Category: Eschatology

Categories
Commentary Eschatology Hermeneutics

Do The Promises Made To The Nation of Israel Still Stand?

The heart of all theology revolves around this question,

“Do the promises made to the Nation of Israel still stand?”

As my friend, Bobby Grow expresses it,

“I would say yes, … But qualified in a way that sees Jesus as the ground and fulfillment of what it means to be Israel. The Nation of Israel has the same purpose, in Christ (cf. Eph. 2:11ff) as every other nation. The promises made to Israel are indeed irrevocable (cf. Rom. 11:29), but Israel was always intended to be understood through her ground and purpose and fulfillment, ‘in Christ’. This is the key, that is, Christ is the key to sourcing an understanding of a properly constructed ‘literal’ method of biblical interpretation. The New Testament authors thought so, and thus; so should we. … this is where this whole debate really dwells. That is, how it is that we conceive of our philosophies of biblical interpretation?”

Guy Davies shares this about the Gospel of Matthew:

“Time and time again, the First Gospel bears witness to the fact that Jesus is the true Israel. He is the seed of Abraham and David, Matthew 1:1-17. The exodus is reenacted when he returns from Egypt to the Promised Land, Matthew 2:13-15. His temptation for forty days in the wilderness echoes Israel’s temptations during the forty wilderness years, Matthew 4:1-11. Jesus is the Servant of the Lord who brings light and salvation to the nations in a way that Israel failed to do, Matthew 12:18-21 cf. Isaiah 42:1-4, 18-20. In the Gospel According to Matthew, Jesus recapitulates Israel’s history and as he does so, fulfils Israel’s destiny.”

Others have seen a similar undercurrent of meaning in the Gospel of Matthew. Kim Riddlebarger explains it this way:

First, in Matthew 12:15-21, for example, when Jesus withdrew from the crowds who had followed him, Matthew reports that this event fulfilled what had been spoken in Isaiah the prophet. This event serves to demonstrate that Jesus is the true servant of the Lord.

Second, as Jesus cast out demons and healed the sick, Matthew saw in this the fulfillment of Isaiahā€™s prophecies of a suffering servant who would take upon himself our infirmities and carry our diseases (Matthew 8:17 with Isaiah 53:4).

Third, in Lukeā€™s gospel, Luke speaks of both Israel (cf. Luke 1:54) and David as the servant of God (Luke 1:69). Yet in Acts, Luke pointedly speaks of Jesus as the servant of God (Acts 3:13). After his crucifixion, God raised Jesus from the dead so that people everywhere might be called to repentance (3:26).

Fourth, when the Ethiopian eunuch hears a reading from Isaiah 53:7-8 and asks Philip about whom this prophecy refers, Luke tells us that Philip informed the Ethiopian that this passage does indeed refer to Jesus (Acts 8:34-35).

But this is not all that is in view here. In Hosea 11:1, Hosea predicted a time when ā€œIsrael was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.ā€ But in Matthew 2:15, the evangelist tells us that Hoseaā€™s prophecy was fulfilled when his parents took Jesus to Egypt to protect him from Herodā€™s ā€œslaughter of the innocentsā€ (Matthew 2:3-18). Yet, after Herod had died, God called Jesus and his family to return to Nazareth. Matthew takes a passage from Hosea, which clearly refers to Israel, and tells his reader that this passage is now fulfilled in Jesus Christ! He does this to prove to his largely Jewish audience that Jesus is the servant of the Lord, foretold throughout the Old Testament (especially Isaiah).

By now it should be clear that according to many New Testament writers, Jesus is the true servant, the true son and the true Israel of God. Recall too that it was Isaiah who spoke of Israel and the descendants of Abraham as the people of God. It as through the seed of Abraham that the nations of the earth would be blessed.

Therefore, even as Jesus is the true Israel, he is the true seed of Abraham. This is the point that Paul is making in Galatians 3:7-8, when he says ā€œknow then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, `In you shall all the nations be blessed.’ā€

Paulā€™s words here, are important for several reasons. First, Paul tells us that Abraham believed the very same gospel that he preached to the Gentile Galatians. There has only been one plan of salvation and one gospel from the very beginning. This, of course, raises very serious questions about the dispensational notion of ā€œclearly distinctā€ redemptive purposes for national Israel and the Gentiles, as is evident when Paul goes on to say in Galatians 3:29, that ā€œif you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.ā€

Second, the one gospel promise from the very beginning of redemptive history is that the true children of Abraham, whether they be Jew or Gentile, are heirs of the promise, if they belong to Jesus Christ, the true seed of Abraham. But as Robert Strimple points out, an important word of clarification is certainly in order. ā€œWe [amillennarians] say: `Yes, the nation of Israel was the people of God in the old covenant. Now in the new covenant the believing church is the people of God.ā€™ And thus we quickly run past (or we miss the blessed point entirely) the fact that we Christians are the Israel of God, Abrahamā€™s seed, and the heirs to the promises, only because by faith, we are united to him who alone is the true Israel, Abrahamā€™s one seed.ā€ (See Strimple, ā€œAmillennialism,ā€ in Bock, ed., Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond, 89).

The ramifications for this upon oneā€™s millennial view should now be obvious. If Jesus is the true Israel of God, and if the New Testament writers apply to Jesus those Old Testament prophecies referring to Israel as Godā€™s son or servant, then what remains of the dispensationalistā€™s case that these prophecies remain yet to be fulfilled in a future millennium? They vanish in Jesus Christ, who has fulfilled them!

Martin Downes concludes his thoughts on Matthew 2:

“He [Matthew] is saying that Jesus, Godā€™s Son, is Israel, the true Israel. And that Jesus will retrace Israelā€™s steps. They went down to Egypt and so will He. They were tested in the wilderness and so will He be (Matt. 4:1-11). But where the nation of Israel failed, Jesus the true Israel, the obedient Son, will prevail. This is the biblical background to the doctrine of the active obedience of Christ. He was born under the law to redeem those who were under the law. Whereas Adam and Israel were law-breakers, Christ was the true law-keeper and this not for His own sake but for ours.”

Read all of Downesā€™ The Great Escape: Matthew 2 as the Remake of a Classic Story.

Justin Taylor shares a good, concise summary of the Israel/remnant theme from a New Testament perspective in Jesus as the New Israel:

“The New Testament authors understood Jesus to be the culmination of the Old Testament. He is the Last Adam, true Israel, the suffering servant, the son of David, the faithful remnant, the ultimate prophet, the reigning king, the final priest.

“. . . Jesus had become a remnant of one. He was the embodiment of faithful Israel, the truly righteous and suffering servant.

Unlike the remnant of the restoration period, he committed no sin (Isa. 53:9; 1 Pet. 2:22).

As the embodiment of the faithful remnant, he would undergo divine judgment for sin (on the cross), endure an exile (three days forsaken by God in the grave), and experience a restoration (resurrection) to life as the foundation of a new Israel, inheriting the promises of God afresh.

As the remnant restored to life, he becomes the focus of the hopes for the continued existence of the people of God in a new kingdom, a new Israel of Jew and Gentile alike.

As the nucleus of a renewed Israel, Christ summons the ā€œlittle flockā€ that will receive the kingdom (Dan. 7:22, 27; Luke 12:32) and appoints judges for the twelve tribes of Israel in the new age (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30).

The church is viewed as the Israel of that new age (Gal. 6:16), the twelve tribes (James 1:1), ā€œa chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, Godā€™s special possessionā€ (Ex. 19:6; 1 Pet. 2:9).

