巡礼者の小道(Pursuing Veritas)

聖書の真理を愛し、歌い、どこまでも探求の旅をつづけたい。

「字義的」それとも「文字通り」?――"Literal "という用語に関する本ブログの方針について(私の試験的な試みです)

 目次

 

 

 f:id:Kinuko:20170423025417p:plain

 

「字義的」それとも「文字通り」?

 

現在、"literal"の訳語である「字義的」「文字通り」という言葉をめぐり、福音主義界でかなりの混乱と意思疎通の行き違いが起こっています。

 

ある方々は、「"Literal"な解釈」というフレーズを文法的・歴史的解釈と同義語的に使っています。あるいはそういう風に使っていると認識しておられます。

 

しかしながら近年の研究により、少なくとも古典的ディスペンセーション主義体系の中で"Literal"という語が用いられる際、その中身はけっして一通りではなく、複合的ファクターが交互に入り混じった多義語であることが指摘されています。ウェストミンスター神学大のV・ポイスレス氏は、その多義語性を以下の4つのカテゴリーに分類しています。

 

A) 通常の文法的・歴史的解釈で使う意味における"literal"

B) 《最初に頭に浮かぶ型解釈("first-thought" interpretation)》で使う意味における"literal"

C) 《平べったい解釈("flat" interpretation)》で使う意味における"literal"

D) 《プレーン解釈("plain" interpretation)》で使う意味における"literal"

 

*上の4つの解釈の詳細については以下の記事をご参照ください。

 

 

この点に関し、一つ実例をあげたいと思います。ディスペンセーション主義の立場にたっておられるある先生が、無千年王国説に関し、次のような説明をしておられます。

 

Amillennialism(無千年王国説)

(1)「A」は、「No」という意味である。

①無千年王国説は、地上に文字通りの神の国が出現するわけではないとする。

②この意味での神の国は、今の時代の教会からなっている。

③メシアの再臨後、すぐに永遠の秩序が始まる。

 (引用元

 

 

さて、①で、この先生は、「無千年王国説は、地上に『文字通りの』神の国が出現するわけではないとする」と定義しておられます。

 

しかしながら皆さんご存知のように、無千年王国説は、realized eschatologyの立場から、神の国は「すでに(already)」この地上に出現しているけれども、その究極的完成は「いまだ(not yet)」到来していないと捉えています。参照神の国について―D・A・カーソン(その1) | 神の国について―D・A・カーソン(その2) | )

 

さあ、大変です。ここで深刻なコミュニケーション障害が起こっています。

 

ディスペンセーション主義者Aさんの頭の中での「文字通り」によれば、無千年王国説者は、地上に神の国が出現するわけではないと考えている、となります。そしてそれはAさんの中ではまことに真なのです。

 

しかし無千年王国説者のBさんの頭の中での「文字通り」によれば、今すでに神の国は地上に出現しているのです。そしてそれはBさんの中ではまことに真なのです。

 

ここでの両者の行き違いは、「文字通り」という言葉を、AさんとBさんが異なった風に捉えていることに端を発していると思います。

 

つまり、「文字通り」というのを、一つの大きなリュックサックに譬えるなら、Aさんは自分のリュックの中に青色の貝殻を詰めており、一方のBさんは、その中にオレンジ色の紅葉(もみじ)を詰めているのです。意味論上の問題がここに発生しています。

 

ですから、冒頭の①の説明が仮に、

 

「無千年王国説は、地上に〔ディスペンセーション主義体系の定義するところの『文字通り』という意味における〕神の国が出現するわけではないとする。」

 

と記述されていたならば、公正さや中立性という点でクリアーな説明になっていたのではないかと思います。

 

しかし literalという語が出てくる度に、そのような長々しい註書きを加えることは困難ですし、それぞれの著者が、上に挙げたA )B )C )D)の内、一体どの意味でliteralを用いているのか判別することもまた困難です。

 

私は翻訳者としてできる限り、正確さと公正さを訳文の中に反映していきたいと願っています。

 

そのため、現在、非常な混乱とミスコミュニケーションの原因ともなっているこの"literal”という語の翻訳について熟考しています。こういった「言葉の意味の確かめ合い」というのは、人と人が互いに相手を理解し、愛し合っていく過程でとても大切なプロセスだと思うからです。

 

そこで私は、本ブログにおいてとりあえず次のように術語の訳し分けをすることにしようと思います。

 

①literalを「字義的」と括弧くくりで訳出する場合。

②literalを文字通りと訳出する場合。

 

①の場合は、ディスペンセーション主義体系の理解するところのliteralという語の訳出です。

 

尚、字義的という形容詞をカギ括弧表記してある理由は、その「字義的」という語が、多義語的な要素を帯びており、従って、A)B)C)D)4つの異なる意味のどれかに該当するかもしれないという複合的ニュアンスを含意させるためです。

 

そして②の場合は、非ディスペンセーション主義体系の理解するところのliteralという語の訳出表記として用いようと思います。

 

(別の先生方は、①を(極端な)字義的解釈と表記しておられるようです。しかし極端なという形容の仕方はディスペンセーション主義の《外側から》見た場合はたしかに妥当であったとしても、この体系の《内側》にいる人々の観点でいえば、「いいえ。私たちは『極端な』字義的解釈をしているのではなく、あくまで、『忠実な』字義的解釈をしているのです」となると思うので、う~ん、どうなんだろうと困惑しています。かといって、括弧もなにも付けずに字義的解釈と表記するには、この語にはすでにあまりにもディスペンセーション神学という特定神学のエッセンスが詰め込まれ過ぎていて中立性を逸していると思うので、やはり表記上、なにかが必要ということは分かるのです。さあ、どうしたものでしょう?)

 

尚、この混乱状態に光を照らしてくださるような、より優れた方針を打ち出してくださる方がいらっしゃいましたら、今後、それらの方々に倣い、私もliteralの訳語に関する改訂とアップデートをしていきたいと思っています。どうぞこれからもよろしくお願いいたします。

 

 

追記です

本記事巻末に掲載している

【参考資料2】"Literal" or "Literalistic"?,  How Do We Interpret Bible Prophecy? (by Kim Riddlebarger)の論考において、リドルバーガー師は、ディスペンセーション神学のエッセンスの詰まった"literal"というこの特殊語を、"Literalistic"と-istを付加することで差異化しようとしています。

 

また【追加資料4】Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? (キリスト教シオニズム:ハルマゲドンへのロードマップ? by ステフェン・サイザー)の論考においては、サイザー師は、ディスペンセーション主義的な意味合いでの"literal"解釈のことを、ウルトラ字義主義(聖書)解釈(Ultra-Literalist Biblical Hermeneutic)と命名しています。

 

従って、まとめますと、

 

1)ディスペンセーション神学における「字義的」解釈という時の「字義的」には、一通りではない複数の意味が内包されている、(ないしは混在している。)

 

2)議論の明確化のためにも、その特殊語の特異性がなんらかの形で表現されなければならない。

 

3)実際的試み1(V.ポイスレス師)

字義的」を4つにカテゴリー化(①通常の文法的・歴史的解釈で使う意味における"literal"/②《最初に頭に浮かぶ型解釈("first-thought" interpretation)》で使う意味における"literal"/③ 《平べったい解釈("flat" interpretation)》で使う意味における"literal"/④《プレーン解釈("plain" interpretation)》で使う意味における"literal")

 

実際的試み2(安黒務師他)

(極端な)字義的解釈と、括弧をつける。

 

実際的試み3(K・リドルバーガー師)

Literalではなく、Literalisticと表記する。

 

実際的試み4(S・サイザー師)

ウルトラ字義主義解釈(Ultra-Literalist Biblical Hermeneutic)と表記する。

 

実際的試み5(ブログ管理人)

「字義的」と括弧くくりで表記する。

 

f:id:Kinuko:20170423025551p:plain

【参考資料1】ディスペンセーション主義は聖書を「字義的に」解釈する教えなのでしょうか。(by コリン・ピアソン)


Dispensationalism: Taking the Bible “Literally”? by Colin Pearson


DatPostmil-article-dispensationalism-taking-the-bible-literally-colin-pearson20160613.jpg


これまでディスペンセーションを奉じる方々は、非常に真摯に、聖書を真剣に取り扱ってこられました。

神学的リベラリズムで溢れているこの社会にあって、多くのディスペンセーション主義クリスチャンは、真理の声そのものでありましたし、聖書無謬に関しても、歴史的・文法的解釈に関しても、そして創世記の創造の記事の歴史性に関しても、堅実であり続けました。

こういった点に関し、私たちクリスチャンは彼らと共に奮闘すべきです。

あなたは熟練した者、すなわち、真理のみことばをまっすぐに説き明かす、恥じることのない働き人として、自分を神にささげるよう、努め励みなさい。Ⅱテモテ2:15



聖書はすべて、神の霊感によるもので、教えと戒めと矯正と義の訓練とのために有益です。
それは、神の人が、すべての良い働きのためにふさわしい十分に整えられた者となるためです。Ⅱテモテ3:16-17



