Posts
by Jerry Johnson, President, NiceneCouncil.com
'Since its inception the Christian Church has suffered numerous tribulations, beginning with Jesus Himself who suffered the trials of the cross. Jesus declared “If the world hates you, know that it hated me before it hated you”. (John 15:18) After the death of Christ, the persecution of the Christian Church became even more intense. Saul, one of the first “ordained” persecutors sought out these Christian renegades and had them imprisoned or murdered. (Acts 8:1) Stephen, who was the first to suffer for the faith, was stoned to death by an angry mob. (Acts 11:19) Paul tells Timothy in his second letter, “…[A]ll who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution”. (II Timothy 3:12)
The first century Christians new well that a public profession of faith in Jesus Christ meant certain death. Up until 70 A.D. most of the persecution was done at the hands of the Jews. Just prior to the destruction of the temple, Nero Caesar instituted a reign of terror against the benevolent followers of Christ. Many were slain. Children of the believers were thrown into the Roman Arena to be torn apart by wild beasts as onlookers cheered, while their parents were made to watch!
In fact, it was not until the reign of Constantine (almost three centuries after the death of Christ) that the Christians were finally allowed to openly worship their Savior without the fear of reprisal. But this was soon short lived. Arianism soon became the belief of most governments and the persecution was re-instituted against the orthodox party. After Arianism was defeated Rome again took control of the Empire, but this time under the auspices of orthodox Christianity. For the next 1000 years terror fell upon all those who would disagree with the Roman Catholic Religion. One only needs to casually glance at any work on Church history to see the tyranny and murderous ways the Rome Pontiff dealt with nonconformists. A short list speaks of the Hussites, the Waldesians, the Hugenots, or men like William Tyndle and Martin Luther, (though not killed, Martin Luther did have a price on his head).
In modern times the persecution has not ended. Various dictators and governments have made the Christian Church the focal point of their hatred. Thousands have died in the concentration camps of Eastern Europe. In the Former Soviet Empire, professing Christians were sent to Siberia never to be heard from again. In Communist China, females who profess Christ are treated like animals, fulfilling the sexual desires of the ruling regime. The Middle East has also had its share of horror stories that would give Stephen King himself many a sleepless night.
In the midst of all of these tribulations the Church has endured. Western Christians, specifically those in the Untied States of America, have escaped any real threat to their existence. There could be numerous reasons for this. Two possibilities that come to mind 1) God has protected the Church in the West so we can give aid and comfort to those who suffer these persecutions OR 2) we (those in the West) really do not have any strong convictions about our faith and therefore our enemies are not threatened by our presence.
Whatever the reason may be, after two hundred years of being somewhat free to worship without fear from our government, many Christians believe, to one degree or another, that the United States of America will one day face a persecution under the hands of the “anti-Christ.” They teach that Christians currently living now will be raptured out of this world so as not to have to endure the “wrath to come”. Numerous advocates of this doctrine even refer to it as “the great escape”.
In recent years, books on “the great escape” have filled the Christian bookstore shelves. Who can forget “88 Reason Why The Rapture Will Happen in 1988”? Or Hal Lindsey, the leading spokesmen for the movement throughout the 70’s and 80’s, and his “textbook” on the rapture entitled “The Late Great Planet Earth” and the latest craze "Left Behind." Rapture theology has so become entwined with American Christianity that anytime an international crisis occurs, especially one in which the United States is involved, videos, books and pamphlets by the thousands hit Christian bookstores declaring that the end is near, again!
But think about it! Does it really seem plausible that Christians in the United States will some how avoid these “great tribulations”? Without saying it directly, many paperback theologians conclude that the United States is the focal point of Biblical eschatology, and that the Beast of Revelation cannot be revealed until we are “out of here.” Is it not possible that rapture theology is based upon an arrogant Western presumption, that God MUST first rapture the American Church before persecution comes, even though he never did it for Christians in the Middle East or Communist Block countries? Are American Christians more important to God than Chinese Christians? Many pews sitters seem to think so. Though they do not say it in proper words, it is a fair inference to make.
Those who hold to the view of modern rapture theology see things worked out this way: The Church will be raptured (caught up) and taken into heaven. This event will precede the second coming of Christ by either seven years or three and a half years, depending on your view of pre-trib or mid-trib. Then the anti-Christ will take over and rule. During this time the “great tribulation” will be waging on planet earth. This event, the “great tribulation”, is what American Christians must escape.
What most do not know is that “rapture theology” of the pre-tribulation variety is a recent doctrinal concoction. The historic church never taught this view. That’s right! No one taught the pre-millennial pre-tribulation view until the early the nineteenth century. This teaching made its appearance with dispensationalism in circa 1830. One is hard pressed to think that all of the great minds from St. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin and Charles Haddon Spurgeon, that though they had read I Thessalonians 4 failed to understand the important teaching of a pre-millennial, pre-tribulation rapture.
Pre-tribulation rapture theology is at its foundation conceited! It trivializes the sufferings of the early church, as well as the church in third world countries that are currently being told they cannot “buy, sell or trade” or have any freedoms and are imprisoned because of their faith in the Lord Jesus.
Besides its sheer arrogance rapture theology fails to see Christians as salt and light in the world and may ultimately lead to the total surrender of western civilization. What if Christ does not return for another 200 hundred years? How will future generations remember those who did not carry out the command to bring "every thought captive to the word of God"? How will they remember those of us who allowed the blood bought treasures of western freedom to die out one by one in the name of this aberrant theology?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
In Defense of Creedalism
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. Th.D.
This is a non-creedal age: by and large conservative Christendom diminishes the importance of creedal symbols. As a matter of fact, many non-creedalists do not simply dismiss creeds as unimportant to the maintenance of Biblical Christianity, they deem them to be positively antithetical to it. Such a position would better be termed ‘anti-creedal’.
Probably many factors are at work forming this preponderance of anti-creedal sentiment today. Among these are: an increasing permeation of society with a relativistic, existential concern for the moment; a loss of a sense of the significance of history; a democratic concern for non-coercion and individual freedom of belief; a pervasive tendency to simplification; as well as other considerations. Probably at the forefront of the widespread fundamentalist disapprobation is the fear that the framing of creeds necessarily undermines the sufficiency of Scripture. The cry ‘no creed but the Bible’ is felt to be a call to re-assert the primacy of the Bible in religious affairs in such a way as to totally discredit creedalism.
In one book which levels a critical assault on creedalism the following statement is made: ‘To arrive at truth we must dismiss religious prejudices from heart to mind. We must let God speak for himself. . . To let God be true means to let God have the say as to what is the truth that sets men free. It means to accept his word, the Bible, as the truth. Our appeal is to the Bible for truth’. The same writer spurns creeds as ‘man-made traditions’, ‘the precepts of men’, and ‘opinions’.
These sentiments well represent many anti-creedalists, especially those within fundamentalism, whose view of creedalism is important because fundamentalism is one of the dominant forces in American Christianity today and the spiritual blood-sister of Reformed Christianity. Consequently it is crucial that conservative Presbyterians have a proper understanding of the status and role of creeds in order to defend the Biblical integrity of their faith. This brief study will give introductory consideration to two particular aspects of creedalism: (1) the relation of creed to Scripture, and (2) the function of creeds.
THE RELATION OF CREED TO SCRIPTURE
It is imperative to recognize at the outset that creedal standards are not independent assertions of truth. They are derived from and subordinate to the Bible as only source and standard of Christian truth, the infallible, in- errant Word of the Living God.
Actually the word ‘creed’ itself needs to be understood in order to dispel such a concern as is resident in anti-creedal circles. The English word creed is derived from the Latin credo, which simply means I believe. A creed, then, is a statement of faith. And as such it no more diminishes the authority of God’s Word than do statements such as ‘I believe in God’ or ‘I believe in the resurrection of Christ’. As a matter of fact, such statements are creeds, albeit, brief ones.
Anyone who thinks of God in a particular way has ‘encreeded’ a view of God, whether or not this ‘creed’ is put in writing. Surely it cannot be averred that this in any way diminishes the primacy or the centrality of the Bible. Furthermore, if it be argued that a creed reduces the authority of the Bible by implying its inadequacy, then it can be argued with equal force that for a minister to give an exposition of the words of Christ, for instance, likewise carries with it the implication that His words are inadequate as they stand. Such is patently false.
Those who fault Presbyterian subscription to the Westminster Standards (or the subscription of Congregationalists and Baptists to closely related Standards) should be made to realize that the Westminster Confession is self-consciously derived from and subordinate to the Bible. It not only amply demonstrates and vigorously maintains its utter dependence upon Scripture in its opening chapter, but it allows — in fact, encourages!—appeal from itself to its authority, the Bible. Witness paragraphs four and ten from its initial chapter: ‘The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God’. ‘The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture’. Furthermore, at WCF 31.3 mention is made of the actions of church bodies (such as in the framing of creeds) and their relative authority. Such actions are to be heeded only ‘if consonant with the Word of God’. Thus, the Westminster Confession of Faith, as a proper creed, actually vouchsafes the supreme, unparalleled authority of Scripture.
Although it is true that there is no law in Scripture that explicitly commands ‘Thou shalt frame creeds’, nevertheless, creedalism receives its impetus and mandate from good and necessary inferences deduced from Scripture. This can be demonstrated in a variety of ways. Three of these will suffice for the present purpose.
First, the Biblical call for a public affirmation of faith serves as the prime impetus to creedalism. The essence of Christian duty is to be a witness [Acts 1.8]. This requires a public definition of the exact identity of that to which the Christian is witness. Obviously it is not possible to recite the entire Scriptural record at a given opportunity of witness. Furthermore, only God can look into the hearts of individuals to ascertain their innermost faith [1 Sam 16.7; Luke 16.15]. Thus for others to know of an individual’s personal faith it is necessary to put it into words. ‘With the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation’ [Rom 10.101. Hence, the necessity of a creed which defines the content of belief.
