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.

They are being judged for rejecting their Messiah and killing him. (Lk.23:29-31). Thanks for an honest answer. Would you say that to be dispensationally conisstent you need to believe that a massive number of future Jews will be slaughtered for "killing Jesus"?

When they stated, 'let His blood be on us, and on our children', that is exactly what God gave them.

Christ prayed for the Father to forgive them, and they were given a second chance.(Acts.3:19) So, just because Jesus said "Father, forgive them" that does not mean they were really forgiven at that time. Is that correct? Does consistent dispensationalism teach that God has been keeping unbelieving Jews on ice for 2000 years awaiting this future judgment when two-thirds of them will be killed?

What Dispensationalists teach is that any Jew can become a Christian and accept what his ancestors rejected, their Messiah.

If a Jew doesn't then he is agreeing with the sentence passed on Jesus as a false Messiah and thus, deserving of death-correct?

So, when was Israel really rejected? IOW, when did Israel get frozen in time and the church take over in God's redemptive plan?

As stated in another post, Acts 7 is the turning point.

As for millions of Jews being killed, they are killed by those who reject what the Bible says about them, that God has a future plan for them.

Thus, every nation that has persecuted them has been destroyed by God for doing so, and that will include the Anti-Christ's Kingdom.

Dispensationalists warn people to leave the Jew alone.

One of the things the protestant grammatical-historical method allows for is the background of the writers. So, we understand that the way Luke would tell the story, based on the fact of his gentile audience and not being an eye witness to the events, may very well be different from the way Matthew relates the events. So the protestant interpreter is OK with the fact that Luke breaks the narrative up in the way he relates the material. Their theology does not force them to regard the narratives as describing two (or more) different events separated by thousands of years.

That probably is not satisfactory for "literalists" whose operative principle is to break the Bible up into atomic parts and deal with them separately. This they do under belief they are "rightly dividing the word". What they really end up doing is to divide the program and purpose of God through all eternity which has always been to bring people to Jesus Christ nad incorporate them into His one true body. This is the grave deficiency of dispensationalism. This is what dispensationalism has been formally rejected by mnost reformed denominations, becuase it seek to continues to divide the people of God along racial lines.

And why does the [Orthodox Presbyterian Church] regard dispensationalism as a serious error? In the main because it is contrary to the biblical doctrine of the covenant.
The Bible teaches two covenants: the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. In the Covenant of Works God created mankind under one federal head -- Adam. Romans 5:12 tells us that when Adam sinned all mankind descending from him by natural generation sinned in him and fell with him. The Covenant of Grace was instituted to deliver out of those under the curse of Adam's sin a new humanity with a new head -- Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:13-19 compares and contrasts the two covenants and their results through the actions of their heads: Adam brought sin and misery leading to death; Christ brought redemption from that sin and its curse leading to life.
This is also taught in 1 Corinthians 15, the great chapter on the resurrection of Christ leading to the resurrection of His people. Notice that in verse 22 we are told that all who die, die in Adam, and all who are made alive are made alive in Christ. Later, verses 45-49 again deal with the relation between the two covenant heads and the contrast between them. "Adam" in Hebrew means "man." In vs. 47 the first man was surely Adam, made from earth (Genesis 2:7); the second man was Christ, "the Lord from heaven."
We all were born in Adam (except Jesus who was virgin-born, and not by natural generation). By way of contrast, 2 Corinthians 5:17 says that "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature (or a new creation)...." This is the heart of the Scripture teaching.
Old Testament covenants, we believe, are but administrations of the one covenant of grace. Even the book of Hebrews, which exalts the contrast between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant, does not utterly divide them. In chapter 11:39 & 40: "And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect." Add to that Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek [Gentile]...; for we are all one in Christ Jesus."
Dispensationalism divides what God has put together. It is difficult to define dispensationalism precisely because, especially after the demise of the original Schofield Reference Bible, dispensationalists have differed in many ways. The core of dispensationalism, however, continues to be that the OT people of God are distinct from the NT church.
And, though modern dispensationalists admit that the OT people are saved by the grace of Christ's cross (and that is good!), yet God's dealing with them is on the basis of law-keeping rather than grace. Whether there be seven dispensations (as Scofield taught) or but two, as some hold today, the separation between Jew and Gentile is deep and bordering on the absolute. That's what makes them distinguish between the church and Israel, saying that the church is not in the Old Testament. But I say, how can one make that claim when the book of Isaiah is full of prophecies of the church?
I don't want to overstate the issue, but I think the principal issue between us is their emphasis that Law is predominant in the OT and Grace in the NT. But there is great grace in the Old Testament, and law is not ignored in the New. Romans 3:19-20 clearly says that the Law doesn't save, but Law is the servant of grace because, "by the law is the knowledge of sin." Then follows that great passage on justification. Then notice that, in chapter 4, the Apostle attributes justifying faith to Abraham!
Just one more thing: All dispensationalists justify building their millennial belief on their interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. From this passage they claim two coming resurrections from the dead -- the righteous at the second coming and the wicked in Revelation 20:11-15. They completely ignore two things: Revelation 20 teaches that ALL the dead are raised at one time (cf. John 5:28-29), and Paul's teaching on the resurrection in 1 Thessalonians carries over into chapter 5:1-11.
The Apostle goes on in the next chapter to describe anything but a "secret rapture"! Furthermore, the Apostle's reason for not mentioning the resurrection of the wicked in chapter 4 was the question as to the present condition of the believing dead in vs. 13. He ends that portion with words of comfort in vs. 18. But continuing his teaching on the second coming of Christ, he ends that segment in chapter 5 in vs. 11: "Therefore encourage one another...."
This has been a long answer. I could have shortened it with answers without Scriptural support, but speaking for the OPC requires more that saying why and where we differ with other believers. I feel obliged to ground our convictions in Scripture, for, without that, we merely spout opinions! And one Word from God is better than a thousand opinions.
In saying this, we in the OPC do not pass judgment on our dispensational brothers. Our differences are honest differences; but if their hope is in Christ and Christ alone, we rejoice with them in a seeking and saving God.
Orthodox Presbyterian Church Question and Answer

