Israelology, according to Dr. Fructenbaum, is "a subdivision of systematic theology, incorporating all theological doctrines concerning the people of Israel". It is also the subject of his doctoral dissertation.
In this 1000 page tome, Fructenbaum develops Israelology, especially regarding present-day Israel, as had not been previously done. He does this within his preferred system of systematic theology, known as dispensationalism. As the term suggests, in this system God deals with His peoples in different ways at different stages of human history. And scripturally, two peoples are set apart from the rest for God's purposes, The Jews and Christians.
Now Jewishness is an ethnicity, and an ethnic Jew can be Christian. Dispensationalists know this, of course. But they tend to insist upon a fine distinction between Israel and the Christian church, which I think is not always justified.
In Genesis, there is a vast tract of land promised to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In the prophets, it is said that Jesus is to reign over earth from Jerusalem following His second coming. Here, I think, the literal interpretation is intended, and the Jew-Gentile distinction upheld.
However, I think the Israel/Church distinction is carried too far sometimes. There is in scripture a time of great tribulation to befall the earth immediately preceding Jesus' second coming. In Jer.30:7, "it is a time of distress for Jacob". And the trouble does seem to be centered in Israel. But there are strong parallels in the bible between Israel and the Christian church. Both are called by God to be His spokespeople. Both are called to great suffering to purify them.
Although dispensationalists allow that the tribulation is a worldwide phenomenon, they are so insistent upon a Church/ Israel distinction that they cannot accept that the Church passes through it alongside Israel. They insist upon a removal of the Church from the earth to the Lord before the troubles arrive, a pre-tribulational rapture!
This is very remarkable, unhistoric, and I think anti-scriptural. The doctrine appears to be about 200 years old. For the first 1800 years of church history, it was unknown or very nearly so.
According to George Eldon Ladd, there seems to be in scripture, a "single, indivisible return of Christ, which requires a post-tribulational view", not preceded by a secret, earlier return to remove the Church.
The author usually proceeds logically and draw conclusions fairly . But here and elsewhere, he exhibits the same sort of dishonest, specious argumentation he accuses his opponents of.
In Hebrews 6, the writer describes believers who commit apostasy. "They crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold Him up to contempt." If ever a passage described forfeited salvation, this could qualify. Dr. Fructenbaum holds that salvation once received cannot be lost. So he interprets this passage as suggesting the apostate may experience earthly trauma, but remains saved!
Furthermore, this work is mindnumbingly repetitive. Some points are made many dozens, if not a hundred times.
I accept the author's thesis that there is a Church/ Israel distinction and there are biblical promises to Israel that are yet to be granted. As Paul insists in Romans 11, God has not rejected His people. And the Church does not usurp Israel's "chosen people" status! God is able to choose two distinct peoples in two different senses according to two different dispensations.
In this era of replacement theology and virulent antisemitism, I welcome this work. But I was much put off by the repetitiveness and occasional dishonest argumentation.