Does Historic Premillennialism trump Dispensationalism?

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.

Dr. Paul Wilkinson on Christian Palestinianism

Courtesy of The Berean Call for a limited time:

This video is featured in the January 2012 Berean Call Newsletter and was recorded at the 2011 Berean Call Conference

Click Here

Tampering at the Checkpoint

What is it about modern Israel that offends some Christians to the extent that they feel compelled to unfairly demonize it? Why does someone like Stephen Sizer make it his life’s mission to go around telling fibs about Israel, or exaggerating incidents, or only presenting one side? Why do organizations like Bethlehem Bible College set up propaganda agitating events like the Christ at the Checkpoint conferences featuring the usual anti-Israel reactionaries?

Regardless of their explanations for the innocent “Christ at the Checkpoint” title – it is designed to bring Christ into the Israeli checkpoint equation and shame Israel and the Christian Zionist. It puts Jesus at that checkpoint alongside the Palestinian and evokes the familiar, “What would Jesus say or do?” question.

Here’s a clue – when Hamas, the PA and Hezbollah stop trying to kill Israelis, the Checkpoints and Wall will disappear. When they recognize Israel as a sovereign Jewish state and put away their guns and missiles they will have peace and a State. It’s not that complicated to grasp.

In response to the International Messianic Jewish Community concerns over the possible inflammatory nature of the conference, the folks at Bethlehem Bible College came up with a number of bullet points. Here’s one:

“8. We do not accept the expansion of God’s Kingdom on earth through military means, and therefore we do not see the bloody wars of the Middle East as positive signs towards the establishing of the Kingdom of God. God’s Kingdom is established through obedience to Christ’s Great Commission.”

This sort of propaganda asserts as fact a number of false premises about Christian Zionists and dispensationalists as a whole.

But quite apart from the question as to whether obedience to the “Great Commission” will bring about God’s Kingdom – Scripture please – their chosen methodology is bizarre and ineffective. In what sense are they bringing Christ to the Jews or to Hamas and the PA? In fact their relentless trumped up attacks on Israel’s integrity (see Sizer’s blog) are doing the opposite of Matt 5:9 by fomenting the conflict. Moreover, their activism is creating tensions within Israel and making it difficult for Messianic Jewish ministries to evangelize other Jews.

The conference promoters invite pro-Zionist and dispensationalist participation. Yet future participants should take note to tread carefully when interacting with these individuals. John Feinberg delivered a paper in PDF format explaining the dispie position and Hanna (Yohanna) Katanacho felt obliged to do some post-conference “tampering” to the document by highlighting segments in red and adding his own terse comments.

I don’t know if Dr Feinberg is aware of the doctoring but I’m certain that, had Katanacho contacted him directly, Dr Feinberg would have been happy to straighten him out. As it is, the tampering reveals several things about Katanacho. One is his unethical behavior in this regard and another is his apparent unfamiliarity with OT texts despite impressive credentials.

He also denies Jewish ethnicity. In response to the following statements by Dr Feinberg: “Dispensationalists specifically believe four things about these covenants. They were addressed to those who are ethnically, biologically Jewish. They contain promises that include spiritual blessings for ethnic Israel, but also social, political, and economic blessings...” Katanacho attached this comment: “How can you be biologically Jewish?”

So Katanacho, like other anti-Jewish/Israel clergymen, seeks to divorce Israel from any prophetic relevancy and ownership of the land by disputing their ethnic origins. Palestinian Lutheran priest Mitri Raheb also uses this strategy. In fact, Jews can trace their ethnicity better than most other races. See Wendy Wippel’s study HERE for just one example and note the comments in the Raheb link. Ironically, Palestinians who allegedly have “just as much Jewish DNA” exhibit little interest in identifying themselves as such. While people like Katanacho get away with questioning Jewish DNA; in Australia, anyone who dares undermine the Indigenous ethnicity of someone who is outwardly more white than black, will immediately find themselves classified a social pariah.

If you can’t successfully remove the DNA from Jewish blood you can always remove them from the covenant by questioning the Old Testament’s reliability and developing a subjective “new hermeneutic” with that low view of the inerrancy of the OT. Sabeel’s Naim Ateek does - and the late Michael Prior did - just that, as Dr Paul Wilkinson aptly demonstrates in Prophets Who Prophesy Lies In My Name.

“When confronted with a difficult passage in the Bible … one needs to ask such simple questions as: Is the way I am hearing this the way I have come to know God in Christ? Does this fit the picture I have of God that Jesus has revealed to me? … If it does, then that passage is valid and authoritative. If not, then I cannot accept its validity or authority.” ~ Naim Ateek (Justice, And Only Justice pp. 81-82). (Emphasis mine)

On page 57 of “For Zion’s sake” Dr Wilkinson notes that Prior accused the OT of having “scandalous biblical texts” full of “menacing ideologies and racist, xenophobic and militaristic tendencies”. According to Dr Wilkinson, Prior claimed that a “straightforward reading” of the Joshua narrative mandates ethnic cleansing and genocide. You can read more of Prior’s ideas in his essay Confronting the Bible’s Ethnic Cleansing In Palestine.

Of course, the anti-prophetic supercessionist who takes an inerrant view of the Old Testament has to manage a different strategy. And that’s an entirely different ball game.