Posted on 09/01/2006 5:32:18 AM PDT by xzins
I suspect that most of you have been at a theological crossroad at least once in your Christian life. I have stood at several over the years. Let me tell you about one such instance, since it is one that many have faced down through church history. It involves the question of "What do you do with a future national Israel in the Bible?" The decision one makes about this question will largely determine your view of Bible prophecy, thus greatly impacting your view of the Bible itself and where history is headed.
Back in the early '80s I lived in Oklahoma and was in my first pastorate after getting out of Dallas Seminary in 1980. I had been attracted for about a decade to the writings of those known as Christian Reconstructionists. Most reconstructionists are preterist postmillennial1 in their view of Bible prophecy. Up to this point in my life I considered myself a reconstructionist who was not postmillennial, but dispensational premillennial. Through a series of events, I came to a point in my thinking where I believed that I had to consider whether postmillennialism was biblical. I recall having come to the point in my mind where I actually wanted to switch to postmillennialism and had thought about what that would mean for me in the ministry. I remember thinking that I was willing to make whatever changes would be necessary if I concluded that the Bible taught postmillennialism.
I went on a trip to Tyler, Texas (at the time a reconstructionist stronghold) and visited with Gary North and his pastor Ray Sutton. I spent most of my time talking with Ray Sutton, a Dallas graduate who had made the journey from dispensationalism to postmillennialism. As I got in my car to drive the 100 miles to Dallas where I would stay that night, I expected to make the shift to postmillennialism. In fact, I spent the night in the home of my current co-author, Tim Demy, who told me later that he said to his wife after talking with me, "Well Lynn, looks like we've lost Tommy to postmillennialism."
The next morning as I drove from Dallas to Oklahoma, my mind was active with a debate between the two positions. About two-thirds of the way home, I concluded that to make the shift to postmillennialism I would have to spiritualize many of the passages referring to a future for national Israel and replace them with the church. At that moment of realization, which has been strengthened since through many hours of in-depth Bible study, I lost any attraction to postmillennialism.
Since that time, more than fifteen years ago, further Bible study has continued to strengthen my belief that God has a future plan for national Israel. It was the Bible's clear teaching about a future for national Israel that kept me a dispensationalist. What the Bible teaches about national Israel's future has been a central issue impacting the action of Christians on many important issues. It is hard to think of a more important issue that has exerted a greater practical impact upon Christendom than the Church's treatment of unbelieving Jews during her 2,000 year history. As we will see, treatment of the Jews by Christendom usually revolves around one's understanding of Israel's future national role in God's plan.
Over the years I have been asked many times, "How can a genuine, born-again Christian be anti-Semitic?" Most American evangelical Christians today have a high view of Jews and the modern state of Israel and do not realize that this is a more recent development because of the positive influence of the dispensational view that national Israel has a future in the plan of God. Actually, for the last 2,000 years, Chrisendom has been responsible for much of the world's anti-Semitism. What has been the reason within Chrisendom that would allow anti-Semitism to develop and prosper? Replacement theology has been recognized at the culprit.
