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.
This is a curious statement for a dispensationalist, since a central tenet of dispensationalism is the "secret rapture" of Jesus when He "descends from heaven" for His church seven years before His visible second coming. And then we are supposed to believe there will be 144,000 Jewish evangelists running around telling about this "secret coming" and how to prepare for the real second coming. There is a disconnect which I'm sure you have rationalized in your system.
Maybe it's just semi-secret. Will unbelievers be able to see Jesus when He comes secretly for His church? Will unbelievers be able to witness bodies shooting up out of the ground and vanishing into thin air, but not actually see Jesus in bodily form? Perhaps you can exegete a passage or two to explain all this to us.
For the record, I'm not endorsing any "secret" second comings of Jesus.
No, do you have any verses in mind (playing devil's advocate)?
But we do know that some of the wise men that came to Israel were killed by the apostate Jews. This fact played into the judgment of national Israel in AD70.
"Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, ... Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation." (Matt. 23:34,36)
There's that pesky phrase "this generation" again. With all the details Jesus gives about the persecution against God's holy messengers in the 1st century, you would almost believe when He speaks of judgment that He had a temporal judgment against Israel of that day in mind. Of course that concept would all disappear once you read Scofield's Notes. Now we know He was really referring to a judgment against a group of people thousands of years in the future and far removed from that situation with no link to killing the prophets or the "son of the landowner". Their only connection of these future Jews to the guilty Jews of that day is a familial/racial thing. Sounds strangely like the views of Medieval "Christians" who killed Jews simply because they were Jews.
The scripture is the authority.
Jesus touches down on Mt of Olives and a great earthquake happens. That is His touchdown return to earth. (Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.")
One possible interpretation says this COULD be different than the scriptural account of Jesus coming in the clouds to receive believers in the rapture.
It is no secret coming. It's a possible BIBLICAL interpretation of His joyous reception of His Church. It separates the pre-trib rapturists and the post-trib rapturists. Both of those groups are premillennial and dispensational.
There are pro's and con's to either position.
Maybe you don't believe in a future literal coming again of the Lord Jesus Christ, huh? Maybe we should number you among the "wise unbelievers"?
You may wish to take another look at my tagline. Calvinists are standard, creedal, orthodox Christians before anything else, who anticipate the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting, Amen, when Jesus returns, physically.
You have no business questioning my standing with God, just because I question the sanity of your eschatological position. Indeed, I have good grounds for questioning the validity of any eschatological position that makes its adherents de facto cheerleaders for the other team. It is sad, but dispensationalism corrupts something good, a love for Jesus, a desire to see Him, into something hideous -- a drooling lust to see bad things happen to our neighbors.
I would think that a Biblical, Christ-honoring perspective would look for ways to serve as salt and light, to redeem the culture God has embedded us in.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal!
I'd far rather be in the company of such "crazies" as Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, John the Baptist, Jesus, etc.
The foolishness of God is wiser than men.
Absolutely.
One possible interpretation says this COULD be different than the scriptural account of Jesus coming in the clouds to receive believers in the rapture.
So you seem to be admitting that Jesus' "coming in clouds" may not be witnessed by all men on the earth. Is that correct?
It is no secret coming.
Depends on whether or not everyone sees it. No?
It is a matter of the touchdown on Mt Olives. (Sorry, Notre Dame, this is the real "Touchdown Jesus.")
I'm not sure you're familiar with these issues, so your questions appear to be off the mark.
***As a wise unbeliever who researched apocalyptic psychology discovered, those folks who obsess on fortune-telling do so to compensate for deep emotional pain. By projecting their paralyzing internal turmoil against an imaginary global canvas, they justify their own sorry condition. No need to embrace God's present mercies, His available, humbling grace. Just fantasize about a sudden, painless, reversal of the status quo "any day now!"***
I had a dear friend who suddenly broke fellowship with us about ten years ago. She said she thought "they" were after her to force her to take the "mark of the beast" and she feared she might "out" other Christians she knew.
Twenty five years ago another friend knew we were in the "Last days". I showed him his error in the "fig tree parable and he refused to believe it.
Today he has put all his children through school and is building himself a monstrosity of a house on a lot of earth near here. The end times didn't end.
I collect lots of "end times" books going way back. All have been in error.
