Archive for dominion theology
Lot’s Religion
In these darkening days of evangelical compromise, we need to remember one thing: that there is an ineradicable difference between real religion and the make-believe. I am not suggesting, of course, that all who endorse sham religious views are necessarily unregenerate – though that may be the case (as witnessed by the story of Cain and Abel). What I am saying, is that we must strive to make our Christianity a Biblical one; one that is founded firmly, not on guesswork, but on the inspired and infallible Scriptures of truth.
The story of Abraham and Lot presents to us a case of contrasts. On the one hand, we have a perfect example of unwavering faith. On the other, we have just as perfect an example of one who, while believing God as ardently as can be supposed, preferred to meet Him “half way” on certain issues relative to true religion.
Bluntly put, Lot was a compromiser. Instead of living by faith, he lived after the sight of his eyes (Gen. 13: 10-11). Instead of separating from the children of this wicked age, he pitched his tent toward Sodom (Genesis 13: 12). The Biblical narrative finds him later “sitting in the gate” of the city (Genesis 19: 1) — that is, taking part in its civic activities. And all the while the place was fast ripening for judgment.
Although the evidence is not conclusive, I believe it is safe to say that Lot was a “religious reformer.” While the unrighteousness of the Sodomites repelled him (2 Peter 2: 8), he yet thought that by his presence he might succeed in reforming the city – perhaps by initiating better laws, and by taking positions of social prominence whereby his influence would be felt by the populace. If this be the case, then, as subsequently history shows, Lot was wrong — for the city grew worse and worse.
When it finally came time for God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, it was too late for reform. All of Lot’s social betterment schemes went up in smoke. It wasn’t, however, until the Sodomites assailed his own household, that Lot realized his mistake. When he spoke to his sons-in-law of the impending judgment, he seemed unto them as one who mocked (Genesis 19: 14). Let this fact arrest our attention.
Lot should have been preaching hell and brimstone from the beginning. Instead he chose to sit in the gates of the city, hoping to leaven Sodom with righteous laws and moral precepts. What they needed, though, was not laws – but life. They needed not reform, but regeneration. Lot’s testimony failed because when it came time to preach repentance, nobody took him seriously. So he fled with just himself and his household.
When Lot’s wife turned to look back (Genesis 19: 26), perchance she knew that she was leaving behind a position of social prestige and prominence. Perhaps the chiefest ladies of Sodom had welcomed her into their midst and made her feel at home. Her turning back was a sure sign that while her body was on the hustle, her heart was still in the city.
And here’s the interesting fact. Instead of leavening Sodom with civic righteousness, Lot’s actions backfired, and his household was leavened by Sodom. Whether Lot was responsible for the death of his wife is a matter for debate. But regardless of how we answer, we must concede that, as head of the household, he had a responsibility that he failed to meet. That responsibility was to keep himself and his family “unspotted from the world” (James 1: 27).
Now, anyone reading this blog can see that Lot’s story contains practical lessons of immense value. There are many Christians today, who instead of following Abraham’s example, and living by faith, choose to follow Lot, pitching their tents toward Sodom. They think that by taking over the world’s social and civic institutions, mankind will eventually be lifted out of the mire and saved “en masse.” Lot’s story, however, serves as a warning for those who follow this path.
As it was then, so it is today. The world is not interested in better things based on the Cross. Social reformation and reform are futile, at best, for they seek to paint the outside of the platter, while leaving the inside just as dirty as before. The only reformation the Bible knows of, is the individual kind that comes by regeneration, through personal faith in a crucified and risen Messiah. Any attempt to sidetrack the church from its duty to preach the Gospel, and to bring in an alternate program based on mere worldly reform, will end as disastrously as Lot’s program did when the Lord rained fire and brimstone upon the ungodly city.
The Bitter Fruit Of Replacement Theology
Since I started reading “A House Divided” a couple days ago, I’ve become convinced that the ongoing war between orthodox- and Full- Preterists is the harvest of decades of Anti-Semitism pent up in Reformed circles. Although I disagree with the conclusions of the authors, in a way I am glad that the dirty laundry of Replacement Theology is starting to see the light of day.
