Chapter 1: Israel – A Challenge to Contemporary Reformed Eschatology

Chapter 1

ISRAEL – A CHALLENGE TO

CONTEMPORARY REFORMED ESCHATOLOGY

T is not difficult to discern that conservative Reformed Christianity has not been at forefront of support for the contemporary nation of Israel. Granted that there are exceptions this regard, nevertheless this truth remains essentially true. If the immediate reply is historic movement, rooted in biblical doctrine that resulted from the Reformation, is d interested in the conversion of Jews, it must be responded that this is not a satisfactory respo Often the meaning here is simply that the “Jews,” the title here being allowed merely as a soc term, should become Christians and, as a consequence, lose any distinctive, divinely o Jewishness. However, as this book will document, the individual Jew cannot be disasso from national and geographic identity, especially from the perspective of God’s presen future ordination of history. So that at this juncture, a vital matter confronts us which generated profound disagreement over the centuries, being productive of the most serious et consequences that sadly have tended to be obscured. Hence, from the outset, while grateful mindful of the recovery of the Pauline gospel that arose during the sixteenth century in Europ we cannot accept the eschatological legacy of that same period, which was not recovery at a in the main, perpetuation of the essential eschatology of the Roman Catholic Church.

To begin with, what do we mean by the term “Reformed”? The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines the term “Reformed Church” as, “a church that has accepted the principles the Reformation, especially a Calvinist Church (as distinct from Lutheran). Further, “the Reformation” is defined as “a 16

th century movement for the reform of abuses in the Rom

Church ending in the establishment of the Reformed and Protestant Churches.” Then Protestant” is defined as, “a member or follower of any of the western Christian Churches tha are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation.”

1

Today the term “Reformed” usually has an even more encompassing meaning since it can inc Baptists and simply those who believe in “the doctrines of sovereign grace,” “the five points o Calvinism,” or even the legacy of “Augustinianism.” Whatever distinctive doctrinal emp these euphemisms may include, for the purposes of this study the term “Reformed” will simp refer to the beliefs of those Christians and churches that are essentially “Reformational” in th understanding of the gospel according to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Hence this will identify with the doctrine of historic Calvinism, that is churches associated with D Geneva and Westminster, as well as Baptists, Congregationalists, and Lutherans.

While the matter of the Jew’s mistreatment by Christianity in general over the centuries will b dealt with in greater detail in a subsequent chapter, from the outset there needs to be brough the fore a summary of this neglected truth, especially with regard to the dawning of Reformation and thus Reformational doctrine. Thus Calvin Theological Seminary Professor, David E. Holwerda, has written:

From the early days of the Church the opinion that the Jews had been disinherited as a result of th unbelief was widely held. Many believed that the Jew’s role in the history of redemption had come

1 The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, ed. R. E. Allen, eighth edition, pp. 960-961, 1009.

I

an end. Already in the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr, in his famous Dialogue wit Trypho, argued that Christians, not Jews, were the children of Abraham, those who formed the new nation that would inhabit the Holy Land during the millennial reign of Christ. God’s covenant with Abraham was in effect established with Gentile Christians, not Jews. The Jews had been excluded from the purposes of God. This expressed view became dominant for centuries in the Church, and the Reformation did not significantly change it.

2

This being so, it is first necessary to indicate how in general the Reformation regarded the Jew, not so much due to the rediscovery of biblical truth, as Holwerda intimates, but rather as the hei and perpetuator of centuries of disregard and abuse of the Jews by the Church of Rome zealously regarded itself as the new Israel of God, the more faithful beneficiary of the promises made to the old Israel of God. Hence we turn to John Calvin as being representative of doctrinal legacy that was sustained, in general, throughout sixteenth century Europe. He more moderate in his regard for the Jews, when compared with Luther, however his exe follows the Augustinian tradition.

3 By way of contrast we offer the contrary opinion of C. H.

Spurgeon, certainly not prone to eschatological excess, who is but representative of a ho Calvinist preachers who believe that God has not irrevocably disinherited national Israel of its earthly inheritance (Rom. 11:1, 11, 26-28).

If there be a protest that Holwerda’s portrayal here is too extreme a representation of what is confessedly a sad chapter in the history of the Christian church; if it be claimed that the canvas here has been painted too broadly since there have been times when the Jews have been treated with respect and compassion over the centuries, then without hesitation let these undeni fragments of church history be acknowledged. For what we are readily admitting to at this point is simply exceptional and not the general rule. Later evidence will be supplied of some periods of reduced oppression, and particularly heartfelt concern for the Jew in Scotland, Holland, a England, that were evident during the puritan and evangelical awakenings of the sixteen through to the eighteenth centuries. Though, as already indicated, even this more atypical kindly interest needs to be probed concerning what was the fundamental understanding and hope of a “Jew” at that time. Hence it will also be indicated that such uncommon regard was generated according to biblical roots that were alien to the currents of doctrine flowing from Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine and on through the centuries to Wittenberg and beyond.

A. John Calvin and C. H. Spurgeon.

As a prophet of northern Israel, contemporary with Isaiah in the south, Hosea was commissioned by God to warn His adulterous people of not only inevitable judgment, but also ultimate blessing. So we read in 1:10-11:

10Yet the number of the sons of Israel will be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured

or numbered; and in the place where it is said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ it will be said to them, “You are the sons of the living God.”

11And the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel

will be gathered together, and they will appoint for themselves one leader, and they will go up from the land, for great will be the day of Jezreel.

John Calvin, of 16

th century Geneva, interpreted this passage concerning Israel with

reference to future blessing that would come upon the Christian church. He comments:

2 David E. Holwerda, Jews & Israel, One Covenant or Two? p. 2.

3 James, Carroll, Constantine’s Sword, p. 369; Dan Gruber, The Church And The Jews, pp. 252-305.

[F]or so long a time has passed away since their [the sons of Israel] exile, and dejected and broken, they dwell at this day in mountains and in other desert places; at least many of them are in the mountains of Armenia, some are in Media and Chaldea; in short, throughou whole of the East. And since there has been no restoration of this people, it is certain that this prophecy ought not to be restricted to seed according to the flesh. For there was a prescribed time for the Jews, when the Lord purposed to restore them to their country; and, at the end of seventy years, a free return was granted them by Cyrus. Then Hosea speaks not her kingdom of Israel, but of the Church, which was to be restored by a return, composed both of Jews and of Gentiles.

4

On the other hand, C. H. Spurgeon, of 19

th century England, was of a different opinion.

This he expressed well before the stirrings of Theodore Herzl that led to the founding of t Zionist Organization in 1897 and the issuing of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, “promising to grant a national home to the Jewish people in Palestine.” In a mes preached on June 16, 1864, under the auspices of The British Society for the Propagation of the Gospel amongst the Jews based upon Ezekiel 37:1-10, the famous Baptist pastor expressed an opinion that was contrary to that of Calvin. He declared that,

Israel is now blotted out from the map of nations; her sons are scattered far and wid daughters mourn beside all the rivers of the earth. Her sacred song is hushed; no king reigns Jerusalem; she bringeth forth no governors among her tribes. But she is to be restored; she is be restored “as from the dead.” When her own sons have given up all hope of her, then is Go to appear for her. She is to be reorganized; her scattered bones are to be brought t There will be a native government again; there will again be the form of a body politic; a state shall be incorporated, and a king shall reign. Israel has now become alienated from her own land. Her sons, though they can never forget the sacred dust of Palestine, yet die at a hopeles distance from her consecrated shores, but it shall not be so for ever, for her sons shall again rejoice in her: her land shall be called Beulah, for as a young man marrieth a virgin so shall he sons marry her. “I will place you in your own land,” is God’s promise to them. They shall again walk upon her mountains, shall once more sit under her vines and rejoice under her fig-trees. And they are also to be re-united. There shall not be two, nor ten, nor twelve, but o Israel praising one God, serving one king, and that one king the Son of David, the descended Messiah. They are to have a national prosperity which shall make them famous; nay, glorious shall they be that Egypt, and Tyre, and Greece, and Rome, shall all forget their glory the greater splendor of the throne of David. The day shall yet come when all the high hills sha leap with envy, because this is the hill which God hath chosen, when Zion’s shrine shall again be visited by the constant feet of the pilgrim; when her valleys shall echo with songs, and her hill-tops shall drop with wine and oil. If there be meaning in words this must be the meaning o this chapter. I wish never to learn the art of tearing God’s meaning out of his own words. If there be anything clear and plain, the literal sense and meaning of this passage-a meaning no be spirited or spiritualized away-must be evident that both the two and the ten tribes of Israe are to be restored to their own land, and that a king is to rule over them. “Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: and I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all; an they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more all.”

5

By way of a further example consider Jeremiah 32:37-41 in which the weeping prophet of Israel declares that, subsequent to God’s people being led captive to Babylon in judgmen there is yet great blessing ahead.

4 John Calvin, Twelve Minor Prophets, Hosea, I, p. 65.

5 For the full text of this sermon, refer to Appendix E, pp. 3-4.

37Behold, I [the L ORD God] will gather them out of all the lands to which I have driven them in My anger, in My wrath and in great indignation; and I will bring them back to this place and make them dwell in safety.