That has nothing to do with current Israel being part of prophecy.
What hasn't started yet is Daniel's 70th week. ...

The essential issue in classical dispensationalism is that Israel is not the church and God will not being dealing with Israel in judgement until the Church is removed.

According to Ironside, "the moment Messiah died on the cross, the prophetic clock stopped", he went on to say that, "There has not been a tick upon that clock for nineteen centuries. It will not begin again until the entire present age has come to an end."

According to Ironside and the older, classic dispensationalist, the clock starts ticking when the antichrist signs the covenant mentioned in Dan. 9:27, "Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week". Somehow they fit this together with the rapture event, with the panic being the trigger that precipitates the regathering of Israel and the covenant. But that is all just speculation on their part since there is no explicit linkage in the Scripture.

This was the normative dispensational view until Hal Lindsey came along in the early '70s and identified 1948 as a prpohetically significant date. The classic dispensationalists were horrified, but Hal was selling books, not them. There's nothing interesting to the masses in the view that the "secret rapture" is really a sudden event with absolutely no predictors, even though that is the dispensationally consistent view.

So dispensationalism became tainted by Lindsey and his follow-on "date suggesters" like Churck Smith and Edgar Whisenant. Once these guys have drunk at the well of sensationalism there was no turning back.

And that's pretty much where we stand today. The pop dispensationlism we see on the TV and the Internet is the child of Hal Lindsey, not Ironside or Chafer, or even Ryrie. Ryrie and Walvoord were caught in the netherworld between classic and pop dispensationalism. They wanted to appear respectable and retain their privileges as seminary professors and such, but the pop dispensaitonal cat was out of the bag. Even Walvoord succumbed with his now classic, Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis.

All this has played into the hand of the progressive dispensationalist who are in many ways just inconsistent covenantalists. The radical distinction between Israel and the church, so essential to classic dispenationalism, is fading away. Dallas Seminary, founded by Chafer, is now the stronghold of the progressives.

That has nothing to do with current Israel being part of prophecy. What hasn't started yet is Daniel's 70th week. ... The essential issue in classical dispensationalism is that Israel is not the church and God will not being dealing with Israel in judgement until the Church is removed. According to Ironside, "the moment Messiah died on the cross, the prophetic clock stopped", he went on to say that, "There has not been a tick upon that clock for nineteen centuries. It will not begin again until the entire present age has come to an end."

Yes, and he is referring to Daniel's 70 'weeks'.

The clock stopped ticking at the 69th week when the Messiah was cut off and won't start again until after the rapture.

That doesn't mean there aren't are prophecies not related to the weeks of Daniel, such as the growing apostasy in the church in the 'last days'(1Tim.4,2Tim.3)

However, dispensationalism (classical) is distinct in its interpretation of Daniel's Sevenieth week as future. With Israel's rejection of the Messiah and His death taking place after the 69th week, the completion of the 6 restortation for Israel is left for the 70th week....This interpretation requires a prophetic postponement...between the events of verses 26 and 27. The revelation of a prophetic postponement in the fulfillment of the eschatological aspect of the messianic program is in harmony with numerous passages of the Old Testament that reveal two advents of Christ...(Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, Mal Couch Gen.Edit),

What they are talking about is the 70th week beginning (seven years of Tribulation).

