The Messianic Jew & Charismatic Dispensationalism

The Messianic Literary Corner ^ | 11/30/2008 | Marshall Beeber

[mbeeber]

	The Messianic Jew & Charismatic Dispensationalism by Marshall Beeber In the nineteenth century a theological revolution called "Dispensationalism" rightly outlined the "Biblical Historical Perspective", thereby giving mankind a clearer picture of how God has provided and continues to provide salvation to man throughout history.  By acknowledgement of this perspective, an accord between Hebrew Old Covenant and New Covenant prophecy was forged, sweeping away many of the contradictions that divided Christian and Orthodox Jewish prophetic viewpoints.  Dispensationalists became God's instrument of change in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,  leading the way in promoting the support of the establishment of the state of Israel and bringing to light the prophetic signposts for the "End of this Age". But when Dispensationalists took a theological stand against the excesses they found in contemporary "Charismatic" Christianity, they "Quenched the Holy Spirit" by denying the validity of most Charismatic Christian spiritual experiences.  The result of this schism today is an eschatology shared by both Fundamentalist and Charismatic Protestant Denominations, but a sharp disagreement on the exercise of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Dispensationalists claim they are protecting the kingdom of God from spiritual frauds and false theologies, while the Charismatics believe they have tapped into the "true baptism" of spiritual experience.  Both sides have valid arguments as well as excesses.  The Dispensationalists often times exude an overly dry manner in their presentation of scripture and worship, while the Charismatics often exude a "heart first" approach, which lends themselves susceptible to erroneous doctrine presented in an exuberant fashion. Today most Messianic Jewish fellowships and congregations are disciples of one of the two movements mentioned.  As prophetic events move us closer to Messiah Yeshua's (Christ Jesus) return, believers are reminded of the Hebrew prophet Joel's promise of "prophecy, dreams and visions" among the elect of Israel before the great and terrible "Day of the Lord".1  Dispensationalists believe these occurrences were only present in the times immediately following the "Day of Pentecost" and will be present during the times just preceding "Judgment Day", where Charismatics believe these expressions of the Spirit were present from the Day of Pentecost continuously to the present day.2 Nevertheless, as the great "Day of Judgment" approaches, both Fundamentalist and Charismatic Christians should have more to agree upon than disagree.  When Dispensationalists accept they are living in the days just preceding the "Second Coming of Christ", they must also accept the very teachings they originally postulated. So as the "Day of the Lord" draws near, even Dispensationalists must accept those movements of the Spirit prophesied by Joel and recited by Peter on the Day of Pentecost. I believe Messianic Jews (Hebrew Christians) and Gentile Christians from Fundamentalist, Charismatic and Reformed backgrounds will soon come to an understanding that events much greater than themselves will soon shape their understanding of the Lord's will in regards to commonly held beliefs and attitudes.  We will all witness the same wonderful signs, tribulations and persecutions, whereby our love for the Lord Yeshua and one another will be tried and refined.  It is then that Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ will finally be united in purpose and strength as we all await the "Coming of the Lord". 1. Joel 2:28-29 2. Acts 2:16-18 (Additional studies and commentaries are requested. Feel free to email MLC your materials for posting)

[topcat54]

Not so....many of you (most?) take it as the “coming in the clouds.”

Which is not necessarily the Second Coming. You seem to be objecting to the fact that I do not assume the same things that you are assuming about the biblical texts. You assume (or assert without proof) that "coming in clouds" always equals Second Coming. I don't regard that as a valid assertion for reasons that I have articulated on a number of occasions.

Can you see the difference from my perspective, or does it just not make any sense in your theological worldview?

[xzins]

Wrong again about Chuck Smith.

Chuck Smith said that he could be wrong but that it was a heartfelt opinion of his that Jesus would return within a generation of 1948 start of the nation of Israel.

That is not by any means the picture that’s normally painted:

Prophet in flowing robes, Chuck Smith, stood in the nation’s capital and said, “Thus saith the Lord, I will return to rapture my church by 1981.” (1948 +40 = 1988 - 7 = 1981 (pre-trib rapture)

First, it was clearly stated “I COULD BE WRONG.”

