The Myth of Recent Origins for the Theology of the Restoration of Israel

The Myth of Recent Origins for the Theology of the Restoration of Israel

The catalyst for this article was my search for a piece on the views of the Wesleys — the founders of Methodism — on the Jewish people and their restoration. A very good article by Asbury Seminary professor Nicholas Railton, Charles Wesley and the Jews, turned up in my search. I had not really looked into this before, but several of Charles Wesley’s hymns pointed clearly to the restoration of the Jewish people. I was right, and Railton’s article confirms a very robust affirmation in Charles Wesley. See the link here: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2638&context=asburyjournal

One of the pervasive myths now gaining new traction on social media is that belief in the election of the ethnic Jewish people is a theological aberration of recent origin, traceable to John Nelson Darby in the mid-19th century (the founder of Dispensationalism). Tucker Carlson, who now platforms antisemites, has asserted this as well — going so far as to call Christian Zionism a “brain disease.” He is no biblical theologian. But more credible voices repeat this falsehood too, among them Munther Isaac of Bethlehem Bible College. One of the most common errors across many fields of knowledge is putting forward theories and narratives that fail to account for all the evidence. In the theory of knowledge, we call this the criterion of comprehensiveness (see my book The Biblical World View: An Apologetic).

The history of the historic Protestant Evangelical view on Israel is somewhat complex. Yes, there were Protestants who continued to teach that the Church was the Israel of God and had superseded ethnic Israel, which was no longer God’s elect people. But many Protestant thinkers and biblical theologians disagreed.

Back to the Bible

The Reformation was a back-to-the-Bible movement. Its doctrine of grounding all teaching in Scripture alone (sola Scriptura) meant that many came to their understanding by reading the Bible in context and accepting the plain meaning of the text — unless the text itself indicated analogy or symbol. One of the finest books on this subject is The Puritan Hope by Iain Murray, which surveys Puritan thought from the late 1500s through the 1600s. Murray argues that the consensus affirmed the continued election of ethnic Israel and their eventual turning to the Lord — and several Puritans argued for a literal return to the Land. English Puritans like Elnathan Parr and Samuel Rutherford were very clear on this. The founder of Harvard, Puritan Increase Mather, could not have been plainer in his exposition of Romans 9–11.

Murray does not extend his account beyond the Puritans, but the story continues. The Lutheran Pietists — Jacob Philip Spener, August Hermann Francke, and the commentator J. A. Bengel — embraced restorationist ideas as well. These men were among the influences on Ludwig von Zinzendorf, who became the leader of the Moravians. His commitment to the Jewish people was passionate; he even planted several Messianic Jewish congregations. He, in turn, influenced the Wesleys.

The Growing Consensus in British Christianity

By the 1800s, these convictions about the election of the Jewish people and their restoration to the Land had gained wide adherents across Great Britain. This was part of the background for the joint German Lutheran Pietist–Anglican effort to found Christ Church near the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem (ministry beginning in 1842, the center completed in 1849). The British Parliament passed legislation to establish this church. Queen Victoria was involved and endorsed it. The project was undertaken in anticipation of the Jewish people’s return to the Land and their coming to faith near the time of the Second Coming. Christ Church in Jerusalem stands today as a monument to that history — and it was certainly among the currents that shaped Britain’s Balfour Declaration supporting a Jewish homeland in the Land. This history is well told in Oskar Skarsaune’s book Israel’s Friend. Sadly, this fine work by the former dean of the Lutheran theological seminary in Oslo exists only in Norwegian.

In any case, all of this history — except for Balfour itself — predates any influence of Darby. I only wish that those who oppose the doctrine of Israel’s restoration would at least tell the truth, rather than advancing a partial and misleading narrative.

Today, even the Roman Catholic Catechism affirms the election of the Jewish people and declares that God’s gifts and call to Israel are irrevocable (Romans 11:29). It cites Romans 9 — “to them belong the covenants.” Does that include the promise of the Land? It is not stated explicitly, but the implication is plain, and some Roman Catholic leaders have said so. The Catechism also ties the return of Yeshua to the Jewish nation’s turning to him (see paragraphs 674 and 839).

So let us be bold. Our view of Israel’s restoration is not some recent aberration — it is a classical Protestant position with deep and distinguished roots. Let us learn this history and defend our theology. For a summary, see my book Passion for Israel.

Why I Avoid Teaching a Detailed Scenario on the Last Days and Today’s Wars in the Middle East

The doctrine of the last days, or eschatology, is an important study in biblical theology. There is now an overwhelming consensus in biblical scholarship that the last days began in the first century with the coming of Yeshua—His ministry, death, resurrection, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Feast of Shavuot (Pentecost). The Kingdom of God has come, but in an “already and not yet” way. We are invited to live in and from the Kingdom under the rule of Yeshua, to live in Kingdom community.

There is, however, much in regard to the Kingdom that is not yet. Until the Age to Come, after the return of Yeshua, this “not yet” will continue. There will be a final intervention at His return that brings His Kingdom rule in fullness. We are the players on the stage of last days/eschatological history who, by fulfilling the will of God and extending the Kingdom of God, move history toward the climax of His coming again. I am happy to say that there is broad consensus on this understanding.

The Last of the Last Days

However, there is still the matter of the last of the last days and the description of battles or wars that are part of the events at the end of this age leading to His coming. One of the key events is the turning of the Jewish nation to Yeshua. This last-days event is described in the Roman Catholic Catechism, paragraph 674, as key to His return. He will not return until His ancient people recognize Him. Yes, even the Roman Catholic Catechism notes that the end of this period is connected to the Jewish people.

