william hendriksen

8/13/2019 William Hendriksen

1/7

The ReformedEschatologyof

WilliamHendriksen

A Judeo-centric Critique

BarryHorner


2/7

1

THEREFORMEDESCHATOLOGY

OF

WILLIAMHENDRIKSEN

illiamHendriksenisarecognizedevangelicalscholarofReformedconvictionswho

quiteevidently

has

Dutch

roots

and

sympathies,

as

well

as

pastoral

experience

with

theChristianReformedChurch.HiscommentariesonanumberofNewTestamentbooks

of the Bible have gainedwide acceptance amongst contemporaryCalvinisticChristians,

especially since he has considerable exegetical abilities, hebeing a doctoral graduate of

Princeton Theological Seminary. Several representatives of Reformed eschatology,

especiallyAnthonyHoekema,alsoCorneliusP.Venema,1placeconsiderablerelianceupon

Hendriksensexegeticalconclusions.Wewillconsidertwoofhiswritings.

A. ThePremillennialistConceptionconcerningIsraelandtheChurch(1934).This

was

aMaster

of

Theology

thesis

submitted

to

Calvin

Seminary

in

1934.

While

the

title leads one to expect that classic premillennialismwillbe exactly distinguished

fromthemorerecentsubsetofdispensationalism,thisdoesnotturnouttobethecase.

Rather there is considerable confusion at this point, especially with regard to the

sourcesquoted thataremoreoftendispensational.2The strongDutcheschatological

influence thatHendriksenupholds, including the same theological aura thatCalvin

Seminaryrepresents,leadshimtoreferencethepremillennialviewsofHarryBultema

inparticularthatconflictedwiththegenerallyamillennialeschatologyoftheChristian

ReformedChurch(FI173).TwopointsofcriticismofpremillennialismbyHendriksen

thatrelatetoourparticularconcernareasfollows.

1. ItisincorrectforpremillennialismtomaintainthatIsraelsfuturerestorationwillbeunconditional.Thus:

WearecontinuallyassuredthatIsraelsfuturerestorationwillbeunconditional.Itis

notconditionalonfaith.NowthispositionwhichaccordsGodsveryspecialfavor

tothosewhocontinueinwillfulobedienceandarrogantunbeliefmakeslightofthe

characterofGodasrevealedinScripture.ScripturethroughoutrevealsaGodwhose

holinessisfortransgressorsaprincipleofandanobjectoffear....Itisimpossibleto

1Cornelius

P.

Venema,

ThePromiseoftheFuture,538pp.

2 WilliamHendriksen,ThePremillennialistConceptionconcerningIsraelandtheChurch.Onp.34itisnotedbyHendriksenthat,concerningonewayofsalvationforIsrael;anotherfortheChurch,admittedly,

[m]any Pres [Premillenarians]would not subscribe to this statement.Nevertheless, the overall

presentation makes not the slightest attempt to distinguish between historic and dispensational

premillennialism.Howeverbothpremillennialschoolsofeschatologymakeageneral,ifnotidentical,

distinctionbetweenIsraelandtheChurchthatisquiteunacceptabletoHendriksenandtheReformed

eschatologyherepresents.

W


3/7

2

harmonizethePremillennialisticviewinregardtoGodsveryspecialfavorshown

tothosewhorefusetoaccepttheGospelwiththisScripturalteaching inregardto

the character ofGod and hisburningwrath against allwillful disobedience and

unbelief. I regard this to be a very fundamental objection against the

Premillennialisticsystem.3

ForaCalvinist

of

Hendriksens

Reformed

stature

to

make

such

aclaim,

although

over seventy years ago, and more recently uphold it,4 is nothing short of

astounding.Supposeweweresosay thatthechurchs futurecompletionwould

beunconditional,thenhowwouldHendriksenrespond?DoubtlesshisReformed

convictionswould answerwith a resounding affirmation.Of course faith here

would not have been denied as superfluous; nevertheless, faith would be

acknowledgedasthesovereigngiftofGodwherebythefuturecompletionofthe

churchanditselectconstituentswouldbeguaranteed.Furthermore,therenever

wasasavedsinnerwhodidnot,priortohisconversion,yetrebel in the faceof

the characterofGod andhisburningwrath!Hence thedeclarationhere that

Godwill

bless

Israel,

while

continuing

in

disobedience

and

arrogance,

is

a

misrepresentation. Itplainly ignores the truthofGodpromising to cleanseand

renewtheheartofnationalIsraelwiththeresultthatobedienceandhumilitywill

result.ThusEzekiel36:2232;37:114preciselydescribesthisdivineregeneration

and salvation procedure, in much the same way that the New Testament

describes the regeneration and salvation of a disobedient and arrogant sinner.