A sinful nation, Israel could not suffer vicariously to atone for the sins of the world. The sinfulness of the nation made it unacceptable for this role, just as flaws would disqualify any other offering. Only a truly righteous servant could bear this awful load.”

ā€”Tremper Longman III and Raymond B. Dillard, ā€œIsaiah,ā€ An Introduction to the Old Testament, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 315.

The two best books Iā€™ve read on this fulfillment theme are Hans LaRondelleā€™s The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation and David Holwerdaā€™s Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two? (Keith Mathison has a good review of Holwerdaā€™s volume here.)

Jesus is the true Israel, and the church becomes the Israel of God as it unites to True Israel. The same is true for ethnic Israel, whom God has not abandoned. But their only hope is to be united with Jesus, the ultimate suffering servant.”

RT France explains:

“Matthew also seems to present this idea that Jesus himself is the true Israel. Perhaps it is already implicit in his presentation of Jesus as ‘King of the Jews’, but it comes to more obvious expression in some of the typological references to the Old Testament. The use of Hosea 11:1 in 2:15 makes sense only if Jesus, as God’s son, is equated with Israel as ‘God’s son’. The same typology underlies the references to Deuteronomy 6-8 in the account of Jesus’testing in the wilderness (4:1-11). The parable which most clearly speaks of the failure and replacement of Israel (21:33-43 concludes with Jesus’ reference to Psalm 118:22, a passage about Israel’s unexpected vindication but now transferred to Jesus in his vindication over against Israel’s rebellion.

In discussing Matthew’s typology above we noted his remarkable concentration in chapter 12 of Jesus’ sayings about ‘a greater than the temple/Jonah/Solomon’, the effect of which is to place Jesus as the ‘fulfillment’ of the main pillars of the institutional life of Old Testament Israel. The implication is that the focus of the true Israel is not now in the cult, the prophet, or the king, but in Jesus.

But the theme of Jesus as the true Israel is not the dominant one in the Gospel. For the result of Jesus’ ministry was the creation of a community of those who responded to his message. There is evidence in Matthew that it was not only in Jesus himself, but also in this disciple group, in distinction from unbelieving Israel, that the true people of God was now to be found.

Jesus seems to have thought of them as a sort of ‘righteous remnant’ of Israel, such as the prophets often spoke of. Thus in 13:10-17 he speaks of the majority of his hearers in words taken from Isaiah’s call to preach to unresponsive Israel, but contrasts them with his disciples, to whom the privilege of understanding God’s secrets has been given. They are the ‘meek’ who in the Psalms represent God’s true servants (5:5). They are called to fulfill the special calling of Israel to be holy, as God is holy (see on 5:48). They are the true flock of God as described in Zechariah (26:31). They will constitute Jesus’ ekklesia, a prominent Old Testament word for the congregation of God’s people (16:18).

The focus of Israel’s national life in the Old Testament had been the covenant made at Sinai, but now Jesus’ blood will seal a new covenant such as Jeremiah had predicted (26:28); and a new covenant means a new basis of existence for the people of God. In speaking of the temple destroyed and rebuilt (see on 26:61, and cf. the implications of the saying of 12:6 and the repudiation of existing temple worship in 21:12-13) Jesus looked forward to a new basis of worship for the true people of God, and one which envisaged the literal destruction of the old order (24:2).

Such pointers towards a new people of God are given further substance by Jesus’ deliberate choice of twelve disciples as the leadership of his new community, and the implication is spelt out in 19:28, which envisages them sitting ‘on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel’.

Matthew records no explicit description of the disciples as ‘Israel’, ‘the true Israel’ or the like, but the indications listed above point unmistakably towards the idea, as do a number of passages where Old Testament prophecies relating to Israel are applied to the disciples of Jesus (8:11;24:31).

Through its rejection of God’s final appeal the nation as such has forfeited its claim to be the people of God. Jesus now represents all that Israel should have been, and in those who belong to him the purposes of God for Israel find their fulfillment.”

“Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ” Colossians 2:16-17.

This is why the promises made to the nation of Israel still stand. Jesus (literally) fulfills the promises and is the True Israel. And any ethnic Israelite (or gentile) who believes in Jesus takes part as joint heirs of Christ.

“Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called ā€œthe uncircumcisionā€ by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by handsā€”remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit” Ephesians 2:11-22.

Categories
Eschatology Hermeneutics

Who Is Israel?

My initial thoughts coming out of my studies as of late regarding the descendants of Abraham. Please remember these are still forming and are not exactly concrete in my thinking, but they’re close! I reserve the right to tweak and change my thoughts as I continue.

Genesis 12 presents the Abrahamic Covenant with characteristics that should be noted:

“the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'”

Undoubtedly, Godā€™s covenant with Abraham is also for Abrahamā€™s descendants which leads us to the question,

Who constitutes Abrahamā€™s descendants?

Abraham himself was a Gentile called out of the land of Ur, and there were also the Gentiles who became proselytes to the faith of Abraham (Genesis 12:5). They were not ethnic Israelites.

There was also the mixed multitude who went out from Egypt with the Israelites (Exodus 12:38). The term “mixed multitude” describes the people that were not Israelites who left Egypt, were saved with the Israelites, and included as Israelites.

“The sojourner who is in your camp” (i.e., the Gentiles who joined themselves to Israel) and even “with whoever is not here with us today,” describing some individuals who did not belong to that time, that place, or that people, and were included in the covenant (Deuteronomy 29:10-15).

Beside the fact the Gibeonites had deceived Joshua and the leaders of Israel into making a covenant with them, their lives were spared and they became “cutters of wood and drawers of water for the congregation and for the altar of the Lord” (Joshua 9:27) Their faith in God allowed them to enter into His covenant, although they were not Jewish (Joshua 9:9-10).

Further, letā€™s consider David. Who was David and to what extent was he ethnic Israelite? Looking at Davidā€™s Israelite ethnicity, Matthew 1 sheds light on this issue: “Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David the king.”

Rahab lived in Jericho which was a city in Canaan. She was a Canaanite woman and a prostitute. She had chosen the Jewish people and their God. From the perspective of her countrymen, had they survived, Rahab was a traitor and a betrayer. But ultimately, life is only judged by God’s standard. She was not an ethnic Israelite yet was the great grandmother of David and as Matthew 1 demonstrates, in the lineage of Jesus.

Ruth, a Moabite, chose the unknown of a new people and a new land, and a walk with God. Though she remained “Ruth the Moabitess,” she was grafted into Israel, both physically and spiritually and was the grandmother of David. This means David was at least one quarter Moabite and one eighth Canaanite. Both women were counted as Israelites and partook of the blessings which were designated for Abrahamā€™s descendants.

During the exile, in the time of Esther and Mordecai, the Jewish people were about to be annihilated by the hatred of Haman. God turned things around, and preserved and prospered His people. Though there were great, numerous, and powerful enemies arrayed against them, many joined with the Jewish people for their defense. (Esther 9:27) Many of these allies actually became proselytes (Esther 8:17).

What then is the position of the strangers, gentiles and sojourners who truthfully joined themselves to the Lord and to His people? Can they only be servants as the Gibeonites were? Or can they expect to be honored as Ruth and Rahab were? We read in the book of Isaiah: “Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, ‘The Lord will surely separate me from his people’; …For thus says the Lord, ‘…the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to Him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath, and holds fast My covenant; even those I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; for My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.'” (Isaiah 56:3-7).

