David Wilkerson is seeing desperate times coming too.
Here's a message of warning and encouragement from him.
And here's a message from him on the Second Coming.
If we lose, kit's God's judgment
4 weeks ago
Monday, September 27, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Chuck Missler on UFOs, Nephilim -- Supernatural Spectacles in the Last Days
Just finished listening to Chuck Missler on The Nephilim and UFOs.
I'm familiar with this topic from Scott Johnson's studies and Missler doesn't say anything different but it's confirmatory to get another report on something like this.
I've been aware of UFOs as some sort of demonic apparition since a friend lent me a book by the UFO researcher Jacques Vallee almost twenty years ago. What's new to me over the last couple years is the likelihood that UFO phenomena are to be part of the scenario of the last days, and the connection with Genesis 6, the "giants," the "mighty men" and "men of renown" as the offspring of angels and women, a return of such beings being brought about by the reproductive tamperings that are associated with alien abductions.
Only being in Christ can protect a person from this. If the Rapture people are right people will be saved in the last seven years, but it's far far better if you have any idea what's slated for that period of time to be in Christ -- whether or NOT the Church is Raptured out. If we're raptured out of course we're safe that way, but Christ is our protection DURING evil events if we have to go through them and it seems to me that a faith in His miraculous provision is going to be necessary and powerfully exercised during that period. In any case SOME people are going to be going through this and that includes many people we know and love, family and friends who are not now in Christ.
But this no doubt sounds too far out to be taken seriously at all by some. Well, listen to the talk I've linked above and then see what you think. I personally get bored with Missler's fascination with scientific explanations of multiple dimensions and that sort of thing and he does a fair amount of that on this video, so if you also get impatient with such things, after he gets started on it -- somewhere in the first hour on up to the second hour -- just skip to the second hour 1:00. That's where he gets into the Biblical basis for the phenomena he's talking about.
================
I guess it's to be expected. On that same page with Missler's video are other videos on the same general theme and some are pure blasphemy. They deride God and think the aliens on the UFOs are good creatures we should trust -- I haven't listened through any of them yet but I'm sure they'll get to the Ancient Astronaut lie and the Ascended Masters lie, the idea that they created us, not God and so on, and now they're coming again to help us out since we're so bad at running things ourselves. Well, there you have it, the Great Delusion of the last days the Bible promises will fall on those who reject the truth.
I'm familiar with this topic from Scott Johnson's studies and Missler doesn't say anything different but it's confirmatory to get another report on something like this.
I've been aware of UFOs as some sort of demonic apparition since a friend lent me a book by the UFO researcher Jacques Vallee almost twenty years ago. What's new to me over the last couple years is the likelihood that UFO phenomena are to be part of the scenario of the last days, and the connection with Genesis 6, the "giants," the "mighty men" and "men of renown" as the offspring of angels and women, a return of such beings being brought about by the reproductive tamperings that are associated with alien abductions.
Genesis 6:1-5 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.Far out stuff for sure. This is taken seriously by some on both sides of the Rapture question. Missler sees this as the scenario for the 70th week of Daniel -- after the Rapture of the church. Others who put the Rapture off to the end apparently see it as gradually developing in the wings as it were, then to suddenly come upon us, probably very soon.
Only being in Christ can protect a person from this. If the Rapture people are right people will be saved in the last seven years, but it's far far better if you have any idea what's slated for that period of time to be in Christ -- whether or NOT the Church is Raptured out. If we're raptured out of course we're safe that way, but Christ is our protection DURING evil events if we have to go through them and it seems to me that a faith in His miraculous provision is going to be necessary and powerfully exercised during that period. In any case SOME people are going to be going through this and that includes many people we know and love, family and friends who are not now in Christ.
But this no doubt sounds too far out to be taken seriously at all by some. Well, listen to the talk I've linked above and then see what you think. I personally get bored with Missler's fascination with scientific explanations of multiple dimensions and that sort of thing and he does a fair amount of that on this video, so if you also get impatient with such things, after he gets started on it -- somewhere in the first hour on up to the second hour -- just skip to the second hour 1:00. That's where he gets into the Biblical basis for the phenomena he's talking about.
================
I guess it's to be expected. On that same page with Missler's video are other videos on the same general theme and some are pure blasphemy. They deride God and think the aliens on the UFOs are good creatures we should trust -- I haven't listened through any of them yet but I'm sure they'll get to the Ancient Astronaut lie and the Ascended Masters lie, the idea that they created us, not God and so on, and now they're coming again to help us out since we're so bad at running things ourselves. Well, there you have it, the Great Delusion of the last days the Bible promises will fall on those who reject the truth.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
I don't agree with either system completely
I'm not sure that Missler and Riddlebarger can be said to represent two opposing theological systems exactly enough to identify them as representative of those systems, but as I've been listening to their end times talks I've taken sides with one or the other of them on particular points and can sort it out that way at least:
I agree with Riddlebarger / the Reformed / the Amillennialists on the general point that there is now no more Jew nor Gentile but all are one in Christ. The Church IS both Jew and Gentile, therefore it does not "replace" Israel, it is an expansion of the people of God to include believing Gentiles with believing Jews. There was a massive influx of Gentiles into the Church in the first centuries on down to the present, and according to scripture there is yet a time coming, very soon it seems to some of us, when God's focus will shift and there will be a massive influx of Jews into the Church. Riddlebarger sees it this way and so do many on the other side of the theological divide.
To deny that physical earthly Israel must have a part in this drama, as the Reformed / Amillennialists do, seems completely blind to me. Their restoration to the land and their preservation there over the last century are marked by miraculous events. This has to be God's work even though the people of Israel do not acknowledge Him. This has to be fulfilled prophecy. And there must be more to come.
On the other hand, those who see a restored Israel as a return to Old Testament religion, as the final form to persist after Christ returns, have gone too far in this direction. Scripture does suggest that the temple will be restored, so that there will be at least an interim return to OT practices, but the revelation of the Antichrist in that temple is to wake up the Jews and bring them to Christ, and the OT practices which are clearly identified in the NT as the types and shadows of Christ will be finally done away.
I believe Paul's "Israel of God" of Galatians 6:16 refers to all believers, both Jew and Gentile. Missler says this is literal Israel, believing Israel, and does not include the Church. I disagree with Missler. Gentile believers are children of Abraham no less than Jewish believers are, are therefore all of the Israel of God.
Nevertheless I disagree with the Reformed / Amillennialists that the temple of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 refers to Christians. I posted below my conclusion that it must refer to the physical temple in Jerusalem, and if the context is the Antichrist of the very last days sitting in that temple, this has to mean the temple will be restored, and there have been plans underway for decades now for that restoration.
I also disagree with them about the 70th week of Daniel (a post I haven't yet written). The first 69 weeks were a literal period of time counting up to the revelation of Christ as King in Jerusalem. The events right after that revelation do not fit into a "week of years" no matter how much nudging you do. The Lord Jesus was crucified within days of that revelation. There is simply no week of years to be found in that time frame or any time up to the present. Therefore it is right to think of that last 70th week as yet future. The Amillennialists take that week and turn it into an allegory of the obedience of Christ. Ridiculous.
