In chapter 3, and especially chapter 4, we considered allegations by a number of scholars that the disqualification of national Israel, according to the broken terms of the old covenant, led to transference, via imagery, of its promised blessings to the NT people of God. As a result, a new, distinctive, even apostolic principle of interpretation arose. In simple terms it was the necessity of focusing on the OT text through the clarifying lens of Jesus Christ's NT revelation. The argument runs that because NT writers appear to have freely interpreted many passages in the OT revelation christo-logically and ecclesiologically, then we must employ this same hermeneutical method in interpreting the OT as a whole, and its eschatology as well. In other words, by a process of reinterpretive imposition, the revelation of Jesus Christ has nullified a normative literal understanding of the OT. However, before we take a closer look at this interpretive methodology, which is really an upgraded Origenistic and Augustinian hermeneutic, some further historical background concerning its origin will prove helpful.
Reformed Connection with Roman Catholicism
Numerous Reformed writers have been inclined to boast in their amillennial eschatology's long-standing heritage going back to Augustine. They rightly claim that their essential prophetic perspective overwhelmingly dominated the church following the fourth century. The illustrious, indeed God-blessed Reformation perpetuated this inherited eschatology, even though the gospel and the doctrine of the church were subject to considerable, indeed radical change and apostolic recovery at that time. For example, contemporary conservative Reformed writer Kim Riddlebarger makes this point most emphatically when he describes amillennialism as “the historic Protestant understanding of the millennial age.”1 One is led to believe that to be Reformed in the fullest sense of that term is to be amillennial and that Augustinian eschatology, channeled through Luther, ought to be regarded as the traditional scheme of prophetic revelation. Implicit is Riddlebarger's belief that the vagaries of premillennialism, repudiated as carnal chiliasm, along with its dispensational subset, should yield to the more historic stream.
The Protestant orthodox also used the more polemical term chiliasmus crassissimus, “the grossest millennialism,” regarding those who stressed the earthly and Jewish elements of the millennial age, much like contemporary dispensationalists. Most Protestants regard chiliasm as incompatible with Reformation orthodoxy. This may come as a surprise to many American evangelicals, who assume that Bible-believing Christians throughout the centuries have held to premillennialism.2
For the believer of Reformed convictions, there is a strong allegiance to historical roots and continuity, especially insofar as connection with the historic Reformation is concerned, distinctively emanating from Wittenberg, Geneva, and Westminster. So Riddlebarger further claims,
First given systematic expression by Augustine in his famous City of God, amillennialism developed a distinctive Reformed emphasis. … Because amillennialism has its roots deep in historic Christianity, when it comes to comparing amillennialism with dispensationalism, clearly the burden of proof lies with dispensationalists to prove their case. Evangelicals often assume the opposite. It should also be noted that all major thinkers in Christian history have held something akin to the amillennial position (e.g. Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin). This does not mean that amillennialism is true simply because it has historical support within Catholic Christianity and historic Protestantism. Nevertheless this is an impressive point, which is often not considered.3
Such claims call for a response that clearly exposes the shameful legacy of historic amillennialism, which is really the eschatology of Roman Catholicism. According to Chapman, Burge, Robertson, and Sizer, the Christian Church has, through inheritance, become the new Israel of God. Such language is nothing new according to Roman Catholicism. Consider the following:
1. In fact, from the beginning of his ministry, the Lord Jesus instituted the Twelve as “the seeds of the new Israel and the beginning of the sacred hierarchy.”4
2. As Israel according to the flesh which wandered in the desert was already called the Church of God (2 Esd. 13:1; see Num. 20:4; Deut. 23:1ff.), so too, the new Israel, which advances in this present era in search of a future and permanent city (cf. Heb. 13:14), is called also the Church of Christ (cf. Matt. 16:18).5
3. Modern Israel is not the true heir of the biblical Israel, but a secular state. …Therefore, the Holy Land and its sacred sites belong to Christianity, the true Israel.6
4. His [Jesus Christ's] intention in employing the term [qahal], hitherto used of the Hebrew people viewed as a church, to denote the society He Himself was establishing cannot be mistaken [Matt. 16:18]. It implied the claim that this society now constituted the true people of God, that the Old Covenant was passing away, and that He, the promised Messias, was inaugurating a New Covenant with a New Israel.
Hebrew prophecy relates in almost equal proportions to the person and to the work of the Messias. This work was conceived as consisting of the establishment of a kingdom, in which he was to reign over a regenerated Israel. The prophetic writings describe for us with precision many of the characteristics which were to distinguish that kingdom. Christ during His ministry affirmed not only that the prophecies relating to the Messias were fulfilled in His own person, but also that the expected Messianic kingdom was none other than His Church.
In the Apostolic teaching the term Church, from the very first, takes the place of the expression Kingdom of God (Acts 5:11). Where others than the Jews were concerned, the greater suitability of the former name is evident; for Kingdom of God had special reference to Jewish beliefs. But the change of title only emphasizes the social unity of the members. They are the new congregation of Israel—the theocratic polity: they are the people (laos) of God (Acts 15:14; Rom. 9:25; 2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Peter 2:9; Heb. 8:10; Rev. 18:4; 21:33).7
But since the time of Augustine, the amillennial doctrine of the super-cession of national Israel by the Christian church has resulted in the vilification of the Jewish people over the centuries, which has not excluded participation by Reformed individuals and congregations, notwithstanding some notable exceptions. It is interesting to consider that more recently, while within the Roman Catholic Church there has been some sorrowful confession of this tragic heritage, those of conservative Reformed convictions have appeared to be reluctant to confront the ethical shame of their eschatological roots. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church, despite Nostra Aetate of Vatican II, in which anti-Semitism was denounced,8 nevertheless continues to maintain that it is the new Israel. The root of the Church of Rome's problem here has not been excised.
Other Christian denominations have also recently repudiated anti-Judaism in a confessional sense. As examples, Michael Vlach refers to the Central Board of the Swiss Protestant Church Federation, the Mennonite European Regional Conference, the Synod of the Evangelical Church of the Rhineland, the Texas Conference of Churches, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), though associated with disinvestment concerning Israel, that have issued a variety of high-sounding statements repudiating replacement theology in one form or another. Yet none of these specifically declare agreement with Israel's divine covenantal rights in terms of ethnicity, nationality, and territory.9
Those of a Reformed persuasion are faced with the embarrassment of alignment with a sordid eschatological lineage (see chapter 2) and the alternative of alignment with divine, uncompromising recognition of National Israel in the present, after the manner of Rom 11:28. This would also involve the recognition of divine acknowledgment of Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and territory as being intrinsic to the modern Hebrew people of God, notwithstanding their unbelief. The dilemma then concerns an eschatological vision that inescapably draws close to a broad premillennial perspective with regard to Israel, especially concerning the interpretation of passages such as Ezekiel 36–37, Zechariah 14, and Romans 11. By contrast, there is the disgraceful eschatology that has dominated Augustinian, Roman Catholic, and Reformed church history for centuries.
Israel and Judeo-centric Premillennialism
up to the Reformation
The classic eschatological distinction for centuries was between the supercessionism of Augustine, as reflected in his City of God, and chiliasm that was often maligned for its alleged carnality and Judeo-centricity. As will be demonstrated, chiliasm and subsequent premillennialism have continued to uphold a closer identity with the perpetuation of the Jewish people as a nation with a distinct eschatological hope. This being so, and in light of the theological anti-Judaism that flowed forth with dominant influence out of Augustine's eschatology, it is easier to understand how premillennialism suffered Cinderella-like belittlement as a consequence. Over the centuries that led up to the Reformation, the commanding influence of classic amil-lennialism was not a matter of choice according to the free biblical enquiry of Christians in general. During this period, the normative eschatology was upheld by the ecclesiastical powers, according to the lineage of Augustine and Aquinas, and it admirably suited the perpetuation and consolidation of the Church triumphant on earth as the new Israel that was rigidly intolerant of any suggestion of a revived and regenerated old Israel. Thus, at the dawning of the Reformation,
in the sixteenth century, the rejection of the doctrine of a future terrestrial millennium was so common in Puritanism, and in Protestantism more generally, that it represented a mainstream position at the time. Luther and Melanchthon, Zwingli and Bullinger, and Calvin and Beza repudiated the millenarian doctrine, as did the Elizabethan Anglicans John Bale and John Foxe and their Puritan contemporaries Thomas Cartright and William Perkins. These and other “amillennialists,” as they are often called, either assigned the millennium to a past historical epoch that antedated the supposed corruption of the apostolic church by Roman Catholicism, or saw the millennium as the whole period of the Christian dispensation between the incarnation and the second coming, or regarded the millennium as a purely spiritual condition existing only in heaven or perhaps in the souls of living believers. But in the early to mid-seventeenth century, this amillennialist consensus unraveled as the idea of a future millennium on earth gained popularity, particularly in Reformed circles.10
Only with the advent of printing and the freedom to publish that coalesced during the early seventeenth century did a more independent pastorate result and the people at all stratas find themselves exposed to a revival of more millennial interpretations of Scripture, especially as eventually designated as premillennialism and postmillennialism.