I do want to address the detailed scenarios that some put forth about the last of the last days, especially those connected to events in the Middle East and the nation of Israel. In this time of war with Iran, many seek to find these events predicted in the Bible. When I was a teenager, concentration on end-times scenarios was a major emphasis. For those who did not live through that time, it is hard to imagine. There were regional prophetic conferences. Detailed scenarios were presented about the lineup of nations against Israel—a restored Roman Empire of nations, the importance of Russia as a key invader from the north, and China from the east.

I was intrigued and made special efforts to attend—sometimes at the summer camp where I was a counselor and sometimes in New York City. During my college and graduate school years, after reading many interpretations, I came to the conclusion that we are not meant to know the detailed sequence of events, but only a broad outline.

Ezekiel 38 and 39 provide one example. Do these events, describing an invasion of Israel from the north—Gog and Magog—occur before the time of the Antichrist and then lead to a lull? Note that it takes Israel seven years to burn the weapons of the defeated invaders (39:9–10). There is no description in these texts of the coming of the Messiah in glory (Zech. 14).

Three primary interpretations are common. The first is that this is simultaneous with the battle for Jerusalem and the defeat of the forces of the Antichrist—simply describing a parallel battle in the mountains of Israel. The burning of the weapons then takes place during the beginning of the Millennial Age. The second, as described above, is that this battle takes place some years before the battle for Jerusalem in Zechariah 12 and 14. The tribulation and the Antichrist come later as a separate matter. The third is that it is symbolic of the final war before the Age to Come, and we are not to pin down specifics at all.

Dr. J. Barton Payne was a brilliant professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School. I highly recommend his volume, An Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy. Payne interprets every predictive prophecy in the Bible and presents a case for the time of fulfillment for each one. He lists 15 periods of fulfillment. The Ezekiel passage is placed at the end of the Millennium as the final rebellion—the same as the rebellion after the 1,000 years in Revelation 20.

Well, I have to say that after reading these various views, I am not convinced that I know. I lean toward the second interpretation.

Who are the nations that Ezekiel describes? Traditional prophecy conferences from the 1960s identified this as a Russia-led alliance. But convincing arguments have been put forth by Walid Shoebat and Joel Richardson that Turkey is the nation involved, and that the descriptions and language better fit tribes in northern Turkey. I think there is credibility to their arguments. Classical Dispensationalism argued that the Antichrist would arise from a revived Roman Empire, not this coalition. Richardson, however, argues that the Antichrist is Islamic.

The Broad Outline

I have come to the conclusion that it is not important to know the detailed sequence of the last events before the return of Yeshua, and that we should not spend much time trying to figure it out. However, I do believe in a broad outline that guides my response to events today.

First, the Body of the Messiah will be completing its task of preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom in all the nations as a witness (Matthew 24:14). Secondly, many Christians will partner with Messianic Jews to make Israel jealous (Romans 11:14). This witness will be accompanied by revivals and outpourings of the Spirit (Joel 2:28–30). Israel will be prepared to corporately call on Yeshua (Matthew 23:39).

Thirdly, there will be invasions and wars (Ezekiel 38–39) leading to a final invasion where the forces of the Antichrist reach Jerusalem. Multitudes from the nations will be involved (Joel 3). The Jewish people will be anointed to fight (Zechariah 12), but the defeat of their enemies leads to tearful repentance and looking upon Yeshua whom they pierced. A parallel passage in Zechariah 14 describes the final invasion and the coming of Yeshua, who stands on the Mount of Olives and defeats all the invaders (Zechariah 14; Revelation 19).

I do not think we need to concern ourselves with more than this broad outline.

In this light, how should we view the war with Iran and its proxies? It is one of those last-days wars and does foreshadow more to come. But I believe there will also be a time of peace. I would simply say: keep your eye on Turkey. I thought this even before they became more radically aligned in the Muslim world and moved away from their earlier alliance with Israel.

Israel’s Restoration, Historic Protestant Teaching

Arguing Against the Election of Ethnic Israel by Refuting Dispensationalism

Most proponents of supersessionism—the doctrine that Israel is re-defined after the first century and consists only of those who follow Yeshua—hold that ethnic Israel is no longer elect. Some call this replacement theology. Usually, those who argue for this view contrast it with Dispensationalism, a system of theology that dominated American Evangelicalism in the 20th century. It had its origins in the mid-1800s and was first put forth as a systematic theology by John Nelson Darby.

In my evaluation, Dispensationalism presents many problematic views. For example, it posits two separate peoples of God: the Church and Israel/the Jewish people. This separation is so complete in classic Dispensationalism that one cannot be part of both. A Messianic Jew, in this framework, is not spiritually part of Israel but instead part of the destiny of the Bride, the Church.

Robert McKenzie’s Presentation and a Rejoinder

A recent book by Robert McKenzie, Identifying the Seed: An Examination and Evaluation of the Differences Between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, argues that there is now one seed of Abraham that counts—those who follow Jesus. This is also the view of classical Reformed Calvinism. It is one of the strongest books I have read supporting Reformed Covenant theology and one of the most persuasive presentations of replacement theology.

It is persuasive, in part, because it leaves out the evidence of many texts that simply cannot be fit into the system. One of the points the author misses is how a non-Dispensationalist understands the election of both the Church and Israel. We do not see these elections as implying permanently separate peoples. Rather, we see an intersecting—and ultimately one—people.