AndasgoodCalvinistdoctrinedescribessuchconversionasbeingunconditional

whileincorporatingfaith,accordingtotheelectionofgrace,soitwillbethecase

withtheunconditionalelectionandconversionofnationalIsraelthatwilllikewise

incorporatefaith.YetwithoutanyexegesisoftheseclassicpassagesfromEzekiel,

Hendriksenneverthelessanswersthatthey

hadsignificanceforthepeoplewhowere livingatthetimetheseprophecieswere

uttered. In their literal sense theywere intended for themand for their children,

grandchildren,andso forth,not for thepeople living today, though it is true that

theirunderlyingmoralandspirituallessonsremainvalidforeverygeneration.5

3 WilliamHenriksen,ThePremillennialisticConceptionConcerningIsraelAndTheChurch,pp.4950.4 WilliamHendriksen,IsraelandtheBible,pp.2425.ConcerningJeremiah18:510hedeclaresthatthereisindeedasenseinwhichwecancallthedivineimpartationofblessingaconditionalmatter....[H]ere

inJeremiah

18

510,

the

Lord

himself

declares

that

whenever

he

predicts

weal

or

woe,

good

or

evil,

for

anation,theconditionalwaysapplies.There isminimalacknowledgmentthat it isonlybyGods

graceandpower thatmenareable to fulfill thecondition.But thecondition is therenevertheless.

HoweverCalvinistHendriksenmakes nomention of the fact that the setting here is ofGodwho

declares, Can Inot,Ohouse of Israel,dealwith you as thispotterdoes?Would this author, in

insistingonconditionalitywithregard toa listofOldTestamentpromises,pp.1631,beequallyas

insistentforconditionalitywithregardtothetermsoftheNewCovenant?

5 Ibid.,pp.2223.


4/7

3

This is astonishing avoidance of the plain meaning of the text which C. H.

Spurgeonstraightlyrejectswhenpreachingonthistext.

[I]fwordsmeananything,first,...thereshallbeapoliticalrestorationoftheJewsto

theirownlandandtotheirownnationality;andthen,secondly,thereisinthetext,

andinthecontext,amostplaindeclaration,thatthereshallbeaspiritualrestoration,

aconversion

in

fact,

of

the

tribes

of

Israel

praising

one

God,

serving

one

king,

the

Son

ofDavid, thedescendedMessiah.Theyare tohaveanationalprosperity thatshall

makethemfamous.

Iftherebemeaninginwordsthismustbethemeaningofthischapter.Iwishnever

tolearntheartoftearingGodsmeaningoutofhisownwords.Iftherebeanything

clearandplain, the literal senseandmeaningof thispassageameaningnot tobe

spiritedorspiritualizedawaymustbeevidentthatboththetwoandthetentribesof

Israelaretoberestoredtotheirownland,andthatakingistoruleoverthem.6

Thatsuchaconclusionisdifficulttoarriveatfromthetextisfurtherevidencedby

thefactthatReformedscholars,Robertson7andVenema,8obviouslystrugglewith

thesame

problem

here

as

does

Hendriksen.

In

obviously

rejecting

aliteral

interpretation, one suspects that, because of historic, more Augustinian

presuppositionsratherthanobjectiveexegeticalconclusions,theyprefertosimply

extract regeneration and resurrection motifs from Ezekiel and declare their

fulfillmentintheNewCovenantorder.

2. Thispremillennialisticposition,isinconflictwiththeverydefinitestatementsofScripturewithreferencetotheunityofGodspeopleofbothdispensations.9

It isnecessary tounderstandHendriksenscovenant theologyat thisjuncture in

whichaderived,

overarching

Covenant

of

Grace

incorporates

all

of

Gods

redemptivedealingswithmanfromtheFalluntilthereturnofJesusChrist.This

isavitalelementinthedistinctiveDutchReformedtheologywhichheespouses.

