On January 12, 2012, Dr Andy Woods of Sugar Land Bible Church published an article on Bible Prophecy Blog entitled, “Israel-Church Differences.” He began his article by stating:
“One of the rules of basic Bible interpretation is to recognize that the church and Israel represent separate programs of God. They are two trains running on separate railroad tracks.”
Dr. Woods did not cite any specific source for this so called “rules of basic Bible interpretation.” He just declared it as if it were a fact. Since Dr. Woods used the train and tracks analogy to illustrate the Israel-Church distinction, here is how I would use that same analogy. There has been only one train from the start. After Christ’s finished work, we now have a longer train with additional cars, and a new and improved engine that is running on more tracks.
Dr. Woods’ goes on to support his “two trains running on separate railroad tracks” premise by citing twenty differences between the Church and Israel. Here is how he referenced his source on these twenty differences:
“Theologian and founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, Lewis Sperry Chafer, noted twenty-four differences between Israel and the church. [1] Here are a few.” (emphasis mine)
Dr. Woods’ footnote: [1] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary, 1948; reprint, [8 vols. in 4], Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993), 4:47-53.
The thing that aroused my curiosity over the twenty differences, is that Dr. Woods quantified them as just “a few” of Dr. Chafer’s twenty-four differences. To me, twenty out of twenty-four does not seem like “a few.” However, I realized why Dr. Woods might have written “a few” when I compared the twenty differences to Dr. Chafer’s original twenty-four. The twenty differences cited by Dr. Woods are about 45% of the size of Dr. Chafer’s twenty-four. The twenty differences cited by Dr. Woods were “a few” from a proportional standpoint in terms of total word volume as opposed to an item by item comparison.
Dr. Woods gave his readers the impression that the twenty differences that he cited were copied directly from Dr. Chafer’s twenty-four, and that those twenty differences were written by Dr. Chafer himself. Come to find out, Dr. Woods was the author of those twenty differences. Dr. Woods reduced and rewrote Dr. Chafer’s twenty-four differences and even mixed in a few original concepts of his own. I don’t fault Dr. Woods for doing this. However, I do fault Dr. Woods for not being more forthright with his readers and telling them that those were HIS twenty differences and that they were BASED ON Dr. Chafer’s twenty-four.
Dr. Woods’ twenty differences between the Church and Israel can be divided into different categories. The first category of differences is what I would consider to be improvement differences.
• Second, Israel gave birth to Christ (Rev 12:1-5) whereas Christ gave birth to the church (Matt 16:18).
• Fourth, king-subject imagery is used to depict God's relationship to Israel (Isa 33:22) while head and groom imagery is used to depict Christ's relationship with His church (Eph 5:22-33).
• Fifth, God's program through Israel began in Genesis 12, and His program through the church began in Acts 2 (Matt 16:18; 1 Cor 12:13; Acts 1:5; 11:15-16).
• Eighth, Israel is a nation (Ps 147:20). As such, she is always biblically portrayed as an independent nation with borders and a capital. Even today Israel is among the nations of the earth, just like Japan, Argentina, Canada, or any other country. By contrast, the church is not a nation (Rom 10:19) but rather is comprised of people from all nations (Gal 3:28; Eph 2:11-22; 3:6, 15). Rather than taking her seat among the nations of the earth, the church is a mere pilgrim in the world system (1 Pet 2:11).
• Ninth, while Israel fought physical wars with various enemies such as the Philistines, the church is engaged in spiritual warfare with angelic enemies (Eph 6:10-20).
• Tenth, the Scripture assigns numerous a quo and ad quem statements to Israel (Gen 15:13-16; Jer 25:11; 29:10; Ezek 4:5-7; Dan 9:24-27). These are timing statements with a specific beginning and ending point for each period. One searches the New Testament in vain to find comparable timing statements for the church.
• Eleventh, Israel had a priesthood with all her priests coming from the tribe of Levi and the line of Aaron. By contrast, the church does not have a priesthood because it is a priesthood (Rev 1:6). The New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet 2:5, 9). Every Church Age believer is a priest with direct access to God the Father through God the Son.
• Fourteenth, although the gates of the New Jerusalem are named after the twelve tribes (Rev 21:12), who were the foundations of Israel, the foundations of the eternal city are named after the twelve apostles (Rev 21:14) who are the foundations of the church (Eph 2:20).
• Fifteenth, people become members of the commonwealth of Israel through physical birth. By contrast, membership in the church is only attained by spiritual birth (John 3:1-9; Titus 3:5).
• Seventeenth, the Holy Spirit indwelt and filled Old Testament Jews selectively (Joel 2:28), temporarily (1 Sam 16:14; Ps 51:11), and subsequent to salvation to enable for a special purpose (Exod 31:3). By contrast, the Holy Spirit indwells all Church-Age believers (1 Cor 12:13) permanently (John 14:16) and at the point of salvation (Rom 8:9). Thus, the Spirit's work in and through Israel cannot be used as a pattern to depict the believer's normative experience with the Holy Spirit in the present age (John 7:37-39; 14:16-17; Acts 1:5).
As you can see, all of those differences marked notable improvements from the Israel era to the Church era. None of those differences validate the “two trains running on separate railroad tracks” theory. I can just as easily make the claim that they validate the improved and expanded train from one track to several tracks theory.
The second category of differences is what I would call the Scriptural Governance category:
• Sixth, while four-fifths of the Bible pertains to Israel, only one-fifth of it deals with the church.