I argued this in my book Jewish Roots, first published in 1986. The Messianic Jew is both part of the Church and part of the nation of Israel. In addition, when all Israel is saved, the Jewish people will be part of the Church while still being preserved as a distinct nation. This is because nations or ethnic groups are part of God’s enrichment of humanity and are preserved in the New Jerusalem.

Israel is a nation qua nation among the nations and an instrument of God through which He will gain total victory and submission from all nations. The Church is also an instrument of that victory—not as a literal nation, but as a saved remnant from every nation. In one dimension, Israel and the Church will be one, yet Israel and the nations are also preserved as nations.

McKenzie does not address God’s purpose for nations. This is well addressed by R. Kendall Soulen in The God of Israel and Christian Theology. Israel and the nations form an eternal dyad that shows God’s love for distinct nations and corporate peoples, which He preserves. Ultimately, Israel and the nations will come into a place of mutual blessing, as predicted in the prophets. Soulen, it should be noted, is not a Dispensationalist.

McKenzie objects to the premillennial view in which all the promises are fulfilled for Israel in that age, while the Church is absent. Yes, classic Dispensationalism held this view. However, a better view holds that Israel and the Church rule together in that age: the Church representing all nations, while Israel continues in its national life as well.

The Election of Ethnic Israel Held by Non-Premillennialists

However, I do not think it is wise to make premillennialism so primary that without it we cannot defend the election of Israel. Richard Lovelace, the late professor of Church History at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and the late J. Rodman Williams of Regent University both held a robust view of the election of ethnic Israel and the fulfillment of her destiny as a nation in the New Heavens and New Earth.

The Roman Catholic Church also affirms the continued election of ethnic Israel. All three are amillennial—that is, they do not hold to a literal 1,000-year period before the New Heavens and New Earth. Do I believe this is the best view when considering all the evidence? No. But the election of Israel is more important to our argument and is not dependent on premillennialism.

McKenzie does not take texts in their natural sense but redefines their meaning in accord with a supposed New Testament reinterpretation. These new applications, however, do not change the original meaning or the fulfillment of what was prophesied. We argue for taking biblical texts in their natural sense.

Historic Ethnic Israel Restorationism

Christian Zionism is the modern term for Christians who believe that the Bible predicts the regathering of the Jewish people to their ancient Land. They support Israel and this regathering on a biblical basis. However, before this term was used, many in Church history—long before Darby—believed in the election of the Jewish people, and some also believed in their return to the Land. This was called Restorationism.

We can trace the beginnings of Restorationism to the Puritans, who were not premillennialists. This history is well recounted in The Puritan Hope by Ian Murray. Romans 11 is a prominent text for these expositors. In the 1600s, we find this view clearly taught. Most notable is Increase Mather, founder and first president of Harvard. Others include the expositor Elnathan Parr and the famed defender of the Law of God, Samuel Rutherford.

This perspective influenced Lutheran Pietists in the 1700s, such as Philipp Spener. Jonathan Edwards also embraced the continuing election of ethnic Israel. Indeed, “Though they are enemies of the Gospel… they are beloved and elect” (Romans 11:29). In the same period, Ludwig von Zinzendorf, leader of the Moravians, was firmly committed to this view and influenced by the Pietists.

In the early 19th century, this perspective became strong among Anglicans. My book Passion for Israel provides a summary of this history.

One Body Plus Ethnic Israel

Rightly defining the Body—the one new humanity of Jew and Gentile—while maintaining the national election of Israel/the Jewish people is key to answering McKenzie and others who argue similarly.

I am convinced that our view rests on the overwhelming evidence of Scripture. Some years ago, I presented a paper laying out this evidence to the Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams. After hearing it, he confirmed that what I presented reflected the right understanding of Paul and the Bible.

Separation of Church and State — Again

This follows an earlier article. Readers should understand that my position is informed first by the Bible, then by the Reformed Protestant consensus that influenced the early formation of the United States constitutional system, and finally by the history of how this separation was interpreted.

The Bible and the prophets make clear that nations are accountable to God and to basic universal laws of righteousness. Whatever human governments might arrange, the Bible is our ultimate authority on this issue. A recent, insightful book on the formation of the U.S. constitutional system by Jewish and Christian authors illuminates the founders’ thinking (Wilfred M. McClay, Jewish Roots of American Liberty).

Reformed theology developed a correct understanding of separation. It held that three necessary spheres of authority exist: the family, the state (civil society), and the religious sphere (the Church). Each sphere is largely autonomous and accountable to God’s law within its own domain. There is mutual influence and some overlap, but one sphere should not control another. The state, for example, does not preach the Gospel — that is not its sphere.

This understanding aligns with the Declaration of Independence, which affirmed that all human beings are created equal and that rights are God-given, not granted by the state. That assumption underlay the Constitution even if it was not explicitly stated. Therefore, laws had to be measured against Biblical civil law for legitimacy. The battle against slavery manifested this understanding. Many founders repeatedly affirmed that the Republic’s success depended on the morality of the people, and that morality was sustained by religious faith. Morality would falter without that religious foundation. Washington, Adams, Franklin, Adams (again), and even the heterodox Jefferson strongly affirmed this. The state’s function, within its sphere, was to provide order in which religion could flourish — by religion, they assumed the religion of the Bible. The state’s accountability to God was acknowledged in congressional prayers, prayers at national celebrations, and acknowledgments by political leaders until recent times.

