Is There a Future for Israel in God's Redemptive Plan??

In my last post, I tackled a difficult prophecy in Daniel 9 which is the primary biblical source of Dispensationalist/ Futurist teaching regarding a future seven year Tribulation which will precede the parousia of Jesus Christ at the end of the age.  I concluded in that post, that the seventieth week of Daniel is a reference to the entire present age from the time of Christ's baptism to the time of his second coming.   Today, I'm going to continue my discussion of Christian eschatology by considering another very important, but equally controversial, passage in Paul's writing - Romans 11:25-32:

²⁵ For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;  
²⁶ and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

“ The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
²⁷ “ This is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

²⁸ From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;  

²⁹ for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.  

³⁰ For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 

³¹ so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy.  

³² For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

The primary difficulty in this passage which divides Evangelical interpreters is to discern the meaning of v. 26: "and so all Israel will be saved."   In this post I'm going to briefly sketch out four possible Evangelical interpretations of this phrase.

Interpretation #1:  "All Israel" = Israel as a National Entity

The view that God will one day restore the nation of Israel to her former glory, including the restoration of the land of Palestine, the rebuilding of the physical Temple in Jerusalem and the reinstitution of commemorative animal sacrifice during the Millennial Kingdom, is the interpretation that has been embraced by Dispensationists and the majority of messianic Jewish congregations.  It has probably been the most popular eschatological position among North American Evangelicals since the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy in the 1920s when Fundamentalists embraced en masse a very pessimistic premillenial eschatology in opposition to the Liberals who adpated postmillenial optimism to the social gospel.  The rapid growth of Dispensational Premillenialism in the past century, in my opinion, was a knee jerk reaction to Liberal Protestantism.  At the heart of the Dispensationalist system of theology is the distinction between Israel and the Church into two entities.  Jesus' offer of the Kingdom to the Jewish nation was rejected by Jews living in first century Palestine (Plan A) and so He turned to the Gentiles by establishing the New Testament Church (Plan B).  For Dispensationalists, the Church, which includes both Jews and Gentiles is a 'parenthesis' in God's redemptive plan.  For the present 'dispensation', Jews are saved, added to the Church (which is a mixture of Jews and Gentiles), and will be taken up in the so called 'secret rapture', but once the Church is raptured God will resume Plan A with the Jewish nation here on earth.  Dispensationalist interpreters see Paul's teaching about the salvation of 'all Israel' in Rom 11 as further evidence of a Jewish Millenium where God will fulfill all of his promises to ethnic Jews in a very physical, literalistic way.  Dispensationalism commits the same error as the apostles did in Acts 1:6 when they interpreted the Kingdom of God almost exclusively with respect to the Jewish nation.

Interpretation #2: "All Israel" = Spiritual Israel  (Church)

Much support can be garnered for this view, popular among Amillenialists and some Historic Premillenialists which sees Paul's reference to Israel in v. 26 as a reference to the New Testament Church.  In other words, this view interprets Paul as saying that all of God's elect people, whether Jew or Gentile, will be saved and gathered into the Church before the conclusion of the present age - it is a reference to the "Israel of God" spoken of by Paul in the closing verses of Galatians.   

The support for this view comes from the way Paul and the apostles speak about the Church throughout the New Testament.  For example, Peter calls his Gentile audience a "spiritual house" and a "holy priesthood" in 1 Peter 2:4-5.  The author to the Hebrews applies the promise of the New Covenant (cf. Jer 31) to the Gentile Church (Heb 8).  Paul calls the Gentile believers in Gal 3:29 "Abraham's offspring" and "heirs according to the promise."  Paul and the other NT authors also frequently apply OT texts given in their original context to national Israel to Gentile followers of Jesus (cf. 2 Cor 6:14-18).   So, there is clear and irrefutable Biblical evidence to suggest that the Church is indeed Spiritual Israel.  This is not an anti-semetic way to intepret the NT as is sometimes alleged by Dispensationalists, nor is it 'replacement theology' (a curse word frequently used to slander and malign the reputation of Reformed theologians) - it is good, sound Biblical theology.  If  Reformed theologians are guilty of 'spiritualizing' the OT references to Israel, then the same accusation must be leveled against Paul and the apostles.   A fair assessment of the NT Scripture must acknowlege that Paul uses the term 'Israel' in different senses depending on the context.  Sometimes, Paul is speaking about the Jewish nation (ethnic Jews), sometimes he is speaking about the believing remnant within ethnic Israel and sometimes he is 'spiritualizing' the term in order to speak about the New Testament Church (Gentiles and Jews together).  In other words, Paul is not enslaved in his hermeneutics to the grammatical-historcial meaning of the text at all points - he is open to the sensus plenior (the fuller meaning) and so should we be today in our interpretation of Scripture!

