many of his political opinions. But the often uncritical stance that many American politicians, including Ted Cruz, take regarding modern-day Israel is a serious problem in the American political arena (and elsewhere; similar sentiments are often expressed in Canada as well, where criticism of the modern nation of Israel is often labelled as “anti-Semitism”).
This stance has its roots in the theological structure of Dispensationalism, a movement that began in the Nineteenth Century, when John Nelson’s Darby’s views were popularized, especially in the United States, by Charles Scofield, and his Scofield Reference Bible.
Dispensationalism says that God still has a special plan for Israel, and holds a special place in his heart for that nation. In a way, you could say that there are two peoples of God - the Church, and Israel. There’s a lot more to it than that, but getting into all the details would require much more than I could include in a single Substack post. And this is where the wrongly-remembered Bible verse from Ted Cruz’s Sunday school days comes into play. Because when the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, he said this:
“And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonours you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:2-3).
We know that the Israelites are the children of Abraham, say the Dispensationalists. Therefore, we need to stand with Israel. If we don’t, we will be cursed. If we do, we can expect to be blessed by God. Think what you will of Benjamin Netanyahu, and his politics. Think what you will of Israel’s current conflict with Iran. We must support Israel, because they are Abraham’s children, and we cannot expect God’s blessing if we turn our backs on them. Oh yes, and there’s one additional benefit: our support of Israel will bring about all of the things that are spoken about in Revelation, and our support for the modern nation-state known as Israel will usher in the speedy return of the Lord Jesus.
The problem is, the Dispensationalists forget how the second part of Genesis 12:3 has been fulfilled in Christ (the Descendant of Abraham, through whom all the families of the earth have been blessed), and they also neglect one important aspect of the New Covenant, a fact emphasized by the Apostle Paul:
“That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all” (Romans 4:16).
“And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed.’ So them, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham the man of faith” (Galatians 3:8-9).
“And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16).
Regarding that last verse, it’s important to note that the word “and” before “upon the Israel of God,” can (and I believe should) be translated as “even,” and understood as meaning “that is” - creating a parallel between “all who walk by this rule,” and “the Israel of God.” These are one and the same group. These are “those who are of faith,” who are “blessed along with Abraham the man of faith.”
The question of the moment is this: who is it who must be blessed in order to receive God’s blessing? And who is it that must not be cursed, lest God’s curse fall upon the one doing the cursing? The answer, both under the Old Covenant as well as the New, is “God’s people.” Who were God’s people under the Old Covenant? The children of Abraham, and those who were grafted in to their family from outside, those who joined themselves to Israel and became covenant-keepers. And who are God’s people now? It is the children of Abraham, as defined by the Apostle Paul: “those who are of faith,” “the one who shares the faith of Abraham.”
Is that the modern nation-state of Israel? No, and again I say, No. It is the Church! Does God’s promise to Abraham still stand? Yes it does! Does that promise have to do with a narrow strip of land bordering on the Meditteranean, and does it apply only to people who belong to a specific ethnic group? No, it doesn’t! It applies to Jew and Greek, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free (Colossians 3:11).
The moral of the story is this: if you are going to let your vague memory of a Sunday-school slogan guide your international policy decisions, make sure that what you learned in Sunday school was correct. And if you’re teaching the Bible to children, realize that your teaching could have huge repercussions, not only for the children that you’re teaching, but for the world geopolitical order.
The idea that dispensationalism is danger on the global geopolitical scene is one I agree with, and so Cruz' ignorant but passionately held theology is dangerous.
But, without saying that the U.S. should get involved, I think the secular nation of Israel are the good guys here. After decades of being an agent for chaos in the Middle East, especially through proxy armies, Iran may fall. The proxies are defeated or neutralized. Many Arabs and Arab nations are already turning on Iran, who are not Arabs. Perhaps this war between Iran and Israel may take us closer to peace.
Meanwhile, let the U.S. stop making foreign policy decisions based on dispensationalism. Ultimately, it's a theology that embraces and leads to nuclear fire, and it's wicked.
This sounds like replacement theology. I also don't think it's as simple as saying that this has nothing to do with the land of Israel and it's inhabitants, and is just about the church.