Second, as might be expected in light of the foregoing, mini-creeds are preserved in the Biblical record of apostolic Christianity itself. The very seeds of a full-blown creedalism were sown in the apostolic era via terse statements of faith which were widely employed. Perhaps the most familiar of these rudimentary creeds is the recurring one embedded in such texts as Romans 10.9; 1 Corinthians 12.3; and Philippians 2.11: ‘Jesus is Lord’. This eminently important statement embodied — ‘encreeded’, if you will — a particular way of viewing Jesus Christ. It was fundamentally necessary to hold as one’s credo: ‘I believe Jesus is Lord’.
Third, within the Biblical record is found evidence of early ecclesiastical assemblies re-casting already known truths so as to ensure their accurate preservation and transmission. Acts 15 is the locus classicus in this regard. There the Church was called upon to restate ‘justification by faith’ in response to a Christian-Pharisaic pressure to demand the circumcision of Gentile converts [cf. Acts 15.1]. After noting several such situations in Scripture, 19th-century Scottish Presbyterian theologian James Bannerman observed: ‘Such, within the age of inspiration itself, are the remarkable examples we have of the necessity, growing out of the circumstances of the Church and its members, that arose at different times for re-casting the doctrines of Scripture in a new mould, and exhibiting or explaining it afresh under forms of language and expression more precisely fitted to meet and counteract the error of the times.”1
Thus it can be clearly demonstrated that the concept of creedalism is a Scriptural one, and that it cannot be construed as to be in any way implying or encouraging the diminution of Scripture in terms of its adequacy or authority.
THE FUNCTION OP CREEDS
Contained within the above study are intimations of the variety of functions of creeds. The following enumeration and explication of six important functions of creeds will focus on their specifically ecclesiastical functions. There are also broader socio-cultural implications that flow forth from creedalism. But these are beyond the purview of the present study.
First, creeds serve as a basis for ecclesiastical fellowship and labour. It is important that when two walk together they be agreed [Amos 3.3], for a ‘house divided against itself cannot stand’ [Matt 12.25]. Community labours are better performed and ‘body life’ is more consistently main- mined within that church which possesses a homogeneity of faith. And it is imperative that the particular content of that fundamental faith be known, as in a written creed.
Non-creedal fundamentalism is both internally inconsistent at the theoretical level and seriously endangered at the practical level. Its theoretical inconsistency is manifest in the internal contradiction of the very statement, ‘no creed but the Bible’. This statement itself is a creed. It says, in effect, ‘I believe (credo) in no creed’. That is, ‘My creed is that there be no creed’. Furthermore, this theoretical position is not amenable to practice. Even the notoriously anti-creedal Churches of Christ denomination requires some sort of implied statement of belief from persons seeking positions of authority in its fellowship. A paedo-baptist, or a Calvinist will simply never be found in its ministry.
That non-creedalism possesses inherent danger is evident in that in principle such a position allows almost any doctrine into a church. The quotation contained in the second paragraph of this study, despite its pious sound and its widely representative character, is a citation from Let God Be True, a publication of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The essence of the citation could well be reduced to: ‘No creed but the Bible’. Yet despite their subscription to the same principle and the same authority (the Bible), Jehovah’s Witnesses are deemed unacceptable to orthodox churches. Obviously there is more to orthodoxy than the claim ‘no creed but the Bible’.
Southern Presbyterian theologian Robert L. Dabney aptly commented a century ago: ‘As man’s mind is notoriously fallible, and professed Christians who claim to hold the Scriptures, as they understand them, differ from each other notoriously, some platform for union and co-operation must be adopted, by which those who believe they are truly agreed may stand and work together’.2 It is absolutely essential that churches provide a formal, public affirmation of their faith, so that their members and prospective members may know exactly where they stand. This is the function of a creed.
Second, creeds serve as tools of Christian education. It should be obvious that the sheer volume of the Bible (1189 chapters of over 773,000 words) forbids its full comprehension in a moment and by every Christian — or even by one supremely gifted believer in an entire lifetime. Nevertheless, the Church is commanded in the Old Testament Shema [Deut 6.4-25] and the New Testament Great Commission [Matt 28.19-20] to teach the Bible’s truth to others. This teaching process will necessarily deal with fundamental, selected truths at first, truths such as are outlined and organized in a creed.
A growing understanding of the Scriptures comes only through reading it, systematizing it, studying it, hearing it expounded, and applying it. Presbyterian theologian A. A. Hodge noted in defence of creeds in this regard: ‘While . . . the Scriptures are from God, the understanding of them belongs to the part of men. Men must interpret to the best of their ability each particular part of the Scripture separately, and then combine all that the Scripture teaches upon different subjects in mutual consistency as parts of a harmonious system.’
In short, creeds are simply expository distillations of Scripture. They summarily state the most basic themes of Scripture in order to facilitate education in them. If it be agreed that a brief expository summation of the teachings of the Bible can be given, then creeds are legitimatized in that they fulfil that precise function. In this respect, creeds differ from doctrinal sermons only in being more exact and being carefully compiled by several minds. Once a church encourages public teaching of the Word or publishes literature explaining it, it has in fact made a creedal statement.
Third, creeds provide an objective, concrete standard of church discipline. As noted previously, any church having officers or teachers must require that they accept the standard of belief of that church. The position ‘No creed but the Bible’ cannot and does not serve as a standard in any church. The fact that cultists are debarred from service in orthodox churches illustrates that a creed of sorts exists.
If a particular church has any interpretation at all of any part of the Bible which must be held by its officers then, ipso facto, it has a creed—even if it is unwritten. But an unwritten creed which serves as a standard of discipline in such circumstances is both dishonest and dangerous. Surely it is far more open and honest to have a stable, clearly worded, publicly recognizable standard of belief to which appeal can be made in situations where men are either debarred from entering the ministry or joining a church, or are forcibly relinquished of their duties or membership on a charge of heresy.
A recent news article appearing in the November 21, 1980 issue of Christianity Today documented in a slightly different setting the danger of the disavowel of creedal discipline. It was reported that a particular church-related college had been embroiled in a controversy over a certain teacher’s instruction in a human sexuality course. The reporter perceptively noted in passing: ‘Faculty are not required to sign a doctrinal statement, mostly because of long-standing opposition to “creedalism”.’ The absence of subscription to a creed was a factor complicating the adjudication of that controversy. The voluntary subscription to a creedal standard is an effective tool of church discipline which enhances doctrinal purity by reducing equivocation on fundamental issues.
Fourth, creeds help to preserve the orthodox Christian faith in the ongoing Church. Jude 3 exhorts Christians: ‘Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.’
The system of faith incorporated in the Scriptures, embodied in the Lord Jesus Christ, and revealed in finality by the apostles, is ‘once for all delivered’. It is unchanging and unchangeable. It is that immutable faith which must be preserved from generation to generation. Creeds true to Scripture admirably serve to tie generations of believers together by laying down a specific set of fundamental truths.
The Scriptures are careful to instruct the Church to preserve the faith. Hebrews 13.9 warns: ‘Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings’. Paul gives instruction to two early church leaders in this vein. To Timothy he wrote: ‘Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus’ [2 Tim 1.13]. Titus was urged to be careful to see that an overseer ‘hold fast the faithful word which is in accord with the teaching, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict’ [Tit 1.9].
Although the special, direct revelation of God ceased and the corpus of Scripture was finalized in the first century, it was still necessary for the continuing Church to interpret and apply the completed revelation. The interpretation and application of Scripture is a process, not an act. It has required the involvement of many devout men working through many centuries to systematize, compile, and disseminate the fundamental truths of Scripture. The fact that the truth of Scripture is of no ‘private interpretation’ is a foundational principle of creedal theology. No interpreter of Scripture works alone. All must build on the past labours of godly predecessors. It is not the interpreters or groups of exegetes who agree with the historic, orthodox interpretations of the past and who find themselves in the mainstream of Christian thought who are suspect. Rather it is those who present novel deviations from historic Christendom who deserve careful scrutiny. Creeds help to preserve the essential core of true Christian faith from generation to generation.
The Apostle Paul expressed his fear that some within the Corinthian church were in danger of being ‘led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ’ by subtle craftiness [2 Cor 11.3]. The same concern must provoke the Church today to guard the central elements of Christian truth from distortion. In terms of a creed’s function in this regard, A. A. Hodge remarked that the real question is not, as often pretended, ‘between the word of God and the creed of man, but between the tried and proved faith of the collective body of God’s people, and the private judgment and the unassisted wisdom of the individual objector.’3
Fifth, creeds offer a witness to the truth to those outside the Church. There are many senses in which the Church is to be the ‘light of the world’ [Matt 5.14]. There are just as many methods by which it isto carry the light of the truth into the world. The framing of a well-composed creed is one significant way.
Basically the question which outsiders must put to the Church is: ‘What do you believe?’ Non-creedal churches reply, ‘We believe the Bible’. The creedal churches respond further, ‘We believe the Bible, and we have written out exactly what it is that we believe the Bible teaches, which is . . . The primary question, ‘What do you believe?’ (to which the proper response is ‘the Bible’) must be followed up by the searching question: ‘What do you believe the Bible teaches?’
Creeds witness to the truth to those outside the bounds of the covenant community by: clearly outlining and explicating the fundamental assertions of Christianity, seriously warning against misbelief, vigorously defending the truth from corruptions, witnessing to the unity and order of the Christian system, demonstrating the continuity and immutability of the historic Christian faith, showing the rational, objective content of Christian truth (as against mis-perceptions such as a belief that Christian faith is a mystic, blind leap), and so on.