The laws for the state derived mostly — though not exclusively — from the Hebrew Bible. Part of that understanding is that the state would make no laws undermining the foundation and prosperity of marriage and family, since family stability was essential to the functioning of the state. Today, the breakdown of the family correlates with the breakdown of law and order. The state should make no law impeding the religious sphere. The religious sphere has a teaching and prophetic function to call the state to obedience to God in its domain. Laws promoting gender fluidity, transgenderism, or same-sex marriage, in this view, undercut reverence for marriage and family. Without the Law of God, civilization becomes like a cut flower — there is no measure to determine unrighteous law. The Bible warns against such unrighteous laws.

We speak of the Laws of God for the state as universals, not the time-limited statutes. This begins by recognizing that all human beings are created in the image of God and deserve equality before the law. It includes those commandments from the Ten Commandments that apply to the civil sphere: no stealing, no bearing false witness, not murdering, and honoring God (for example, oaths in courts). It includes just weights and measures (honesty in business), honest judges and courts where two or three witnesses are necessary in capital convictions, and the rejection of trial by ordeal. It sets up sufficient lower courts for accessible justice with appeals to higher courts. It enjoins severe penalties for murder, rape, and kidnapping. We take these standards for granted but many societies did not practice them. In the Bible, might does not make right; the ruler is accountable to God’s law, not above it. There is also a separation of powers and checks and balances in a decentralized system. The United States even applied the Sabbatical-year law for debt relief in bankruptcy filings, though only every seven years.

I believe the state is duty-bound to acknowledge accountability to God and his law. Hence we read “In God We Trust” and “one nation under God.” How should the state treat those who do not believe in God or his law? As citizens created in God’s image, they are due equal rights and dignity. They may opt out of the state’s confession of God, but they must recognize the majority will when the polity acknowledges the state’s accountability to God. The system we promote is possible only when the majority of citizens embrace it; the founders understood this. I again call for a more accurate historical understanding of the separation of church and state and of the Jewish-Biblical foundation of society.

https://restorationfromzion.com Theology of Hymns

The Theology of Hymns

The Bible’s Detractors
Detractors claim that the Bible presents us with a cruel God, even a sadistic God, and that biblical faith is evil. This is because they read texts about the command of Israel to wipe out different ethnic groups that inhabited ancient Canaan, and passages about the hard judgment that awaits evil people either after death or at the final judgment. I wrote about this issue recently on this website. This reaction is focused on less than 10% of the hard texts in the Bible. There are good explanations for these texts. See Walter Kaiser’s book on The Hard Sayings of the Bible. There are many writers who address these issues. Yes, a fearful judgment awaits those who reject God and the truth.

The Canonical Thrust of the Bible
Some years ago, Dr. Brevard Childs of Yale Divinity School argued that our theological convictions should be based on the overall thrust of the Bible on particular subjects. He called this the canonical thrust of the Bible and argued that we should submit ourselves to the teaching that arises from this canonical thrust. However, without belief in the full authority of all biblical texts, there is too much subjectivity in the selection and judgment of what that thrust really is. This does not lead to being true to the canonical thrust.

Theology through the Hymns
I want to propose that we look at the issue of the canonical thrust of the Bible through the hymnology of the people of God. There is a great compendium of hymns from the Middle Ages to today. It is painful to me that the place of the great hymns in many congregations has been lost. One writer wrote, for example, that Methodists learned their theology from their hymns. I would venture that this was true for many others, not only Methodists. The hymns give us a good sense of the canonical thrust of the Bible. Some topics are left out, but so much is included.

What Do the Hymns Present in Theology?
They present God as a God of love who gave His Son as a sacrifice. We read from Wesley, Amazing Love, How Can It Be. They present the suffering of Yeshua for us in a deep and touching way, as in the Bernard of Clairvaux and Bach hymn, O Sacred Head, Now Wounded. God is presented as a God of miraculous intervention and as One with whom we can have an intimate, conversational relationship. In I Come to the Garden, we sing, “He walks with me, and He talks with me and tells me I am His own.” He is our provider in God Will Take Care of You: “Be not dismayed whatever be, God will take care of you.” He is faithful in Great Is Thy Faithfulness. He is our mighty fortress in A Mighty Fortress Is Our God. He is majestic in How Great Thou Art. Yes, God is the true and righteous Judge, but the greater emphasis is on the offer of salvation, not condemnation—though that danger is certainly present, as in Sleeper’s Ye Must Be Born Again. He is coming again, “with power and great glory.”

I would urge the reader to purchase a great book of hymns, such as Hymns for the Living Church. Read through it devotionally and see the theology of the Bible expressed in hymns.

The Canonical Thrust of the Jewish Worship Book
I would also recommend purchasing a Jewish worship book, the Siddur. In this devotional book, we see how our people put the theology of the Hebrew Bible into worship. It is the canonical thrust as perceived by classic Jewish devotional writers.

How did our most spiritually in-tune people read the Bible? This is such an interesting study. Be encouraged.

Judaism, Christianity and the Decline of Western Civilization

I recently read a profound book by Melanie Phillips. I am familiar with her mostly from op-eds she has written for the Jerusalem Post. She is a Modern Orthodox Jew and a moderate conservative, a British Israeli. I usually find her writings convincing and insightful. Her thesis in this book is profound, and I agree with about 90 percent of it. It is very much in line with my own views.

Western Civilization Is Based on the Bible

The best of Western Civilization is based on the Bible, especially the Hebrew Bible. The failures of Western Civilization are due to a failure to live up to biblical law and values, while progress comes when people recognize the disparity and seek to more fully implement biblical norms. This was the case in the fight against slavery. I think of William Wilberforce in England, a deeply committed Anglican Evangelical, and Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin and also composed hymns.