In spite of my sympathy for this position, I cannot believe that Paul is speaking about Spiritual Israel here in Rom 11.  The very fact that he is consistently using the term 'Israel' in the immediate context (chapters 9-10) to refer to his Jewish 'kinsmen according to the flesh', it is almost inconceivable to conclude that he suddenly switches the meaning of this term in 11:26 to refer to the Church without giving any clear indication to his audience.  I am convinced that Paul is indeed referring to ethnic Jews in this particular passage.

Interpretation #3:  "All Israel" = Believing Remnant within National/ Ethnic Israel

This interpretation has much contextual support to commend it, and I am extremely sympathetic to those Evangelical expositors who hold this position.   I am actually torn between this position and the next one which I currently think is the better interpretation.  

This view is a good exegetical option which takes into account an extremely important distinction made by Paul in Rom 9:6 - "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel."  Unfortunately this distinction between Israel as a nation and the elect members of the nation who were justified by faith alone in the Messiah to come, is all too frequently lost on Dispensationalist interpreters.  God has always had an elect people which was not equivalent to the nation of Israel as a whole - the Israel within Israel!  To fail to make such a distinction, and to teach that Jewish people were saved by following the Mosaic Law and sacrificing animals as a rote religious ritual of a former dispensation of law,  is to totally misunderstand the role of Israel in God's Redemptive plan.  God elected the Jewish nation for a purpose - to bring forth Messiah as a blessing to the families of the earth!  The purpose of Israel's election as a nation has been fulfilled in the flow of Redemptive history when Jesus was born, lived a perfect life and died a substitutionary death in accordance with the OT Prophecies concerning Messiah (cf.Is 52-53).   Many Israelites who sacrificed animals and took the sign of circumcision will be in hell for all of eternity right alongside the many professing Christians who go to church every week and have been baptized.  Simply going through a religious exercise, be it Jewish, Christian or otherwise never saved anyone and never will: "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." (Heb 10:3).  So the Dispensationalist teaching about a restored Millennial Temple in which animal sacrifice will be restored is at best a serious misunderstanding of the flow of Redemptive History, and at worst a blasphemous heresy which denies and tramples upon the once for all character of Christ's redemptive work on the cross and mistakes the 'shadows' and 'types' of the Old Coveenant for the reality in the New Covenant.   

Nevertheless, I'm not confident that this is what Paul is talking about here in Rom 11, although I may be easily persuaded.  If Paul is talking here about all of the elect Jewish people coming to faith during the entire present age I see two problems.  First of all, the word translated "until" in v. 25 seems to imply chronology.  That is to say, I think the salvation of "all Israel" here is probably a reference to a future salvation of a large number of Jews, even though Paul himself uses his own conversion as evidence that God is not finished with the Jewish people yet in 11:1-2.  Paul's conversion seems to me, to be a harbinger of a much larger revival among ethnic Jews which will occur at some point in the future - probably right before the return of the Lord.   The second problem with this view has to do with the doxology at the end of chapter 11.  To state that all of the elect Jews throughout redemptive history will come to faith before the end of the age, is to state a truism.  Of course the elect Jews will come to faith!!!  And so it is difficult to see why this would issue in such a glorious doxology from the Apostle at the end of the chapter.  It seems to me that something more is going on here.....

