THE MESSIANIC SCENARIO
by
Douglas R. Shearer
Sacramento, California
1988
By Doug Krieger
The
“Messianic Scenario” was written in the late 1980s as a response to a
growing exchange between evangelicals and Jews which had taken place under the
aegis of TAV Evangelical Ministries—primarily a USA West Coast affiliation of
churches and ministries.
Douglas Shearer, author of the “Scenario,” is currently the senior pastor of New Hope Christian Fellowship in Sacramento, CA and has been in that capacity since the early 1980s. His desire in drafting both this (what we have made as a four-part series) treatise and the articles/blogs entitled “POLITICAL POWER” (what we have made as a seven-part series) were both written during this same dynamic exchange—an exchange which resulted in scores of meetings between evangelical leaders and members of virtually every branch of American Judaism, as well as Israeli Jews who knew of these proceedings throughout the USA.
This dialogue/exchange resulted in a series of meetings and forums sponsored by TAV and held in Washington, D.C. (one of many cities across America) in the mid-1980s which resulted in joint-gatherings of both communities that issued in a formal DECLARATION OF EVANGELICALS AND JEWS IN SUPPORT OF ISRAEL. This JOINT STATEMENT is perhaps the original such “theological declaration” made by both Jews and Evangelical Christians in existence. The DECLARATION was signed by representatives of virtually every major branch of Judaism and scores of leading evangelical leaders, theologians and Christian media personalities, as well as American and Israeli Jewish activists (though similar pronouncements have subsequently been issued).
The intensity and theological articulation of this relationship began in the 1980s; however, for the most part, its “theological component” has subsided; this in no way diminishes the eschatological imperative pressing in upon both communities.
CHALLENGES/PITFALLS TO THE THEOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE—
The “activism” of TAV Evangelical Ministries, as well as the “theological dynamic,” was pursued many years prior to the current “alliance” existing between these same “forces” upon the American religio-political scene.
What made TAV’s engagement with American Jewry unique was its “prophetical emphasis” and, in particular, Israel’s physicality being the centerpiece of the dialogue/activism. Although other evangelical and Jewish Scholars/Activists (e.g., Dr. Marvin Wilson of Gordon College, along with the late Marc Tannenbaum of the American Jewish Committee; “Evangelical and Jews in Conversation”) embraced an extended and fervent exchange—that exchange was rather limited and did not include Shearer’s term: The Little People.
What made TAV unique was its ability to galvanize academia, as well as inject “pew members” into the fray.
Ed McAteer—The NRB
The Religious Round Table of Ed McAteer (e.g., who founded the National Prayer Breakfast in Honor of Israel—celebrating Israel’s Prophetical Rebirth—annually held during the National Religious Broadcasters Convention) became the NRB’s “evangelical expression” of support for Israel. It was predicated on both Biblical, as well as moral/political imperatives.
Other efforts from both Jewish and Evangelical Christian sources have, since these initial engagements, sought to articulate JOINT SUPPORT (i.e., Evangelical/Jewish) on behalf of Israel.
As TAV and affiliates began to back away from an overt and activist expression of support—to a more “theologically articulated” basis of engagement with American Jewry, other groups within American Evangelicalism (most of whom voted for Bush and his pro–Israel policies) became much more aggressive and forthcoming in their affiliations with American Jewry on behalf of Israel, and American Jewish response has been in kind (although that “in kind” support is NOT across the board).
Donald Wagner—American Liberal Christianity
National Council of Churches proponents like Donald Wagner (i.e., the “Liberal-wing of the Church in America” – who teaches at North Park University in Chicago) have analyzed the Evangelical-Jewish Alliance on behalf of Israel in America and have, in sum, suggested the following:
“The Christian Zionist distortions of historic evangelical and orthodox theology must be debated and confronted primarily by evangelicals but also by mainline Protestants, whose churches sometimes absorb these doctrines. Christian Zionist and dispensationalist thinking appears (sic) to be growing in influence, especially in the Bible Belt and pockets of the West Coast and rural America. As it spreads it will dominate more and more of our culture and thus exert a growing influence on politics. Christian and Jewish theologians need to attend to the deep inroads made by millennial theology and its political alliances.
“The biblical hermeneutic of Christian Zionism distorts biblical texts by reading them out of their canonical and historical context, making them seem more like such fictional works as the ‘Left Behind’ series than the whole Word of God. The Christian Zionist worldview elevates Israel to a political entity not accountable for keeping Torah or obeying the norms of international law. In its justification of Israel’s illegal program of land confiscation, demolition of homes, targeted assassinations and continued transfer of Palestinians from their homeland, the Christian right and revisionist Zionist ideology encourage the breaking of the Ten Commandments and the Levitical codes. Christian Zionists have traded the mantle of the biblical prophets for an idolatry of militarism and the nation state.
“An additional task for Christians is to make a closer examination of ecclesiology. Christian Zionism is grounded in a reductionist ecclesiology in which the state is elevated above the church. Such a view is inconsistent with the New Testament and traditional Christian theology. Darby’s doctrine that the church is a ‘mere parenthesis’ enables Christians to minimize the role of the global church and to ignore or openly despise Palestinian Christians.”
Wagner’s mish-mash of theological presuppositions (some true, some totally wacky) are, nevertheless, PRECISELY the anti-rhetoric from the Christian Left (and, for that matter, the “evangelicals” to which he alludes, who must contest these Christian Zionists and their fallacious and dangerous theology).
Furthermore, Wagner’s sweeping broadsides relative to: “The biblical hermeneutic of Christian Zionism distorts biblical texts by reading them out of their canonical and historical context, making them seem more like such fictional works as the ‘Left Behind’ series than the whole Word of God” – is nothing less than the crux of the theological battle between classical Catholic/Protestant Reformation spiritualization of the Scriptures vs. the nineteenth century and the reemergence of “Biblical Literalism” and, in particular, those eschatological segments directly affected by Israel’s “rebirth.” One (Origen/Augustinian Theology) sees in today’s Israel, at best a fluke of history, or at worst a “spiritual fraud.”
The other—expressed within the confines of the Messianic Scenario—gives “Biblical credibility” to Israel’s existence. Wagner would view Shearer’s Messianic Scenario as well articulated but theologically disturbing in that it appears to buttress the current religio-political dynamic taking place in America between political neo-cons (many of them Jewish and supportive of Israel) and American Fundamentalist-Evangelicals who constitute a huge portion of President Bush’s base.