38They shall be My people, and I will be their God;

39and I will give

them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me always, for their own good and for the good of their children after them.

40I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not

turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me.

41I will rejoice over them [My people Israel] to do them good and

will faithfully plant them in this land with all My heart and with all My soul.

Consistent with his transference of national Israel’s future promised blessings to the New Testament people of God, John Calvin interprets Jeremiah 32:37, 41, as follows:

But we know that this [regathering] was not fulfilled when the Jews returned to their ow country; for they were greatly harassed by their neighbors, and the building of the Temple was at first hindered, and they endured many troubles from all quarters, and at length they were oppressed with tyranny by the Syrian kings, and reduced to such extremities, that exile would not only have been more tolerable, but even pleasanter and more desirable, in comparison with the many miseries with which they were oppressed. But, as it has been said elsewhere, wheneve the Prophets prophesied of the return of the people, they extended what they taught to whole kingdom of Christ. For liberation from exile was no more than the beginning of God's favor: God began the work of true and real redemption when he restored his people to their own country; but he gave them but a slight taste of his mercy. This prophecy, then, with those which are like it, ought to be extended to the kingdom of Christ.

We now then understand what the Prophet means when he compares to a plantation the restoration of the people after their return from exile. We know, indeed, that the people from that time had not been banished, and that the Temple had ever stood, though the faithful had been pressed down with many troubles; but this was only a type of a plantation. We m therefore necessarily pass on to Christ, in order to have a complete fulfillment of this promise. . . . Let us then know that the Church was planted in Judea, for it remained to the time of Christ. And as Christ has pulled down the wall of partition, so that there is now no difference between Jews and Gentiles, God plants us now in the holy land, when he grafts us into the body Christ.

6

However, as might now be expected, C. H. Spurgeon provides a quite different interpretation of this regathering. Concerning Jeremiah 32: 41 he comments:

We cannot help looking for the restoration of the scattered Israelites to the land which God has given to them by a covenant of salt: we also look for the time when they shall believe in the Messiah whom they have rejected, and shall rejoice in Jesus of Nazareth, whom to-day the despise. There is great encouragement in prophecy to those who work among the seed of Israel; and it is greatly needed, for of all mission fields it has been commonly represented to be one of the most barren, and upon the work the utmost ridicule has been poured. God has, therefore, supplied our faith with encouragements larger than we have in almost any other direction of service. Let those who believe work on! Those who believe not may give it up. They shall not have the honor of having helped to gather together the ancient nation to which our Lord himself belonged; for be it never forgotten that Jesus was a Jew.

7

Hence an obvious difference in meaning is communicated by these two revered preachers. This book is based upon the belief that Spurgeon, who highly esteemed the Geneva

6 John Calvin, Jeremiah, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, www.ccel.org.

7 C. H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, XXXIV, 2036, p. xxx. Here, as with the preceding reference to Spurgeon’s sermon on Ezekiel 37:1-10, while he freely makes application of this verse t people of God in general, yet his interpretation concerns the return of national Israel to Palestine and ultimate conversion.

Reformer, nevertheless was essentially correct in his interpretation of Scripture concernin glorious future hope for the Jew of not only individuality, but also nationality and territory within Israel. On the other hand, we are convinced that Calvin was incorrect in h expressed contrary belief. Certainly we would agree that he aligns with a doctrinal legacy that had been widely accepted for centuries as mainstream. On the other hand we would also suggest that both the general unsavory ethical outworking of this eschatology over t centuries in the mistreatment of the Jews by this same mainstream Christianity, as well a the conflicting evidence of the history of Israel’s ascendency to date, should cause twent first century Christians to seriously question the biblical validity of this legacy. Furthermo we would add that while Spurgeon’s basic interpretation has quite naturally encou missionary outreach to the Jews, through many agencies, by way of contrast Calv teaching has tended to leave the Jewish people in downtrodden obscurity since they have been esteemed as superceded by the New Testament people of God.

B. A Confusion in Reformed Attitudes.

In a large number of churches, associations, and agencies with Reformed convictions in t twenty-first century, the mere mention of belief in a future settlement of national, conver Israel in the land of Palestine under the eventual personal reign of the Lord Jesus Christ in millennial economy is to invite an immediate shrill response of disapproval. Frequently th will be the charges of unacceptable and unworthy “dispensationalism,” or “Darbyism,” or “Zionism,” or “ancient chiliasm,” or “carnal premillennialism,” etc. And to be perfe honest, such a response often proves to be quite careless, and especially marked ignorance concerning biblical premillennialism, dispensationalism and Zionism held by so of the most choice saints within Church history in general, and particularly those periods influenced by Reformational teaching. Furthermore these critical terms have taken on form of disparaging epitaths, as put-downs that describe a point of view that sup ought to be beneath the consideration of serious students of the Word of God, particularl those who subscribe to the doctrines of sovereign grace, and especially Augustinia without discrimination. Time and time again this writer, in expressing his premillen beliefs concerning national Israel, has found himself to be quickly charged with be dispensationalist. Upon enquiring as to whether C. H. Spurgeon or J. C. Ryle or Horatius Bonar or David Baron or B. W. Newton were dispensationalist in their eschatology since they staunchly anticipated the restoration of Israel to Palestine and national conve there, a somewhat subdued though negative reply is usually received. Then in response t question is posed as to why this writer is so readily labeled, in a somewhat patr manner, when he holds to the same beliefs as such esteemed men of God. At th discussion usually focuses upon exactly how dispensationalism, past and present, distinguished between Israel and the Church, the usual result being the unveiling considerable degree of confusion that has led to the original inaccurate generalizations.

1. A Contrast in Reformed Attitudes.

a. Albertus Pieters.

By way of example, that leaves no room for doubt, consider the following quotations from the writings of Dr. Albertus Pieters, former Professor of Bible and Missions at Western Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church in America. In his overall writings, Dr. Peters is undoubtedly representative of classic Reformed doctrine; more particularly he is often quoted by Calvinists who espouse an Augustinian eschatology.

So it was in the matter of the Jews. God willed that after the institution of the New Covenant there should no longer be any Jewish people in the world—yet here they are! That is a fact—a very sad fact, brought about by their wicked rebellion against God; but is it not monstrous to hold that by reason of this wickedness the said undesired and undesirable group are now heirs to the many exceedingly preciou promises of God? Shall we be accused of anti-Semitism, because we speak thus of the Jews? We have not spoken so harshly as the apostle Paul, who knew them intimately and loved them passionately. He said of them:

For ye, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea i Christ Jesus, for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen even as they did of the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us, and please not God, and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: but the wrath of God is come upon them to the uttermost (I Thess. 2:14-16).

How is it possible to believe that there are still prophecies of divine grace to b fulfilled in a group upon which the wrath of God has come “to the uttermost”?

8

Some years ago, in a conference, I heard a brother minister say: “God is throug with the Jews.” At the time, this statement startled me, and I thought it extreme, but the more I study the Scriptures the more it seems to me he certainly was right. And, after all, was he saying anything more than the Lord Jesus Christ said, addressing the unbelieving Jewish people through the symbolism of the barren fig tree: “Le there be no fruit from thee henceforward forever?” (Matthew 21:19). If, as some think, the Jews will some day again be a great evangelizing agency, will there not be much fruit from them? But Christ said there would be none, and St. Paul said that the wrath of God is come upon them to the uttermost.

In saying that God “is through with the Jews”, we mean of course, that this group, maintained in existence as a separate community by the rejection of Christ and by insisting upon the ordinances that He has abolished, has no part, and can have no part in the great redemptive enterprise which God began in the call of Abraham made known by the prophets, and is now carrying out through the New Covenant Israel. Individuals are always welcome to take refuge in Christ by faith, and for every soul that does it there will not only be joy in heaven in the presence of the angels of God, but also in every Christian heart on earth. For such conversions we should zealously and lovingly labor; but for the group as such there is no place in the kingdom of God, nor can there be any unfulfilled prophecy of divine blessing which they may inherit. God is through with the Jews. A Jew must first cease to be a Jew and become a Christian before God can use him.

There are at present people in the world who are called, and who call themselves, “The Jews”. They claim that they are the continuation of ancient Israel, and are the “Seed of Abraham” to whom the divine promises were made, and to whom they are to be fulfilled. The claim is conceded by many earnest Christian people who believe

8 The assumption here that such condemnation by Paul was irrevocably applicable to ethnic Israel as a whole, and thus this people was beyond being termed “beloved enemies” (Rom. 11:28) is erroneous. The context indicates that what the Apostle had in mind concerned that distinctive Jewish opposition which he ha encountered in Judea, but especially Jerusalem, and now was reportedly in Thessalonica. Recall that when Paul found it necessary to leave Thessalonica due to violent Jewish opposition, after his first visit there, on moving south to Berea he immediately commenced to witness, as was his pattern, at the local sysnagogue (Acts 17:1-19. The same generalization concerning Israel as a “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9) also fails to acknowledge that this charge had a local rather than a comprehensive ethnic application. that they find in the Bible very important prophecies that must some day be fulfilled in this company who are called “The Jews”, who worship in the synagogue a adhere to the Talmud.