None of this proves the timing of the Rapture one way or another.
More to come.
I agree with Riddlebarger / the Reformed / the Amillennialists on the general point that there is now no more Jew nor Gentile but all are one in Christ. The Church IS both Jew and Gentile, therefore it does not "replace" Israel, it is an expansion of the people of God to include believing Gentiles with believing Jews. There was a massive influx of Gentiles into the Church in the first centuries on down to the present, and according to scripture there is yet a time coming, very soon it seems to some of us, when God's focus will shift and there will be a massive influx of Jews into the Church. Riddlebarger sees it this way and so do many on the other side of the theological divide.
To deny that physical earthly Israel must have a part in this drama, as the Reformed / Amillennialists do, seems completely blind to me. Their restoration to the land and their preservation there over the last century are marked by miraculous events. This has to be God's work even though the people of Israel do not acknowledge Him. This has to be fulfilled prophecy. And there must be more to come.
On the other hand, those who see a restored Israel as a return to Old Testament religion, as the final form to persist after Christ returns, have gone too far in this direction. Scripture does suggest that the temple will be restored, so that there will be at least an interim return to OT practices, but the revelation of the Antichrist in that temple is to wake up the Jews and bring them to Christ, and the OT practices which are clearly identified in the NT as the types and shadows of Christ will be finally done away.
I believe Paul's "Israel of God" of Galatians 6:16 refers to all believers, both Jew and Gentile. Missler says this is literal Israel, believing Israel, and does not include the Church. I disagree with Missler. Gentile believers are children of Abraham no less than Jewish believers are, are therefore all of the Israel of God.
Nevertheless I disagree with the Reformed / Amillennialists that the temple of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 refers to Christians. I posted below my conclusion that it must refer to the physical temple in Jerusalem, and if the context is the Antichrist of the very last days sitting in that temple, this has to mean the temple will be restored, and there have been plans underway for decades now for that restoration.
I also disagree with them about the 70th week of Daniel (a post I haven't yet written). The first 69 weeks were a literal period of time counting up to the revelation of Christ as King in Jerusalem. The events right after that revelation do not fit into a "week of years" no matter how much nudging you do. The Lord Jesus was crucified within days of that revelation. There is simply no week of years to be found in that time frame or any time up to the present. Therefore it is right to think of that last 70th week as yet future. The Amillennialists take that week and turn it into an allegory of the obedience of Christ. Ridiculous.
None of this proves the timing of the Rapture one way or another.
More to come.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
A Jumble of Thoughts Between Topics
Kind of bogging down lately. Thought it might clear my head to sketch out some of the traffic jam therein.
Next post plan is to address the Amillennialist view of the 70th Week of Daniel. It shouldn't be too complicated but it's hard to get going on it for some reason. I only want to write about the last week, but it will require a little background on that whole passage and I think that's where I'm bogging as I don't want to get too deeply into all that.
Then I wanted to post on a couple of websites that looked at first glance like good defenders of their respective end times position, one pre-trib with a strong emphasis on a Jewish Millennium, the other post-trib with a good grasp of the Fall Feasts of Israel as stages of the Second Coming. But then as I got to reading more extensively in them I've discovered some views that are at least borderline heretical. Seems to happen a lot these days, can't take anything for granted. I may post on them anyway.
Meanwhile, maybe I can just telegraph a few thoughts on the way there.
Kim Riddlebarger, whose series Amillennialism 101 is my source for the Reformed Amillennial position, said a couple of times that the idea of a literal thousand-year millennium just doesn't occur in the NT: He doesn't see the NT writers having a future thousand-year "golden age" in mind. Answer: The prophets of the OT didn't have two future comings of Christ in mind either, but that nevertheless turned out to be the case and in retrospect it can be found in their writings.
I've been wanting to get more of a sense of what Millennialists expect in a thousand-year reign of Christ on earth and found one expecting a restoration of Old Testament temple animal sacrifice and all the OT laws back in place. This could almost make Amillennialism look good to me. I was just shaking my head through the whole description. How could such a thing possibly occur with Christ reigning on the throne of David, the Sacrifice Himself? I can see how a restored temple could be part of a short period of God's resumed dealings with blinded Israel before Christ returns, especially as scripture does seem to suggest that, but not after He returns.
Nevertheless I'm still most drawn to the pre-trib Rapture, and as I think through the specific scriptures that support it their interpretation seems most solid. What to think about the Millennium is still down the road for me.
One thought I had, though, was that there's something fitting about a thousand-year rule of Christ on earth to finish up humanity's story, as it would make up the 7th Millennium since Adam and Eve, and seven is the number of perfection or completion. But what life in that millennium would look like I haven't begun to grapple with.
Later: Listening to an old tape of Art Katz on the (millennial) Restoration of Israel in which he adamantly rejects the pre-last days Rapture as a heresy, for the reason that since in that period (before the Millennium) Jews will be persecuted all over the world their only helpers could possibly be Christians (to give a cup of cold water "to one of the least of these My brethren"). So Christians must still be present and go through the persecution with the Jews in the period before they come to know their Messiah. [However, what with not being able to buy and sell if you refuse the "mark of the beast" as Christians certainly would, it doesn't seem to me that Christians are going to be in any better shape than the Jews.]
So far my investigations into the relevant scriptures are dealing with Amillennial objections to passages that don't specifically bear on the Rapture, but do suggest a focus on the Jews in the end times -- the temple, the 70th week of Daniel etc., and so far I'm deciding against the Amillennialists on those points. So the plot keeps developing here but not for or against the Rapture yet. Eventually maybe I'll actually come to a conclusion about that.
Next post plan is to address the Amillennialist view of the 70th Week of Daniel. It shouldn't be too complicated but it's hard to get going on it for some reason. I only want to write about the last week, but it will require a little background on that whole passage and I think that's where I'm bogging as I don't want to get too deeply into all that.
Then I wanted to post on a couple of websites that looked at first glance like good defenders of their respective end times position, one pre-trib with a strong emphasis on a Jewish Millennium, the other post-trib with a good grasp of the Fall Feasts of Israel as stages of the Second Coming. But then as I got to reading more extensively in them I've discovered some views that are at least borderline heretical. Seems to happen a lot these days, can't take anything for granted. I may post on them anyway.
Meanwhile, maybe I can just telegraph a few thoughts on the way there.
Kim Riddlebarger, whose series Amillennialism 101 is my source for the Reformed Amillennial position, said a couple of times that the idea of a literal thousand-year millennium just doesn't occur in the NT: He doesn't see the NT writers having a future thousand-year "golden age" in mind. Answer: The prophets of the OT didn't have two future comings of Christ in mind either, but that nevertheless turned out to be the case and in retrospect it can be found in their writings.
