JEWS IN THE CROSSFIRE: ISRAEL AND THE CURRENT ESCHATOLOGICAL DEBATE

Alexander Bolotnikov
NAD, Shalom Learning Center

ABSTRACT: The United States’ recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has heightened the level of
discussion regarding Israel’s eschatological significance. For adherents to the futuristic interpretation of
apocalyptic prophecies, this declaration serves as tangible evidence of yet another step toward the
fulfillment of their end-time scenario. For the past seventy years eschatological debate between futurists
and historicists has escalated. Historicism, which emerged during the Reformation, has been
overshadowed by futurism, which is prevalent among Western Evangelical Christians. While the
majority of Evangelicals consistently voice their unequivocal support for the State of Israel, historicists
have not formulated a unanimous view on the role of Israel and the Jewish people in the modern age.
Such an absence of any coherent position on the subject results in multiple extreme positions, which
hurt not only the image of historicism but also its mission. It has become apparent that in our present
historical reality, Adventists will continue to face issues relating to the state of Israel. This research
analyzes the development of opposing views on the state of Israel among historicists and futurists in
light of the Three Angels’ Message, which represents the active core of historicist prophetic
interpretation.
_______________________

Introduction

Last December’s declaration of the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel
by United States’ president Donald Trump heightened the level of discussion regarding the
eschatological significance of Israel. At a time when America is involved in a prolonged conflict with
radical Islam calling for jihad against the US for its support of the State of Israel, such a declaration will
surely have lasting political consequences. However, for the adherents of the futuristic interpretation of
apocalyptic prophecies, this so called “war on terror’ combined with the recent declaration by the US
president, serves as tangible evidence of yet another step towards the fulfilment of their end time
scenario.
For the past 70 years, since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, the 200-year
eschatological debate between dispensationalists and historicists has escalated. Historicism, which
emerged at the time of the Reformation, has been significantly overshadowed by futurism which became

1
popular among early 19th century Protestants and is prevalent among Western Evangelical Christians.
During the past half century, especially after the Israeli victory of the 1967 Six-Day War which resulted
in the full recovery of Jerusalem by the State of Israel, the majority of Evangelicals have consistently
voiced their unequivocal support for the budding nation state. Conversely, among Historicists, who do
not consider modern Israel to be the focus of apocalyptic events, there is no unanimous view on the role
of Israel and the Jewish people in the modern age. Such an absence of any coherent position on the
subject has resulted in multiple extreme positions within Historicism which hurts not only its image
from a theological perspective but also its mission. Practically speaking, the Jewish people have once
again become embroiled as pawns in the crossfire of a Christian eschatological debate and international
political policy not seen since the time of the Crusades.
This paper will primarily investigate the problem of the modern State of Israel from a
missiological perspective. Today, Seventh-day Adventists are the largest Christian denomination
remaining in the ‘historicist’ camp that is practically capable of spreading the everlasting Gospel to all
“nations, kindred, and tongues”. It has become apparent that, in our present historical reality, Adventists
will continue to face eschatological and missiological issues relating to the State of Israel, the Arab -
Israeli conflict, and the ‘War on Terror’ as is relates to Jewish and Muslim outreach and Christian Zionist
theology. Consequently, this research will analyze the development of the opposing views on the State of
Israel between Historicists and Futurists in the light of the historicist prophetic interpretation of the
‘Three Angels’ Messages and offer suggestions for developing a coherent theology and eschatology of
Israel in a post 1948 world.

Statement of the Problem

The forward to William Shea’s 1982 book Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation contains
the following statement:
The real distinctive frame which holds together the picture of biblical truth as taught by
Seventh-day Adventists is their understanding of the prophecies of Daniel and
Revelation. In these prophecies the Adventist people have found their times, their
identity, and their task. Seventh-day Adventists arrived at their interpretation of the
Bible prophesies by employing the principles of the historical ‘school’ of prophetic
interpretation. The historicist view sees the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation
unfolding in historical time from the days of these respective prophets until the
establishment of God’s eternal kingdom. 1

1 William Shea, Selected Studies in Prophetic Interpretation (General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists: Silver

Springs, MD., 1982), p. v.

2
 An alternative view, which has become deeply rooted among American protestants, interprets
the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation in terms of its dispensationalist premise of two different divine
programs: one for Israel and one for the church. 2 Dispensationalists arrive at their conclusions by
applying the futurist approach, 3 which deprives almost two thousand years of post-New Testament
history of any prophetic significance by placing the bulk of apocalyptic prophecies at the end of the age
for their fulfillment. 4
Although both the followers of the historicist approach and the followers of the futurist
approach belong to the premillennialist 5 camp, true historicists 6 do not fit into the premillennialists’
theological mold 7 because the historicists’ position is in disagreement with pre-tribulation
premillennialists also known as classic dispensationalists. While there are many differences, the three
major points are of interest to this research are: a special role for Israel, which is different from the
Church’s in the time of the end; the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem; and the secret rapture of the
church before the Antichrist establishes himself in Israel.
While dispensationalists believe that the appearance of the Antichrist is yet future, historicists
continue to adhere to the original Reformation view that the Antichrist is the matter of the past. While
the prospect of the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem presents one of the most popular aspirations
among Evangelical dispensationalists, Seventh-day Adventists who represent the historicists’ camp
believe in the Heavenly Temple, and in the High Priestly ministry of Christ in Heaven, which makes the
new earthly Temple unnecessary. While dispensationalists believe in two different ways of salvation for
Jews and for the Church, Seventh-day Adventists affirm the Sabbath and Divine Law as the will of God
for both Jews and Gentiles. While pre-tribulationists expect the secret rapture, Adventists hope in the

2 Sf. George Eldon Ladd A Theology of the New Testament (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI., 2003), p. 673.
3 In the context of the methods or schools of prophetic interpretations the terms ‘dispensationalism’ and ‘futurism’ can
be used interchangeably. See J. B. Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy (New York, 19730, PP. 384-5.
4 Shea, ibid.
5 For detailed discussion on the spectrum modern eschatological views see Craig A. Blaising, Kenneth L. Gentry, Robert.

B Strimple Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI.,1999).
6 As stated by Shea, “Today Seventh-day Adventists stand virtually alone as exponents of the historical principles of

prophetic interpretation”. The book Four Views on the Book of Revelation, published by Zondervan in 1998, which is a part of the
Counterpoints series edited by Stanley Gundry and C. Marvin Pate, lists a preterist, an idealist, a progressive dispensationalist
and a classical dispensationalist views. The position of historicists was not included in the debate.
7 Premillennialists are subdivided into three groups: pre-tribulation view point, mid-tribulation view and historic

premillennialism. For details see Greig A. Blaising Premillennialism in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, Stanley Gundry
and C. Marvin Pate , eds., (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI.,1999). Even though the terms such as ‘tribulation’ and ‘rapture’ are not
even used in the Adventist theological language, Seventh-day Adventists share with historic premillennialists the position
regarding the Second Coming that occurs after so called tribulation, historic premillennialists believe that literal thousand years
will be spent with Jesus on earth. Cf. George E. Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1972); John Piper "Definitions and Observations Concerning the Second Coming of Christ". DesiringGod.org., 1987-08-30.
Retrieved 2018-04-25.