For Phillips, Judaism provided the world with these laws and values, and Christianity was key in mediating them to the Western world. Civil society should acknowledge God and His law as the source of our law and values. This provides the best foundation for rights and responsibilities, separation of powers, the worth of every human being, and much more. I would add the American Declaration of Independence, which affirms that every human being is created equal and that basic rights are endowed by the Creator.

A Wrong Understanding of the Separation of Church and State

For Phillips and for me, the prevailing understanding of the separation of Church and State is a profound mistake. The West should acknowledge and honor the source of its laws and values: fair courts, checks on power, and rulers who are under the law rather than above it. Morality, the family, and biblical sexual ethics are all crucial to a future, prospering society.

She calls for a partnership between conservative Jews and Christianity to restore biblical norms as the foundation of society and for this foundation to be publicly acknowledged. Minorities who do not believe in God or the Bible can still embrace these values, and minority rights must be protected so that religious faith is not forced on anyone.

There are many historians who have acknowledged this positively. One of the more famous is Herbert Butterfield of the University of Cambridge, who recognized this foundation as key to the origin of science and the progress of Western civilization. More recently, atheist British historian Tom Holland has acknowledged that only societies influenced by the Bible practice human rights. Phillips is therefore in good company.

Neo-Marxism Marches Through Western Institutions

What happened? There has been a march through Western institutions of neo-Marxist ideas and grievance culture. This is expressed in “human rights” gone off the rails, such as DEI, which seeks quotas and equal outcomes among races and ethnic groups; the loss of the definition of sexual identity as male and female; sexual fluidity and the trans movement; the breakdown of marriage and family; and anti-white, anti-colonial ideology.

All whites are deemed guilty of the sins of centuries past. This teaches Westerners to despise their heritage. Without courage rooted in the good of that heritage, the West is adrift, with nothing left to preserve. The absurdity of blaming all whites—including those with no ancestors who practiced slavery or came from nations that never engaged in colonialism—is ignorant and foolish, yet the idea prevails.

For neo-Marxism, one is either an oppressor or the oppressed. Women, blacks, other minorities, homosexuals, transsexuals, and even those with bipolar disorder are to be affirmed exactly as they are. They are categorized as the oppressed. Meritocracy is rejected, and this will lead nations into economic and social decline. Preserving national identity is worthless to them. They embrace transnationalism, universalism, and relativism. No culture is better than any other—really? Even head-hunting cannibal cultures? Or cultures that enslave women?

This leads to the open-borders orientation of the West, where massive immigration erodes the culture of the host country. Immigration is no longer governed by the expectation that newcomers integrate and support the culture of the nation, as was the norm in the past. This is especially evident with Muslim immigration. Some of these immigrants seek to destroy the West and replace it with radical Islam and Sharia law. Muslim fascists are not relativists but absolutists. They exploit Western relativism and weakness, using Western elites as useful idiots.

The October 7th Genocide

The response of many in the West to the October 7th genocidal attack against Israel two years ago illustrates the bankruptcy of moral thinking in the West and underscores the urgent need for restoration. Israel, as a nation, is key to that restoration. Phillips’ presentation of Israel’s importance is profound: Israel represents a life-affirming society, not a culture of death.

The Call for Jewish and Christian Cooperation to Save Western Civilization

Phillips therefore calls for a great movement of Jews and Christians to fight back and restore Western Civilization. She calls for Christianity to be pro-Jewish and pro-Judaism and to repudiate its historic anti-Semitism.

Weaknesses in Her Book

So far, so good—amen. But there are weaknesses. Phillips criticizes Christianity for being too heavenly minded, echoing the old phrase about being “so heavenly minded that one is no earthly good.” She defends a more Jewish, this-worldly focus and downplays the importance of eternal life. She has a point with respect to some Christians, but she is partly wrong.

If we lose the hope of eternal life, we will lose the courage needed to affect this age and this world. C. S. Lewis argued that the most effective people have one foot in heaven and one on earth. Phillips even suggests that belief in eternal life is not essential for social transformation and that Judaism functions without this focus. I would argue that Judaism does emphasize one’s state in the Age to Come.

The great philosopher Immanuel Kant saw this more clearly than Phillips. While Kant could not embrace the importance of the sacrificial death of Yeshua, he grasped key truths. In his Critique of Practical Reason, he argued that three beliefs are necessary to sustain a humane and ordered society: God, freedom, and immortality (life after death). In this life, people do not receive just reward for their good or evil deeds—so why be moral? True moral motivation requires belief in life after death, where justice will ultimately be rendered. Second, freedom is necessary for real moral responsibility. Third, belief in God as the moral judge who rewards good and punishes evil is essential. These beliefs are foundational for civilization as opposed to barbarism. I agree with Kant.

Another missing piece in Phillips’ work is revival and evangelism. The only way to turn the tide against the neo-Marxist onslaught is for a sufficiently large portion of the population to push back—and push back hard. Without revival and successful Christian evangelism, this will not happen. This is why preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom with power and genuine outpourings of the Spirit is essential. In American history, such revivals have repeatedly led to profound and positive social change.

The Ten Percent

Very recently, Bill Mahrer and the conservative Orthodox Jewish pundit Ben Shapiro had a dialogue. Shapiro was arguing for faith in the God of the Bible and the Torah, and Mahrer was arguing for atheism, claiming that much in the Bible was backward and immoral. Shapiro argued like atheist historian Tom Holland in the U. K. that Mahers basis for judgment was from the Bible itself and the Judeo-Christian influence on the worth of persons and human rights. Yet, without God, these values would not last but would be a cut flower.

