The Messianic Jew & Charismatic Dispensationalism

The Messianic Literary Corner ^ | 11/30/2008 | Marshall Beeber

[mbeeber]

	The Messianic Jew & Charismatic Dispensationalism by Marshall Beeber In the nineteenth century a theological revolution called "Dispensationalism" rightly outlined the "Biblical Historical Perspective", thereby giving mankind a clearer picture of how God has provided and continues to provide salvation to man throughout history.  By acknowledgement of this perspective, an accord between Hebrew Old Covenant and New Covenant prophecy was forged, sweeping away many of the contradictions that divided Christian and Orthodox Jewish prophetic viewpoints.  Dispensationalists became God's instrument of change in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,  leading the way in promoting the support of the establishment of the state of Israel and bringing to light the prophetic signposts for the "End of this Age". But when Dispensationalists took a theological stand against the excesses they found in contemporary "Charismatic" Christianity, they "Quenched the Holy Spirit" by denying the validity of most Charismatic Christian spiritual experiences.  The result of this schism today is an eschatology shared by both Fundamentalist and Charismatic Protestant Denominations, but a sharp disagreement on the exercise of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Dispensationalists claim they are protecting the kingdom of God from spiritual frauds and false theologies, while the Charismatics believe they have tapped into the "true baptism" of spiritual experience.  Both sides have valid arguments as well as excesses.  The Dispensationalists often times exude an overly dry manner in their presentation of scripture and worship, while the Charismatics often exude a "heart first" approach, which lends themselves susceptible to erroneous doctrine presented in an exuberant fashion. Today most Messianic Jewish fellowships and congregations are disciples of one of the two movements mentioned.  As prophetic events move us closer to Messiah Yeshua's (Christ Jesus) return, believers are reminded of the Hebrew prophet Joel's promise of "prophecy, dreams and visions" among the elect of Israel before the great and terrible "Day of the Lord".1  Dispensationalists believe these occurrences were only present in the times immediately following the "Day of Pentecost" and will be present during the times just preceding "Judgment Day", where Charismatics believe these expressions of the Spirit were present from the Day of Pentecost continuously to the present day.2 Nevertheless, as the great "Day of Judgment" approaches, both Fundamentalist and Charismatic Christians should have more to agree upon than disagree.  When Dispensationalists accept they are living in the days just preceding the "Second Coming of Christ", they must also accept the very teachings they originally postulated. So as the "Day of the Lord" draws near, even Dispensationalists must accept those movements of the Spirit prophesied by Joel and recited by Peter on the Day of Pentecost. I believe Messianic Jews (Hebrew Christians) and Gentile Christians from Fundamentalist, Charismatic and Reformed backgrounds will soon come to an understanding that events much greater than themselves will soon shape their understanding of the Lord's will in regards to commonly held beliefs and attitudes.  We will all witness the same wonderful signs, tribulations and persecutions, whereby our love for the Lord Yeshua and one another will be tried and refined.  It is then that Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ will finally be united in purpose and strength as we all await the "Coming of the Lord". 1. Joel 2:28-29 2. Acts 2:16-18 (Additional studies and commentaries are requested. Feel free to email MLC your materials for posting)

[topcat54]

Really? So God doesn't dwell anywhere with His believers today? You really, really, really believe God no longer dwells with believers today?

The temple that Jesus was speaking of in Matthew 24:1-2 was destroyed. The temple that Jesus visited many times during His ministry. Is that better?

[Cvengr]

Since our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus' sacrifice is insufficient for the propitiation of sins in the preterist view, and the sacred Temple remained the place of our sacrifices from the Cross until 70 AD, exactly where and how was that sacrificial place provided by God Himself at any other location other than the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD?

If not provided, then not only has His sacrifice been insufficient for our salvation, but the entire program of God for believers been completed interrupted by the destruction of the building in 70 AD.

Obviously the enemies of Christ have not yet been made a footstool for His feet. Where is the Throne of David? Do you also deny God is unable to provide a throne for a thousand years for the Son of David over the Land He has promised form Abrahamic Covenant?