Israel and Judeo-centric Premillennialism
Beyond the Reformation
In broad terms, the eschatology of the late sixteenth century perpetuated Augustinianism, the result being that chiliasm continued to be associated with certain extremist segments of Anabaptism. But the seventeenth century introduced an openness to millennial speculation that has continued to the present, though the reason for this eruption and consequent flurry of discussion is a matter that has already been indicated briefly in chapter 2 with regard to Puritanism. At the conclusion of Crawford Gribbens' published doctoral thesis, he draws attention to the observations of Christopher Hill which prove to be most enlightening.
If, as [Christopher] Hill claims, English Calvinism was crumbling in the 1590s, then after the 1640s both strict church discipline and Calvinist theology finally “lost their grip”: “Calvinism broke down when the Revolution established freedom of discussion.” …The revolution's literary implications were also enormous. …As Thomas Manton noted in 1655, “The press is an excellent means to scatter knowledge, were it not so often abused. All complain there is enough written, and think that now there should be a stop. Indeed, it were well if in this scribbling age there were some restraint. Useless pamphlets are grown almost as great a mischief as the erroneous and profane.” Hill has noted that, “The collapse of censorship saw a fantastic outpouring of books, pamphlets and newspapers. Before 1640, newspapers were illegal; by 1645 there were 722. Twenty-two books were published in 1640; over 2,000 in 1642. As both sides in the Civil War appealed for support from the ordinary people, the issues at stake had to be discussed. But it went farther than that...No old shibboleths were left unchallenged in this unprecedented freedom.” Perhaps Owen had been right in hoping “we might have less writing, and more praying.”11
The result was a resurgence of millennialism that continued to be opposed by much of the Anglican, European Reformed and Lutheran establishments. Nevertheless,
on the Continent, the key figures in the transition to millenarianism were two German Reformed theologians, Johann Piscator and Johann Heinrich Alsted; and in England, they were Thomas Brightman and Joseph Mede, an Anglican whose influence on the emergence of Puritan millenarianism was profound.12
As eschatological study of Scripture and resultant speculation fomented fresh discovery, two distinctive schools of millennialism emerged and came to the fore. There was premillennialism, which anticipated the future return of Jesus Christ just prior to the commencement of his earthly thousand-year reign, and postmillennialism, which anticipated the future earthly millennium at the end of which Jesus Christ would personally return to earth. However, “the three major eschatological traditions which the Christian church has developed—a-, pre- and postmillennialism—each found expression within the puritan movement.”13
Wilhelmus à Brakel
A further example of a more pro-Judaic, European eschatology that appeared in the seventeenth century was that expressed by Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635–1711), an esteemed Dutch Reformed theologian who ministered in Rotterdam, Holland, having eschatological views that contrasted with the more standard Augustinian variety. Willem VanGemeren explains that, in objecting to Calvin, Brakel held that,
the Church could not be identified with the New Israel. When Paul wrote about “all Israel” (Rom. 11:25) he was referring to the nation, and not the totality of the church and national Israel. This rejection of Calvin was also found in Brakel's contemporaries. Brakel expected all twelve tribes to repent and express faith in Jesus as the Messiah. He also held that the Jews would be privileged to return to their land. The promise of the land is not just a type of the eternal rest or of heaven, rather it is part and parcel with the covenant of grace which God made to and affirmed with Israel. Brakel kept Israel and church together.14
Brakel's whole tone is also particularly Pauline since it breathes a tenderness that at the same time did not see the necessity of denying Jewish distinctiveness. So he wrote,
Will the Jewish nation be gathered together again from all the regions of the world and from all the nations of the earth among which they have been dispersed? Will they come to and dwell in Canaan and all the lands promised to Abraham, and will Jerusalem be rebuilt?
We believe that these events will transpire. We deny, however, that the temple will be rebuilt, and that therein the previous mode of worship will be observed, which prior to Christ's coming was of a typifying nature and would then be of a reflective nature. We also deny that Israel will then have dominion over the entire world—and other such things which the Jews imagine and some Christians dream about. Rather, they will be an independent republic, governed by a very wise, good-natured, and superb government. Furthermore, Canaan will be extraordinarily fruitful, the inhabitants will be eminently godly, and they will constitute a segment of the glorious state of the church during the thousand years prophesied in Revelation 20.15
It is notable that, like Jonathan Edwards, for Brakel the unity of the redeemed people of God will yet comprise a diversity, incorporating territory, in which Israel is a distinctive part of the whole. What is also significant concerning Brakel's belief in the regenerate future of national Israel is his evident loving attitude, without compromise concerning Israel's unbelief, that is manifest in his consideration of how Christians should respond to unbelieving Jews. Surely his kindly temperament was the result of his Judeo-centric eschatology. Consider his “various reasons...for focusing upon the conversion of the Jewish Nation”:
(1) Attentively observe the immutability of the covenant God made with Abraham and his seed. Consider that God, in spite of all their sins and stiffneckedness under it, does not break His promise nor will He permit any of the good words spoken to them to fall to the earth.
(2) Do not despise the Jewish nation. “Boast not against the branches” (Rom. 11:18), the natural branches of that olive tree into which you, as branches of a wild olive tree, have been grafted contrary to nature. “Be not high-minded, but fear” (Rom. 11:20). 1) They have received more than enough contempt from the unconverted. 2) They are in one and the same covenant with Abraham, their father. 3) “They are beloved for the father's sakes” (Rom. 11:28). Therefore, let there be the love of benevolence toward them. They are the children of the covenant (Acts 3:25). 4) They will once be converted and be a glorious and holy people above all the nations on the face of the earth. Therefore, esteem, honor, and love them.
(3) Have pity upon their state, which is so wretched according to the flesh, being despised and detested among the nations—this is a righteous judgment of God upon them for their rejection of Christ. They hate the Lord Jesus, the true Messiah, with an evil hatred, and are living without the true religion—yes, have a religion which does not even resemble a religion. Nevertheless, they find a wonderful delight in it; thus they live in a state in which they cannot be saved, but have nothing to look forward to but eternal damnation.
(4) Pray for their conversion. How they have prayed for the conversion of the Gentiles! How they rejoiced in the prophecies that one day the Gentiles would be converted! Therefore, you ought to do likewise for their conversion, for you can pray this in faith, since they will certainly be converted.
