"As they passed the rows of houses they saw through the open doors that men were sweeping and dusting and washing dishes, while the women sat around in groups, gossiping and laughing.
"What has happened?" the Scarecrow asked a sad-looking man with a bushy beard, who wore an apron and was wheeling a baby-carriage along the sidewalk.
"Why, we've had a revolution, your Majesty -- as you ought to know very well," replied the man; "and since you went away the women have been running things to suit themselves. I'm glad you have decided to come back and restore order, for doing housework and minding the children is wearing out the strength of every man in the Emerald City."
"Hm!" said the Scarecrow, thoughtfully. "If it is such hard work as you say, how did the women manage it so easily?"
"I really do not know," replied the man, with a deep sigh. "Perhaps the women are made of cast-iron.""
- L. Frank Baum, "The Land of Oz"
Monday, May 16, 2005
Thinklings Book Club Discussion Seven: Chapter 12
Highlights and Reflections
1. Right off the bat I was reminded of the recent discussion on the ?whole world? verses in the Thinklings thread on God?s sovereignty. Hoekema writes:
[I]n Isaiah we read, ?Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth!? Passages of this sort were quoted by the apostles when they wished to prove that the gospel was intended for Gentiles as well as Jews. (p.138)
2. The question of what ?the gospel must be preached to all nations? means is an important one, if only because some teachers of eschatology hold that this describes some sort of prerequisite literal event to take place before the Lord can return. Hoekema writes:
Since in the Greek the word nations is preceded by a definite article (pasin tois ethnesin), we could translate the phrase, ?to all the nations.? Jesus does not mean that every last person on earth must be converted before the Parousia, since it is evident from the rest of Scripture that this will never be the case. Neither does Jesus mean that every individual on earth must hear the gospel before he comes again. What he does say is that the gospel must be preached throughout the world as a testimony (eis martyrion) to all the nations. (p.138)
It might be helpful to here point out this line from Paul: But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." (Rom. 10:18)
I once had a friend who believed Jesus couldn?t come back until every single person and every single country had heard the Gospel preached. But as far back as the first century, Paul already seemed to be saying that that news had already been delivered.
Hoekema again:
What is meant by ?a testimony to all nations?? The thought seems to be that the gospel will be to all nations a witness which calls for a decision. The gospel must be a force to be reckoned with by the nations of the world. It is not implied that every member of every nation will hear the gospel, but rather that the gospel will become so much a part of life of every nation that it cannot be ignored. The gospel should arouse faith, but if it is rejected, it will testify against those who reject it. The preaching of the gospel to every nation, therefore, will underscore the responsibility of every nation with respect to that gospel. (p. 138)
In the first paragraph of pg.139, Hoekema details some of the complications involved in interpreting these restrictions literally.
3. Beginning on p.140, Hoekema discusses the meaning of ?and so all Israel will be saved? from Romans 11. He subsequently argues for the third alternative presented, that ?all Israel? in this instance refers to national/ethnic Jews only (although not in some totality at the end time but as elected throughout history).
This is certainly a preferable distinction to the typical dispensationalist approach to this text (that ?all Israel? refers to national/ethnic Jews converting en masse at the end time). But I personally side with the second alternative he provided:
[It refers] to the salvation of all the elect, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles, throughout history. In this view the meaning of the word Israel is not restricted to the Jews, and the time when this elect group will be brought to salvation is not limited to the end of history or to the period just previous to the Parousia. (p.140)
Hoekema argues that elect Jews, moved by a jealousy of sorts and the continuing and expanding influence of the ?grafting in? of Gentiles, will repent throughout salvation history, and that is the way ?all Israel? will be saved.
I believe that ?all Israel? refers to all of God?s elect ? the spiritual Israel or ?children of the promise,? as Paul elsewhere refers to the elect ? throughout salvation history, and it is by the grafting in of the Gentiles to the covenant family that ?all Israel? will be truly saved. The whole point seems to me to be explaining how God?s promises are true even if all of literal Israel does not believe on Jesus Christ for salvation. So I think the second option he surveys makes the most sense of the texts. I see the ?and so? to mean ?and in this way,? not ?and consequently.?
