Amillennialism and Dispensationalism are both Anti-Semitic in their core ideology

[sheina maidle]

How can one love the Jewish people and at the same time, not want to evangelize them? Now that, I really don't get. I look forward to the time coming when I can meet and be with all those heroes and heroines of the faith.

I just recently found out about this Dual Covenant theology within the last 3 years. I was SHOCKED!

[jeffweeder]

How can one love the Jewish people and at the same time, not want to evangelize them? Now that, I really don't get. I look forward to the time coming when I can meet and be with all those heroes and heroines of the faith.

I agree. We have a duty to evangelise the Jewish people, and if we love them we will.

Any refusal to evangelise them with the Gospel of Jesus would be antisemetic, as Jesus is the one who has fulfilled all of the covenant Lords promises to them. Messiahs kingdom is not of this world, but one that existed before the world began. All the cov promises pointed toward an ultimate restoration to God...A blissful place prepared by God that may be better than Eden.

[quiet dove]

I love it! It's been a long time since I've mixed it up in here - I feel rusty



I'm not sure what you mean when you say that. I'm not postmillennial or anything near that viewpoint - which places the timing of the Second Coming in the hands of believers related to the Christianization of the earth. But in terms of participating / partnering with God related to the return of Christ, Acts 3:19-21 is a really clear passage from Peter delineating "our part" and "God's part" - by which, of course, God does the vast majority of the heavy lifting and we repent. The other relevant passage as it relates to "our part" (Gentile believers) related to Israel's destiny is the oft-debated "provocation of Israel to jealousy" passage in Romans 11, unto the "fullness of Israel".

I didn't mean to slap a view on ya. I'm not sure what I said,my apologies, it was not intentional.

I am not sure what you are telling me in terms of your application of Acts 3 here. So not going to guess but just throw my take out there.
Considering the audience was Jewish, and they had gone to the temple and the Jew first(v26)and were speaking to those who nationally had rejected Him, that seems to me to set the context. He continues on regarding the prophet like Moses, a prophet they would hear. Don't get me wrong, when you read further, he was using this teaching in Acts to hopefully get them to accept the truth about Jesus. Problem is, nationally, they did not hear. They were fully aware of what they wanted the Messiah to come and do and he is trying to convince them that the Messiah they awaited to do those things was indeed Jesus. But unfortunately they did not 'hear Him' and continued to not "hear Him". At least not nationally. So I think it is definitely an effort to preach the Gospel, but at the same time, in verse 21, speaking of the final restoration. I believe it speaks of God's, eventual, accomplishing of His purpose in regards to 'national' Israel. Though the goal of Peter was to convert the Jews he was talking to, which is what our goal should be and what we should be doing.

To me this(as relates to v21) would relate to Christ words
Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'BLESSED is HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!' "

Also considering Zechariah
Zechariah 12:10 "And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

God says "And I will pour", not just pour on this one and that one, which is what we have now, basically, those individuals who receive Christ; but "on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem. I would not apply this to Pentecost, the problem being, that would not follow the context here in Zechariah.

With Romans, I think I am reading the fulness a little differently, to me it speaks... that if the failure of Israel has resulted in such blessing to the world, how much more blessing will it bring when Israel returns in faith to her God through Christ Jesus. And I believe it is speaking to a future time, as Jesus later describes in regards to His Second Advent. Does this say every single Jewish person will be saved who is on the earth at that time, I dont know and would not read that into it. It just says to me that nationally, Israel will have the Spirit poured out and repent. Whatever that ends up fully meaning I do believe it speaks of Israel during the Millennial Kingdom.

However, IMHO..as I said in my first post, to believe that Israel will all be saved, neglect preaching the Gospel and just help them rush into the 'Day of the Lord' is not what we are commanded to be doing. God's business is bring about His purpose. My business is obedience...proclaim Jesus Christ, walk in the Spirit, living according to His righteousness.
His purpose with a national Israel is His purpose, not mans to bring about. In other words, God gave us information regarding His plans; that does not equate to Him telling us to go about trying to fulfill prophecy. Through out the Bible God gave prophecy and God fulfilled it. Man did not fulfill it. For example, God told Abraham His purpose regarding an heir(Isaac), which was prophecy to be fulfilled, and Abraham went about trying to fulfill it, didn't work.