それでは「聖書を字義的に(literally)解釈する」とはどういうことでしょうか。

この問いに関し、私たちクリスチャンは普通、次のように考えます。


「そう、私たちは御言葉を、書かれた当時の文脈および様式(genre)の中で、聖書記者が聞き手に元来、意図していた通りに受け取るべきである」と。原則として、私たちは皆、これに同意します。

しかしながら実際には、ディスペンセーション主義を奉じる方々は、その教えの体系からある前提条件(presupposition)をそっと持ち込んでおられます。

その前提とは、これです。

――つまり、「旧約聖書の中に『イスラエルに関する預言の聖句』が出てくる際、その預言の究極的成就は、アブラハム、イサク、ヤコブの民族的子孫によって構成される国家により、必ず成就されるのです。」

はたしてこの前提条件はどこから導き出されたものなのでしょうか。

ーーーーー

イスラエルと教会の区別――これはディスペンセーション主義の本質的かつ顕著な特徴をなすものです。

ジョン・ネルソン・ダービー氏は、ディスペンセーション主義および現代Futurism(未来主義)の父とみなされています。

ダービー師の功績は、1830年代、「イスラエル」と「教会」という神の二つの民の間に存在する継続的な区別についての概念を、初めて広く公に説いたことにあります。

ダービー師は、この概念を、エドワード・アービング(Edward Irving)から得ましたが、アービング氏は、主にこの概念を、マヌエル・ラクンザ(Manuel Lacunza)というチリ人イエズス会士による大著 The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty (La venida del Mesías en gloria y majestad,500頁)より得ました。


ben-ezra20160613.jpg


この著は、後に、ラビ・ユアン・ヨシャパテ・ベン・エズラというユダヤ人風のペンネームで発行されました。

その当時の多くのイエズス会士と同様、ラクンザの未来派の解釈は、16世紀の対抗宗教改革の線に沿ったものでした。

宗教改革者たちが教皇を反キリストと呼びならわしていたため、イエズス会士たちは教皇にのしかかるその重圧を緩和しようと計っていたのです。

ダービー師がこういった解釈を受け入れるや、それらはユダヤ的メシア待望のキリスト教ヴァージョンとなり、それはメシアの統治以上に、民族的イスラエルの統治により重点を置くものでした。

註1) Ovid Need Jr, The Death of the Church Victorious参照

―――――

「イスラエル」と「教会」を区別するという概念をこの体系の根幹的なものとしたことにより、ディスペンセーション主義を奉じる方々は、――教会の中でその成就をみた――イスラエルに関する旧約の預言の解釈を一切受け入れることができません。

そうすることは、とりもなおさず聖書テクストを「寓喩的(“allegorizing”)」ないしは「霊化(“spiritualizing”)」して解釈するものとみなされてしまうからです。

こういった解釈の枠組みは、以下にあげる理由により、ある問題を引き起こすことになります。

1)イスラエルは霊的な主体(identity)であって、民族的なものではありませんでした。註2 

2)歴史的・文法的解釈から逸れ、ディスペンセーションの枠組みは、黙示文学の預言的様式を恣意的に捨てています。

3)またそれは、イメージや象徴であふれる形式(genre)に「文字通りの」解釈を適用させようとし矛盾を引き起こしています。

4)新約記者たちがそういった聖句を解釈するやり方と、ディスペンセーション主義の枠組みによるそれは互いに適合していません。

註2Dispensationalism: A Brief History and Critique of Darbyism



本記事において、私たちは4)の点に焦点を絞って考えていきたいと思います。

アモス9:11-12

11その日、わたしはダビデの倒れている仮庵を起こし、その破れを繕い、その廃墟を復興し、昔の日のようにこれを建て直す。

12 これは彼らが、エドムの残りの者と、わたしの名がつけられたすべての国々を手に入れるためだ。
――これをなされる主の御告げ。――



「この預言はいつ、どのようにして成就するのでしょうか」と尋ねると、ディスペンセーション主義を奉じておられる方は次のように言われます。

「この預言は、千年の間におけるキリストの地上支配の間に起こります。そしてそこで神殿が再建され、国々の民は再び神殿にて犠牲を捧げるべくエルサレムに出向かうことが要求されるのです」と。

これは、ディスペンセーション的な千年王国理解とは調和するものですが、使徒ヤコブがこの聖書箇所を用いたあり方とは矛盾を引き起こしています

使徒15:12-18

12 すると、全会衆は沈黙してしまった。そして、バルナバとパウロが、彼らを通して神が異邦人の間で行なわれたしるしと不思議なわざについて話すのに、耳を傾けた。

13 ふたりが話し終えると、ヤコブがこう言った。「兄弟たち。私の言うことを聞いてください。

14 神が初めに、どのように異邦人を顧みて、その中から御名をもって呼ばれる民をお召しになったかは、シメオンが説明したとおりです。

15 預言者たちのことばもこれと一致しており、それにはこう書いてあります。

16 『この後、わたしは帰って来て、倒れたダビデの幕屋を建て直す。すなわち、廃墟と化した幕屋を建て直し、それを元どおりにする。
17 それは、残った人々、すなわち、わたしの名で呼ばれる異邦人がみな、主を求めるようになるためである。
18 大昔からこれらのことを知らせておられる主が、こう言われる。』



ヤコブは、「神がどのように御名をもって呼ばれる民をお召しになったのかについては、預言者たちのことばもこれに一致している」とここで解釈しています。

しかしその際、彼はダビデの幕屋を建て直すことに関する聖句をここで引用しているのです。

つまりヤコブはそれをいわゆる「字義的」には全く解釈していないわけです。それに「字義的な」解釈は事実上、不可能でもあります。

なぜなら、エドムの子孫はことごとく滅ぼされてしまっていたからです(オバデヤ1:18)。

むしろここでのヤコブの要点は、ダビデの幕屋の再建は、――エドムによって象徴される――異邦人の包含であるということです。

ホセア1:10

10 イスラエル人の数は、海の砂のようになり、量ることも数えることもできなくなる。彼らは、「あなたがたはわたしの民ではない。」と言われた所で、「あなたがたは生ける神の子らだ。」と言われるようになる。



ホセア2:23

23 わたしは彼をわたしのために地にまき散らし、『愛されない者』を愛し、『わたしの民でない者』を、『あなたはわたしの民』と言う。彼は『あなたは私の神』と言おう。」



「ホセアのこの預言は、イスラエルの回復に関し与えられているものです。」とディスペンセーション主義の方々は言われます。

ホセア一章から二章全体にかけ、神はイスラエルの罪深さを叱責し、それゆえに裁きが下ることを予告しておられます。

しかしそれと同時に、今彼女(イスラエル)は罰せられていても、やがて妻として神に回復される希望について語っておられます。

ディスペンセーション主義の解釈では、これは民族的イスラエルの未来的回復を言及するものとなっています。しかしながら、これはパウロやペテロの解釈とは食い違っています

ローマ9:22-26

22 ですが、もし神が、怒りを示してご自分の力を知らせようと望んでおられるのに、その滅ぼされるべき怒りの器を、豊かな寛容をもって忍耐してくださったとしたら、どうでしょうか。

23 それも、神が栄光のためにあらかじめ用意しておられたあわれみの器に対して、その豊かな栄光を知らせてくださるためになのです。

24 神は、このあわれみの器として、私たちを、ユダヤ人の中からだけでなく、異邦人の中からも召してくださったのです。

25 それは、ホセアの書でも言っておられるとおりです。「わたしは、わが民でない者をわが民と呼び、愛さなかった者を愛する者と呼ぶ。

26 『あなたがたは、わたしの民ではない。』と、わたしが言ったその場所で、彼らは、生ける神の子どもと呼ばれる。」



パウロは、――ユダヤ人の中からと同様、異邦人の中からも召してくださるという証拠として――明白にここでイスラエルのことについて言及している箇所を引用しています。

ペテロも同様の仕方で引用しています。

1ペテロ2:9-10

9 しかし、あなたがたは、選ばれた種族、王である祭司、聖なる国民、神の所有とされた民です。それは、あなたがたを、やみの中から、ご自分の驚くべき光の中に招いてくださった方のすばらしいみわざを、あなたがたが宣べ伝えるためなのです。

10 あなたがたは、以前は神の民ではなかったのに、今は神の民であり、以前はあわれみを受けない者であったのに、今はあわれみを受けた者です。



イスラエルを指すものとして、旧約聖書の中で頻繁に使われている言葉は、ここでは――パウロが用いている同様の引用句と共に――教会について適用されています。

つまり使徒たちは、ディスペンセーション主義の方々の主張とは裏腹に、これらの聖句を「字義的 “literally”」には取っていなかったわけなのです。

詩篇22:22-23

22 私は、御名を私の兄弟たちに語り告げ、会衆の中で、あなたを賛美しましょう。
23 主を恐れる人々よ。主を賛美せよ。ヤコブのすべてのすえよ。主をあがめよ。イスラエルのすべてのすえよ。主の前におののけ。



詩篇22篇は、メシア詩篇として有名です。

「しかし、文脈の中において、ダビデはここでイスラエルの会衆について言及しているのは極めて明らかです。」とディスペンセーション主義の方々は主張されるでしょう。

「だから、これはイスラエルにおいて成就されなければならない」と。

しかし、ヘブル人への手紙を見てください。ヘブル書の著者は、この箇所をそういう風には全く用いていません

ヘブル2:10-12

10 神が多くの子たちを栄光に導くのに、彼らの救いの創始者を、多くの苦しみを通して全うされたということは、万物の存在の目的であり、また原因でもある方として、ふさわしいことであったのです。

11 聖とする方も、聖とされる者たちも、すべて元は一つです。それで、主は彼らを兄弟と呼ぶことを恥としないで、こう言われます。

12 「わたしは御名を、わたしの兄弟たちに告げよう。教会の中で(in the midst of the congregation)、わたしはあなたを賛美しよう。」



「栄光に導かれる多くの子たち」は、教会の中における信者たちです。「兄弟たち」という語は、キリストにある兄弟姉妹を指す言葉として新約聖書全般に渡って使われています。また、「congregation」という語は、「教会」と同意語です。

もしこれがイスラエルを指すものだったとしたら、なぜヘブル人への手紙の筆者は、この箇所を教会に当てはめたのでしょう?