How could the Jews be held together and continue to be a “peculiar people” [without a temple, a country, a government]? Only by preserving in all poss rigidity the ordinances handed down from the fathers, with regard to eating drinking, trimming or shaving the beard, observing fasts and feasts, circumcis Sabbath keeping on the seventh day of the week, synagogue worship, prohibition of intermarriage, etc., etc. These things must henceforth be their life; for if these were lost all was lost, and they must expect speedily to be absorbed in the mass of the population around them.

This was therefore their program—the exact opposite to that of Christ—and in this unholy endeavor they were only too successful, with the result that untold calamitie were brought down upon themselves and upon the whole world. Ignorant that their separateness from the rest of the world was in the divine purpose temporary, they strove to render it permanent. Thus that which had been in itself good and became through their error a source of poison in the life of the world; and Jew” became the great persistent international problem.

The visible Christian Church being now the New Covenant Israel, those whom we call “The Jews” are outsiders, cut off branches, having no more connection w either promises or prophecies than any Gentile group.

9

[T]hose now called “Jews,” . . . have . . . no prophetic destiny, except a continuance of their present sad and bitter state, so long as they continue disobedient a unbelieving. They will not always so continue. St. Paul assures us that in tim come they will again be grafted into the olive tree. That, however, will give them no prophetic future as a separate group. They will then also lose their distinct existence by absorption into the Christian Church. The closed book of Israel’s history will not be reopened.

10

How utterly un-Pauline is this theologically anti-Semitic diatribe. It savors o being bitter, not just tart. The whole tone here is so unworthy of any Christian who glories in being saved by a Jew (John 4:22). So much needs to be s response, though we forbear at this point. Except that it will be noticed h Pieters expresses a desire for the salvation of the Jews, though with the result th all taint of Jewishness will be lost. To this end he tolerates a token individuality while vehemently repudiating nationality and territory.

b. Wilhelmus à Brakel.

By way of contrast, now consider the opinion of Wilhelmus à Brakel, a D Reformed theologian who ministered in Rotterdam, Holland, 1635-1711, tha provides such a refreshing contrast. The whole tone is much more akin to that of Paul, breathing a tenderness that at the same time does not see the necessity o denying Jewish distinctiveness. Would an unbelieving Jew more readily give hearing to Pieters or à Brakel. The answer is obvious.

Will the Jewish nation be gathered together again from all the regions of the world and from all the nations of the earth among which they have been dispersed? Will

9 Albertus Pieters, The Seed of Abraham pp. 123-125, 132, 134, 137-38.

10 Ibid., The Ten Tribes in History and Prophecy, p. 109. they come to and dwell in Canaan and all the lands promised to Abraham, and will Jerusalem be rebuilt?

We believe that these events will transpire. We deny, however, that the temple will be rebuilt, and that therein the previous mode of worship will be observed, which prior to Christ’s coming was of a typifying nature and would then be of a reflective nature. We also deny that Israel will then have dominion over the entire world—and other such things which the Jews imagine and some Christians dream about. Rather, they will be an independent republic, governed by a very wise, good-natured, and superb government. Furthermore, Canaan will be extraordinarily fruitful, the inhabitants will be eminently godly, and they will constitute a segment of the glorious state of the church during the thousand years prophesied in Revelation 20.

11

What is particularly significant concerning à Brakel’s belief in the future of national Israel is the resultant loving attitude, without compromise concerning Israel’s unbelief, that is manifest in his consideration of how Christians shoul respond to the unbelieving Jew. The kindly attitude that is evident here, so obviously in contrast with that of Pieters, is surely a result of the distinctive doctrine which he professed.

Various Reasons Given for Focusing upon the Conversion of the Jewish Nation.

1. Attentively observe the immutability of the covenant God made with Abraham and his seed. Consider that God, in spite of all their sins and stiffneckedness under it, does not break His promise nor will He permit any of the good words spoken to them to fall to the earth.
2. Do not despise the Jewish nation. “Boast not against the branches” (Rom. 11:18), the natural branches of that olive tree into which you, as branches of a wild olive tree, have been grafted contrary to nature. “Be not high-minded, but fear” (Rom. 11:20). 1) They have received more than enough contempt from the unconverted. 2) They are in one and the same covenant with Abraham, their father.

3. “They are beloved for the father’s sakes” (Rom. 11:28). Therefore, let there be the love of benevolence toward them. They are the children of the covenant (Acts 3:25). 4) They will once be converted and be a glorious and holy people above all the nations on the face of the earth. Therefore, esteem, honor, and love them.
4. Have pity upon their state, which is so wretched according to the flesh, being despised and detested among the nations—this is a righteous judgment of God upon them for their rejection of Christ. They hate the Lord Jesus, the true Messiah, with an evil hatred, and are living without the true religion—yes, have a religion which does not even resemble a religion. Nevertheless, they find a wonderful delight in it; thus they live in a state in which they cannot be saved, but have nothing to lo forward to but eternal damnation.

4. Pray for their conversion. How they have prayed for the conversion of the Gentiles! How they rejoiced in the prophecies that one day the Gentiles would be converted! Therefore, you ought to do likewise for their conversion, for you can pray this in faith, since they will certainly be converted.
5. By way of a holy life show that you are walking in the footsteps of their father Abraham. The life of so many so-called Christians offends them and keeps them from exercising faith in Christ. They do not know, except it be to a very limited extent, that among Christians there are presently many who fear and love Jehovah, the God of Israel. Therefore, manifest the image of Christ by way of a holy walk, so that they may be convicted by it and yet be aroused to jealousy. Occasionally make

11 Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, IV, pp. 530-531. From a premillennial perspective, one does not have to agree with every detail of à Brakel’s postmillennialism to nevertheless admire his loyalt to the Scriptures concerning a godly and territorial future for national Israel. use of opportunities to speak in a friendly manner with them, making your affection known to them, as well as your anticipation of their restoration in Canaan. Speak to them about the Lord Jesus by the name of Messiah. Speak of the dreadfulness of sin and of eternal damnation to follow upon sin, and show this from the Scriptures of the Old Testament if you are able to do so. Show them that man cannot be justified before God by works, and that all their deeds cannot justify them. Show then from the Old Testament that the Messiah would make satisfaction for sin by His death, reconcile God with man, and convert souls, proving this from Isaiah 53, 61, Daniel 9. The fact is that in doing so you have done your duty, and it will delight to your soul that you have done so. Be very careful not to quarrel, however, thereby giving them an opportunity to slander and grieve you by their diatribe.

12

1. A Contrast in Lutheran Attitudes.

a. The eschatological legacy of Luther.

There is no need to recapitulate in detail the infamous anti-Semitism of M Luther that, most sadly of all, climaxed rather than inaugurated his earthl ministry. Refer to Chapter 3, Appendix B concerning the introduction to Romans 11, and many sources referenced in Appendix P. Had a reverse emphasis been t case, the subsequent influence of this giant among men might have been different. However the inheritance from the Augustinian tradition and the legacy that modern Europe received, notwithstanding the opposition of Melanchth and others, resulted in the continuance of an eschatology that upheld the essent amillennial thesis, namely the transference of blessing, formerly promised to Isra to the Christian church for its fulfillment. As a consequence, the Jew was offence to western civilization, especially within Europe, a claimant forever disinherited of his Jewishness. And both the Catholic and Protestant churches ga encouragement to this course that ended with the country that shook the world with its call back to biblical Christianity becoming the shame of the world that caused the name of God to be blasphemed amongst the Jews. Thus Robe Wistrich concludes:

The German Reformation, under Luther’s guidance, therefore led in a very unfavourable direction for the Jews, when compared with parallel developments in English, Dutch or Swiss Protestantism. The seed of hatred sown by Luther wo reach its horrible climax in the Third Reich, when German Protestants showed themselves to be particularly receptive to Nazi anti-Semitism.

13

That there was a theological connection here is born out by the conclusio Clark Williamson.

All the literature one reads on the final solution leaves the clear impression that the pervasiveness of classical anti-Jewish theology was a significant factor in the succes of Hitler’s program. Where it did not directly contribute to support for Hitler’s policies—and it often did—it created an apathy toward Jews that was equally decisive in permitting the Holocaust. The great majority of the German people did not actively support or actively oppose Hitler; they were merely indifferent.

14

12 Ibid., pp. 534-535.
13 Robert S. Wistrich, Antisemitism, The Longest Hatred, p. 42.
14 Clark M. Williamson, Has God Rejected His People? p. 134.

One particular evidence of the continuity of Luther’s Augustinian amillennialism is found in its clear contemporary expression in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. A Report of the Commision on Theology and Church Relations on The “End Times”, A Study on Eschatology and Millennialism, published in 1989. Here it is stated that, “[t]he eschatology presented in The Lutheran Confessions is clearly amillennialist.”

15 The whole

content of this document adds unqualified support to this statement. So in an “Excursus Regarding the Jews,” anti-Semitism is repudiated, and we are told that, “Martin Luther, in his last sermon, said concerning the attitude of Christians toward the Jewish people, ‘We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord.’”