Furthermore, what on earth is Wagner thinking when he presupposes that among “Jewish Theologians” there is a measure of concern for Christian Zionism’s incursions into the theological debate; to wit: “Christian and Jewish theologians need to attend to the deep inroads made by millennial theology and its political alliances?”
Wagner acts like these Jewish theologians are somehow, like he, threatened by such “millenarian” prognostications (e.g., “conversion of the Jews at the coming of Jesus, the Messiah”). In point of fact, without buttressing Christianity with the Biblical literalism, vis-à-vis Christian Zionism’s eschatological lynchpin, viz., Israel, rabid anti-Semitism may well have infected these same evangelicals. I, for one, cannot fathom what “Jewish theologian” would countenance Wagner’s proposal, unless that same theologian were a “self-hating Jew!” Liberal Jews may subscribe to Wagner’s social agenda, but what on earth would they have to do with opposing the theological implications vis-à-vis Israel’s rebirth? Not to be trite—when the Messiah comes and it turns out to be Jesus, I’m sure there won’t be a “Jewish theological problem” because everyone will know in any event if the Messiah is Jesus. Disavowing Jewish solidarity with Israel is tantamount to killing the patient to cure the disease!
THE BATTLE LINES HAVE BEEN DRAWN
What Wagner’s article does NOT announce—though his articulation of America’s mainline concerns relative to the “debate” are well framed—is the concomitant irritation within American Evangelicalism of those brethren who rabidly oppose the intentions of Christian Zionism: Not only its activism, but its entire theology.
Wagner fails—perhaps purposefully, unwhittingly and/or ignorantly—to elucidate within American Evangelicalism such colossal theological/eschatological discrepancies over Israel’s persistence. These same battle lines are actually erected over all of Christendom; thence, I would be remiss not to sheepishly apologize for such broad brush strokes (though, in the main, these generalizations hold true, viz. Biblical literalism is more pervasive amongst evangelicals than among Catholics, etc.). However, it would NOT be a distortion of theological fact to confirm that within Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism (and its manifold subsets), one will find that Israel’s materiality is viewed either as heralding the Second Coming or, as Wagner wagers: She is the PARIAH OF THE MIDDLE EAST and in so doing, “a cup of trembling” to all the nations of the world! (Note: This is a “summation” not a quote of Wagner.)
Wagner’s allies within evangelicalism—Christian Reconstructionists, Kingdom Now, Replacement Theology proponents, Historical Revisionists, Post & Amillenarians, et. al.—will find ample alliance within the National Council of Churches: Not because the NCC’s embrace of inerrancy (sarcastic here), nor its primary designs relative to “social justice” issues—but because both (i.e., the NCC and their aforementioned stalwart evangelical allies) SEE absolutely no biblical, historical, socio-political basis to embrace “Israel of the flesh”—NONE, except as but a “Prophetic Imposter!”
CONCLUSION
Having said all this—D. R. Shearer’s MESSIANIC SCENARIO becomes a must read in that it utterly articulates the debate and punctuates the more salient issues which draw the greatest distinctives along these sensitive, tectonic, theological plates where “literalism” and “spiritualization” collide.
Really, there is little middle ground for Jew or Gentile, Christian or non. The perspectives and issues facing the “Christian Left” and/or those who embrace a “spiritualized hermeneutic” (who may or may not be “conservative Christians”) is the following: At what level do we challenge a more aggressive Christian Zionism—especially within the framework of today’s Christian Right and its embrace of the Bush foreign policy agenda; whereas the issue facing “Christian Zionism” is how far to press the debate along the lines of current activism and whether or not the debate can ratchet itself up another “theological notch” (i.e., deepen the theological imperative within the context of the Messianic Scenario)?
Furthermore, among Christian Zionists there is a horrific dilemma: Their “conservative social agenda” is allied with numerous aforementioned evangelicals whose “Kingdom Now” aspirations are in total conflict with the Messianic Scenario and, ipso facto, these Iconoclastic Zionists, like the NCC, constitute a formidable “Christian Resistance” to the impassioned appeal to Biblical literalism that today’s Israel brings to a resurgent American Evangelicalism. Sooner or later there will be an “Evangelical Disconnect” an “imbroglio” between the two—for now, however, the evangelical social agenda is so overwhelmingly pervasive that “slight discrepancies” noted among evangelicals, viz., Israel, are tolerated—are not a “complicated, confusing situation”), though they be a serious annoyance, especially from time to time when the issue of Israel’s assertions enrage the nations!
Since the issuance of the Messianic Scenario the evangelical political engagement has been exacerbated by the ever aggressive social agenda of the Left. As Roe v. Wade was to the commencement of the American Evangelical resistance—even so, the Gay Marriage agenda of the left has and will enflame that same coalition of conservative activism. It has and will increasingly be viewed as the most destructive encroachment upon “traditional Americana” since Roe v. Wade—ever propelling the politicization of the evangelical wing of the American Church.
And, in the midst of all this: Israel. The American Jewish community has and will be politically ripped apart over Israel—just as American Evangelicalism will be; and, far more so than their liberal counterparts within the framework of the NCC or Catholicism/Orthodoxy.
Israel: The whole world will yet focus its attention upon this “Sabra” — this “prickly pear.” Is it foreign or native to Palestinian soil? The Messianic Scenario defines one’s perceptions of this Sabra. Israel’s insistence cannot be ignored—the whole world will not allow it; neither will the Scriptures. The more irritated the theological consternations surrounding Jacob’s irritation—the more “the land” cries out for “spiritual rebirth.” The “birth pangs,” yes, “the beginning of sorrows” approaches—and surely must be upon us. The Balkans were the powder keg of Europe—the soft underbelly; Israel is the tender box of the world—its cup of trembling!
We’re on a cosmic collision course; and, the fools out there who refuse to come to terms with the dimensions of the final confrontation are only kidding themselves—though try they may to find their peace; eventually, the whole world will cry out for a Peacemaker. Alas! We hear the cries of “Peace, peace!” . . . then “cometh sudden destruction.” Can you make better sense out of this? The Messianic Scenario simply will not subside—Osama, Jihad, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and virtually all the nations of the world express their revulsion to Israel’s dispositions; yet, for how long will America abide the status quo, when all the world, including Europe, opposes the Empire’s protective mantel over this sliver on the eastern edge on the Mediterranean? The Messianic Scenario will play out—and the likelihood of that happening in our life time is more apparent than we realize.
INTRODUCTION
This booklet has been prepared to help Christians grasp the Biblical basis underlying the prevailing Evangelical beliefs that:
1. the Second Coming of Christ is very imminent, and
2. the Second Coming is closely linked to a reconstituted State of Israel.
