Acts 17:18 Paul Socrates Xenophon Plato

The question, is there an allusion to Xenophon’s Memorabilia 1.1 is raised in every respectable commentary on Acts, e.g., F.F. Bruce NICNT Acts 2nd Ed. p131n5 mentions also Plato Euthyphro 3B, Apology 24B-C.  H. A. W. Meyer p329, H. Alford p193, C. K. Barrett p830. 

The wording isn’t identical.

Xeno Mem 1.1

… ἀδικεῖ Σωκράτης οὓς μὲν ἡ πόλις νομίζει θεοὺς οὐ νομίζων, ἕτερα δὲ καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρων·

Socrates is accused of a double sided theological error, he doesn’t affirm the conventional gods  ἡ πόλις νομίζει θεοὺς οὐ νομίζων and he brings in other new deities ἕτερα δὲ καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρων. Note the distinction between δαιμόνια and θεοὺς, perhaps implying that Socrates replaced the important gods recognized by the society ἡ πόλις νομίζει with inferior dieties δαιμόνια. The only significant word shared between Acts and and Xeno is δαιμόνιον. If Paul is also being accused of this double error, it isn’t explicit in the words quoted in Acts 17:18.


Acts 17:18 τινὲς δὲ καὶ τῶν Ἐπικουρείων καὶ Στοϊκῶν φιλοσόφων συνέβαλλον αὐτῷ, καί τινες ἔλεγον· τί ἂν θέλοι ὁ σπερμολόγος οὗτος λέγειν; οἱ δέ· ξένων δαιμονίων δοκεῖ καταγγελεὺς εἶναι, ὅτι τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν εὐηγγελίζετο.

Acts 17:18 RSV Some also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers met him. And some said, “What would this babbler say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities” — because he preached Jesus and the resurrection.

 ξένων δαιμονίων δοκεῖ καταγγελεὺς εἶναι
“He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities [strange deities]”
ξένων δαιμονίων foreign divinities -or- strange deities

Xenophon
Memorabilia 1:1f
 Πολλάκις ἐθαύμασα τίσι ποτὲ λόγοις Ἀθηναίους ἔπεισαν οἱ γραψάμενοι Σωκράτην ὡς ἄξιος εἴη θανάτου τῇ πόλει. ἡ μὲν γὰρ γραφὴ κατ' αὐτοῦ τοιάδε τις ἦν· ἀδικεῖ Σωκράτης οὓς μὲν ἡ πόλις νομίζει θεοὺς οὐ νομίζων, ἕτερα δὲ καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρων· ἀδικεῖ δὲ καὶ τοὺς νέους διαφθείρων.

I have often wondered by what arguments those who drew up the indictment against Socrates could persuade the Athenians that his life was forfeit to the state. The indictment against him was to this effect: Socrates is guilty of rejecting the gods acknowledged by the state and of bringing in strange deities: he is also guilty of corrupting the youth.

Xenophon. E. C. Marchant. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA; William Heinemann, Ltd., London. 1923.

Plato Euthyphro 3A—C

[3α] μὲν ἡμᾶς ἐκκαθαίρει τοὺς τῶν νέων τὰς βλάστας διαφθείροντας, ὥς φησιν: ἔπειτα μετὰ τοῦτο δῆλον ὅτι τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἐπιμεληθεὶς πλείστων καὶ μεγίστων ἀγαθῶν αἴτιος τῇ πόλει γενήσεται, ὥς γε τὸ εἰκὸς συμβῆναι ἐκ τοιαύτης ἀρχῆς ἀρξαμένῳ.

Euthyphro
I hope it may be so, Socrates; but I fear the opposite may result. For it seems to me that he begins by injuring the State at its very heart, when he undertakes to harm you. Now tell me, what does he say you do that corrupts the young?

Σωκράτης
[3β]ἄτοπα, ὦ θαυμάσιε, ὡς οὕτω γ᾽ ἀκοῦσαι. φησὶ γάρ με ποιητὴν εἶναι θεῶν, καὶ ὡς καινοὺς ποιοῦντα θεοὺς τοὺς δ᾽ ἀρχαίους οὐ νομίζοντα ἐγράψατο τούτων αὐτῶν ἕνεκα, ὥς φησιν.