16 However, what is unsaid here is just as significant, for

Williamson also explains that, “Luther’s last sermon, preached a few days before his death, importunately appealed that all Jews be driven from Germany.”

17 Then The “End Times” Report concludes:

Believing Jews, together with Gentiles, constitute the New Israel. In Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28). In speaking of the place of Jews within saving history, the Scriptures do not ascribe a political fulfillment to Old Testament texts which deal with the future of “Israel.” The modern Israeli state is not the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The view of an earthly millennium with the temple rebuilt cannot be substantiated. Quite simply the Scriptures are silent regarding modern political events in the Middle East and any Jewish right to the land there. Judgments concerning such matters are therefore not theological questions.

18

So the exegesis of Lutheran commentator, R. C. H. Lenski follows the same course. In a similar, though more vociferous vein, the eschatology of Herman Otten, editor of the Lutheran Christian News, is vehemently anti-Semitic in doctrine, and especially so with regard to the modern State of Israel. Yet again, also consider Francis Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics (1953), a standard Missouri Synod work, which is thoroughgoing in its amillennialism. Here also theological antisemitism rears its head. He opposes the modern State of Israel because its establishment will

divert the attention of the Jews from the Gospel which in their dispersion they now hear and are to believe to a future age. This pernicious effect is intensified if this dream of a future “time of the Jews” is made attractive to them by promises of Jewish nationalism, a return to, and possession of, the land of their forefathers, and a rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, with re-establishment of its elaborate worship. One of the many deplorable consequences of the World War is the promise of the Allies to give Palestine to the Jews as their national home. Instead of repenting of their sins and believing in the Messiah who has come, the Orthodox Jews dream of a return to Palestine and the rebuilding of the Temple with its worship (Zionism), and the Reform Jews envision a spiritual domination of the world by Jewish intellectual superiority

15 The “End Times”, A Study on Eschatology and Millennialism. A Report of the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, September, 1989, p. 7.
16 Ibid., p. 38.
17 Williamson, Has God Rejected His People? p. 102.
18 The “End Times” Report, p. 39.
and erudition, to be achieved by means of a Jewish university on the Mount of

Olives.

19

Here is proof that the shameful eschatological spirit of Augustine lives on, for, while the Bishop of Hippo rejected the concept of severe persecution of the Jew yet he favored their being kept in subjection and impoverishment.

20 Pieper would

similarly have them remain as vagabonds for their own spiritual good! Th whole spirit of this doctrinal expression is repugnant in the light of Roma 11:18-20.

b. The eschatological departure from Luther.

By the time of the seventeenth century, the creedal formulation of Lutheranism, along with its cool dogmatic orthodoxy, had resulted in a nation in spiritu decline which gave birth to the pietistic movement. It was prompted by Philipp Jacob Spener, of Frankfurt and Berlin, he being concerned about the spirit bleak and parched state of Lutheranism.

The utterly depressed condition of religious life in Germany, the almost unive immorality in the universities, the almost complete destitution of edifacoty preaching, and the almost lack of other means of awakening and stimulating spiritual life, remaining unchanged, Spener attempted to bring about a reformation (1666 onward). Personal conversion, even in the case of ministers of the gos seems not to have been expected. Baptism, administered in infancy, was supposed have magical efficacy in procuring salvation; and the partaking of the body and blod of Christ in the Supper was supposed to be a means of grace even in the cases of th most immoral and irreligious.

21

While Spener considered himself a dwarf when compared with Luther’s stature, yet he maintained that standing on the shoulders of this giant he was enabled to see further. He was pained when Lutherans spoke evil of Luther’s Reformation, nevertheless he was insistent on ongoing spiritual reform that believed in necessity of personal sanctification and piety.

22 Joined by A. H. Franke, a new

movement grew that included the founding of the University of Halle, and a larg growing body of pastors. Through Spener’s godson, Count von Zinzendorf, there developed the Herrnhut community, which was influential in the ministry of John Wesley.

Of particular interest is the fact that the pietistic movement lead to a mo millenarian emphasis which also resulted in greater tolerance toward the J This contrasted with the Augsburg Confession, Article XVII, which condemned those, “who now scatter Jewish opinions, that, before the resurrection of t dead, the godly shall occupy the kingdom of the world, the wicked being every where suppressed.”

23 Spener evidenced a mild postmillennialism 24 that went hand-

in-hand with a stemming of the tide of anti-Semitism in his day.

19 Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, III, p. 533-534.
20 James Carroll, Constantine’s Sword, p. 385.
21 Albert Henry Newman, A Manual of Church History, II, p. 525.
22 K. James Stein, Philipp Jakob Spener, Pietist Patriarch, pp. 264-265.
23 Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, III, p. 18.

It has been suggested that Spener, in Frankfurt, treated the Jewish people not only as potential Christians, but also as neighbors assigned by God. . . . [His] forthright and frequent denunciation of the teasing and mobbing of Jewish people on the streets by Christian children caused that malicious practice to occur with less frequency. . . . Spener replied affirmatively to the question, “Can Christian midwives attend Jewish women?” . . . Spener in numerous later opinions advised against expulsion of Jews or abolition of their synagogues. . . . Spener was a promoter of Christian missions to Jews. He himself baptized a number of Jewish converts to Christianity at Frankfurt. He conceded, however, how difficult it was to help these people, now bereft of family and position, to recapture financial security. He, therefore, concluded that reborn Christians could best help in this difficult task by living out their faith in love-filled lives that would make the Gospel attractive to Jews.

25

As a result a scholarly lineage of premillennialists developed that included Bengel, Zahn. Delitzsch, Godet, Auberlen, Rothe, and van Osterzee being Dutch Reformed. Thus “American Lutherans were aware of these European theologians. Some Lutherans emigrating to America brought these millennialistic views wit them.”

26 They were more likely those having a background of Lutheran pietism.

In the United States, three particular Lutherans were influential in the stimulation of premillennialism that was Judeo-centric. They were Samuel Simon Schmucker, Joseph Seiss, and George N. H. Peters. We briefly quote from the latter two as indicates of their Judeo-centricity.

1. Joseph Seiss (1823-1904). As a Philadelphia Lutheran pastor, he frequently contributed to Horatius Bonar’s The Quarterly Journal of Prophecy. The following quotation, taken from Seiss’s Lectures on The Apocalypse, describes how the Jews will be restored to their former privileges.

[Romans 11:21-25] is very remarkable language. It implies a precariousness of our high calling in Christ Jesus which we would hardly suspect, and which it is dangerous to overlook. It foreshadows an end to the favors now enjoyed by the Gentiles, and for the same causes that cast down the Jews from their ancient pre-eminence in the Divine economy. It sets forth that the existing depression of the Jews, and the exaltation of the Gentile to equality with him, is only temporary, and must terminate. Yea, and in all the Scriptures, there is a time contemplated, when the pl»rwma [pl¯ er ¯ oma]—the full complement—of the Gentiles shall have come in, and things shall begin again with the Jew at the head. And it is to the fulfillment of this mystery that the text relates.

27

2. George N. H. Peters (1825-1909). As a Lutheran pastor who ministered in Xenia and Springfield, Ohio, his monumental contribution to Judeo-centric premillennialism was the publication of a large three volume work, The Theocratic Kingdom. Four Propositions 111-114 particularly address the issue of the Jews being a distinctive part of the one people of God. They are:

24 John M. Brenner, American Lutheran Views on Eschatology and How They Related to the American
Protestants, p. 6. Internet sourced.
25 Stein, Philipp Jacob Spener, pp. 246-247.
26 Brenner, American Lutheran Views on Eschatology, p. 6.

27 J. A. Seiss, The Apocalypse, A series of Special Lectures on the Revelation of Jesus Christ, II, pp. 166-172.

(a) Proposition 111.—The Kingdom being identified with the elect Jewish nation, it cannot be established without the restoration of the nation.

No nation on earth, saving the Jewish, has God chosen, over whom He condescends to act in the capacity of an earthly Ruler. No nation save it alone has thus been favored with a Theocratic rule. Owing to the sinfulness of the nation this Kingdom was indeed overthrown, and th nation itself, as a nation, driven from its land and placed in a scattered and subject condition among the nations of the earth. It has abundantly been shown that they are still the elect nation, not permanently cut off. Indeed, if this election were to entirely cease, or if it were diverted to any other nation or nations, then it would be impossible to verify the Covenant promises made directly to it. This subject having been elucidated, it is only necessary to add: the election of the nation, evidenced even now by the necessity Gentiles are under to be grafted into it, continues on by virtue of its covenanted relationship to the Theocratic- Davidic Kingdom, and if such election is manifested in the establishment of the Kingdom, it involves, full embraces, its restoration to Palestine.

28

(b) Proposition 112.—The Kingdom, if established as predicted, deman the national restoration of the Jews to their own land.

