This is from 2011. Some of the links have gone stale. But given the current times and criticisms of Israel and its Christian supporters, I thought I'd repost it.
As mentioned previously, I’ve listened to a 2009 lecture delivered by Gary Hoag to a Denver Seminary audience. It was based on Craig Blomberg’s manuscript (Dr Blomberg being ill at the time). The title of the talk was “Inappropriately Privileging Israel: Why Historic Premillennialism Trumps Dispensationalism".
You can listen to it HERE
Dr Blomberg co-edited “A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to "Left Behind" Eschatology”. The book received strong criticism by reviewer Erik Swanson for improperly engaging DP:
“Not only does this book misunderstand DP, but the authors misrepresent DP as well. They (mis)represent DP as simply a popular movement, fueled by popular culture and imagination, not backed by solid exegesis and theology.”
I bring this up again because I sympathize with Erik Swanson’s frustration. That same approach characterizes the lecture. If you’re going to legitimately challenge another system, you should accurately interact with its beliefs and strengths; otherwise you’re just knocking down straw men.
Firstly, as an ex-posttribber, I’m unimpressed by the “academic & exegesis” vs the “comfortable populist” inferences that Dr Blomberg draws when he compares posttribulationism with pretribulationism. It smacks of elitism. Also, note that apantesis isn’t a magic gotcha word. Kevin Zuber has a study on it HERE, or refer to his essay in “Dispensationalism – tomorrow & beyond” (p 343). And a comparison of tereo ek in Rev 3:10 and John 17:15 isn’t helpful to post-trib either - read Richard Mayhue’s essay HERE.
Lastly, Erik Swanson answered Dr Blomberg’s wrath of God points in the review above. In fact at one stage Dr Blomberg states the church must go through the Tribulation and endure persecution and martyrdom then later claims tereo ek in Rev 3:10 means protection within!
Contrary to Dr Blomberg, Jerry Falwell’s “brand of dispensationalism” is not representative. That “America doesn’t exist to support a distinctively Jewish state in Israel” may well be true. Mature dispie scholars would vouch for the wisdom of a “separation between church and state”. But why raise that issue?
Many “religious organizations” routinely lobby the US government for political and monetary aid for other countries. Palestinian aid is sought out by certain “Christian” groups (e.g. Sabeel). And people like Stephen Sizer and Gary Burge, and organizations such as the World Council of Churches and National Council of Churches have sought the boycotting of Israeli products. What do we make of church groups who vie to influence government decisions on pro-life, gay marriage etc? Wouldn’t these activities cross over the "separation between church & state" guidelines? Why is support for Israel singled out?
I’m not sure why he even mentions Two Covenant Theology. Even if one or two “popular” dispies may hold to it; it is not the correct dispensational view. There is only ONE way to be saved and that is by grace through faith. Note Tony Garland’s article HERE and this ESSAY
He uses the term “the shifting sands of dispensationalism”. Disp was formalized in the 19th century when theologians began to take a literal approach to the OT. Since then it has gone through further refinements and developments. Covenant Theology (which isn’t that much older) has also evolved and changed. The same is true of Reformed Theology. In fact if one carefully looks at a Who’s Who of HP from the Early Church Fathers to date, one will see changes in modern day HP.
Dr Blomberg chides outright replacement theology by pointing to sufficient OT evidence indicating that national Israel has some future in the Millennium. He even points out that RT has led to anti-Semitism. This is an important admission which I’ll explore in a later post. He affirms that George Ladd is a scholar who overshadows the rest and, like Dr Ladd, he fails to see a necessity for either a Temple, or national Israel in Palestine prior to the Millennium. He punctuates that point several times.
Note here that people like J C Ryle, Horatius Bonar, Renald Showers, Arnold Fruchtenbaum etc have shown “biblically” that Israel must, once again, be a nation prior to the Millennium. Dr Fruchtenbaum identifies several OT verses pointing to a gathering into the land in unbelief in “Footsteps of the Messiah”.
Contra-arguments to Gen 12:1-3 are typically raised by proponents of replacement theology and Dr Blomberg does the same. They argue that the church, as Abraham’s spiritual heir, is the ultimate recipient of these verses and not a prophetically irrelevant Israel in a state of unbelief. In a lengthy process of circular reasoning they insert the church and remove Israel. (Acts 3:13, 25-26; Rom 11:25-29)
His comments on Ezekiel’s Temple (ET) confuse me. I’m not aware of any dispies who teach that ET is premillennial. I don’t see how you can merge ET into the New Jerusalem or why you’d want to in the first place. If you’re able to recognize clear OT Scripture to confirm a future for Israel then surely you can use that same “exegesis” on a literal comparison of the differences between ET and the New Jerusalem.
Even when he acknowledges OT prophecies regarding Israel in their land during the Millennium he attempts to apply the NT to make the Gentile church share the same territorial benefits, which he then extends to all the earth (Matt 5:5). He appears to have a problem with a uniquely Holy Land with a Jewish flavor and any type of Temple. This isn’t just replacement theology; it is absorption theology or a sort of socialist theocracy where whatever national Israel owns, so must the Gentile church.
While he briefly addresses the excesses of those who are pro-Palestinian and those who are pro-Israel, it’s quite obvious that Christian Zionism and national Israel are his primary targets. His language implies that Israel oppresses Palestinian Muslims and Christians; hence he lectures against blindly supporting Israel.