While the preterist jambs a crown of thorns on our Lord's head, claiming He is their King, thinking by declaring He today has all the royal blessings of the King of David, they also fail to fully recognize His full royal patent. He has not yet opened the seals, nor has all His enemies been made a footstool beneath His feat. He is the one to be glorified in ALL things. The angelic conflict has not yet been resolved, but even the elders will come to worship Him in all things.

The false preterist position is impotent in its heresy.

[topcat54]

Adiós.

[Cvengr]

The building was demolished in 70 AD, but no Temple was destroyed.

The only way the preterist can claim the Tribulation occurred in 70 AD, is by associating the building previously used as His Temple, as the same dwelling place of God in 70 AD.

If God didn’t dwell there at the time of the preterist’s Tribulation, and they still assert it was part of the abomination of desolation, then the preterist is cornered into accepting God’s Prophecy inaccurately states where the abomination of desolation occurs.

Where was the Shekinah Glory in 70 AD?
(Right hand of the Father, where He placed the Son, until He makes His enemies a footstool unto His feet.)

[Cvengr]

ping

[af_vet_1981]

I think you are missing something.

That portion of the Olivet Discourse I believe to be prophetically describing the events of AD70.

By your own language you concede that "all these things" were not fulfilled in 70AD.

Let's look at Matthew 24 (and its symmetric texts) and see what makes sense.

• And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
• And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
• And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

The first question is was this a new revelation to Jesus on that day, or had he already had the knowledge of this future destruction ?

The second question is whether the disciples asked three distinct questions, the answers to which we need to differentiate in the rest of the text ?

[topcat54]

By your own language you concede that "all these things" were not fulfilled in 70AD.

All the things that pertain to AD70 were fulfilled. They came upon "this generation", the generation of Jesus' contemporary Jews in the 1st century.

The first question is was this a new revelation to Jesus on that day, or had he already had the knowledge of this future destruction ?

Strange question since it makes absolutely no difference to anything.

The second question is whether the disciples asked three distinct questions, the answers to which we need to differentiate in the rest of the text ?

Jesus did not always answer His disciples in the way they expected. Whether there was one question or three has little bearing on the reply that Jesus gave. It appears that Jesus answer with two parts; one had to do with the destruction of the temple (AD70; vv. 4-34) and the other appears to be regarding the Second Coming (still future; vv. 36ff).

IMO, that interpretation makes the most sense in that it pays attention to the significance of the temple destruction wrt the ending of the old covenant system, and the implications of that on His disciples and the Church.

[af_vet_1981]

All the things that pertain to AD70 were fulfilled. They came upon "this generation", the generation of Jesus' contemporary Jews in the 1st century.

You have the cart before the horse. We are trying to establish, at least I am, what was prophesied and what was or was not fulfilled. If by "this generation" you mean those Jews who were involved in accepting or rejecting Jesus as Messiah, many of them were already dead by 70 AD and it would have been their children and grandchildren against whom the Romans practiced their genocide, and they were very competent at genocide, although in the Jews' case they did not quite succeed as here we have Israel a nation, in the land of Israel, yet again.

Strange question since it makes absolutely no difference to anything.

You don't think it important, but after he gave them this window into the future we are examinining here (Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13):

• When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
• And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

The question is whether this answer also fits with:

• Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
• Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
• But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

If so, he also did not know. I think that makes a difference when interpreting these prophecies, especially in light of the sheer number of them in the Law and Prophets, as to whether they are past or yet to come.

It appears that Jesus answer with two parts; one had to do with the destruction of the temple (AD70; vv. 4-34) and the other appears to be regarding the Second Coming (still future; vv. 36ff).

Does it make sense that "that day" is referenced first in verse 36 for a different prophecy ?

• Why would he tell them to watch as if they would experience it in their lifetime, but you say it was not for 70 AD completion ?
  Mark 13 agrees with Matthew 24:
  

• But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
• Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.