The Small Percent of Troubling Passages

I have noticed that debunking the Bible as if it were inhumane is based on a small percentage of the content of the Bible. In my view, it is troubling that less than 10% of the Bible. Such passages, such as annihilating the Canaanites, men, women, and children, and sometimes even the animals, seem to be genocide. Then there are the prayers called imprecatory psalms that call down harsh judgment on enemies. The psalmist says that the people will be happy who smash the Babylonian babies to death. How about God killing 70,000 Israelites because David numbered the people? There are some great books that explain such passages, and I won’t go into those explanations here. Do note one great book on this. Walter Kaiser, Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible.

The Bible’s 90% Message

However, what of the 90%? The Bible’s message is very clear. God is a God of compassionate love and justice. (Exodus 34). This is the argument of the famous Israeli Rabbi Shlomo Riskin (Judaism, A Love Story). He calls upon all people to repent and pledge their allegiance to Him. If they do so, He will empower them to obedience. Those who make that decision are assured fruitfulness and purpose in this life and a good destiny in the Age to Come. Those who refuse God and his ways will be lost. Of course, the message of the New Covenant Scriptures is that this decision is made possible by the Holy Spirit and that the power to obey comes through Yeshua. It is by being filled with the Spirit that we can obey.

In this context, we read all of the amazing texts on God’s call for justice in the courts, honesty in business, and care for the widow, the orphan, and the poor. The Torah is summarized in the ten commandments, or better named, The Covenant of the Ten Words. We are to love God with our all and our neighbor as ourselves (Deut. 6:4 and Lev. 19:18).

Yes, we can provide rationales for the 10% but really, the 90% is where we need to stand in our defense of the Bible.

The Pharisees and the Post-Destruction Yavne New Beginning

How does intuitive insight provide new possibilities in philosophy, theology, science, and literature? Catholic Theologian Thomas Dubay and the noted scientist Michael Polanyi point to the mystery that understanding comes almost like revelation. Augustine taught that all progress in knowledge is by illumination of the Spirit. Well, I am back in Israel and had an amazing experience with my jet lag in the early morning, dozing. It was an insight about the rejection of the Messiahship of Yeshua in the Yavne community of Pharisees that launched Rabbinic Judaism, Judaism without the Temple. It is an approach I have not encountered, but maybe someone else has promoted these ideas. I would not be surprised.

Rabbai Ben Zakkai’s Quest for Peace

About a week ago, I finished a book by the famous now-retired Rabbi, Shlomo Riskin, former chief rabbi of Efrat in Israel. I wrote a review of it. Riskin described the difference between Rabbi Yohannan Ben Zakkai, who founded the Yeshiva in Yavne when Jerusalem was being destroyed. He comforted his disciples by stating that prayer, study, and good deeds could substitute for the Temple until its restoration. Ben Zakkai was from the school of Hillel, not the school of Shammai. The school of Shammai dominated the Pharisees in the period before the destruction of the Temple. They supported the revolt against Rome. Messianic claims were part of the revolt. After the revolt, the more merciful school of Hillel, then led by Ben Zakkai, became dominant. Zakkai was now strongly motivated for peace with Rome and against war. I believe this made him reject messianic claims. A messianic claim meant revolt against Rome.

Rabbi Akiva’s Embrace of War

Riskin then describes Rabbi Akiva. Akiva supported the second great revolt against Rome led by Bar Kochba. He even proclaimed him as the Messiah. Akiva was executed with torture, and the revolt was quashed. However, they put up a great fight. Riskin then looks at modern Israel and its founding, requiring a war of liberation and wars for preservation. Despite the terrible loss in the second revolt, Riskin ends up being more sympathetic to Akiva. Akiva is an example of joining the promise of redemption with the human component of fighting for redemption. This is an interesting perspective and quite new to me. For Riskin, this is the hukan and divine working together.

Passages Emphasized in My Dream

This background is a context for my dream and interpretation. It connects to the Biblical evidence that the Pharisees were not in agreement in opposition to Yeshua. Yes, the more rigid Shammai school of Pharisees opposed Yeshua, but how did the Hillel early Rabbis in Yavne come to oppose Him. The passages of Acts came to mind in my dream.

Note that the Hillel Rabbi Gamliel who was the teacher of the Shaliach Shaul (the Apostle Paul) speaks in opposition to the persecution of the new messianic movement in Yeshua. He was the leader of the Hillel school Pharisee. “A certain Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Torah respected by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. Then he said to them. Men of Israel, be careful what you are about to do with these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody; and a number of men, maybe four hundred, joined up with him. He was killed, and all who followed him were scattered and came to nothing. After this fellow, Judah the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and got people to follow him. He also perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So, leave them alone. For if this plan is of God, you will not be able to stop them. You might even be found fighting against God.”

We should note in this context that the Sadducees drove the early persecution and were filled with jealousy. (Acts 5:17)

In Acts 15, a party of Jewish Yeshua followers say that unless the Gentile believers are circumcised, they cannot be saved. This was the position of the Shammaite Pharisees, not the position of the Hillel school. Apparently the Shammaites influenced these Messianic Jews, but the Hillel school did not agree. In the Hillel school, Gentiles would have a good destiny in the Age to Come if they rejected idolatry, turned to God and kept the universal laws of God summarized in the seven Noachide Commands. (On this see Markus Bockmuehl, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches)

When Paul was under arrest in Jerusalem, he spoke to the Sanhedrin, dominated by Sadducees. “But recognizing the one group was Sadducees dn the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Sanhedrin, ‘Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees! I am on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.’ When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and Sadducees. For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection or angel, or spirit, but the Pharisees affirm them all. Then there was an uproar. Some of the Torah scholars of the Pharisees’ party stood up and protested sharply, ‘We find nothing wrong with this man! What if a spirit or angel has spoken to him?” (Acts 26:6-9)

It hardly seems from these texts that the issue of Yeshua as the Messiah was settled among the Pharisees and the Hillel school would probably be more open. However, with regard to legal authority, keeping Paul bound and then appealing to the Romans, the Sadducees had government power.

