RETROFIT: "The Ethnicity of The Antichrist" - Dr. Thomas Ice (2007) Michael James Stone (2017)

# In the following article: 

Dr Thomas Ice makes a case for a gentile Anti-Christ by using material from Arnold Fruchtenbaum, While he states a logical premise to administer scholastic logic, he fails to apply the same standard to his won ideas.

This being said we can conclude a better summation that Mr Ice's 1) Anti-Christ (gentile) 2) False Prophet (Jew) is wrong.

HE'S GOT IT BACKWARDS.

1) It is obvious in a study of the False World Religion and False Prophet that the False Prophet will be a Gentile not unlike Balaam who served for money.

2) It is and always had been a historical rationale that the False Messiah is a man who is of jewish descent or in fact a Jew. Many of the reasons Dr Ice says he is not is why he is.

BUT MORE THAN THAT.........

The fact is gentiles using gentile perspective often attach gentile motives to the reasoning, but the fact is JOHN WAS WRITING TO JEWS ABOUT A FALSE JEWISH LEADER AND THE END OF THE WORLD AND SALVATION EVENTUALLY OF ISRAEL.

While gentile nations are included.........

THE FOCUS IS JEWISH.

The Coming World Leader to be revealed by God as the Anti-Christ will be of jewish descent or background much like a Hitler. 

-MICHAEL JAMES STONE 

August 26 2017

RETRO NOV 22, 2007

The Ethnicity of The Antichrist

By Dr. Thomas Ice
A widely held belief throughout the history of the church has 
been the notion that Antichrist will be of Jewish origin. This 
view is still somewhat popular in our own day. However, upon 
closer examination we find no real Scriptural basis for such a 
view. In fact, the Bible teaches just the opposite that the 
Antichrist will be of Gentile descent.


Background

A decade ago, when I was doing extensive research into the 
Pseudo-Ephraem sermon that contained a rapture statement from 
early-medieval times,[1] I noticed the almost universally held 
belief of the time that Antichrist was to be a Jew. During the 
late-medieval period, we see a shift from a personal Antichrist 
to a corporate one as some Catholics and most Reformers tended to 
see the successive Popes and the Roman Church as Antichrist. 
However, the early and medieval church always saw an individual 
Antichrist. For the last two hundred years, with the revival of 
the literal and thus futurist interpretation of prophecy, the 
historic protestant notion that Antichrist was the system of the 
Roman Catholic Church has been in decline. Bernard McGinn tells 
us: 

After Vatican II, traditional Lutheran and Reformed claims that 
the pope was Antichrist have been either forgotten or explicitly 
rejected. Even the Evangelical Fundamentalists, for whom 
Antichrist is certainly alive and well, have been uncomfortable 
with a papal Antichrist.[2] 

Some of the earliest expounders of Antichrist, Irenaeus and 
Hippolytus of the second century, taught that Antichrist would be 
a Jew. " It seems clear that the bishop," McGinn says of 
Irenaeus, " depended on earlier traditions, both Jewish and 
Christian, in claiming that Antichrist would be born a Jew, 
specifically from the tribe of Dan." [3] Hippolytus, a disciple 
of Irenaeus, wrote extensively on the Antichrist. Hippolytus 
believed that " Antichrist is a Jewish false messiah whose 
coming is still some time in the future." [4] Origen, 
Chrysostom, Jerome, and likely Augustine all continued the early 
church tradition that the Antichrist was to be of Jewish 
descent.[5] The tradition of a Jewish Antichrist, who would 
likely be of the tribe of Dan, was reinforced throughout the 
middle ages. 

A Jewish Antichrist notion is sometimes taught by our own 
dispensational prophecy teachers of today. A. W. Pink provides 
just such an argument in his well-known work on Antichrist as 
follows: 

It should, however, be pointed out that there is no express 
declaration of Scripture which says in so many words that this 
daring Rebel will be " a Jew" ; nevertheless, the hints given 
are so plain, the conclusions which must be drawn from certain 
statements of Holy Writ are so obvious, and the requirements of 
the case are so inevitable, that we are forced to believe he must 
be a Jew.[6] 

Such a statement not only reveals his viewpoint, but also is also 
telling in that he tacitly admits that his view lacks direct 
biblical support, as I shall seek to demonstrate.


Arguments Against A Jewish Antichrist

Three reasons are often given in support of the argument that 
Antichrist will be Jewish.[7] First, it is argued that he will be 
a Jew since the Jews are responsible for the world' s problems. 
Thus, it follows that the greatest problem of history- 
Antichrist- will also be Jewish. This is the Anti-Semitic reason. 
Since we do not have enough space in this article to give an 
in-depth refutation of Anti-Semitism,[8] it should be clear that 
since Anti-Semitism is unbiblical so is any logic that reasons 
upon such a premise. This is rarely if ever a viewpoint put forth 
by dispensational writers. 

The second major argument is that the Antichrist must be a Jew 
since the Jews would only accept a Jew as their Messiah. An 
advocate of this view is Grant Jeffery who reasons that: 

the Jews would one day accept for a time the false claims of the 
Antichrist as their promised Messiah. . . . Since the prophecies 
tell us that the Antichrist will present himself to Israel as the 
Messiah many scholars have concluded that he must be Jewish. 
Certainly no religious Jew would dream of accepting a Gentile as 
the Messiah of Israel.[9] 

This view is also built upon the logic that since the Antichrist 
is just that, an anti- Messiah, then his career must be a 
counterfeit of Jesus' first coming. While some of this is true, 
such symmetry can be carried too far. The specific descriptions 
of the Antichrist are more like that of a political leader than a 
mere converse of Jesus, as shall be noted below. In other words, 
the mere term " Antichrist" appears in the minds of many to be 
the justification for thinking that since Jesus was a Jew then so 
must be the Antichrist. 

Hebrew Christian scholar, Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum offers a 
refutation of this reason which he calls " The Logical Reason." 
He writes: 

Stated in a syllogism, this argument goes as follows:

Major Premise: The Jews will accept the Antichrist as the Messiah

Minor Premise: The Jews will never accept a Gentile as the 
Messiah. 