(5) By way of a holy life show that you are walking in the footsteps of their father Abraham. The life of so many so-called Christians offends them and keeps them from exercising faith in Christ. They do not know, except it be to a very limited extent, that among Christians there are presently many who fear and love Jehovah, the God of Israel. Therefore, manifest the image of Christ by way of a holy walk, so that they may be convicted by it and yet be aroused to jealousy. Occasionally make use of opportunities to speak in a friendly manner with them, making your affection known to them, as well as your anticipation of their restoration in Canaan. Speak to them about the Lord Jesus by the name of Messiah. Speak of the dreadfulness of sin and of eternal damnation to follow upon sin, and show this from the Scriptures of the Old Testament if you are able to do so. Show them that man cannot be justified before God by works, and that all their deeds cannot justify them. Show them from the Old Testament that the Messiah would make satisfaction for sin by His death, reconcile God with man, and convert souls, proving this from Isaiah 53; 61, and Daniel 9. The fact is that in doing so you have done your duty, and it will be a delight to your soul that you have done so. Be very careful not to quarrel, however, thereby giving them an opportunity to slander and grieve you by their diatribe.16
Luther's Eschatological Legacy
The inheritance from the Augustinian tradition that modern Europe received, notwithstanding the opposition of Melanchthon and others to Luther's excesses, resulted in the continuance of an eschatology that upheld the essentially anti-Judaic thesis, namely, the transference of blessings, formerly promised to Israel, to the Christian Church for its fulfillment. As a consequence, the Jews continued to be an offence to western civilization, especially within Europe, a claimant forever disinherited of their Jewishness. The Catholic, Protestant, and Reformed churches gave encouragement to this anti-Judaic course. The end result, however, was a Germany that, having shaken the world with its call back to biblical Christianity, yet became the shame of the world whereby it caused the name of God to be blasphemed among the Jews. Thus Robert Wistrich concludes:
The German Reformation, under Luther's guidance, therefore led in a very unfavourable direction for the Jews, when compared with parallel developments in English, Dutch or Swiss Protestantism. The seed of hatred sown by Luther would reach its horrible climax in the Third Reich, when German Protestants showed themselves to be particularly receptive to Nazi anti-Semitism.17
Evidence of continuity concerning this eschatological lineage is not difficult to find. Consider a contemporary expression of Luther's Augustinian anti-Judaism by The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, titled “The eschatology presented in The Lutheran Confessions is clearly amillennialist.”18 The whole content of this document adds unqualified support to this statement. Then in an “Excursus Regarding the Jews,” anti-Semitism is nevertheless repudiated while at the same time we are told quite defensively that, “Martin Luther, in his last sermon, said concerning the attitude of Christians toward the Jewish people, ‘We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord.’“19 However, what is unsaid here is just as significant, for Williamson also explains that “Luther's last sermon, preached a few days before his death, importunately appealed that all Jews be driven from Germany.”20 Then “The End Times” Report concludes:
Believing Jews, together with Gentiles, constitute the New Israel. In Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28). In speaking of the place of Jews within saving history, the Scriptures do not ascribe a political fulfillment to Old Testament texts which deal with the future of “Israel.” The modern Israeli state is not the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The view of an earthly millennium with the temple rebuilt cannot be substantiated. Quite simply the Scriptures are silent regarding modern political events in the Middle East and any Jewish right to the land there. Judgments concerning such matters are therefore not theological questions.21
As we have already seen, the exegesis of Lutheran commentator R. C. H. Lenski follows the same course. In a similar, though more vociferous vein, the eschatology of Herman Otten, editor of the Lutheran Christian News, has been vehemently anti-Judaic in doctrine, and especially so with regard to the modern State of Israel. Francis Pieper's Christian Dogmatics (1953), a standard Missouri Synod work, is also thoroughgoing in its amillennialism. Here theological anti-Judaism plainly rears its head. Pieper opposed the modern State of Israel because its establishment would
divert the attention of the Jews from the Gospel which in their dispersion they now hear and are to believe to a future age. This pernicious effect is intensified if this dream of a future “time of the Jews” is made attractive to them by promises of Jewish nationalism, a return to, and possession of, the land of their forefathers, and a rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, with re-establishment of its elaborate worship. One of the many deplorable consequences of the World War is the promise of the Allies to give Palestine to the Jews as their national home. Instead of repenting of their sins and believing in the Messiah who has come, the Orthodox Jews dream of a return to Palestine and the rebuilding of the Temple with its worship (Zionism), and the Reform Jews envision a spiritual domination of the world by Jewish intellectual superiority and erudition, to be achieved by means of a Jewish university on the Mount of Olives.22
What further proof is needed of the shameful eschatological spirit of Augustine living on in Augustinian Lutheranism? Whereas the Bishop of Hippo rejected the concept of extreme persecution of the Jews (that is, elimination), he favored their being kept in subjection and impoverishment.23 So Pieper would similarly have them remain as vagabonds for their own spiritual good! The whole spirit of this doctrinal expression is repugnant in the light of Rom 11:18–20.
Departure from Luther
By the time of the late seventeenth century, the creedal formulation of Lutheranism had deteriorated into cool dogmatic orthodoxy resulting in a nation in spiritual decline, out of which arose the pietistic movement. It was prompted by Philipp Jacob Spener of Frankfurt and Berlin, who was concerned about the spiritually bleak and parched state of Lutheranism.24
While Spener considered himself a dwarf when compared with Luther's stature, yet he maintained that standing on the shoulders of this giant he was enabled to see further ahead. He was pained when Lutherans spoke evil of Luther's Reformation but was insistent that spiritual reform should continue toward personal sanctification and piety.25 Joined by A. H. Franke, a new movement grew that resulted in the founding of the University of Halle and a large growing body of spiritually zealous pastors. Through Spener's godson, Count Nicolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf, the Herrnhut community developed, which greatly influenced John Wesley.
The pietistic movement developed with a more millenarian emphasis with greater tolerance toward the Jews. This contrasted with the Augsburg Confession, Article XVII, which condemned those “who now scatter Jewish opinions, that, before the resurrection of the dead, the godly shall occupy the kingdom of the world, the wicked being every where suppressed.”26 Spener evidenced a mild postmillennialism27 that helped stem the tide of anti-Semitism in his day.
It has been suggested that Spener, in Frankfurt, treated the Jewish people not only as potential Christians, but also as neighbors assigned by God. …His forthright and frequent denunciation of the teasing and mobbing of Jewish people on the streets by Christian children caused that malicious practice to occur with less frequency. …Spener replied affirmatively to the question, “Can Christian midwives attend Jewish women?” ...Spener in numerous later opinions advised against expulsion of Jews or abolition of their synagogues. ...Spener was a promoter of Christian missions to Jews. He himself baptized a number of Jewish converts to Christianity at Frankfurt. He conceded, however, how difficult it was to help these people, now bereft of family and position, to recapture financial security. He, therefore, concluded that reborn Christians could best help in this difficult task by living out their faith in love-filled lives that would make the Gospel attractive to Jews.28
As we have already seen with Brakel, here is further proof that Judeo-centric doctrine, in giving right biblical acknowledgment of the Jews even in unbelief, while having evangelism in mind, is best suited for the production of a loving attitude toward the Jews. A scholarly lineage of Lutheran premillennialists developed that included Bengel, Zahn, Delitzsch, Godet, Auberlen, and Rothe, along with van Osterzee who was Dutch Reformed. Thus “American Lutherans were aware of these European theologians. Some Lutherans emigrating to America brought these millennialistic views with them.”29 In the United States, three particular Lutherans encouraged Judeo-centric premillennialism: Samuel Simon Schmucker, Joseph Seiss, and George N. H. Peters.
Reformed Development
On a much larger scale the Reformed movement maintained its allegiance to Augustinian eschatology, which especially found authoritative expression in the writings of Francis Turretin (1623–1687) who studied at Calvin's Academy in Geneva and later taught there for 30 years. His monumental Institutes of Elenctic Theology became the epitome of Reformed doctrine. Not surprisingly, his quotations of Augustine are copious, even far exceeding references to Calvin. Consequently Turretin's eschatology is almost predictable. With regard to the prophetic expectations of Israel's restoration beyond the return from Babylon,
the expressions are not to be pressed literally because they are symbolical, not proper; typical, not literal; to be explained spiritually and not carnally. Israel is to be restored, not according to the flesh and letter, but according to the promise and spirit (Rom. 9); the holy city, not Jerusalem, but the church.30
Certainly there will be a remarkable conversion of the Jews before the end of the world,
not that all will be converted, but that many will...(although we cannot be certain either in what way or when precisely it will take place). ...But whatever that calling of them shall be, a restitution of the Jewish polity in the land of Canaan is not to be dreamed of. Besides, this polity was to last only until Christ. …Finally, if God had wished to restore that polity, he would not have suffered it to be abolished for so long a time (for over sixteen centuries).31
Of course such a mass incorporation into the Church is to the exclusion of any perpetuation of Jewish identity. In classic Augustinian fashion, there is token recognition of Jewish individuality for a time, though any form of a Jewish restoration was considered to be a gross form of chiliasm.32 Turretin's Institutes became the central textbook for Systematic Theology in American Ivy League Colleges during the later half of the eighteenth century. It is not surprising that the early theologians of Princeton Theological Seminary highly esteemed this most influential legacy, and of course its eschatology.
Charles Hodge agreed with Dr. [Archibald] Alexander that Turretin's Institutio Theologiae Elencthicae was “incomparably the best book as a whole on systematic theology” and continued its use as the principal text.33
In 1845 Hodge replaced student recitation of Turretin with his own theological lectures,34 but when his Systematic Theology, was first published in three volumes in 1872, its replacement of Turretin brought no change in essential emphasis, as the copious references to his Reformed mentor indicate.
Fairbairn, Bavinck, and Vos
In the eschatological milieu of the western world toward the close of the eighteenth century, a defensive response against resurgent premillennialism came to the fore which resulted in a “new hermeneutic” that actually proved to be nothing more than revamped Augustinianism. As VanGemeren explained,
By the end of the nineteenth century amillennialism as an eschatological position had arisen out of the new hermeneutic for which [Patrick] Fairbairn [ 1805–1874] was a leading spokesman. The writings of Herman Bavinck (1895–1964) [of the Free University of Amsterdam] and Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949) [of Princeton Seminary] are representative of the change. Both theologians interact with chiliasm in affirming that their eschatological position is normative. Both Bavinck and Vos are amillennial in their views and engage in argumentation against premillennialism. …Instead of taking the OT language for what it is, Bavinck argues that there lies an eternal truth “in the earthly, sensual forms of the prophecies.” …He strongly objects to millennialism as a hermeneutic in which the earthly forms of the OT are understood literally.35
We now consider these three Reformed scholars in terms of their eschatology with regard to Israel and the all too obvious historic connection with fundamental Augustinianism.
