"Dr. Armageddon" and the Future of Israel

American Vision ^ | 7/31/2007 | Gary DeMar

[topcat54]

John Hagee’s “Christians United for Israel” held its annual meeting in Washington, D.C., last month (July 2007). Supporters of CUFI are looking forward to Armageddon. Of course, they believe they won’t be around to experience it. God will finally fulfill his covenant promises to Israel, but not until He wipes out millions of Jews and billions of others around the world in one final judgment. No wonder an increasing number of people fear “Dr. Armageddon” and his millions of followers. Could their political clout push us toward an all-out Mideast war? There are Jews who support Hagee and CUFI, but I bet they don’t know the whole story.
           
John Walvoord writes that these supposed future judgments will be “without parallel in the history of the world. According to Revelation 6:7 the judgments attending the opening of the fourth seal involve the death with sword, famine, and wild beasts of one fourth of the world’s population. If this were applied to the present world population now approaching three billion, it would mean that 750,000,000 people would perish, more than the total population of North America, Central America, and South America combined.”¹
           
Hal Lindsey supports Walvoord’s position, affirming that during the “great tribulation” there will be “death on a massive scale. It staggers the imagination to realize that one-fourth of the world’s population will be destroyed within a matter of days. According to projected census figures this will amount to nearly one billion people!”² Of course, with the latest census figures (6.6 billion), with the dispensational view in mind, about 1.65 billion people will die. Not only does the world come in for a beating under the dispensational hermeneutic, but Israel is specifically hit hard. Walvoord, with his view of a future post-rapture “great tribulation,” must claim that a large number of Jews living in Israel will be slaughtered. He writes:

The purge of Israel in their time of trouble is described by Zechariah in these words: “And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith Jehovah, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part into the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried” (Zechariah 13:8, 9). According to Zechariah’s prophecy, two thirds of the children of Israel in the land will perish, but the one third that are left will be refined and be awaiting the deliverance of God at the second coming of Christ which is described in the next chapter of Zechariah.³

Israel’s present population is around 7 million. If two-thirds of the Jews living in Israel at the time of the “great tribulation” are to die, this will mean the death of more than 4.5 million! In addition, there is continued immigration from the former Soviet Union supported by Christian organizations like “On Wings of Eagles.” Financial support is raised by Christians to fund Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. “‘This is a biblical issue,’ says Theodore T. Beckett, a Colorado developer who founded the Christian-sponsored, adopt-a-settlement program. ‘The Bible says in the last days the Jews will be restored to the nation of Israel.’“⁴ For every three people who enter, two of them will be killed during the dispensational version of the “great tribulation.” Why aren’t today’s dispensationalists warning Jews about this coming holocaust by encouraging them to leave Israel until the conflagration is over? Instead, we find dispensationalists supporting and encouraging the relocation of Jews to the land of Israel. For what? A future holocaust?
           
Israel was warned by Jesus to “flee to the mountains” (Matt. 24:16). The New Testament is filled with warnings about the coming A.D. 70 holocaust with no encouragement to take up residence in Jerusalem. In fact, there was a mass exodus from the city by those who understood the world-wide implications of the gospel message and the approaching destruction of what was the center of Jewish worship at the time (John 4:21–24).
           
Preterists believe that the events described in Matthew 24:1–34 were fulfilled in the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. “The guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom [they] murdered between the temple and the altar” (Matt. 23:35) fell upon the generation of Jews who “did not recognize the time of [their] visitation” (Luke 19:44) and crucified “the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8). How do we know this? Because Jesus told us: “Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation” (Matt. 23:36 and 24:34). No future generation of Jews is meant here. Hagee and his supporters are wrong and dangerous.

---

1. John F. Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan/Academie, [1962] 1988) 108.

2. Hal Lindsey, There’s a New World Coming (New York: Bantam Books, [1973] 1984), 90. Emphasis in original.

3. Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy, 108. Emphasis added.

4. Ann LoLordo, “Evangelical Christians Come to Jews’ Aid,” Atlanta Constitution (August 8, 1997), A8.

---

Permission to reprint granted by American Vision P.O. Box 220, Powder Springs, GA 30127, 800-628-9460.

[Seven_0]

Let me see if I understand; do you believe the concept of the heavenly Jerusalem as expressed in the New Testament is an allegory?

The allegory is the earthly Jerusalem. It is a tool that God uses to explain to us the things that we cannot see.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

[topcat54]

And other verses as well. Note also Matthew 9:15: "Can the sons of the bridegroom fast as long as the bridegroom is with them?"