On pg. 227 of “House Divided,” Sam Frost boldly admits that the view of Israel as the “Great Whore” of Rev. 17 was first suggested by the Jesuit J. Hardouin (1646-1729). In other words, Sam agrees that the Preterist view was birthed right out of Jesuitry. Bingo! This is what I’ve been saying for months. Preterism is really the “organic development” of Roman Catholic dominionism, which began in the 4th century when the institutional church defected to Rome. Whereas Hyper-Preterism is the organic development of pagan Gnosticism which has always more-or-less perched at the threshold of institutional Christianity. It follows the tradition of Simon Magus, Menander, Basilides, Saturninus, Carpocrates, and others.
It is interesting to note that Sam & Co. are writing from a “Reformed” perspective, which means that they see the Protestant church as having replaced Israel — just as RCC claims that IT has replaced Israel. Do you see the irony?? Both “churches” claim that they represent true Christianity, and both claim to have inherited all the promises made to national Israel. And yet, as Dave Green points out on pgs. 8-9 of “House Divided,” the authors of WSTTB used a “carpet bombing” approach in combating Preterism. They utilized a variety of diverse (and often contradictory) arguments in an attempt to disprove Hyper-Preterism. This means that the most eminent doctors of the Reformed church cannot even agree among themselves!
But according to Sam & Co., such a confused and discordant body has stepped into Israel’s place as premiere among the nations. Well, The RCC claims the same thing; and it has 2,000 years of “exegesis” and all the ecumenical councils and creeds on its side. So what we have are two institutional churches that contradict one another. But at least the Roman church agrees with itself! Whereas the Reformed church cannot even get a consensus on eschatology — as Sam & Co. have admirably pointed out in their book.
Yes, I do believe that what we are seeing is the bitter fruit of Replacement Theology. And while the professed saints are haggling, Israel is now making preparations to rebuild the temple. I know some people will hate me for pointing this out. But these things are true. Israel is the wife (Rev. 19: 7), who will yet be “married to the Lord” (Isaiah 54: 4-8; 62: 4; Hosea 2: 16-20).
As for the “harlot,” let her take a long look in the mirror and note her defects, lest she get too proud.
Why I Don’t Invest In Religious Utopias
Subsidiary to the issues surrounding Preterism is a doctrine in which it is held that the visible church will one day rule the world, prior to the return of Jesus Christ. This is, of course, a form of post-millennial theology, and so it’s nothing new. Some of the greatest Protestant teachers of all time have envisioned a golden age that will set sunshine on this blighted world before Christ returns to judge the quick and the dead.
Wedded to Preterism, however, this concept can be viewed as a powerful ideological weapon which, properly equipped, is seen fit to plow its way through all obstacles, in view of a set goal. That goal is nothing less than the acquisition of worldly dominion by the visible church.
Whether or not this belief is at least tentatively Roman Catholic in its agenda and worldview, is a matter up for discussion. If the answer is affirmative, then we have in the RCC a historical playing out of the dominion ideal which should make every Christian wary to put it into practice once more.
As I see it, there are several problems with such an ideology, which must prevent it from ever reaching fruition. The main obstacle concerns matters of Biblical eschatology, which impact saleability, thus negatively affecting practicability.
Few Christians are willing to believe that Jesus Christ “returned” in any manner in A.D. 70. And yet this is the teaching needed most of all to bolster the dominionist approach. To clear the board of annoying end-time prophecies which stand in the way of long-term goals and dreams, the great majority of eschatological passages must be shuttled back into a first-century fulfillment. But this results in mischievous marginalization of essential texts, some of which are soteriological in nature.
Because of its reductionist attitude, Preterism becomes distinctly “anti climactic” in its effect on Christian believers. This obviously hurts saleability. In order to hook Christians into accepting a Preterist scheme, the bait must be made at least semi-palatable. Preterists instinctively realize that they must popularize their view as much as possible; so they follow suit. But aside from gaining small circles of enthusiasts, their numbers bear no comparison with the growing tide of Christians who buy books on endtime prophecy. Dominionists only utilize a Preterist scheme, not because it is the best theological answer, but because it offers seemingly formidable objections to Dispensational theology. But because Preterism is not “good enough” for the majority, it is unfit to serve as an alternative to classical evangelical eschatology.
