Wayne Jackson wrote this article which appeared in the December 1975 edition of The Christian Courier. The paper was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
QUESTION: Please explain the expressions "times of the Gentiles" and "fullness of the Gentiles" in Luke 21:24 and Romans 11:25. Do these verses predict a future restoration of Jerusalem to the Jews and a national conversion of these people?
ANSWER: These passages are favorites of the dispensationalists as they are alleged to contain a promise of Jerusalem's restoration to the Jews in the "millennium" as well as a large scale conversion of Israel, through whom it is claimed, Christ will rule over the world from Jerusalem for one thousand years. It assumes the very thing to be proved and finds no support here or elsewhere in the Bible.
LUKE 21:24 - "And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." Here the Lord foretells the dreadful punishment to be inflicted upon the Jews in connection with the impending destruction of Jerusalem. The Jewish historian Josephus records the fulfillment declaring that during Jerusalem's siege, no less than 1.1 million Jews were brutally slain. (Wars, 6:9:3) Additionally, some 97,000 were taken captive and sold as slaves or used for sport in the Roman theaters. Concerning the fate of the holy city itself, the Savior said, "And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles." The verb in this clause is identified as a periphrastic form of the future, suggesting that, "Jerusalem shall (continue to) be trampled down." (Ernest Burton, Moods and Tenses of New Testament Greek, p.36.) Winer observes that, "the words seem intended to express an enduring state, where the two futures which precede, they shall fall and shall be led captive, denote transient events. (G.B. Winer, Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 438.) The abiding nature of the Jews' dispossession of Jerusalem is thus emphasized. Paul may be reflecting these very sentiments when he says, "wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." (I Thessalonians 2:16)
Pre-millennialists assert however, that this punishment is only temporary, "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled," after which there will be a restoration of Jerusalem to Jewish control. The key word here is "until" (achri). Pre-millennialists assume this conjunction has a temporal significance here, thus indicating a reversal of events after the specified period. But the assumption is unwarranted; achri frequently has a terminal thrust in the New Testament, with no reversal being implied at all. Note some examples.
By observing the Lord's supper, Christians, "proclaim the Lord's death till He come." (I Corinthians 11:26) The fact that Christians will only observe the memorial supper till He returns does not imply that at that time the situation will be completely reversed and we will deny our Master's death! The passage merely sets forth the terminal function of the communion supper. Again, in I Corinthians 15:25 Paul argues that Christ must reign, "till He hath put all His enemies under His feet." There is certainly no implication though that at that time Christ will repudiate His own reign. The verse simply demonstrates that Christ will thereafter not reign as our priestly king, since the terminal point of His redemptive work will have been reached.
Or note Revelation 2:25 where Jesus encourages the saints of Thyatira: "that which ye have, hold fast till I come." Does this mean these Christians would relinquish their blessings after He came? Obviously not. Similarly, when it was foretold that Jerusalem was to be trodden down until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, there is no necessity for assuming an implied restoration of the city. Jesus was, as we will presently note, signifying the terminal point of history. It is as if one would say, "Mr. Smith was sick until he died." There is no implication that his health was restored after death; it means he was sick until the end. Luke 21:24 contains no hint of restoration!
The phrase, "times of the Gentiles" is used to express a balance between an implied "times of the Jews." Henry Alford calls it a, "dispensation of the Gentiles." For fifteen centuries the Hebrews had been God's special people, an era which might be appropriately styled the "times of the Jews." With their rejection of Christ however, the "kingdom" (their reign as Jehovah's chosen) was to be taken from them (Matthew 21:43) and conferred upon a spiritual nation, the church. (I Peter 2:9) As a token of God's punishment, the Jews' prized city would be trodden down until the dispensation of the Gentiles reached its end, which will be the terminal point in history, the end of the world. R.C.H. Lenski is quite correct when he observes that the "times of the Gentiles" embraces that period from, "the destruction of Jerusalem to the time of the Parousia (coming of Christ)." (Commentary on Luke, p. 1021.)
