i

Bible University

Masters of Biblical Studies Program

The Road Ahead – A Systematic Study of

Biblical Eschatology

Gary Hill

Professor, Dr. Mike Omoasegun

ii

To fulfill the requirements of the

Masters of Biblical Science Degree

23 April 2014

© Gary Hill 2014

Acknowledgement

I could never remember to thank all the people and

influences that have shaped my thinking which in the direct

result produces the writing, so I can only thank those who have

influenced me so greatly in the last few years. A project of this

scale is difficult to complete without the assistance of so many

others along the way. In this regard, I am eternally grateful to

God, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. I am also indebted

to my advisor, Dr. Mike Omoasegun, without his constant

encouragement and support I could not graduate successfully.

Bible University is monumental in educating those who sincerely

seek to learn, and I thank everyone at Bible University with my

heart felt gratitude and appreciation for the job each one

performs so efficiently. It is such a privilege and opportunity

to be a small part of this Godly University.

iii

I am deeply grateful for the constant support and

encouragement of my wife, Judy Ann. Without her invaluable help

in time staking proof-reading of the essays, the papers would not

be in as rapidly, or as accurately. On a personal level, Bible

University has renewed my assurance and hope through the ever

present supremacy of the Holy Spirit there is a way to educate

those trapped in the Humanist Manifesto, the state religion of

the United States. Humanism practiced with the bible of political

correctness that is opposed to the precious Word of God.

While there are many who have given help, from the inception

of this project to its completion, no one could have been blessed

with more devoted personal support from friends and family. These

friends gave frequent support and encouragement, and our

relationship with them is one of the highlights of our years in

Madawaska; we are grateful that many of these relationships still

continues. I would like to thank my friends at Dallas Theological

University who so graciously gave me my passion for the

literalness of the Word of God, the study of the end times, and

more importantly, the study of the incredible and endless Word of

God. Then finally the staff at the Madawaska Public Library and

iv

the University of Maine, Fort Kent who were always willing to

assist in helping to find that hard to find resource.

v

Dedication

I would like to dedicate the fulfillment of the requirements

of the Masters of Biblical Science degree to some who have stuck

with me throughout and fueled my passion for serving God in

avenues and doors that God has opened and the doors which are yet

to be opened. I dedicate this thesis to the Lord Jesus Christ,

the Great I AM—God Almighty, and the Holy Spirit. He convinced me

I was a sinner in need of salvation, and I responded to His call

by repenting and I received the rebirth of salvation. I would

also like to dedicate this thesis to my advisor, Dr. Mike

Omoasegun, for his continuing support and advice. Without his

help, I could not have accomplished this lifetime goal. I also

dedicate this to my wife Judy Ann; without her patience, support

and help with time consuming proof-reading, the thesis would have

never been completed. My mother, the late Margaret Louise “Pearl”

Hill, who instilled in me never to give up nor turn my back on

the giver of life, the Lord Jesus Christ.

vi

About the Author

I was born August 25, 1948, to a Christian mother who

throughout her life taught me about Jesus Christ and God,

Margaret Louise, and my career Navy father, Hal W. Hill, who was

overseas more often than not, as we moved to wherever he became

stationed. That included Mobile, AL, San Diego, CA, Pensacola and

Jacksonville, FL. In 1968, awarded an Associate of Science

degree in Communications, from Jones College, Jacksonville, FL, a

2 year college. Jones College was a member of the

Florida/Georgia Junior College Athletic Association at that time.

Recruited by several schools on an athletic scholarship, I chose

vii

to play basketball, football and baseball closer to home because

my mother would otherwise be alone with my young sister.

After graduation, I had a 15 year radio career which

produced national awards of Music Director of the Year in 1978,

79, and Program Director of the Year in 1979, as well. In

addition, I officiated high school baseball, football and

basketball, college baseball, basketball and football, and minor

league baseball and football.

After radio, I worked as Director of the U.S. Army Summer

Faculty Research and Engineering and High School Science and

Mathematics Faculty Programs for 14 years at Battelle RTP. Next I

flew for U.S. Airways Express, domiciled in Charlotte, NC, making

an average of 1,200 flights per year for five years.

Although raised in the Baptist Church by my Christian

mother, I had years after college and following where I drifted,

and it took years, and two divorces to come to an understanding

of what it took indeed to be a true Christian. I became born

again, baptized, and sanctified. One year later, I was preaching

the Gospel of Jesus Christ on college campuses for Maranatha

Campus Ministries. These included the University of North

viii

Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina State University, the

University of Georgia, and the University of Virginia.

I had ministerial training in several different month long

training sessions at the University of Georgia, Ohio State

University and the University of Virginia. I and others have

street preached in the Pit at UNC, the strip at NC State, on

Franklin Street on busy Friday nights, and other locations around

the country. After Bob Weiner’s decision to close the campus

phase of the ministry, I, and others, started a small fellowship

in Hillsbourgh, NC that eventually grew to over 10,000 members,

Abundant Life Church and Schools (elementary only currently).

Since leaving Abundant Life, I helped launch two more home

churches that have succeeded in growing and spreading the Gospel.

At the current home church, Waters of Life Christian Fellowship,

we have replaced the roof on the 4,000 plus square foot church

and parsonage, library and fellowship center which are being

repaired, open and running hopefully before winter sets. We

currently continue to conduct weekly Bible studies in our home

that is well attended. Sometime in early 2015, if the Lord has

ix

not raptured the body of Christ, we will be starting an internet

radio station.

The fundamental disagreement of Biblical interpretation lies

between the literal and allegorical methods, and close

examination of the latter unveils foundational flaws. Being

frank, the allegorical method as such is an invalid hermeneutic

because all real meaning involved is only found in the literal

meaning. If one is honest, any nonliteral allegorical means of

interpretation presupposes a literal meaning, since one cannot

know what to know to allegorize without knowing the literal. The

allegorical hermeneutic, including the conventional mutations, is

self-defeating, without objective criteria, contrary to common

sense, inconsistent, and unbiblical.

My passion lies in teaching those I meet to enjoy learning

the Word of God. My interests include all areas of Systematic

Theology of the most limitless Word of God. In one life time, I

now realize that it is not long enough to begin to understand the

depth of God’s Word.

x

Table of Contents

xi

Acknowledgement..................................................

...........................................................ii

Dedication…….....................................................

............................................................iv

About the

Author ..........................................................

....................................................v

Table of

Contents.........................................................

...................................................viii

List of

Tables...........................................................

..........................................................ix

List of

Figures..........................................................

...........................................................x

Figures..........................................................

.................................................................

....xi

xii

Chapter 1 – Introduction – A Systematic Study of Biblical

Eschatology...........................1

Chapter 2 - The History of Methods of

Interpretation...................................................

....13

Chapter 3 - Two Hermeneutical Methods

Contrasted.......................................................

35

Chapter 4 - General Considerations in

Interpretation...................................................

.....61

Chapter 5 - The Interpretation of Prophetic

Scriptures......................................................7

8

Chapter 6 - The Biblical Covenants and

Eschatology......................................................

.104

Chapter 7 - The Course of the Present

Age..............................................................

.........195

xiii

Chapter 8 – The Pretribulation Rapture

Theory...........................................................

.....231

Chapter 9 – The Events for the Church Following

Rapture..............................................255

Chapter 10 –

Conclusion.......................................................

............................................267

List of Tables

Table 1 – Methods of Prophetic

Revelation.......................................................

...............85

Table 2 – Covenants and Scripture

Reference........................................................

.........107

xiv

Table 3 – Each Covenant Builds on the

other............................................................

......112

Table 4 – Matthew 13 and Revelation 2 and 3

Parallelism..............................................227

xv

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Professor, Dr. Mike

Omoasegun….......................................................

.................xi

Figure 2 – Professor, Dr. Bill

Carnagey…........................................................

......................xi

Figure 3 – Registrar, Brenda

Carnagey…........................................................

.......................xi

xvi

Figure 1

xvii

Professor, Dr. Mike Omoasegun

Bible University, Masters of Biblical Studies Program

William W. Carnagey, Vice President, Full Professor The

Registrar, Glenda Carnagey

and Lead Professor for Bachelor’s Programs, my

personal mentor in the matters of educational protocol.

xviii

(BLANK)

Hill 1

Gary Hill

Professor, Dr. Mike Omoasegun

MBS 110 – Master’s Thesis

5 July 2014

Word Count: 81,307

The Road Ahead – A Systematic Study in Biblical Eschatology

Chapter 1

Introduction

Let’s suppose that I wrote a compendium of music history and

left out Beethoven entirely. Next, I left out the Beatles, or the

Temptations. Or took you on a visit to France into Paris and left

out Notre Dame, the Louvre, or the Eiffel Tower. Imagine a

textbook of Biblical curriculum and never using any of Paul or

Luke writings. This very item sparked my enthusiasm and curiosity

for the subject of eschatology. How many Christians have read the

Bible sufficiently confident that it contains prophetic passages

about the role of America in God’s final plan? And there is

nothing in specific.

The problem with prophecy is it is not taken very seriously

in the times we live in for one simple fact—it is in the Bible.

Hill 2

However, I choose to teach the Bible because of the track record

of truth of its prophecies. God’s prophecy is history written in

advance. It is Gods way of telling us what He will do in the

future if we will simply read and believe. Particular events

foretold before they happen. According to Tim LaHaye, “The Bible

contains over one thousand predictions of future events. Many of

these have already been fulfilled in specific detail.” (LaHaye

preface)

Many more are yet still future, while others have been

completed right before our eyes. These include prophecies that

are a part of the end times, which occur under the Systematic

Theology study of eschatology, or “last things.” Peter had a

beautiful statement, “And so we have the prophetic word

confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a

dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in

your hearts;” (NKJV 2 Peter 1.19)

The end things, in fact, began in the beginning. “And I will

put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and

her seed; He will bruise your head, and you shall bruise His

head.” (Genesis 3.15) At the point of Adam and Eve sinning, the

Hill 3

Word of God unfolds a plan of redemption with promises to Abraham

(Genesis 12.3), and to David (2 Samuel 7.11, 16), and to the Old

Testament prophets, promises that point openly to the coming of

Jesus Christ and His ultimate triumph. I think we forget that;

without the “doubt” that Satan created in Eve, there would have

been eternal life here “on earth as it is in heaven." (Matthew

6.10)

When Satan heard those very words, he launched a campaign to

do to us exactly what had been determined for him by God

almighty. He since has been bruising the heel of the Promised

Seed before Jesus Christ bruises his head. As end time saints, we

are in a battle against a foe that the Bible reveals to us his

strategy is attempting to crush those who would impede his

designs. Those are we whom “keep the commandments of God and have

the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Revelation 12.17)

Anything the Word of God states about the last events of

life and history is not a mere afterthought. You can count on it.

If you carefully read Genesis 1, you will see that God’s creation

shows a marvelous plan of arrangement, balance, communication,

and climax. That

Hill 4

climax is what this study is all about, the study of last things,

or eschatology. Satan’s plan, if successful, would reverse the

decision handed down to him by God in the Garden. There is a

timeless battle between the two antithetical seeds; one

righteous, one wicked, one of the Messiah Jesus, and of the

other, the anti-Messiah.

One is the seed of God while the other is the seed of the

serpent. The anti-Messiah will employ weapons designed to spill

blood. While the Messiah will overcome Satan’s armaments “by the

blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony.”

(Revelation 12.11) That scripture is one every Christian should

compare their life objectives to, and make sure it is in

alignment with many Scriptures, like these, which highlight a key

part of a Christian’s character:

Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now

salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God,

and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser

of our brethren, who accused them before our God day

and night, has been cast down. And they overcame him by

Hill 5

the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their

testimony, and they did not love their lives to the

death. (Revelation 12.10-11)

Eschatology is the study of the battle between these two

opposing seeds. How this ongoing struggle is manifesting itself

is in the different methods of interpreting prophecy employed by

opposing positions. I am a Charles Dickens admirer. As Charles

said; we live “in the best of times and the worst of times.”

(Dickens 67)

Billy Graham can say things that are so simple, but says it

so profoundly. He describes better than I can—the complacency of

our culture.

In a declining culture, one of its characteristics is

that ordinary people are unaware of what is happening.

Only those who know and can read the signs of decadence

are posing the questions that as yet have no answers.

Mr. Average Man is comfortable in his complacency and

is unconcerned as a silverfish in a carton of discarded

magazines on world affairs. He is not asking any

questions because his social benefits from the

Hill 6

government give him a false sense of security. This is

his trouble and his tragedy. Modern man has become an

observer of world events, observing on his television

screen without becoming involved. He watches the

ominous events of our times pass before his eyes while

he sips his beer in a comfortable chair. He does not

realize what is happening to him. He does not

understand that his world is on fire, and he is about

to be burned up with it. (Graham 210)

I refuse to be a spectator. The main reason people are

unaware of what is going on around them is a lack of urgency

caused by means of failure to study the Word of God. Unlike

political correctness, that states everything is fine, the world

is not going better. However, this is precisely why Christians

need to understand the promises of change that Word of God

offers. Paul spoke to his understudy Timothy, “This know also

that, in the last days, perilous times shall come.” (2 Timothy

3.1) A very old friend of mine had a saying that is most

appropriate here. He would say, “I stay ready to keep from

getting ready.” Like him, I choose to stay ready. For those in

Hill 7

this category, the coming of the Lord to gather His saints is a

sure promise of hope yet fulfilled. I hope this is something to

model our lives after on a day by day basis.

As Christians, we must remember the Adversary is trying to

delay or prevent something glorious from happening. We each

should have hope that we are living in the days of redemption and

restoration. So our eyes should show the spirit of those that are

looking up—“your redemption draws near.” (Luke 21.28) And the

good news, these are the days we are ready for what has been

revealed to us from the beginning. Christians are not in the dark

about the road ahead.

An outline of the subjects that I am going to investigate in

this thesis are:

1. The History of Methods of Interpretation—Chapter 2

2. Two Hermeneutical Methods Contrasted —Chapter 3

3. General Considerations in Interpretation—Chapter 4

4. The Interpretation of Prophetic Scriptures—Chapter 5

5. The Biblical Covenants and Eschatology—Chapter 6

6. The Course of the Present Age—Chapter 7

7. The Pretribulation Rapture Theory—Chapter 8

Hill 8

8. The Events for the Church Following Rapture—Chapter 9

9. Finally, any Conclusions—Chapter 10

Dr. Charles Swindoll, President of the Dallas Theological

Seminary, mentions some very surprising facts about the New

Testament:

In the New Testament alone, there are over three

hundred scriptures that future events are mentioned.

Three hundred times! And, in fact, we know more in the

Scriptures about hell than about heaven. God is not

hesitant to reveal the truth of the future as He

predicts and commands us to be ready for what is

coming. What Christians need to do is start walking

what they talk. (Swindoll 9)

To walk the talk we need to know what the marching orders

are for those of us who live in these uncertain, savage,

challenging times. In our age alone, we live in an era where the

courts are out of control, the schools and entire cities are in

uncontrolled chaos, when it seems even your own home exists on a

jagged edge? Let’s look briefly at how to stay ready until

quitting time.

Hill 9

1. Follow the model of the faithful who have preceded us.

But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of

life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love,

perseverance, persecutions, afflictions, which happened

to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what

persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord

delivered me. Yes, and all who desire to live godly in

Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” (2 Timothy 3.10-

12)

Paul said to Timothy, “…you have carefully followed my

doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love,

persecutions, afflictions…” (2 Timothy 3.10) Summarized, Timothy,

you have followed the model. You have walked in my dust. You have

watched my life and learned from my example. You have listened to

my instructions. Timothy emulated Paul’s virtues and admired his

character. Timothy remembers Paul’s endurance during persecutions

that helped him survive. Hebrews 11 is full of those names that

survived.

And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me

to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah,

Hill 10

also of David and Samuel and the prophets: who through

faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained

promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the

violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of

weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle,

turned to fight the armies of the aliens. Women

received their dead raised to life again. Others were

tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might

obtain a better resurrection. Still others had trial of

mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and

imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two,

were tempted, and were slain with the sword. They

wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being

destitute, afflicted, tormented—of whom the world was

not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, in

dens and caves of the earth.” (Hebrews 11.32-38)

No matter how hard our times become, we have the people of

the Bible with their examples as models for how we should walk

when those times come to us. We need to always remember those who

Hill 11

have faithfully lived before us and were successful, and emulate

their faith.

2. Stay in the Word of God and its truth.

But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse,

deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in

the things which you have learned and been assured of,

knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from

childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are

able to make you wise for salvation through faith which

is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3.13-15)

When the Word of God is your foundation, you learn and grow

through the Word. It will never discourage you, like the world,

and it will never lead you astray with God, the final judge. The

phrase in this verse reminds me of my grandmother, Granny Butler,

who showed my mother, Pearl-Louise, who then taught me about the

Scriptures and how to live life. Timothy, me, and hopefully you

have had great roots. From his youth, Timothy stayed in the Holy

Scriptures, and this made him “wise for salvation through faith

that is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3.15) That is something we

all should make our mantra and walk out in love throughout our

Hill 12

lives. If we do this, our confidence in who we are in Christ

Jesus will grow. And our influence around those we associate with

will increase all the more exponentially. We need to use that

influence that save those who died today from going to an

eternity with Satan.

3. Proclaim the Gospel of Christ Jesus.

I charge you, therefore, before God and the Lord Jesus

Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His

appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in

season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort,

with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will

come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but

according to their own desires, because they have

itching ears, they will heap up for themselves

teachers, and they will turn their ears away from the

truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be

watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work

of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. (2 Timothy

4.1-5)

Hill 13

See clearly the future in the statement above, “who will

judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom…”

(2 Timothy 4.1) Proclaim, herald the message. Not everybody is

called to stand before in the pulpit or on the street and preach.

But everyone preaches by how they live and walk every day they

live. Here too, we can follow the example of the faithful.

Proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No matter where you search,

there is nothing like it out there. Be prepared and faithful in

season and out of season. We can reprove, rebuke, and exhort in

love, without being caustic. Our motto should be “Preach the

Word” where ever we are and regardless of the circumstances.

4. Maintain an exemplary life. People are looking, and if we

are the light of the world, we must let the love of Jesus Christ

shine. People can argue your philosophy, question and deny your

theology, and bring up all kinds of arguments, but they cannot

deny the exemplary life you live through Christ Jesus. Paul, who

loved young Timothy, told him “But you be watchful in all things,

endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your

ministry.” (2 Timothy 4.5) There is something about an exemplary

life that cannot be ignored.

Hill 14

Whether in the office, at school, or at you work your

exemplary life will not be unnoticed. Be grounded, endure

hardship, and do the work of an evangelist. And never forget, we

each preach in the ministry each day of our lives and hopefully

are spreading the good news of salvation through our Lord and

Savior, Jesus Christ.

How can I keep this up on a regular basis? For the average

Christian, this is difficult when the New Year comes, the next

century breaks, when one gets older and the Lord has not yet

returned. How can I stay ready to keep from getting ready? In the

next three verses, Paul shows us there are principles to give us

the stay ready power:

For I am already being poured out as a drink offering,

and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought

the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept

the faith. Finally, there is laid up for me a crown of

righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge,

will give to me on that Day, and not to me only, but

also to all who have loved His appearing. (2 Timothy

4.6-8)

Hill 15

Principle one—always consider your life an offering to God

instead of a monument to humanity. Paul’s head was already on the

block as a drink offering. Paul was up to the task no matter what

method God called him to suffer. Not too long after Paul’s

beautiful words his life was offered to God for the last time,

and Paul’s head taken by the Roman swish of the blade. His life

for ever more will be remembered as an offering to God, not a

memorial to men.