ここでもまた、筆者は、それを「字義的 “literally”」には取っていないことが分かります。

エレミヤ31:31-34

31 見よ。その日が来る。――主の御告げ。――その日、わたしは、イスラエルの家とユダの家とに、新しい契約を結ぶ。

32 その契約は、わたしが彼らの先祖の手を握って、エジプトの国から連れ出した日に、彼らと結んだ契約のようではない。わたしは彼らの主であったのに、彼らはわたしの契約を破ってしまった。――主の御告げ。――

33 彼らの時代の後に、わたしがイスラエルの家と結ぶ契約はこうだ。――主の御告げ。――わたしはわたしの律法を彼らの中に置き、彼らの心にこれを書きしるす。わたしは彼らの神となり、彼らはわたしの民となる。

34 そのようにして、人々はもはや、『主を知れ。』と言って、おのおの互いに教えない。それは、彼らがみな、身分の低い者から高い者まで、わたしを知るからだ。――主の御告げ。――わたしは彼らの咎を赦し、彼らの罪を二度と思い出さないからだ。」



この箇所においては、ディスペンセーション主義の方々であってさえも、これがキリストと教会との新契約に関連した箇所であることを認めておられます。

しかしながら、この箇所においても聖書は「この契約が結ばれるのは、イスラエルとの間でおけるものである」とはっきり言っています。

そうです、ここでもまた、ヘブル人への手紙の筆者は、――それが未来における現実ではなく、すでに成就されているものとして――この箇所を教会に適用させているのです

ヘブル8:6-13

6 しかし今、キリストはさらにすぐれた務めを得られました。それは彼が、さらにすぐれた約束に基づいて制定された、さらにすぐれた契約の仲介者であるからです。

7 もしあの初めの契約が欠けのないものであったなら、後のものが必要になる余地はなかったでしょう。

8 しかし、神は、それに欠けがあるとして、こう言われたのです。「主が、言われる。見よ。日が来る。わたしが、イスラエルの家やユダの家と新しい契約を結ぶ日が。

9 それは、わたしが彼らの先祖たちの手を引いて、彼らをエジプトの地から導き出した日に彼らと結んだ契約のようなものではない。彼らがわたしの契約を守り通さないので、わたしも、彼らを顧みなかったと、主は言われる。

10 それらの日の後、わたしが、イスラエルの家と結ぶ契約は、これであると、主が言われる。わたしは、わたしの律法を彼らの思いの中に入れ、彼らの心に書きつける。わたしは彼らの神となり、彼らはわたしの民となる。

11 また彼らが、おのおのその町の者に、また、おのおのその兄弟に教えて、『主を知れ。』と言うことは決してない。小さい者から大きい者に至るまで、彼らはみな、わたしを知るようになるからである。

12 なぜなら、わたしは彼らの不義にあわれみをかけ、もはや、彼らの罪を思い出さないからである。」

13 神が新しい契約と言われたときには、初めのものを古いとされたのです。年を経て古びたものは、すぐに消えて行きます。



ディスペンセーション主義に基づく解釈における顕著な特徴は、土地に帰還するものとしてのイスラエルの必然性です。

こういった方々は、――アブラハム契約をいまだ未成就のものと捉え、またユダヤ民族がパレスティナにある物理的土地に帰還するという事における未来における成就を待ちつつ――これを引用しています。

創世記12:18-21

18その日、主はアブラムと契約を結んで仰せられた。「わたしはあなたの子孫に、この地を与える。エジプトの川から、あの大川、ユーフラテス川まで。
19 ケニ人、ケナズ人、カデモニ人、
20 ヘテ人、ペリジ人、レファイム人、
21 エモリ人、カナン人、ギルガシ人、エブス人を。」



一方、契約神学の方々は、この約束は、ヨシュアがカナンを征服した時に成就されたと指摘しています。

ヨシュア23:14

14 見よ。きょう、私は世のすべての人の行く道を行こうとしている。あなたがたは、心を尽くし、精神を尽くして知らなければならない。あなたがたの神、主が、あなたがたについて約束したすべての良いことが一つもたがわなかったことを。それは、一つもたがわず、みな、あなたがたのために実現した。



もし私たちがこの聖句を文字通りに取るなら、土地に関する約束が成就されたということは反駁の余地のないほど明確だということになります。

――特に、(たった今、土地を征服し終わったばかりという)この文脈においてはなおさらです。

しかしながら、ディスペンセーション主義の方々は、「イスラエルは現在、約束された全ての土地を占領していません。従って、約束の成就は将来的に起こることです」と反論されます。

しかし、ヘブル人への手紙に来ますと、筆者はこの約束をいわゆる寓喩的に(“allegorize”)」解釈しているように見受けます。――そうです。より優れた霊的リアリティーが存在するのだということを主張しつつ。

ヘブル11:8-16

8 信仰によって、アブラハムは、相続財産として受け取るべき地に出て行けとの召しを受けたとき、これに従い、どこに行くのかを知らないで、出て行きました。

9 信仰によって、彼は約束された地に他国人のようにして住み、同じ約束をともに相続するイサクやヤコブとともに天幕生活をしました。

10 彼は、堅い基礎の上に建てられた都を待ち望んでいたからです。その都を設計し建設されたのは神です。

11 信仰によって、サラも、すでにその年を過ぎた身であるのに、子を宿す力を与えられました。彼女は約束してくださった方を真実な方と考えたからです。

12 そこで、ひとりの、しかも死んだも同様のアブラハムから、天に星のように、また海べの数えきれない砂のように数多い子孫が生まれたのです。

13 これらの人々はみな、信仰の人々として死にました。約束のものを手に入れることはありませんでしたが、はるかにそれを見て喜び迎え、地上では旅人であり寄留者であることを告白していたのです。

14 彼らはこのように言うことによって、自分の故郷を求めていることを示しています。

15 もし、出て来た故郷のことを思っていたのであれば、帰る機会はあったでしょう。

16 しかし、事実、彼らは、さらにすぐれた故郷、すなわち天の故郷にあこがれていたのです。それゆえ、神は彼らの神と呼ばれることを恥となさいませんでした。

事実、神は彼らのために都を用意しておられました。



アブラハムには確かに物理的な土地が約束されていた一方、彼は、真の約束の成就は、神の都においてなされることを悟っていたのです。

つまり、ここでヘブル書の筆者は、単に神の御約束を「寓喩的に解釈したり」「霊的に解釈したり」するだけでなく、「アブラハムもまた、(筆者である自分と)同じ解釈をしていた」という事を言っているわけです。

それでは、アブラハムが待ち望んでいた神の都とは何だったのでしょう。

ヘブル12:22-24

22 しかし、あなたがたは、シオンの山、生ける神の都、天にあるエルサレム、無数の御使いたちの大祝会に近づいているのです。

23 また、天に登録されている長子たちの教会、万民の審判者である神、全うされた義人たちの霊、

24 さらに、新しい契約の仲介者イエス、それに、アベルの血よりもすぐれたことを語る注ぎかけの血に近づいています。



教会の信者たちはすでにシオンの山に近づいている?彼らはすでに神の都に到着している?私たちは今すでに天にあるエルサレムにいる?

でも、あなたはここの聖句を「寓喩的に」解釈しています!「シオンの山」とは物理的なエルサレムにおける物理的山であり、「都」とは、文字通りの土地における文字通りの都ということ、、でしょうか?