No. But classical dispensationalism as it has been popularly preached in America often has a pro-Zionist, anti-evangelism spin on it that translates practically to deep friendship with governmental, atheistic Jewish leaders in the land while shunning the messianic congregations (Jewish believers). And, as I said, there are the other problems that have emerged from dispensationalist ideas related to dual-covenant theory (Jews saved via Abrahamic Covenant / Gentiles saved via New Covenant). Dispensationalism has also historically shunned the Sermon on the Mount as applying to Gentile Christians as well, though many are moving away from that idea.

He didn't, yet the propping up of the State of Israel by dispensationalists has been knit to prophetic reasons and personal gain or blessing.

There is a lot of things I see taught that make me cringe. Remember, I never called myself dispensationalist, it was a label slung at me like it only had four letters... Unfortunately there is hyper dispensationalism or also called ultra dispensationalism, same thing, I think. They break up which part of scripture is for who, believe two Gospels or Churches, something...some stuff that I very much disagree with. There are countless folks out there teaching countless things, which really happens within all camps.

[arc111]

See, it's those kinds of statements that caused me to jump back in and wrestle with y'all. I may be a simpleton, but I have a few facts in my back pocket somewhere Ask David Taylor - he and I differ when it comes to eschatology (and that's about it), but he would be the first to say that I have some facts too...

Whether you are a simpleton or not I do not know, but I cannot see inside your back pocket. I'm new here and I don't know David Taylor nor have I searched the archives for discussion between the two of you. I would welcome the facts regarding allegations of anti-semitism among dispensationalists.

I suppose that it would be productive to define anti-semitism. There is an official position among Orthodox Rabbis that preaching the gospel to the Jews is anti-semitic, so by that definition, I suppose that all evangelical Christians are guilty.

But I do not accept that definition, in that all men everywhere are in need of salvation. The Jew is not different in this respect than any other ethnic group. They are not more 'lost' and no more 'saved' than anyone else.

It is more true that to fail to evangelize the Jews is anti-semitic.

No. I simply have to be able to examine dispensational ideas and their logical conclusions as they have been developed as it relates to what is now called "hyper-dispensationalism" (the "hyper" was added when some godly dispensationalists went, "uh oh" privately ); dispensational practice as it relates to modern Israel; dispensational behavior within Israel; and streams of dispensational preaching that express those kinds of ideas. I have to do it carefully because we have a strict policy of no-preacher-bashing in here - and besides, I happen to really like and respect many of the main dispensational preachers. I can also examine dual-covenant theory as well as it was developed in the overtly Zionistic culture of dispensational preaching.

I understand that you cannot 'name names'. If the charge were that hypers and dual covenanters were anti-semitic then I would have to rethink your statements. Maybe they are, but I don't recall hypers being mentioned in the OP. They seem to be the radical fringe among dispensationalists.

Of course, and the difficult question to answer is, who is the exception and who is the rule? I'd be happy to let you pick which mainstream dispensational preachers you want to represent your viewpoints as the "rule" and overlook the exceptions - but the problem is that the exceptions are driving evangelical dispensationalism today (not as much as they used to, of course) and are on record saying some unhelpful things.

I am stating that Messianic Jewish congregations lead the way in evangelizing the Jews AND that they are almost 100% dispensational. This is contrary to your OP in one very significant point. (Everyone can jump on the boat about judaizing among the messianics if they want - but my fellowship does not judaize). I could provide support for the claim, but in fact it is your OP that needs validation.

It seems relevant to the discussion that Augustine, Luther and Calvin led the way in developing amil theology, and that they were anti-semitic by anyones definition.

Sure. But my point is that both sides have weaknesses in their arguments that are either too pro-Zion or too anti-Zion. Therefore, guys like you should dial down in discussions.

I am not trying to be 'unhelpful'. I do no know what it means to be too 'pro-Zion'. I have been called much worse. I have already apologized to petepet for any seeming personal jabs. I don't even know him as a person. And I do not take his jabs toward me personally either. But I will try to behave.

[arc111]

When I was attending a Messianic congregation about 15 or so years ago, I actually got chastised for saying "Jesus Christ" instead of "Yeshua HaMashiach". It was about that time that the Lord began to lead me out of Messianic Judaism.

While I was attending mainstream church about 10 years ago I was told that if I did not accept amil teaching that I was calling Jesus a liar. It was about that time that the Lord began to lead me out of mainstream churches.