Principle two—is finishing well; here is the final proof

that truth of the Word works. Paul said, “I have fought the good

fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith…” (2

Timothy 4.7) We live in a time of epic skepticism. Falling away

from the things of Christ. Falling from the privilege of the

ministry. Let us, as Paul did in his life, at this very moment

commit to finishing well. We have the example of so many of those

that have gone before us to follow. We can follow their example

of how they walked out their faith every day. Then we, too, can

exclaim confidently, like Paul, “There is laid up for me a crown

of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give

to me on that Day…” (2 Timothy 4.8-10) This verse is another

Hill 16

reference to the future that Paul was destined to meet. Are we

ready to meet ours?

Principle three—fix our eyes on the heavenly reward instead

of the allurements of the world. C.S. Lewis states where our live

ought to be, quoted by Professors Lewis and Ford:

It is the second coming of Christ that is the medicine

our condition especially needs. We must never speak to

simple, excitable people about the day that Christ

comes without emphasizing again and again our current

condition. The great thing is to be found at one’s post

as a child of God, living each day as though it were

our last, but planning as though our world might last a

hundred years.” (Lewis and Ford 85)

If we are “living each day as though it were our last, but

planning as though our world might last hundreds of years.” (Wade

and Owen 28) If this becomes a reality in life, then you do not

have to get ready. You already are. Visualize for a split second

that this will become a reality on this very day.

For the Lord, Himself will descend from heaven with a

shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the

Hill 17

trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up

together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in

the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

Therefore comfort one another with these words. (1

Thessalonians 4.16-18)

When studied diligently you find with the future public

rapture there is nothing Biblically that prevents it from

occurring, it could happen at any time. Perilous times have come.

The world, actually is not getting better and better as the new

age movement would have one to believe. One merely has to watch

the news or read the newspaper to sense that things are getting

worse day by day. What this produces in each of us is the need

for real hope in our lives. The good news contained in the Word

of God addresses how we should be living in these days. Let’s

take a closer look at Matthew 24.

The Lord Jesus Christ makes these statements to His enter

circle who still do not believe or understand He is going soon

and with the expected kingdom, not to be setup in their lifetime.

If Jesus spoke the words, you can count on them. These are all

Hill 18

repeated commands to us who believe. Matthew 24.42, “Watch,

therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming.”

Matthew 24.44, “Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man

is coming at an hour you do not expect.” Mark 13.21-23, “Then if

anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘Look, He is

there!’ do not believe it. For false Christ’s and false prophets

will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible,

even the elect? But take heed; see, I have told you all things

beforehand.”

From the Matthew account, we are told to be on the alert.

You be ready. The same message is in the Mark account, “Take

heed; see, I have told you all things beforehand.” Now let’s

review Mark 13.33, “Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not

know when the time is.” Also, Mark 13.35, “Watch, therefore, for

you do not know when the master of the house is coming—in the

evening, at midnight, at the crowing of the rooster, or in the

morning.” Next, Mark 13.37, “And what I say to you, I say to all:

Watch!”

Hill 19

Again and again, be ready, be on the alert, keep ready, and

stay ready. The Lord’s imperative is—be alert. Dr. Luke recorded

another of the Lord’s immediacy statements,

But watch yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with

dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day

come upon you suddenly like a trap. For it will come upon all who

dwell on the face of the whole earth. But stay awake at all

times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these

things...” (ESV Luke 21.34-36a)

The word “dissipation” is one that many people have not

studied. It means, “if the effort brings no compensating gain it

is a waste"; "mindless dissipation of natural resources.” (Brand,

Draper and England 198) To the believer this means be ready, and

make good use of your talents bestowed by the Lord. Walk what you

talk and know every day walk as the Lord would have you walk. I

often like to study John 14.1-3, because I love this dynamic

section of verses. The twelve future apostles are there. They

have followed Him, eaten alongside Him, slept beside Him, watched

Him do His work, mentored by the very God on earth, and shared

intimate details of their lives with Him. Now they are at the end

Hill 20

of their time with Him in the upper room as He unveiled to them a

plan they did not want to hear. And Jesus said to them,

Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God,

believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many

mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I

go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare

a place for you, I will come again and receive you to

Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.” (John

14.1-3)

Jesus turned their attention away from the present, to the

assurance of a future time when He will return to the earth to

receive His people and establish His Kingdom. If you have not

taken the time and studied the New Testament and its many

prophecies this may come as a big surprise. There are more

Scriptures about hell than there are about heaven. The

amillennial eschatological view of end time Bible prophecy is the

mainstream view inside the Church today, a view held by both the

Catholic Church and most mainline Protestant denominations. God

is never hesitant to reveal the truth of what is going to happen

in the future and has commanded us to be ready.

Hill 21

It’s imperative for those of us in the here and now that we

are equipped with marching orders as we go forward in the

dangerous, and savage times in which we live. These difficult

times are characterized by courts that are out of control, our

very neighborhoods are out of control, and the very homes we live

in are living on the brink of being in chaos. If the rapture were

to occur this night, this very night, would you be ready? If one

is living life for the Lord Jesus Christ one hundred percent, you

are already ready. Realistically, and sadly, many people are not.

These are the ones we need to ask God to show us the way to reach

them quickly before it is too late.

Chapter 2

The History of Methods of Interpretation

Herbert Spencer said, “There is a principle which is a bar

against all information, which is proof against all argument, and

which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That

principle is condemnation before investigation.” (Paley 29)

No problem facing the student of eschatology is more

important than the question of the process which is applied in

Hill 22

the interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures. Dr. Pentecost

states the problem succinctly when he says,

The adoption of different methods of interpretation has

produced the variant eschatological positions and

accounts for the divergent views within a system that

confront the student of prophecy. The primary

differences between the premillennial and amillennial

schools and between the pretribulation and

postribulational rapturists are hermeneutical, arising

from the adoption of different and irreconcilable

methods of interpretation. (Pentecost 1)

Dr. Pentecost book, “Things to Come," was the textbook used

by the professor who introduced me to Eschatology. I will use

this text and many more I have aquired over the years

in researching the establishment of the best method of Biblical

interpretation. The basis of the problem between the

premillennialists and amillennialists is clearly defined by

Presbyterian theologian Oswald T. Allis, himself a staunch

amillennialist, or no millennium.

Hill 23

One of the most marked features of premillennialism in

all its forms is the emphasis it places on the literal

interpretation of Scripture. It is the insistent claim

of its advocates that only when interpreted literally

is the Bible interpreted honestly, and they denounce as

“spiritualizers” or “allegorizers” those who do not

interpret the Bible with the same degree of literalness

as they do. None has made this charge more pointedly

than the Dispensationalists. The question of literal

versus figurative interpretation is, therefore, one

which has to be faced at the very outset. (Allis 17)

Dr. Allis says “literally (only) is the Bible interpreted

honestly,” obviously right on his part and, of course, taken out

of context, is echoed by the late Talbot Theological Seminary

professor, Dr. Charles L. Feinberg.

It can be shown that the reason the early Church was

premillennial was traceable to its interpretation of

the Word in a literal manner, whereas the cause of the

departure from this view in later centuries of the

history of the Church is directly attributable to a

Hill 24

change in method of interpretation beginning with

Origen in particular. (Feinberg 51)

The predominant failure of the church over the ages was the

departure from the literal interpretation of the Word of God.

Origen, whether he intended to or not, led the church down the

wrong road. Dr. Floyd Hamilton weighs in on this subject:

Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation

of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a

picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the

premillennialists’ pictures. That was the kind of a

Messiah kingdom that the Jews of the time of Christ

were looking for, on the basis of a literal

interpretation of the

Old Testament prophecies. That was the kind of a

kingdom that the Sadducees were talking about when they

ridiculed the ideas of the resurrection of the body,

drawing from our Lord the clearest statement of the

characteristics of the future age we have in the New

Testament, when He told them that they erred “not

knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.” (Matthew

Hill 25

22.39) The Jews were looking for just such a kingdom as

that expected by those premillennialists, who speak of

the Jews holding a preeminent place in an earthly

Jewish kingdom to be set up by the Messiah in

Jerusalem. (Hamilton 88-89)

Dr. Hamilton is consequently acknowledging the significant

divergence between himself, an amillennialists, and the

premillennialists. Pentecost continues, “The difference is not

lest the Scriptures are teaching such an earthly kingdom as the

premillennialists teaches, but how the Scriptures that teach just

such an earthly kingdom are to be interpreted.” (Pentecost 3) Dr.

Allis, on the same subject states, “That the Old Testament

prophecies if literally interpreted cannot be seen as having been

yet fulfilled or as being capable of fulfillment in this present

age.” (Allis 238)

Dr. Walvoord states the crux of the matter, “This means that

the antecedent to a proper discussion of the prophetic Scriptures

and the doctrines of eschatology is the instituting of the

rudimentary process of interpretation to be engaged throughout.”

Hill 26

(Walvoord 3) This process is well documented by Professor

Hospers, a former dispensationalists at the Princeton Seminary,

The question whether the Old Testament prophecies

concerning the people of God must be interpreted in

their ordinary sense, as other Scriptures are

interpreted, or can properly be applied to the

Christian Church, is called the process of

spiritualization of prophecy. This is one of the major

problems of Biblical interpretation and confronts

everyone who makes a serious study of the Word of God.

It is one of the chief keys to the difference of

opinion between Premillenarians and the mass of

Christian scholars. The former reject such

spiritualization, the latter use it. And as long as

there is no agreement on this point the debate is

interminable and fruitless. (Hospers 5)

There is an emergent recognition in the theological world

that the root of the millennial controversy is the different

methods of interpreting Scripture. Premillenarians follow the

‘grammatical-historical’ literal interpretation while

Hill 27

Amillenarians use a so-called spiritualizing method, or

allegorical method.

A. The problem—Rutgers says of the Premillennialists, “I

regard their interpretation of Scripture as the fundamental

error.” (Rutgers 263) Dr. Rutgers has identified hermeneutics as

the major issue between himself, an amillennialist, and the

premillennial. The following differences should be apparent:

1. The difference between Amillennialism and

Premillennialism rests primarily with the process to

use in interpreting Scriptures.

2. With that in mind, the primary concern to

investigate at the outset of any consideration of

eschatology is one of the hermeneutic to be applied.

It is critical for my study to examine the relevant

techniques currently advocated as the proper way to interpret

Scripture so we can have a clear understanding of the difference

in interpretational methods. We will also study the vast history

of doctrine so we can map the divergent approaches to their

source. We also will outline the rules to be applied in the

Hill 28

interpretation so as to be able to apply correctly the

established process of interpretation.

B. Why is the study important? Ramm states, “The primary

need for a system of hermeneutics is to ascertain the meaning of

the Word of God.” (Ramm 1) It is obvious that widely differing

views as premillennialism and amillennialism and pretribulation

and post-tribulation rapturism cannot all be right. The

interpreter is not working with a human book, but the most

precise and timeless alien book that has ever been written—the

incomparable Word of God. He then must use the correct method of

interpretation or error will be the natural outcome of his study.

The problems that are inherent in the details of the Word of God

cannot be analyzed correctly apart from the best method for, and

the specific rules of, interpreting the Scripture.

C. Among the primary goals of our study is to document the

best process, and define some guidelines of how to interpret the

Scriptures which is foremost. There have been many diverse

historical methods of interpreting Scripture. I found an

interesting summary of them contained in one of the many academic

books written by Dr. Milton S. Terry. Below Dr. Terry outlines

Hill 29

the various historical methods of interpretation found in his

book, “Biblical Hermeneutics."

1. Halachic—in accordance with Jewish law.

2. Hagadic—in accordance with traditional Jewish

literature.

3. Allegorical—expressing something through an allegory,

a widely held form of literature in which a story leads

to a hidden or symbolic parallel meaning.

4. Mystical—a system that believes a spiritual meaning or

reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor

obvious to the intelligence.

5. Accommodation—the adaptation of words or sentences

from the Bible to signify ideas different from those

expressed therein.

6. Moral—which seeks to establish exegetical principles

by which ethical lessons may be drawn from the various

parts of the Bible.

7. Naturalistic—the unity of the scientific method and

defends it against the claim to autonomy of the human

sciences.

Hill 30

8. Mythical—seeks to separate cosmological and historical

claims from philosophical, ethical and theological

teachings.

9. Apologetic—attempted to remove intellectual

impediments to Christian faith, thereby enhancing

believers’ confidence in, and weakening skeptics’

objections to the Word of God.

10. Dogmatic—The Bible is a coherent unit from Genesis to

Revelation.

11. Grammatical-Historical—a method striving to discover

what was the Biblical author’s original intended

meaning in the text. (Terry 163-174)

In Biblical scholarship, today there are but two

interpretive methods that have a vital effect on our study of

eschatology. They are the allegorical and the grammatical-

historical methods. The literal method is generally synonymous

with the grammatical-historical method and will be used as such

throughout the discussion. The literal and allegorical methods

will be discussed in detail.

Hill 31

An ancient form of interpretation that is enjoying a current

revival is the allegorical method. The vast majority of Catholic

and other mainline denominations employ this method of

interpretation.

I. The Allegorical Method

A. It helps to understand the meaning of allegory before we

go forward. Here is the definition from the Zondervan Illustrated

Bible Dictionary.

The word, derived from the Greek—ælɪɡərɪ or allēgoría,

a derivative of the verb allēgoreîn to speak so as to

imply something other—can be used simply of an extended

metaphor or narrative that makes use of symbols. To

speak allegorically is thus to set forth one thing in

the image of another, the principle subject being

inferred from the figure rather than by direct

statement. (Douglas, Tenney, and Silva 50)

Professors Joseph Angus and Samuel G. Green define the

allegorical method as follows:

Any statement of supposed facts which admits of a

literal interpretation, and yet requires or justly

Hill 32

admits a moral or figurative one, is an Allegory. It is

to narrative or story what trope is to single words,

adding to the literal meaning of the terms employed a

moral or spiritual one. Sometimes the allegory is pure,

that is, contains no direct reference to the

application of it, as in the history of the Prodigal

Son. Sometimes it is mixed, as in Psalms 80, where it

is plainly intimated (Psalms 80.17) that the Jews are

the people whom the vine is intended to represent.

(Angus and Green 220)

Ramm defines allegorical interpretation as: “Allegorism is

the method of interpreting a literary text that sees the literal

sense as a vehicle for a secondary, more spiritual and more

profound sense.” (Ramm 21) Former Dallas Theological University

professor Charles T. Fritsch wrote the following on the use of

allegory:

In Allegorism, the historical import is either denied

or ignored and the emphasis is placed entirely on a

secondary sense so that the original words or events

have little or no significance. According to this

Hill 33

method the literal and historical sense of Scripture is

completely ignored, and every word and event is made an

allegory of some kind either to escape theological

difficulties or to maintain certain peculiar religious

views. (Fritsch, 104:214, 216)

The allegorical method obviously fails in its attempt to

explain the Scripture. However, it does succeed in perverting the

real meaning of Scripture under the cover of seeking a deeper or

more spiritual meaning. Some of the adherents are quick to

characterize literalist as “heretics”, however, the vast majority

of literalists do not participate in name calling, even over a

significant difference in hermeneutics.

B. What are, if any, the dangers of the allegorical method?

The allegorical method is a minefield of dangers that render it

unacceptable to the interpreter of the Word of God.

1. First, the first danger of the allegorical method of

interpretation is that it does not interpret the Scriptures. Dr.

Terry clearly states:

It will be noticed at once that its habit is to

disregard the common signification of words and give

Hill 34

wings to all manner of fanciful speculation. It does

not draw out the legitimate meaning of the author’s

language, but foists into it whatever the whim or fancy

of an interpreter may desire. As a system, therefore,

it puts itself beyond all well-defined principles and

laws. (Terry 224)

Angus and Green sound much the same alarm on the allegorical

method when they write:

There is an unlimited scope for fancy, if once the

principle be admitted, and the only basis of the

exposition is found in the mind of the expositor. The

scheme can yield no interpretation, properly so-called

although possibly some valuable truths may be

illustrated. (Angus and Green 221)

The Angus and Green quote suggests a second great danger in

the allegorical method, the necessary authority in the

interpretation ceases to be the Scriptures, and instead it

becomes just the mind of the interpreter. Origen inadvertently

opened a can of worms. The interpretation may then be corrupted

by any number of factors, including the commentator’s education,

Hill 35

the church doctrine, or any number of other factors. Jerome,

speaking of Origen, was cited by Farrar,

Jerome complained that the faultiest style of teaching

is to corrupt the meaning of the Scripture and to drag

its reluctant utterance to our own will, making

Scriptural mysteries out of our own imaginations. To

which Farrar adds, “When once the principle of allegory

is admitted, when once we start with the rule that

whole passages and books of Scripture say one thing

when they mean another, the reader

is delivered bound hand and foot to the caprice of the

interpreter.” (Farrar 238)

2. A third danger of the allegorical method of

interpretation, one is unable to test the conclusions of the

interpreter. Dr. Farrar further pens, “He can be sure of

absolutely nothing except what is dictated to him by the Church,

and in all ages the authority of ‘the church’ has been falsely

claimed for the presumptuous tyranny of false prevalent

opinions.” (Farrar 238b) Ramm adds to this line of thought,

Hill 36

To state the principle meaning of the Bible is a

second-sense meaning, and that the principle method of

interpretation is “spiritualizing,” is to open the door

to almost uncontrolled speculation and imagination. For

this reason, we have instituted that the control in the

interpretation is the literal method. (Ramm 65)

That spiritualizing is real and dangerous is further

exacerbated by its existing in a majority of the universities and

colleges in the United States and Canada. A majority of

seminaries are spreading the allegorical hermeneutic produce the

priest, preachers and teachers that impact our churches,

secondary schools, and colleges and universities. Spiritualizing

is used to change the Scriptures by Allis, himself a promoter in

the field of eschatology of the allegorical method, who states

the following:

Either the figurative or “spiritual” interpretation of

a given passage is justified or not depends solely upon

whether it gives the true meaning. If it is used to

empty words of their plain and obvious meaning, to read

out of them what is clearly intended by them, then

Hill 37

allegorizing or spiritualizing is a term of reproach

which is well merited. (Allis 18)

The dangers of allegorical, figurative, and spiritualized

interpretation are complicated, multifaceted and could consume

the entire paper if I were to attempt a comprehensive list of

them. Instead, they are summarized briefly below:

a. It minimizes away the authority of the Scriptures.

b. Provides no basis by which interpretation or

interpreter may be tested.

c. Diminishes Scripture, allowing the interpreter to

make it say what he wants,

d. And, as a result of the above, it makes accurate

interpretation of Scripture seem impossible.

C. Are there examples of where New Testament writers used

the allegorical method? In order to justify using the allegorical

method one of the most common arguments used is that the New

Testament itself employs the method; thus making it a justifiable

method of interpretation. We will consider the allegation deeper

to seek the truth on this argument.

