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.

Matthew is speaking directly to the Jews, being a Gospel to the Jews.

In Luke, the Gospel to the Gentiles, we find the universal nature of the Tribulation.

This certainly explains why differ language would be used to describe the same event. But it does not explain why most of the language in both passage is localized to Judea.

A reasonable conclusion is that it refers to the localized events surrounding destruction of the temple in AD70. (The universal sounding language here is explained by a careful comparison with OT prophetic language.) Matthew pictures it in language that would be recognizable by a Jew, while Luke speaks in words more suitable for a gentile audience. But they both describe ancient Rome -- Daniel's fourth kingdom which was eventually replaced by the eternal kingdom of Christ and His saints (Dan. 7:27) -- marching againt Jerusalem. "Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her" (Luke 21:21).

No one has yet been able to explain why, if this is worldwide tribulation in view, that folks in one tiny part of the world are told to "flee to the mountains". Why no mention of the mountains in, say, Colorado?

No one also has explained why, after having these warnings from Jesus for 2000 years, that still in the futurist "great tribulation" holocaust that two-thirds of the Jews living in Israel still be exterminated. It wouldn't be a big deal for a bunch of believers to go into Israel and put up billboards around Jeruaslem saying:

Jesus to Israel: "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her."

Perhaps you could replace the phrase "surrounded by armies" with "abomination of desolation", but I'm not sure how many of them would get it.

And since even armed soldiers like the Taliban were not able to make effect use of the mountains in Afghanistan for protection from invading armies, why would it be safe for unarmed folks in a future universal conflagration to flee in such a fashion?

Not everyone accepts the conclusion that it is the same narrative being spoken by Jesus, even though that fact is quite clear, and all signs point to AD70.

But it does not explain why most of the language in both passage is localized to Judea.

First of all, nearly all Biblical prophecy is centered in Judea, describing the world's events through the lens of Israel.

Secondly, such a vantage makes perfect sense within futurist, premillennial eschatology, since it is in the Temple in Jerusalem that the Abomination of Desolation will take place, where the Man of Sin "as God sitteth in the Temple of God, shewing himself that he is God" (2 Th. 2:4).

A reasonable conclusion is that it refers to the localized events surrounding destruction of the temple in AD70.

Rather, that is a reasonable partial explanation. Certainly, the Lord had the 70 AD destruction in view, but that hardly discounts the futurist view. Again, the very essence of Hebrew prophecy is that there is a cycle of events, so that one prophecy may speak of several events in part, leading up to a final conclusion. The Abomination of Desolation is a key example.

And there most certainly must be a future "literal" fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, as the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD left numerous points unfulfilled or fulfilled only in rough type:

1) The Abomination of Desolation. By citing the specific Abomination of Desolation which was predicted by Daniel (11:31) and already fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes, Yeshua left no doubt as to what would happen, but Sha'ul (Paul) clarified it even further: As Antiochus set up a false god in the Holy of Holies (Zeus), so will the Antichrist--only this time, that false god will be himself. Titus Vespasian, due to fire breaking out in the Temple, was never able to commit this act.

2) Even if we were to suppose that Titus had time to commit this act, the order of events would be wrong: By the time the Temple was invaded and destroyed, it was far too late to flee Jerusalem in obedience to the Lord's command.

3) A Great Tribulation worse than any before or since. Most scholars believe that somewhere in the neighborhood of two million Jews died in 70 AD and the years immediately following. Six million Jews died in the Holocaust. Do the math. Nor can it be said that in 70 AD, all flesh--whether all flesh in the world or all Jewish flesh--was in any danger of being wiped out.

4) The sign of the sun, moon, and stars. First, those who try to allegorize this event have to deal with the fact that the entire rest of the passage is given in straightforward prophetic narrative, not apocalyptic symbolism, so it's inconsistant to say that the Lord suddenly changed genres in mid-sentence in order to allegorize this passage away.

But even if we could allegorize this event in some way, it still wouldn't help the preterist. In every other passage where the sun, moon, and stars are described as darkening (e.g., Isa. 13, Joel 2-3, etc.) it heralds God's judgment on the Gentiles who have come against Israel, not on Israel herself. For example, we see in Joel 3:11-16 & 20-21,

Assemble yourselves, and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about: thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O YHVH. Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about. Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe: come, get you down; for the press is full, the fats overflow; for their wickedness is great. Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the Day of YHVH is near in the valley of decision. The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining. YHVH also shall roar out of Zion, and utter His voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but YHVH will be the hope of His people, and the strength of the children of Israel. . .
But Judah shall dwell for ever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation. For I will cleanse their blood that I have not cleansed: for YHVH dwelleth in Zion.

5) The visible Second Coming. There are several events that are impossible to view as happening in 70 AD which are tied together with the Second Coming. First, the Resurrection of the Dead and the Rapture (1 Th. 4:15-17). If the dead were raised bodily and the Church "caught up" in 70 AD, no one seems to have noticed that event and recorded it, least of all the Church fathers. Second, the reconciliation of all Israel, for as Zechariah describes, after they see Him whom they pierced and "all the land" mourn, "every family apart,"

In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness. And it shall come to pass in that day, saith YHVH-Tzva'ot (the Lord of Hosts), that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land.

