What happens to the Jews after the Millennium?

Dispensationalism teaches that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Israel and the Church. “The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.” [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism ] Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism writes about the above statement [page 39]: “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who does will.”

Assume that Chafer is correct. What happens to the Jews after the millennium? Scripture teaches [Revelation 20:11]
11. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

Moreover, Scripture teaches that the New Heaven and New Earth are the home for the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Jesus Christ, the Church [Revelation 21:1,2]
1. And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

My question for dispensationalists is: What happens to the Jews, the earthly people of Chafer? Are they on the earth that fled from the face of Jesus Christ on the Great White Throne?

No that can't be since according to Revelation 21:1 the first earth has passed away. Strange isn't it?

 

I guess I expected too much from the dispensationalists who dominate this forum! Sorry!

 

Jim

It appears there are no dispensationalists on this forum. Surely they are not afraid to jump in.

 

Are you stating that Chafer is incorrect since he states:

“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”

He doesn't allow both peoples to be in the same place.

 

If you are not familiar then how can you state: my suspicion is that you are not being accurate with Chafer. You are awful quick to impugn the integrity of those who don't agree with you. I suppose that is because you recognize your dispensational doctrine is not Biblical.

I had a teacher when I was a teenager who said people use profanity when they have a weak argument. May I say the same about those who question my integrity, particularly when they are ignorant of the source of my quote.

 

If you are not familiar with Chafer then how can you state: my suspicion is that you are not being accurate with Chafer. You are awful quick to impugn the integrity of those who don't agree with you. I suppose that is because you recognize your dispensational doctrine is not Biblical. I noticed this trait in you when I was on this Forum a few years back. I see that you have not changed with age.

I had a teacher when I was a teenager who said people use profanity when they have a weak argument. May I say the same about those who question my integrity, particularly when they are ignorant of the source of my quote.

 

You correctly state my understanding of progressive dispensationalism.
I believe that I indicated elsewhere on this forum that progressive dispensationalism would eventually replace classic dispensationalism and approach historic or covenant premillennialism in its doctrine. Though dispensationalists frequently use the term premillennialist to define themselves there is a world of difference between covenant premillennialism and dispensationalism.

 

I had stated in an earlier post the following:

Pastor Larry made the following response:

In fact the only similarity between dispensationalism and covenant premillennialism is the belief in the earthly millennial reign. Otherwise there are more similarities between Covenant Premillennialism, Amillennialism, and Postmillennialism.

The following [presented in two parts because of length] is a rather long excerpt from George Eldon Ladd's defense of Covenant Premillennialism [pages 20-27] taken from The Millennium, Four Viewpoints edited by Robert G. Clouse. I hope those who take Pastor Larry's response at face value or who are interested in just how far dispensational doctrine has strayed from historic Church Doctrine and the proper interpretation of Scripture will take time to read Ladd's remarks. They are rewarding, whatever your view on eschatology, even for an amillennialist.



“One of the chief arguments for interpreting the Old Testament prophecies concerning the end is that the Old Testament prophecies about the first coming of Christ were literally fulfilled. This, however, is an argument which must be closely examined. The fact is that the New Testament frequently interprets Old Testament prophecies in a way not suggested by the Old Testament context.

Let us take first a very simple illustration. Matthew 2:15 quotes from Hosea 11:1 to prove from Scripture that Jesus must come from Egypt. This, however, is not what the prophecy means in the Old Testament. Hosea says, "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." In Hosea this is not a prophecy at all but a historical affirmation that God had called Israel out of Egypt in the Exodus. However, Matthew recognizes Jesus to be God's greater son and deliberately turns a historical statement into a prophecy. This is a principle which runs throughout biblical prophecy. The Old Testament is reinterpreted in light of the Christ event.

Let us look at a more significant illustration. The New Testament and the Christian church see a prophecy of the sufferings of the Messiah in Isaiah 53. Matthew applies this prophecy to Jesus (Mt. 8:17) although he does not refer to the sufferings to be endured by the servant. However, Philip interprets the sufferings of the servant to the Ethiopian eunuch as referring to Jesus (Acts 8:30-35).

How can anyone avoid recognizing that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of the sufferings Jesus experienced?