Sixth, creeds provide a standard by which to judge new teachings arising within the Church. This function is obviously closely related to ideas embodied in several of the above-mentioned functions. But its usefulness in an age prone to cultism deserves separate and especial emphasis. ‘Christian’ cults are a particularly dangerous phenomenon in that they proseletize by appeal to Scripture. A creed is helpful in guarding against cultic aberrations in that it clearly provides a proper interpretation of essential truths. The more clearly, systematically, and concisely truth is stated, the less likely are people to be found straying from it in the fog of deception.
The maintenance of a standard of truth in the Church is in keeping with apostolic example. 1 John 4.1 warns: ‘Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they be of God’. Immediately following this is a specific test point or standard of judgment (creed): ‘Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God’. This credo was formulated in response to a particular error infecting the Church and which threatened to be a growing movement now known as docetism. Numerous references could be cited following the pattern of 1 John 4 [e.g., Gal 1.8, 9; 2 John 10; Rev 2.2; etc.].
Because of the relentless assults on the Church from without and also the internal buffetings, creeds are crucial defensive instruments. As Bannerman aptly observed: ‘Had the adoption of confessions and creeds not been a duty laid upon the Church by a regard to her own members, it would have been a necessity laid upon the Church by a regard to those not her members, but her enemies.’4
In conclusion, a strong Biblical case can be made in defence of creedalism. Creeds are invaluable instruments of Christian education and discipline and in no way do they diminish the authority of Scripture. The decline in creedalism today in conservative Christian circles is to be lamented. It is not only a literary and historical loss but a spiritual tragedy.
Reformed Christians need to be trained in creedal theology so as to bolster the historic Christian faith against the assaults of relativistic, existential, liberal, and cultic theologies current at this time. Reformed churches could curb the decline of creedalism within their own ranks and within American Christianity in general by several simple actions: (1) Sessions should see that the Westminster Standards are distributed to all of their congregational families and they should urge them to study them. (2) The Christian Education programme of local congregations should include the catechizing of children and youth as an on-going function of the church. (3) (New Members). Classes for starters should be offered to those seeking membership within Reformed churches. These classes should at least briefly introduce and review Westminster Standards. (4) Ministers and Sunday-school teachers should be encouraged to expound the Standards in a systematic way and to illustrate their lessons by reference to the Confessional documents.
Notes
1. J. Bannerman, The Church of Christ, Vol. I, p. 294, Banner of Truth.
2. Robert L. Dabney, Discussions, I, p. 315, Banner of Truth.
3. A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, p113, Banner of Truth.
4. J. Bannerman, Ibid, p 301, Banner of Truth.
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. Th.D.
This is a non-creedal age: by and large conservative Christendom diminishes the importance of creedal symbols. As a matter of fact, many non-creedalists do not simply dismiss creeds as unimportant to the maintenance of Biblical Christianity, they deem them to be positively antithetical to it. Such a position would better be termed ‘anti-creedal’.
Probably many factors are at work forming this preponderance of anti-creedal sentiment today. Among these are: an increasing permeation of society with a relativistic, existential concern for the moment; a loss of a sense of the significance of history; a democratic concern for non-coercion and individual freedom of belief; a pervasive tendency to simplification; as well as other considerations. Probably at the forefront of the widespread fundamentalist disapprobation is the fear that the framing of creeds necessarily undermines the sufficiency of Scripture. The cry ‘no creed but the Bible’ is felt to be a call to re-assert the primacy of the Bible in religious affairs in such a way as to totally discredit creedalism.
In one book which levels a critical assault on creedalism the following statement is made: ‘To arrive at truth we must dismiss religious prejudices from heart to mind. We must let God speak for himself. . . To let God be true means to let God have the say as to what is the truth that sets men free. It means to accept his word, the Bible, as the truth. Our appeal is to the Bible for truth’. The same writer spurns creeds as ‘man-made traditions’, ‘the precepts of men’, and ‘opinions’.
These sentiments well represent many anti-creedalists, especially those within fundamentalism, whose view of creedalism is important because fundamentalism is one of the dominant forces in American Christianity today and the spiritual blood-sister of Reformed Christianity. Consequently it is crucial that conservative Presbyterians have a proper understanding of the status and role of creeds in order to defend the Biblical integrity of their faith. This brief study will give introductory consideration to two particular aspects of creedalism: (1) the relation of creed to Scripture, and (2) the function of creeds.
THE RELATION OF CREED TO SCRIPTURE
It is imperative to recognize at the outset that creedal standards are not independent assertions of truth. They are derived from and subordinate to the Bible as only source and standard of Christian truth, the infallible, in- errant Word of the Living God.
Actually the word ‘creed’ itself needs to be understood in order to dispel such a concern as is resident in anti-creedal circles. The English word creed is derived from the Latin credo, which simply means I believe. A creed, then, is a statement of faith. And as such it no more diminishes the authority of God’s Word than do statements such as ‘I believe in God’ or ‘I believe in the resurrection of Christ’. As a matter of fact, such statements are creeds, albeit, brief ones.
Anyone who thinks of God in a particular way has ‘encreeded’ a view of God, whether or not this ‘creed’ is put in writing. Surely it cannot be averred that this in any way diminishes the primacy or the centrality of the Bible. Furthermore, if it be argued that a creed reduces the authority of the Bible by implying its inadequacy, then it can be argued with equal force that for a minister to give an exposition of the words of Christ, for instance, likewise carries with it the implication that His words are inadequate as they stand. Such is patently false.
Those who fault Presbyterian subscription to the Westminster Standards (or the subscription of Congregationalists and Baptists to closely related Standards) should be made to realize that the Westminster Confession is self-consciously derived from and subordinate to the Bible. It not only amply demonstrates and vigorously maintains its utter dependence upon Scripture in its opening chapter, but it allows — in fact, encourages!—appeal from itself to its authority, the Bible. Witness paragraphs four and ten from its initial chapter: ‘The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God’. ‘The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture’. Furthermore, at WCF 31.3 mention is made of the actions of church bodies (such as in the framing of creeds) and their relative authority. Such actions are to be heeded only ‘if consonant with the Word of God’. Thus, the Westminster Confession of Faith, as a proper creed, actually vouchsafes the supreme, unparalleled authority of Scripture.
Although it is true that there is no law in Scripture that explicitly commands ‘Thou shalt frame creeds’, nevertheless, creedalism receives its impetus and mandate from good and necessary inferences deduced from Scripture. This can be demonstrated in a variety of ways. Three of these will suffice for the present purpose.
First, the Biblical call for a public affirmation of faith serves as the prime impetus to creedalism. The essence of Christian duty is to be a witness [Acts 1.8]. This requires a public definition of the exact identity of that to which the Christian is witness. Obviously it is not possible to recite the entire Scriptural record at a given opportunity of witness. Furthermore, only God can look into the hearts of individuals to ascertain their innermost faith [1 Sam 16.7; Luke 16.15]. Thus for others to know of an individual’s personal faith it is necessary to put it into words. ‘With the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation’ [Rom 10.101. Hence, the necessity of a creed which defines the content of belief.
Second, as might be expected in light of the foregoing, mini-creeds are preserved in the Biblical record of apostolic Christianity itself. The very seeds of a full-blown creedalism were sown in the apostolic era via terse statements of faith which were widely employed. Perhaps the most familiar of these rudimentary creeds is the recurring one embedded in such texts as Romans 10.9; 1 Corinthians 12.3; and Philippians 2.11: ‘Jesus is Lord’. This eminently important statement embodied — ‘encreeded’, if you will — a particular way of viewing Jesus Christ. It was fundamentally necessary to hold as one’s credo: ‘I believe Jesus is Lord’.
Third, within the Biblical record is found evidence of early ecclesiastical assemblies re-casting already known truths so as to ensure their accurate preservation and transmission. Acts 15 is the locus classicus in this regard. There the Church was called upon to restate ‘justification by faith’ in response to a Christian-Pharisaic pressure to demand the circumcision of Gentile converts [cf. Acts 15.1]. After noting several such situations in Scripture, 19th-century Scottish Presbyterian theologian James Bannerman observed: ‘Such, within the age of inspiration itself, are the remarkable examples we have of the necessity, growing out of the circumstances of the Church and its members, that arose at different times for re-casting the doctrines of Scripture in a new mould, and exhibiting or explaining it afresh under forms of language and expression more precisely fitted to meet and counteract the error of the times.”1
Thus it can be clearly demonstrated that the concept of creedalism is a Scriptural one, and that it cannot be construed as to be in any way implying or encouraging the diminution of Scripture in terms of its adequacy or authority.
THE FUNCTION OP CREEDS
Contained within the above study are intimations of the variety of functions of creeds. The following enumeration and explication of six important functions of creeds will focus on their specifically ecclesiastical functions. There are also broader socio-cultural implications that flow forth from creedalism. But these are beyond the purview of the present study.
First, creeds serve as a basis for ecclesiastical fellowship and labour. It is important that when two walk together they be agreed [Amos 3.3], for a ‘house divided against itself cannot stand’ [Matt 12.25]. Community labours are better performed and ‘body life’ is more consistently main- mined within that church which possesses a homogeneity of faith. And it is imperative that the particular content of that fundamental faith be known, as in a written creed.
