| Author | Message | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1928 Registered: 10-2002  |
There was a comment made in another thread that made me want to share a quick thing, but I was worried it would derail the thread, so I am opening up this one. (The original thread is here) In response, I wrote: The prophecy about Old Jerusalem never being built up again is pretty blatant, isn't it? The worst part of it, however, is that she said it wouldn't do any good to evangelize Jewish people. That's in tandem with her "Shut door" pronouncements about not praying for the wicked world which God had rejected or whatever (etc.). There is an interesting underlying assumption in her statement, though, which is something she shares with dispensationalists. Both EGW and dispensationalists assume that to a great degree, in order for Jews to be evangelized, it is necessary that they have and are in the physical land of Israel. This is contrary to the Bible, however, which proclaims that Israel was still "Israel" even when she was in Egypt or in exile. A nation's identity is not founded on physical borders. That is a modern notion, not a biblical one. What I left out, however, is as follows... But I hope that in all of that "prophecy" stuff there is room for the gospel and Jews finding the grace of Jesus Christ! And their enemies, too! (Whom Christ commanded them to love, bless and pray for!) *grin* Heh. You'll have to forgive me. I feel that the dispensational eschatological scenario is just as flawed as SDAs. SDA had the endtimes revolving around the Sabbath day, and dispensationalism has the end revolving around flesh (the circumcision) and their physical (perishable) land. Neither scenario has it eschatalogical center the Cross and the gospel of God's grace in Jesus Christ, where it should be! Gog & Magog Upon looking at things a little, I realized there are some more fundamental difficulties with the above-mentioned scenario. Firstly, the identification of Gog & Magog has always been something debatable. More interestingly, "G&M" show up in Revelation right after the millenium (Rev.20:8) to surround the camp of God's people, the city He loves. It says that fire comes down from heaven and devours them. Interestingly, this matches Ezekiel 38:22. It's also interesting to compare Ezekiel 39:17-20 with Revelation 19:17-18. The passages have the same call, the same words, and the same imagery. They seem to be speaking of the same event. However, Ezekiel puts the fire & sulfer prior to the birds, and Revelation puts things the other way around. I don't have any deep comment or explanation of this, but it's just interesting. Does "Israel" really fit? The description of Israel in Ezekiel 38, however, does not match. Ezekiel 38 describes a land that has "recovered from war" and in which the people "all live in safety". Of course, in order for an exegetically complete match, we've got to be consistent and apply the things in Ezekiel 37 to "Israel", too. Firstly, that David (the one king) is king over Israel (and Israel is Ephraim & Judah rejoined, too). Second, "Israel" must therefore be following His laws and being careful to keep His decrees. In actuality, though, we do not see "Israel" having one king over her ("David"). Nor do we see a well-documented "re-joining" of the sticks held by Ephraim & Judah. (An interesting interpretation of the "sticks" being joined in Ezekiel 37 comes from the Eastern Orthodox church: that the sticks are joined in the shape of the cross! Personally, I think that is right on the money and centers it all in the truth -- that we are all rejoined and "brought home" in Jesus Christ Himself because of what He has done on the cross! It's not about being in a land, it's about being in a Man--the Son of Man!!) Using Ezekiel 37-39 to refer to the modern state of Israel has a very obvious problem in it. The description of Israel's return in the passage is very specific. As noted above, Ezekiel 37 and 38 portray a nation in which all people are living in safety, who are peaceful and unsuspecting -- these are things that are not true about modern Israel (sadly). Nor do we see David reigning over a rejoined kingdom (Judah + Ephraim). But Ezekiel 39 adds more detail to the picture of "Israel" and the "return" to the land: - They will be gathered to their own land, not leaving any behind (39:28) - They were in the nations and in the countries of their enemies (39:27) - They were sent into exile among the nations for their sin (39:23,28) - They will be brought back from captivity (39:25) Firstly, note that the modern nation of Israel is not a gathering of every Jew on earth. The "not leaving any behind" doesn't match the "gathering" return to the land. Secondly, this says that the Israelites were returning from exile, returning from captivity. Where is it written that Israel was exiled into captivity twice? When Jesus prophesied about the destruction of Jerusalem, He didn't call it an "exile", and He didn't say the Jews would go away into "captivity", either. I can't find these ideas anywhere in the NT. The destruction of Jerusalem was simply a judgment. Not an exile into captivity. So in order for Ezekiel to be referring to modern Israel, then we have to conclude that when the state of Israel was founded, the Jews who founded it were "returning from exile and captivity". Similar logic? Some Formers, when examining the Sanctuary doctrine, were wondering what was "trampled" in 457 B.C. that was "untrampled" in 1844. In the same way, today we might wonder the same kind of thing about this dispensational scenario revolving around the modern state of Israel. What "captivity" and "exile" were they returning from? What sin were they sent away for? And why is it that there are more Jews living outside of Israel than living inside of Israel when it says that they would be gathered "not leaving any behind"? The obvious answer is that Ezekiel is not referring to the modern state of Israel, but rather to the ancient people of Israel. Ezekiel himself was a prpohet among the exiles who had just been taken away from Jerusalem and sent to Babylon. In context, the things he wrote referred to the exile to Babylon. The return he spoke of refers to the return from Babylon, not to the return in 1948. The exile he spoke of refers to the Babylonian exile which was a 70-year punishment for Israel's sin --- not some other exile that began in A.D. 70. Both Adventism and modern dispensationalism have taken ancient prophecies out of their context and applied them to modern events (or "dates", in Adventism's case!). And neither really fits. Both involve stretching, and both fall apart as soon as the context is examined and exegetical methods are applied. Robert Brinsmead was correct in comparing the hermeneutics of dispensationalism and Adventism. A Land of Safety If you look at Ezekiel 36 (also part of the same greater passage & context), you can see a progression. The people are judged because of sin and sent into exile. Then they are brought back to their land, and then God cleanses them from their