ディスペンセーション主義の方々の主張とは裏腹に、筆者はここの聖句でそのような事は全く言っていません。

ですから、真に文字通りの読み方というのは、こういったことを、現在における霊的リアリティーだとして理解することにあるのです。

――つまり、それらが、万物の成就(consummation)、復活、永遠の状態を予表しつつ、なおかつ、(ディスペンセーション主義の方々はいまだ未成就だと言っておられますが)それらを約束の成就として今日存在しているもの、と理解することにあると考えます。


結論

従って、ディスペンセーション主義の方々の旧約聖書解釈の諸前提(presuppositions)は、新約記者たちの旧約解釈と調和せず、一致していないことが分かります。

私たちはクリスチャンとして、使徒たちが解釈したのと同様の方法で、預言を解釈したいと考えています。

つまり、――筆者がそれを意図していないのなら――私たちは厳格な逐語的解釈を推し進めることはできないのです。

そうするなら、結局、私たちは七つの頭を持った海獣、口から炎を出す竜たち、巨大な不燃性の女性たち、馬に乗り、口から剣で打ちつつ、天を飛ぶ血に染まった救い主等を信じるということになります。

しかしながら、大半のディスペンセーション主義の方々は一貫性なく、そういった幻を「寓喩的に」「霊的に」解釈し、そうして、その過程におけるアイロニーに気づいておられません。

こういった批判は諸刃の剣です。

シンボルを、シンボル(=象徴的なものとして)として理解することは、聖句を霊的もしくは寓喩的に解釈することではありません(It is not spiritualizing or allegorizing the text to understand symbols to be symbolic)。

新約聖書のユダヤ人記者が、ユダヤの預言文学に非常に一般的にみられる詩的イメージ(imagery)を使っている際、私たちは、

その包括的・全的意味を理解すべく、自分たちでさえも一貫性を持てていないような21世紀版西洋の逐語主義を遂行するよりはむしろ、対応する類似の言葉を旧約の中に探し、そういったものを象徴として(symbolically)理解すべきなのです。

それは、イエスが「私は門です。」とおっしゃった際に、「それでは、『ちょうつがい』はどこにありますか?」と訊く人など誰もいないのと同様です。

 

【参考資料2】"Literal" or "Literalistic"?,  How Do We Interpret Bible Prophecy? (「字義的」それとも「字義主義的」?いかにして聖書の預言を解釈したらいいのでしょうか?by Kim Riddlebarger)

 

Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, chapter 3より抜粋

MP3での講義をお聴きになりたい方は、02 "Interpreting Bible Prophecy -- Part 1"

03 "Interpreting Bible Prophecy" -- Part 2" をそれぞれクリックしてください。)

 

  1. How Do We Interpret Bible Prophecy?(いかにして聖書の預言を解釈したらいいのか?)

 

Everyone has presuppositions that color how they read the Scriptures. The assumption that any one of these millennial views is the result of a straightforward, unbiased reading of Scripture is overly simplistic.

 

To understand why Christians reach such diverse opinions, we must identify and carefully evaluate the presuppositions they hold before they come to the biblical text. It is vital to know what these presuppositions are and to determine how they affect a reading of prophetic sections of the Bible if we are to get past trading proof texts with opposing viewpoints.

 

Presuppositions are especially problematic if they go unstated and even more so if people don’t believe they have any.

 

Historically, Protestants have been committed to sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”). God has revealed in the Scriptures everything we need to know to be delivered from the guilt of sin and to gain eternal life.

 

In addition, Protestants throughout history have believed that the Scriptures cannot err, since they are God-breathed. If we assume these two points to be true, and if we acknowledge that the three major millennial views contradict one another, we must conclude that at least two of the millennial views and possibly all three are in error. While all of them may be wrong, not all of them can be right.

 

The best way to choose the correct eschatological position from among the differing systems is to identify and evaluate the underlying hermeneutics involved. By examining the hermeneutical methods of each system, we can then decide which interpretation makes the most sense of the biblical data.

 

The Dispensational Hermeneutic(ディスペンセーション主義聖書解釈法)

 

Two basic presuppositions underlie the dispensational system of biblical interpretation. These are

 

(1) the “literal” interpretation of prophetic sections of the Bible and

(2) the recognition of a distinction between the church and Israel.

 

As leading dispensational writers point out, dispensationalism is founded on a “literal” interpretation of the Scriptures. According to Charles Ryrie:

 

f:id:Kinuko:20171018145453p:plain

Charles Ryrie

 

"Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. . . . The prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first coming of Christ―His birth, His rearing, His ministry, His death, His resurrection―were all fulfilled literally. There is no non-literal fulfillment of these prophecies in the New Testament. . . . The dispensationalist claims to use the normal principle of interpretation consistently in all his study of the Bible."[1]

 

At the same time, Ryrie stated, “It is this very consistency―the strength of dispensationalism―that irks the nondispensationalist and becomes the object of his ridicule.”[2]

 

Former Dallas Theological Seminary president John Walvoord adds:

 

f:id:Kinuko:20171013213059p:plain

John Walvoord

 

"The Premillennial position is that the Bible should be interpreted in its ordinary grammatical and historical meaning in all areas of theology unless contextual or theological reasons make it clear that this was not intended by the writer. . . .

 

"The literal method [is] sustained by literal fulfillment. The literal method of interpreting prophecy has been justified by the history of its fulfillment. The most unlikely prophecies surrounding the birth of Christ, His person, His life and ministry, His death and resurrection have all been literally fulfilled. . . . Prophecies are therefore to be taken literally, the exact interpretation following the pattern of the law of fulfillment established by prophecies already fulfilled and in keeping with the entire doctrine."[3]

 

Since all the Old Testament prophecies regarding the life of Christ are literally fulfilled in the New Testament, dispensationalists contend that prophecies regarding other eschatological themes must also be literally fulfilled. These include the restoration of the nation of Israel, the revival of the Roman Empire, a reign of Christ on earth after his return, and the land promises of the Abrahamic covenant.

 

One thing is also clear. Dispensationalists do not like the historic Protestant hermeneutic’s use of the “analogy of faith” and a supposed nonliteral interpretation. Ryrie argues:

 

The nondispensationalist position is simply that the literal principle is sufficient except for the interpretation of prophecy. In this area, the spiritualizing of prophecy must be introduced. The amillennialist uses it in the entire area of prophetic truth: the covenant premillennialist uses it only partially. This is why the dispensationalist claims he is the only one who uses literalism consistently.[4]

 

Walvoord expresses similar concerns.

 

"It is quite apparent that the amillennial method of interpretation of Scripture which involves spiritualization has achieved a considerable popularity. It is not too difficult to account for the widespread approval of the spiritualizing method adopted by many conservative theologians as well as liberal and Roman Catholic expositors. Fundamentally, its charm lies in its flexibility. The interpreter can change the literal and grammatical sense of Scripture to make it coincide with his own system of interpretation."[5]

 

Buried within Ryrie’s and Walvoord’s comments are several criticisms worth noting. They argue that nondispensational writers do not consistently use a literal method of interpreting Scripture.

 

The result, they say, is a spiritualizing of prophetical texts without reference to the passage’s literal meaning. Implied in Walvoord’s criticism is the assertion that the amillennial interpretation allows the interpreter to spiritualize the Scriptures to make them fit into an interpretive grid however he or she sees fit.

 

This nonliteral hermeneutic supposedly provides no external controls other than one’s own theological system, thereby undercutting Scripture’s normative authority. Notice too the not-so-subtle use of ad hominem arguments, which link amillennialism with Protestant liberalism or even Roman Catholicism.

 

This approach, common with popular dispensational writers, reaches its low point in the writings of Hal Lindsey, who labels amillennialism “demonic and heretical”:

 

Image result for hal lindsey rapture

 

"Amillennialism . . . became a philosophical basis for anti-Semitism. Amillennialism teaches that the Church has been given the promises made to the Israelites because they crowned a history of unbelief by rejecting the Messiah. Therefore, since in this view the Israelites have no future in God’s plan, and since they believe that “the Jews engineered the execution of Jesus,” a subtle justification for the persecution of the Jews resulted. . . . This kind of teaching is demonic and heretical. I am thankful to say that no person who believes in the premillennial view can be anti-Semitic."[6]

 

The use of this nonliteral hermeneutic, according to dispensationalists, leads to a failure to distinguish properly between the church and Israel―a pillar of the dispensational hermeneutic. Ryrie is quite specific in his application of this distinction.

 

Regarding the interpretation of the promise made to Abraham, he writes, “The dispensationalist understands the promises made to Abraham to require two seeds, a physical and a spiritual seed for Abraham.”[7]

 

This becomes the basis for the dispensationalist’s notion that God has two mutually exclusive peoples―national Israel and the Gentile church―each with its own redemptive purposes and programs. This underlying hermeneutic leads Ryrie to the following conclusion:

 

"The dispensationalist recognizes two purposes of God and insists in maintaining the distinction between Israel and the Church. And all of this is built on an inductive study of the use of two words, not a scheme superimposed on the Bible. . . . It is not a matter of superimposing a dual purpose of God on the Scriptures, but it is a matter of recognizing that in the New Testament the word Israel does not mean the Church and vice versa. . . . In other words, consistent literalism is the basis for dispensationalism, and since consistent literalism is the logical and obvious principle of interpretation, dispensationalism is more than justified."[8]

 

Ryrie has expressed a noble goal. The question remains, however, whether dispensationalists are successful in living up to their own goals.