But I ain?t no Anthony Hoekema either. ;-)
4. The next page over I discover more info relevant to the recent sovereignty debate in another of our threads:
In [Romans] chapter 9 Paul makes the point that the apparent rejection of Israel is not complete. Here the answer to his question comes down to this: ?Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel? (9:6, NIV). That is to say, though it is true that many Israelites are lost, the true Israelites are not lost but saved. God sovereignly fulfills his purpose with those who are the children of the promise. From the very beginning of Israel?s history there was a sovereign discrimination within Israel: Not in Ishmael but in Isaac Abraham?s seed was called (v.7); not Esau but Jacob was chosen as the one in whom the covenant lineage was to be perpetuated and the covenant promises were to be fulfilled (vv.10-12) . . .
. . . In chapter 10 Paul goes on to show that the rejection of a substantial portion of Israel is not arbitrary. Here he further develops the point that the Israelites who are lost are responsible for their own rejection of the gospel. (p.141)
5. Another point contra dispensationalism:
One verse in [Romans] 10 deserves special attention, verse 12: ?For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him.? Paul?s point here is that as far as the obtaining of salvation is concerned, there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. If this is so, a future period of time in which only Jews will be saved, or in which Jews will be saved in a way which is different from the way in which Greeks or Gentiles are saved, would seem to be ruled out. (p.142)
Further:
Their salvation is here pictured in terms of becoming one with the saved totality of God?s people, not in terms of a separate program for Jews! It should also be noted that Paul does not say that the ingrafting of Jewish branches must necessarily follow the ingrafting of Gentile branches . . . (p.143)
6. I found Hoekema?s argument on p.145 regarding the distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Romans 9-11 unconvincing.
7. From p.146:
The composite quotation from Isaiah 59:20 and 27:9 which follows immediately (?the Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob; and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins?), commonly applied by dispensational writers to the Second Coming of Christ, does not need to be so interpreted, but makes perfectly good sense as a description of Christ?s first coming, and of the taking away of sin which follows that first coming.
A great example of how eschatology ought to look back more than or as much as it looks forward. (Of course, for the OT community, these prophecies in Isaiah would be forward-looking, whether to the first or the second coming.)
8. On pp.148-149, Hoekema touches on just how complex it can be to untangle the various threads in the Olivet Discourse, particularly the Matthean version. I discussed this difficult task last week, as well.
9. Has the Great Tribulation already begun? Maybe . . .
The sign of tribulation, like the other signs of the times already discussed, does not enable us to date the Second Coming of Christ with exactness. The people of God must suffer tribulation throughout this era; when the final, intensified form of this tribulation will occur is hard to say. Perhaps for some Christians living in the world today the Great Tribulation has already begun. William Hendriksen suggests that the Great Tribulation need not come over the entire world at the same time, but may already be experienced by Christians who are being persecuted for their faith in countries controlled by anti-Christian governments. (p.151)
10. On the Antichrist:
We conclude that New Testament teaching about the antichrist does indeed have Old Testament antecedents, and that both Antiochus Epiphanes and Titus were types of the antichrist who is to come. Already an important aspect of biblical teaching about the antichrist has come to the fore: though there is to be a climactic antichrist at the end of time, there can be precursors or anticipations of the antichrist before he appears. (p.156)
Paul says that ?the mystery of lawlessness is already at work?. . . (p.159)
Summarizing, we may grant that the thought of a single future antichrist is not very prominent in John?s epistles; his emphasis falls mostly on antichrists and antichristian thinking which is already present in this day . . . (p.158)
I wonder if might be a wise admonition for the contemporary church to stop obsessing so much over identifying the future personal man of lawlessness and to start combating instead the spirit of lawlessness that enslaves unbelievers and so influences our own ranks. As it was written, the weapons of our warfare aren?t carnal, and we battle not against flesh and blood . . .
11. Hoekema discusses The Restrainer on p.161 but never really stakes a claim on any identity. One possibility that he doesn?t mention that I have heard before and have heard argued for competently before is Michael the archangel.