• Sixteenth, Israel was directly governed by the Mosaic Law (Ps 147:19-20). By contrast, the controlling authority for the church is New Testament revelation. While all Scripture is for the church (2 Tim 3:16; Rom 15:4), only the New Testament's epistolary literature is directly about the church.
• Twentieth, while Israel's program is revealed in the Old Testament, the church's program was unknown in Old Testament times. Because the church is a New Testament mystery (Eph 3:3-6), or something previously hidden and now unveiled (Rom 16:25-26), Church Age doctrine comes exclusively from the New Testament (Matt 16:18; John 13‒17) rather than the Old Testament. Noting such differences should caution us against taking prophecies and promises that are specifically aimed at Israel and misapplying them to the present dispensation of the Church Age.
Dr. Woods acknowledged that the all Scripture (including the Old Testament) is for the Church. However, the New Testament as we know of today was not formulated and recognized as an official part of the cannon until 325 A. D. So, from the day of Pentecost in 33 A. D. until the Council of Nicaea in 325 A. D. (about 292 years), the only official Scripture that the Church had was the Old Testament. When Paul wrote 2 Tim 3:16 and Rom 15:4, he was speaking specifically about the Old Testament because the New Testament did not exist at that time. Dr. Woods seems to think that OT prophecies and promises do not apply to the Church. What about Acts 2:14 -21 where Peter credits the events on the Day of Pentecost as being a fulfillment of Joel 28-32?
The third category of differences that I consider to be ad hominem differences:
• Third, Christ will return to rescue Israel upon her national conversion at the end of the Tribulation period (Matt 23:37-39). Conversely, He will return to rescue the church at the rapture (John 14:1-3).
• Twelfth, while Israel will be resurrected at the beginning of the millennial kingdom (Dan 12:2; John 11:23-24; Rev 20:4-5), Church-Age believers receive their resurrected bodies at the point of the rapture (1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 Cor 15:50-58).
• Thirteenth, Israel's judgment will take place on earth, at the end of the Tribulation period, in the wilderness (Ezek 20:33-44). By contrast, the only judgment the New Testament reveals for the church is the Bema Seat judgment of rewards in heaven following the rapture (Rom 14:10; 1 Cor 3:10-15; 2 Cor 5:10).
In order to accept these set of differences as being factual and true, you would first have to buy into the pre-tribulational/premillennial eschatological system and accept it as being factual and true. As Christians, we can all agree that Jesus will come again, and there are Scriptures that support this notion. However, going beyond that and predicting a sequence of events that will transpire before the Lord’s return is a matter of interpretation and speculation. So, that makes these differences a matter of speculation as well.
The fourth category of differences are the miscellaneous, what’s that got to do with anything differences:
• Seventh, although Israel was a direct party to the biblical covenants (Jer 31:31-32), the church was not a party to these covenants since the church was not yet in existence when these covenants were made. The church's relationship to these covenants can best be described as one of a third-party beneficiary rather than a direct party to them. Therefore, the church benefits from the covenants as opposed to being a direct party to them.
• Eighteenth, while Christ's farewell address to Israel (Matt 24:15; 20) is recorded in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24‒25), His farewell address to the church (John 16:12-13) is found in the Upper Room Discourse (John 13‒17).
• Nineteenth, although Israel is referred to as God's first-born son (Exod 4:22), the church is never given this same designation or title.
Whether or not these differences are factual and true is irrelevant. The fact is, none of them make the case for Israel and the Church being “two trains running on separate railroad tracks” just as all the other differences don’t.
The fifth category of differences is the non-difference, difference:
• First, Israel is the wife of Jehovah (Isa 54) while the church is the bride of Christ (Eph 5:22-33).
If anything, this phase illustrates what Israel and the Church have in common. What is the difference between a wife and a bride? What is the difference between Jehovah and Christ? Isn’t Christ a manifestation of Jehovah?
Whether it’s Dr. Woods’ twenty differences or Dr. Chafer’s twenty-four, these differences in and of themselves do not make the case that Israel and the Church are “two trains running on separate railroad tracks.” The differences written by Dr. Woods and Chafer are nothing more than a bunch of dispensational red-herrings. So, do not buy into this smoke and mirrors trick.
I am glad there are differences between Israel and the Church and the two do not have to be “two trains running on separate railroad tracks” in order for these differences to exist. Here is one big OBVIOUS difference between Israel and the Church that neither Dr. Woods or Chafer cited: Israel needed to sacrifice and shed the innocent blood of animals on an ongoing basis in order to achieve atonement for their sins; The Church has the gift of the ultimate and final sacrifice of Jesus and His shed blood that has atoned for our sins forever. The gift is available to anyone (including the Jews) who wants to receive it.
Showing posts with label Andy Woods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andy Woods. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Thursday, November 10, 2011
ARTICLE REVIEW: A Response To Andy Woods
Introduction
Dr. Andy Woods is an Associate Professor at the College of Biblical Studies in Houston, Texas. He holds a BA from Univ. of Redlands, a J D from Whittier Law School, and a ThM, and PhD from Dallas Theological Seminary. In the Spring of 2008, Dr. Woods published a 12,300 word article with 134 footnotes and a bibliography with 62 listings and 8 tables or illustrations in the Chafer Theological Seminary Journal (No. 13, 2-26) entitled, “A Case For The Futurist Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.” Dr. Woods subscribes to the premillennial/dispensational point of view on eschatology. For the Premillennialist, the futurist interpretation on the scriptures they use to construct their position is everything. They have nothing to hang their eschatology on if they can’t sell the futurist interpretation angle.
