CRITICAL BOOK REVIEW For Zion’s Sake: Christian Zionism and the Role of John Nelson Darby by Paul Richard Wilkinson by Darren M. Slade March 21, 2016 CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Brief Summary .............................................................................................................................. 1 Critical Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 21 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 24 Annotated Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 27 ii Introduction Being the final product of his doctoral studies, Paul Wilkinson’s book, For Zion’s Sake, intends to reveal how John Nelson Darby’s detractors have distorted Christian Zionism while directly challenging academics who believe dispensationalism has little theological or historical value.1 The purpose of this review is not to critique dispensationalism directly but to summarize and evaluate Wilkinson’s research and conclusions. In the end, Wilkinson’s ideological agenda and prejudicial research presents a thoroughly one-sided and indefensible case for Christian Zionism. In addition to his shameful demonization tactics against anyone who disagrees, Wilkinson’s research capabilities demonstrate a deliberate bias with little intention of conducting a fair and honest assessment of the subject. His style of writing amounts to nothing more than inflammatory claptrap, engaging in a puerile smear campaign against nondispensationalists that panders to the rhetoric of pseudo-intellectual prophecy pundits and apocalyptic hysteria. His research and conclusions are elementary at best, if not outright disgraceful. Brief Summary Beginning with a forward from Thomas Ice, executive director of The Pre-Trip Research Center at Liberty University, the book opens with the argument that John Nelson Darby is simultaneously the most influential and most obscure evangelical in church history whose writings brought the Christian Zionist movement into maturity.2 The first chapter defines “Christian Zionism” as a movement of Christians originating from Great Britain who seek to bolster the unconditional support of the State of Israel in anticipation of Christ’s Parousia. 1 Paul Richard Wilkinson, For Zion's Sake: Christian Zionism and the Role of John Nelson Darby, Studies in Evangelical History and Thought (Colorado Springs, CO: Paternoster, 2007), 1-2. 2 Ibid., xvii-xviii. 1 According to Wilkinson, nine essential characteristics exist in the Christian Zionist movement, including a clear distinction between Israel and the church, a belief in a pre-tribulation rapture followed by a seven-year period of tribulation at the rise of the antichrist, and support for Jews returning to Israel. Likewise, Christian Zionists must believe in the future rebuilding of the temple (complete with animal sacrifices), a national salvation of Jews, the physical return of Christ to Jerusalem, and a thousand year reign of Christ on the earth. Admitting that dispensationalism arrived primarily through Darby’s unique exegetical studies in the early nineteenth century, Wilkinson argues that dispensationalism is thoroughly evangelical and historical. He contends that the most distinctive feature of Christian Zionism is its consistently literal interpretation of Scripture. For Wilkinson, Christian Zionism is the only biblically correct version of traditional evangelicalism and even decries use of the terms “Palestine” and “Palestinian,” believing that the Palestinian people, nation, language, culture and religion are a hoax perpetrated by an anti-Christian, liberal agenda.3 Chapter Two treats “Christian Palestinianism,” which the author describes as an antiZionist movement that views Israel as an apartheid state. Quoting the writings of different organizations, Wilkinson concludes that this movement is nothing more than pro-Palestinian propaganda determined to spread South American liberationist theology throughout the Middle East. Christian Palestinianism criticizes Christian Zionism for being a sensational doomsday religion fixated on the end of the world, as well as being an eccentricity of late Christian fundamentalism that is prone to rewriting history and uncritically endorsing horrific acts against civilian populations. Wilkinson argues that Christian Palestinianism derives its beliefs from 3 Wilkinson, For Zion's Sake, 1-47. 2 Reformed, covenant theology that has egregiously redefined Israel as the church. The movement is ultimately a one-to-one inversion of Christian Zionism.4 The next chapter details John Nelson Darby’s life, ministry, and historical influence. Darby grew up in a wealthy Irish home but renounced materialism and his aristocratic lifestyle. Wilkinson explains that Great Britain saw a dramatic rise in the popularity of apocalypticism and apocalyptic eschatologies in the late eighteenth century, an era that also launched a distinction between the Christian church and the Jewish nation. Darby eventually became very disillusioned with the state of Christianity in Ireland and sought to create a denomination that would accept only the truly faithful, believing that most of Christianity had apostatized. In the 1820s, Darby co-founded the Plymouth Brethren, which believes that an anticipation of Christ’s imminent return should occupy a prominent position in the Christian’s life. Hence, Darby and the Brethren held a rigorist lifestyle and enforced strict church discipline in preparation for the second coming. Wilkinson also discusses Darby’s eventual separation from the Brethren due primarily to his altercation with Benjamin Newton, a prominent Brethren leader who had abandoned Darby’s belief in the rapture. After failing to excommunicate Newton, Darby left the denomination. According to Wilkinson, those who blame Darby for the split or try to villainize him are in error. The truth is that Darby was a very peaceful, humble, loving Christian who was devoted to serving others and wanted nothing more than to advance God’s kingdom.5 The fourth chapter explores Darby’s particular eschatology, claiming that he discovered his dispensational convictions on his own apart from any outside influences. Calling it the “Darby myth,” Wilkinson argues that Darby’s assertions were neither unintelligible nor 4 Wilkinson, For Zion's Sake, 48-66. 5 Ibid., 67-94. 