[His disciples were the sons of the bridegroom not the bride.]

With all due respect, this is a fallacious argument. The fact that Jesus uses one image to describe His disciples does not preclude other images as well.

[topcat54]

The allegory is the earthly Jerusalem. It is a tool that God uses to explain to us the things that we cannot see.

I wouldn’t call this allegory, but rather typology. Earthly Jerusalem under the old covenant was a type of the new Jerusalem under the new covenant, just as the earthly tabernacle was a type of the heavenly one (Heb. 8:5), and the Passover was a type of the sacrifice of Christ once for all for His people.

[invoman]

Yep, that is a scripture I used to use. (And I DO see the merit of it.) HOWEVER, the word, "bride" is not used in that scripture.

"wife": yes

"Bride": no

I appreciate the verse, Seven_O, and I used to use it...but I need to be consistent with the words used.

[invoman]

topcat54, I believe an argument CAN be made that the Church is the Bride. And Seven_O's verse is a perfect example. (IE: What the Bible means)

What the Bible SAYS, however, is the point I'm trying to make. The Bible never calls the "bride" the Church. Is it implied? Yes...somewhat. Does it explicitly call the Bride the Church? No. The Bride is explicitly called a 'city'.

[Seven_0]

I appreciate the verse, Seven_O, and I used to use it...but I need to be consistent with the words used.

You make a good point, perhaps two verses will get there

Rev 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

What do you think distinguishes the "bride" and the "wife" in scripture? Does the bride cease being a bride at some point?

[invoman]

I've never thought about that question. I'm probably more "on your side" and I can be convinced. The fact remains, though, that the Bride is called a "great city". Further, the feminine pronoun in verse 11 (her light) goes even more to the point.

Had the Bride NEVER been called a "great city" in verse 9, I wouldn't have anything to stand upon. So...I am basing my point specifically on what the Bible explicitly says. I also will say that if one can find another verse that explicitly says the Bride is the Church, then I also have nothing to stand upon.

But back to your original question:

What do you think distinguishes the "bride" and the "wife" in scripture?

The fact that they are separate words is enough to give me pause and not say they mean EXACTLY the same thing.

I believe the Holy Spirit inspired the very words of the Bible...every single one of them. And the word bride is not the same word as wife. Why? I don't know. They are obviously very close words in meaning...but they aren't the same word.

A quick lookup of the word "bride" and I find:

A woman who is about to be married or has recently been married.

So, it appears that one CAN be a bride and not yet a wife. It also seems the term bride is used to describe the closeness of a wedding (both just before or just after). In our common English language, if I described my wife as my "bride", the person listening would most likely think we had quite recently gotten married, but they would be mistaken: We've been married 11 years. If used the term "wife", there would be no confusion.

So, I believe the word "bride" implies or expresses the nearness of a wedding. "Wife" does not portray this idea.

[topcat54]

(IE: What the Bible means)

How is what the Bible means different than what the Bible says? It must say it in one form or another to mean it, unless you believe in the RC tradition of the magisterium. Ephesians says the church is the Bride/Wife of Christ.

[invoman]

Ephesians says the church is the Bride/Wife of Christ.

No, Ephesians says:

Eph 5:31-32 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church..

Ephesians does not use the word "Bride".

Let me try this a different way? If one were to say the Church is the "wife" of Jesus, then I would say, "YEP!" and even quote Eph. 5:31-32 as a proof text. If one were to say the Church is the "bride" of Jesus, I would have to say, "No. The Bible does not SAY that. It says the bride is "a great city" in Rev. 21:9. It also says in Rev 21:9 the great city is the lamb's wife.

[Seven_0]

Let me try this a different way? If one were to say the Church is the "wife" of Jesus, then I would say, "YEP!" and even quote Eph. 5:31-32 as a proof text. If one were to say the Church is the "bride" of Jesus, I would have to say, "No. The Bible does not SAY that. It says the bride is "a great city" in Rev. 21:9. It also says in Rev 21:9 the great city is the lamb's wife.

I have never looked at it that way. I would say more likely Christ is the city and we, in Christ, are in the city. The term "wife" speaks of our relationship with Christ and "bride" is associated with the wedding. There are a few clues I will point out later. Note Christ is the light. What is "her light." (Rev 21:11)

Gotta get back to work

Seven

[topcat54]

Ephesians does not use the word "Bride".