Then there is another issue that comes to mind. Even if the visible church, as conceived by Dominionists, were to gain control of the world institutions tomorrow, it would still have to deal with a large number of dissenting Christians. In fact, I doubt that in this world, dissenters will ever go away. The continued (and sometimes nagging) existence of those with opinions different from our own is something that most of us have learned to take for granted. We accept it as a matter of course.
But the very existence of an adverse party stands in the way of dominion. My thesis is that dominionists will never be able to gain (much less retain) any “control” without utilizing a measure of FORCE. But in unvarnished Italian, this is “abuso di potere.” Such an approach destroys any kind of Christian witness, transforming the church into a toothed-and-fanged monster which revels in the gore of martyred saints.
Dominionists don’t seem to realize — or perhaps they just forget – that Christendom has ALREADY PLAYED the “let’s take over the world” game. For centuries, Christianity was the official religion of Western and Eastern Europe. The state was under the control of the Papal authorities; and human affairs were decided according to politico-religious expediency.
And what did the church do when she had attained this long-dreamt-of power? Did she become a burning lamp to enlighten the nations? Or did she end up darkening the clear light of the Gospel? Did she meekly attempt to win back Christians whom she considered heretics? Or did she turn the dogs loose on those who maintained opinions different from her own? I think history records the answer.
In the early fifth century, Pope Leo the Great, otherwise an excellent theologian (by Catholic standards) was preaching to his parishioners that dissenters may and should be persecuted:
“Dearly beloved, I entreat and admonish you loyally to inform us, if any of you know where they [the Manichaeans] dwell, where they teach, whose houses they frequent, and in whose company they take rest: because it is of little avail to any one that through the Holy Ghost’s protection he is not caught by them himself, if he takes no action when he knows that others are being caught…
“Display then a holy zeal of religious vigilance, and let all the faithful rise in one body against these savage enemies of their souls. For the merciful God has delivered a certain portion of our noxious foes into our hands in order that by revelation of the danger the utmost caution might be aroused. Let not what has been done suffice, but let us persevere in searching them out…” (Sermon XVII, 5, 6).
Isn’t this the very party-line we hear neo-Catholic pugs deliver in their diurnal “rants?” Isn’t this the same agenda that dominionists would follow? While standing under Christ’s banner, Leo set precedence for the stake and the rack. And anyone with a smattering of European history knows that his policy was that endorsed and followed by Papal Rome for so many years. What makes modern-day dominionists think that they would behave any more charitably toward those of diverse opinion? It has already been slyly suggested by some, that should dominionists ever gain power, all heretics will be subjected to capital punishment. For my Dispensational friends who read this, that means me and you!
That men so educated as Gary North and Gary DeMar, could be so naive as to suppose that human nature won’t simply repeat itself under similar circumstances, reveals how intoxicating the dominion mindset can be to those who have swallowed its elixir. I repeat, organized Christendom has already put the dominion idea to the test, on a MACRO level, and failed. This should tell us that such dominion is no part of God’s plan for the present age.
Only by the personal, visible, glorious return of Jesus Christ will dominion be given to the saints of the Most High (see Dan. 7). Only at the sounding of the seventh trumpet will the kingdoms of this world become those of God and of His Son Jesus Christ (Rev. 11: 15). Only the putting forth of resurrection power will be able to lift the curse that hangs over humanity (Romans 8: 19).
Yeah, yeah, I know all these verses were fulfilled in A.D. 70 — right? But if that is the case, one must wonder why the church has never gained dominion. If an earthly pre-millennial dominion is God’s plan for this age, why hasn’t it ever been realized? The fact that human history shouts against such a notion, gives us one formidable reason why we should be cautious in setting our agenda in such a direction as diverts our eyes from heavenly to earthly things.
”If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, Who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory” (Col. 3: 1-4).
Who Is ‘Holy Mother Church’?
[The following comments were written in response to an article posted by Mike Bull entitled "Church and State." Article appeared on Preterist Blog. Mike was gracious enough to send me a review copy of his book "Totus Christus," which I am now reading. As this is one of the most in-depth books I've read in a long while, it will take some time to soak up everything he is saying.