Unfortunately, the Second Coming is often pressed upon the Evangelical Community within a framework of an incomplete Biblical exegesis and an emotional appeal that verges on an uncontrolled sensationalism. Exhortation is substituted for scholarship. The result is inevitable: the skeptical remain unconvinced and the consequent “hype” simply polarizes the Evangelical Church even further.
Exhortation is fine, and I certainly recommend its use. We Christians need to be excited; we need to be stirred to commitment. But that exhortation must be rooted in the unchanging Word of God.
This booklet examines difficult issues—issues which are frequently skipped over quickly or neglected altogether—issues which are all too often consigned exclusively to graduate research curricula and the esoteric realms of seminary journals. But the issues are vital and must be addressed BY ALL OF US if somehow we are to get past mere rhetoric and melodrama. We must bridge the gap between teacher and student, between pastor and layman, between Bible College and church congregation. The Second Coming must not be relegated to paperback book collections and made the permanent backdrop for the endless and largely frivolous debates which seem to be forever centered upon the meaning of “666,” the legitimacy of Israeli invasions, the reestablishment of blood sacrifices, the personality of Ariel Sharon, etc.
But trained scholars have no one to blame but themselves. There is a vacuum—an unsatisfied hunger which grips not the lunatic fringe, but serious Christians—dedicated and conscientious believers who know almost intuitively that the END is at hand. Scholars, though, are prone to dismiss that hunger with what sometimes—but not always—amounts to a smug disdain. But the vacuum will, nevertheless, be filled. And if seminary trained scholars refuse, the paperback dilettantes will inevitably fill the ever expanding vortex—generating more “hype,” and, tragically, more contempt.
Indeed, the absence of trained scholarship breeds occasional heresy: a few—fortunately not many—Evangelicals are now convinced that somehow the Jews are saved via the Abrahamic Covenant alone; that there is no compelling need for them to acknowledge that Jesus is the redeeming Christ. Outrageous! Of course! But plainly understandable. Most Evangelicals link a restored Israel to the Second Coming; and most bear an almost inbred love of the Jews, often a love which borders on an inordinate fascination. But that love has never been properly channeled; and, consequently, it constitutes a reservoir of enthusiasm and zeal which can indeed be exploited—either by the charlatan or the simpleton. The point is quite clear: the reservoir IS VERY REAL, and it most certainly WILL BE TAPPED.
It is my contention that the Second Coming must be understood within a much fuller and broader framework than has heretofore been established among the Evangelical laity. The “End Times” can and should be taught from books other than Daniel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, I Thessalonians, 2 Peter, and Revelation. I suggest that we need to resurrect the ancient rabbinical teaching of the Messianic Scenario. It is a simple and straightforward teaching—a teaching which—wonderfully—rests upon a Scriptural basis devoid of both symbolism and allegory. Thus, we are marvelously spared the need to call upon the help of an almost numberless army of self-proclaimed decoders—Christian cryptologists who have plied their arcane trade since time immemorial.
It is further my contention that the scenario must be taught within a context which does not skirt the issue of exegesis. Exegetical principles can constitute a very dry and rather humdrum subject; nevertheless, I do not believe that the Second Coming can be properly taught without examining those principles in some detail. The Evangelical laity must be shown the relationship the scenario bears to both (1) Biblical literalism and (2) the inerrancy/limited-inerrancy controversy which is presently raging throughout the Evangelical Church.
Finally, I believe that we must real the vital role of the scenario in generating evangelistic fervor—a role which is clearly verified historically.
THE MESSIANIC SCENARIO
The prophecy of Zechariah incorporates a vivid description of the advent of the Messianic Era—an advent pregnant with supernatural portents attesting to its divine authenticity and the stupendous powers which underlie it. The prophecy constitutes an amazingly complete summation of the advent.
NEGLECT OF THE ADVENT – LACK OF VISION
Unfortunately many Evangelical Christians have not studied the advent of the Messianic Era. It is an oversight which renders us incapable of intelligently embracing the unique vision of our generation—a vision which promises to liberate the pent-up energies of the Evangelical Church.
The church is adrift—a hackneyed charge, but, nevertheless, true. She lacks direction. Too often we find ourselves simply propelled by powerful secular currents, caught in the petty but compelling frivolities of the “here and now,” our attention riveted upon shapes and forms—never quite fathoming the essential substance of our calling, never quite comprehending our role in the Biblical drama.
Many of us are unable to play our role simply because we have never really known it or learned it. We struggle with the parts, not grasping the whole—parts which if isolated are quite devoid of meaning, tide pools of doctrine, backwashes and eddies.
THE JEWISH VISION OF THE ADVENT
The Bible, frequently, clearly and powerfully defines an unfolding sequence of events which characterizes the “End Times.” Each event is carefully delineated and each flows from the other—building towards a culmination, a climactic span of time: “The Messianic Era.”
The Messianic Scenario was well understood by the Jewish rabbis who lived at the time of Christ; indeed, it had been widely disseminated among every stratum of Jewish society. The broad outline of the scenario was really quite simple:
1. Israel would find herself emerging from a long epoch of dispersion—a dispersion forced upon her by the domination of the gentile nations.,
2. She would find herself reconstituted a sovereign nation
3. with her capital at Jerusalem.
4. The threat of the gentile nations, however, would not have abated. Indeed, that threat would have grown afresh—to the point of once again
5. precipitating a terrible war; and, more specifically,
6. a siege of Jerusalem.
7. The Jewish defense of Jerusalem would be heroic, but quite futile; nevertheless,
8. at the very point of capitulation, the Messiah would supernaturally appear and intervene in behalf of Israel;
9. the gentile nations would bed crushed;
10. the Messiah would establish His personal reign;
11. thus, ushering in the “Messianic Era” – an era of great blessing for Israel; and most especially characterized by her preeminence among the nations.
THE MESSIANIC SCENARIO IS ABANDONED
The First Century mission of Jesus did not, of course, conform to the Messianic Scenario portrayed by the rabbis. He did not establish His personal reign; indeed, He specifically repudiated it (John 18:36). Neither did He save Jerusalem from a siege of the gentile nations; indeed, He very pointedly prophesied her inevitable destruction (Matthew 23:34-39; 24:1-2; Mark 13:1-2; Luke 20:5-6) – almost underwriting the actual victory of the Roman legions in 70 AD. Finally, there followed no Messianic Era characterized by Israel’s preeminence among the nations; indeed, quite the contrary: the nationhood of Israel was completely terminated and her people rescattered. Amazingly, the Messianic Scenario had served only to blind the Jews—to actually hide the identity of Jesus. How ironic!