The promise that this nation shall be restored to their own land cannot be understood of the Church. It is fashionable to make the land of Canaan a type of the Church or of heaven. Aside from the reasons already urged against such a perversion of the prophecies, it would appear sufficient to consider, that it is the same land out of which the nation has been driven; a land lying desolate for many generations until the restoration; a land that shall be tilled and sown, its ruined cities rebuilt and inhabited, man and beast multiplied upon it; a land specially covenanted to the Fathers who lived in it at one time, and which shall be settled again after “the old estates” and as at “the first;” a land for a long time in the possession of their enemies; a land formerly occupied by the Kingdom of David; a land whose geographical boundaries are fixed; in brief, a land which, by a great variety of allusions and specifications, can only be Palestine. To convert this land into something else is not only most arbitrary; impossible to reconcile with language, unity of prediction, etc., but it is a virtual impeachment of the veracity of the Word, and an expressed doubt of God’s intention to fulfill His Word as written.

29

(c) Proposition 113.—The connection of this Kingdom with Jewish restoration necessitates the realization of their predicted repentance an conversion.

The truth of the matter is this: if men were not influenced by a previously entertained theory, they would see at once that the experience alleged in the case of Israel’s restoration is so distinctively that of a nation unconverted and in the flesh—a nation long under punishment for s and coming under converting influences only when God comes to punish

28 George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, II, p. 49.

29 Ibid., p. 58. the nations of the earth; a nation of whom, when thus newly converted and restored, an abundant increase of children, beasts, etc., is predicated, that in no consistent shape or sense can be applied to the saints of this and former dispensations without a resort to Origen’s system of interpretation, and a consequent violation of the plainest rules of language. No! No!! let brethren (whom we love) pardon our zeal if it seems too strong in this matter, for we feel this doctrine to be exceedingly precious and intimately connected with the Divine Honor and Purpose.

Let men say what they will, it is self-evident that God never would convey an utterly erroneous doctrine in the face of language itself, and deceive an entire nation with the assurance of a special and continued Covenant and election that does not exist. The apology, that God meant to finally spiritualize this, avails not, since God nowhere asserts such a change; since it is sheer inference drawn from previously formed ones; since the Covenant itself and the promises derived from it stand today unchanged, uncancelled.

30

(d) Proposition 114.—This Kingdom being identified with the elect Jewish nation, its establishment at the resurrection embraces the supremacy of the nation over the nations of the earth.

The simple fact that Jesus, David’s Son, “the King of the Jews,” is to be the Mighty King over them, makes evident this pre-eminency. It is true that He is not only to be King over the Jews, but also over the whole earth, for “the sovereignty or Kingdom of this world” is to become His, and “all dominions shall serve and obey Him,” yet we must constantly keep in mind the covenanted fact, that this reign is manifested on David’s throne and from David’s Kingdom. Therefore it follows, that the nation identified with this throne or Kingdom is exalted proportionately with the extent and splendor of the reign of Him who sits on that throne thus associated with the nation. It is this that gives them that peculiar and honorable distinction, so lauded by the prophets. This is reasonable and just; for surely the people from whom the King is descended according to the flesh; who hold in covenanted possession the throne and Kingdom of His inheritance; who are restored by His power that the throne and Kingdom may be re-established in its integrity; who enjoy the privilege of having His throne and majesty in their midst; who are under the particular rule of appointed judges, coheirs with Him—must realize, from the nature and extent of their position and blessings, an eminence far above that of all others, viz., that stated in Exodus 19:5-6.

31

2. Israel as a present challenge to Reformed Theology.

For further examples of uncompromising opposition to a premillennial hope for Israel, especially in unbelief, refer to representations of Patrick Fairbairn, Geerhardus Vo Anthony Hoekema, Loraine Boettner, William Hendriksen, O. Palmer Robertson, Hans K. LaRondelle, Samuel E. Waldron, and Kim Riddlebarger, as detailed in Chapter 2. Also consider the obvious theological anti-Semitism of Philip Mauro

32 and

30 Ibid., p. 82.
31 Ibid., pp. 94-95.
32 Philip Mauro, The Hope of Israel, What is it? 261 pp. Refer to Appendix C.

Charles D. Proven.

33 Granted that there is some variation in temperament among these

examples, yet none express the slightest degree of tender regard for Israel as does t Apostle Paul in his language and missionary endeavor, that is as distinct from tokenism. On the other hand, there are some indications that a measure of temperat improved understanding, at least tolerance, has become evident in some other notab Reformed writings in this regard, and two such examples follow.

a. Willem A. VanGeneren.

It was the title of a scholarly review article by Reformed theologian, Willem A. VanGemeren, now of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, that attracted the attention of this writer. “Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy,”

34 in the Westminster Theological Journal, struck an agreeable cho

even though there was anticipation that there would be a considerable degree o disagreement. However, while there was indeed much that followed an anticipat Reformed historical lineage, even so there were other matters that led to conviction that here was someone who was not locked up in a system that was hedged around by impenetrable confessional and historic standards. Further, the was a more irenic tone that expressed understanding rather than antagonism. P of the reason for this may be VanGemeren’s testimony, in a related artic explains that,

As a minister in a Reformed denomination (PCA) and as a teacher at a Reformed seminary (RTS), I am committed to the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster standards. . . . I have become more committed to the need for growth in the understanding of Scripture. . . . I do not come from a Reformed family and was not a member of any Reformed body until I came to the United States [from the Netherlands]. Instead, I was raised in a Plymouth Brethren home, and my parents are still committed to the principles of the Plymouth Brethren (closed communion), an assembly of believers with a dispensational framework of interpretation. . . . We speak with mutual respect and with a common commitment to the Holy Trinity and to the Scriptures. As I reflect on my dispensational background, I am grateful to the Plymouth Brethren who taught me to know the Scriptures and the Savior.

35

This led to the consideration of two other articles by VanGemeren. First w “Systems of Continuity,” which gives fresh expression to the continuity inherent

33 Charles D. Provan, The Church Is Israel Now, 74 pp. Subtitled “The Transfer of Conditional Privilege disobedience under the Mosaic Covenant loses everything, p. 37, while Christians are “chosen not becaus racial descent or following the traditions of the Rabbis, but because of faith in and obedience to God,” p. 3 However Provan does not explain if the Christian is under the same conditionality as that of the Jew. There no reference made to the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic Covenant, especially in Genesis inviolate nature being unaffected by the subsequent Mosaic Covenant (Gal. 3:17). Simplistic parall made that are void of careful exegesis. For example, “Israel Is An Olive Tree,” and “True Christians Are An Olive Tree,” p. 46. In this regard, Romans 11 obviously receives scant attention. Again, “Israel Is Beloved God,” “Disobedient Israel Is Not Beloved Of God,” “The Christians Are Beloved Of God,” pp. 3-5. However, what of Christians who are disobedient? As with Mauro, Provan, and others who embrac supercessionist theology, conditionality becomes a vital bedfellow that is usually confined to the O Testament people of God, at least for the believer in the doctrines of grace.

34 Willem A. VanGemeren, “Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy,” Westminster Theological Journal, 45 (1983), pp. 132-144; 46 (1984), pp. 254-297.

35 Willem A. VanGemeren, “A Response,” Dispensationalism, Israel And The Church, pp. 331, 333.

in Reformed theology that bridges the Old and New Testaments, especially it covenantal roots. This freshness was particularly evident in the following:

Reformed theology must remain in dialogue. Dialogue keeps us from being isolated, proud, autonomous, and with a limited vision and witness. . . . Dialogue also involves Israel. I have asked and am still asking that the exegetical case of Israel in the plan of God be reopened. . . . Hermeneutic openness to Israel is a concrete expression of openness to the word of God and to the eschatological events. . Eschatology is immensely practical. It is the revelation of God for Christian living.

36

However this opinion did not sit well with Mark W. Karlberg who, in a subsequent review article in the Westminster Theological Journal, expressed disappointment at VanGemeren’s unconventional exposition of the Reformed covenantal system which included an openness that “allows room for Israel in the unfolding of God’s plan for the ages.”

37

The second article was “A Response,” being a concluding chapter in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, both professors at Dallas Theological Seminary. This volume attempted to give dispensationalism a fresh analysis by eleven contemporary loyalists with VanGemeren being given the opportunity to respond from a Reformed perspective. With qualification, he affirms:

While I am open to consider a place for ethnic Israel in the unfolding progress of redemption, I have reservations in reading a definite program of fulfillment according to which at the coming of the Lord Jesus [quoting J. Lanier Burns on Romans 11] “the nation will enjoy what only a remnant has presently experienced. . . . The status of Israel, apart from Jesus Christ, is ambivalent. The Jews as a people are lo-ammi [Hos. 1:9] because of their rejection of the Messiah, nevertheless, they are still beloved of God on account of Abraham (Rom. 11:28). The future of Israel is hidden in the wise counsel of God (Rom. 11:33-36). Consequently I am open to God’s way in Israel because he is sovereign and free, but I remain unconvinced that a millennial reign, including the land promises, is necessary within the framework of the progressive [dispensational] hermeneutic.”

38

While disagreeing with VanGemeren’s conclusion here, especially with reference to the future significance of “the land” (refer to Chapter 7), nevertheless there is respect for a considerate attitude and openness that would be anathema for others of a Reformed persuasion.