A Case For Futurism Or Against Preterism?
Given Dr. Woods position in the Christian academic community, it makes perfect sense that he would write a piece in defense of his position. However, Dr. Woods defends his position by repudiating his eschatological opponents who are identified as preterist. I think the title of Dr. Woods’ paper, is misleading. A more appropriate title would have been, “A Case Against The Preterist Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.” Most of Dr. Woods’ paper is devoted to refuting preterism as opposed to making a case for futurism. He mentions preterist, preterists or preterism 75 times and futurist, futurists, futuristic, or futurism just 21 times. Also, in the body of his work, Dr. Woods mentioned his preterist opponents by name 25 times and he only mentioned his futurist colleagues by name 5 times.
Dr. Woods’ identified five of his preterist opponents in his opening footnote. Of those five, he cited the works of three of them 53 times in subsequent footnotes. The three that were cited were: Dr. David Chilton, Hank Hanegraaff and Dr. Kenneth Gentry. Of those three, Dr. Gentry was cited the most with 39 footnoted references. Dr. Woods mentioned Dr. Gentry by name 22 times throughout the body of his work where the other two were mentioned a combined total of 3 times. Being that Dr. Gentry was the foremost singled out preterist, it is quite obvious who Dr. Woods had in his cross-hairs when he wrote this paper. Evidently, Dr. Woods would prefer to grind his axe with the preterists as opposed to making a case for his futurist position.
For whatever reason, the scope of Dr. Woods’ paper is limited to the Book of Revelation, even though the whole futurist/preterist debate covers other prophetic Scriptures like the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24 for example. Being that Dr. Woods was so eager to refute preterism, he could have addressed Matthew 24:34 where Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” This verse is one of the main defenses for the preterists. They believe that, “this generation” means those whom Jesus was addressing at that time he gave the discourse and not some generation way off in the distant future. If Dr. Woods really wanted to debunk preterism, he could have given his readers the futurist position of “this generation.”
Who Is Dr. Woods’ Audience?
Another enigma about Dr. Woods’ paper is his audience. To whom was Dr. Woods trying to make his case to? This article was originally published in a journal where most (if not all) of those who actually read it already subscribe to premillennial/dispensational eschatology and the futurist interpretation. If you go online to Chafer Theological Seminary’s web site, you will find that their official eschatological position is pre-tribulational/premillennial. Furthermore, most of the average rank and file Evangelical Christians in general already subscribe to his view on eschatology.
Dr. Gentry himself was not even aware that Dr. Woods wrote this paper until October of 2011 (1) Why was Dr. Gentry not afforded a fair opportunity to respond to Dr. Woods’ critique at the time this paper was published? How much of an effort did Dr. Woods make in presenting his work to an audience who does not agree with his position? Or, at the very least, to those who might be on the eschatological fence? What is the point in preparing a lengthy and annotated paper if you are just going to preach to the choir?
1. On October 22, 2011, I emailed Dr. Woods’ paper in pdf to Dr. Gentry.
Dispensationalism’s Short History
Dr. Woods began his paper with this sentence:
While previous generations of dispensational interpreters may have enjoyed the luxury of the widespread assumption that the Book of Revelation primarily concerns future events, such a “golden age” has now come to an end.
How many previous generations of dispensationalist does Dr. Woods think there are? Gary DeMar wrote the following concerning dispensationalism’s short history:
Everybody prior to around 1830 was a non-dispensationalist, so I don’t see why being a “non-dispensationalist” today carries with it such negative connotations. Furthermore, until the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909, there was no agreed upon dispensational system among even a minority of Christians. (2) It’s rather surprising that notes written by one man who had no real theological training would end up creating a brand new prophetic movement wherein the notes more often than not supplant the text of Scripture. (3)
When considering almost 2,000 years of church history, 181 years is not all that much of a time frame for any kind of theological system. How did the Church survive almost 1,800 years without the wisdom and insight of the premillennial dispensationalist? Did all the believers living before 1830 have skewed theologies because they did not interpret the Scripture they way they do?
2. Dispensationalists like to claim that the mere use of the word “dispensation” makes someone a dispensationalist. This is hardly
the case. See Ronald M. Henzel, Darby, Dualism, and the Decline of Dispensationalism: Reassessing the Nineteenth-Century Roots of a Twentieth-Century Prophetic Movement for the Twenty-First Century (Tucson: Fenestra Books, 2003), 25–29. (This footnote was originally referenced by Gary DeMar.)
3. Gary DeMar, 10 Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed, The Last Days Might Not Be as Near as You Think (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, 2nd printing 2010), 3.
Dr. David Chilton & Preterism
Dr. Woods correctly defines the term “preterists” for his readers. Unlike a futurist who believes a prophetic Scripture is yet to be fulfilled, a preterist believes a prophetic Scripture has already been fulfilled. To Dr. Woods’ credit, he did make the distinction between a full preterist and a partial preterist. (The problem with the full preterists is that they don’t believe in the upcoming 2nd advent of Christ as stipulated in the orthodox creeds.) In the third paragraph of page 6, Dr. Woods wrote this:
the designations “partial preterist” and “full preterist” are misnomers. Rather, partial preterists should be labeled “inconsistent preterists” while full preterists should be referred to as “consistent preterists.” This inconsistency is evident even to some partial preterists, such as David Chilton, who abandoned his partial preterist system in favor of full preterism.