He CAREFULLY pointed out something he clearly explained as HIS OPINION of scritural research and analysis. He said, “I Could Be Wrong.”

So, unless prepared to give all the facts, then quit with the disinformation campaign.

Smith says he never taught his personal opinion as scriptural doctrine.

There are any number of people unwilling to speculate on scriptural ideas and possibilities. I’m not one of them. With Smith, I will CAREFULLY point out that I mean one thing when I say, “The Scripture Says.” and I mean another when I say, “My opinion....this is Xzins, do with it what you like...is XYZ.”

[xzins]

No, YOU assume that.

Coming in clouds (rapture) as a prelude to the 2nd coming is scriptural. That’s why dispensationalists believe it.

Were you a preterist in 1969? If not, what were you?

[topcat54]

Wrong again about Chuck Smith.

I could only wish you guys would be that exuberant about correctly stating my views on AD70 vs. the Second Coming.

Smith's words stand for all to read and assess. Was he misunderstood? Perhaps. Was Smith repeating the oft heard claims of those days regarding the timing of Jesus' return? Without question. It's clear that Smith was using the same faulty dispensational math as folks like Lindsey and Whisenant to get from 1948 to 1988. Perhaps he was just being sloppy in his biblical analysis. Perhaps he really did believe that a biblical generation would get him from 1948 to 1988.

Yes, Chuck admitted, “I could be wrong,” but he added, “but it's a deep conviction within my heart, and all my plans are predicated on that belief.” Now, image you are one of the faithful 30 years ago listening to or reading Chuck on the subject. What line are you going to take away from the message, “I could be wrong”? I doubt it.

As I said, Chuck was using faulty dispensational math based on the birth of secular Israel, what he calls a “rebirth”, in 1948.

So, is anyone ready to admit that all the math based on a dispensational generation beginning in 1948 was just a bunch of bunk, and that Smith, et al should have kept their mouths shut?

Smith's claim to not be a date-setter may or may not stand up in a court of law after all the evidence is examined. I just wonder what all those folks who were with Smith at the end of 1981 thought.

[P-Marlowe]

the “coming in the clouds.”... Which is not necessarily the Second Coming.

But nobody saw it.

NOBODY.

When Jesus comes in the clouds, EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM.

Care to show me some eyewitness accounts of that event in 70 AD?

....Crickets.

[topcat54]

Coming in clouds (rapture) as a prelude to the 2nd coming is scriptural. That’s why dispensationalists believe it.

I have no doubt that in your theological worldview that is a correct statement. Dispensationalists believe many strange and unique ideas, most are based on a bit of the truth.

I'm presently reading a facinating little book called The World's Crisis and the Coming Christ by TJ McCrossan. It was written in 1934 and contains all sorts of interesting dispensational ideas about Christ's return. To the uninformed in 1934 it makes perfect sense. He lays out lots of good stuff for “spirit-filled saints” about our Lord's “soon coming”, stuff like automobiles and Mussolini, earthquakes in China, a road that was being built through Palestine, a railroad from Joppa to Jerusalem. He claims that Luke 21:9-11 predicted the “awful war of 1914-1918”. He explains how the “signs in the sun, moon, etc” is a prediction of the League of Nations. He's a Greek scholar so there lots of Greek phrases to dazzle the uninitiated.

He says, “Several splendid Bible students believe and teach that “this generation” of Matt. 24:34, etc, as spoken by the Lord Jesus, began on Dec. 9, 1917, when General Allenby took Jerusalem.” According to this fine dispensational scholar this fact means “we may expect Him to come now at any moment.” (p. 247)

Shades of Chuck Smith. I see where he gets it from.

[topcat54]

But nobody saw it. NOBODY.

In your literalist world that is absolutely true. But I don't live in your world, and shouting won't make it so.

Then again you cannot account for Jesus' words to the High Priest, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven". Of course Jesus was not speaking of His Second Coming, but of His coming judgment against apostate Israel signified by the high priest caste.