 

The Historic Protestant Hermeneutic(歴史的プロテスタント聖書解釈法)

 

Three major presuppositions underlie the historic Protestant system.[9] The first is that the New Testament should explain the Old. This is one of the most basic principles of Bible study. The New Testament must be seen as the final authority and interpreter of the Old Testament. As Richard Gaffin asks in this regard:

 

Is the New Testament to be allowed to interpret the Old as the best, most reliable interpretive tradition in the history of the church (and certainly the Reformed tradition) has always insisted? Does the New Testament as a whole―as the God-breathed record of the end point of the history of special revelation―provide the controlling vantage point for properly understanding the entire Old Testament, including its prophecies? Or alternatively, will the Old Testament . . . become the hermeneutical fulcrum?[10]

 

The answers to Gaffin’s rhetorical questions seem self-evident, but this is not always the case and certainly not with dispensationalists. Historically, Protestant interpreters have argued that the New Testament provides the controlling interpretation of the Old Testament.

 

The goal of the interpreter of eschatology is to determine how prophecies made in the Old Testament are treated and applied by writers of the New. If the New Testament writers spiritualize Old Testament prophecies by applying them in a nonliteral sense, then the Old Testament passage must be seen in light of that New Testament interpretation, not vice versa.

 

"Moreover, a major step toward finding an answer to the millennial question is to develop a contextual framework of interpretation from the New Testament itself. 

Second, the Old Testament prophets and writers spoke of the glories of the coming messianic age in terms of their own premessianic age. They referred to the nation of Israel, the temple, the Davidic throne, and so on."[11]

 

These all reflect the language, history, and experience of the people to whom these prophecies were originally given. But eschatological themes are reinterpreted in the New Testament, where we are told these Old Testament images are types and shadows of the glorious realities that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

 

According to amillenarians, this means that Jesus Christ is the true Israel. Jesus Christ is the true temple. Jesus Christ is the heir to David’s throne, and so on. A number of specific instances of this will be addressed in part 2.

 

A third critical factor is the analogia fidei or the “analogy of faith.” This refers to the importance of interpreting an unclear biblical text in light of clear passages that speak to the same subject rather than taking the literal sense in isolation from the rest of Scripture.[12]

 

Texts that speak of last things must, therefore, be interpreted by other biblical passages. This is especially the case when New Testament writers show how an Old Testament passage pointed to Christ and was fulfilled in him. As one writer notes in this regard:

 

If we reject the literal method of interpretation as the universal rule for the interpretation of all prophecies, how are we to interpret them? Well, of course, there are many passages in prophecy that were meant to be taken literally. In fact a good working rule to follow is that the literal interpretation of the prophecy is to be accepted

 

(a) unless the passages contain obviously figurative language, or

(b) unless the New Testament gives authority for interpreting them in other than a literal sense, or

(c) unless a literal interpretation would produce a contradiction with truths, principles, or factual statements contained in non-symbolic books of the New Testament.

 

Another obvious rule to be followed is that the clearest New Testament passages in non-symbolic books are to be the norm for the interpretation of prophecy, rather than obscure or partial revelations contained in the Old Testament. In other words we should accept the clear and plain parts of Scripture as a basis for getting the true meaning of the more difficult parts of Scripture.[13]

 

The historic Protestant (or the amillennial) position holds that the New Testament is the final arbiter of the Old Testament. We must interpret all Old Testament prophecy as do the writers of the New. We should place such prophecy in its redemptive-historical context if we are to interpret it correctly. The historic Protestant hermeneutic sees eschatology as more closely linked to the ebb and flow of redemption than do many popular dispensational writers.

 

Literal or Literalistic Interpretation(字義的、それとも字義「主義」的解釈?)

 

The differences between the two millennial viewpoints are, therefore, largely due to the hermeneutical presuppositions that their adherents bring to the study of the data. Because of their commitment to a literal interpretation of the Bible, dispensationalists see Old Testament prophecy as the determinative category through which New Testament prophetic data is interpreted.

 

For example, the book of Revelation must be interpreted by the book of Daniel, according to the dispensationalist hermeneutic.[14]

 

The amillenarians, on the other hand, see the New Testament data as the determinative category by which Old Testament and future eschatology are to be interpreted.

 

Therefore, amillenarians see the book of Revelation as the God-given interpretation of Daniel. This leaves dispensationalists frequently stuck in the awkward position of insisting on an Old Testament interpretation of a prophetic theme that has been reinterpreted in the New Testament in the light of the messianic age, which dawned in Jesus Christ.

 

Although dispensationalists claim to interpret Scripture literally, in actuality, they often read a passage literalistically, meaning they downplay or ignore how Old Testament passages are interpreted by the authors of the New.

 

A specific example of what I mean might help to clarify the issue. In Acts 15, the church in Antioch appointed Paul and Barnabas to report to the Jerusalem council regarding the salvation of the Gentiles and to seek help in resolving the question that had been troubling the church as a result.

 

Should Gentile converts be circumcised in order to be saved? Once in the city, Paul and Barnabas reported to the elders and apostles on all the things God was doing among the Gentiles (v. 4).

 

When certain converted Pharisees declared that Gentiles must be circumcised and obey the law of Moses (v. 5), Peter refuted their arguments by pointing out that it was God who had given these Gentiles the Holy Spirit: “We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are” (v. 11).

 

Then James, the leader of the church, spoke (vv. 13ff.): “God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written,” and James cited a passage from Amos 9:11–12:

 

“‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ that have been known for ages.”

 

James saw the prophecy as fulfilled in Christ’s resurrection and exaltation and in the reconstitution of his disciples as the new Israel. The presence of both Jew and Gentile in the church was proof that the prophecy of Amos had been fulfilled.[15]

 

David’s fallen tent had been rebuilt by Christ. In Amos’s prophecy, “after this” indicated that the prophecy referred to what God would do for Israel after the exile. When James applied this prophecy to the church, was he spiritualizing an Old Testament text? Or was James reading the Old Testament through a Christ-centered lens typical of the greater light of the messianic age?

 

This question lies at the heart of the debate between amillenarians and dispensationalists. The famous notes of the Scofield Reference Bible (1909) say that from a dispensational perspective James’s speech is the most important in the New Testament.

 

According to Scofield, James is describing what will happen after the church age concludes (“after this”), i.e., in the millennium, when God will reestablish a Davidic rule over Israel.

 

If this is true, when Paul and Barnabas sought guidance for a concern that was immediate to them (Should Gentile converts be circumcised?), James responded by pointing to a future millennium thousands of years distant.[16]

 

Here is one instance in which dispensational presuppositions get in the way of the plain sense of the text. Scofield interprets the text literalistically, not literally. Dispensationalists are often forced to reinterpret any New Testament data that does not fit in their Old Testament–derived prophetic scheme.

 

Dispensational presuppositions will not fit with much of the interpretation supplied to Old Testament data by New Testament authors. A thorough survey of both Old Testament and New Testament eschatological categories will demonstrate the dispensational hermeneutic to be untenable. More importantly, such a survey gives us the proper framework and external controls to interpret prophetic sections of Scripture correctly.

 

The irony is that dispensationalists’ practice of interpreting all prophetic texts in a literalistic fashion amounts to a repudiation of the historic Protestant hermeneutic and the principle of the analogy of faith. If amillenarians adopt the New Testament writers’ interpretation of the Old Testament, are they not following the literal sense of Scripture, even if the New Testament writers universalize something that was limited to Israel in the Old Testament?

 

The dispensationalists’ literalistic reading of prophetic passages must not be confused with a literal reading. A literal reading―a reading that gets at the plain sense of the text―will allow the New Testament to interpret the Old. It is amillenarians, not dispensationalists, who interpret prophecy literally in that they follow the literal sense of how the writers of the New Testament interpret Old Testament prophecy.

 

 

[1]. Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody, 1965), 86–89.

[2]. Ibid., 46.

[3]. John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), 128–33.

[4]. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 91. See also Thomas D. Ice, “Dispensational Hermeneutics,” in Issues in Dispensationalism, ed. Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 45–46.

[5]. Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom, 59–60.

[6]. Hal Lindsey, The Rapture (New York: Bantam, 1983), 30.

[7]. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 4.

[8]. Ibid., 96–97.

[9]. Robert B. Strimple, “Amillennialism,” in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 84–100.

[10]. Richard B. Gaffin, “Theonomy and Eschatology,” in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, ed. William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 216–17.

[11]. Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 84–100.

[12]. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 33.

[13]. Floyd Hamilton, “The Basis of Millennial Faith,” in Amillennialism Today, ed. William E. Cox (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1966), 24–25, 53–54.

[14]. The title of John Walvoord’s commentary on Daniel bears this out. See Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1977).

[15]. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 310.

[16]. C. I. Scofield, ed., The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909).In the New Scofield Reference Bible of 1967, the note is changed to read, “This important passage shows God’s program for this age. . . . James declares that Amos 9:12 shows that, at the return of Christ, there will not only be believing Jews . . . but believing Gentiles.” Cf. E. Schuyler English, ed., The New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967). I ask the reader, Is this what James is saying?

