Context: The Confederation Report
Host: Steven R. Martins
Language: English
This is The Confederation Report, a weekly analysis of Canadian news and culture from a Biblical worldview.
Part I: Israel, the Gaza Strip, and Iran (0:05-6:25)
Amid escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, Canada has witnessed a surge of pro-Palestinian protests marked by troubling rhetoric, prompting deeper questions about national identity, global alliances, and the muted response of media.
Part II: Is Israel still “God’s people”? (6:29-9:47)
While the Israel-Iran war has reignited dispensationalist end-times speculation, Scripture makes clear—from Jesus’ parable in Matthew 21:33–41—that national Israel is no longer God’s covenant people, for the Kingdom has been given to a new people: the church, composed of all who trust in Christ.
Part III: The Unorthodoxy of Dispensationalism (9:51-13:30)
Dispensationalism is an unorthodox theological system that separates Israel and the Church into two peoples of God, distorts biblical prophecy through hyper-literalism, and introduces speculative doctrines foreign to historic Christian teaching.
Did You Know? (12:20-13:27)
In March 2012, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu found a strong ally in Canada’s Stephen Harper as they presented a united front against Iran’s nuclear ambitions, setting the stage for more delicate negotiations with U.S. President Obama over the urgency of potential military action.
Recommended Reading (13:28-14:02)
This week’s recommended resource is Israel and the Palestinians by Dr. Willem J. Ouweneel—an insightful, timely read offering valuable biblical perspective on the Middle East conflict.
Transcript:
It’s Week 24 of 2025, and this is The Confederation Report, a weekly analysis of Canadian news and culture from a biblical worldview. My name is Steven R. Martins, Director of the Cántaro Institute, and each week we provide a Christian perspective on the headlines, critically engage secular narratives, and apply biblical truth to the cultural and societal issues of our time. Because Christ is Lord—over Canada, over culture, over all of life.
Part I: Israel, the Gaza Strip, and Iran (0:05-6:25)
Almost every major city in Canada has seen waves of pro-Palestinian demonstrations over the past year, and the conflict between Israel and Hamas has only intensified them. For those less familiar with the matter, Hamas is a Palestinian Islamist group that not only governs Gaza but is also responsible for launching military attacks against Israel—acts which have led many nations to formally classify it as a terrorist organization. They have long been criticized for operating out of civilian areas like hospitals and schools, which has tragically resulted in high casualties when Israel responds militarily. But given the existential threat Hamas poses—not only to Israel but to Palestinians living under their control—Israel believes that failing to take action simply isn’t an option.
Still, many Canadians wonder why such distant events fuel such outrage here at home. Part of the answer lies in Canada’s alliance with Israel, but that doesn’t fully explain the rhetoric emerging at these protests—rhetoric that in many cases veers into outright antisemitism. There have been chants and slogans at these rallies that, in virtually any other context, would be treated as hate speech. Why hasn’t the media drawn more attention to this? Why haven’t charges been laid? Perhaps it’s fear of being accused of Islamophobia, but Canadians are not ignorant of the facts.
And now, if tensions over Gaza weren’t already enough to energize pro-Palestinian—and in some cases, openly pro-Hamas—movements, Israel has entered an even more dangerous confrontation. What began as ongoing hostilities has escalated into a full-scale exchange of deadly attacks between Israel and Iran.
Over the past two days, Israel and Iran have launched waves of retaliatory strikes, each vowing to continue their campaigns. Israel has struck numerous Iranian military and nuclear sites, killing senior figures and damaging infrastructure, including the nuclear facility at Natanz. In response, Iran has fired over 200 ballistic missiles and drones into Israeli territory, striking cities like Tel Aviv and causing civilian casualties. The level of destruction, military precision, and open defiance of international calls for calm signal that both nations are bracing for a prolonged and escalating war—one that could entangle not just the region, but global powers like the United States. Which has prompted questions and responses.
Should the U.S. Get Involved? That’s the question on everyone’s mind. So far, former President Trump has urged Iran to return to the negotiating table over its nuclear ambitions in hopes of restoring regional stability. But could this latest escalation prompt U.S. troop mobilization? I’m inclined to say no. Trump has historically resisted engaging in foreign wars that don’t directly threaten American interests. Yes, Israel is a key ally, and the U.S. may continue supplying arms or offering humanitarian assistance, but I don’t expect to see American boots on the ground. Frankly, few in the West are eager to enter another proxy war in the Middle East. Rev. Doug Wilson of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, captured what many are thinking when he posted on X, formerly Twitter: “I am fully supportive of Israel’s responsibility to fight her own wars. We should have nothing to do with it. Our only responsibility should be to veto condemnations of Israel in the U.N. That would be standing up for Israel’s responsibility to fight her own wars.”