Conclusion: The Antichrist will be a Jew.[10]

The difficulties of this argument are many, not the least of 
which are the two premises. Neither premise can be supported from 
the Bible. Just because the Jews make a covenant with the 
Antichrist (Isa. 28:15; Dan. 9:26), does not mean that they 
accept him as their Messiah. It does not follow from these texts 
either textually or logically that Israel accepts him as Messiah 
(or Antichrist). Secondly, since they are not accepting him as 
Messiah, the fact that he is a Gentile peacemaker is irrelevant. 
Since both premises are faulty, it therefore follows that the 
conclusion is faulty as well. 

Fruchtenbaum notes another variation of this argument, which he 
calls " the Scriptural reason." [11] This line of reasoning is 
put forth by combining a major premise and a minor premise from 
Revelation 7:4- 8. 

Stated in a syllogism, this argument goes as follows:

Major Premise: The tribe from whom the Antichrist would come 
would not be listed among the 144,000. 

Minor Premise: Dan is not among the 144,000.

Conclusion: The Antichrist is from the tribe of Dan.[12]

The problem with this argument is that it is an argument from 
silence. Only God knows why Dan was left out. Would not it be 
just as important to note that the tribe of Dan will be included 
in millennial Israel (Ezek. 48:2)? What is one to make of that if 
the tribe of Dan has a curse on it? Further, this entire argument 
is based upon circular reasoning. The major premise contains a 
Jewish assumption as a starting point. So is it surprising that 
this line of reasoning concludes that the Antichrist is of Jewish 
descent? Not at all since that what circular reasoning is all 
about: assuming your conclusion as a starting point. Yet, the 
starting point is not stated in Scripture, it is merely 
presupposed.[13] 

Some argue that Daniel 11:37 has to be a reference to a Jew since 
in the King James Version of the Bible it says " And he will 
show no regard for the God of his fathers." It is argued that 
this is a reference to the God of the Bible. However, such is not 
the case. Almost all other English translations render this text, 
as does the New American Standard Version, " And he will show no 
regard for the gods of his fathers." When one studies this 
passage in the original Hebrew it becomes clear that it is a 
reference to Gentile gods. " Any student of Hebrew would see 
from the original Hebrew text that the correct translation should 
be ' the gods of his fathers' and not the ' God of his 
fathers' as the King James has rendered it," declares 
Fruchtenbaum. " The fact the plural form of the word ' god' is 
used makes this a reference to heather deities and not to God of 
Israel. There is much external evidence to show that this is the 
correct rendering of the Hebrew Text." [14] 

The third argument is made by those who attempt to say that 
Scripture teaches that Antichrist will be a descendant from the 
Jewish tribe of Dan. Support for this view is inappropriately 
derived from Genesis 49:17; Deuteronomy 33:22; Jeremiah 8:16; 
Daniel 11:37; Revelation 7:4-8. Even though many passages are 
cited in support of this argument, none of them actually support 
the notion since they are all taken out of context. In reality, 
only Daniel 11:37 refers to the Antichrist. Even though some 
believe that the phrase in Daniel 11:37 " the God of his 
fathers" (KJV), implies a Jewish apostasy, the phrase is more 
accurately translated " the gods of his fathers" (NASB). Since 
Antichrist will in fact be a Gentile, as will be shown below, the 
argument is unfounded. Since the original Hebrew supports the 
NASB translation and not the KJV, Antichrist' s apostasy will be 
Christian and not Jewish.[15]


Arguments for a Gentile Antichrist

We have seen that the Bible does not teach that Antichrist will 
be Jewish. However, Scripture does teach that he will be of 
Gentile and possibly of Roman descent (at least from the Revived 
Roman Empire). 

This can first be seen from biblical typology. Most commentators 
agree that Daniel 11 speaks of Antiochus Epiphanes, a Gentile, 
who typifies the future Antichrist. " Nowhere is a Gentile ever 
seen as a type of Christ; and for good reason too since Christ 
Himself was to be a Jew." [16] Since Antiochus is a Gentile, 
then so will be Antichrist. 

Secondly, biblical imagery supports a Gentile origin of 
Antichrist. Scripture pictures Antichrist as rising up out of the 
sea (Rev. 13:1; 17:15). In prophetic literature the sea is an 
image of the Gentile nations. Thus, Antichrist is seen as a 
Gentile progeny. 

Thirdly, the nature of the " Times of the Gentiles" (Luke 
21:24) supports a Gentile Antichrist. Fruchtenbaum notes: 

It is agreed by all premillennialists that the period known as 
the Times of the Gentiles does not end until the second coming of 
Christ. It is further agreed that the Antichrist is the final 
ruler of the Times of the Gentiles. . . . 

If this is so, how then can a Jew be the last ruler at a time 
when only Gentiles can have the preeminence? To say the 
Antichrist is to be a Jew would contradict the very nature of the 
Time of the Gentiles.[17] 

Fourthly, the Bible not only teaches that Antichrist will be 
Gentile, but it also tells us he will be of Roman descent. This 
is understood from Daniel 9:27 where the one cutting a covenant 
with Israel is said to represent the revived Roman Empire, since 
it was the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in a.d. 
70. 

Finally, that Antichrist is a Gentile ruler is also the thrust of 
Revelation 17:9- 12. This passage says that the Beast (John' s 
term in Revelation for the Antichrist) is one of " seven kings" 
(17:10), thus, a Gentile (Roman) ruler. G. H. Lang notes: 

This eight would be one of the former seven, and so in 13.3 one 
of his heads had been smitten unto death, and this death-stroke 
was healed, that is, a man formerly slain by violence is brought 
again to life. That he had been a former Gentile monarch seems to 
forbid that he is a Jew. I know not a word of Scripture that 
suggests this last notion.[18]


Conclusion

While I think it may be possible that the False Prophet (Rev. 
13:11- 18; 16:13; 19:20; 20:10) could be a Jew (I am not saying 
that I necessarily think he will be), there does not appear to be 
any Scriptural grounds to think that the Antichrist will be of 
the tribe of Dan nor of Jewish descent. It appears that he will 
be a Gentile and will arise from within the Revived Roman Empire. 
In the middle of the tribulation he will take his seat in 
Israel' s rebuilt Temple and claim to be God Himself (2 Thess. 
2:4). His career will be a short-lived seven-year period for 
which he will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire upon Christ' s 
return to planet earth (Rev. 19:20; 20:10). Maranatha! 




