Israel, Revelation, Prophecy --- answers to several questions

The answers to the questions you raised are below. I marked your statements with "Q)"

micheal ---------- wrote:

Q) Examiner,

My name is Micheal and I found your site on "Preterist" site.

I would like more info on this theology.

I will give you some very brief things at this time, and give you more later if you want. I have much more material to post on the subject.

Q) I read some of the material.

Do you believe that Revelation has already been fullfilled?

Not all of it, but its primary purpose has been. See which gives a short overview of the time and purpose of Revelation. The primary understanding was that the antichrist and the mark of the beast all had to do with Nero. I discuss the implications of this idea in my book on Romans 13.

Until the early 1800s, the orthodox Christian view of the Revelation was that it was basically already fulfilled. The Protestants had claimed that the papal system was the continuing antichrist system. So the church of Rome countered attacks against the Papal system by claiming that Revelation was yet to be fulfilled, thereby placing the antichrist yet to come. (Rome admitted the antichrist was the pope, but it convinced the Protestants that the he would not actually be until after the next dispensation started.) That convinced the Protestants that they had nothing to be concerned about from Rome. (See "Roots of Fundamentalism," by Earnest, R. Sandeen, p 37.) The Pre-Trib rapture theory took the pressure off "the Catholic papacy as 'Antichrist." (Dave McPherson, "The Rapture Plot," 88ff, 254.) Though the Roman Jesuit, Lacunza, introduced the ideal, c. 1790, of the coming personal antichrist, J.N. Darby bragged that the idea originated with him. (Lacunza, "Ben-Ezra,"1827 English Translation by Edward Irving, V.I, p xxxii. J. N. Darby, "Collected Writings," V.II, p 294, 331, 339. The date of Darby's letters saying the personal antichrist idea was his is 1854.) Nor was the "church/Israel distinction" orthodox Christianity. That idea was also introduced in the early 1800s. Lacunza made a big point of such a distinction.) All these ideas came together and were introduced into Protestantism in the 1826 Albury Conference on Unfulfilled Prophecy. Until that time, these many new ideas were all considered heresy by all orthodox pastors.

You should find it interesting that the exaltation of national Israel to a new glorious state that would rule the world with a rod of iron was introduced by two Roman Jesuits before Lacunza's offering was accepted. All three, including Lacunza, claimed to be converted Jews, converted to Romanism. There were also "converted Jews" present at the first prophecy conference (1826, Albury Park, Surey, England) where Irving introduced Lacunza's exalted Israel idea, Joseph Wolff, a son of a Jewish Rabi: Wolff converted to Romanism, and laid the foundation for "Protestant Zionism." The man who financed the first conference where the glorified national Israel idea was first presented, Henry Drummond, was a very wealthy English banker who was very close personal friends with Wolff. Wolff and Drummond had met in Rome where both met with the Pope, so Drummond invited Wolff as the resident scholar at that conference. It is interesting that the ones who met at that first meeting intentionally threw out all past Protestant understanding of the Revelation, and substituted in its place the exalted national Israel and a future antichrist, as presented by Lacunza's document. Wolff was the only one who was allowed to give proper understanding of Scriptures at that meeting because he was a genuine "Hebrew."

You will also find that Scofield was financed by Jews while he worked on his book that exalted the Jewish nation over the church.

The "church/Israel" distinction grew out of the prophecy conference movement, the 1826, 1827 meetings at Albury Park, and the ones that followed at Lady Powerscourt's mansion, the Powerscourt Conferences on unfulfilled prophecy, 1830-1833. However, the "church/Israel" distinction, the exalted national Israel to replace the Gospel Church in prophecy was rejected in America until DL Moody was converted to Lacunza's dispensational faith by Plymouth Brethren Evangelist, Henry Moorehouse (1840-1880). It was through the Moody's Northfiled Bible Conference movement that American pastors accepted the replacement of the Gospel Church with national Israel in God's plan for the ages, i.e., history revolves around national Israel rather than around Christ and his gospel church ("Watch Israel, for it is God's timetable.")