In Acts 26”5, Paul states before King Agrippa, Paul says, “I lived as a Pharisee.” He never repudiated this part of his identity as we read in Acts 26:6)

These texts prompted W. D. Davis in his classic, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, to state in his appendix, that Paul remained an Orthodox practicing Jew until his death (according to the traditions of the Pharisees).

The Fear of War with Rome and Destruction

One other background text is important. The Sadducees were fearful that a rebellion against Rome, which was associated with any claim to be the Messiah, would lead to the destruction of Jerusalem and their loss of power. He presents a double entendre of meaning when the High Priest Caiaphas says, “You don’t take into account that it is better for you that one man die for the people rather than for the whole nation to be destroyed.” For the high priest, any messianic claimant, especially one showing supernatural powers (Lazara had just been raised from the dead) would raise up a rebellion against Rome which Israel would lose. That Yeshua had no intention to do this and taught against it, did not make a dent on these leaders. Of course, the irony is that Yeshua did die for the people.

Forty years later, Jerusalem was destroyed. The power of the Sadducees in leading the Sanhedrin is over. The power of the more rigid school of Shammai has been diminished and the School of Hillel dominates. The Messianic Jews had escaped from Jerusalem and followed the prophetic warning of Yeshua to flee. The destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple and the terrible slaughter was incomprehensible. I imagine, with some justification, that the last thing Rabbi Zakkai wanted to hear was any claim for anyone to be the Messiah. Could this have meant to him that a new army would be raised under someone who claimed to be the Messiah who would again oppose Rome. As Riskin described it, Zakkai was the proponent of God bringing the redemption of Israel with no human military part in it. Was the rejection of Yeshua really part of lumping all messianic claims together and rejecting all messianic Claims. The days of the apostles and their signs and wonders ministry was over. Other than John, we do not read of other apostles in Israel during this period.

Drawing Boundaries: Judaism and Christianity

Now that this trajectory was set, the succeeding generations of Rabbis had to defend this rejection and define themselves against the new Christian movement. In his great book Borderlines, Daniel Boyarin, a well-known Jewish scholar says that there was nothing in Messianic Jewish/early Christian doctrine that was contrary to what was within the acceptable boundaries of first century Judaism. (See also his book The Jewish Gospels) However, from that time the movement of Christianity and Judaism defined themselves against the other. Ideas that were acceptable in 1st Century Judaism were no longer acceptable. Judaism sought to cleanse out of itself such ideas such as a divine Messiah. This idea is common in scholars of what is called, “The parting of the ways.”

If this thesis is true, the rejection at Yavne was not so much a rejection with a clear perception of who Yeshua claimed to be according to his disciples, but a response to trauma and wanting to avoid any messianism. Some Ultra-Orthodox Jews reject the state of Israel as a hindrance to God bringing supernatural redemption and restoration in the real coming of the Messiah.

I wonder if this understanding could contribute to Jewish/Christian dialogue and with Messianic Jews as part of a reconsideration of who Yeshua is.

Mercy Triumphs over Judgment

But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” Matt 12:36-37

This Scripture alone should shake us up. How many idle words have you and I spoken (or written, I would add)? We serve a holy and awesome God, and no one in the flesh can stand in his full manifestation of glory. The intense light emanating from his very being would burn us up. There is no one righteous, no not one. We all reap the wages of sin, and without Yeshua having received the full penalty of the law of sin and death, we would not be alive. It is only by God’s great love that we are set free from the law of sin and death and can come boldly before him to obtain mercy and grace in time of need.

Isaiah experienced a vision of God after a major king of Israel, Uzziah, died. Uzziah had become king when he was sixteen and during the days of Zechariah, who instructed him in the fear of the Lord, and as long as he sought the Lord, God gave him success. (2 Ch 26:3-5) After he had become powerful, his pride led to his downfall, and he offered unauthorized incense before the Lord. He became angry when a prophet rebuked him, and immediately leprosy broke out upon Uzziah. It was in the context of this national disillusionment that Isaiah had this vision of the Lord upon his throne. He saw the seraphim above him calling out to one another, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty, the whole earth is filled with his glory,” and the doorposts shook and the temple was filled with smoke. Isaiah was undone and cried out, “Woe to me, I am a man of unclean lips amongst a people of unclean lips.” He could not bear to stand in the presence of such holiness, for his eyes had seen the Lord Almighty! Then one of the seraphim took a piece of coal from the altar and touched his lips and declared that his guilt was taken away and his sins were atoned for. (Isa 6:1-7)

We are in a season of testing and refining. Major leaders have fallen, and many have become disillusioned and cynical.

But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the LORD will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness, Mal 3:2-3

How are we to respond when we see those whom we trusted fall into sin? How did Abraham respond when the Angel of the Lord came to him and announced the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? He pleaded with the Lord to spare Sodom and Gomorrah even if there were ten righteous people. He cried out for mercy. And Moses and Aaron fell on their faces to plead for mercy when God was going to destroy the Israelites and God heard their cry and relented. In like manor, we are to guard our hearts and speech while crying out for mercy. It is only when we are deeply aware of our own sin, like Isaiah, that we can begin to have mercy for others. God does not let the guilty go unpunished but his kindness leads us all to repentance. David sinned by counting his mighty men but he entrusted his punishment to God instead of men as God was full of mercy.