Patrick Fairbairn
Patrick Fairbairn was born in Hallyburton, Scotland, in 1805. After graduating from the University of Edinburgh in 1826, he tutored at the Orkney Islands and advanced in his study of Hebrew and German. Following his first pastorate in Glasgow, evangelical convictions led to his alignment with the Free Church of Scotland; he took a leading part in organizing the Free Church Presbytery of Haddington. In 1853 he was appointed by the General Assembly to the Chair of Theology in Aberdeen. When the Free Church College was founded in Glasgow in 1856 Fairbairn became Principal and Professor of Church History and Exegesis there and presided over the institution till his death in 1874.
Fairbairn (1838–39) versus Fairbairn (1864).
In 1838–39 Fairbairn delivered twelve lectures on “Future Prospects of the Jews—Restoration to Their Own Land—Universal Conversion to the Faith of Christ.” Here the young Presbyterian minister of Glasgow presented arguments for a millennial eschatology anticipating a distinct national future and conversion of the Jewish people. In 1864 the older Fairbairn, as Principal of the Presbyterian Free Church College in Glasgow, authored Fairbairn on Prophecy in which was included, from an amillennial perspective, “The Prophetical Future of the Jewish People.” Fairbairn's The Typology of Scripture (1852), Hermeneutical Manual (1858), and Commentary on Ezekiel (1863) are similarly amillennial. In 1950 Albertus Pieters36 edited a book including both articles under the title, The Prophetic Prospects of the Jews, or Fairbairn vs. Fairbairn. The later writing of Fairbairn proposes three views—the Jewish, semi-Jewish, and spiritualistic—the last mentioned being his more recently embraced amillennial perspective, namely, “that the proper meaning of the prophecies, in so far as they bear on the future of Israel, is to be made good simply by the conversion of the people [Jews] to the Christian faith, and their participation in the privileges and hopes of the church of Christ.”37
The older Fairbairn's regard for Israel and the Jews was simply a recapitulation of essential Augustinianism, though filtered through a prism of German scholarship. Passing by this author's unwillingness to face the Jewish realities of Matt 19:28, Luke 21:24, and Acts 1:6–7,38 we will consider his wrestling with the vital question:
May not the natural Israel in some other respect have the prospect of a separate and peculiar standing in the church? … Even when the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of our God and of His Christ, shall the Jewish nation stand out and apart from the rest? … Were it to do so, it would not be a continuation or a renewal of the past, but the introduction of an entirely new principle into the Church of God.39
David E. Holwerda, professor of NT at Calvin Theological Seminary, commenced a study of Romans 9–11 with the question, “Is there a future for Jewish Israel?” He at least confessed that “there is nothing in the Gospels and Acts that either biblically or logically entails an absolute or definitive rejection of Jewish Israel.”40 But Fairbairn was quite unyielding at this juncture, explaining that Israel was
the nation that held the truth, and, as such, stood apart from the idolatrous nations of heathendom. But when that distinction virtually ceased to exist by the mass of the people abandoning the truth, and espousing the corruptions of heathenism, the Lord held the ground of separation to be abolished, and addressed and treated them as heathen (Isa. 1:1–10; Amos 9:7–8; Ezek. 16–23).41
Yet ensuing revelation from all three of the prophets Fairbairn referenced gives encouragement concerning the vital truth of Paul that “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom 5:20; see Isa 2:1–4; Amos 9:11–15; Ezek 28:25–26; chaps. 34, 36–37). Such triumph of sovereign grace is acknowledged by Fairbairn and others with regard to the new covenant dispensation, yet denied for Israel.
Why then cannot the future people of God incorporate a diversity of Jews and Gentiles, as Edwards, Bonar, Ryle, and Spurgeon affirmed? Fairbairn explained:
If converted Israelites were still to stand apart from and above them [the remainder of the kingdom], it would not be the same thing that existed under the law, but something essentially different—something foreign even to Judaism; how much more, then, to Christianity?42
Yet the essence of Judaism is rooted in the Abrahamic covenant, not the temporal Mosaic legal covenant. A future distinctive Hebraic/Judaic distinction would not be essentially different. Granted that there would be new features in this perfected Messianic Judaism, but it is simply not correct to suggest that there could not be variety among the people of God. After all, we might ask if angelic beings will also be participants in the future, new glorious order.
Concerning Fairbairn's regard of the land of promise, we encounter a similar problem. He declared
that the typical character which attached to the people and the religion of the old covenant, attached also to the inheritance—the land of Canaan; and that the transition to gospel times is represented as effecting the same relative change in respect to this as to the others. …The land was, in a manner, the common basis of the people and the worship—the platform on which both stood, and in connection with which the whole of their religious observances, and their national history, might be said to move. To except this, therefore, from the typical territory, and withdraw it from the temporary things which were to pass to something higher and better in Christ, were to suppose an incongruity in the circumstances of ancient Israel, which we cannot conceive to have existed, and could only have led to inextricable confusion. …The former relation of the Israelites to the land of Canaan affords no ground for re-occupation by them after their conversion to the faith of Christ, no more than for expecting that the handwriting of ordinances shall then be restored. 43
For all the twisting and turning here, the fact remains that God's promise of the land was made unilaterally to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen 12:1; 15:1–21; 26:2–4; 28:13), and Fairbairn seems uncomfortably aware of this. The reality is that the multilateral Mosaic covenant was a temporary administration imposed on Israel (Ps 147:19–20), which could not nullify that which had been promised to Abraham (Gal 3:17); it “was added because of transgressions” (Gal 3:19; see Rom 5:20), and thus could not invalidate the promise of the land. Yes, I agree that Abraham would become “heir of the world” (Rom 4:13), that the seed of Abraham, being Christ and His seed (Gal 3:16,29), would inherit the world. But I reject Fairbairn's suggestion that this necessarily brings about the nullification of Israel's future possession of the land, as if it were part of “the handwriting of ordinances” (Eph 2:15; Col 2:14) that were specifically Mosaic. So again here is the rigid unwillingness of amillennial doctrine to incorporate diversity within unity. But the prophets repeatedly incorporated the diversity of the land, the prominence of Jerusalem, and the surrounding nations within the unity of the whole redeemed, inhabited earth (Isa 60:1–4; 62:1–12; Mic 4:1–5; Hag 2:1–7; Zech 14:16–21).
Ezekiel 34, 36–38.
Fairbairn's overall approach considering the future of national Israel in these classic references is portrayed in his answer to this question:
Could the promise of Messiah, and of the affairs connected with his work and kingdom, have been unfolded to the Church [of ancient Israel] beforehand, and with any degree of detail, excepting under the form and shadow of Old Testament relations? We unhesitatingly answer, No; not unless the Spirit had violently controlled the minds of the prophets, and superseded the free exercise of their faculties. …[This] prophecy…bears the natural impress of the time to which it belonged. But if any, determined to hear of nothing but the letter, will still hold by the watchword of literality,—will maintain that as it is a literal Israel that is the subject of promise, a literal Canaan, a literal dispersion, and a literal return from it, such too must be all that is to come,—then, we say, let them carry it out, and the shepherd by whom the good is to be accomplished must be the literal David, for David alone is expressly named in the promise; and so the Messiah altogether vanishes from the word of which he is the very heart and center. And there must be no advance in the Divine dispensations, nothing but the formal reproduction of the past. Such is a slavish adherence to the letter; it ends in shutting up the new wine of Messiah's kingdom in the old bottles of a transitory and provisional economy. …Thus, as the David of the promise is Christ, so the covenant-people are no longer the Jews distinctively, but the faithful in Christ; and the territory of blessing no longer Canaan, but the region of which Christ is king and lord.44
So these passages, and thus the human author, although directed by the Holy Spirit, were culturally landlocked, constrained by “the time to which [they]…belonged.” To be sure, the tone of the exilic period is to be expected in Ezekiel's style of communication (Ezek 1:1–3). But to suggest that God could only present the future of His kingdom strictly within these exilic parameters is to rashly constrain Him contrary to Daniel who was not so restricted, for he “heard but could not understand,” and was further told, “Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time” (Dan 12:8–9). Here Fairbairn begs the question since the necessity of “violent control of the minds of the prophets” in predicting the future is quite unproven, and indeed an unnecessary restriction of the Divine Will. After all, the vital terms concerning the meaning of “Judah” and “Israel” and “land” and “Jerusalem” and Zion” and “nations” are certainly not restricted by a particular culture. I would suggest that Fairbairn's attempt to generalize with regard to the promised rapprochement concerning “Judah” and “Israel” (Ezek 37:15–23)—so that it merely represents the result of the resurrection of God's people whereby “the direct result of this was to unite them to God”45—borders on the fanciful. I would maintain that “Judah” means “Judah” and “Israel” means “Israel,” so that God “will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them” (Ezek 37:22).