Endnotes

[1] See Thomas Ice, " The Rapture in Pseudo-Ephraem," on our 
Pre-Trib website at the following: 
www.pre-trib.org/article-view.php?id=52. Our website also 
contains a translation of Pseudo-Ephraem' s sermon. 

[2] Bernard McGinn, Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of The Human 
Fascination With Evil (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1994), p. 
252. 

[3] McGinn, Antichrist, p. 59.

[4] McGinn, Antichrist, p. 63.

[5] As indicated in Wilhelm Bousset, The Antichrist Legend: A 
Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (London: Hutchinson, 
1896), pp. 133- 147. 

[6] (Italics original) Arthur W. Pink, The Antichrist (Grand 
Rapids: Kregel, (1923), 1988, p. 42. 

[7] These three reasons were gleaned from Arnold Fruchtenbaum, " 
The Nationality of the Anti-Christ" (Englewood, NJ: American 
Board of Missions To The Jews, n.d.). 

[8] For more on the unbiblical nature of anti-Semitism see my 
forthcoming book due out in the Summer of 2005, The New 
Anti-Semitism: Why The World Hates Israel from Balfour Books. 

[9] Grant R. Jeffrey, Prince of Darkness: Antichrist and the New 
World Order (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 1994), p. 
39. 

[10] Fruchtenbaum., " Nationality," p. 8.

[11] Fruchtenbaum., " Nationality," p. 11.

[12] Fruchtenbaum., " Nationality," p. 11.

[13] Arguments taken from Fruchtenbaum., " Nationality," pp. 
12- 13. 

[14] Fruchtenbaum., " Nationality," pp. 17- 18.

[15] Fruchtenbaum., " Nationality," pp. 11-22.

[16] Fruchtenbaum., " Nationality," p. 23.

[17] Fruchtenbaum., " Nationality," pp. 24, 26.

[18] G. H. Lang, The Revelation of Jesus Christ: Selected Studies 
(Miami Springs, Fl.: Conley & Schoettle Publishing Co., (1945), 
1985), p. 223.

RETROFIT: "Israel's Future Destiny" -Ed Hindson (2007)

RETRO NOV 14, 2007

Israel's Future Destiny

By Ed Hindson

“I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken and I have done it” (Ezekiel 37:14).

The nation and people of Israel are central issues in Bible prophecy. Both the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles made specific predictions about Israel’s future destiny. In fact, Jesus’ own disciples asked: “Will you at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6).

Their question reveals an expectation of a future literal kingdom on earth. Their question also clearly indicates that they did not believe the kingdom had already come, despite the fact that both they and Jesus had announced its potential arrival (Matthew 4:17; 10:1-7).

In response to the disciples’ question, Jesus reminded them: “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has placed in his own power” (Acts 1:7). Jesus did not contradict or correct their question; He simply informed them that they were not to know the timing of the coming of the kingdom. Earlier, He had made a similar statement regarding His second coming: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only” (Matthew 24:36).


‘Replacement Theology'

Notice the context of the disciples’ question about Israel. Jesus was about to ascend into heaven. If their question was improperly stated, this would have been the obvious time to clarify the whole matter about Israel’s future. If the Church were about to replace Israel in the plan of God (as replacement theologians suggest), one would expect Jesus to have explained that to His disciples at that moment. But He did not.

But that is exactly what Replacement Theology teaches, asserting that the Church is the new “Israel” of God and His promises to the old Israel are fulfilled in the Church. Since there are more than 100 such prophecies in the Bible, it takes some real exegetical maneuvering to accomplish this task. For example, Ezekiel’s predictions of Israel’s ultimate regathering and rebirth (chapters 36-37) are limited to the return of the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity, despite the fact that Ezekiel predicts a return that involves their spiritual rebirth (37:14), the reign of David as King (37:24) and the establishment of God’s sanctuary in Israel (37:28). These predictions were not fulfilled by the return from Babylon or by the building of the second temple.

Replacement Theology necessitates “spiritualizing” virtually all Old Testa-ment prophecies about Israel. Thus, the “land” is not the land of Israel and the “temple” is not a literal temple. The reign of David’s son, the Messiah, is spiritual, not literal. The Battle of Gog and Magog (Ezekiel 38-39) is reinterpreted either to be the invasion of Antiochus Epiphanes (170 BC) or the Roman army (AD 70), despite the fact that Ezekiel predicts the destruction of five-sixth of the invaders (39:2). This did not happen under Antiochus or the Romans.

Prophecies of Israel’s future return are relegated to the past by Replacement Theology. Verses like Amos 9:15 (“And I will plant them in their own land, and they shall never be pulled up out of their land”) are explained away as either being conditional or spiritual, but never literal.
Replacement theologians assert that God is finished with Israel and has no future plans for His once chosen people. However, the New Testament Church is open to all races of people.

This kind of distorted thinking comes from the failure of the Replacement Theology to clearly distinguish the difference between Israel and the Church. Of course, the Church is to proclaim the Gospel to all nations (Matthew 28:19-20), but this does not eliminate Israel’s future destiny. The Apostle Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, asked: “Has God cast away his people?” He then answered his own question: “God forbid” (Romans 11:1). God’s plan for the Church Age does not eradicate His plan for Israel’s future return, conversion, restoration and earthly kingdom.

Look, for example, at the Prophet Zechariah’s predictions about Israel’s future:
Notice several things about these predictions. First, they all involve the second coming of Christ. Second, they all predict a literal fulfillment in Israel at the time of the second coming. If God is finished with Israel, why would Christ bother to return there?


No Future Second Coming?

Thus, extreme “preterists” (those who hold that most or all biblical prophecies regarding the End Times refer primarily to events that happened in the first century following Christ’s birth) believe there will be no future second coming. Even more moderate preterists believe that these prophecies will only be fulfilled spiritually, not literally. Yet, many of these same interpreters will point to Zechariah’s other prophecies as being literally fulfilled in the first coming of Christ. For example: His riding on a donkey (9:9) or His being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (11:13). Yet, they will turn right around and claim that these other prophecies are not literally fulfilled because such fulfillment contradicts their preconceived views of the second coming.

