Art Katz's Eschatology

Brother Art Katz, whose sermons have been a tremendous source of blessing to many across the world, and have also been featured via this web site, espoused a rather "unique" perspective on the last days. His challenging and unconventional point of view that few hold too has no doubt been a source of controversy and confusion. His view point on these things have caused many to either love him or hate him. Sometimes his eschatological perspective has become a matter of discussion in the forums over the years. Many have expressed a desire to study his perspective in more detail, but have lacked the time necessary to work their way through the Scriptures, and wrestle with many of the texts he spoke on or made reference to.

Having been enriched by Art's perspective, and having done much of the homework myself over the years, I have decided to put together a collect of "proof texts" that I see as teaching many of the themes Art spoke on. This list is by no means exhaustive, nor are my comments on the quoted passages very detailed. However, these are some of the passages I believe to be essential in understanding these issues.

Most of my citations come from the Old Testament, not because Art didn't teach considerably on this topic from the New Testament, but simply because those texts he taught on in the New are generally easier to find because of the greater familiarity of many with the New Testament over the Old. I draw heavily from the writings of Isaiah.

Be blessed in the fruits of this labor. Study and show yourself approved :-)

###Key Eschatological Texts###

*Genesis 12:1-3
The Gospel; God’s eschatological purposes announced to Abraham through His covenant.

*Genesis 17:1-8
Promises reaffirmed and expanded.

*Deuteronomy 28-32
The blessings and curses of the Old Covenant announced; Song of Moses used to remind God’s rebellious people of their error.

*Isaiah 2:1-4
Jerusalem will be the center of the universe and source of universal blessing. The law will go forth from Zion.

*Isaiah 4:1-6
The Messianic Branch that will sprout, and the fire baptized remnant that will be purged and saved.

*Isaiah 11
Jesse’s Offspring & the Second Exodus.

*Isaiah 49 (especially 1-13, 22-26)
The Messianic Servant and His eschatological mission: Demonstrate the righteousness of God in the salvation of the Gentiles, and the salvation of the Jews.

*Isaiah 60-66
All of this section should be read together so that the “weight” of it sinks in. It is full of great detail regarding God’s ultimate dealings with Israel and the rest of the world. This is an absolutely crucial section of Scripture to digest and consider.

*Jeremiah 30-31
The time of Jacob’s trouble; God’s chastisement through exile; Restoration and Second Exodus, Grace in the wilderness; New Covenant established to cure Israel of its apostasies.

*Ezekiel 37
The Valley of Dry Bones, a picture of Israel’s eschatological death and resurrection. New Covenant announced.

*Daniel 2
The kingdom of God that is coming will be victorious.

*Daniel 9-11
A timeline of last day events, with many references to the coming anti-Christ.

*Daniel 12
Israel’s last days “distress” that empties them of their human strength and power; Resurrection foretold.

*Zechariah 12-14
God enters into His controversy with the nations by making Jerusalem a cup of reeling the causes all nations to be gathered against it for war. But in this war, God through an act of grace causes the Jews to look upon their crucified Messiah, and find salvation.

*Matthew 24
Christ’s words on the last days, with some commentary on Daniel’s outline of the last days.

*Romans 11-12:1
The Church that provokes Israel unto jealousy so as to be saved, and its relationship to the resurrection of the dead.

*2 Thessalonians 2:1-12
Paul’s “little apocalypse.”

*Revelation 12
The anti-Christ and his attack against Israel and the Church.

*Revelation 20
The millennial reign of Christ and the two resurrections.

*Revelation 21
The new heavens and earth.

What is the thrust of his view point? Like a covenant theology foundation with a pre-mill stance?

I'm not so sure there is an easy way to neatly categorize Art's eschatology into any particular theological school without doing serious injustice to it. He is pre-mil and post-trib. I suppose one could say he has covenant theology views, but one could also say he embraces some dispensational views.

Art believes that God chose to bless this world through the seed of Abraham, chiefly in the person of Jesus Christ, but also through the Jewish nation as a whole. Though the Jews as a whole have never, and are not presently living up to their Divine calling, Art believes that by means of chastisement, the tribulation period, and through the agency of a prophetic Church that has come of age, God will eventually restore His people so that they can fulfill their calling, and embrace the Messiah whom they have corporately rejected up until this point in history.

The purpose of this plan is to ultimately demonstrate the wisdom of God, His righteousness, and to teach us the true nature of grace and salvation, so that His name might ultimately be glorified.