The Jews hung onto the scenario unto the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135 AD. Its abysmal failure, however, eroded the credibility of the scenario among the Jews. Gradually, it was suppressed—finally losing its grip upon the Jewish imagination.
The church too abandoned the scenario. Three very pressing difficulties prompted the abandonment:
1. Her struggle against persecution—a persecution which was terribly real and which cast the scenario into a rather peripheral light—somewhat intriguing, but at the time quite unnecessary.
2. Her struggle against heresy—a struggle which was waged furiously for several centuries. It was waged against heresies which tore at the central tenets of the Faith: the doctrine of original sin, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the doctrine of Christ. Again, the Messianic Scenario hardly merited much attention. It is not a central salvation precept; and its rejection is not heretical. The scenario, therefore, was simply shunted aside.
3. Finally, the organizational requirements of the early church—requirements for stability and authority—both of which constituted very vital needs for the church in her struggle against the persecutions and heresies of the first several centuries. The very nature of the Messianic Scenario militates against stability and authority. The scenario is institutionally unsettling; hence, quite understandably, it was simply not taught with any real enthusiasm.
The last powerful vestiges of the Messianic Scenario died within the church during the middle of the Third Century—specifically, with the final demise of the quasi-heretical Montanist Movement. The scenario—in one guise or another—occasionally resurfaced within both Jewish and Christian communities—usually during times of distress; but it was always effectively repressed—fading again into oblivion.
THE CHURCH LAYS CLAIM TO ISRAEL’S INHERITANCE
Some Christian scholars—by no means all—sought to fabricate a theological rationale justifying the abandonment. The rationale included two very novel “conclusions:”
1. The church is the “New Israel of God” and, consequently, she has inherited—at the expense of “National Israel” – all the promises and blessings of the Jews; and
2. there will be no more sieges of Jerusalem; that the siege of Titus in 70 AD fulfilled not only the Old Testament prophecies, but the more specifically Christian prophecies of Jesus in His Olivet discourage (Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21).
Clearly, the “write off” was facilitated by the ever increasing gentile composition of the church. The Messianic Scenario underscored the continuing role of Israel and the Jewish people—a role which gentile Christians did not find too palatable—especially in light of the very real obstinacy of the Jews. After all, the Jews—as a nation of people—had indeed rejected Jesus and, in addition, had compounded that error by fiercely opposing the church.
THE “SPIRITUALIZATION” OF SCRIPTURE
The theological rationale justifying the abandonment was made possible largely by recourse to spiritualization—an exegetical methodology which during the first several centuries enjoyed widespread popularity both within Judaism and within Christianity.
The Alexandrian School of Philo (20 BC to 42 AD) encouraged many Jews to retreat from a literal exposition of the Old Testament Scriptures to a much more figurative and symbolic exposition. Philo—indeed, many Jewish scholars within the Hellenized areas of the Jewish dispersion—struggled arduously to harmonize the Old Testament with the basic epistemological* and ontological* premises of Greek Philosophy—especially the Platonic and Aristotelian systems.
However, the harmony secured by Philo was—at many points—merely a “forced” harmony. Reams of Old Testament passages were simply stripped of all literal meaning and given a figurative meaning—a highly symbolized rendering which served to effect the desired harmony. In short, the passages were reinterpreted to furnish a Scriptural formulation which would legitimize the continued use of the Greek conceptual systems so much admired by the Hellenized Jews.
Likewise, the earth church fathers—especially in the eastern portions of the Roman Empire—employed Platonic and Aristotelian concepts. The concepts were used to both elucidate the fundamental Christian doctrines and to defend those doctrines against the rising tide of heresy—particularly Gnosticism and the various forms of Arianism. The controversies raged across the entire breadth and length of the Empire; and the resolutions secured at Nicaea (325 AD) and Chalcedon (451 AD) were cast almost entirely within a Greek philosophical framework.
_________________________________
*Epistemology is the study of knowledge—its limits, origins, appropriate study topics, and nature. Ontology is the study of the structure and ultimate substance of being. Every ontology necessarily presumes an appropriate epistemological foundation—obviously because it is epistemology which sets the methodological basis upon which any ontological understanding is reached. (The author of this booklet specialized in epistemology at the University of California. He holds a Master’s Degree from the University in political philosophy and was appointed to the faculty of a campus of the California State University system. His designated specialty was “Methodology—Its Epistemological Foundations.)
DIFFERENT METHODOLOGICAL NEEDS OF SOTERIOLOGY AND ESCHATOLOGY
Greek philosophical concepts are powerful intellectual tools—tools which are most especially useful in explaining and formalizing the Christian doctrine of salvation; i.e., “soteriology.” However, the Greek concepts are not at all useful in the study of the “End Times;” i.e., “eschatology.” The subject matter is totally different.
Soteriology is based upon the development of very subtle but fundamentally important CONCEPTUAL distinctions. It is geared towards demonstrating conclusively the theological significance of those distinctions. Platonism and—even more so—Aristotelianism serve this purpose admirably. And it is highly doubtful that Christian soteriology could have adequately developed in the absence of the intellectual tools provided by Greek philosophy. The defense of basic Christian doctrines would have suffered greatly against the onslaught of the early heresies—heresies which—interestingly—have resurfaced with a vengeance in our own era.
But the study of eschatology does not entail the need to make refined CONCEPTUAL distinctions. The distinctions that must be made are instead much more CHRONOLOGICAL and DESCRIPTIVE—a wholly different class of important distinctions which Greek methodologies tend to obscure rather than highlight.
The use of Greek concepts gained increasing favor and finally triumphed in the theology of St. Augustine. That triumph was left unchallenged for approximately one thousand years. Its high-water mark was reached in the medieval scholasticism of St. Thomas Aquinas. And even today the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches wholly embrace the Greek intellectual tradition.
So complete was the triumph of Greek philosophy that its use did indeed spill over into eschatology. The result was quite inevitable and assumed a form much akin to the system developed by Philo—and long afterwards by the Christian scholar Origin. Spiritualization abounded. The literal meaning of eschatological passages was almost totally subverted. Indeed Christian scholars applied a literal interpretation only to those passages which verified the messiahship of Jesus; e.g., Isaiah 53. A figurative interpretation was imposed upon most of the others.
SPIRITUALIZATION AND THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION
The Protestant Reformation did not entirely eliminate spiritualization. A more rigorous literalism was indeed applied; however, even Protestant scholars confessed a continued need to employ Greek concepts; and the use of those concepts all but assured survival of spiritualization. Greek philosophy though highly suspect—proved indispensable to Protestants. After all, the Protestants always upheld the basic premises incorporated in the Nicean and Chalcedonian creeds—premises which had so clearly been derived almost wholly within the Greek methodological framework.