Hill 38

1. Pentecost says, “First of all, reference is often made

to Galatians 4.21-31, where Paul himself is said to use the

allegorical method.” (Pentecost 7) On this Scripture Farrar

observes:

Of the allegories which in any way resemble those of

Philo or the Fathers and the schoolmen, I can find in

the New Testament but one, Galatians 4.21-31. It may be

merely intended as an argument ad hominem; it is not at

all essential to the general argument; it has not a

particle of demonstrative force; in any case it leaves

untouched the actual history. But whatever view we take

of it, the occurrence of one such allegory in the

Epistle of St. Paul no more sanctions the universal

application of the method than a few New Testament

allusions to the Haggada compel us to accept the

accumulations of the Midrashim; or a few quotations

from Greek poets prove the divine authority of all

Pagan literature. (Farrar 23)

Biblical scholar George Gilbert, speaks to the Galatian

issue in the same manner as Farrar, and states the following:

Hill 39

Since Paul explained one historical event of the Old

Testament allegorically, it seems likely that he

admitted the possibility of applying the principle of

allegory elsewhere, but the fact that his letters show

no other unmistakable illustration obviously suggests

either that he did not feel himself competent to unfold

the allegorical meaning of Scripture, or, what is more

probable, that he was better satisfied on the whole to

give his readers the plain primary sense of the text.

(Gilbert 82)

Writing on the use of allegory by the other New Testament

writers Dr. Farrar determines:

The better Jewish theory, purified in Christianity,

takes the teachings of the old dispensation literally,

but sees in them, as did St. Paul, the shadow and germ

of future developments. Allegory, though used once by

St. Paul by way of passing illustration, is unknown to

the other Apostles and is never sanctioned by Christ.

(Farrar 217)

Hill 40

It must be carefully observed that within Galatians 4.21-31

Paul is in no way employing the allegory method to interpret the

Old Testament, and in my opinion he was simply explaining an

allegory from the Old Testament. The difference between the two

things should be apparent to anyone not trying to prove a point.

There is no question that allegories, analogies, types,

metaphors, similes, and other types of rhetorical devices are in

use in the Word of God. In fact, there are over 200 rhetorical

devices in use in the Scriptures. The number of rhetorical

devices in use is particularly provocative considering they are

used across the spectrum of the 66 different books, over 40

individual authors, and scan across almost a 2,000 year period in

which they were penned.

The Galatian's passage and the Word of God do not require

the allegory method of interpretation, which denies a literal or

historical antecedent. God always says what means and means what

he says. Allegorists use the method simply as a springboard for

the imagination of the interpreter with the purpose being to fit

their theologies. The Galatian passage and Scripture in general

do call for a particular kind of hermeneutics, the literal, which

Hill 41

we will explore later in our study. In summation, the Galatians

passage is an example of the New Testament using an example

interpretation of a previous allegory from the Old Testament and

cannot justify the universal application of the allegorical

method to all Scripture. This is just common sense.

2. Their second argument, used to justify the allegorical

method of interpretation, is the New Testament usage of types.

According to Bullinger, a type is “a figure or example of

something future, and more or less prophetic, called the Anti-

type (example Romans 5.14; Genesis 22, 24; Ruth, et. al…)”

(Bullinger 22) It is very obvious that the New Testament makes

frequent use of the types of the Old Testament.

3. On this basis, the allegorists make a leap. Because they

say that the New Testament occasionally employs the allegorical

method of speech, they contend that the use of types is itself an

allegorical method of interpretation, and therefore, justifies

the allegorical method. Allis argues for the imagination:

While Dispensationalists are strict literalists, they

are very inconsistent ones.

Hill 42

They are literalists in interpreting prophecy. But in

the interpreting of history, they carry the principle

of conventional interpretation to an extreme that has

rarely been exceeded by the most ardent allegorizers.

(Allis 21)

In reply to the accusation of Allis, types are all defined

where they occur or elsewhere in Word of God and in no way

advocates the use of the allegorical interpret method. It again

must be stressed the interpretation of types should never be

confused as allegorical interpretation, or imagination. The use

of types is always consistently applied by the Holy Spirit over

the entire Word of God. So the efficacy of the type requires the

literal interpretation of the literal antecedent. Pentecost says,

In order to convey truth concerning the spiritual

realm, with which realm we are not familiar, there must

be instruction in a realm with which we are familiar,

so that, by a transference of what is literally true in

the one realm, we may learn what is true in the other

realm. There must be a literal parallelism between the

type and the Antitype for the type to be of any value.

Hill 43

The individual who allegories a type will never arrive

at a true interpretation. (Pentecost 8)

Dr. Chafer states much the same theme as he discusses the

Biblical use of rhetorical devices in both the Old and New

Testaments,

In the study of allegories of various kinds, namely,

parables, types, and symbols, the interpreter must be

careful not to treat plain statements of Scripture as

is demanded of language couched in figurative

expressions. A truth already expressed will bear

repetition at this point: there is all the difference

possible in interpreting a Scripture allegory, on the

one hand, and the allegorizing of a plain Scripture on

the other hand. (Chafer)

The use of types in the Word of God is consistently employed

wherever types are used throughout the entire Word of God by the

Holy Spirit. We can conclude then, that the use of Scriptural

types does not require or give sanction to the allegorical method

of interpretation.

II. The Grammatical-Historical or Literal Method

Hill 44

In undeviating disagreement to the allegorical method of

interpretation stands the literal or grammatical-historical

method, which common sense dictates that this hermeneutic be the

one I use to interpret the Word of God.

A. The definition of the literal method—Dr. Missler says

the following: The traditional Hebrew approach to hermeneutics,

or the theory of interpretation, sees four levels of

interpretation:

1) Peshat; the literal, personal meaning;

2) Remez, an allegorical significance; a hint of

something deeper;

3) Derash, the homiletical, or practical application;

and

4) Sod, the mystical or hidden meaning. (Missler 245)

Obviously, the Tenach, Septuagint, and the Old Testament are

in view here.

Dr. Ramm denotes literal as:

The literal method of interpretation is that a method

that gives to each word the exact basic meaning it

would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage,

Hill 45

whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking.

(Ramm 53)

Ramm’s point about consistency is well taken and involves

the past use of traditional linguistics of both the Old and New

Testaments. Horne amplifies, “The literal method of

interpretation is also described fittingly the grammatical-

historical method to emphasize that the meaning must be

determined by both grammatical and historical considerations.”

(Horne 322)

Horne’s statement about the text fitting both “grammatical

and historical considerations” is something every student of

prophecy should adopt and become educated with so that the use of

these parameters is second nature.

Ramm further states:

The usual, socially-acknowledged designation of a word

is the literal meaning of that word. Then, the

“literal” meaning of a word is the basic, customary,

social designation of that word. The spiritual, or

mystical meaning of a word or expression is one that

arises after the literal designation and is dependent

Hill 46

upon it for its existence. To interpret literally means

nothing more or less than to interpret in terms of

normal, usual, designation. When the manuscript alters

it designation the interpreter shifts his method of

interpreting. (Ramm 64)

B. The evidences for the literal method—Strong evidences can

be untaken to support the literal method of interpretation. Dr.

Ramm provides a comprehensive summary when he says:

In defense of the literal approach it may be argued:

(a.) That the literal meaning of sentences is the

reasonable approach in all languages.

(b.) That all secondary meanings of documents,

parables, types, allegories, and symbols, depend for

their very existence on the previous literal meaning

of the terms that are used consistently in the

greater part of the Bible.

(c.) That the greater part of the Bible makes adequate

sense when interpreted literally.

(d.) That the literalistic approach does not blindly

rule out figures of speech, symbols, allegories, and

Hill 47

types; but if the nature of the sentence so demands,

it readily yields to the second sense.

(e.) That this method is the only sane and safe check

on the imaginations of men.

(f.) The literal hermeneutic stands out as the only

one in agreement with the interpretive method of the

apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ. The plenary

inspiration of the Bible teaches that the Holy

Spirit guided man into the truth and away from

error. In this process, the Spirit of God used

language, and the units of language (as meaning, not

sound) are words and thoughts. The thought is the

thread that strings the words together. Therefore,

our very exegesis must begin with a study of words

and grammar, the two fundamentals of all meaningful

speech. (Ramm 54ff)

Let us look at this logically. God, an extraterrestrial

outside time and space, gave us the Word of God as a revelation

of what He is, who He is, and what He plans to do. The revelation

He gave in precise and exact terms is that His very thoughts

Hill 48

would be accurately communicated and understood when interpreted

according to the existing laws of grammar and speech. He sent the

words so that it could be translated from Hebrew to Aramaic to

Greek to Latin to English and all other languages. Such

presumptive evidence naturally favors the literal interpretation,

because the allegorical method clouds the meaning of the message

delivered by God to men. Dr. Missler says, “The fact that the

Scriptures continually point to literal interpretations of what

was formerly written is adding evidence as to the method to be

employed in interpreting the Word.” (Missler 247)

Conceivably the best evidences for the literal method of

interpretation is how it is employed in the New Testament. If the

Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament, it is always given

in a literal sense. You only have to study the prophecies that

were fulfilled in Jesus Christ first coming to confirm this.

Jesus birth, life, death and resurrection confirm this fact

literally. I’ll make presentative challenge: No prophecy which

has been fulfilled was completed in any way but literally.

There are prophecies that can be cited in the New Testament,

which contain a certain event that is partially fulfilled, as in

Hill 49

Matthew 2.17-18, or that show the event is in harmony with God’s

established program, as Acts 15. However, neither of these

require an allegorical fulfillment nor prevent a future complete

fulfillment, for such applications of prophecy never depletes the

complement of it. Neither reference above argues for a non-

literal method.

I believe in and practice the literal interpretive method

because there is more than ample evidence that Jesus Christ used

the Old Testament literally, and for the first century the Church

did as well. If Jesus Christ employed the literal method, so

should any Christian.

C. There are certain and obvious advantages to the literal

method. There are certain advantages to the literal method in

preference to the allegorical method. Ramm listed several of the

advantages of the literal method when he states:

(a) It grounds interpretation in fact. It seeks to

establish itself in objective data—grammar, logic,

etymology, history, geography, archaeology,

theology, etc..

Hill 50

(b) It exercises control over interpretation that the

experimentation does for the scientific method.

Justification is the control on interpretations. All

that do not measure up to the canons of the literal-

cultural-critical method are to be rejected or

placed under suspect. In addition to this the method

offers the only reliable check on the constant

threat to place double-sense interpretation upon the

Scripture.

(c) It has had the greatest success in opening up the

Word of God. Exegesis did not start in earnest till

the church was a millennium and a half old. With the

literalism of Luther and Calvin the light of

Scripture literally flamed up. This method is the

honored method of the highest scholastic tradition

in conservative Protestantism. It is a method of

Bruce, Lightfoot, Zahn, Robertson, Ellicott, Machen,

Cremer, Terry, Farrar, Lange, Green, Oehler, Schaff,

Sampey, Wilson, Moule, Broadus, Stuart—to name but a

few typical exegetes. (Ramm 62-63)

Hill 51

As well as to Ramm’s stated advantages I would like to add

that the legal interpretive

method provides us a basis by which interpretations of prophecies

may be tested. This is not true with the allegorical method,

which hinges on the approach of the interpreter, or conformity to

a predetermined theology. This leaves anyone minus any

authoritative way to test the method or the interpretation.

However, when the literal method is used Scripture may be

compared to Scripture, with the final authority always resting

with the Word of God. With the Holy Spirit, one does not have to

depend on intellectual training or abilities, nor “mystical

perception," rather, one can rely on the understanding of what is

written in its generally accepted sense. Only in the literal

sense can an individual understand or interpret the Scriptures

for himself.

D. The Bible’s use of the literal method and figurative

language is examined. It is recognized by anyone who studies the

Word of God seriously that the Bible abounds in figurative

language. On this basis, liberal scholars argue that the use of

figurative language demands figurative interpretation. Where ever

Hill 52

figurative language is employ in the Word of God it is either

defined in the same section of Scripture or was defined elsewhere

in a consistent application throughout. As is common today,

figures of speech were often used as a means of revealing literal

truth. If there is figurative language used to reveal a literal

truth in one realm, with which we are familiar, brought into

another realm, the same terminology applicable to one realm will

remain true into the next realm. Dr. Francis Gigot speaks to this

very principle:

If the words are employed in their natural and

primitive signification, the sense which they express

is the proper literal sense; whereas, if they are used

with a figurative and derived meaning, a sense, though

still literal, is usually called the metaphorical or

figurative sense. For example, when we read in John

1.6, “There was a man sent from God, whose name was

John,” it is plain that terms employed here are taken

properly and physically, for the writer speaks of a

real man whose real name is John. Now on the contrary,

when John the Baptist, pointing out Jesus, said,

Hill 53

“Behold, the Lamb of God” in John 1.29, it is also

clear that he did not use the word “Lamb” in the same

proper literal sense which would have excluded any

trope or figure, and which would have denoted some real

lamb. What he wished to approximate and directly

express in literal words was that in the derived and

figurative sense Jesus could be called “the Lamb of

God.” In the former case, the words are used in their

proper literal sense, while in the latter, in their

tropical or figurative sense. (Gigot 386-387)

It can be observed that the literalist never denies the use

of figurative language. However, the literalists does inevitably

deny that such figurative language must be interpreted so as to

destroy the literal truth intended consistent throughout the

employment of the figures. Literal truth is learned through the

symbols. Professors Lange and Schaff may have said it best,

The literalist is not one who denies that figurative

language, that symbols, are used in prophecy, nor does

he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth

therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies

Hill 54

are to be normally interpreted according to the

received laws of language as any other utterances are

interpreted. The Spiritualists do not deny that when

the Messiah is spoken of as “a man of sorrows and

acquainted with grief” the prophecy is to be normally

interpreted; they affirm, however, that when he is

spoken of as coming “in the clouds of heaven” the

language is to be “spiritually” or mystically

interpreted. The terms properly expressive of the

schools are normal and mystical. (Lange and Schaff 98)

E. Let us review some of the normal objections to the

literal method. Allis states three objections:

(1) The language of the Bible often contains figures

of speech. This is especially true of poetry. In the

poetry of the Psalms, in the elevated style of

prophecy, and even in simple historical narrative,

figures of speech appear which quite obviously are

not meant to be and cannot be understood literally.

(2) The great theme of the Bible is, God and His

redemptive dealings with mankind. God is a Spirit;

Hill 55

the most precious teaching of the Bible are

spiritual, and these spiritual and heavenly

realities are often set forth under the form of

earthly objects and human relationships.

The Old Testament is both prior to and introductory of the

New Testament which is much too obvious to even require proof, it

is a fact. Dr. Allis states:

Paul, when referring the Corinthian Christians, in his

own way of cautioning and with admonition to the events

of the Exodus, he declared that these things were

“samples”, or types. That is, the prefigured things to

come. This gives too much that is in the Old Testament

a special significance and importance. Such an

interpretation recognizes, in the light of the New

Testament fulfillment, a deeper and far more wonderful

meaning in the words of many an Old Testament passage

than, taken in their Old Testament context and

connection, they seem to contain. (Allis 17-18)

To sum up the allegorical and liberal side of the

hermeneutical debate, “the Gospel must be released from literal

Hill 56

bondage to old categories and set free to do its work in modern

terms of thought.” These are the words of modernist Harry

Emerson Fosdick, cited in a work by Theodore Engelder, “Scripture

Cannot Be Broken.” (Engelder 372)

Everyone uses figures of speech, in reply to Allis in the

first of his objections. As I have already stated, figures of

speech are often used to teach a literal truth more forcibly than

the same said in plain words. This, in no way, argues for the

allegorical method of interpretation. In regard to his second

objection, it is readily recognized that God is a Spirit, the

only way He can reveal absolute truth in a realm in which we have

yet to enter is draw a parallel from the realm in which we now

live. Pentecost says, “Through the transference of what is

literally true in the known realm into the unknown realm, that

unknown realm will be revealed to us.” (Pentecost 14)

So, the fact that God is spiritual in no way argues for the

allegorical method of interpretation. I would also add, there is

discernment in recognizing the difference between what is

spiritual and what is spiritualized. In respect to Allis third

objection, it is recognize that the Old Testament is

Hill 57

anticipatory, and the New Testament unfolds the Old, the fullness

revealed in the New Testament is not revealed through the

allegorization of what is typified in the Old, but rather through

the literal fulfillment and the unfolding of the literal truth of

types. Types can teach literal truth and the use of types in the

Old Testament in no way supports the allegorical method of

interpretation. Dr. Feinberg wrote the following:

Spiritualizers seemed to think that because revelation

came gradually that the later the prophecy or revealed

matter is, the more valuable it is. The fact of a

gradual revelation has no force in determining the

method of interpretation. Furthermore, a proper

interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3.6 does not detract in

the slightest from our position. When Paul said, “The

letter kills, but the spirit gives life.” he was not

authorizing the spiritualizing interpretation of

Scripture. If the literal kills, then how is it that

God gives His message in such a form? The meaning of

the apostle evidently is that the mere acceptance of

Hill 58

the letter without the work of the Holy Spirit related

to it, leads to death. (Feinberg 50)

I believe that I have clearly demonstrated evidence that the

literal method of the grammatical-historical interpretation which

benefits from both a grammatical and historical basis for

verification is proven by the Godly method preferred by the Holy

Spirit. I also believe that God, who is outside our time and

space, clearly communicated to man in both language and symbols,

and other forms of human communication which were familiar to

mankind at the time, and for all times future for those who are

willing to discern the truth.

Hermeneutical differences has proven over the years to

create riffs in denominations, churches, and even Bible study

groups. I once knew friends, he with a PhD. in Computer Sciences,

and she who had a Master’s degree in Theology, who neither

believed in a literal hell. Their argument was a loving God would

never torture people for an eternity. They were ardent

Episcopalians whose priest did not allow anyone within their

church who disagreed with their beliefs. To say that the priest

and my former friends were allegorist is an understatement. It is

Hill 59

too bad when hermeneutics is the difference in a friendship among

Christians. We have made several attempts to contact them and

others who disagree with my interpretive hermeneutic, but have

never heard from them through the current date and time.

Chapter 3

Two Hermeneutical Methods Contrasted

Inasmuch as our straightforward disagreement between the

premillennialism and amillennialism is one of hermeneutics, it is

beneficial to trace the historical development of the two

hermeneutical methodologies on which these interpretative methods

rests. The literal and allegorical hermeneutics throughout

history are to be traced in our study. By doing this we hope to

prove conclusively the authority of the literal interpretive

method as the solid choice to use. Tracing interpretive history

is a massive time consuming venture, and is presented here for

your information and avoid the overwhelming task of researching

it yourself. We will begin at the start of Biblical

interpretation which starts with Israel.

I. The Beginning of Interpretation

Hill 60

In my investigation, it is commonly agreed by Bible students

and scholars that the history of hermeneutics began with the

return of Israel, under Ezra, from the Babylonian captivity as

recorded in Nehemiah 8.1-8. Pentecost states, “Such

interpretation was necessary, first of all, because of the long

period in Israel’s history in which the Mosaic Law was ignored

and neglected.” (Pentecost 16) Professor Farrar wrote, “The

discovery of the forgotten “book of the Law” by Hilkiah in the

reign of Josiah brought it back into a position of prominence for

a brief season, only to be forgotten again during the years of

the exile. (Farrar 47-48)

The Jews native tongue, Hebrew, was also lost during the

exile with the common language spoken being the Aramaic language

of their captors. When they did return, the new generation of

Jews was unable to understand the Scriptures. Ramm relates, “Upon

their return the Scriptures were unintelligible to them.” (Ramm

27) It became necessary for Ezra to explain the forgotten and

inarticulate Scriptures to his people. There is an important clue

sitting right in front of us. It will be hard to argue that

Ezra’s interpretation of the Scriptures was anything, but a

Hill 61

literal interpretation of what had been written. He was dealing

with Jews who were unfamiliar with Hebrew and the Semitics of the

language who were going through a learning process.