To understand the gravity of the situation, you have to recognize what prompted Israel’s strikes in the first place. Iran’s nuclear facilities weren’t just for energy—they were being developed with the intent of militarization. The idea of a regime like Khamenei’s—an Islamic theocracy—acquiring nuclear weapons is nothing short of terrifying. And yes, the U.S. intelligence community was well aware of this trajectory.
Meanwhile, on our side of the border, Prime Minister Mark Carney issued a formal statement on June 13, 2025, stating: “Iran’s nuclear program has long been a cause of grave concern, and its missile attacks across Israel threaten regional peace. Today, I convened our National Security Council to receive an update on the situation and to ensure that all necessary steps will be taken to protect our nationals and our diplomatic missions in the region. Canada reaffirms Israel’s right to defend itself and to ensure its security. We call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint and move towards a diplomatic resolution.” I have to give Carney credit for this—he struck the right tone and expressed support for Israel’s right to self-defense.
That said, it wasn’t long ago that Carney, in a public statement celebrating Eid, declared that “Islamic values are Canadian values.” Perhaps he intended it in a broad, pluralistic sense—though such a notion is hollow, both philosophically and practically, and dismissive of Canada’s Christian heritage. I’ll extend some grace—he’s still new to the job. Still, given the ideological roots of the Iranian regime and its open hostility toward Israel, the remark now comes across as, at best, tone-deaf.
Part II: Is Israel still “God’s people”? (6:29-9:47)
You can be sure that this is a great time for dispensationalists, the Israel-Iran war is exactly what they were waiting for to get their end times theories running. It will also turn out to be a most depressing time for them when they realize just how wrongly they had interpreted the Scriptures as to eschatology. Nonetheless, the unfolding war has prompted a question, Is Israel still “God’s people”? To answer that, we must turn to Scripture.
According to Jesus’ parable in Matthew 21:33–41, God had entrusted the vineyard—symbolic of His Kingdom—to the covenant people of Israel. He established them, cared for them, and sent His prophets to call them to repentance and fruitfulness. Yet Israel responded with violence, killing the prophets God sent them. This rejection culminated in their rejection of the Son, Jesus Christ. The parable is a covenantal indictment of a nation that, though once called God’s people, repeatedly rebelled and ultimately rejected the Messiah.
The turning point in redemptive history comes in verse 41, when the religious leaders themselves pronounce judgment: the vineyard would be taken from them and given to others who would bear its fruit. Jesus affirms this—God’s Kingdom would be taken from apostate Israel and given to a new people. This new people is not defined ethnically, but spiritually: those who repent, believe, and bear the fruit of the Spirit. The true Israel is no longer a geopolitical nation but the body of believers, the church, composed of both Jew and Gentile who confess Christ as Lord.
This does not imply that God has been unfaithful to His promises. On the contrary, the promises to Abraham are fulfilled in Christ, and all who belong to Christ are Abraham’s offspring (Gal. 3:29). The “replacement” is not Gentiles replacing Jews, but unbelieving Israel being replaced by the faithful in Christ—believing Jews and Gentiles together. To claim that Israel, in its continued unbelief, remains God’s people is to suggest that Christ has two brides—the nation of Israel and the church. Scripture never permits such a view. Christ has one bride: the church.
Nevertheless, we are called to pray for Israel—not as God’s covenant people, but as a nation in need of the gospel. As with all nations, our desire should be their repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. True peace, whether in Jerusalem or anywhere else, cannot come apart from the Prince of Peace. Political arrangements and temporary ceasefires will never bring lasting peace—only hearts transformed by the gospel can do that.
In conclusion, national Israel is no longer the covenant people of God. The Kingdom has been given to another: the church of Jesus Christ, comprised of believers from every nation and tongue, including a faithful remnant of Jewish believers. As we reflect on this, we are warned not to become complacent or hardened in unbelief. The same God who judged unfruitful Israel calls us to bear fruit in our lives. May we examine ourselves, trust in Christ, and live as faithful tenants in the vineyard of the Lord.
Part III: The Unorthodoxy of Dispensationalism (9:51-13:30)
If this is your first time hearing the term ‘Dispensationalism,’ you likely already know its teachings—just not by name. Let me briefly explain what it is, and why from the outset we should consider it unorthodox.