It is true that Dr. David Chilton changed from partial to full or hyper preterism, none of his colleagues that I know of have ever denied that. But, here are some facts about Dr. Chilton that Dr. Woods conveniently left out of his paper as he unfairly characterized Dr. Chilton’s change to full preterism: (4)
• Dr. Chilton died in 1997, which means that he had been dead for more than ten years at the time Dr. Woods published his paper;
• Dr. Chilton changed to full preterism AFTER he suffered a massive heart-attack in 1994 that left him in a coma for six weeks where he was brain dead for a portion of that time;
• Dr. Chilton miraculously recovered from his coma blind and with a total loss of his memory.
I certainly don’t condone or excuse heresy and straying from the orthodox tenants of the faith. However, I do think that the circumstances surrounding Dr. Chilton’s health in the last three years of his life are a legitimate reason to afford him a little bit of latitude. Before Dr. Chilton changed his position on preterism, he first had to re-learn what preterism was. At the time Dr. Chilton changed is position, he was not even half of what he was before his heart-attack. If one of Dr. Woods’ colleagues were to suffer the same misfortune as Dr. Chilton, and then stray off the reservation, I would imagine that Dr. Woods would want his opponents to take those mitigating circumstances into consideration before passing judgment.
If a formerly brain dead guy who was ailing for three years before he died is the best example of a partial to full preterist that Dr. Woods can come up with to illustrate his point, then I would say that his point is quite weak. Apparently there are not very many partial to full preterist converts available for Dr. Woods to use as an example. In the end, the premillennial dispensationalist are also partial preterist to a small extent. I have never heard any of them try to recycle Isaiah 53 or any other prophecy about the coming of the Messiah.
4. Here my internet sources that I used for documenting Dr. Chilton’s declining health before he died:
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=2378; http://vftonline.org/xmaspiracy/1/northvschilton.htm and Wikipedia.
The Temple
Being that I support the statehood of modern day Israel, I suppose that would make me a Zionist sympathizer. However, the premillennial dispensationalist go way beyond that. Just as there are distinctions between partial and full preterism, I make the distinction between partial and full Zionism. For example, the premillenialists support modern day Israel and their retaking of the temple mount so they can build a 3rd temple. Remember the 1st temple that was built by King Solomon was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B. C. Then, the 2nd temple was built in 515 B.C. only to be destroyed by the Romans in 70. A. D. So, the Jews have been without a temple for over 1,900 some odd years. Even though the Jews have maintained their religion, culture and identity over the centuries, they have not been able to fully practice their religion because they are without a temple.
The building of a 3rd temple on the temple mount in Jerusalem is a big part of premillennial eschatology. Dr. Woods devotes a segment of his paper repudiating the idea of the temple referred to in Revelation 11 as being the 2nd temple as the preterist argue, but rather, a future 3rd temple. I think this is where Dr. Woods’ zeal to repudiate his preterist opponents (mainly Dr. Gentry) got the best of him. He was so pre-occupied with disproving his opponents case that he failed to prove his own. There is a dispute among the futurist and preterist as to when the Book of Revelation was written. The preterist contend that it was written prior to 70 A.D., while the futurists contend that it was written sometime in the 90s. Even if the futurists can conclusively prove that the Book of Revelation was written on their time table, they cannot provide a verse in the Book of Revelation or in the New Testament for that matter where it explicitly states that a 3rd temple will be built.
It is possible for one to make a theological argument stick without having a Scripture verse that explicitly supports it, as long as you can support your argument from a conceptual standpoint. Take the Trinity for example. The word “Trinity is not in the Bible. There are no verses in the Bible that explicitly says there is a Trinity. However, there are many Scriptures that support the concept of the Trinity. Therefore we orthodox Christians accept the Trinity as a part of our theology. The reason the futurist argument concerning the construction of a 3rd falls completely apart is because there is no Biblical support for it from a conceptual or literally explicit standpoint. Here are just four Old Testament verses that explicitly supported the rebuilding of 2nd post-exilic temple:
2 Chron. 36: 23: 23. “This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: “`The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you — may the LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.’“
Ezra 6: 3: 3. In the first year of King Cyrus, the king issued a decree concerning the temple of God in Jerusalem: Let the temple be rebuilt as a place to present sacrifices, and let its foundations be laid. It is to be ninety feet high and ninety feet wide,….
Ezra 6: 7–8: 7. Do not interfere with the work on this temple of God. Let the governor of the Jews and the Jewish elders rebuild this house of God on its site. 8. Moreover, I hereby decree what you are to do for these elders of the Jews in the construction of this house of God:
Ezra 6: 14–15: 14. So the elders of the Jews continued to build and prosper under the preaching of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah, a descendant of Iddo. They finished building the temple according to the command of the God of Israel and the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia. 15. The temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius.
If the construction of a 3rd temple is as legitimate of a concept as the premillennialist would have us believe, why are they not able to produce any explicit Scriptures on it when it can be done on the 2nd temple? The preterists on the other hand, have at least one Scripture that I know of that would support literally or explicitly support their case in Matthew 24:34. However, there are a lot of New Testament Scriptures available to make the conceptual argument as to why there is no need for a 3rd temple. Here are just five of them:
Matt. 21: 42: Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “`The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; [Or cornerstone] the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? [Psalm 118:22,23]
Matt. 24: 1–2: 1. Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; everyone will be thrown down.”