Interpretation #4:  "All Israel" = Large Number of Ethnic Jews who will be Converted and Added to the Church in the Future

The subtitle pretty much says it all, and this is the view which I currently think is the best understanding of Rom 11.   The conclusion that Paul is speaking of ethnic Jews is difficult to avoid if we are allowing this text to speak for itself.  For Paul to switch suddenly from a discussion of Ethnic Jews in the previous two chapters to a discussion of Spiritual Israel in 11:26, is not a natural way to understand the text.  It also seems fairly difficult to avoid the conclusion that Paul is speaking here about something that will happen in the future.  According to this text, the salvation of the Jews will not occur "until" (a key word!!) the "fullness of the Gentiles has come in."  Without jumping through fancy exegetical hoops to make the text mean what it does not appear to say - I think it is fair to say that Paul is speaking of a future event that has not yet occurred  but will occur shortly before the return of Christ - perhaps even simultaneously with his return!   

And so, I agree with Dispensationalists insofar as Paul is talking about a future conversion of Ethnic Jews, but I disagree  with them that this conversion has anything to do with national blessings or the fulfillement of Old Covenant land promises.  I expect that many Jews will be converted when Christ returns and that this will be one of the signs that precede His second coming.  I certainly don't think every single individual will be saved as some contend ('all' does not always mean every single individual in the NT!!)

On a side note, my views on the Seventieth Week of Daniel and on the future conversion of ethnic Jews alleviate two major problems with Historic Premillenialism (The eschatological position to which I currently subscribe).  First of all, the denial of a seven year tribulation in the future allows me to affirm the possibility that Christ could return at any moment.  For post-trib Historic Premillenialists like Doug Moo who take a futurist interpretation of Daniel 9, the return of Christ must be at least 7 years away!   Secondly, the conversion of the Jews before the return of Christ gives an plausible explanation to the difficult problem of the origin of evil in the Millennium.  I think that the Jewish people will be saved when they see Christ coming at his glorious return to earth.  The Church is raptured at that point and the enemies of Christ are destroyed, but these converted Jews live on into the Millenium and some of their children and grandchildren eventually rebel against the Lord as we read in Rev 20.   To be sure, there are other significant theological problems with a Premillenial view, but until I become convinced that Rev 20 does not follow Rev 19 chronologically, I must remain a Historic Premillenialist who is extremely sympathetic to Amillenialism!

Daniel's 70th Week and the 'Great Tribulation'

Over the past month I've been giving some serious thought to the subject of end-time prophecy and the Kingdom of God and I want to write today about a very challenging passage of Scripture that for many Evangelicals, has become a linchpin in understanding the chronology of eschatological events.  First, I'm going to outline the Dispensationalist or 'Futurist' interpretation of Daniel 9 which uses this text to teach a future seven year tribulation period which is unparalleled in all of human history.  I'm then going to sketch out what I've come to believe is a better interpretation of this passage.  I will attempt to show in this post that Dispensationalist/ extreme futurist expositors make an almost unthinkable error in formulating their teaching about the Great Tribulation - their interpretation of the seventieth week of Daniel 9 actually mistakes the Lord Jesus for the eschatological Anti-Christ!! 

Daniel 9 and the 'Great Tribulation'

I suspect that the majority of Christians who've read Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series and are expecting a literal seven year 'Great Tribulation' would have considerable difficulty if they were asked to validate this doctrine from the Scripture itself.  The reason for this is that a seven year 'great tribulation' is never plainly taught anywhere in the Bible!!  At best it is an inference which comes from superimposing certain theological presuppositions upon the Scripture.

The Dispensationalist expositor begins with the  presupposition that the Church and Israel are two completely different entities in God's redemptive plan. (a presupposition which I personally don't think can be substantiated when you examine how the NT authors apply OT Covenant passages to Gentile followers of Jesus!)  Because of the Jewish context of Daniel 9, these expositors insist that this prophecy is dealing exclusively with ethnic Jews and the nation of Israel.  Indeed, the concept of the 'great tribulation' is required in the traditional Dispensationalist system if we are to get the Church (Plan B) out of the way at the so-called 'secret' pre-tribulational rapture so that God can resume Plan A with ethnic Israel back here on earth.    