Concerning David following his future resurrection, we would first enquire of the amillennialist as to what his distinctive role will be in the future kingdom of God. As with Moses and Elijah, surely he will have great prominence, in which case it is quite likely that he will indeed be a regent/ prince over Israel under the King of kings, Jesus Christ, the “righteous Branch of David” (Jer. 23:5). To suggest that such an understanding results in “Messiah altogether vanishing from the word” is simply absurd. Thus, “My servant David will be a prince among them” (Ezek 34:24), that is, “My flock” (v. 22). However, this prince is not identical with Christ since he offers a sin offering for himself (45:22) and has distinctive sons (46:16–17).
Fairbairn's conclusion is that at the consummation of the church, peculiar and historic Jewishness will have been done away with, superseded, absorbed into the one people of God, and particularly with regard to any distinction concerning the territory of Israel. Augustinianism, Catholic eschatology, and Fairbairn are in essential agreement at this point. So the good news for the Jew today is that his distinctive Jewishness is divinely passé, a biblical anachronism. Those Christians who believe this will nevertheless declare their desire for the Jews to be saved. But they dare not explain to these same Jews their whole agenda, which includes salvation from Jewishness. But this approach flies in the face of Paul's whole attitude toward the Jews (Rom 11:28), especially in his evangelistic endeavors, in that he freely confessed that he remained one of them (Acts 21:39; 22:3; Rom 9:3; 11:1). And surely he spoke truly.
Ezekiel 40–48
Fairbairn explains four categories of interpretation and then argues for his “Christian-spiritual” interpretation. He claimed that
the whole representation was not intended to find either in Jewish or Christian times an express and formal realization, but was a grand, complicated symbol of the good God had in reserve for his church, especially under the coming dispensation of the gospel. From the Fathers downwards this has been the prevailing view in the Christian church.46
I would thoroughly agree with this historic representation, except that “from the Fathers downwards” only describes the eschatology of Augustine and the Roman Catholic Church, namely, supercessionism. When Ezekiel was instructed concerning his final vision, “Report everything you see to the house of Israel” (Ezek 40:4),47 he was confirming the earlier promise: “When My sanctuary is among them forever, the nations will know that I, the LORD, sanctify Israel” (Ezek 37:28). Thus “Israel” and “the nations” are to become distinct, yet complementary, worshipping entities.
I admit to Fairbairn's consistent application of his method of interpreting prophetic Scripture. But here in Ezekiel 40–48 he blithely rides over the astonishing particulars in terms of future fulfillment. This is not to suggest that such a grand and glorious vision is easily comprehended, though it does test our willingness to accept the transcendent glory of God's future, holy, spiritual materiality. However, it is the “spiritual interpretation” here that is so evidently unspiritual in that it implies an unnecessary verbosity that ends up in justifying any number of vague interpretations, provided one makes an attempt to deal with the particulars. Horatius Bonar explained the problem well:
Every word of prophecy is big with meaning. Hence it must be most carefully and exactly interpreted. To attach a general meaning to a whole chapter, as is frequently done, shows not only grievous irreverence for the Divine Word, but much misconception of the real nature of that language in which it is written. Yet such is often the practice of many expositors of prophecy. They will take up a chapter of Isaiah, and tell you that it refers to the future glory of the Christian Church; and that is the one idea which they gather from a whole chapter, or sometimes from a series of chapters. Their system does not admit of interpreting verse by verse and clause by clause, and affixing an exact and definite sense to each. Bring them to this test, and their system gives way. It looks fair and plausible enough, so long as they can persuade you that the whole chapter is one scene, out of which it is merely designed that one grand idea should be extracted; but bring it to the best of minute and precise interpretation, and its nakedness is at once discovered. Many prophecies become in this way a mere waste of words. What might be expressed in one sentence, is beaten out over a whole chapter; nay, sometimes over a whole book.48
These expositors think that there is nothing in prophecy, except that Jew and Gentile are all to be gathered in, and made one in Christ. Prophet after prophet is raised up, vision after vision is given, and yet nothing is declared but this one idea! Every chapter almost of Isaiah foretells something about the future glory of the world; and every chapter presents it to us in some new aspect, opening up new scenes, and pointing out new objects; but, according to the scheme of some, every chapter sets forth the same idea, reiterates the same objects, and depicts the same scenes. Is not this handling the Word of God deceitfully?49
The Response of Horatius Bonar.
Bonar was a Scottish contemporary of Fairbairn who responded with perceptive vigor and critical enlightenment. Bonar's Prophetical Landmarks, and The Quarterly Journal of Prophecy which he edited from 1849 to 1873, contain detailed refutations of Fairbairn's hermeneutic and resultant eschatology. I give a summary of two significant areas of criticism.
1. All prophecy is, to some degree, conditional.
Classic Reformed theology has commonly distinguished between prophecy that is predestined or certain, and prophecy that is contingent or conditional, usually in harmony with the distinction between God's decretive will and His preceptive will. Fairbairn addressed this matter in his Prophecy, viewed in respect to its Distinctive Nature, its Special Function, and Proper Interpretation (1856), and included a qualifying appendix in the Second Edition (1865). This was doubtless due to the controversial nature of his opinion, that is, his alleged departure from the accepted Calvinist stance to that which was more Arminian. In this regard, Bonar responded in The Quarterly Journal of Prophecy (1858) with marked disagreement concerning this particular item in Fairbairn on Prophecy, to which Fairbairn replied with some displeasure in the preface to his Hermeneutical Manual (1858).
The heart of Bonar's concern, as a Calvinist, was Fairbairn's belief “that there is in all prophecy an element of contingency,”50 which reflects a more Arminian perspective. Thus Fairbairn believed that the Second Coming was certainly decreed in a general sense, although circumstances could change in terms of the time of its eventual occurrence. For example, Bonar referred to the following declaration of Fairbairn:
The prophecies, for example, relating to the second coming of the Lord,…may be regarded…as protracted beyond what the natural import of the language might have seemed to indicate, on account of the forbearance of God waiting for the conversion of men. … Yet when [this Advent is] spoken of, as it often is, of being “near,” of “drawing nigh,” or being “at hand,” while now so many centuries have elapsed without its taking place, we can scarcely help admitting (however we may choose to express it) that some after-respect has been had to moral considerations as influencing the time of the predicted event; in other words, that there has been the operation of a conditional element to the effect of delaying longer than the original predictions might have led us to expect the actual occurrence of the event predicted.51
Bonar responded,
We are at a loss to conceive how it [this quotation] can be reconciled with any theory of predestination whatever. To say that God did not from all eternity decree the time when the Savior should come the second time, is to admit at once the Arminian notion of conditional decrees. …Nothing can well be more dishonoring to the Divine Being than to suppose, as Dr. Fairbairn's words imply, that there was enough in the earlier predictions to warrant an expectation of the advent at a period which has passed by without it; and that “the course of things in the world” has led to the postponement of the Church's hope.52
To criticism such as this Fairbairn responded with seeming irritation,
To divide, as he [Bonar] and his authorities do, between prophecy, considered as equivalent to Divine decrees, and prophecy, as involving matter of commination or promise—the former absolute, the latter conditional—does not satisfy my “exegetical conscience,” and I am afraid never can.53
A further illustration of Fairbairn's understanding of conditionality concerns the institution of the Davidic covenant in 2 Sam 7:1–17. He stated,
David himself knew perfectly well, that there was an implied condition, and that the prophecy must be read in connection with the whole plan and purposes of God in the administration of the affairs of His church.54
We wonder what conditionality, in any sense, could be understood in the Noahic covenant of Gen 8:20–9:17. Could an unprecedented surge in human moral decline bring about an unexpected divine interference in which the seasons fail and a similar universal flood reoccurs? But what interests us most is where this distinctive hermeneutic leads, and we now discover that it very much concerns the destiny of Israel. Fairbairn further explained,
If the threatened judgments of the prophetic word, then also its promised blessings, are to be regarded, not as primarily and absolutely predictions of coming events, but rather as exhibitions of the Lord's goodness, prospective indications of his desire and purpose to bless the persons or communities addressed, yet capable of being checked, or even altogether cancelled, in the event of a perverse and rebellious disposition being manifested by men. …The Apostle Paul re-announces the principle with special emphasis on this particular branch of its application, when he says, at the close of his reasoning on the case of the Jewish people, “Behold, therefore, the goodness and the severity of God: on them which fell severity, but toward thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise, thou shalt also be cut off” (Rom 11:22),—that is, the prophetic intimations of future blessing are to be understood as valid only so long as the spiritual relation contemplated in them abides. When that ceases, a new and different state of things has entered which the promise did not contemplate, and to which it cannot in justice be applied.55
In the face of such a disturbing course of reasoning, I would simply ask whether this same conditionality applies to the application of the new covenant gospel to believing sinners? If it does, then surely the sovereignty of grace has been done away with and in its place has been substituted a subtle form of Galatianism.
