One of the most important factors in Bible interpretation—if not the most important—is honesty. We Bible interpreters often struggle to remain honest when Scripture contradicts our well-entrenched beliefs. Yet we are interpreting a book that repeatedly warns against dishonesty. Our Bibles tell us that all liars will be cast into a lake of fire!

In this final teaching about modern Israel, I will do my best to interpret Romans 11—oddly a favorite of dispensationalists—honestly. That requires reading the chapter in context with the rest of Scripture. The Bible can be made to say almost anything by isolating verses and passages.

For example, someone who is ignorant or dishonest could conclude from Romans 11 that God opened the door of salvation to Gentiles only because the Jews rejected Jesus. Had they not rejected Him, the door would have remained eternally closed to Gentiles. Moreover, God supposedly opened that door purely to make Jews jealous so they might open their hearts to Jesus. All of that can—and sometimes is—extracted from Romans 11.

This teaching is the fourth in a series regarding God’s view of modern Israel. I hope you read the first three before this one, as they lay a foundation that could well prevent any misunderstanding of what you are about to read.

It is commonly believed among evangelicals that the restoration of the state of Israel in 1948 and the subsequent immigration of millions of Jews to their ancient homeland since then is the final fulfillment of God’s many promises through His prophets to regather the scattered descendants of Jacob/Israel. Thus, it is concluded that Christians should generally side with Israel since God is obviously favoring them—even when what Israel does harms others, including God’s own children through Jesus Christ. That, of course, is problematic, because it requires us to believe that God favors those who reject His Son over those who follow His Son. That, in my humble opinion, is the real “Replacement Theology”—a replacement of the Church by the modern nation of Israel.

There was a time in my young Christian life when I was sure, along with many others, that Jesus would return by 1981. It was easy to prove. Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse, “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34). A generation is 40 years. The modern nation of Israel was born in 1948. So, add 1948 and 40, and you arrive at 1988. Then subtract 7 years for the Tribulation. Bingo! Jesus will return by 1981. We were sure our eschatology was watertight!

Looking back, it appears we were slightly off. Where did we go wrong? We made many assumptions. One of them was thinking we could predict the year of Jesus’ return.

This teaching is a follow up to my previous one titled, “Will I be Blessed if I Bless Israel? (And Cursed if I Don’t?)” Please don’t read this teaching without first reading that one, as it lays an important foundation.

The overall feedback to that article has been mostly positive but, as I anticipated, there has been some pushback from dispensationalists. Many of those good folks don’t even know they are dispensationalists. I’m not saying that to make anyone feel bad. I, too, was once influenced by dispensationalism and did not realize it. So let’s start there.

It is often said within Christian circles that whoever blesses the nation or people of Israel will be blessed, and whoever curses the nation or people of Israel will be cursed. For that reason, supporting the modern nation of Israel—economically, politically, and militarily—is presented as a sacred moral obligation for Christians. To do otherwise, it is often implied or claimed, is “antisemitic.”

Modern Evangelicals—in contrast with the historic Christians, Mainline Protestants, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians—are the only group within Christendom (generally speaking) to embrace this idea, essentially due to a rather novel theology. The result is hundreds of millions of dollars donated annually to “bless Israel,” a nation that consistently ranks in the top 30 among the 193 nations and territories listed on the United Nations’ Human Development Index—alongside France and Spain. Meanwhile, Christians in Malawi, ranked 172nd, endure what they call the “hunger season” every year as they wait for the next harvest. Why is it easier to raise money for well-off Jews than for starving Christians? (Has Israel replaced the Church?)

After almost half a century as a Christian, and after 47 years in vocational ministry making a serious effort to understand and teach the Bible, I realize more than ever that all wrong Bible interpretation stems from ignoring biblical and historical context. You can make the Bible say almost anything you want to by isolating verses from their context.

For example, I could easily persuade any new Christian—using the Bible alone—to become a Universalist, a Calvinist, a false- or hyper-grace proponent, or a flaming legalist. In every case, all I would need to do is take advantage of the new Christian’s ignorance of the whole Bible and point out selected proof texts.

Let me share an example of a very common scripture passage that is misused by Christians of many stripes, often to support less-than-balanced doctrines:

A brief history lesson:

Before 509 BC, the world was ruled 100% by kings, pharaohs, and chiefs.

Between 509 BC and 27 BC, the world was ruled 95% by kings. Only two republics appeared during that period—Athens and the Roman Republic (which later became an empire under Augustus in 27 BC).

Between 27 BC and 700 AD, the world was again ruled 100% by emperors, kings, and caliphs.

Between 700 AD and 1800 AD, the world was ruled 98% by kings. Republics existed only in a handful of places at various times.

Note to readers: We published this short parable a few years back, but it seemed time for a republish! David
_____________

Once upon a time, there was a great king who ruled his kingdom in truth and righteousness. But there were enemies living within his kingdom who broke his laws, and whom he discovered were plotting to overthrow his rule.

The king laughed when he heard of their plot, knowing that his enemies were no match for his armies, and because his informants knew his enemies’ every move and intent. So he decreed that in ten days, all of his enemies would be rounded up and executed for treason.

He mercifully decided, however, to give all of them an opportunity to be pardoned. And he sent his messengers throughout his kingdom with this message: “The great king would like all his enemies to know that they have ten days to come to his palace, lay down their arms, and pledge their allegiance to him. If they will do that, he promises to fully and freely pardon them as a gift of his grace.”

Psychology is supposed to be the scientific (evidence-based) study of how people think, feel, and behave, as well as the biological, social and environmental factors that influence those processes. Unfortunately, what is claimed to be scientific is not always scientific. I recently read House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth, by Robyn M. Dawes, who served for many years as head of the Department of Social and Decision Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University. Dawes exposes the fact that much of modern psychology is based on unproven theories.

This is not to say that all modern psychology is based on myths or that people haven’t benefitted from aspects of it that are evidence-based. But Satan loves to mix truth with error in order to deceive folks. So “let the buyer beware.” Followers of the Lord Jesus should be judging everything in the light of His Word.

Pop psychology, in comparison, is a perversion of academic/clinical psychology. Real psychologists roll their eyeballs when they hear pop psychology being purveyed. It oversimplifies the complexities of academic/clinical psychology and misuses its terms. Pop psychology can be found in abundance all over the internet, and it can be harmful to those who innocently employ it to self-diagnose. (See my previous article titled, “The Poison of Psychobabble.”)

The term “psychobabble”—found in the Oxford English Dictionary since 1984—was coined by a psychiatrist and writer named Richard Dean Rosen in his 1977 bestselling book titled, Psychobabble: Fast Talk and Quick Cure in the Era of Feeling.” It is a derogatory term for language that uses academic psychological terminology in a superficial, misleading, exaggerated, or meaningless way. It often sounds impressive and authoritative, but it lacks real substance, precision, or therapeutic value.

The word “psychobabble” is typically used to criticize pop psychology, self-help clichés, overly-simplistic explanations of complex human behavior, or the misuse of technical psychological terms by non-experts. Psychobabble has flooded social media, and it is the verbiage of TikTok therapists and Facebook life coaches. Pop “psychologists” use some of the same terms used by academic psychologists, but they pervert their meaning, misleading those who listen to them. Worse, some psychobabble has infiltrated even the ranks of clinical psychologists who employ therapeutic techniques that lack empirical support.^[1]

For that reason, psychobabble and its related pop psychology fallacies can be poisonous to those who partake. You may be surprised to discover that you have been unwittingly using some form of psychobabble in your own vocabulary, or have embraced some of pop psychology’s many myths. In this brief article, I want to point out some of the most common psychobabble phrases.