David said to Gad, “I am in deep distress. Let me fall into the hands of the LORD, for his mercy is very great; but do not let me fall into human hands.” (I Chr 21:13)

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.” (Ex 34:6-7)

Yes, justice for the afflicted must be pursued but let us take this time of shaking for an opportunity to examine our own lives and to learn intercession like Abraham and Moses. Lot and his family were spared though Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, and God preserved the children of the Israelites to go into the Promised Land. In like manner, there is coming a time when God’s wrath/judgment will be poured out upon the nations who invaded Israel and those who engaged in horrendous acts of antisemitism. We are then to stand in the gap and cry out for mercy, for all have sinned. God has bound us all over to disobedience that he might have mercy on us all.

Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment. (James 2:12-13)

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister, will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matt 5:22)

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. (Rom 2:1)

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism. (Rom 2:6-11)

We all one day will have to face the judgment seat of God. Because I recognize my dire need for mercy, his forgiveness for every idle word I have spoken, for every time I was angry with others, or every time I harbored bitterness or entertained unclean thoughts, I therefore cry out.

BLESSED ARE THE MERCIFUL, FOR THEY SHALL OBTAIN MERCY.

The Theology of Charles Finney, The Great Revivalist

Many consider Charles Finney the greatest revivalist in American history. He held revival meetings mostly before the Civil War. Outpourings of the Spirit, conversions, and dedications were noteworthy. Transformations of whole towns and cities in New York state were especially noteworthy. Finney was also a great abolitionist and opposed slavery with great passion. He served as President of Oberlin College in Ohio, which joined in the fight. His life had parallels to Jonathan Blanchard, the founding President of Wheaton College who also fought for liberation.

Finney on Revival

Many years ago, I read Finney’s Lectures on Revival. Then I read his autobiography. Both were amazing. However, I did not read his Systematic Theology. I thought his theology was like John Wesley and the Methodists, and did not have the motivation to read it. Over 40 years ago, I mentioned it to Asher Intrater when he was taking the systematic theology course in our Bible college. He read it and liked it. I knew Finney to be a radical Arminian, one who rejects predestination, and affirms that we are saved by a free choice to embrace Yeshua or to reject him and not by any predetermination by God.

A friend of mine, Harold Eberley, wrote Systematic Theology and noted that he and Finney were aligned on the issue of free will. His volumes are worth reading and considering. Because Harold mentioned Finney in positive way, I thought I would read the volume. Generally, my Reformed friends pan Finney and do not think he has must to say in theology.

Radical Free Will Christianity

In many ways, Finney’s volume is not like the usual systematic theology, but more of a philosophical theology. It is somewhat redundant. A great bulk of the book deals with human freedom. Finney is sometimes understood as Pelagian, that we are so free as Pelagius taught, that human good works chosen in human freedom by our own powers are important to our salvation. If one does not read more closely, you could think Finney is teaching this, but he is not. He argues for a radical view of human free choice even with unbelievers who can choose good or evil. However, without saying yes to the grace of God offered in Yeshua human beings cannot be saved. Only the work fo the Spirit in grace makes that choice possible.

Rejecting the Doctrine of Original Sin

This is tied to a second important distinction in Finney. He rejects the doctrine of original sin. He does not accept that the sin nature is born into us from Adam. That all have sinned Is not due to a constitutional or physical sin nature. Rather, sin came into the world and now dominates culture or society such that all human begins succumb to sin and need deliverance through Messiah. However, in practice Finney’s doctrine is not very different from those who believe that human nature is “bent” after the fall (see C. S. Lewis on this) but not so bent that free choice and the image of God are obliterated. The choice for Yeshua is in such teachers only possible due to his empowering grace. One can then say yes or no.

Entire Sanctification

The other major emphasis in Finney is the doctrine of entire sanctification. The Methodists also held to this view; and I will here explain it. I expected Finney to argue like Wesley that there is an experience in the Spirit, the baptism in the Spirit, that brings us to a place were we cannot sin again (perfectionism). Finney experienced the baptism in the Spirit and used the term. But Finney did not speak about this as a key to sanctification in his book. Some of my friends reading this know that some of the early Pentecostals influenced by Methodism held to entire sanctification as the most important aspect of the baptism in the Spirit. A large part of Finney’s book is given to proving that the Bible urges that we be entirely sanctified in body, soul and Spirit. (I Thess. 5:23) Faith in the power of God given to us on the basis of the cross, resurrection and the gift of the Spirit enables this possibility. Because this was not taught and understood, Finney believed that Christians lived on a much lower plane then was possible. Finney believed that Christians could embrace a life so as to sin no more.

A Messianic Jewish Response

How do I respond as a Messianic Jew. It might be that Finney’s doctrine of sin, the fall and original sin opens up a door for dialogue with the Jewish community which also rejects the doctrine as taught in Catholic theology and Reformed theology. Secondly, I think we do need to reflect and be challenged by Finney’s robust defense of free will. Thirdly, the greatest benefit from studying Finney is to see that we can by faith attain much more sanctification and righteousness in this life than most believe. I was not convinced of sinlessness as a possibility in this life but do believe that was we seek to walk in the Spirit and submit to his Word, a much greater level of sanctification is attainable than many believe.