12. He then discusses the future personal antichrist on pp.162-163. But in all his Scriptural references, I find it odd that he did not even mention the Beast of Revelation. Even if Hoekema reads Revelation historically or preteristically, you?d think he would at least briefly mention that possibility if only to dismiss it. Perhaps he?ll get to it in the upcoming chapters dealing more specifically with Revelation.
13. To close:
Certainly there has been apostasy in the church since New Testament times; undeniably there is apostasy in the church now. When in may European countries today, countries which have known the gospel for centuries, people stay away from church in droves ? surely this is apostasy. When many so-called Christian leaders, both in Europe and America, deny cardinal teachings of the Bible like the bodily resurrection of Christ and still claim to be Christian theologians ? surely this is apostasy. When preachers proclaim myths instead of facts, existentialist philosophy instead of Christian theology, humanism instead of the truth of the Gospel ? surely this is apostasy. Yet who is to say exactly when or how the final apostasy will come? It may come very soon, or it may still be years away ? we must always be ready, praying for grace that we may continue to stand fast in the faith.
(p.154)
Questions for Reflection and/or Discussion
1. What is your understanding of ?all Israel? and ?and so all Israel will be saved??
2. What is your understanding of the Great Tribulation?
3. Any thoughts as to who the Restrainer might be? Cite references, if you can.
---
Next week?s reading, for Monday (5/23) ? Chapters 13 and 14 (approx. 30 pages).
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/2070.
Comments on "The Bible and the Future -- Session 7":
2. Chris
- 05/16/2005 4:44 pm CDT
2. The question of what “the gospel must be preached to all nations” means is an important one, if only because some teachers of eschatology hold that this describes some sort of prerequisite literal event to take place before the Lord can return.
I'm wondering exactly how specific we should be in interpreting this phrase. I agree with Hoekema that it doesn't mean that every single individual has to hear the Gospel before the story can continue, so to speak. However, does it mean, for instance, that it should be preached on every continent, or in each country, or that members of each race should hear it? For that matter, does it mean that it has to be a physical, face to face presentation of the Gospel, or would it count to have unbelievers in China read on the internet about a missionary in Zaire that died rather than deny Christ? Like Hoekema says in the second paragraph on p. 139,"We must humbly admit that only God will know when this sign will have been completely fulfilled."
William Hendriksen suggests that the Great Tribulation need not come over the entire world at the same time, but may already be experienced by Christians who are being persecuted for their faith in countries controlled by anti-Christian governments.
This was a good point - one that I had never considered before. That the Tribulation is not something that happens to everyone at a time predetermined by God, but something that happens selectively to certain people.
[S]top obsessing so much over identifying the future personal man of lawlessness and to start combating instead the spirit of lawlessness that enslaves unbelievers and so influences our own ranks.
YES! It isn't who the antichrist will be shown to be, but rather what he will be capable of doing and where he will derive his power, for it is this that holds us captive to our sinful ways. I've never really thought much about who he will be, though not out of apathy. I've just never thought that there was much use in the speculation. I think about Matthew 6:34, "So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today's trouble is enough for today.
What is your understanding of “all Israel” and “and so all Israel will be saved?" Well, I believe that, in this context, 'Israel' refers to God's elect, not necessarily the country Israel.
What is your understanding of the Great Tribulation? For the most part, I think that it is still in the future. Again, I had never considered, but can make sense of, the concept that it could already be happening to some people who are undergoing persecution.
Any thoughts as to who the Restrainer might be? At the top of page 161, Hoekema discusses the idea of the Restrainer not being a person but an event - the preaching of the Gospel. He says that the problem with this view is that it presupposes that there is a point in the future when the preaching will cease, and I can't truly agree with his disagreement. :-)
Say that I, as a Christian, experience a period of spiritual weakness in my life and as a result I give in to the temptation of another woman. The next day I may not be thinking the same way that I did when I was with her, right? I'm more prone, now that I'm in more spiritually wholesome surroundings, to realize that I *really* blew it big time. Did I cease (to use Hoekema's words) to be a Christian while I handed the reins of my life over to Satan for a couple of hours, so to speak? Of course not. A momentary spiritual failure (relatively speaking) does not mean that my life with Christ has ceased, does it?