Christians who believe in Israel’s future prophetic destiny are not blind Zionists or racially-prejudiced anti-Arabs. First, genuine evangelical Christians believe the Gospel is to be preached to all nations and the Church is open to any and all people who believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose from the dead to secure their eternal salvation (Romans 10:9).

Second, we understand that God also extended grace to non-Jews in the Old Testament era, as well (eg., Rahab the Canaanite, Ruth the Moabite, Zipporah the Midianite, Naaman the Syrian and a host of others).
Third, premillennialists understand that God’s promises to Israel involve a theocratic kingdom of God on earth. We clearly and emphatically believe that the New Testament Church is a fellowship of believers, not a theocracy. Christ rules in our hearts by faith and calls us to be the “light of the world” to all people. We also believe the Church Age will end with the rapture of those believers to heaven (I Thessalonians 4:13-18) to the marriage of the Lamb and His Bride (the Church) and will be followed by our triumphal return with Christ to reign on earth during His literal Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 19-20).

The Imminent Return

Only when Christ returns will the prophecies of Israel’s future destiny be fulfilled. In the meantime, we realize that Israel’s present regathering to her ancient land is not the final fulfillment of these prophecies. It is only a prelude of what is yet to come. The kingdom will only be “restored to Israel,” as the disciples asked, when the King comes back to reign and rule in person (Revelation 19:11-16).

RETROFIT: "Eastern Gate to the Old City" - Dr. David R. Reagan (2007)

RETRO NOV 13, 2007

The Gate to Prophecy: Why is the Eastern Gate to the Old City of Jerusalem Closed, and What Does it Have to do With Bible Prophecy?

By Dr. David R. Reagan


The Eastern Gate in the old walled city of Jerusalem has a very special place in my heart, for it was that gate which God used to open my eyes to His Prophetic Word.

The year was 1967. The occasion was the Six Day War. As the fate of the new state of Israel hung in the balance, I searched the newspapers daily for any information I could find about the war. The turning point came on June 7 when the Israeli army broke through the Lion's Gate and returned control of the ancient city of Jerusalem to the Jewish people for the first time in 1,897 years.


A Mysterious Remark

The next day I read a fascinating news account about one of the Jewish commando groups that had been involved in the assault on the city. The article stated that some members of the group had suggested catching the Jordanian defenders of the city off guard by blowing open the sealed Eastern Gate. But the leader of the group, an Orthodox Jew, had vehemently protested the idea, stating that "the Eastern Gate can be opened only when the Messiah comes."

That statement caught my eye. I wondered what the fellow was talking about. I knew nothing about the Eastern Gate except that it was the only gate of the city that led directly onto the Temple Mount. I was not aware that it was sealed, nor did I know that its opening was in any way biblically linked to the return of the Messiah.


A Remarkable Prophecy

I decided to do some research on the matter, and that decision initiated my study of Bible prophecy. I had been attending church for 30 years, but like most Christians, I knew nothing about Bible prophecy. The topic was generally ignored by the preachers in the church I grew up in.

My concordance quickly directed me to the passage that the Orthodox Jew had alluded to. I found it in Ezekiel 44. The context is a supernatural tour the Lord is giving Ezekiel of the future Millennial Temple (40:1-3).

In chapter 43 the Lord gives Ezekiel a vision of God's glory entering the Millennial Temple from the east, through the Eastern Gate. The Lord then says to Ezekiel: "Son of Man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of my feet where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever" (43:7).

The Lord then reveals to Ezekiel that the Eastern Gate will be closed and will not be reopened until the Messiah returns in glory (44:1-3).


A Momentous Decision

This prophecy was partially fulfilled more than 400 years ago in 1517 when the Turks conquered Jerusalem under the leadership of Suleiman the Magnificent. He commanded that the city's ancient walls be rebuilt, and in the midst of this rebuilding project, for some unknown reason, he ordered that the Eastern Gate be sealed up with stones.

Legends abound as to why Suleiman closed the Gate. The most believable one is that while the walls were being rebuilt, a rumor swept Jerusalem that the Messiah was coming. Suleiman called together some Jewish rabbis and asked them to tell him about the Messiah. They described the Messiah as a great military leader who would be sent by God from the east. He would enter the Eastern Gate and liberate the city from foreign control.

Suleiman then decided to put an end to Jewish hopes by ordering the Eastern Gate sealed. He also put a Muslim cemetery in front of the Gate, believing that no Jewish holy man would defile himself by walking through a Muslim cemetery.


A Prophetic Symbol

The Gate has remained sealed since that time. The Muslim cemetery still blocks the entrance. The old walled city has eight gates, and the Eastern Gate, and it alone, is sealed — just as prophesied in Ezekiel 44. The world would call that an "amazing coincidence." I call it a "God-incidence."

The Eastern Gate is proof positive that the Bible is the Word of God. Its sealing is clear evidence that we are living in the end times. The Gate awaits the return of the Messiah. Then and only then, will it be opened.


An Exciting Vision

I have a vision of what that glorious day will be like. It is related to the Lord's First Coming. I believe Jesus is going to replay His triumphal entry into Jerusalem when He returns.

When He came the first time, Jesus rode a donkey from the Mount of Olives down into the Kidron Valley and up to the Eastern Gate where He entered the Temple Mount for His last days of teaching. As He made that ride, the Valley of Kidron was filled with thousands of admirers who had heard about the resurrection of Lazarus. They waved palm branches and chanted, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" Within a few days that same fickle crowd was shouting, "Crucify Him!"

We are told in Revelation 19 that when Jesus returns He will come as a victorious military conqueror, riding through the air on a supernatural white horse. In Isaiah 61 we are told that He will come from the east, and in Zechariah 14 we are told that he will touch ground on the Mount of Olives.

Revelation 19:14 says that all the Redeemed will come with the Lord. Think of it! You and I will be there to witness the Lord's return.Zechariah 14 says He will speak a word that will supernaturally destroy the Anti-Christ and his forces.