I've been wanting to get more of a sense of what Millennialists expect in a thousand-year reign of Christ on earth and found one expecting a restoration of Old Testament temple animal sacrifice and all the OT laws back in place. This could almost make Amillennialism look good to me. I was just shaking my head through the whole description. How could such a thing possibly occur with Christ reigning on the throne of David, the Sacrifice Himself? I can see how a restored temple could be part of a short period of God's resumed dealings with blinded Israel before Christ returns, especially as scripture does seem to suggest that, but not after He returns.
Nevertheless I'm still most drawn to the pre-trib Rapture, and as I think through the specific scriptures that support it their interpretation seems most solid. What to think about the Millennium is still down the road for me.
One thought I had, though, was that there's something fitting about a thousand-year rule of Christ on earth to finish up humanity's story, as it would make up the 7th Millennium since Adam and Eve, and seven is the number of perfection or completion. But what life in that millennium would look like I haven't begun to grapple with.
Later: Listening to an old tape of Art Katz on the (millennial) Restoration of Israel in which he adamantly rejects the pre-last days Rapture as a heresy, for the reason that since in that period (before the Millennium) Jews will be persecuted all over the world their only helpers could possibly be Christians (to give a cup of cold water "to one of the least of these My brethren"). So Christians must still be present and go through the persecution with the Jews in the period before they come to know their Messiah. [However, what with not being able to buy and sell if you refuse the "mark of the beast" as Christians certainly would, it doesn't seem to me that Christians are going to be in any better shape than the Jews.]
So far my investigations into the relevant scriptures are dealing with Amillennial objections to passages that don't specifically bear on the Rapture, but do suggest a focus on the Jews in the end times -- the temple, the 70th week of Daniel etc., and so far I'm deciding against the Amillennialists on those points. So the plot keeps developing here but not for or against the Rapture yet. Eventually maybe I'll actually come to a conclusion about that.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Considering the Amillennial View: The Temple of 2 Thessalonians 2:4
Trying to settle some things in my mind about what the Bible says about the end times, I've been listening to some lectures on Amillennialism by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger (down right hand margin), to see if I think their interpretation of various passages is better than that of the Dispensationalists, who preach the pre-trib Rapture. I finally listened enough to have a fairly decent idea of what they believe, so I want to sketch out my response.
I want to start with 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in which the "temple" is interpreted by Dispensationalists to be a physical temple in Jerusalem and by the Amillennialists as the Church:
In principle I don't have a problem with the temple-as-the-church idea because Paul has shown many times in his New Testament writings that Christians are the true Temple of God. Also, Dr. Riddlebarger at one point made it clear that there is historical support for this interpretation: The Protestant Reformers regarded the temple in this verse as the church because they believed the papacy was the seat of the Antichrist. I found that Matthew Henry's Commentary shares this understanding. (I have to assume they still regarded the Roman Church as including enough true Christians to justify seeing the Pope as sitting within the Church of God).
But I end up disagreeing with him, and I'll sketch out my reasons:
1. "... he as God sitteth in the temple of God... This doesn't read like it could possibly be a metaphor rather than a literal reference to a building. I can't see Paul describing someone who arises out of the Church as "sitting in the temple of God." It's a very awkward and unnecessary way of talking that I can't impute to Paul.
The amillennialist answer is that "to sit" simply means "to rule" but that just seems to make it even more unlikely, as if Paul suddenly starts speaking in cryptic symbolic language when he has never done so before. He would TEACH such symbolism but he wouldn't just casually USE it. Can they show anywhere else that Paul ever uses such a metaphorical way of speaking? I can't think of one place myself. In the other passages where Paul refers to Christians as the Temple of God, he is teaching the people that they are the temple and what that means. But in 2 Thess 2:4 if the Amillennialists are right he would be using the word in a completely different way, using it to imply something he could have said much more directly, such as He will arise out of the Church to rule over the people of God, pretending to be God himself. [I've listed all the places Paul refers to a temple at the bottom of this post]
2. But now this begins to show another problem with this reading in that the true Church would never be the seat of a ruling Antichrist, he could only rule over an apostate church, and it's hard to see that Paul would call THAT church the Temple of God. This was pointed out in different contexts in commentaries I read.
3. Another point is that since the Jerusalem temple was still standing at that time, and Paul is writing to people who knew it was standing, he wouldn't just toss off such a cryptic use of the term and expect them to know that he was using it in the sense of the Church. Just because the Church is now the true Temple of God doesn't mean the physical temple has lost all meaning in everyone's mind. In 1 Cor 9:13 Paul does refer to the physical temple, to illustrate his point that workers for the gospel deserve to be supported by those they serve. So this is another reason why if he's going to use a phrase like "sit in the temple" to refer to the Church he'd have to make a clear distinction so as not to be misunderstood, and he doesn't do that. Also, Paul continued to participate in the temple functions himself although he knew the temple no longer represented God, and many believing Jews went on practicing their customs and rituals for many years, so although it is true that a rebuilt temple now would amount to blasphemy, there's no reason to think that it had yet that meaning in those days.
No, he wouldn't just toss out a phrase like "sit in the temple of God" and expect his audience to know he meant the Church. Therefore he didn't mean the Church.
So I disagree with the Amillennialists on this point, and agree with those who read this to refer to the physical temple in Jerusalem.
This of course does imply that if the Antichrist is yet future there will have to BE a temple in Jerusalem for him to sit in to show that he's God and right now there isn't one. But there have been plans for many years for it to be rebuilt. So I think if we believe God's word, and trust that His prophecies will all be realized in historical time, that this temple WILL be rebuilt at some point in the future and then it will be there for the Antichrist to sit in.
The objection that its rebuilding would be blasphemous is a rather odd objection, it seems to me, since we're talking about a time when evil is to be permitted to come to its perfect flowering, and when unbelieving Jews will be saved en masse out of the evil to the glory of God.
====================================
All the scripture verses where Paul uses the word "temple:"
I want to start with 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in which the "temple" is interpreted by Dispensationalists to be a physical temple in Jerusalem and by the Amillennialists as the Church:
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.The Amillennialist argument is that the "temple" refers to Christians because that's the only way Paul has used the word elsewhere, so that anyone who disagrees would have to prove that he's departed from his usual use of the word for this one verse.
In principle I don't have a problem with the temple-as-the-church idea because Paul has shown many times in his New Testament writings that Christians are the true Temple of God. Also, Dr. Riddlebarger at one point made it clear that there is historical support for this interpretation: The Protestant Reformers regarded the temple in this verse as the church because they believed the papacy was the seat of the Antichrist. I found that Matthew Henry's Commentary shares this understanding. (I have to assume they still regarded the Roman Church as including enough true Christians to justify seeing the Pope as sitting within the Church of God).
But I end up disagreeing with him, and I'll sketch out my reasons:
1. "... he as God sitteth in the temple of God... This doesn't read like it could possibly be a metaphor rather than a literal reference to a building. I can't see Paul describing someone who arises out of the Church as "sitting in the temple of God." It's a very awkward and unnecessary way of talking that I can't impute to Paul.
