LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 351

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 351

any member of any ethnic group (Rom 3:9-10; 22-23). In privi-
leging ethnic Jews or modern Israelis with a distinct plan of salva-
tion, Left Behind obscures this central teaching of the Bible.

The Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments

Left Behind fails to recognize the distinctions between Israelite,
Hebrew, Jew and Israeli because LaHaye and Jenkins err when they
fail to appreciate the relationship between the Old and New Testa-
ments and the ways in which the latter completes and fulfils the for-
mer. In privileging the Old over the New Testament, Left Behind
contends that Old Testament prophecies regarding these events
must be literally fulfilled (e.g., the restoration of the nation of Is-
rael to her land, the revival of the Roman Empire, a reign of Christ
on earth after His return, the rebuilding of the temple and the rein-
Stitution of its sacrifices).

It is clear from Scripture, however, that the Old Testament is to
be read in the light of the New Testament. Colossians 2:16-17 pro-
vides this guide for the proper interpretation of the Old Testament:
“Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink,
or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a
Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come;
the reality, however, is found in Christ.” However, Left Behind ar-
gues that redemptive history takes a kind of U-turn in the millen-
nial age as the reality in Christ returns to the types and shadows of
the Old Testament. The future is therefore not a consummation but
a return to the past. This understanding obscures the person and
work of Christ because it sees the ultimate reality not in Him but in
the types and shadows of the Old Testament.

But if in the Old Testament the revelation of God’s acts in the
history of Israel came in shadows, images, forms and prophecies,
then the New Testament announces the reality, substance and final
fulfillment—all in the history of Christ. The question is not whether
the promises of the Old Testament are to be understood literally or
spiritually. It is instead a question of whether they should be un-
derstood in terms of Old Testament shadows or in terms of the New
Testament realities.

Moreover, there is an organic unity that exists between the Old
and New Testaments as stated by the 16 century Reformers in the
classic formulation “Scripture interprets Scripture.” This principle
is undermined by the approach of the Left Behind series to the de-
gree that it attempts to interpret Scripture in light of current events,
especially events occurring in Israel and the Middle East.

A problem for the Left Behind series, to the extent that it claims
to be an expression of theology, is that the prophetic portions of the
Old Testament are treated as a self-contained entity to be read apart
from Christ and the New Testament. Overlooking the unity between
the Testaments almost amounts to treating the Old Testament as a
non-Christian Jewish book. To teach, for instance, on the basis of
Ezekiel 40-48 that the temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt during
the millennium and that the sacrificial system will be reinstituted is
to raise questions about Scripture’s teaching that Jesus Himself is
the New Temple (Mt 12:6; Jn 2:12-22) and that His bloody sacri-
fice on the cross is fully sufficient for ail people of all time so that
no further shedding of blood is necessary (Heb 10: 18).

It follows that the present state of Israel is not a prophetic realiza-
tion of the Messianic kingdom of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, a day
should not be anticipated in which Christ’s kingdom will manifest
Jewish distinctives, whether by its location in the land of Palestine, its
capital in Jerusalem, its constituency, or its ceremonial institutions and
practices. Instead, the present age will come to a conclusion with the
arrival of the final, eternal kingdom of the Messiah.

The Land of Israel

The land of Israel plays an important role in the Left Behind se-
ries because LaHaye and Jenkins embrace the belief that God has
forever promised the land of Israel to the Jews, In fact, in their book
Are We Living in the End Times? LaHaye and Jenkins call Israel’s

becoming a state in May of 1948 a “super sign,” the beginning of
the last generation before the rapture of the church. That the Israeli
settlement of Palestine. was to occur, they say, is indicated by nu-
merous Old Testament promises that grant the land forever to Is-
rael. This teaching is often understood as a form of Zionism, a
nationalistic Jewish movement that believes the land of Israel be-
longs to the Jews.

However, the land never did belong to Israel as such. Through-
out the Old Testament the land belongs only to God (cf. Ps 24:1),
for He is the one who gives it to Israel (e.g., Deut 6:10-11). Land
could not be permanently bought or sold (cf. 1 Ki 21:1-16). It could
not be permanently given away, let alone stolen or confiscated. The
land was never at the disposal of Israel for its national purposes.

The land of Israel, furthermore, is conspicuous by its absence
in the teachings of Jesus. He makes only a few explicit references
to the land in the Gospels. The strongest is found in the Beatitudes.
In Mt 5:5 Jesus quotes from Ps 37:11, where the blessing of the
meek is the inheritance of the land. Yet it is not the land of Israel
but the entire earth that they will inherit. And, in light of the strong
eschatological dimensions of the Sermon on the Mount, this earth
is the “new heaven” and the “new earth, the home of righteous-
ness” (2 Pt 3:13).

Additionally, like the Old Testament prophets, Jesus predicted
the destruction of Jerusalem as a judgment on Israel (e.g., Lk
19:41-44). But He did not promise that there would be another re-
turn to the land. Instead, He predicted the coming of the kingdom
of God in terms drawn from Daniel’s vision of the Son of Man com-
ing to the Ancient of Days to receive His kingly authority (Mt
24:30-31; Lk 21:25-28; cf. Dan 7:13-14). It can only have been
deliberate that Jesus had so little to say specifically about the land
of Israel and so much about “the Son of Man coming on the clouds
of the sky” (Mt 24:30).

The turning point for the disciples comes with the resurrection
of Jesus and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Until
this point they shared the same nationalistic understanding of the
land as other Jews of the first century (cf. Lk 24:21; Acts 1 :6). This
same Jewish nationalism is also foundational to the Left Behind se-
ties. This belief looks forward to God’s decisive intervention in his-
tory that will restore political sovereignty to the Jews within the
Promised Land.

After Pentecost, however, the apostles used Old Testament lan-
guage concerning the land of Israel in new ways. LaHaye/Jenkins
also acknowledge this, but their dispensational grid of interpreting
the Bible tends to separate the Epistles (the sixth dispensation) from
the Gospels (the fifth dispensation) and to teach that the Epistles
primarily relate to the church. In their teachings, therefore, the
“heavenly land” in the Epistles is only for Gentiles, while the Jew-
ish hope of an earthly land still remains as a separate part of God’s
plan for the world. According to LaHaye and Jenkins, this Jewish
hope is witnessed from Exodus 20 through Malachi, continuing
through the Gospel of John (the fifth dispensation) to Rev 20:1-6
(the seventh dispensation). These books of the Bible, in their view,
promise the land of Palestine to the Jews.

However, as noted earlier, the New Testament makes no such
distinction between two people groups with two different eschato-
logical hopes. In Jesus Christ the dividing wall of hostility between
Jew and Gentile has been broken down (Eph 2:14-15) and now
both groups have not only one Lord and one Father, along with one
Baptism into one body, but also one hope (Eph 4:46). Peter speaks
of this hope as an inheritance that, unlike the land, “can never per-
ish, spoil or fade” (1 Pet 1:4). Paul likewise asserts, “Now I com-
mit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you
up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified”
(Acts 20:32).

In his letter to the church in Ephesus Paul applies the promise
of the inheritance of the land in this way: “Children, obey your par-

2007 Convention Workbook