Replies

I don't think of any conclusive reason that Dan would be wholesale excluded forever. But it's been a while since I read those Scriptures.>>

actually, your memory is correct. there is no mention anywhere of Dan being excluded. The reason why you havent read those scriptures is because there ain't any! So, you are left with a recounting of "blood Israel" (nice pithy way to say what u are trying to say, by the way, think I will snag it as a term...., thanks) which LEAVES OUT A TRIBE.

So why is all this important? In one sense, it is not. Some of the sweetest brothers in Christ I know believe as you, yet I love them and they me.
Some of my non-chiliast brothers charge that all the focus on the "end time events" takes away from the focus on Christ, the power of the gospel to cleanse and empower us, and our filial position as sons. I would counter that those who believe as I do often lose the focus ourselves in a dialogue such as this, as our egos become more important than the truth, and we "neglect the weightier matters" so that I can be seen as the triumphant theologue, blah blah blah.
On the other hand, I have embraced what is sometimes called "covenant" theology (One plan, One people, One promise, One program). It has changed the way I view the entire bible, but especially the Old Testament. I see the whole scripture about "Him and Us" rather than "Him and them, Him and us, and Him and them again." It has made me love Christ more, and THAT is the only reason it is worth writing what I am about to write.

I am left with three possibilities here re: "blood Israel" in Rev 7. Perhaps there is one I have missed, but this is all I see at present:

1) The writer made a mistake
2) Dan is cursed and excluded
3) This is not "blood Israel" at all which is being referred to

I assume we can reject 1) out of hand, as any first century Jew/Christian knows who are the 12 tribes, much less the Holy Spirit would know and not be confused That leaves us with 3) (my position) or 2), which is the position of Chas Ryrie, and many prominent dispensationalists. That is not to say that there ARE no other positions, just that I can't figure out how to interpret this passage in any more than these three ways. My problem with Ryrie is that he takes a position that is a) unbiblical - since no such curse was pronounced on Dan and b) internally inconsistent with his own theological position with is "Israel means (blood) Israel" and that the promises of God must be fulfilled. He fudges here. If Dan can be cut off from the covenant, so can the rest of the tribes, and your whole hermeneutical bedrock goes right out the window.

Of course, if the promises of God to Israel in the Old Testament are bound to "blood" Israel, we are faced with a problem. Either we have to reconstitute the geopolitical Hebrew nation, reinstitute temple worship (ABHORRENT!!!!..."TETELESTAI"), and the whole dispensational gaggle of events, or we have what he specifically tells us in Romans 9. Not all (blood) Israel is really Israel (Romans 9:6-8), but the "children of the promise" are the TRUE Israel, and the promises have always concerned THEM (us). He then segueways into a talk about election, but the key issue is not election, but rather the fact that God's promises to Israel HAVE been fulfilled in the true Israel.

The only reason I can see to insist that "Israel means (blood) Israel" is to impose a hermeneutic (Literal whenever possible) that the scripture itself rejects. "Scripture interprets scripture" should always trump "plain speech whenever possible."

However, as a non-chiliast (sorta), I have to commend the dispensationalists on one thing. You guys yearn for the reinclusion of the branches back to the root in a way that is convicting to me. So, here's praying for a Christmas that is full of Christ, a yearning for "the times of the Gentiles to be fulfilled" and a regrafting of the blood Jews back into the Covenant, and...., most importantly, the "return of the King."

Merry Christmas