However it is the review article “Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy” that is the most revealing concerning Reformed attitudes towards premillennial/dispensational Israelogy. The focus of VanGemeren is upon an important study by Dr. C. Graafland, professor of theology at the University of Utrecht titled, “The Firm Covenant: Israel and the Old Testament in Calvin and Reformed Thought.” While Graafland is highly respectful of Calvin’s esteem for some manner of restoration for Israel that does not include the land, yet he tilts, though by no means all the way, towards

36 Willem A. VanGemeren, “Systems of Continuity,” Continuity and Discontinuity, ed. John S. Feinberg, pp. 60-61.

37 Mark W. Karlberg, “Israel and the Eschaton,” Westminster Theological Journal, 52 (1990), pp. 119, 121.

38 Willem A. VanGemeren, “A Response,” Dispensationalism, Israel And The Church, pp. 341, 344.

Wihelmus à Brakel’s challenge of Calvin at this point. For à Brakel, the Church could not be identified with the New Israel; further, all twelve tribes w repent, believe in Christ, and inherit privileged occupation of the land. Thus Graafland

considers the possible implications for Reformed theology of a positive confessional statement regarding Israel. He rejects the assumption that a positi confession pertaining to Israel necessarily results in [perish the thought] millennial speculations. He also rejects an eschatological hope which spiritualize OT promises and transfers them to the spiritual Israel, the church. . . . Christian hope must include a yearning for the fullness of the Day of the Lord in which Israel together with the nations will confess the name of Jesus the Messia forever.

39

Most significantly VanGemeren responds at this point:

The reviewer of this work owes a great debt to Graafland’s perceptive study Calvin’s exegetical and theological reflections on the relationship between Old and New. To a large extent it affects one’s view of the Jews and Israel. Graafland’s thesis is very relevant and if properly considered it, in turn, will create an overdue change on the church’s present attitude to and use of the OT as Scripture. In a subsequent article we shall follow up this review article in order to present a case for “openness” on all eschatological matters especially with respect to the future Israel.

40

The subsequent issue of the Westminster Theological Journal published a muc larger article in which VanGemeren responds, as promised, to further questions raises concerning his preceding review article with regard to Graafland’s “ Firm Covenant: Israel and the Old Testament in Calvin and Reformed Thought.” Our particular interest concerns VanGemeren’s description of more recently emerging amillennialism.

By the end of the nineteenth century amillennialism as an eschatological position ha arisen out of the new hermeneutic for which [Patrick] Fairbairn was a leading spokesman. The writings of Herman Bavinck (1895-1964) and Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) are representative of the change. . . . Both Bavinck and Vos are amillennial in their views and engage in argumentation against premillennialism. Bavinck’s treatment of his subject exemplifies the amillennial approach toward the prophetic word. On the one hand, he summarizes the teaching of the OT prophets with respect to the future of Israel, which includes the conversion of Israel, t Messiah’s coming, the benefits to be enjoyed by the people of the Messiah including the return from the land of captivity, a restoration of temple and worship, and the Gentiles sharing in the blessings of the kingdom.

Instead of taking the OT language for what it is, Bavinck argues that there lies an eternal truth “in the earthy, sensual, forms of the prophecies.” He strongly objects t millennialism as a hermeneutic in which the earthly forms of the OT are understood literally.

41

39 VanGemeren, “Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy,” Westminster Theological Journal, 45 (1983), pp. 143.

40 Ibid., p. 144.

41 Willem A. VanGemeren, “Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy,” Westminster Theological Journal, 46 (1984), p. 261.

Following details of Bavinck’s relentless imposition of the NT over the OT, resulting in the assembly of Christian believers completely supplanting ethnic Israel, VanGemeren frankly concludes that

he sacrifices the OT prophetic hope to a harmonious understanding of the NT, in which the NT passages which hold out a hope for Israel and different exegetica options are either harmonized or not fully considered. The authority of the OT as well as of the NT seems to be sacrificed out of concern for unity, harmony, and systematization.

42

Concerning Geerhardus Vos, who focuses more on exegesis and biblical theology, his Dogmatiek provides an insight into the same constraint that Bavinck felt, though to a lesser degree. He

answers the question of why it is so difficult to enter into details on the future conversion of Israel by saying: “Because it has been connected on the one hand with the restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land and on the other hand with the millennial kingdom. . . . The fear existed to encourage chiliasm.” . . . Though Vos vehemently opposes a premillennial reading of the NT, the exegesis of the text itself forces him to expect a future conversion of the Jews.

43

Here then has arrived a polarization between the contemporary prophetic schools that contrasts with the greater tolerance amongst the immediate heirs of Calvin. A present example would be Jay Adams’ vigorous presentation of amillennialism,

44

to which VanGemeren provides a good critical analysis.

45 Thus, the lineage of

Fairbairn, Bavimck, Vos, etc. resulted in

the “new” Reformed hermeneutic [which] is no longer “the Old is in the New revealed and the New is in the Old concealed,” but rather “the Old is by the New restricted and the New is on the Old inflicted.” . . . [However] the results of one hundred years of the “new” hermeneutic are not encouraging. . . . One negativ result is the lack of openness to exegesis of the prophets or at least to raising hermeneutical questions. A second negative factor is that the study of the relationship of Old and New has been negatively affected. The assumption has been that there is a homogeneous theology of the NT through which the OT can be filtered.

46

What then is the solution to this seeming impasse? For VanGemeren, separating himself from the legacy of Luther, first and foremost it is grounded upon on covenant of grace. Hence:

The Reformed exegete approaches the prophets from the perspective of the unity of the covenant, . . . [the] one covenant of grace. . . . The interpreter of the OT must interpret the OT text from the perspective of the NT. He cannot read the OT as a Jewish book, because it is the Scripture of the Christian. . . . [T]he prophetic literature demands a historico-grammatical interpretation of the text.

47

42 Ibid., p. 263.
43 Ibid., pp. 263-264.
44 Jay Adams, The Time Is At Hand, pp. 123.

45 VanGemeren, “Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy,” Westminster Theological
Journal, 46 (1984), pp. 265-266.
46 Ibid., p. 268.
47 Ibid., pp. 269, 271-272,

Here we decidedly part company with VanGemeren, for all of his prior openness and call for a reappraisal of how we interpret the Old Testament. The order of emphasis here is most revealing. We do not start with exegesis, but a questiona doctrinal presupposition concerning “the covenant.” To suggest that the NT is no to be perceived as a Jewish book is simply a perspective derived from fo through Gentile spectacles. Surely the human authors of the NT, who were in the main Jewish, perceived the OT as decidedly Jewish. The denial of this see incredible to contemplate, and it reveals a fundamental problem that mus addressed if eschatological tension is to be resolved. This Gentile writer sympathizes with the claims of many Messianic Christians who maintain th Christianity continues to be fundamentally Jewish. So David Stern writes:

Edith Schaeffer, wife of the late Francis Schaeffer, wrote a book with the titl Christianity is Jewish. Her point, and mine too, is that Christianity, no matter how un-Jewish some of its current forms of expression may be, has its roots in Judaism and in the Jewish people.

The facts are simply not a matter of debate. For years all the disciples of Jeshua wer Jewish. The New Testament was entirely written by Jews (Luke being, in all likelihood, a Jewish proselyte). The very concept of a Messiah is nothing but Jewish. Finally, Yeshua himself was Jewish—was then and apparently is still, since nowhere does Scripture say or suggest that he has ceased to be a Jew. It was Jews brought the Gospel to the Gentiles. Shau’l [Paul], the chief emissary to the Gentiles was an observant Jew all his life. Indeed the main issue in the early Church whether without undergoing complete conversion to Judaism a Gentile could be a Christian at all. The Messiah’s vicarious atonement is rooted in the Jewish sacrificial system; the Lord’s Supper is rooted in the Jewish Passover tradition; baptism Jewish practice; and indeed the entire New Testament is built on the Hebrew Bible, with its prophecies and its promise of a New Covenant, so that the New Testament without the Old is as impossible as the second floor of a house without the first.

48

But further, concerning VanGemeren’s solution, he recommends a return t Calvin’s hermeneutical skills, especially as they relate to the OT, but preeminent because the Geneva Reformer is purported to be also fundamentally undergirde by the “covenant of grace” doctrine.

49 Thus, as distinct from Bavinck’s more

forced methodology, Calvin’s Old Testament exegesis, by means of gradua progression, leads him to New Testament fulfillment in Christ’s redemption Concerning VanGemeren’s commendation of this “gradual progression,” when it comes to the actual exegesis of the text, the end result is not so far removed fro the conclusions of Bavinck and Vos. Like Vos, VanGemeren does appear to side with John Murray’s exegesis of Romans 11:26 in which there will be a fut large-scale reclamation of the Jews through the gospel.

50 Whether those Jews who

are saved at this climactic occasion retain a distinct Jewish identity is not made clear. Hence, for all of the openness expressed thus far, and the universa acknowledgment of Calvin’s great exegetical abilities, yet we return to the origin

48 David H. Stern, Restoring The Jewishness Of The Gospel, pp. 61-62.

49 VanGemeren references Calvin’s Institutes, II, 9-11, as support for this “covenant of grace.” However in the Battles edition of the Institutes there is footnoted a comment that while we have here the Reform unfolding of the doctrine of the covenant, yet “[t]he full development of the covenant theology came only the seventeenth century and was expressed in the Westminster Confession and in the influential work of J Coceius.” Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I, p. 428n.