It sounds quaint, but it is absolutely true. And, btw, I attend a Hebraic/Messianic assembly on the Sabbath and I attend a non-denominational church on Sunday. The Lord led me into both at the same time. Interestingly, they very often teach the same principle from different perspectives- one from a 'Torah-based' perspective, the other from a 'faith-based' perspective. It sometimes blows my mind, as the two assemblies are over 150 miles apart in different states.

My point is not to lump all MJ's together. I am learning that not all amils are the same either.

[Matthehitmanhart]

For the amillennial viewpoint (again, not the humans who hold to the view), the future of the individual Jew is of real concern - expressing the heart of Paul for the salvation of the Jews individually in Romans 9-11. This is admirable. The weakness of the viewpoint, however, is the redefinition of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants in a way that was not intended by the ratification of the New Covenant. Thus, while the concern for the individual is admirable and scriptural, the removal of God's corporate and covenantal plan represents a serious deficiency in the amillennial view. While not being "emotionally" or purposefully anti-Semitic, the amillennial viewpoint removes from the Jewish people God's stated and pre-ordained (and irrevocable) future from them and is therefore "anti" God's heart and plan for the Jewish people in the future.

I totally appreciate the qualifications you make here in regards to individual amillennialists vs. the amillennial viewpoint, but I don't believe there is such a thing as the amillennial viewpoint. The problem with your assessment, if I may be so bold, is that dispensationalism and amillennialism are two different sorts of things: dispensationalism is a unified system of biblical interpretation, but amillennialism, strictly speaking, is nothing more than the reading of one chapter (Revelation 20) through the lens of inaugurated eschatology, i.e. as speaking of the present intra-adent era instead of a future, post-parousia era.

There are many different ways of approaching the subject of Israel within the broad spectrum of amillennialist viewpoints. Some are anti-Semitic, some are not. What you are identifying here is Augustinian amillennialism, which unfortunately has been the majority view throughout the history of the Church. This view takes a very dehistoricized, anti-creational and individualistic approach to Scripture in general, which makes functional anti-Semitism a more or less natural byproduct (although, as you rightly recognize, this doesn't mean that all individuals who hold this view are necessarily anti-Semitic).

But there are many other streams of amillennialist theology. There are more than a few amill readings of Revelation 20 out there, not to mention any other "hot button" passage of prophecy, and the espousal of one of these does not decide in advance how someone will read various other passages in the Old or New Testament (see the broad sample of views represented in The Millennial Maze by Stanley J. Grenz).

Personally, while the view I take does see a very dramatic change occurring in history through the death and resurrection of Jesus--which results in the expansion of the covenant-promises to include "grafted in" Gentiles right along side faithful Jews--this great change does not result in an individualistic paradigm for Israel but rather in a greatly enhanced corporate paradigm. The scope of the covenant has been enlarged to include others besides the "natural branches", because of what God has done by the faithfulness of Israel's Messiah, apart from the law. But we wouldn't be here without them. God's covenant with Abraham is the foundation of his plan for the whole cosmos (Rom 4:13). Thus my view rests squarely on a corporate, covenantal, and creational reading of Scripture, which (for me at least) leaves anti-Semitism on the other side of a very vast ideological chasm.

[Cyberseeker]

I will try to behave.

Good. Lets start by realising that hundreds of non-disp believers sympathise with the Jewish states difficult position with unreasonable demands being foisted on them by hostile neighbors and stupid western governments.

Having said that, there is only one gospel, one kingdom, one church and one 'God's people.' If we as Christians (Yashua believers or whatever) present any other gospel we become guilty of creating Jewish converts who will be vulnerable to a future temple deception.

[DurbanDude]

So there. Now you groups that can't stop biting at one another with thinly veiled bitterness and offense can redirect your barely hidden venom towards me. Fire away - I'm happy to absorb your attempts at masking your anger with light insults mingled with Christianese.

lol, I had a good laugh when I read this. Reminded me of my attempts to mask my anger. Hey at least its better than completely losing self-control.

I am pre-mill post-trib, but do not see the current Israel or Zionism as a God-inspired movement. It is a poor reflection compared to the true ingathering of Israel that will occur at the second coming. Every time Israel was in the promised land and yet the nation generally served other gods and did not repent, God sent an army to destroy them. The current Israel is in no better place, they are not "good Jews" as a generalisation (of course there are some who try and keep their religion correctly), and God has promised to send the northern army (Gog).