 

【参考資料3】An Ultra-Literalist Biblical Hermeneutic (ウルトラ字義主義聖書解釈 by Stephen Sizer)

Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? Part 2: The Bible and Christian Zionism (PDF)

 

 1. An Ultra-Literalist Biblical Hermeneutic(ウルトラ字義主義聖書解釈法)

 

Through his Reference Bible, Scofield popularised an ultra-literal way of reading the Bible in this way:

 

Not one instance exists of a ‘spiritual’ or figurative fulfilment of prophecy ... Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel is always Israel, Zion is always Zion ... Prophecies may never be spiritualised, but are always literal.’ 1

 

Patrick Goodenough of the International Christian Embassy offers a contemporary example of this position.

 

We simply believe the Bible. And that Bible, which we understand has not been revoked, makes it quite clear that God has given this land as an eternal inheritance to the Jewish people.2

 

1.1 Changing Literalism(変遷しつづける字義主義)

 

Such literalism is problematic when futurists attempt to keep pace with the dramatic geo-political changes as seen in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in the last two decades. Lindsey had insisted in 1981 and again in 1994 that his, by then, apparently contradictory assessments of Russia were, nevertheless, both predicted in the Bible.

 

1980’s Countdown to Armageddon   

‘Today, the Soviets are without question the strongest power on the face of the earth. Let’s look at recent history to see how the Russians rose to the might predicted for them thousands of years ago.’3

 

Planet Earth 2000 AD

 ‘We see Russia as no longer a world threat, but a regional power with a world-class military - exactly what Ezekiel 38 and 39 predicted it would be.’4

 

f:id:Kinuko:20171014195110p:plain

 

With the gradual demise of Russia as a world power and the disintegration of the Communist bloc, Lindsey began to switch his emphasis from Russian Communism in 1970 to Islam Fundamentalism by 1994.5

 

In The Late Great Planet Earth (1970) the threat comes from ‘The Russian force’.6

 

By 1997 this had become, ‘The Russian-Muslim force’.7 In keeping pace with the changing Middle East scene, by 1999 Lindsey was claiming this axis of evil was now led by a ‘Muslim-Russian alliance.’8

 

1.2  Contradictory Literalism(自己矛盾した字義主義)

 

While dispensationalists claim to use a consistent plain literal interpretation of scripture, at times they nevertheless reach very different, and sometimes contradictory, conclusions. For example, in their interpretation of Revelation 9:13-19, M.R. DeHann and Hal Lindsey contradict one another:

 

M.R. DeHann (1946)

‘In Revelation 9:13-21 we have a description of an army of two hundred million horsemen ...seems to be a supernatural army of horrible beings, probably demons, who are permitted to plague the unrepentant sinners on the earth.’9

 

Hal Lindsey (1973)

‘The four angels of Revelation 9:14-15 will mobilize an army of 200 million soldiers from east of the Euphrates ... I believe these 200 million troops are Red Chinese soldiers

accompanied by other Eastern allies.’10

 

For DeHann and also LaHaye, the 200 million are ‘a supernatural horde of 200 million demonic horsemen’11 while for Lindsey and Schuyler English they are literally Chinese soldiers.12

 

Lindsey does, however, suggest their ‘horses’ are symbolic for mobilized ballistic missile launchers.13

 

Each claims his is a ‘literal’ interpretation of the text. William Hendrikson raises several questions about this form of hermeneutics in his own commentary on the book of Revelation:

 

Because among the thousands of dates and events and persons in history that show certain traits of resemblance to the symbol in question, who is able to select the one and only date, event or person that was forecast by this particular symbol? Confusion results. We get thousands of“interpretations” but no certainty. And the Apocalypse remains a closed book.’14

 

The fundamental error made here is the refusal to acknowledge how Jesus and the Apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament. For example, Jesus annulled the Levitical food laws.

 

"Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him `unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") (Matthew 7:18-19)

 

A vision of unclean food is specifically used by God to help the apostle Peter realise that in Christ there is now no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile. Both are accepted as equal in the kingdom of God.

 

"Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." (Acts 10:11-15)

 

Only when Peter encounters Cornelius does he begin to realise the implications of the vision for the way he should now view Jews and Gentiles. “I now realise how true it is that God does not show favouritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.” (Acts 10:34-35).

 

Logically, if God does not show favouritism, the Jews cannot presume to enjoy a favoured or exclusive status. This movement in biblical revelation is explained more fully by the writer to the Hebrews.

 

The Old Testament revelation from God often came in shadow, image and prophecy. In the New Covenant that revelation finds its consummation in reality, substance and fulfilment in Jesus Christ.

 

By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soondisappear. (Hebrews 8:31)

 

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming-- not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. (Hebrews 10:1)

 

It is fundamental that Christians read the Scriptures with Christian eyes, and that they interpret the Old Covenant in the light of the New Covenant, not the other way round.

 

In Colossians, for example, Paul uses a typological hermeneutic to explain this.

 

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. (Colossians. 2:16-17)

 

The question is therefore not whether the promises of the old covenant are to be understood literally or allegorically as Christian Zionists like to polarise the issue. It is instead a question of whether they should be understood in terms of Old Covenant shadow or in terms of New Covenant reality.

 

This is the most basic hermeneutical error which Christian Zionists consistently repeat. This is illustrated in the way the Jews are designated by Christian Zionists as God’s ‘chosen people’.

 

  1. The Jewish People Remain God’s ‘Chosen People’(ユダヤ人は神の「選民」としてとどまる――J・N・ダービー、スコフィールド、C・ライリー、L・シュペリー・シェイファー等の諸見解)

 

f:id:Kinuko:20171018145305p:plain

J.N.ダービー
 

Arising from their ultra-literal hermeneutic, Darby and Scofield taught that God has two separate peoples. The Church and Israel. Promises made to the Jews may never be applied to the Church, and vice versa.

 

f:id:Kinuko:20171018145614p:plain

サイラス・スコフィールド

 

So, Scofield insists, Comparing then, what is said in Scripture concerning Israel and the Church, we find that in origin, calling, promise, worship, principles of conduct and future destiny all is contrast.15

 

In its classical form, Charles Ryrie insists the sine qua non of Dispensationalism to be:

 

f:id:Kinuko:20171018145453p:plain

チャールズ・ライリー

 

  1. A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct.

  2. This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation.16

 

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, today the second largest seminary in the USA, elaborates further on this dichotomy between Israel and the church,

 

f:id:Kinuko:20171018145729p:plain

ルイス・シュペリー・シェイファー 

 

The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.17

 

This notion contradicts Jesus own clear and unambiguous statements to the contrary. John the Baptist warned,

 

Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, `We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire." (Luke 3:8-9)

 

Similarly Jesus warned, "If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did... (John 8:39)

 

For this reason Peter warned his Jewish audience soon after the Day of Pentecost that if they persisted in refusing to recognise Jesus as their Messiah, they would cease to be the laos of God,

 

Anyone who does not listen to him (Christ) will be completely cut off from among his people.’ (Acts 3:23)

 

Jesus and the apostles repudiated the notion that the Jews continued to enjoy a special status or relationship apart from belief in Jesus as their Messiah. Indeed Paul refutes the notion that Jewishness may be defined by race or adherence to Jewish law.

 

“A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.” (Romans 2:28-29)

 

Christian Zionists fail to recognise that in the Bible, 'chosenness' becomes progressively universalised, the gift of God's grace in Jesus Christ to all who trust in Him, irrespective of their race.

 

In the New Testament the concept of ‘chosenness’ is applied to those who have or who will believe in Jesus Christ. It is never used exclusively of the Jewish people, apart from as members of the Church.. For example,

 

‘But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, … Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. (1 Peter 2:9-10)

 

The term ‘chosen’ has been invested with new meaning to refer to

all who trust in Jesus Christ.

 

  1. The Restoration to and Occupation of Eretz Israel(イスラエルの地の回復と占領)

 

In Genesis 15:18 God promised Abraham, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.”

 

Since Israel has never occupied all of this land, taking the Bible literally, Christian Zionists believe they will do so. The geographical extent of ‘Eretz Israel’, However, such a view fails to take account of the way the Old Testament itself interprets this promise.

 

Joshua insists, ‘So Joshua took the entire land, just as the Lord had directed Moses.’ (Joshua 11:23). At the end of the book of Joshua, the same assessment is repeated but more emphatically,

 

‘So the Lord gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their forefathers, and they took possession of it and settled there … Not one of all the Lord’s good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled.’ (Joshua 21:43-45).

 

Zionists fail to recognise that ‘meekness’ rather than ‘chosenness’ was always a precondition of remaining in the land, whereas arrogance or oppression were reasons for exile. “But the meek will inherit the land and enjoy great peace.” (Psalm 37:11) This is reiterated and universalised by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount

 

“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.” (Matthew 5:5).