3 plagiaristic of other people’s beliefs. The author admits, however, that historians believe Darby’s theology was an abrupt innovation in Christian history tantamount to heretical escapism and susceptible to imaginative exegesis. Darby viewed salvation history as broken into eight distinct “dispensations” where God chose to deal with humanity through different laws. However, humanity was destined to fail immediately in each of the dispensations.6 For Darby, the church age was only a temporary “parenthesis” that would not have appeared had the Jews allowed Jesus to establish his kingdom on earth. In other words, God’s primary focus has always been the nation of Israel and the church was a contingency plan that God would remove from the earth before giving Israel its international prestige again. Because the church age is like any other dispensation, Darby believed that the church would ultimately be a failure and apostatize from the faith. Only true Christians would experience the rapture. His ultimate goal was to release the church from the delusional belief that it had replaced Israel in divine significance. For Darby, the rapture was the most significant element of dispensationalism, not the dispensations themselves.7 Chapter Five then presents an historical survey of premillennialism among the Puritans to demonstrate that Christian Zionism appeared as early as the post-Reformation era. English Puritanism originally had amillennial, premillennial, and postmillennial trajectories within its ranks. The restorationist movement, which asserted that Jews needed to return to Palestine and establish a sovereign nation in order to fulfill biblical prophecy, did not gain any credibility until the works of seventeenth century Puritan Thomas Brightman, though his eschatology held more affinities with postmillennialism than it did with modern day dispensationalism. Over time, different theologians and different factions of the Puritan movement came to view the church and 6 For Darby, these included the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Aaronic, Kingly, Gentile, church, and millennial dispensations (see Wilkinson, For Zion's Sake, 100). 7 Wilkinson, For Zion's Sake, 95-134. 4 Israel as distinct entities. Eventually, restorationism became a major religious fad in the United Kingdom, predominantly out of a reaction to the anti-Semitism of earlier generations.8 Wilkinson then explores restorationism in the nineteenth-century, a period in English history that produced intense economic confusions as the country transitioned into an industrial society. This created an environment where people began obsessing over the end times. Wilkinson introduces the writings of Edward Irving and Margaret MacDonald. Irving was a defunct premillennial minister in the Church of Scotland who began publishing his ecstatic utterances as prophecies. Wilkinson argues against Dave MacPherson that Darby could not have acquired his beliefs from Irving because Darby denounced him as a heretic for his views on the incarnation. Likewise, Darby adamantly rejected Irving’s interpretation of other prophecies. Finally, the MacDonald sisters began having ecstatic experiences, as well, which became a national sensation. Darby personally attended a session where Margaret MacDonald gave prophetic utterances, which may have influenced Darby’s beliefs. Wilkinson contends that MacDonald could not have influenced Darby because the family did not make a distinction between the church and Israel. Similarly, Wilkinson maintains that MacDonald’s utterances involved a posttribulation rapture, not a pretribulation rapture like Darby.9 Chapter Seven treats the influence of Christian Zionism in the establishment of the modern State of Israel. After Darby’s death, his restorationist-futurist ideals intertwined with political activities to help create a permanent settlement of Jews in Palestine. Through the workings of different political and religious organizations, England resolved to create a Jewish 8 Wilkinson, For Zion's Sake, 135-61. 9 Ibid., 162-201. 5 national homeland. The British Cabinet agreed to endorse Zionist plans for the resettlement of Jewish people in the hopes that it would propel the end of the world.10 The final chapter examines Darby’s influence on American Christianity. Though it was common since the colonial days to believe that America was the new Israel, it was not until the carnage of the Civil War that the American public embraced premillennialism. Gradually, theologians and commentators started to spread dispensational beliefs, though Wilkinson admits that these American writers rarely (if ever) credited Darby for their eschatology. In fact, Darby’s seven tours to the United States generally went unnoticed. By the time Darby left America, eighty-eight Brethren meetings were established, which initiated the American Bible and Prophecy Conference movement. Through these conferences, a focus on biblical prophecies became a cultural phenomenon in America. Later, the fundamentalist movement of the early twentieth-century thrusted dispensationalism into mainstream significance. Ultimately, people like C. I. Scofield were the biggest popularizers of dispensationalism in America.11 Wilkinson concludes his book by characterizing Darby as a strong personality who caused a lot of controversy and polarization among Christians. He asserts that despite his vitriol renunciation of anyone who disagreed with him, Darby was a warm and compassionate man of integrity. Wilkinson maintains that Christian Zionism began in the early Puritan period and matured into a simple, coherent eschatological system under Darby, who reversed the centurieslong suppression of Israel’s restoration under amillennialism and replacementism. Evangelicals should be grateful to Darby for reviving the lost teachings of the apostles.12 10 Wilkinson, For Zion's Sake, 202-21. 11 Ibid., 222-58. 12 Ibid., 259-61. 6 Critical Evaluation Wilkinson’s book is more of an historical survey of different Christian sects and foreign policies than a portrait of Darby’s influence on Christian Zionism. His use of Darby’s personal correspondences and journal entries helps to elucidate Darby’s theology by filling in the gaps left by other biographies that focus primarily on his published writings. The most significant contribution Wilkinson makes to theology is his extensive use of quotations from other authors, which makes the book a virtual encyclopedia of opinions and assertions on the subject. Unfortunately, this is also one of the more bothersome aspects of the book. The author apparently lacks any capacity to engage critically with his resources as evidenced by Wilkinson’s continual inability to form an original thought without incorporating quotes directly from someone else’s writings into his own sentences. As a result, he provides no major contribution to the study of Christian Zionism or John Nelson Darby since the author simply repeats what others have already written. Wilkinson exposes his lack of critical thinking skills when he quotes the opinions of other authors as though this were enough to substantiate his assertions.13 When presenting the viewpoints of others who disagree, Wilkinson merely dismisses their arguments as unfounded without actually engaging them directly (see for example, pp. 17-18, 142-43). Throughout the book, there is a concerted effort to portray opponents as having been deceived by an apostate church to further racial hatred for the Jews. The book consistently uses the pejorative epithets “replacement theology” or “replacementism,” calling it a “gross theological distortion” 13 Sadly, some of the resources used to support Wilkinson’s contentions are quite questionable. Sensationalist prophecy-pundits such as Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, John Hagee, and Walid Shoebat (cf. 30, 34, 38, 41) should not be considered scholars in either biblical exegesis or eschatology any more than the disgraced Harold Camping. For a scathing review of the many false predictions and apocalyptic hysteria produced by Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, and John Hagee, see Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code: Find Out What the Bible Really Says About the End Times... and Why It Matters Today (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007) and T. Boersma, Is the Bible a Jigsaw Puzzle... An Evaluation of Hal Lindsey's Writings, trans. Elizabeth Vandenkooy Roberts (St. Catharines, Ontario: Paideia Press, 1978). See also, Hans Schwarz, Eschatology, Pbk. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 318-21. 7 (43) to insinuate an extreme form of supersessionism that has “plagued the Church and encouraged anti-Semitism” (xvii). Demonizing non-Zionists as anti-Semitic Nazi sympathizers becomes common parlance for Wilkinson’s book (43, 54). According to the author, only Christian Zionists are “heirs of the righteous Gentiles” (15), while he describes other Christians as “opponent[s]” who merely use “proof-texts” in an attempt “to foster anti-Semitism in the Church” (18). Non-Zionists are portrayed as the pharisaical elder brother who refuse to side with God (21). The book repeatedly refers to Christian Zionists as “true Christians” (29), “true believers” (31, 122, 258), “the true Church” (71), and “the true children of God” (103), implying that non-Zionists are neither faithful nor authentic Christians. Criticisms of Israel are automatically labelled as “a revival of the centuries-old Jew-hatred” (40) and “pro-Palestinian propaganda” (49). The belief in a Palestinian people “is simply another tactical manoeuvre in the Islamic war waged against Israel to effect her destruction” (42). He consistently engages in the wildest caricatures of non-Zionists: The Bible is seen to be Christian, not Jewish, the land of the Bible is Palestine not Israel, the Son of God is a Palestinian not a Jew, the Holocaust is resented not remembered, 1948 is a catastrophe not a miracle, the Jewish people are illegal occupiers not rightful owners, and Biblical prophecy is a moral manifesto and not a signpost to the Second Coming…the overriding thrust of Christian Palestinianism is political, not Biblical. (65) For Wilkinson, the church has committed “theological betrayal of Israel” (42) simply for believing that it is the inheritor of God’s promises toward Israel. “This doctrine of replacement effectively ‘laid the foundation for…the Nazi Holocaust’” (44). Those who criticize Darby provide only “vitriolic onslaughts” and must have a “conspicuous axe to grind” (96). They are capable only of “sweeping and unsubstantiated allegations” (124), gross misrepresentations, and malignant accusations (129). Wilkinson argues that they are “prejudiced” and have “a vendetta against Darby” (191). Those who adhere to amillennialism have simply “failed to remove the 8 shackles of Augustinian” theology (140) and seek only to suppress the truth (260). Sadly, Wilkinson’s vitriol indignation for competing viewpoints is not a mark of genuine scholarship. Miserably, Wilkinson appears oblivious to the hypocrisy of condemning Christian Palestinians, who he says are “skilled in the propaganda art of ‘labelling.’” He continues, “By attaching to Israel such emotive labels as ‘apartheid’, ‘ethnic cleansing’, ‘genocide’, ‘massacre’, and ‘occupation’, they have successfully turned the minds of many against the Jewish people” (53). The reader wonders why Wilkinson does not display the same hostility toward his own labelling of other Christians. He even has the audacity to claim that Christian Palestinians rewrite history to present Jews as modern-day Nazis (54-55), ignoring the fact that he has done the exact same thing with the Palestinian people and non-Zionists. Wilkinson’s duplicity reaches new heights as the author actually condemns other Christians for labelling Zionists as anti-Semitic (55-56), a tactic he himself employs repeatedly throughout the book. The hypocrisy and special pleading is astounding in Wilkinson’s research. In one instance, Wilkinson dismisses theological liberalism because it is a recent invention (15) but fails to acknowledge that liberalism began in the same century as dispensationalism, even admitting that Darby himself recognized his doctrine as a new invention (123-24). Wilkinson insists that Christian Zionists are foremost concerned with pursing a biblical “road-map” to peace (15) but ignores the fact that this “road-map” requires the racial and religious segregation of entire people groups. Christian Zionists celebrate their uncompromising rigidness to diplomacy (20) and rejection of interfaith dialogues (49) in the expectant hope for the slaughter of millions of people (51-52). Given the fact that they believe the antichrist will be “a great humanitarian” and the “ultimate humanist” (32), someone who will have “the ability to solve the Middle East problem” (33), it is no wonder that Christian Zionists seek to impede peace talks for fear that reconciliation 9 is actually a sign of the devil. A system of beliefs that concludes the devil will be in charge of bringing peace to the world is both fanatical and dangerous.14 As Marcus Borg comments, Rapture theology portrays the end times as marked by wars and rumors of wars. Working for peace might actually get in the way of the rapture and the second coming….Rapture theology and the “Left Behind” [sic] novels are filled with violence….God and Jesus are violent, involved in the destruction of the world and evildoers. Jesus’s followers are violent; they war against the Antichrist….What kind of theology are you likely to have if you think of God and Jesus as violent?15 Because dispensationalism has an invested interest in seeing a violent end to world history, dispensational politicians with the authority to influence foreign policy have the potential for causing serious harm (cf. 225). Dispensationalism ultimately eliminates all social and ecological responsibility by postulating the absoluteness of divine providence. For dispensationalists, the world must end in destruction or else the Bible is wrong. Humanity cannot and should not change the world for the better.16 In fact, dispensationalism is rooted in the predeterminism of nineteenth-century Calvinistic thought and flourished in American Calvinistic circles, making Wilkinson’s abhorrence for reformed theology all the more laughable.17 The author is self-righteous for rejecting Dave MacPherson’s contentions about Darby as nothing more than “conspiracy theories” (195), but he repeatedly claims that there are hidden plots to defame dispensationalism or to destroy the Jews. He argues that there is “an anti-Israel agenda in the media” (40) and that the antichrist is secretly planning to manipulate peace talks in 14 Hence, the author approvingly quotes Senator James Inhofe during the United States Senate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2002 as saying, “This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true” (40-41). 15 Marcus J. Borg, Speaking Christian: Why Christian Words Have Lost Their Meaning and Power-And How They Can Be Restored (New York: HarperOne, 2011), 192-93. 16 Schwarz, Eschatology, 332-33. 17 George M. Marsden, “Reformed and American,” in Reformed Theology in America: A History of Its Modern Development, ed. David F. Wells (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985), 8. 