The point of my comments is to expatiate on what I feel is a mistake concerning the "holy mother church" concept. I am not accusing Bull or anyone else of endorsing this concept; merely suggesting that the idea of a "victorious visible church" prior to Christ's second advent lends itself to conclusions that at least moderately parallel Roman Catholic dominionism. Therefore, I ask "Who is holy mother church?" Is she a visible earthly institution, or the spiritual Body of Christ? To read additional comments and responses by Dr. Kenneth Talbot of Whitefield Seminary, please go to Preterist Blog].
************
According to my understanding, church and state will never merge until Jesus Christ returns.
The issue really hinges on the definition of the word “church.” Paul clearly states that the church is the “PLEROMA of Him that filleth all in all” — not a visible earthly institution. It is the ‘body’ of which the ‘Head’ is in heaven. Hence it is spiritual (and not earthly) in nature. Its members are ‘not of this world.’ The church is ONE BODY (Eph. 4: 4), which has its administrative center in the heavenlies:
“For our COMMONWEALTH (Gr. politeuma) is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things to Himself (Phil. 3: 20-21).
To me, Paul deals a serious blow to the ‘holy mother church’ concept; for he teaches that our administrative center is heavenly — not earthly. Compare with Eph. 2: 6. According to Phil. 3: 20-21, it must remain in heaven until the resurrection — which most orthodox Christians believe will take place at Christ’s coming. [Note: Since I'm a post-tribulational Dispensationalist, I believe the parousia of Matt. 24 is the same as that mentioned in 1 Cor. 15: 23].
Compare also with Galatians 4: 26, where our “motherhood” is stated as being heavenly in nature. The inference, then, is that both SONSHIP and CITIZENSHIP appertain to the heavenly regions, and are spiritual in nature. Because of the “one baptism” we receive (which is spiritual), we are positionally seated in heavenly places with Christ, and are “complete in Him” (Col. 2: 10).
Therefore, it is questionable whether there will ever be a period of earthly victory for the visible church. The fact that all who are SONS must be conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8: 29-30) by suffering BEFORE they can “reign with Him” (2 Tim. 2: 12) seems to make such a concept impossible.
In my humble and unlearned opinion, history has already proven that the VVC idea can have no realization before the second coming. Romanism tried it once, and look what it got us into! A wholesale reform was needed. Now many Protestants want to do it again. That is not to say, of course, that it is technically impossible to achieve some balance between church and state. But all such efforts must be man-achieved. In order to get it to happen, Christians will have to bow-wow to the world system. The result will be a worldly Christianity, a mere repeat of the administrative mish-mash of Rome. I doubt this is the kind of ‘kingdom’ any of us really want.
Only the awesome power of a returning Savior can enable the awaited kingdom to break into the physical realm. It is this that we are taught to pray for.
“Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6: 10).
***************
Hi Mike,
Well, thanks for those thoughts. I’m reading your book as we speak, so am learning more of your point of view. I guess my main disagreement with the whole ‘dominion’ idea is that I see Adam’s dominion having been transferred to Noah, and later to Israel. So in my opinion, Israel (not the church) is the channel through which dominion must come.
“And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto THEE shall it come, even the first DOMINION; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem” (Micah 4: 8).
Alot of folks think that just because the Jews rejected the kingdom in the first century, that God is finished with them. I do not believe that is the case! In my understanding, the church occupies a parenthetical interval in God’s dealings with Israel.
That is not to say, though, that I disagree with efforts made to inaugurate social change, reform, etc. But all things must be kept in their proper sphere. One has to wonder, if God really intended the church to have dominion in this age, why hasn’t it come to pass??? The fact that the church has never been able to acquire such dominion would SEEM to imply (to me, at least) that it is no part of the Divine program. That’s just my opinion, though.