Yet a fact-check will show that Palestinians and Christians living in Israel fare much better than in Israel’s Muslim-dominated neighboring countries! He seems unaware of the dynamics driving the Arab-Israeli conflict and the existential threat to Israel. Aside from theological considerations, there are legitimate reasons for supporting Israel even if it is secular and imperfect.
But that he promotes blatant replacement theologians like Gary Burge and Colin Chapman as the “best guides” to refer to theologically ultimately explains his position on Israel both biblically and from a secular viewpoint. Burge and Chapman re-interpret the OT via the NT. These men have also written glowing reviews for anti-Israel activist and revisionist Stephen Sizer’s book “Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?”
Dr Paul Wilkinson has written about Sizer and his supporters HERE. I also recommend his book “For Zion’s Sake”. A more balanced approach to Sizer’s book is Dr Michael Rydelnik’s “Understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict – What The Headlines Haven’t Told You”.
Keeping the terms “academic” & “exegesis” in mind, read Barry Horner’s (Future Israel) response to Gary Burge. Many points that Dr Horner raises about Dr Burge re NT authorship etc are a concern.
Based on Dr Blomberg’s lecture and his advocacy of Gary Burge’s theology, even if I were to revert to posttribulationism, I could never consider myself an HP. It’s not about rapture timing, though Dr Blomberg clings to that distinction. It’s about God’s faithfulness to His word. It’s about taking the clear OT references to Israel’s future literally. On this basis, Dr Blomberg’s lecture fails to live up to its objective.
I’ll explore Dr Burge’s stance on Israel in a later post.
Showing posts with label Michael Rydelnik. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Rydelnik. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 22, 2025
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Michael Rydelnik & Michael Vlach - Moody Radio
Michael Rydelnik of Moody Bible Institute talks with Michael Vlach, author of Has the Church Replaced Israel?
Click Here.
Click Here.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Michael Rydelnik - The Messianic Hope
I’ve mentioned Dr Michael Rydelnik’s book “The Messianic Hope – Is The Hebrew Bible Really Messianic?” Well Dan Phillips and Tony Garland have two excellent reviews of the book HERE and HERE.
Highly recommended reading!
From the book and Tony's review:
Messianic prophecy was the means God used to bring me to faith in Jesus the Messiah. My parents were Holocaust survivors who raised me in a traditional Jewish home. We were Orthodox in our Jewish beliefs and practices and, as such, I did believe in the future coming of a personal Messiah. Even so, it was not a central issue of my life. However, that changed when my mother announced that she believed in Jesus. This led to my father divorcing her and a radical shift in my life. I decided to study the messianic prophecies of the Hebrew Bible and prove my mother wrong in attributing their fulfillment to Jesus of Nazareth. Although I was initially quite confident of my opinion, in time I was surprised to see that there was far more credibility to the messiahship of Jesus than I had first anticipated. After dealing with my fears of ostracism from the Jewish community, based on my new conviction that the Scriptures foretold a suffering Messiah who would be rejected by His own people and provide forgiveness thorough his death and resurrection, I put my trust in Jesus as Messiah and Lord. . . . I would never have made this decision apart from studying messianic prophecy. In fact, apart from messianic prediction and fulfillment, Jesus could not be identified as the Messiah of Israel, and if not that, then He could not be the Messiah of the world. It is for this reason, joined with my commitment to exegetical accuracy, that I believe it is essential to understand the Hebrew Bible as messianic. ~ Dr Rydelnik pp 11-12
Highly recommended reading!
From the book and Tony's review:
Messianic prophecy was the means God used to bring me to faith in Jesus the Messiah. My parents were Holocaust survivors who raised me in a traditional Jewish home. We were Orthodox in our Jewish beliefs and practices and, as such, I did believe in the future coming of a personal Messiah. Even so, it was not a central issue of my life. However, that changed when my mother announced that she believed in Jesus. This led to my father divorcing her and a radical shift in my life. I decided to study the messianic prophecies of the Hebrew Bible and prove my mother wrong in attributing their fulfillment to Jesus of Nazareth. Although I was initially quite confident of my opinion, in time I was surprised to see that there was far more credibility to the messiahship of Jesus than I had first anticipated. After dealing with my fears of ostracism from the Jewish community, based on my new conviction that the Scriptures foretold a suffering Messiah who would be rejected by His own people and provide forgiveness thorough his death and resurrection, I put my trust in Jesus as Messiah and Lord. . . . I would never have made this decision apart from studying messianic prophecy. In fact, apart from messianic prediction and fulfillment, Jesus could not be identified as the Messiah of Israel, and if not that, then He could not be the Messiah of the world. It is for this reason, joined with my commitment to exegetical accuracy, that I believe it is essential to understand the Hebrew Bible as messianic. ~ Dr Rydelnik pp 11-12
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Is Israel Prophetically Insignificant?
I believe that Replacement Theology is at the core of most criticisms against dispensationalism even when the stated motive is to correct the “unbiblical” teaching of dispensations or the rapture. I don’t think I’ve ever read a polemic (and I’ve read a few) that didn’t ultimately focus on Israel. Some proponents of RT appear to be offended by Israel’s existence as if it threatens their theology. It does.