The Rapture may trigger it or there may be some time before it begins.

Lindsey took 1948 (the creation of Israel) because of the 'fig tree parable'

Some say that the budding of the fig tree speaks of the reestablishment of Israel as a nation seeing it as a precursor of Christ's return' (Ibid).

However, those parables refer to events in the Tribulation, not before.

The church is not looking for signs, it is listening for a sound.

I think that you overrate their influence.

Far more influential are the Scofield notes and Clarence Larkin.

The sixth concern focuses on the modern state of Israel that came into existence in 1948. Israelology (the study of all things involving Israel) sees this as a definite fulfillment of prophecy, though not the fulfillment of the final restoration predicted by Scriptures.(Ibid)

I can't argue with that, but even if they are wrong on the details, they are correct in the theology.

Amen.

As for millions of Jews being killed, they are killed by those who reject what the Bible says about them, that God has a future plan for them. But you say they, these future Jews, are killed for rejecting Christ. So both groups, the Jes and their enemies, really reject the Bible and Christ, who is the focus of all the Bible. They are both enemies of Christ, the King of kings.

Yes, but those killing the Jews are still killing those 'who are beloved because of the father's'

All that found them have devoured them; and their adversaries said, We offend not, beause they have sinned against the Lord, the habitation of justice, even the Lord, the hope of their fathers....Because ye were glad, because ye rejoiced, O ye destroyers of mine heritage,....Therefore, thus saith the Lord of hosts, he God of Israel, I will punish he king of Bablyon and his land as I have punished the king of Assyria (Jer.50:7,11,18)

Those who attack Israel and the Jew will themselves be destroyed by God.

Gen.12:3 is still in effect.

Dispensationalists warn people to leave the Jew alone. Does that include not sharing the gospel with them? After all, if the accept Christ and join with His body, the church, they are no longer part of "Israel" and no longer able to receive the millennial blessings reserved for Israel, correct?

The Christian should try to get the Jew saved, as well as the Gentile.

Thus, the Christian should preach the Gospel to every unsaved man.

The Christian has greater blessings then the Millennium Kingdom, we have a heavenly home.(Jn.14,Eph.3) and are the Bride of Christ (Eph.5:30, Rev.19:7-8)

In saying this, we in the OPC do not pass judgment on our dispensational brothers. Our differences are honest differences; but if their hope is in Christ and Christ alone, we rejoice with them in a seeking and saving God.

Amen to that, Brother! You and I have a different perspective, on scripture. I don't know how many passages of scripture we disagree on, but I know it is substantial, in fact, if we look closely at the details, we may disagree on all passages. It is that disagreement that forces us to search the scripture. I suspect God knew that would happen. That said, here is my take on one of your points:

From this passage they claim two coming resurrections from the dead -- the righteous at the second coming and the wicked in Revelation 20:11-15. They completely ignore two things: Revelation 20 teaches that ALL the dead are raised at one time

Rev 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

There are many arguments that I can see here, but I will point out just two. First, those standing before God are referred as the "Dead." Now I don't know if I have a good definition of resurrection, but according to my definition, this is not a resurrection. Just as Abraham and the rich man had not been resurrected when they had their conversation.

Second, I know that there is nothing I can do to improve or diminish my standing before God, it is established in Christ. Here we have the "Dead" being judged according to their works. How frightening to be judged by our works.

Do I have problems with this viewpoint? Of course, I am aware that scripture speaks of a resurrection of damnation. But if I exchange my viewpoint for yours, I simply have a new set of questions to deal with.

Back to the Scriptures

Seven

That doesn't mean there aren't are prophecies not related to the weeks of Daniel, such as the growing apostasy in the church in the 'last days'(1Tim.4,2Tim.3)

OK, but that has nothing to do with Israel in the dispensational scheme. God does not deal with Israel again until after the rapture of the church. Then the prophetic clock begins ticking again. IOW, no one can know for sure that modern Israel is real prophetic Israel until after the rapture has occurred. And there are no sign predictors of the rapture, at least according to real dispensationalism.

Modern Israel is not part of any prophetic sequence. Those who insist it is are not being consistent dispensationalists.

Lindsey took 1948 (the creation of Israel) because of the 'fig tree parable'

But Lindsey was wrong because he failed to realize that the prophetic clock was stopped. He invented a new form of dispensationalism that said there would be signs of Christ's "secret rapture" before the fact.

The church is not looking for signs, it is listening for a sound.

Tell that to Hal, Chuck Smith, and all the other dispensationalists running around reading the prophetic tea leaves. Or at least they were until the sky didn't fall down in 1988. The new set of date suggesters are more subtle. But they are no less convinced (mistakenly as far as classic dispensationalism) that modern Israel is the key to the prophetic future.