3
resurrection of dead in Christ who, together with those who are alive, will spend a literal 1000 years
with Him in Heaven after the Second coming.
John Nelson Darby (1800 – 1882) of the Plymouth Brethren together with Edward Irving (1792-
1834) 8, James Henthorn Todd 9 (1805 – 1869) and others are considered to be the key figures who
influenced the spread of dispensationalism among 19th century American Protestants, whereas one of
the leading historicists of the first half of the 19th century was William Miller10 (1782-1849). Therefore,
Miller11 and the proponents of the doctrine of the rapture were both active 12 in the same period of time
developing a rivalry 13 between the Adventist Millerites and Dispensationalist Futurists. The Great
Disappointment of October 22, 1844 was a painful testing moment for the historicists who received
much scorn 14 including that from their dispensationalist rivals. Since that time, the Great
Disappointment continues to be used by many adherents of the futurist interpretation as an argument
against historicism. 15 For this reason, any teaching which can be associated with a futurist approach to
the interpretation of last days events is often viewed as an existential threat to Adventism and its
teaching.
At the same time, Jews of the 19th century were absolutely unaware of these eschatological
skirmishes within Protestantism as the Jewish population of America in the early 1800s was very
insignificant. After the partition of Great Poland in 1795, the majority of Ashkenazi Jews ended up living
in the territory of the Russian Empire where they suffered segregation and religious persecution.
Meanwhile, Ashkenazi Jews of Western Europe enjoyed emancipation, which was the result of the Age of

8 Irving was also prominent among the circle of prophetic students (mostly radical evangelicals) that met annually

from 1826 to 1830 at Albury Park near Guildford, the home of Henry Drummond. As well as affirming Irving’s views, they
concluded that the Christian dispensation would end in the same way that the Jewish dispensation had ended, with the
destruction of the visible people of God. Their views on prophecy and other subjects found trenchant expression each quarter in
The Morning Watch (1829–1833). T. G. Grass, “Irving, Edward,” ed. Timothy Larsen et al., Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals
(Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 327.
9 Todd took priest's orders in 1832. He was Donnellan Lecturer in 1838 and 1839, publishing works related to the

Antichrist in which he opposed the views of the more extreme of his co-religionists who applied this term to the Roman
Catholicism and the Pope. Sf. Denison, E. B Six Letters on Dr. Todd's Discourses on the Prophecies Relating to Antichrist in the
Apocalypse, (London , William Edward Painter: 1848).
10 George R. Knight Millennial Fever and the End of the World (Pacific Press Publishing Association: 1993), pp. 15-25.

Besides Miller a number of American Protestant preachers attempted to use historicist approach in their understanding of the
end time and the second coming, but their understanding of time prophecies was inconsistent. Sf Richard W. Schwarz, Floyd
Greenleaf Light Bearers: A History of Seventh-day Adventist Church (Pacific Press Publishing Association: 1995), 23-29.
11 Sf. David L. Rowe God's Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World (Eerdmans: 2008), pp. 102ff.
12 Darby N. Dickson, “Darby, John Nelson,” ed. Timothy Larsen et al., Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals (Leicester,

England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 180. While in the early years of his ministry Darby was in Europe and did
not arrive in America until 1872, of Plymouth Brethren in America was fairly broad Sf. E.R. Sandeen The Roots of
Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800-1930 (University of Chicago Press: 1970).
13 In 1830 Darby wrote his argumentation objecting the application of the Year-Day principle in the apocalyptic

literature called “On "Days" signifying "Years" in prophetic language”. Based on the highly polemical style of the publication, it is
plausible to infer that Darby answering questions of those who fell under the influence of historicists J. N. Darby Collected
Writings, Volume 2, stempublishing.com/authors/darby/PROPHET/02002E.html, retrieved on 2018-04-20.
14 Knight, 217ff.
15 The most prominent critic of Adventism was dispensationalist Anthony Hoekama, Professor of Systematic Theology

at Calvin Theological Seminary. His book presents sharp criticism of Adventist teaching including the eschatology, see Anthony A.
Hoekama, The Four Major Cults: Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Seventh-day Adventism (Eerdmans: 1995), pp
135-158.

4
Enlightenment and was fully implemented after the Napoleonic Wars. Because of this emancipation,
throughout the 19th century a number of Jews accepted Jesus with the help of emerging Jewish Mission
agencies and became Christians. Some of them like Joseph Wolf became known for their preaching of the
soon Second coming. However, it is not clear whether any of them professed either historicism or
futurism.
It appears that, especially in the first half of the 19th century, American Protestants had very
little contact with real Jews and their understanding of the post-Biblical Jewish community was very
poor. Engulfed by “millennial fever” historicists had no time for Jews, 16 whereas dispensationalists in
their “secret rapture fever” saw Jews as mere patsies 17, who needed to come to their Promised Land
only to initiate the secret rapture of the Church. As a result, both sides of the Protestant Eschatological
debate conveyed an attitude toward Jews that was detrimental. As will be investigated in the following
chapters, the clash between historicists and futurists in the 20th century forward, in the context of the
Great Disappointment, set the stage for two diametrically opposed attitudes towards the State of Israel
which are harmful to Jews.

Futurism: From Anti-Judaism to Christian Zionism.

The first notions of the futuristic interpretation of apocalyptic prophecies can be traced to the
patristic literature. For example, Hippolytus of Rome (ca. 170-235) interpreting the symbolism of the
little horn of Daniel 7 wrote that this horn represents the Antichrist who will come and restore the
Judean kingdom in the last days before the Second Coming. 18 Earlier in his letter Hippolytus argued that
the Antichrist must come from the tribe of Dan. Such anti-Jewish sentiments were typical of the
intellectual leadership of late 2nd– 3rd century Christianity which received an influx of graduates of
philosophical schools who converted to Christianity. The anti-Judaism that accompanied these new
leaders permeated the rhetoric of many pre-Nicean Church Fathers on almost every theological subject.
While the attitude of Augustine towards Jews was not as unfavorable as the one held by Hippolytus,
these ideas, used later by dispensationalists, can be traced to his writings 19.