Non-creedal fundamentalism is both internally inconsistent at the theoretical level and seriously endangered at the practical level. Its theoretical inconsistency is manifest in the internal contradiction of the very statement, ‘no creed but the Bible’. This statement itself is a creed. It says, in effect, ‘I believe (credo) in no creed’. That is, ‘My creed is that there be no creed’. Furthermore, this theoretical position is not amenable to practice. Even the notoriously anti-creedal Churches of Christ denomination requires some sort of implied statement of belief from persons seeking positions of authority in its fellowship. A paedo-baptist, or a Calvinist will simply never be found in its ministry.
That non-creedalism possesses inherent danger is evident in that in principle such a position allows almost any doctrine into a church. The quotation contained in the second paragraph of this study, despite its pious sound and its widely representative character, is a citation from Let God Be True, a publication of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The essence of the citation could well be reduced to: ‘No creed but the Bible’. Yet despite their subscription to the same principle and the same authority (the Bible), Jehovah’s Witnesses are deemed unacceptable to orthodox churches. Obviously there is more to orthodoxy than the claim ‘no creed but the Bible’.
Southern Presbyterian theologian Robert L. Dabney aptly commented a century ago: ‘As man’s mind is notoriously fallible, and professed Christians who claim to hold the Scriptures, as they understand them, differ from each other notoriously, some platform for union and co-operation must be adopted, by which those who believe they are truly agreed may stand and work together’.2 It is absolutely essential that churches provide a formal, public affirmation of their faith, so that their members and prospective members may know exactly where they stand. This is the function of a creed.
Second, creeds serve as tools of Christian education. It should be obvious that the sheer volume of the Bible (1189 chapters of over 773,000 words) forbids its full comprehension in a moment and by every Christian — or even by one supremely gifted believer in an entire lifetime. Nevertheless, the Church is commanded in the Old Testament Shema [Deut 6.4-25] and the New Testament Great Commission [Matt 28.19-20] to teach the Bible’s truth to others. This teaching process will necessarily deal with fundamental, selected truths at first, truths such as are outlined and organized in a creed.
A growing understanding of the Scriptures comes only through reading it, systematizing it, studying it, hearing it expounded, and applying it. Presbyterian theologian A. A. Hodge noted in defence of creeds in this regard: ‘While . . . the Scriptures are from God, the understanding of them belongs to the part of men. Men must interpret to the best of their ability each particular part of the Scripture separately, and then combine all that the Scripture teaches upon different subjects in mutual consistency as parts of a harmonious system.’
In short, creeds are simply expository distillations of Scripture. They summarily state the most basic themes of Scripture in order to facilitate education in them. If it be agreed that a brief expository summation of the teachings of the Bible can be given, then creeds are legitimatized in that they fulfil that precise function. In this respect, creeds differ from doctrinal sermons only in being more exact and being carefully compiled by several minds. Once a church encourages public teaching of the Word or publishes literature explaining it, it has in fact made a creedal statement.
Third, creeds provide an objective, concrete standard of church discipline. As noted previously, any church having officers or teachers must require that they accept the standard of belief of that church. The position ‘No creed but the Bible’ cannot and does not serve as a standard in any church. The fact that cultists are debarred from service in orthodox churches illustrates that a creed of sorts exists.
If a particular church has any interpretation at all of any part of the Bible which must be held by its officers then, ipso facto, it has a creed—even if it is unwritten. But an unwritten creed which serves as a standard of discipline in such circumstances is both dishonest and dangerous. Surely it is far more open and honest to have a stable, clearly worded, publicly recognizable standard of belief to which appeal can be made in situations where men are either debarred from entering the ministry or joining a church, or are forcibly relinquished of their duties or membership on a charge of heresy.
A recent news article appearing in the November 21, 1980 issue of Christianity Today documented in a slightly different setting the danger of the disavowel of creedal discipline. It was reported that a particular church-related college had been embroiled in a controversy over a certain teacher’s instruction in a human sexuality course. The reporter perceptively noted in passing: ‘Faculty are not required to sign a doctrinal statement, mostly because of long-standing opposition to “creedalism”.’ The absence of subscription to a creed was a factor complicating the adjudication of that controversy. The voluntary subscription to a creedal standard is an effective tool of church discipline which enhances doctrinal purity by reducing equivocation on fundamental issues.
Fourth, creeds help to preserve the orthodox Christian faith in the ongoing Church. Jude 3 exhorts Christians: ‘Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.’
The system of faith incorporated in the Scriptures, embodied in the Lord Jesus Christ, and revealed in finality by the apostles, is ‘once for all delivered’. It is unchanging and unchangeable. It is that immutable faith which must be preserved from generation to generation. Creeds true to Scripture admirably serve to tie generations of believers together by laying down a specific set of fundamental truths.
The Scriptures are careful to instruct the Church to preserve the faith. Hebrews 13.9 warns: ‘Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings’. Paul gives instruction to two early church leaders in this vein. To Timothy he wrote: ‘Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus’ [2 Tim 1.13]. Titus was urged to be careful to see that an overseer ‘hold fast the faithful word which is in accord with the teaching, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict’ [Tit 1.9].
Although the special, direct revelation of God ceased and the corpus of Scripture was finalized in the first century, it was still necessary for the continuing Church to interpret and apply the completed revelation. The interpretation and application of Scripture is a process, not an act. It has required the involvement of many devout men working through many centuries to systematize, compile, and disseminate the fundamental truths of Scripture. The fact that the truth of Scripture is of no ‘private interpretation’ is a foundational principle of creedal theology. No interpreter of Scripture works alone. All must build on the past labours of godly predecessors. It is not the interpreters or groups of exegetes who agree with the historic, orthodox interpretations of the past and who find themselves in the mainstream of Christian thought who are suspect. Rather it is those who present novel deviations from historic Christendom who deserve careful scrutiny. Creeds help to preserve the essential core of true Christian faith from generation to generation.
The Apostle Paul expressed his fear that some within the Corinthian church were in danger of being ‘led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ’ by subtle craftiness [2 Cor 11.3]. The same concern must provoke the Church today to guard the central elements of Christian truth from distortion. In terms of a creed’s function in this regard, A. A. Hodge remarked that the real question is not, as often pretended, ‘between the word of God and the creed of man, but between the tried and proved faith of the collective body of God’s people, and the private judgment and the unassisted wisdom of the individual objector.’3
Fifth, creeds offer a witness to the truth to those outside the Church. There are many senses in which the Church is to be the ‘light of the world’ [Matt 5.14]. There are just as many methods by which it isto carry the light of the truth into the world. The framing of a well-composed creed is one significant way.
Basically the question which outsiders must put to the Church is: ‘What do you believe?’ Non-creedal churches reply, ‘We believe the Bible’. The creedal churches respond further, ‘We believe the Bible, and we have written out exactly what it is that we believe the Bible teaches, which is . . . The primary question, ‘What do you believe?’ (to which the proper response is ‘the Bible’) must be followed up by the searching question: ‘What do you believe the Bible teaches?’
Creeds witness to the truth to those outside the bounds of the covenant community by: clearly outlining and explicating the fundamental assertions of Christianity, seriously warning against misbelief, vigorously defending the truth from corruptions, witnessing to the unity and order of the Christian system, demonstrating the continuity and immutability of the historic Christian faith, showing the rational, objective content of Christian truth (as against mis-perceptions such as a belief that Christian faith is a mystic, blind leap), and so on.
Sixth, creeds provide a standard by which to judge new teachings arising within the Church. This function is obviously closely related to ideas embodied in several of the above-mentioned functions. But its usefulness in an age prone to cultism deserves separate and especial emphasis. ‘Christian’ cults are a particularly dangerous phenomenon in that they proseletize by appeal to Scripture. A creed is helpful in guarding against cultic aberrations in that it clearly provides a proper interpretation of essential truths. The more clearly, systematically, and concisely truth is stated, the less likely are people to be found straying from it in the fog of deception.
The maintenance of a standard of truth in the Church is in keeping with apostolic example. 1 John 4.1 warns: ‘Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they be of God’. Immediately following this is a specific test point or standard of judgment (creed): ‘Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God’. This credo was formulated in response to a particular error infecting the Church and which threatened to be a growing movement now known as docetism. Numerous references could be cited following the pattern of 1 John 4 [e.g., Gal 1.8, 9; 2 John 10; Rev 2.2; etc.].
Because of the relentless assults on the Church from without and also the internal buffetings, creeds are crucial defensive instruments. As Bannerman aptly observed: ‘Had the adoption of confessions and creeds not been a duty laid upon the Church by a regard to her own members, it would have been a necessity laid upon the Church by a regard to those not her members, but her enemies.’4
In conclusion, a strong Biblical case can be made in defence of creedalism. Creeds are invaluable instruments of Christian education and discipline and in no way do they diminish the authority of Scripture. The decline in creedalism today in conservative Christian circles is to be lamented. It is not only a literary and historical loss but a spiritual tragedy.
Reformed Christians need to be trained in creedal theology so as to bolster the historic Christian faith against the assaults of relativistic, existential, liberal, and cultic theologies current at this time. Reformed churches could curb the decline of creedalism within their own ranks and within American Christianity in general by several simple actions: (1) Sessions should see that the Westminster Standards are distributed to all of their congregational families and they should urge them to study them. (2) The Christian Education programme of local congregations should include the catechizing of children and youth as an on-going function of the church. (3) (New Members). Classes for starters should be offered to those seeking membership within Reformed churches. These classes should at least briefly introduce and review Westminster Standards. (4) Ministers and Sunday-school teachers should be encouraged to expound the Standards in a systematic way and to illustrate their lessons by reference to the Confessional documents.
Notes
1. J. Bannerman, The Church of Christ, Vol. I, p. 294, Banner of Truth.
2. Robert L. Dabney, Discussions, I, p. 315, Banner of Truth.
3. A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, p113, Banner of Truth.
4. J. Bannerman, Ibid, p 301, Banner of Truth.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Dispensational Distortions:
Part Two
Redemptive History Distortions
Part Two
Redemptive History Distortions
written by Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th. D.