These critics insist that modern Israel is prophetically insignificant; that it has forfeited its rights to the land because it rejected the Messiah and because of its national sins. Some even question the genetic lineage of modern Jews (Sizer, Donaldson etc). Thomas Williamson is another example of a Christian minister who makes broad generalizations that Christian Zionists (CZs) sanction anything Israel does, thus making Palestinians victims of this errant relationship:
“Christian Zionists claim to have 70,000,000 followers in America, who insists (sic) that our politicians render unquestioning obedience to the military and political agenda of the Israeli Government...Does God really demand that we support all actions and activities of the Israeli Government, even if those actions violate God’s moral standards of righteousness?”
Williamson asserts much but provides no evidence. One might also ask why he spends no time acknowledging the violations of “God’s moral standards of righteousness” by Israel’s neighbors who have wanted to destroy it since its inception. Why does he single Israel out?
Typically, he raises Gen 12:3 as the standard text that Zionists use to influence American foreign policy. He contends that it doesn’t relate to modern Israel. Like others, he ignores Gen 27:26-29 which zeroes in on the identity of the recipient of the blessing (Jacob).
He asserts that CZs mistakenly interpret Zech 13:8 although he doesn’t exegete the passage. He claims that it is commonly understood that CZs do not really care about what is best for the Jews. This is pure propaganda and ironic given Williamson’s statements against Israeli support. Dispensationalists take a literal view of Zech 13 & 14 (see David Baron’s Zechariah). It has nothing to do with being anti-Jewish.
In a seeming about face, Williamson states: “There is no scriptural justification for putting Jewish people on a pedestal as some kind of superior race. Jewish people today do not want to be put on that pedestal. Nor do they want to be blamed for all the problems of the world, as some would do with their accusations of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.”
And this: “God’s program is that we should love the Jews, seek their conversion (Romans 9: 3), and then be united with them in the fellowship of the Lord’s Church, where there is no longer any Jew nor Greek...God has made every nation on earth of one blood, Acts 17.26. Therefore we cannot elevate the Jews as a superior race, nor look down on them as an inferior race. The Jews are people just like you and I. (sic) and many of them are our brothers and sisters in Christ. As one of the greatest Jews of all, the Apostle Paul, said, "There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek."”
Paul taught that there is no distinction between Jew and Greek insofar as salvation is concerned. However, that doesn’t mean Israel doesn’t have a distinct future role as a nation in God’s plan and it does not make the church spiritual Israel. Furthermore, no decent dispie puts Israel or the Jewish race “on a pedestal”. Acknowledging God’s program for them is simply that and nothing more. By disavowing the conspiratorial accusations that others make against Jews, Williamson admits they are victims of propaganda. Sadly, he has already truly poisoned the well with his inference that Israel violates “God’s moral standards of righteousness”.
Elsewhere he argues that God didn’t make an unconditional land covenant with Israel. He points to several instances of the OT use of the word “forever” where he thinks dispies wouldn’t be inclined to take that word as literal. That being the case, his argument is that the word “forever” - insofar as the land covenant with Abraham is concerned (Gen 13:15) – doesn’t actually mean forever. But, as Michael Rydelnik informs us in “Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict” (p 156):
“Min olam v’ad olam is the strongest expression in Hebrew to describe perpetuity and eternality. And, for the most part, it refers to God and His eternal nature.” (See 1Chron 16:36; Psalm 90:2; Psalm 103:17; Dan 17:18 etc).
Dr Rydlenik points out that there are two exceptions where the usage of the phrase does not refer to God. It is in Jer 7:7 and Jer 25:5 where it refers to Israel’s possession of the land forever and ever. Stuart Dauermann concurs.
Williamson: “Since the land promise to the Jews was conditional upon their obedience, and they completely failed to obey God or keep the covenant with God, therefore there is no duty upon Christians to help modern-day Jews to take Palestine away from the Arabs, nor to prevent them from giving back to the Arabs land that they have already occupied (such as the Gaza Strip).”
Notice the sleight of hand? He makes simplistic statements about a complex situation that one might presume true. We might ask - how are the Palestinians (who are mostly Muslim) “keeping the covenant with God”?
He supplies a series of OT verses that appear to show conditionality. And they do. See Gen 17:8, 14; Ex 19:5; Num 14:30; Deut 4:25-16, 7:12-13, 11:16-17; Josh 23:15-16; Jer 7:3-6, 9:13-16; Ezek 33:24-26; Matt 21:43 etc.
Dr Rydelnik points out that enjoyment of the land is conditional to Israel’s obedience, yet its exile is never final. Every time God exiled Israel He also, eventually, returned them back to the land. Moses was barred from entering the Promised Land but the rest of Israel entered. One generation may be exiled for disobedience but that does not prevent a future generation from occupying it.
Why? - Because God made an everlasting land covenant with Abraham.
In his article “Let God Be True…And Say What He Means” Paul Henebury compellingly outlines the problems confronting those who teach Israel has forfeited the land promises. I highly recommend reading it. Ezekiel 36 clearly states that God will give Israel a heart of flesh and write His law on their hearts, for His own name’s sake. God said He would change and restore Israel despite their sins, and that they would eventually be in their land forever!
"For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land.Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” Ezek 36:24-26
Has all that happened yet? Did God change His mind? Should we take Him at His word? It is the proponent of RT who must deal with Scripture and rightly divide the word of God - not the dispensationalist.