What is replacement theology? Replacement theology is the view that the Church has permanently replaced Israel as the instrument through which God works and that national Israel does not have a future in the plan of God. Some replacement theologians may believe that individual Jews will be converted and enter into the church (something that we all believe), but they do not believe that God will literally fulfill the dozens of Old Testament promises to a converted national Israel in the future. For example, reconstructionist David Chilton says that "ethnic Israel was excommunicated for its apostasy and will never again be God's Kingdom."2 Chilton says again, "the Bible does not tell of any future plan for Israel as a special nation."3 Reconstructionist patriarch, R. J. Rushdoony uses the strongest language when he declares,
The fall of Jerusalem, and the public rejection of physical Israel as the chosen people of God, meant also the deliverance of the true people of God, the church of Christ, the elect, out of the bondage to Israel and Jerusalem, . . .4
A further heresy clouds premillennial interpretations of Scripture--their exaltation of racism into a divine principle. Every attempt to bring the Jew back into prophecy as a Jew is to give race and works (for racial descent is a human work) a priority over grace and Christ's work and is nothing more or less than paganism. . . . There can be no compromise with this vicious heresy.5
Replacement theology and its view that Israel is finished in history nationally has been responsible for producing theological anti-Semitism in the church. History records that such a theology, when combined with the right social and political climate, has produced and allowed anti-Semitism to flourish. This was a point made by Hal Lindsey in The Road to Holocaust, to which reconstructionists cried foul. A book was written to rebut Lindsey by Jewish reconstructionist Steve Schlissel. Strangely, Schlissel's book (Hal Lindsey & The Restoration of the Jews) ended up supporting Lindsey's thesis that replacement theology produced anti-Semitism in the past and could in the future. Schlissel seems to share Lindsey's basic view on the rise and development of anti-Semitism within the history of the church. After giving his readers an overview of the history of anti-Semitism through Origen, Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Jerome, Schlissel then quotes approvingly Raul Hilberg's famous quote included in Lindsey's Holocaust.
Viewing the plight of the Jews in Christian lands from the fourth century to the recent holocaust, one Jew observed, "First we were told 'You're not good enough to live among us as Jews.' Then we were told, 'You're not good enough to live among us.' Finally we were told, 'You're not good enough to live.'"6
Schlissel then comments approvingly upon Hilberg's statement,
This devastatingly accurate historical analysis was the fruit of an error, a building of prejudice and hate erected upon a false theological foundation. The blindness of the church regarding the place of the Jew in redemptive history is, I believe, directly responsible for the wicked sins and attitudes described above. What the church believes about the Jews has always made a difference. But the church has not always believed a lie.7
The truth, noted by Schlissel, is what his other reconstructionist brethren deny. What Schlissel has called a lie is the replacement theology that his preterist reconstructionist brethren advocate. Their form of replacement theology is the problem. Schlissel goes on to show that the Reformed church of Europe, after the Reformation, widely adopted the belief that God's future plan for Israel includes a national restoration of Israel. Many even taught that Israel would one day rebuild her Temple. For his Reformed brethren to arrive at such conclusions meant that they were interpreting the Old Testament promises to Israel literally, at least some of them. This shift from replacement theology to a national future for Israel resulted in a decline in persecution of the Jews in many Reformed communities and increased efforts in Jewish evangelism. Schlissel notes:
the change in the fortune of the Jews in Western civilization can be traced, not to humanism, but to the Reformed faith. The rediscovery of Scripture brought a rekindling of the Biblical conviction that God had not, in fact, fully nor finally rejected His people.8
Yet Schlissel is concerned that his Reformed brethren are abandoning this future national hope for Israel as they currently reassert a strong view of replacement theology.
Whatever views were maintained as to Israel's political restoration, their spiritual future was simply a given in Reformed circles. Ironically, this sure and certain hope is not a truth kept burning brightly in many Christian Reformed Churches today, . . . In fact, their future conversion aside, the Jews' very existence is rarely referred to today, and even then it is not with much grace or balance.9
This extract establishes that the "spiritualized" notion of "Israel" in Rom 11:25, 26, was known to and rejected by the body of Dutch expositors. . . .
