Doctrines Messianic Believers Find Obnoxious and Why
give the "why" first:
Here is a picture of
the Jewish people after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD right up until just after
the late 1940s. They
had no rest, they'd removed out to Alexandria,
Egypt, they've moved to Rome,
they've moved to Spain. And then persecution would hit them and they'd
have no rest, they could never put down any kind of roots. They'd go to Spain,
the Muslims took over Spain,
and persecuted them
there. They would finally let up and then the Crusaders
pushed the Muslims out and the Crusaders (Catholic motivated
and instigated) set up the Inquisitions and began to spread
vicious lies about the Jews, blaming the Black Plague on the
Jews because they didn't get the plague. The only reason they didn't get the plague is
because they practiced the Mosaic health laws, they washed
their hands, and so they didn't get it.
But since they didn't have it, everybody else thought
they started it. And the Roman Catholic authorities said "OK,
if you don't convert, you burn" and they burned Jews at the
stake by the millions. Is it any wonder why Jews who are now coming
to a knowledge that Jesus is the Messiah want nothing to do with Gentile
Christianity, even once or twice removed from Catholicism,
like the various Protestant or evangelical persuasions, who
still hold predominantly Catholic eschatological doctrines
such as amillennialism and replacement theology?
They'd flee to Germany, and then
in Germany Luther and his gang advocated that they ought to
be wiped out, hunted down (this also happened in pre-Luther
days, as you'll soon read). You know, it's amazing how a reformer can be
used so awesomely by God and have such big blind spots too. And then finally we know what happened in Germany in World
War II, where six million Jews were murdered, exterminated.
I found parts of the European
history of the Jews in "A History of The Jews, From Earliest
Times Through The Six Day War" by Cecil Roth (which I have
on my bookshelf). It
is from pages 209-217 and is a part of a section titled "Diaspora
425-1492". Diaspora means "dispersion", "a scattering".
Historian Cecil Roth says:
"Closest akin to the Jews of England in culture, in
condition, and in history, were those of France. Here, ever since the outbreaks which had accomplished
the second Crusade, they had lived a chequered existence. From the close of the twelfth century, the ruling
house of Capet had developed an anti-Jewish attitude which,
for sheer unreasonableness and brutality of execution, was
perhaps unparalleled in Europe as a dynastic policy. At the outset, owing to the encroachments of
feudalism, the royal authority was restricted to a small area
in the immediate neighborhood of Paris. Outside this district its influence was little
more than nominal. Hence
the hostility of the Crown did not affect the Jews much more
than that of any major baron would have done.
The history of the Jews in France
is therefore to be understood only in relation to the extension
of royal authority over the whole country, which, in the end,
spelled for them utter disaster.
Louis IX (1226-1270), better remembered as "Saint" Louis,
religious zeal reinforced ancestral prejudices in an unusual
measure. The prescriptions of the Lateran Councils were
enforced with the utmost severity.
A personal interest was taken in securing converts. It was under the royal auspices that the famous
Disputation was held at Paris
between Nicholas Donin and Rabbi Jehiel, and the Talmud was
condemned to the flames. Finally,
before setting out on his first Crusade in 1249, the King
decreed the expulsion of the Jews from his realm, though the
order, it appears, was not carried out.
The sufferings of French Jewry reached
their climax under Philip the Fair (1285-1314), St. Louis' grandson. From the moment of his accession, he showed
that he considered the Jews merely as a source of gold. Spoliation succeeded spoliation, wholesale imprisonment
being resorted to periodically in order to prevent evasion. The climax came in 1306, when, the treasury
being once more empty, the policy of Edward I of England was imitated, with significant
differences. On July
22nd, all the Jews of the country were simultaneously
arrested, in obedience to instructions secretly issued some
time before. In prison they were informed that, for some
unspecified wrongdoing, they had been condemned to exile,
and must leave the realm within one month, the whole of their
property being confiscated to the crown.
By this time, owing to the vigorous and unfortunate
policy of the French in recent years, its authority extended
over the majority of France
proper, including Languedoc
and Champagne, where the schools
of rabbinic learning had especially flourished. The banishment spelled accordingly the end of
the ancient and glorious traditions of French Jewry.
There were, indeed, a couple of brief,
ignoble interludes before the curtain finally fell. The same mercenary considerations which had
prompted the expulsion of the Jews soon made it advisable
to encourage their resettlement. Accordingly, in 1315, Philip the Fair's brother,
Louis X, issued an edict permitting them to return to the
country for a period of twelve years.