Chapter 9 begins with Daniel reading from the book of Jeremiah during the Babylonian exile, openly confessing the sins of Israel before the Lord and pleading His covenant mercy on behalf of the disobedient nation.  In response to his earnest prayers, the Angel Gabriel is sent by the Lord with the following words of comfort: 

²⁴ “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.  
²⁵ So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.  
²⁶ Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.  
²⁷ And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

The first exegetical move that Dispensationalists make is to interpret the 'seventy weeks' (or 'seventy-sevens') in terms of literal years - in total this would equals 490 years.  The passage is therefore interpreted in a strictly chronological fashion.  
Secondly, they identify the decree mentioned in v. 25 with the decree that went out during the 20th year of King Artexerxes when Nehemiah was permitted to return from exile to rebuild the fallen walls of Jerusalem, an event that occurred in 445 BC.  (Neh 2:1-8).  
Next, they calculate the fulfillment of v. 26 as occurring 483 years after the issuing of the decree (69 weeks or (7+62) x 7 = 483).  This is actually pretty amazing when you think about it because it brings us fairly close to the year of Jesus' death!  And so, the first 69 weeks bring us chronologically to the prophetic fulfillment of v. 26 when the "Messiah will be cut off and have nothing" - an event which was historically fulfilled when Jesus was crucified on a Roman cross.   
But here's where the Dispensationalist interpretation begins to get a bit far-fetched for my own comfort.  They proceed without any exegetical warrant, to postulate an indefinite gap between week 69 and week 70 which has now stretched to 2000 years and counting!!!  The clock apparently stopped after week 69, and the 70th week - a period of 7 years known as the 'great tribulation' - will not begin until the eschatological anti-Christ comes to make a covenant with "the many" (v. 27).  Notice that in the Dispensational interpretation, the one who makes the covenant in v. 27 is identified with the "prince who is to come" in v. 26 rather than with the Messiah!  This, I want to suggest is a serious misunderstanding of this text which breaks not only with their own so-called literal or 'grammatical-historical' hermeneutic (funny that Gabriel totally forgot to mention that itsy bitsy 2000 year gap!!), but also with the historic Protestant interpretation.  The Dispensationalist view, although attractive on the surface and popular in many Evangelical circles, appears on closer examination to be a novel interpretation of this passage which confuses the Messiah with anti-Christ and breaks sharply with the history of interpretation.

Daniel 9 and the Year of Jubilee

For any unprejudiced interpreter of Scripture it should be somewhat clear that the Dispensationalist interpretation of this passage rests on rather shaky exegetical soil!!   I have suggested above that the need for a seven year 'great tribulation' is artificially created by the presuppositions of the theological system itself rather than by Scripture.  Secondly, the Dispensationalist interpretation totally falls apart if the "decree" of v. 25 cannot be identified with the decree given by Artexerxes in Nehemiah 2:1-8.  Thirdly, the Dispensationalist interpretation inserts a gap between week 69 and week 70 which is not even remotely suggested or demanded by the context itself!  Fourthly, the Dispensationalist uses a dangerous hermeneutic, by interpreting the NT in light of the OT, rather than the other way around.  As Christians who affirm the progressive revelation of Scripture, we ought always to interpret the OT in light of its fulfillment in Christ!!  So here's what I personally think is a better interpretation of this passage which actually calls into question the idea of a future seven year tribulation:

First of all,  the 'decree' of v. 25 is better understood in the overall context of this passage as a reference to the decree of Cyrus (538 BC) mentioned in Ezra 1:2-3 and. 2 Chron. 36:21-23 since it was this decree, and not the decree of Artaxerxes which signaled the end of Israel's 70 year Babylonian exile.  Because Daniel was praying about the end of the Jewish exile when Gabriel visited him, it makes more sense that the 70 weeks would immediately follow the conclusion of the 70 year captivity - otherwise it is difficult to see how this prophecy is an answer to Daniel's prayer in any meaningful sense.  Of course, this throws a monkey wrench into the precise calculations of the Dispensationalist scheme, but as we will see, I don't think it really matters because the text is not really concerned with precise dates and times, but is dealing with symbolic numbers that find their ultimate fulfillment in Christ.  We're dealing here with a form of 'typology'.

I agree with the older Protestant interpreters that the seventy weeks are most likely an allusion to the Sabbatical laws and  the Year of Jubilee from Lev 25:1-4, rather than to a strict chronology that we can use to calculate precise dates and times.  The year of Jubilee occurred every forty-nine years (seven sevens), and so it is more than reasonable to assume that 490 years is a symbolic representation of 10 Jubilee periods! In other words, 490 is a symbol for the ushering in of the Messianic era of Sabbath rest which  Daniel and the Jewish people anticipated for thousands of years!