II. Old Testament Interpretation

This same literal interpretation is an obvious feature of

Old Testament interpretation. Jerome and Origen, both in

rejecting the strict literal interpretative process, “calls the

literal interpretation “Jewish,” implying that it may easily

become heretical, and repeatedly says it is inferior to the

‘spiritual.” (Farrar 232) It is fair to say the literal method,

and Jewish interpretation was synonymous in both Jerome and

Origen’s mind. Farrar takes this line of thought further:

Rabbinism arose to take such a grip on the people of

Israel from the union of the authority of priest and

king in one line. The process employed in Rabbinism by

the scribes was not an allegorical method, but instead

a literal process, which, in its literalism,

circumvented all the spiritual requirements of the law.

(Farrar 60-61)

Hill 62

Although the Rabbis reached false conclusions, it was not

the fault of the literal method, instead the misapplication of

the process by the exclusion of anything other than the bare

letter of what was written. This brings to mind Dr. Charles

Briggs statement summarizing the thirteen rules that govern

rabbinical interpretation when he writes,

Some of the rules are excellent, and so far as the

practical logic of the times went, cannot be disputed.

The fault of the rabbinical exegesis was less in the

rules than in their application, though latent

fallacies are not difficult to discover in them, and

they do not sufficiently guard against slips of

argument. (Briggs)

In conclusion, despite the fallacies of the Rabbinism of the

Jews, they followed the literal method of interpretation.

Eschatology is in every system of theology. It is inseparable

because so much of the Bible is forward looking. The mass

majority of the Bible is understood in a literal sense, and where

not described in the same chapter, it is consistently defined

elsewhere in the Word of God. Jesus spoke very literally to his

Hill 63

disciples and only spoke to the unbelieving Jews otherwise after

his final rejection. It was reluctance of the Jewish people to

hear and understand Jesus' meaning of the kingdom which led Him

at a certain juncture to communicate to unbelievers in parables.

The truths of the kingdom of God were heard by them but not

understood just as was said of them by the prophet Isaiah.

(Matthew 13.13-15) It was never God’s intent to hide the truth

from unbelievers, it instead was the people’s reluctance and

stubbornness to hear that was the real issue.

III. Literalism in the Time of Christ

What was the method of interpretation of the Jewish people

at the time of Christ? The prevailing method of interpretation

among the disciples of Christ, the Jewish hierarchy, and the

general Jewish population at the time of Christ was the literal

process of interpretation. Dr. Horne wrote of this period thusly:

The allegorical interpretation of the sacred Scriptures

cannot be historically proved to have prevailed among

the Jews from the time of the captivity, or to have

been common with the Jews of Palestine at the time of

Christ and his apostles. Although the Sanhedrin and the

Hill 64

hearers of Jesus often appealed to the Old Testament,

yet they give no indication of the allegorical

interpretation; even Josephus has nothing of it. The

Platonic Jews of Egypt began in the first century, in

imitation of the heathen Greeks, to interpret the Old

Testament allegorically. Philo of Alexandria was

distinguished among the Jews who practiced this method,

and he defends it as something new and before unheard

of, and for that reason opposed by the other Jews.

Jesus was not, therefore, in a situation in which he

was compelled to comply with the prevailing custom of

allegorical interpretation; for this method did not

prevail at the time among the Jews, certainly not in

Palestine, where Jesus taught. (Horne 324)

Dr. Shirley Jackson Case, from his writings an ardent

amillennialists, made several inadvertently good arguments for

literalism ironically:

Undoubtedly the ancient Hebrew prophets announced the

advent of a terrible day of Jehovah when the old order

of things would suddenly pass away. Later prophets

Hill 65

foretold a day of restoration for the exiles when all

nature would be miraculously changed, and an ideal

kingdom of David established. The seers of subsequent

times portrayed the coming of a truly heavenly rule of

God when the faithful would participate in millennial

blessings. Early Christians expected soon to behold

Christ returning upon the clouds even as they had seen

Him in their visions literally ascending into heaven.

So far as the use of this type of imagery is concerned,

millenarianism may quite properly claim to be Biblical.

Unquestionably certain Biblical writers expected a

catastrophic end of the world. They depicted the days

of sore distress immediately to precede the final

catastrophe, they proclaimed the visible return of the

heavenly Christ, and the eagerly awaited the revelation

of the New Jerusalem. Any attempt to evade these

literalistic features of Biblical imagery is futile.

Ever since Origen’s day set interpreters of Scripture

have sought to refute millennial expectations by

affirming that even the most striking statements about

Hill 66

Jesus’ return are to be understood figuratively. It has

also been said that Daniel and Revelation are highly

mystical, and allegorical works not intended to refer

to real events, whether past, present, or future, but

have a purely spiritual significance like that of

Milton’s Paradise Lost or Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress.

These are evasive devices designed to bring these

Scriptures into harmony with present conditions while

ignoring the vivid expectancy of the ancients. The

afflicted Jews of Maccabean times were demanding, not a

figurative, but a literal, end of their troubles, nor

did Daniel promise them anything less than the actual

establishment of a new heavenly regime. In a similar

genuine vein, Peter, through the pen of Mark, wrote

that Jesus said, “You shall see the Son of Man sitting

at the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of

heaven,” (Mark 14.62) and also, “There are some of you

here of them that stand by who shall in no wise taste

of death till they see the kingdom of God come with

power.” (Mark 9.1) Imagine the shock to Peter, Mark and

Hill 67

others that had been told that this expectation was

already realized in the appearances of Jesus Christ

after He arose, or in the blissful experiences of the

disciples at the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost.

And who can imagine Mark’s feelings had he also been

told, in particular modern fashion, that his prediction

of Christ’s return was to be fulfilled in the Lutheran

Reformation, in the French Revolution, in the Western

Revival, in the emancipation of the slaves, in the

spread of foreign missions, in the democratization of

Russia, or in the outcome of the present world-war?

Premillennialists are thoroughly justified in their

protest against these opponents who allegorize or

spiritualize pertinent Biblical passages, thus

retaining scriptural phrases while utterly perverting

their original significance. (Case 214-216)

You will not find an argument in me or others that the

literalism of the Biblical writers and todays grammatical-

historical interpretation is identical. We must of necessity keep

in mind it was a decadent literalism that had changed Scripture

Hill 68

of all meaning that Jesus Christ was born into, and He hated.

Ramm states:

The net result of a good movement stated by Ezra was a

degenerative hyper-realistic interpretation that was

current among the Jews in the days of Jesus and Paul.

The Jewish literalistic school is literalism at its

worst. It is the exaltation of the letter to the point

that all true sense is lost. It grossly exaggerates the

incidental and accidental and ignores and misses the

essential. (Ramm 28)

Even during this time of gross exaggeration, Jesus made

literal interpretation of Scriptures and future prophecies yet to

be fulfilled. So, it cannot be denied that literalism, in the

proper hermeneutic, was the accepted method of interpretation.

Misuse of the literal method does not militate against the method

itself, any more than misuse of the allegorical method would. It

was not the method that was the problem, but rather the

misapplication of the method.

A. What was the method of interpretation of the disciples

and apostles of Jesus Christ? The literal method of

Hill 69

interpretation was the method of the disciples and apostles. Dr.

Farrar wrote of this particular method of the followers of Jesus

Christ:

The better Jewish theory, purified in Christianity,

takes the teachings of the Old Dispensation literally,

but sees in them, as did St. Paul, the shadow and germ

of future developments. Allegory, thought used by St.

Paul by way of passing illustration, is unknown to the

other Apostles and is never sanctioned by Jesus Christ.

(Farrar 217)

A well respected Biblical scholar, Dr. R.B. Girdlestone,

agrees literalism was the interpretation system of the apostles

and the believers up to the time of Augustine:

We are brought to the conclusion that there was one

uniform method commonly adopted by all the New

Testament writers in interpreting and applying the

Hebrew Scriptures. It is as if they had all been to one

school and had studied under one master. But was it the

Rabbinical school to which they had been? Was it to

Gamaliel, or to Hillel, or to any other Rabbinical

Hill 70

leader that they were indebted? All attainable

knowledge of the mode of teaching current in that time

gives the negative to the suggestion. The Lord Jesus

Christ and no other was the original source of the

method. In this sense, as in many others, He had come a

light into the world. (Girdlestone 86)

Dr. Briggs was liberal in his hermeneutic, and even he

recognized that Jesus Christ did not use the allegorical method

of interpretation in the day of His walking the earth, nor follow

the misconceptions of His generation. He writes:

The apostles and their disciples in the New Testament

use the methods of the Lord Jesus Christ rather than

those of the men of their time. The New Testament

writers differed among themselves in the tendencies of

their thought. In them all, the methods of the Lord

Jesus Christ prevail over the other methods and ennoble

them. (Briggs 443)

The apostles did not find it necessary to employ any other

method of interpretation in rightly comprehending the Old

Testament, but rather to purify the existing process from its

Hill 71

extremes. Keep in mind, the only use of the allegorical method in

the New Testament writes is Paul explanation of an allegory in

Galatian 4.24. We have already demonstrated there is a

significant difference in elucidating allegories and the

allegorical method of interpretation. Then it must be concluded

that the New Testament writers, in mass, literally interpreted

the Old Testament. I just read an Episcopal priest, only

identified as Priest David, whose paper said that to believe in

literalism is a heresy. I wonder who made him god to determine

that. He further does not believe the Bible is divine. He said

further:

There are obvious contradictions in scripture. There

are contradictions in timing, placement and genealogies

in the Old Testament. A cursory comparison of the

four Gospels shows a difference of opinion on when

certain events took place in Jesus' ministry (or

whether they occurred at all) and who was present. At

one point, Tatian tried to smooth over the differences

in the Gospels by combining them into one account

called the Diatessaron. It was used for several

Hill 72

decades in some churches, but eventually discarded as

not being as good a witness as the "Four-square

Gospels" and their differing points of view. (Simmons

“Ask the Priest”)

As I have stated previously, those who differ with

literalism are quick to call those who do believe that God says

what He means are heretics. His criticism of the Word of God can

be disproved without much effort. He is obvious wrong in his

beliefs. To call a brother a heretic without first trying to

change them, is unbiblical. Did not Paul say in Galatians 6.1,

“Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are

spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep

watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.” But I forget; he

doesn’t believe in the Word of God. If this priest doesn’t

believe Jesus Christ is the only way to God, he has a bigger

problem than whether there are discrepancies in the Synoptic.

IV. The Rise of Allegorism

Let’s review the difficulties that were in existence which

the first century writers faced.

Hill 73

1. There was no established cannon of either the Old or

New Testament.

2. They were dependent on faulty translations of the

Scriptures.

3. They knew only the rules of interpretation of the

Rabbinical schools.

4. They were to free themselves from the erroneous

application of the principle of interpretation.

5. Paganism, Judaism, and heresies of all kinds

surrounded them on all sides.

Three diverse exegetical schools arose out of the maze in

the Patristic period, from 100 to 800 A.D.. Dr. Farrar elaborates

on the division of schools:

The Fathers of the third and later centuries may be

divided into three exegetical schools. Those schools

are literal and realistic as represented predominantly

by Tertullian; the allegorical, of which Origen is the

foremost exponent; and the Historical-Grammatical,

which flourished chiefly in Antioch, and of which

Hill 74

Theodore of Mopsuestia was the acknowledged chief.

(Farrar 177)

Farrar traces the beginning of allegorism to Aristobulus

during the Hasmonean Dynasty, when he writes the ensuing:

Aristobulus actual work was of very great importance

for the history of interpretation. He is one of the

precursors whom Philo used though he did not name him,

and he is the first to enunciate two theses which were

destined to find wide acceptance, and to lead to many

false conclusions in the sphere of exegesis.

The first of these is the statement that Greek

philosophy is borrowed from the Old Testament, and

especially from the Law of Moses; the other that all

the tenets of the Greek philosophers, and especially of

Aristotle, are to be found in Moses and the Prophets by

those who use the right method of inquiry. (Farrar 164)

Philo, a Hellenized Jew, sought to harmonize the Mosaic Law

and Greek philosophy, which so that the Law of Moses could be

acceptable to the Greek mind. Dr. Gilbert gives us into the mind

of Philo in his thoughts on Moses:

Hill 75

To Philo Greek philosophy was the same as the

philosophy of Moses. And the aim of Philo was to set

forth and illustrate this harmony between the Jewish

religion and classic philosophy, or, ultimately, it was

to commend the Jewish religion to the educated Greek

world. This was the high mission to which he felt

called, the purpose with which he expounded the Hebrew

laws in the language of the world’s culture and

philosophy. (Gilbert 37)

Philo’s influence was acutely felt in the theological school

of Alexandria. Dr. Farrar states:

It was in the great catechetical school of Alexandria,

founded, as tradition says, by Saint Mark, that there

sprang up the chief school of Christian Exegesis. Its

object, like that of Philo, was to unite philosophy

with revelation, and thus to use the borrowed jewels of

Egypt to adorn the sanctuary of God. Hence, Clement of

Alexandria and Origen furnished the direct antithesis

of Tertullian and Irenaeus. The first teacher of the

school who rose to fame was the venerable Pantaenus, a

Hill 76

converted stoic, of whose writings only a few fragments

remain. He was succeeded by Clement of Alexandria, who,

believing in the divine origin of Greek philosophy,

openly propounded the principle that all Scripture must

be allegorically understood. (Farrar 182)

It was in this environment that Origen systematically

developed and organized the allegorical method of interpreting

Scripture. Dr. Schaff summarizes Origen’s influence when he

wrote:

Origen was the first to lay down, in connection with

the allegorical method of the Jewish Platonist, Philo,

a formal theory of interpretation, which he carried out

in a long series of exegetical works remarkable for

industry and integrity, but meagre in solid results. He

considered the Bible a living organism, consisting of

three elements which answer to the body, soul, and

spirit of man, after the Platonic psychology.

Accordingly, he attributed to the Scripture a threefold

sense:

Hill 77

(1) A somatic, literal, or historical sense,

furnished immediately by the meaning of the words,

but only serving as a veil for a higher idea;

(2) A psychic or moral sense, animating the first,

and serving for general edification;

(3) A pneumatic or mystic and ideal sense, for

those who stand on the high ground of

philosophical knowledge.

In the application of this theory he shows the same

tendency as Philo, to spiritualize away the letter of

Scripture, and instead, of simply bringing out the

sense of the Bible, he puts into it all sorts of

foreign ideas and irrelevant fancies. But the

allegorizing suited the taste of the age, and, with his

fertile mind and imposing learning, Origen was the

exegetical oracle of the early church, till his

orthodoxy fell into disrepute. (Schaff 581)

Anytime you harmonize the Scriptures to a pagan doctrine;

you must employ the allegorical method of interpretation within

the Scriptures. Unfortunately, Philo’s philosophy was most

Hill 78

intensely felt in the theological school of Alexandria. Dr.

Farrar thoughts on this are summarized:

The exegesis of St. Augustine is marked by the most

glaring defects. He laid down the rule that the Bible

must be interpreted with reference to Church Orthodoxy,

and that no Scriptural expression can be out of

accordance with any other (Scripture). Snatching up the

old Philonian and Rabbinic rule which has been repeated

for so many generations, that everything in Scripture

which appeared to be unorthodox or immoral must be

interpreted mystically, he introduced confusion into

his dogma of supernatural inspiration by admitting that

there are many passages ‘written by the Holy Ghost,’

which are objectionable when taken in their obvious

sense. He also opened the door to arbitrary fancy.

(Farrar 236-237)

Any time we allegorize, we step into the imagination of the

individual interpreter. Dr. Farrar summarizes this line of

thought:

Hill 79

When once the principle of allegory is admitted, when

once we start with the rule that whole passages and

books of Scripture say one thing when they mean

another, the reader is delivered bound hand and foot to

the caprice of the interpreter. He can be sure of

absolutely nothing except what is dictated to him by

the Church, and in all ages the authority of ‘the

Church’ has been falsely claimed for the presumptuous

tyranny of false prevalent opinions. In the days of

Justin Martyr and of Origen Christians had been driven

to allegory by an imperious necessity. It was the only

means known to them by which to meet the shock which

wrenched the Gospel free from the fetters of Judaism.

They used it to defeat the crude literalism of

fanatical heresies; or to reconcile the teachings of

philosophy with the truths of the Gospel. But in the

days of Augustine the method (literalism) had

degenerated into artistic method of displaying

ingenuity and supporting ecclesiasticism. It had become

the resource of faithlessness which declined to admit,

Hill 80

of an ignorance which failed to appreciate, and of an

indolence which refused to solve the real difficulties

in which the sacred Book abounds. Unhappily for the

Church, unhappily for any real apprehension of

Scripture, the allegorists, in spite of protest, were

completely victorious. (Farrar 238)

It should be apparent from the study of the allegorists’

method; it was not born directly from the Scriptures, but rather

out of an overwhelming mission to unite the Word of God to the

Greek philosophy. The Word of God, which is infallible regardless

of the skeptics, the Holy Spirit reveals to each in their

literalness, was perverted. Pentecost says, “It was not the child

of orthodoxy, but of heterodoxy.” (Pentecost 24)

I remember from my study under Dr. Missler that Augustine

was successful in spreading the allegorical method of

interpretation into the heart of the church which was based on

Origen’s method of perverting Scripture. However, during this

same era there were those who held to the original literal method

despite the opposition. For example, from the school at Antioch

Hill 81

there were those who remained true to the literal method of the

first church under Paul and others. Dr. Gilbert notes:

Theodore and John may be said to have gone far toward a

scientific method of exegesis inasmuch as they saw

clearly the necessity of determining the original sense

of Scripture in order to make any profitable use of the

same. To have kept this end steadily in view was a

great achievement. It made their work stand out in

strong contrast by the side of the Alexandrian school.

Their interpretation was extremely plain and simple as

compared with that of Origen. They utterly rejected the

allegorical method. (Gilbert 137)

The saddest fact in church history is that we would not have

a different history of interpretation if the Antioch School had

overcome Rome and Alexandria. Ill-advisedly for sound exegesis

the ecclesiasticism of the established church, which created and

depended on the allegorical method which originated with Origen

had prevailed for the majority. In fact, the views of the Antioch

School, were condemned as heretical and did not emerge again for

over a thousand years when Martin Luther pinned his “95 Thesis”

Hill 82

on the door of the Church of Wittenberg and even made sure the

higher authorities of the Catholic Church had their copies. A

price was now on his head as result of his actions. But the

rebirth of the literal method of interpretation could not and

would not be stopped.

V. The Dark Ages

I am reminded that God says what He means, and means exactly

what He says. If this literal philosophy was adopted in the early

stages of the Dark Ages, we would have avoided one of the darkest

periods in the history of mankind. The general mood of the one

thousand year period was allegorical and little effort was made

to interpret the Scriptures accurately. Add to this, the abuses

and excesses of the Roman Catholic Church, and the two combine

for the darkest era in the human history. To give us the general

interpretational attitude of the period Berkhof observes:

In this period, the fourfold sense of Scripture

(literal, tropological, allegorical, and analogical)

was generally accepted, and it became an established

principle that the interpretation of the Bible had to

Hill 83

adapt itself to tradition and to the doctrine of the

Church. (Berkhof 23)

The Dark Ages had spawned and then kept alive what started

with Origen. Church historian A. H. Newman reports on Origen’s

allegorical method of interpretation:

Origen was the first to reduce the allegorical method

of interpretation to a system. His method of Scriptural

interpretation was soon adopted throughout the church,

and prevailed throughout the Middle Ages. In this

particular Origen’s influence was not just bad, but

only bad. (Newman 286)

In fairness to Origen, it must be noted he was not an evil

man. In fact, he was a scholarly Christian philosopher with a

courageous faith who lived a humble and ascetic life. The issue I

have with Origen is because of his desire to harmonize the Bible

with the philosophy of Plato is where he systemized the

allegorical method. From this he taught, and spread the

allegorical method of interpreting the Scriptures, particularly

in the area of prophecy.