So let's assume the answer to the two questions are:

• He did not know that future completely and he said so.
• They asked three questions in Matthew, two in Mark, and two in Luke, so the discrepancy must be in the memory of those who recorded what happened.

Matthew 24:

• Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
• And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
• For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Mark 13:

• And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
• And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
• And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
• Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?
• And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:
• For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Luke 21

• And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.
• And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.
• And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:
• For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.
• And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
• As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
• And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?
• And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

However we categorize the questions, we have a fairly consistent first answer. But what does it mean ?

• One interpretation is these are false Messiahs claiming to be so, but if so, in whose name ? What is the name they do it in ? Doesn't make as much sense as:
• The deceivers purport to be followers of Jesus, or the religion that sprang up around his name, and agree that he is the Messiah. This seems a more natural reading of the English text.

[af_vet_1981]

Note:

• Mark 13 has Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
• Matthew 24 has the disciples came unto him privately
• Luke 21 has And they asked him

  It seems that it was just Peter, James, John, and Andrew that actually heard his prophecy. So it was not for general ears but very private, except for the last verse in Mark 13, And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch

  It is very interesting how the three accounts of this prophecy coincide and differ.

[af_vet_1981]

A third interpretation of that verse came to me in a dream. It goes like this:

The deceivers actually purport to be Jesus himself, a risen and returned Messiah and thus lead believers astray.

As more and more of "this generation" passed on, few if any would know what he actually looked like. After the resurrection, (most of) the disciples did not recognize him anyway. The Jesus in my dream was thin, of average height, had shaggy somewhat short hair and a long beard.

I don't think there are examples of many imposters doing this before 70 AD, but there is something called "Messiah Syndrome" where tourists that visit Jerusalem, most of whom lead otherwise normal lives, succumb to some madness and believe they are Jesus or John the Baptist. Some people in mental hospitals believe they are Jesus too.

The men documented by the book of Acts and by Josephus came in their own names, some of whom were brigands, and others of whom had a religious flavor to them. I can't think of any who meet the criteria here: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Instead they seem to conform to the type written of in: I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

There are numerous references to what "in my name" meants in the New Testament and I don't see any of Josephus' brigands and other rebels against Roman rule fitting them.

[topcat54]

If by "this generation" you mean those Jews who were involved in accepting or rejecting Jesus as Messiah, many of them were already dead by 70 AD and it would have been their children and grandchildren against whom the Romans practiced their genocide, and they were very competent at genocide, although in the Jews' case they did not quite succeed as here we have Israel a nation, in the land of Israel, yet again.

Genocide is not anywhere in view in these verses.

As for children and grandchildren, we read:

“When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it." 25 And all the people answered and said, "His blood be on us and on our children."” (Matt. 27)

As far as whether modern Israel is anyway connected to the people of the Bible or prophecy, that is the point at debate in this thread. It cannot be proved that they are.

Let me repeat that last point since you seem to not be able to get it, Modern Israel cannot be connected to the Bible prophecies in any way.

A third interpretation of that verse came to me in a dream.

Oh, now I see more clearly. It's been real.

[af_vet_1981]

Genocide is not anywhere in view in these verses.

Josephus claims that 1,100,000 people were killed during the siege, of which a majority were Jewish.

Genocide is what was attempted.

As for children and grandchildren, we read: “When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it." 25 And all the people answered and said, "His blood be on us and on our children."” (Matt. 27)

Classic antisemitism

Let me repeat that last point since you seem to not be able to get it, Modern Israel cannot be connected to the Bible prophecies in any way.

The Moslems share your dream.

[topcat54]

“Genocide is not anywhere in view in these verses.”

Josephus claims that 1,100,000 people were killed during the siege, of which a majority were Jewish.

Josephus is not the Bible. Genocide was not God’s intention.

Classic antisemitism

How does quoting the Bible amount to anti-Semitism? Invoking the A-word is usually a good indication that the user as no logical or biblical argument to offer in support of their views.

