Monday, May 14, 2007
Historical Theology
After some of Greg Stancil’s posts on historic premillenialism, I am leaning toward historic premill as my view on the end times. A big part of that has to do with the wide acceptance of it in the early church. It also occurred to me (again) that historical theology can be very helpful in developing our own theology. Of course, we don’t come to our conclusions based solely on church history. For that would be a return to Roman Catholicism. Exegesis is our primary epistemological source. But it is an unwise overreaction to Rome to ignore church history in formulating our own system of theology. This got me thinking about some other areas that I have been wondering about and led me again to contemplate the role that Ten Commandments are to have in the Christian life, particularly, the fourth Commandment regarding the Sabbath Day. I asked the question, “What did the early church think about the Sabbath Day and how did it affect their practice?”. You can see for yourself in this article by Philip Schaff.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Vinnie,
Does this mean that you are leaning toward a literal 1k year earthly reign or just a “future for ethnic Israel” wherein God fulfills some covenant promises never intended to be “Church wide” so to speak, or both?
How do you understand Christ’s offer of the kingdom, and was He offering a literal 1k year earthly kingdom at that time, what do historic premils normally believe about these things?
jAsOn
This is a quote from GE Ladd (a historic premillenialist). I don't know if this answers all of your questions, but perhaps it is a start:
"What does this have to do with the present Israeli question? Three things: First, God has preserved his people. Israel remains a "holy" people (Rom. 11:16), set apart and destined to carry out the divine purpose. Second, all Israel is yet to be saved. One modern scholar has suggested that in the millennium history may witness for the first time a truly Christian nation. Third, the salvation of Israel must be through the new covenant made in the blood of Christ already established with the church, not through a rebuilt Jewish temple with a revival of the Mosaic sacrificial system. Hebrews flatly affirms that the whole Mosaic system is obsolete and about to pass away. Therefore the popular Dispensational position that Israel is the "clock of prophecy" is misguided. Possibly the modern return of Israel to Palestine is a part of God's purpose for Israel, but the New Testament sheds no light on this problem. However, the preservation of Israel as a people through the centuries is a sign that God has not cast off his people Israel."
I am leaning toward a literal earthy reign that is not Jewish and that may be 1,000 years or just a long time. What I mean is basically what Ladd says here:
"[Dispensationalism" holds that the millennium is primarily for the Jews. Israel will be restored to her land, will rebuild the temple, and will reinstitute the Old Testament sacrificial system. At this time all of the Old Testament prophecies about Israel as a nation will be fulfilled literally. This is deduced from the conviction that God has two distinct and separate peoples:
Israel and the Church, with two different programs and different blessings. God's program for Israel is theocratic and earthly; God's purpose for the church is universal and spiritual.
"Although he was brought up in this theology, the present author can no longer accept it. The reader is referred to chapter two of this book where the future of Israel is discussed. Hebrews 8 says clearly that the age of types and shadows -- the Old Testament cultic system -- has been abolished since the reality pictured in the cult has come in Christ. Romans 11 says clearly that Israel as a people are to be saved (he believes in a revival a the Jews living at that time), but in the same terms of faith in Christ as the church. Today the church is spiritual Israel, and literal Israel is yet to be regrafted back into the olive tree and be included in the true Israel of God. Therefore, it is impossible to view the millennium as primarily Jewish in character."
Does that help?
Also, I don't know for sure, but I think that the offer of the kingdom was merely an offer of the gospel, not a literal kingdom. For Christ said "My kingdom is not of this world."
Vinnie,
Based on your prelim. reading of Ladd, do you think that it is safe to say that a historic premillenarian could believe that all of the covenant promises will be fulfilled in the Church, while still holding to a future for ethnic Israel in the form of some sort of national revival based on passages like Romans 11?
Greg, Yep!
And this is why the term "replacement theology" (while not really the most accurate or best term to use) is true not only for amillinialists but also historic premillenialists.
Vinnie,
Even if the earthly reign isn't Jewish, do you think it will still be centered around Jerusalem? It seems that is what the early fathers thought.
Vinnie, this is a response to your first comment with Ladd's quote, and I’m sorry this is so long. I’m not quite sure how we can call ethnic Israel (as a whole) “holy” and children of wrath at the same time, because if they are not saved, then they are children of wrath. Eph 2-3
I understand what point Ladd is trying to make, and I know that not every nation was set apart in the sense that Israel was, to display God’s holiness through the law and His merciful grace through the Messiah, but all nations and individuals are destined to carry out God’s purpose for them, and that purpose is by nature, divine. I don’t completely understand the bifurcation of believers that this position seems, to me, to necessitate, namely that the “Christian nation” Ladd speaks of may or may not be referring to an exclusively Jewish/Christian nation. And if it is not, and the Christian nation is (as I think the NT explicitly state) “neither Jew nor Greek…”, then the distinction between Jew and gentile, that appears to be here expressed, is lost. Perhaps I don’t understand what he is saying.
I think it was Mohler who suggested that within the broader body called the Church, ethnic Israel will receive the fulfillment of exclusively Jewish promises in some future age. This seems more plausible to me (and it may be what Ladd would have said) but what promises are those, and which covenant, again, I am no expert. The thing that really irritates me is when I hear American evangelicals taking the side of an Israeli nation who is presently rejecting God as a whole over the side of their real brothers and sisters in Christ who are Palestinians. This comes from a view that says that God promised ethnic Israel the land so it is theirs for the taking. Perhaps we should recall the scathing criticism Elijah had for Ahab and Jezebel when they took Naboth's vineyard violently (1 Kings 21). I for one cannot fathom saying to a Palestinian Christian that he and his family must move away because they are occupying the land that is reserved for “God’s people”. My guess is that this is the view only of the Ryrie dispy types, and not historic premilers, and even then I don’t think the dispys would come out and say that, but I think is a situation forced by their eschatology which has gone unconsidered.
I am glad to hear Ladd’s comments regarding the temple in his third point, but the return to the land thing still troubles me, I don’t care who affirms it.
jAsOn
Vinnie,
Your 2nd comment was helpful in many regards: premils don’t necessarily believe in a literal 1000 year, Earthly, Jewish Kingdom, therefore they would say the same things about Christ’s “offer ” of the kingdom that amils would say, and I wish I had read your post before I had posted my previous comment. I concur with your understanding of the offer, but another question now comes to mind…what do “reign” and “kingdom” mean?
jAsOn
We can call ethnic Israel "holy" because the term is first, relational and objective - not ethical, subjective and progressive. It refers simply to the fact that they were set apart unto God and still hold a place in the affections of God and in the future at some point, God will draw a large portion of these ethnic Jews to themselves. Paul talks about this in Romans 9:4-5. Piper makes a very strong case for this in "The Justification of God". Besides, in Romans 11 these ethnic Jews are likened to a "holy" lump of dough and "natural" branches over against gentiles who are being engrafted. I agree with you on idea that the land is the Jews because God said so. As for their current state they are accursed and separated from Christ as Paul implies when he wishes that he could take their place in Rom 9:3. He then jumps into all of the priveleges that he still considers to be theirs. This is what causes the whole problem that he begins to deal with in verse 6. "But it is not as though the word of God as failed." I'm rambling...
Post a Comment