Socrates
[3b]Absurd things, my friend, at first hearing. For he says I am a maker of gods; and because I make new gods and do not believe in the old ones, he indicted me for the sake of these old ones, as he says.

[3ξ] ὅταν τι λέγω ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ περὶ τῶν θείων, προλέγων αὐτοῖς τὰ μέλλοντα, καταγελῶσιν ὡς μαινομένου: καίτοι οὐδὲν ὅτι οὐκ ἀληθὲς εἴρηκα ὧν προεῖπον, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως φθονοῦσιν ἡμῖν πᾶσι τοῖς τοιούτοις. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν αὐτῶν χρὴ φροντίζειν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁμόσε ἰέναι.

[3c] when I say anything in the assembly about divine things and foretell the future to them. And yet there is not one of the things I have foretold that is not true; but they are jealous of all such men as you and I are. However, we must not be disturbed, but must come to close quarters with them.



***comment***

Compared with Xeno Mem 1.1, the accusation in Plat. Euthyph. 3b is even more unlike Acts 17:18. Socrates claims he was accused of being a maker of [new] gods.

φησὶ γάρ με ποιητὴν εἶναι θεῶν
For he says I am a maker of gods

καὶ ὡς καινοὺς ποιοῦντα θεοὺς
because I make new gods

τοὺς δ᾽ ἀρχαίους οὐ νομίζοντα
and do not believe in the old ones

The last clause shares an important word with Zeno νομίζω

Excerpt from the LSJ article on νομίζω:


*II. [select] own, acknowledge, consider as, “ὡς δούλους ν. τινάς” Hdt.2.1; “τὸν προέχοντα ἔτεσι ν. ὡς πατέρα” Pl.Lg.879c: ὡς is freq. omitted, “ὄμμα γὰρ δόμων νομίζω δεσπότου παρουσίαν” A.Pers.169; “τοὺς κακοὺς χρηστοὺς ν.” S.OT610, cf. Ant.183, El.1317; “τοὺς αὐτοὺς φίλους νομιῶ καὶ ἐχθρούς” IG12.71.20; “νομίσαι χρὴ ταῦτα μυστήρια” Ar. Nu.143; θεὸν ν. τινά believe in one as a god, “σὺ Ἔρωτα οὐ θεὸν νομίζεις” Pl.Smp.202d; “θεὰν οὐ τὴν Ἀναίδειαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν Αἰδῶ ν.” X.Smp.8.35; ν. τούτους [θεούς] believe in these [as gods], Hdt.4.59; “οὓς ἡ πόλις ν. θεοὺς οὐ νομίζων” X.Mem.1.1.1, Ap.10, Pl.Ap.24b; “τοὺς ἀρχαίους οὐ ν.” Id.Euthphr.3b; but ν. θεοὺς εἶναι believe that there are gods, Id.Ap. 26c, Lg.886a (cf. infr. 4): without εἶναι, δίκην καὶ θεοὺς μόνον ν. [ἄνθρωπος] Id.Mx.237d; τὸ παράπαν θεοὺς οὐδαμῶς ν. to be an atheist, Id.Lg.885c, cf. 908c, Ap.18c, Prt.322a; “θεοὺς ν. οὐδαμοῦ” A.Pers. 497:—Pass., to be deemed, reputed, considered, “οἷς τὸ πέλειν τε καὶ οὐκ εἶναι ταὐτὸν νενόμισται” Parm.6.8; “Ἕλληνες ἤρξαντο νομισθῆναι” Hdt. 2.51; οἱ νομιζόμενοι μὲν υἱεῖς, μὴ ὄντες δέ . . D.40.47; ἡ -ομένη (v.l. ὀνομαζ-) “πολιτεία” Arist.Pol.1293b22.
2. [select] esteem, hold in honour, “χρυσὸν . . περιώσιον ἄλλων” Pi.I.5(4).2; “οὔτε θεοὺς οὔτε ἀνθρώπους ν.” Lys.12.9:—Pass., to be esteemed, Pl.Grg.466b.
3. [select] c. acc. rei, hold, believe, “ταὐτὰ περί τινος” Id.Phdr.258c, etc.; “ἐποίει ἄλλα παρ᾽ ἃ ἐνόμισεν” Id.Min.320b; ἀκοῇ ν., opp. πείρᾳ αἰσθάνεσθαι, Th.4.81.
4. [select] c. acc. et inf., deem, hold, believe that . . , πότερα νομίζεις δυστυχεῖν ἐμέ; S.OC 800, cf. OT549, X.HG3.4.11; “θεὸν νομίζουσι εἶναι τὸ πῦρ” Hdt.3.16: c. fut. inf., expect that . . , S.OT551: aor. inf. is sts. found in codd. referring to fut., “ἐνόμισαν ἐπιθέμενοι ῥᾳδίως κρατῆσαι” Th.2.3 (κρατήσειν in same phrase, Aen.Tact.2.3), cf. Th.3.24, Lys.13.6; in S. Aj.1082 the aor. inf. may be gnomic.