Hill 84

What eventually was to become the Roman Catholic Church had

the ecclesiasticism propagated by Augustine which bore fruit and

the conformity to the church became firmly entrenched. Farrar

characterizes the period this way:

We are compelled to say that during the Dark Ages, from

the seventh to the twelfth century, and during the

scholastic epoch, from the twelfth to the sixteenth,

there are but a few of the many who toiled in this

field who add a single essential principle or furnished

a single original contribution to the explanation of

the Word of God. During these nine centuries we find

very little except the ‘glimmerings and decays’ of

patristic exposition. Much of the learning which

continued to exist was devoted to something which was

meant for exegesis yet not one writer in hundreds

showed any true concept of what exegesis really

implies. (Farrar 245)

The saddest legacy of this period is the prevalent anti-

Semitism and prejudice against any religion that did not believe

the way the established church believed. And many millions died

Hill 85

as a result of this abhorrent practice. Christians, Jews,

Muslims, and any other religion that did not believe the way the

Roman Catholic church and the papal system were massacred

outright to some estimates of over 50 million souls. (Plaisted

“Papacy”)

VI. The Reformation Period

Sound exegesis finally makes an appearance during the

Reformation era, beginning with Martin Luther’s “95 Thesis." The

entire Reformation movement was characterized by the literal

method of interpretation of the Scriptures. Farrar lists some of

those, in addition to Luther, who were precursors whose influence

turned men back to the sound exegesis. Dr. Farrar states, “Valla,

a Canon of St. John Lateran is one chief links between the

Renaissance and the Reformation. He had learnt from the revival

of letters that Scripture must be interpreted by the laws of

grammar and the laws of language.” (Farrar 312)

Erasmus is another link in that emphasized the study of the

original texts; he was an expert in both Latin and Greek. In

Biblical history, Erasmus was given credit for laying the

foundation for the grammatical interpretation of the Word of God.

Hill 86

Dr. Farrar states, Erasmus “may be regarded as the chief founder

of modern textual and Biblical criticism. He must always hold an

honored place among the interpreters of Scripture.” (Farrar 320)

The translators, who are as much a part of the Reformation

as Luther, were motivated by a return to understand the Bible

literally. Of these men Farrar says, “Wicif, indeed made the

important remark that ‘the whole error in the knowledge of

Scripture, and the source of its debasement and falsification by

incompetent persons, and logic. (Farrar 278-279)

Farrar has a quote in his book of William Tyndale which I

present in the vein of what we are discussing:

Tyndale says: We may borrow similitudes or allegories

from the Scriptures and apply them to our purposes,

which allegories are not sense of the Scriptures, but

free things besides the Scriptures altogether in the

liberty of the Spirit. Such allegory proveth nothing,

it is a mere simile. God is a Spirit and all His words

are spiritual, and His literal sense is spiritual.

(Farrar 300)

Hill 87

Briggs, himself an allegorist, whose imagination is his

strong point of interpretation weights in on the discussion when

he writes:

Whitaker says. As to those three spiritual senses it is

surely foolish to say there are as many senses in

Scripture as the words themselves may be transferred

and accommodated to bear. For although the words may be

applied and accommodated tropologically, anagogically,

allegorically, or any other way, yet there are not

therefore various senses, various interpretations, and

explications of Scripture, but there is but one sense

and that the literal, which may be variously

accommodated, and from which various things may be

collected. (Briggs 456)

Briggs also cites Tyndale who wrote:

Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the Scripture

hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And

that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and

the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou

cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And

Hill 88

if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go

out of the way. Never the later, the Scripture useth

proverbs, similitudes, riddles, or allegories, as all

other speeches do; but that which the proverbs,

similitudes, riddles, or allegories signifieth, is over

the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.

(Briggs 457)

We who are literalists are in good company from Paul to

Luther to Tyndale, to the present day. The very foundations of

the Reformation were laid down in the return to the literal

method of interpretation. The two heavyweights of the 16th

century Reformation period are noticeable above others as

exponents of the truths of Scripture: Martin Luther and John

Calvin. Both men being strong advocates of the literal method of

interpretation. Briggs quotes Martin Luther who wrote:

Every word should be allowed to stand in its natural

meaning and that should not be abandoned unless faith

forces us to it. It is the attribute of Holy Scripture

that it interprets itself by passages and places which

Hill 89

belong together, and can only be understood by the rule

of faith. (Briggs 457)

Martin Luther, who theologically was off the mark in his

anti-Semitism, advocated a position in our day which would be

called the grammatical-historical method is detected from his own

writings. Dr. Farrar, who has extensive writings on Martin

Luther, states:

Luther in his preface to Isaiah (in 1528) and in other

parts of his writings, lays down what he conceives to

be the true rules of Scripture interpretation. He

insists:

A. On the necessity for grammatical knowledge;

B. On the importance of taking into consideration

times, circumstances, and conditions;

C. On the observance of the context;

D. On the need of faith and spiritual

illumination;

E. On keeping what he called “the proportion of

faith”;

Hill 90

F. On the reference of all Scripture to Christ.

(Farrar 330)

Martin Luther was not only a champion of his desire to give

the ordinary people the Word of God, but also teach them to

interpret it properly. In that desire he laid down the following

rules of interpretation:

i. First among them was the supreme and final authority

of Scripture itself, apart from all ecclesiastical

authority or interference.

ii. Secondly, he asserted not only the supreme

authority but the sufficiency of Scripture.

iii. Like all the other reformers he set aside the

dreary fiction of the fourfold sense. The literal

sense of the Scripture alone is the whole essence of

faith and of Christian theology. Luther said, ‘I have

observed this, that all heresies and errors have

originated, not from the simple words of Scripture, as

is so universally asserted, but from neglecting the

simple words of Scripture, and from the affectation

purely subjective tropes and inferences.’

Hill 91

iv. It need hardly be said, therefore, that Luther,

like most Reformers, rejected the validity of

allegory. He totally denied its claim to be regarded

as a spiritual interpretation.

v. Luther maintained the perspicuity of Scripture. He

sometimes came near to the modern remark that, “the

Bible is to be interpreted like any other book.”

vi. Luther maintained with all his force, and almost

for the first time in history, the absolute

indefeasible right of private judgment, which, with

the doctrine of the spiritual priesthood of all

Christians, lies at the base of all Protestantism.

(Farrar 331)

History has been kind to John Calvin in the interpretation

of the Scriptures. Gilbert writes about this great theologian

from our church history:

For the first time in a thousand years he gave a

conspicuous example of non-allegorical exposition. One

must go back to the best work of the school of Antioch

to find so complete a rejection of the method of Philo

Hill 92

as is furnished by Calvin. Allegorical interpretations

which had been put forth in the early Church and

indorsed by illustrious expositors in all the

subsequent centuries, like the interpretation of Noah’s

ark and the seamless garment of Christ, are cast aside

as rubbish. This fact alone an abiding and

distinguished honor to Calvin’s exegetical work. What

led him to reject allegorical interpretation as

something peculiarly satanic, whether it was his legal

training at Orleans and Bourges or his native judgment,

is not possible to say, but the fact is clear and is

the most striking feature of his interpretation.

(Gilbert 209)

In Calvin’s commentary he very clearly advocates the literal

method of interpretation. In his commentary on Galatians he

writes, “Let us know then, that the true meaning of Scripture is

the natural and obvious meaning, and let us embrace and abide by

it resolutely.” (Ellicott 136) Farrar quotes Calvin on his

preface to Romans, “It is the first business of an interpreter to

Hill 93

let his author say what he does say, instead of attributing to

him what we think he ought to say. (Farrar 347)

Hospers quotes Dr. Schaff concerning Calvin:

Calvin is the founder of the grammatical-historical

exegesis. He affirmed and carried out the sound

hermeneutical principle that the Biblical authors, like

all sensible writers, wished to convey to their readers

one definite thought in words which they could

understand. A passage may have a literal or a

figurative sense; but cannot have two senses at once.

The Word of God is inexhaustible and applicable to all

times, but there is a difference between explanation

and application, and application must be consistent

with explanation. (Hospers 18)

Dr. Farrar wrote of the entire period when he said:

The Reformers gave a mighty impulse to the science of

Scriptural interpretation. They made the Bible

accessible to all; they tore away and scattered to the

winds the dense cobwebs of arbitrary tradition which

had been spun for so many centuries over every book,

Hill 94

and every text of it; they put the Apocrypha on an

altogether lower level than the sacred books; they

carefully studied the original languages; they

developed the plain, literal sense; they used it for

the strengthening and refreshing of the spiritual life.

(Farrar 357)

Dr. Gilbert summaries the period of the Reformers as such:

It is to be said to the credit of the period under

consideration that its normal type of exegesis regards

the literal sense of the text. The words of Richard

Hooker (1553-1600) have a wide application throughout

the period. ‘I hold it for a most infallible rule in

exposition of Sacred Scripture that when a literal

construction will stand, the farthest from the letter

is commonly the worst. There is nothing more dangerous

than this deluding art which changeth the meaning of

words as alchemy doth or would do the substance of

metals, making of anything what it listeth, and

bringing in the end of all truth to nothing. In

general, the example of Calvin in rejecting allegorical

Hill 95

interpretation was followed by the leading divines and

scholars of the next two centuries. (Gilbert 229-230)

If you are going to follow both the theology and exegesis of

the major reformers, you must therefore accept the method of

their interpretation on which their theology rests—literal. God

never endorsed the allegorical method. Jesus Christ never

endorsed the allegorical method. Nor did any of the apostles,

disciples, and early Church fathers.

VII. Post Reformation Period

The post-Reformation period was discernible by the continued

rise of men who closely followed the footsteps of the Reformers

in the application of the grammatical-historical method of

interpretation. Farrar writes of this period:

If Luther was the prophet of the Reformation

Melanchthon was the teacher. Zwingli, with absolute

independence, had arrived at opinions on this subject

which in all essential particulars coincided with those

of Luther. A host of Reformation expositors endeavored

to spread the truths to which they had been led by

German and Swiss Reformers. It will be sufficient here

Hill 96

merely to mention the names of Oecolampadius (1581),

Bucer (1551), Brenz (1570), Bugenhagen (1558), Musculus

(1563), Camerarius (1574), Bullinger (1575), Chemnitz

(1586), Beza (1605), and Owen (1645). Among all these

there was a general agreement in principles, a

rejection of scholastic methods, a refusal to

acknowledge the exclusive dominance of patristic

authority and church traditions; a repudiation of the

hitherto dominant fourfold meaning; an avoidance of

allegory; a study of the original languages; a close

attention to the literal sense; a belief in the

perspicuity and sufficiency of Scripture; the study of

Scripture as a whole and the reference of its total

contents to Christ. (Farrar 342)

During this period, with the foundation of the Reformers for

the literal method of interpretation, there should be an

explosion of Scriptural exegesis based on that foundation.

However, when one carefully analyzes the history of

interpretation you will find little progress in literal or sound

interpretation due to adherence to creeds and church dogma of the

Hill 97

papists. Yet the period did produce some solid exegetes and

scholars like John Koch, who was a professor at Leyden (1669). A

noted theologian of the period, Dr. J. J. Wetstein, professor

from Basle (1754), who promoted the same principles that apply to

the interpretation of any book should also be applied to the Word

of God. Also, John Albert Bengel (1752), and others who were well

known for their influence on criticism and exposition and who

paved the way for modern exegetes like Lightfoot, Westcott,

Ellicott, and others.

One man stands out as the greatest influence in the

systemization of the literal method of interpretation—John

Augustus Ernesti, Dr. Milton S. Terry writes a fitting tribute to

this great scholar when he says:

Probably the most distinguished name in the history of

exegesis is the eighteenth century author and Biblical

Scholar—John Augustus Ernesti who authored the

Principles of New Testament Interpretation. This one

book has been accepted as a standard textbook on

hermeneutics by four generations of Biblical Scholars.

He is regarded as the founder of a new exegetical

Hill 98

school, whose principle was that the Bible must be

rigidly explained according to its own language, and in

this explanation, it must neither be bribed by any

eternal authority of the Church, nor by our own

feeling, nor by a supportive and allegorizing fancy—

which had frequently been the case with the mystics—

nor, finally, by any philosophical system whatever.

(Terry 707)

The systemization of this one text, liberally debunked by

critical scholars who failed in their own hermeneutic, changed

the history of interpretation like no other author.

As we begin to close our study in the methods of

interpretation, it is fitting that Horatius Bonar gives us a

summarization of the principle of exegesis that is noted as the

foundation of all real Scriptural interpretation. We pick his

thoughts up here, quoted by Girdlestone:

I feel a greater certainty as to the literal

interpretation of that whole Word of God, historical,

doctrinal, and prophetical. ‘Literal, if possible,’ is,

I believe, the only maxim that will carry you right

Hill 99

through the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation.

(Girdlestone 179)

In malevolence of the shackles of dogmatism, popery and

creedalism pursued to impose on exegesis, there was a remnant who

emerged from the same period with sound principles of

interpretation. It was these sound principles which paved the

road for great exegetical works of following centuries. Berkhof

states these principles succinctly:

It became an established principle that the Bible must

be interpreted like every other book. The special

divine element of the Bible was generally disparaged,

and the interpreter usually limited himself to the

discussion of the historical and critical questions.

The abiding fruit of this period is the clear

consciousness of the necessity of the Grammatical-

Historical interpretation of the Bible. The Grammatical

school was founded by Ernesti, who wrote an important

work on the interpretation of the New Testament, in

which he laid down four principles.

Hill 100

(a) The fourfold sense of Scripture must be

rejected for the literal sense.

(b) Allegorical and typological interpretations

must be disapproved, except in cases which the

author indicates that he meant to combine

another sense with the literal.

(c) Since the Bible has the grammatical sense in

common with other books, this should be

ascertained similarly in both cases.

(d) The literal sense may not be determined by a

supposed dogmatic sense of a church

organization or by individuals.

The Grammatical School was essentially

supernaturalistic, binding itself to the very

words of the text as the legitimate source of

authentic interpretation and of religious truth.

(Berkhof 32-33)

To summarize our study of the interpretation of scripture—it

is somewhat apparent that I am a literalist. I believe that God,

who created everything we see and those things we don’t see, ably

Hill 101

communicated with men His Word so that it could be translated

into all languages of the world, and be understood. It is also

easy for me to state that Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and the

early church, based in Antioch, all practiced a literal method of

interpretation, which began with Ezra. Literalism was also the

method practiced by the Rabbinism.

It was the accepted method practice by those cited in the

New Testament when they interpreted the Old Testament. The Church

Fathers practiced literalism right up to the days of Origen, who

originated the allegorical method. Allegorism was devised to

harmonize Platonic philosophy and the Word of God, was adopted.

Augustine’s influence ushered the allegorical method right into

the precursor of the Roman Catholic Church, ending to almost all

true exegesis.

The allegorical method continued until the Reformation.

Luther and others started a move back to the literal method of

interpretation, and despite opposition by established religion,

the movement became solidly established. The established church,

its creeds, and rules could not stop the literal movement which

became the basis on which all true exegesis exists. So in

Hill 102

conclusion of this section on the history of interpretation the

original and accepted method of interpretation was literal. The

Lord Jesus Christ used it, and He was the greatest interpreter of

all history. The good thing about it is that the literal method

is the basic method for the precise interpretation in any field

of doctrine today, especially Eschatology.

Chapter 4

I. General Considerations in Interpretation

The interpretation of words forms is the medium of

communication of our thoughts. All sound exegesis must of

necessity, therefore, begin with an interpretation of the words

themselves. Dr. Horne wrote an invaluable book during his

lifetime, 20 October 1780 – 27 January 1862, which is still in

use at universities all over the world. Horne has given an

excellent summary of the correct principles to be employed in the

accurate interpretation of words.

1. Ascertain the usus loquendi, or usage affix to

speaking by persons in general, by whom the language

either is now or formerly was spoken, and especially

Hill 103

in a particular connection in which such notion is

affixed.

2. The received signification of the word is to be

retained unless weighty and necessary reasons

require that it should be abandoned or neglected.

3. Where a word has several significations in common

use, that must be selected which best suits the

passage in question, and which is consistent with an

author’s known character, sentiments, and the

situation, and the know circumstances under which he

wrote.

4. Although the force of particular words can only be

derived from the etymology, yet too much confidence

must not be placed in that frequently uncertain

science; because the primary signification of a word

is frequently very different from its common

meaning.

5. The distinctions between words, which are apparently

synonymous, should be carefully examined and

considered.

Hill 104

6. The epithets introduced by the sacred writers are

also to be carefully weighed and considered, as all

of them have either a declarative or explanatory

force, or serve to distinguish one thing from

another, or unite these two characters together.

7. General terms are sometimes used in their whole

extent, and sometimes in a restricted sense, and

whether they are to be understood in the one way or

in the other must depend upon the scope, subject

matter, context, and the parallel passage.

8. Of any particular passage the simplest sense—or that

which most readily suggests itself to an attentive

and intelligent reader, possessing competent

knowledge—is in all probability the genuine sense or

meaning.

9. Since it is the design of interpretation to render

in our own language the same discourse which the

sacred authors originally wrote in Hebrew or Greek,

it is evident that our interpretation or version, to

be correct, ought not to affirm or deny more than

Hill 105

the inspired penmen affirmed or denied at the time

they wrote; consequently we should be more willing

to take a sense from Scripture than to bring one of

it.

10. Before we conclude upon the sense of the text, so

as to prove anything by it, we must be sure that

such sense is not repugnant to natural reason.

(Horne 325-326)

Angus and Green weight in on the literal subjecting by

saying much the same as Horne:

The words of Scripture must be taken in their common

meaning, unless such meaning is shown to be

inconsistent with other words in a sentence, with the

argument or context, or with other parts of Scripture.

Of two meanings, that one is generally to be preferred

which was most obvious to the comprehension of the

hearers or original readers of the inspired passage,

allowing for the modes of thought prevalent in their

own day, as well as for those figurative expressions

which were so familiar as to be no exception the

Hill 106

general rule. The true meaning of any passage of

Scripture, then, is not every sense which the words

will bear, nor is it every sense which is true in

itself, but that which is intended by the inspired

writers, or even by the Holy Spirit, though imperfectly

understood by the writers themselves. (Angus and Green

180)

To sum up what we have just read—words have an obligation to

be interpreted, then, in the usual, natural, literal sense. Every

letter, every word, every symbol, and every number mean

something; our challenge is discovering what that meaning is

literally.

II. The Interpretation of Context

The context in which any passage appears is our next subject

of consideration. There are historical rules which are still

taught today in Biblical universities that will help guide in

contextual interpretation. David L. Cooper, himself a Jewish

Rabbi, who is a semi-literalist who we otherwise would have some

exegetical issues, states for your information:

Hill 107

When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense,

seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its

primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the

facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of

related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths,

indicate clearly otherwise.” (Cooper 3)

Dr. Horne lays the historical rules out for our observation:

1. A careful consideration of the preceding and

subsequent parts will enable us to determine that

signification, whether literal or figurative, which

is best adapted to the passage in question.