I ask that to ask this: Do you suppose that there is a threshhold level (to grossly oversimplify the concept) that we must reach in order for Satan to begin his Tribulational work? Just a question.
==
Good stuff, Jared.
4. Don Curtis
- 05/16/2005 5:34 pm CDT
You asked, "What is your understanding of "all Israel" and "all so all Israel will be saved?"
I have a much fuller answer in a series called The Jews and the Gospel But I have these questions to ask by way of an answer:
1. Why was Paul willing to suffer his own damnation for his people? (Romans 9:1-3)
2. Paul moves from despair and grief in Romans 9 to unconstrained praise at the end of Romans 11. What happens in between to cause this? When does this transition occur in the text?
3. If there is only a spiritual Israel now, why is it that Paul refers to Gentiles as wild branches and the Jews as natural branches?
4. When Paul says that there is neither Jew nor Greek, he also writes that there are no Male or Female, Slave or Free. Does this mean that there is no valid distinction between biblical roles of men and women? Was Paul advocating that slaves were suddenly free to disobey their masters?
5. What is the significance of the recent rise of Messianic Judaism coupled with the also recent statehood of Israel?
6. Is it possible to construct a post-millenial theology that includes national salvation of the Jews in the context of a Jewish state?
7. Has the preterist view that the Jewish age ended in 70 A.D. promoted anit-semitism in the church through the ages? Does not the continued presence of the Jews on the earth since 70 A.D. almost make such practice inevitable?
My answers to these questions is in the series. Actually, I do not ahve an answer to #6. This is an area of current personal research and a subject that I would deeply like to discuss with others.
Don
5. Jared
- 05/17/2005 2:59 am CDT
1. Why was Paul willing to suffer his own damnation for his people? (Romans 9:1-3)
Because of their unbelief, their rejection of the Messiah.
2. Paul moves from despair and grief in Romans 9 to unconstrained praise at the end of Romans 11. What happens in between to cause this? When does this transition occur in the text?
He is pleased that God's elective purposes will stand, that His saving promises are true, even if who "the elect" are seems to be different.
I think the transition begins way back in 9:6, when Paul is discussing the possibility that God's word has failed because of the Jews' unbelief. The next two chapters are a demonstration of how God's elective purposes stand despite the fact that "not all Israelites truly belong to Israel."
3. If there is only a spiritual Israel now, why is it that Paul refers to Gentiles as wild branches and the Jews as natural branches?
Because the progression of revelation brought the visible "container" of God's elect people from the nation of Israel to the Body of Christ. Both branches are part of the same tree, after all.
If Israel only refers to national/ethnic, how is it that Gentile branches are in that tree?
4. When Paul says that there is neither Jew nor Greek, he also writes that there are no Male or Female, Slave or Free. Does this mean that there is no valid distinction between biblical roles of men and women? Was Paul advocating that slaves were suddenly free to disobey their masters?
Within God's salvation, there is no distinction between these pairs. I actually think this verse harms your view more than it helps. It eliminates the distinction, in terms of salvation, between Jew and Greek.
It doesn't mean there's no difference in these pairs period.
Do you believe that God has a separate saving plan for women than he does men?
5. What is the significance of the recent rise of Messianic Judaism coupled with the also recent statehood of Israel?
I don't know. The rise of Messianic Judaism is proof that the Gospel still transforms the hearts of all people.
At this point I don't think the statehood of Israel has any eschatological significance. (But that's just me. You don't have to be a dispensationalist to believe it is significant eschatologically. Witness amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger.)
6. Is it possible to construct a post-millenial theology that includes national salvation of the Jews in the context of a Jewish state?
I don't know. I'm neither a postmillennialist nor a believer in a future time of national salvation for the Jews.
7. Has the preterist view that the Jewish age ended in 70 A.D. promoted anit-semitism in the church through the ages? Does not the continued presence of the Jews on the earth since 70 A.D. almost make such practice inevitable?
sigh.