Despite this, I feel that there will be a Jewish openness to the gospel for the last 3.5 years before Jesus comes, their blindness will be lifted and many will get saved, especially at the last moments of that tribulation period. (A thought is that when they see this false Messiah in Jerusalem, they will start to question his right to the claim of Messiah, and Christians will have the answers they are looking for.)

[Adstars]

While the adherents to amillennial and dispensational viewpoints may not personally be anti-Semitic - and care deeply about the future of the Jewish race and God's plan for Israel, the ideologies expressed through both viewpoints are inherently anti-Semitic.

For the amillennial viewpoint (again, not the humans who hold to the view), the future of the individual Jew is of real concern - expressing the heart of Paul for the salvation of the Jews individually in Romans 9-11. This is admirable. The weakness of the viewpoint, however, is the redefinition of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants in a way that was not intended by the ratification of the New Covenant. Thus, while the concern for the individual is admirable and scriptural, the removal of God's corporate and covenantal plan represents a serious deficiency in the amillennial view. While not being "emotionally" or purposefully anti-Semitic, the amillennial viewpoint removes from the Jewish people God's stated and pre-ordained (and irrevocable) future from them and is therefore "anti" God's heart and plan for the Jewish people in the future.

For the dispensational viewpoint (again, not the humans who hold to the view), the future of Israel and God's promises are a real concern - expressing the heart of Paul for the salvation of the Jews corporately in Romans 9-11. This is admirable. The weakness of the viewpoint, however, is the faulty extra-biblical system of interpretation applied to the scriptures that ignores the real changes the New Covenant introduced into the Mosaic covenant in particular. This extra-biblical system places too much emphasis on the future causing a unbiblical sentiment about the nation and the politics of the Israeli state - overlooking the focus of God's present plan for Israel related to the Jewish remnant of believers Paul himself referenced (and counted himself a part of). Present, individual, Jewish salvation is irrelevant to the dispensational scheme and has produced extreme views that are anti-Semitic in nature (dual covenant theology being one end of the spectrum, non-evangelizing of Jews and an unbiblical focus on funding the present Israeli state to "bring her into her prophetic destiny" of Jacob's Trouble on the other end) is therefore "anti" God's heart and plan for the Jewish people in the present.

So there. Now you groups that can't stop biting at one another with thinly veiled bitterness and offense can redirect your barely hidden venom towards me. Fire away - I'm happy to absorb your attempts at masking your anger with light insults mingled with Christianese.

Well i am glad i am premillenial. But i want to reply to your last two lines:


"So there. Now you groups that can't stop biting at one another with thinly veiled bitterness and offense can redirect your barely hidden venom towards me. Fire away - I'm happy to absorb your attempts at masking your anger with light insults mingled with Christianese"

This is asking for contention. Why seek to set the scene for contention? Isn't there enough? People should not be provoking contention.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[Raybob]

lol, I had a good laugh when I read this. Reminded me of my attempts to mask my anger. Hey at least its better than completely losing self-control.

I am pre-mill post-trib, but do not see the current Israel or Zionism as a God-inspired movement. ...

DD, I've read many of your posts. Reading them, it looks to me like you are pre-mill, post-trib on belief of the rapture, but you are clearly post-mill in terms of the 2nd coming. All of the 2nd coming passages, you equate to as happening AFTER the millennium. I'm speaking of the many 2nd coming passages, such as John 5:28-29 and Matthew 25. That, IMO, makes you a Post-mill believer, not pre-mill.

[Fenris]

Actually, I wonder why EVEN a Jewish person would want all that OLD stuff reinstated! I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. (Not even on a witch of a mother-in-law!)

Why, what's so bad about it? Clue me in.

[the rookie]

I am not sure what you are telling me in terms of your application of Acts 3 here. So not going to guess but just throw my take out there.
Considering the audience was Jewish, and they had gone to the temple and the Jew first(v26)and were speaking to those who nationally had rejected Him, that seems to me to set the context. He continues on regarding the prophet like Moses, a prophet they would hear. Don't get me wrong, when you read further, he was using this teaching in Acts to hopefully get them to accept the truth about Jesus. Problem is, nationally, they did not hear. They were fully aware of what they wanted the Messiah to come and do and he is trying to convince them that the Messiah they awaited to do those things was indeed Jesus. But unfortunately they did not 'hear Him' and continued to not "hear Him". At least not nationally. So I think it is definitely an effort to preach the Gospel, but at the same time, in verse 21, speaking of the final restoration. I believe it speaks of God's, eventual, accomplishing of His purpose in regards to 'national' Israel. Though the goal of Peter was to convert the Jews he was talking to, which is what our goal should be and what we should be doing.