2. The context of a discourse or book in the Scriptures

may comprise either one verse, a few verses, entire

periods or sections, entire chapters, or whole

books.

3. Sometimes a book of Scripture comprises only one

subject or argument, in which case the whole of it

must be referred to the precedent and subsequent,

and out to be considered together. (Horne 336f)

Hill 108

For example, you are exploring the circumstances of a

scripture you’re studying, keep in mind it is

desirable:

a. To investigate each word of every passage—and as the

connection is formed by participles, these should

always receive that signification which the subject-

matter and context require.

b. Examine the entire passage with minute attention.

c. A verse or passage must not be connected with a

remote context, unless the latter agrees better with

it than a nearer context.

d. Examine whether the writer continues his discourse,

lest we suppose him to make the transition to

another argument, when, in fact, he is prosecuting

the same topic.

e. The parentheses which occur in the sacred writings

should be particularly regarded: but no parentheses

should be interposed without sufficient reason.

f. No explanation must be admitted, but that which

suits the context.

Hill 109

g. Where no connection is to be found with the

preceding and subsequent part of the book, none

should be sought. (Horne 336 ff)

III. What is the Historical Interpretation?

The context in which any passage appears is our next subject

of consideration. There are historical rules which are still

taught today in Biblical universities that will help guide in

contextual interpretation. David L. Cooper, himself a Jewish

Rabbi, who is a semi-literalist who we otherwise would have some

exegetical issues, states for your information:

When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense,

seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its

primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the

facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of

related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths,

indicate clearly otherwise.” (Cooper 3)

Dr. Horne lays the historical rules out for our observation:

1. A careful consideration of the preceding and

subsequent parts will enable us to determine that

Hill 110

signification, whether literal or figurative, which

is best adapted to the passage in question.

2. The context of a discourse or book in the Scriptures

may comprise either one verse, a few verses, entire

periods or sections, entire chapters, or whole

books.

3. Sometimes a book of Scripture comprises only one

subject or argument, in which case the whole of it

must be referred to the precedent and subsequent,

and out to be considered together. (Horne 336f)

For example, you are exploring the circumstances of a

scripture you’re studying, keep in mind it is

desirable:

a. To investigate each word of every passage—and as the

connection is formed by participles, these should

always receive that signification which the subject-

matter and context require.

b. Examine the entire passage with minute attention.

Hill 111

c. A verse or passage must not be connected with a

remote context, unless the latter agrees better with

it than a nearer context.

d. Examine whether the writer continues his discourse,

lest we suppose him to make the transition to

another argument, when, in fact, he is prosecuting

the same topic.

e. The parentheses which occur in the sacred writings

should be particularly regarded: but no parentheses

should be interposed without sufficient reason.

f. No explanation must be admitted, but that which

suits the context.

g. Where no connection is to be found with the

preceding and subsequent part of the book, none

should be sought. (Horne 336 ff)

IV. What is the Historical Interpretation?

Our third respect to consider of any interpretation should

always be the historical interpretation method, with which the

direct historical setting and impact on the passage is carefully

considered. We will find that the student of interpretation needs

Hill 112

to transform his mind back into the first century so as to know

the history, morals, and external circumstances and restriction

placed on the writer’s life.

1. Dr. Berkhof provides us with an excellent review of the

historical considerations in Scriptural considerations:

a. The Word of God originally was written in a

historical way, and, therefore, can be understood

only in the light of history. (This cannot be

understated, my notation.)

b. A word is never fully understood until it is

apprehended as a living word, i.e. as it originated

in the soul of the author.

c. It is impossible to understand the author and to

interpret his words correctly unless he is seen

against the proper historical background.

d. The place, the time, the circumstances, and the

prevailing view of the world and of life in general,

will naturally color the writings that are produced

under those conditions of time, place, and

circumstances. (Berkhof 45)

Hill 113

2. What are the demands placed on the student of

interpretation? When considering the presuppositions above,

historical interpretation makes the following demands on the

exegete. Dr. Berkhof wrote that we need to have personal

knowledge of the writer, well above a casual rendering:

a. He must seek to know the author whose work he would

explain: his parentage, his character and

temperament, his intellectual, moral, and religious

characteristics, as well as the external

circumstances of his life.

b. It will be incumbent on him to reconstruct, as far

as possible, from the historical data at hand, and

with the aid of historical hypotheses, the

environment in which the particular writings under

consideration originated; in other words, the

author’s world. He will have to inform himself

respecting the physical features of the land where

the books were written, and regarding the character

and history, the customs, morals and religion of the

people among whom or for whom they were composed.

Hill 114

c. He will find it to be of the utmost importance that

he considers the various influences which determined

more directly the character of the writings under

consideration, such as the original readers, the

purpose which the author had in mind, the author’s

age, his frame of mind, and the special

circumstances under which he composed the book.

d. Moreover, he will have to transfer himself mentally

into the first century A.D., and into Oriental

conditions. He must place himself on the standpoint

of the author, and seek to enter into his very soul

until he as it were, lives his life and thinks his

thoughts. This means that he will have to guard

carefully against the rather common mistake of

transferring the author to the present day and

making him speak the language of the twentieth

century. (Berkhof 113 ff)

Dr. Berkhof places considerations before us that are hardly

involved in the teaching of Biblical exegesis. But in making this

admission, his topical considerations are both logical and

Hill 115

transforming. When we follow them the words on the page become a

living document with endless possibilities. His writings should

become standard reading in any Bible school or university

worldwide. This is perhaps the key section in our study of the

road ahead, which will allow us to understand the Scriptures like

never before. Are we up to the challenge that this information

provides as opposed to the shallow interpretation which

characterizes the allegorical method? I would prefer to believe

that we are.

V. The Methodology of Grammatical Interpretation

Our fourth contemplation of any interpretation must be how

we interpret the grammar of the language in which the passage was

originally given. This, of course, cannot be done apart from the

knowledge of the original languages. Elliott and Harsha,

translated by J.E. Cellerier, states the obvious:

The interpreter should begin his work by studying the

grammatical sense of the text, with the aid of Sacred

Philology. As in all other writings, the grammatical

Hill 116

sense must be made the starting point. The meaning of

the words must be determined according to the

linguistic usage and the connection. (Elliott and

Harsha 73)

I have learned incrementally much about Biblical

interpretation from Professor Milton S. Terry than I have any

other Biblical scholar. Dr. Terry writes the following thoughts

on grammatical interpretation:

Grammatical and historical interpretation, when rightly

understood can be viewed as each being the equal to the

other. The special laws of grammar, agreeably to which

the sacred writers employed language were the result of

their peculiar circumstances, and history alone throws

us back into these circumstances. A new language was

not made for the authors of the Scripture; they

conformed to the current language of the country and

time. Their compositions would not have been otherwise

intelligible. They took up the usus loquendi as they

found it, modifying it, as is quite natural, by the

relations internal and external amid which they thought

Hill 117

and wrote. The grammatical-historical sense is made out

by the application of grammatical and historical

considerations. The great object is to be ascertained

is the usus loquendi, embracing the law or principles

of universal grammar which forms the basis of every

language. It is the usus loquendi of the inspired

authors which form the subject of the grammatical

principles recognized and followed by the expositor we

attain the knowledge of the peculiar usus loquendi in

the way of historical investigation. (Terry 203)

Terry had the most accepted description of the methodology

and intent of the original grammatical-historical method that is

available. He says in brief:

We may name the grammatical-historical as the method

which most fully commends itself to the judgment and

conscience of Christian scholars. Its fundamental

principle is to gather from the Scriptures themselves

the precise meaning which the writer intended to

convey. It applies to the sacred books the same

principles, the same grammatical process and exercise

Hill 118

of common sense and reason, which we apply to other

books. The grammatical-historical exegete, furnished

with suitable qualifications, intellectual,

educational, and moral, will accept the claims of the

Bible without prejudice or adverse prepossession, and,

with no ambition to prove them true or false, will

investigate the language and import of each book with

fearless independence. He will master the language of

the writer, the particular dialect which he used, and

his peculiar style and manner of expression. He will

inquire into the circumstances under which he wrote,

the manners and customs of his age, and the purpose or

object which he had in view. He has a right to assume

that no sensible author will be knowingly inconsistent

with himself, or seek to bewilder and mislead his

readers. (Terry 173)

Without hesitation, the grammatical-historical method is

closest to the common sense investigative process that assumes

that the God was the one who created the heavens and the earth

who could also get His Word to men who would be faithful to

Hill 119

insure its preservation for all the ages to come. That same God

would assist men in the preservation process and counter all

attempts to destroy it. Finally, Jesus Christ employed the method

in His dealings with His people. End of story.

VI. The Interpretation of Figurative Language

Probably the major issue facing the student of

interpretation is the problem of interpreting figurative

language, which is in use in both the Old and New Testaments. The

type of Scripture that makes use of the figurative language most

often is the prophetic Scriptures. Obviously any study of the

road ahead would have to investigate the use of figurative

language in detail.

A. Does the use of figurative language occur in the Word of God?

One would have to concede that figurative language is employed to

augment language by the method of embellishment of conveying

unusual concepts to the reader or listener. Angus and Green

state:

It is a necessity of the human intellect that facts

connected with the mind, or with spiritual truth, must

be clothed in language borrowed from material things.

Hill 120

To words exclusively spiritual or abstract we can

attach no definite conception. And God is pleased to

condescend to our necessity. He leads us to new

knowledge by means of what is already known. He reveals

Himself in terms previously familiar. (Angus and Green

215)

B. Why is language in some passages used as figurative as

opposed to literal? Determining whether literal or figurative

language is involved is one of the first issues facing any

student of interpretation. Dr. Horne lays out the issue:

In order, then, to understand fully the figurative

language of the Scriptures, it is requisite, first, to

ascertain and determine what is really figurative, lest

we take that to be literal which is figurative, as the

disciples of the Lord and the Jews frequently did, or

lest we pervert the literal meaning of words by a

figurative interpretation; and, secondly, when we have

ascertained what is really figurative, to interpret it

correctly, and deliver it true sense. (Horne 356)

Hill 121

The simplest rule to following in determining what is

literal and what is figurative that I have been able to research

is by Dr. Clinton Lockhart, whose simple test is:

If the literal meaning of any word or expression makes

good sense in its connection, it is literal; but if the

literal meaning does not make good sense, it is then

figurative. (Lockhart 49)

Lockhart, speaking very literally of common sense, also

writes:

Since the literal is the most usual signification of a

word, and therefore occurs much more frequently that

the figurative, any term will be regarded as literal

until there is good reason for a different

understanding. The literal or most usual meaning of a

word, if consistent, should be preferred to a

figurative or less usual signification. (Lockhart 156)

Lockhart suggests any interpreter should go on the

assumption the word is literal until there is a compelling reason

for deciding otherwise. Floyd Hamilton, himself an advocate of

the allegorical method of interpretation in prophecy, states the

Hill 122

very same theory. Dr. Hamilton presents simple suggestions to

follow when interpreting a Scripture that state a passage is

literally interpreted and the prophecy accepted as such until:

a. Passages involved contain obviously figurative

language.

b. Unless the New Testament gives authority for

interpreting them in other than a literal sense.

c. Unless a literal interpretation would produce a

contradiction with truths, principles or factual

statements contained in non-symbolic books of New

Testament.

d. Another obvious rule to be followed is that the

clearest New Testament passages in non-symbolic books

are to be the norm for the interpretation of prophecy,

rather than obscure or partial revelations contained in

the Old Testament. In other words, we should accept the

clear and plain parts of Scripture as a basis for

getting the true meaning of the most difficult parts of

Scripture. (Hamilton 53-54)

Hill 123

Patrick Fairbairn, himself a preterist, nevertheless states

it is quite obvious if the language of a Scripture is figurative:

It may be noted that in a large number of cases, by

much the larger number of cases where the language is

tropical, the fact that it is so appears from the very

nature of the language or from the connection in which

it stands. Another class of passages in which the

figure is also, for the most part, quite easy of

detection is those in which what is called synecdoche

prevails. The first of these is that, when anything is

said which if taken according to the letter would be at

variance with the essential nature of the subject

spoken of, the language must be tropical. A second

principle applicable to such cases is that, if the

language taken literally would involve something

incongruous or morally improper, the figurative and not

the literal sense must be the right one. A third

direction may be added, viz., that where we have still

reason to doubt whether the language is literal or

figurative we should endeavor to have the doubt

Hill 124

resolved by referring to parallel passages, if there be

any such, which treat of the same subject in more

explicit terms or at greater length. (Fairbairn

“Hermeneutical” 138)

On settling the issue, Elliott and Harsha takes the

following stance when they say:

This investigation cannot be successfully accomplished

by intellectual science alone. Judgment and good faith,

critical tact and impartiality are also necessary. A

few general indications are all that can be given in

this connection.

(a) A priori—the probability that the language is

figurative is strong in the poetical or sententious

writings and also in the oratorical and popular

discourses. Generally this probability is augmented

when it is a fair supposition that the writer has been

induced by his situation, his subject, or his object to

make use of such language. There is a probability of

the same kind, but much stronger, when the passage

under examination is animated and highly wrought and

Hill 125

seems to make the illusion to objects of another

nature.

(b) A posteriori—there is a probability still greater

when the literal sense would be absurd. All these

probabilities, however, are still insufficient. It is

further necessary to examine the passage in all its

details, critically, exegetically, and faithfully. The

figurative sense must be sustained by all these

processes before it can be relied upon as the true

interpretation. (Elliott and Harsha 144-145)

Without fail, if figurative language is used in one portion

of the Scriptures it has already been defined consistently in

another. The literal method of interpretation has never denied

the use of metaphors, similes, or any of the other 200 rhetorical

devices used in the Word of God. When God uses symbolic

language, there will always be a basis in other scriptures for

the symbolic language, making it much easier for you interpret

and define the symbolism.

Hill 126

Dr. David L. Cooper often quoted for this saying, is

presented again because, when followed, it becomes the common

sense of Biblical exegesis:

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense,

seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its

primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the

facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of

related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths,

indicate clearly otherwise. (Cooper 3)

C. What is the best method to interpret figurative language?

Our second issue ascending out of the use of figurative language

in the Word of God is the method to use in interpreting that

which is figurative. It is wise at the outset of choosing a

method to repeat the purpose of figurative language is to draw

out some literal truth, which is more clearly conveyed by the

employment of figures of speech than in any other way. The

literal meaning takes on greater importance than the literal

words if that makes sense. Chafer states it this way, including

another quote by Cellerier:

Hill 127

The literal sense of the words employed in a figure of

speech is not to be taken as the meaning of the figure,

but rather the sense intended by the use of the figure.

In all such instances, therefore, there is but one

meaning. In such cases, the literal is not the sense.

In this connection, Cellerier says: ‘Revelation has

been clothed with popular forms strongly impressed with

the habits of the East, that is to say with

metaphorical, poetical, and parabolical forms, which

convey a meaning different from that of the literal

sense of the words. But even then there is alone the

real sense; the literal does not exist as a sense; it

is only the vehicle of the former; it contains in

itself no result, no truth. There is, therefore, only

one true sense.” (Chafer 80-81)

To wrap up our discussion of the methods of interpretation,

Dr. Horne devised a large set of rules in order that we may

properly discern the sense implied in any figure.

Hill 128

1. The literal meaning of words must be retained, more

in the historical books of Scripture than in those

which are poetical.

2. The literal meaning of words is to be given up, if

it is either improper, or involve an impossibility,

or where words, properly taken, contain anything

contrary to the doctrinal or moral precepts

delivered in other parts of Scripture.

3. That we inquire in what respects the thing compared,

and that with which it is compared, respectively

agree, and also in what respects they have any

affinity or resemblance.

a. The sense of a figurative passage will be

known, if the resemblance between the things or

objects compared be so clear as to be

immediately perceived.

b. As, in the scared metaphors, one particular is

generally the principal thing thereby

exhibited, the sense of metaphor will be

Hill 129

illustrated by considering the context of a

passage in which it occurs.

c. The sense of figurative expression is often

known from the sacred writer’s own explanation

of it.

d. The sense of figurative expression may also be

ascertained by consulting parallel passages; in

which the same thing is expressed properly and

literally, or in which the same word occurs, so

that the sense may be readily apprehended.

e. Always, we must consider the history behind the

passage.

f. Consider the connection of doctrine, as well as

the context of the figurative passage.

g. In fixing the sense exhibited by a metaphor,

the comparison ought never to be extended too

far, or into anything which cannot be properly

applied to a person or thing represented.

h. In the interpretation of figurative expressions

generally, and those which particularly occur

Hill 130

in the moral parts of Scripture, the meaning of

such expressions ought to be regulated by those

which are plain and clear.

4. Lastly, in explaining the figurative language of

Scripture, care must be taken that we do not judge

of the application of characters from modern usage;

because the inhabitants of the East have very

frequently attached a character to the idea

expressed widely different from that which usually

presents itself to our views. (Horne 356-358)

It is easy to discern that the fundamental rules and

principles that apply to the literal interpretation of figurative

language may also apply to, and be analogous to other language

uses. We then conclude that the use of figurative language in no

way necessitate a non-literal interpretation. In using sound

exegesis, which is required in any interpretation, this rule also

applies to figurative.

Chapter 5

The Interpretation of Prophetic Scriptures

Hill 131

One of the most difficult problems for the student of

Eschatology is how to interpret prophetic portions of Scripture

while navigating the maze of divergent views of the last things.

The first thing we address will be to draw some general

observations from the experts who spent their lives studying the

nature of prophetic language.

Dr. Geisler makes an interesting observation about the

literal and allegorical schools when he says something I found to

be profound:

The issue is actually more complicated because both

sides lay claim to the literal historical-grammatical

method of interpretation. As such, the debate often

reduces to exactly what is exactly meant by that term

or to which view has the most consistent use of the

method itself. Nonetheless, in learning to understand

the various views on prophecy, it is useful to set

forth the differences between the bases of these two

main hermeneutical schools. One is the literal school

of interpretation, and the other is the allegorical

school of interpretation. (Geisler 1317)

Hill 132

I. The Characteristics of Prophecy

A. Some of the general characteristics which are the

outstanding features of prophetic Scriptures are summarized by

Oehler:

The characteristics of Old Testament prophecy are:

a. The matter of revelation being given to the prophet in

the form of intuition, the future was made to appear to

them as either immediately present, complete, or all

events in progress.

b. The fact that the matter of prophecy is given in the

form of intuition also furnishes the reason why it

always sees the actual realization of that matter in

particular events which are complete in themselves;

i.e., a prophecy may appear as just one event, but in

reality there may be a two, three, or four-fold

fulfillment.

c. Since the matter of prophecy presents itself to view as

a multitude of individual facts, it may sometimes

appear as though single predictions contradict each

other when they are, in fact, only those parts into

Hill 133

which the ideas revealed have been separated, mutually

completing each other, e.g., contrasting pictures of

the Messiah in states of suffering and states of glory.

d. The matter of prophecy is in the form of intuition

which further means that as far as the form is

concerned, it is on the plane of the beholder himself,

i.e., the prophet spoke of future glory in terms of his

own society and experience. (Oehler 488ff)

Bernard L. Ramm, a past respected Theologian, while quoting

Von Orelli, speaks to the features of prophetic Scriptures:

1. Prophecy may be fulfilled shortly after its deliver

or at a much later date.

2. Prophecy is ethically conditioned; that is, some of

it are conditioned as to fulfillment on the behavior

of the recipients. It may even be recalled.