Then, I believe we will witness a replay of the Lord's triumphant entry into Jerusalem. With angels hovering above and millions of the Redeemed filling the Kidron Valley, Jesus will ride up to the Eastern Gate on His white horse, and as He approaches the Gate, it will blow open. He will then enter the City of David, and to the triumphant shouts of "Hosanna to the Son of David," He will be crowned the Kings of kings and the Lord of lords.

I believe that's what Psalm 24 is all about when it says:

Lift up your heads, O gates, and be lifted up, O ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in! Who is the King of glory? The Lord strong and mighty, The Lord mighty in battle . . . The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory.

RETROFIT: "One Thousand Years: Literal or Figurative?" -Thomas Ice (2007)

RETRO NOV 8, 2007

One Thousand Years: Literal or Figurative?

By Thomas Ice

Hank Hanegraaff of “Bible Answer Man” fame has recently delved into the field of eschatology (the study of last things) with the release of a novel called The Last Disciple,(1) which he co-authored with Sigmund Broward. It appears that Hanegraaff has adopted the preterist position in this first novel in a series that sees the book of Revelation as having been fulfilled in the first century. “Hank is a partial preterist who holds to a view on eschatology that is similar to the position held by Gary DeMar,”(2) according to DeMar’s American Vision website. The Last Disciple is being billed as a preterist counterpart to the Left Behind novel series of Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.(3) In the past Hanegraaff would not publicly state his views on eschatology but now is aggressively propagating them as the true biblical teaching.


LITERAL OR SPIRITUAL?

On a recent “Bible Answer Man” radio broadcast, a caller asked Hanegraaff: “How do you know when to spiritualize things in the Bible and when to take them literally?” Hanegraaff’s reply was as follows: If the Bible is using a metaphor or a figure of speech, do you want to take that in a wooden-literal sense? I think not. For example, the word ‘thousand’ is used throughout the Bible. I don’t know of any, or at least many places where that word ‘thousand’ is used in a literal sense.

For example, if you look at the Decalogue: ‘Thousand’ is used but not in a literal sense, when God shows His loving-kindness to ‘thousands of generations.’ We’re not to take that in a wooden-literal sense, but we are to take that in the sense in which it is intended. God says that He is a jealous God punishing the children for the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love Me and keep My commands. Now the question is: Does God only show love to a thousand generations or does He extend it to a thousand and one generations? What does ‘a thousand’ mean? It means that He extends His love forever.

Or it says in Scripture God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. Do we say then, ‘Oh my goodness, I didn’t know that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, but the thousand and first hill, I guess He doesn’t own those cattle.’ So who owns them? Well, we know what that means. It means that God owns all the cattle. If the Lord your God has increased day you are as many as the stars in the sky. May the Lord increase you a thousand times and bless you as He has promised.We don’t want to take that ‘thousand’ in a wooden-literal sense. And I think this is the problem. People end up, in fact, ironically of the most symbolic of all the books of the Bible taking ‘thousand’ in a woodenly literal sense. When it is never used in Scripture in a woodenly literal sense. So you always want to take something in the sense in which it is intended. And when you don’t, the Bible becomes nonsense. (4)(emphasis added).

Hanegraaff says the word “thousand” is rarely used in a literal sense throughout the Bible. I am not sure of which Bible he has studied, because when I looked up the word “thousand” it was used at least 531 times in the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament the Hebrew word for “a thousand” is elep and it appears 497 times. In the New Testament the Greek words are chilia and chiliades, which appear 34 times.(5) While there are a few examples of a non-literal use of “thousand,” and some instances that could be disputed, it is safe to say that almost all uses of this word carry a literal value, contra Hanegraaff.


EXEGETICAL ESCHATOLOGY?

Hanegraaff claims that his approach to Bible prophecy is “based upon a methodology called exegetical eschatology.”(6) Hanegraaff explains: “I coined the phrase ‘exegetical eschatology’ to underscore the fact that above all else I am deeply committed to a proper method of biblical interpretation rather than to any particular model of eschatology.” (7) It is common today to stress method over outcome, but nevertheless, Hanegraaff does conclude that the book of Revelation was primarily fulfilled in the first century of Christianity. Such a view is known as preterism.

Hanegraaff contrasts his “exegetical” approach with wooden literalism. He characterizes the Left Behind eschatology as the product of wooden literalism. Why does Hanegraaff frame the contrast by using the extreme and pejorative term “wooden literalism” instead of the more accurate term, “literal”? Is it because he wants to plant in the listener’s mind, through dishonesty in labeling, that a literal understanding of a thousand years in Revelation 20 is somehow an extreme view? Hanegraaff used the occasion of the call, not to go to Revelation 20 and demonstrate exegetically within the context why a thousand years is symbolic rather than literal. Instead of demonstrating an exegetical approach in his answer, as he boasts is his method, he argued from other biblical texts that “thousand” should be taken symbolically. By not dealing with the context of Revelation 20, Hanegraaff did not arrive at his view through exegesis. He merely transferred into Revelation 20 an interpretation he had already arrived at without ever examining the text he had referenced. On this occasion Hanegraaff failed to live up to his self-proclaimed label of “exegetical eschatology”; rather, he provided an example of “eisegetical eschatology.”(8)


THE CATTLE ON A THOUSAND HILLS

Hanegraaff is correct to note that Psalm 50:10 means that “God owns all the cattle.”(9) How do we know that “thousand” in Psalm 50:10 is figurative? We know because the context supports a figurative understanding. In Hebrew poetry it is common to have two lines juxtaposed to each other.

This is the case in Psalm 50:10, which says, “For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills.” The first line states that God owns all beasts. The second line gives an example (cattle) of all the beast of the forest belonging to God. Thus, the context supports in this instance a figurative use of “thousand.” The next line (Psalm 50:11) continues in the same vein: “I know every bird of the mountains, and everything that moves in the field is Mine.” Does God only know the birds of the mountains and not those of the valleys? In this verse the psalmist goes from the specific to the general. It would make sense from this passage to conclude that God owns all. However, this passage is not an example of a figurative use of a thousand years.