We can see in the Old Testament God called Gentiles “Israelites” or at the very least were counted as an Israelite- included IN THE COVENANT COMMUNITY. Even these converted Gentiles receive all the blessings of the promises of God just like someone who is an ethnic Israelite1.

So, does “Israel” always mean ethnic/genetic Israel? It can’t be- not every time. It means the covenant people of God who are spiritual Israel who has always comprised of both ethnic Israelites and Gentiles in the midst of a national Israelite economy. It’s always been to all those who believed in the Messiah (i.e. Jesus) both ethnic Israel and Gentiles. For without believing in the Messiah, they will perish. So not all Israel are heirs of promise unless they believed in the promised Messiah (Jesus the Christ) and partook of the faith of Abraham thereby becoming Abrahamā€™s descendants. Ethnic lineage is not enough.

References
1On Israel and Promise

Categories
Eschatology Hermeneutics

Another Look at 1 Corinthians 15

In last week’s article in this Eschatology series, we linked to an article discussing 1 Corinthians 15 and the Rapture. Today, we look at a rebuttal of the Dispensational Premillennial Rapture.

If it weren’t for 2 Corinthians 15:50, I probably would have never begun to question premillennialism. I find in this verse an explicit denial of one of the essential tenets of all premillennial theories. Premillennialism must have people entering the future kingdom in their natural, unglorified bodies. This is due to the fact that a lot of people are said to rebel against God and Christ at the end of the millennium (Rev 20:7-10).

But where do these folk come from if premillennialism is true? The only explanation is that these rebels are the children of those who originally entered Christ’s millennial kingdom. Since, however, people who experience resurrection cannot procreate (Luke 20:34-35), then there must be saints who somehow enter the kingdom without having experienced glorification. Everyone agrees that,

If there are no people who enter the premillennium unglorified, then premillennialism is untenable and simply cannot be correct

Well, I find clear and irrefutable evidence that such is the teaching of 1 Corinthians 15:50, “Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” All commentators are agreed that Paul is speaking here of glorification, the transformation of one’s physical body into a body like Christ’s. The only real point of contention is, what exactly does Paul mean when he refers to “the kingdom of God”?

The context makes it clear that the “kingdom” in view is the one which is established directly after Christ’s return. Paul amplifies verse 50 by saying: “Behold, I tell you a mystery: we will not all sleep but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will all be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality” (vs. 51-53).

I find it curious that most people start quoting these verses as if Paul’s logic begins in verse 51

But it is clear that verses 51 through 53 do not form a complete thought in themselves. Instead, they serve to explain why “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (v. 50). As such, the “kingdom” which is in view is the rule and reign of Christ directly after He returns to earth. If so, then premillennialism is ruled out as an option.

The only way out of this is for premillennialists to claim that verse 50 refers to the New Heavens and New Earth. This is a strange maneuver because in verses 42 to 49 Paul discusses the resurrection of the righteous dead. And he does so again in verses 51 to 57. Thus, these verses refer to events that occur in connection with the return of Christ.

Are we really to believe that verse 50 stands alone in its context, so that it looks 1000 years beyond the events of its surrounding discussion?

This strains the principles of interpretation too much. It is much more natural to believe that verse 50 is intimately connected to the verses that precede and follow it. The only reason why we would believe that its claims are out of place is if our system doesn’t let it stand in its context. Here is clear example of where premillennialists are doing what they accuse amills and postmills of:

Letting a system interpret the Scripture instead of the Scripture interpreting the system

Charles Hodge comments on this verse:

“The common millenarian [i.e. premillennial] doctrine is, that there is to be a literal resurrection when Christ shall come to reign in person upon the earth, a thousand years before the end of the world, and that the risen saints are to dwell here and share with Christ in the glories of his reign. But this seems to be inconsistent with what is taught in I Corinthians xv. 50. … It is here expressly asserted that our bodies as now constituted are not adapted to the state of things which shall exist when the kingdom of God is inaugurated. We must all be changed. From this it follows that the spiritual body is not adapted to our present mode of existence; that is, it is not suited or designed for an earthly kingdom” (Systematic Theology, Vol III, 843).

Categories
Eschatology Hermeneutics

Evaluating the Rapture: A Look at 1 Corinthians 15

Ken Stiles over at Shepherd The Sheep ~ Three men who love Jesus and His church wrote a very good article providing evidence for the Rapture.

Ken writes,

“In todayā€™s post, we look at another passage that does not teach a pre-trib rapture per se: 1 Corinthians 15. It is worth pointing out that 1 Corinthians 15 is also urged by some to completely rule out premillennialism. …

…Paulā€™s discussion of the rapture begins in verse 50. After arguing that the Father is excepted from Jesus subduing all other power and authority, and demonstrating the absurdity of certain rituals if the dead are in fact not raised, and exposing the foolishness of incredulity concerning what kind of body people will have in the resurrection; Paul tells the Corinthians that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. Some have urged this fact against certain premillennial positions because said positions allow that some non-glorified (i.e., flesh and blood) people who survive the tribulation would enter into the millennial kingdom. In response it may be noted that Paul has already discussed the kingdom up through Jesus turning it over to the Father. This would be the eternal state phase of the kingdom then that Paul is speaking of, not the millennial phase of the kingdom, when he says that flesh and blood cannot inherit it. There will be no non-glorified people in the eternal state.”

Check out the whole article: Part V: Evaluating the Rapture.

Categories
Eschatology Hermeneutics

Dispensationalism 2

Charles C. Ryrie explains the dispensational emphasis on consistently literal interpretation as follows:

The distinction between Israel and the Church is born out of a system of hermeneutics which is usually called literal interpretation. … The word literal is perhaps not as good as either the word normal or plain, but in any case it is interpretation that does not spiritualize or allegorize as nondispensational interpretation does. … Consistently literal or plain interpretation is indicative of a dispensational approach to the interpretation of Scripture. And it is this very consistency — the strength of dispensational interpretation — that irks the nondispensationalist and becomes the object of his ridicule.1

If plain or normal interpretation is the only valid hermeneutical principle, and if it is consistently applied, it will cause one to be a dispensationalist. As basic as one believes normal interpretation to be, to that extent he will of necessity become a dispensationalist.2

Dr. Walvoord captures the spirit of dispensational literalism in his dramatic statements:
“History is history, not allegory. Facts are facts. Prophesied future events are just what they are prophesied. Israel means Israel, earth means earth, heaven means heaven.”3

“A literal promise spiritualized is exegetical fraud.”4

Bark River Bible Church expresses Dispensationalism this way:

Dispensationalism ā€“ We believe that the Scriptures interpreted in their natural, literal sense reveal divinely determined dispensations or rules of life which define manā€™s responsibilities in successive ages. These dispensations are not ways of salvation, but rather divinely ordered stewardships by which God directs man according to his purpose. Three of these ā€“ the age of law, the age of the Church, and the age of the millennial kingdom ā€“ are the subjects of detailed revelation in Scripture (John 1:17; 1 Corinthians 9:17; 2 Corinthians 3:9-18; Galatians 3:13-25; Ephesians 1:10; Ephesians 3:2-10; Colossians 1:24-25; Hebrews 7:19; Revelation 20:2-6).5

References

1 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), pages 45-46.