16 A story of Clorinda. S Minor an American woman from Philadelphia who became influenced by William Miller
prominent example of such an attitude. She first traveled to Palestine in May 1849 and came to support the
experimental farm in order to help Religious Jewish Community in Palestine. Her desire to saw the seeds of the Gospel among
Jews of Palestine was not supported by her Millerites brethren in America, mainly due to the challenges they faced after the Great
Disappointment. Sf. Barbara Kreiger Divine Expectations. An American Woman in 19th-Century Palestine, (Ohio University Press:
1999).
17 This term belongs to Rabbi Michael J. Cook, who teaches New Testament at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. His

evaluation of Christian millennialism eschatology can be found in his book Modern Jews Engage the New Testament: Enhancing
Jewish Well-Being in a Christian Environment.
18 Hippolytus of Rome, About Christ and the Antichrist §§ 25-6.
19 For details see Paula Fredriksen Augustine and the Jews (Yale University Press: 2008).

5
 While in the works of the Church Fathers futuristic ideas appear to be vague, Jesuit theologian
Francisco Ribera in his 1585 In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij
spells out the concept of an Antichrist who would come to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. According to
Leroy Froom, Ribera’s work played very well into the hands of the counter-Reformers who wished to
divert attention from the Pope, whom many Reformers saw as the Antichrist. 20 For Ribera, Jews function
as patsies who, at the end of time, will restore the Judean kingdom, rebuild the Temple and receive the
Antichrist into their open arms in order to fulfill the 2 Thess. 2:3-4 (emphasis mine) “…the man of sin is
revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is
worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (NKJV).
Futuristic concepts proposed by Ribera were adapted by 17th century Puritans who began to
develop the concept of the rapture. Thus, by the beginning of 19th century, English Protestant
theologians such as James Todd and Samuel Maitland began to preach the idea of a one-man Antichrist,
which was in stark contrast to the teaching of the early Reformers summarized in the Westminster
Confession of Faith. Such a position strongly collided with the one held by historicists, who following in
the footsteps of the Reformers, believed that the Antichrist was Papal Rome and interpreted the
imprisonment of Pope Pius VI by Napoleonic General Louis-Alexandre Berthier as the historic fulfillment
of the end of the 1260 symbolic day prophecy.
Nineteenth century dispensationalists did not accept the heavenly sanctuary as the principle
object of the fulfillment of the 2300-day prophecy of Daniel 8:14. Offering no alternative explanation of
their own, 21 dispensationalists completely rejected the historic approach of the interpretation of
apocalyptic prophecies and focused their attention on the future restoration of Israel. By the beginning
of 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible (which heavily promoted dispensationalism and futurism)
replaced the traditional Protestant Geneva Bible which had been in the libraries of English-speaking
Protestants since 1560. As a consequence, the emergence of the Zionist movement in the late 20th
century on the heels of the immigration of Jews to Ottoman-controlled Palestine (which after World War
I became a British protectorate) was considered by futurist to be the beginning of the fulfilment of their
end time expectations.
These events provided a significant boost to Christian Restorationism—a belief that the Bible
prophesies the return of the Jews to the Holy Land. The ideas of Restorationism emerged first among the
17th century English 22 Puritans and Nonconformists via whom it came to the US. According to Donald

20 Leroy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation,

(Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1948), Vol. 2, pp. 486–493, Vol. 3, pp. 533, 655, 731, Vol. 4, 1195, 1196, 1204.
21 Scofield Reference Bible, which popularized dispensationalist ideas does not have any specific comment on Daniel

8:14, stating that the text is hard to explain. Later in the 20th century many dispensationalist theologians, who by definition are
the futurists, accepted preterist interpretation of Dan. 8:14
22 In 1762 Charles Wesley wrote a hymn:

O that the chose band

6
Lewis, most of the early 19th century British Restorationists were Postmillennialists. However, by the
end of 19th century, many of them came under Dispensationalist influence especially after the Niagara
Bible Conferences of 1876 to 1884. Dispensationalism provided a strong apocalyptic vector to the
Restorationists making the support of the restoration of the, so called, Millennial Temple 23 a primary
eschatological focus. Successful creation of the State of Israel in 1948 with the subsequent victory of the
Six-Day War that resulted in Israeli troops taking control over the Temple mount gave additional
reassurance to the eschatological expectations for many Dispensationalists as well as for the
Restorationists, who began to call themselves Christian Zionists.
In the last several decades, a number of Christian Zionists have departed from classical Darbian
Dispensationalism 24 obscuring its eschatological teaching but rather focusing on the political and
spiritual support of Israel. Such a shift could not have happened without the impact which the aftermath
of the Holocaust 25 had on the whole of Christianity. Seeing its horrific evil, committed partially under the
excuse of Christian pretense, many Christian denominations, preachers, and theologians felt compelled
to reexamine their long held traditional views about the Jewish people.
While the American Premillennialists of 18th century, being strongly influenced by early
Protestant supersessionism, saw the ‘People of Israel’ through the theoretical lens of the King James
Bible, 26 19th century Restorationists could see real Jewish people, running away from Tsarist Russia,
seeking refuge from pogroms inflicted upon them by an anti-Semitism partially inspired by strong
Russian Orthodox anti-Jewish theology. While 19th century dispensationalists had no problem in
presenting the Antichrist as deceiving the Jews after building their temple, many modern Evangelicals,
seeing the gas chambers of Treblinka and Sobibor, to their credit, were much more careful to avoid
statements which turned the Jews into the Antichrist’s patsies. While traditional early 20th century
futurists had no problem in presenting Israel returning to their land and suffering from tribulation after
the secret rapture of the church, modern Christian Zionists, seeing Jewish concentration camp survivors
coming back at the end of the WWII to their home towns retraumatized, murdered and chased away by

Might now their brethren bring

And gather’d out of every land
Present to Sion’s King
Of all the ancient race
Not one be left behind
But each impell’d by secret grace
His way to Canaan find!
John Wesley included this hymn in A Collection of Hymns for the use of the People Called Methodists published in 1780.
23 Mal Couch, ed., Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (Kregel Publications:1996), 378-80.
24 McDermott “The History of Christian Zionism”, in The New Christian Zionism: Fresh Perspectives on Israel & the Land,

(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press: 2016).

25 Laurence Turner “Reading the Bible After the Holocaust” in Comfort, Comfort My People: Towards a Growing

Adventist-Jewish Friendship, ed. R. Elofer. (Andrews University Mission Studies 6. Silver Spring, MD: Office of Adventist Mission,
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2009). See also Jacques Doukhan, ed In Thinking in the Shadow of Hell: The Impact
of the Holocaust on Theology and Jewish-Christian Relations (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2002).
26 Many Protestant settlers viewed America as the ‘Promised Land’. For this reason, large number of towns throughout

the Midwest and the South were given names of the places from Israel.