THOUSAND IN THE DECALOGUE

“If you look at the Decalogue,” declares Hanegraaff, “Thousand is used but not in a literal sense, when God shows His loving-kindness to thousands of generations”(10) (emphasis added). By my count, “thousand” is used 120 times in the first five books of the Bible in the Hebrew text.

Most of these instances are literal uses of the word “thousand.” Exodus 20:6 and Deuteronomy 5:10 include the statement noted by Hanegraaff. First, these two instances both use the plural “thousands,” unlike the singular use in Revelation 20. A singular “thousand” is found inDeuteronomy 7:9. Second, I agree that a figurative meaning is most likely intended in these passages. “Thousands” appears to be used in these contexts to refer to an indefinite amount. The reason a figurative understanding is possible in these texts is due to the contextual factors found in these verses. Third, none of these three instances use the word “thousand” with a number, such as one thousand, two thousand, etc. In order to have relevance to assist us in understanding the thousand years in Revelation 20, Hanegraaff would need to find examples of the figurative use of years.


CONTEXT IS KING

Outside of the six occurrences in Revelation 20, the term “a thousand years” is only used twice (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8). Both instances require a literal use of a thousand years. “The idea of 2 Peter 3:8, which is an amplification of Psalm 90:4, is that the delay of a (literal) thousand years may well seem like a (literal) day against the backdrop of eternity,” notes Matthew Waymeyer.(11) Thus, there is no lexical basis, outside of Revelation 20, that would support a figurative reading of the thousand years in the Apocalypse, as asserted by Hanegraaff.

In spite of the semantic range of a word when used in various contexts, a word or term can only have a single meaning in a given context. Context limits the possible meaning of a word to a single meaning. This is why any good exegete knows that a suggested meaning for a word lives or dies on whether it fits the context in which it appears. For example, there are dozens of nuances for the word “run.” “She has a run in her stocking.” “He scored the winning run.” “Run to the store.” “There is a run of salmon.” In spite of many possible meanings of the word “run,” we do not have a hard time understanding how the word is used when it appears in a specific context. The same is true in the Bible. The context is the deciding factor for determining how a word is used.

It is interesting to observe that Hanegraaff went to a couple of the few examples of the figurative use of “thousand” found in the Bible and argued from those instances. He never went directly to instances of a thousand in Revelation 20 and attempted to make his case from that context, yet the issue to which he spoke was concerning the meaning of a thousand years in Revelation 20. Instead of demonstrating to the caller an example of “exegetical eschatology,” Hanegraaff provided an example of an “exegetical fallacy.” This is an example of the hermeneutical error termed by Barr as “illegitimate totality transfer.”(12) While totally ignoring contextual uses, Hanegraaff seeks to establish his own context for a thousand years. Hanegraaff creates this error by attempting to establish the meaning of a thousand from its use in other passages and then illegitimately transfers a foreign meaning intoRevelation 20 without support from the immediate context. So much for “exegetical eschatology”!


CONCLUSION

The original question that precipitated Hanegraaff’s answer was, “How do you know when to spiritualize things in the Bible and when to take them literally?” I believe Matthew Waymeyer provides a much better answer to that caller’s question than did Hanegraaff. Waymeyer says: “In order to be considered symbolic, the language in question must possess (a) some degree of absurdity when taken literally and (b) some degree of clarity when taken symbolically”(13) (emphasis original). There is nothing absurd about taking a thousand years literally inRevelation 20 as was noted in the contextual uses of passages likePsalm 50:10–11.

The literal reading of “a thousand years” in Revelation 20 makes perfect sense. The only reason it may seem strange to an individual would be because he or she has a bias, for some reason, against such an understanding. Non-premillennialists have just such a bias: if they let the statements of a thousand years stand, then this passage clearly teaches premillennialism. “With this in mind,” concludes Waymeyer, “it is difficult to imagine why one would consider the ‘thousand years’ inRevelation 20 to be symbolic language, for it possesses neither a degree of absurdity when taken literally, nor a degree of clarity when taken symbolically.”(14) Maranatha!


ENDNOTES

1 Hank Hanegraaff and Sigmund Brouwer, The Last Disciple (Wheaton:Tyndale House Publishers, 2004).

2 American Vision homepage,www.americanvision. org, accessed Sept. 27, 2004.

3 American Vision homepage.

4 Hank Hanegraaff, “The Bible Answer Man”(BAM) radio program,Sept. 28, 2004.

5 Based upon searching the computer program Accordance, version 5.7.

6 Hank Hanegraaff,BAM radio program, Sept. 24, 2004.

7 Hanegraaff, BAM,Sept. 24, 2004.

8 “Exegesis”means to lead out the meaning, thus,“eisegesis”is the opposite and means to read into a passage a meaning from outside of the text, not intended by the author.

9 Hanegraaff,BAM,Sept. 28, 2004.

10 Hanegraaff,BAM,Sept. 28, 2004.

11 Matthew Waymeyer, Revelation 20 and the Millennial Debate (The Woodlands,TX: Kress Christian Publications, 2004),p. 100.This recent book is an excellent overview of the millennial debate and defends the premillennial position. It can be purchased atwww.kresschristianpublications.com.

12 James Barr,The Semantics of Biblical Languages (London: Oxford University Press, 1961),p. 218.

13 Waymeyer, Revelation 20,p. 50.

14 Waymeyer, Revelation 20, pp. 51–52.

BIBLICAL PROPHECY TODAY - “Road Map” to Armageddon - Dave Hunt (retro) - (BPT)

Retro -OCT 27, 2007

“Road Map” to Armageddon

By Dave Hunt

The “Quartet” of Bush, Putin, UN, and EU is determined, through a division of land, to bring a “just and lasting peace” into the Middle East between Israel and her neighbors. Assuming they are sincere and not just working for their own interests, their mental state must be on a par with those who gave the Nobel Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat, a mass murderer, habitual liar, and the world’s leading terrorist, who has done more than anyone to destroy world peace. How thankful the West should be that Al Gore (who repeatedly, as vice president, warmly received Arafat into the White House) is not there now as president! 