2 Ibid., page 21.

3 John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, pages 129-130.

4 Ibid., page 200.

5 Bark River Bible Church – What We Believe

Categories
Eschatology Hermeneutics

Dispensationalism

George Parsons, Pastor of Middletown Bible Church in Middletown, CT, wrote the following to champion and clarify the teaching of Dispensationalism:

When Godā€™s Word, the Bible, is taken in a consistent, literal manner, it will result in dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is the result of a consistently literal and normal interpretation. Do You Interpret the Bible Literally? Six Tests to See if You Do

A dispensation is a unique stage in the outworking of Godā€™s program in time, whereby mankind is to have a believing response, being responsible to be a good steward of the particular revelation which God has given (Ephesians 3:2,9; Colossians 1:25; Exodus 34:27-28; Galatians 3:10-12; 1 Timothy 1:4; Ephesians 1:10; etc.).

In order to be “rightly dividing the Word of truth” it is essential to distinguish things that differ and to recognize certain basic Biblical distinctions, such as the difference between Godā€™s program for Israel and Godā€™s program for the Church (Acts 15:14-17; Romans 11:25-27), the separation of 1000 years between the two resurrections (Revelation 20:4-6), the difference between the various judgments which occur at various times (2 Corinthians 5:10; Matthew 25:31-46; Revelation 20:11-15), the difference between law and grace (John 1:17; Romans 6:14-15 Romans 7:1-6) and the difference between Christā€™s present session at the right hand of the Father as the Churchā€™s great High Priest and Christā€™s future session on the restored Davidic throne as Israelā€™s millennial King (Hebrews 1:3; 10:12-13; Acts 15:16; Luke 1:32). Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth–What Does 2 Timothy 2:15 Really Mean?

The Church is a distinct body of believers which was not present on earth during the Old Testament period and which was not the subject of Old Testament prophecy (Ephesians 3:1-9; Colossians 1:25-27). When Did The Church Begin? In accord with Godā€™s program and timetable, the Church is on earth between the two advents of Christ with the beginning of the Church taking place after Danielā€™s 69th week (on the Day of Pentecost, Acts 2) and with the completion of the Churchā€™s ministry on earth taking place at the rapture before the commencement of Danielā€™s 70th week (Daniel 9:24,27). The Rapture of the Church During this interval of time God is visiting the nations to call out a people for His Name (Acts 15:14-16; Ephesians 3: 1-11; Romans 11:25). Indeed, the Church is Godā€™s called-out assembly.

God will literally fulfill His covenant and kingdom promises to the nation of Israel just as the prophets foretold (Genesis 12:2-3; 15:18-21; Deuteronomy 30:3-10; 2 Samuel 7:4-17; Jeremiah 31:31-37; 33:15-26). We believe that the promises of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 12,15,17), the Palestinian covenant (Deuteronomy 30), the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7) and the New covenant (Jeremiah 31) were made unconditionally to national Israel and that the thousand-year kingdom will include the literal fulfillment of these covenant promises to ethnic Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-37; 33:14-26; Ezekiel 36:25-28, 40-48; Romans 11:23-32).

The Church is not the “new Israel” or the “spiritual Israel,” but rather “one new man” created of two groups, saved Jews and saved Gentiles (Ephesians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 10:32). The terms “Israel,” “Israelite,” and “Jew,” are used in the New Testament to refer to national, ethnic Israel. The term “Israel” is used of the nation or the people as a whole or the believing remnant within. It is not used of the Church in general or of Gentile believers in particular. Saved Gentiles of this present age are spiritual sons of Abraham who is the father of all who believe (Romans 4:12,16; Galatians 3:7,26,29), whether Jews or Gentiles; but believing Gentiles are not Israelites [that is, they are not the sons of Jacob]. The Israelites are carefully defined by Paul in Romans 9:4-5. The Use of the Term “Israel” in the N.T.

In every dispensation Godā€™s distinctive programs are outworked for His great Nameā€™s sake, and in every dispensation persons have always been saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8; Genesis 15:6; Hebrews 11:4-7; Romans 4:1-8). We believe that the glory of God is the determining principle and overall purpose for Godā€™s dealings with men in every age and that in every dispensation God is manifesting Himself to men and to angels so that all might redound to the praise of His glory (Ephesians 1:6,12,14; 3:21; Romans 11:33-36; 16:27; Isaiah 43:7; 1 Timothy 1:17). The Glory of God

Literal Interpretation

The Bible must be interpreted literally which is the way language is normally and naturally understood. We recognize that the Bible writers frequently used figurative language which is a normal and picturesque way of portraying literal truth. The Bible must be understood in the light of the normal use of language, the usage of words, the historical and cultural background, the context of the passage and the overall teaching of the Bible (2 Timothy 2:15). Most important, the believer must study the Bible in full dependence upon the SPIRIT OF TRUTH whose ministry is to reveal Christ and illumine the minds and hearts of believers (John 5:39; 16:13-15; 1 Corinthians 2:9-16). The natural, unregenerate man cannot understand or interpret correctly the Word of God. The things of God are foolishness to him, he cannot know them (1 Corinthians 2:14), and his mind is blinded (Romans 3:11; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4).

See here for the original article.

Categories
Eschatology Religion Videos

Eschatology 101: A Christian and a Jew discuss Dispensationalism

Bill Moyers (on PBS) does an interview with a Christian (Timothy Weber, author of On the Road to Armageddon) and Jew (Michael Lerner) about the dangers of dispensationalism (video).

Transcript

BILL MOYERS: How many people belong to Christians United for Israel? Well, they say they have the support of 50,000 pastors and their congregations. And that would be no mean number. Let’s talk further now with two men who follow closely relations between American Christians and Israel.

Rabbi Michael Lerner is the editor of the widely read and quoted TIKKUN magazine, which he founded in 1986 as a journal of liberal and progressive Jewish thought. He holds doctorates in both philosophy and clinical psychology and has written 11 books, including JEWISH RENEWAL, SPIRIT MATTERS, and his most recent, THE LEFT HAND OF GOD.

Dr. Timothy Weber is himself an evangelical Christian. Once a Baptist now a Presbyterian, a teacher and historian of religion, he taught at Denver Seminary and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, among other schools. He’s known as an innovator in graduate theological education and the author of LIVING IN THE SHADOW OF THE SECOND COMING and this one, On the ROAD TO ARMAGEDDON: HOW EVANGELICALS BECAME ISRAEL’S BEST FRIEND. Welcome to you both.

These people seem to be on a roll. They look as if they believe the future belongs to them. Right?

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: This is one group in a long line of similar groups that– began to organize in the late ’70s and early ’80s which combined a firm belief of Bible prophecy and a particular political agenda that has gained more and more power as the years have gone on.

BILL MOYERS: How do you account for the fact, rabbi, that there were more political actors among them than there were preachers?

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: I think that that movement has three different parts to it. And one part is those people whose primary agenda is conservative politics in America and are using the issue of Israel as another part of their support for conservative politics. And if the United States moved away from Israel, they might move away from it. The second part are people who are dispensationalists, who believe that getting Israel into a huge battle with the Arab states is going to be good for bringing Jesus back onto our planet. And-

BILL MOYERS: Dispensationalist is a theological concept.

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: Right. It’s a theological concept. Then there are an awful lot of people who genuinely care about Jews; decent good people in this movement who, unfortunately, are being manipulated for a political agenda that is very, very different and, in my view, not at all in the best interests of the Jewish people or in the best interest of Israel.