But he was wounded for our transgressions,
he was bruised for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that made us whole,
and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned everyone to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. (Is. 53:5-6)

It is of course true that this is a prophecy of Jesus' sufferings but only as it is interpreted after the event. Here is another illustration of the New Testament interpreting the Old Testament in light of the Christ event. The simple fact is, in its Old Testament setting, Isaiah 53 is not a prophecy of the Messiah. Messiah means "anointed" and designates the victorious,anointed Davidic king. This is seen clearly in Isaiah 11.

He shall not judge by what his eves see,
or decide by what his ears hear;
but with righteousness he shall judge the poor,
and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth,
and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. (Is. 11:3-4)

Here is an utterly different picture. The Messiah is to rule;he is to crush evil; he is to slay the wicked. How can such a victorious ruler be at the same time the meek and lowly one who pours out his soul in death (Is. 53:12)? This is why, in spite of Isaiah 53, Jesus' disciples could not grasp the fact that he must suffer and die. Messiah is to conquer and rule, not be conquered and crushed. The Old Testament does not make it clear that before Messiah is to come as conqueror and ruler, he must first appear as the humble suffering servant.

A second fact is of equal importance. The suffering one is never called Messiah or son of David. He is an unnamed individual. Furthermore, in its context, the suffering one is the servant of the Lord who is sometimes identified with Israel. Isaiah 52:13—"Behold, my servant shall prosper"; Isaiah 50:10—"Who among you fears the LORD and obeys the voice of his servant?"; Isaiah 49:3—"You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified"; Isaiah 49:5—"And now the LORD says, who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him"; Isaiah 45:3—"It is I, the LORD, the God of Israel, who call you by name. For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen."

In these references the servant is both Israel and one who redeems Israel. There is an interplay between these two concepts. But in neither case is the servant called the Messiah or the Davidic ruling king. Little wonder that it has been customary for Jewish exegetes to see in the servant not the conquering, delivering Messianic king, but the afflicted, suffering people of Israel. Isaiah 53 is not, in its own historical setting, a prophecy of Messiah. It becomes such only when it is interpreted in light of the Christ event.

This clearly establishes the principle that the "literal hermeneutic" does not work. For literally, Isaiah 53 is not a prophecy of Messiah but of an unnamed servant of the Lord. Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted in the light of the New Testament to find their deeper meaning.

This principle must be carried further. I do not see how it is possible to avoid the conclusion that the New Testament applies Old Testament prophecies to the New Testament church and in so doing identifies the church as spiritual Israel. I have come to this conclusion not because I read it in books or found it in some theological system, but from my own inductive study of the inspired Word of God.

[Continued in following post]

 

[Continued from previous post]

I had stated in an earlier post the following:

Pastor Larry made the following response:

In fact the only similarity between dispensationalism and covenant premillennialism is the belief in the earthly millennial reign. Otherwise there are more similarities between Covenant Premillennialism, Amillennialism, and Postmillennialism.

The following [part 2] is the continuation of a rather long excerpt from George Eldon Ladd's defense of Covenant Premillennialism [pages 20-27] taken from The Millennium, Four Viewpoints edited by Robert G. Clouse. I hope those who take Pastor Larry's response at face value or who are interested in just how far dispensational doctrine has strayed from historic Church Doctrine and the proper interpretation of Scripture will take time to read Ladd's remarks. They are rewarding, whatever your view on eschatology, even for an amillennialist.


“A most vivid illustration of this principle is found in Romans 9 where Paul is talking about "us whom he has called not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles" (Rom.9:24). In other words Paul is talking about the church in Rome which included some Jews but which was largely Gentile. To prove that it was God's purpose to call such a people into being, Paul quotes two passages from Hosea:

As indeed he says in Hosea,
" those who were not my people
I will call 'my people,'
and her who was not beloved
I will call 'my beloved.' "
"And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are
not my people,'
They will be called 'sons of the living God.' " (Rom. 9:25-26)

In Hosea both of the passages refer to literal, national Israel. Because of her rebelliousness, Israel is no longer the people of God. "And the LORD said, 'Call his name Not my people, for you are not my people and I am not your God' " (Hos. 1 -9). Israel has been rejected by the Lord for her unbelief. Yet Hosea sees a day of future repentance when a disobedient people will become obedient. He sees a large remnant, like the sand of the sea. "And in the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' it shall be said to them, 'Sons of the living God' " (Hos. 1:10). This refers to a future conversion of the Jews. The same is true of the second prophecy: "And I will have pity on Not pitied, and I will say to Not my people, 'You are my people'; and he shall say, 'Thou art my God' " (Hos. 2:23). This again sees a future salvation of literal Israel when the people, whom God has rejected, will once again become the people of God.

