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.
Excellent post. Thank you.
Not exactly. Context defines the meaning.
... then we have to find a time in history before 70AD when 2/3rds of the Church was "slaughtered."
More silliness.
... But Jesus warned the Christians to flee Jerusalem so they would NOT get slaughtered. And they listened to Him.
By "Christians" in this context I assume you mean "Jewish believers in Messiah Jesus". That's who Jesus was speaking to in Matthew 24. They are the ones told to "flee to the mountains". (Which they did, BTW. Your futurist friends would have been telling them to stay put cuz the "great tribulation" wasn't going to happen for at least another 2000 years. "Don't worry, this Rome thing will all blow over.")
Josephus, (not a Christian source), records that the dead in Jerusalem numbered over one million souls.
Now the number of those that were carried captive during the whole war was collected to be ninety-seven thousand ; as was the number of those that perished during the whole siege, eleven hundred thousand, the greater part of whom were indeed of the same nation, [with the citizens of Jerusalem,] but not belonging to the city itself; for they were come up from all the country to the feast of unleavened bread, and were on a sudden shut up by an army , which, at the very first, occasioned so great a straitness among them, that there came a pestilential destruction upon them, and soon afterward such a famine as destroyed them more suddenly.That number is greater than the normal population of the city, but he goes on to estimate the population because of the feasts could at times get as high at "two millions seven hundred thousand and two hundred persons that were pure and holy".
Now it is amazing that if you do some quick math you'll see that it is quite plausible to see the "two-thirds" fit within the Zech. 13 prophecy and fulfilled in AD70.
But what happened to the other one-third?
Well, based on Jesus' clear warnings to His Jewish followers they would have been long gone. In fact Josephus records that between the attack of Vespasian and the seige under Titus, that many left the city.
Verse 16. Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains— This counsel was remembered and wisely followed by the Christians afterwards. Eusebius and Epiphanius say, that at this juncture, after Cestius Gallus had raised the siege, and Vespasian was approaching with his army, all who believed in Christ left Jerusalem and fled to Pella, and other places beyond the river Jordan; and so they all marvellously escaped the general shipwreck of their country: not one of them perished. See on Matthew 24:13. (Adam Clarke, Commentary On Matthew 24)Jewish believers would have no reason to be in Jerusalem for the feast since they saw Christ as the True Passover and fulfillment of all the levitical symbols and temple services. IOW, unlike the apostate Jews, the believeing Jews were not compelled to be in Jerusalem for religious reasons. The history fits with the prophecies so well that it is really unnecessary to invent futurist scenarios.When therefore the Roman army shall advance to besiege Jerusalem, then let them who are in Judea consult their own safety, and flee into the mountains. His counsel was wisely remembered, and put in practice, by the Christians afterwards. Josephus informs us, that when Cestius Gallus came with his army against Jerusalem, "many fled from the city, as if it would be taken presently :" and after his retreat, "many of the noble Jews departed out of the city, as out of a sinking ship :" and a few years afterwards, when Vespasian was drawing, his forces towards Jerusalem, a great multitude fled from Jericho by an opening into the mountainous country, for their security. It is probable that there were some Christians among these, but we learn more certainly from ecclesiastical historians, that at this is juncture all who believed in Christ left Jerusalem, and removed to Pella, and other places beyond the river Jordan: so that they all marvellously escaped the general shipwreck of their country, and we do not read any where that so much as one of them perished in the destruction of Jerusalem. Of such signal service was this caution of our Saviour to the believers. (Thomas Newton, The Prophecy of Matthew 24, Dissertation XIX)
Finally.
We are agreed, then, that "Israel" in any particular scripture is a matter of correct interpretation of context.
Also, no dispensationalist I know denies that the clear Lu 21 example is dealing with Jesus prophecy of the sack of Jerusalem and the Temple.
Obeying Jesus, Christians would have fled.