"Sing to God, sing praises to His name; Extol Him who rides on the clouds, By His name Yah, And rejoice before Him." (Psalm 68:4)

Cloud imagery in temporal judgment of nations was not a unfamiliar concept in the OT (cf. Ezekiel 30:3ff).

Such apocalyptic forms of speech are not to be assumed to convey in the New Testament a meaning different from that which they bear in the Hebrew Scriptures. They are part and parcel of the genius of prophetic language. The language of Isaiah 13:10, is used in a prophecy of the overthrow of Babylon. That of Isaiah 34:4, refers to the desolation of Edom. The ideal of "the Son of man coming in the clouds" is taken from a prophecy of the Messianic kingdom, which kingdom, as depicted in Daniel 7:13,14, is no other than the one symbolized in the same book by a stone cut out of the mountain (Dan. 2:34,35). It is the same kingdom of heaven which Jesus liken to a grain of mustard seed and to the working of leaven in the meal (Matt. 13:31-33). The other citations we have given above show with equal clearness how both Jesus and his disciples were wont to express themselves in language which must have been very familiar to those who from childhood heard the law and the prophets "read in the synagogues every Sabbath" (Acts 13:27; 15:21). A strictly literal interpretation of such pictorial modes of thought leads only to absurdity. Their import must be studied in the light of the numerous parallels in the Old Testament writers, which have been extensively presented in the foregoing part of this volume. But with what show of reason, or on what principle of "interpreting Scripture by Scripture," can it be maintained that the language of Isaiah, Joel, and Daniel, allowed by all the best exegetes to be metaphorical when employed in the Hebrew Scriptures, must be literally understood when appropriated by Jesus or his apostles? (Milton Terry)

Funny how you folks are so found of quoting the OT prophets out of context except when it comes to bear directly on the NT.

[P-Marlowe]

EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM.

Did that happen TC?

[onedoug]

Hmm....

You claim to know God then?

[onedoug]

Phooie!

[Lee N. Field]

Matthew 24:29-31 emphasizes a gathering of the elect, of both Old and New Covenant saints rising from their graves, and New Covenant saints (Christians) faithfully awaiting the return of the Lord. This passage indicates the Rapture will take place during tribulation, following the shaking of heavenly powers and sign of Son of Man in heaven.

Commenting on the timing of the tribulation tells me you missed the point of what I was trying to say. My point in this:

Would he then have a claim on the land "from the river to the sea". And still eligible to get raptured out in the nick of tribulation? Best 'o both worlds.

is a criticism of dispensationalism's division of the people of God into different groups with different plans and different benefits.

By the way, who-all have you read, of non-dispensational scholars?

[Lee N. Field]

How is it that the Jewish Christians of Jesus' day understood the Olivet Discourse as referring to the events of AD70 and fled the city while so many modern Jews and gentiles see fit to invent a future abomination of desolation, rebuilt a future temple, reconstitute a future priesthood, resurrect a future Roman empire, etc? What do you know that they didn't know?

Those pesky (and unfindable) gaps in Daniel's seventy sevens.

Cue up Answers in Genesis' Ken Ham's sarcastic remarks about "gap theory, and millions of years"....

[Lee N. Field]

So, is anyone ready to admit that all the math based on a dispensational generation beginning in 1948 was just a bunch of bunk, and that Smith, et al should have kept their mouths shut?

No, that math will flush down the memory hole, replaced by assuming a biblical generation is 100 years (I've heard it), or that the clock starts when Jerusalem was fully under Israeli control.

[topcat54]

“It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven”.

[xzins]

2 Separate items:

1. Smith clearly stated, “I Could be Wrong.” By that and by his insistence that it was his personal heartfelt opinion, he was separating himself from teaching scriptural doctrine. He is either allowed to speculate on bible prophecy or he is not. If he is NOT allowed to offer his ideas, then just say so. Say that any offering by anyone on how biblical prophecy fits together is heretical. We really have only 2 camps: (a) everything has been fulfilled, or (b) some things are NOT yet fulfilled. As soon as anyone selects door B, they will begin attempting to analyze and explain. There is a HUGE insurmountable divide between those who claim to be a prophet and those who are offering ideas on how to interpret scripture.