In brief, this is a very rough summary of Art's perspective. He was not alone in it, but he definitely has become it's chief spokesman.

Interesting. Do you know who the main influencers of his life are?

He's pretty well read, so, everybody, lol. But so far as I've traced his theological influences, individuals such Adolph Saphir, David Baron, and George Ladd were major influences I know just off the top of my head.

also Karl Barth.

by Giggles on 2010/1/9 3:57:26 Interesting. Do you know who the main influencers of his life are?

[b]A:[/b] What have been some of the key influences that have helped you to form your worldview? Firstly, people.

[b]Art:[/b] I am hard-pressed to think of any outstanding influence that has come through men. I have been grateful for pastors, ministers, and publishers over the years, but I cannot think of a single formidable personality, someone like an A.W. Tozer; however, I would say the brother from New Zealand in Palmerton North, Ken Wright, is probably one of the singular influences to bring a degree of balance and fatherly warmth to me at a stage when I was yet a bit up in arms and needed to be quieted in a right way. I have always enjoyed my time with him, his counsel with me, and he was a real benevolent influence. I could probably think of others, but it would take some time.

[b]A:[/b] Okay, then, what about literature?

[b]Art:[/b] Watchman Nee, A.W. Tozer, Berkhoff, the Dutch theologian, and, principally now in the most recent years, Karl Barth, have all influenced me with their work. I especially love Barth’s books; he has been a great influence. Then, of course, Paul himself has influenced me through his Epistles. I could think of a number of other authors over the years that have been significant, usually theologians who are not well known. I love Charles Spurgeon, of course; Spurgeon’s Treasury of David, his commentary on the Psalms, has been a great blessing for me. I have a German theologian, Hans Joachim Kraus, who is also the author of a commentary that has been a blessing from yet another perspective, not so much inspirational, but more scholarly. Walter Brueggemann, an American theologian of the Old Testament and the Psalms, has been a significant influence. I am thinking of the German Old Testament scholars and the Hebrew scholars like David Baron and Adolf Saphir. Their commentaries on Israel and the Messianic prophecies are excellent.

[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20060503210955/www.benisrael.org/articles/art_biog_interv.htm]An interview with Alistair Reese, New Zealand, April 2001[/url]

In other places he also mentions T.A.Sparks.

Karl Barth? Are you kidding?

ginnyrose

Ginny,

Barth and Katz may look like apples and oranges, but their hermeneutical method is identical, even if that method led them to some very different conclusions.

There is probably no danger of diverting this thread from Katz to Barth, so let me squeeze this in...

Barth taught that the Old and New Testaments are the record of God's revelation to man, but rejected the doctrine of inerrancy. This forced him to reject the evangelical method of interpretation which dissects verses under a microscope and bases entire teachings on a single verb or preposition, and then hopscotches thru the Bible, stringing verses together like a paper chain.

Katz also takes a more "professional" approach, viewing the Bible as a historical survey of God's progressive revelation. Most Messianic Jews read the scriptures this way.

Karl Barth? Are you kidding?

It should be noted that Katz's fondness for Karl Barth came out of Katz's misunderstanding of Barth's Neo-Orthodox thrust. Katz was definitely not neo-orthodox. He seemed to genuinely misunderstand Barth as being an evangelical theologian. He never seemed to connect the dots with his understanding of Barth. The same can be said of some of the other German theologians he read. I think sometimes he simply allowed the wonderful things that these liberal scholars said to outshine the awful things they said. Katz definitely ate the meat and spit out the bones in regard to them.

And it should be noted that these liberal German scholars are worth studying from time to time, so long as one reads them in the right context, and remove the liberal theology that tends to connect their theology together. I've personally read several of Barth's books, and found them profitable for study and reflection. Indeed, picking out the errors of his books was sometimes a very difficult thing to do, and I can definitely see how Katz considered Barth to be one of us. The same can be said about Walter Bruggerman, who is an outstanding Old Testament scholar par excellence. Even though you will not hear a pure and unadulterated word of God from these men, you still do hear the echo's of God speaking in what they say. One just needs to be very discerning when reading their works.

EDIT: Forgot to pray before posting.

So, how close is theology becoming a philosophy?

Sounds to me to be a very dangerous thing to do - to study a 'liberal' theologian and not expect it to undermine the clear teaching of the Word, or influence you in how you will understand the WORD. Is this not like going to "Olive Garden" to eat with a gift certificate but choosing instead to go through the garbage dumpster instead to find your meal?

ginnyrose

Ginny

Most liberal theology is garbage; Barth wasn't THAT bad. He wasn't Olive Garden either. He was White Castle.

