Lindsey's School of Interpretation

Lindsey's Prophetic Jigsaw Puzzle

Lindsey's Perplexing Puzzle

The Function of the Advent Signs

The answer to the first question is to be found in the dispensational interpretation of Biblical prophecies which is based on two determinative principles, known as  (1) “consistent literalism” and  (2) a permanent distinction between Israel and the Church.

Consistent Literalism.  On the basis of the principle of consistent literalism, Old Testament prophecies regarding the restoration of Israel, the rebuilding of the temple, and the reinstitution of animal sacrifices must be fulfilled in a literal way to the Jewish nation in Palestine during the “terminal generation” which began in 1948, and especially during the last seven-year countdown.
 
It is impossible within the limited scope of this booklet to examine the two determinative principles of dispensational prophetic interpretation.  The reader is referred to my extensive analysis of these principles in my book The Advent Hope for Human Hoplessness.
 
My study shows that the principle of consistent literalism fails adequately to interpret Biblical prophecy because it ignores the progressive nature of God’s revelation; it disregards the Messianic and expanding fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies; and it contradicts itself through its inconsistent interpretation of Biblical prophecies.

Israel and the Church.  On the basis of the second principle of a permanent distinction between Israel and the Church, many Old Testament prophecies regarding the Jews must be fulfilled at the end of time in and through a literal Israel, because what the Scripture says about Israel cannot be applied to the Church and vice versa.
 
Regarding the second principle, it must be said that though the New Testament sometimes does speak of Jews in distinction from Gentiles, it never teaches or implies that God has in mind a separate future for Israel in distinction to that planned for the Church.
 
In the New Testament the church lives, not as a new olive tree, but as new olive branches grafted into the one olive tree of the Israel of God  (Rom 11:17-24).  The future of Israel is seen in the New Testament, not in terms of a millennial political kingdom in Palestine, but in terms of everlasting blessedness shared together with the redeemed of all ages in a restored new earth.1

The second question of whether or not the tribulation events of the seven-year-countdown are being fulfilled in the decade of the 1980s is simple to answer:  no sign of their fulfillment is yet in sight, even though we are already beyond the midpoint of the 1980s.
 
We already noted that Lindsey’s prediction of the secret Rapture of the church failed to come to pass by 1981.  This first mistaken prediction by Lindsey is closely related to the four other mistaken predictions to be considered below.
 
The second of Lindsey’s mistaken predictions regards the meteoric rise of a Roman Antichrist out of the ten nations of the European Common Market.  This political dictator and religious imposter was to rise to power immediately after the Rapture of the church by 1981.  In 1970 Lindsey wrote that believing Christians are “the restrainer” of 2 Thessalonians 2:6-12, who are holding “back the rise of this World Dictator.”2  The Rapture of believers by 1981 was to remove the “restrainer” which was in turn to enable the Roman Antichrist to exert “power and might . . . over the entire world.”3

A Possible Candidate.  In 1970 Lindsey saw a possible candidate for the role of Roman Antichrist in the Frenchman Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber, “newspaper editor and author of The American Challenge.”4  The reason for this choice was that Servan-Schreiber at that time was “furiously trying to push a U.S. of Europe” and because he wanted “to become its first president.”5
 
This sensational prediction of Lindsey has miserably failed, like the previous one about the Rapture.  Not only has no political-religious dictator appeared in Western Europe during the early part of the 1980s, but also the chances of his imminent rise are extremely remote.  The reasons are of different natures and could be summarized in the following four points.

Fragile Economic Community.  First, the European Common Market is not a strong political federation of nations comparable to the federation of the fifty American states.  On the contrary, it is a very fragile economic community of nations whose governing body does not dictate the internal political affairs of the ten nations it represents.  Thus, it is inconceivable that a political-religious dictator could ever arise out of the governing body of such a fragile economic community that is presently fighting for its very survival.

Political Fragmentation.  Second, it is unimaginable for anyone familiar with the political fragmentation existing in most of the ten nations belonging to the European Common Market that a political dictator could ever succeed today in dominating all these ten nations without a bloody resistance.   In my own country of Italy, for example, where we have more than a dozen political parties and where coalition governments have fallen dozens of times since 1945, it is inconceivable that all political parties would suddenly support a  European political-religious dictator.