The amillennialist answer is that "to sit" simply means "to rule" but that just seems to make it even more unlikely, as if Paul suddenly starts speaking in cryptic symbolic language when he has never done so before. He would TEACH such symbolism but he wouldn't just casually USE it. Can they show anywhere else that Paul ever uses such a metaphorical way of speaking? I can't think of one place myself. In the other passages where Paul refers to Christians as the Temple of God, he is teaching the people that they are the temple and what that means. But in 2 Thess 2:4 if the Amillennialists are right he would be using the word in a completely different way, using it to imply something he could have said much more directly, such as He will arise out of the Church to rule over the people of God, pretending to be God himself. [I've listed all the places Paul refers to a temple at the bottom of this post]
2. But now this begins to show another problem with this reading in that the true Church would never be the seat of a ruling Antichrist, he could only rule over an apostate church, and it's hard to see that Paul would call THAT church the Temple of God. This was pointed out in different contexts in commentaries I read.
3. Another point is that since the Jerusalem temple was still standing at that time, and Paul is writing to people who knew it was standing, he wouldn't just toss off such a cryptic use of the term and expect them to know that he was using it in the sense of the Church. Just because the Church is now the true Temple of God doesn't mean the physical temple has lost all meaning in everyone's mind. In 1 Cor 9:13 Paul does refer to the physical temple, to illustrate his point that workers for the gospel deserve to be supported by those they serve. So this is another reason why if he's going to use a phrase like "sit in the temple" to refer to the Church he'd have to make a clear distinction so as not to be misunderstood, and he doesn't do that. Also, Paul continued to participate in the temple functions himself although he knew the temple no longer represented God, and many believing Jews went on practicing their customs and rituals for many years, so although it is true that a rebuilt temple now would amount to blasphemy, there's no reason to think that it had yet that meaning in those days.
No, he wouldn't just toss out a phrase like "sit in the temple of God" and expect his audience to know he meant the Church. Therefore he didn't mean the Church.
So I disagree with the Amillennialists on this point, and agree with those who read this to refer to the physical temple in Jerusalem.
This of course does imply that if the Antichrist is yet future there will have to BE a temple in Jerusalem for him to sit in to show that he's God and right now there isn't one. But there have been plans for many years for it to be rebuilt. So I think if we believe God's word, and trust that His prophecies will all be realized in historical time, that this temple WILL be rebuilt at some point in the future and then it will be there for the Antichrist to sit in.
The objection that its rebuilding would be blasphemous is a rather odd objection, it seems to me, since we're talking about a time when evil is to be permitted to come to its perfect flowering, and when unbelieving Jews will be saved en masse out of the evil to the glory of God.
====================================
All the scripture verses where Paul uses the word "temple:"
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
1Co 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
1Co 9:13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Answer to Reformed Objections continued
Continued from previous post:
HOWEVER, not ALL the promises of God apply to Christ and His church in such a direct way. The 69 weeks of years mentioned above were a pointer to the coming of Christ but they were a literal 69 weeks of years literally fulfilled. God DID promise Abraham that his descendants would inhabit the land of Canaan and they literally did. God's prophets did warn of coming disasters that were also historically fulfilled. God did reveal through Daniel that four great empires would arise one after the other -- all types of the human and no doubt also demonically inspired rebellion against God -- and this was historically fulfilled.
In fact, think about it -- the whole last "week" of years is pretty much the time of the devil, the Antichrist and the Human Rebellion come to its pinnacle of expression. Daniel's visions were predominantly of the growth of evil in the world, the enemies of God, and the Book of Revelation echoes his themes. The revelation of Christ's Kingdom as "not of this world" shows the true heavenly mission of redemption and salvation, but meanwhile there is still an unfinished drama to be played out on planet Earth. It will be a time when evil is completely unrestrained. We look forward to the coming of Christ (and speaking for myself I yearn for that more and more these days), but I have the impression that scripture is telling us that there is to be a massive culmination of the "mystery of iniquity" before that happens, in a specially marked-out time for that purpose -- the time when the Anti-king does his damnedest, you could say, to demonstrate his right to reign, only to be destroyed when the true King appears.
NOBODY (?I hope) is arguing that earthly Israel is some kind of perfection of God's plan, while it was originally God's picture of His plan of redemption, it would now, after Christ, be a miscarriage of God's plan and that is the whole point. If the temple is restored, just as Israel is restored, it is so that the forces of evil get to play themselves out to the hilt.
The Book of Revelation calls the "holy city" by the name of the evil city Sodom and the evil empire Egypt.
Why not, Reformed people? I don't see how this violates the plan of God's revelation on earth at all. It brings the ancient drama to a fitting if horrifying climax just before the return of Jesus Christ.
But that doesn't preclude the possibility that God is using these things to draw them back to the land for purposes of His own, and it seems to some of us that He has even demonstrated His watchfulness over Israel in certain miraculous protections in their various wars. In fact I think it takes a peculiar blindness not to notice these things playing out in history right before our eyes. Two levels. They have to come to Christ to be saved, but God may lead them there through their fleshly misunderstandings and through a great tribulation.
The "bad theology" here, the theology that is likely to bring about bloodshed, however unwittingly, even another Holocaust, is the very Reformed theology of this document.
BUT THAT IS NOT PALESTINIAN LAND, that is a complete fiction designed to keep Israel on the defensive. I'm really sorry to see Reformed theologians defending a false understanding of what is going on over there, manufactured in perhaps unknowing collusion with Islamists who seek the death of Jews (and Christians and all other nonMuslims ultimately).
I don't think the Reformed thinkers behind this document are anti-semitic but they are certainly at least unwittingly playing into the growing anti-semitism of our time, which is spearheaded by Islam, and which will most likely build up to a new Holocaust under the Antichrist when he appears -- and that will fulfill the prophecy of "the time of Jacob's trouble" as prophesied in scripture:
[A long list of signers follows]
Well, I probably repeated myself much too much in the above and may come back and try to refine it later.
The upshot of my response to this document is that while its declarations of the gospel are unimpeachable, they've got the historical and political factor wrong, they aren't appreciating the gloriously Biblical foundation of the view of Israel's resoration that they are objecting to, and worst of all they are feeding the very anti-semitism they decry. ABSOLUTELY UNINTENTIONALLY!!!! -- I underscore that. This is not anti-semitism, it is simply a deplorable misreading of the historical facts through a theological lens that for all its laudable emphasis on the gospel of Christ trivializes it by stripping it of its full context.
Rather, the promise of an inheritance is made to those only who have faith in Jesus, the True Heir of Abraham. All spiritual benefits are derived from Jesus, and apart from him there is no participation in the promises. Since Jesus Christ is the Mediator of the Abrahamic Covenant, all who bless him and his people will be blessed of God, and all who curse him and his people will be cursed of God. These promises do not apply to any particular ethnic group, but to the church of Jesus Christ, the true Israel.Yes, we understand this. This is the New Testament revelation of the meaning of the Old Testament and it is absolutely correct.