THE NINETEENTH CENTURY AND THE REEMERGENCE OF LITERALISM
Finally, in the early Nineteenth Century, Christian scholars began very consciously to perceive the difference between the interpretational needs of soteriology on the one hand and eschatology on the other. The conceptual requirements of soteriology demanded, of course, the continued use of Greek philosophical categories; but the more chronological and descriptive needs of eschatology were at last acknowledged and, consequently, a rather rigid Biblical literalism was ultimately applied. The application of Biblical literalism began to case the Old Testament into a wholly new light—not really new, but unseen for almost two thousand years.
The encrusted spiritualized meanings fell away from the Old Testament eschatological passages; and once again the Messianic Scenario was brought to light. The effect was quite revolutionary—spawning, of course, great excitement—an excitement that was bound to produce excesses. Indeed, spiritualization was so very quickly stigmatized among the early Nineteenth Century literalists—mostly Plymouth Brethren—that the entire Old Testament and—surprisingly—well over one half of the New Testament were “ceded” to the Jews.
But the excitement was gradually tempered and set on rules was slowly developed to govern the interpretation of eschatology along literalist lines. The development extended over a timeframe of approximately one hundred and fifty years; indeed, it continues even today. The rules evolved not only within the framework of the recovery of the Messianic Scenario (e.g., Darby, Scofield, and MacIntosh), but, additionally, within the framework of two other major controversies: the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of 1880-1930 (e.g., Warfield, Hodge, Briggs, Smith, and Machen) and the related “inerrancy/limited inerrancy” controversy of the present. All three controversies have been inextricably merged; and it is foolish to even attempt a separation. The common linch-pin of all three is “Biblical infallibility.”
SPIRITUALIZATION RETURNED, but only on a specific interpretational basis which METHODOLOGICALLY JUSTIFIED THE RETURN. The rules were quite simple. Many were not new at all—only the application to eschatological passages was new:**
1. The Bible is the Word of God and in the original writings is TOTALLY inerrant. It is absolute, authoritative, plenary, supreme, and final both the New and the Old Testaments. Its veracity extends not only to faith and practice, but to history and cosmology.
2. Historical-critical methodologies must be avoided—primarily on epistemological grounds. The Evangelical Faith requires rejection of any methodology which incorporates an a priori assumption opposed to the supernatural. God—BY DEFINITION—is supernatural and transcends all finite limits. His Written Word, the Bible, reflects His supernatural and totally unlimited being and prerogatives. Historical-critical methodologies are unworthy of God and reflect—at the deepest level—a failure of faith. In addition, however, an obvious intellectual failure is also operative—specifically, the failure to intelligently acknowledge—by sheer force of logic—that a supernatural God cannot be subjected to a study which is based upon a methodology the epistemological assumptions of which deny the very validity of that study; i.e., epistemology must correspond to ontology.
3. The Bible is given by God to be understood and applied by all men; therefore, normally its meaning is relatively obvious and not hidden. Hence, the Bible should be interpreted literally. A figurative interpretation—if not clearly and forthrightly justified by the immediate context and/or related passages in the Scriptures—constitutes a basic denial of Scriptural inerrancy. It amounts to nothing more than a ruse designed to overcome the occasional difficulties of maintaining inerrancy.
4. The New Testament governs the Old Testament—clearly compelling the interpretation of the Old in light of the New. The New Testament is not interpreted in the light of the Old. It is enriched by the Old Testament and its meaning is often rendered more complete, but its formal doctrinal interpretation is not governed by the Old.
5. The rules of Biblical literalism apply to the Bible as a whole-both Old and New Testaments. Consequently, Old Testament moral injunctions are normative—though not salvation—unless otherwise dictated by the New Testament. The normative viability of the Old Testament and its continued use as a basis upon which to formulate doctrine remain intact and should be modified or suspended only if specifically authorized by the New Testament.
6. The canon of Scripture is closed and cannot be modified by additional “revelation.” Personal revelation must be tested and substantiated by the existing canon. The “Logos” always governs the “Rhema.” Doctrinal conclusions must be established exclusively upon the basis of the existing canon and never on the basis of personal revelation.
7. The harmony of the Scriptures is a matter of faith. Consequently, consistency—though always to be sought—should never be forced. Apparent inconsistencies must be wholly understood in the light of our human finitude.
8. The Bible consists of “Revealed Knowledge” and is not composed of a logically consistent set of “First Principles” from which “theological corollaries” can always be deduced. Deduction can and should be4 profitably employed—but only such that deductive conclusions never violate the clear meaning of the Bible as a whole or subvert other clear Biblical themes. An “exclusivist” or “absolutist” doctrinal conclusion based upon a “logical deduction” from one specific Biblical premise must be abandoned if it subverts other clear Biblical premises.
9. The interpretation of specific passages of Scripture must be governed both by the immediate context of those passages and by the Scriptures as a whole. The Bible is an integrated book composed of consistent themes, not a series of disjointed segments. Obscure interpretations which are not consistent with the Bible in its entirety should always be avoided and never used as a basis for the formulation of important doctrine.
10. A substantiated figurative interpretation never necessarily precludes a literal interpretation as well. Both interpretations may be equally valid and should be so assumed unless otherwise specifically stated or required by context.
11. The limits of an allegory must always be carefully observed. No allegory should be pressed to the extent that deductions based upon it subvert the clear meaning of Scriptural passages underlying other doctrines. Moreover, many Biblical subjects are described in terms of several allegories, not just one. Furthermore, the various allegories used to treat s single subject—if pressed too far—often conflict with each other.
12. No allegory should be used as the sole basis for the establishment of doctrine. Only clear declarative statements and implications derived therefrom should be used to establish doctrine. Allegory can add a deeper meaning, but it should never be relied upon exclusively for doctrinal formulation.
13. The Bible is “anthropomorphic”*** and the normal application of the rules of Biblical literalism should always be made in that light.
14. The Bible treats two dimensions of reality; a heavenly dimension and an earthly dimension. Very often, the Scriptures initially treat and develop a theme or subject matter within the earthly dimension and later treat and develop that same theme or subject matter with the heavenly dimension. Frequently, the two different treatments occur within the same passage of Scripture; but even more frequently, the earthly treatment occurs within the Old Testament, and the heavenly treatment occurs within the New Testament. It should never be assumed—unless specifically stated or required by context—that the subsequent treatment of a theme or subject matter within the heavenly dimension necessarily terminates its continued validity within the earthly dimension as well.