If nations such as England, France, Belgium, Holland, and Poland fought heroically against Hitler’s attempt to dominate them, there is every reason to believe that they are prepared to fight again even more heroically today against anyone making a similar attempt to control them.  This is especially true in view of the struggle Europeans have waged during the last forty years for greater political and civil liberties.

American Intervention.  Third, it is difficult to perceive how a Roman Dictator could succeed in dominating ten European nations without being challenged by the U.S., Russia or both.  Lindsey discounts the possibility of an American intervention against the Roman Antichrist because he predicted in 1970 that “according to the prophetic outlook, the United States will cease being the leader of the West and will probably become in some way a part of the new European sphere of power . . . It is certain that the leadership of the West must shift to Rome, in its revived form, and if the U.S. is still around at the time, it will not be the power it now is.”6
 
On the basis of Ezekiel’s statement, “I will send fire—upon those who dwell securely in the coastland . . .” (Ezek 39:6; Amplified), Lindsey wrote in 1970, “It is clear that the U.S. cannot be the leader of the West in the future.”7
 
The developments of the last fifteen years have clearly proved Lindsey totally wrong in this important prediction.  Not only has the U.S. retained and strengthened its position of leadership of the West, but there are also no indications that the leadership of the West has begun to shift toward a revived Rome.  This clearly means that another key piece of Lindsey’s prophetic jigsaw puzzle has failed to fall into place.

European Secularism.  Fourth, it is hard to imagine how today’s Europeans, who are predominantly secularistic and humanistic in their outlook (less than 10% are churchgoers), could suddenly become worshipers of a Roman Dictator who claims to be a divine being.  This was conceivable in ancient Rome when the emperor was often worshipped as god but hardly today when even papal directives are largely ignored by the majority of European Catholics.  In Italy, for example, in spite of papal threats against those who would vote in favor of divorce and abortion, Catholics in two recent referenda did vote overwhelmingly in favor of both practices, thus openly defying papal injunctions.
 
The obvious conclusion that emerges from the above considerations is that not only has Lindsey’s Roman Antichrist failed to appear as predicted in the early 1980s, but also that the possibility of his imminent arising out of the present political and religious climate of Western Europe is extremely remote.  This means that a second vital piece of Lindsey’s prophetic jigsaw has failed to fall into place.

Closely related to the Rapture and the rise of the Roman Antichrist, there is a third mistaken prediction which Lindsey made regarding the rebuilding of the tribulation Temple.  The Roman Antichrist, predicted to appear in the early 1980s, was supposed to make the rebuilding of the Temple possible by making “‘a strong covenant’ (Dan 9:27) with the Israelis, guaranteeing their safety and protection.”8

The Time of the Rebuilding.  According to most dispensationalists, the Jerusalem Temple must be rebuilt by the middle of the last prophetic week of Daniel 9:27.  Thomas S. McCalls, a leading dispensationalist, emphatically states:  “As far as the time is concerned, it has been dogmatically stated that the temple must be rebuilt by the middle of the tribulation.  This is all that is revealed.”9
 
In Lindsey’s prophetic timetable the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple was to be completed by the middle of the 1980s, that is, at mid-point of the seven-year- countdown which terminates by 1988.  The treaty of protection, which the Roman Antichrist was to make with Israelites immediately after the Rapture, was to enable the Israelites to rebuild their Temple in three and one-half years and to reinstitute the sacrificial services  (Dan 9:26-27; Matt 24:15-16; Rev 11:1-2).  In 1970 Lindsey wrote that with the “talk of rebuilding the great Temple, the most important prophetic sign of Jesus Christ’s soon coming is before us.”10

Rumors of the Rebuilding.  One wonders, What has happened to this “most important prophetic sign “ of Christ’s imminent return during the last fifteen years?  Has the rebuilding of the great Temple already begun in any form?  To my knowledge, the only fabrication  begun is not that of the Temple but of stories about it.  Christianity Today wrote in December 1967 that “A few years ago reports were widely circulated that a prefabricated temple for Jerusalem was seen at a port somewhere in Florida.”11
 
An article appeared in August 1967 in the British magazine, The Christian and Christianity Today, reporting news “received from authoritative sources in Sellersburg, Indiana” that “five hundred rail carloads of stone from Bedford (Indiana), considered to be among the finest building stone in the world, are  being freighted pre-cut to exact specifications, and one consignment has already been dispatched to Israel.  Shipments are being handled by Pier 26 in New York.”12
 
The entire story has been flatly denied, both by the Israeli government and by industry sources in Indiana.  Such a fanciful fabrication reflects the unusual interest of some dispensationalists in helping God to fulfill what they believe to be a crucial End-time prophecy.
 
