Churches That Deny Israel’s Glorious Future Erode The Integrity Of Scripture – By Jonathan Brentner – https://harbingersdaily.com/churches-that-deny-israels-glorious-future-erode-the-integrity-of-scripture/
It seems totally harmless to most Christians. Many pastors who promote it also adhere to the Gospel of grace; they preach Jesus as the only way to Heaven.
The danger that I’m referring to is the belief that God rejected Israel after Jesus’ crucifixion and replaced the nation with the church (referred to as Replacement Theology), which is immensely popular in churches today.
However, not only does this teaching present a false view of our “blessed hope” (Titus 2:11-14), it also undermines the integrity of Scripture and thereby endangers the purity of the Gospel.
Churches with a long history of denying a future restored kingdom for Israel are most often those that today promote Wokeism and proclaim the tenants of cancel culture rather than the saving message of the cross.
In the sections below, I explore three factors that historically led to the false belief that the church is now God’s kingdom on earth. These underpinnings of Replacement Theology remain in place today and help us understand why it’s anything but a harmless teaching.
ANTI-SEMITISM
I encountered anti-Semitism in a prophecy class that I taught several years ago. The man who vigorously opposed my teaching held to a popular variation of Replacement Theology called Preterism, which teaches that Jesus returned to earth in AD 70 and fulfilled most, if not all, of future prophecy in the Bible. It was not until the end of the class that I discovered his hatred of the Jewish people lay at the root of his heretical beliefs.
Anti-Semitism was a key factor in Augustine’s amillennialism (Replacement Theology), and it also explains why the Reformers did not extend their literal interpretation of God’s Word to passages that teach the future restoration of a kingdom for Israel. Both Calvin and Luther continued the anti-Semitism that dominated the church during the Dark Ages.
Historically, such racism has fueled the denial of a restored kingdom for Israel. The resurgence of this teaching during the past few decades explains, at least in part, the increase of animosity toward the nation of Israel and the Jewish people within mainline denominations and also in many evangelical churches.
THE BIBLICAL RESPONSE: GOD IS NOT FINISHED WITH ISRAEL
First of all, the Promised Land still belongs to Israel and to no one else.
Psalm 105:8-11 tells us that God’s covenant with the Patriarchs regarding the Land is an “everlasting covenant.” Although Israel’s enjoyment of the land has always depended upon her obedience to the Lord, He unconditionally promised that the Land would always belong to them. We have not yet reached the end of “everlasting;” God’s covenant of the Land, which He made with the Patriarchs, remains in effect.
Apart from retrofitting Old Testament prophecies that pertain to Israel’s restoration to fit with the presuppositions of Replacement Theology, one cannot read the words of prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Zephaniah, and Zechariah without recognizing the Lord’s clear intention to restore a glorious kingdom to Israel in the future.
If the words of Scripture mean what they say, and they do, God will keep all His promises to the descendants of Jacob including that of giving them all the Land He promised to them.
God’s Word is clear: God is not finished with Israel. He will restore a glorious kingdom to the nation just as He promised He would do. Those who deny this must resort to other means to explain away the clear biblical prophecies that support it.
ALLEGORIZATION OF SCRIPTURE
The allegorizing of biblical texts is the second of three factors that theologians use to support Replacement Theology. This is the applying of symbolical meanings to prophecies referring to Israel so that they align spiritually with the church and thus make it God’s kingdom.
This practice began with Philo, an Alexandrian Jew who lived during the time of Christ. He admired Greek philosophy and much to the dismay of Rabbis he used allegory as a means to make the Old Testament more appealing to the Greeks.
In the second century AD, Clement and Origen adopted Philo’s allegorical approach. Clement (AD 150-215) also “embraced Greek philosophy and maintained that Scripture must be understood allegorically so as not to contradict it.” Origen (AD 185-254) used allegory to make biblical prophecy comply with Plato’s dualism, which stated that only the spiritual, immaterial realm was good. Origen was also a universalist; he believed that God would save everyone through the means of reincarnation. He was regarded as a heretic in the ancient church.
At the beginning of the fifth century AD, a much more capable theologian named Augustine affirmed Origen’s allegorical approach to biblical prophecy and steered the church away from its longtime premillennial footing in favor of amillennialism, i.e., the denial of Jesus’ Millennial rule as recorded in Revelation 20:1-10.
During the dark ages, theologians extended Augustine’s allegorization of prophetic texts to many passages in the New Testament, which led to the contamination of the doctrine of justification by faith and the Gospel. Works became the basis of ones salvation rather than the finished work of Christ upon the cross.
Allegory never remains confined to biblical passages dealing with prophecy; it always spreads. It always leads to further false teaching.