Paul deliberately takes these two prophecies about the future salvation of Israel and applies them to the church. The church, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles, has become the people of God. The prophecies of Hosea are fulfilled in the Christian church. If this is a "spiritualizing hermeneutic," so be it. But let no one say that it is liberalism. It is clearly what the New Testament does to the Old Testament prophecies. The idea of the Church as spiritual Israel is seen in other passages. Abraham is called "the father of all who believe" (Rom. 4:11); Abraham is "the father of us all" who "share the faith of Abraham" (Rom. 4:16); "It is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7); "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" (Gal. 3:19). If Abraham is the father of a spiritual people, and if all believers are sons of Abraham, his offspring, then it follows that they are Israel, spiritually speaking.

This is what leads Paul to say, "For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal" (Rom. 2:28-29). Now it is possible that in this verse Paul is speaking only of Jews, saying that a true Jew is not one who is only circumcised outwardly but who is also circumcised in the heart. He may not in these verses have Gentiles in view. But he clearly refers to the largely gentile church when lie says to the Philippians, "For we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:3).

Paul avoids calling the church Israel, unless it be in Galatians 6:16, but this is a much disputed verse. It is true, however, that he applies prophecies to the church which in their Old Testament setting belong to literal Israel; he calls the church the sons, the seeds of Abraham. He calls believers the true circumcision. It is difficult therefore to avoid the conclusion that Paul sees the church as spiritual Israel.

Another very important passage applies a prophecy given to Israel to the Christian church. In Jeremiah 31 the prophet foresees a day when God will make a new covenant with rebellious Israel. This new covenant will be characterized by a new work of God in the hearts of his people. ”I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. . . For they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer. 31:33-34).

The book of Hebrews applies this to the new covenant made in the blood of Christ. Hebrews 8 contrasts the new order introduced by Christ with the passing order of the Old Testament. Christ serves in the "true tent," not in the old, for the old is but "a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary" (Heb. 8:5). Therefore Christ is the mediator of a new and better covenant, which rests on better promises (Heb. 8:6). "For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second" (Heb. 8:7). These words make it clear that Hebrews is contrasting the old covenant which was defective with a second which has been established by Jesus. "For he finds fault with them . . ." (Heb. 8:8), that is, God finds fault with Israel under the old order because they constantly broke the terms of the covenant. Therefore, a new covenant is necessary; and in describing this new covenant made by Christ, Hebrew's 8:8-12 quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34. It seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that this quotation refers to the new covenant with the people of God—the Christian church—the new covenant which has been made possible because of the sacrifice of Christ.

Then, referring to the Old Testament cult, Hebrews concludes, "In speaking of a new covenant lie treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13). It is impossible to tell whether the temple in Jerusalem was still standing (it was destroyed in the Jewish War, A.D. 66-70), for the exact date of Hebrews is in doubt. But one thing is clear: Hebrews announces that the old order of the temple with its sacrifices is passe.

One of the central tenets of dispensational millennialism, based on its literal hermeneutic of the Old Testament prophecies, is that in the millennium, the Jewish temple will be rebuilt and the entire sacrificial system reinstituted, according to the prophecies of Ezekiel 40—48. However, there will be a difference between the millennial sacrifices and the Old Testament sacrifices. The millennial sacrifices will be a memorial to the sacrificial death of Jesus. "Those who consider the millennial sacrifices as a ritual which will be literally observed in the millennium invest the sacrifices with the central meaning of a memorial looking back to the one offering of Christ.". Any idea of a restoration of the Old Testament sacrificial systems, whether memorial or otherwise, stands in direct opposition to Hebrews 8:13, which unambiguously affirms that the Old Testament cult is both obsolete and about to pass away.

Therefore Hebrew's 8:8-13 refutes dispensational theology at two points: It applies a prophecy to the Christian church which in its Old Testament setting referred to Israel, and it affirms that the new covenant in Christ has displaced the Old Testament cult which is therefore doomed to pass away.