Anyway, Jimmy, can you recommend which sermon or article is the best introduction to Katz's eschatology?

Anyway, Jimmy, can you recommend which sermon or article is the best introduction to Katz's eschatology?

Really, to some degree, you can pick just about any Art Katz sermon available on SI to listen to. His eschatology was the thread that linked almost every one of his sermons together. It's hard to find a sermon, especially anything after 1980, that didn't somehow touch on a topic that spoke about the ultimate plans and purposes of God.

Any sermon about anything "Jewish" or regarding "Israel" will probably do. His series on the Holocaust is good. Ezekiel 37 and the Valley of Dry Bones. Christus Victor. Just about anything from the 2006 Prophetical School series will do. Israel and the Suffering Servant. The Mystery of Israel and the Church. Israel and the Nations. The God of the Nations. Israel in Flight. Endtime Overview. Latent Anti-Semitism. The Coming Holocaust. Praying for the Peace of Jerusalem. etc. etc.

So many could be picked from. Many have asked me for a list from time to time, and I always manage to repeat different sermons, usually depending on what I've most recently listened to (I sometimes go back and listen multiple times to messages I've heard him preach). Really, when in doubt, just randomly pick a sermon from the hundreds he preached. He had a great burden for the great themes of the faith, and usually managed to see them in their eschatological context.

When I say randomly pick one, I'm not just being cute either. I've generally found that though Art sometimes repeated himself, each time he spoke seemed to be a unique "event" where something real and tangible took place each time he spoke.

I wonder if a better word to describe how people integrated themselves into how Art saw things was "Affected." I do not think he was a disciple of any one man at all. As a matter of fact listening to his sermons frustrated me for a while because he is not easy to pin down. Just when I thought I had him boxed he would jump out again...and it would startle me every time.

This only makes sense though in lieu of the things he talked about a lot. He commonly refereed to the idea of the Apostolic function of being Fully Orbed.

*Isaiah 2:1-4

Jerusalem will be the center of the universe and source of universal blessing. The law will go forth from Zion.

Jimmy, what Jerusalem would that be, and what Zion, according to the apostles of the New Covenant?

Heb. 12.22

Jimmy, what Jerusalem would that be, and what Zion, according to the apostles of the New Covenant?

Heb. 12.22

According to the apostle Paul, in Romans 15:8 it is taught that Christ confirmed the promises made to the Fathers. Thus, Isaiah 2 speaks of the Zion the Lord will establish when he rules and reigns from Jerusalem here on earth in the age to come. It's a city whose architect and builder is God (Hebrews 11:10), to which Abraham looked for, to which we will partake of in the age to come when we are resurrected from the grave. Heaven is not where God is taking us to be, but we will be bodily resurrected to rule and reign here with Christ, not only through the millennium, but through all eternity.

According to the apostle Paul, in Romans 15:8 it is taught that Christ confirmed the promises made to the Fathers. Thus, Isaiah 2 speaks of the Zion the Lord will establish when he rules and reigns from Jerusalem here on earth in the age to come. It's a city whose architect and builder is God (Hebrews 11:10), to which Abraham looked for, to which we will partake of in the age to come when we are resurrected from the grave. Heaven is not where God is taking us to be, but we will be bodily resurrected to rule and reign here with Christ, not only through the millennium, but through all eternity.

I understand this point of view, Jimmy, and I think it is a sad one, a very short-sighted one. If this is what Art Katz taught, how does this differ from Scofield's dispensationalism? I would have thought Katz had better eyesight than that.

No, the City Abraham looked for is not one made of wood and stone: it's that heavenly Zion that comes down from God out of Heaven, the Bride of the Lamb (Rev. 21.2). And we know the Bride of the Lamb is the church of Jesus Christ comprised of both Jew and Gentile (for in Christ there is no difference).

And Isaiah Ch. 2... about the LORD's house being established in the top of the mountains, and being exalted above the hills, and the Law going forth, not from Mount Sinai now, but from Mount Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem... this began to happen-- notice I say BEGAN: there is much yet to be fulfilled-- on the day of Pentecost when the Lord Jesus Christ, seated on the throne of David in the heavenly Zion at the right hand of His Father, sent the Spirit to His waiting disciples: "the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus."

...Yes, Jesus Christ confirmed the promises God gave the fathers. But the sons of the fathers weren't too happy with the way He did that. The way He did it was not all that well received by most of them.