To me this(as relates to v21) would relate to Christ words
Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'BLESSED is HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!' "

Also considering Zechariah
Zechariah 12:10 "And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

God says "And I will pour", not just pour on this one and that one, which is what we have now, basically, those individuals who receive Christ; but "on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem. I would not apply this to Pentecost, the problem being, that would not follow the context here in Zechariah.

With Romans, I think I am reading the fulness a little differently, to me it speaks... that if the failure of Israel has resulted in such blessing to the world, how much more blessing will it bring when Israel returns in faith to her God through Christ Jesus. And I believe it is speaking to a future time, as Jesus later describes in regards to His Second Advent. Does this say every single Jewish person will be saved who is on the earth at that time, I dont know and would not read that into it. It just says to me that nationally, Israel will have the Spirit poured out and repent. Whatever that ends up fully meaning I do believe it speaks of Israel during the Millennial Kingdom.

However, IMHO..as I said in my first post, to believe that Israel will all be saved, neglect preaching the Gospel and just help them rush into the 'Day of the Lord' is not what we are commanded to be doing. God's business is bring about His purpose. My business is obedience...proclaim Jesus Christ, walk in the Spirit, living according to His righteousness.
His purpose with a national Israel is His purpose, not mans to bring about. In other words, God gave us information regarding His plans; that does not equate to Him telling us to go about trying to fulfill prophecy. Through out the Bible God gave prophecy and God fulfilled it. Man did not fulfill it. For example, God told Abraham His purpose regarding an heir(Isaac), which was prophecy to be fulfilled, and Abraham went about trying to fulfill it, didn't work.

This is really good stuff, QD.

There is a lot of things I see taught that make me cringe. Remember, I never called myself dispensationalist, it was a label slung at me like it only had four letters... Unfortunately there is hyper dispensationalism or also called ultra dispensationalism, same thing, I think. They break up which part of scripture is for who, believe two Gospels or Churches, something...some stuff that I very much disagree with. There are countless folks out there teaching countless things, which really happens within all camps.

I appreciate this post. Mattthehitmanhart makes the same point down the way. Of course, in the details, there are individual ideas and streams of thought that individuals reject - which is great. That's why folks need to dial down in here and discuss ideas with the individual and grow together, rather than talking past the person and arguing the systems of thought.

[the rookie]

Whether you are a simpleton or not I do not know, but I cannot see inside your back pocket. I'm new here and I don't know David Taylor nor have I searched the archives for discussion between the two of you. I would welcome the facts regarding allegations of anti-semitism among dispensationalists.

It's not blatant or intended. But the consequences and logical progression of the ideas from some dispensational camps are subtly anti-semitic in nature. But again, if they are not your ideas or concepts that you hold to, it isn't germane to the discussion to talk about it. It's better to talk about what you actually believe (and discuss the merits of what you adhere to) than to discuss what neither of us ultimately agree with from somewhere else. I laid out the basic framework s a starting point - but that's all it is, a starting point. We can hone in on what you believe and agree or disagree from there.

I suppose that it would be productive to define anti-semitism. There is an official position among Orthodox Rabbis that preaching the gospel to the Jews is anti-semitic, so by that definition, I suppose that all evangelical Christians are guilty.

The starting point of defining anti-Semitism for me is the heart and plan of God for the Jewish people and for Israel. I want to join the team of the most "pro-Semitic" Person on the planet and go from there. Agreement with Jesus is "pro-Israel"; disagreement with Him is "anti-Israel". The subject of Israel is personal to Him, and He is not dispassionate about it.

But I do not accept that definition, in that all men everywhere are in need of salvation. The Jew is not different in this respect than any other ethnic group. They are not more 'lost' and no more 'saved' than anyone else.

Amen!

It is more true that to fail to evangelize the Jews is anti-semitic.

Amen!

I understand that you cannot 'name names'. If the charge were that hypers and dual covenanters were anti-semitic then I would have to rethink your statements. Maybe they are, but I don't recall hypers being mentioned in the OP. They seem to be the radical fringe among dispensationalists.