10 the Middle East (32-33). For Wilkinson, replacementists have “stigmatized” dispensationalism in a conspiracy to “[veil] its true meaning” (98). Of course, this is not surprising given that dispensationalism and premillennialism are especially prone to conspiracy theories.18 These conspiracy theories reach a pitiful status when Wilkinson argues that there is no such thing as a Palestinian people or culture. It is one big hoax (41-42). Never mind the fact that even Israel recognizes a distinct people group known as Palestinians, which is why Israel is able to discuss establishing a Palestinian state, as well as transferring control to the Palestinian Authority in sections of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.19 Despite this rhetoric, Palestinians are in fact an ethnic group with a distinct culture, religion, and dialect.20 They are a racial amalgam of the pre-Israeli settlers and other non-Jewish people groups. World immigration numbers calculate that Palestinians number upwards of six million people in multiple countries, including several hundred thousand in the United States and nations outside the Middle East, as well as several hundred thousand living in refugee camps throughout Palestine. In 1922, Palestinian Arabs comprised the vast majority (87.8%) of the population in Palestine of which a sizable portion (10.8%) were Palestinian Christians. Jews comprised only a small minority (11%). At the time of the establishment of the State of Israel, Jews owned only 18 James A. Patterson, “Changing Images Of The Beast: Apocalyptic Conspiracy Theories In American History,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31, no. 4 (December 1988): 443-52; Timothy P. Weber, Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming: American Premillennialism, 1865–1982, Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983), 188, 226. 19 The World Factbook 2004 (Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2004), s.v. “Gaza Strip,” s.v. “West Bank,” http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/. 20 The following demographics appear in Pierre Rondot, “Who are the Palestinians?,” Cross Currents 32, no. 2 (1982): 167-78; Naim Ateek, “The Conflict over Palestine: A Palestinian Christian Response,” Quarterly Review 25, no. 1 (2005): 60-72; Stephen Sizer, “Christian Zionism: Justifying Apartheid in the Name of God,” The Churchman 115, no. 2 (2001): 147-71; Ghada Hashem Talhami, “Palestinians,” in Encyclopedia of World Cultures, ed. John Middleton and Amal Rassam, vol. 9, Africa and the Middle East (Boston, MA: G. K. Hall & Co., 1995), 262-67; and Samih K. Farsoun, Culture and Customs of the Palestinians, Culture and Customs of the Middle East (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2004), 78-85. 11 six percent of Palestine and constituted only one-third of the population. Despite their minority status, the United Nations partitioned half of Palestine to the Jews, enraging the indigenous population. During the Arab-Jewish War (1947-1948), upwards of 750,000 Palestinians (50,000 of whom were Christian Palestinians) became refugees and lost their land to the Israelis. Israel now treats the occupied land as the spoils of war and refuses to return the territories back to their original occupants. According to one estimate, one-third of all Palestinians worldwide are Christians.21 Wilkinson’s demonization of the Palestinians not only betrays his own Christian brothers and sisters who happen to be Palestinian, but his ideology inflames the conflict between these two people groups and unjustly puts innocent families in danger. This is shameful and hardly the markings of a Christ-follower (cf. Matt. 5:9). Of course, the author believes that Israelis should possess the land today by divine right, making his delegitimization of the Palestinians an odd argument when their ethnic status would not alter the author’s theological beliefs. Interestingly, Wilkinson acknowledges that a substantial number of Jews did not live in Palestine until the end of the nineteenth century (2324), forcing the reader to wonder whom exactly Wilkinson thinks owned the land prior to modern Jewish settlements if it were not Palestinians. Likewise, who does Wilkinson believe has territorial governance over cities such as Bethlehem since neither Israelis, Jordanians, nor Egyptians control the territory around that city? Wilkinson’s conspiracy theories are not surprising considering he routinely holds a double standard when it comes to the Middle East. For instance, he approves of political action by Christian Zionists (202-21), despite Darby’s vehement opposition to Christian politics (110-11), but he condemns Christian Palestinians for their political involvements. He condemns non-Zionists for being a “one-issue coalition,” 21 Talhami, “Palestinians,” 266. Samih Farsoun estimates that only 6.25% of all Palestinians are Christian. However, in 1948, 18% of the Palestinian population was Christian (Farsoun, Culture and Customs, 78, 85). 12 pitiably assuming his own work is a defender of different viewpoints, and then remarks that Palestinianism has an “inherently political and Liberal character … covering itself in a veneer of Biblical respectability” (65). Of course, the vast majority of scholars in the academic community, including many evangelicals, say the exact same thing about Wilkinson’s ideology, as well. Wilkinson refuses to acknowledge that the modern State of Israel has repeatedly committed human rights violations against Palestinians and fellow Christians. For Wilkinson, there is nothing bad happening, calling it only a “perceived plight of the Palestinian people” (60; cf. 53-59). In fact, many current and former Israeli soldiers have publically admitted that they repeatedly commit human rights violations and criminal acts against the civilian populations in a deliberate attempt to oppress and incite violent clashes with the Palestinians.22 His brand of Christian Zionism places a major obstacle to the proclamation of Christ to both the Muslim and Palestinian world. The church cannot have a one-sided political support of Israel without also destroying the receptivity of Muslims to the gospel.23 Not surprisingly, Wilkinson’s belief system engages in imaginative alarmism that would cause most authors embarrassment. Proponents of Christian Zionism have no reservations with the paranoid over exaggerations that cry, “Time is fast running out” (29), “Mark of the beast technology is already here!” (34), “[the Temple Mount is] the most dangerous square mile on the planet” (35), “We are living in ‘the most frightening time for Jews since the Holocaust’” (39). Wilkinson even admits that conspiracies abound in the dispensational worldview, stating, “Christian Zionists, on the other 22 These soldiers have since joined efforts with “Breaking the Silence” to bring peace to the region by exposing the apartheid tactics of Israel’s military. To view video confessions by these soldiers, see http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/. 23 See Waleed Nassar, “Ten Stumbling Blocks to Reaching Muslims,” in Encountering the World of Islam, ed. Keith E. Swartley (Atlanta, GA: Authentic Media, 2005), 236. 