In fact, Muhammad, whose word cannot be changed, imposed upon every Muslim in every age the duty of exterminating all Jews. Only then can the “Last Day” (the climax of Islam) arrive. That fact makes “peace” between Israel and Muslims impossible—ever. Any apparent “peace” agreements signed by Muslim leaders are not worth the ink in their signatures! In the ten years prior to the signing of the Oslo Accords, 211 Israelis were killed by terrorists; in the ten years since, about 1,200 have been killed and 5,000 wounded. No Arab/Muslim political or religious leader can contradict Islam’s founding prophet. Thus to continue to pursue a negotiated “peace” in the Middle East is the height of folly! 

Yet Western political and religious leaders continue to hold out that vain hope and to force concessions upon Israel that pave the road to her destruction! Modern Israel occupies a relatively small piece of land. Arabs possess 700 times as much, with vast amounts of oil and minerals. Why are they determined to possess tiny Israel too? Islam says it belongs to them! A sovereign Jewish state proves that Muhammad was a false prophet, and that Allah is not God. Muslims must destroy Israel! Both the Bible and Qur’an agree that 4,000 years ago God gave the Promised Land to Abraham and his Israeli descendants. Yet, the Arabs claim ownership through Ishmael, Abraham’s first son. But God declared that not Ishmael, but Isaac, who would be born to Sarah, was the son and heir He had promised (Gn 17:15-21). Like his father, Isaac also had two sons, Esau and Jacob; and again the Lord rejected the firstborn and gave the inheritance to the second—so the inheritance flows from Abraham to Isaac and on to Jacob, whose name God changed to Israel. 

Twelve times Yahweh calls Himself “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” declaring, “this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial to all generations” (Ex 3:15). More than 200 times, from Exodus 5:1 to Luke 1:68, Yahweh is called “the God of Israel.” Muslims claim that the Bible was corrupted by later revisions. However, the Bible’s thousands of manuscripts, historical and prophetic accuracy, and the intricate integration of themes from Genesis to Revelation (none of which the Qur’an can boast!) reduce such a claim to nonsense. Furthermore, the Qur’an itself supports what the Bible says concerning Israel’s claim to the Promised Land: “We made a covenant of old with the Children of Israel” (Surah 5:70); “We brought the children of Israel across the [Red] sea, and Pharaoh with his hosts pursued them...” (10:91).

 “…[B]ut we drowned him and those with him all together. And we said unto the Children of Israel...dwell in the land [and] hereafter...we shall bring you...out of various nations” (17:103, 104); “[W]e delivered the children of Israel... from Pharaoh....We chose them, purposely, above all creatures” (44:30-32); “favored them above all peoples” (45:16); “Remember Allah’s favor to you...He...gave you what he gave no other of his creatures. O my people, go into the Holy Land which Allah hath ordained for you” (95:20, 21); etc. The territory God gave to Abram (later renamed Abraham by God) and to his descend-ants was not “Palestine,” but Canaan: “Into the land of Canaan they came” (Gn 12:5,6). 

There were no “Palestinians” from whom those who take that name today claim to be descended: “the Canaanite and Perizzite dwelled then in the land” (13:7). Abram remained there the rest of his life: “...Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan” (13:12). God told him, “For all the land...to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever” (13:15); “...all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession” (Gn 17:8). Abram settled in Hebron in Canaan and “built there an altar to the LORD [Yahweh]” (13:18)—not to Allah. 

Ten years later, Ishmael (the product of Abraham’s and Sarah’s unbelief) was born to him through Sarah’s maid, Hagar. Fourteen years later, when Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah 90, Isaac was born in Hebron to Abraham by his wife Sarah, exactly as God had promised. Thirty-seven years later, at the age of 127, Sarah died. Abraham was still living in Hebron, having been there more than 70 years. To bury Sarah, he bought the cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite (23:1-20). Thirty-eight years later, at the age of 175, Abraham died. Isaac and Ishmael buried him in Machpelah next to Sarah. Isaac lived in Hebron 110 more years. Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and Leah were also buried in the cave of Machpelah. Abraham had entered Canaan 400 years after the flood and 300 years after the Tower of Babel.

 It was sparsely settled, the land was his for the taking, and he, Isaac, Jacob, and their families, lived there more than 300 years before temporarily moving to Egypt to escape a famine. There, for 400 years they were slaves, just as God had said, until the Canaanites became so wicked that He was forced to destroy them. God used Israel for that task, giving them Canaan as an everlasting heritage (Gn 15:13-16), as He had promised. God referred to Isaac as Abraham’s “only son” (Gn 22:2). Thus Ishmael was not buried in Machpelah, but where he had settled far away, having “died in the presence of all his brethren” (Gn 25:17, 18). No Arab or Muslim was ever buried in Machpelah. 

Arabs can't claim a pure descent from Ishmael. Ishmaelites intermarried with Midianites (Jgs 8:5,12,22,24), Edomites (Gn 28:9), and Hittites (26:34; 36:1-4). In contrast, during 400 years as slaves in Egypt, the Israelites became an identifiable ethnic people who were led en masse into Canaan. We know who they are today. Denying Israel’s God-given heritage, Yitzak Rabin, who had secretly promised Clinton he would give up the Golan, declared, “The Bible is not a geography book.” Shortly thereafter, he was assassinated, preventing him from giving to Syria the most strategically vital part of Israel. It was not Arabs but Hebrews who settled in ancient Hebron and all of Canaan, creating Israel, whose kings ruled from Jerusalem over an empire stretching from the Sinai to the Euphrates. 

Around 600 B.C. they were conquered by the Babylonians and scattered to many nations. Chased out of their land under God’s judgment in the Babylonian dispersion, and later twice by the Romans, numbers of Jews always returned. This despised people continued living in Israel under the oppressive heel of various occupying foreign invaders for another 2,500 years. On May 14, 1948, Israel declared itself an independent nation once again. The Jews once again possessed their own land, as God had promised—but only that small fraction of it that had been allotted by the UN partition on November 29, 1947. In contrast, the Arabs never lived in Canaan, but settled in the Arabian Peninsula. Not until the seventh century A.D., through the Islamic invasions, did Arabs come in any significant numbers into the land of Israel, which, in A.D. 135, the Romans had angrily renamed Syria-Palestina, after Israel’s chief enemy, the Philistines.