The few who cared to avail
themselves of this hazardous opportunity were entirely
insufficient, whether in number or in intellectual calibre,
to reestablish the great traditions of their fathers.
Almost immediately after, they had to undergo a period
of tribulation barely rivaled even in the tragic record of
the Jewish Middle Ages. In
1320, a Crusading movement sprang up spontaneously amongst
the shepherds of southern France, the so-called Pastoureaux.
Few, if any, ultimately embarked for the East, but
all seized the opportunity of striking a blow for the religion
of Jesus nearer to home. A wave of massacres of almost unprecedented
horror swept through the country, community after community
being annihilated. [Now
in the 1940's, and more recently in the 1980-1990s we've seen
the "ethnic cleansing" which has taken place in Jugoslavia,
the murder of hundreds of thousands, the annihilation of who
communities. So plug
that understanding into what has been written here.] In the following year, a similar wave of feeling,
diverted this time into a purely ludicrous channel, brought
about a recurrence. A
report was circulated widely that the Jews and lepers, brother-outcasts,
had been poisoning the wells by arrangement with the infidel
kings of Tunis and Granada
[Spain]. This ridiculous pretext was eagerly followed
up. Massacres took
place in many cities. An enormous indemnity was levied on the communities
of the whole realm. Finally,
contrary to the terms of the agreement of only seven years
before, the new king, Charles IV, expelled the Jews from his
dominions without notice.
period of thirty-seven years elapsed before the experiment
of toleration was tried again.
However, in 1359, after the financial crisis which
followed the disastrous defeat at Poitiers, a few financiers accepted an invitation
to resettle in the country.
The Crown protected them, until a charge was brought
against the Jews of Paris of having persuaded one of their
number to return to Judaism after accepting baptism.
For this heinous crime, the principal members of the
community were arrested and flogged, and it was determined
to banish the whole of the wretched remnant. On September 17th, 1394, the mad
Charles VI signed the fatal order.
A few months were granted them to sell their property
and settle their debts, a process not made any more easy because
of the subsequent order, by which their Christian debtors
were absolved from paying their dues. Ultimately, when the limit was expired, they
were escorted to the frontier by the royal provosts.
Some of the exiles sought refuge in
the south, at Lyons, where they were allowed by the local
authorities to remain until 1420; in the County of Provence,
where they were not finally expelled until the beginning of
the sixteenth century; or in the possessions of the Holy See
about Avignon and Carpentras, where Papal policy of tolerance
allowed them to remain permanently, in enjoyment of toleration
if of nothing else. Others
crossed into Italy,
where near Asti,
they established a little group of congregations which continued
until our own day to preserve the ancient French rite of prayers.
But the majority, in all probability, made their way
over the Pyrenees or across the Rhine,
where further scenes in the age-long tragedy had meanwhile
owing to its peculiar political conditions, there was at no
time any general expulsion, as in England
or in France. It figures instead in history as the classical
land of Jewish martyrdom, where banishment was employed only
locally and sporadically to complete the work of massacre. The famous Golden Bull of the Emperor Charles
IV (1356) alienated all rights in the Jews, as in other sources
of revenue, in the territories of the seven greater potentates
who were members of the Electoral College.
Minor rulers, bishops, and even free cities, claimed
similar prerogatives, subject only to a very
remote Imperial control. In consequence, when the Jews were driven out
of one district, there was generally another willing to receive
them, in consideration of some immediate monetary advantage. Thus, though there were few parts of the country
which did not embark on a policy of exclusion at one period
or another, there was no time, from the year 1000 onward (if
not in Roman times), when Germany was without any Jewish population.
On the other hand, there was
barely any intermission in the constant sequence of massacre.
The example set in the first Crusade was followed with
fatal regularity. When
external occasion was wanting, the blood libel, or a charge
of the desecration of the Host, was always at hand to serve
as pretext. So long as the central authority retained any
strength, the Jews enjoyed a certain degree of protection. On its decay, they were at the mercy of every
wave of prejudice, superstition, dissatisfaction, or violence. In 1298, in consequence of a charge of ritual
murder at Rottingen, a whole series of exterminatory attacks,
inspired by a noble named Rindfleisch, swept through Franconia,
Bavaria, and Austria. In 1336, a similar outbreak took place in Alsace, Suabia, and Franconia
at the hands of a mob frankly calling themselves Judenschlager (literally,
Jew-slayer, or slayers of the Jews), led by two nobles nicknamed
from a strip of leather which they wore round their arms. [This sounds like it is right out of World War
armbands, slaughter of the Jews-it all matches.