The belief of an End-time rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple is based primarily on two texts (Dan 9:26-27 and Matt 24:14-15) which, as I have shown elsewhere, offer no support whatsoever to such a notion.13  Besides being devoid of any prophetic support, this belief is discredited also by crucial theological and practical considerations.

Theological Objections.  Theologically, the notion of a literal rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple during the tribulation is contradicted by the New Testament teaching regarding the fulfillment and termination of the Temple’s services at and through the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross (Matt 27:51; Heb 9:11-14; 8:13).
 
The only new temple of which the New Testament speaks is the one being built, not during a future seven-year tribulation upon Mount Zion, but in the present “upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord” (Eph 2:20; RSV).

Practical Objections.  Practically, the possibility of rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple on its ancient site is negated by several obstacles.  The most serious of these is the presence of the Moslem Dome of the Rock and the nearby Al Aksa Mosque, which appear to be located on the very ancient Temple site.  Since for Judaism the only permissible location for the Temple is its ancient site (Deut 12:10-14), the Dome of the Rock would need to be removed before any rebuilding could begin.  Such an action would precipitate an Arab holy war against Israel, besides violating the Israelis’ commitment to respect all the sacred sites of all religions.
 
Another practical objection is the prevailing belief among Orthodox Jews that only the Messiah can rebuild the Temple.  Since for the Jews the Messiah has not yet come, they are not at liberty to rebuild the Temple.14  Moreover, before the Jews could consider rebuilding the Temple, they would need to accept the notion of reviving sacrifices—a notion which most Jews find repulsive and abhorrent.  Modern Judaism views the sacrificial system as an ancient and outmoded form of religious expression which has been replaced by repentance, prayer, good deeds, Torah-study, charity and justice.15
 
The above considerations suffice to show that Lindsey’s prediction of the rebuilding of the Temple is a third key piece of his prophetic jigsaw which has failed to fall into place by the early part of the 1980s.  Not only has the ancient Temple not been rebuilt, but also it seems very unlikely that its rebuilding could take place in the near future on account of the crucial theological and practical objections mentioned above.

A fourth mistaken piece of Lindsey’s prophetic jigsaw puzzle, which is supposed to fit right next to that of the rebuilding of the Temple, is the invasion of Israel by an Arab-African confederacy.  Initially this confederacy is to be supported by Russia and headed by Egypt, the prophetic King of the South, spoken of in Daniel 11:40.  In 1970 Lindsey calculated that this invasion would occur sometime in the middle of the 1980s, that is, immediately after the inauguration of the Jerusalem Temple and its profanation by the Roman Antichrist.16
 
Lindsey predicted that Egypt, “the king of the South” of Daniel 11:40a, would succeed in uniting “Arabs and the black Africans into a ‘third world force.’”17  Russia would facilitate this development by arming and equipping many Arab and African nations.  At the head of this Pan Arab-African confederacy, Egypt was to launch an invasion of Israel.  This was to prove to be a fatal mistake because the Russians, “the king of the North” of Daniel 11:40b, “will double-cross the Arabs, Egyptians, and Africans, and for a short while conquer the Middle East.”18

The Basis of Lindsey’s Prediction.  This prediction was obviously inspired by the leadership role which Egypt enjoyed under Nasser, in whom Lindsey saw “the King of the South” of Daniel 11:40.19  Furthermore, by interpreting “Put” and “Cush” mentioned in Daniel 11:43, as representing “the black Africans and African Arabs, respectively,” he predicted that “ ‘black African’ and ‘Arab-African’ countries will be involved with Egypt” first in invading Israel and later in suffering defeat at the hands of the Russians.20
 