I'm quite familiar with these issues. That's what doesn't make any sense, esp. in the traditional dispensationallist pretrib scheme.
Let start from the beginning with the dispensationalists presuppositions.
How did I do?
Now, what was off the mark according to this outline?
Bad theology is a harsh taskmaster. People with a faulty doctrine of healing have watched children die in diabetic comas in order to vinidcate their "faith." People with a faulty eschatology have brought reproach upon the gospel, by reinforcing the image we have of being useless "chicken littles." While we were fixated on the pretty maps of the future, the secular humanists swiped our kids right out from under our noses. When Roe v. Wade was initially argued in the backyard of DTS, they completely missed the significance of the event. They were too busy with their fortune telling to speak prophetically.
Psychotic behavior is not limited to dispensationalists.
That being said, I'm sure a lot of people thought John the Baptist was a crazy as a loon.
Twenty five years ago another friend knew we were in the "Last days".
I hate to break the news to you Ruy, but we are in the last days. (Heb 1:2).
I showed him his error in the "fig tree parable and he refused to believe it.
Why don't you show us the error in the fig tree parable?
"From my understanding of biblical prophesies, I'm convinced that the Lord is coming for His Church before the end of 1981." (Chuck Smith, Future Survival, 1978)
The end is real near ... soon enough ... once again ... get ready for the great snatch ... once again.
"Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves."
**folks with a realistic and proper Biblical perspective about THESE BIBLICALLY PREDICTED END TIMES IN OUR ERA are a LOT healthier than the tidy little boxed anal retentive types who obsess over narrow rigid 'traditionalist tinged' private interpretation constructions on Scriptural themes.***
You mean like the local people who went out and maxed out their credit cards and bought luxury cars in 1988 because they they would not have to pay for them. They knew Christ would return in September of that year because Edgar Whisenant said so.(88 reasons why the Rapture will be in 1988)
Or those who in 1977 predicted the soon return of Christ,(SOON COMING WORLD SHAKING EVENTS) or Chick Publications that said about twenty years ago that Christ would return "IN your lifetime!"
Or the two page add that perdicted the destruction of Israel in 1984 with the headlines...
OCT 1983-UNIV. EARTHQUQAKE
OCT 1984 APOSTOLIC MILLENIUM.
Too many failures has caused some to start grasping at millenial straws and accepting almost anything put out in the name of religion.
The claim in the 1980's that Russia and China (who have great air sea and land capabilities to fight mechanized warfare) were buying up millions of horses for the invasion of Israel.
or the claim in 1977 that the USSR had developed a new tank armor called "ligno-stone" that was made of compressed wood. This was to be the weapons that Israel would burn for fuel for seven years.
And who can forget APOCOLYPSE 2000,
And now Hagee's book recycling the same stuff from the last 50 years.
Relgion aside, I support Israel as a place Jews can go if their current homeland betrays them.
Almost everywhere they have lived, Jews have been betrayed and persecuted. The only exception, so far, has been the USA.
If it were not the need for a Jewish homeland, the Jews should come to America. The US has cities larger than Israel and plenty of room for them. (Downside would be a lot of new Democrats - Israel is a socialist state...).
But that ain't gonna happen. Jews have good reasons not to trust any nation but their own.
Futurist "last days" are not the same as biblical "last days". Futurists believe we are in the "last days" because of the events of 1948 and beyond. They are convinved from reading the evening newspaper, not necessarily the Bible alone.
I think you know that.
If people scoff at you because you believe in the literal fulfillment of prophecy, then you are in good company.
= = = =
Christ and His Spirit and The Father would be sufficient. But it's great when like minded precious brothers and sisters concur!
Your misunderstanding of these issues is probably why your questions and comments are off the mark.
Once again you folks are confusing our repudiation of your carnal views on the future of Israel and the millennial kingdom with our affirmation of the biblical view of Christ's future second coming.
== == == ==
Hmmmmmmm . . . Guess I'd somehow missed how 'schizophrenic' the position was:
1. All the END TIMES prophecies were fulfilled in 70AD
EXCEPT
2. Christ's Return in Power and Majesty.
Fascinating construction on reality. Wholesale arbitrary and illogical . . . but fascinating.
What matters is how faithful our views are to Scripture.
= = = =
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
Very comforting vis a vis our position on the END TIMES prophecies.
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.