Since the turn of the century, most modern Dutch Reformed, following Kuyper and Bavinck, reject this historic position.10
Reconstructionist Schlissel seems to think that part of the reason why many of his Reformed brethren are returning to replacement theology is due to their reaction to the strong emphasis of a future for Israel as a nation found within dispensational premillennialism. Yet, dispensational premillennialism developed within the Reformed tradition as many began to consistently take all the Old Testament promises that were yet fulfilled for Israel as still valid for a future Jewish nation. Schlissel complains:
just a century ago all classes of Reformed interpreters held to the certainty of the future conversion of Israel as a nation. How they have come, to a frightening extent, to depart from their historic positions regarding the certainty of Israel's future conversion is not our subject here. . . . the hope of the future conversion of the Jews became closely linked, at the turn of the century and beyond, with Premillennial Dispensationalism, an eschatological heresy. This, necessarily, one might say, soon became bound up and confused with Zionism. Christians waxed loud about the return of the Jews to Israel being a portent that the Second Coming is high. It thus seemed impossible, for many, to distinguish between the spiritual hope of Israel and their political "hope." Many Reformed, therefore, abandoned both.11
As it should be, the nature of Israel's future became the watershed issue in biblical interpretation which caused a polarization of positions that we find today. As Schlissel noted, "all classes of Reformed interpreters held to the certainty of the future conversion of Israel as a nation." Today most Reformed interpreters do not hold such a view. Why? Early in the systemization of any theological position the issues are undeveloped and less clear than later when the consistency of various positions are worked out. Thus it is natural for the mature understanding of any theological issue to lead to polarization of viewpoints as a result of interaction and debate between positions. The earlier Reformed position to which Schlissel refers included a blend of some Old Testament passages that were taken literally (i.e., those teaching a future conversion of Israel as a nation) and some that were not (i.e., details of Israel's place of dominance during a future period of history). On the one hand, as time passed, those who stressed a literal understanding of Israel from the Old Testament became much more consistent in applying such an approach to all passages relating to Israel's destiny. On the other hand, those who thought literalism was taken too far retreated from whatever degree of literalness they did have and argued that the church fulfills Israel's promises, thus there was no need for a national Israel in the future. Further, non-literal interpretation was viewed as the tool with which liberals denied the essentials of the faith. Thus, by World War II dispensationalism had come to virtually dominate evangelicals who saw literal interpretation of the Bible as a primary support for orthodoxy.
After World War II many of the battles between fundamentalism and liberalism began to wane. Such an environment allowed for less stigma attached to non literal interpretation within conservative circles. Thus, by the '70s, not having learned the lessons of history, we began to see the revival of many prophetic views that were returning to blends of literal and spiritual interpretation. As conservative postmillennialism has risen from near extinction in recent years, it did not return to the mixed hermeneutics of 100 years ago, which Schlissel longs for, but instead, it has been wedded with preterism in hopes that it can combat the logic of dispensational futurism. Schlissel's Reformed brethren do not appear to be concerned that, in preterism, they have revived a brand of eschatology which includes one of the most hard-core forms of replacement theology. And they do not appear convinced or concerned that replacement theology has a history of producing theological anti-Semitism when mixed with the right social and political conditions. In fact, Schlissel himself preached a sermon a few years ago in which he identified James Jordan, a Reformed preterist, as advancing an anti-Semitic view of Bible prophecy.12
What one believes about the future of Israel is of utmost importance to one's understanding of the Bible. I believe, without a shadow of doubt, that Old Testament promises made to national Israel will literally be fulfilled in the future. This means the Bible teaches that God will return the Jews to their land before the tribulation begins (Isa. 11:11-12:6; Ezek. 20:33-44; 22:17-22; Zeph. 2:1-3). This has been accomplished and the stage is set as a result of the current existence of the modern state of Israel. The Bible also indicates that before Israel enters into her time of national blessing she must first pass through the fire of the tribulation (Deut. 4:30; Jer. 30:5-9; Dan. 12:1; Zeph. 1:14-18). Even though the horrors of the Holocaust under Hitler were of an unimaginable magnitude, the Bible teaches that a time of even greater trial awaits Israel during the tribulation. Anti-Semitism will reach new heights, this time global in scope, in which two-thirds of world Jewry will be killed (Zech. 13:7-9; Rev. 12). Through this time God will protect His remnant so that before His second advent "all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:36). In fact, the second coming will include the purpose of God's physical rescue of Israel from world persecution during Armageddon (Dan. 12:1; Zech. 12-14; Matt. 24:29-31; Rev. 19:11-21).