"Thus says the LORD, 'If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established, then I would reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them." Jer 33:25-26
"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "When the plowman will overtake the reaper And the treader of grapes him who sows seed; When the mountains will drip sweet wine And all the hills will be dissolved. Also I will restore the captivity of My people Israel, And they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them; They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, And make gardens and eat their fruit. I will also plant them on their land, And they will not again be rooted out from their land Which I have given them," Says the LORD your God. Amos 9:13-15
Further reading:
Paul Henebury: The Church and the Promised Land
Matt Waymeyer: THE DUAL STATUS OF ISRAEL IN ROMANS 11:28
Larry Helyer: Luke and the Restoration of Israel
Barry Horner: Zechariah
These critics insist that modern Israel is prophetically insignificant; that it has forfeited its rights to the land because it rejected the Messiah and because of its national sins. Some even question the genetic lineage of modern Jews (Sizer, Donaldson etc). Thomas Williamson is another example of a Christian minister who makes broad generalizations that Christian Zionists (CZs) sanction anything Israel does, thus making Palestinians victims of this errant relationship:
“Christian Zionists claim to have 70,000,000 followers in America, who insists (sic) that our politicians render unquestioning obedience to the military and political agenda of the Israeli Government...Does God really demand that we support all actions and activities of the Israeli Government, even if those actions violate God’s moral standards of righteousness?”
Williamson asserts much but provides no evidence. One might also ask why he spends no time acknowledging the violations of “God’s moral standards of righteousness” by Israel’s neighbors who have wanted to destroy it since its inception. Why does he single Israel out?
Typically, he raises Gen 12:3 as the standard text that Zionists use to influence American foreign policy. He contends that it doesn’t relate to modern Israel. Like others, he ignores Gen 27:26-29 which zeroes in on the identity of the recipient of the blessing (Jacob).
He asserts that CZs mistakenly interpret Zech 13:8 although he doesn’t exegete the passage. He claims that it is commonly understood that CZs do not really care about what is best for the Jews. This is pure propaganda and ironic given Williamson’s statements against Israeli support. Dispensationalists take a literal view of Zech 13 & 14 (see David Baron’s Zechariah). It has nothing to do with being anti-Jewish.
In a seeming about face, Williamson states: “There is no scriptural justification for putting Jewish people on a pedestal as some kind of superior race. Jewish people today do not want to be put on that pedestal. Nor do they want to be blamed for all the problems of the world, as some would do with their accusations of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.”
And this: “God’s program is that we should love the Jews, seek their conversion (Romans 9: 3), and then be united with them in the fellowship of the Lord’s Church, where there is no longer any Jew nor Greek...God has made every nation on earth of one blood, Acts 17.26. Therefore we cannot elevate the Jews as a superior race, nor look down on them as an inferior race. The Jews are people just like you and I. (sic) and many of them are our brothers and sisters in Christ. As one of the greatest Jews of all, the Apostle Paul, said, "There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek."”
Paul taught that there is no distinction between Jew and Greek insofar as salvation is concerned. However, that doesn’t mean Israel doesn’t have a distinct future role as a nation in God’s plan and it does not make the church spiritual Israel. Furthermore, no decent dispie puts Israel or the Jewish race “on a pedestal”. Acknowledging God’s program for them is simply that and nothing more. By disavowing the conspiratorial accusations that others make against Jews, Williamson admits they are victims of propaganda. Sadly, he has already truly poisoned the well with his inference that Israel violates “God’s moral standards of righteousness”.
Elsewhere he argues that God didn’t make an unconditional land covenant with Israel. He points to several instances of the OT use of the word “forever” where he thinks dispies wouldn’t be inclined to take that word as literal. That being the case, his argument is that the word “forever” - insofar as the land covenant with Abraham is concerned (Gen 13:15) – doesn’t actually mean forever. But, as Michael Rydelnik informs us in “Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict” (p 156):
“Min olam v’ad olam is the strongest expression in Hebrew to describe perpetuity and eternality. And, for the most part, it refers to God and His eternal nature.” (See 1Chron 16:36; Psalm 90:2; Psalm 103:17; Dan 17:18 etc).
Dr Rydlenik points out that there are two exceptions where the usage of the phrase does not refer to God. It is in Jer 7:7 and Jer 25:5 where it refers to Israel’s possession of the land forever and ever. Stuart Dauermann concurs.
Williamson: “Since the land promise to the Jews was conditional upon their obedience, and they completely failed to obey God or keep the covenant with God, therefore there is no duty upon Christians to help modern-day Jews to take Palestine away from the Arabs, nor to prevent them from giving back to the Arabs land that they have already occupied (such as the Gaza Strip).”
Notice the sleight of hand? He makes simplistic statements about a complex situation that one might presume true. We might ask - how are the Palestinians (who are mostly Muslim) “keeping the covenant with God”?
He supplies a series of OT verses that appear to show conditionality. And they do. See Gen 17:8, 14; Ex 19:5; Num 14:30; Deut 4:25-16, 7:12-13, 11:16-17; Josh 23:15-16; Jer 7:3-6, 9:13-16; Ezek 33:24-26; Matt 21:43 etc.
Dr Rydelnik points out that enjoyment of the land is conditional to Israel’s obedience, yet its exile is never final. Every time God exiled Israel He also, eventually, returned them back to the land. Moses was barred from entering the Promised Land but the rest of Israel entered. One generation may be exiled for disobedience but that does not prevent a future generation from occupying it.