HOWEVER, not ALL the promises of God apply to Christ and His church in such a direct way. The 69 weeks of years mentioned above were a pointer to the coming of Christ but they were a literal 69 weeks of years literally fulfilled. God DID promise Abraham that his descendants would inhabit the land of Canaan and they literally did. God's prophets did warn of coming disasters that were also historically fulfilled. God did reveal through Daniel that four great empires would arise one after the other -- all types of the human and no doubt also demonically inspired rebellion against God -- and this was historically fulfilled.
In fact, think about it -- the whole last "week" of years is pretty much the time of the devil, the Antichrist and the Human Rebellion come to its pinnacle of expression. Daniel's visions were predominantly of the growth of evil in the world, the enemies of God, and the Book of Revelation echoes his themes. The revelation of Christ's Kingdom as "not of this world" shows the true heavenly mission of redemption and salvation, but meanwhile there is still an unfinished drama to be played out on planet Earth. It will be a time when evil is completely unrestrained. We look forward to the coming of Christ (and speaking for myself I yearn for that more and more these days), but I have the impression that scripture is telling us that there is to be a massive culmination of the "mystery of iniquity" before that happens, in a specially marked-out time for that purpose -- the time when the Anti-king does his damnedest, you could say, to demonstrate his right to reign, only to be destroyed when the true King appears.
NOBODY (?I hope) is arguing that earthly Israel is some kind of perfection of God's plan, while it was originally God's picture of His plan of redemption, it would now, after Christ, be a miscarriage of God's plan and that is the whole point. If the temple is restored, just as Israel is restored, it is so that the forces of evil get to play themselves out to the hilt.
The Book of Revelation calls the "holy city" by the name of the evil city Sodom and the evil empire Egypt.
Re 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.And yet there will be these two true witnesses of God alluded to in that verse denouncing it all, and there will be many who will come to see the truth, believe and be saved, giving glory to God -- EVEN in a time of the purest unrestrained evil imaginable, the full blossoming of fallen human "perfection" under the influence of the devil.
Why not, Reformed people? I don't see how this violates the plan of God's revelation on earth at all. It brings the ancient drama to a fitting if horrifying climax just before the return of Jesus Christ.
The people of God, whether the church of Israel in the wilderness in the Old Testament or the Israel of God among the Gentile Galatians in the New Testament, are one body who through Jesus will receive the promise of the heavenly city, the everlasting Zion. This heavenly inheritance has been the expectation of the people of God in all ages.See my responses above. Except I might caution that even the unsaved Israelis as an "ethnic group" most likely have more importance in God's eyes than this document is willing to recognize.
7. Jesus taught that his resurrection was the raising of the True Temple of Israel. He has replaced the priesthood, sacrifices, and sanctuary of Israel by fulfilling them in his own glorious priestly ministry and by offering, once and for all, his sacrifice for the world, that is, for both Jew and Gentile. Believers from all nations are now being built up through him into this Third Temple, the church that Jesus promised to build.Again, no argument, but again I make the suggestion that there are levels to prophecy, levels to the Temple, the one a type, yes, and the other its fulfillment, but it may be that God still has a use for the type in bringing the world to heel.
8. Simon Peter spoke of the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus in conjunction with the final judgment and the punishment of sinners. Instructively, this same Simon Peter, the Apostle to the Circumcision, says nothing about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel in the land of Palestine. Instead, as his readers contemplate the promise of Jesus' Second Coming, he fixes their hope upon the new heavens and the new earth, in which righteousness dwells.It only makes sense that he would focus on the true fulfilled spiritual meaning of Israel, our true hope. A restored physical Israel isn't our hope, but it does seem to have acquired a separate secondary significance in our time as eschatalogical theories are proliferating and there are other signs of the last days rapidly approaching.
9. The entitlement of any one ethnic or religious group to territory in the Middle East called the "Holy Land" cannot be supported by Scripture. In fact, the land promises specific to Israel in the Old Testament were fulfilled under Joshua. The New Testament speaks clearly and prophetically about the destruction of the second temple in A.D. 70. No New Testament writer foresees a regathering of ethnic Israel in the land, as did the prophets of the Old Testament after the destruction of the first temple in 586 B.C. Moreover, the land promises of the Old Covenant are consistently and deliberately expanded in the New Testament to show the universal dominion of Jesus, who reigns from heaven upon the throne of David, inviting all the nations through the Gospel of Grace to partake of his universal and everlasting dominion.Yes, all this is true. The Jews misunderstand the everlasting promise of the land to them as a people and are blinded to its fulfillment in Christ (though Abraham understood, and of course others). They are continuing to act out the types.
But that doesn't preclude the possibility that God is using these things to draw them back to the land for purposes of His own, and it seems to some of us that He has even demonstrated His watchfulness over Israel in certain miraculous protections in their various wars. In fact I think it takes a peculiar blindness not to notice these things playing out in history right before our eyes. Two levels. They have to come to Christ to be saved, but God may lead them there through their fleshly misunderstandings and through a great tribulation.
10. Bad Christian theology regarding the "Holy Land" contributed to the tragic cruelty of the Crusades in the Middle Ages. Lamentably, bad Christian theology is today attributing to secular Israel a divine mandate to conquer and hold Palestine, with the consequence that the Palestinian people are marginalized and regarded as virtual "Canaanites."No! Now here I have to say that this is NOT what is happening. I wouldn't claim that Israel is especially righteous since they are a worldly nation without God, but anyone with eyes to see ought to be able to see that Israel is completely on the defensive among peoples who only want her dead, while she has gone great lengths to try to accommodate the Palestinians, who, first of all, have no right to that land (that's a historical fact) and second, have been offered land nevertheless and have always turned it down, and third, are kept in their marginalized position NOT by Israel but by their Islamist leaders and the surrounding Arab nations who are using them as pawns in their satanically inspired Islam-based war against israel.
The "bad theology" here, the theology that is likely to bring about bloodshed, however unwittingly, even another Holocaust, is the very Reformed theology of this document.
This doctrine is both contrary to the teaching of the New Testament and a violation of the Gospel mandate. In addition, this theology puts those Christians who are urging the violent seizure and occupation of Palestinian land in moral jeopardy of their own bloodguiltiness. Are we as Christians not called to pray for and work for peace, warning both parties to this conflict that those who live by the sword will die by the sword? Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can bring both temporal reconciliation and the hope of an eternal and heavenly inheritance to the Israeli and the Palestinian. Only through Jesus Christ can anyone know peace on earth.ABSOLUTELY TRUE. And perhaps we SHOULD be warning that living by the sword will bring death by the sword, and not only to these two warring parties but all warring parties in the world.