7
their neighbors and fellow countrymen 27, to their credit, proclaimed support for the State of Israel
without expressing any eschatologically driven ulterior motives. While, by definition, all
Dispensationalists were traditionally Sunday observant antinomists, a growing number of Evangelical
Christian Zionists, under the influence of their own message of support of Israel and Jewish people in the
recent decades, began to change their attitude toward the Old Testament, the Law and the Sabbath.
Some of Evangelical congregations even became Sabbath observant. As a result, this
eschatological focus on Israel, combined with the change of attitude towards Jews after the Holocaust,
produced two unintended consequences. Firstly, it broke down the long-held prejudice against Sabbath-
keeping among some evangelicals. Consequently, those evangelical non-Jews who began to believe in the
blessings they receive from the ‘Jewish’ 28 Sabbath now questioned the traditional dispensationalist
Israel-Church duplicity. From a missiological standpoint this can be seen as an opening of the door for
productive dialogue between Seventh-day Adventists and modern Christian Zionists based on a newly
discovered common ground. By rejecting traditional dispensationalism, Christian Zionists have not
found any suitable replacement for their eschatological views which would be consistent with the
postulation of the traditional futuristic picture of apocalyptic prophecies.
On the other hand, is spite of some positive impact that modern Christian Zionism presents to
Jewish people by supporting Israel, 29 Christian Zionist hermeneutics have a number of serious flaws and
inconsistencies.

The Millennial Temple

While modern Christian Zionists do not proclaim the advent of the Antichrist to the temple
rebuilt by Jews in Jerusalem, in their majority, they are strong proponents of the rebuilding of the
Temple 30 and many of them support the Temple Foundation/Institute in Jerusalem. The prospect of the
restoration of the Temple remains extremely popular among Evangelical preachers and laity in spite of
the fact that an absolute majority of modern commentators do not support these ideas. 31

27 According to multiple historical and eye witness accounts, many Jews, who returned to their towns from the

concentration camps were found their homes occupied with local government unable to protect them from pogroms instigated
by their own neighbors. Sf. David Engel “Patterns of Anti-Jewish Violence in Poland, 1944-46” Yad Vashem Studies Vol XXVI
(Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 1998).
28 Quite a number of Evangelicals, Protestants and Messianic Jews are opposed to the Christians’ engagement in the

sphere of the commandments. In 2014 Messianic Jewish Alliance of America published position paper One Law, Two Sticks: A
Critical Look at the Hebrew Roots Movement, (http://media.cloversites.com/8a/8a6bd14a-1a05-4f26-8dc1-
b355631ec972/documents/One_Law_Two_Sticks.pdf), where it affirms a traditionally held view based on misinterpretation of
Acts 15 which postulates two different sets of Divine requirements for Jews and for Gentiles.
29 In spite of the strong influence of Ultra-Orthodox religious political parties, who are usually negative to Evangelicals

because of their proselytism, the government of Israel values support offered by American Christian Zionists.
30 Most evangelical proponents of the restoration of the Temple argue their case based on the vision found in Ezekiel

40-48. Their main theses is that since this prophecy was not yet fulfilled, God had to bring this to fulfillment.
31 For example, Daniel Block in his commentary on Ezekiel argues that any expectation of literal fulfillment of Ezekiel

40-48 prophecy does not make any scriptural of logical sense. Daniel Block, Ezekiel…… While block does not present himself as
dispensationalist or futurist, other commentators who are presenting dispensationalist view of the book of Ezekiel, when they

8
 From the perspective of Christianity, rebuilding the Temple and reinstituting sacrificial services
is contrary to the core of Christian belief in Jesus as the ultimate lamb of God and the ultimate Heavenly
High Priest.
On the other hand, the proponents of the rebuilding of the Temple misunderstand or
misrepresent Jewish position on this subject. First of all, the majority of Jews today including the
majority of Israelis are not interested in this project. Israel today does not consider itself to be a
theocratic state. While Judaism is the religion of the Jewish state, the neither political party secular or
religious have the prospect of rebuilding the Temple in their party program. The majority of the
religious Jews in the world belong to Reform or Conservative branches of Judaism and oppose any plans
to rebuilding the Temple on the grounds that it will cause war and bloodshed, which they do not desire.
Secondly, those Orthodox Jews who believe in rebuilding of the Temple expect the Messiah to
come first 32 before they even begin to any rebuilding. Even those religious Jews who belong to the
religious Zionist camp who are supported by Christian Zionists are not making any attempt to rebuild
the Temple on their own. While the notion of the Antichrist posing as the Messiah deceiving Jews was
expressed in Patristic Literature by Cyril of Jerusalem and supported by classic dispensationalists,
Christian Zionists do not support it.

The Idealization of the State of Israel

Many Christian Zionists idealize the state of Israel by trying to see it as a fulfillment of the
prophecies of Ezekiel 36-39. These chapters served as the Scriptural foundation for the Postmillennial
early Restorationist view. Then new Davidic kingdom described in chapter 37 was interpreted as the
Millennium in which the Jews would enjoy the kingdom with their Messiah, David. This position
definitely conflicts with Premillennialism as adopted by Christian Zionists since the 20th century.
Such an interpretation has two faulty premises. Firstly, it is assumed that the destruction of the
Second Temple has happened for the same reason as the destruction of the First Temple, which was
idolatry and lawlessness, as stated in Ezek 36:17-17. Such an assumption is incorrect because no
problem of idolatry or lawlessness was in existence after the return from exile. Jews had issues, for
which they were widely criticized by Jesus, but these were not the same issues as described by Ezekiel.
The only prophecy which predicts the destruction of the Second Temple is found in Dan. 9:26 and does
not state a punishment for any idolatry or ‘defilement of the land’ as the reason for its destruction. The
destructions of the first and Second Temple are two separate and different historic events, which have to

comment on the vision of chapter 40-48, also avoid any statement or affirmation of the prospective of literal restoration of the
Temple.
32 This view were formulated in the letter written by Moses Maimonides to the Jewish community in Yemen in 12th

century. ….

9
be understood individually. Therefore, any prophecy which predicts the restoration of Israel after the 6th
century BCE exile cannot be automatically extrapolated to the post Second Temple historic reality.
Secondly, the description of the Davidic kingdom in Ezekiel, does not fit the present situation in
Israel. While a detailed treatment of all prophecies concerning Israel goes beyond the scope of this
paper, it is absolutely clear at this point in history that the State of Israel as a western style democracy
does not express any desire to become any sort of monarchy or theocracy, as described in the
prophecies of Ezekiel or Jeremiah.
Also, at this point in history, Orthodox Judaism is the only acceptable form of religion for the
Jews in Israel. Other forms of Judaism such as Reform or Conservative as well as Christianity are not
encouraged. Any Jew who accepts Jesus as the Messiah is barred from repatriation to Israel. Under such
circumstances it is difficult to imagine that a state such as this would become home for David the King as
described in chapter 37 vs. 24.