50 John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, II, pp. 98-99.

proposal that when it comes to the exposition of such significant passages a Isaiah 11:10-11; Jeremiah, 32:37-41; Ezekiel 36:22-32; 37:1-10; Hosea 3:3-5, C. H. Spurgeon is closer to the truth than John Calvin. This matter becomes abundantly clear when we are now brought down to the exegetical grass roots of this whole subject concerning Israel. Hence VanGemeren concludes by raising the significant question as to “whether God will grant the Jews the enjoyment of the land especially when they have turned to Messiah on a grand scale.”

51 In this vital

issue we are faced not simply with a territorial concern, but one of identity. Some, such as Murray, see a final grand conversion event concerning the Jews as leading to their inclusion into the people of God without further Jewish, or for that matter, Gentile identity. Hence once the land issue is raised, consideration o eschatological, distinct Jewish identity is inevitable. Further, we now see how VanGemeren’s ideal of “gradual progression” does not prove to be so reliabl when we are simply confronted with exegesis of the immediate text. Here h wrestles with the problem concerning the compatibility of spirituality and materiality in the future Messianic kingdom. In referencing Amos 9:14-15, he comments:

By extension Amos assures all of God’s elect of his benefits including the restoration of the earth. . . . The question which remains is as follows: will the Jews who turn to the Messiah taste of God’s goodness in the land of Israel in such a way that their joy as Christians is augmented by their returning to and living in the country where their forefathers lived?

52

Here a Reformed theologian is wrestling with the heart of the distinction between premillennialism and amillennialism. And being well aware of the common objection that the New Testament speaks minimally of the restoration of the Jewish people to the land, he insightfully offers two reasons why this is so. First, most NT writings preceded the events of 70 A.D. Further, post 70 A.D., a thriving remnant of Judaism continued in the land. Arguments that ignore this are naïve. Second, Matthew and John share concern for the conversion of the Jews already in the land. They voluntarily left the land in large numbers over a period of hundreds of years. Their return was not from exile but from the diaspora.

Even so, while VanGemeren’s considerable openness to this point has led us to the brink of expectation concerning the future of Israel with regard to the land, we find ourselves left dangling without any courageous answer being given.

However, the progress and particularly the glorious future of the kingdom can only be described for us in parabolic language (cf. Mark 4:30-32). . . . The joy of the elect is in their election to glory and in their enjoyment of all of God’s blessings, bot spiritual and material. The hope of the elect is in the progression of Christ’s kingdom and in their being citizens of the world which Christ came to redeem to himself (Col. 1:15-20; Rom. 8:22; II Pet. 3:13). The hope of the elect is in the “perfect,” and as long as the perfect is not yet here, there must be a restraint prophetic interpretation and schemata of the future (I Cor. 13:9, 14). Hope excludes the certainty of millennial (pre-, post-, or a-) schemata. Hope is focused in Jesus Christ as the author and finisher of our faith, the Alpha and Omega (Isa, 48:12; Rev. 1:8). Hope humbly admits that it does not know the time or the manner of

51 VanGemeren, “Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy,” Westminster Theological Journal, 46 (1984), p. 291.

52 Ibid., pp. 292-293. fulfillment, because of our “partial” knowledge and our limited vision (I Cor. 13:12). On the other hand, hope does not exclude a future for Israel as a part of the people of God, nor of some future large-scale conversion (Rom. 11:25-29). Ho does not delimit the benefits of Christ’s atonement to “spiritual” in this age and to “spiritual” and “material” in the age to come. Hope pertains to the restoration of the whole person “in the present life and the life to come” (I Tim. 4:8).

53

So, in being brought to the brink of expectation that perhaps this Reformed write might boldly accept the inevitable result of his well reasoned presentation insofa as Israel’s full future inheritance is concerned, yet we are deflated by an apparen retreat to an indistinct conclusion. Nevertheless we are grateful for the courageo exploration of VanGemeren, even if in being poised on the cusp of acknowledgin that converted Israel has an eschatological future in the land, he fails to take tha final step which, we believe, not only acknowledges complete Jewish identity, bu also vindicates the Lord Jesus Christ as the king of the Jews, who remains a Jew forever (Matt. 2:2; 27:37).

b. David E. Holwerda.

It is quite a striking fact that another Reformed theologian, David E. Holwerda, a the commencement of his equally temperate book, Jesus & Israel, One Covenant or Two? should also make a confession that is not unlike that of VanGemeren.

My interest in the topic of this book goes back many years to my youth. My mother, brought up in the Reformed Church of America, was committed to a premillennial position on the question of Israel, while my father, a pastor in the Christian Reformed Church, held to the amillennial position common to that tradition.

54

However at the outset, Holwerda confesses that he is more at home amo amillennial positions than with those of premillennialism. Being professor of New Testament studies at Calvin Theological Seminary, this is not unexpected, thoug it becomes immediately obvious that there is a calm and understanding reasonableness here that invites peaceable interaction from those who do agree with his distinctive perspective.

To begin with there is frank confession that over the centuries, the attitude of th Christian church in general toward the Jews has not only been unsavory, but also reflective of supercessionism. Consequently, “[a]lthough the Church did not directly perpetuate the Holocaust and individual Christians often assisted individual Jews, the Holocaust would not have happened had it not been for the prior history of Christian persecution of the Jews,”

55 which supercessionism

produced. Certainly Calvin was somewhat tolerant in this matter concerning the Jews, and far more so than Luther.

Calvin’s more moderate attitude toward the Jews was clearly rooted in his theological convictions, but his belief in the future conversion of Jewish Israel never received much emphasis in his theology nor in that of his followers. The ma emphasis fell on the Church as the New Israel. Within that emphasis, moreover, it became possible for some of Calvin’s followers to develop a theology of election tha

53 Ibid., pp. 294-296. 54 David E. Holwerda, Jesus & Israel, One Covenant or Two? p. ix. 55 Ibid., p. 6. no longer left room for any significant use of “election” with regard to Jewish Israel. While the majority view within the Church has been that the Church is the New Israel and that the Jews have lost title to that claim, there has always been present within the Church a minority belief in a premillennial reign of Christ over a converted Jewish Israel.

56

Nevertheless, as is obviously the case with VanGemeren, so also now with Holwerda as a representative of classical Reformed convictions, twentieth century events have forced many branches of Christendom to reexamine their doctrin underpinnings concerning the modern status of Jewish Israel. This is particularly the case with regard to

Pauline teaching about the continuing election of Jewish Israel [that] has become in our century the foundation for all theological thinking about the relationship of Jesus and Israel or of the Church and Israel. The tragic events of the Holocaust and the reestablishment of the state of Israel have forced the issue to the forefront of the Church’s consciousness.

57

Hence, in Holwerda asking the question, “Is there a future for Jewish Israel?” to begin with there is the frank confession that, “there is nothing in the Gospels and Acts that either biblically or logically entails an absolute or definitive rejection of Jewish Israel.”

58 Then commences an insightful survey of Romans 9-11 that has

much to commend it. For instance, the significance of this unit in relation to the whole of Romans is wonderfully expressed.

[H]ow can the election of Jewish Israel be maintained in the face of such widespread unbelief? . . . Thus Romans 8 ends on a note of absolute certainty rooted in th actions of God in Christ. Why then should there be an abrupt change in mood from celebrative certainty to personal sorrow and anguish at the beginning of Romans 9? The reason is obvious. When Paul looks away from Christ to the reality of Jewish unbelief he wonders whether he has a right to be so confident. And he wonders, in the face of such massive resistance to the gospel, is election such a reliable guarantee? After all, Jewish Israel was the original object of election, the recipient of numerous blessings and privileges; but now in the presence of Jesus and the gospel, most did not believe. Is election such a sure thing? If Israel can apparently fall away, what happens to Christian confidence in God’s electing love in Christ? Without a satisfactory answer to the unbelief of Jewish Israel, the certainty expressed in Romans 8 stands in jeopardy. Paul necessarily raises the question of the status and destiny of Jewish Israel in the light of its prior election. The validity of his gospel depends on the answer.

59

However it is particularly important to note here that according to this fine analysis, Paul’s concern is that of an impassioned scholarly Jewish Christian. Israel has now become disqualified and thus invalid, then such an apostolic interest is wholly unnecessary, indeed the subsequent defense of his “kinsme according to the flesh,” 9:3, becomes incomprehensible.

Thus Paul defends Israel’s election, that is the Israel rooted in Isaac not Ishmael, and Jacob not Esau (9:6-13). Hence “[o]nly God’s sovereign mercy can account

56 Ibid., p. 4.
57 Ibid., pp. 150-151.
58 Ibid., p. 150.
59 Ibid., pp. 152-153.

for Israel’s origin and continued existence in history. If Israel had depende human will and achievement for its existence, it would long ago have ceased to exist.”