Why? - Because God made an everlasting land covenant with Abraham.
In his article “Let God Be True…And Say What He Means” Paul Henebury compellingly outlines the problems confronting those who teach Israel has forfeited the land promises. I highly recommend reading it. Ezekiel 36 clearly states that God will give Israel a heart of flesh and write His law on their hearts, for His own name’s sake. God said He would change and restore Israel despite their sins, and that they would eventually be in their land forever!
"For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land.Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” Ezek 36:24-26
Has all that happened yet? Did God change His mind? Should we take Him at His word? It is the proponent of RT who must deal with Scripture and rightly divide the word of God - not the dispensationalist.
"Thus says the LORD, 'If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established, then I would reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them." Jer 33:25-26
"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "When the plowman will overtake the reaper And the treader of grapes him who sows seed; When the mountains will drip sweet wine And all the hills will be dissolved. Also I will restore the captivity of My people Israel, And they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them; They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, And make gardens and eat their fruit. I will also plant them on their land, And they will not again be rooted out from their land Which I have given them," Says the LORD your God. Amos 9:13-15
Further reading:
Paul Henebury: The Church and the Promised Land
Matt Waymeyer: THE DUAL STATUS OF ISRAEL IN ROMANS 11:28
Larry Helyer: Luke and the Restoration of Israel
Barry Horner: Zechariah
Friday, October 14, 2011
Those Armageddon Loving Dispensationalists
A while ago I became involved in the historic premil Church-Israel discussion initiated at Mike Vlach’s blog. From there I looked at Craig Blomberg who strongly endorses Gary Burge and Colin Chapman and noted that these two theologians are actively anti-Zionist and anti-dispensational.
This subject is more crucial than the emotive rapture timing debate. That’s not to say that the rapture isn’t important, but (for me) what’s really important is what God said about Israel in the OT; how we understand that in light of the NT and how we understand modern Israel.
Did God mean to do what He said He would in the OT? On what basis do people re-define or ignore select OT verses relating to Israel’s future? Can we trust God at His word? See Paul Henebury’s Let God Be True…And Say What He Means
Joel Rosenberg’s 2011 Epicenter Conference featured a panel discussion called "Assessing The Threat of Replacement Theology and Other Efforts To Delegitimize Israel" between Joel and three other men. One of those men was Dr Michael Rydelnik. You can watch it HERE.
Dr Rydelnik recalled an earlier (Dec 2010) interview with Dr Burge when Moody Radio’s Janet Parshall hosted them in a discussion over Israel’s rights to the land. Notable during that interview was Dr Burge’s avoidance in fully dealing with Dr Rydelnik’s OT texts. In each case he would eventually steer the conversation away to something else.
In the end, Dr Burge retreated to a geo-political debate where he proceeded to disparage Israel in contrast to the observations of the program’s host and Dr Rydelnik. Recall also that Dr Blomberg finished off his Denver Seminary commentary with an indictment on Americans blithely supporting an Israel who “oppresses” Palestinians.
I’ve noticed a trend where certain critics employ a similar formula:
1) They link Christian Zionism with dispensationalism
2) They undermine dispensational theology by pointing out the personal failures of some of its adherents.
3) They tend to use the same arguments to try to prove that dispensational theology is unbiblical
4) They try to stereotype the average Zionist as a provocateur of Armageddon
5) Finally, they go after an “oppressive” Israel.
Rarely, in their narrative, do they acknowledge examples of Arab-Palestinian or Islamic hegemony or the recorded attempts to eradicate Israel, and they never fully engage Scripture that could undermine their theology.
One example of the contempt for Zionism and dispensationalism is Gary Burge’s essay “Why I’m Not a Christian Zionist, Academically Speaking” where his main target is John Hagee. Dr Burge writes:
“The average reader may be excused for not understanding the finer differences between an evangelical preacher who calls for a pre-emptive bombing strike against Iran and one who thinks this view is outrageous and immoral... For instance, high-profile pastor John Hagee...is a Christian preacher who enjoys outrageously militant sermons....Others like myself find him not only embarrassing but dangerous.”
And again:
“Christian Zionists excel in one but fail in the other. They love Israel profoundly but I await the day when Rev. Hagee exhorts Israel (just once) to pursue a national life of justice and truth...This is where everything has been leading. This is the crown jewel in Christian Zionism’s worldview. This is why Rev. Hagee is willing to risk throwing the Middle East into nuclear war. The birth of Israel has now set the stage for the imminent second coming of Jesus Christ.”
This is the same polemic that Stephen Sizer promulgates. Rev Sizer has also written a Forward for a book by Alistair Donaldson “the last days of dispensationalism – a scholarly critique of popular misconceptions” which follows the above 5 point formula. Dr Donaldson, in turn, has endorsed Dr Sizer’s polemical “Christian Zionism”.
In his Forward, Rev Sizer wastes no time raising “apocalyptic” concerns by citing Sarah Posner’s “Pastor Strangelove” in which she focuses on John Hagee’s misguided comments:
“The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West… a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ.”
This sets to poison the well and leads readers into believing the dispensational system unanimously promotes this sort of thing. Dr Donaldson takes this same “apocalyptic” cue when he states on page 149 that:
“[dispensational] beliefs, though being counter to a sound biblical understanding, have significantly influenced foreign policies of governments (especially the United States) concerning Israel, giving rise to significantly distressing world-impacting events, and to what is often uncritical support for the modern state of Israel – despite her atrocious and dehumanizing tyranny of another people – by millions of people who profess to love God who himself abhors justice.”