Now for the interesting part!  I am in full agreement with Dispensationalists that the cutting off of Messiah in v. 26 is a reference to the crucifixion of Christ.  The "prince that shall come" mentioned in v. 26 is most likely Titus, the Roman general that destroyed the Jewish temple in AD 70.  It was at this time that the Jewish people underwent some of the terrible persecution that Jesus himself describes in the Olivet Discourse.  In contrast to the Dispensationalist interpreters, I think that the one who confirms the covenant in v. 27 is the Messiah Himself!  This is not a reference to some future covenant that anti-Christ will with Israel during the great tribulation - it is a reference to the New Covenant ratified in Christ's blood!!  Messiah himself confirms the covenant with all of His elect people, both Jews and Gentiles who are children of Abraham by faith (Gal 3:29).  The New Covenant which was brought to full fruition by the Lord Jesus rendered all of the Temple rituals blasphemous abominations to God - and that is which is what v. 27 is talking about!   All of the Temple sacrifice which occurred between Jesus' death in AD 33 and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 was a form of blasphemous idolatry that was totally displeasing to God. It was worshipping the 'types' and 'shadows' rather than the reality which had come in the person and work of Christ.  As the author to the Hebrews puts it, the coming of the New Covenant renders the Old Covenant obsolete and ready to pass away!

And so, I understand the 70th week of Daniel not as a future tribulation period that will last seven years, but rather as a symbolic representation of the age in which we are currently living.  We have been living in the 'last days' for the past 2000 yrs!!  The 70th week began when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, the first 'half' of the week ended when He died on the cross, and the end of the week will not occur until He comes back again to receive the Church to Himself! 

Lordship Salvation

The following is a very brief summary of the Lordship Salvation controversy that I prepared for our men's Bible study last week.  We were studying 2 Cor 7 which deals extensively with the doctrine of repentance and were discussing the question of whether repentance (understood as a turning away from sin) is necessary for salvation:

            The modern debate over the role of repentance in salvation began to heat up in the late 1980s between some of the theologians at Dallas Theological Seminary and John MacArthur through a very public exchange of pamphlets and published books.  Although the terms “Lordship Salvation”, “Easy-Believism”, “Free Grace Theology” etc. are fairly recent in their origin, the ideas behind these terms are not new at all.   A similar issue was hotly debated in the sixteenth-century between Martin Luther and his colleague Johannes Agricola, and again in seventeenth-century England among the Puritans during the so-called “Antinomian” controversy.  Antinomianism (meaning ‘lawlessness’) is the opposite extreme of Legalism and teaches that Christians are not in any way bound by the moral law of God (ie. Ten Commandments).  The seventeenth-century English “Antinomians” interpreted justification by faith alone (sola fide) to mean that good works were not necessarily required in order to have genuine saving faith.  In other words, you could be saved by believing in Christ without truly repenting (turning away from sin)!  But the controversy goes back even further than this.  The Apostle Paul himself anticipated that his strong emphasis on grace alone through faith alone would be misunderstood by some.  In Romans 6, Paul denounces in the strongest possible way, the ‘antinomian’ position that the Christian can continue in sin so that grace may abound.  James also vigourously attacks the Antinomian heresy which was rearing its head as early as AD 40.  Modern Day Muslims often interpret Paul’s emphasis on grace as a form of antinomianism and frequently attack Biblical Christianity on that basis.

            The so-called “Free Grace” theology which has been advocated most strongly by Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges of DTS,[1] seems to indicate that salvation occurs in two phases.  Justification is primarily an intellectual conversion when a person ‘believes’ the gospel truths and is saved.  Later on, this person may come to a deeper understanding of the importance of Lordship and may commit themselves to the process of sanctification and begin to grow in holiness.   “Free Grace” advocates do not deny the importance of sanctification or repentance in the life of a believer, but they do not insist that it begins at the moment of justification.  It is quite possible for a person to have an intellectual conversion – even to trust in Jesus, and to remain in a perpetual state of “carnality” where the ‘Christian’ lives like a non-believer (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1). Some understand repentance to be a "change of mind" about sin (metanoia) rather than an actual turning away from sin.  Because of these convictions, these “Free Grace”  theologians do not believe that assurance of faith should be based on the presence or absence of good works in the life of a believer.  Assurance comes from assent to the truth of the gospel and is frequently associated with a prayer to receive Christ when that person moves from unbelief to belief.  Any person who truly believes and has received Christ is eternally secure.