The Land of Israel is the sacred covenantal promise of God to Abraham’s descendants
This argument is favored by those Christian Zionists who adhere to Postmillennial Covenant
theology. Its essence is that the Land is sacred and must belong to the sons of Jacob. The argument is
built on the false premise that what was applicable to the historical reality of the 2nd millennium BCE
when twelve tribes of Israel populated the Land of Canaan, is applicable today. Application of these
prophecies to the current historical situation can lead to two extreme positions.
First, the prophecies clearly mention tribes who, according to 2 Kings 17 were taken into
Assyrian captivity for their idolatrous practices after the fall of Samaria. The search for these ‘lost tribes’
in order to fulfill the covenant promises is a part of the agenda of many fringe movements.
Second, while Israel declares itself as a Jewish state, in reality it is a very multiethnic state with
extremely complex demographic, ethnic, and religious situations. When certain Evangelical preachers
and populist writers supporting Israel make highly emotional claims 33 that all the land promised in the
Old Testament to Jacob’s sons must be given to the Jewish people today and nobody else has right to live
there, they are inadvertently making calls for war. This is definitely unethical and contrary to Gospel
principles, especially in the sense that it will be Jewish mothers who will be sending their sons to die in
this war.

The Return of all Jews to the Promised Land

This thesis is based on the misapplication of the prophecies of Isaiah 43:1-6, Jeremiah 23:1-8,
29:1-14 and Ezekiel 36:16-26 which definitely apply to the exile after the destruction of the First

33 To be added later

10
Temple. The double application of these prophecies is not possible for the reasons described above. It is
clear that a closer look at the present historic reality will reveal that the current situation cannot
constitute the fulfillment of any above-mentioned prophecy. Having taken the phrase ‘north country’ out
of its context, 34 many popular preachers of the 80’s and 90’s pointed to the USSR as the origin of the
exodus to Israel.
However, while out of 3.5 million Jews who were registered in the USSR as of 1984, 1.5 million
repatriated to Israel. More than a million Jews immigrated to the US and Germany. A similar situation
existed in the late 19th century when English Christian Zionist organizations supported the Jews of
Russia to go to Ottoman-controlled Palestine in order to escape the pogroms. While almost 100,000 35
Russian Jews went, more than 2 million left for the United States. 36 While modern Christian Zionist
populist preachers attempt to apply Jeremiah 16:15-16 to the current situation with anti-Semitism in
France, where a large number French Jews are repatriating to Israel, a large number of Israelis are also
immigrating to Canada.
According to Isa 49:17-20, God wanted to gather all Jews to the Promised Land so that they
would be given a second chance to enjoy the blessings of the covenant but, they all had to return from
Babylon. As clearly stated in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, 37 this did not happen.
All these problematic arguments used by Christian Zionists, which on the surface appear to be
favorable to Jews, have one major Missiological problem. They elevate the significance of the State of
Israel over salvation in Jesus to the point that some Postmillennialists assert that Jews do not even need
to hear about Jesus because they will have a full chance to be saved after they are gathered in their land.
Such a utopia is definitely harmful from a missiological perspective. Nevertheless, in spite of the flaws
in Christian Zionist argumentation, we can see that the opposite argument, where all prophecies were
given to Israel on condition of obedience, is also detrimental for the Jews and Jewish missions. Such an
argument can lead to extreme anti-Judaism and even anti-Semitism, which will be discussed in the next
section.

34According to Jeremiah 6:22 north country definitely meant to denote Babylon.

35To be inserted
36 To be inserted
37 The story in the book of Esther is describing Jews living throughout the Mido-Persian empire at the time of Xerxes 40

years after the decree of Cyrus predicted in Isaiah 44-45. According to the records in the book of Ezra and Nehemiah, all Jews did
not return from Babylon. We also do not have any record of Jews returning from Egypt where they left after the murder of
Gedaliah described in the book of Jeremiah 40-43.

11
 Historicism and Anti-Zionism.

Due to the nature of Historicist approach to the apocalyptic literature is it hard to trace its roots
in Patristic literature. For example, Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 313-386) 38 analyzing the book of Daniel
chapter 7 stated that before the coming of our Lord, the Antichrist, portrayed there by the little horn,
will come immediately after the fall of Roman Empire 39. On the other hand, Cyril believed that this
Antichrist will rule for three and a half years and will deceive Jews presenting himself as Christ to
them 40. While, living a century before the event, based on the book of Daniel Cyril could see the fall of
Roman Empire, he failed to recognize a symbolic meaning of the prophetic time periods.
Unlike the Early Church Fathers, Jewish thinkers of the early Middle Ages Saadia 41 and
Maimonides 42 saw prophetic dates in the book of Daniel as symbolic and used year-day principle in their
interpretation of Dan. 7. Even though their calculations of the historic period was off, both Saadia and
Maimonides independently from recognized that the little horn represents system of Christianity not a
single person.
Definitely, historicism in its true sense is traced back to the early reformation 43. In the case of
Martin Luther his catholic opponents were calling him an Antichrist, which led him into the study of the
subject of Antichrist in the Bible.
In his later years, as the Moslem threat to Western Christendom loomed especially
ominous, Luther included Islam in his Antichrist concept. He was led to this by his
interpretation of the 'little horn' in Daniel 7 as the Mohammedan power. . . Not
retreating from his original positions that the 'little horn' in Daniel 7 represented Islam
and the 'little horn' in Daniel 8, as well as the Antichrist in John's and Paul's writings,
represented the papacy, Luther could bring about a reconciliation -of these positions
only by making the Turk some sort of a co-Antichrist with the pope….This, however, was
an interlude which did not make Luther waver from his contention that the Antichrist of
biblical prophecy was the papal system in the church, a position which he maintained
without interruption from 1519 to 1545. 44

According to the research made by Reimar Vetne Wycliff also believed that “the corruption of
the papacy was the event predicted in the prophecies of the antichrist, the little horn of Daniel 7, and the
harlot woman of Revelation 17. The four kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7 were Babylon, Medo- Persia,

38 Michael Walsh, ed., Butler’s Lives of the Saints (Harper Collins Publishers: NY, 1991), 83.
39 Святитель Кирилл, Архиепископ Иерусалимский, Поучения огласительные и тайноводственные, (Москва:
Синодальная библиотека Московского Патриархата, 1991 (Репринтное воспроизведение издания 1822))б 1–340.
40 A similar presentation of Antichrist can be found in the works of John Chrysostom. Книга об Антихристе ……………….
41 Saadia Gaon The Book of Beliefs and Opinions (Yale University Press, 1989)…
42 Moses Maimonides, Shlomo Pines, translator, The Guide to Perplexed (University Of Chicago Press, 1974), v.2……
43 Sf Froom, 1:21; 2:252–277.
44 Leif Kr. Tobiassen, An Investigation Into the Evolution of Martin Luther's Views Concerning Antichrist (M.A. thesis,

S.D.A. Theological Seminary, 1948), pp. 78-81.