2. The unhelpful influence of German scholarship.
It is refreshing to discover a conservative scholar such as Bonar who is not wholly enamored with, even hypnotized by, German scholarship so that both its strengths and weaknesses are clearly distinguished. Bonar provided the following estimate.
The German style of thought is now widely leavening both Britain and America; and the issue of this is matter for suspicion and fear, in so far as pure Bible exposition is concerned. It is a style entirely self-revolving, in which, as one of their poets has described it, the soul is,
“Chasing its own dream for ever,
On through many a distant star;”
turning in upon its own actings, instead of out upon God's; making man's interior self the great region of research, not God's manifested self; dealing with spiritual truths as with abstractions or ideas, not as connected with Divine personality and life.
In spite of all the admiration in which it is fashionable to hold German critics, and with the full admission that their researches have not been unrewarded, their system of criticism, as a whole, cannot but be regarded as a failure, if not something worse. Its results have been inconsiderable for good, but vast for evil. Dwelling in the region of their own thoughts, they have lost the power to grasp, and the taste to appreciate the thoughts of God. They may be interpreters of words, but they are not expounders of thought, in so far as Scripture is concerned. In the former they excel, in the latter they fail. They have not brought forth the fullness, the richness, the vastness of Scripture language; they have rather diluted and emptied it. They have taken their own thoughts as their standard in measuring, their law in interpreting the thoughts of God. Hence, in prophecy, where the language is doubly pregnant with the thoughts and purposes of God, they have totally broken down. Few of their works on prophecy are possessed of much value beyond that of verbal criticism. And it is sad to see their American imitators rapidly coming up to them, if not outstripping them, in the race of irreverence and error.56
Fairbairn had obviously spent much time studying German theologians and exegetes. In reviewing Ezekiel, An Exposition, Bonar commented, “We must profess our great dislike to the many abstract and German forms of expression employed throughout Mr. Fairbairn's volume.”57 He further included in The Quarterly Journal of Prophecy the following correspondence, presumably with some agreement:
You [Bonar]have carefully abstained from saying many things regarding Dr. Fairbairn's works in general which you might have said, and which are freely ventilated in private among German scholars, viz., that Dr. F. has taken most of his good things, as well as some of his bad things, from German critics. A great part of his Commentary on Ezekiel is from Hävernick, as every German scholar knows. His other works are said to be in like manner large debtors to foreign sources. …[Signed] A Calvinist.58
While much of German scholarship has been Augustinian and amillennial in its leaning, especially with regard to Lutheran writings even to this day, it remains to be seen if a direct connection can be made between this and the eschatology of Fairbairn's later writings.
Herman Bavinck
Born in the town of Hoogeveen in the Netherlands in 1854, Herman Bavinck first went to theological school at Kampen, but then moved on to Leiden where he graduated in 1880 after completing a dissertation on Ulrich Zwingli. In 1882 he taught theology at the Theological School of the Christian Reformed Churches, also at Kampen. In 1902 when Abraham Kuyper left the Free University for a time to become Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Bavinck joined the faculty as Professor of Systematic Theology at the Free University of Amsterdam where he served until his death in 1921.
In his massive Reformed Dogmatics, in true Augustinian fashion, Bavinck approaches the whole of the OT as follows:
The spiritualization of the Old Testament, rightly understood, is not an invention of Christian theology but has its beginning in the New Testament itself. The Old Testament in spiritualized form, that is, the Old Testament stripped of its temporal and sensuous form, is the New Testament. …All Old Testament concepts shed their external, national-Israelitish meanings and become manifest in their spiritual and eternal sense.59
Bavinck declared further, with a decidedly anti-Judaic tone,
Chiliasm [millennialism] includes the expectation that shortly before the return of Christ a national conversion will occur in Israel, that the Jews will then return to Palestine and from there, under Christ, rule over the nations. …Those of the Jews who reject Christ are not really true Jews (Rom. 2:28–29). They are not the “circumcision” but the “mutilation” (Phil. 3:2). They are the irregulars, idle talkers, deceivers, who must be silenced (Tit. 1:10–11). They have killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets as well. They persecute believers, do not please God, and oppose everyone. …Real Jews, the true children of Abraham, are those who believe in Christ (Rom. 9:8; Gal. 3:29, etc.). The community of believers has in all respects replaced carnal, national Israel. The Old Testament is fulfilled in the New.60
The salvation of “all Israel” in Rom 11:26, unlike Calvin's inclusion of converted Jews and Gentiles,
remains a remnant chosen by grace (Rom. 11:5). …There is no room left in Paul's sketch [in Romans 11] for a national conversion of Israel as the chiliasts expect. …Even if Paul expected a national conversion of Israel at the end, he does not say a word about the return of the Jews to Palestine, about a rebuilding of the city and a temple, about a visible rule of Christ: in his picture of the future there simply is no room for all this.61
Thus Bavinck, as a thoroughgoing supercessionist, revealed his vigorous opposition to restorationist premillennialism, his militant demeanor here being characteristic of the Reformed environment in which he worshipped and was educated. Concerning these strong eschatological convictions, VanGemeren offered the following critique:
Bavinck's treatment of his subject exemplifies the amillennial approach toward the prophetic word. On the one hand, he summarizes the teaching of the OT prophets with respect to the future of Israel, which includes the conversion of Israel, the Messiah's coming, the benefits to be enjoyed by the people of the Messiah including the return from the land of captivity, a restoration of temple and worship, and the Gentiles sharing in the blessings of the kingdom. Instead of taking the OT language for what it is, Bavinck argues that there lies an eternal truth “in the earthy, sensual, forms of the prophecies.” He strongly objects to millennialism as a hermeneutic in which the earthly forms of the OT are understood literally.62
So Bavinck relentlessly imposed the NT over the OT, resulting in the assembly of Christian believers completely supplanting ethnic Israel. For this reason VanGemeren frankly concluded,
He sacrifices the OT prophetic hope to a harmonious understanding of the NT, in which the NT passages which hold out a hope for Israel and different exegetical options are either harmonized or not fully considered. The authority of the OT as well as of the NT seems to be sacrificed out of concern for unity, harmony, and systematization.63
What then is the response of Bavinck to the European development of Zionism with which he must have become familiar during his lifespan (1854–1921)?
The question of the Near East is approaching solution, for Turkey owes its existence to the mutual jealousies of the great powers. Once Turkey is destroyed there is every chance that Palestine will be assigned to the Jews to whom by rights it belongs. Furthermore, in the hearts of many Jews, as is evident from the Zionism that has emerged in recent years, there is a longing to return to Palestine and to form an independent state there. …However we may view these political combinations, the New Testament furnishes not the slightest support for such an expectation.64
Those who hold this classic and influential representation of Reformed, Augustinian eschatology, channeled through Calvin and Turretin, would do well to consider exactly what evangelistic outreach to the Jews they might advocate? The position does not appear to reflect the pro-Judaic passion and methodology of Paul.