BUT THAT IS NOT PALESTINIAN LAND, that is a complete fiction designed to keep Israel on the defensive. I'm really sorry to see Reformed theologians defending a false understanding of what is going on over there, manufactured in perhaps unknowing collusion with Islamists who seek the death of Jews (and Christians and all other nonMuslims ultimately).
I don't think the Reformed thinkers behind this document are anti-semitic but they are certainly at least unwittingly playing into the growing anti-semitism of our time, which is spearheaded by Islam, and which will most likely build up to a new Holocaust under the Antichrist when he appears -- and that will fulfill the prophecy of "the time of Jacob's trouble" as prophesied in scripture:
Jeremiah 30:7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.Meanwhile, yes yes yes, only the gospel of Christ can bring peace to this earth, in that situation or any situation, so let us take the gospel to the people with fervor -- fervor to the point of willingness to be beheaded because that is the likely cost of seriously evangelizing Muslims. It's what we should be doing. But no no no, your political analysis is all wrong.
The promised Messianic kingdom of Jesus Christ has been inaugurated. Its advent marks the focal point of human history. This kingdom of the Messiah is continuing to realize its fullness as believing Jews and Gentiles are added to the community of the redeemed in every generation. The same kingdom will be manifested in its final and eternal form with the return of Christ the King in all his glory.True, but you seem to be glossing over quite a bit of prophecy on the way to that grand finale, Jesus' Olivet Discourse for instance, and the whole Book of Revelation and its types in the Old Testament for instance.
Of all the nations, the Jewish people played the primary role in the coming of the Messianic kingdom. New Testament Scripture declares that to them were given the oracles of God, the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises. Theirs are the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and from them, according to the flesh, came Christ. Salvation is, indeed, of the Jews. While affirming the Scriptural teaching that there is no salvation outside of Christ, Christians should acknowledge with heartfelt sorrow and grief the frequent oppression of the Jews in history, sometimes tragically done in the name of the cross.The drama of the last days that some of us see as likely to unfold is to bring in such a glorious harvest of Jews and others to make this "all things going on as usual" understanding look pretty anemic.
But what are we to make of the unbelief of Israel? Has their unbelief made the faithfulness of God without effect for them? No, God has not completely rejected the people of Israel, and we join the apostle Paul in his earnest prayer for the salvation of his Jewish kinsmen according to the flesh. There always has been and always will be a remnant that is saved. While not all Israel will experience the blessing of participation in the Messianic kingdom, yet Jews who do come to faith in Christ will share in his reign throughout the present age and into eternity. In addition, it is not as though the rejection of some in Israel for unbelief serves no purpose. On the contrary, because they were broken off in unbelief, the Gospel has gone to the Gentiles, who now, through faith, partake of the blessings to the fathers and join with believing Jews to constitute the true Israel of God, the church of Jesus Christ.
The present secular state of Israel, however, is not an authentic or prophetic realization of the Messianic kingdom of Jesus Christ.No, in itself it is not the REALIZATION of the Messianic kingdom, of course not, but it may be a prophetic realization ON THE WAY to the final fullness of that Messianic kingdom, leading up to the return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. On the way to that desired end some pretty miserable situations have to develop and the reclamation of the land of Israel seems to be a major stepping stone. I would hope this idea that it embodies some kind of happy fulfillment could be done away with. If it is held by some it is certainly not held by many. A lot has yet to happen to bring the people of Israel into the Kingdom of God, it isn't going to stay a secular state. It's going to be ultimately replaced by the heavenly Jerusalem, although I don't yet have a settled view of how and when. If the "literal" reading of the Book of Revelation is correct, the last days are going to entail unimaginable sufferings, unimaginable evil, but the end result is going to be a purification and a fitting for the Kingdom of God of the overcomers. The secular state is NOT the goal. PLEASE -- who is saying it is???? I hate to think that there are many Christians who believe as this document thinks they do. I have to think this is a monumental straw-man misrepresentation.
Furthermore, a day should not be anticipated in which Christ's kingdom will manifest Jewish distinctives, whether by its location in "the land," by its constituency, or by its ceremonial institutions and practices. Instead, this present age will come to a climactic conclusion with the arrival of the final, eternal phase of the kingdom of the Messiah. At that time, all eyes, even of those who pierced him, will see the King in his glory. Every knee will bow, and every tongue will declare that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. The kingdoms of this world will become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign forever and ever.
In light of the grand prophetic expectation of the New Testament, we urge our evangelical brothers and sisters to return to the proclamation of the free offer of Christ's grace in the Gospel to all the children of Abraham, to pray for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and to promise all humanitarian sympathy and practical support for those on both sides who are suffering in this current vicious cycle of atrocity and displacement. We also invite those Christian educators and pastors who share our convictions on the people of God, the land of Israel, and the impartiality of the Gospel to join their names with ours as signatories to this open letter.
Advent
In the Year of our Lord 2002
Soli Deo Gloria
[A long list of signers follows]
Well, I probably repeated myself much too much in the above and may come back and try to refine it later.
The upshot of my response to this document is that while its declarations of the gospel are unimpeachable, they've got the historical and political factor wrong, they aren't appreciating the gloriously Biblical foundation of the view of Israel's resoration that they are objecting to, and worst of all they are feeding the very anti-semitism they decry. ABSOLUTELY UNINTENTIONALLY!!!! -- I underscore that. This is not anti-semitism, it is simply a deplorable misreading of the historical facts through a theological lens that for all its laudable emphasis on the gospel of Christ trivializes it by stripping it of its full context.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Answering Reformed Objections to Evangelical Support of Israel
I ran across the link to this document on a Reformed Christian website, and besides its being provocative because my political persuasions about Israel are so much the opposite, it also looked like it would make a useful vehicle for exploring some of my objections to the theological position it represents.
I haven't carefully followed this issue but this sounds like an extrapolation and not a fair representation of the position in question Perhaps there are some who see it as described. I suspect there are many different shades of theology involved among Protestants who support Israel with at least some degree of Biblical perspective on it. In a sense I don't support Israel because of my Biblical beliefs at all; I simply think they have a right to be where they are and they are the victims in the whole scenario.
But in terms of the Biblical framework, it is true that present-day Israelis think in terms of their ethnic claims to the reestablishment of Israel, which they see as given to them by God, while I see it as a different historical route to the grace of Christ for the Jews that picks up some unfinished Old Testament threads, not as a denial of the grace of Christ. When the prophecies are understood in the messianic context, this removes all the ethnic assumptions, but I believe they are nevertheless to have a literal earthly fulfillment as well. God's promises to bring them back to the land and cause the land to flower may certainly have a messianic fulfillment in Christ and His Church and the Kingdom of God, but that doesn't mean they won't also have a literal earthly fulfillment as well.
I have to admit, however, that much of my reasoning is based on the fact that Israel is there, that the wilderness has been flowering under their care, that against extreme odds they won some wars that were initiated against them by others, and that their neighbors and the world hate them with a passionate unjust hatred -- all signs that this is God's work.