13 hand, portray the United Nations as ‘a bastion of Jew hatred’ for ‘systematically singling out Israel for punitive treatment’” (55). Wilkinson displays an uncritical and prejudicial bias toward Zionist dissenters as evidenced by him repeatedly presenting the discussion in adversarial, conspiratorial terminologies. By affixing labels onto other Christians that conjure images of the Third Reich and the Holocaust, Wilkinson purposely tries to mislead the judgement of his readers in order to dictate a predisposed assessment of the conflict, directly arguing that non-Zionist sentiments are unholy and an affront to God. This suggestive technique is manipulative, unscholarly, and shameful.24 In essence, Wilkinson’s work is not concerned with objectivity. Throughout the whole book, Wilkinson grooms his audience with only the most confrontational, adverse, and stereotypical information that panders to an extreme dichotomist mindset in the hopes of polarizing Christians against each other. Wilkinson’s repeated use of emotive, prejudicial language attaches an arbitrary moral value to his belief system, believing his ideology is the only good and noble schema. The author appears to display a bizarre obsession with Israel and Jews to the point that his research is pathologically philo-Semitic (cf. 44-46), approving of the statement, “The love of God is toward Israel” (47) but apparently no one else. The author seems naïvely unaware of self-fulfilling prophecies, especially regarding the establishment of the modern State of Israel, which only came about by the political actions of government officials who acted in such a way as to make their religious convictions a fulfilled reality. This is hardly the miracle that Wilkinson hoped to convey to his readers (13, 47), especially when Wilkinson recognizes that Israel’s existence is the result of Christian political 24 For information about the consequences of this type of branding, see Rüdiger F. Pohl, “Effects of Labelling,” in Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory, Pbk. ed. (2004; repr., New York: Psychology Press, 2012), 327-44. 14 maneuverings (1, 26-27, 40-41). Readers should not mistake politics for fulfilled prophecy any more than they should interpret poor diplomacy and antagonistic policies as a sign of the end of the world. Interestingly, Darby explicitly demanded that the reestablishment of Israel could not and should not come about by the political workings of “wicked Gentiles” (110-11). Additionally, Wilkinson deceives his audience by presenting Zionism as a domineering movement throughout world history (cf. 4-5; 19; 37), but he neglects to inform his readers about the actual percentage of Christians and Jews who support a Zionist agenda. In fact, there has been a steep decline in support for Israel by the American Jewish community while Palestinian Christians flee the region in massive numbers due to Israeli oppression and brutality.25 For instance, one national study found that the majority of American Jews (nearly 60%) and almost half of American Christians (45%) do not believe that God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people. Half of all American Jews (48%) also believe that Israel is not sincere in its attempts at establishing peace with the Palestinians, while the majority (61%) believe a two-state solution to the Middle East crisis is possible and preferred.26 Even surveys from Israel reveal extensive racial bigotry. Half of all Israeli Jews (48%) either agree or strongly agree with the assertion that “Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel.” The vast majority of Arab Israelis (79%) and Israeli Christians (57%), as well as one-in-five Israeli Jews (21%) believe there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims in Israel. About four-in-ten Muslims (37%) and roughly one-in-ten Christians (7%) report that they have personally been the victim of prejudice, attack, or other crimes by Jews because of their religion. 25 See Donald Wagner, “Evangelicals and Israel: Theological Roots of a Political Alliance,” Christian Century 115, no. 30 (1998): 1020-26. 26 Luis Lugo and Alan Cooperman, A Portrait of Jewish Americans: Findings from a Pew Research Center Survey of U.S. Jews (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2013), 86-91, accessed January 16, 2016, http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/10/jewish-american-full-report-for-web.pdf. 15 Almost half of Israeli Jews (40%) do not believe the Israeli government is making a sincere effort to establish peace, while the vast majority (79%) believe Jews should receive preferential treatment over other ethnicities. Interestingly, the majority of Israelis (62%) would give preference to democratic principles over Jewish law (halakha), while four-in-ten Israeli Jews (43%) and nearly half of Israeli Christians (45%) believe Israel can peacefully coexist with a Palestinian state. One-fifth of Israeli Jews do not believe in God, roughly four-in-ten Israeli Jews and eight-in-ten Israeli Christians do not believe God gave the land of Israel to the Jews, and nearly half of Israelis (49%) are secular Jews (Hilonim), meaning they are only marginally religious or observant of Jewish law. In fact, nearly one-in-four Jews (24%) do not characterize themselves as Zionists.27 These are certainly strange demographics when trying to bolster the belief that modern-day Israel is the true people of God and an innocent victim of anti-Semitism. The author completely disregards the fact that the majority of Christian history, most Christian denominations, and a significant portion of evangelicalism adamantly oppose dispensational ideologies, a detail never once mentioned in the book. The author gives the false impression that Christian Zionism has been part of mainstream evangelicalism for centuries when in fact it remains a marginal, predominantly American aberration in the history of the church. Wilkinson seems unconcerned with the fact that dispensationalism grew out of the same European and American apocalyptic obsession with biblical prophecies that created other endtime cults in the nineteenth century, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter-Day Saints, Christadelphians, and Seventh-Day Adventists (cf. 15-16). Classical dispensationalism has all 27 Neha Sahgal and Alan Cooperman, Israel's Religiously Divided Society: Deep Gulfs among Jews, as well as between Jews and Arabs, over Political Values and Religion's Role in Public Life (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2016), 6-7, 9-10, 17-18, 31-32, 148-59, 173-75, 225-28, accessed March 16, 2016, http://www.pewforum.org/files/2016/03/Israel-Survey-Full-Report.pdf. 16 but disappeared as it appropriates more covenant theology and greater continuity between the Old and New Testaments. The death of traditional dispensationalism is already well underway.28 Wilkinson fallaciously argues that because theologians have used the term “dispensation” throughout church history, theologians today should not view dispensationalism as an aberration (99-100). Of course, believing in dispensations and adhering to dispensationalism are two different things. Theologians can acknowledge different periods (“ages”) throughout history while maintaining that the church is true Israel.29 Similarly, Wilkinson does not seem to understand the significance of the fact that the earliest Christian writings teach supersessionism. Not only do the oldest Christian texts indicate an adherence to a post-tribulation, premillennial view, but