Hitler wasn't doing anything different, he just went
a little further and was through Eichmann a little more efficient.] The names of over one hundred places where massacres
occurred at this period were subsequently remembered. Yet this was the merest episode in the history
of German Jewry.
It was in 1348 and the following year that
the fury reached its height.
The Black Death was devastating Europe,
sweeping away everywhere over one-third or more of the population. It was the greatest scourge of its kind in history.
No natural explanation could be found.
Responsibility for it, as for any other mysterious
visitation, was automatically laid on the Jews. The ridiculousness of the charge should have
been apparent even to fourteenth century credulity, for the
plague raged virulently even in those places, such as England,
where the Christian population was absolutely unadulterated,
and elsewhere the Jews suffered with the rest, though their
hygienic manner of life and their superior medical knowledge
may have reduced their mortality.
It was when the outbreak had reach Savoy that the charges became properly formulated
in all their grotesque horror.
At Chillon, a certain Jew "confessed" under torture,
that an elaborate plot had been evolved in the south of France
by certain of his co-religionists, who had concocted a poison
out of spiders, frogs, lizards, human flesh, the hearts of
Christians, and consecrated Hosts.
The powder made from this infernal brew had been distributed
amongst the various communities, to be deposited in the wells
from which Christians drew their water.
To this the terrible contagion which was sweeping Europe
This ridiculous farrago of nonsense
was sufficient to seal the fate of the community of Chillon,
the whole of which was put to death with a refinement of horror.
Hence the tale spread like wildfire throughout Switzerland,
along the Rhine, and even into Austria and Poland.
There followed in its train the most terrible series
of massacres that had ever been known even in the long history
of Jewish martyrdom. Sixty
large communities, and one hundred and fifty small, were utterly
exterminated. This was the climax of disaster for German Jewry,
just as the great expulsions had been for England and France. Never again did they recover their previous
prosperity or their numerical weight.
When the storm had died down, a large number
of the cities thought better of the vows made in the heat
of the moment never to harbor Jews again in their midst, and
summoned them back again to supply the local financial requirements.
The period which followed was one of comparative quiescence,
if only for lack of victims.
King Wenceslaus (1378-1400), however, initiated the
shortsighted policy of the periodical cancellation of the
whole or part of the debts due to the Jews in return for some
immediate monetary payment from the debtors.
It was therefore impossible for the Jews to recover
the position which their predecessors had held, and the hegemony
of German Jewry passed, with the refugees, to the East.
There followed an interlude when the Jews
of Austria, who in 1244 had received a model charter which
guaranteed their rights and safety, enjoyed a certain degree
of relative prosperity, succeeded as usual by intellectual
activity and the emergence of a few scholars of note. This was ended by the revival of religious passions
following the rise in Bohemia of the Hussite movement, an
anticipation of the Protestantism which was to make its appearance
one hundred years later. The
Hussites did not show themselves by any means well-disposed
towards the Jews. Nevertheless, the latter were
suspected of complicity in the movement, and were made to
suffer on that account. Every
one of the successive expeditions sent to champion the cause
of orthodoxy began its work, like the Crusaders of two centuries
before, by an attack upon the various Judengasse, and massacre
once again succeeded massacre.
In 1420, a trumped-up accusation of ritual murder and
Host desecration resulted in the extermination of the community
of Vienna, a disaster long remembered as the Wiener Geserah
[Geserah in Hebrew means "evil decree"].
the Catholic church.
The General Council
of the Catholic Church which met as Basle from 1431 to 1433,
in order to remedy the deplorable condition of ecclesiastical
affairs, solemnly re-enacted all past anti-Jewish legislation
down to its least detail. Not long after, a fiery and eloquent, but strangely
fanatical Franciscan friar name John of Capistrano, almost
the embodiment of the anti-Hussite reaction, was commissioned
to see that the policy of the Council was carried into effect.
Everywhere, from Sicily northward, anti-Jewish excesses
followed in his train. At
Breslau, in 1453, an alleged desecration of the Host led to
a mock trial under his personal auspices. Forty-one martyrs were burned to death before
his lodgings in the Salzring.