Director, NiceneCouncil.com
In this second installment on dispensationalism’s theological distortions, I will consider the distinctive errors of dispensationalism relative to redemptive history. The central message of Scripture is the divinely revealed story that makes up redemptive history. It involves the progress of God's saving acts from the fall of Adam to Christ's Return. Unfortunately, several peculiar doctrines of dispensationalism distort redemptive history and, therefore, the over-arching message of Scripture.
The Church in Prophecy
In dispensationalism the church is deemed a new and unprophesied aside to God's major plan for the Jews. John Walvoord writes of the church: "It becomes apparent that a new thing has been formed—the body of Christ. It did not exist before Pentecost, as there was no work of the baptism of the Spirit to form it. The concept of the body is foreign to the Old Testament and to Israel's promises. Something new had begun … There is good evidence that the age itself is a parenthesis in the divine program of God as it was revealed in the Old Testament … [T]he present age [is] an unexpected and unpredicted parenthesis as far as Old Testament prophecy is concerned."1
In this statement a leading dispensationalist clearly asserts that God had a special, Jewish program in operation in the Old Testament. It is obvious, also, that from the dispensational view the present church age of Jew and Gentile union in one body was unknown in the Old Testament and that the church age is but an interruption of that program.
Most evangelical scholars, however, see the New Testament phase of the church as continuous with and a culmination or fruition of God's history-long redemptive labor. Indeed, when we look into the New Testament, we discover references to the Old Testament prophets' knowledge of the "church age."
For instance, Ephesians 3:3, 5–6 reads: "[B]y revelation he made known unto me the mystery … which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ."
In Romans 16:25–26 Paul speaks of "the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith."
In both of these passages Paul points out that the "mystery" of Gentile salvation was hidden only from the Gentiles (whom, in Ephesians 3, Paul calls "the sons of men"), not from the OldTestament prophets. After all, he defends his doctrine of the mystery from "the scriptures of the prophets." Paul teaches us that the "mystery" is now “made manifest" to "all nations"—not just to Israel.
In Luke 24:44–47 the Lord teaches that it is necessary for Him to die in order to fulfill Scripture in bringing salvation to the Gentiles: "[A]ll things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations."
The distinction between Jew and Gentile has forever been done away with. Paul points out this glorious truth in Ephesians 2:11–16:
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh … at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made bothone,and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. (Emphasis added.)
Thus, because of Christ's gracious redemptive work, "there is neither Jew nor Greek … for ye are all one in Christ" (Gal. 3:28) and "there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision" (Col. 3:11). Dispensationalists see this as but a temporary parenthesis in God's plan. Paul presents it quite differently.
The Gospel and the Jews
In dispensationalism the church's labor among the Jews must always be a relative failure. During the future Tribulation, however, the gospel will be suddenly and dramatically successful among the Jews—after all Christians and the Holy Spirit are removed from the world.
Dispensational scholar Charles Ryrie speaks of the removal of the Holy Spirit and the church from the earth prior to the Tribulation: "If the restrainer, the Holy Spirit, is to be removed before the tribulation … then the Church also must be taken out of the world."2 Pentecost mentions the conversion of "all Israel" during that Tribulation: "God uses many different means to bring 'all Israel' to salvation during the seventieth week."3
Yet the Scriptures teach that one of the glorious advances of the New Testament era is the magnified presence of the Holy Spirit, who will bring great and powerful blessings attending to the gospel: "Thus it is written … that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem … [B]ut tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high" (Luke 24:46–47, 49).
In Acts 1:8 the Lord instructs his disciples: "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you." They were prepared for this in Acts 2:17, 21: "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh … And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (emphasis added). In fact, the Great Commission teaches that until the end of the age Christ will be with us to see that we "make disciples of" and baptize "all the nations" (Matt. 28:19 NKJV). This surely does not exclude the Jews.
The Sacrificial System
According to dispensationalism, the Temple and sacrificial system will be re-instituted in the future millennial kingdom (though dispensationalists see this ministry as only memorial). Ryrie writes: "The temple is yet to be built and the sacrificial system reestablished during the millennium."4 This is based on dispensationalism's literalistic understanding of Ezekiel 40ff.
But the New Testament teaches the temple being built is spiritual. Thus, dispensationalism involves a serious retrogression in the flow of redemptive history and the outworking of salvation.
First Corinthians 3:16 reads: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God?" First Corinthians 6:19 asks: "[K]now ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost?" Second Corinthians 6:16 concurs: "[Y]e are the temple of the living God."
Paul speaks of this age-long building of this temple in Ephesians 2:21–22: It "groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord" for we "are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." Each of us is a living stone, for 1 Peter 2:5 teaches: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house."
Dispensational Zionism
The future dispensational kingdom involves a racial prejudice favoring the Jews above even saved Gentiles during the millennium. As such, it re-introduces the distinction between Jew and Gentile and replaces faith with race as a basis for divine favor. Consider the following citations from leading dispensationalists:
Ryrie: "Three groups of people will be related to the millennial government. Israel, regathered and turned to the Lord in salvation, will be exalted, blessed, and favored throughout the period."5
Pentecost: "The Gentiles will be Israel's servants during that age … The Gentiles that are in the millennium will have experienced conversion prior to admission."6
Walvoord speaks of " Israel's restoration and exaltation in the millennial kingdom."7
Herman Hoyt (past president of Grace Theological Seminary) puts it quite starkly: "The redeemed living nation of Israel, regenerated and regathered to the land, will be head over all thenations of earth … So he exalts them above the Gentile nations … On the lowest level there are the saved, living, Gentile nations."8
Popular prophecy writer Dave Hunt comments: "The Messiah ruling the world from the throne of David and with national Israel restored to its place of supremacy over the nations."9
However, with the establishment of the New Testament phase of the church, the distinction between Jew and Gentile has been abolished. This was the whole point of Peter's vision of the sheet filled with unclean animals in Acts 10: what God has called clean, let no man call unclean. Thus, there is no separate Jewish program exalting them over saved Gentiles.
The church, which includes Jew and Gentile in one body, is the fruition and culmination of God's promises to the Jews. In evidence of this, we should note that Christians are called by distinctively Jewish names in the New Testament. "He is a Jew, which is one inwardly" (Rom. 2:29). Christians are called "the circumcision" (Phil. 3:3), "the children" and "Abraham’s seed" (Gal. 3:7, 29), the " Jerusalem which is above" and the "children of the promise" (Gal. 4:26, 28). In fact, Christians compose "the Israel of God" for we are a "new creature" regarding which "circumcision availeth [nothing]" (Gal. 6:15, 16).
Conclusion
This second class of dispensational distortions presents a clear retrogression and error in the dispensational view of redemptive history. And since dispensationalism is thought to be a tool for historical analysis, this is a most serious deficiency.
1 John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), 23, 24. Emphasis added.
2 Charles C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, N. J.: Loizeaux Bros., 1953), 144.
3 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958), 263.
4 Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, 151.
5 Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, 149, emphasis added.
6 Pentecost, Things to Come, 508.
7 Walvoord, The Rapture Question, 65.
8 Herman Hoyt, "Dispensational Premillennialism" in Robert G. Clouse, ed., The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (Downer's Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1977), 81, emphasis added.
9 Dave Hunt, Whatever Happened to Heaven? (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1988), 246, emphasis added.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Dispensational Distortions Regarding Christ
Part One
Dispensational Distortions Regarding Christ
Part One
written by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D.
Due to my dispensationalist background, I am asked from time to time to speak on the topic of dispensationalism and to give a Reformed critique of certain of its leading errors. Though dispensationalism appears to be fading as an intellectual force, it remains quite popular as a cultural phenomenon, as witness the enormous success of the “Left Behind” series of books. Consequently, Christians need to carefully consider dispensationalism and its theological implications.
In this article I will highlight a series of dispensational distortions that I feel to be harmful to a balanced Christian worldview. Each of these errors impacts our understanding of Christ and His ministry, making the matter of particular concern to evangelicals.
Christ’s Rule Is Future
First, classic dispensationalism denies the contemporary presence of Christ’s Kingdom. Wayne House and Thomas Ice write, “Whatever dynamic God has given believers today does not mean that the Messianic kingdom is here. We see it as totally future.”1
The dispensational view requires Christ’s physical presence on earth to rule over His Kingdom. Dispensationalists do not accept the Reformed notion that Christ’s Kingdom and Kingship are both spiritual. They often complain: “You cannot have the Kingdom present when the King is absent.” This argument has a persuasive impact upon first hearing. But its force is only felt by those who do not carefully think through the implications of the assertion. The beauty of this argument is truly only skin deep.
An immediate problem with this statement is that Satan has an evil kingdom present (Matt. 12:26; John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11), even though he is only spiritually present (Eph. 2:2; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 6:12). But a more serious problem is that Christ clearly taught that He established His Kingdom when He came to earth. Let us survey some of the evidence.
In Mark 1:15, early in His ministry, Christ says: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.” Notice that the prophetically decreed time had come; the Kingdom was declared near at hand — not 2000 (or more!) years away. A little later in His ministry, as He exercises power over Satan, the Lord notes: “[I]f Icast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you” (Matt. 12:28). And we know that He did cast out devils by the Spirit of God, so then by logical deduction Christ Himself has declared that His Kingdom has come.
Christ even prophesied that its coming with great power would be witnessed by His hearers: “And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1, emphasis added). There seems to be a distinction necessary here between the Kingdom’s “coming” (which in Luke 17:20–21 is both subtle and present) and the Kingdom’s coming “with power” (which in the destruction of the temple was dramatic and future, from Christ’s perspective).