15. Unless clearly stated otherwise, the actual historical behavior of Bible personages does not govern or modify doctrine. The permitted sinful or even non-sinful but non-doctrinal behavior of a Bible personage should always be understood in light of God’s merciful forbearance of human weakness, and should never be used to establish new doctrine or to modify existing doctrine.
PROTESTANT REVIVALISM
The Messianic Scenario resurfaced at a most propitious moment. Protestantism had always incorporated an aggressive revivalism—a revivalism which was rooted in the very nature of its theology. The Sixteenth Century Reformation had recentered the focus of salvation: simple church membership no longer constituted a sufficient basis for redemption. Ecclesiastical rites and ordinances were stripped by the Reformers of every salvation property the Catholic Church had so strenuously labored to ascribe to them. Instead, salvation was made the product of a wholly PERSONAL transaction between God and man. The church was merely the result of that transaction, not the initiator and guarantor of it.
Consequently, the primary focus of the church underwent a radical transformation: she was henceforth to preach a message of PERSONAL salvation. Personal conversion—based upon personal accountability—because a dominant theme—indeed, THE dominant theme among many of the multiplying Protestant denominations—especially those that escaped the more rigid theological strictures of hyper-Calvinism. The obvious result, of course, was a zealous evangelism.
REVIVALISM THREATENED
Nevertheless, the evangelistic fervor of the Protestants was always somewhat dampened by the eschatological perspective which had been carried over from the medieval era. Indulgences, transubstantiation, and other artifacts of the Catholic heritage had, of course, been discarded; but spiritualization remained—useless baggage which for centuries had so effectively served to hide the Messianic Scenario; and the weight of that baggage often wore down Protestant revivals.
The dynamics were subtle, but, nevertheless, quite real: successful revivals always generated an awakened conscience—a conscience often grieved by terrible social inequities and gross injustices. Hence, the new Christian converts often constituted the very seedbed from which great moral crusades sprang—vigorous and sometimes effective campaigns directed towards the LEGAL rectification of those inequities and injustices.
All quite good and proper and most certainly a marvelous reflection of the tangible reality of personal salvation! However, the momentum generated by the moral crusades frequently altered the emphasis of the Protestant denominations—both the theology and the practice: THE MORAL CRUSADE ITSELF OFTEN ASSUMED GREATER IMPORTANCE THAN THE REVIVAL WHICH HAD PRODUCED IT. Furthermore, the leadership of the two movements—the revival and the subsequent moral crusade—while related were frequently DIFFERENT. And more often than not, DENOMINATIONAL HEADSHIP PASSED FROM THE CONTROL OF THE REVIVALISTS AND FELL UNDER THE DOMINATION OF THE MORALISTS.
** The fifteen rules here enumerated are the author’s own; and are based on an independent study undertaken by the author of the three controversies referenced in the text of this booklet.
*** Anthropomorphism is the ascription to God of human characteristics—simply because very often a specific act of God cannot be adequately described or understood by any other means; e.g. The Bible asserts that God “repented” of having made man. However, the use of the term “repent” is “anthropomorphic.” God cannot change—there is no shadow of turning in Him. But the sins of man so grieved God that His response could only be described by reference to the human emotion of repentance.
MESSIANIC SCENARIO LIBERATES REVIVALISM
Thus, the very Protestant denominations which had been founded upon the solid rock of personal conversion and revival were gradually reoriented more towards social salvation than personal salvation. How terribly ironic!! BUT THE RESURFACED MESSIANIC SCENARIO CHANGED ALL THAT. The scenario challenged the efficacy of social reformation—its ultimate viability. ONLY the Messiah can sustain the transformation of society. His personal intervention is absolutely necessary. His direct rulership is required. It is the “sine qua non” of all truly enduring political righteousness and social justice. And, furthermore, that rulership is linked to the resurrection of a restored and cleansed Israel. Hence, the BIBLE CONSIGNS THE MORAL RECONSTRUCTION OF POLITICAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS TO THE MESSIANIC ERA—AN ERA WHICH AWAITS THE SECOND COMING.
Indeed, the scenario portrays an even grimmer image—an image of hostility and vicious antagonism: the nations are IRRETRIEVABLY arrayed against the Messiah—an IMPLACABLE OPPOSITION which cannot be gradually softened, diminished, and finally terminated. The wicked and altogether diabolical enmity of the nations is NEVER lessened—it extends to the very end—and, indeed, actually worsens. The nations—and the social institutions which comprise the fabric of those nations—ARE BEYOND REDEMPTION. The Messiah must CRUSH the nations. The new order is established upon the wreckage of the old. The scenario is quite uncompromising and provides for absolutely no other possibility.
Thus, the Messianic Scenario served to free the Gospel message of Protestantism from its historic link to social and cultural reformation. The church denominations which subscribed to the scenario were able to retain the vigor of revivalism and to resist the supplantation of personal evangelism by moral crusades. Most of the other denominations have all but abandoned evangelism—once powerful denominations, now emptied of all spiritual dynamism; drained of all zeal; many of them bereft of the uncompromised spiritual truths which once undergirded them; mere shadows, suffering from terrible atrophy. There can be no doubt that a very vital bond links the Messianic Scenario to evangelistic fervor—no doubt whatsoever.
Certainly, the Messianic Scenario does not preclude ALL involvement in politics and social activities; but that involvement is at best peripheral and usually designed around a specific evangelistic strategy. The scenario forces the Evangelical Christian back to the theological weltanschauung of Hebrews 11:13 and 16: “he is a stranger and a pilgrim on the earth . . . . (He) is looking for a better country; a heavenly country . . .” His hope for social restoration awaits the Coming of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah; and, while waiting for the return of His Savior, he preaches the message of PERSONAL SALVATION in Christ.
THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY IS DIVIDED
The Messianic Scenario has been very sharply attacked by non-Evangelical Christians—precisely because it has indeed proven to be so powerfully effective. It has indeed prevented the energies of the Evangelical Christian Church from being turned loose into great moral crusades. The major thrust of the church’s immense energies is almost exclusively restricted to evangelism and personal edification. Its impact upon society is almostg wholly the force of example.
Thus, the scenario has divided the Christian community into two major camps—each of which finds itself at odds with both the perspective and practices of the other. Both camps acknowledge the moral and spiritual poverty of mankind; for both the world is a great sinking ship. But one camp is manning the bilge pumps, desperately trying to save her, to keep her afloat, and, indeed, rebuild her; while the other has abandoned all hope that the great ship can be saved. She is sinking and NOTHING can be done to keep her afloat. Instead, the focus of all efforts is directed towards getting the passengers safely off the ship and into life boats—life boats furnished ONLY by the personal redemption found in Jesus Christ ALONE. The contrast is—in many instances—quite extreme.
