What do you do with a future National Israel in the Bible?

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

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.

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.

Does not 2/3rds of the entire earth die in this holocaust ? Does not Jesus say that ... "If He had not shortened the days', ... there would have been no flesh saved" ? Matthew 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for

Not according to the context of Matthew 24:

"Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. ... And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. ... Therefore if they say to you, 'Look, He is in the desert!' do not go out; or 'Look, He is in the inner rooms!' do not believe it." (vv. 15-17,20,26)

If this is a universal tribulation, why does Jesus only give warning to those living in Judea and why speak of the Jewish sabbath? Is anyone in Iowa or Colombia going to care if it is the Jewish sabbath or not? (Even in today's Israel they manage to carry on a war on the sabbath.) Are there any deserts in, say, Alaska or Vietnam where folks will desire to go searching for the Christ?

Obviously it is a fundamental misinterpretion to suggest that the geographical context of Matthew 24 is anything other than earthly Jerusalem and her immediate surroundings in the 1st century.

Death is death. All men (and women) die.

True, but that has no eschatological bearing on the futurist scenario. It is hardly restricted to the "end times".

Sometimes "wise unbelievers" show a lot more smarts about these things that "true believers" of the radio preachers. Especially when they can view the horrible track record of these "prophecy preachers" over the last 100 years or so.

Well I'm gonna go out on a limb here and prophesy that there will be many more "prophesy preachers" who get it wrong in the future. Anyone who picks dates is going to be wrong as Jesus said he comes at a time "when ye think not". When people pick days and it is broadcast to the world, I can pretty much state for a fact that it ain't gonna happen on that day.

That being said, the fact that people get too enthusiatic or too convinced that this event or that event is the "sign" does not detract from the futurist position, i.e., that Christ will come for his church and that Christ will establish a future kingdom on this earth that will last for 1000 years after which will come the final judgment.

"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)

I sat in Calvary Chapel back in the early seventies and cringed when Chuck made such statements. He was "convinced", but then he was wrong. But him being wrong does not make you right. Your position is contingent upon Christ returning in 70AD in some kind of invisible way. You rag on the Jehovah's Witnesses because of their eschatology, however the same arguments that I have used against them for their so-called 1917 invisible return of Christ can be used against you preterists for your belief in an invisible return in 70AD.

None of us here are advocating any date setting, yet you continually bring up references to those who do or have set dates. Setting dates is taking the futurist eschatology too far. But then you have set a date, 70AD. I don't think you can set that date either. That date came and passed and there is no visible sign of Jesus promised return.

And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Acts 1:10-11 KJV)

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. (Revelation 1:7 KJV)

I cannot pick out from it, though, your answer to the question, "Is God culpable for the murder of those 6 million Jews?"

cul·pa·ble (adj.): Deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious. See synonyms at blameworthy.

blame·wor·thy (adj.): Deserving blame; reprehensible.

"God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." (Westminster Confession of Faith, 3:1)

Hope that helps along with my explanation of the theological distinction between Nazi holocaust Jews and futurist dispensationalist holocaust Jews.

***Why don't you show us the error in the fig tree parable?***

Jesus gives them signs to look for for three things.
The destruction of the temple.
His return.
The end of the age.

He then gives them an illustration of how they look for signs to see the seasons changing, the fig tree AND ALL THE TREES putting forth shoots as a sign that summer is near.
That is all it is, nothing more. Read it for yourself.

Even Tim LaHay put a disclaimer on this with the words, "SOME prophecy students see it as a sign..."
If the fig tree is a symbol of Israel what do "all the trees" represent?

When Israel was made a nation in 1948 prophecy addicts went bonkers. 25 years till Christ's return! Then 30. 40. 50 years.
Then they switched. "It's not 1948", they said. "It is 1967 when Israel took over the temple mount!"
New dates ahead!

Learn what Christ has for us today. Tomorrow is speculation.

I sat in Calvary Chapel back in the early seventies and cringed when Chuck made such statements. He was "convinced", but then he was wrong.

Amen.

But him being wrong does not make you right.

Quite true.

None of us here are advocating any date setting, yet you continually bring up references to those who do or have set dates.

Also long as y'all are focusing on 1948 Israel and events in the middle east and saying they absolutely are a fulfillment of definite biblical prophecy, I'm afraid the tendancy is there for date setting. The basic approach to what got Lindsey and Smith in trouble is still there within some quarters of dispensationalism, esp. the pop variety on televison and radio. The progressives have managed to distance themselves for the carnal speculation of their classic and neo brethren.

Setting dates is taking the futurist eschatology too far.

Preach it.

But then you have set a date, 70AD.

That's not my date. It's God. I was nowhere around when Jesus made His prophecy regarding "this generation" that killed the prophets and the "son of the landowner". I was also not around when God used Rome to sack Jerusalem, destroy the temple, and end the sacrifices and levitical system of the Jews thus putting an end to the decayed and failing first (old) covenant (Heb. 8:13).