60 Then follows a review and defense of the inviolate significance of

fide for Jews as well as Gentiles, the ongoing general unbelief of Israel notwithstanding (9:30-10-21). Here Paul resolutely returns, by means of th climactic significance of Romans 11, to the principle of covenantal sovereign gra as it applies to the ultimate destiny of Jewish Israel that even autonomous unbel will not invalidate. Thus Holwerda rightly concludes that “in every stage of his [Paul’s] answer [in Romans 11] he emphatically rejects the possibility that has rejected even this “disobedient” people.”

61 Hence we commend the honesty

here that concludes, in full harmony with 11:28, that in the mystery of God’s will He has a sovereign concern for not only the remnant of Jewish Christians, but als the unbelieving majority of Jewish Israel.

Concerning the truth that “there has also come to be at the present time remnant according to God’s gracious choice” (Rom. 11:5), it is encouragin read:

We err if we assume that the significance of the remnant pertains only to the elect individuals who constitute the remnant. Paul is not implying that the remnant alone is Israel and no one else. If we assume that the people of God in Romans 11:1 is now restricted to the elect remnant, we undercut the rest of Paul’s argument. Nowhere i Romans 11 does the apostle withdraw from unbelieving Jewish Israel the reality of being the people of God or the fact of their election. Instead, Paul points to himself and other Jewish Christians as evidence that God has not withdrawn his grace from Jewish Israel. The remnant is a sign that God is still faithful to his election of Jewish Israel.

62

Furthermore the judicial blinding of Jewish Israel is not with finality. “Amazingly, God’s hardening of his disobedient people is not his negation of their election.

63

Thus the figure of the olive tree is employed, it representing Abraham an patriarchs as the root of Israel.

The olive tree exists only because God chose to plant Israel in the midst of nations. Because of unbelief among those who are Jewish Israel [and thus severed from the olive tree], Gentiles are grafted into the olive tree to share in the privileges that God gave to Israel. Gentile Christians become part of the olive tree, a part of the Israel whom God elected. . . . Because Israel exists solely on the basis of God’s grace and because that grace promises even to heal Israel’s faithlessness (Hos. 14:4 the apostle has reason for hope even for the branches cut off. . . . Of course, for this hope to be realized, those under judgment and presently cut off will have to come to faith, for that is the only way to be Israel.

64

But does lack of faith nullify the covenant relationship as some suggest, or does the covenant relationship ultimately establish faith (Jer. 31:33-34; Ezek. 36 28)? Clearly Holwerda believes the latter, even as for the Christian the absolute

60 Ibid., pp. 156-157.
61 Ibid., p. 163.
62 Ibid., p. 164.
63 Ibid., p. 166.
64 Ibid., pp. 167-168.

necessity of faith is ultimately satisfied by the gift of faith (Eph. 2:8-9). Hence, the much disputed climax of Romans 11 finds that not merely a cumulative total of Israel’s remnant will be saved, after the “simple arithmetical” approach of Anthony A. Hoekema and William Hendriksen, but rather “the future salvation of the fullness of Jewish Israel . . . Jewish Israel in its eschatological fullness.”

65

Now up to this point we find ourselves in general happy agreement with Holwerda. Nevertheless from this juncture onward we come to a point of difference. Like VanGemeren, this writer has brought us to the brink of the eschatological issue concerning Jewish Israel, as it were, only to find a reluctance to allow Paul’s confidence in the sovereignty of the Abrahamic covenant to lead to the inevitable glory of Jewish Israel maintaining its Jewishness under its Jewis Messiah in the land that Abraham originally promised. Concerning the quotation of Isaiah 59:20 in Romans 11:26b, Holwerda sees this as fulfilled in the first coming of Christ that then plays out in the apostolic mission of the Church.

66

However this does immediately present the strange circumstance of the saving of the fullness of Israel being parallel with the saving of the remnant. Though there does seem to be an oblique acknowledgment of a problem here when the following explanation is given.

If one is convinced by this view that sees the conversion of Jewish Israel as related to the first coming of Christ and to the subsequent proclamation of Christ in the gospel, when will that conversion occur? The apostle did not develop a precise calendar of events because he himself did not possess one. . . . Precisely when this process will result in the salvation of the fullness of Israel, the apostle does not say. Obviously, the salvation of the fullness of Israel also includes those Jewish Christians who now believe along with the Gentiles.

67

With the greatest respect, this conclusion seems confusing, to say the least, especially when it appears reasonably clear that the national conversion of Israel will follow the conclusion of “the fullness of the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:12, 23-27). A number of commentators join with Murray and Vos in agreeing that some form of national conversion of Jewish Israel will occur within the future. However there is then immediate caution expressed lest, it would appear, being too close in proximity to the return of Christ, this might consequently lead one to fall over the millennial precipice. So in the conclusion of his book, Holwerda enquires concerning the future scenario:

If God still promises a future for Jewish Israel, will this new history be contained within the symbols and institutions of the Old Testament? After the promises of God have already entered into their universalistic fulfillment, which embraces the nations of the world, will God turn history back once more so that the promises can be fulfilled again within the particularisms of the Old Testament as they existed prior to the coming of Jesus Christ? In other words, will Israel as a nation become the sign of God’s future, a symbol of hope for the salvation of the world? Will God refurbish Jerusalem and the land and reestablish a temple of stone as the sign of his presence?

65 Ibid., pp. 169-170.
66 Ibid., p. 173.
67 Ibid., pp. 173-174.

The dispensational understanding of the future and many premillennial scenarios sa Yes. What are our conclusions?

68

For Holwerda, the universalizing of Messiah’s kingdom has eliminated formerly known distinctives, although he anticipates an alternative approach.

After such repeated indications that the promises have already entered into the pha of universal fulfillment announced by the Old Testament, should we expect a return to a literalistic fulfillment within the Old Testament limits of Israel’s nationhood? Or is it rather the case that the particular promises concerning land and city, temple an people, will find their fulfillment only within the structures of the universal fulfillment inaugurated in history by the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

69

This writer does seem to struggle more with the former alternative, name acceptance of the concept of diversity, allowing for distinctive national Israel, in unity that will comprise Jesus Christ’s future, consummate earthly kingdom. Eve the present earthly diversity in unity concerning a man and a woman wh married ought to sufficiently illustrate how there can be such a distinct and yet complementary relationship (Gal. 3:28). Refer to Appendix E where Jonatha Edwards contemplates the glorious restoration of Israel to the land and its relationship with the Gentile nations.

[A]fter their [Israel’s] conversion will they still be a distinct nation, that they may be a visible monument of God’s wonderful grace and power in their calling and conversion. . . . But yet, we are not to imagine that the old walls of separation will be set up again. But all nations will be as free to come to Judea, or to dwe Jerusalem, as into any other city or country, and may have the same privilege there as they themselves. For they shall look upon all the world to be their brethren, as much as the Christians in Boston and the Christians in other parts of New England look on each other as brethren

.

70

Of course the supreme indication of God’s delight in the principle of diversity in unity concerns the economic relations between the three Persons of the Godhea the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Here there is a unity in essence while at the sam time a diversity that is eternally hierarchical.

However, to his credit, Holwerda does not conclude with dogmatism concerning his confessed amillennial leanings and wrestlings. He leaves the door open, as it were, for new possibilities in his thinking. We can find much to agree with when he writes:

Therefore, however important politically and religiously the state of Israel is for the Jewish people, the essence of the meaning of Israel and the Davidic kingdom promised to them lies on another plane. That kingdom will not be achieved politics as usual or even by an unusual politics, because it insists of a deeper reality that must be grasped by faith. . . . God will use history, as he always has, to lead both Jews and Gentiles to acknowledge the authentic resolution of their basic problem. Someday the fullness of Jewish Israel will be included with the fullness of Gentile believers in the one people of God. How all this will be achieved in terms of

68 Ibid., p. 178.
69 Ibid., p. 179.
70 Appendix D, p. 270.
visible events, or how many Old Testament particulars God will rerun or allow to
reoccur, I do not know.

71

Hence, in interacting with both VanGemeren and Holwerda, it is evident that both, while understanding and repudiating the essential elements of replacement theology and its unfortunate legacy, plainly acknowledge the bona fide identity of the Jew today, even though he remains in darkness through unbelief. In othe words, while mystery remains, a Jew today remains a Jew in the sight of God. In this sense Judaism has not been disenfranchised. The reason for this is the understanding that God not only loves the remnant according to His “graciou choice” (Rom. 11:5), but also those “enemies” who at the same time “are beloved for the sake of the fathers” (Rom. 11:28).

However, all that we have considered by these authors thus far has only led to a conclusion that addresses individualism, that is individual Jewish identity. Neither VanGemeren nor Holwerda, in their writings considered at this point, while making acknowledgment that the unbelieving Jew remains “beloved for the sake of the fathers,” have given the same recognition with regard to Israel’s national and territorial claims according the Abrahamic covenant. Although this matter will be dealt with in Chapter 7, here it ought to be understood that such individual recognition and legitimacy, which at the same time attempts to disallow national corporate and territorial legitimacy, is fundamentally flawed. Sitting on the cusp of this issue is not sufficient, nor will it result in that ethical treatment of individual Jews and corporate Israel that God would require of Gentiles. To love and recognize a Jew individually, and yet deny him any rights to his nation and land is not to love him in a manner that he will recognize as fully authentic.

71 Ibid., p. 183.