THE CONFLICT WILL NOT BE EASILY RESOLVED
It is highly unlikely that the two camps can somehow repair the breach—at least doctrinally. The Messianic Scenario can no longer be hidden; it can no longer be simply suppressed and driven underground. That option is no longer a viable possibility,. Spiritualized interpretation no longer commands the respect it once enjoyed; and it was on that basis—and that basis only—that the First Century Christian scholars were able to conceal the scenario. Biblical literalism, the exegetical key which unlocks the entire scenario, is now far too closely associated with Biblical infallibility—an issue which assures the scenario of an alliance with Evangelical forces that are not about to capitulate to the non-Evangelical communities. Biblical literalism and Biblical infallibility have become the opposite sides of the SAME coin—a marriage which unavoidably conceives and bears the Messianic Scenario.
THE MESSIANIC SCENARIO FROM DEUTERONOMY TO LUKE
The scenario is found throughout the Old Testament; and, in addition, it is carried forward into the New Testament and greatly embellished. It is not at all necessary to reference obscure and difficult passages; e.g., Daniel and Revelation. Other far less difficult passages can be used. Scholars are only obliged to avoid spiritualization and apply the simple rules of Biblical literalism—the very rules which brought the scenario to light at the time of Christ and which made it so patently obvious to every stratum of Jewish society—from rabbis to simple fishermen to unscrupulous tax collectors.
Likewise, it is unnecessary to reference all the verses which relate to the scenario. The passages are so incredibly numerous—certainly a testimony to its importance and centrality in the Scriptures—certainly a testimony to its importance and centrality in the Scriptures—that scholars could well exhaust themselves with its details. Only a few of the major passages need be examined. Once again—the examination is undertaken in light of the rules of Biblical literalism already outline. The rules are not cited during the examination. The application of the rules is, however, readily apparent:
THE MESSIANIC SCENARIO—DEUTERONOMY
Deuteronomy 30:3-6:
“That then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations where the Lord thy God hath scattered thee.” (verse 3)
“If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from there will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from there will he fetch thee.” (verse 4)
“And the Lord thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy father.” (verse 5)
“And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.,” (verse And the Lord thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy father.” (verse 5)
“And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.” (verse 6)
1. The passages are clearly directed to the Jews; not just the Jews individually, but corporately, as a nation of people.
2. Clearly, the passages both state and presume a backdrop of dispersion: that the Jews have been scattered and will be regathered by God Himself. The context of the passages makes it very obvious that the dispersion was the direct consequence of disobedience.
3. The passages also clearly indicate that the regathering is based upon God’s compassion and an obedience on the part of the Jews which God Himself will miraculously assure; specifically, He Himself will “circumcise their hearts and the heart of their seed.” Their love and obedience will be affected not by the dint of their own efforts, nor by the sheer force of their power and good intentions, but, rather, by God’s grace—by God Himself intervening to alter the very nature of the Jewish soul.
The Messianic Scenario continuously acknowledges the obstinacy of the Jews. Therefore, rejection of the scenario on the basis of Jewish infidelity is simply not possible,. The Scriptures do not obfuscate Jewish recalcitrance—not at all; but, instead, plainly underscore it and then make provision for it on the only basis sin—any sin—is ever overcome: GRACE—AMAZING AND ALWAYS UNMERITED.
4. Finally, it is obvious from the context that the passages are prophetic in nature, and that the historic time-frame of their fulfillment is still future. Never have the Jews been wholly obedient to God; never has God “circumcised their heart”—certainly not at the end of the Babylonian captivity, nor at the time of Jesus’ first mission. John 1:11 assures us that the Jews—as a nation of people—rejected Him at His first coming. Individual Jews certainly acknowledged Him; but the nation as a whole just as certainly repudiated His claims.
THE MESSIANIC SCENARIO—JERIMIAH AND EZEKIEL
Jeremiah 31:31-34:
“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.” (verse 31)
“Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which, my covenant, they broke, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord.” (verse 32)
“But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (verse 33)
“And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (verse 34)
1. Again, the passages are clearly directed to the Jews and—once more—the Jews not as individuals, but as a corporate body, as a nation of people. Verses 31 and 33 are pointedly emphatic—“House of Israel,” “House of Judah,” “my people.”
2. Again, the passages are prophetic in nature; and their fulfillment is yet future. Never have the Jews abandoned the teachings of the Torah. Teaching continues to be the hallmark of Jewish culture. Moreover, the Jewish heart has never been changed. It is still marked by disobedience and obstinacy. The passages—like those in Deuteronomy—point to a marvelous intrusion of grace; that the Jews will be miraculously converted, not only individually, but as a corporate body of people, as a nation.
3. Verse 32 especially underscores the unconditional nature of the conversion: it acknowledges the unfaithfulness of the Jewish people: their total failure to fulfill the moral and legal requirements of the Mosaic Covenant—though God, of course, wholly sustained the burden of His responsibilities. God’s marvelous grace extended in absolute mercy is the only solution proffered.
Ezekiel 3:36-28, 31, 35, and 36:
“But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations, to which they went.” (verse 21)
“Therefore, say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God: I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the nations, to which ye went.” (verse 22)
“And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the nations, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.” (verse 23)
“For I will take you from among the nations, and gather you out of all the countries, and will bring you into your own land.” (verse 24)
“Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.” (verse 25)
“A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.” (verse 26)
“And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep mine ordinances, and do them.” (verse 27)
“And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.” (verse 28)
“Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.” (verse 31)
“And they shall say, This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden, and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are become fortified, and are inhabited.” (verse 35)
“Then the nations that are left round about you shall know that I, the Lord, build the ruined places, and plant that which was desolate. I, the Lord have spoken it, and I will do it.” (verse 36)
1. Verses 21-23, verse 28, and verses 35-36 shed light upon the motives underlying God’s restoration of Israel:
(A) God’s moral reputation among the nations is jeopardized by Israel’s “profane” behavior. He has placed His name upon them and called them His own. Hence, He is associated with them and bears their shame. The Jewish people will not themselves become holy—thus; He “must” sovereignly and unilaterally act to alter the nature of the Jewish people, to MAKE them holy. There is no hint of repudiating them—presumably because rejection implies failure; and God is incapable of failure and will never permit it;
(B) God’s word is threatened: He has promised a great tract of land to the Jews; however, that promise has never been completely fulfilled—the land has never been permanently possessed by the Jewish people—obviously because of disobedience. The nations, however, bear witness to that promise and to God’s failure to fulfill it. Again, God “must” honor His promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He “must” end the obstinacy of the Jewish people; MAKE them worthy by grace to possess the land He has promised them; and, finally, actually bring them into it. God will never allow His word to be tainted. It will always stand sure.