Amen. A great preterist postmil text if I ever saw one. Jesus will return and every eye will see Him. Not secretly for His church. Not in judgment against the future Jews when two-thirds are killed. But once to raise the quick and the dead, to judge the nations and offer them up to the Father, to cast Satan and Hades into the Lake of Fire, and to usher in His eternal kingdom.

But before this all happen all of God's elect will be gathered together from the four corners into His church. Both Jews ("All Israel will be saved") and gentiles into the Root, Jesus Christ, the Seed of Abraham. "A great multitude which no man could number."

"They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." (Isa. 11:9)

Does not 2/3rds of the entire earth die in this holocaust ? Does not Jesus say that ... "If He had not shortened the days', ... there would have been no flesh saved" ? Matthew 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for ...

Not according to the context of Matthew 24:

If this is a universal tribulation, why does Jesus only give warning to those living in Judea and why speak of the Jewish sabbath? Is anyone in Iowa or Colombia going to care if it is the Jewish sabbath or not? (Even in today's Israel they manage to carry on a war on the sabbath.) Are there any deserts in, say, Alaska or Vietnam where folks will desire to go searching for the Christ?

Does Jesus ever speak directly to Iowans, Alaskans, or Vietnamese ?

All of Jesus' teachings were delivered to the Jews, ... and it is through the Jews that we have received them ... no ?

Obviously it is a fundamental misinterpretion to suggest that the geographical context of Matthew 24 is anything other than earthly Jerusalem and her immediate surroundings in the 1st century.

Does your eschatology include the writing of the Revelation ?
Revelation 9:15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.

16 And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.

17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.

18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.

Why would He allow such a thing? Isn't that unjust?

If it were God's will to stop every human injustice He would have destroyed the earth many, many years ago.

But that does not help you to interpret the dispensationist reading of Zech. 13:8,9. Tell us plainly why does God destroy the "two-thirds" in the futurist holocaust? Did He not predict it? Did He not also give reasons?

I realize you may be uncomfortable with the implication of your answer, but I think it will be therapeutic for you to lay it all out.

You are starting to see where this is all going, you just need to accept the fact of this futurist house of cards and flee from it as fast as you can. There is hope for you yet.

The reason that contemporary Christians continue to fail in understanding the disposition of the nation of Israel is due to their failure to rightly divide the Word of God and specifically in the category of Biblical Administrations.

All that is in the Bible is to be understood in light of the fact that it is God's communication to mankind as to how he deals with his "invention" the creation and his children, mankind.

If there is an instruction from God as to how he is dealing with man, it will be stated in scripture and will continue until such time as he alters that method by instituting a new or different standard, again indicated by scripture.

Before the Law, God dealt with man through his chosen men called prophets referred to in the Bible as the Patriarchs. This marks the Patriarchal Administration. One had to obey or follow them to be in line with God.

When the Law was introduced the Administration changed referred to as the Law Administration. One had to obey or follow the Law to be in line with God.

With the coming of Christ, at the time his ministry began, one then had to follow God's "prophet" Christ the Son of God, known as the Christ Administration. This Administration terminated with Christ's death, resurrection, assention, and finally the offering of the Holy Spirit, God's Gift to man on the day of Pentecost.

What most Christians have failed to note at this point is a change in Administrations again explained to man in the Epistles by Paul. The reason that the followers of God became known as Christians was because of the teaching by Paul by revelation from God that believers had Christ in them. Christ-in, Christ-in, Christians. That is how the name Christan came to be used. Again a new or different concept from God in how God chose to deal with man. Again a new Administration called the Administration (or Age) of Grace.

Since the fall of man due to Adam's disobedience, God went about to restore the relationship with God and man that Adam lost affecting all of mankind. Because a man, Adam, had broken the relationship due to accomplishments of error (sin), it had to be a man again, through the accomplishments of obedience to "win back" the relationship on behalf of mankind according to a plan mapped out by God.

In the Bible one notes that God deals with mankind via a Nation, Israel, with a view to the appearance and accomplishments of Christ the obedient/perfect man, whom through his obedience and accomplishments restored the broken relationship between God and mankind. Formerly God had dealt with a Nation, Israel, as part of this plan until Christ. One has to acknowledge that God does not deal with a Nation, Israel (or any other), until the times described in the book of Revelation where God again deals with mankind through a Nation, Israel. The only dealings with Israel as a Nation that occur after Christ, and before the times of Revelation, is for Israel to "convert" to the knowledge taught by the Apostle Paul in the Epistles, Christianity, during the Administration of Grace. During this Administration, God does not deal with mankind via a Nation until the Revelation Administration begins with Christ's return, indicated in the Book of Revelation. In this gap of time the Nation of Israel is no more God's "chosen" people than the Apaches. All mankind, in order to be in line with God must follow or obey the Word of God given to the Apostle Paul noted in the Epistles. God will again deal with man via a Nation, but not until ALL the events that he describes, that mark that change, take place.

With this as your understanding, your Bible fits together and makes sense. With each new Administration comes its own set of guide lines, standards, "Laws" (if you will) for man to obey for him to be in line with God. One cannot use the "rules" of one Administration and apply them to another Administration of a different time frame and yet remain in alignment with God. Each Administration stands on its own drawing off of a former Administration for knowledge and learning purposes only, not necessarily for application.