*************
Dr. Talbot,
Thanks for the detailed response. Well, without attempting to pose as any kind of ‘expert’ on theology, here’s how I see it. I agree that the term ekklesia means a “called out company.” My only question would be “called out of what, into what?” The church is called out of this aeon to partake of a heavenly inheritance and Sonship glory in the “aeon to come.” Eonian life is a gift of God (Rom. 6: 23). Therefore, authority must be vested in Him Who sits above. Frankly, I don’t believe Peter handed his ‘keys‘ to Linus, or anything like that. When the apostolic commission ceased at the (temporary) setting aside of Israel, all of God’s administrative principles were shifted from earthly to heavenly. Hence, many things connected with the organizational Christianity of the first century are no longer valid. The shift in God’s administrative principles can be seen most notably in Acts 28, when Paul pronounces the sentence of judicial blindness on the nation, affirming that salvation will be SENT (Gr. apostelo) to the Gentiles. This marks the beginning of a secret economy which Paul calls the “administration of the Mystery” (Eph. 3: 9). It is this economy which fills the interval between Israel’s rejection, and their ultimate “renewal.” Because of the administrative shift, Jews and Gentiles “in Christ” are placed on an equal footing — which wouldn’t be the case were the earthly organizational principles still in force. In that case, salvation would still be to “the Jew first.”
Around A.D. 57, Paul wrote to the saints at Corinth: “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is THE Christ.” (1 Cor. 12: 12). The Greek contains the definite article (ho Christos).
Later he affirms: “There is ONE BODY, and ONE SPIRIT, even as ye are called in ONE HOPE of your calling; One Lord, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, One God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4: 4-6).
I think we should take into account the ‘progressive revelation’ which went on in the first century. According to the above verse, water baptism had already given place to spirit baptism as early as A.D. 63. The administration of the sacraments IS NOT ONCE MENTIONED in any of Paul’s epistles written after Acts 28 [Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy]. Again, this reflects the shift from an earthly to heavenly administration.
Pauline doctrine expresses Christ Himself as the Head of the Body, and individual Christians as members. This is distinct from any mere organizational Christianity. True, the New Testament contains traces of a sort of “corporate Christendom.” However, any visible expression of Christ’s body on earth must necessarily fall short of the true ideal.
In absence of any ‘badges,’ we would do best, I think, to “hold the Head” (Col. 2: 19) “even Christ, FROM Whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love” (Eph. 4: 16).
Although I admire John Calvin, I disagree with his position on the church and the sacraments. So, the true visible church is she who keepeth the sacraments properly?? That sounds like a sectarian war-cry to me. Such statements are generally followed by: “and WE are the true holy catholic and apostolic church!!” As far as I’m aware, nearly every denomination in Christendom claims to be the “TRUE CHURCH.” Some of them use baptism and the ordinances as a litmus test. But how can anyone tell if the sacraments are properly kept? It is open to debate whether we should sprinkle, dip, dunk, or take a nosedive down. Without being irreverent, I find it hard to place much credibility in these things, especially when Paul says:
“Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is CHRIST DIVIDED? Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?“
“For Christ sent me NOT TO BAPTIZE, but to PREACH THE GOSPEL: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect” (1 Cor. 1: 12, 13, 17).
If in Ephesians Paul says there is but ONE BAPTISM, we should beware of making it a material one — else we nullify baptism of the Spirit. Not trying to be contentious. I simply disagree with Calvin, that’s all.
MillennialSaint
Gary North: The Man Behind The Curtains
In studying the doctrines of Preterism, I’ve come more and more to realize that the ideology of the movement is largely fueled by the cultural agendas of certain of its leaders. Unless the reader understands right away that Preterism often begins with an agenda, he/she will not be able to properly understand what they believe, or why their interpretive views are considered necessary when measured against other systems.
There are, of course, many different forms of Preterism; and not all Preterists care much about the state of the world at large. Most are concerned with their private affairs, or with “winning an argument.” However, those most vocal in endorsing Preterism are the ones who are most active in their attempt to bring the nations into subjection to the visible church, through application of God’s old covenant law. Broadly speaking, these individuals are known as Reconstructionists.
It is a well-known fact that Dr. Gary North, president of the Institute For Christian Economics, is at the forefront of the Reconstructionist movement. But I’m also fairly certain that he is the “man behind the curtains” of most of the promotion of Preterist theology for the past two decades. Certain “hints” that he drops from time to time in his books lead me to believe that if it weren’t for Dr. North, the Preterist movement as it relates to the “orthodox” Christian community, would hardly be what it is now.
