Who Said That?
Tuesday, August 1, 2006 at 06:52PM 
OK, who said this?
"Both the Old and the New Testament speak of a future conversion of Israel, Zech. 12:10; 13:1; II Cor. 3:15,16, and Rom. 11:25-29 seems to connect this with the end of time. Premillennialists have exploited this Scriptural teaching for their particular purpose. They maintain that there will be a national restoration and conversion of Israel, that the Jewish nation will be re-established in the Holy Land, and that this will take place immediately preceding or during the millennial reign of Jesus Christ. It is very doubtful, however, whether Scripture warrants the expectation that Israel will finally be re-established as a nation, and will as a nation turn to the Lord."
As usual, no google searches or cheating! Leave your guesses in the comments section below!
Kim Riddlebarger
This statement comes from none other than Louis Berkhof (Systematic Theology, 698 ff). But Herman Bavinck said almost the same thing in Last Things (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 107.
In light of Berhkof's wrong conclusion, I think it behooves all of us to follow the sage advice of Geerhardus Vos, who reminds us that history/fulfillment is sometimes the best interpreter of certain prophecies, and that eschatology requires a particular kind of interpretive patience (Pauline Eschatology, 133).
Reader Comments (20)
So...Abraham Kuiper?
I'm pretty convinced now that the quote is dated sometime after 1920 but before 1948 as the first respondent indicated.
So perhaps John Murray? Someone in that era
What do you make of this part of the quote:
"It is very doubtful, however, whether Scripture warrants the expectation that Israel will finally be re-established as a nation..."
It depends on what he means by "nation" but didn't Israel become a nation in 1948?
Thank you. Mistakenly i had assumed that only the first sentence was part of the quote. Now that I read it very differently.
Of course Geisler had to throw in all sorts of accusations against amill theology, such as: "They spiritualize the Bible, but we take it literally," etc. I guess this is the thing to say when there is no substance to one's own system and arguments.
What gets me, though, is the endorsments on the back of the volume. You'd think it was the best theology ever! In reality, after looking at all four volumes in the series, it looks to me like a lot more of "Chosen But Free" type reasoning and (mis)use of Scripture, where passages are simply pigeon-holed in the dispy system ... AS IF THAT PROVES ANYTHING WHATSOEVER!
But why people are so ready to endorse stuff like this is beyond me. If they really understood the misuse of and/or lack of logic, I think they'd be embarrased to have their name associated with the likes of such authors.
If it can be coherently argued that those passages do not refer to what will happen in the 20th century, it would be true to say that Scripture does not *warrant the expectation* of things that will happen in the 20th century, even if such events might bear resemblance to the original context which biblical passages addressed. Israel might be nuked tomorrow, and become a nation again within a year, or whatever other scenario; one way or another, it seems to me that Scripture simply does not speak in any way of what will or will not happen to the modern secular state called Israel. If this is the case, Berkhof's assertion is entirely correct, since he speaks of warrant (i.e., author intent, and, presumably, divine intent).
In fact, anything, good or bad, that might happen to that secular nation can find "support" in some biblical passage (since there are plenty of passages predicting both judgment and blessing). That does not mean necessarily that the modern events can be correlated to the biblical data, or, in other words, it does not mean that what happens today is in fact what the Scripture was predicting in its original context, even if it might seem parallel. This would be a classic case of ad hoc, post hoc.