BILL MOYERS: Before we go any further, give me a shorthand definition of dispensationalism.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Dispensationalism is a particular way of reading Bible prophecy which divides the Bible into two stories. There’s a story about God’s earthly people, Israel. And then a story about God’s heavenly people, the Church. And the basic premise of dispensationalism is that all Bible prophecies concerning earthly events applies to the Jews. And all of those events will be fulfilled literally in the End Times. So, Israel must be returned to the land. They must stay in the land. Without Israel in the land, there can be none of the other events prophesied in the Bible. There can be no rise of Anti-Christ. There can be no rebuilding of the Temple. There can be no Battle of Armageddon. And there can be no second coming of Jesus Christ. So everything is riding on the Jews, getting them there and keeping them there in the Holy Land.

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: But I think– but what you have to add in there is that when this is a step in the process that they see towards the end of end times in which the Jews will be cast down into eternal damnation and to the fires of hell. And only those Jews who convert to Christianity will be okay. And everyone — all the rest of us so they’re welcoming us now — with open arms and saying, “Oh, we love the Jewish people” But they love the Jewish people literally to death because they they want see those of us who stay Jews burn in hell but not– not right away. They don’t imagine it will happen right away. So there’s a staged process. And this is the first stage in the process that will eventually lead either to us converting totally to Christianity or burning in hell. So it’s not a really great future for the Jews that those theological people have in mind.

BILL MOYERS: If what you say is so, and I think you probably agree with it, I read your book.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Yes. Yes.

BILL MOYERS: Why does this play in Israel?

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: Well, there’s– this is the other–

BILL MOYERS: They are being used, right?

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: Yes. This is the other terrible part about the role that Christian Zionists play. Because they’ve been aligned with the most right-wing elements in Israel and the most right-wing elements in the American Jewish community– that have gathered together in the Israel lobby. And the Israel lobby includes AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, and many other of the Israel-is-always-right organizations in the Jewish world have played the role of supporting the most reactionary policies in Israel. And that–

BILL MOYERS: Isn’t this an act of survival?

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: Well, they think it’s survival. But, in fact, for a very large number of Jews today, both in Israel and in the United States, recognize that the policies that Israel has been following has actually been destructive for the long-range survival of Israel. And so they are an element, the Christian Zionists are really an important element in the Israel lobby today, pushing the United States towards support of the most conservative and unloving policies.

BILL MOYERS: As you watched the film, were you concerned that the thread that seemed to run throughout it, that connected the political wing of the movement and the theological wing of the movement, was the belief that a confrontation with Iran is not only inevitable but desirable? Did that hit you?

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: It’s easy to make that connection and to see that. As an historian, I’m struck by the fact that in previous attempts to understand Bible prophecy Iran did not show up on anybody’s radar screen. As history takes these unexpected turns the Bible teachers, the preachers, the dispensational theologians, they adjust the scenario to fit. In some ways, Iran is playing the role that the former Soviet Union used to play as the great evil empire in the world. In short, dispensationalists know how to change the subject, when it’s necessary.

BILL MOYERS: But to them ā€” to the religious folks, Iran is an agency for war. To the political folks, Iran is a threat to Israel for its national security reasons. Isn’t this a combustible combination?

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Absolutely.

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: It’s bad for the world. It’s bad for the Jews. It’s bad for Israel. And it’s bad for the United States.

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: This kind of a world view ā€” as either they dominate us or we dominate them ā€” has led us into this terrible– quagmire in Iraq. And most Americans now believe that we made a terrible mistake going into that war. Now the president believes that he can do a different kind of war in Iran. But I think that he’s not going to be successful in containing that war either, just as he failed in the Iraq War. So it’s bad for the United States. It’s bad for Israel because this will further enflame the Islamic world against Israel. Because the primary reason being given by Christian Zionists, by the Israel lobby for the need to take out Iran is protect Israel. So–

BILL MOYERS: Ahmadinejad himself has enflamed the, as you say, the worst instincts in the Muslim world, right?

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: Yeah, he claims they’re the best allies. Ahmadinejad is really one of the best allies of the Christian Right and and of the Jewish Right.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Well, Islam has its own view of prophecy of the end days. And the president of Iran certainly speaks to that and speaks the language of Koranic prophecy to his own followers. Many people in this country, many political analysts don’t get it yet.

BILL MOYERS: Don’t get what?

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: The fact that he is operating out of a particular view of what the future will be like and what role he can play in bringing about the return of the Mahdi, a kind of messianic figure who will turn the world Islamic.

BILL MOYERS: So you’ve got two apocalyptic world views heading toward a collision.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: That’s right.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: And how do you negotiate two apocalyptic world views? How do you compromise? This is the danger that we’re in.

BILL MOYERS: When both believe that they speak for God or God speaks through them.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Right?

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: Right. The alternative is to create a different world view. And this is the problem that the United States and those of us who are liberals or progressives in the United States and in the Western world have not been able to articulate an alternative world view, in part because we’re so largely secular and because we don’t understand that there is some spiritual foundation to the yearnings of people all over the world for something other than global capitalism, for something other than the globalization of selfishness. And that is seen as what America has to offer the world, each one for herself or himself. We need an alternative. We need an alternative that can speak to the hunger that people have for a framework of meaning and purpose to their lives and the hunger that they have for loving relationships that are not based solely on looking out for number one.

BILL MOYERS: The hunger I don’t deny. But as Dr. Weber just said how does a progressive world view, a more loving world view, compete with two apocalyptic faiths that believe God has set them on a course which can only be consummated in violence?

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: Well, this is why I emphasize the fact that there are a lot of good Christian Zionists and a lot of good people in the religious right who are not primarily committed to the conservative agenda and to the support of global military interests of either the United States or Israel, but are actually coming from a different place. Their base can be split from their top if there is a reaffirmation of a loving world view.

BILL MOYERS: But there is no evidence, I mean, there are evangelicals who have actually signed statements to the president saying “we don’t agree with these people. We believe in a two state solution in Israel. We have empathy and sympathy for the Palestinians.” But they don’t have the clout that the–

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Yes. They’re not organized. And when you’re not organized in this kind of an environment, you end up bringing up the caboose. I mean, you’re at the end of the train. It’s important to recognize that only about a third of American evangelicals would identify with a dispensational world view. This is–

BILL MOYERS: The end times theology.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: That’s right.

BILL MOYERS: A third–

BILL MOYERS: –what? Twenty–

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Maybe 20 million, 25 million. That leaves an awful lot of other evangelicals who are Bible believers, who have a very warm spot in their heart for Israel. Let’s face it. Evangelicals grew up with maps of Israel on their Sunday school wall.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, exactly. I did, too.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: And the whole–

BILL MOYERS: You love the Bible, you love Israel.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: That’s right. And the whole story of Jesus and the whole story of his ancestors were in the Holy Land. This is sacred space. And evangelicals know that. And they tend to love Israel because of it. In other words, evangelicals love Israel not just because of a specific prophetic scenario but for all kinds of other reasons.

BILL MOYERS: That’s a very important point to remember.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: So growing numbers of evangelicals are recognizing that very thing. Bill referred to a letter sent to the president this summer signed by 30 evangelical heavyweights, presidents of seminaries and leaders of denominations and very well-known authors and spiritual leaders. And their point was we don’t want you to believe that groups like Hagee’s speak for the vast majority of us. We recognize that sometimes the best friend, the best advice that friends of Israel can give is to cooperate, is not to just endorse everything that happens but to encourage justice and peacekeeping and so on. And so you have this one group of evangelical leaders who are speaking for, I think, a much larger group that is encouraging a different approach.