the patristic era was marked by a decidedly “punitive” or “retributive” supersessionism where the church believed that God was judging Israel for its unbelief and transferring all of its promises to the church.30 Even as early as the first-half of the second century, church writings described the New Testament church as the new people of God and the new Israel.31 Wilkinson also appears oblivious to the fact that no text in church history mentions anything about a rapture for the first eighteen hundred years. Wayne Grudem is right when he comments, “The doctrine 28 See John S. Feinberg, ed., Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments - Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), xii, 64, 310 and Ronald M. Henzel, Darby, Dualism, and the Decline of Dispensationalism: Reassessing the Nineteenthcentury Roots of a Twentieth-Century Prophetic Movement for the Twenty-first Century (Tucson, AZ: Fenestra Books, 2003). For an examination of how dispensationalism is changing in academia, see Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism: An Up-to-Date Handbook of Contemporary Dispensational Thought (Wheaton, IL: BridgePoint Books, 1993). 29 Schwarz, Eschatology, 85-86. 30 See Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine, A Companion to Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 684-88 and Michael J. Vlach, “Rejection Then Hope: The Church’s Doctrine of Israel in the Patristic Era,” Master’s Seminary Journal 19, no. 1 (Spring 2008): 51-70. 31 Everett Ferguson, Church History Volume One: From Christ to Pre-Reformation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 74. 17 of a pretribulation rapture is an inference from several passages, all of which are disputed. Moreover, even if one believes this doctrine to be in Scripture, it is taught with such little clarity that it was not discovered until the nineteenth century. This does not make it seem likely.”32 Wilkinson conspicuously does not mention these inconvenient truths in his book. Finally, the author’s attempt to rescue Darby’s reputation is a dismal failure. His quotations from Darby’s own writings depict him as a legalistic, condemnatory figure who would pathologically slander anyone who disagreed with him. Darby condemned other Christian denominations as a “nursery of apostasy” and as “feeble” (78). He claimed that those who deviated from his position produced “evil” works (82-83), were not “the true children of God” (103), and were considered an “enemy” (192). For Darby, only dispensationalists were “truly born-again” and were “true Christians” (104). Hence, other biographies of Darby consistently describe him as vindictive and confused, incapable of coexisting with differing viewpoints, cruel, petty, tyrannical, disgruntled, arrogant, and anti-Christian (see 86-88). Wilkinson’s treatment of Darby is not only uncritical but irrationally worshipful of him. Wilkinson even admits that he found it difficult to remain impartial about Darby (259). The author ignores the fact that Darby was simply a product of his own time and culture, who quickly embraced the apocalyptic fervor and growing restorationist trends in Europe that caused an obsession with biblical prophecies (cf. 71-75, 146-49, 175-76). Not only were political and social institutions dramatically changing in Europe as a result of things like the industrial revolution and the French Revolution (cf. 162-77), but the writings of Irving were heavily influential in the early stages of the Plymouth Brethren.33 32 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 1134. 33 Robert G. Clouse, “Millennium, Views of the,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 772-73. 18 Despite admitting that “Darby was deeply disillusioned with the state of the Church” (76), Wilkinson continues to maintain that Darby devised dispensationalism out of his own genius. In reality, the origins of dispensationalism trace back to the apocalyptic mindset of Europe, as well as the overly optimistic outlook of scholastic postmillennialism and Darby’s own pessimism about the church.34 The author fails to realize just how much Darby’s disillusionment influenced his eschatology, resulting in a search for any system that would abolish the “church age” through the invention of the rapture and a return to the legalistic religion of ancient Judaism. This is why Darby called Israel “the supreme people on the earth” (131). Both the church and Jesus Christ must be failures since the church age is its own defunct dispensation (101-4). For Darby, a major sign of the end times is that the church would apostatize. The implication of this belief is that Christ is also a failure since he is the head of a deceived and misguided church (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18; cf. Matt. 16:18). Following the pattern of a cult of personality, Darby believed he was reestablishing “the true Church” (71) and “the true Christian faith” (75) for those who “truly loved the Lord” (76). He believed he was destined to “rescue plain Scripture statements from the garbage of theology” (124). Dispensationalists often portray Darby “as the man who rediscovered the apostolic teachings” (240), giving him cult-like status among his followers. Darby consistently accused other churches of having apostatized (78, 81), believing that wherever there was an ordained priesthood “there is the denial of Christianity” (79). There are even hints that Darby believed God was guiding him and that others should emulate his life (cf. 82). Darby believed that those who disagreed would have to face judgement from God (95), and that the church fathers were “untrustworthy on every fundamental subject,” saying, “I reject them with indignation” (107), an 34 Cf. Mark Sweetnam and Crawford Gribben, “J. N. Darby And The Irish Origins Of Dispensationalism,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 3 (September 2009): 569-77. 19 odd comment considering Darby condemned Irving for having a less-than orthodox Christology as defined by the church fathers (192-93). Darby accused those who disapproved of his rapture theology as being “adversaries of the truth” (123). These are the markings of a personality cult. Wilkinson’s insistence that Darby was not influenced by other premillennial eschatologies fails to consider the complexities of how theological doctrines develop culturally and dialectically. He naïvely believes that Darby simply formulated his beliefs in isolation, despite recognizing that Darby did not initially possess a rapture theology before dogmatically embracing the concept (123-24). At first, Darby was indifferent to the rapture but then later said it was his sole guide (193, 196). The author summarily dismisses the similarities between Darby and other writers as having no connection to each other simply because these other writings did not articulate the exact same conclusions as Darby. However, Wilkinson’s argumentation proves unconvincing because it demands too much of the evidence. He appears to suggest that only an exact correlation between Darby’s rapture theology and other forms of premillennialism can count as proof of their syncretistic relationship (cf. 192-96). This rationale looks for an exactitude that does not exist and naïvely assumes that no correlations existed at