All other Jews were stripped of their goods and banished,
their children under seven years of age having previously
been taken away to be brought up in the Christian faith.
The example was faithfully followed in the rest of
the province. Thus the Papal emissary passed on, attended
by a constant procession of outrages, burnings, and massacres,
toward Poland." [And
that is just a tiny portion of Jewish "Diaspora" history,
taken from Cecil Roth's "A History of the Jews, From The Earliest
Times Through the Six Day War".]
that's just a tiny sampling of European Jewish history.
Now I have come to see, in my studies of the differing
Christian churches and denominations, that it is doctrines
which mold the prevalent attitudes within the minds of a church's
or denomination's members.
And if historically we can find a doctrine or two doctrines
which have molded the minds of Europeans against the race
of the Jews, often leading to the slaughter of millions of
their race, it would be safe to assume, even label those two
doctrines as not really being of true Christian origin. Wrong doctrine, it has been said, leads to wrong
you say the slaughter of innocent lives, of men, women and
children is a wrong life-style?
I would. Let's read a little bit more about these two
doctrines which, understandably, our Messianic brothers and
sisters in Christ dislike immensely.
Now for those two doctrines
Messianic believers find obnoxious. Now that we've read the
"why" (it's often enlightening
to find out "why" people find something obnoxious, before
reading about what it is they find obnoxious).
attacking any Christian or denomination in the following paragraphs--but
I am challenging a particular method of interpreting Biblical
prophecy, which many Christian denominations use for interpreting
Bible prophecy. Also, when the word "heresy" is used
in the following excerpt please understand, the word "heresy"
is used to donate a way
of interpreting Bible prophecy and not to label any Christian
holding to such secondary beliefs. The following explanation which I excerpt from
Chuck Missler's new two cassette tape series titled "Thy Kingdom
Come, Christ's Millennial Reign" explains the historic origin
of the amillennialist way of interpreting prophecy.
Chuck Missler paints this description with a wide brush
and is looser with the historic facts and oversimplifies in
ways that drives real historians crazy.
But he presents the facts in understandable language
and short order without writing a book on the subject, and
that is why I use his description here of why I cannot promote
the amillennialist view on this site in the very few sections
this site has on prophecy.
But first a couple observations I've made on the subject
denominations fall into the category of being amillennialist
in their eschatological interpretation (interpretation of
prophecy). And some Christians and Christian denominations
of the amillennialist persuasion also believe the book of
Daniel was written around 139 BC by a number of Jews who were
trying to influence Jewish thinking toward the coming Messiah--instead
of properly attributing the writing of the book of Daniel
to Daniel himself under the direct inspiration and guidance
of God during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, datable to 600-539
BC. In my opinion this
belief is false and attacks the very innerency of the Word
of God in the Old Testament canon--at least in the part of
God's Word that deals with prophecy. A person or church can have this interpretation
while simultaneously trying to jump through every imaginable
hoop in utilization of proper hermeneutic Biblical interpretation
rules, and still be seriously off in their understanding of
Bible prophecy. Most Protestant churches hold this amillennialist
view because they inherited it from the medieval church they
came out of in the Reformation, and not because they carefully
researched this belief. So
some historic research is needed to explain why this site
will only promote the pre-millennialist interpretation of
prophecy. But first
let us address the question of properly dating the writing
of the book of Daniel.
Josephus's ANITIQUITIES OF THE JEWS is an accepted history
text (which many historians agree it is), then those who would
believe that the book of Daniel was written in 139 BC might
look up the passage in BOOK XI, Chapter VIII, 4 and 5, part
of which I quote. Now
remember Alexander the Great is dated to the 330's B.C.
I quote, "And when he [Alexander] had said this to
Parmenio, and had given the high priest his right hand, the
priests ran along by him, and he came into the city; and when
he went up into the temple, he offered sacrifice to God, according
to the high priest's direction, and magnificently treated
both the high priest and the priests.
And when the book of Daniel was shewed him,
wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy
the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was that
person intended." A footnote in Josephus for this passage says
"*The place shewed Alexander might be Dan vii. 6; vii. 3-8,
20,21,22; xi. 3; some or all of them very plain predictions
of Alexander's conquests and successors."