Plato Apology 24b … Σωκράτη φησὶν ἀδικεῖν τούς τε νέους διαφθείροντα καὶ θεοὺς οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζει οὐ νομίζοντα, ἕτερα δὲ δαιμόνια καινά.

Plato Apology 24b … it states that Socrates is a wrongdoer because he corrupts the youth and does not believe in the gods the state believes in, but in other new spiritual beings.

Σωκράτη φησὶν ἀδικεῖν
it states that Socrates is a wrongdoer

τούς τε νέους διαφθείροντα
he corrupts the youth

θεοὺς οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζει
the gods the state believes in

οὐ νομίζοντα
does not believe

ἕτερα δὲ δαιμόνια καινά
but in other new spiritual beings

Here we see δαιμόνια and νομίζει used again. The only wording shared with Acts 17:18 once again is δαιμόνια. 

Ezek. 37:1b LXX/MT

Ezek. 37:1 RSV   The hand of the LORD was upon me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley; it was full of bones.

Ezek. 37:1b    
ἐξήγαγέν με ἐν πνεύματι κύριος
and the LORD brought me out in/by [a] spirit 
ויוצאני ברוח יהוה
and he brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD

Here the LXX reads YHWH יהוה at the end of the clause as the subject of the verb. This is improbable syntax, since the subject would normally not follow the adverb ברוח. The expression ברוח יהוה is an equivalent of ברוח אלהים Ezek. 11:24 (cf. W.Zimmerli, M. Greenberg).

Ezekiel 37:10 Host, Army or Multitude

There is a tantalizing scrap of lexical minutia at the end of Ezekiel 37:10 which, given a less than scholarly hermeneutic, might be employed to produce an illusion of prophetic fulfillment in the modern state of Israel.

Ezek. 37:10 NRSV I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood on their feet, a vast multitude.

Ezek. 37:10 RSV So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceedingly great host.

Ezek. 37:10 NASB So I prophesied as He commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they came to life, and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.

Ezek. 37:10 ESV So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.

The hebrew חיל army/host/multitude, on the correct reading of this word see M. Greenberg, W. Zimmerli, D. Block. If I were writing a popular end-times novel, this would certainly be a text I would misuse. Modern Israel is both a nation and an army. Given the size of the nation the army is huge. But Ezekiel most probably isn’t talking about an army. The rendering “vast multitude” NRSV is more transparent to a contemporary audience and than “exceedingly great host.” Host is an archaic word which could be used of an army or a large group of people without military overtones. Host is probably more accurate but the generation that used and understood the word is long gone.

The LXX version provides some clues about how the translator understood the term in this context. In several places in Ezekiel where  חיל is used of a large mass of people and might have military overtones the LXX translator uses δυνάμεις or ἰσχύς.  We will pass over the obvious  ambiguities of those translation choices.  In Ezek. 37:10 we find  חיל rendered as συναγωγὴ which could be understood as “host” or “multitude” with or without military overtones. If we look for συναγωγὴ in Ezekiel we discover it also translates  קהל a word which covers some of the same semantic territory, a large group of people called together for worship, council or warfare.