The fact that Nasser was already in poor health in 1970 did not deter Lindsey from predicting that Egypt would become the leader of a “Third World Force.”  On the contrary, he explicitly wrote:  “Whether he (Nasser) continues to lead Egypt, or is replaced by some other leader or is dead by the time this is published, the clearly predictable course of the Middle East will not be changed . . . Current events in the Middle East have prepared the stage for Egypt’s last act in the great drama which will climax with the finale, Christ’s personal return to earth.”21

What Went Wrong?  Since fifteen years have already passed from the time Lindsey made this bold prediction, it is legitimate to ask, has Egypt become during this time the leader of a “third world force” consisting of Arab and African nations?  Moreover, has Egypt ever attempted during the past fifteen years to organize a Pan-Arab and African army to launch an invasion of Israel?  The answer to these questions is evident.  This mistaken prediction represents a fourth key piece of Lindsey’s prophetic jigsaw which has failed to fall into place.
 
One wonders, How could Lindsey make so many grossly mistaken predictions?  The answer is quite simple.  His predictions were shaped more by current trends than by the Scripture.  The political leadership of Egypt in 1970 was read back by Lindsey into Biblical prophecies.  This arbitrary method of interpreting prophecy can only lead to disappointments besides undermining the value and permanent relevance of prophetic messages.

A New King of the South?  In 1970, when Egypt enjoyed the position of leadership among Arab nations, it was feasible for Lindsey to predict that Egypt would eventually succeed in uniting Arab and African nations against their common enemy, Israel.  History, however, sometimes takes unexpected turns.  This has been particularly true in the case of Egypt.  Very few mortals could have foreseen in 1970 that within ten years Egypt would lose the support of many Arab and African nations by ending thirty years of war with Israel through the signing of an official peace treaty on March 26, 1979, and the establishing of diplomatic relations with Israel.
 
In the light of recent developments, it is obvious that today Egypt can no longer play the role of “the king of the South” who is to lead an Arab-African confederacy against Israel.  This is particularly true in view of the prevailing tension among Arab nations and the outright war between Iran and Iraq.  Before the Arab nations can unite against Israel, they must stop fighting among themselves.
 
It is evident, then, that another key piece of Hal Lindsey’s prophetic jigsaw (the fourth in our count), has failed to fall into place.  What this means is that if Lindsey were to rewrite The Late Great Planet Earth today, he would obviously look elsewhere for the prophetic king of the South—possibly to Libya, in view of the latter’s hatred for Israel and diplomatic ties with Moscow.  This kind of arbitrary interpretation of prophecies can only aid the cause of those critics who are only too glad to capitalize on such vagaries to caricature and ridicule the whole belief in a personal Return of Christ to this earth.

A fifth mistaken piece of Lindsey’s prophetic jigsaw puzzle can be seen in his prediction made in 1970, that Russia, the King of the North of Daniel 11:40b and Ezekiel 38, would soon “arm and equip a vast confederacy” of African and Arab nations, which would join together in a common invasion of Israel.22   Lindsey explicitly predicted in 1970 that in “the next few years” Northern Africa would become “solidly pro-Soviet” and that “many of the African nations will be united and allied with the Russians in the invasion of Israel.  This is in accord with Daniel’s graphic description of this invasion (Daniel 11:36-45).”23 

The Invasion of Israel.  Lindsey warned his readers in 1970 especially to “watch the actions of Iran in relation to Russia and the United Arab Republic.”24  On the basis of Ezekiel 38:5-6 he predicted that Iran would soon “join the United Arab Republic in its hostility against Israel” and that the Russians would “gain footholds in Iran . . . in order to mount the large-scale invasion (of Israel) predicted by Ezekiel.”25
The invasion of Israel, according to Lindsey’s prophetic calculations, was to take place at mid-point of the seven-year countdown (Dan 9:24), “almost immediately after the (Roman) Antichrist declares himself to be God” and profanes the newly inaugurated Jerusalem Temple (2 Thess 2:4; Matt 24:15).26  Since the seven-year countdown, for Lindsey, terminates by the end of the decade of the 1980s, the invasion of Israel should already have taken place by1985.
 