God began His revelation of Himself on this dusty material planet, and it makes perfect sense that He would bring His final revelation of His glory -- to the entire human family as well as the heavenly creatures -- from the same geographic place He chose to set His name in the first place.
The Reformed or Amillennialist position insists that there are no unfinished Old Testament threads, that all have been fulfilled in Christ and the Church. I'm not sure that ALL the prophecies have been fulfilled. Certainly in Christ there is now no more Jew nor Gentile but we are all one in Christ; certainly the Church IS the true Israel of God -- and yet there does seem to be some unfinished business left for the physical land of Israel. OR, put it this way: Even if all the OT prophecies have been completely fulfilled in Christ, that doesn't prevent there being another level, if you will, to those same prophecies that is yet to have a literal physical temporal fulfillment.
And again, this would be quite in keeping with the fact that the whole Old Testament plays out in this real world after all, even if Israel and the temple and the land are all now fulfilled in Christ and His Church. That is, God may still have dealings with Israel on a temporal earthly level, with the ultimate goal of both judging this world AND bringing the last generation of Jews into His Church.
The angels told the disciples that Jesus is going to come back exactly the same way He left, in real time to a real physical planet, and I don't see a way to spiritualize the passage that describes His literal physical return to the Mount of Olives, which will then split from the impact. Since to the Reformed mindset Israel does not rightly belong where it is, it seems they have to imagine an uninhabitable wilderness with a few scattered farms and nomads, as Mark Twain witnessed Palestine in the 19th century, as the proper place for Christ's return.
However, again on the earthly physical level, the repopulation and revitalization of the land of Israel, PLUS their being surrounded by implacable enemies, certainly looks like fulfilled prophecy, at the very very least certainly HAS to be God's own work. I think these Reformed theologians are falling for a false either/or -- and perhaps there is some reason for this if their opponents are doing the same thing in the opposite direction.
Again, I don't know if my view of this is shared by many others or not, but I think this is a function of the two levels of prophetic fulfillment I suggest above. They don't contradict each other, they are parallel aspects of God's revelation. God's people ARE Christ's people, He is the way and no-one comes to the Father but by Him, so the Jews have to become Christ's people to be saved, but on the way there God is also dealing with all the peoples of earth.
Besides saving out a people for Himself He also has the objective of declaring His glory and His possession of the land -- the land is the whole earth as well as the spiritual or heavenly Canaan. His Israelites were His chosen instrument for that purpose and after all the promises have been fulfilled in Christ He might yet resume those dealings in the 70th week of Daniel, both to bring His rebellious people to Christ and to judge the world. Sure, I guess He could do this without temporal Israel, but it looks to many like He's chosen to do it with them. He'll probably teach some Christians a lesson in the process too.
Biblical logic is on our side. For instance, the Seventieth Week of Daniel is a major major sign that the Reformed camp seems to want to play down. The first 69 weeks of Daniel's prophecy were fulfilled EXACTLY, so why would we expect the 70th to be fulfilled any less exactly? And since it remains unfinished to this day it must be yet future, and since the first 69 week marked off the last years of the Old Testament up to the revelation of Christ as King, it makes perfect sense that the last week could very well occur within a resumed Old Testament context and be marked by the revelation of the Antichrist, and this does seem to require a restoration of Old Testament trappings, Israel itself, the temple and so on, even if ultimately these things will have to be abandoned as the Reality of Christ and the heavenly Jerusalem is completed. It's beautiful, it's almost symphonic in its arrangement, I do think it takes a spiritual tin ear to hold to the one-dimensional Reformed argument.
The blinded Jews want the Temple back, of course, it's part of their heritage as they understand it, and it IS possible to argue from scripture that it must be rebuilt to fulfill certain prophecies of the last days. It's just a type, and in the Christian age it's blasphemy, but may nevertheless very possibly be packed with implications for God's plans for planet earth and indeed the entire cosmos: to glorify Himself in the eyes of the world in the full redemption of the Jews, the root of the tree into which the Gentiles were grafted, and in the judgment of the world. To glorify Himself. The ethnic factor is error, but they aren't Christians -- yet.
Continued next post.
Has this been stated somewhere in these terms? Perhaps in a document of this sort they can't specifically quote the position they're answering?An Open Letter to Evangelicals and Other Interested Parties:
The People of God, the Land of Israel, and the Impartiality of the Gospel
Recently a number of leaders in the Protestant community of the United States have urged the endorsement of far-reaching and unilateral political commitments to the people and land of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, citing Holy Scripture as the basis for those commitments. To strengthen their endorsement, several of these leaders have also insisted that they speak on behalf of the seventy million people who constitute the American evangelical community.
It is good and necessary for evangelical leaders to speak out on the great moral issues of our day in obedience to Christ's call for his disciples to be salt and light in the world. It is quite another thing, however, when leaders call for commitments that are based upon a serious misreading of Holy Scripture. In such instances, it is good and necessary for other evangelical leaders to speak out as well. We do so here in the hope that we may contribute to the cause of the Lord Christ, apart from whom there can never be true and lasting peace in the world.
At the heart of the political commitments in question are two fatally flawed propositions. First, some are teaching that God's alleged favor toward Israel today is based upon ethnic descent rather than upon the grace of Christ alone, as proclaimed in the Gospel.
I haven't carefully followed this issue but this sounds like an extrapolation and not a fair representation of the position in question Perhaps there are some who see it as described. I suspect there are many different shades of theology involved among Protestants who support Israel with at least some degree of Biblical perspective on it. In a sense I don't support Israel because of my Biblical beliefs at all; I simply think they have a right to be where they are and they are the victims in the whole scenario.
But in terms of the Biblical framework, it is true that present-day Israelis think in terms of their ethnic claims to the reestablishment of Israel, which they see as given to them by God, while I see it as a different historical route to the grace of Christ for the Jews that picks up some unfinished Old Testament threads, not as a denial of the grace of Christ. When the prophecies are understood in the messianic context, this removes all the ethnic assumptions, but I believe they are nevertheless to have a literal earthly fulfillment as well. God's promises to bring them back to the land and cause the land to flower may certainly have a messianic fulfillment in Christ and His Church and the Kingdom of God, but that doesn't mean they won't also have a literal earthly fulfillment as well.
I have to admit, however, that much of my reasoning is based on the fact that Israel is there, that the wilderness has been flowering under their care, that against extreme odds they won some wars that were initiated against them by others, and that their neighbors and the world hate them with a passionate unjust hatred -- all signs that this is God's work.
God began His revelation of Himself on this dusty material planet, and it makes perfect sense that He would bring His final revelation of His glory -- to the entire human family as well as the heavenly creatures -- from the same geographic place He chose to set His name in the first place.