            The so-called “Lordship” position which has been strongly advocated in recent years by John MacArthur[2] is basically identical with the emphasis of the Puritans in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.  Like Calvin and the Puritans, MacArthur teaches that justification and the lordship of Christ go hand in hand.  In other words you cannot divide Christ – you must receive Him as Saviour and Lord, or you cannot receive Him at all!  Lordship theology emphasizes the critical importance of good works in the life of the true disciple and insists that every person who follows Christ must first count the cost by turning away from sin immediately!  This is not to say that no sin remains in the life of the believer, or that a true believer cannot backslide, but rather that the Lordship commitment happens with justification, not afterward in a second stage.  Like the Puritans, MacArthur believes that assurance of salvation can be gleaned from careful self-examination.  If no evidence of regeneration is present in the life of a believer (ie. No changed affections, no love for the brethren, no good works, etc.), there are no grounds for assurance whether or not that person prayed to receive Christ.  Assurance is the result of perseverance, and the evidences of grace which the Holy Spirit produces.

            Free Grace advocates frequently accuse Lordship Theologians of teaching a form of legalistic works- righteousness that compromises the doctrine of justification by faith alone.  Lordship advocates frequently accuse Free Grace Theologians of teaching a form of antinomianism which cheapens grace and is leading thousands of “professing Christians” to hell by giving them false assurance of faith. 

---

[1] Ryrie, So Great Salvation

  Hodges, Absolutely Free!

[2] MacArthur, Gospel According to Jesus;  Gospel According to the Apostles

Saved by Faith but Judged According to Works??? (Matt 25:31-46)

Matthew 25:31-46 provides us with a vivid description of the final judgment and can be a perplexing passage for many of us who hold strongly to sola fide since it seems to imply (in contrast with Paul) that salvation is ultimately by works rather than by faith alone in Christ:

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'  Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?'  Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.'  And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."  (vv. 41-46)

  Is there a contradiction in the Bible here?  Does Paul teach sola gratia, while Jesus teaches works-righteousness?   A number of solutions have been offered:


Solution 1:  All Good People go to Heaven

This is the Liberal Protestant answer to this question which really isn't much of a solution at all.  Those who deny the authority of God's Word, have no difficulty accepting that it contains irreconcilable contradictions because they do not believe that Scripture is Verbally Inspired (cf. 2 Tim 3:16).  For many Liberals, the essence of Christianity can be boiled down to being a nice person, following the golden rule and trying to improve society through social reform - in a nutshell it is humanism dressed up in a clerical collar.  If they retain a theology of eternal punishment then the criteria for judgment becomes how closely you followed the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount.  If they don't retain a theology of eternal punishment, it doesn't really matter in the end since hell is an invention of the early church that has been placed in the mouth of Jesus and therefore doesn't really exist.

The Liberal Protestant view interprets "the least of these brothers of mine" (v. 40) as a reference to all people generally.

Solution 2:  There Are Multiple Eschatological Judgments

This solution is offered by Dispensationalists who claim that there is not one final judgment, but three. Matthew 25:31-46, they argue, is a judgment for the nations to determine which ones will enter into the thousand year Millennial Kingdom.  This appears to solve the problem nicely, since Matthew 25 applies to believers living in another dispensation and does not apply to believers today who are saved by faith alone - (sigh of relief!) According to this view, "the least of these brothers of mine" is a reference to Jewish believers living during the time of the Great Tribulation.  The criteria for entering the Millennium in this view, is how the Gentile nations treated the Jewish people during the Tribulation.

Dispensationalists hold that a second eschatological judgment is described in 2 Corinthians 5:10 and is a judgment for reward for Christians.  This "Bema Seat Judgment", they say will occur in heaven during the Great Tribulation after the church has been raptured and before the final appearing of Christ (parousia) at the end of the Tribulation.