John 2: 19–21: 19. Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20. The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21. But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
Eph. 2: 20-21: 20. built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
Rev. 21: 22: I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.
Animal Sacrifices
Another thing Dr. Woods totally ignored concerning the temple is the purpose for having the temple in the first place. Under the Old Testament Mosaic code, the temple was established in order to facilitate a provisional animal sacrificial system for the remission of sins. Given that fact, I pose this question: If Jesus’ work on the cross made him the ultimate and final sacrifice for our sins and has rendered the Old Testament sacrificial system obsolete, what exactly would we be using this 3rd temple for?
To the orthodox Jews, re-building the temple and re-instituting the animal sacrificial rites is one in the same thing. The orthodox Jews do not take the Gospels as gospel as we Christians do. The Jews did not stop sacrificing animals sometime in the late 60s of the first century because of Jesus’ finished work on the cross. They stopped sacrificing because they were ran out of Jerusalem and the Romans demolished the temple in 70 A.D.
When I talk about eschatology with my premillennial brothers and sisters, one question that I always ask is, “How far do you want to go with the Zionist cause?” Most of them will not go so far to support the concept of reinstating the sacrificing of animals. Some of them have said that there just needs to be a temple because Jesus needs a place to reign from and be worshipped. For those who are pro-temple, but anti sacrificing, I would call them partial Zionist. For those who are pro-temple and pro-sacrificing, I would call them full Zionist.
Now that I have established the difference between a partial and full Zionist, I would like to know how far does Dr. Woods want to go with the Zionist cause? Is he a partial or full Zionist? Are the premillennial dispensationalist and the orthodox Jews on the same page on the issue of re-building the temple? Is Dr. Woods and his premillennial colleagues okay with the continuance of an obsolete sacrificial system that orthodox Christians do not observe? Here are just five New Testament verses that explicitly supported the concept of Jesus being the ultimate and final sacrifice and therefore rendering the old sacrificial system obsolete:
John 1: 29: The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Ro. 3: 24-25: 24. and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished —
1Co. 5: 7: Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast — as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
He. 7: 27: Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.
1Jn. 2: 2: He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Why would Dr. Woods want to be associated with any kind of theology that enables or condones an obsolete sacrificial system? In the first paragraph of page 7, Dr. Woods wrote this:
….. “in order for partial preterists to be consistent, they also must believe that the Second Advent and final judgment have already taken place. Such a belief is at odds with the great ecumenical church creeds, which teach a future bodily appearing of Christ. Denying the Second Advent takes one outside the pale of orthodoxy and into the camp of heterodoxy or heresy. Thus, the partial preterist understanding of Revelation’s timing texts flirts dangerously with unorthodoxy.”
Now, if Dr. Woods want to play the, “flirts dangerously with unorthodoxy” card, fine. But remember, two can play that game. Let’s take Dr. Woods quote and replace partial and full preterist and its related concepts with partial and full Zionist and its related concepts and see how it reads:
….. “in order for partial Zionist to be consistent, they also must believe that the sacrificing of animals under the Mosaic Las needs to take place. Such a belief is at odds with the great ecumenical church creeds, which teach that Christ is the ultimate and final sacrifice. Denying Christ as the final and ultimate sacrifice takes one outside the pale of orthodoxy and into the camp of heterodoxy or heresy. Thus, the partial Zionist understanding of Biblical texts concerning the temple flirts dangerously with unorthodoxy.”
Conclusion
My review of Dr. Woods’ paper, was not intended to give a point by point rebuttal to everything that was critical of Dr. Gentry’s positions or preterists in general. I will leave it to Dr. Gentry and the preterists to fight their own battles if they so choose. However, if I were Dr. Woods’ Professor, and he turned this paper in to me for a grade, I would have given him a failing grade, simply because he failed to make his case for futurism. Dr. Woods reminds me of the negative campaigning politician who would rather run down his opponent as opposed to telling the voters why they should vote for him.
It’s unfortunate that Dr. Woods had a fixation for refuting preterism as opposed to making a case for futurism. Premillenial dispensationalism has a lot of inconsistencies of its own that need addressing. Had Dr. Woods stayed on point, perhaps he could have explained how a futurist interpretation helped the premillennial dispensationalist arrive at the conclusion that that there will be a rapture followed by a 7 year tribulation period. And, that the antichrist will make a covenant with the Jews and then break that same covenant later. I for one would like to know where those texts are found and interpreted in the Book of Revelation.
I don’t have a problem with Dr. Woods writing a paper refuting preterism per se. However, if he chooses to take that path, then he needs to state that in his premise in the beginning and then go from there. Of course, if Dr. Woods really wants to refute preterism, I would suggest that he debate a preterist in a formal debate setting in front of his students. What would be a better way for him to educate his students?
Post Log
On November 14, 2011, Dr. Gentry sent me an email stating the following:
Good work! Thanks for keeping me posted. Due to my ridiculous time constraints, along with the relative obscurity of the paper to which you respond, I won't be able to give time to rebutting it. But I am thankful you have done a nice job on it.
.