“Let me repeat that last point since you seem to not be able to get it, Modern Israel cannot be connected to the Bible prophecies in any way.”

The Moslems share your dream.

Once again, all you offer is a non sequitur that demonstrates your inability to deal with the text of the Bible.

[RJR_fan]

The more I learn, the more I wish we had a holiday celebrating the future return of the King of Kings

We do. The Lord's Supper.

[topcat54]

We do. The Lord's Supper.

But that so passé. We need something modern and energizing for this now generation that expects Jesus to return “real soon now” based on events in the middle east.

[topcat54]

It seems that it was just Peter, James, John, and Andrew that actually heard his prophecy. So it was not for general ears but very private, except for the last verse in Mark 13, And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch

That's conjecture, and not supported by the facts. Then why do we know about it? And why did Jesus use phrases like "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"? (Luke 21) And how is it that many believers ended up fleeing from Jerusalem in AD70 with the armies of Rome approached?

How would folks in Judea know unless the contents of this prophecy where intended for them?

It is very interesting how the three accounts of this prophecy coincide and differ.

How is that?

[af_vet_1981]

Josephus is not the Bible.

I thought he was one of your primary sources. Okay, we'll exclude him.

How does quoting the Bible amount to anti-Semitism?

In much the same way quoting from certain parts of the Koran does; that portion of Matthew (which is only in Matthew) was used for centuries to perpetuate a blood libel against the Jewish people as "Christ killers." All the preacher(s) had to do was work the mob. It led to centuries of told and untold horrors (persecution, assault, robbery, child kidnapping, torment, rape, murder, and genocide). Just like the Koran does in the hands of its devotees

Here is an example of where this takes Christianity:

Since there are some who think of the synagogue as a holy place, I must say a few words to them. Why do you reverence that place? Must you not despise it, hold it in abomination, run away from it? They answer that the Law and the books of the prophets are kept there. What is this? Will any place where these books are be a holy place? By no means! This is the reason above all others why I hate the synagogue and abhor it. They have the prophets but not believe them; they read the sacred writings but reject their witness-and this is a mark of men guilty of the greatest outrage.

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them".

"The Jews ... are worse than wild beasts ... lower than the vilest animals. Debauchery and drunkenness had brought them to the level of the lusty goat and the pig. They know only ... to satisfy their stomachs, to get drunk, to kill and beat each other up ... I hate the Jews ... I hate the Synagogue ... it is the duty of all Christians to hate the Jews.

Invoking the A-word is usually a good indication that the user as no logical or biblical argument to offer in support of their views.

In this case it fits the history, although there are those who deny the history (which has become illegal in some countries that witnessed the consequences of that antisemitism).

Once again, all you offer is a non sequitur that demonstrates your inability to deal with the text of the Bible.

It is quite relevant to your position. The Moslems share your position with respect to Israel for essentially the same reason, only they not only claim to have replaced Judaism, but Christianity as well. Islam has drawn from both religions and aims to replace both in the theological race.

Nothing you know is true, but it's exactly the way things are.

[af_vet_1981]

That's conjecture, and not supported by the facts.

I refer to the prophecy itself. It is right in the text of both Mark and Matthew that they came to him privately and he answered them. It was for their ears. Of course it is supported by the facts. It would be conjecture to imagine a larger audience. Of course they later related it to others, but we don't know when. Even when he commanded some to tell no man, which he did not do in this text, it would be noised abroad. This subject would be of intense interest to all.

And how is it that many believers ended up fleeing from Jerusalem in AD70 with the armies of Rome approached?

There is no Biblical source for your assertion.

It is very interesting how the three accounts of this prophecy coincide and differ.

Matthew/Mark/Luke have respectively:

• And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
• And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:
• And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived:
• For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
• For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
• for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
• And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
• And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.
• But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
• For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.
• For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.
• Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.
• Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
• But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
• But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.

