Wayne Grudem Goes Dispensationalist For Iran War

Wayne Grudem is a professor and theologian, famous for publishing the most widely read Systematic Theology, a thick volume used as a textbook in seminaries as well as for laymen’s study. Grudem’s theology in the book could be characterized as Reformed, Baptist, and historic premillennial. Having changed his views against Young Earth Creation, it appears Grudem is also embracing dispensationalism. The timing of Grudem’s sudden change of conviction coincides with the Iran War.

Christian Post has long favored Jewish narratives of Christianity, and regularly runs what could be press releases disguised as news articles for foreign interests. In an article titled “Israel, US and the judgment of God on Iran,” Grudem provides war propaganda that is contrary to his written positions.

Editor’s note: This Christian Post special series is designed to inform Evangelical voters about the foundational facts behind the major issues shaping today’s elections. Noted theologian Wayne Grudem has written these public policy backgrounders to help prepare voters for the elections ahead.

While CP considers Grudem’s biblical perspectives important reading for today’s voters, this series does not necessarily represent the company’s editorial position on these issues.

Our purpose is to help readers have the Power to Understand the Times.

Christian Post put a disclaimer on the article that the premise of is false. Grudem’s convenient perspective is exactly the narrative, and Grudem’s acclaim is exactly the credibility this outlet is looking for.

The repetition of this theme throughout Genesis gives emphasis to the permanence of the promise that the Jewish people would have an “everlasting” possession of the land of Canaan (that is, Palestine). Throughout the rest of the Bible, this promise was never revoked or nullified.

Wayne Grudem makes the amateurish mistake of calling Abraham a Jew when the Bible never does. But early on in his article he asserts that Jews have a divine right to Palestine that is irrevocable.

Then Grudem moves on to a history lesson on the Old Testament exiles, the Balfour Declaration, Israel’s War of Independence, and the Gaza conflict today (neglecting to mention that Israel funded Hamas, of course).

Iran War Propaganda

Wayne Grudem goes full neocon with his denounciation of the Iran regime.

An argument can be made that there are several reasons why the rulers of Iran are more evil than the rulers of any other nation on earth:

• They were within a few weeks of building live nuclear weapons and have repeatedly hinted that they would use them to destroy Israel.
• The terrorist organizations Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon have both been financed by Iran, and they have continued to send rockets into civilian areas of Israel, sometimes killing innocent civilians and forcing thousands of Israelis to live in daily fear of a rocket attack.
• When Iranians filled the streets to protest against the government, the Iranian government murdered 35,000 of their own people — an astonishing action.
• Iran’s leaders follow a terrifying variety of Islamic belief, one which views dying in a holy war as a blessing and a way to obtain high honor. Therefore, many of Iran’s leaders would rather die than surrender.

Iran’s leaders, though they worship a sand demon, are competently playing at geopolitics to better the position of their nation. Any aspiring nation needs to have a nuclear weapon, in order to be sovereign on the world stage. Likewise, their backing terrorist proxies is in their nation’s best interest, and is not any more reprehensible than the Americans and British bankrolling the Soviet Union to win World War II. Islam is morally equivalent to Judaism. This leaves Grudem’s high estimate of “civilian” casualties as the only remaining mark. However, several nations have had color revolutions attempted with the backing of foreign intelligence agencies, with some even succeeding. Violent suppression of rebellion is why the government bears the sword not in vain. In a twist of irony, Grudem would cite Romans 13 early in the next section. But when Grudem cites Romans 13, it’s to justify a regime change war.

Therefore, when Israeli and American members of the military put to death the Iranians and others who wrongfully murdered so many of the Israeli people as well as numerous Americans and citizens of other countries, they are carrying out the “reckoning” that God requires in order to establish a measure of justice on the earth.

Government officials do not have to be morally perfect individuals in order to carry out this responsibility. When Paul was writing Romans, Nero was the Roman emperor, and neither he nor his officials were morally blameless. And in the Old Testament, God used the Babylonian armies to bring His judgment on Israel for their sins — then God later judged Babylon for its own sins (see Jeremiah 50–51).

He then cites Israel’s talking points to defend against claims that Israel has targeted civilians.

The destruction of Iran’s military forces, its airplanes, and all of the ships in its navy can be justified, then, on three grounds:

(1) It is divine retribution for the wrongful murder of over 1,200 people in Israel, an act of horrible evil that was financed and directed by Iran through the terrorist group Hamas. It is also divine retribution for the horrible murder of 35,000 of Iran’s own people.

It also appears to be divine retribution for the deaths of hundreds of Americans during the last 47 years, including the 241 people killed in the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut.

(2) It is self-defense for Israel because it is an attempt to deter similar attacks in the future. It is also a war of self-defense for the United States because there are more than 10 American military bases within the range of Iran’s rockets, and if they had produced some atomic bombs they could easily have targeted some American bases.

(3) For both Israel and the U.S., it is also a preemptive war to destroy the warmaking capability of Iran and of its puppets Hamas and Hezbollah. And because there is sufficient likelihood that both Iran and Hamas would use any new weapons that they could develop, a preemptive attack was necessary.

Grudem makes a cassus belli for war, but fails to answer the preeminent question for justifying a war: is the war winnable?