Didn't this happen at the Crucifixion? you ask, citing John 19:37. Only in part. But the whole land did not mourn for Yeshua--only His followers did, who were definitively a minority. Nor was this fount of forgiveness opened up for all the House of David and Jerusalem, or else they would not have been punished in 70 AD. Rather, this prophecy is parallel to the one which Sha'ul cites in Rom. 11:25-29, looking forward to a future day when the same Israel which is currently the enemy of the Gospel would be saved not because of their own goodness, but for the sake of YHVH's Name.

Moreover, Zechariah goes on to describe the Lord opening an escape way through the Mt. of Olives for israel. smiting all the nations that came against Jerusalem with a plague, and forcing all of the survivors to come yearly for the Feast of Sukkot. And before that (in ch. 12) we likewise see the Lord destroying the nations that come against Jerusalem--indeed, leading Israel in battle in the person of Yeshua, the Angel of the Lord. Have any of these things happened? Hardly.

Now in regard's to Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse, it is popular for the preterist side to take it to be the "true interpretation," so that the Abomination of Desolation really means the armies surrounding Jerusalem, for example. However, key differences between this discourse and that presented in Matthew and Mark have led some (like Chuck Missler) to believe that Luke was a separate but parallel discourse given in the Temple a few days before Yeshua left it once and for all (compare Mat. 23:38f and Luke 21:37f).

Another possibility is that through Luke, Sha'ul is making a drash, "digging out" a secondary meaning of the Lord's words and emphasizing it through a deliberate paraphrase. But it's clear that if so, Luke's record must be viewed as the secondary meaning, not the primary. Sha'ul himself refers to the Abomination of Desolation being a man proclaiming himself to be a god in God's Temple, not the surrounding of Jerusalem by armies.

Arguing about which is the primary and which the secondary meaning is, of course, mere semantics. The fact is that there were many specific prophecies in the Olivet Discourse which were not fulfilled in 70 AD, whether one thinks that a local or a worldwide event is in mind.

The universal sounding language here is explained by a careful comparison with OT prophetic language.

Only if one also allegorizes the prophecies of the Tanakh as well. And while some prophecies are certainly given in allegorical, poetic, or apocalyptic form, none of those automatically rule out a literal interpretation. Tell me, was the Lord literally born of a virgin? Was He literally born in Bethlehem? Did His first Coming arrive a literal 483 years (setting aside the issue of whether an adjustment is in order) after the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem? Was He literally pierced? Was He the literal son of David? Did the Lord whom Israel sought literally come to His Temple? Was He literally slain as a sacrifice for our sins? Was He literally crucified in the manner described in Psalm 22?

How then can you scoff when the premillennialist insists that the prophecies of the Second Coming will be fulfilled just as literally as those of the first?

Matthew pictures it in language that would be recognizable by a Jew, while Luke speaks in words more suitable for a gentile audience.

The problem with that broad stroke is that Mark was also written for a Gentile audience, but uses the same language as Matthew.

But they both describe ancient Rome -- Daniel's fourth kingdom which was eventually replaced by the eternal kingdom of Christ and His saints (Dan. 7:27) -- marching againt Jerusalem.

Was it? When? The Roman Empire (if one includes its Eastern leg) continued for another 1400 years! And as a Reformist, you would hardly argue that the merging of the Church and State resulted in the true expression of God's Kingdom on earth, would you? If so, you should cease your rebellion and bow to the Pope!

Already answered: 1) All prophecy is given through the lens of Israel, so the emphasis is hardly surprising, and 2) that is where the Antichrist will first proclaim himself to be God, with his armies in place to enforce his claim. We in America will almost certainly have a few days or weeks of confusion to slip away in--but those on ground zero will need to leave on the instant if they are to escape the teeth of the trap.

How is that a question? How many Jews in Israel regard Yeshua as the Messiah, or even a prophet? It's only a recent thing that He's begun to be accepted as a rabbi.

It wouldn't be a big deal for a bunch of believers to go into Israel and put up billboards around Jeruaslem saying:

Waitwaitwait. You're saying that the estimated 1/4 to 1/3 of Messianic believers in Jerusalem in 70 AD weren't able to convince the remaining of the population to flee Rome's armies, but that a 5% minority would? How is that logical? How does this even require an explanation? Are you bothering to think through your own questions before you post them, or are you just shotgunning them in the hopes that some of the shot will hit the mark?

Gee, I dunno. How is Osama staying hidden with a sizable number of his forces in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan? Why have we not yet been able to find every last Al-Qaida member on the plains of Iraq? Could it possibly be that even modern intellegence techniques are not perfect?

Moreover, we see in Dan. 11:41 that "Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon"--which is to day, modern Jordan--are not conquered by the Antichrist. Gee, could it be that God protects that country, which is just over the mountains from Israel, so that the faithful will have a place to hide?

Sorry, TC, but it just doesn't work. None of your objections are insurmountable--indeed, I was able to answer them all just off the top of my head. It is quite obvious that even if there is a "near" prophetic fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse in 70 AD (which I would agree with), the complete fulfillment of every last detail is yet future to us.

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.