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.

Guess that's what happens when you give seminary degrees to riverboat pilots (one of DTS's biggest mistakes ever).

While DTS was busy drawing their pretty multi-colored maps of the future, Roe v. Wade was happening in their own back yard. They were so wrapped up in using God's Word as a tool of divination that they couldn't apply it prophetically to what was going on right under their noses.

Dispensationalists are de facto "cheerleaders for the other team," people whose love for Jesus has been perverted into an active desire to see bad things happen to other people.

Wow. That is a significant change on your part, TC.

No change at all, you have just misread all my previous comments on the subject.

You are now allowing the possible legitimacy of the post-70 AD dating of the Book of Revelation.

I have always allowed for a post-AD70 date for the Book of Revelation since when a book of the Bible was written is not a point of infallible revelation. IOW, we cannot know for sure since God has not left us with the infallible means to know for sure.

Do you agree and do you hold the same position for the somewhat popular AD90's view?

That means that any inclined to be preterist must switch to some form of "historical" fulfilling ...

And what exactly would force me to make such a switch? The answer you give to this question will be telling as to whether or not you really understand my position.

You obviously didn't read the post in which I replaced "Israel" with "Church" in Romans 9-11.

It is an absurd reading of scripture.

An honest person admits that in the bible Israel sometimes means Israel; that each occasion must be studied in grammar, contexts, and history.

Let's end this obviously erroneous insistence that every instance of Israel/Jew must always mean Church/Christian. It simply isn't supportable biblically......

The histrionics involved in tossing around the words heresy/heretic, notwithstanding.

Because preterists insist that fulfillments are actual and not symbolic.

I think you are confusing preterism with idealism.

Preterist believe in actual fulfillment of prophecies that were given in symbolical terms. E.g., when Revelation speak of "the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified" we take that symbol to be speaking of Jerusalem. So that later on in Revelation when we see references again to "the great city" as the harlot we know the author is again speaking of Jerusalem. These passages all predict the destruction of "the great city" which symbolically represented the actual city of ancient Jerusalem.

Further confirmation of this interpretation is given by the contrast between "the great city" in chaoters 11 and 17 with "the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God," in Rev. 21:10. It is not a coincidence that the earthly "great city" (old Jerusalem) is contrasted with the heavenly "great city" (new Jerusalem). See Galatian 4:21-31 for additional confirmation.

Ya gotta understand the symbols to understand the book. And the symbols do not exist in a vacuum as many futurists seem to think. They are interpreted by the rest of the Bible.

Does that help?

If the pre-AD70 date is true your futurist system is very much in jeopardy.

No it is not. My premillenial position is not based upon when Revelation was written, but by what is written in Revelation. Your preterist position is contingent upon a pre-70AD authorship of Revelation. If it was written after the destruction of the temple, then it would necessarily be a futurist book. It could still be a "futurist" book even if it were penned at the time of the crucifixion or even before (as was Daniel).

All evidence (both internal and external) points to a post 90AD date for the book of Revelation.

...all of them...

By saying that, Corin was referencing Calvinist's belief that nothing happens that was not part of God's plan. Therefore, those different parts of Judaism would have been part of the already written script.

So would be your standing up and admitting, "I am a peanut butter sandwich."

Without those CLEAR indications a passage should be taken at face value.

But you're missing something. The entire book is given in symbols and signs. It says it right up front in verse 1 of chapter 1, "things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel". So the operative method would be to take everything as a symbol unless you have some good and explicit reason not to. That's they real grammatical-historical method. You should not be surprised to see symbols and signs and types in Prophetic/revelational/apocalypic language.

I should point out the "artifical literalism" of many futurists. A good example is our friend Hal Lindsey and the subject of the "locusts" in Rev. 9. In Lindsey's semi-literal mind this reference could not be to the actual insects called locusts, so he had to invent a scenario to explain what was being seen by John. But rather than turn to the rest of the Bible to see how God used locusts in prophetic passages, he chose to interpret this passage as referring to far future men encased in Cobra helicopters. Ignore the fact that lots of the details don't fit with what we know about Cobra helicopters (thus the label "semi-literal") unless you really stretch the language, the suggestion is so preposterous it makes real theologians laugh out loud.

Of course he must also ignore the fact that there is nothing in the passage to help 1st century Christians understand these as being Cobra helicopters, and since those folks were told "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near," they must have been left at a real disadvantage.

John didn't have to go thought and footnote the symbols as you seem to think.

No it is not. My premillenial position is not based upon when Revelation was written, but by what is written in Revelation.

Exactly, now you are catching on to my position, although you keep insisting otherwise. But I think you will get it eventually.

So let's not bring up Irenaeus and his buddies again, OK?

By saying that, Corin was referencing Calvinist's belief that nothing happens that was not part of God's plan.

Do you believe there are things that happen that are not part of God's plan. Was Katrina part of "God's plan"? Was it part of "God's plan" that "the older shall serve the younger" in the case of Jacob and Esau? Was your salvation part of "God's plan"?

Can you give us an outline from the Bible as to which events fall into "God's plan" and which do not? Thanks.

"Is it not from the mouth of the Most High That woe and well-being proceed?" (Lam. 3:38)

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.

I would say 1900 years of consistent church teaching on the matter is not "undeveloped". This is gobblygook to say they've abandoned historical teaching.

If the Jews are "God's own people" as the author claims, we all better switch to Judaism. But what can one expect from Dallas ~~Theological~~ Philosophical Seminary any longer.

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.