Dispensationalism is a theological system rooted in a specific kind of premillennial eschatology. It teaches that Christ will return before a literal thousand-year reign on earth, during which time He will rule with resurrected saints. However, what makes dispensationalism unique—and problematic—from the other eschatological positions (e.g., historic premillennialism, amillennialism, and post-millennialism) is its rigid insistence on interpreting Old Testament prophecies literally, particularly regarding Israel’s role in the end times. Dispensationalists claim that during this future millennium, the Jewish temple will be rebuilt and animal sacrifices restored, a view derived from a literal reading of passages like Ezekiel 40–48. This interpretive method reverses the proper hermeneutical order, forcing the New Testament to conform to the Old, rather than understanding the Old Testament through the lens of Christ’s fulfillment in the New.
One of the core theological errors of dispensationalism is its separation of Israel and the Church into two distinct and eternal peoples of God. According to this framework, God has two ongoing redemptive plans—one for national Israel and another for the Church. This stands in stark contrast to the apostolic teaching in the New Testament, where Gentiles are said to be grafted into the same olive tree as believing Jews (Romans 11), and where salvation comes through faith in Christ alone, regardless of ethnicity. Dispensationalism undermines the unity of God’s redemptive plan by treating the Church as a kind of “Plan B,” instituted after Israel’s alleged failure to receive the kingdom.
Moreover, the historical roots of dispensationalism are deeply troubling. The early Reformers and the major Protestant confessions—such as the Augsburg Confession, the Forty-Two Articles, and the Second Helvetic Confession—explicitly rejected any theology that proposed a return to Old Testament Judaism or a literal thousand-year reign of Christ from Jerusalem. The system we now call dispensationalism finds its real beginnings not in the Reformation, but in 19th-century fringe movements like the Irvingites and Millerites, which were condemned as cultic in their time. These groups laid the foundation for what would later develop into a more systematized dispensationalism through the influence of J.N. Darby and C.I. Scofield.
Finally, the speculative and extra-biblical origins of key dispensational doctrines—such as the secret rapture—further discredit the system. This concept, which claims Christ will return secretly to remove the Church before a period of tribulation and then return again in glory, was not taught by any Reformer or church father. In fact, it traces back to a trance experienced by a Scottish girl named Margaret MacDonald in the 1830s. Though later popularized through the Niagara prophetic conferences and novels like Left Behind, the dispensational scheme lacks the credibility of historic Christian teaching. It is a novel invention, condemned by the very denominations it now influences, and should therefore be rejected for a more biblically faithful, Christ-centered eschatology.
Did You Know? (13:34-14:42)
In March 2012, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chose Canada as the first stop in a high-stakes North American tour to address the growing threat of Iran’s nuclear program. He found a close ally in then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who publicly declared Iran to be the greatest threat to global security. Harper emphasized that Iran’s leadership held a “fanatically religious worldview” that could lead them to use nuclear weapons to fulfill ideological goals—a concern Netanyahu shared deeply. Their joint press conference reinforced a unified front between Israel and Canada on the need to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities.
While Netanyahu and Harper were aligned on Iran, the more complex diplomatic dance awaited in Washington. U.S. President Barack Obama, set to meet Netanyahu days later, faced increasing pressure from Israel to act swiftly, especially before Iran’s nuclear facilities became untouchable in what Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called a “zone of immunity.” What were the stakes? Nothing less than whether and when to launch a strike to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.
Recommended Resource (14:43-15:40)
This Week’s recommended resource is Israel and the Palestinians by Dr. Willem J. Ouweneel, co-published by Paideia Press and Inheritance Publications. The title Israel and the Palestinians is a timely exploration of the long-standing conflict in the Middle East. With clarity and conviction, Ouweneel presents twenty concise theses that cut through layers of historical confusion, media bias, and theological missteps to equip Christians with a deeper understanding of the issues at stake. Drawing on his expertise in theology, philosophy, and history, he invites readers to consider the spiritual dimensions behind the political headlines and to respond not with fear or factionalism, but with informed prayer and hopeful expectation for the return of the Christ. While Dr. Willem J. Ouweneel holds to a historic premillennial position that differs from the eschatological stance of the Cántaro Institute, his latest book nonetheless offers valuable insights that are well worth considering.
Closing Words
Thanks for listening to The Confederation Report, this podcast is brought to you by the Cántaro Institute. Visit our website at cantaroinstitute.org for more information. For books to read on worldview, philosophy, and theology, visit our store at cantaroinstitute.store
We’ll meet again next week.
Documentation & Additional Reading:
The Guardian
Sirens sound in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, explosions heard at Tehran airport – as it happened
Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L. Gentry, House Divided: The Break-Up of Dispensational Theology (Tyler, TX.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989).