There seems no way around the fact that some who literally stood in Jesus’ presence would live (“not taste of death”) until that time, although by that very expression it is implied that some would, in fact, taste death before that event. Consequently, Christ taught that the Kingdom’s coming “with power” would occur in that generation, even though it would be somewhat later than when Jesus spoke (and, hence, not the Transfiguration of only six days later).
In Colossians 1:13 Paul writes of our present salvation: “[He] hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son.” John agrees in Revelation 1:6, 9: “And [He] hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father … I John, who also am your brother, and companion in the tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ.” In fact, we are now ruling with Christ, for Paul says in Ephesians 2:6: He “hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (cf. Rom. 6:5, 8:17; Col. 2:13, 3:1–3; Rev. 20:4).
Dispensationalism distorts Christ’s teaching about the coming of His Kingdom, which was the dramatic point of His entire ministry. In other words, a major reason for Christ’s first coming — to be gloriously enthroned as Messianic King (Isa. 9:6, 7; Luke 24:26; John 12:23, 17:5, 18:37; Acts 2:30–34; 1 Pet. 1:11) — is lost in dispensationalism!
Christ’s Rule Is Political
Second, dispensationalism posits a carnal and political kingdom, rather than a spiritual and redemptive one. Dispensationalism has Christ on a physical throne in earthly Jerusalem administering the day-to-day political and bureaucratic affairs of the world. Citing House and Ice again, we learn: “Then God’s will in heaven will be brought to earth. But not until Christ rules physically from Jerusalem.”2
But Christ and the New Testament writers clearly discount such when they teach that His Kingdom is a spiritual Kingdom rooted in the heart (although not denying its external impact). In Luke 17:20–21 Christ contradicted the Zionist tendencies of the Pharisees when He denied a future earthly, political kingdom introduced by catastrophic intervention: “[W]hen he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there!, for, behold, the kingdom of Godis within you” (emphasis added). Paul picks up on and promotes the spiritual nature of the Kingdom when he writes that “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Rom. 14:17).
When Christ stood before Pilate, He repeated the same truth. In John 18:36 we read: “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.” His was not a political kingdom like that of Caesar’s, requiring an army. This probably explains why He asked Pilate where he got his information (John 18:33, 34). Had he heard it from the Jews, Pilate would have heard a misconception of the nature of the Kingdom (see John 6:15); had he heard Jesus say it, he should have known what Jesus intended.
Dispensationalism discounts the spiritual glory of Christ’s present rule by denying it. And this despite the Biblical record.
Christ’s Second Humiliation
Third, dispensationalism has Christ endure a second humiliation by leaving heaven (which is His throne) to return to rule on earth (which is His footstool) only to finally have His personal Kingdom rule rebelled against. One major aspect of His humiliation was His dwelling in the dust of the earth and suffering abuse during His ministry. House and Ice write that in the postmillennial view, “Messiah is in heaven and only present mystically in his kingdom. His absence from the earth during his kingdom reign robs Messiah of his moment of earthly glory and exaltation.”3
But Scripture teaches of Christ’s return to heaven that it is not a place where He is robbed! We must understand the majestic glory that is His, which issues from His ascension into heaven. Did He not pray to the Father just before the cross: “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5)? He was preparing to leave the earth to enter heaven. He considered that to be glorious, not a robbery of glory!
Ephesians 1:20–22 speaks of His glorious condition in heaven: “Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at His own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet and gave him to be the head over all things to the church.” The same concept is repeated in Philippians 2:9: “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.” 1 Peter 3:22 agrees: “Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.”
According to classic dispensationalism, this is a robbery of His glory!
What’s worse is that the “moment of glory” Christ has during His millennial rule ends up in chaos and rebellion! J. Dwight Pentecost states that toward the end of the millennial Kingdom Satan “goes forth to deceive the nations, in order to lead a final revolt against the theocracy of God.”4 Pentecost admits that “there is no understanding how a multitude, ‘the number of whom is as the sand of the sea’ … could revolt against the Lord Jesus Christ, when they have lived under His beneficence all their lives.”5
As John F. Walvoord puts it: “Thus the last gigantic rebellion of man develops against God’s sovereign rule in which the wicked meet their Waterloo. As the battle is joined in Rev. 20:9, the great host led by Satan and coming from all directions compasses the camp of the saints. The word for ‘camp’ … seems to refer to the city of Jerusalem itself which is described as ‘the beloved city.’”6
According to classic dispensationalism, Christ’s “moment of glory” ends in chaos and ultimate failure! Dispensationalism’s “moment of glory” for Jesus puts Him back in the dust of the earth so that He might personally, physically administer a kingdom that eventually revolts against Him and attacks Him and His capitol.
Conclusion
The errors we have just surveyed are serious. Dispensationalism has significant — not inconsequential — problems inherent within it relative to the view of Christ and His ministry. It is important that we recognize the debate regarding dispensationalism is not over minute details of the complex of end-time events. Dispensationalism inadvertently diminishes the glory of the person and work of Christ.
1 H. Wayne House and Thomas D. Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? (Portland: Multnomah, 1988), 220.
2 House and Ice, Dominion Theology, 160.
3 Ibid., 240.
4 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958), 548.
5 Ibid. , 551.
6 John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), 304.
Friday, June 27, 2008
A Review of
In Defense of Israel
by Dr. John Hagee
A Review of
In Defense of Israel
by Dr. John Hagee
John Hagee, In Defense of Israel: The Bible’s Mandate for Supporting the Jewish State (Lake Mary, Flo.: FrontLine, 2007).
This book was written by New York Times best-selling author John Hagee, pastor of a 19,000 member megachurch in San Antonio. It presents the argument that the Christian Church is biblically obligated to support the political state of Israel on the basis of its fulfillment of biblical prophecy (pp. 84-85) and for the well-being of America (p. 84) It is virtually a hagiography for the Jews which borders on Judeolatry. Hagee almost implies that the Jews and Israel can do no wrong, for he does (as we shall see) call upon Christians to support them as we do God himself: unconditionally.
As I begin this review I have two confessions to make: (1) I had never read a Hagee book before, and (2) I never will again. This work presents dispensationalism gone to seed. The fact that he is a widely popular, multi-million selling, and influential Christian writer demonstrates the tragedy that “my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hos. 4:6).
Hagee presents his argument so vigorously that he effectively demands that we as Christians and America as a nation are obligated by Scripture itself to support the modern political state of Israel in anything it does. For instance, on the back cover he boasts of his “twenty-six years of unconditional support of Israel and the Jewish people.” He demands that “every Christian in America has a biblical mandate to stand in absolute solidarity with Israel” (p. 84, emph. mine) because “we are commanded to love [the Jews] unconditionally” (p. 92). These levels of obligation should be reserved only for obedience to God himself. As Hagee admits regarding his first trip to Israel: “We went as tourists and came home as Zionists” (p. 12).
In extolling Israel Hagee virtually proclaims the superiority of the Jewish race over all other races: “The entire world and especially the United States, owes a debt to the Jewish people. The contributions of the Jewish people are staggering” (p. 99). And he does this while repeatedly rebuking Christianity for creating anti-Semitism: “anti-Semitism has its origin and its complete root structure in Christianity, dating from the early days of the Christian church” (p. 17; cp. pp. 74, 121, 125, 145). He laments: “It is not Jews and Judaism who have lost credibility; it is a loveless Christianity that has lost credibility” (p. 149). He never rebukes Israel for anything, even deflecting its role in Christ’s crucifixion by blaming it on just a few corrupt leaders.
He rebukes Christianity while extolling the religion of Judaism — even worshiping with Jews (p. 144), receiving their religious benediction (p. 45), declaring Jerusalem “my spiritual home” (p. 12), speaking of them as his “spiritual brothers” (pp. 36, 173), and stating that they are “quite literally God’s children” (p. 51, emph. his — what in the world does this mean?) and the “family of our Lord” (p. 92).
Hagee even implies that the Jews do not need to convert to Christ, because “the message of the gospel was from Israel, not to Israel” (p. 134). Though not expressly stated by Hagee, this seems to be implied in his book, for he never calls upon the Jews to accept Christ, and sympathetically explains that we should not expect them to do so because of our treatment of them through the ages: “But the idea that the Jews of the world are going to convert and storm the doors of Christian churches is a myth.... After two thousand years of anti-Semitic replacement theology that says ‘the church is the real Israel,’ thus denying the Jews their rightful place in the economy of God, they are not about to convert” (148). He also sponsors joint, public meetings with them that have “as an unbendable ground rule” that the meetings would be “nonconversionary” (p. 46).
In this work Hagee beautifully weaves strands of incompetence with cords of error to create a tapestry of Judeolatry. This book contains almost as many errors as it does pages. Due to space limitations I will only briefly list some of them. It is necessary, however, to survey evidence of his biblical and historical incompetence to demonstrate how his theological error is simply the conclusion of that incompetence. This will show how dangerous he is as an influence in the Church.
Hagee’s Historical and Biblical Incompetence
He declares that Christianity began to be anti-Semitic in the first century (p. 145) and has been so for 2000 years (p. 118). But elsewhere he states that it became so three hundred years after Christ (p. 18) or has been so for only 1000 years (p. 34). Which is it?
He attempts to show that we must side with the Jews by arguing that Jesus uses a Greek word for “brothers” in Matthew 25:40 that means “relatives according to the flesh” (p. 7), which means it must refer to “the Jewish people.” This verse reads: “And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’” Yet the word is constantly used of spiritual brothers in the New Testament (e.g., Rom 12:10; 14:10, 15; 1 Cor 6:6; 7:12; 8:11; Jms 4:11), even in Matthew itself (e.g., Matt 12:46-50; 18:15-20; 23:88-11). It obviously means spiritual brothers in Christ here in Matthew 25:40, for in Matthew Jesus frequently speaks of the Jews persecuting his followers (Matt 10:17-19; 23:32-36). Acts shows Jews casting Christians into prison, as per Matthew 25:36, 39 (Acts 5:17ff; 8:3).