I can't argue with that, but even if they are wrong on the details, they are correct in the theology.

But their bad theology leads them to bad conclusions about the future.

"The radical distinction between Israel and the church, so essential to classic dispenationalism, is fading away. Dallas Seminary, founded by Chafer, is now the stronghold of the progressives."

Amen.

The progressive takeover of Dallas is a good thing for the church in general. The surrender is being made to the fundamentally correct covenantal position of the protestant reformers. They are starting to realize the pernicious error of classic and neo dispenationalism needs to give way to biblical truth. They need to become more consistent protestants.

Yes, but those killing the Jews are still killing those 'who are beloved because of the father's'

Yes, but admittedly they are still haters of Christ, the true beloved of the Father.

And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them. Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.' So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?" (Matt. 21:35-40)

The difference between perspectives is that I believe God punished that generation 2000 years ago who actually killed Chrtist and said, "His blood be on us and on our children." I also believe that God does not punish beyond "the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me" (Exo. 20:5).

The national judgment of Israel was finalized in AD70 as it happened to "this generation". There is no future version of that national judgment in store for these people. What they should look forward to is gospel blessings and the fulfillment of Abrahamic promises only when they accept Christ and are regrafted into His true body, the Church, the wife of God and bride of Christ, the new Jerusalem and Israel of God, His special people, royal priesthood, and holy nation.

The futurists who see this "great tribulation" judgment yet to come are holding hostage a people for things that happened thousands of years ago. Nowhere in the Bible does God indicate that way of dealing with what some regard as His covenant people.

That doesn't mean there aren't are prophecies not related to the weeks of Daniel, such as the growing apostasy in the church in the 'last days'(1Tim.4,2Tim.3) OK, but that has nothing to do with Israel in the dispensational scheme. God does not deal with Israel again until after the rapture of the church. Then the prophetic clock begins ticking again. IOW, no one can know for sure that modern Israel is real prophetic Israel until after the rapture has occurred. And there are no sign predictors of the rapture, at least according to real dispensationalism.

What one can now is that Israel is to be in the land twice (Isa.11) and this is the second time.

That Israel is not being dealt with prophetically does not change the fact that the nation of Israel is going to the focal point one day of that prophecy.

Modern Israel is not part of any prophetic sequence. Those who insist it is are not being consistent dispensationalists.

Modern Israel is not now part of Daniel's 70th week.

However, pieces are being put into place for when the Rapture does occur.

God used the tax of Rome to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, which was the fulfillment of prophecy.

Rome had to be in place to accomplish that.

Lindsey took 1948 (the creation of Israel) because of the 'fig tree parable' But Lindsey was wrong because he failed to realize that the prophetic clock was stopped. He invented a new form of dispensationalism that said there would be signs of Christ's "secret rapture" before the fact.

Agreed.

The church is not looking for signs, it is listening for a sound. Tell that to Hal, Chuck Smith, and all the other dispensationalists running around reading the prophetic tea leaves. Or at least they were until the sky didn't fall down in 1988. The new set of date suggesters are more subtle. But they are no less convinced (mistakenly as far as classic dispensationalism) that modern Israel is the key to the prophetic future.

Israel is an important piece in the prophecy puzzle.

We see Israel in the land.

We see chip technology.

We see satellite's able to beam pictures throughout all the globe at once.

We see many things which other generations did not see and can understand how many prophecies, thought to be impossible, will be fulfilled.

Who thought Israel would ever be back in the Land?

And in control of Jerusalem?

Who could imagine how the anti-Christ is going to control with a mark buying and selling?

Who could think of how Christ will be seen by all eyes on earth, when He touches down on Mt Olivet.

Now, we take for granted how those things can occur.

I can't argue with that, but even if they are wrong on the details, they are correct in the theology. But their bad theology leads them to bad conclusions about the future.

They are making wrong assumptions and should not be commenting on how certain events are going to take place in the Tribulation.

Nor, should they be setting any dates.

But, the fact that there will be a pre-Trib rapture and seven years of Tribulation and then a Millennial reign are true.

"The radical distinction between Israel and the church, so essential to classic dispenationalism, is fading away. Dallas Seminary, founded by Chafer, is now the stronghold of the progressives." Amen. The progressive takeover of Dallas is a good thing for the church in general. The surrender is being made to the fundamentally correct covenantal position of the protestant reformers. They are starting to realize the pernicious error of classic and neo dispenationalism needs to give way to biblical truth. They need to become more consistent protestants.

LOL!

No, the progressive takeover is a bad thing.

Dispensationalism (rightly dividing) is crucial to a sound hermeneutic (literal/figurative) as well as eschatology.

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.