In order for a war to be just, it must have a reasonable chance of success. As America and Israel have fought the war, it has no exit strategy. Iran has asserted and maintained control over the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran’s predictable commitment to asymmetric warfare renders American strikes on naval vessels and aircraft mere publicity stunts. Killing the heads of state also backfired as heads of state are preserved in war so that peace can eventually be negotiated. Without a clear chain of command and Tehran’s commitment to a prolonged asymmetric drone war, this war is unwinnable the way it was intended to have been fought (and always was). For Israel, the war is not meant to be won, it’s meant to be ongoing. But the Trump Administration violated its popular mandate by pursuing Middle Eastern boondoggles, taking attention away from domestic policy aims. Simply put, this war is unjust because it is unwinnable and is too politically costly. No lofty arguments about democracy or fighting terrorism is really needed because they are mooted by the inability to win.

Does this [Genesis 12:3] still apply to Abraham’s descendants today?

On the one hand, no explicit mention is made in Genesis 12 about applying this promise to future generations. Also, in a number of places the New Testament views believers in Jesus Christ to be the true spiritual heirs who inherit the promises made to Abraham (see Hebrews 8:8-13 and 1 Peter 2:1-10, for example).

On the other hand, some New Testament passages teach a distinctive future even for those Jewish people who have rejected Jesus as their Messiah. Paul says in Romans 11:17 that the Jewish people are like branches that have been “broken off” from an olive tree (which represents God’s true people), and that someday they will be “grafted back into their own olive tree” (Romans 11:14). God has not abandoned the Jewish people but has a wonderful future plan for them.

Grudem would cite Romans 11 after this and treat Genesis 12 as though both sides are correct. But Wayne Grudem lands squarely in dispensationalism with the article’s conclusion.

Now, with those New Testament passages as a background, we can ask again, is God today still blessing those who bless Israel and turning His face against those who curse Israel?

I cannot be sure about this, but I think it is likely that the answer is “yes.”

Grudem clearly argues that he believes that Genesis 12:3’s blessings and cursings apply to modern Jews.

Grudem vs Grudem

Having read Grudem’s Systematic Theology, it presents dispensationalism in a bad light and has contributed to its decline in Evangelicalism more than any book that comes to mind up to this point.

Peter frequently speaks of New Testament Christians in terms of Old Testament imagery and promises given to the Jews. This theme comes to prominence in 1 Peter 2:4-10, where20 Peter says that God has bestowed on the church almost all the blessings promised to Israel in the Old Testament. The dwelling-place of God is no longer the Jerusalem temple, for Christians are the new “temple” of God (v. 5). The priesthood able to offer acceptable sacrifices to God is no longer descended from Aaron, for Christians are now the true “royal priesthood” with access before God’s throne (vv. 4-5, 9). God’s chosen people are no longer said to be those physically descended from Abraham, for Christians are now the true “chosen race” (v. 9). The nation blessed by God is no longer said to be the nation of Israel, for Christians are now God’s true “holy nation” (v. 9). The people of Israel are no longer said to be the people of God, for Christians-both Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians-are now “God’s people” and those who have “received mercy” (v. 10). Moreover, Peter takes these quotations from contexts in the Old Testament that repeatedly warn that God will reject his people who persist in rebellion against him and who reject the precious “cornerstone” (v. 6) that he has established. What further statement could be needed in order for us to say with assurance that the church has now become the true Israel of God and will receive all the blessings promised to Israel in the Old Testament? [Emphasis added]

Grudem rhetorically argues that Christians receive even the Old Testament promises to Israel, invoking Peter’s citing of the Old Testament to make this argument.

f. The Salvation of Israel: With regard to the salvation of the fullness of Israel, again it must be said that Romans 9-11 seems to indicate that there will be a yet future massive ingathering of the Jewish people as they turn to accept Jesus as their Messiah. But it is not certain that Romans 9-11 predicts this, and many have argued that no further ingathering of the Jewish people will occur beyond the kind that we have already seen through the history of the church, since Paul gives himself as a primary example of this ingathering (Rom. 11:1-2). Once again, it is unlikely but possible that this sign has already been fulfilled.

Wayne Grudem writes considerably very little about Romans 11 prophecy, the text that appears to be the last stand for dispensationalism. (He has a previous section that’s as long but mostly contains Scriptural citation.)

In addition, Matthew 24 is very difficult to understand as referring not to the church but to Jewish people who would be saved during the tribulation. Jesus is addressing his disciples (Matt. 24:1-4) and warning them of persecution and suffering to come. He tells them of the great tribulation to come, and then says that “immediately after the tribulation of those days” cosmic signs will appear and “then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Matt. 24:30). But is it likely that Jesus, in saying all these things to his disciples, intended his words to apply not to the church but only to a future earthly kingdom of Jewish people who would be converted during the tribulation? How could the disciples have known that he had such a meaning in mind? Nor does it seem likely that the disciples are here as representatives of a future Jewish kingdom and not as representatives of the church, with whose founding they were so integrally connected as to be its foundation (Eph. 2:20).

This is just a general argument against futurism, particularly as it relates to the Olivet Discourse being written specifically for tribulation Israel.

Conclusion

It is shameful that the esteemable theologian has compromised his longstanding convictions so that America may execute yet another failed regime change war in the Middle East. Wayne Grudem is perhaps atoning for the sin of teaching people what dispensationalism believes as he jihads for Zionism. Lowly is the reward for Grudem to debase himself with this folly.