And the distinction would be? Every bride is a wife and every wife is a bride.

[invoman]

It is a factually true statement, that is all I’m saying.

[Ping-Pong]

Concerning the bride and the wife:

I always thought the wife was God's elect while the bride were those of free will. My Companion Bible says that there is a difference in the wife from Rev.19:7 and 21:9.

It states: The wife of 19:7 is Israel, called out from all the nations for blessing in the Land, the earthly consort of "the great King". The bride, the Lamb's wife, here (21:9)is still of Israel, but that Israel of the "heavenly calling"; all those connected with the "heavenly" country and the city which hath the foundations", for which "they looked".

I don't know about you, but that made no sense to me. I would still vote for wife being His elect and bride those of free will until you pointed out 21:9 where it is written, "I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife."....and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem....

I'm back at square one.....Ping

[Seven_0]

You are actually making the same mistake you've accused others of (I think). You've made something plain, in scripture, into something else. Nowhere in scripture is the Bride of Christ called the Church. It ain't found in scripture. (post #74)

Lets back up here. I don’t like to argue that there is a plain meaning of scripture. You can go through a passage of scripture a hundred times and find something new every time. It is also a tough sell to say that something is found “nowhere in scripture.” Scripture is a very large piece of work, made larger by the fact that God has hidden treasure everywhere in it. Sometimes you can put several passages together and come up with something different than you first thought.

I've never thought about that question. I'm probably more "on your side" and I can be convinced. The fact remains, though, that the Bride is called a "great city". Further, the feminine pronoun in verse 11 (her light) goes even more to the point. (Post#87)

I am particularly interested in typology and the numerical structure of scripture. The types, allegories, metaphors and shadows bring with them, meaning to God’s word. I suspect that all of creation is designed by God to teach us about him. Lets look at a few details and see it they help.

Here is my take.

“He showed me the bride, the lambs wife.”

So, I believe the word "bride" implies or expresses the nearness of a wedding. "Wife" does not portray this idea. (Post #87)

If you are correct here, then this event take place soon after the marriage of the lamb. At that time Christ and the Church became one spirit just as the husband and wife became one flesh. Therefore when he showed the city, a keen pair of eyes would have been able to discern both the husband and the wife.

It is noteworthy here to mention that Christ is the “City of Refuge” in Numbers 35. A rule of thumb, always look for Christ in typology, he is the main character throughout the whole Bible. When you find him, keep looking, he is also the revenger of blood and the High Priest.

Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Here it is good to distinguish between the light of the city, which is Christ and “her light” which was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal. A stone, even a precious stone has no light of its own but it can transmit or reflect the light of Christ

Just my thoughts

Seven

[Ping-Pong]

I tried to ping you to post #93 and mistakenly left (54) off of your name. Sorry - I’ll be more careful in the future.

[Ping-Pong]

To use Uncle Chip's expression - I'm still beating a dead horse here. I came across this verse this morning and it has something to do with the "horses" not really being horses topic of a few days ago.

Rev. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse; and He That sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He doth judge and make war.
14. And the armies which were in heaven followed Him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

These are the same as the horses in Zechariah and they are NOT horses.

[topcat54]

These are the same as the horses in Zechariah and they are NOT horses.

Please explain that statement.

[Uncle Chip]

Rev. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse; and He That sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He doth judge and make war. 14. And the armies which were in heaven followed Him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

Good point, Ping. Obviously God's army will have horses at the battle for Jerusalem, so just who is going to say unequivocably that the other side will not have horses as well.

[topcat54]

Good point, Ping. Obviously God's army will have horses at the battle for Jerusalem, so just who is going to say unequivocably that the other side will not have horses as well.

Are these real, flesh-and-blood horses? Or is this a spiritual metaphor?

If they are flesh and blood horses, who are the riders of the horses that make up the “army”? If they are angels, are we to believe that incorporeal angelic spirits are riding flesh-and-blood horses? If they are men, since the bodily resurrection does not occur until Rev. 20, the same question, what are disembodied souls doing on flesh-and-blood horses?

Just curious, where do you see a reference to earthly Jerusalem in Revelation?

[invoman]

Are these real, flesh-and-blood horses? Or is this a spiritual metaphor?

I confess that I have "no trouble" believing the horses are horses...(God-made, of course), but that I have "trouble" believing the horses in Rev. (of earth's armies) are horses...

By this, I am admitting I'm not consistent.