Thankfully, we know from Scripture that all these dire predictions are a myth. Israel, the Jewish people, will continue to come to faith in Jesus Christ along with many gentiles as the gospel continues to go forth over the entire earth. They will be as branches regrafted into the root, Jesus Christ, and give evidence of the faith of their ancient father, Abraham.

"I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing." (John 15:5)

"And again, Isaiah says: 'There shall be a root of Jesse; And He who shall rise to reign over the Gentiles, In Him the Gentiles shall hope.'" (Rom. 15:12)

""I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star." (Rev. 22:16)

So when the fullness of the gentiles has come in, all Israel will be saved, not via the futurist unprecedented holocaust, but by the power of the Holy Spirit in raising dead souls to new life in Christ.

AMEN!!!

Through all this foolishness and guessing games and trivial pursuit, there is only one truth.

"But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." -- Matthew 12:39-40

The only sign we need is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Thank you for your reply!

And God was perfectly justified in doing so.

The above statement makes my point.

God is Truth - therefore whatever He does is "just" simply because He does it.

For man to suggest otherwise indicates an "attitude" problem, IMHO.

In this example, the Noah flood, some might question what is "just" about the death of the infants which occurred in that holocaust. In the same way they may ask what was "just" about the Nazi holocaust - or the Revelation prophesied holocaust.

So so tell, what abomination do these two-thirds of the Jews commit that God would exterminate them in the great futurist holocaust?

Attitude is the reason I reject your theology out-of-hand.

Why do you pick against the implications of this theology plainly taught by a generation of futurist dispensationalists without apology?

I eschew all the doctrines and tradition of men, see this post for more.

But I more vigorously reject this particular view of the theology of others because of the attitude.

Loving God absolutely (Matthew 22) means wanting His will to be done, His kingdom to come, His name to be hallowed. It is absolute unconditional surrender to Him – not questioning whether He is “just” in this or that, no complaints and no wants outside of His will.

There appears to be a fixation on 2/3rds of Israel being destroyed.

It's merely a distraction. Replacement theology in all its stripes (including preterism) has been taking a beating over the last few decades because of the historical fact that rejection of the Jewish people as a nation particularly chosen by God is directly linked to antisemetism, whereas premillennialism has no such baggage. So to get around this little PR problem, the new tactic of the preterists seems to be to accuse premills of "rooting for" another holocaust for our own selfish reasons.

There are numerous problems with this tact, of course. First, it fails to distinguish anticipation of a prophesied event from rooting for the deaths such an event will bring. One wonders if the preterists apply this standard to themselves; i.e., are they cheering for the deaths of the Jews in Jerusalem in 70 and 135 AD? I would wager that most would deny doing so; they are merely recognizing that the Lord prophesied the destruction and the reason for it. Which brings one to wonder why they apply a different standard to premills.

Second, it's merely a faulty appeal to the consequences of a belief: "Premill can't be true because if it is true, 2/3rds of the Jewish people will die in the future." Yes, and?

Third, it fails to acknowledge that premills anticipate a holocaust of more than just the Jews. Those of a prewrath or posttrib persuation, like myself, believe that the Church will be persecuted right alongside Israel. Those of a pretrib POV believe that there will be Gentile "tribulation saints"--a post-Rapture Church, in effect--who will suffer the same. We are not masochistially rooting for our own persecution or that of the Gentiles who are "Left Behind"--we simply believe it to be a Biblical matter-of-fact that we will be.

The secondary part of this argument is that in order to "bring about" our eschatology, premills are manipulating Israel into a position to be annihilated so that God will have to intervene. Hardly. We encourage Israel to take a strong military stance because that is the ONLY thing keeping her enemies at bay. Those who believe that by being more reconilliary Israel can somehow appease her neighbors who have called for her destruction--"land for peace," aka "land piece-by-piece"--are either politically naive beyond belief or find a national Israel once again sitting in the Land that God gave to her fathers to be such an embarrassment to their belief systems that they are unconciously or otherwise hoping to see the Jews driven out again, or at least so humbled that they can point and say, "See, God isn't blessing them!"

Those who talk about or allude that Israel's very existence will bring death and destruction to the Jewish people are historically naive--when have the Jews ever known a permanent peace in dispersion among the Gentiles, especially those who claim to follow a Jewish Messiah? The Jews had been quietly buying up property in Palestine for more than a century before 1948 precisely because they recognized that they needed a land where Jews could be Jews without being forced to wear yellow Stars of David or forbidden to persue certain professions or own land, where they could defend themselves by force of arms if necessary.

It is truly sad that at a time when all Christendom should be celebrating together the fulfillment of prophecy and the regathering of Israel, some here are so wed to a failed eschatology (which fails on both the exegetical and historical levels) that they try to find reasons not to believe.

You know, sort of how some of the Pharisees went looking for reasons not to believe that prophecy was being fulfilled in their time.

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.