Dr. Andy Woods is an Associate Professor at the College of Biblical Studies in Houston, Texas. He holds a BA from Univ. of Redlands, a J D from Whittier Law School, and a ThM, and PhD from Dallas Theological Seminary. In the Spring of 2008, Dr. Woods published a 12,300 word article with 134 footnotes and a bibliography with 62 listings and 8 tables or illustrations in the Chafer Theological Seminary Journal (No. 13, 2-26) entitled, “A Case For The Futurist Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.” Dr. Woods subscribes to the premillennial/dispensational point of view on eschatology. For the Premillennialist, the futurist interpretation on the scriptures they use to construct their position is everything. They have nothing to hang their eschatology on if they can’t sell the futurist interpretation angle.
A Case For Futurism Or Against Preterism?
Given Dr. Woods position in the Christian academic community, it makes perfect sense that he would write a piece in defense of his position. However, Dr. Woods defends his position by repudiating his eschatological opponents who are identified as preterist. I think the title of Dr. Woods’ paper, is misleading. A more appropriate title would have been, “A Case Against The Preterist Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.” Most of Dr. Woods’ paper is devoted to refuting preterism as opposed to making a case for futurism. He mentions preterist, preterists or preterism 75 times and futurist, futurists, futuristic, or futurism just 21 times. Also, in the body of his work, Dr. Woods mentioned his preterist opponents by name 25 times and he only mentioned his futurist colleagues by name 5 times.
Dr. Woods’ identified five of his preterist opponents in his opening footnote. Of those five, he cited the works of three of them 53 times in subsequent footnotes. The three that were cited were: Dr. David Chilton, Hank Hanegraaff and Dr. Kenneth Gentry. Of those three, Dr. Gentry was cited the most with 39 footnoted references. Dr. Woods mentioned Dr. Gentry by name 22 times throughout the body of his work where the other two were mentioned a combined total of 3 times. Being that Dr. Gentry was the foremost singled out preterist, it is quite obvious who Dr. Woods had in his cross-hairs when he wrote this paper. Evidently, Dr. Woods would prefer to grind his axe with the preterists as opposed to making a case for his futurist position.
For whatever reason, the scope of Dr. Woods’ paper is limited to the Book of Revelation, even though the whole futurist/preterist debate covers other prophetic Scriptures like the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24 for example. Being that Dr. Woods was so eager to refute preterism, he could have addressed Matthew 24:34 where Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” This verse is one of the main defenses for the preterists. They believe that, “this generation” means those whom Jesus was addressing at that time he gave the discourse and not some generation way off in the distant future. If Dr. Woods really wanted to debunk preterism, he could have given his readers the futurist position of “this generation.”
Who Is Dr. Woods’ Audience?
Another enigma about Dr. Woods’ paper is his audience. To whom was Dr. Woods trying to make his case to? This article was originally published in a journal where most (if not all) of those who actually read it already subscribe to premillennial/dispensational eschatology and the futurist interpretation. If you go online to Chafer Theological Seminary’s web site, you will find that their official eschatological position is pre-tribulational/premillennial. Furthermore, most of the average rank and file Evangelical Christians in general already subscribe to his view on eschatology.
Dr. Gentry himself was not even aware that Dr. Woods wrote this paper until October of 2011 (1) Why was Dr. Gentry not afforded a fair opportunity to respond to Dr. Woods’ critique at the time this paper was published? How much of an effort did Dr. Woods make in presenting his work to an audience who does not agree with his position? Or, at the very least, to those who might be on the eschatological fence? What is the point in preparing a lengthy and annotated paper if you are just going to preach to the choir?
1. On October 22, 2011, I emailed Dr. Woods’ paper in pdf to Dr. Gentry.
Dispensationalism’s Short History
Dr. Woods began his paper with this sentence:
While previous generations of dispensational interpreters may have enjoyed the luxury of the widespread assumption that the Book of Revelation primarily concerns future events, such a “golden age” has now come to an end.
How many previous generations of dispensationalist does Dr. Woods think there are? Gary DeMar wrote the following concerning dispensationalism’s short history:
Everybody prior to around 1830 was a non-dispensationalist, so I don’t see why being a “non-dispensationalist” today carries with it such negative connotations. Furthermore, until the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909, there was no agreed upon dispensational system among even a minority of Christians. (2) It’s rather surprising that notes written by one man who had no real theological training would end up creating a brand new prophetic movement wherein the notes more often than not supplant the text of Scripture. (3)
When considering almost 2,000 years of church history, 181 years is not all that much of a time frame for any kind of theological system. How did the Church survive almost 1,800 years without the wisdom and insight of the premillennial dispensationalist? Did all the believers living before 1830 have skewed theologies because they did not interpret the Scripture they way they do?
2. Dispensationalists like to claim that the mere use of the word “dispensation” makes someone a dispensationalist. This is hardly
the case. See Ronald M. Henzel, Darby, Dualism, and the Decline of Dispensationalism: Reassessing the Nineteenth-Century Roots of a Twentieth-Century Prophetic Movement for the Twenty-First Century (Tucson: Fenestra Books, 2003), 25–29. (This footnote was originally referenced by Gary DeMar.)
3. Gary DeMar, 10 Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed, The Last Days Might Not Be as Near as You Think (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, 2nd printing 2010), 3.
