C. Hodge and the Future of Israel

KMK · #1 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 05:30 PM

From Charles Hodge, "Systematic Theology", Vol 3, pg 812:

Quote:

The Scriptures, then, as they have been generally understood in the Church, teach that before the Second Advent, there is to be the ingathering of the heathen; that the Gospel must be preached to all nations; and also that there is to be a national conversion of the Jews; but it is not to be inferred from this that either all the heathen or all the Jews are to become true Christians.

Page 861:

Quote:

The common doctrine of the Church stated above, is that the conversion of the world, the restoration of the Jews, and the destruction of the Antichrist are to preceed the second coming of Christ...

Hodge seems to teach that the most common view held by the Church over the centuries is that there is a future for ethnic Israel? I knew that this was one POV but did not know it was the common POV of the historic church. Is Hodge correct or has he overstated his case?

Ivanhoe · #2 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 05:44 PM

I always chuckle when someone talks about "the" position of the church over the centuries. It is not always that neat. That being said, I do think it is the most plain reading of the text.

VirginiaHuguenot · #3 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 05:44 PM

Ken -- This was the view of most Puritan-minded Christians, historically speaking. This is well documented by Iain Murray in The Puritan Hope. I listed a sample of quotes on this subject, including Hodge, previously here.

KMK · #4 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Ken -- This was the view of most Puritan-minded Christians, historically speaking. This is well documented by Iain Murray in The Puritan Hope. I listed a sample of quotes on this subject, including Hodge, previously here.

Thanks Andrew, that was exactly what I was looking for. I appreciate the obvious time it took to put that together.

Has anyone ever challenged that this was the 'common view' of the church?

Anton Bruckner · #5 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

That being said, I do think it is the most plain reading of the text.

i take the position that only a remnant would be saved, and that this happened in the pass.

and I think that this is the plain teaching of scripture.

sotzo · #6 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

I always chuckle when someone talks about "the" position of the church over the centuries. It is not always that neat. That being said, I do think it is the most plain reading of the text.

The issue of gray area with doctrine in the history of the Church makes me cringe when it comes to the doctrine of justification.

VirginiaHuguenot · #7 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Ken -- This was the view of most Puritan-minded Christians, historically speaking. This is well documented by Iain Murray in The Puritan Hope. I listed a sample of quotes on this subject, including Hodge, previously here.

Thanks Andrew, that was exactly what I was looking for. I appreciate the obvious time it took to put that together.

Has anyone ever challenged that this was the 'common view' of the church?

You're welcome, Ken. I'm sure someone, somewhere (probably here on the PB

) has or will challenge the historical record on this point. But, as Wilhelmus a'Brakel said,

Quote:

After the destruction of Jerusalem, the entire Jewish nation was dispersed and no longer has a specific residence. We are speaking here of this nation without distinction, and we believe that it will acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ -- the Messiah who was promised in the Old Testament and anticipated by the fathers. This is the general sentiment of the theologians of all ages -- even Luther and papist theologians. There are, however, also those who doubt this, and some deny it. (The Christian's Reasonable Service, Vol. 4, p. 510)

BTW, for an extended exegetical defense of this doctrine, see a'Brakel's The Christian's Reasonable Service, Vol. 4, pp. 511-535.

KMK · #8 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 08:51 PM

This might hijack the thread but its my thread anyway...

Who is considered a Jew nowadays?

No one can accurately trace their geneology back to Jacob any longer. Is someone a Jew because they practice Judaism? Is one a Jew because they live in the land of Judah? Is someone a Jew because they say they are? Who exactly is this remnant? Am I part of that remnant? If not, how do I know?

Andrew gave me my answer, so feel free to hijack.

BJClark · #9 (**permalink**) 09-04-2007, 12:56 AM

KMK;

Quote:

Hodge seems to teach that the most common view held by the Church over the centuries is that there is a future for ethnic Israel? I knew that this was one POV but did not know it was the common POV of the historic church. Is Hodge correct or has he overstated his case?

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

I look to this verse--which tells me the Israelites have been blinded UNTIL the fulness of the Gentiles--what we don't know is when the fulness of all the Gentiles to come in will be, as Gentiles are still coming to Christ--

tcalbrecht · #10 (**permalink**) 09-04-2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BJClark

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

I look to this verse--which tells me the Israelites have been blinded UNTIL the fulness of the Gentiles--what we don't know is when the fulness of all the Gentiles to come in will be, as Gentiles are still coming to Christ--

And note also that the passage says nothing definite about what is supposed to happen after the fullness of the gentiles. Many people suppose this and that, but the text is silent. Now, it might be inferred from other texts that there will be a great ingathering of both Jews and gentiles into the kingdom at some point, but this text does not offer any support to the idea that the ingathering of Jews is distinct from that of the gentiles. I don't think we can conclude that the Holy Spirit is going to stop working in the hearts of gentile and turn exclusively to the ethnic Jews (whoever they may be).

AV1611 · #11 (**permalink**) 09-04-2007, 02:51 PM

God has cast away the nation of Israel however there will be some Jews saved until all the elect are saved and the Church is complete, then Christ comes again. My view FWIW

Calvibaptist · #12 (**permalink**) 09-04-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

God has cast away the nation of Israel however there will be some Jews saved until all the elect are saved and the Church is complete, then Christ comes again. My view FWIW

Would the "all Israel" of Romans 11 refer specifically to the true children of Abraham, those of the promise described in Romans 9? Or does the "all Israel" refer to those physical descendants of Abraham who are still alive at a given point of time?

AV1611 · #13 (**permalink**) 09-04-2007, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Would the "all Israel" of Romans 11 refer specifically to the true children of Abraham, those of the promise described in Romans 9? Or does the "all Israel" refer to those physical descendants of Abraham who are still alive at a given point of time?

As I understand your question I would reply the former

Quote:

The third option is that taken by the other breed of amillennialist (as typified by Herman Ridderbos, O. Palmer Robertson, Anthony Hoekema and Robert Strimple of WTS/CA). This position argues that "all Israel" has reference to "all of the elect within the community of Israel" (Robertson, p. 226). Thus, the statement that "all Israel shall be saved" means that throughout the church age all elect Jews will come to Christ and be saved.

http://members.aol.com/twarren13/paulisra.html

Ivanhoe · #14 (**permalink**) 09-04-2007, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slippery

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

That being said, I do think it is the most plain reading of the text.

i take the position that only a remnant would be saved, and that this happened in the pass.

and I think that this is the plain teaching of scripture.

Bahnsen (a partial-preterist postmillennialist) held to a future calling of the Jews.

KMK · #15 (**permalink**) 09-04-2007, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

God has cast away the nation of Israel however there will be some Jews saved until all the elect are saved and the Church is complete, then Christ comes again. My view FWIW

Would the "all Israel" of Romans 11 refer specifically to the true children of Abraham, those of the promise described in Romans 9? Or does the "all Israel" refer to those physical descendants of Abraham who are still alive at a given point of time?

I struggle with this. I want to understand how "all Israel" could possibly refer to all physical descendants of Abraham. Surely the descendants of Ishmael would not be included, and Esau would not be included. It would have to mean the physical descendants of Jacob, right? Can anyone really trace their geneology back to Jacob? Were not the records destroyed? Jews have been marrying outside their ethnic heritage for centuries. Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew! If this remnant is converted at some point are there going to be people who say, "Cool! I never even knew I was a Jew! But now I get to be both a Christian and a Jew!"

Ivanhoe · #16 (**permalink**) 09-04-2007, 05:16 PM

Whose Holy Land: A Panel Discussion on the Role of Israel

Amillennialists are represented by Richard Gaffin.

I go with Mohler's argument at the end of the day.

AV1611 · #17 (**permalink**) 09-05-2007, 05:57 AM

http://www.monergismbooks.com/israelofgod3986.html