12
Greece, and Rome.” 45 Therefore as Vetne concludes in his article, “historicist approach to prophecy
remained the common and accepted approach among Protestants for the next three hundred years, to
such a degree that scholars sometimes define historicism simply as the approach to prophecy of
Protestants up until the mid-19th century.” 46
The emergence of the political Zionist movement in Europe at the end of the XIX century plays a
strong hand to dispensationalists in their debate against historicists which was taking place since the
rise of the Millerite movement 47. After the Crimean war in the mid-1800th as a result of anti-Semitic
policy of the Russian emperor Nicolas I, almost 25, 000 Jews moved to Ottoman Palestine. Such events
had negative effect on the image of historicism and especially on Sabbatarian Adventists in the eyes of
American Protestants. Not only did followers of William Miller fail to deliver on their message of the
coming of Christ in 1844 calculated based on the historicist principle applied to the interpretation of
Dan. 8:14, but the message preached by their rivals appears to be turning into reality. Instead of the
fulfillment of the prophetic date on the historical time chart, Jews are beginning to populate their
Promised Land thus fulfilling the eschatological timeline of dispensationalists! The subsequent
declaration bade by Lord Balfour on behalf of British government and rise of Jewish immigration to
Palestine which resulted in the declaration of the State of Israel made the matter even worse.
Unfortunately, some adherents to the historical method especially among the lay preachers 48
responded to these events by delivering a strong anti-Zionist message 49 based on the punitive 50
supersessionist theological arguments. According to Vlach, this form of supersationism is based on the
premise that Jews has lost its chosen status because they are punished by God for rejecting Christ. Some
proponents of such punitive model view Zionist movement the State of Israel as a conspiracy51 designed
to destruct the attention of people from the true picture of the Last Days events.
While, dispensationalist interpretation of the events surrounding the creation of the state of
Israel, as discussed in the previous section, is not Biblically based, anti-Zionist rhetoric which comes out
from some historicists presents an unhealthy overreaction. While dispensationalists turn Jewish people

45 Reimar Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting Daniel and Revelation”

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society:2003, 14(2):13–14.

46 Ibid.
47 In his letters William Miller indicates that dispensationalists opposed his prophetic presentations. Sf Gerard

Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh-Day Adventist Message and Mission, (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1977).
48 Stephen Wohlberg, End Time Delusions: The Rapture, the Antichrist, Israel, and the End of the World, (Treasure House

Shippensburg, PA: 2004).

49 During 1920th and 1930th several articles were published in the Adventist Review labeling Jewish immigration to

Palestine as end time deception.

50 In his doctoral dissertation M. J. Vlach does extensive research on the subject of Christian supersessionism. While full

discussion of the subject is beyond the scope of this paper, for the purpose of convenience we will use Vlach’s definitions. M.J.
Vlach. The Church as a Replacement of Israel: An Analysis of Supersessionism, (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2009).
51 For example, Stephen Wohlberg, Exploding the Israel Deception: A Jewish Believer Exposes False Prophecies about

Israel, the Temple, and Armageddon, (Roseville, CA: Amazing Facts, 2006). While Wohlberg’s original intent was to provide
arguments, which refute popular dispensationalist ideas, strong anti-Zionist and anti-Israel rhetoric became the unintended
consequences of his approach.

13
into patsies for their eschatological model, those historicists who employ anti-Israel rhetoric de facto
blame Jews for the existence of dispensationalism. As the result of this century-long eschatological
debate Jews, who are not aware of existence of either historicists or futurists fell ‘under a crossfire’
which from missiological perspective sets historicists under serious disadvantage vis-à-vis their ability
to effectively communicate their message to both Jews and Evangelicals.
Extensive discussion of issues connected with history and development of Christian
supersessionism can be found in the books Israel and the Church and Mystery of Israel Jacques Doukhan
52. While detailed treatment of the subject of replacement theology is beyond the scope of this paper,
several points need to be underlined in order to demonstrate that argumentation out of punitive
supersessionism does prove to be effective way to refute either dispensationalism or modern Christian
Zionism.

Destruction of the Second Temple as God’s vengeance

As discussed in the previous section, Babylonian exile which happened after the destruction of
the First Temple and the dispersion of Jews in the Second Temple and post Second Temple periods
represent are two separate historic situations that cannot be lumped together. Therefore, arguing in
favor of the exclusive eschatological role of Israel futurists are wrong when they insist on that the
prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel regarding the return of Jews to their land originally intended to be
fulfilled after the return from Babylonian exile must be fulfilled in this day and age.
On the other hand, the proponents of punitive supersessionism who reject this idea when they
argue that the destruction of the Second Temple was constituted divine retribution and rejection to Jews
who failed to meet the condition of the covenant and rejected Jesus, are also wrong. There are three
passages in the entire Bible which explicitly deal with the destruction of the Second Temple. Two of
them, which predict the event found in Dan. 9:25-27 and Matt. 26:2&15-20, do not explicitly mention
any intend of God to punish Jews.
The third passage is found in Hebrews 8:13. “When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the
first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear”. (NASB) While
this text does not contain explicit mention of events of the First Judean war, it provides the key reason
for what transpired to be the destruction of the Second Temple. The verse in question represents an
important point of the discourse found in Hebrews 8:1-9:12 whose main theme is to demonstrate the
difference between Old and New Covenant. Chapter 9 defines the Old Covenant as follows, ‘the first
covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary’. This means that the Temple had
to disappear one way or another in order to open the way into the Heavenly Sanctuary. In other words,

52 Jacques Douknan, Israel and the Church: Two Voices for the Same God, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002);

The Mystery of Israel, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Association, 2004).

14
even though the covenant between God and Israel had conditions, there was no condition, which would
keep the earthly Sanctuary with its sacrificial rituals forever.
The death of Christ which put the end to sacrifices (Dan. 9:27) was not dependent on obedience
of Israel. While the blessings of the covenant included Divine indwelling with his people (Lev. 26:11-12),
according to Hebrews 9:9-10 such system was not perfect and was ‘imposed until time of reformation’.
Therefore, while the transgression of the covenant lead to the removal of the Divine presence and
destruction of the First Temple, as presented in Ezekiel 8-11, the destruction of the Second Temple that
happened after Calvary was the not the consequence of transgressions or disobedience but a rather
result of disappearing of the Old Covenant.
Conversely, if according to Ezekiel 36, God scattered His people among the nation for their
idolatry and then promises to gather them back to their land, then, since the destruction of the Second
Temple is not a punishment and Jewish diaspora isn’t a result of idolatry, then the promise to gather all
Jews back to their land cannot be applied to the modern situation, as Christian Zionists are arguing.