...How we need grace to see through the eyes of the Spirit of God!

I understand this point of view, Jimmy, and I think it is a sad one, a very short-sighted one. If this is what Art Katz taught, how does this differ from Scofield's dispensationalism? I would have thought Katz had better eyesight than that.

Great question. There are elements of dispensational thought found it Art's teachings, which initially turned me off from him. However, I discovered that he cannot be pegged down as a dispensationalist in any proper understanding of the term. Even individuals like Walter Kaiser, Jr, a prominent Old Testament scholar recognizes these things. Just because individuals such as Katz (or myself), recognize the eventual literal fulfillment of these promises doesn't mean one is a dispensationalist.

For a dispensationalist will eventually assert that there are two peoples of God with two different sets of promises and purposes. They will assert a false dichotomy between a heavenly people with heavenly promises, and an earthly people with earthly promises. They assert a violent dichotomy between the Church and Israel. This dichotomy is a false one. We maintain there is one people of God, and one plan and purpose of God for all people. That plan and purpose, however, has always been wrapped up in God's elect nation, who have been called as a people to serve as the medium of the blessings of God to this world through the gospel. His earthly people with their earthly promises are called to be a heavenly people that dispense heavenly promises. The two were never designed by God to be separated from one another.

That is why God entered into covenant with Abraham, that through his seed living in the land God promised, that these things might ultimately come to pass. God's ultimate purposes with Christ and the gospel, and the heavenly blessings He ultimately wishes to dispense to all of humanity cannot be fully dispensed in the abundance He wishes to bestow them in this present evil age. Indeed, it cannot happen until Jerusalem becomes the praise of the earth! In part, we have experienced a down payment of the good things to come in the here and now through the gospel, by means of the Holy Spirit. But we look forward to another age in which we will be raised in new bodies, to experience the fullness of that blessing in our glorified state. And in that age, Jerusalem will be the capitol of the world, from which our King reigns on the throne of David. It will indeed be a heavenly city, a city the patriarchs looked forward to. But it will not be a city that dwells in the upper stratospheres of heaven as it presently does. Rather, it will a city that exits here on earth, with all the blessings that accompany it. It will be a city whose architect and builder is God.

We maintain there is one people of God, and one plan and purpose of God for all people. That plan and purpose, however, has always been wrapped up in God's elect nation

What nation would that be? It is the one holy nation comprised of both Jew and Gentile, according to the apostle Peter (1 Pt. 2.9).

His earthly people with their earthly promises are called to be a heavenly people that dispense heavenly promises. The two were never designed by God to be separated from one another.

That's right (Eph. 2.15). In the Cross, our Lord Jesus Christ broke down the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, creating in Himself of the two ONE NEW MAN, so that now in Christ there is "no difference" between Jew and Gentile (Rom. 3.22, Rom. 10.12, Acts 15.9). ...So that both Gentiles and Jews are partakers together of the SAME promises (Eph. 3.6).

That being so, do I, a Gentile, have some little plot of land somewhere over there in Israel?

Or does this all, in its FULFILLMENT, pertain to another "land," a heavenly? (Heb. 11.16)

And this of course is speaking of something far more than just "dying and going to Heaven." It is our spiritual heritage in Christ, and we are to seek to enter it NOW.

That is why God entered into covenant with Abraham, that through his seed living in the land God promised

Again, what land? Heb. 11.16

And what Seed would that be (according to the apostle Paul, that is)? (Gal. 3.16, Gal. 3.29).

Rather, it will a city that exits here on earth, with all the blessings that accompany it. It will be a city whose architect and builder is God.

Yes, it will indeed be here on the earth. But just as Babylon is a spiritual city right here on the earth (and all over the earth) so is Jerusalem a spiritual city, a heavenly city right here in the earth that shall ultimately be over all the earth. (So that I can be dwelling in Jerusalem right where I live, wherever I live!) It's a spiritual City, not that old Jerusalem over there in Israel. In fact even the prophets of old (with pretty good eyesight, I would say) at times called the earthly Jeruslaem "the daughter of Zion" (Isa. 37.22). The mother is the true Jerusalem, the heavenly Jerusalem, which is above, "the mother of us all" (Gal. 4.26).

Yes, that old city shall be included, but the Jerusalem which is the City of God is not one with foundations and walls of earthly stone. It's made of Spiritual stones (you and me and all believers whether Jew or Gentile) ...stones who are just like the Rock Himself (1 Pt. 2.4,5).

How awesome this all is! :)