Ezek. 38:4 καὶ συνάξω σε καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν δύναμίν σου, ἵππους καὶ ἱππεῖς ἐνδεδυμένους θώρακας πάντας, συναγωγὴ πολλή, πέλται καὶ περικεφαλαῖαι καὶ μάχαιραι,

Ezek. 38:4  NETS "I will round up you and all your force, horses and riders, clothed in all their armor, a great gathering, shields and helmets and daggers”

Ezek. 38:4 NRSV I will turn you around and put hooks into your jaws, and I will lead you out with all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed in full armor, a great company, all of them with shield and buckler, wielding swords.

In this passage the word חיל is translated τὴν δύναμίν force, πᾶσαν τὴν δύναμίν σου “all your force” NETS.  The expression קהל רב “a great company” NRSV is translated συναγωγὴ πολλή “a great gathering” NETS. It looks like our translator prefers δυνάμεις for explicit military reference and συναγωγὴ for more general reference but that may be a case of reading the English translation back into the MT and LXX. Note the following example where חיל and קהל appear in parallel.

Ezek. 38:15 NRSV and come from your place out of the remotest parts of the north, you and many peoples with you, all of them riding on horses, a great horde, a mighty army;    

Ezek. 38:15 καὶ ἥξεις ἐκ τοῦ τόπου σου ἀπ᾿ ἐσχάτου βορρᾶ καὶ ἔθνη πολλὰ μετὰ σοῦ, ἀναβάται ἵππων πάντες, συναγωγὴ μεγάλη καὶ δύναμις πολλή,

 Ezek. 38:15 NETS And you shall come from your place out of the extreme north and many nations with you, all riders on horses, a great gathering and a large force

Here δύναμις renders חיל and συναγωγὴ renders קהל.

After reviewing the use of חיל and קהל in Ezekiel and seeing how the LXX handles each case, it appears that this military language in the vision of the dry bones is used in a sort extended metaphor. The bones are the remains of a defeated army laying on the battlefield eons after the battle has faded from memory. When the bones are revived they become the army again. All of this a metaphor for the revival of the whole house of Israel as explained in the text. Not a literal army, otherwise, what is the purpose of this huge army? (c.f. Moshe Greenberg Ezekiel AB)   

Wilderness of the Nations Ezekiel 20:35

Ezekiel 20:35 I will bring you into the wilderness of the nations, and there I will judge you face to face. ESV

The wilderness of the nations in the second exodus corresponds to the wilderness of Egypt in the first exodus. It need not be a geographical location. A number of 20th century commentators including Charles L. Feinberg saw it as figurative reference to a place of judgement typified by the forty years of wandering in the wilderness under Moses.

The gathering of the whole house of Israel in Ezekiel 20 chronologically precedes bringing the chosen into the land of promise. The weeding out of Ezekiel 20 under the shepherd metaphor results in a select group which will return to the land. All we are told about the fate of the remainder is that they will not enter the land. This again answers to the type of the first exodus generation who died in the wilderness.

The pattern of the restoration to the land of promise found in Ezekiel doesn’t appear to answer in any of the particulars to a secular zionist vision.  Secularism is the religion of modernism. It is a form of idolatry.  One thing we can be sure of, the messianic eschatological kingdom in the land of promise will not be secular.  

Israel’s return in unbelief: counter evidence

Ezekiel 20:34-38  gathering and  purging Israel before they enter the land of promise

This passage appears to be incompatible with a return to the land in unbelief. The house of Israel is gathered from the dispersion among the nations to a place called “the wilderness of the peoples” ‎מדבר העמים τὴν ἔρημον τῶν λαῶν. This Hebrew expression translated “the wilderness of the peoples” is found in the War Scroll 1QM 1:2-3 

1QM 1:2 … The sons of Levi, the sons of Judah, and the sons of Benjamin, those exiled to the wilderness, shall fight against them 3  with […] against all their troops, when the exiles of the Sons of Light return from the Wilderness of the Peoples to camp in the Wilderness of Jerusalem. [1]

The referent of the expression “the wilderness of the peoples” is difficult to identify but we are safe in assuming it is not part of the the promised land “the land of Israel.” The location is not important. Ezekiel makes it the scene where the Lord God enters into judgement with Israel.