The third  and final judgment is described in Rev 20:11-15 when non-believers will be resurrected and judged and the sheep (God's elect) will be separated from the goats (those who rejected Christ).

Although the Dispensational view seems to offer a plausible explanation to this passage which guards sola fide, it requires that you first accept the presuppositions of the theological system, which in my own view cannot be easily substantiated from Scripture itself. (A subject for another day)


Solution 3:  One Final Judgment- Justified by Faith and Judged according to the Evidence

A third view, which I personally think is the best one makes matters very simple when it comes to eschatology.  All passages in the New Testament and in the Old Testament prophetic books that refer to judgment are speaking of the same event, which is called the "Great White Throne Judgment" in Rev 20.  There will be one eschatological judgment at the end of the age, at which time believers and  non-believers will stand before Christ to give an account of their lives.  This judgment will consist of an evaluation of both the object of one's faith (whether it was Jesus Christ alone or something else), and the righteous works that have been done during our pilgrimage on earth.  The works performed by God's elect will, at this time, be graciously rewarded by the Lord as Paul teaches us in 1 Cor 5.

The answer to the dilemma concerning faith and works as they relate to the final judgment is resolved if one interprets these judgment passages in the light of the entirety of Scripture.  The NT teaches two very important truths related to this issue which must both be equally affirmed.  Emphasizing Proposition 1 to the exclusion of Proposition 2 leads to the heresy of Antinomianism.  Emphasizing Proposition 2 to the exclusion of Proposition 1 leads to the opposite heresy of Legalism: 

1) Salvation is a gift of God that cannot be earned.  (Eph 2:8-9) We are justified by faith alone in Christ.  (Rom 5:1).
2) True and saving faith perseveres to the end. (1 John 2:19)  Genuine faith is always accompanied by good works, just as a good tree produces good fruit.  (Eph 2:10, James 2:24; Matt 7:17-20)   In other words, good works are an indispensible part of the Christian life.

So .... will we be judged on the basis of faith or of works??  The answer to this question is that the good works that the Spirit produces in our lives as believers is the ultimate evidence of saving faith.  Works are not the ground of our salvation, but they are the evidence by which we can know whether or not we are truly saved.  To put it another way - we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, but we will be judged on the basis of works which validate the genuineness of our faith in Christ.  With this in mind, passages like Matthew 25 which stress the importance of good works should not distress us or cause us to drive a wedge between Jesus and Paul - they should cause us to examine ourselves to see whether we are truly in the faith (2 Cor 13:5).  They should cause us to strive to make our calling and election sure. (2 Peter 1:10).  They should serve as warnings that cause us to be ready for the return of our Lord and so that we will not be among the crowd of false professors on that final day (Matt 7:21-23), or that we would be ashamed at His appearing (1 John 2:28).

The Olivet Discourse (Matt 24) - Futurism and Preterism

My journey through Matthew has brought me today to the Olivet Discourse, one of the primary eschatological passages in the New Testament that has been the subject of intense intra-mural debate among Christians. I am going to briefly sketch three different categories of interpretation:

Extreme Futurism:

 The first theological system that I learned growing up in the fundamentalist movement was the Classical Dispensationalism of C.I. Schofield (rooted in the 19th century theology of the Plymouth Brethren leader J.N. Darby) which differentiates Matthew 24 from its synoptic parallel in Luke, viewing the former as the fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week (cf. Daniel 9:24-27) and the latter as a reference to the historic destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D.  This 'seventieth week' which will be seven years long is often called the 'Great Tribulation' which will follow a 'secret rapture' of the predominately Gentile Church.  Dispensationalists differ on the exact timing of this rapture - some beliving that it will occur at the beginning of the tribulation period, and others holding that it will occur at the half-way mark.  They effectively split the return of Christ into two phases:  Christ's return for the Church which is imminent (understood as 'any moment') and will not be preceded by any signs, and the second coming of Jesus (parousia) which will occur at the end of the Great Tribulation when he will return to earth to reign in a literally reconstructed temple in Jerusalem.  Because Matthew 24 is full of signs that point to the Lord's second coming, Dispensationalists reason according to their theological system, that it cannot possibly be a text about the rapture of the Church.  All eschatological texts in the NT are divided into 'rapture texts' and 'parousia texts' depending on whether or not there are signs which precede the event.  For Classical Dispensationalists, Matt 24 is strictly a 'parousia' text (including vv.36-44 which is sometimes understood (wrongly they say) as a reference to the 'secret rapture' of the Church.
The Classical Dispensationalist interpretation of Matt 24 is that the Olivet Discourse pertains exclusively to the final generation of Jewish believers who are alive during the Great Tribulation.  It may be an interesting passage for Christians to read, but it is not really that important for the current dispensation.  It is a view that sees no historic fulfillment in Matthew 24 in spite of the fact that the entire discourse was occasioned by the disciples question regarding the destructon of the temple (v.2).  According to Dispensationalists, Jesus simply ignores this first question posed by the disciples and focuses exclusively on their second question about the close of the age and events of the future (v.3).

Preterism:

Preterism is the view that Revelation and Matthew must be understood in light of the historic events of A.D. 70 when the temple was destroyed by the Roman general Titus.  Preterism is broken into two views, viz. Full Preterism which views Matthew 24 and Revelation as being completely fulfilled in the first century, and Partial Preterism which views much of Matthew 24 and Revelation as already fulfilled, and some which is yet to be fulfilled in the Eschaton.  The distinction between Full and Partial Preterism is a very important one.  Full Preterism is not an orthodox position because it denies the future, bodily return of the Lord Jesus.  Partial Preterism, on the other hand is a very live option for Evangelicals and has been promoted by R.C. Sproul, R.V.G. Tasker and others. 
Partial Preterists break Matthew 24 into two sections.  Verses 1-28 deal exclusively with the historical destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.  The mysterious 'Abomination of Desolation' (v. 15) is a reference to the desecration of the Temple by Titus (who actually offered a pagan sacrifice in the temple court), and not a reference to the eschatological Antichrist of the Great Tribulation.  Partial Preterists interpret vv. 29-44 as the future bodily return of Christ at the end of the age, while  Full Preterists erroneously contend that these verses were fulfilled historically in the first century.

I came across a passage in the City of God recently that seems to indicate that St. Augustine can also be categorized as a Partial Preterist:  "I pass over many other passages which seem to refer to the last judgment but which, on more careful condideration, are found to be ambiguous, or to refer more pertinently to something else.  They may refer, for example, to the 'coming' of the Saviour which is going on throughout this present age in His Church:  that is, in His members.  In this sense, He comes part by part and little by little, since the whole Church is His body.  Again the reference may be to the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem.  For when Christ speaks of that destruction He often does so as if He were speakign of the end of the world and of the last and great day of judment." (XX.5)

Moderate Futurism:

While I see the Partial Preterist position as a possibility and a better option that the Dispensationalist view, I do not think it is the best way to understand Matthew 24.  In my own understanding, Matthew 24 refers to two different events in one single prophecy, and must be interpreted as a prophecy having multiple layers of fulfillment that are not easy to separate in a simplistic way.  We ought to interpret Matthew 24 just as we interpret Old Testament prophecy - there are usually multiple levels of fulfillment, both historical and eschatological.
There is little doubt in my mind that Jesus is talking in Matthew 24 about events that were fulfilled in A.D. 70  and also that the language is heightened in such a way that he is also describing events that will happen just prior to his return (which I understand to be a single event that will occur at the end of the Tribulation).  The Abomination of Desolation mentioned by Daniel in the OT and used again here by our Lord, is an event that has numerous historical fulfillments.  It was fulfilled in the Maccabean period when Antiochus Ephiphanes sacrificed a pig in the temple (surely the backdrop of Jesus words).  It was fulfilled again in A.D. 70 when Titus offered sacrifice in the temple courts.  It will be fulfilled again in the future by the Antichrist - although not in a literal temple since the Church itself is the temple of God!  Although we do not understand what exactly will happen, Jesus indicates in a parenthetical statement in v. 15 that Christians alive during that future time of firey persecution and martyrdom will understand what this passage means when the event actually occurs.