Although Luke differs slightly from Matthew/Mark, it is not really interesting until the last first as Matthew has then suggesting all the previous verses should have preceded it, Mark has nothing but the order suggests a natural sequence, but Luke has But before all these. It is interesting because if Matthew/Mark are correct, and if 70AD was the target date, we might expect to read about it in the book of Acts, the evidence of the fulfillment of the preceding prophecy of the beginning of sorrows, as we would see later in Acts for the synagouges and rulers' portion. Also, Matthew alone has ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake which persists to this day for most Jews and some Christians.

[topcat54]

There is no Biblical source for your assertion.

There is no biblical source for the assertion that Christians brought the gospel to the British Isles, but there is plenty of historical confirmation. What is your point? Are you denying that believers fled from Jerusalem at the approach of the Romans armies? Eusebius gives and account in his History about the Christians who fled to Pella at the approach of Vespasian, and later Titus.

It is interesting because if Matthew/Mark are correct, and if 70AD was the target date, we might expect to read about it in the book of Acts

The differences between Matthew, Mark and Luke’s accounts can be explained entirely by looking at the audience and overall intent of the gospels. E.g., Luke was written for a gentile audience (cf. Acts. 1:1) not that familiar with Hebrew idioms and imagery. So Luke replaced the phrase “abomination of desolation” with “Jerusalem surrounded by armies”.

The books of Acts was written and the events concluded long before AD70, prior to the death of Paul.

30 Then Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house, and received all who came to him, 31 preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him. (Acts 28)

[af_vet_1981]

There is no biblical source for the assertion that Christians brought the gospel to the British Isles, but there is plenty of historical confirmation. What is your point? Are you denying that believers fled from Jerusalem at the approach of the Romans armies? Eusebius gives and account in his History about the Christians who fled to Pella at the approach of Vespasian, and later Titus.

One issue is consistency. You excluded non-biblical sources from consideration if I was making an assertion but turned around and tried to use them when you made an assertion. Choose one rule or the other and be consistent.

I don't know whether many believers fled to Pella at the approach of Vespasian or not. There is no scriptural reference to any of them having done so. There are problems with Eusebius' account and the Pella tradition so we really don't know for sure. There is another tradition that Jewish believers in Jesus fled during the Bar Kochba period as he claimed to be the Messiah. This is one of the possible fulfillments of For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. although it does not fit your 70AD timeline and I already listed the problem of how he could have come in my name, which you skipped.

The differences between Matthew, Mark and Luke’s accounts can be explained entirely by looking at the audience and overall intent of the gospels.

No, they cannot. That is conjecture on your part and that was not my point at any rate. Read again.

• Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
• But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
• But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.

Luke wrote that before all these events described in the preceding verses (Luke 21:8-11 at least),there would be a persecution. Matthew (and Mark) have the timeline directly backwards. Matthew 24:5-8 precede the same persecution. Notice the then in verse 9. Mark 13:5-8 also seem congruent with Matthew and precede the persecution described in verses 9-13. Notice the font color=red>but and for in verse 9. Your point of view would be Luke's as you could claim the Book of Acts records the persecution and witness before rulers (although no claim in the scripture is made to it as a fulfillment of the prophecy).

One problem with that point of view is that Luke has the timeline opposite of Matthew/Mark.

If Matthew/Mark are correct, then those preceding events should also be in Acts. There is a famine mentioned in Acts 11 (but no reference is made to it as a fulfillment of the prophecy). There is no mention of the other items (one earthquake in Acts 16 hardly meets the mark).

So my point remains, that had 70 AD been the fulfillment of all the prophecy one might expect to see the foretold events recorded as such. If not, the obvious conclusion could be that those events could not be distinguished as part of the prophecy, even though the prophecy was known before they occurred. So that position is reduced to, since Romans surrounded Jerusalem and destroyed the temple, everything else must have happened first. The problem is about 60 years later the Romans were back for another attempted genocide (albeit without the temple), totally outside our theory of 70AD (minus the temple).