This invasion, as Lindsey graphically portrays by a chart, was to have taken place in two phases.  First, the pro-Soviet “Arab-African confederacy headed by Egypt (King of the South) launches an invasion of Israel.”27  Then, as Daniel 11:42, 43 indicates, wrote Lindsey in 1970, “the Russian bloc will double-cross the Arabs, Egyptians, and Africans, and for a short time conquer the Middle East.”28

Another Prediction That Failed.  The developments of the last fifteen years could not have proved more forcefully the fallacies of Lindsey’s predictions.  What has happened in most cases is the very opposite of what Lindsey predicted would happen.  Africa has become not “solidly pro-Soviet,” but less pro-Soviet, as several of its countries have moved away from Soviet influence and turned instead to the West for economic and military assistance. No Arab-African confederacy has ever come into existence.  No alliance has ever developed between Iran and Egypt; on the contrary, the relations between the two countries have worsened during the last few years.
 
Russia has lost rather than gained footholds in Iran.  No Arab-African invasion of Israel ever took place by 1985.  On the contrary, Arab nations, such as Egypt and Jordan, are for the first time in our generation talking peace with Israel.  This development is devastating to Lindsey’s countdown which requires war.  No Russian “amphibious and land invasion of Israel”29 has happened in the first half of the 1980s nor is it likely to happen in the latter half.  It is evident that another key piece of Lindsey’s prophetic jigsaw (the fifth in our count) has failed to fall into place.

Russia in Prophecy?  How could Lindsey make so many grossly mistaken predictions in 1970?  The answer is simple.  His predictions were shaped more by the events of 1970s than by the Scriptures.  He used the latter to support the former. With great imagination, Lindsey read into Biblical prophecies his expected Russian invasion of Israel.  Such a method of Biblical interpretation only serves to expose the message of the prophets to the ridicule of the critics.
 
A good example of Lindsey’s irresponsible interpretation of Biblical prophecy is the way Lindsey fits Russia into his End-time prophetic jigsaw—by interpreting Ezekiel’s references to Gog, Magog, Rosh (“Russia”), Meschech (“Moscow”), and Tubal (Ezek 38:2-3)—as explicit predictions about modern Russia and its invasion of Israel.  He never stops to consider questions such as these:  How could Ezekiel be writing to his contemporary readers about modern Russia when such a nation did not exist at his time?  How could Ezekiel mean “the city of Moscow” 30 by “Meshech” when Moscow was not established until the 12th century A.D.?
 
Furthermore, how can Ezekiel’s references to the “uttermost north” apply to “only one nation,” namely, “the U.S.S.R.”?31  when, as T. Boersma points out, “with respect to Palestine, the area southeast of the Black Sea is certainly ‘the uttermost north’ “?32  What meaning would Ezekiel’s message have for his immediate readers, if he wrote about geographical places and people who came into existence 2600 years later?

Lindsey’s Problem.  A major cause of Lindsey’s problem is his failure to recognize that geographical locations mentioned by Ezekiel cannot be identified with names found on a contemporary world map, but rather must be sought on a map of the ancient Near East.  Any good map of the ancient Near East locates most of the places mentioned by Ezekiel, not in Russia, but in what today is Turkey.33
 
Moreover, the New Testament applies Gog and Magog, not to modern Russia, but to the hordes of the wicked at the close of the millennium (Rev 20:7-8).  Ezekiel’s battle of God and Magog against God’s people (Ezek 38 and 39) takes place in the New Testament, not before Christ’s Return, but at the close of the millennium when “the nations which are at the four corners of the earth, that is, Gog and Magog” will gather for battle against “the camp of the saints and the beloved city” (Rev 20:8-9).  Why does Lindsey ignore such an explicit New Testament interpretation of Ezekiel’s prophecy?
 
Lindsey turns Biblical prophecies into a jigsaw puzzle whose pieces can be identified only by those who accept his clue.  This method reduces the Bible into a secret teaching which only a few clever initiates can understand.  “In the final analysis,” as Cornelis Vanderwaall keenly observes, “Lindsey’s reading of Scripture is a new form of Christian Gnosticism.”34
 
The method used by Lindsey to raise people’s expectations with his predictions supposed to be “more up-to-date than tomorrow’s newspaper,”35 but which are just as quickly outdated, only leads to disappointment and disillusionment.  If this irresponsible method of using the Scripture is not vigorously challenged, there will be an ever-increasing number of puzzled Christians who ultimately will doubt, if not totally abandon, their Advent Hope.