Geerhardus Vos
Since the close of the nineteenth century, probably the most influential and esteemed Reformed scholar in the realm of eschatology, not unrelated to his pioneering studies in biblical theology, would be Geerhardus Vos. Many of the Reformed writers we consider will be found to have placed considerable reliance on Vos—especially Hoekema, Riddlebarger, Robertson, Venema, and Waldron. Born at Friesland, the Netherlands, in 1862, he was raised in a Christian Reformed Church manse in Michigan. Later he studied at the Theological School of that denomination in Grand Rapids, then Princeton Seminary, Berlin and Strasburg. He was personally exposed to Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck in the Netherlands. Returning to a faculty position in Grand Rapids, he eventually settled back at Princeton Seminary as professor of biblical theology in 1893 until his retirement in 1932. Vos's theological environment was decidedly intolerant of premillennialism—for example, Bavinck,65 the Christian Reformed Church,66 and to a lesser extent, Princeton Theological Seminary.67 Since the Christian Reformed Church was rooted in the Reformed Church of the Netherlands, along with confessional allegiance to the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of the Synod of Dort, there was the conviction that this creedal heritage was incompatible with chiliast beliefs. That Vos himself was vehemently opposed to premillennialism is plainly indicated in his Pauline Eschatology, specifically the chapter “The Question of Chiliasm in Paul,” which includes the following:
Chiliasm has to its credit the astounding readiness it evinces of taking the O.T. Scriptures in a realistic manner, with simple faith, not asking whether the fulfillment of these things is logically conceivable, offering as its sole basis the conviction that to God all things are possible. This attitude is, of course, not attained except through a reckless abuse of the fundamental principles of O.T. exegesis, a perversion invading inevitably the precincts of N.T. exegesis likewise, heedless of the fact that already the O.T. itself points to the spiritualizing of most of the things in question. Apart from accidental features, and broadly speaking, Chiliasm is a daring literalizing and concretizing of the substance of ancient revelation. Due credit should be given for the naïve type of faith such a mentality involves. It is a great pity that from this very point of view premillennialism has not been psychologically studied, so as to ascertain whence in its long, tortuous course through the ages it has acquired such characteristics. Although pre-millennialism is by no means a local phenomenon, there are evidently certain milieus in which it has found a more fertile soil than elsewhere. In certain countries it comes to meet an eccentric interest in the superficial, visible, curiosity-attracting events in eschatological perspective. The evil is not so much an evil in itself: it is a malformation or over-rank outgrowth drawing to itself a surplusage of religious interest, at the expense of what is more essential and vital in the eschatological sphere. The resulting evil lies largely in the deficit thus caused in the appraisal of other eschatological processes far overshadowing in importance this one feature, at least to the normally-constituted Christian mind.68
It is difficult for me to recall a more graceless, indeed intellectually arrogant denunciation of an opposing Christian perspective than this. While Richard Gaffin commended the gentle, retiring, pious manner of Vos,69 such virtue is quite absent here. Furthermore, within this whole chapter by Vos, although numerous European sources are employed in support of his critical analysis, there does not appear to be so much as one reference to a premillennialist of standing. Hence, it is not so surprising, as VanGemeren has pointed out, that Vos was fearful of any considerations of a future, eschatological conversion of the Jews. Nevertheless, commitment to the exposition of Romans 11 led Vos to yield to what he felt the apostle Paul incontrovertibly taught, namely, a future conversion of Israel en masse. So VanGemeren explained,
In his Dogmatiek Vos answers the question why it is so difficult to enter into detail on the future conversion of Israel by saying: “Because it has been connected on the one hand with the restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land and on the other hand with the millennial kingdom. …The fear existed to encourage chiliasm” (p. 26). Vos affirms, nevertheless, the exegetical ground for the hope in Israel's conversion. He thinks “that the conversion of Israel is clearly predicted” (p. 27) and bases this conclusion on “all the prophets of the Old Testament who speak of the apostasy and the return of the Jews, particularly Zechariah 12 and Romans 11” (p. 26). … He expects the conversion to be a true spiritual revival, when the Jews have sufficiently been provoked to jealousy…by the Gentiles who have found salvation in Jesus Christ. When the fullness of Jewish and Gentile Christians has been achieved, the parousia will follow. Vos admits that the chronological connection is implied in the text, but not explicitly stated (p. 88). Though Vos vehemently opposes a premillennial reading of the NT. The exegesis of the text itself forces him to expect a future conversion of the Jews.70
However, like John Murray who confessed to a similar “mass conversion,”71 Vos was careful not to express belief in any related, present, covenantal, national Jewish identity—or present, covenantal, land inheritance rights for Israel in unbelief—according to Rom 11:28–29. He was well aware that, had he done so, he would have been crossing over the divide, so to speak, into millennial territory.72 Nevertheless, in not following this path, his understanding of what constitutes “Jews” by his designation with regard to their mass conversion, in their having individuality but no national or territorial inheritance, is a common weakness of this approach. It is as if Paul, in claiming to be an “Israelite” (Rom 11:1), nevertheless repudiated national and territorial identity according to divine recognition. Such a bifurcated perspective is quite untenable from a biblical and Hebrew understanding of Jewishness. In this regard, concerning the reticence of Vos at this point to clarify exactly what he meant by the term “Jew” in terms of a future mass conversion, consider his article, “Eschatology of the New Testament,” which lists two events that will precede the parousia. They are first, the conversion of Israel, and second, the coming of the Antichrist. The former event is succinctly explained in approximately 115 words; the latter event is comprehensively explained in approximately 2900 words.73 Further indication of the reluctance of Vos to give explanation beyond his declaration that “in the future there will be a comprehensive conversion of Israel (Rom 11:5,25–32)”74 is found in an article, “The Second Coming of Our Lord and the Millennium.” It is his contention that OT Jewishness is ultimately superseded by the NT kingdom of God. This being so, then distinctive, eschatological, covenantal significance for the nation of Israel and the land has been done away with, whatever conversion of the Jews toward the end of this present age might entail. Vos declared: “The theory [of premillennialism] has its preformation in a certain scheme of Jewish eschatology dating back as far as the New Testament period or even earlier.”75 One is inclined to enquire how, at that period, any other than a “Jewish eschatology” would be understood in the early church. Vos continued:
In Judaism there existed two types of eschatological outlook. There was the ancient national hope which revolved around the destiny of Israel. Alongside of this existed a higher form which had in view the destiny of the creation as a whole. The former has its scene on earth, the latter in a new world, radically different from the present one. Now, in certain of the apocalyptic writings a compromise is effected between these two schemes after this manner, that the carrying out of the one is to follow that of the other, the national earthly hope receiving its fulfillment in a provisional messianic kingdom of limited duration (400 or 1,000 years), to be superseded at the end by the eternal state. It was felt that the eschatology of this world and that of the world to come would not mix, therefore the two were held together on the purely mechanical principle of chronological succession. This Jewish compromise was distinctly due to a lack of spirituality in the circles where it appears. …
As stated, the Old Testament avails itself of earthly and eternal forms to convey heavenly and spiritual things. Sincere attachment to the Old Testament Scriptures and a profound conviction of their absolute veracity could and can still underlie a desire to see them in their whole extent literally fulfilled, and since the eternal world offers no scope for this, to create a sphere for such fulfillment in the millennial kingdom. Instead of casting upon such a state of mind the stigma of unspiritualness and narrow-mindedness, we should rather admire the faith-robustness which it unquestionably reveals. None the less, we believe such faith to be a misguided faith.76
So since a millennium would unsatisfactorily result in a mere upgraded universe, “the consummation of this world and the bringing in of the world to come, this and nothing else can at this point effect the necessary change.”77 Thus, by means of a quasi-Platonic/Gnostic hermeneutic, “the world to come” is radically different from “this present world,” especially its transcendence of any earthly Jewish heritage. But I would suggest that the Bible does indeed describe an upgraded, thoroughly refurbished rather than a supplanted universe, that is, a victoriously recovered rather than a new world supplanting that which was defeated by Satan; this is the point of the “restoration/rebirth [apokatastasis] of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets” (Acts 3:21), in which purified Judaism will retain a distinctive role as the prophets make very clear. The same point is true with regard to the nature of the future bodily glorification of the believer. He will receive a changed body, not that which is wholly new (1 Cor 15:51). As this “corruptible [body] must be clothed with incorruptibility” (15:53), so this perishing world will be renewed, yet retain essential connection with its original form. Certainly purified Judaism will be a distinctive part of that retained essence. But for Vos, this “world to come” has left behind any Jewish essence. Concerning this present world, he described how Paul “outlines for us in Romans a program of the uninterrupted progress of the kingdom of God and points as its goal the Christianization of all the nations and the salvation of all Israel.”78 However, beyond this present age is “the world to come” that leaves behind any thought of Israel in relation to its distinctive nationality and territory. Why is this so? Vos responded,
Indiscriminate insistence upon the literal import of prophecy were [sic] not merely a weak, but an impossible basis to build chiliasm upon. In point of fact, even the most radical chiliasts discriminate between what they expect and do not expect to see materialized in the millennium. On the ground of the Old Testament alone there is no warrant for such distinction. The prophets proclaim as emphatically the restoration of the temple, the priesthood, and the sacrificial system as they predict the return of the people to Palestine and the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Besides, the serious difficulty arises that the Old Testament ascribes to the fulfillment of these things eternal validity and duration.79
The heart of the complaint here is not that of “the return of the people to Palestine and the rebuilding of Jerusalem,” which events are not rooted in the old Mosaic covenant, as clear as these events are prophesied about in the OT. Rather, in mentioning “the restoration of the temple, the priesthood, and the sacrificial system,” the inference chiefly concerns Ezekiel 40–48 and supposed conflict here with the abolishment of the Mosaic sacrificial order according to Hebrews. How Vos interpreted this passage is not indicated, though perhaps we can assume he took a path here similar to Patrick Fairbairn. Be that as it may, spurning a premillennial perspective hardly enlightens us with a positive interpretation of a passage that presents considerable mystery whatever one's understanding may be. I would simply quote some judicious comments of A. B. Davidson at this juncture concerning Ezekiel 40–48.