sins, puts a new heart and a new spirit in them, and they follow His decrees and are careful to keep His laws. Christians should instantly recognize that this is the language of the New Covenant, and that is what is being referred to. First the people are punished, second they are returned to the land, and then ... the New Covenant comes. And so the coming of the Spirit that makes the dry bones live was the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. From the coming of the New Covenant, we must understand that the way in which we understand the "fulfillment" of things has largely changed. Ezekiel describes a "land of safety", of prosperity and peace that comes right along with the New Covenant. Yet the Jewish apostle Paul --who himself received and lived under the fully inaugurated New Covenant-- had this to say: Paul realized that being filled with the Spirit and "brought to life" (as is written in Ezekiel 37) did not have anything to do with his body's physical condition. Paul realized that no matter where his earthly home was, it was not his eternal dwelling. Ezekiel 37 depicts the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, not 1948. Israel was already gathered in Christ's time, and at Pentecost Christ filled His people with His Spirit. They were "brought up from their graves" right at that moment -- so that now when we die, we do not die, but we still yet live, just as Christ said to Martha in John 11. And Paul, just as Abraham and the rest of the saints did (Hebrews 11), realized that his citizenship was above (see Philippians!) and so he set his heart on a heavenly country, not an earthly one. And so he boasted that no matter what happened to him, he was living in his land of safety -- in Jesus Christ, with a secure inheritance (as Peter put it). Note also that in contrast, the land of Israel today is an increcibly un-secure inheritance. Paul's heart was set on things above. He sought a heavenly treasure and a heavenly land. Could one reason that so few Jews today embrace Christ is because their hearts are set on things below -- on an earthly country instead of a heavenly one? Could it be that the (dispensationalist) Church is not really helping the situation, either, because they've got their end time clocks revolving around an earthly country instead of a heavenly kingdom? Could it be that the greatest hindrance to wanting to go where Christ is wanting to take us might be wanting to stay where we are now? Paul lived through persecution, and he eventually died from persecution. The nation of Rome rose up against the apostles. The Jewish nation rose up against them before that, actually. But like King David sang, "Though an army besiege me, my heart will not fear; though war break out against me, even then I will be confident." That is what was in the hearts of the apostles. And that is why they remained "secure" in the land of safety (Jesus Christ) no matter where they were or what was happening to their temporary, earthly bodies. Paul understood that whether he was "captured" or killed or whatever, the Lord had already defended and saved him -- on the cross. But just as the Jewish people looked at the literal Romans as their enemies (and sought salvation from Rome), so today dispensationalists are proclaiming that the "enemies" of Israel are the modern countries around them, and that God will defend them from being captured or killed by these enemies. How different from the gospel that declares that we were God's enemies, and that our unredeemed hearts contain the things which make us unclean! The gospel declares that our enemies are not outside, but inside! The gospel declares that God came and brought us salvation in Jesus Christ -- and that it wasn't a salvation from the Roman Empire, but a salvation from the empire of sin. Today dispensationalism looks forward to an end times scenario where once again the Jewish people will see their salvation in physical terms -- where their "salvation" will mean that God physically protects them from attacking armies and lets them have their nation in peace. The gospel proclaims a kingdom that transcends borders, nationalities, and any external persecution situations. The kingdom of God survives these things and flourishes regardless of them. Just as the saved spirit does not die at death, neither does God's kingdom die in persecution or when armies attack nations. God's kingdom is a transcendant kingdom which surpasses the glory of things we see physically. The gospel is a message that transcends the fears and limitations of earth today. Dispensationalism's end times scenario simply renegs on that transcendancy, and harks back to the desire which fueled the zealots in Christ's day (and those who sought to keep Him under control for fear of losing the nation). It makes the end a matter of national borders, not a matter of the heart. "Signs of the Times"? Now I wonder... remember how in Adventism we saw "signs of the times" everywhere? Every move the Pope made, every agreement or speech an American president made... almost anything in the news told us that the Sunday Law is coming, the Sunday Law is coming! We started thinking, if this happens, then this other thing will happen, and in turn this will happen, and then... Sunday Law! Now I wonder if Dispensationalists are doing the exact same thing with their end-times scenario revolving around the modern nation of Israel? Of course, there is a lot of fighting (and pain) going back and forth in the Middle East (on all sides). However, I wonder if we're doing the same thing that Adventists have been doing... "If this happens, then this will happen, then next this will happen, and then... Armageddon in the land of Israel!" Hmm. Food for thought. Or rather, prayer. Must go to bed. Blessings to all in Jesus, Ramone | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 779 Registered: 7-2007 |
Hmmm... well, it DOES say that in Revelation, so I don't know what it means. In any case, though, Israel is there. The fact that it is there, shows God's power. Several Arab countries attacked Israel the day after Israel became a nation. That should have destroyed them. Here's this little bitty country surrounded by huge wealthy Arab countries and the Arabs would love to destroy Israel. They've tried several times, but Israel is STILL there. God must have plans for that nation. It's obviously His will that the nation is there. | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 137 Registered: 3-2009 |
This "little bitty country" is back up by the biggest, gigantic, greatstr world power in the present. Not much miracle there. Hec | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 311 Registered: 8-2008 |
They didn't receive much help in 1948. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 780 Registered: 7-2007 |
And they didn't receive any help from the U.S. in 1967 (the six day war). They defeated those Arab countries without any help from any other nation. And they gained land too. (They belatedly received help from the U.S. in the Yom Kippur war in 1973 though.) |