Hence the church/congregation in the wilderness (Acts 7:38), finds its

continuation in the church of theNew Testament.Nevertheless,wemay still

enquireastowhetheritisthewillofGodthatHeincorporatediversitywithinthe

unity of His one people. Hendriksen, in referencing Ephesians 2:1122, then

comments:[F]aith inChristunitesN.T.believers to thosewhom thecovenant

promisewasmadeduring theO.T.Dispensation.Together they constituteONE

PEOPLE.10As itstands,wecanagreewith thisstatement,exceptwebelieve this

6 C.H.Spurgeon,TheC.H.SpurgeonCollection,MetropolitanTabernaclePulpit, I,no.28,1855 (Albany,Oregon:AgesSoftware,1998),382.

7 O.PalmerRobertson,TheIsraelofGod,pp.2125.8 CorneliusP.Venema,ThePromiseoftheFuture,pp.1920,369.9 Hendriksen,PremillennialisticConceptionConcerningIsraelAndTheChurch,p.56.10

Ibid.,p.71.


5/7

4

oneness includes diversity, even that concerningwhich the prophetswrote

aboutwithregardtotheconsummatedMessianickingdom(Ezek.36:2223;37:24

28;39:7;Mic.4:15;Hag.2:69;Zech.8:1823;14:1619;Mal.3:12).Hendriksen, in

rejecting such diversity, of necessity must therefore deny the continuity of

distinctiveJewishidentity.Tothiswerespondwithcomments,takenfromFutureIsrael,

that

concern

the

people

of

God

as

described

by

Paul

in

Ephesians

2.

Themainpointthatmanyamillennialistsattempttoderivefromthispassageisthat

the one new man and the one body to God (Eph. 2:1516), evidence a

homogonous unity that does not allow diversity, namely divine recognition of

JewishandGentileChristians.Thiswebelieve tobea fundamentalerrorsince the

one Spirit and one Lord and oneGod and Father (Eph. 4:46) constiute a

personaldiversity intheessentialunityoftheGodhead.InEphes.2:1316,andinI

Cor. 12:1230where there is onebody ofChrist that is composed of distinctively

gifted members, overall unity comprises a complementary diversity, as in the

marriageunion.Thus theonenewmanand theonebody toGod, indeed the

thewholebuilding,...[is]aholytempleintheLord(Eph.2:21),representaunity

that incorporatesJewish andGentile individuality ordained ofGod (Gal. 3:2829;6:1516).11

B. IsraelandtheBible(1968).This publication is a classic representation of replacement theology, certainlymore

friendlyintonethanthatofBoettner,thatyetquiteplainlyupholdsGodspermanent

disenfranchisementofnationalIsraelandcorporateJudaism.This isthe thrustofthe

substanceofthispublicationwhileatthesametime,inconclusion,itisrecommended

that theChristian shouldneverthelessbe understanding, appreciative, sympa

theticand

cooperative,

and

above

all

desirous

to

win

Jewish

souls

for

Christ.12

Of

course this laudable goal yet means the loss of Godordained Jewishness, and

especiallynationalityandterritory.Henceconsiderthesubstanceofthiswritingwhich

relentlessly, in classicamillennial style, considers thepromises, soplainlyoffered to

IsraelintheOldTestament,ashavingbeenexpropriatedbytheChristianchurch,the

newIsraelofGod.Inasignificantchapter,IsGodFinishedwiththeJews?,thereis

thefollowingintroductorystatement.

Ithasbeen established that the restorationpredictions [in theOldTestament]haveno

referencetowhatishappeningtodayonanationalscaleorwilltakeplaceinthefuture.

Explained in theirown literaryandhistorical contexts thesepropheciesdonot refer to

anytwentieth

century

(or

later)