So if the book of Daniel was written in 139 BC as some
suppose, how in the world did a high priest of the Jews present
it to Alexander the Great in the 330's BC in the city of Jerusalem
in the temple of God? Good
big stumbling block to the amillennialist interpretation comes
to mind. There are about 300 specific prophecies about
the first coming of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, in the Old
Testament. These prophecies were all literally fulfilled,
each and every one of them.
No allegorizing there.
But in the Old Testament we find many of those prophecies
of Jesus 1st coming are mixed right in with what
are clearly known and recognized to be prophecies of Jesus
Christ's 2nd coming.
How can one switch how he interprets these 2nd
coming prophecies, allegorizing their literal meaning away,
while all the while knowing that the 1st coming
prophecies that are imbedded right within the same texts were
literally fulfilled? That
to me is a stretch beyond sound logic into the fantasy-land
of myth. The first
part of the three part series on the 2nd coming
of Jesus Christ in this website is a survey of all those Old
Testament prophecies about the 2nd coming of Christ,
and you will see all the prophecies for Jesus Christ's 1st
coming imbedded right within the same prophetic texts as those
that apply to Jesus Christ's 2nd coming, so you'll
be able to make this observation right on the spot.
Don't take my word for it, read those prophecies for
yourself in that first section of the 2nd coming
prophecies series on this site, and then look them up in your
own Bible and see what I'm talking about--that the 1st
coming prophecies were all literally fulfilled and were in
no way meant to be allegorized into some different meaning,
and so the 2nd coming prophecies contained in the
same text also cannot be interpreted in any other way but
literal--just can't be without breaking every rule of Bible
interpretation and common sense.
that in mind, here are those excerpts from Chuck Missler's
"Thy Kingdom Come" which will add some historic perspective
of where Amillennialism came from, and thus why it's a flawed
way of interpreting Biblical eschatology. They are excerpted here to fill in vital background
information on the Amillennialist view of prophecy and why
this website does not subscribe to this view.
[Chuck Missler is the head of Koinonia
House, an independent Christian resource ministry of Calvary
I'd like to talk about a little bit is, 'Thy Kingdom Come.' We've heard that a lot, haven't we. Isn't it in the Lord's Prayer?--'Thy Kingdom
Come?' What does that
mean? It may shock you to realize that probably nine
churches out of ten have no idea what that means. In fact, they deny the root doctrine that lies
behind this. We see
it says in Matthew 6:10 "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.'
What on earth does that mean? We're going to explore that a little bit.
Nothing in heaven or earth is more certain.
How is that prayed? Jesus taught us to pray that. How often has that been prayed over 1900 years?
You know, in Luke 19 Jesus said that a certain nobleman
went into a far country to receive a kingdom and to return.
And he goes on with this parable.
Who's the nobleman? Our Lord. He's
left, he's coming back, and to receive the kingdom. The return
of Jesus Christ to rule on the planet earth, you'll be shocked
to learn how controversial that is.
Many of us here probably take that for granted.
There are 1,845 references to that in the Old Testament. Seventeen books give prominence to that very
event. Three hundred
and eighteen references in the New Testament, in two hundred
and sixteen chapters. Twenty-three of the twenty-seven books in the
New Testament give prominence to the return of Jesus Christ
to rule on the planet earth.
You would think that we could get it, wouldn't you?
You'd think that we'd understand that.
Most of us realize there are three-hundred specific
specifications that Christ fulfilled in his first coming,
his first advent as they call it. For every one of those there are eight of them
for his second coming. So
it's a big topic.
Now tragically there was a very prominent
church father by the name of Origen.
He was very pious, popular, he was very persuasive. He's one of the great figures of the third century
church. He wrote many
important documents, but he primarily presented Christian
doctrine in Greek terms, in Hellenic terms.
But the real tragedy is he introduced a theory of inspiration,
or interpretation I should say, that allegorized the Scripture
to extremes. And his
writings influenced Augustine somewhat later. Now get the picture of Augustine. Augustine was that bishop of Hippo in North
Africa from 354 to about 430 [AD].
Very, very influential guy, he's one of the most influential
leaders of the western Church.
He wrote "The City of God" which portrayed the church
as a new civic order during the ruins of the Roman Empire.
About this time, by 476 the Roman Empire is in pieces.
So it's already starting to fall apart.
But get the picture.
From, ah, 325 and following, the Roman Empire--Constantine
made the Christian religion legal, big step.