Dr. North credits himself as the co-founder (along with R.J. Rushdoony) of the Reconstructionist movement. He has written a large number of books which endorse “dominion theology.” This view teaches that the “kingdom of God” is, in its ideal form, a Christian civilization to be realized on earth. It holds that Christians should strive for the acquisition of temporal power until they gain control of all public institutions. According to Reconstructionists, when the rulers refuse to obey they become the target of Old Testament “imprecatory prayers.”
“If the rulers refuse to do what is righteous, and they become a threat to public peace and public good, then they are the legitimate targets of imprecatory prayers. We ask God to reform them or remove them. In other words, the prayers of the church are to offer rulers both rewards and punishments, carrots and sticks. [...] The worse the external situation is, the more wrathful the prayers should become” (Liberating Planet Earth, pg. 93-94).
To uphold his view, North and his colleagues import prophecies which relate to Israel’s kingdom age into the present period, appropriating Jewish blessings to the church. They also similarly import teachings which relate to the past dispensation of law into the present economy of grace — confusing God’s administrations, and distorting dispensational distinctions which exist among law, grace, judgment, and glory.
As North affirms that the church has received the kingdom inheritance of Israel, it is quite natural to find him an outspoken opponent of Dispensational theology. In his 1993 book entitled “Rapture Fever,” Dr. North boldly avows that one of the main functions of his ministry is to refute Dispensationalism.
“There is no doubt that the most vocal critics of dispensationalism have been the Christian reconstructionists. Our view of law and the future — theonomy and postmillennialism — is the antithesis of dispensationalism. Where dispensationalism flourishes, the vision and goals of Christian Reconstructionism cannot prosper. I therefore decided in the early 1980’s to devote whatever amount of money it would take to refute in print every aspect of dispensational theology” (pg. xxxii).
While I appreciate Dr. North’s candor, I have to say that from what I’ve read so far (and I’m still reading), I am not impressed with his theology — especially when it comes to exegesis. However, North claims he is a theological layman. Moreover, he makes several statements which reveal his “hidden hand” role in the development of Preterist theology. He is the “backer” of the REAL theologians whose business it is to argue against Dispensationalism.
Among Reconstructionists, Preterism has been chosen as the best means whereby to fight the enemy. To best attain their goals, several men have been put forward to take futurism to task. Names include David Chilton (once dubbed the “hottest theological property in the west“), Gary DeMar (Preterism’s chief pit-bull and apologist), James B. Jordan (grand wizard of the allegorical method), and Kenneth Gentry (darling of post-mil intellectuals). These are the men who write the books and articles to which scholars like Thomas Ice and Mark Hitchcock must respond. North provides the financial backing for most of their high-profile works.
To those interested in theology, the battle is usually worth watching — especially if you are a participant of one side or the other. This is where the action is: not on cultic forums where losers try to “show off” how smart they are; but in the arena of professional scholarship, where men must often put their money where their mouth is, and hang their reputations on the line until the joust is through.
Because Dr. Gary North is the “man behind the curtains” of the Preterist movement, I have decided to sit down and study his books. It will probably take me several months to get a good grasp on what he teaches. However, I think the readers of this blog will be interested in what we come up with. And if, after all is said and done, further instruction can be gleaned from even an opponent’s outlook, the time spent will be well worthwhile. I’ll also be covering the views of some of his colleagues, to see whether or not their teachings line up with Scripture, and to examine whether their agenda is really for the public good. This will be an ongoing project, and one that I think will be of interest to many.
Dr. Thomas Ice — The Anti-Semitism of James B. Jordan
The conviction that modern Jews are fraudulent has been clearly expressed by Presbyterian replacement theologian James B. Jordan. “With the passing away of the Old Covenant, there is no longer any such a thing as a Jew in the Biblical sense,” declares Jordan. I wonder, “Is there any other sense in which one could be a Jew except for the biblical sense?” “Unless by ‘True Jews’ we mean Christians. There is no covenant, and therefore there is no nation, no ‘race.’”