But Jesus did not end with the sack of Jerusalem. He went on and predicted a "time of the Gentiles." He said that there would some day be an "end" to the time of the Gentiles control over Jerusalem. (Suggesting the Jewish retaking of Jerusalem.) He also said that in that era there would be signs in the earth and sky, that men's hearts would fail them for fear. That the sea would "roar." Finally he said that He would return. According to Preterists Jesus has already returned. They are wrong because, obviously, He has not. They are wrong or Jesus is wrong, because HE said He wouldn't return until after the time of the Gentiles in Jerusalem is finished. All prophecy couldn't have been fulfilled by 70 AD with the sack of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was just beginning to be under control of the Gentiles. That has lasted for some 20 centuries since, so the "time of the Gentiles in Jerusalem" was not over by 70 AD. And all those other signs contemporaneous with the "end of the time of Gentiles" have also not yet happened. Preterism is grossly in error.
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.
= = = =
A bit of a quibble with that.
I think we can say that God calling the Israelites back to the Covenant lands in 1948 was a type of God dealing with them. . . . as have been the wars etc. since then and even now with the world increasingly focusing on Jerusalem and increasing numbers of nations being against Israel--as The Bible predicted for THIS END TIMES ERA.
But, on the whole, I think your analysis is insightful and useful. Thanks.
These lines make some sense to me as being ridiculous:
= = = =
The temple itself is in Salt Lake City (mormons).
The Throne of David is in London ( Armstrongism)
and the Ark of the Covenant is in Los Angeles (O.L.Jaggers)
I know God is omnipresent but tht is rediculous.
"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
= = = =
Again . . . these verses have virtually NOTHING
to do with the Biblical END TIMES PROPHECIES FOR OUR ERA.
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.
= = = =
Amen! Amen! Amen!
Am increasingly learning that such a perspective, stance, attitude is the source of peace, joy, contentment--IN HIM.
And partly have increasingly learned that through your great example and patient ministrations to me.
And besides, then the powers of HOLLAND cannot manipulate Scripture for political ends.
No fun at all.
= = = =
And likely to be far less fun when God makes abundantly clear the validity of HIS BIBLICAL PROPHECIES ABOUT THIS END TIMES ERA.
Well, in spite of all the gracious words that have been heaped upon you by others, I find that to be a most condescending attitude.
There is really nothing wrong with my "attitude". You don't like it because you don't like my theology. Perhaps it's not "touchy-feely" enough for some folks.
There is nothing wrong about my attitude towards the "descendants of Jacob" as you call them. I happen to have a pretty good attitude towards them; I want all of them to come to faith in Jesus Christ. Period. I hold out no presuppostions that millions must necessarily die in a future holocaust.
If you do not like the word "slaughter" to describe what dispensationalist say will happened to them in the future, that a problem for dispensationalists, not me or the "descendants of Jacob". What is the distinction between "slaughter" and "holocaust"?
slaugh·ter (n.): The killing of a large number of people; a massacre:
hol·o·caust (n.): Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire. A massive slaughter:
I don't have a twelve step program to describe my epistemology. I don't think the subject is that complicated. Mine is quite simple. There are two ways of looking at things; man's way and God's way, more specifically Christ's way. Unbelievers suppress the truth and invent their own way of looking at the world. Believers in Jesus Christ are to have the mind of Christ and so we are to bring His Word to bear on every subject. It ain't high-falutin or rocket science.
I eschew all the doctrines and tradition of men, see this post for more.
But you have managed to invent your own twelve step program on epistemology. That is a de facto "tradition of men" regardless of what you may think.
We don't need to adopt someone else's traditions. We are quite capable of inventing our own when left to our own. "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!" (Mark. 7:9)
But I more vigorously reject this particular view of the theology of others because of the attitude.
What we have here is a poor excuse for not wanting to deal with the details in my arguments. Just cry "attitude foul" and you are free to move onto the next game.
Been a pleasure.
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!"