Until Moody, American Christians considered the emerging dispensational millennial faith heresy, totally unsupportable by Scripture. So a new Bible study method was developed to support the faith, "Bible Readings." This method takes a thought and finds scripture to support that thought, without regard to the context nor intent of the author of the passage. Matthew 24 is a good example: The context clearly says the passage is referring to the destruction of those of Mt 23:34-39, but "Bible Reading" permits Mt. 24 to be studied and applied apart from its clear context. Without the new method of study, developed by J. N. Darby after 1833, the newly emerging religious faith could not be supported from God's word.

Darby solved the problem that the orthodox Christian teaching was that Matthew 24 spoke of the coming destruction of Jerusalem, as described by the Revelation. Writing concerning Rev xvii, Darby taught: "History is not necessary in order to understand prophecy" --- "History never explains prophecy." In other words, ignore history and accept the emerging dispensational faith. In the dispensational faith, history is meaningless; one can take any "prophetic" passage regardless of the intent of the Author and use it any way that fits whatever one desires to teach. Thus ignore Jerusalem's destruction when reading "prophetic passages" in Dan, Rev, &c. J.N. Darby, Collected Writings, II.93 (1852).

Q) That is what I gathered from the rest of the site. If Revelation has been fulfilled how do you know? What proof is there?

The internal evidence of its fulfillment is overwhelming.

Q) I have been taught that Revelation is being fulfilled today.

So was I. When I encountered a book by McPherson, I had to start looking into the situation. All the above books can be obtained through Inner Library loans.

Q) It "seems" to fit the times we are living. The Jews are back in the land. And there are "wars and rumours of wars" like Jesus said in Matthew 24. This theology seems confusing. I would like to know your comments on this. Is prophesy being fulfilled today? How do we know?


Prophecy is from the time it was written, not from the time we read it, which really throws a kink in most of modern prophetic speculation. The exact same verses that were used to prove prophecy was being fulfilled in the early 1800 (and thus folks should convert to the emerging dispensational faith), in reference to the French Revolution, are being used today (to raise vast sums of money). The first formulators of the modern millennial system in the early 1800s were confident, based on what appeared to have taken place in the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars that it would all be over no latter than 1845, according to Matthew 24. Matthew 24 is not talking about a future time from our present day any more than it was talking of the French Revolution, as the men of the early 1800 felt it was. It was clearly speaking of the soon coming destruction of Jerusalem, as promised by Christ in Matthew 23:34-39. Josephus's history makes this fact abundantly clear, as does the internal evidence in Matthew. I have a very lengthy study (that I did to satisfy the issue in my own mind) of about 70 pages that shows scripturally that Matthew 24 was telling of the destruction promised upon the religious leaders of Matthew 21-23. Study it out, and you will have to come to the same conclusion. (Note the parallel of Christ's words of warning against wicked Jerusalem with the book of Jeremiah, as the Lord continually promises destruction to Jerusalem by the army he was sending against it, e.g., chp. 6).

Though you are using Juno e mail, evidently you have a browser. I have only posted the opening introduction to "Israel's Identity/Israel's Conversion." I suggest you brows to it and check it out. If you cannot, I will e mail a copy of the introduction.

The book of Galatians tells us that the new Israel of God since Christ is the Gospel Church. (I can send you an abbreviated commentary I put together on the book to prove that point.) Thus, "Israel" is indeed being gathered to her land, which is the rest found in Christ. The promised land of rest was NEVER Canaan nor Jerusalem: it has always been Christ, Hebrews 4.

While I am here, let me address the "Israel" question. There are those who hold that the true Israel of God are those who can trace their blood line to Abraham through Isaac, if it were possible. There are those who claim that people who have gone through and keep certain rituals and ceremonies are the true Israel. There are those who claim that the residents of the Palestinian nation of "Israel" are the true Israel. There are those who claim, using "secular, historical evidence," that the White Anglo-Saxon race is the true Israel. Midst all the voices calling out, "We are the true Israel of God," or "They are the true Israel," it seems that God's voice (Word) is ignored.