  

Zionists also invariably ignore the conditional nature of the covenant promises. They were not unconditional. Moses and the Hebrew Prophets repeatedly insist the land belongs to God and residence there is always conditional.

 

For example, The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. (Leviticus 25:23)

 

In Deuteronomy residence in the land is explicitly made conditional on adherence to the Law. Notice the “if” and “because”

 

“If the LORD your God enlarges your territory, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, and gives you the whole land he promised them, because you carefully follow all these laws I command you today--to love the LORD your God and to walk always in his ways...” (Deuteronomy 17:8-9)

 

  1. Jerusalem, The Eternal and Exclusive Jewish Capital(エルサレムーー恒久にして排他的なユダヤ人の首都)

 

The place and purpose of Jerusalem, or ‘Zion’ as it is sometimes called,18 is deeply felt within Christian Zionism. Lindsey points out that

 

From ages past, Jerusalem has been the most important city on this planet ... More prophecies have been made concerning Jerusalem than any other place on earth.’19

 

For example, Zechariah 14 is frequently cited as evidence that one day all the nations of the earth will come to worship God in the Temple in Jerusalem.

 

“I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city… Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, and to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.” (Zechariah 14:2, 16)

 

On the basis of this passage the ICEJ holds an annual Feast of Tabernacles celebration drawing followers from many nations and at which successive Israeli Prime Ministers have been guests of honour.

 

 

Image result for ICEJ holds an annual Feast of Tabernacles celebration

Jerusalem’s Christian Zionist Super Bowl — JNS.org

 

 

Notice, however, what Zechariah predicted they would do -offer a large number of animal sacrifices each day during the Feast of Tabernacles (See Numbers 28:26-29:39 - bulls, rams and lambs).

 

The New Testament, however, knows nothing of this preoccupation with a nationalistic and materialistic earthly Jerusalem. Instead through faith in Christ we already inhabit the heavenly Jerusalem and look forward to its appearing.

 

But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. (Hebrews 12:22-23)

 

But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother (Galatians 4:26)

 

In Galatians 4 Paul criticizes the ‘Jerusalem-dependency’20 of the legalists who were infecting the Church in Galatia. Galatians 4:27 is a quotation from Isaiah 54:1 which referred to the earthly Jerusalem. Paul now interprets the passage to refer to the home of all who believe in Jesus Christ.21

 

Access to heaven no longer has anything to do with the earthly Jerusalem. Jesus had already made this clear to the woman of Samaria.

 

Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 … a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth…. (John 4:21-23)

 

At his trial Jesus explained why

 

"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place. " (John 18:36)

 

Jesus redefines the boundaries of the kingdom of God and thereby the meaning of chosenness. The expansion of the kingdom of God throughout the world requires the exile of the Apostles from the land. They must turn their backs on Jerusalem and their hopes of a materialistic kingdom.

 

They are sent out into the world but never told to return. Subsequent to Pentecost, under the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles begin to use Old Covenant language concerning the Land in new ways.

 

So for example, Peter speaks of an inheritance which unlike the Land,‘...can never perish, spoil or fade.’ (1 Peter 1:4).

 

There is no evidence that the Apostles believed that their inheritance lie in Palestine, still less that Jerusalem would play a central aspect of God's future purposes for the world.

 

The contradiction between the flow of biblical revelation in the New Testament and the Zionist agenda is nowhere more clearly seen than in the question of the Jewish Temple. This is also the most controversial issue uniting Christian Zionists with the more extreme Jewish Zionists.

 

  1. The Rebuilding of the Jewish Temple(ユダヤ神殿の再建――ダニエル9章26-27節のディスペンセーション主義的解釈)

 

Many Christians are convinced that the Jewish Temple will be rebuilt very soon. The most frequently cited passage regarding a future Temple is Daniel 9:26-27.

 

“After the sixty-two `sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one `seven.' In the middle of the`seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.” (Daniel 9:26-27)

 

In order to justify this exegesis it is necessary for dispensationalists to place a two thousand year parenthesis between Daniel 9:26 (the destruction of the Temple) and 9:27 (a subsequent desecration which presumably requires another Temple to be built) - yet something entirely unwarranted in the text.

 

The conviction that the Jewish Temple must be rebuilt is, ironically, the Achilles' heel of Christian Zionism for it is inevitably also associated with the reintroduction of the Mosaic sacrificial system. The Temple described in Ezekiel assumes the offering of animal sacrifices. Scofield in his Reference Bible claimed that the sacrifices mentioned in Ezekiel 43:19, will be ‘memorial’ offerings.

 

Doubtless these offerings will be memorial, looking back to the cross, as the offerings under the old covenant were anticipatory, looking forward to the cross. In neither case have animal sacrifices power to put away sin (Heb. 10.4;Rom. 3.25).22

 

However, the verse explicitly refers to the sacrifice of a ‘young bullock as a sin offering.’ If Scofield appears to fudge the issue suggesting this is only a memorial sacrifice, the New Scofield Reference Bible note on the same verse goes further, undermining the entire hermeneutical premise of Dispensationalism.

 

The reference to sacrifices is not to be taken literally, in view of the putting away of such offerings, but is rather to be regarded as a presentation of the worship of redeemed Israel, in her own land and in the millennial Temple, using the terms with which the Jews were familiar in Ezekiel’s day. 23

 

If this particular reference to sacrifice in Ezekiel 43 need not be taken ‘literally’ then the ultra-literalist distinction between Israel and the Church collapses, flawed by its own internal inconsistency.24

 

The immediate context for Ezekiel vision of a rebuilt Temple is the promised return of the Jews from Babylonian exile, not some long distant eschatological event. This would have been utterly meaningless to the exiles longing to return to Israel.

 

In the New Testament the Temple is used as a vivid metaphor for Jesus Christ, for the individual Christian and corporately the Church as the Body of Christ and dwelling place of the Holy Spirit.25

 

This is precisely what Jesus predicted in John 2 and 4.

 

“Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." The Jews replied, "It has taken fortysix years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body.” (John 2:19-21)

 

While Jesus warned of the destruction of the Temple, he never promised that it would ever be rebuilt.26 Indeed, in the Book of Hebrews, the writer describes the offering of sacrifices between the death of Christ and the destruction of the Temple as an ‘illustration’ of, and ‘copies’ of, heavenly realities, a ‘reminder of sins’ but unable, unlike the finished work of Christ, to take sin away.

 

There is in fact not a single verse in the New Testament which promises that a Jewish Temple would be rebuilt, that a 2000 year ‘parenthesis’ should be placed between references to its desecration and destruction, or indeed that the Temple in Jerusalem would play any part in God’s purposes after the cross. Christian Zionists must therefore ignore the way in which the Temple is invested with new meaning in the New Testament and becomes instead an image of the Church.

 

For example, Paul, in writing to the Church in Ephesus, describes them as part of the new living Temple.

 

Consequently, you are … members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. (Ephesians 2:19-21)

 

Peter uses the same terminology to describe the way Christians are being made into the new house of God,28 in which Jesus is the‘precious cornerstone’.

 

you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:5)

 

Similarly, in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul takes a quote from Isaiah 52:11, referring to the Temple, and instead applies it to the Church.

 

“For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people. ‘Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.’” (2 Corinthians 6:16-7)

 

The movement in the progressive revelation of Scripture is always from the lesser to the greater. It is never reversed. The New Testament repeatedly sees such Old Testament concepts as the Temple, High Priest and sacrifice as ‘types’ pointing to and fulfilled in Jesus Christ.30

 

Christians who therefore advocate the rebuilding of the Temple are regressing into a pre-Christian sacrificial system, superseded, made redundant and annulled by the finished work of Jesus Christ.

 

The Temple was only a temporary edifice, a shadow and type anticipating the day when God would dwell with people of all nations through the atoning work of the true Temple, Jesus Christ.31

 

By insisting on such an arbitrary and dualistic separation between God’s purposes for the Jews and those of the Church, Christian Zionists are promoting Old Testament ‘shadows’ alongside their New Testament ‘substance’.32

 

In doing so they are seeking to revive what is now obsolete. Turning the clock back in redemptive history33 they are Judaizing the Christian faith.34 It is not surprising perhaps that Christian support for Jewish sovereignty over the Temple Mount, attempts to destroy the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the Jewish Temple, inflames tensions between Jews and Arabs, Christian and Moslem.

 

  1. Antipathy Toward Arabs and Palestinians(アラブ人やパレスティナ人に対する反感)

 

Christian Zionists, while lovers of Israel, rarely show the same feelings toward Arabs and Palestinians. Anti-Arab prejudices and Orientalist stereotypes are common in their writings.35

 

Comparisons between Hitler and the Arabs are common.36 Hal Lindsey, the most prolific Christian Zionist writer, insists,

 

Long ago the psalmist predicted the final mad attempt of the confederated Arab armies to destroy the nation of Israel... The Palestinians are determined to trouble the world until they repossess what they feel is their land. The Arab nations consider it a matter of racial honour to destroy the State of Israel. Islam considers it a sacred mission of religious honour to recapture Old Jerusalem.37

 

While the United Nations is invariably viewed with mistrust, the two nations of America and Israel, like Siamese twins, are perceived to be pitted against an evil world dominated by Islam,38

 

in which people like Saddam Hussein are seen as contenders for the role of Anti-Christ.39 Attempts are even made to find a strategic role for America in Biblical prophecy. Mike Evan’s is only the latest in a series of Christian Zionists to make this claim. This is part of the review on Amazon’s website:

 

How is America tied into ancient biblical prophecies? According to author Michael Evans, … biblical prophets already predicted that America is doomed to collapse unless its government stops accommodating the Arab world for the sake of oil and instead offers full military and diplomatic support to Israel.