If national Israel is a historical "has been," then all of this is obviously wrong. However, the Bible says she has a future and world events will revolve around that tiny nation at the center of the earth. The world's focus already is upon Israel. God has preserved His people for a reason and it is not all bad. In spite of the fact that history is progressing along the lines of God's ordained pattern for Israel, we see the revival of replacement theology within conservative circles that will no doubt be used in the future to fuel the fires of anti-Semitism, as it has in the past. Your view of the future of national Israel is not just an academic exercise. I beg everyone influenced by this article to cast your allegiance with the literal Word of God lest we be found fighting against God and His Sovereign plan. W
1 For a definition of terms and labels used in this article consult the Glossary in Thomas Ice & Timothy Demy, editors, When the Trumpet Sounds: Today's Foremost Authorities Speak Out on End-Time Controversies (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1995), pp. 473-4.
2 David Chilton, Paradise Restored (Tyler, TX: Reconstruction Press, 1985), p. 224. 3 Ibid.
4 Rousas John Rushdoony, Thy Kingdom Come: Studies in Daniel and Revelation (Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press, 1970), p. 82.
5 Ibid., p. 134.
6 Steve Schlissel & David Brown, Hal Lindsey & The Restoration of the Jews (Edmonton, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, 1990), p. 47. For a survey of the history of anti-Semitism in the Church see David Rausch, Building Bridges: Understanding Jews and Judaism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988), pp. 87-171. 7Ibid., pp. 47-48. 8Ibid., p. 59. 9Ibid., p. 42. 10Ibid., pp. 49-50. 11Ibid., pp. 39-40.
12 Steve Schlissel, The Jews/Jordan & Jerusalem, an audio tape obtained from Still Waters Revival Books, 4710 - 37A Ave., Edmonton, AB T6L 3T5, CANADA.
On top of that, consider that Esau and Jacob were twins. Now if they were identical twins, they have the same DNA.
Say you find a group of isolated Yemen tribesmen, and you test their paternal DNA. Up it comes identical to what you claim is Jacob's, but is it? Maybe they are descended from Esau.
It's just a whole big can of worms, and Israel can't be numbered unless the Lord says so.
Furthermore, how can you different any DNA still in the world from fathers and brothers of Abraham?
You just do not want to concede that the seed of Abraham (the one Seed) that inherits the promise is a spiritual son, a son like unto Abel, a son like unto Moses, a son like unto Isaac, a son like unto Jacob, a son like unto Ephraim, and a son of the firstborn spiritually like unto Jesus, and that's the lesson of the bible, no matter what you want to believe.
Say you find a group of isolated Yemen tribesmen, and you test their paternal DNA. Up it comes identical to what you claim is Jacob's, but is it? Maybe they are descended from Esau.
It's just a whole big can of worms, and Israel can't be numbered unless the Lord says so. Furthermore, how can you different any DNA still in the world from fathers and brothers of Abraham?
You just do not want to concede that the seed of Abraham (the one Seed) that inherits the promise is a spiritual son, a son like unto Abel, a son like unto Moses, a son like unto Isaac, a son like unto Jacob, a son like unto Ephraim, and a son of the firstborn spiritually like unto Jesus, and that's the lesson of the bible, no matter what you want to believe.
Great post. Amen! To predicate salvation or God's favor on DNA sequencing is preposterous. It harkens back to all sorts of cultic errors.
"...all one in Christ Jesus."
It could also possibly be the generation after the six day war in 1963, I believe. I read that 'theory' once myself. We'll soon know, I think.
Appreciate your continued respect for Judaism.
I very much hope you'll be among those blessed
for blessing Israel.
Disagree. 6 million of the world's apprx 13 million Jews live in Israel. If you're against the existence of 6 million Jews you're pretty much anti-semetic.