BILL MOYERS: I can’t see that they are having any impact.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Not yet.

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: Not yet.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: No.

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: History isn’t over. And —

BILL MOYERS: It may be sooner than you think.

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: Well– I’m hoping we have a few more years here. And I think in the 21st Century the growing wisdom of the American people and of all people is that our well being depends on the well being of everyone else on the planet, and I think that the Israeli population increasingly are coming to understand that their well being depends on the well being of Palestinians and of the Arab world. That there’s that fundamental interdependence.

BILL MOYERS: But if you lived in Israel and none of the governments around you recognized your right to exist, and if, in fact, you heard Ahmadinejad– proclaiming the apocalyptic consummation of history on his terms, wouldn’t you welcome the support of John Hagee and these people no matter what ultimately they think happens to the Jews? Wouldn’t it be an immediate factor of survival?

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: Well, I think it’s a mistaken view of survival. In other words, yeah, they’re —

BILL MOYERS: From your standpoint over here.

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: They’re coming in there and they’re saying, “Right on, Israel, when you cut off food for the people in the Gaza Strip right now. Cut off water, cut off electricity, and just starve them out of their Hamas.” But anybody with understanding of human dynamics knows that that’s not going to lead to reconciliation. It’s just going to lead to further anger and further willingness of people to give their lives in murderous assaults on Israel. So it’s not really being helpful.

Now, yeah, there are a fair number of opportunists in Israel who say, “You know, we’ll deal with the second coming of Jesus and being burnt in hell when that happens. Right now we’re glad to have their support on the politics.” But what I’m saying is the politics is the wrong politics. It’s not helping Israel. It’s actually pushing the most reactionary elements in Israel.

BILL MOYERS: Dr. Weber, there was a CNN/Time poll that said only 36 percent of all Americans believe the Bible is God’s word. Only one third of all Americans believe the Bible is God’s word and should be taken literally. But 59 percent say they believe that events predicted in the Book of Revelation, the last book of the Christian New Testament, will come to pass. How do you explain that?

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Paul Boyer, who is a now-retired historian from the University of Wisconsin, wrote a book called WHEN TIME SHALL BE NO MORE. And he studied this phenomenon, called prophecy belief in America. And he explained that the influence of this group, of this perspective, of dispensational perspective goes way beyond the confines of its own boundaries. He said if you view America in terms of this issue in concentric circles, you have this core maybe 20 million of really dedicated dispensationalists who give you chapter and verse, who can give you– draw the battle maps of the future and everything.

Then outside that core is another group of evangelicals, many millions more who believe in the Bible, who believe that it has something to say about the future. They’re just not exactly sure what it is. And therefore, they defer to the Bible teachers who seem to know. They listen to them. And a lot of the dispensational vocabulary filters out to that broader evangelical world of Armageddon and Rapture and the like.

And then more significantly, beyond that, you have a group of mainly secular people who don’t give the Bible much mind at all but who, during times of apocalyptic threat will give the Bible teachers a listen. Because of the fear that is so — I mean, this movement would not be strong if the newspapers every morning didn’t seem to support their world view.

BILL MOYERS: You mean with all the news of calamity and–

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Calamity and disaster, threats, potential disasters, war. This is how they said it would look and this is how most people see the world today.

BILL MOYERS: It seems to be on the front page of THE NEW YORK TIMES playing out what they’ve read in the Bible.

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: I think the dispensationalists are onto something. They have a sense, they just have the wrong analysis of why it’s all going to end.

BILL MOYERS: But what do you mean they’re onto something?

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: They are onto the growing depression that people are feeling, a deep emotional depression in the United States — a lack of any hopeful picture of what the world could be. And that failure is not a failure of dispensationalists, it’s a failure of the mainstream political framework in this country that– to address the major questions facing the world in the 21st century.

BILL MOYERS: Isn’t that why John Hagee is providing political leadership? I mean, the fact is John Hagee is providing not only theological guidance, he’s providing political leadership to these people, right?

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Yes, yes, he is. But if you listen carefully to his message, it is a message, in many ways, at war with itself. Because on the one hand, as you just pointed out, evangelicals at the core of evangelical religion is the belief that change is possible. Evangelicals believe in conversion. They think–

BILL MOYERS: Born again.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: They think that enemies can be made friends and that bad people can be made good through the grace of God. And so they preach that. And you hear in some of the language of Haggee’s followers that we need to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Then in the next– in the next breath they say, “But we don’t think it’ll do any good.”

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: No, and that we’re going to make– support those who want to make war for Jerusalem. And that–

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: That’s right. So how does that fit?

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: — But they also are very questionable from my standpoint in the way that they read the Bible. Because they’re literalists when it comes to some issues and very much ignoring other issues. For example, they say that the Jewish people were promised the holy land from God through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They neglect to mention that the Arabs descended from, or believe they descended from one of the children of Abraham, Ishmael. And that that land was twice promised. It was promised to Jews and promised to Arabs. Why to two? So that we could become a model of how to reconcile. But we haven’t done that yet and we need to do that.

BILL MOYERS: So is there a different way in your judgment these conservative Christians could help the people of Israel whom historically and biblically they were taught to love and to appreciate without supporting the right-wing elements in Israel that want to crush the Palestinians?

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Well, many evangelicals are calling for exactly that. They’re looking for another way. And I-

BILL MOYERS: And they’re not all like John Hagee. So many people think that all evangelicals are alike in the same way they think all Muslims are alike, right?

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: That’s right. And there are variations within the evangelical community. What I hear on the one hand, we have certain fellow believers who view the future in very well-defined ways and who or absolutely convinced that there’s nothing that anybody or anything can do about it. And yet we also have the clear teachings of Jesus about being peacemakers, about caring for the world, about loving your enemy. How do those two things go together? So there’s that deep biblical tradition that evangelicals can draw on to find another way.

BILL MOYERS: Here it seems to me is the fundamental issue. You heard all of the talk in the film about Islamofascism. People are genuinely concerned about terrorism and terrorist states. So how do we make a distinction between fighting terrorists and terrorist states without enflaming the religious passions? How do we do that?

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Well, I think it’s important to recognize that dispensationalists are not the only ones who are worried about these issues. When you have the president of France and leaders in Germany who are warning Iran that there will be war if they do not stop what they’re doing, these are not dispensationalist-inspired people. I mean, the world is–

BILL MOYERS: Neither is Norman Podhoretz and Bill Kristol and people like the neoconservatives in this country.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: That’s right.

BILL MOYERS: –the neoconservatives in this country.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: That’s right. And so the wind is blowing in a particular direction and it’s very hard to redirect it. There is an evangelical past that is much more positive, much more world changing, much more embracing diversity and even tolerance in some ways than seems to be in the public eye today. And many evangelicals are beginning to rediscover who they are in that in their past. They’re saying we can be about our father’s business only if we take concern for people who are poor. The world that God has made is getting destroyed. We need to take care along those lines. And-

BILL MOYERS: But these people you heard had no sympathy for the Palestinians.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: No, absolutely not.

BILL MOYERS: They see the Palestinians as part of the problem, right?

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Yes.

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: Yes. It– it-

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Yes.