Nowhere does the New Testament call Gentile Christians “True Jews,” “Jews,” “Israel” or any such term. New Testament believers are called the seed of Abraham because he was the father of those who believe. Abraham was the only Gentile in the history of the world who became a Jew or Israelite since the Jewish race descended from him, Isaac and Jacob. Thus, all Christian believers in the current church age, whether Jew or Gentile are offspring from the spiritual seed of Abraham (Rom. 4:1–5; Gal. 3:6–7, 14, 16–18). Abraham is both the father of physical Israel known as the Jews and father of spiritual descendants, that is, everyone who believes in Jesus as the Messiah, whether Jew or Gentile (Gen. 15:6).
Jordan makes one of the most outlandish statements possible on this topic when he declares: “It is entirely possible that there is not one drop of Abraham’s blood in any modern Jew.” One might think that only a radical Islamic terrorist would publicly write such things, but Jordan is an Evangelical Christian. He does not stop with the preceding comment, he continues with the following pontification:
“Modern Jews are a separate nation of people with a self-identity, spread out among many other nations. The closest analogy to them are the Gypsies. The only difference between Modern Jews and Gypsies is that the Modern Jews claim to have a relation to the Bible Jews, a claim I maintain is false. . . . Modern Jews think of themselves as Jews, but they are not Jews. They are counterfeits of Biblical Jews. I say this not to disparage them, but to be accurate.”
Jordan’s “scholarship” leads him to believe that today’s Jews (he even coins a special term for the Jews of today—”modern Jews“) are fraudulent, merely posing as Jews. History would be totally different if Hitler had thought this way, or if the Muslims of today would come to learn of Jordan’s discovery. “Modern Jews are people who choose to think of themselves as descendants of Israel,” insists Jordan.
Even though the Jews surely have intermarried with Gentiles that does not invalidate their Jewishness any more than intermarriage that was practiced in the Old Testament did not invalidate their Jewishness. Jesus Himself had a number of Gentiles within His genealogical line, yet He was certainly Jewish. In the time of the New Testament these people were still known as Jews—the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus referred to the residents of Israel in His day as Jews. When reading the New Testament, there does not appear to be a problem identifying who the Jews were Christ’s day. The notion that Jews cannot have the blood of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob flowing through their veins is purely one manufactured by those with an anti-Semitic bias.
Since there was about a two thousand year period from the call of Abraham until the time of Christ and Jesus referred to the residents of Israel as Jews, then we have a precedent to do so today. It has been about another two thousand years since the time of Christ until our present day. If the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were considered Jews after two thousand years by Jesus in His day, then why should they not be considered descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob today, after another two thousand years have passed? In fact, the last two thousand years have seen some Gentile intermarriage, but for the most part, the nations have shut up the Jewish people into their own ghettos and not allowed them to intermingle with Gentiles. Even though an unintended result by perpetrators, anti-Semitism has helped to keep the blood of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob flowing through the veins of modern Jewry.
Read article at: http://www.pre-trib.org/article-view.php?id=392
When Wright Equals Wrong
One of the most notable errors foisted in recent years upon the Christian community is the allegation that Paul’s description of the resurrection and rapture of the saints, as given in 1 Thess. 4: 16-17, is not to be taken literally, but rather in an allegorical sense.
In N.T. Wright’s article, “Farewell To The Rapture,” the bold statement is made that the literal interpretation of the text, as endorsed by most Christians, is a “distortion.” Wright repeatedly makes reference to Paul’s “metaphorical language.”
“Little did Paul know how his colorful metaphors for Jesus’ second coming would be misunderstood two millennia later.”
“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.”
“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?”
In my last post, “What Wright Represents,” I made reference to his article, and pointed out that Paul’s description of the rapture does not contain a single metaphor.
A metaphor is a figure of speech which can always be identified. But where does this figure ocur in 1 Thess. 4: 16-17? Unfortunately, Wright doesn’t tell us. Instead, he makes the blanket statement that Paul is employing metaphorical language, and then asserts that Christians don’t understand Paul’s metaphors!
It is clear from a reading of Wright’s article, that the “misunderstanding” is coming from the bishop’s end.
