Dudley Hall (1)

I found this book to be disappointing. Dudley fails to follow his own rules, given in the one or two chapters, of interpreting the Bible.

In the first place, I thought it was a book refuting the rapture theory as implied from the title and back cover comments. Going through eight chapters, he has yet not discussed it.

Second, I think his major error is when he claims that the Hebrew Scriptures (HS) ought to be interpreted in light of the New Testament (NT). It seems to me he has that backwards. The apostle Paul validated the life of Christ based on the HS (cf. Acts 26:22-23). As such, the NT should be validated by the HS.

True, the NT clarifies the teaching of the HS but the HS are not validated as true on the basis of the NT. If the NT does not follow the revelation of the HS, it is to be considered a counterfeit revelation. Such is my understanding of the relationship between the HS and the NT. Otherwise, the Mormons and the Muslims can just as soundly argue for the validity of their respective books.

Third (and I find this to be Dudley's weakest argument and one where he goes against his own advice on certain rules of interpretion), Dudley claims that natural Israel has no claim to the covenant blessing of the Hebrew Scriptures and that the "Church" now inherits them. That is, he subscribes to "replacement" theology.

He asserts to advocate "fulfillment" theology but that's only word-playing. "Replacement" and "fulfillment" (although I'm not a scholar) seem to include the same ideas. Do Christians not say that Jesus "fulfilled" the Hebrew animal sacrifices and, therefore, "replaces" them? In spite of of his disclaimer, Dudley advocates "replacement" theology. His argument does not convince me otherwise.

From what I read in the Bible, Dudley is way off with respect to Israel being replaced by the Church. Let me give just two basic reasons why: (1) Dudley takes up, it seems, a more allegorical or "spiritual" interpretation of Biblical texts than is warranted, and (2) Referring to national Israel, the Bible declares that the "calling and gifts of God irrevocable."

Dudly contends that God will not fulfill his promises to an unbelieving nation as Israel. And in this he is right. But God will fulfill His promised blessings to Israel if she repents and turns back to God through Jesus Messiah. And the NT does prophetically and clearly imply Israel's national repentance: "all Israel will be saved".

Michael L. Brown argues, "the Church's fatal error was not in believing that the Jewish people were temporarily under divine disfavor for rejecting the Messiah...The Church erred fatally by thinking that God's disfavor towards Israel was permanent. It was His choosing of [national] Israel that was permanent."

The subject of Israel was my biggest bone of contention with Dudley and he seemed to make that the main thrust of his book instead of the rapture question. His arguments left much to be desired.… (meer)