Seventy weeks prophecy as divine rejection of Jews

The gap in the 70-week prophetic period from Dan. 9:25, which separates the half of the last
week, represents key point of the futurist eschatology, and presents the major disagreement with
historicists, who argue that biblical prophetic periods do not have gaps in them. While the
dispensationalists leave this 3.5-year period for the Jews in the last days, the proponents of punitive
supersessionism argue that after the stoning of Steven, which ends the 490-year period Jews were
rejected and lost their special status with God.
Due to the missiological focus of this paper, the detailed discussion on the exegesis of Dan. 9:25-
26 is beyond the scope of this research. A number of exegetical studies53 made on this subject concluded
that 70-week prophetic period was never meant to be a testing time of obedience 54 for Jews and
specially the point of their rejecting and turning to Gentiles.
The problem with the idea that after the stoning of Stephen God gave up on Jews and the Gospel
began to be preached to Gentiles can be demonstrated by reading Acts 11:19: “So then those who were
scattered because of the persecution that occurred in connection with Stephen made their way to
Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone” (NASB). This text
does not only talk about the successful preaching of the Gospel to the Jews after the stoning of Stephen,
but also takes notice of the existence of large Jewish diaspora across the Greco Roman world. This

53For example, Doukhan Mystery of Israel, Ralph Ringer, Covenant Renewed (Pacific Press: Forthcoming).
54The subject of obedience which belongs to soteriology is definitely very broad and has always been controversial
among Seventh-day Adventits. In our personal observation there is a correlation between the proponents of punitive
supersessionism and the followers of the performance driven salvation model. The adherers to this model believed that Israel
was rejected for their failure to obey and fear being rejected for the same reason viewing Israel as a type of what might happen to
church.

15
diaspora becomes essential spring board for the development of Christianity55 across the Greco-Roman
world.
The book of Acts repeatedly demonstrates that Jewish community was always a starting point
for Paul in his missionary journeys to the point that he even bypassed a number of cities which did not
have synagogues such as Naples, Amphipolis and others 56.

Israel is in the New Testament is the Church

The main premise of supersessionism, the Church in the New Testament replaces Israel of the
Old Testament has been used to refute the idea of unconditional perpetual election of Israel used by the
proponents of futuristic eschatological model. While futurists teach about separate ways of salvation for
Israel and for the Church, some of their supersessionist opponents believe that literal Israel, i.e. Jews no
longer exist. Since God rejected Israel after the stoning of Stephen, any reference to Israel should always
be interpreted as the Church. 57
Such absoluteness does not always prove to be correct. It is true that book of Revelation does
not appear to have any division between Israel and the Church. Neither apocalyptic prophecy of the
Bible has any explicit or implicit reference to the State of Israel or restoration of the Temple. In fact, it is
clear that describing the 144,000 from the 12 tribes of Israel the book of Revelation does not refer to the
literal Israel. More so, the book of Revelation presents the Church as the Israel of the New Covenant
without even going into the issues of Jews and Gentiles.
However, the same is not true in regard to the book of Romans, where Paul goes at great length
discussing the role of Jews and Gentiles under the New Covenant and showing the fact that in some
aspects Jews still play special role. As he states in chapter 3, “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what
is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the
oracles of God” (vss. 1-2 NASB). The role of Jewish people in preservation of the integrity of the Old
Testament text has been broadly recognized 58.
Chapters 9-11 Paul also turns special attention to the problem of salvation of Jews where in
chapter 11:11-20 he illustrates Israel as the olive tree with some of its natural branches broken and the
wild olive branches grafted in in place of the broken ones. Such illustration cannot fit into the mold of
total replacement presented by the proponents of supersessionism. Therefore, the arguments that Israel

55 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks

also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the
Lord…And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called
Christians in Antioch” (Acts 11:20-21,26, NASB).
56 John McRay, Paul, His Life and Teaching, (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic 2003), p.161.
57 Such a position was held by, Hans LaRondelle. The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation,

(Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1983).

58 Sf Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, (Eisenbrauns, 2015); Ernst Wurtwein The

Text of the Old Testament: an Introduction to Biblia Hebraica (Eedrmans, 2014).

16
in the New Testament must always refer to God’s remnant people are not universally correct. While they
appear to be correct vis-à-vis eschatology, post Second Temple history as well as the present reality
manifest more complex picture in which Jewish people have their role.

All prophecies about Israel are conditional

This is the most contentious point in the debate between historicists and futurists. Christian
Zionists believe that all promises that God made to Israel have to be fulfilled. In other words, whatever
prophecy was not fulfilled during the return from exile are to be fulfilled through the modern State of
Israel. On the other hand, the supersessionists believe that all prophecies concerning Israel were
conditional 59 and since Israel failed to meet these conditions, these prophecies will not be fulfilled.
While it is true, that very nature of the classical prophecy, which differentiates it from the
apocalyptic one, is its conditionality. This is expressed in Jeremiah 18:1-11. The goal of the prophet who
directs his oracles towards Israel is to change peoples’ ways and make Israel repent. However, every
prophetic book has both, the oracles of doom and the oracles of consolation. However, when it comes to
oracles consolation, the situation should not be oversimplified.
The oracles which talk about restoration of Israel can be divided into the three categories:
conditioned upon the return from the Babylon, fulfilled after the return from the exile and the
unconditional promises. The oracles belonging to the first category are usually found at the end of the
prophetic books such as Isa. 65-66 or Ezekiel 36-48. These prophecies express the second chance God
gives to Israel after the return form the Babylonian captivity. All these oracles are written in the
language of covenantal blessings forum in Lev. 26 and thus conditional by definition. The condition for
the fulfillment of these prophecies expressed in Isa. 48:16-21 is complete return from Babylon and from
all other places of exile. Since, according to the books of Ezra and Esther, such a complete return did not
happen, the prophecies could not be fulfilled. As a result, their modified fulfillment is promised in the
book of Revelation 20-22. Whatever in those prophecies was related to the land of Israel will be applied
to the entire New Earth.
The prophecies belonging to the second category such as Isa. 44-45 are unconditional and were
fulfilled upon the return from the captivity. While many Christian Zionists insist on their dual
application, as stated above, such application will not work due to different reasons for the destruction
of the Second Temple.
However, there is a third, very small group of prophecies, which can be categorized as the
oracles of mercy and forgiveness, primarily found in the second part of the book of Isaiah 40-54.
Particularly Isa. 49:13-22ff, speaks of God pardoning Israel when Zion speaks “The LORD has forsaken

59 This position is clearly articulated by LaRondale and popularized by Doug Batchelor. Doug Batchelor, Spiritual Israel:

Two Jews Reveal the Secret Behind Modern Israel (Roseville, CA: Amazing Facts, Inc. 2002).