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: This very week the WASHINGTON POST revealed a poll that it had done that shows that a majority of Americans now favor cutting favor for the war in Iraq. That’s a very big shift from where the majority of Americans were only five years ago in relationship to this war. Change is possible. Fundamental changes in world views are possible. And it is possible to create a different understanding of the Islamic world, one that doesn’t put them all together in one evil category just as it’s possible to understand that there are evangelicals who are very hurtful in their world view. And there are evangelicals who are very loving in their world view.

BILL MOYERS: So Timothy Weber, are evangelicals still Israel’s best friend when you saw what you saw?

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Well, they certainly think they are Israel’s best friend. But I think evangelicals are realizing that there’s more than one way to be a friend to Israel. Whether in the long run the kind of support that– groups like Hagee’s group really brings to Israel, I tend to agree with the rabbi here, that this kind of support could really backfire. But when American evangelicals support those who want to rebuild a temple in Jerusalem by tearing down the Dome of the Rock-

BILL MOYERS: That’s because the Bible seems to indicate that when the Jews come back to Israel, they will rebuild the destroyed temple-

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: That’s right.

BILL MOYERS: –and it will be built upon the– on the very place that-

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: That’s right.

BILL MOYERS: –in the meantime the Muslims have built a sacred mosque.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: There this is not a friendly act, according to anybody.

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: And they forget the Isaiah prophecy that “my house will be a house of prayer for all people.”

BILL MOYERS: But this is combustible, isn’t it? I mean, when both tenants want the same property.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Yes. And say that God gave that property to them. And that their own — the ultimate vindication of their religion depends on that piece of ground, then compromise is very hard.

BILL MOYERS: And both of you seem to be saying that politics truly enflames religious passions when they become so intertwined, as we’ve seen, right?

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: That and the other way around as well. Religion enflames politics and politics enflames religion.

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: Politics was never separate from religion in the Bible. And I don’t believe that there needs to be a separation between our highest ideals that come from the religious world and our commitment to implement them in the political world. It’s only when we try to implement them in an exclusivist way that says, “You have to believe in my religion and my particular vision of God”– that we run into deep trouble.

BILL MOYERS: Rabbi Michael Lerner and Dr. Timothy Weber, thank you both for being with me for this discussion on THE JOURNAL.

RABBI MICHAEL LERNER: Thank you for having us.

DR. TIMOTHY WEBER: Thank You.

Categories
Eschatology Hermeneutics

Israel Part Four

In Matthewā€™s gospel Jesus refers to Himselfā€”in relatively rapid successionā€”as the greater temple (12:6), a greater Jonah (12:41), and a greater Solomon (12:42). In other words, He is the greatest Prophet, Priest, and King, and thus ā€œthe ultimateā€ of every institution that comprises the distinct character of Israel. To reiterate the point you make above, He essentially identifies Himself as the New Israel.

In A House for My Name, Peter Leithart elaborates on this theme: ā€œIn Pilateā€™s Praetorium, the Jews renounce Jesus, choosing death over life. But the Israel of God is never dead for long. Israel has died before. . . . But when Old Israel dies, Yahweh, the Lord of life, brings a New Israel from the grave. The death and resurrection of Jesus, who is the true Jacob and Israel, who is the temple flowing with living water, is the sign that a New Israel will be born. The Jews have rejected their King and destroyed their temple, but out of their dead bones the Spirit brings forth living stones for a holy house, an army that cannot be numbered.ā€ (Peter J. Leithart, A House for My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2000), 262-63

Eric Adams is currently forging a series of short articles about being Jewish. I have posted them below with their original links.

What about Acts 7:38?

Eric writes,
I have been skimming Christ’s Prophetic Plans, which is a primer on Dispensational Eschatology. I would like to write a review or a response at some point, but I can’t let this pass:

Richard Mayhue asserts, “Furthermore, never in the whole New Testament is ‘Israel’ ever called ‘the church'” (page 82).

This is patently false. Stephen refers to Israel as the church in his sermon:

“This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai, and who was with our fathers; and he received living oracles to pass on to you” (Acts 7:38).

“The congregation” is the Greek word, ekklesia, which is the word for the church. Thus, Stephen calls Israel the church.

So, whenever you find yourself listening to a Dispensationalist wax eloquent about how Israel is never called the church, simply ask, “What about Acts 7:38?”

See here for the original article.

Was Ruth a Jew?

In my previous post, I argued that the fatal flaw of Christā€™s Prophetic Plans is that the authors assume that Israel/Jew is defined strictly by ethnicity. In the next few posts, I want to explore the ramifications of such a presupposition.

If Israel is defined strictly by ethnicity, then no one could ever become a Jew. You were either born a Jew or you were not. Nothing that you ever did would change that.

What about Ruth? Ruth was a Moabite; she was not born a Jew. If Israel/Jew is strictly an ethnic designation, then Ruth could never become a Jew because no one can become a Jew. She was a Gentile who got in on the promises.

However, this is not what the Scriptures teach. Ruth herself claimed, ā€œYour people shall be my peopleā€ (Ruth 1:16). She saw herself becoming part of Israel. She became a Jew.

The only way this is possible is if Israel/Jew is not strictly an ethnic designation. In the Bible, Israel/Jew is a religious designation with ethnic implications.

Was Ruth a Jew? Not by birth, but by conversion, Ruth became a Jew. She was grafted into Israel, and both she and all of her progeny became Jews.

See here for the original article.

Was Boaz a Jew?

The most fundamental error that Dispensationalists make is in restricting their definitions of Israel and Jew to ethnicity. One who is born a Jew is always a Jew, and nothing can change this. Likewise, no one can become a Jew because blood alone determines whether one is a Jew. Blood alone defines Israel.

Dispensationalists continually pound this pulpit, yet they show little awareness of the difficulties surrounding such a definition. Specifically,
How much Jewish blood makes someone a Jew?
In a mixed marriage (Jew + Gentile), does it matter which party is Jewish?
I will deal with both of these questions in the next few posts.

Matrilineal Descent?
In a mixed marriage, does it matter which party is Jewish?

Some branches of Modern Judaism define Israel/Jew partly according to matrilineal descent. That is, one is a Jew if their mother is a Jew. Thus, a Jewish mother begets Jewish children, regardless of the ethnicity of the Father.

The problem with defining Israel/Jew according to matrilineal descent is that this excludes some famous Jews, such as Boaz.

Boazā€™s mother was Rahab, who was a Canaanite. She was not Jewish, and thus, according to matrilineal descent, Boaz was not a Jew.

Also, Boaz married Ruth, who was a Moabite. Thus, their son, Obed, was not a Jew, according to matrilineal descent.

Technically, neither Judah nor any of the other sons of Jacob would be Jews, as Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah were not Jewish. Thus, according to strict matrilineal descent, none of the twelve sons of Israel were Jewish.

Of course, Modern Judaism has an answer for this dilemma, which I will explore in a future post.

Also, I know of no Dispensationalist who defines Israel/Jew according to matrilineal descent. I am not suggesting or implying this in any way.

I am simply ruling out defining Israel/Jew according to strict matrilineal descent.

See here for the original article.

Was Jesus a Jew?

Dispensationalists consistently emphasize that God made promises to the Jews, and these promises must be fulfilled for the Jews.

This raises the question: Who are these Jews who will inherit the promises?

Dispensationalists insist that a Jew is someone who is ethnically descended from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. Blood alone defines Israel.

This raises the question: Is Israel defined by matrilineal descent (through the mother) or by patrilineal descent (through the father)?

In my previous post, I demonstrated that matrilineal descent alone is an invalid way to define Israel/Jew. This eliminates Boaz, Obed, and technically, even Judah, from Israel because their mothers were not Jewish.