The Reformed or Amillennialist position insists that there are no unfinished Old Testament threads, that all have been fulfilled in Christ and the Church. I'm not sure that ALL the prophecies have been fulfilled. Certainly in Christ there is now no more Jew nor Gentile but we are all one in Christ; certainly the Church IS the true Israel of God -- and yet there does seem to be some unfinished business left for the physical land of Israel. OR, put it this way: Even if all the OT prophecies have been completely fulfilled in Christ, that doesn't prevent there being another level, if you will, to those same prophecies that is yet to have a literal physical temporal fulfillment.
And again, this would be quite in keeping with the fact that the whole Old Testament plays out in this real world after all, even if Israel and the temple and the land are all now fulfilled in Christ and His Church. That is, God may still have dealings with Israel on a temporal earthly level, with the ultimate goal of both judging this world AND bringing the last generation of Jews into His Church.
The angels told the disciples that Jesus is going to come back exactly the same way He left, in real time to a real physical planet, and I don't see a way to spiritualize the passage that describes His literal physical return to the Mount of Olives, which will then split from the impact. Since to the Reformed mindset Israel does not rightly belong where it is, it seems they have to imagine an uninhabitable wilderness with a few scattered farms and nomads, as Mark Twain witnessed Palestine in the 19th century, as the proper place for Christ's return.
Second, others are teaching that the Bible's promises concerning the land are fulfilled in a special political region or "Holy Land," perpetually set apart by God for one ethnic group alone. As a result of these false claims, large segments of the evangelical community, our fellow citizens, and our government are being misled with regard to the Bible's teachings regarding the people of God, the land of Israel, and the impartiality of the Gospel.There is probably something to this criticism as I've heard this idea expressed by supporters of Israel, even to the denial of the need for Jews to be saved through Christ, but I think it's a minority view. If it's not, if much of how this document characterizes the supporters of Israel IS true, then I have to say I don't agree with THEM either.
However, again on the earthly physical level, the repopulation and revitalization of the land of Israel, PLUS their being surrounded by implacable enemies, certainly looks like fulfilled prophecy, at the very very least certainly HAS to be God's own work. I think these Reformed theologians are falling for a false either/or -- and perhaps there is some reason for this if their opponents are doing the same thing in the opposite direction.
In what follows, we make our convictions public. We do so acknowledging the genuine evangelical faith of many who will not agree with us. Knowing that we may incur their disfavor, we are nevertheless constrained by scripture and by conscience to publish the following propositions for the cause of Christ and truth.
1. The Gospel offers eternal life in heaven to Jews and Gentiles alike as a free gift in Jesus Christ. Eternal life in heaven is not earned or deserved, nor is it based upon ethnic descent or natural birth.
I must say I feel like saying to this, "So what else is new?" because it seems to be erecting a straw man of the evangelical defense of Israel. Again, MAYBE there are some (I've seen some who appear to tilt in that direction) who deny this fundamental gospel truth, but I doubt that's more than a slim minority, while everyone else would say "Of course, we know that."
2. All human beings, Jews and Gentiles alike, are sinners, and, as such, they are under God's judgment of death. Because God's standard is perfect obedience and all are sinners, it is impossible for anyone to gain temporal peace or eternal life by his own efforts. Moreover, apart from Christ, there is no special divine favor upon any member of any ethnic group; nor, apart from Christ, is there any divine promise of an earthly land or a heavenly inheritance to anyone, whether Jew or Gentile. To teach or imply otherwise is nothing less than to compromise the Gospel itself.
Again, I don't know if my view of this is shared by many others or not, but I think this is a function of the two levels of prophetic fulfillment I suggest above. They don't contradict each other, they are parallel aspects of God's revelation. God's people ARE Christ's people, He is the way and no-one comes to the Father but by Him, so the Jews have to become Christ's people to be saved, but on the way there God is also dealing with all the peoples of earth.
Besides saving out a people for Himself He also has the objective of declaring His glory and His possession of the land -- the land is the whole earth as well as the spiritual or heavenly Canaan. His Israelites were His chosen instrument for that purpose and after all the promises have been fulfilled in Christ He might yet resume those dealings in the 70th week of Daniel, both to bring His rebellious people to Christ and to judge the world. Sure, I guess He could do this without temporal Israel, but it looks to many like He's chosen to do it with them. He'll probably teach some Christians a lesson in the process too.
Biblical logic is on our side. For instance, the Seventieth Week of Daniel is a major major sign that the Reformed camp seems to want to play down. The first 69 weeks of Daniel's prophecy were fulfilled EXACTLY, so why would we expect the 70th to be fulfilled any less exactly? And since it remains unfinished to this day it must be yet future, and since the first 69 week marked off the last years of the Old Testament up to the revelation of Christ as King, it makes perfect sense that the last week could very well occur within a resumed Old Testament context and be marked by the revelation of the Antichrist, and this does seem to require a restoration of Old Testament trappings, Israel itself, the temple and so on, even if ultimately these things will have to be abandoned as the Reality of Christ and the heavenly Jerusalem is completed. It's beautiful, it's almost symphonic in its arrangement, I do think it takes a spiritual tin ear to hold to the one-dimensional Reformed argument.
3. God, the Creator of all mankind, is merciful and takes no pleasure in punishing sinners. Yet God is also holy and just and must punish sin. Therefore, to satisfy both his justice and his mercy, God has appointed one way of salvation for all, whether Jew or Gentile, in Jesus Christ alone.No argument here, folks. I'll try to be sparing now about repeating what I've said above.
4. Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man, came into the world to save sinners. In his death upon the cross, Jesus was the Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world, of Jew and of Gentile alike. The death of Jesus forever fulfilled and eternally ended the sacrifices of the Jewish temple. All who would worship God, whether Jew or Gentile, must now come to him in spirit and truth through Jesus Christ alone. The worship of God is no longer identified with any specific earthly sanctuary. He receives worship only through Jesus Christ, the eternal and heavenly Temple.No argument here either. As for the project to rebuild the Temple, I really don't see that Christians regard this as a legitimate alternative to Christianity -- do some? Sad if so, but that hasn't been my impression from the discussions and studies I've been in on about this. As many objectors to this idea point out, its reestablishment would be blasphemy in itself. But it seems to me that's a major theme of the last days, the coming to fruition of the "mystery of inquity."
The blinded Jews want the Temple back, of course, it's part of their heritage as they understand it, and it IS possible to argue from scripture that it must be rebuilt to fulfill certain prophecies of the last days. It's just a type, and in the Christian age it's blasphemy, but may nevertheless very possibly be packed with implications for God's plans for planet earth and indeed the entire cosmos: to glorify Himself in the eyes of the world in the full redemption of the Jews, the root of the tree into which the Gentiles were grafted, and in the judgment of the world. To glorify Himself. The ethnic factor is error, but they aren't Christians -- yet.
5. To as many as receive and rest upon Christ alone through faith alone, to Jews and Gentiles alike, God gives eternal life in his heavenly inheritance.Very true and I don't know any Christian who thinks otherwise.
6. The inheritance promises that God gave to Abraham were made effective through Christ, Abraham's True Seed. These promises were not and cannot be made effective through sinful man's keeping of God's law.
Continued next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