ROMANS 11:25 - Again, the presuppositions of dispensationalism have led some to assert that this context teaches that though Israel has for the most part rejected the Messiah, after "the fullness of the Gentiles be come in" the Jews will be converted virtually in mass and restored to their national prominence. The notion is totally groundless.
In order to correctly understand Romans 11:25ff, the three chapters of Romans 9-11 must be viewed collectively. The thrust of Paul's presentation is to show how the faithfulness of God continues in view of the fact that though great promises were made to Israel, that nation was cast off. How is this seeming discrepancy solved? The apostle thus argues: God's rejection of Israel is not complete. There was still a faithful remnant (9). The Lord's casting off of Israel was not without reason. Thy initially rejected Him (10). And, Jehovah's rejection of the Jews is not total and without reservation. All Israel could be saved by accepting God's Deliverer (11).
A key to understanding Romans 11:25 is doubtless to be found back in verse 12. There Paul, discussing Israel's fall says, "Now if their fall is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fullness?" Here the Jews' "fall" is set in vivid contrast to their "fullness." Their fullness was the opposite of their fall. Hence, an identification of the latter will help in determining the meaning of the former. The FALL of Israel was their rejection of Christ. when they so rebelled, the full purpose of God for them was left unrealized. Correspondingly, their FULLNESS would have been the realization of Jehovah's full purpose in them. In their fall, God's full purpose for Israel was not fulfilled (nevertheless, by that fall the door was opened to the Gentiles working out their "riches"). Yet what a far greater blessing would have resulted had their fullness (acceptance of Christ) been accomplished. Similarly, Paul speaks of the "fullness of the Gentiles" in verse 25. Surely there is a corresponding thought here.
In Romans 11:25, the apostle affirms that, "a hardening in part hath befalled Israel." The "hardening" alludes to their lack of faith in Christ and the "in part" suggests that such unbelief was characteristic of only a portion of Israel (though perhaps a majority). Also, that part of Israel would continue in their hardening. The verb "hath befallen" is the perfect tense, stressing the abiding nature of the hardness, "until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in." Again, "until" is achri and as in Luke 21:24 its thrust is terminal (see again the parallels above) and no softening and subsequent conversion is implied.
Here we meet the phrase, "fullness of the Gentiles." As stressed above, fullness of the Jews implied the fulfillment of God's purpose among them. Accordingly, fullness of the Gentiles denotes the accomplishment of Jehovah's ultimate purpose among the Gentiles (and the word Gentiles simply means "nations") or in other words, till the end of this present dispensation. Thus, B. M. Christensen comments, "This partial hardening will continue throughout the time of the Gentiles, i.e., until Christ returns." (Commentary on Romans, p. 714.)
Since the hardening of Israel was not total but only in part, there is still hope that many of the Jews would be saved. But how is it that Israel can be saved? By turning through the obedience of faith (1:5; 16:26) to that illustrious "Deliverer" that came out of Zion (26). Though some Jews have been in a state of "disobedience" (30), Paul sees the possibility that some will turn from such and if they so do, "they may also now obtain mercy" (31). And this gives us the correct meaning of "so all Israel shall be saved." The word "so" (houtos) is an adverb of manner, meaning "in this way." Hence, it is "in this way" (the way of obeying Christ) that all Israel (who are saved ) shall be saved. There is simply no promise of the national conversion of Israel in the Bible.
The theory that Paul expected a mass conversion of Israel is wanting on several accounts: (a) it stultifies his whole series of arguments on this theme; (b) and, it leaves inexplicable the throbbing anguish for his brethren in the flesh which literally saturates this entire section. For instance, Paul touchingly writes: "For I could wish [potential imperfect - 'I was on the point of wishing'] that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh." (Romans 9:3) WHY, pray tell, if he knew a national conversion of his brethren was an ultimate reality? The pre-millennial concept of these verses is clearly erroneous.
No comments:
Post a Comment