When ask the question, "Who is Israel? - Who is a Jew?", I received this answer back from the Israeli government's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA):

"The term Israelite is purely Biblical. An Israeli is a citizen of Israel, regardless of religion. A Jew is a person anywhere in the world born to a Jewish mother, or converted to Judaism, who is thus identified as a member of the Jewish people and religion." (Information Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem. E-mail: - URL address: [2/20/1997])

Though tying the term "Israelite" to Scripture, MFA admitted that "Israelite" or "Jew" has nothing whatsoever to do with a blood line to Abraham: an "Israelite" is one (no matter his "religious persuasion") living in the literal nation of Israel, and a "Jew" is one who follows the Jewish religion, which, by the way, is very antichrist. "A Jewish mother" is simply a mother who is "identified as a" follower of the Jewish religion. Obviously, anyone can become an "Israelite" by moving to that Palestinian nation, and/or can become a "Jew" simply by converting to Judaism, i.e., denying that Christ fulfilled all the Old Testament rites and ceremonies that spoke of his work for his people. (Cf. Isa. 53.) Officially, Judaism is simply a religion, claiming no physical ties to Abraham, Isaac nor Jacob. A Jew is one who follows the religious practices prescribed by that religion.

Thanks for letting us hear from you.

By His Sovereign Grace Alone,

Bro Need

PS. I might also mention that until Irving's millennial movement, Christians fully expected to conquer the world for Christ (e.g., see Bridges below). Irving hated that doctrine and set out to change it. He wonderfully succeeded. I should also point out that the reason Muller started his Scriptural Knowledge Institute was because all other missionary activities of his day had the goal of converting the world to Christ. ("The Life of Trust," written by himself, and published by John B. Alben, 1873. Pp.109, 110, 113.) Muller hated that idea, so he started a missionary training school to teach missionary candidates that the world could not be won to Christ. Muller's school was the primary supplier of missionaries for Hudson Taylor's China Inland Missions in the late 1800s. (Coad, "A History of the Plymouth Brethren," p. 52, 53.) The results of Muller's training institution are obvious as all the nations that were greatly influenced by his missionaries fell to Communism: China, Russia, &c. From Germany is where Muller got most of his students, and Germany started two world wars.

I have a 360 page book on the subject in the final proofing:

Watch for THE DEATH OF VICTORY, a book by Pastor Ovid Need Jr. It is soon, Lord willing, to be published by Ross Hose Books, and will be available through your local book store.

THE DEATH OF VICTORY traces the roots of modern dispensational millennialism from its introduction in the early 1800s by a Presbyterian minister. He translated into English a 1790 Spanish document written by a Roman Jesuit. THE DEATH OF VICTORY follows the amazingly rapid spread of the Jesuit's system, its modern implications and the conversion of Christianity, with special emphasis on the Baptists and Presbyterians, to the Jesuit's system. Though the jesuit's system was not new, it had been disregarded long enough that the Presbyterian had to defend it from charges of heresy.

Victory in Jesus

The enemy may have been stabbed at the heart; yet will he get up, and renew the fight. Thou must walk - yea- sleep - in thine armour. It must be worn, not laid up. There is `no discharge from this war,' till the body of sin and death is laid in the grave.

Meanwhile victory is declared, before the conflict begins. Let every day then be a day of triumph. The promises are to present victory. With such stirring, stimulating hopes, thou shalt surely have rule, if thou wilt but dare to have it. And if thou hast not courage enough to be a Christian, thou must be a slave for life to the hardest of task-masters.

This bloodless victory, so contrary to the turmoil of war (Isa ix.5), is the crown of Christian grace. (Rom xii. 19.) No other grace of the gospel can be exercised without its influence. Yet the daily conquest anticipates the final victory, the spoils of which will be reaped throughout eternity. (Proverbs, Charles Bridges, The Banner of Truth Trust, pp 251, 252.)