The second successor after him made it the state religion.
Get the picture of a government funded pulpit where
a pastor is preaching that Jesus is coming soon to rid the
world of its evil rulers. That wasn't what you called politically correct.
That was embarrassing. So they began to soften that by saying "Well,
he's gonna rule in our hearts." So "literally dispossessing
the earth of its usurpers and ruling" became watered down
and away. So although Augustine's writings, many of them,
defeated numerous heresies of the period, his allegorical
reposturing of an Amillennial eschatology-eschatology is the
study of the end times or last things.
And Amillennialism is a term used by those who deny
a literal Millennium, as such. We're gonna hit that head-on. And of course from Augustine you get Auchwitz.
[this statement of Chuck's put in context a little
later.] You see, Origen
allegorizes Scripture, Augustine institutionalizes that allegorization
of the Scripture in what we call Amillennialism.
And that led to a Medieval eschatology that the Reformation
failed to restore. You
know the Reformation under Martin Luther and the rest of them
did an incredible job
at what we call soteriology--that's the study of salvation.
They returned to the Scripture and recognized that
salvation comes by faith alone. Many people willingly died being burned at the
stake in their commitment to the authority of Scripture, in
soteriology. The great tragedy of the Reformation was they
didn't go far enough. They
accomplished great things in soteriology, but they ignored
the eschatology. They continued to embrace an Amillennial eschatology
that was their heritage from the Medieval [Catholic] church. And so, because of that, most Protestant denominations
are Amillennial in their eschatology. And that also leads them to being post-tribulational
in their views. We're
gonna talk a little bit about that.
What are the problems with Amillenialism?
Well first of all, the Old Testament is replete with
promises of a Messianic rule--the Messiah all through the
Old Testament. In fact,
it was so emphasized that when Jesus came in humility they
didn't recognize him because they had their eyes fixed on
one that was going to come in power and rule.
The destiny of Israel is all wrapped up in this.
The destiny of Israel and God's Covenant is denied
by most modern Christian churches tragically, because of this
you get to the New Testament you got another problem. Gabriel meets Mary and gives her an announcement
of her new child, that he is going to take David's throne,
Luke chapter one, verses 31-32.
Well that's a problem.
David's throne didn't exist in those days.
They were ruled by Rome.
The king was an Edomite, Idumean, they'd say.
Herod was a Roman appointee, wasn't even Jewish.
That wasn't David's throne.
And yet her child was going to take David's throne.
Has Jesus ever done that?
No. Where's he now? On his Father's throne, not on his throne.
I believe his throne's gonna be the Mercy seat, that
will reappear as a gift when he comes. That's a whole nuther study. And there are numerous confirmations of all
of this in the New Testament, let alone all the Old Testament
promises. To dismiss or somehow explain away the Millennium--there
are many views about eschatology that good scholars can differ
on. Most of us meet
once a year just to do that, to share different views of subtleties
and details. And yet there is one view, that if you hold
that view, it has disturbing implications.
Some are post-trib, pre-trib, fine.
But if you're
amillennial you've got a problem, because to dismiss or explain
away the Millennium is to impugn the character of God.
You're calling God a liar.
God means what he says and says what he means.
He is the opposite of Allah.
The Muslims worship a god who is presented as being
unknowable, capricious, he can do anything. There's no certainty, no certainty about Allah.
The God of the Bible, the God of Abram, Yitshak and
Jakob, the God that we worship, delights in making and keeping
his promises. To imply
he doesn't keep his promises is to attack the thing that he
holds dear, his character.
And amillennialism, tragically, does that very thing.
And yet it's embraced, I would say, by nine out of
ten churches in America." In
the quote above, a remark was made about "Augustine to Auschwitz",
which needs some clarification, which Mr. Missler clarifies
this in his notes which came with the tapes, which I quote:
"One of the derivative
aspects of an amillennial perspective is that it denies Israel's
role in God's plans. This
also leads to a "replacement theology" in which the Church
is viewed as replacing Israel in God's program for mankind.
In addition to forcing an allegorization of many key
passages of Scripture, this also led to the tragedy of the
Holocaust in Europe. The responsibility for the six million Jews
who were systematically murdered in the concentration camps
has to include the silent pulpits who had embraced this heretical
eschatology and its attendant anti-Semitism."
To read an article describing the origins of "replacement
theology", written by a Harvard Theological student, CLICK