 

He believes that God wants Israel to have full control of the West Bank and Gaza, and Americans are risking God's wrath by not fully supporting this biblical mandate.

 

Evans also theorizes that much of America's problems--including the attack of 9-11--are indications of God's fury over America's split allegiance between the two famous descendents of Abraham: Ishmael and Isaac… Evans uses 17 chapters to weave in interpretations of scripture that support his theory that America faces a mammoth choice--ruin or salvation.40

 

Regrettably this kind of speculation, common among Christian Zionist writers who demonise Arabs, regard Palestinians as 'aliens' and deny them the basic right to self determination, is difficult to square with the a New Testament ethic. The followers of Jesus Christ are called to be peace makers 41, to love their enemies and seek reconciliation.42

 

In the parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus insists we may no longer regard people on the basis of their race but their need. The New Testament ethic is one that call us to reach out to the widow and orphan, the poor the sick and the stranger, through a ministry of reconciliation, irrespective of their race.43 Tragically, many Christian Zionists, it seems, are more concerned with fighting wars than building peace.

 

  1. Anxious for Armageddon(アルマゲドンへの切望)

 

Image result for lindsey armageddon

Hal Lindsey, Armageddon: King of the South - Report This Week, 2017 (YouTube)

 

In the history of Christian theology, speculation concerning the interpretation of Revelation 20:1-10 and the meaning of the millennium has led theologians to suggest three main alternatives:44

 

Amillennialism teaches that the millennium is symbolic, or already ‘realised’45 and refers to heaven where departed souls reign with Christ (Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Berkhof).

 

Postmillennialism teaches a literal or symbolic period of a thousand years in which the Church triumphs over evil before Christ returns (George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards).

 

Premillennialism teaches that Christ will return to save the Church from evil and then reign for a literal thousand years on earth (Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie).

 

The 1967 ‘Six Day War’ marked a significant watershed for Christian interest in Israel and Zionism and the decades leading up to the new Millennium saw a heightened interest in a pessimistic form of Premillennialism popularized by best selling authors such as Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth and Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series.

 

For example, Lindsey insists,

 

And look what’s happening in the Middle East - ground zero in the endtimes events.... This phoney peace deal in the Middle East thus only ensures that eventually there will be a thermonuclear holocaust in the Middle East... This seems to parallel predictions in Revelation and else where almost to a T. Mark my words. It will happen.’46

 

Lindsey's last but one book, The Final Battle, includes the following,

 

f:id:Kinuko:20171018150627p:plain

 

Never before, in one book, has there been such a complete and detailed look at the events leading up to 'The Battle of Armageddon.'47

 

Lindsey, along with people like Jack Van Impe offer graphic maps showing future military movements of American, Russian, Chinese and African armies and naval convoys which they claim will contend with one another in the battle of Armageddon.48

 

A Critique of Christian Zionist Theologyキリスト教シオニズム神学に対する批評)

 

In this brief survey we have explored seven basic tenets of Christian Zionism. An ultra-literalist hermeneutic, the belief that the Jews remain God’s chosen people, the restoration of Jews to Eretz Israel will continue, Jerusalem will be the eternal and exclusive capital of the Jews, the Temple will be rebuilt, the priesthood consecrated and sacrifices reinstituted. Arabs and Palestinians are seen as the enemies of Israel in what is about to become the battle of Armageddon.

 

By contrast, in the New Testament, followers of Jesus Christ are called to be ‘peacemakers’ – indeed it is peacemaking that Jesus insists identifies the authenticity of those who claim to be his followers. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” (Matthew 5:9).

 

The apostle Paul elaborates on this radical yet intrinsic role of Christ-followers in 2 Corinthians 5:

 

“So from now on we regard no-one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:16-20)

 

We are to repudiate worldly criteria that distinguishes and categorises people on the basis of wealth, race, colour or creed. God is not willing that any should perish.

 

“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2Peter 3:9)

 

The vision of the future found in the Book of Revelation is ultimately a message of hope not despair. We see in the closing chapters, God’s dream not his nightmare.

 

 “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." (Revelation 21:3-4)

 

The closing chapter of the New Testament takes us back to the imagery of the Garden of Eden and the removal of the curse arising from the Fall.

 

“Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb… On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.” (Revelation 22:1-2)

 

Surely this is what Jesus had in mind when he instructed his followers to work and pray that God’s kingdom would come on earth as it is in heaven.

 

 

  1. C.I. Scofield, Scofield Bible Correspondence Course, (Chicago, Moody Bible Institute,n.d.), pp45-46.

  1. Kathy Kern, ‘Blessing Israel? Christian Embassy Responds’ Christian Peacemakers Team, Internet:menno.org.cpt.news@MennoLink.org 2 November 1997.Y

3.Lindsey, 1980’s, op.cit., p68.

4.Lindsey, Planet, p216.

  1. Lindsey, Chapter 1 of The Final Battle, (Palos Verdes, California, Western Front,

1995), is entitled ‘The New Islamic Global Threat’, p1.

  1. Lindsey, Late, op.cit., p160.

7.Lindsey, Apocalypse, op.cit., p153.

  1. Lindsey, Briefing, op.cit., 7th January (1999).

9 M. R. DeHann, Revelation, 35 Simple Studies in the Major Themes of Revelation,

(Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1946), p148.

  1. Lindsey, There’s, op.cit., pp142-143.

  2. Tim LaHaye & Jerry B. Jenkins, Are We Living in the End Times?, (Wheaton, Tyndale House, 1999), pp190-192.

  3. Schuyler English, New, op.cit., p1334.

13 Lindsey, There’s, op.cit., p143.

14 William Hendrikson, More than Conquerors, (London, Inter-Varsity, 1962). p40-41.

15.C. I. Scofield, Scofield Bible Correspondence Course, 19th edn. (Chicago, Moody Bible Institute), p. 23.

16.Ryrie, Dispensationalism., pp. 39-40.

17.Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.

  1. Zion more specifically refers to the hill on the western edge of the Old City of Jerusalem.

  2. Lindsey, Israel, op.cit., p20.

20.Peter Walker, Jesus and the Holy City (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), p. 129.

21.Walker, Jesus., p. 131.

22.C.I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 1945), p.

890.

  1. The New Scofield Reference Bible ed. E. Schuyler English (New York, Oxford

University Press, 1967), p. 864.

24.Cornelis P. Venema, The Promise of the Future (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth, 2000), p.285

25.1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21; 1 Corinthians 6:19.

26.John 2:19, Mark 26:61, 27:40; Mark 14:58, 15:29.

27 Hebrews 9:9, 23, 10:1-3, 11.

28 1 Peter 2:5.

29 1 Peter 2:7.

  1. John 1:14; 2:19-22; Colossians 2:9.

  2. John 1:14.

  3. Colossians 2:16-17; Hebrews 10:1, 5.

  4. Venema, Promise., p. 288.

  5. Galatians 3:1-5; 3:13-16; Hebrews 8:13; .

  6. Edward Said, Orientalism (New York, Vintage, 1978)

  7. Jan Willem van der Hoeven, Babylon or Jerusalem? (Shippensburg, Pasadena, Destiny Image Publishers, 1993), pp. 132-133.

  8. Lindsey, Israel and the Last Days (Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House, 1983), pp. 38-39.

  9. Merrill Simon, Jerry Falwell and the Jews (Middle Village, New York, Jonathan David,1984), pp. 63-64, 71-72.

  10. Charles Dyer, The Rise of Babylon (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1991)

  11. www.Amazon.com. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/044652252X/103-2116324-4283859

41.Matthew 5:9.

42.Matthew 5:44.

43.2 Corinthians 5:16-20.

  1. Stanley J. Grenz, The Millennial Maze, Sorting out Evangelical Options, (Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1992); Robert G. Clouse, ed., The Meaning of the Millennium, (Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 1977); Cornelis P. Venema, The Promise of the Future, (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth, 2000), pp189-362.

  2. Ibid., p235.

  3. Lindsey, Planet., pp. 243-244.

  4. Hal Lindsey, The Final Battle (Palos Verdes, California, Western Front, 1995), front cover.?

  1. Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (London, Lakeland, 1970), p. 155; Louis Goldberg, Turbulence Over the Middle East (Neptune, New Jersey, Loizeaux Brothers, 1982), p.172.

参考文献

 

https://www.wtsbooks.com/common/pdf_links/Excerpt_BealeCarson_OTComm.pdf