But John Hagee is not a normative dispensationalist and mature dispies would strongly disagree with his theology and politics. God doesn’t need Christians lobbying for pre-emptive strikes to fulfill His plan. Christians are to be out spreading the Good News and praying for peace.
What these critics are doing is selectively quoting statements made by individuals on the fringe of Zionism and/or dispensationalism and using them as an excuse to disparage the system and Israel. These critics also habitually make polemical and unsubstantiated statements regarding Israel. This is done so often and glibly that it becomes factual in the mind of a non-discerning reader. Far from being the peacemakers they claim to be by often quoting Matt 5:9 against dispies, they are actively fomenting conflict.
Dr Burge should know better as a consequence of his friendship with Michael Rydelnik. Dr Rydelnik’s book “Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict” is, in my opinion, a testament to how a Christian should view the Middle East conflict and Israel. He understands both sides of the conflict. He recognizes the fact that Israel isn’t perfect and that both Jews and Muslims need Christ.
One page 220 of his book, Dr Rydelnik lists three responsibilities resting upon those who follow Jesus:
1) We must pray for peace
2) We must work for peace
3) We must proclaim God’s peace through Messiah Jesus
Amen to that.
Further reading:
A Review of "On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend" by Timothy P. Weber.
Is Dispensationalism Hurting American Political Policies in the Middle East?
A DISPENSATIONAL RESPONSE TO THE KNOX SEMINARY OPEN LETTER TO EVANGELICALS
A critique of "Zion's Christian Soldiers?"
Faydra L. Shapiro on "Zion's Christian Soldiers?"
Mainline Churches Embrace Burge's False Narrative
Mainline Churches Embrace Gary Burge's Harmful Mythology
Sabeel's Demonizing Liturgy
This subject is more crucial than the emotive rapture timing debate. That’s not to say that the rapture isn’t important, but (for me) what’s really important is what God said about Israel in the OT; how we understand that in light of the NT and how we understand modern Israel.
Did God mean to do what He said He would in the OT? On what basis do people re-define or ignore select OT verses relating to Israel’s future? Can we trust God at His word? See Paul Henebury’s Let God Be True…And Say What He Means
Joel Rosenberg’s 2011 Epicenter Conference featured a panel discussion called "Assessing The Threat of Replacement Theology and Other Efforts To Delegitimize Israel" between Joel and three other men. One of those men was Dr Michael Rydelnik. You can watch it HERE.
Dr Rydelnik recalled an earlier (Dec 2010) interview with Dr Burge when Moody Radio’s Janet Parshall hosted them in a discussion over Israel’s rights to the land. Notable during that interview was Dr Burge’s avoidance in fully dealing with Dr Rydelnik’s OT texts. In each case he would eventually steer the conversation away to something else.
In the end, Dr Burge retreated to a geo-political debate where he proceeded to disparage Israel in contrast to the observations of the program’s host and Dr Rydelnik. Recall also that Dr Blomberg finished off his Denver Seminary commentary with an indictment on Americans blithely supporting an Israel who “oppresses” Palestinians.
I’ve noticed a trend where certain critics employ a similar formula:
1) They link Christian Zionism with dispensationalism
2) They undermine dispensational theology by pointing out the personal failures of some of its adherents.
3) They tend to use the same arguments to try to prove that dispensational theology is unbiblical
4) They try to stereotype the average Zionist as a provocateur of Armageddon
5) Finally, they go after an “oppressive” Israel.
Rarely, in their narrative, do they acknowledge examples of Arab-Palestinian or Islamic hegemony or the recorded attempts to eradicate Israel, and they never fully engage Scripture that could undermine their theology.
One example of the contempt for Zionism and dispensationalism is Gary Burge’s essay “Why I’m Not a Christian Zionist, Academically Speaking” where his main target is John Hagee. Dr Burge writes:
“The average reader may be excused for not understanding the finer differences between an evangelical preacher who calls for a pre-emptive bombing strike against Iran and one who thinks this view is outrageous and immoral... For instance, high-profile pastor John Hagee...is a Christian preacher who enjoys outrageously militant sermons....Others like myself find him not only embarrassing but dangerous.”
And again:
“Christian Zionists excel in one but fail in the other. They love Israel profoundly but I await the day when Rev. Hagee exhorts Israel (just once) to pursue a national life of justice and truth...This is where everything has been leading. This is the crown jewel in Christian Zionism’s worldview. This is why Rev. Hagee is willing to risk throwing the Middle East into nuclear war. The birth of Israel has now set the stage for the imminent second coming of Jesus Christ.”
This is the same polemic that Stephen Sizer promulgates. Rev Sizer has also written a Forward for a book by Alistair Donaldson “the last days of dispensationalism – a scholarly critique of popular misconceptions” which follows the above 5 point formula. Dr Donaldson, in turn, has endorsed Dr Sizer’s polemical “Christian Zionism”.
In his Forward, Rev Sizer wastes no time raising “apocalyptic” concerns by citing Sarah Posner’s “Pastor Strangelove” in which she focuses on John Hagee’s misguided comments:
“The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West… a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ.”