THE BIBLICAL RESPONSE: WORDS MATTER
Words matter in all of Scripture.
Notice the words of the apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1:20-21, “. . . knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Just as the prophets of old did not speak from their own understanding, in the same way we must not apply our own private “interpretations” to what they wrote; we must let the words speak for themselves.
The Greek word for “spoke” in verse 21 is laleo. According to Trench in in his book Synonyms of the New Testament, the “prominent notion” of this verb is “the fact of uttering articulated speech. . . it is the words uttered, and that these correspond to reasonable thoughts . . . .”
Biblical prophets, in both the Old and New Testament, expressed truths in words as God moved them through the Holy Spirit (see also 2 Tim. 3:16; Proverbs 2:6). God intended for the words to speak for themselves and not be overlaid with interpretations that come solely as the result of human wisdom.
Yes, the biblical authors used symbolism and figures of speech, but they did so in a way that was clear. We must never veer from what the authors of biblical prophecy intended to communicate to us at the time they wrote. We are not free to interpret Scripture in a way that does not align with the words on the page.
PLATONISM
The practice of allegorizing Scripture began with the purpose of making Greek philosophy compatible with the Old Testament so that it would appeal to the Greeks who valued human wisdom. Origen used it to negate the physical blessings of the millennium so as to comply with the teachings of Plato, who taught that all matter was evil.
Although Augustine claimed to disagree with Plato on most issues, he nevertheless incorporated the philosopher’s unbiblical scheme of reality into his theology. He stated that the Millennium “would not be objectionable” if somehow “the nature of the millennial kingdom was a ‘spiritual one’ rather than a physical one.” He objected to the thoughts of “carnal banquets,” which he visualized as a part of such a kingdom.
Augustine’s basis for rejecting Jesus’ thousand-year reign over a restored Israel came from the teachings of Plato, not the Bible.
John Calvin and Martin Luther also viewed the teachings of Plato with fondness.
E. J. Hutchinson, in his article Calvin’s Plato, cited several of John Calvin’s references to Plato. He summarized his findings with these words, “In conclusion, Calvin makes regular use of Plato’s philosophy both in philosophical and in theological contexts. Far from being mere window-dressing, he often finds in Plato an argumentative ally against his contemporary opponents. Plato was, in other words, a living source of truth for Calvin.”
Martin Luther, a former monk who belonged to the Augustinian Order, also did not distance himself from Augustine’s Platonism in regard to future things. Though not as evident as with John Calvin, Luther nevertheless had a high regard for Plato.
Platonism remains an active force in Christianity. Does this explains why most pastors only briefly mention the resurrection of believers, if at all, and never refer to the “incorruptible” and glorious bodies we will receive at Jesus’ appearing (1 Corinthians 15:51-55; Philippians 3:20-21)? I believe it’s a factor.
THE BIBLICAL RESPONSE: GOD CREATED THE MATERIAL WORLD
The Bible absolutely refutes the teachings of Plato. Throughout Genesis 1, God made it abundantly clear that His creation of the material world was “good” in contrast to what the pagan philosopher taught.
Consider the words of Psalm 16:11,“You make known to me the path of life; / in your presence there is fullness of joy; / at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.” Even as I type the words of this verse, I feel the platonic pull of the past suggesting to me that the meaning of “pleasures” is not really what it says.
If the Lord says we will celebrate with a feast at the marriage supper of the lamb, why would anyone consider that carnal or sinful? That’s beyond ridiculous. Yet that’s precisely the way of thinking that became a key foundation for rejecting a literal interpretation of Revelation 20:1-10, as well as a multitude of verses in the Old Testament that speak to the future restoration of a glorious kingdom for Israel.
The continuing influence of platonic thought can also be seen in the false interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:51-55. In order to maintain the church as God’s kingdom on earth, some pastors claim this passage refers to what happens to us at the time of our regeneration rather than at the Rapture. Such a viewpoint contradicts both the context and the Gospel.
THE DANGER TO THE GOSPEL
Churches that deny a future glorious restoration for the nation of Israel set in motion an erosion of the integrity of Scripture that over time leads to grievous false teaching.
It may not happen right away, but the allegorical approach to prophetic passages in God’s Word always bleeds into other texts and over time always leads to errors that threaten the purity of the Gospel. Count on it.
Places of worship that adhere to Wokeism today more often than not have a long history of denying a future glorious kingdom for Israel.
That’s why I say that all such teaching in its various forms represents a clear and present danger to the purity of the Gospel. Not immediately, but it happens without fail given enough time.
Defending the promised future restoration of a glorious kingdom to Israel is in essence a defense of the saving message of Jesus.