As mentioned, the debate among evangelicals concerning the rapture has to do with timing alone. It does not concern the literality of the language. Those who deny that Paul’s language is to be taken in its natural and most obvious sense, place themselves in a totally different ball-park. After all, there’s no discussing “timing” with someone who doesn’t believe in the reality of the doctrine.
Instead of taking his stance in the opposite camp, however, Wright wobbles about. After marking Paul’s language as metaphorical, he puts forward a quasi-literal interpretation of the rapture. Wright calls 1 Thess. 4: 16-17 a “brighly colored version” of the transformation of the saints, which Paul writes of in 1 Cor. 15: 51-54 and Phil. 3: 20-21.
This leaves me wondering whether Wright has all his cards in order. I mean, why would he look for a literal resurrection in a passage which he identifies as “not to be taken literally??”
Let’s suppose I’m a Preterist. Couldn’t I claim that 1 Thess. 4 & 1 Cor. 15 use physical “symbols” to describe events which will transpire in the spiritual realm? Considering the fact that most Preterists spiritualize Daniel 12: 2, relegating fulfillment to A.D. 70, why couldn’t I do the same with other New Testament texts which speak of resurrection within a first-century context?
It appears Wright is playing fast and loose with language. While he denies the interpretation given this passage by students of prophecy, he admits of a certain literality, which almost amounts to the exact same thing.
Well, if Wright admits that Paul’s description offers proof of a literal resurrection, then he should stop claiming that the passage is “metaphorical.” If 1Thess. 4: 16-17 is talking about a literal catching up of the saints, then how is the doctrine of the rapture a “distortion?”
After reading Wright’s article more carefully, it appears that the bone of contention involves not so much the future actuality of the event, as the worldview endorsed by Lahaye and Jenkins. Wright says: “Is not the Left Behind mentality in thrall to a dualistic view of reality that allows people to pollute God’s world on the grounds that it’s all going to be destroyed soon?”
This is an unfair allegation, and qualifies as a straw-man argument. I know of nobody — even among the most avid enthusiasts of the rapture – who uses 1 Thess. 4: 16-17 an an excuse to pollute the world. Does Wright supply citations to back his insinuations? Of course not.
What Wright evidently doesn’t like is the doctrine of imminency, which kills his concept of a victorious visible church. According to Wright, “holy mother church” must have her day in the sun, before Jesus is allowed to come back.
But this not the worldview endorsed in the New Testament. The ideal Christian is represented as one who has turned from idols, and is now awaiting God’s Son from heaven (1 Thess. 1: 9-10). Those who have been buried with Christ and spiritually risen in Him are looking for deliverance from their mortal bodies (Romans 7: 24). To postpone the “day of redemption” by thousands of years, just so an “organization” can gain its cherished supremacy, is unthinkable to those who are truly living their faith.
Evidently, Wright’s brand of Christianity is based on a misinterpretation of Matt. 16: 18, in which Christ promised that the “gates of hell” would not prevail against His church. Contrary to the claims of dominion theology, the ecclesia to which Christ refers is not the “church visible,” but the “church which is His body” — the invisible assembly of the elect. It is this church against which the gates of hell will not prevail. History has already demonstrated that the visible church can (and often does) apostasize.
Although I haven’t read much of his material, it would appear that Bishop Wright endorses the Roman Catholic concept of the kingdom, which looks for a perfected government on earth, but apart from the personal presence of the King. Whereas those who believe in a literal rapture affirm that there can be no kingdom without the presence of the King! Naturally, one’s theology will determine what importance he/she places on the doctrine of Christ’s second advent.
Those who make the parousia tantamount to the demolition of an earthly building will tend to downgrade the relevance of passages which speak of Christ’s return to gather His elect. Whereas those who see the parousia for what it is, will take these passages to heart, and view them as having vital significance.
While it is clear that Wright does not deny the fact that Christ will one day return to glorify the saints, he waters it down to the point where it becomes inconsequential to the believer. The error enters when Wright begins playing with the meaning of language. By the time he gets through, the doctrine is stripped of its true significance, and made to mean whatever Wright (or anyone else) wants it to mean. In this case, Wright equals Wrong.