This sets to poison the well and leads readers into believing the dispensational system unanimously promotes this sort of thing. Dr Donaldson takes this same “apocalyptic” cue when he states on page 149 that:
“[dispensational] beliefs, though being counter to a sound biblical understanding, have significantly influenced foreign policies of governments (especially the United States) concerning Israel, giving rise to significantly distressing world-impacting events, and to what is often uncritical support for the modern state of Israel – despite her atrocious and dehumanizing tyranny of another people – by millions of people who profess to love God who himself abhors justice.”
But John Hagee is not a normative dispensationalist and mature dispies would strongly disagree with his theology and politics. God doesn’t need Christians lobbying for pre-emptive strikes to fulfill His plan. Christians are to be out spreading the Good News and praying for peace.
What these critics are doing is selectively quoting statements made by individuals on the fringe of Zionism and/or dispensationalism and using them as an excuse to disparage the system and Israel. These critics also habitually make polemical and unsubstantiated statements regarding Israel. This is done so often and glibly that it becomes factual in the mind of a non-discerning reader. Far from being the peacemakers they claim to be by often quoting Matt 5:9 against dispies, they are actively fomenting conflict.
Dr Burge should know better as a consequence of his friendship with Michael Rydelnik. Dr Rydelnik’s book “Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict” is, in my opinion, a testament to how a Christian should view the Middle East conflict and Israel. He understands both sides of the conflict. He recognizes the fact that Israel isn’t perfect and that both Jews and Muslims need Christ.
One page 220 of his book, Dr Rydelnik lists three responsibilities resting upon those who follow Jesus:
1) We must pray for peace
2) We must work for peace
3) We must proclaim God’s peace through Messiah Jesus
Amen to that.
Further reading:
A Review of "On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend" by Timothy P. Weber.
Is Dispensationalism Hurting American Political Policies in the Middle East?
A DISPENSATIONAL RESPONSE TO THE KNOX SEMINARY OPEN LETTER TO EVANGELICALS
A critique of "Zion's Christian Soldiers?"
Faydra L. Shapiro on "Zion's Christian Soldiers?"
Mainline Churches Embrace Burge's False Narrative
Mainline Churches Embrace Gary Burge's Harmful Mythology
Sabeel's Demonizing Liturgy
Monday, September 5, 2011
Farewell to the Rapture?
N T Wright has a reputation as a solid scholar so when he writes something, people take notice.
I have his 800 pages plus book “The Resurrection of the Son of God” where he argues for the case of a real, physical resurrection – which I thought should have been obvious to anyone reading the NT. He is the author of “New Perspectives on Paul” for which he has received both praise and criticism.
Dr Wright is also one of those scholars who don’t see a future kingdom for Israel. Mike Vlach quotes him as stating:
“Jesus spent His whole ministry redefining what the kingdom meant. He refused to give up the symbolic language of the kingdom, but filled it with such a new content that, as we have seen, he powerfully subverted Jewish expectations.”
I think Dr Vlach does a decent job responding to that position HERE. I’m reading Alva McClain’s “The Greatness of the Kingdom” which meticulously exposits both OT and NT Scripture regarding the Kingdom, so I struggle to understand how Dr Wright holds to his view.
With that in mind I found his 2001 article “Farewell to the Rapture” a revealing read into the mindset of his type of scholarship. It’s important for non-pretribulationists to note here that Dr Wright’s main focus isn’t the timing – it’s the idea of the rapture.
Dr Wright:
“The American obsession with the second coming of Jesus — especially with distorted interpretations of it — continues unabated. Seen from my side of the Atlantic, the phenomenal success of the Left Behind books appears puzzling, even bizarre. Few in the U.K. hold the belief on which the popular series of novels is based: that there will be a literal “rapture” in which believers will be snatched up to heaven, leaving empty cars crashing on freeways and kids coming home from school only to find that their parents have been taken to be with Jesus while they have been “left behind.” This pseudo-theological version of Home Alone has reportedly frightened many children into some kind of (distorted) faith.”
I’m impressed that someone bothered to collect official statistical data addressing the issues in that last sentence. It’s a pity that it wasn’t cited. Either way…
For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. (1Th 4:16-17)
I like Kevin Zuber’s astute observation:
“And . . . there will be a “rapture” – hey, if 1 Thessalonians 4 teaches anything it teaches we are going to be “caught up” . . . unless one is willing to “spiritualize” that passage and say it’s not going to be a “bodily catching-up” . . . in which case we have a “bodily resurrection” of the dead in Christ and a “spiritual catching up” of those who are alive and remain!”
Now that’s a thought!
Still, Dr Wright begs to differ. Apparently these passages MUST be spiritualized and Dr Zuber didn’t get the memo:
“Paul’s mixed metaphors of trumpets blowing and the living being snatched into heaven to meet the Lord are not to be understood as literal truth, as the Left Behind series suggests, but as a vivid and biblically allusive description of the great transformation of the present world of which he speaks elsewhere...Paul’s misunderstood metaphors present a challenge for us: How can we reuse biblical imagery, including Paul’s, so as to clarify the truth, not distort it?”
Well there you go. All those “misunderstood and mixed metaphors” are a challenging trap for newbies who think Scripture actually means what it says.
Interestingly, in his book (mentioned earlier), Dr Wright chose to understand passages alluding to the resurrection as literal, rather than metaphors. So I guess that somewhere, somehow, there exists some advanced manual or code of interpretation that is handed out to PhDs who’ve attended the right colleges and seminaries.