Patrilineal Descent?
What about patrilineal descent?

This seems to make more sense. All genealogies in the Bible trace the male line. The promises were given to males and renewed with males. The male descendents were circumcised. Patrilineal descent seems more Biblical.

However, patrilineal descent alone is insufficient to define Israel/Jew because of one obvious exception: Jesus.

If being a Jew is defined by oneā€™s father, then Jesus is not Jewish because his Father is not Jewish.

As Archie Bunker once retorted when reminded that Jesus was Jewish: ā€œYes, but only on his motherā€™s side.ā€

This one enormous exception means that patrilineal descent alone cannot be used to define Israel/Jew.

See here for the original article.

Categories
Eschatology

Israel Part Three

Today’s article continues the discussion about Israel.

Dean Davis wrote a comment on Justin Taylor’s post discussing Jesus as the New Israel:

Jesus taught that he had not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). However, in fulfilling the various institutions of the Mosaic Law, he was indeed replacing them with new ones, once and for all. The anti-type (the New Covenant) fulfills the type (the Old Covenant), and so replaces it. The greater fulfills the lesser, and so supplants it. The heavenly body, shaped in eternity past, fulfills the earthly shadow, and so floods the room with a light that expels all shadows. There is no going back (Hebrews 8:13).

In order to understand the idea of fulfillment and replacement better, let us consider a few examples, drawn more or less exclusively from the teaching of the Herald of the Kingdom himself.

Jesus presented himself as the supreme Mediator, a greater than Moses, bringing in a new and greater covenant. Christ and his covenant are therefore replacing Moses and his.

Jesus is also the supreme Prophet, a greater than Moses, Elijah, or John the Baptist, and so replaces all former prophets as the authoritative spokesman of God and teacher of his people (Matthew 17:1f, Matthew. 23:10, Mark 8:28, John 9:17, Acts 3:22).

He is the supreme Priest, a greater than Levi, and so replaces Levi as the one who intercedes for Godā€™s people (Luke 23:34, John 17), offers sacrifice for their sin (John 10:11, 17:19), and assures the penitent of Godā€™s mercy and forgiveness (Matthew 9:2, Luke 7:48, 24:43, John 20:23).

He is the supreme Sacrifice, a greater than all the animal sacrifices offered under the Law, and so replaces them as the one Lamb of God who gives his life a ransom for many, thereby taking away the sin of the world (Mark 10:45, John 1:29).

He is the true Temple, a greater than Herodā€™s, and so replaces Herodā€™s with his own Body, which is the true Tabernacle of God (Matthew 12:6, John 2:19, John 10:38, Ephesians 2, 5).

Moreover, because of this, his people no longer worship the Father on earthly Zion, but on the Zion above, in spirit and in truth, whenever they wish and wherever their physical bodies happen to be. In short, NT worship in spirit and truth replaces OT worship in Jerusalem (John 4:21f, 14:20, 17:23, Galatians 4:26, Hebrews 12:22, Revelation 14:1f).

He is the true Sabbath, a greater than the Israelite Sabbath, and Lord over it, with authority from God to give his people true spiritual rest, as well as the Spirit-led worship and work that properly arise from it (Matthew 11:28, 12:48, John 6:29, 15:1f, 19:30).

He is the true Passover Lambā€”and his death the true Passover sacrificeā€”so that henceforth the Passover Feast is replaced with the Lordā€™s Supper, wherein Christā€™s people remember, celebrate, and re-appropriate their great deliverance from the world, the flesh, and the devil (Matthew 26:17-30, Mark 14:12-26, Luke 22:7-23, John 5:24, 1 Corinthians 11:17f).

Very importantly, his is the true nation (Matthew 21:43), the true flock (John 10:16), the true household (Mark 13:34, Luke 14:23, John 8:35), and the true city (Matthew 5:14) of God, so that Christā€™s Church of called out Jews and Gentiles replaces ethnic Israel (who are still beloved for the sake of the fathers, Romans 11:28)ā€”as the true people of God (Matthew 16:18).

And over this nation he rules as the supreme King, a greater than David (Matthew 22:41-46) and Solomon (Matthew 12:24), and so replaces Israelā€™s many earthly kings with a single heavenly: the High King of Heaven and Earth, the divine Lord of the ā€œIsrael of Godā€ (Matthew 28:18f, Luke 19:12, John 18:36, Galatians 6:16).

Much more could be said on this point, and in their letters to the early Christian churches the apostles say it. However, from what we have seen so far, it is quite clear that the Lord Jesus viewed the institutions of the Mosaic Law as temporary physical ā€œtypesā€ pointing forward to the permanent spiritual realities of the New Covenant. This truth is profoundly important for a solid, NT understanding of biblical eschatology.

Categories
Church Eschatology Hermeneutics

Israel Part Two

RC Sproul answers the question, Is It True That God Blesses Those Who Bless Israel and Curses Those Who Curse Israel?1

Sproul writes, the non-Dispensational view “affirms that that Israel which is actually Israel, just as with the promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, applies to those who are in Christ, who trust in His finished work.” He continues, the non-Dispensational view “see[s] this is as the outworking of the truth of Galatians 3:7- ‘Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.’ We …do not believe God replaced Israel with the church. We believe instead that there has always been only one people of God, those who believe.”

Justin Taylor discusses the topic Jesus As the New Israel2

Taylor explains, “The New Testament authors understood Jesus to be the culmination of the Old Testament.”

Here is a good, concise summary of the Israel/remnant theme from a New Testament perspective:

. . . Jesus had become a remnant of one. He was the embodiment of faithful Israel, the truly righteous and suffering servant.

Unlike the remnant of the restoration period, he committed no sin (Isaiah 53:9; 1 Peter 2:22).

As the embodiment of the faithful remnant, he would undergo divine judgment for sin (on the cross), endure an exile (three days forsaken by God in the grave), and experience a restoration (resurrection) to life as the foundation of a new Israel, inheriting the promises of God afresh.

As the remnant restored to life, he becomes the focus of the hopes for the continued existence of the people of God in a new kingdom, a new Israel of Jew and Gentile alike.

As the nucleus of a renewed Israel, Christ summons the ā€œlittle flockā€ that will receive the kingdom (Daniel 7:22, 27; Luke 12:32) and appoints judges for the twelve tribes of Israel in the new age (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30).

The church is viewed as the Israel of that new age (Galatians 6:16), the twelve tribes (James 1:1), ā€œa chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, Godā€™s special possessionā€ (Exodus 19:6; 1 Peter 2:9).

A sinful nation, Israel could not suffer vicariously to atone for the sins of the world. The sinfulness of the nation made it unacceptable for this role, just as flaws would disqualify any other offering. Only a truly righteous servant could bear this awful load.

—Tremper Longman III and Raymond B. Dillard, “Isaiah,” An Introduction to the Old Testament, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 315.

The two best books I’ve read on this fulfillment theme are Hans LaRondelle’s The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation and David Holwerda’s Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two? (Keith Mathison has a good review of Holwerda’s volume here.)

Jesus is the true Israel, and the church becomes the Israel of God as it unites to True Israel. The same is true for ethnic Israel, whom God has not abandoned. But their only hope is to be united with Jesus, the ultimate suffering servant.

References

1 Is It True That God Blesses Those Who Bless Israel and Curses Those Who Curse Israel?

2 Jesus As the New Israel