Ezekiel 20:34-38 RSV I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out;  35 and I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will enter into judgment with you face to face.  36 As I entered into judgment with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into judgment with you, says the Lord GOD.  37 I will make you pass under the rod, and I will let you go in by number.  38 I will purge out the rebels from among you, and those who transgress against me; I will bring them out of the land where they sojourn, but they shall not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the LORD.

The sequence of events here is generally chronological, with some overlap, restatement and expansion; “with wrath poured out” at the end of v34 which may refer to the judgement “face to face” at the end of v35 which is repeated again in v36 “I will enter into judgment with you” and elaborated in v37-38. The narration is not strictly linear, but the gathering precedes the arrival at the place of judgement and the judgement precedes the return to the land of promise. Most important, the rebels “ those who transgress against me” are explicitly excluded from the group who will return to the land.

This doesn’t bode well for 1948 as a prophetic event.

[1] “The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New English Translation,” edited by Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg, Jr. and Edward M. Cook (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996).




  

Israel’s return to the Land: Ezekiel 36:24

The legal language used in the infamous trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher  (Perugia, Italy) includes an expression “the evidence is … compatible with …” which indicates that some piece of evidence does not contradict a certain reconstruction of the crime scenario. This is a very weak form of evidence.

Looking at Ezekiel 36:22-27  we might detect some evidence which is compatible with the “House of Israel” returning to the land in unbelief. In verse 22 the Lord tells the House of Israel that nothing Israel has done serves as a motivation to restore them to the land. In other words, the restoration is a unilateral action taken by the Lord for reasons of his own, independent of Israel’s history or current moral/religious state. This is perhaps compatible with the scenario of Israel returning to the land in unbelief.

The sequence of the actions predicted in this passage begins with the return to the land. That is one way of reading it. Verses 22-23 present the goal to be achieved by the action. Verse 24ff presents a series of actions which will bring about the desired result. The sequence of the series does not constrain the reader in reconstructing the scenario. We are not required to view the presentation of the return to the land prior to the purification as a linear temporal model of the future events. However, the sequence might be “compatible with” a return to the land in unbelief.

Ezek. 36:22 RSV   “Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came.  23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them; and the nations will know that I am the LORD, says the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes.  24 For I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all the countries, and bring you into your own land.  25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.  26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.  27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.   

Charles L. Feinberg[1] reads verses 24-25ff as a chronological sequence. The return to the land first and then the purification and regeneration. Reading a sequence of prophetic predictions as temporal and sequential is typical of mid-20th century dispensationalism. The language is a sequence of propositions and the predictions must be presented in some order, but not necessarily linear or chronological order. Verse 24 isn’t linear, the first two statements are parallel  “I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all the countries” and the third statement shows progression “and bring you into your own land.” The purification and spiritual regeneration in verses 25-27 are not linear, the relationship between the statements is a combination of parallelism and synthesis. An attempt to force the transition between the the return to the land and the spiritual renewal into a chronological sequence, based on this text alone, probably isn’t going to withstand close scrutiny.      
    
[1] Charles L. Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel: The Glory of the Lord, Moody Press 1969, page 209. 

Secular Israel in Biblical Prophecy: Ezekiel

Stephen Sizer recently posted a sermon by the late John Stott “The Place of Israel? http://www.stephensizer.com/2011/07/john-stott-the-place-of-israel/. There is nothing unusual about Stott’s position: 

  “… true Israel today is neither Jews nor Israelis, but believers in the Messiah, even if they are gentiles.”

“Is the setting up of the State of Israel a fulfillment of the prophecy?  Well, I cannot go into this in a detail.  I can only say this:  Some people think so.  Especially dispensationalists, as we call them.  There may be some here.  They say in effect that the prophets promised that the Jews would return to the promised land.  They even delineate the boundaries that the Jews would occupy in the promised land.  Those promises were not fulfilled in the Old Testament literally, so we look for a fulfillment in the future.  It is a reasonable view to hold, and many do hold it.  And we regard them with respect and love.”

“The Old Testament promises according to the apostles are fulfilled in Christ and in the international community of Christ.  The New Testament authors apply the promise of Abraham’s seed to Jesus Christ.  And they apply to Jesus Christ the promise of the land and all the land which is inherited, the land flowing with mild and honey, because it is in Him that our hunger is satisfied and our thirst is quenched.  A return to Jewish nationalism would seem incompatible with this New Testament perspective of the international community of Jesus.”