I just wish these guys would write some easy-to-follow guideline for a schmuck like me so that I can know when to take any given passage of Scripture literally or symbolically, or when to re-interpret something stated in the OT using the NT.
Speaking of which, Dr Michael Rydelnik’s book “The Messianic Hope: Is the Old Testament Really Messianic? ” is a must read. Chapter 8 “RASHI’S INFLUENCE ON THE INTERPRETATION OF MESSIANIC PROPHECY” is an eye opener (and warning) for those who rely on Rabbinic guidance for interpreting OT scripture.
You can read Dan Phillips’ review of the book HERE
In the meantime, since the writing of “End of the Rapture” in 2001, the concept hasn’t died and neither has dispensationalism. It’s one thing to mock the popular Left Behind genre or authors who are not always considered great examples of disp, and quite another to properly interact with the bedrock that props them up.
******
The New Perspective on Paul - Part 1
A Defense of the Old Perspective on Paul - What Did St. Paul Really Say?
THE NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL: ITS BASIC TENETS, HISTORY, AND PRESUPPOSITIONS
I have his 800 pages plus book “The Resurrection of the Son of God” where he argues for the case of a real, physical resurrection – which I thought should have been obvious to anyone reading the NT. He is the author of “New Perspectives on Paul” for which he has received both praise and criticism.
Dr Wright is also one of those scholars who don’t see a future kingdom for Israel. Mike Vlach quotes him as stating:
“Jesus spent His whole ministry redefining what the kingdom meant. He refused to give up the symbolic language of the kingdom, but filled it with such a new content that, as we have seen, he powerfully subverted Jewish expectations.”
I think Dr Vlach does a decent job responding to that position HERE. I’m reading Alva McClain’s “The Greatness of the Kingdom” which meticulously exposits both OT and NT Scripture regarding the Kingdom, so I struggle to understand how Dr Wright holds to his view.
With that in mind I found his 2001 article “Farewell to the Rapture” a revealing read into the mindset of his type of scholarship. It’s important for non-pretribulationists to note here that Dr Wright’s main focus isn’t the timing – it’s the idea of the rapture.
Dr Wright:
“The American obsession with the second coming of Jesus — especially with distorted interpretations of it — continues unabated. Seen from my side of the Atlantic, the phenomenal success of the Left Behind books appears puzzling, even bizarre. Few in the U.K. hold the belief on which the popular series of novels is based: that there will be a literal “rapture” in which believers will be snatched up to heaven, leaving empty cars crashing on freeways and kids coming home from school only to find that their parents have been taken to be with Jesus while they have been “left behind.” This pseudo-theological version of Home Alone has reportedly frightened many children into some kind of (distorted) faith.”
I’m impressed that someone bothered to collect official statistical data addressing the issues in that last sentence. It’s a pity that it wasn’t cited. Either way…
For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. (1Th 4:16-17)
I like Kevin Zuber’s astute observation:
“And . . . there will be a “rapture” – hey, if 1 Thessalonians 4 teaches anything it teaches we are going to be “caught up” . . . unless one is willing to “spiritualize” that passage and say it’s not going to be a “bodily catching-up” . . . in which case we have a “bodily resurrection” of the dead in Christ and a “spiritual catching up” of those who are alive and remain!”
Now that’s a thought!
Still, Dr Wright begs to differ. Apparently these passages MUST be spiritualized and Dr Zuber didn’t get the memo:
“Paul’s mixed metaphors of trumpets blowing and the living being snatched into heaven to meet the Lord are not to be understood as literal truth, as the Left Behind series suggests, but as a vivid and biblically allusive description of the great transformation of the present world of which he speaks elsewhere...Paul’s misunderstood metaphors present a challenge for us: How can we reuse biblical imagery, including Paul’s, so as to clarify the truth, not distort it?”
Well there you go. All those “misunderstood and mixed metaphors” are a challenging trap for newbies who think Scripture actually means what it says.
Interestingly, in his book (mentioned earlier), Dr Wright chose to understand passages alluding to the resurrection as literal, rather than metaphors. So I guess that somewhere, somehow, there exists some advanced manual or code of interpretation that is handed out to PhDs who’ve attended the right colleges and seminaries.
I just wish these guys would write some easy-to-follow guideline for a schmuck like me so that I can know when to take any given passage of Scripture literally or symbolically, or when to re-interpret something stated in the OT using the NT.
Speaking of which, Dr Michael Rydelnik’s book “The Messianic Hope: Is the Old Testament Really Messianic? ” is a must read. Chapter 8 “RASHI’S INFLUENCE ON THE INTERPRETATION OF MESSIANIC PROPHECY” is an eye opener (and warning) for those who rely on Rabbinic guidance for interpreting OT scripture.
You can read Dan Phillips’ review of the book HERE
In the meantime, since the writing of “End of the Rapture” in 2001, the concept hasn’t died and neither has dispensationalism. It’s one thing to mock the popular Left Behind genre or authors who are not always considered great examples of disp, and quite another to properly interact with the bedrock that props them up.
******
The New Perspective on Paul - Part 1
A Defense of the Old Perspective on Paul - What Did St. Paul Really Say?
THE NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL: ITS BASIC TENETS, HISTORY, AND PRESUPPOSITIONS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