Could be, for sure.

I am stating that Messianic Jewish congregations lead the way in evangelizing the Jews AND that they are almost 100% dispensational. This is contrary to your OP in one very significant point. (Everyone can jump on the boat about judaizing among the messianics if they want - but my fellowship does not judaize). I could provide support for the claim, but in fact it is your OP that needs validation.

Messianic congregations stateside or within the land of Israel? Most within Israel are not dispensational, as far as I am aware.

It seems relevant to the discussion that Augustine, Luther and Calvin led the way in developing amil theology, and that they were anti-semitic by anyones definition.

I do think that the seedbed of ideas has to be examined honestly, but not all want to go there.

I am not trying to be 'unhelpful'. I do no know what it means to be too 'pro-Zion'. I have been called much worse. I have already apologized to petepet for any seeming personal jabs. I don't even know him as a person. And I do not take his jabs toward me personally either. But I will try to behave.

I appreciate this! I noticed that on the other thread. I am thankful for your willingness to "go low".

[the rookie]

I totally appreciate the qualifications you make here in regards to individual amillennialists vs. the amillennial viewpoint, but I don't believe there is such a thing as the amillennial viewpoint.

And I appreciate your post. It was super helpful.

The problem with your assessment, if I may be so bold, is that dispensationalism and amillennialism are two different sorts of things: dispensationalism is a unified system of biblical interpretation, but amillennialism, strictly speaking, is nothing more than the reading of one chapter (Revelation 20) through the lens of inaugurated eschatology, i.e. as speaking of the present intra-adent era instead of a future, post-parousia era.

That was pretty bold. I think that you're being a bit too generous towards amillennialism, personally. Conclusions about one chapter inherently leads to conclusions about others, creating a system of biblical interpretation - or a lens by which scripture must be viewed. There are hermeneutical rules that accompany amillennialism, just as there are hermeneutical rules that accompany dispensationalism. Ultimately, just as I think you are being too kind to amillennialism, you are being too harsh towards dispensationalism. Is there anything legitimate dispensationalism can contribute to the discussion?

There are many different ways of approaching the subject of Israel within the broad spectrum of amillennialist viewpoints. Some are anti-Semitic, some are not. What you are identifying here is Augustinian amillennialism, which unfortunately has been the majority view throughout the history of the Church. This view takes a very dehistoricized, anti-creational and individualistic approach to Scripture in general, which makes functional anti-Semitism a more or less natural byproduct (although, as you rightly recognize, this doesn't mean that all individuals who hold this view are necessarily anti-Semitic).

But there are many other streams of amillennialist theology. There are more than a few amill readings of Revelation 20 out there, not to mention any other "hot button" passage of prophecy, and the espousal of one of these does not decide in advance how someone will read various other passages in the Old or New Testament (see the broad sample of views represented in The Millennial Maze by Stanley J. Grenz).

Personally, while the view I take does see a very dramatic change occurring in history through the death and resurrection of Jesus--which results in the expansion of the covenant-promises to include "grafted in" Gentiles right along side faithful Jews--this great change does not result in an individualistic paradigm for Israel but rather in a greatly enhanced corporate paradigm. The scope of the covenant has been enlarged to include others besides the "natural branches", because of what God has done by the faithfulness of Israel's Messiah, apart from the law. But we wouldn't be here without them. God's covenant with Abraham is the foundation of his plan for the whole cosmos (Rom 4:13). Thus my view rests squarely on a corporate, covenantal, and creational reading of Scripture, which (for me at least) leaves anti-Semitism on the other side of a very vast ideological chasm.

I appreciate your points here.

[the rookie]

"So there. Now you groups that can't stop biting at one another with thinly veiled bitterness and offense can redirect your barely hidden venom towards me. Fire away - I'm happy to absorb your attempts at masking your anger with light insults mingled with Christianese"

This is asking for contention. Why seek to set the scene for contention? Isn't there enough? People should not be provoking contention.

I don't think that is what I was doing at all. In fact, as someone above noted (because they were involved in the discussions I am referencing), I am actually looking to do the opposite. Instead of asking me "why I am doing" something, I'd try first asking, "are you doing" whatever it is you think I'm doing. Drawing a conclusion about my methods and motives - and then asking me to answer to your conclusions - is an unhelpful way to start a dialogue.