Both Stott’s position and the “dispensationalists” present difficulties. The claim that the NT invalidates the promise of ethnic Israel’s return to the land makes Ezekiel a false prophet. Israel and the Land are not metaphors in Ezekiel.  On Stott’s position which is shared by a large number of theologians and biblical scholars, Ezekiel’s view of the future is reduced to nonsense.  

In Ezekiel we find a prophet who was under an exceedingly strict constraint to speak only what the Lord God told him to speak and only when the Lord God told him to speak. The prophetic utterance is introduced over and over again by an elaborate expression of the Divine command to speak and the Divine seal on the words spoken. In this manner the promise of restoration to the land is given the highest level of authority. The promise of return to the land is not contingent. It is a unilateral proclamation of what the God of Israel intended to accomplish for His name sake. The return to the land is to serve as a manifestation of the Glory of God.  

On the other hand, against the prevailing “end times” notion that something biblical happened in 1948, I have not found anything (so far) in Ezekiel about a secular nation of Israel, a return to the land in unbelief. Later on I will take a look at the dry bones (Ezekiel 37) argument presented by some mid-20th century dispensationalists. 

Ezekiel, Hermeneutics

The 20th century end times prophecy movement has times without number been castigated for employing a “literal” hermeneutic. The phrase “a literal interpretation of the bible” has often been employed in a manner which implies the ignorance and stupidity of anyone who reads the biblical text and takes it seriously. In the popular “end times” literature the hermeneutical model is often lacking in sophistication. On the other hand, serious biblical scholars like Charles Feinberg show a full appreciation of literary genre and figurative language in the prophetic literature.

The book of Ezekiel includes visions and oracles. Within the oracles we find metaphor and allegory as well as non-figurative prediction of future events. Generally there is little difficulty keeping these sorted out. The visions of the throne chariot are announced as visions. In chapter 24 the figurative nature of the oracle is explicitly announced. In chapter 37 the symbols are explained.

In the oracles against the nations we find some easily identifiable ancient peoples and their leaders like Egypt and Pharaoh. On the other hand we have problems knowing exactly what to do with Gog and Magog. Throughout the book of Ezekiel “the house of Israel” and Judah function as global VIPs (very important participants). With Israel and Judah the referent is never severed from its connection with the historical entity known by that name. Ezekiel did not provide any signals that indicate Israel and Judah should be read as a figurative indirect reference to something else. This is one of the main points under discussion. I am setting if forth here as an axiom with the intention of looking for contrary evidence. 

a careful and strict Inquiry into the prevailing notion that the modern secular state of Israel is a fulfillment of biblical prophesy

I am currently engage in a not very careful nor particularly strict inquiry into the prevailing notion that the modern secular State of Israel is a fulfillment of biblical prophesy

Israel and the Nations in Ezekiel.

For several weeks now I have been reading and meditating on the later part of Ezekiel using the ancient Greek version (LXX) as my primary text with occasional forays into the Masoretic Text (MT).  My first objective was to look at what Ezekiel has to say about the restoration of Israel as a nation and the return to the land. Ezekiel uses a lot figurative language, metaphors are numerous but I have not so far found any evidence that Ezekiel ever uses Israel or “the land” in a figurative manner. We will begin by setting up a “straw man.” We will assume that someone at sometime, somewhere proposed that Israel and “the land” in Ezekiel function as metaphors for something else. By looking at Ezekiel’s use of metaphor we will evaluate the validity of that claim.

I am going to assume without argument that the future Ezekiel describes for “the house of Israel” and “the land” was never fulfilled in ancient times. Later on I will look at the question of the modern secular state of Israel and ask if Ezekiel has anything to say about that.

When Israel became a state in 1948 some of the mid-century proponents of the end times movement considered it a portent of great significance. I don’t have easy access to all of that literature so the documentation here is going to be pretty spotty. I do have Charles Feinberg’s commentary on Ezekiel so I will consider Feinberg a representative voice from that era. Feinberg’s credentials as an old testament scholar were impeccable so we are dealing with a serious author even though his commentary was aimed at a popular audience.