3. Prophecy may be fulfilled successively.

4. We must not pedantically demand that the prophecy be

fulfilled exactly as given. Orelli states, “We must

separate the kernel of prediction from the husk of

the contemporary garb.”

Hill 134

5. Many prophecies, especially those about Christ, are

literally fulfilled.

6. The form and character of prophecy are conditioned

by the age and location of the writer.

7. Prophecies frequently form parts of a whole and,

therefore, must be compared with other prophecy.

8. The prophet sees things together which are widely

separated in fulfillment. (Ramm 158)

B. Let’s examine the time element in prophecy. If one

studies eschatology long enough, it is easy to see the time

element holds a relatively small place in prophecy. Angus and

Green observe this as follows:

In regard the language of prophecy, especially in its

bearing upon the future, the following points should

also be noted:

1. The prophets often speak of things that belong

to the future as if present to their current

view. (Isaiah 9:6)

2. They speak of things future as the past.

(Isaiah 53)

Hill 135

3. When the precise time of individual events was

not revealed, the prophets describe them as

continuous. They saw the future rather in the

space than in time; the whole, therefore,

appears foreshortened, and perspective, rather

than actual distance, is regarded. They seem

often to speak of future things as a common

observer would describe the stars, grouping

them as they appear, and not according to their

true positions. (Angus and Green 245)

C. Then there is the law of double reference. Few laws are

more significant to see in the field of interpretation of

prophetic Scriptures than the law of double reference. The scope

of one prophecy can have two distinct events that are separated

by an expanse of time within the scope of one prophecy. God used

the prophet to deliver a message for his day and for a future

time that might be thousands of years advanced. In bringing these

two widely separated events into the scope of one prophecy, both

purposes could be fulfilled. Horne confirms this:

Hill 136

The same prophecies frequently have a double meaning,

and refer to different events, the one near, the other

remote; the one temporal, the other spiritual or

perhaps eternal. The prophets thus having several

events in view; their expressions may be partly

applicable to one, and partly to another, and it is not

always easy to make the transitions. What has not been

fulfilled in the first, we must apply to the second,

and what has already been fulfilled, may often be

considered as typical of what remains to be

accomplished. (Horne 390)

I believe that God uses the law of double reference as a

means of fulfilling the first one as well as being the assurance

of the fulfillment of the second one. Dr. Girdlestone states much

the same, stating the justification for the future is the

fulfillment of the past:

Yet another provision was made to confirm men’s faith

in utterances which had regard which had regard to the

far future. It frequently happened that prophets who

had to speak of such things were also commissioned to

Hill 137

predict other things which would shortly come pass, and

the verification of these latter predictions in their

own day and generation justified men in believing the

other utterances which pointed to a more distant time.

The one was practically a “sign” of the other, and if

the one proved true the other might be trusted. Thus,

the birth of Isaac under the most unlikely

circumstances would help Abraham to believe that in his

seed all the families of the earth should be blessed.

(Girdlestone 81)

D. An important question. Are there conditional prophecies?

Allis has stated by “…the condition may be involved in a command

or promise without its being specifically stated. This is

illustrated by Jonah.” (Allis 32)

In regard to the statement of Allis, on the basis of the

career and message of Jonah’s some liberal theologians have

stated there are concealed conditional requirements linked with

each and every prophecy which can, in fact, be the basis for the

withdrawal of the fulfillment. Jonah, on the second try, was

commanded to warn Nineveh of their impending destruction by God.

Hill 138

Jonah warned Nineveh and they corporately and individually

repented, which he specifically never told them was part of God

relenting. As we know, they feel back into sin, and they were

destroyed. Horne states:

Predictions, denouncing judgments to come, do not in

themselves speak the absolute futurity of the event,

but only declare what is to be expected by the persons

to whom they are made, and what will certainly come to

pass, unless God in His mercy interpose between the

threatening and the events. (Horne 391)

Girdlestone and other Biblical scholars have recognized that

prophecies of judgment may be conditional on repenting while

permitting God’s universal plan with sin and the sinner to show

His grace, with judgment averted if the sinner turns to God.

However, God in no way implies any unstated conditions where He

intended none to be stated in any other areas of prophecy. This

may, in fact, be a veiled attempt to say that all covenants and

prophecy are conditional. Psalms 110.4 show God’s protections

against this false conclusion: The Lord has sworn and will not

Hill 139

relent, “You are a priest forever according to the order of

Melchizedek.” Girdlestone wrote:

These irreversible promises do not depend on man’s

goodness, but on God’s. They are absolute in their

fulfillment, even though they may be conditional as to

the time and place of their fulfillment. Times and

season may be modified; days may be shortened; events

may be accelerated or delayed; individuals and nations

may come within the scope of the promises or may stand

outside, but the events themselves are ordered and

sure, sealed with God’s oath, and guaranteed by His

life. (Girdlestone 88)

Dr. Peters had the relationship between God’s conditional

and unconditional aspects of prophecy down perfectly as he

writes:

The prophecies relating to the Kingdom of God are both

conditional and unconditional. By this paradox is

simply meant that they are conditional in their

fulfillment by the antecedent gathering of the elect,

and hence susceptible to postponement and that they are

Hill 140

unconditional so far as their ultimate fulfillment is

concerned, which the conduct or action of man cannot

turn aside. The kingdom itself pertains to the Divine

purpose, is the subject of scared covenants, is

confirmed by solemn oath, is to be the result or end

designed in the redemptive process, and, therefore,

cannot, will not, fail. The inheritors of the kingdom,

however, are conditioned, a certain number known only

to God, and the kingdom itself, although predetermined

is dependent as to its manifestation upon their being

attained. (Peters and Smith 176)

I have published in several essays and articles that the

rapture will occur when this incremental number known only to

God, is reached. Romans 9-11 in Paul’s theology book hammers away

that God is not finished with Israel and ends with an astounding

statement at Romans 11.25: “For I do not desire, brethren, that

you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise

in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to

Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.”

Hill 141

So, Romans 11.25 depends on human agency which, of course,

is conditional on us to perform, yet that which depends on God to

complete, it cannot be conditional unless He clearly states it as

such. Prophecies based on unchanging and unconditional covenants

cannot admit the addition of any condition. Unless clearly

stated, there is no reason to assume any condition to the

fulfillment of prophecy.

One final thought on the interpretation of prophecy—May 14,

1948 (5 Iyar 5708), should have ended any debate on the prophetic

accuracy of the Word of God. To most Catholic and mainline

churches it did not. However, this date confirms that God would

bring the Jews back the second time, a pattern they have

fulfilled throughout their history as told by Stephen before the

Sanhedrin before they stoned him to death for telling the truth.

For example,

1) Abraham, Acts 7.1-4, where God called him from Ur of the

Chaldees to leave his family to go to a new land.

However, Abraham waited 25 years before he obeyed God and

did as He asked him to, getting it right the second time.

Hill 142

2) Next came Joseph, sold into slavery by his brothers, but

became a leader in Egypt, instead of in Israel as a

patriarch. The grain Joseph had stored up literally saved

his family with his brothers getting it right the second

time.

3) Moses killed an Egyptian, who was beating a Jew after

being raised in riches, and then God knew his heart and

used him in leading his people to the Promised Land on

the second try.

4) Stephen mentioned David, who wanted to build God a

sanctuary. But it was Solomon who built the temple for

God getting it right the second time.

5) Stephen also told the Sanhedrin that the ruling class of

Jews were stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart who

always resisted the Holy Spirit and persecuted the

prophets who foretold of the coming the Just One, who

they were betrayers and murderers who received the law

from angels and did not keep it.

However, Romans 11.25, says Israel themselves will again get

it right on the second try by raising their hands to heaven and

Hill 143

shouting, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!”

after the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. It is of little

surprise that a majority of mainline churches do not believe

this. Instead, they spiritualize Israel to mean the church, which

according to Romans 11.25 means the church is going to go through

tribulation. These same churches do not believe in a

pretribulation rapture either.

II. Methods of Prophetic Revelation

What are the methods that God uses to distribute prophetic

revelation to men? In addition to the direct prophetic utterances

straight from God, future events are often revealed through:

Future Events Revealed through Brief DefinitionA. Types An anticipatory model of a

future event.B. Symbols Material object as a

moral/spiritual truth.C. Parables Comparison by continued

resemblance.D. Dreams Divine revelation interpreted

rightly.D. Prophetic Ecstasy A trance of intense absorption

from God.

There are issues concerning the interpretation of prophetic

revelations, and the study of last things is notorious for

divergent views. With this in view, it necessitates our attention

Hill 144

to each one of these prior to our consideration of the problem of

interpretation of prophecy as a total. There can be no

understanding of prophecy separately from understanding its

mediums. A student of prophecy must understand the language of

prophecy whether it is its figures and symbols as well as the

means of communiqué. Dr. Terry speaks on the principles and laws

of figurative language:

A thorough interpretation of the prophetic portions of

the Holy Scripture is largely dependent upon a mastery

of the principles and laws of figurative language, and

of types and symbols. It also requires some

acquaintance with the nature of vision-seeing ecstasy

and dreams. (Terry 405)

A. Prophetic revelation through types—Dr. Terry rendered a

great brief definition of types when he wrote: “In the science of

theology it properly signifies the preordained representative

relation which certain persons, events and institutions of the

Old Testament which bear to corresponding persons, events and

institutions in the New Testament.” (Terry 336)

Hill 145

Angus and Green lay out some of the basic concepts of

types and points out that there several principles that

must be noted:

1. That which is symbolized, called the antitype, is

the idea or spiritual reality, at once corresponding

to the type and transcending it.

2. The type may have its own place and meaning,

independently of that which it prefigures. Thus the

brazen serpent brought healing to the Israelites,

even apart from the greater deliverance which it was

to symbolize.

3. Hence it follows that the type may at the time have

been unapprehend in its highest character.

4. As with regard to symbols generally, the essence of

a type must be separately distinguished from its

accessories.

5. The only secure authority for the application of a

type is to be found in Scripture. The mere

perception of analogy will not suffice. Expositors

have often imagined correspondence where none, in

Hill 146

fact, exists, and where, even if it did, there is

nothing to prove a special Divine intent. (Angus and

Green 225-226)

Dr. Charles T. Fritsch, defines the type artfully, but also

gives a distinction between a type and an allegory, which is

something rare to observe. He states:

The definition I propose for the word “type” in its

theological sense is as follows: A type is an

institution, historical event or person, ordained by

God, which effectively prefigures some truth connected

with Christianity.

1. By defining the type as an institution of exegesis,

historical event or person we are accentuating the statement that

the type must be evocative and real in its own right. In this

regard a type differs from an allegory. For an allegory is a

fictitious narrative, or to put it less bluntly, in an allegory

the historical truth of the narrative dealt with may or may not

be accepted, whereas in typology, the fulfillment of an antitype

can only be understood in the light of the reality of the

original type.

Hill 147

2. There must be a divinely intended connection between

the type and the antitype. As Bishop Westcott says,

“A type presupposes a purpose in history wrought out

from age to age. An allegory rests finally in the

imagination.”

3. The type is not only real and valid in its own

right, but is efficacious in its own immediate

milieu. It can only effectively prefigure the

antitype because it has inherent in it already at

least some of the effectiveness which is to be fully

realized in the antitype.

4. The most important characteristics of the type, as

has come out in the preceding point, is the fact

that it is predictive of some truth connected with

Christianity, or of Christ Himself. Typology differs

from prophecy in the strict sense of the term only

in the means of prediction. Prophecy predicts mainly

by means of the world, whereas typology predicts by

institution, act or person.

Hill 148

It is most important to make this distinction between

type and allegory, for in the early church the

allegorical method of interpretation had blurred the

true meaning of the Old Testament to such an extent

that it was impossible for a legitimate typology to

exist. According to this method the literal and

historical sense of Scripture is completely ignored,

and every word and event is made an allegory of some

kind either to escape theological difficulties or to

maintain certain peculiar religious views. (Fritsch

104:214, 87-88)

The early church use of the allegorical is often cited by

allegorists that the use of types warrants the use of the

allegorical method. Fairbairn makes much the same observation

when he says:

When we interpret a prophecy, to which a double meaning

is ascribed, the one relating to the Jewish, the other

to the Christian dispensation, we are in either case

concerned with an interpretation of words. For the same

words which, according to another interpretation,

Hill 149

applied to another event. But in the interpretation of

an allegory, we are concerned only in the first

instance with in interpretation of words; the second

sense, which is usually called the allegorical, being

an interpretation of things. The interpretation of the

words gives nothing more than the plain and simple

narrative themselves (the allegory generally assuming

the form of a narrative); whereas the moral of the

allegory is learnt by an application of things which

resemble them, and which the former were intended to

suggest. There is a fundamental difference, therefore,

between the interpretation of an allegory, and the

interpretation of a prophecy with a double sense.

(Fairbairn “Typology” 131-132)

The very nature of the type is essentially prophetic in

character. This has been explained by many scholars including Dr.

Fairbairn, who explains the topography of a type:

A type, as already explained and understood,

necessarily possesses something of a prophetical

character, and differs in form rather that in nature

Hill 150

from what is usually designated prophecy. The one image

or prefigures, which the other foretells, coming

realities. In the one case representative acts or

symbols, in the other verbal delineations, serve the

purpose of indicating before-hand what God has designed

to accomplish for His people in the approaching future.

The difference is not such as to affect the essential

nature of the two subjects. (Fairbairn “Typology” 106)

B. Next we examine prophetic revelation through symbols. Our

second method of prophetic revelation is through the use of

symbols. I discovered that Dr. Ramm, following the academic

standard, listed six different uses of symbols that are prophetic

in character: a. persons, b. institutions, c. offices, d. events,

e. actions, and f. things. (Ramm 147)

Terry gives the following guidelines in the interpretive use

of symbols:

1. The meaning of the symbol is to be determined first

of all by an accurate knowledge of its nature.

2. The symbols of the Mosaic cultus can have, in

general, only such meaning as accords with the

Hill 151

religious ideas and truths of Mosaism, and it’s

clearly expressed and acknowledge principles.

3. The import of each separate symbol is to be sought,

in the first place, from its name.

4. Each individual symbol has, in general, but one

signification consistent throughout Scripture.

5. However different the connection in which it may

occur, each individual symbol always has the same

fundamental meaning.

6. In every symbol, whether it be an object or action,

the main idea to be symbolized must be carefully

distinguished from that which necessarily serves

only for its appropriate exhibition, and has,

therefore, only a secondary purpose. (Terry 357f-

358)

Terry also presented three fundamental principles in how to

deal with symbols. Dr. Terry explains the three fundamental

principles he accepts:

We accept the following as three fundamental principles

of symbols:

Hill 152

1. The names of symbols are to be understood

literally.

2. The symbols always denote something essentially

different from themselves.

3. Some resemblance, more or less minute, is

traceable between the symbol and the thing

symbolized.

The great question with the interpretation of symbols

should, therefore, be, what are the probable points of

resemblance between the sign and the thing which it is

to represent? And one would suppose it to be obvious to

every thoughtful mind that in answering this question

no minute and rigid set of rules, as supposable

applicable to all symbols, can be expected. In general

it may be said that in answering the above question the

interpreter must have strict regard:

a. To the historical standpoint of the writer or

prophet,

b. To the scope and context, and

Hill 153

c. To the analogy and import of similar symbols

and figures elsewhere used.

That is, doubtless, the true interpretation of every

symbol which most fully satisfies these several

conditions, and which attempts to press no point of

supposable resemblance beyond what is clearly warranted

by fact, reason, or analogy. (Terry 356-357a)

What we learned about the subject of the interpretation of

symbols will always apply equally to the interpretation of

prophetic symbolism. Terry has added an interesting addition to

the specialized field of symbolism listed as he writes:

In the exposition, therefore, of this class of

prophecies, it is of the first importance to apply with

judgment and skill the hermeneutical principles of

Biblical symbolism. This process requires, especially

three things:

1. That we be able clearly to discriminate and

determine what are symbols and what are not.

Hill 154

2. That the symbols be contemplated in their broad

and striking aspect rather than in their

incidental points of resemblance.

3. That they be amply compared as to their general

import and usage, so that a uniform and self-

consistent method be followed in their

interpretation.

A failure to observe the first of these will lead to

endless confusion of the symbolical and the literal. A

failure in the second tends to magnify minute and

unimportant points to the obscurity of the scope and

import of the whole. A care to observe the third rule

will enable one to note the difference as well as the

likeness of similar objects. (Terry 415)

Here is one surveillance that seems to have been overlooked

by so many students of the interpretation of prophecy, that the

Scriptures interpret their own symbolism. Feinberg states this

perfectly, as I have previously in my own papers:

Some prophecy is conveyed to us by means of symbolic

language. But wherever such is the case, the symbols

Hill 155

are explained in the immediate context, in the book in

which they occur, or elsewhere in the Word, no room

left to the imaginations (allegory) of man to devise

explanations. (Feinberg 37)

Dr. Girdlestone brings out much the same thoughts as he

pens:

Taking the Apocalypse as a whole, there is hardly a

figure or vision in it which is not contained in germ

in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, or Zachariah. Probably the

study of these Books in his old age had prepared the

seer for the visions which had to do with the near or

far future. (Girdlestone 87)

Since this is obviously true, the cost of accurate exegesis

is the search of the Scriptures for symbolic portions.

C. Prophetic revelation through parables—our third method of

revealing prophetic events is the much used parabolic method of

instruction found in the Word of God. A parable is “the word

applied to a saying or story that seeks to drive home the point

the speaker wishes to emphasize by illustrating it from a

familiar situation of common life.” (Douglas and Tenney 1073)

Hill 156

Jesus Christ, our Lord, made frequent use of parables in His

ministry. This elevates the study of parables to upmost

importance. Ramm succinctly states the rules to guide in the

interpretation of parables.

(1) Determine the exact nature and details of the

customs, practices, and elements that form the

material or natural part of the parable.

(2) Determine the one central truth the parable is

attempting to teach.

(3) Determine how much of the parable is interpreted

by the Lord Himself.

(4) Determine if there are any clues in the context as

to the parable’s meaning.

(5) Don’t make the parable walk on all fours.

(6) Be careful of the doctrinal use of parables.

(7) A clear understanding of the time-period that many

of the parables are intended for is necessary for

their full interpretation. (Ramm 179)

Angus and Green give consistency as the number one major

emphasis on the interpretation of parables:

Hill 157

1. What is the scope of the parable and seize the truth

which the parable is intended to set forth.

2. Even if doctrines are within the design of the

parable or type, no conclusion should be drawn from

either of them which is inconsistent with other

clear revelations of Divine truth.

3. It is important that parables not be the first or

sole source of Scriptural doctrine. (Angus and Green

230-233)

As an emphasis, it is extremely important to separate the

theme or essential part from the attendant to the theme. Without

this being done, there could be a false emphasis placed on the

parable which produces wrong conclusions drawn.

Perhaps the best and most careful system of rules regarding

the interpretation of parables is written by Dr. Horne:

1. The first excellence of a parable is that it turns

upon an image well known and applicable to the

subject, the meaning of which is clear and definite;

for this circumstance will give it that perspicuity

which is essential to every species of allegory.

Hill 158

2. The image, however, must not only be apt and

familiar, but must also be elegant and beautiful in

itself, and all it parts must be perspicuous and

pertinent; since it is the purpose of the parable,

and especially the poetic parable, not only to

explain more perfectly some proposition, but

frequently to give it animation and splendor.