Dr. David Chilton & Preterism
Dr. Woods correctly defines the term “preterists” for his readers. Unlike a futurist who believes a prophetic Scripture is yet to be fulfilled, a preterist believes a prophetic Scripture has already been fulfilled. To Dr. Woods’ credit, he did make the distinction between a full preterist and a partial preterist. (The problem with the full preterists is that they don’t believe in the upcoming 2nd advent of Christ as stipulated in the orthodox creeds.) In the third paragraph of page 6, Dr. Woods wrote this:
the designations “partial preterist” and “full preterist” are misnomers. Rather, partial preterists should be labeled “inconsistent preterists” while full preterists should be referred to as “consistent preterists.” This inconsistency is evident even to some partial preterists, such as David Chilton, who abandoned his partial preterist system in favor of full preterism.
It is true that Dr. David Chilton changed from partial to full or hyper preterism, none of his colleagues that I know of have ever denied that. But, here are some facts about Dr. Chilton that Dr. Woods conveniently left out of his paper as he unfairly characterized Dr. Chilton’s change to full preterism: (4)
• Dr. Chilton died in 1997, which means that he had been dead for more than ten years at the time Dr. Woods published his paper;
• Dr. Chilton changed to full preterism AFTER he suffered a massive heart-attack in 1994 that left him in a coma for six weeks where he was brain dead for a portion of that time;
• Dr. Chilton miraculously recovered from his coma blind and with a total loss of his memory.
I certainly don’t condone or excuse heresy and straying from the orthodox tenants of the faith. However, I do think that the circumstances surrounding Dr. Chilton’s health in the last three years of his life are a legitimate reason to afford him a little bit of latitude. Before Dr. Chilton changed his position on preterism, he first had to re-learn what preterism was. At the time Dr. Chilton changed is position, he was not even half of what he was before his heart-attack. If one of Dr. Woods’ colleagues were to suffer the same misfortune as Dr. Chilton, and then stray off the reservation, I would imagine that Dr. Woods would want his opponents to take those mitigating circumstances into consideration before passing judgment.
If a formerly brain dead guy who was ailing for three years before he died is the best example of a partial to full preterist that Dr. Woods can come up with to illustrate his point, then I would say that his point is quite weak. Apparently there are not very many partial to full preterist converts available for Dr. Woods to use as an example. In the end, the premillennial dispensationalist are also partial preterist to a small extent. I have never heard any of them try to recycle Isaiah 53 or any other prophecy about the coming of the Messiah.
4. Here my internet sources that I used for documenting Dr. Chilton’s declining health before he died:
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=2378; http://vftonline.org/xmaspiracy/1/northvschilton.htm and Wikipedia.
The Temple
Being that I support the statehood of modern day Israel, I suppose that would make me a Zionist sympathizer. However, the premillennial dispensationalist go way beyond that. Just as there are distinctions between partial and full preterism, I make the distinction between partial and full Zionism. For example, the premillenialists support modern day Israel and their retaking of the temple mount so they can build a 3rd temple. Remember the 1st temple that was built by King Solomon was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B. C. Then, the 2nd temple was built in 515 B.C. only to be destroyed by the Romans in 70. A. D. So, the Jews have been without a temple for over 1,900 some odd years. Even though the Jews have maintained their religion, culture and identity over the centuries, they have not been able to fully practice their religion because they are without a temple.
The building of a 3rd temple on the temple mount in Jerusalem is a big part of premillennial eschatology. Dr. Woods devotes a segment of his paper repudiating the idea of the temple referred to in Revelation 11 as being the 2nd temple as the preterist argue, but rather, a future 3rd temple. I think this is where Dr. Woods’ zeal to repudiate his preterist opponents (mainly Dr. Gentry) got the best of him. He was so pre-occupied with disproving his opponents case that he failed to prove his own. There is a dispute among the futurist and preterist as to when the Book of Revelation was written. The preterist contend that it was written prior to 70 A.D., while the futurists contend that it was written sometime in the 90s. Even if the futurists can conclusively prove that the Book of Revelation was written on their time table, they cannot provide a verse in the Book of Revelation or in the New Testament for that matter where it explicitly states that a 3rd temple will be built.
It is possible for one to make a theological argument stick without having a Scripture verse that explicitly supports it, as long as you can support your argument from a conceptual standpoint. Take the Trinity for example. The word “Trinity is not in the Bible. There are no verses in the Bible that explicitly says there is a Trinity. However, there are many Scriptures that support the concept of the Trinity. Therefore we orthodox Christians accept the Trinity as a part of our theology. The reason the futurist argument concerning the construction of a 3rd falls completely apart is because there is no Biblical support for it from a conceptual or literally explicit standpoint. Here are just four Old Testament verses that explicitly supported the rebuilding of 2nd post-exilic temple:
2 Chron. 36: 23: 23. “This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: “`The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you — may the LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.’“
Ezra 6: 3: 3. In the first year of King Cyrus, the king issued a decree concerning the temple of God in Jerusalem: Let the temple be rebuilt as a place to present sacrifices, and let its foundations be laid. It is to be ninety feet high and ninety feet wide,….
Ezra 6: 7–8: 7. Do not interfere with the work on this temple of God. Let the governor of the Jews and the Jewish elders rebuild this house of God on its site. 8. Moreover, I hereby decree what you are to do for these elders of the Jews in the construction of this house of God:
Ezra 6: 14–15: 14. So the elders of the Jews continued to build and prosper under the preaching of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah, a descendant of Iddo. They finished building the temple according to the command of the God of Israel and the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia. 15. The temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius.