I am so tired of this canard. I know you're not doing this, Don, but I hope you can see how offensive this charge can be. I was accused of antisemitism for my views in a past Thinklings discussion by a Messianic Jew. It hurts, frankly.
I honestly have no earthly idea if preterism leads to antisemitism. I'm more concerned with what is biblical and true than with what might make somebody angry. Christians throughout history have used the very Gospel itself to declare unbelievers the enemy. But I don't deny the Gospel.
I know that denying a separate plan for Jews is discriminatory. I'm not really concerned by that.
I'd remind you that this thread wasn't about the destruction of AD70 anyway. And one doesn't have to be a full or partial preterist to deny a separate soteriological plan for Israel.
---
Hope these answers make sense.
I'm not sure I should have answered them, because I'm not sure how available I will be to follow up on your response. But I didn't want you to go ignored. If I don't return to the thread in a timely fashion please don't believe I'm ignoring you then either. Just busy.
6. Brian in Fresno
- 05/17/2005 8:13 am CDT
I really liked this chapter too.
I have always had difficulty with the idea of "all Israel" being confined to the physical Nation of Israel or all of the people that are ethnically Jewish. As far as I can remember, which isn't far at all, I have held the notion that "all Israel" is the Church, or all of those that are in right standing with God.
Addressing an issue in one of the above comments I think the whole anti-semitic thing could very well be from the fact that Israel was God's chosen people and that salvation is from the Jews. I can *so* easily see how this to facts could really get peoples knickers in a twist.
For question 2. My understanding of the Great Tribulation is something I've tried largly to ignore in that it goes back to the revivalist how spread his charts arcross the platform in front of the church and gaves us all the "real" dispensationalist anti-communist views that were all the rage back in the 70's. The movie "A Thief in the Night" and "The Late Great Planet Earth" were all going around.
I'm trying to come to this with a clean slate and I've had the hair on the back of my neck rise whenever I hear about *any* paster speaking on the book of Revelation or the Second Coming.
Having said that I like Hoekema's ideas on the Great Tribulation. If I understand him correctly, it's been going on for a long time and will be getting worse. So many brothers and sisters have gone through great trials and continue to do so. I would have a very hard time trying to say to these people that they aren't going through a "great tribulation" and that it is not being wraught by an "anti-christ".
For question 3. I don't really have any thoughts in particular on this. I'll be very interested in what Hoekema has to say about this.
The one thing that I came away from the chapter with is that I want to get more strongly founded on the Word of God so that I am not drawn away from reality by any of these anti-christs.
The idea of the "Vicar of Christ" being at the very least a type of "anti-christ" is interesting. I'm just not sure that I'm ready to say that one of the Popes will eventually be THE "anti-christ.
7. Don Curtis
- 05/17/2005 9:48 am CDT
Jared,
If I thought that you were anti-semitic, I would not frequent this site. I enjoy what you write and have great affection for you. I did not intend my comments to be taken personally.
I do not say that the preterist view mandates anti-semitism. I would, in fact, believe that most who hold the view are not anti-semitic--at least today. Historically, however, this has not always been the case. You and I are both aware of some of Martin Luther's writings against the Jews and the connection between those writings and the holocaust. That history remains an obstacle to Jewish evangelism in which I am heavily involved.
Out of respect for you, I will not bring this aspect up in your site again. I was not aware of prior accusations made against you, and would not care to see my comments encourage others in such a campaign. This does not mean that I might not comment on the relationship between Jews, Gentiles, and the gospel, because I believe such matters can be civilly discussed.
Affectionately,
Don
8. Kevin
- 05/18/2005 12:48 am CDT
On the subject of Israel, I stumbled across Amos 9:9-11.
For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth. All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, 'The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us.' In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
Really cool. Not one grain that is His will fall to the earth. Not one grain that is not His will survive. And the tabernacle of David, which is the church, will be built.
Not one word about whether a final restoration of Israel will occur, but great stuff.