all. Regrettably, Wilkinson oversimplifies the relevant causal factors necessary to explain the rise of dispensationalism, especially since Darby’s personal study of the Bible is insufficient to account for the abrupt appearance of his new religious movement. The amount of historical investigations and citations in Wilkinson’s book indicates that there are a considerable number of antecedents that worked together to cause the development of Christian Zionism. It is an oversimplification to try to dismiss these factors or to narrow the cause to just one source. There were likely social, political, cultural, psychological, theological, and existential causes to the creation of dispensationalism, including Darby’s encounter with the 20 ecstatic utterances of other Christians. The situation is simply much more complex than Wilkinson suggests. It would have been better for the author to suggest that Darby added to the already established exaltation of biblical prophecies and became distinct because of his heightened emphasis on a pretribulation rapture. Bluntly stated, Wilkinson is no scholar. His writing does not demonstrate the meticulousness necessary for a balanced, equitable, and disinterested presentation of the type of specialized research expected of genuine scholarship. It is clear that Wilkinson wrote his book for popular audiences who already share his Zionist biases, betraying his lack of professional ethics by consistently disrespecting other viewpoints. His disposition lacks the necessary skepticism, self-criticism, and doubt inherent to academic investigation. The author’s integrity is questionable since there is no clear distinction between his historical research and the author’s opinion. Sadly, Wilkinson oftentimes spins his research to present Zionism in the best possible light while denigrating opposing viewpoints in the most hostile terms.35 Conclusion In the end, the only people who would benefit from reading this book are those who wish to confirm their own biases in support of Christian Zionism. Instead of rescuing Darby’s reputation or legitimizing Christian Zionism, Wilkinson merely confirmed that Darby was more akin to an apocalyptic cult leader and founder of a new heresy. The author quickly dismisses criticisms of Darby without serious consideration in an overzealous attempt to defend Darby at all costs. Ultimately, Darby was a rigorist and a moralist who showed little grace or compassion 35 For understanding the traits of genuine scholarship, see Andrew David Naselli, “Three Reflections on Evangelical Academic Publishing,” Themelios 39, no. 3 (November 2014): 429-31 and Andreas Tolk, “What are the Characteristics of a Scholar?,” SCS M&S Magazine, April 2012, 54-58, accessed January 17, 2016, http://www.scs.org/magazines/2012-04/index_file/Files/Tolk.pdf. 21 for those who disagreed with him. Likewise, Wilkinson’s treatment of non-Zionist Christians is deficient because it refuses to acknowledge the complexities of Jewish and Christian eschatology over the millennia. His overreliance on quotations from secondary sources demonstrate a lack of critical thinking and original thought. The author is prone to making assertions without evidence, believing that quoting others who shares his viewpoint is sufficient to make his case. The book clearly has an ideological agenda because of its uncontrolled need to slander and attack non-Zionists. The book’s conclusions are without warrant, the opinions and judgements without evidence, the opposition without a fair presentation, and the author without a clear sense of scholarship. The book is terribly unbalanced because it gives preferential treatment to Zionism and refuses to acknowledge the injustices and atrocities committed against the Palestinian people under the guise of Jewish statehood. The only real point that Wilkinson proves is that Darby was uncharitable and exhibited a cult-like personality. Christian Zionists such as Wilkinson need to recognize just how disastrous it is to create a country dedicated solely to one ethnicity or one religion since this will inevitably lead to the discrimination and persecution of ethnic and religious minorities.36 In fact, thirty-six percent of all ultra-orthodox Israelis (Haredim), twenty percent of all Israeli Jews, and seventy-two percent of all Israeli Christians agree with this assertion.37 Overall, Wilkinson is guilty of a confirmation bias in his research, where his methodology searches for and interprets data in such a way that he systematically impedes the possibility that his ideology could be false. He consistently gives more weight to information that confirms his assumptions and evaluates confirming data less critically than he does the 36 See Chawkat Moucarry, “Israel or Palestine?,” in Encountering the World of Islam, ed. Keith E. Swartley (Atlanta, GA: Authentic Media, 2005), 252-60. 37 Sahgal and Cooperman, Israel's Religiously Divided Society, 6, 8. 22 counterevidence. A more objective approach would demand attempting to falsify his hypothesis, in addition to confirming it. It is clear that Wilkinson engages in agenda-setting tactics that attempt to prove his point by stating something repeatedly without adequately offering any evidence, counterevidence, or interacting with opposing viewpoints. He attempts to market both his politics and his religion in a disgraceful display of alarmist rhetoric by merely slandering anyone who disagrees. Wilkinson’s research and conclusions perfectly reflect the statement of scholar Kevin Bouder, “To put it bluntly, I’ve known many a dim bulb who claimed a Ph.D.”38 38 Quoted in Naselli, “Three Reflections on Evangelical Academic Publishing,” 430. 23 Bibliography Allison, Gregg R. Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine. A Companion to Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011. Ateek, Naim. “The Conflict over Palestine: A Palestinian Christian Response.” Quarterly Review 25, no. 1 (2005): 60-72. Blaising, Craig A., and Darrell L. Bock. Progressive Dispensationalism: An Up-to-Date Handbook of Contemporary Dispensational Thought. Wheaton, IL: BridgePoint Books, 1993. Boersma, T. Is the Bible a Jigsaw Puzzle... An Evaluation of Hal Lindsey's Writings. Translated by Elizabeth Vandenkooy Roberts. St. Catharines, Ontario: Paideia Press, 1978. Borg, Marcus J. Speaking Christian: Why Christian Words Have Lost Their Meaning and Power-And How They Can Be Restored. New York: HarperOne, 2011. Clouse, Robert G. “Millennium, Views of the.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 770-74. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001. Farsoun, Samih K. Culture and Customs of the Palestinians. Culture and Customs of the Middle East. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2004. Feinberg, John S., ed. Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments - Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988. Ferguson, Everett. Church History Volume One: From Christ to Pre-Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994. Hanegraaff, Hank. The Apocalypse Code: Find Out What the Bible Really Says About the End Times... and Why It Matters Today. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007. Henzel, Ronald M. Darby, Dualism, and the Decline of Dispensationalism: Reassessing the Nineteenth-century Roots of a Twentieth-Century Prophetic Movement for the Twentyfirst Century. Tucson, AZ: Fenestra Books, 2003. Lugo, Luis, and Alan Cooperman. A Portrait of Jewish Americans: Findings from a Pew Research Center Survey of U.S. Jews. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2013. Accessed January 16, 2016. http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/10/jewish-americanfull-report-for-web.pdf. 24 Marsden, George M. “Reformed and American.” In Reformed Theology in America: A History of Its Modern Development, edited by David F. Wells, 1-12. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985. Moucarry, Chawkat. “Israel or Palestine?” In Encountering the World of Islam, edited by Keith E. Swartley, 252-60. Atlanta, GA: Authentic Media, 2005. Naselli, Andrew David. “Three Reflections on Evangelical Academic Publishing.” Themelios 39, no. 3 (November 2014): 428-54. Nassar, Waleed. “Ten Stumbling Blocks to Reaching Muslims.” In Encountering the World of Islam, edited by Keith E. Swartley, 236-38. Atlanta, GA: Authentic Media, 2005. Patterson, James A. “Changing Images Of The Beast: Apocalyptic Conspiracy Theories In American History.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31, no. 4 (December 1988): 443-52. Pohl, Rüdiger F. “Effects of Labelling.” In Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. 2004. Pbk. ed. Reprint, 327-44. New York: Psychology Press, 2012. Rondot, Pierre. “Who are the Palestinians?” Cross Currents 32, no. 2 (1982): 167-78. Sahgal, Neha, and Alan Cooperman. Israel's Religiously Divided Society: Deep Gulfs among Jews, as well as between Jews and Arabs, over Political Values and Religion's Role in Public Life. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2016. Accessed March 16, 2016. http://www.pewforum.org/files/2016/03/Israel-Survey-Full-Report.pdf. Schwarz, Hans. Eschatology. Pbk. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000. Sizer, Stephen. “Christian Zionism: Justifying Apartheid in the Name of God.” The Churchman 115, no. 2 (2001): 147-71. Sweetnam, Mark, and Crawford Gribben. “J. N. Darby And The Irish Origins Of Dispensationalism.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 3 (September 2009): 569-77. Talhami, Ghada Hashem. “Palestinians.” In Encyclopedia of World Cultures, edited by John Middleton and Amal Rassam. Vol. 9, Africa and the Middle East, 262-67. Boston, MA: G. K. Hall & Co., 1995. Tolk, Andreas. “What are the Characteristics of a Scholar?” SCS M&S Magazine, April 2012. Accessed January 17, 2016. http://www.scs.org/magazines/201204/index_file/Files/Tolk.pdf. 25 Vlach, Michael J. “Rejection Then Hope: The Church’s Doctrine of Israel in the Patristic Era.” Master’s Seminary Journal 19, no. 1 (Spring 2008): 51-70. Weber, Timothy P. Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming: American Premillennialism, 1865–1982. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983. Wagner, Donald. “Evangelicals and Israel: Theological Roots of a Political Alliance.” Christian Century 115, no. 30 (1998): 1020-26. Wilkinson, Paul Richard. For Zion's Sake: Christian Zionism and the Role of John Nelson Darby. Studies in Evangelical History and Thought. Colorado Springs, CO: Paternoster, 2007. The World Factbook 2004. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2004. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/. 26 Annotated Bibliography Henzel, Ronald M. Darby, Dualism, and the Decline of Dispensationalism: Reassessing the Nineteenth-century Roots of a Twentieth-Century Prophetic Movement for the Twentyfirst Century. Tucson, AZ: Fenestra Books, 2003. Author Ronald Henzel, a former member of the Plymouth Brethren, traces the growing distance between classical dispensationalism and academic institutions such as Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, citing these instances and the growing popularity of progressive dispensationalism as evidence that the traditional eschatology of John Nelson Darby is on its deathbed. Henzel predicts that unless something dramatic occurs in the prophetic or scholarly arena, classical dispensationalism will continue to decline dramatically. Taking a unique approach to the discussion of Darbyism, the author argues that Darby’s literalistic hermeneutic is not the actual reason why academics are abandoning dispensationalism. Instead, adherents are rethinking the belief system because of Darby’s dogmatic dualism between the earthly people of Israel and the heavenly people of the church. Likewise, the novelty and divisiveness of dispensationalism has caused many to abandon its precepts. Henzel also discusses Darby’s repeated abuses of opposing viewpoints, which eventually resulted in his removal from the Plymouth Brethren. According to Henzel, the rapture was a periphery issue for Darby who did not receive his ideas from Edward Irving. Instead, the distinction between the church and Israel was his biggest point of contention. The author stresses the inconsistency and naivety of dispensational hermeneutics that purport to maintain literal interpretations, insinuating that academic scholars can no longer make this approach to Scripture tenable. Though he notes that not all academics have abandoned dispensationalism, Henzel suggests that its continued presence relies primarily on the popularity of dispensationalism among nonprofessionals and lay readers. 27 Sandy, D. Brent. Plowshares & Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2002. D. Brent Sandy explores the influence of prophecy by delineating its subject matter to four main areas: deity (describing God in the extremes as merciful and vengeful), humanity (both its depravity and God’s divorcing of his people), calamity (the hyperbolic descriptions of God’s coming judgment), and prosperity (descriptions of God restoring and blessing his followers). Because these prophetic words were oral in nature, the original audience would have recognized rhetorically dramatic imagery as symbolic language that purposely created an emotive experience. Since all language intends to communicate human experience, a problem developed when prophets attempted to describe heavenly concepts that were outside the purview of familiarity. Human language is thus only a partially accurate method for communicating about God since it is limited by human foresight and imagination. Therefore, the message of prophecy does not reside in the minutiae of its details. Rather, it resides in its “photogenic” ability to provide a “preexperience” of heavenly mysteries. Because prophetic language is also poetic language, Sandy explains that these prophecies were more performance than propositional. In other words, the orality of the text lent itself toward creativity and visually stimulating messages (“picturesque properties”) that intended to grab the audience’s attention. This causes a problem for determining whether certain parts of prophecy were literal or figurative. Likewise, the emotional properties create a dilemma of knowing whether a prophet’s words were more hyperbolic than exact descriptors. Sandy also addresses whether readers should interpret the prophet’s visionary experiences as surreal or empirical realities, concluding that metaphorical language entails a surreal experience with a concrete message. 28