We should go very far astray if on the one hand fastening our attention on the natural elements of the picture…[these] were [regarded as] mere figures or symbols, meaning nothing but a higher spiritual condition after the restoration [from Babylon], and that the restoration described by Ezekiel is no more than one which might be called natural, and which took place under Zerubbabel and later. Ezekiel of course expects a restoration in the true sense, but it is a restoration which is complete, embracing all the scattered members of Israel, and final, being the entrance of Israel upon its eternal felicity and perfection, and the enjoyment of the full presence of Jehovah in the midst of it. …Consequently we should go equally far astray on the other hand if fastening our attention only on the supernatural parts of Ezekiel's picture,…that all this to the prophet's mind was nothing but a lofty symbolism representing a spiritual perfection to be eventually reached in the Church of God of the Christian age. To put such a meaning on the Temple and its measurement and all the details enumerated by the prophet is to contradict all reason. The Temple is real, for it is the place of Jehovah's presence upon the earth; the ministers and the ministrations are equally real, for His servants serve him in his Temple. The service of Jehovah by sacrifice and offering is considered to continue when Israel is perfect and the kingdom the Lord's even by the greatest prophets (Isa. 19:19,21; 60:7; 66:20; Jer. 33:18).
There can be no question of the literalness and reality of the things in the prophetic program, whether they are things natural or supernatural, the only question is, What is the main conception expressed by them?80
1. K. Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 11.
4. Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1994), Para. 877.
5. Second Vatican Council, L. Gentium, “The People of God” (New York: Viking Press, 1964), Chapter II.
6. L'Osservatore Romano, May, 1948. Cited in D. Selbourne, The Losing Battle With Islam (New York: Prometheus, 2005), 424.
7. “The Church,” The Catholic Encyclopaedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm,1908 (accessed May 2007).
8. “True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (John 19:6): still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. …The Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.” Documents of Vatican II Council, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat -ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html, 1965 (cited May 2007)
9. M. J. Vlach, The Church as a Replacement of Israel: An Analysis of Supercessionism (Ph.D. diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2004), 72–75.
10. R. W Cogley, “The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Restoration of Israel in the ‘Judeocentric’ Strand of Puritan Millenarianism,” CH, 72:2 (2003): 306–7.
11. C. Gribben, The Puritan Millennium (Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 2000), 194–95.
12. Cogley, “‘Judeo-centric’ Strand of Puritan Millenarianism,” 307. Basic millennial distinctions during the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were not so clearly defined. Nevertheless, millennialism in general spawned the arousal of a more affectionate, philo-Judaic attitude. Along with Mede (having been influenced by Alsted), considered the father of English pre-millennialism, were other English premillennialists such as John Archer, Jeremiah Burroughs, Thomas Goodwin and William Twisse. See R. G. Clouse, “The Influence of John Henry Alsted on English Millenarian Thought in the Seventeenth Century” (Ph.D. diss., Graduate College of the State University of Iowa, 1963); C. Gribben, The Puritan Millennium (Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 2000); Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope (London: Banner of Truth, 1971); P. Toon, Puritans, the Millennium and the Future of Israel: Puritan Eschatology, 1600 to 1660 (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1970).
13. Gribben, The Puritan Millennium, 16.
14. W. VanGemeren, “Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy,” WTJ, 45 (1983): 142–43.
15. W. a Brakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service, IV (Ligonier PA: Soil Deo Gloria, 1992), 530–31. From a premillennial perspective, one does not have to agree with Brakel's postmillennialism and the common optimism of that “new world” period within church history to nevertheless admire his loyalty to the Scriptures concerning a godly, distinctive, and territorial future for national Israel.
17. R. S. Wistrich, Antisemitism, The Longest Hatred (New York: Pantheon, 1991), 42.
18. The “End Times”: A Study on Eschatology and Millennialism. A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (St. Louis: The Commission, 1989), 7.
20. C. M. Williamson, Has God Rejected His People? (Nashville: Abingdon, 1982), 102.
21. The “End Times” Report, 39.
22. F. Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia, 1953), 3:533–34.
23. J. Carroll, Constantine's Sword (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001), 385.
24. See A. H. Newman, A Manual of Church History (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1931), 2:525.
25. K. J. Stein, Philipp Jakob Spener, Pietist Patriarch (Chicago: Covenant Press, 1986), 264–65.
26. P. Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969), 3:18.
27. J. M. Brenner, American Lutheran Views on Eschatology and How They Related to the American Protestants, http://www.wlsessays.net/authors/B/ BrennerEschatology/BrennerEschatology. rtf, 6 (accessed May 2007).
28. Stein, Philipp Jacob Spener, 246–47.
29. Brenner, American Lutheran Views on Eschatology, 6.
30. F. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 1992–1994), 2:163.
33. D. B. Calhoun, Princeton Seminary, I (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994), 262.
35. W. VanGemeren, “Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy (II),” WTJ, 46 (1984): 261.
36. See this author's theological anti-Semitism in Chapter 3.
37. Albertus Pieters, ed., The Prophetic Prospects of the Jews, or Fairbairn vs. Fairbairn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930), 91. Of course this incorporation of Israel into the Church of Christ means that all Jewish identity, whether individual, national, or territorial, has become null and void.
38. Fairbairn frequently disparaged “literalism.” With the same tone of depreciation he wrote “Prophetical Literalism Essentially Jewish,” Prophecy, Second Edition (New York: Nelson & Phillips, 1874), 505–7. Is a true and more figurative biblical hermeneutic in the realm of eschatology non-Jewish?
40. D. E. Holwerda, Jesus & Israel, One Covenant or Two? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 150.
41. Pieters, Prophetic Prospects of the Jews, 132.
44. P. Fairbairn, Ezekiel (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863), 385, 388, 421.
47. In the commentary by the Puritan, W. Greenhill (1591–1671), An Exposition of Ezekiel (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994), Ezekiel 40:4 is considered as referencing the Christian church in the extreme. Any distinctive regard for national Israel is wholly absorbed into a Gentile worldview.
48. Bonar footnotes the following reference. “The latter chapters of Ezekiel, describing the erection of a certain temple, are involved in so much obscurity, that it seems difficult to arrive at any determinate conclusion respecting the import of this mysterious prophecy. It is certain that the attempt to spiritualize it produces little besides perplexity and confusion; nor have we any example in Scripture of an allegory so perfectly dark and enigmatic, as it must be confessed to be, on that supposition.”—Robert Hall, Works, IV (New York: Harper, 1844), 405.
49. H. Bonar, Prophetical Landmarks (London: James Nisbet, 1876), 234–35.
50. H. Bonar, “Professor Fairbairn and Conditional Prophecy,” The Quarterly Journal of Prophecy (October, 1858): 313.
51. Fairbairn, Prophecy, 63–64.
52. H. Bonar, “Fairbairn on Prophecy,” The Quarterly Journal of Prophecy (September, 1857): 275.
53. P. Fairbairn, Hermeneutical Manual (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1858), vii.
54. Fairbairn, Prophecy, 64–65.
55. Ibid., 75. The third class conditional clause of Romans 11:22, A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1931), 4:397, is defined as being a “More Probable Future Condition,” H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey, Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto, Canada: Macmillan, 1969 ), 290.
56. Bonar, Prophetical Landmarks, 191–93.
57. H. Bonar, “Ezekiel,” The Quarterly Journal of Prophecy (July, 1851): 218n.
58. The Quarterly Journal of Prophecy, ed. H. Bonar, Correspondence (October, 1858), 410.
59. H. Bavinck, The Last Things (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 96–97.
62. VanGemeren, “Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy (II),” 261.
64. Bavinck, The Last Things, 100.
66. The Christian Reformed Church, in being traditionally amillennial, has critically responded to the emergence of any premillennialism within its ranks. Consider the instances of both Rev. H. Bultema and Prof. D. H. Kromminga being under synodical investigation. J. Kromminga, The Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1949), 72–75; H. R. Boer, “The Premillennial Eschatology of Diedrich Honrich Kromminga,” in Perspectives on the Christian Reformed Church (ed. P. De Klerk and R. R. De Ridder; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 153–69. Boer's fair-minded conclusion is significant: “The virtue of Kromminga's contribution is that he has alerted us to eschatological possibilities in a manner and on a scale that the Reformed tradition up to now has not taken into account. Most especially an appreciation of Kromminga's eschatological vision should raise the question by what legitimate rationale can public discussion of it be ecclesiastically prohibited,” 169.
67. Calhoun refers to a “tolerant dissatisfaction” at Princeton Seminary concerning premi-llennialism, Princeton Seminary, II, 183.
68. G. Vos, Pauline Eschatology (Princeton, NJ: Published by the author, 1930), 227.
69. G. Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation (ed. R. B. Gaffin Jr.; Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2001), xiii.
70. VanGemeren, “Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy (II),” 263–64.
71. J. Murray, Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 2:98.
72. To use OT Scripture for justification of such land and nation legitimacy would involve passages that, using the same hermeneutic, would lead to acknowledgment of a millennial economy in which a distinction is maintained between Jew and Gentile within the one people of God (see Ezek 36–37; Zech. 8, etc.).
73. G. Vos, “Eschatology of the New Testament,” ISBE, ed. J. Orr (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939), 2:983–86.
75. G. Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, 416.
80. A. B. Davidson, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906), 288–89.