Regarding an historical matter, Hagee states that “Titus marched from Rome in A.D. 70” to lay “siege to the city of Jerusalem” (p. 18). Actually Titus began his movement toward Jerusalem from Alexandria, Egypt (Josephus, Wars 3:1:3; 3:4:2).
In one place Hagee speaks of Hitler in a contradictory fashion. He notes on p. 35 regarding “Christian” / “Catholic” Hitler that had Jesus “lived in Europe in 1940” he “would have slowly choked to death on the poisonous gas” of the Nazi gas chambers. But in the very next paragraph he provides a quote from Hitler as an illustration of a “Christian” anti-Semite: “Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews.” If Hitler thought he was following Christ in battling the Jews, why would he kill Christ whom he claimed to emulate as a “Christian”?
Hagee argues that Romans 9-11 has “no connection to the preceding or succeeding” text in the book and “stand alone, completely unique in their theme” (pp. 51-52). Yet this passage fits very nicely in his argumentative flow throughout Romans. Paul writes this passage in order to demonstrate that despite Israel’s rebellion against God, salvation is still for the Jews (Rom 1:16; 2:10; 3:1-4, 29; 4:13) and God’s sovereignty (Rom. 8:26-39) has not failed, though the Jews seem to provide evidence that it has (Rom 9:6; 10:1; 11:1). Thus, immediately after the last verse of Romans 11 Paul write: “Therefore I urge you...” (Rom 12:1). “Therefore” never follows an unconnected passages; this codicil is well placed in its larger context. It is not an intrusion bearing “no connection to the preceding or succeeding” text.
In one astonishing gaffe Hagee confuses the virgin birth with the immaculate conception of Mary! “Because of Mary’s immaculate conception, Jesus had just one Jewish parent” (p. 93). On that same page he also states that Acts 11:26 occurred “forty years after the crucifixion,” which would be around AD 70. However, Acts 11 transpires in the early AD 40s during “the reign of Claudius” (Acts 11:28). Claudius was emperor from AD 41-54. It is impossible to date the event forty years after Christ’s crucifixion which occurred in AD 30.
On p. 95 Hagee states that Jesus went to his first Passover “at the end of his twelfth year, which would have been his thirteenth birthday.” Yet Luke 2:42 reports that he did so “when He became twelve,” that is, near or shortly after his twelfth birthday. Hagee speaks of “the apostle Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament” (p. 98). Yet Paul only wrote thirteen of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, and most of these epistles were rather short (only three contain more than six chapters). Luke’s large books (Luke and Acts) comprise the greatest quantitative proportion of the New Testament, 25% of its volume. In the Greek text Luke/Acts contains 37,932 words, whereas Paul’s writings contain 32,407 words.
Incredibly Hagee declares that as a child Jesus studied the Mishnah and the Talmud (p. 96). This is impossible! The Mishnah was compiled around 200 AD, and there are two Talmuds, with the earliest one compiled over 200 years later than the Mishnah. On that same page he also contradicts himself by declaring that in Jesus’ day Judaism was the only monotheistic religion with a Supreme Being (p. 96). Yet on p. 61 he had already correctly noted that Zoroastrianism was a monotheistic faith with one transcendent creator God. It was established more than 500 years before Christ.
Hagee continues his stumbling, for on p. 97 he speaks of “the creation of the world in seven days,” whereas the Bible presents its creation in six days (Gen 1; Exo 20:11; 31:17). On that page he also writes that “Judaism ... gave us the patriarchs,” whereas it was the descendants of the patriarchs who established Judaism hundreds of years later in the time of Moses (see: Jacob Neusner, Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period, 346).
Hagee suggests that a Jew named “Haym Salomon, may have been the true author of the first draft of the U.S. Constitution” rather than James Madison (p. 105). This despite the fact Salomon died two years before it was written. On p. 122 he defines the term “deicide” as meaning “killers of Christ,” though etymologically it means “killers of God” (Latin: deus).
On p. 126 he states that “the high priest Caiaphas ... did not in any way represent the Jewish people” because “he was a political appointment of Herod.” But at least in that one way he represented the Jewish people! More significantly though, Matthew speaks of “the chief priests and the elders of the people” (Matt 26:3).
Furthermore, after Paul rebukes the high priest without realizing who he was, we read an interesting interchange in Acts 23:4-5. Paul speaks of the Rome-appointed high priest as protected by biblical law: “But the bystanders said, ‘Do you revile God’s high priest?’ And Paul said, ‘I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, “You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.”’” Paul did not protest his illegitimacy as “God’s high priest.” In addition, the Mishnah and Talmuds (which Hagee extolls) recognize the high priests as representatives of Israel (e.g., m. Hor. 3:4; b. Yoma 1:1), as does Josephus (Wars 2:14:8; 4:5:2; 5:5:7; Life 1:2 ).
In another historical blunder, on p. 127 Hagee comments that Caiaphas “was appointed by Herod.” Actually he was appointed by the Roman prefect Valerius Gratus over twenty years after Herod died.
Hagee argues that the Jewish people were not responsible for Christ’s death, only their leaders who were few in number. Then he states “the justice of God would never permit judgment for the sins of a handful of people to be passed to an entire civilization of people” (p. 131). This leaves him with no theological explanation for the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and the 2000 years of Jewish oppression. Though Jesus sees the Temple and Jerusalem’s destruction as resulting from God’s judgment (Matt 23:32-24:2, 16-17).
Hagee makes the incredible assertion that “the Pharisees in the school of Hillel were as mad as hornets because Jesus would not endorse Shammai’s teaching on ‘divorce for every cause’” (p. 129). This is a bizarre analysis of their differences with Christ on divorce. But as a matter of historical fact these two schools warred against each another, the one school would not have been upset with Christ for discounting the view of the other school, especially since he would be siding with one of the schools!
Regarding the antagonism between Hillel and Shammai, Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner writes: “According to the Talmud, the tendency of Hillel’s academy towards moderation was shaped by the personality of Hillel himself.... By contrast, members of the House of Shammai took on the characteristics of their teacher, Shammai, who is know [sp.] for intemperance and severity,” so that “the disputes of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai comprise the largest corpus of materials cited in the names of authorities active prior to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 C.E.” (Neusner, Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period, 293).
In an strange analysis of the Great Commission, on p. 134 (and 145) Hagee argues that the Commission was to be preached to every “creature,” which shows that “Gentiles were considered creatures” like “dogs”! He obviously does not know Greek, for the Greek word ktisis means “creation,” like when we are made a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17). We are not made “new dogs.”
In another odd maneuver on p. 147 Hagee points to the plural “My people” in Isaiah 40:1 and argues that this shows there are “two groups of people in this verse,” by which he means Israel and the Church. But the fact is that “My people” in the plural is used scores of times in referring to the one people Israel (e.g., Exo 3:10; 5:1; Isa 5:13; 10:24).
On p. 154 Hagee writes that Jesus “gave us three sermons” that “are prophetic in nature”: Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. But these are one sermon recorded by three different Gospel writers. And now all of this leads us to consider his leading and most astounding theological errors.
Hagee’s Theological Errors
Again space constraints forbid my fully engaging his many theological errors, but I must present those that form the very purpose of his book. His exegetical stumblings and historical confusions lead inexorably to these serious theological errors. Six keys errors I will highlight are Hagee’s claims that:
1. Jesus did not present himself as the Messiah.
Hagee writes: “Not one verse of Scripture in the New Testament ... says Jesus came to be the Messiah” (p. 136). “The Jews were not rejecting Jesus as Messiah; it was Jesus who was refusing to be the Messiah to the Jews” (p. 140; cp. 145). In fact, he wrongly argues that “if God intended for Jesus to be the Messiah of Israel, why didn’t he authorize Jesus to use supernatural signs to prove he was God’s Messiah”? (p. 137).
These incredible assertions absolutely contradict the New Testament and historic Christian teaching. Jesus is called “Christ” in over 385 passages of the New Testament. “Christ” is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew term “Messiah.” When Jesus asks his disciples “Who do you say that I am,” Peter answers: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:15-16). To this Jesus responds: “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17). Jesus actually blesses Peter for declaring his Messiahship, even noting that God in heaven revealed this to Peter. He then “warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ” (Matt. 16:20). In similar terms faithful Martha also declares Jesus to be the Christ (John 11:27).
Note only so, but contrary to Hagee, Christ did prove this through supernatural signs. In John 10:24-25 the Jews demand of him: “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answers them: “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these bear witness of Me.” Note his clear affirmation and his pointing to his “works” (miracles) as witness to the fact. God did authorize Jesus to use signs to confirm his Messiahship. In fact, the Jews see his signs as proof of his Messiahship: “many of the multitude believed in Him; and they were saying, ‘When the Christ shall come, He will not perform more signs than those which this man has, will He?’” (John 7:31).
Christ’s messianic signs represent the very purpose for John’s writing his Gospel. The Gospel closes with these words: “Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:30-31; emph. mine).
Before his crucifixion, in his High Priestly Prayer he speaks to the Father: “And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent” (John 17:3). In Matthew 26:63-64 Jesus is on trial for his life. The high priest formally demanded of him: “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63). Matthew records his answer: “You have said it yourself” (Matt. 26:64). Thus, under oath he affirms that he is the Messiah.