2. Why is it OK for preterists to claim that “coming in clouds” is NOT the 2d coming, but it is wrong for dispensationalists to claim that “coming in clouds” is NOT the 2d coming? That has always seemed to me a huge glaring contradiction in your arguments.

[topcat54]

He is either allowed to speculate on bible prophecy or he is not.

Personally, I think speculating to the degree that dispensationalists like Smith do about eschatology is very dangerous. It leaves the sheep with a bad impression that it’s OK to spew nonsense as long as it appears plausible, not to mention that it makes them look silly in the long run.

But I realize speculation is their bread and butter. No one would buy their books otherwise.

2. Why is it OK for preterists to claim that “coming in clouds” is NOT the 2d coming, but it is wrong for dispensationalists to claim that “coming in clouds” is NOT the 2d coming?

Which dispensationalists are we talking about here? I would rejoice to hear of a dispensationalist who honestly approached the Bible and discovered that the phrase "coming in clouds" is not always referring to the Second Coming, but I won’t hold my breath. Their "literal" hermeneutics will not permit such a conclusion.

That has always seemed to me a huge glaring contradiction in your arguments.

I’m not sure I’m following you. If you are saying that I do not expect the leopard to change its spots, you are correct.

[P-Marlowe]

Personally, I think speculating to the degree that dispensationalists like Smith do about eschatology is very dangerous.

Here is the difference TC:

Xzins and I and most dispensationalists think that preterists are wrong.

Preterists, like you and Gary DeMar think that dispensationalists are evil.

[xzins]

Let me rephrase this:

2. Why is it OK for preterists to claim that “coming in clouds” is NOT the A SEPARATE EVENT FROM the 2d coming, but it is wrong for dispensationalists to claim that “coming in clouds” is NOT the A SEPARATE EVENT FROM 2d coming?

Does that clarify what I'm saying? So often when I hit the send button I see a better way to have said something....or a grammatical/spelling error. :>)

I think SPECULATING on prophetic scripture is what GOD INTENDS us to be doing. It's the point.

[Buggman]

There are some Messianic Jews that may take issue with my statment “A Messianic Jew is a Christian Jew”. They are being factous and are not speaking from a Christ centered perspective, but rather a foolishly contrived pseudo Messianic perspective.

I'm going to have to take exception to that, mbeeber. What you are failing to recognize is that words change connotation and meaning over time. "Christian" no longer simply means someone who follows the Christ/Messiah/Annointed One, but also a person who worships on Sunday, rejects a significant portion of the Torah, and has a peoplehood separate from the Jewish people. In fact, for most of the last two millennia, the Christian Church has persecuted those of its own members who continued to keep their Jewish identity. Even today, many congregations practically make eating a ham sandwich a test of faith.

A Messianic Jew, on the other hand, continues to follow the Torah, including circumcision, the Feasts, kosher, etc. A Messianic Jew identifies with the Jewish community rather than a Gentile one, and continues to keep the traditions of his or her people to a greater or lesser extent. A Messianic Jew stands against the tide of Christian teaching that one cannot be a follower of Yeshua and continue in one's cultural Jewishness.

It's not simply being factitious. It's following Yeshua's teaching that we are to keep the whole Torah (Mat. 5:17-19), Paul's teaching that one who is circumcised is not to become uncircumcised (1Co. 7:18), that one who is circumcised is obligated to keep the whole Torah (Gal. 5:3), and that a Jewish person who ceases to keep the Torah ceases to be Jewish (Rom. 2:25). It was the expectation of the Apostles that Jewish believers should be zealous for the Torah, circumcise their children, and keep the traditions (Acts 21--see here for more).

I want every Jew to know Yeshua as their Messiah King, as the Son of God, and as the Passover Lamb--but I do not want any Jew to become a Christian as long as "Christian" means ceasing for all practical purposes being a Jew.

Shalom!

[Uri’el-2012]

Here is the difference TC:

Xzins and I and most dispensationalists think that preterists are wrong.

Preterists, like you and Gary DeMar think that dispensationalists are evil.

Amen ! brother.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai