I am newly reformed, and come from a background with dispensational leanings, however my background is not based on the crazy rantings of some of the well known dispy guys who's names come up on here time and time again though.

I come from a church background where most members do not believe in a rapture, they believe that the church will go through the tribulation, and they believe that the nation of Israel is key in end times prophesy etc. However they wholeheartedly believe that Jews must be evangelized etc, and they are not prone to interpreting the bible using a newspaper, as was popular in the 90's

Due to this background, I have trouble when I try to study the bible without looking through "national Israel is important" glasses. I would appreciate any comments folks here have on the following passages.


Zechariah 12:8-14, 13:1-2
Zech 14
Jeremiah 30

Any help would be appreciated.

__________________
Bern
Evangelical
Kent UK

You certainly don't choose difficult passages.

I would just first of all point out that many who hold to a covenantal view of Scripture, believe from Romans 9-11, in a future national conversion of the Jews, although they believe that the Church is the New Israel. They believe that the Jews -Old Israel- must find their true fulfilment in becoming Christians. Many believe there may be predictions of blessing to the Jews in the Old Testament, although ordinarily the OT prophets are speaking of the church, Jew and Gentile.

Re Zechariah, T.V. Moore's old commentary on "Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi" (Banner of Truth) is very good.

Here's Gary de Mar's partial preterist view of Zechariah 14.

Zechariah 14 and the Coming of Christ* |* Gary DeMar

Be careful with preterism though. I would see certain events being fulfilled in a figurative coming of Christ in judgement upon the Jews and Jerusalem in A.D.70. But some in America and elsewhere have started and followed a cultic and heretical hyper-preterism which places all future events including Christ's visible advent, the resurrection and the last judgement in A.D.70.! Beware if you're gleaning for useful material from an orthodox point of view.

__________________
Richard
communicant member, FCoS
Perth, Scotland UK

His Name forever shall endure;
last like the sun it shall:
Men shall be blessed in Him,
and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)

Not heard of T.V Moore. I've got a few BOT publications though. I guess I've had a hard time entertaining some of the reformed ideas, since I come from a "Beware of Replacement Theology" background... and its made me ultra cautious without any justifiable reason.

We should all be justifiably cautious of replacement theology, it is after all most unreformed.

__________________
Mike
London City Presbyterian Church
London
England

"Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."

I'm not Dispensationalist obviously, but like many of the Reformed I believe in a place for ethnic Israel in the future redemptive history of the world. Ethnic Israel has in large measure been cut out of God's olive tree but at some point in the future will be reingrafted leading to great blessing (Romans 9-11).

God has been working with the Jews in the meantime, and there have been always some who believe, with more in our day. God isn't finished with the Jews. This is a position that has been held by many notable Reformed preachers and scholars.

The place of the Land of Israel in all of this is more complicated. It's certainly a notable providence that the - largely unbelieving - Jews have returned there. It is also a blessing to them from God. It may be predicted in the OT; I'm not sure, but it seems likely.

The Jews should turn to Christ, repent, thank God for the portion of the ancient land of Israel they have, and find a way to make peace with the Palestinians - which isn't easy since many/most Palestinians don't want peace.

In the New Covenant era, the Jews don't have the right to take the land - e.g. from the Euphrates to the Great Sea - by military force. They have a right to defend themselves and their land according to Christian Just War Theory.


See "The Restoration of Israel" by Erroll Hulse; "The Puritan Hope" by Iain Murray and "The Millenium" by Lorraine Boettner.

In a sense the Reformed don't see the return to the land as the main thing. The Apostle didn't indicate that there would be life from the dead for the worldwide Church when the Jews returned, but when they believed en masse

Interesting responses guys thanks I think the problem is that some Christians see anything that says that the Jews could be wrong in anything they do as "Replacement Theology brainwashing" and anti- semetic... its almost as if they foprget that Jewish people are just as sinful and totally depraved as gentiles. It seems to me that many reformed believers don't agree with any future hope for Israel.... I know there are Reformed writers who do, but it seems that many don't.

Yes.

There are non-optimistic amil Reformed men who try to explain away Romans 9-11 and believe that God is effectively finished with the Jews. E.g. O. Palmer Robertson - who has written some great books, e.g. "The Christ of the Covenants" as an intro to Covenant Theology.

But lots of Reformed men have believed in a future conversion leading to worldwide blessing, tending to be optimistic amil/postmil. Included among those:-

Charles Hodge, Thomas Chalmers, Robert Murray McCheyne, John Murray, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Robert L. Dabney, Oliver Cromwell, David Brown, B.B. Warfield, Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, etc.

The passages you cited are quite difficult especially the Book of Zechariah, which can be apocalyptic in places. It's best to get grounded first in why amils and postmils believe from the Gospels and Epistles that Jesus is already reigning and binding Satan with the chain of the Gospel, while extending His kingdom by the preaching of His Word, His Church, the outpouring of His Spirit and the excercise of His providence; and also why the scenario of a kingdom run from Jerusalem after Jesus' Second Advent in an imperfect world, does not chime with the Gospels or Epistles either. Also of course why we believe that Old Testament prophecy about the New Covenant period refers to the New Israel, the Church of Jews and Gentiles, although there also may be sometimes reference to Old Israel - ethnic Jews - as well - if we believe from Romans and history that God still has a role for them.

I think thats good advice Richard. I do struggle currently with the amil and postmil positions, because to me, when I read scripture it doesn't naturally seem to support either of those. However I'm aware that my premil background and teaching could be factors in this. I suppose I've never really studied the "end times" like many dispys do; I've always focused more on the practical here and now Christian living aspects.

Dear Bern,

You're very wise.

Amils and postmils can get too fascinated with the details of these things, just as much as historic premils and dispy premils.

The main things are that Jesus wll come back, the world will end, there will be a resurrection, a judgement, a Hell and a New Heavens and New Earth.

But when/if you do embrace amil/postmil, you'll find it more intellectually and spiritually satisfying. The more difficult passages like Revelation 20 are being interpreted by the easier passages.

e.g. Matthew 28:18. What implication does the fact that Jesus, now has been given all power in heaven and on earth, have for the likelihood that Revelation 20 is speaking about a future millennial reign from Jerusalem?

e.g. Matthew 12:29. What implications for the interpretation of Revelation 20 are there in the fact that Jesus already was binding Satan during His ministry.

e.g. John 5:25. What implications for the interpretation of the first resurrection in Revelation 20 does the fact that Jesus compares the new birth to resurrection from death?

Richard.