 1.  For a most perceptive and comprehensive analysis of the dispensational principles of prophetic interpretation, see Hans K. LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation  (Berrien Springs: Michigan, Andrews University Press, 1983).

 2.  Planet,  pp. 110; cf. pp. 151, 152.

 3.  Planet,  p. 110.

 4.  Planet,  p. 95.

 5.  Planet,  p. 95.

 6.  Planet, pp. 95-96.  Commenting on the statement he wrote in 1970 in The Late Great Planet Earth that “as the United States loses power, western Europe will be forced to unite and become the standard-bearer,” Lindsey writes in 1980 with a sense of pride:  “I knew this would happen” (The 1980’s: Countdown to Armageddon, p. 107).  It is surprising that Lindsey would even congratulate himself, since Europe hardly became politically united or militarily stronger than the U.S.A. during the decade of the 1970s.

 7.  Planet,  p. 161.

 8.  Planet,  p. 152.

 9.  Thomas S. McCall, “Problems in Rebuilding the Tribulation Temple,” Bibliotheca Sacra 129 (January, 1972): 79.

10.  Planet,  p. 57.

11.  Editorial, “Israel:  Things to Come,”   Christianity Today,  12 (December 22, 1967): 35.

12.  The Christian and Christianity Today (August 4, 1967): 7-8.

13. See chapter 11 of The Advent Hope for Human Hopelessness.

14.  See A. Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud (New York, 1949), pp. 354-355; Moses Buttenweiser, “Messiah,” The Jewish Encyclopedia,  VIII (1904): 511.

15.  Emil G. Hirsch explains:  “Reform Judaism omits from the prayer-book reference to the sacrifices, sanguinary ceremonies being repugnant to its religious consciousness” (“Sacrifices,” The Jewish Encyclopedia, X [1905]:  628).

16.  Lindsey explicitly places the invasion of Israel by “the Arab-African confederacy headed by Egypt (King of the South) . . . almost immediately after the Antichrist declares himself to be God . . . and in the Temple proclaims himself to be God incarnate (2 Thessalonians 2:4; Matt 24:15)” (Planet,  p. 153).
 
17.  Planet,  p. 79.  

18.  Planet,  p. 158.  

19.  Lindsey’s conviction was based on the fact that “Nasser believes that he can unite the Arabs to lead the resurrection of all underprivileged nations into a mighty third world force.  He envisions himself as the one to lead the nations of Africa, black and Arab, to unity” (Planet,  p. 75).
 
20.  Planet,  p. 10.
 
21.  Planet,  pp. 76-77.
 
22.   Planet,  p. 71.
 
23.  Planet, pp. 68-69.  Referring to Northern Africa, Lindsey wrote in 1970:  “As we watch this area in the next few years we shall see indications that it is destined to join the southern sphere of power which will attack Israel along with the ‘King of the North’” (Planet, p. 69).
 
24.  Planet,  p. 68.
 
25.  Planet,  p. 67.
 
26.  Planet,  p. 153.
 
27.  See chart one, Planet,  p. 155.
 
28.   Planet,  p. 158.  See chart two, Planet,  p. 159.
 
29.  Planet,  p. 157.
 
30.  Planet,  p. 65.
 
31.  Planet,  p. 66.
 
32.  T. Boersma, Is the Bible a Jigsaw Puzzle . . . An Evaluation of Hal Lindsey’s Writing (St. Catherines, Canada, 1978), p. 116.

33.  For a concise and informative discussion of the geographic names mentioned in Ezekiel 38-39, see T. Boersma (n. 32), pp. 113-125.

34.  Cornelis Vanderwaall, Hal Lindsey and Biblical Prophecy (St. Catherines, Canada, 1978), p. 55.
 
35.  Hal Lindsey, There Is a New World Coming (London, 1974),  p. 7.

Home | About Author | Books | Order Online | Print Order Form | Scholars comments