17
me, and the Lord has forgotten me” (vs. 14). The words of this oracle 60 resonate Rom. 11:17, where Paul
speaks about other olive branches grafted in to the natural olive tree and present a strong anti-
supersession argument. The oracles like this are not focused on the future greatness of the land of Israel
but they are focused on the people who receive forgiveness and mercy. Therefore, such promise cannot
be conditioned on obedience, because it is God who stretches His hand to Israel and leads then out of
darkness through the Messiah.
Isaiah 49:13-22 gained special relevance in the post-Holocaust times, when many Jews who
survived the slaughter thought that God has completely forsaken them. The declaration of the partition
of the Palestine voted by the United Nations in 1948 contains special consideration about the
unprecedented suffering of Jewish people, who being targeted for total destruction deserve special relief
through acquiring of their National home. The words of Isa. 49:16 “your walls are continually before Me”
and the promise of protection from the enemies could be applied even in the case of Modern Israel.
While the State of Israel definitely cannot be the fulfillment of any eschatological or apocalyptic
prophecy, it can be a divine sign of God’s mercy, compassion and faithfulness to Jewish people.

Israel’s disobedience makes it the subject of the covenantal curses

The proponents of the punitive supersessionism argue that since Israel failed to meet its
conditions outlined in the covenant they are to be discarded in accordance with the promises of curses
outlined in Lev. 26:31-33. It is often pointed out that because Jews crucified Jesus after the destruction
of the Second Temple Jews lost their land and as the consequences of that they were persecuted
throughout the history. Some of the adherers of the punitive supersessionism go as far as to name the
Holocaust as the expression of Divine punishment 61 upon Jews for the death of Christ 62.

60 The children of whom you were bereaved will yet say in your ears,
‘The place is too cramped for me;
Make room for me that I may live here.’
“Then you will say in your heart,
‘Who has begotten these for me,
Since I have been bereaved of my children
And am barren, an exile and a wanderer?
And who has reared these?
Behold, I was left alone;
From where did these come?’”
Thus says the Lord GOD,
“Behold, I will lift up My hand to the nations
And set up My standard to the peoples;
And they will bring your sons in their bosom,
And your daughters will be carried on their shoulders. (Isa 49:20-22)
61 A Warsaw ghetto survivor Menahem Teiblum in his book G-d at my Side records his memoir of how he lost all his

family in 1942 when part of the ghetto was liquidated. One of the Polish family friends rescued him by giving him the documents
of the deceased Polish Catholic boy of his age. To avoid suspicion young Menahem had to attend Sunday services at the local
parish. There he repeatedly heard the homilies about Jews suffering for their murder of Christ. Catholic church officially
abandoned the doctrine accusing Jews in deicide after the Second Vatican Council.
62 This position is against the statement of Ellen White, who said that ‘Jews who live today are not responsible for what

happened at the cross’ (RH, 1905).

18
 While it is true that Israel suffered the consequences of its disobedience to the Divine
commandments and was scattered among the nations, the text doesn’t end at this point. Leviticus 26
ends with the words of hope and mercy, “Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I
will not reject them, nor will I so abhor them as to destroy them, breaking My covenant with them; for I
am the LORD their God”. According to Hos. 3:5 Israel will return to the Lord and seek their Messiah in
the last days. The promise of repentance cannot be conditional by its definition.
The position of punitive supersessionists among the Seventh-day Adventists contradicts with
the call of Ellen White 63 outlined in AA 387 to pay attention to Jewish people in the close of the
proclamation of the Gospel. If Jews are rejected and replaced by the church, any special mission to them
does not make any since. Nevertheless in her statements about evangelism and outreach Ellen White
does not mention any other specific national group by name but the Jews 64.
From the missiological stand point, in the context of present reality the arguments used by some
proponents of punitive supersessionism against dispensationalists are detrimental. The Three Angels
message, which presents a core of historicists’ eschatological position in and of itself contains plenty of
strong arguments against the futurist ideas. It does not have any explicit or implicit, positive or negative
reference to Jews, Zionism or the State of Israel. A blanketed anti-Israel and anti-Zionist position, this is
not a part of the Three Angels message, is repugnant to both Jews and Evangelical Christians and is not
helpful in bringing the Three Angels message across.

Conclusions

It is very unfortunate that Jews became unintended victims of the two-century old
eschatological debate between futurists and historicists. Both sides of the original debate paid very little
consideration to the history and current situation with real Jews who have lived and developed for
almost two millennia since the destruction of the Second Temple. Jews who began settling in Ottoman
Palestine in the late 1800th did it out of desperation inflicted by constant pogroms and persecutions in
Russian Empire. They weren’t moving to Palestine with the intend to fulfill any prophecy of Jeremiah or
Ezekiel. Jews who joined the Zionist movement wanted to regain their national home because they
realize they will never be able to be an equal integral part of the European society 65 and retain their
cultural identity. They were absolutely unaware of the fact that by seeking support from the pre-WWI
European governments in securing their national home in the Palestine which resulted in Balfour

63 Extensive discussion on Ellen White position regarding Jews can be found in Mystery of Israel.
64 For detailed list of E. G. White’s quotations regarding the work among Jews see Ellen White about Work among Jews
(Silver Spring, MD: Ellen White Estate…).
65 This was the major thrust of the Zionist Manifesto published by Theodore Herzl

19
declaration, they were acting on behalf of the forces of evil in helping dispensationalists to further their
eschatological agenda.
Jews who survived concentration camps after the WWII were not coming to British Mandate
Palestine to participate in any end-time deception. They were risking their lives trying to get to their
future National Home because they had nowhere else to go. After the proclamation of the State of Israel
in 1948 Sephardic Jews from the Arab countries and Iran did not come to Israel to fight for the New
Davidic Kingdom and for the sacred land promised to Abraham by the covenant. They came to Israel
because of the persecution inflicted upon them after the emerging small Jewish state has won the War of
Independence.
Jews from USSR in 70th and 80th did not come to Israel in order to participate in rebuilding of the
Temple. They came to their national home because Soviet government limited their access to education
and made them second class citizens. Jews from France are moving to Israel today not because some
‘fishermen caught them with the hook’ but because they are becoming victims of terrorism. All these
people need simple Christian love and compassion. They do not need to be told that their home where
they could express their national identity is a part of eschatological conspiracy to hide from the world
the truth about the last-day events. A simple expression of the support for the Jewish National home is
not going to compromise any principle of historicist interpretation of the prophecy but can do a lot in
communication true and genuine principle of Christs’ love which Jews need do much.

20