Anti-zionism differs from other expressions of anti-semitism only in which aspect of Jewish identity it chooses to hate. Those medival Christians who burned Jews alive also claimed (and perhaps sincerely) that they did not oppose all Jews, only those Jews who insisted on retaining their Jewish religious beliefs and practices. Anti-zionists make the identical claim, differing in only which Jewish belief motivates them to oppose Jews. While supporting or actually engaging in the killing of Jews and attempts to destroy the Jewish state, antizionists, like those medival anti-semites deny despising all Jews; they only despise those Jews who insist upon retaining their Jewish national beliefs and homeland. And just as there were a few medival Jews who gave up loyalty to the Jewish religion and were spared the hatred of Christian anti-semites, so today there are a few Jews who do not identify with Jewish nationhood and are spared the hatred of anti-zionists.
In fact, Adolph Hitler and the Nazis were the only anti-semites in history to admit to hating all Jews, no matter what their religious or national beliefs. All other anti-semites, like the anti-zionists, have claimed to hate only those Jews who held certain Jewish beliefs. Unless the Nazis are to be considered the only anti-semites in history, anti-zionists are as anti-semetic as every other type of anti-semite. Only their motivation may differ. Like all other anti-semites, anti-zionists are at war with nearly every Jew (nearly every Jew has some sense of Jewish national identity and supports Israel's right to exist).
I don't hate any Jews anywhere, and it's wrong of you to say this about people on this forum.
People should be able to profess theological differences without slandering each other.
Like all other anti-semites, anti-zionists are at war with nearly every Jew (nearly every Jew has some sense of Jewish national identity and supports Israel's right to exist).
So far in these discussions I've heard exactly ZERO persons deny "Israel's right to exist," no matter how many times you try to say otherwise.
I think its the generation that begins to see the signs that relate to the end, about which Jesus was talking in Mt 24 and Lu 21.
2. Politically, they are our ally in the Mid-East, and perhaps one of only 3 sure allies in the entire world.
3. They are the only true democracy in their part of the world.
The above statement in my previous post is what you should chew on for awhile.
According to the futurist dispensationalist theory, He loves them so much that two-thirds of them will be killed in a massive holocaust after the church is raptured from the scene. This is the non-elect portion of Israel. Of the elect we are supposedly told that "for their sake" the days of the future holocaust, the great tribulaiton, will be cut short. But again that is only after two-thirds of the Jews have already been killed.
The non-dispensational hope is that all of the elect from both Israel and from among the gentiles will come to a saving knowledge of Christ has He has determined according to His predetermined plan, foreknowledge, and sovereign will. It is not dependent on some end-times geopolitical fiasco.
"They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord As the waters cover the sea." (Isa. 11:9)
"And so all Israel will be saved."
Theories and speculation to excite the senses. That's all we seem to have working here.
You can't say for sure if it was 1948, or 1968, or 1973, or 1988, or 1998, or ... because everytime a date comes and goes you need to revise the theory.
I'm just glad Jesus and the apostles were not so speculative as modern day prophecy preachers selling their books and videos.
As has been pointed out, you think God loves them so much that He killed 2/3rds of them in the past.
You also think that God who loved the world so much is going to destroy it with fire, don't you?
You think He's sending folks to hell "where the fire is not quenced and their worm does not die."
LOL.
I can deal with it. I think all kinds of bad things happen every single day of the year. The Croc Hunter was killed yesterday by a stingray barb.
According to the futurist dispensationalist theory, He loves them so much that two-thirds of them will be killed in a massive holocaust after the church is raptured from the scene.
One of these things is not like the other...
It requires no date.
When that generation sees those signs then that is the generation that will not pass away until the rest is fulfilled. Pretty simple grammar, paragraphing, and theme, if you ask me.
Exactly! The Puritans had it right. Today I will toil in the light of the Lord.
No one here is against the independent, U.S.-allied, autonomous state of Israel.
No one. No matter how much you want to frame the debate in political terms.
Show me one member of the discussions here who says Israel as a state does not have as much right to exist as England or Guam.
I don't know some of these people well enough to say that, DrE. For all I know, TC & 1000fish would vote with the PCUSA for the demise of Israel. I'll let them speak to it themselves if they wish to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.