Later at Pentecost in Jerusalem Peter preaches from the Psalms: “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know ... [David] looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay.... Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:22, 31, 36). This is the apostolic message throughout Acts (Acts 4:26; 5:42; 8:5, 12; 10:36, 48; 17:2-3; 18:5, 28; 20:21; 26:23; 28:31). Indeed, Paul was “confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ” (Acts 9:22).
2. The Jews did not reject Jesus as the Messiah.
Hagee states that: “The Jews did not reject Jesus as Messiah” (p. 132, 135), for “how can the Jews be blamed for rejecting what was never offered? (p. 136, emph. his). “Had Jesus permitted himself to become the reigning Messiah to the Jews, he would have missed the sovereign will of God for his life” (p. 134) because “Jesus had to live to be the Messiah” (p. 135). He explains that those who reject Jesus and seek his crucifixion “could not have numbered more than a few hundred” (p. 129). The plot against Jesus “had nothing to do with the Jewish people as a civilization,” for “three out of four Jews did not live in what the Romans called Palestine” and “nine out of ten of the Jews in Palestine at that time lived outside of Jerusalem” (p. 131).
In the first place, the Jews did reject Christ. Early on in John’s Gospel we read that “He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him” (John 1:11). John is not limiting the rejection to leadership of Israel. And in the following context we read that John the Baptist denied being the Christ though affirming he was Christ’s forerunner (1:19-29) and Andrew told Peter “‘we have found the Messiah’ (which translated means Christ)” (John 1:41). In fact, he wrote the Gospel to urge belief in Jesus as the Christ” (John 20:31), though his own did not receive him as such.
Stephen declares this in his sermon: “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become” (Acts 7:51-52). According to Scripture we learn even that “Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him... ‘I know that you are Abraham’s offspring; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you” (John 8:31). The Lord even warned his disciples of the prophesied outcome: “If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, ‘They hated Me without a cause’” (John 15:24-25). He frequently noted that even ancient, evil pagans would more readily believe that the Jews: “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you” (Matt 11:21-22; cp. Matt 10:15; 11:23-24). And Stephen’s denunciation (Acts 7:51-52) was given before a broad Jewish audience (Acts 6:9, 12-13; 7:57-58; 8:1).
At the end of his ministry Jesus weeps over Jerusalem (not over the Sanhedrin or the high priestly aristocracy): “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling” (Matt. 23:37).
In the second place, Christ did come to die. Peter declares to the Jews that “the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He has thus fulfilled” (Acts 3:18). Paul busied himself among the Jews in Thessalonica “explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, ‘This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ’” (Acts 17:3). In his defense before Festus regarding the Jewish accusations against him, Paul asserted “that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He should be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:23).
3. The Old Covenant remains in effect.
Hagee argues that “the Old Covenant is not dead” (p. 158). In fact, “Scripture plainly indicates that the church (spiritual Israel) and national Israel exist side by side, and neither replaces the other — ever!” (p. 146, emph. his). “Replacement theology advances the concept that the Old Covenant, or Old Testament, has been replaced by the New Testament” (p. 158).
These assertions require us to believe that Jews are saved today without express faith in Christ — in that they are under the God-ordained, continuing old covenant standards. But not even this helps the Jews much since they do not have a temple in order to carry out the requirements of the old covenant!
Besides, Jeremiah’s revelation of the new covenant states that the new covenant will supplant the old (or else there would be no purpose in it): “‘Behold, days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,’ declares the Lord” (Jer 31:31-32). Can the Jews ignore the new covenant God has made? The new covenant which is established by the blood of Christ and is pictured in the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)?
Paul declares that if one keeps the sign of the old covenant (circumcision) as a religious obligation “Christ will be of no benefit to you” (Gal 5:3). This is because “in Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything” (Gal 5:6). He writes that the old covenant’s glory was fading even when given by Moses (2 Cor 3:7, 13). Therefore, the old covenant “has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it” in the new covenant (2 Cor 3:10). Thus, “when He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear” (Heb 8:13).
Indeed, Christ came to save us and to unite Jew and Gentile in one body “by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man” (Eph 2:15). To teach that the old covenant commandments remains in effect and are acceptable to God is to put asunder what God has joined together in Christ. And this directly contradicts Jesus’ statement that “an hour is coming when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father.... But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers” (John 4:21, 23). Jerusalem will no longer be central; the temple system will no longer be in effect.
4. The Jews are not responsible for Jesus’ death.
Hagee vigorously argues that “one of those deadly New Testament myths is that the Jews killed Jesus, yet no justification can be found in the New Testament to support this lie” (p. 125). He defines Anti-Semitism as “a poisonous stream of venom” wherein “Christian leaders [labeled] the Jews as ‘Christ killers” (p. 20). He announces that “the Jews are not Christ killers” (p. 122).
This is not only a mistaken belief on his part, but effectively calls the Apostles and writers of the New Testament liars filled with poisonous venom. Though it is true the Romans physically accomplished the crucifixion of Christ, the Gospel record clearly and repeatedly emphasizes that it was because of the Jews. Pilate even washed his hands of the death of the innocent Christ forced on him by the Jews (Matt 27:24; cp. John 18:28-31; 19:12, 15).
Jesus prophesied that the Jews would kill him: “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death” (Matt 20:18; cp. Matt. 27:11-25; Mark 15:1). The Emmaus Road disciples even recognized this fact when they described “how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him up to the sentence of death, and crucified Him” (Luke 24:20).
While recognizing the obvious physical role of the Romans in Christ’s death, Peter, Stephen, and Paul repeatedly blame the Jews for his death. Speaking to a general religious gathering of Jews (Acts 2:5-11), Peter states: “Men of Israel, listen to these words: ... this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death” (Acts 2:22-23). Stephen denounces the Jewish crowd gathered at his trial, declaring that they were the “betrayers and murderers” of “the Righteous One” (Acts 7:52). Paul charges that “the Jews ... both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets” (1 Thess 2:15). See also: Acts 2:36; 3:13-15a; 4:10; 5:28, 30; 10:39; 13:27-29; 26:10.
5. Anti-Semitism had its origins in first century Christianity.
Hagee believes that “anti-Semitism has its origin and its complete root structure in Christianity” (p. 17). He even favorably cites James Parkes: “In our day ... more than six million deliberate murders are the consequences of the teaching about Jews for which the Christian Church is ultimately responsible ... which has its ultimate resting place in the teaching of the New Testament itself” (p. 125).
We must confess that Christianity often engaged in deplorable Anti-Semitism. But such was based on an abuse of the biblical record, not the fact of that record. The New Testament is no more Anti-Semitic in this than are the prophets who vigorously charged Israel with sin. Isaiah calls Israel’s rulers “rulers of Sodom” and the people “people of Gomorrah” (Isa 1:10) — while rejecting the legitimacy of their worship (1:11-15). He even says of rebellious Israel that her worship is equivalent to offering “swine’s blood” and burning incense to “an idol” (66:3).
Jeremiah declares the land “completely polluted” (Jer 3:1) and the people “a harlot” to be divorced by God (3:1-10). Ezekiel calls upon executioners to come and destroy Jerusalem (Eze 9:1ff), warns that God’s glory has left the temple (10:1ff), and compares Israel to a harlot (Eze 16). Is this not inflammatory, denunciatory language? Why are they not deemed “Anti-Semitic”? Could not their words be abusively taken to justify persecution of the Jews?
Furthermore, in Hagee’s adulation of Judaism and denunciation of Christianity, he totally overlooks the widespread persecution of Christianity by the Jews: “on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles” (Acts 8:1). This appears repeatedly in the Apostolic record (Matt 10:17; 23:37ff.; Acts 4:1-3, 15-18; 5:17-18, 27-33, 40; 6:12-15; 7:54-60; 8:1; 9:1-4, 13, 21, 23, 29; 12:1-3; 13:45-50; 14:2-5, 19; 17:5-8, 13; 18:6, 12, 17; 20:3, 19; 21:11, 27-32; 22:3-5, 22-23; 23:12, 20-21; 24:5-9, 27; 25:2-15; 25:24; 26:21; 28:17-29; Rom 15:31; 2 Cor 11:24; Gal 6:12; Heb 10:33-34).
Nor does Hagee mention the famous role of Jews bringing firewood to burn Polycarp at the stake. Nor the birkath ha-minim, the benediction against the heretics (Jewish Christians), which was cited daily in the synagogues beginning in the late first century: “For the renegades let there be no hope, and may the arrogant kingdom soon be rooted out in our days, and the Nazarenes and the minim perish as in a moment and be blotted out from the book of life and with the righteous may they not be inscribed” (b. Berkhoth 28b). In the Jewish Tosefta (AD 300) we read of the Jewish treatment of Minim (Jewish Christians): “One does not sell to them or receive from them or take from them or give to them. One does not teach their sons a trade'” (t. Hullin 2:20); and “The Minim and the apostates and the betrayers are cast in [a pit] and not helped out” (t. B. Mezia 2:33).
6. Christianity and Judaism are spiritual brothers.
Hagee demands that “evangelicals” must recognize of the Jews that “we are spiritual brothers” (p. 173) and that he is seeking “reconciliation with my Jewish brothers” (p. 35).
Can we call someone a “brother” who rejects Christ (1John 4:2-3; 5:1)? Is not Christianity superior to Judaism? And are not Christ’s words against the Jews who reject him quite strong? “And I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 8:11-12). How can we deem our Jewish friends to be our “spiritual brothers,” if we hold to the New Testament?
In conclusion, this book should have a label on it warning the readers: “Contains doctrine that is hazardous to your spiritual health.” He at least could have titled it “Leave Behind,” as a suggestion as to what we should do with it.
by Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry, Director
NiceneCouncil.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