If the construction of a 3rd temple is as legitimate of a concept as the premillennialist would have us believe, why are they not able to produce any explicit Scriptures on it when it can be done on the 2nd temple? The preterists on the other hand, have at least one Scripture that I know of that would support literally or explicitly support their case in Matthew 24:34. However, there are a lot of New Testament Scriptures available to make the conceptual argument as to why there is no need for a 3rd temple. Here are just five of them:
Matt. 21: 42: Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “`The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; [Or cornerstone] the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? [Psalm 118:22,23]
Matt. 24: 1–2: 1. Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; everyone will be thrown down.”
John 2: 19–21: 19. Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20. The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21. But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
Eph. 2: 20-21: 20. built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
Rev. 21: 22: I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.
Animal Sacrifices
Another thing Dr. Woods totally ignored concerning the temple is the purpose for having the temple in the first place. Under the Old Testament Mosaic code, the temple was established in order to facilitate a provisional animal sacrificial system for the remission of sins. Given that fact, I pose this question: If Jesus’ work on the cross made him the ultimate and final sacrifice for our sins and has rendered the Old Testament sacrificial system obsolete, what exactly would we be using this 3rd temple for?
To the orthodox Jews, re-building the temple and re-instituting the animal sacrificial rites is one in the same thing. The orthodox Jews do not take the Gospels as gospel as we Christians do. The Jews did not stop sacrificing animals sometime in the late 60s of the first century because of Jesus’ finished work on the cross. They stopped sacrificing because they were ran out of Jerusalem and the Romans demolished the temple in 70 A.D.
When I talk about eschatology with my premillennial brothers and sisters, one question that I always ask is, “How far do you want to go with the Zionist cause?” Most of them will not go so far to support the concept of reinstating the sacrificing of animals. Some of them have said that there just needs to be a temple because Jesus needs a place to reign from and be worshipped. For those who are pro-temple, but anti sacrificing, I would call them partial Zionist. For those who are pro-temple and pro-sacrificing, I would call them full Zionist.
Now that I have established the difference between a partial and full Zionist, I would like to know how far does Dr. Woods want to go with the Zionist cause? Is he a partial or full Zionist? Are the premillennial dispensationalist and the orthodox Jews on the same page on the issue of re-building the temple? Is Dr. Woods and his premillennial colleagues okay with the continuance of an obsolete sacrificial system that orthodox Christians do not observe? Here are just five New Testament verses that explicitly supported the concept of Jesus being the ultimate and final sacrifice and therefore rendering the old sacrificial system obsolete:
John 1: 29: The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Ro. 3: 24-25: 24. and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished —
1Co. 5: 7: Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast — as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
He. 7: 27: Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.
1Jn. 2: 2: He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Why would Dr. Woods want to be associated with any kind of theology that enables or condones an obsolete sacrificial system? In the first paragraph of page 7, Dr. Woods wrote this:
….. “in order for partial preterists to be consistent, they also must believe that the Second Advent and final judgment have already taken place. Such a belief is at odds with the great ecumenical church creeds, which teach a future bodily appearing of Christ. Denying the Second Advent takes one outside the pale of orthodoxy and into the camp of heterodoxy or heresy. Thus, the partial preterist understanding of Revelation’s timing texts flirts dangerously with unorthodoxy.”
Now, if Dr. Woods want to play the, “flirts dangerously with unorthodoxy” card, fine. But remember, two can play that game. Let’s take Dr. Woods quote and replace partial and full preterist and its related concepts with partial and full Zionist and its related concepts and see how it reads:
….. “in order for partial Zionist to be consistent, they also must believe that the sacrificing of animals under the Mosaic Las needs to take place. Such a belief is at odds with the great ecumenical church creeds, which teach that Christ is the ultimate and final sacrifice. Denying Christ as the final and ultimate sacrifice takes one outside the pale of orthodoxy and into the camp of heterodoxy or heresy. Thus, the partial Zionist understanding of Biblical texts concerning the temple flirts dangerously with unorthodoxy.”
Conclusion
My review of Dr. Woods’ paper, was not intended to give a point by point rebuttal to everything that was critical of Dr. Gentry’s positions or preterists in general. I will leave it to Dr. Gentry and the preterists to fight their own battles if they so choose. However, if I were Dr. Woods’ Professor, and he turned this paper in to me for a grade, I would have given him a failing grade, simply because he failed to make his case for futurism. Dr. Woods reminds me of the negative campaigning politician who would rather run down his opponent as opposed to telling the voters why they should vote for him.
It’s unfortunate that Dr. Woods had a fixation for refuting preterism as opposed to making a case for futurism. Premillenial dispensationalism has a lot of inconsistencies of its own that need addressing. Had Dr. Woods stayed on point, perhaps he could have explained how a futurist interpretation helped the premillennial dispensationalist arrive at the conclusion that that there will be a rapture followed by a 7 year tribulation period. And, that the antichrist will make a covenant with the Jews and then break that same covenant later. I for one would like to know where those texts are found and interpreted in the Book of Revelation.
I don’t have a problem with Dr. Woods writing a paper refuting preterism per se. However, if he chooses to take that path, then he needs to state that in his premise in the beginning and then go from there. Of course, if Dr. Woods really wants to refute preterism, I would suggest that he debate a preterist in a formal debate setting in front of his students. What would be a better way for him to educate his students?
Post Log
On November 14, 2011, Dr. Gentry sent me an email stating the following:
Good work! Thanks for keeping me posted. Due to my ridiculous time constraints, along with the relative obscurity of the paper to which you respond, I won't be able to give time to rebutting it. But I am thankful you have done a nice job on it.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