national

return

in

unbelief,

followed

by

national

conversion,andsoforth.DoesthismeanthatGodisfinishedwiththeJews?Thosewho,

contrarytoallNewTestamentteaching(Matt.8:11,12;Rom.10:12,13;ICor.7:19;Gal.3:9,

29;Eph.2:14,18;Col.3:11;IThess.2:1416;IPet.2:9;Rev.2:9),maintainthattheJewsare

11 BarryE.Horner,FutureIsrael,p.275.

12 Hendriksen,IsraelandtheBible,pp.5863.


6/7

5

stillGodsspeciallyfavoredpeople,andthattheprogramoftheirfuturegloryisalready

beginningtounfold,sometimesspeakasifwithrespecttothissubjectthereareonlytwo

alternatives:(a)theirview,and(b)theviewthatGodisfinishedwiththeJews,asifall

Jewsweredoomedforever.Butisitnotpossibletorejectbothoftheseextremes,andto

acceptathirdposition?InsteadofacceptingafuturenationalconversionoftheJews,isit

notpossibletobelieveinremnantconversion?And,insteadoflimitingthisconversionto

theclose

of

the

dispensation,

is

it

not

better

to

connect

it

with

every

period

of

history

until

thereturnoftheBridegroom,whenatlastthedoorwillbeshutagainstthosewhoarenot

readytoenter(Matt.25:10)?13

Nowthesupposedpresentationofamediatingpositionheremayhaveanappealing

ringabout itwhile in fact it isreally literaryobfuscation.Whatbecomesabundantly

clear in the ensuing argument and exegesis of this author is that the status of this

remnant in covenantal Jewish terms is in fact a nonentity. In other words, as

Hendriksendesignates, thosewhocomprise theremnantofJewishChristians in fact

have no participation in distinctive AbrahamicJudaism in the eyes of God. Their

designation as Jewish Christians is in reality a cloak for mere tokenism and

ambiguity.ConsiderHendriksensconfessionthattheblessingsformerlypromisedto

theJewishpeoplearenowgiventotheIsraelofGod,namely,tothechurchofJew

andGentile... .[T]heprivilegeswhichoncebelongedtotheancientcovenantpeople

have been transferred to this new nation.14 Yes, but are any of these privileges

distinctivelyJewish?Inthelightofthisnewnation,isthereanysenseinwhichthe

JewishChristiancouldbelegitimatelydistinguishedfromtheGentileChristian,thatis

inthesightofGod?MostlikelyHendriksenwouldreplyinthenegative,inwhichcase

hisreferencetotheremnantasbeingJewishwouldinfactbetheemploymentofa

meaningless expression.Hereinwe come to the point of difference that Edwards,

Bonar,

Ryle,

and

Spurgeon,

etc.,

make

as

elaborated

upon

in

FutureIsrael..

It

is

that,

withinthecompositionoftheoneredeemedpeopleofGod,itisthoroughlybiblicalto

uphold a racialand territorialdistinction in the sameway thatabelievinghusband

andwife,beingoneinChristJesus,yetmaintainagenderdistinction(Gal.3:28).

Furthermorewewouldaddthatmerelythehopeofanaccumulatingremnant,aswith

Hoekema, totallymisses theclimacticvisionofRomans11.The remnantofRomans

11:5 is the guarantee thatGod is not finishedwith Israel, in confirmation of v. 1.

However, He is not ultimately satisfied withmerely a remnant,but rather their

[Israels]fulfillment,theirconsummateacceptanceaslifefromthedead,whenall

Israelwillbesaved(Rom.11:12,15,26).

Again, we commend Hendriksen for the spirit of his concluding chapter, What

ShouldBeOurAttitudeTowardTheJew?Hisevangelisticlongingiswellexpressed:

13 Ibid.,p.32.

14 Ibid.,p.55.


7/7

6

O that all the gifts and talentswithwhich thesepeoplehavebeen so richly endowed

mightbeappliedalsoyes,firstandmostofalltotheserviceofhimwhoisindeedthe

trueMessiah,KingofkingsandLordoflords!Othattheveilwhichpreventsthemfrom

seeingintheOldTestamentthegloryofChristmightbetakenaway(IICor.3:1516).15

Then he makes a further plea, with which we wholeheartedly agree. More than

anythingelse,

we

should

tell

these

people

the

truth.

16

Yes,

we

as

premillennialists

believe that this truthshould include thegravewarningofJesusChrist,Unlessyou

believethatIamHe[theSonofGod,Messiah],youwilldieinyoursins(John8:24).

But on the other hand, would Hendriksen really explain to a listening Jew the

eschatologicaltruthashebelievesitconcerningGodsdisenfranchisementofcovenant

individuality,nationalityand territory?Further,wouldHendriksen explainjusthow

manyChristianchurchesandfellowships,thatespousehisReformedeschatology,have

notonlyspawneddistinctiveJewishmissions,butalsohavebeenresponsible for the

plantingofChristianchurchesandministriesinIsrael?

15 Ibid.,p.59.

16 Ibid.,p.63.

william hendriksen

Documents