2. Once again, the passages are all directed to the Jewish PEOPLE—a corporate body, a nation—and again the terms “house of Israel” and “my people” stress and underscore that point.
3. Verse 25 speaks of a cleansing of the Jewish people undertaken by God Himself; and verses 26 and 27—like Deuteronomy 30:6 and Jeremiah 31:33—point to a miraculous conversion which changes the very heart of the Jew. Again, the verses do not obfuscate the wickedness and obstinacy of the Jews; but, instead, simply emphasize the sufficiency of God’s sovereign grace in redemption.
4. Finally, verse 31 plainly indicates that the Jews will at last acknowledge their wickedness, their consciences will indeed be pricked, and they will “loathe” themselves. In short, true repentance is assured. They will cast off all their pride and arrogance and will clothe themselves in humility and contrition.
THE MESSIANIC SCENARIO--ZECHARIAH
Zechariah 12:2-3, 8-10; 13:1, 8-9; 14:2-4, 8-9, 12, 16:
“Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the peoples round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.” (verse 12:2)
“And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all peoples; all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the nations of the earth be gathered together against it.” (verse 12:3)
On that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be like David; and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the Lord before them” (verse 12:8)
“And it shall come to pass, in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.” (verse 12:9)
“And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplications; and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.” (verse 12:10)
“in that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.” (verse 13:1)
“For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.” (verse 14:2)
“Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.” (verse 14:3)
“And his feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east …” (verse 14:4)
“And it shall be, in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem . . .” (verse 14:8)
“And the Lord shall be king over all the earth; in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.” (verse 14:9)
“And this shall be the plague with which the Lord will smite all the peoples that have fought against Jerusalem; their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.” (verse 14:12)
“And it shall come to pass that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles (verse 14:16).
Zechariah Chapters 12 through 14 constitute the most complete summation of the Messianic Scenario. The three chapters incorporate each of the characteristics of the scenario outlined in Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. All the characteristics are brought together in one series of Scriptural passages and the relationship between each is carefully delineated. Moreover, several new features are added to the scenario—important features which bear a significant impact upon the interpretation of Jesus’ Olivet discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21).
1. Again, the passages are plainly directed to the Jews corporately—not individually.
2. Verses 12:10 and 13:1 correspond to Deuteronomy 30:6, Jeremiah 31:33, and Ezekiel 36:26-27—and point to the same magnificent and wholly sovereign intrusion of grace. No allusion is made to merit; the stress is exclusively upon God’s grace in redemption. The intrusion springs absolutely from God’s behest. He ALONE initiates it.,
3. Verses 12:10 and 13:1 are linked to a context composed of other verses which define the actual historic setting of the Jewish conversion. The setting is clearly future and just immediately prior to the Second Coming (verses 14:4, 14:8-9, 16).
a. The conversion will occur during a terrible siege of Jerusalem—a siege which is part of a larger battle directed against Judah (verses 12:2-3 and 14:2).
b. The siege will have been perpetrated by the gentile nations and will spring from fear (“cup of trembling”—verse 12:2) and an undefined Jewish obstinacy (“burdensome stone”—verse 12:3)
c. All the gentile nations will be involved—evidently none is exempted (verse 12:3 and verse 14:2).
d. The Jewish defense of Jerusalem—though heroic—will prove insufficient; and only a remnant will survive the siege (verse 14:2).
e. At the point of final capitulation, God will directly intervene in behalf of the Jews and will Himself undertake the defense of Jerusalem (verse 12:8-9, 14:3).
f. The gentile nations will be crushed (verse 14:12).
g. The Messiah will be crowned king of all the earth and will reign from His capital in Jerusalem (verse 14:9 and verse 14:16).
4. Two revelations of the Messiah are referenced:
a. Verse 12:10—His identity is revealed to the Jews—Jesus, the very one whom the Jews rejected at His first coming. The revelation is deeply personal and very tender. It is the catalyst which finally precipitates the Jewish conversion.
Verse 12:10 and verse 13:1 are clearly linked to Romans 11:26 – “And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written, there shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” Zechariah 12:10 and 13:1 simply describe the circumstances which trigger the fulfillment of Romans 11:26.
b. Verse 14:4—His identity is revealed to the nations—the covenant-keeping God who has never forsaken His people and will save them in grace, and will judge all who oppose them.
5. The passages incorporate two important interpretational implications:
a. The nations are opposed to God and will not be reformed until the Messiah Himself first crushes them and then establishes His personal reign. The Scriptures simply do not sustain an interpretation which suggests that the church will transform the nations. The church is NOT the designated agent of reformation; that task is assigned to the Messiah alone. The mission of the church is evangelism; and only that task is supported by God’s anointing. Surely, the church bears an incidental influence—an impact generated by the force of example—but only that.
b. The siege of Jerusalem described in Zechariah is simply not the siege prophesied in Luke 21:20-24. The two sieges are totally different. The siege of Zechariah is characterized by God’s defense—a wholly successful defense—a defense which constitutes the historic setting of a yet future Jewish national conversion. The siege of Luke 21:20-24 is described in wholly different terms: God abandons Jerusalem totally; indeed, verse 20 employs the term “desolation”—implying, of course, that Jerusalem has been forsaken by God. God warns the inhabitants to flee; that no safety can be expected within the walls of Jerusalem—a marked contrast to Zechariah 12:8. And, finally, Luke 21:24 underscores the finality of that desolation—specifically, the city is captured, possessed by the Gentiles, and “trodden underfoot.” How different from Zechariah 12:8, 9; 14:12, etc.!
Clearly, the siege of Luke 21:20-24 is the siege of Titus—launched against Jerusalem in 70 AD—the great cataclysm which sent the Jews reeling into a final 1900 years of heart wrenching dispersion; and it is this dispersion which sets the stage for the regathering that forms the backdrop of Zechariah Chapters 12-14. The wholly different siege of Zechariah is still to be fulfilled. It is the leverage used by God to affect the redemption of the Jews. The purposes of the two sieges are wholly different; and the historic settings are wholly different.
6. The prophecy of Zechariah very plainly indicates that the Jews are regathered in the “Land of Promise” IN UNBELIEF; specifically, their conversion (