= = = =
AMEN! TRUE, TRUE, TRUE.
... then we have to find a time in history before 70AD when 2/3rds of the Church was "slaughtered."
More silliness.
= = = =
ROTFLOL
There is really nothing wrong with my "attitude". You don't like it because you don't like my theology. Perhaps it's not "touchy-feely" enough for some folks.
= = = =
Alamo-Girl is known much more accurately than the above assertion would imply--that is--known much better than that by SOME of us--though all have had a more or less equal opportunity to know her by her words.
Attitudes which come across to us as harsh, hostile, haughty, stern, narrow, rigid, self-righteous, pharisaical etc. . . .
welllllllll, such attitudes are likely to be labeled as
harsh, hostile, haughty, stern, narrow, rigid, self-righteous, pharisaical, etc. . . .
My strong suspicion is that if a different attitude label is desired, then a different attitude and related behavior will have to be demonstrated.
I think your attitude in your 14 or so points was extremely sarcastic. Have you considered that that would keep people from taking seriously what you say?
I don't mind some and some types of sarcasm . . . particularly that highlighting incongruencies and silliness
in IDEAS
in PERSPECTIVES
in CONSTRUCTS
in INTERPRETATIONS.
Those which seemed deliberately directed below the belt regarding someone's personhood, sanity . . . that quickly begins to be a bit much.
Never said differently. Is this a reading skills issue?
Also, no dispensationalist I know denies that the clear Lu 21 example is dealing with Jesus prophecy of the sack of Jerusalem and the Temple.
Well then you have a problem because Luke 21 exactly parallels that same Olivet Discourse given in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. The only difference is that Luke has adapted the language to suit his gentile readers (Theophilus), whereas Matthew and Mark assume a certain Hebrew knowledge of the prophetic subjects. E.g., Matthew uses the term "abominations of desolation" harkening back to events in Jewish history, whereas Luke speaks of armies as being something meaningful to a gentile audience.
| Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains. "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, | Then he said to them: "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven. "But before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. This will result in your being witnesses to them. |
| "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand-- then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. | "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. |
I have a more extensive parallel analysis of the three gospel accounts if you would like to see it. Or perhaps you wouldn't.
This "Luke is different" mantra is another invention of Scofield's children.
He said that there would some day be an "end" to the time of the Gentiles control over Jerusalem.
Where exactly did He say that? The only reference Jesus makes to this is in Luke 21:24, and He says absolutely nothing about what happens in a mythical time known as "after the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled". It's called eisegesis to suggest what happens based on what the Bible doesn't say.
He also said that in that era there would be signs in the earth and sky,
You mean using language like this:
"The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw. ... For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine." (Isa. 13:1,10)
Jesus uses the same language as that used by the prophets to describe the temporal judgment against ancient nations, in this case against ancient Babylon. You have to invent and then jump through literalist hoops to make this language speak of actual cosmic phenomenon.
I can understand that.
Please exhort me firmly when and if you feel my posts cross that line.
Won't guarantee automatic agreement and compliance but I will guarantee a thoughtful, prayerful consideration of your exhortation.
I was serious. It was not a joke. Sarcasm is a legitimate tool to poke an an opponent's weaknesses. But "attitude" and "sarcasm" have become excuses for not wishing to deal with the substance. It was there and it was clear. Any well-read dispensationalist could see it.
Would you prefer I go through the books an pull out the actual quotes?
Just to see where you are coming from, please read the following passage and then answer the question that follows:
Thus saith the LORD, In this thou shalt know that I am the LORD: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood. And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall loathe to drink of the water of the river. And the LORD spoke unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone. And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood. (Exodus 7:17-20 KJV)
.
Question: What kind of liquid flowed in the river after Aaron smote the water with his rod?
(a) Regular old river water?
(b) Red-colored river water?
(c) Water with a lot of plankton?
(d) Blood?
(e) Refuse to answer because it conflicts with my theology?
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.