9. Don Curtis
- 05/18/2005 3:13 am CDT
Kevin,
I note the following from your comments. You have no problem with "house of Israel" being Israel. It comes under the sword for its disobedience. But then "Tabernacle of David" is the church. By what leap do you do this? When Amos says, "Tabernacle of David that is fallen" do we not have a context--the sifting of Israel--to identify this with Israel? And if it is the church, is there a future falling of the church? Or do you split the meaning by which the fallen Tabernacle of David is Israel and the raised up Tabernacle of David is the church? Please, you cannot pick and choose your terms such that prophecies of Israel's destruction are all literal, but prophecies of her return are not.
Note Paul's image of the olive tree in Romans 11. We Gentiles are the wild olive branches grafted into the promises made to Israel. We are not a new tree! And it must be our hope that the natural branches will be joined back in. As Paul says, "What will their salvation be but life from the dead?" Paul's rejoicing at the end of Romans 11 is that the falling away of the Jews from the gospel is not permanent.
10. Kevin
- 05/18/2005 11:27 am CDT
The difference between verse 9 and verse 11 is time. Israel is the church before Christ, and the church is Israel after Christ. I do not see any spiritual distinction between the two. That is the point of the Jewish celebration of pentecost in which two loaves are formed and waved before God. As you say, there is only one Tree.
Scripturally, the reason is in Acts 15:14-17.
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His Name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom My Name is called...
James here tells the assembled believers that Amos's prophecy refers to the event that was happening. The Gentiles were pouring in to the church exactly in the way James and Amos describe.
Whatever context the prophecy seems to set for itself, scripture says the tabernacle of David is the church.
This chapter was a lot of fun to me. I pretty much ate it up.
I had never read anyone speaking on Rom 11 from an eschatological perspective before. When Hoekema made the distinction between "then" as "in this way" as opposed to "after this has happened" he had me. Amusing to me that the only point that did nothing for you is the one that I was turned by. After reading that explanation I could see why people believe that the passage is purely about spiritual Israel.
He did not have me yet, but on page 147 he clarifies that Israel can still turn to God in a miraculous way. I am not ready to believe that God has no more aces up His sleeve for Israel. I still lean toward believing that Israel plays a big part on the final stage.
His work with antichrist was just excellent. I loved his balance, and how very much he really said. I see that you drew out of this line of argument that he was slowing down the excitement over antichrist, but I was more taken that he allows for a single man of lawlessness at the end of the age. I didn't know which way he would come down, but was happy to find I agreed with him.
The argument that antichrist in Greek means "substitute Christ" was particularly interesting to me. If that is true, then it makes the title of "Vicar of Christ" particularly ironic. Could a man really be going around calling himself the antichrist in public for 1600 years without causing a stir! This may be old news to some, but it is brand new to me.
Anyway, to question 1:
Hoekema convinced me that "All Israel" is all the elect, but without moving me from my belief some of Rom 11 is talking about the Jews as a race, and not all believers.
Question 2:
I think Hoekema did a great job with the tribulation. Yes, it is here now, but it is going to get much worse for a period of time just before Christ reveals Himself as Judge of the world. I like the way he removed all the boundaries from the subject like the Christians being gone, and the subject only applying to physical Israel, etc. Good stuff. I stand by a tribulation at the end of the millenium (which we are currently enjoying) and then the end of all things. Still wondering whether all the elements melt when Christ returns as Judge.
Question 3:
No new thoughts here. I was raised pretrib, premill, etc. and this is a passage on which I have heard no new teaching. Like you, I was disappointed that Hoekema did not really add anything here. I have never heard the Michael theory that you mention. I have only heard the Holy Spirit and Roman emporers.
I think that Hoekema's argument against placing the Spirit in the role of restraining was pretty half-baked.
Dispensationalists commonly teach that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit; but this position involves the impossible eventuality that a time is coming when God will be taken "out of the way".
This sentence will not move me against that position. I think there is a strong argument to be made here, but this ain't it. The Spirit can get out of the way of one man/role/rebellion without departing the earth. The Spirit could even harden that man's heart.
Open to ideas on this one.
Thanks for hanging in there, Jared. Great post!