 The so-called Palestinians of today are Arabs whose ancestors came from Arabia. They are a Semitic people, with no relationship either to the Canaanites or the Philistines, who were not Semites. It is a blatant lie that today’s “Palestinians” (who at the same time claim descent from Ishmael) are descended from the original inhabitants of the land of Canaan, which God promised to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their heirs. David was first crowned king in Hebron and ruled there seven years before moving his throne to Jerusalem. This ancient city has no significance to Arabs/Muslims. 

Yet they have built a mosque at Machpelah, have forbidden access to Jews, and, at various times in history, have massacred Jews living there. Today Muslims are attempting to force out the few remaining Jews. They claim all of “Palestine” and state that Israelis are occupying land that belongs to them! And this fraud is the foundation for a so-called road map to peace! President Bush, as a Christian, ought to tremble at God’s solemn warning that He will destroy all who divide His land (Joel 3:2). Yes, His land: “the land shall not be sold [or traded] for ever: for the land is mine” (Lv 25:23)! Quartet, take heed: you are defying the God of Israel and will not escape unpunished! Those who make “peace” by taking land from Israel, which God gave her, will be destroyed: “[A]ll that burden themselves with it [Jerusalem] shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it” (Zec 12:3).

 On September 13, 1993, under the triumphant gaze of a smiling President Clinton, Arafat signed, with Yitzak Rabin, the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn. The ink was scarcely dry when Arafat began publicly apologizing in Arabic to Muslims around the world. In fear for his life (remember Anwar Sadat’s murder by fellow Muslims for making “peace” with Israel), Arafat pleaded that he was only following the example of Muhammad and the Islamic law he established. In A.D. 628, Muhammad led a few of his followers (recent converts to the new religion of Islam) from Medina back to Mecca, hoping to join thousands of pagan Arabs in the hajj. This annual pilgrimage to the Ka’aba (Islam, incredibly, claims it was built by Abraham and Ishmael!), with its elaborate ceremonies, had been practiced by pagan Arab tribes for centuries before Muhammad was born. 

He was turned back by the Meccans, but both parties signed a 10-year ceasefire known as the Treaty of Hubaybiya, as part of which Muhammad relinquished his claim to being “the prophet of Allah.” This treaty allowed Muhammad the next year (A.D. 629) to lead a group of Muslims in the hajj. They joined thousands of “infidel” Arabs in the same pagan ceremonies that their ancestors had practiced for centuries (See TBC Q&A July '03 for the rituals). In 630, Muhammad broke the ceasefire on a pretext and took over Mecca. At first, he allowed pagan Arabs to continue in the hajj, mingling with the new Muslims in the ancient rituals. 

Then he gave the pagans four months in which to convert to Islam or be killed. Thereafter, no non-Muslims were allowed into Mecca, as is true today. So it is with Ramadan, which President Bush (like previous U.S. presidents) and other western leaders naively honor as a “holy Muslim holiday.” Beginning with the first sighting of the new moon in the ninth month of the Muslim lunar calendar, Ramadan was celebrated by pagan Arabs in honor of Allah, the moon god, for centuries before Islam. 

To the hajj and Ramadan, Muhammad added the horror of jihad and commanded Muslims to take over the world. That belief has cost millions of innocent lives and drives terrorism today. Those promoting the Road Map to Peace are following a history of good intentions on the part of Israel and the West, which invariably have been betrayed by the Arabs/Muslims and have steadily made Israel’s position more untenable. American presidents, one after another, have cajoled Israel into compromise after compromise with Arab/Muslim leaders that could only have been uproarious jokes as far as the latter were concerned. 

Always, the good intentions of Israel and the West have led only to their further humiliation. Pursuing their impossible peace initiatives, world leaders defy the God of Israel and of the Bible. As the “heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing [and] the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed” (Ps 2:1-2), those with “ears to hear” (Dt 29:4; Ezk 12:2; Mt 11:15; 13:9, etc.) detect the terrifying sound of laughter: “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision” (Ps 2:4). We are in the late stages of the awesome fulfillment of Bible prophecy, behind which lies the omnipotent hand of God himself: “I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem...” (Zec 12:2, 3). 

That remarkable prophesy is being fulfilled today. Never before in history have all those surrounding Israel been united to destroy her. This significant development in history and Bible prophecy has come about through the rise of Islam. Bush wants a “democratic, viable” Palestinian state living in peace with Israel, but no democracy exists, or can exist, in a Muslim society. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Bush is trying to create democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. If that could happen, it would shake the entire Muslim world. Islam cannot survive in freedom. No wonder there is such fanatical opposition from Muslims worldwide, even for the capture of that sadistic mass torturer and murderer, Saddam Hussein. Muslims hold 80 percent of the world’s political prisoners. America’s precipitous withdrawal from Lebanon 20 years ago, fleeing from known Syrian/Iranian-sponsored terrorists instead of pursuing them, encouraged the terrorism rampant today worldwide. Can Bush really, with terrorist partners, stand up against the evil of terrorism? When will he admit that it is endemic to Islam? Will the strategic (politically correct?) time ever come for telling the truth? It remains to be seen whether the U.S.can eliminate terrorism, when our State Department secretly opposes Israel and favors Arabs. 

The Bible foretells a false peace, by which Antichrist will “destroy many” (Dn 8:24,25). Tragically, Israel will be deceived, tear down the security wall now being built, and drop its guard, opening the door to “the time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jer 30:7) and Armageddon (Ezk 38:11,12,14,16). Two-thirds of all Jews worldwide will be killed (Zec 13:8,9). 

Those who survive will believe in Christ and be saved when He rescues them and they recognize the crucified, resurrected Lord as their Messiah and God (Zec 12:10; Mt 24:13; Rom 11:25,26). We must not abandon Afghanistan or Iraq. I receive letters from missionaries there who say, “The minute the American and British troops pull out, we are dead!” It is time for Christians to pray as never before—and to do all they can to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to both Muslims and Jews.