3. Every parable is composed of three parts: a) The

sensible similitude…the bark… b) The explanation or

mystical sense…the sap or fruit… c) The root or

scope to which it tends.

4. Wherever the words of Jesus seem to be capable of

different senses, we may with certainty conclude

that to be the true one which lies most level to the

apprehension of his auditors.

5. For the right explanation and application of

parables, their general scope and design must be

ascertained.

6. As every parable has two senses, the literal or

external, and the mystical or internal sense, the

Hill 159

literal sense must be first explained, in order that

the correspondence between it and the mystical sense

may be the more readily perceived.

7. It is not necessary, in the interpretation of

parables, that we should anxiously insist upon every

single word; nor ought we to expect too curious an

adaption or accommodation of it in every part to the

spiritual meaning inculcated by it; for man

circumstances are introduced into parables which are

merely ornamental, and designed to make the

similitude more pleasing and interesting.

8. Attention to the historical circumstances, as well

as an acquaintance with the nature and properties of

the things whence the similitudes are taken, will

essentially contribute to the interpretation of the

parables.

9. Lastly, although in many of his parables Jesus

Christ has delineated the future state of the

church, yet he intended that they should convey some

Hill 160

important moral precepts, of which we should never

lose sight in interpreting parables. (Horne 366-368)

D. Prophetic revelation through dreams and ecstasies. In the

early periods of prophetic revelation it was often delivered

through dreams and ecstatic trances (visions). Terry, on this

segment of prophetic revelation, writes:

Dreams, night visions, and states of spiritual ecstasy

are mentioned as forms and conditions under which men

receive such revelations. In Numbers 12.6, it is

Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a

dream.” The dream is noticeably prominent among the

earlier forms of receiving Divine revelations, but

becomes less frequent at a later period. The most

remarkable instances of dreams in the Scriptures are

those of Abimelech (Hebrew: ְְְְְְְְְְְ / ְְְְְְְְְְְ) in Genesis 20,

But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and

said to him, “Indeed you are a dead man because of

the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man’s

wife.” But Abimelech had not come near her; and he

Hill 161

said, “Lord, will You slay a righteous nation

also? Did he not say to me, ‘She is my sister’?

And she, even she herself said, ‘He is my

brother.’ In the integrity of my heart and

innocence of my hands I have done this.” And God

said to him in a dream, “Yes, I know that you did

this in the integrity of your heart. For I also

withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I

did not let you touch her. Now therefore, restore

the man’s wife; for he is a prophet, and he will

pray for you and you shall live. But if you do not

restore her, know that you shall surely die, you

and all who are yours.”

Others are Jacob at Bethel (Genesis 28.12), Laban in

Mt. Gilead (Genesis 31.24), Joseph respecting the

sheaves and the luminaries (Genesis 37.5-10), the

Midianite (Judges 7.13-15), Solomon (1 Kings 3.5),

Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2 and 4), Daniel (Daniel 7.1),

Joseph (Matthew 1.20; 2.13, 19), and the Magi from the

East (Matthew 2.12). The night vision appears to have

Hill 162

been essentially the same nature as the dream (compare

Daniel 2.19; 7.1; Acts 16.9; 18.9; 27.23). But dreams,

we observed, were rather the earlier and lower forms of

Divine revelation. A higher form was that of prophetic

ecstasy, in which the spirit of the seer became

possessed of the Spirit of God, and, while yet

retaining its human consciousness, and susceptible of

human emotion, was rapt away into visions of the

Almighty and made cognizant of words and things which

no mortal could naturally perceive. The prophetic

ecstasy was evidently a spiritual sightseeing, a

supernatural illumination, in which the natural eye was

either closed or suspended from its ordinary functions,

and the inner senses vividly grasped the scene that was

presented, or the Divine word which was revealed.

(Terry 396-397)

The interpretation of the prophecies from dreams or

prophetic ecstasy should not present any special problem of

interpretation. While the method of God’s delivery of the

prophecy may have been unique, the way it was delivered differed

Hill 163

not from a prophecy stated in clear terms. While the method was

unique, the Divine words were clear and concise, so the

prophecies present no special interpretation issues.

II. The Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture

We have now covered the problems, and many of the solutions

involved comparative to the interpretation of prophecies that

stand out because of the nature of the language involved. Now we

can turn our attention to the dialogue of the important

principles that are involved in interpreting prophecies so that

they are clearly understood.

The interpretation of prophecy necessitates attention to

detail required in regard to words, context, grammar, and

historical relevance that are accepted in any field of

interpretation, for example Cryptology. Dr. Terry writes about

the required principles:

It will be seen that, while duly appreciating the

peculiarities of prophecy, we nevertheless must employ

in its interpretation essentially the same great

principles as in the interpretation of the prophet;

next the scope and plan of his book; then the usage and

Hill 164

import of his words and symbols; and finally, ample and

discriminating comparison of the parallel Scriptures

should be made. (Terry 396-397)

There is not a lack of great information available, lists of

rules, and Systematic Theologies to guide us in the

interpretation of prophecy. Feasibly the rules suggested by Ramm

would be an example of the great lists of interpretation

available to help us today:

1. Determine the historical background of the both the

prophet and the prophecy.

2. Determine the complete denotation and connotation of

the

a. proper names,

b. events,

c. geographical references,

d. references to customs or material culture,

e. and reference to flora and fauna.

3. Determine if the passage is predictive or didactic

(instructive).

Hill 165

4. If predictive determine if fulfilled, unfulfilled,

or conditional.

5. Determine if the same theme or concept is also

treated elsewhere.

6. As a reminder, keep vividly in mind the flow of the

passage, i.e., pay attention to context.

7. Notice that element of the prophecy that is purely

local or temporal.

8. Take the literal interpretation of prophecy as the

limiting guide in prophetic interpretation. (Ramm

388-389)

This group of rules for interpretation of prophecy is worthy

of our continued attention and memorization.

A. The rules of literal interpretation: Conceivably the most

important consideration in relation to Biblical interpretation of

prophecy is to interpret literally. Irrespective of the form of

prophetic revelation made, through that form literal truth will

be revealed in almost all cases. It is imperative for the

interpreter to extract that truth. A. B. Davidson agrees:

Hill 166

This I consider the first principle in prophetic

interpretation—to read the prophet literally—to assume

that the literal meaning is his meaning—that he is

moving among realities, not symbols, among concrete

things as peoples, not among abstractions like our

Church world. (Davidson 167)

I believe the reason a non-literal interpretation is

employed, virtually notwithstanding, is the allegorist desire not

to ascertain the obvious and true interpretation of any passage.

That being the case, Angus and Green state “an ulterior motive

might be to bring the teaching of Scripture into agreement with a

predetermined system of doctrine instead of bringing their

doctrine into line with the Scriptures has kept the method

alive.” (Angus and Green 247-248)

Another terrific confirmation of the literal method of

interpreting prophecies comes from the observation that God

always fulfills prophetic prophecies literally of the ones

fulfilled. Dr. Masselink states:

We can therefore derive our method of interpretation

for the unfulfilled prophecy from the fulfilled because

Hill 167

we may safely deduce the guiding principles for the

unfulfilled prophecy from the fulfilled predictions

which are recorded in the New Testament. (Masselink 36)

God is outside time and space, and occupies eternity. It is

He that gives us our vantage point in our time to determine where

prophecy is either fulfilled or is yet future. God’s viewpoint is

a unit, outside the time line. The same way that God fulfilled

prophecy in the past will be the same way He fulfills it in the

future as well. I have studied prophecy for about the last 25

years, and I can’t recall one fulfilled prophecy that has been

performed in anyway, other than literal. Feinberg confirms this

observation as he says:

In the interpretation of prophecy that has not yet been

fulfilled, those prophecies which have been fulfilled

are to form a pattern. The only way to know how God

will fulfill prophecy in the future is to ascertain how

He has done it in the past. All the prophecies of the

suffering Messiah were literally fulfilled in the first

advent of Christ. We have no reason to believe that the

Hill 168

predictions of a glorified and reigning Messiah will be

brought to pass in any other manner. (Feinberg 39)

It is then, easy to conclude that the New Testament use of

the literal method rule establishes the literal method of

interpretation as God’s method in regard to unfulfilled prophecy.

B. Interpret according to the harmony of prophecy: Our

second rule comes directly from 2 Peter 1.20-21,

Knowing this first that no prophecy of Scripture is of

any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by

the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were

moved by the Holy Spirit.

Peter confirms that there is not one prophecy of truth that

comes of “any private interpretation.” Prophecy must be

interpreted in harmony with the whole prophetic program.

Dr. Feinberg writes:

There are several well-defined laws for the

interpretation of prophecy. The Scripture lays down the

first and most essential of all. Peter tells us that

“no prophecy is of private interpretation.” By this it

is not meant that no private individual can interpret

Hill 169

prophecy. The idea intended by the apostle is that no

prophecy of the Word is to be interpreted solely with

reference to itself, but all other portions of the

prophetic revelation are to be taken into account and

considered. Every prophecy is part of a wonderful

scheme of revelation; for the true significance of any

prophecy the whole prophetic scheme must be kept in

mind and the interrelationship between the parts in the

plan as well. (Feinberg 37)

Feinberg puts an entire new light on single prophecies and

their interlocking relationship to the whole. Thus, the

conclusion that the New Testament literal method of fulfillment

establishes the literal as God’s method in regard to unfulfilled

prophecy. With this established, it is incumbent for us, not just

for the general themes of prophecy, to go down to all passages

relative to the general theme, so harmonized them can be

ascertained. After all, one prediction will often throw light on

another.

C. Observe the perspective of prophecy: Events which have

some significance relationship to another and are parts of one

Hill 170

program, or an event typical of another so that there is a double

reference, may be brought together into one prophecy even though

separated widely in fulfillment. Feinberg states:

Due attention must be paid to perspective. Certain

events of the future are seen grouped together in one

circumscribed area of vision, although they are really

at different distances. This is particularly true of

the predictions concerning the Babylonian captivity,

the events of the day of the Lord, the return from

Babylon, the world wide dispersion of Israel, and their

future regathering from all the corners of the earth,

are grouped together seemingly almost indiscriminately.

(Feinberg 38)

It is certain that failure to observe this principle will

result in confusion. Many prophecies have both near and far

dispositions. The prophecies come from outside time and space

where, like at parade, God can see the end from the beginning.

D. Observe the time relationships: As has previously been

mentioned, events that are widely separated as to the time of

their fulfillment may be treated within one prophecy. This is

Hill 171

particularly true in the prophecies concerning Christ. The events

of the Lord of the first and Second Advents are spoken of

together as if they were taking place at the same time. In like

manner the second and third dispersion of the Jews are view in

prophecy as taking place in succession in one event. Feinberg

refers to this principle by saying:

Another rule of prophetic interpretation is what is

known as foreshortening which, according to Dr. Arthur

T. Pierson, may assume any one of several forms. Two or

more events of a like character may be described by a

common profile. Furthermore, a common and important

example of foreshortening is evident where future

events are placed side by side whereas in the

fulfillment there is a great gap. (Feinberg 38f)

It is important to observe that the prophet may view events

that are widely separated as continuous, or future events or

things as past, present or future.

E. Interpret prophecy Christological: Our central theme in

all of prophecy is the Lord Jesus Christ. His Lordship, His work,

Hill 172

and what He accomplishes is the grand theme of the entire

prophetic story. Peter tells it like it is:

Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and

searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that

would come to you, searching what, or what manner of

time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was

indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings

of Christ and the glories that would follow. (1 Peter

1.10-11)

John, the son of thunder, pens for Jesus Christ: “…For the

testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” (Revelation 19.10)

Both of these apostles and their words emphasize the Christology

of the prophetic Scriptures.

F. Interpret historically: It hardly needs to be brought to

your attention that before one can interpret he must be familiar

with and know the historical background of the prophet and the

prophecy. Dr. Ramm states, “…a study of history is the absolute

first starting point in any study of prophecy, whether the

prophecy be didactic or predictive.” (Ramm 163)

Hill 173

The historical background will include “…the full meaning

and significance of all proper names, events, geographical

references, references to customs or material culture, and

references to flora and fauna.” (Ramm 164)

G. Interpret grammatically: We have driven this point into

your conscience beforehand to make it necessary to do no more

here than remind the interpreter of prophecy that the strict

rules that govern grammatical interpretation have to been

employed to this field of study with no less care.

H. Interpret by always keeping the laws of double reference

in mind: This has likewise been discussed in detail previously.

It is sufficient to be reminded that oftentimes when reading a

prophecy there may be a near and far view within. Within these

the near view may have already been fulfilled and the far view

awaiting fulfillment, or both may be in the realm of fulfilled

prophecy. Stated another way, there may have been a double

reference to two events of similar character, both of which were

in the distant future. The detail that part of the prophecy has

been fulfilled without the fulfillment of the rest of it does not

Hill 174

argue for a figurative or non-literal method of fulfillment of

the unfulfilled portion.

I. Interpret consistently: It is impossible to mix the

methods of interpretation in the field of prophecy. This cannot

be emphasized enough. Only one method must be adopted and used

consistently throughout. It may safely be stated that the problem

in the interpretation of prophecy is this problem of consistency.

To the degree we have been inconsistent in the application of

sound hermeneutical principles we have been in error in our

conclusion and interpretation. The observance of sound rules of

prophetic interpretation will lead one into a correct

interpretation of the Scripture.

Chapter Six

The Biblical Covenants and Eschatology

1. The Abrahamic Covenant

I have written extensively on God’s Covenants which are of

primary importance to the interpreter as paint is to the painter.

To we students of eschatology God’s eschatological program is

largely determined by the eternal covenants and one’s

eschatological system. The way you choose to interpret the

Hill 175

eternal covenants of God will largely determine your eschatology.

These covenants must be studied consistently and diligently as

the basis of Biblical eschatology.

Let me here at the outset state that the theological

covenants of Covenant theologians are entirely different than the

God’s eternal covenants. They see the ages and history as God’s

attempt at the development of a covenant between He and those

saved by the blood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ, all who come to Him

by faith. There are many great expositors works which explain

this process, but none more complete than Louis Chafer’s

Systematic Theology where he lists the covenants of the Covenant

theologian summarized as follows:

1. The Covenant of Redemption (Titus 1.2 and Hebrews 12.20)

into which the Ones of heaven entered into before the

beginning of time and in which each assumed that part in

the great plan of redemption which is their present

portion as discussed in the Scriptures. In this covenant,

the Father gives the Son; the Son offers Himself without

spot to the Father as an efficacious sacrifice, and the

Hill 176

Spirit administers and empowers unto the execution of

this covenants in all its parts.

2. The Covenant of Works, which theologian’s designate as

the blessings God has offered mankind and conditioned on

human merit. Before the fall, Adam was a creation of God

by a covenant of works. Until he is saved, man is under

an inherent obligation to be in character as the Creator

and to do His will.

3. The Covenant of Grace, which is used by theologians to

indicate all aspects of divine grace towards man in all

the ages. The exercise of divine grace is rendered

righteously possible by the satisfaction to divine

judgments which are provided in the death of Christ.

(Chafer Systematic Theology I, 42)

There is a great deal in the Covenant theologian position

that is in agreement with the Scripture, however, the Covenant

theologian is distressingly inadequate to explain the Scriptures

eschatologically, because it totally ignores the great field of

unconditional Biblical covenants which are interwoven into

Biblical eschatology. Dr. Chafer states:

Hill 177

The theological terms, Covenants of Works and Covenant

of Grace, do not occur in the sacred text. If they are

to be sustained, it must be wholly apart from Biblical

authority. Upon this human invention of two covenants,

Reformed Theology has largely been constructed. It sees

the empirical truth that God can forgive sinners by the

freedom secured by the sacrifice of His Son—anticipated

old and realized in the new—but that theology utterly

fails to discern the purposes of the ages; the varying

relationships to God of the Jews, the Gentiles, and the

Church, with the distinctive, consistent human

obligations which arise directly and unavoidably from

the nature of each specific relationship with God. A

theology that penetrates no further into Scripture than

to discover that in all the ages God is immutable in

His grace toward penitent sinners, and constructs the

idea of a universal church, continuing through the

ages, on the one truth of immutable grace, is not only

disregarding vast spheres of revelation but is reaping

Hill 178

the unavoidable confusion and misdirection which part-

truth engenders. (Chafer 156)

It is safe to assume that our study is concerned with the

eternal covenants of the Word of God and not with the Reformed

theology covenants.

A. The Scriptural use of the word covenant: In the

concordance, it will be clearly seen that covenant is one that

occurs frequently in both the Old and New Testaments,

approximately 289 times. It is used of the eternal relationships

between God and His own Word, God and man, man and man, and

nation and nation. It is used in both temporal terms and eternal

terms. There are references to minor and temporal covenants in

the Scripture, just as there are references to major and eternal

covenants in the Scripture, as well. Here I present the types of

covenants and their Scriptural references where they occur.

Covenants Scripture ReferencesIndividual with otheranother individual…

Genesis 21.32; 1 Samuel 18.3

Individual with a group ofindividuals…

Genesis 26.28; 1 Samuel11.1-2

One nation with anothernation…

Exodus 23.32; 34.12, 15;Hosea 12.1

Social covenants Proverbs 2.17; Malachi 2.14

Hill 179

Natural laws as covenants Jeremiah 33.20, 25

The natural laws above were established by God and require

no compliance by man. The Scriptures also contain references to

five major covenants, each of which was made by God with men.

The four unconditional covenants between God and men, largely

disputed by the mainline churches, are:

1. The Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12, where Gentile

benefits start)

2. The Land Covenant (Genesis 15 and 17 God committed

the land to Israel)

3. The Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 89)

4. The Everlasting Covenant (Jeremiah 31.31)

Eschatological studies are not concerned with the minor

covenants in any of their forms, nor with the Mosaic covenant

which was conditional and not concerned with future things. But

only with the four eternal covenants given by God, where he

obligated Himself for compliance in relation to the prophetic

program.

B. The definition of a covenant: A Biblical covenant is

defined as follows: The biblical words most often translated

Hill 180

"covenant" are berit [tyir.B] in the Old Testament (appearing

about 280 times) and diatheke [diaqhvkh] in the New Testament (at

least 33 times). The origin of the Old Testament word has been

debated; some have said it comes from a custom of eating together

(Genesis 26:30 ; 31:54 ); others have emphasized the idea of

cutting an animal (an animal was cut in half (ref. Genesis

15:18 ); still others have seen the ideas of perceiving or

determining as root concepts. The preferred meaning of this Old

Testament word is bond; a covenant refers to two or more parties

bound together. This idea of bond will be explicated more fully.

(Smith 127)

C. The kinds of Biblical covenants: These are conditional

and unconditional and are derived from God’s covenants with

Israel. In the conditional covenant that which is covenanted

depends on its fulfillment upon the recipient of the covenant,

not upon the one who made the covenant. Certain conditions and

obligations must be fulfilled by the recipient of the covenant

before the giver of the covenant is obligated to fulfill what was

promised. The conditional always has an “if” attached to it. The

Hill 181

Mosaic Covenant God made with Israel is an example of a

conditional covenant.

The unconditional covenant is that which that was covenanted

depends entirely on the one making the covenant alone for its

fulfillment. That which was promised is freely given to the

recipient of the covenant on the authority and integrity of the

one making the covenant apart from the merit or response of the

receiver. This type of covenant does not have an “if” attached to

it whatsoever. Dr. Pentecost makes a valid observation on an

unconditional covenant that is not obvious to the casual

observer:

To safeguard thinking on this point, it should be

observed that an unconditional covenant, which binds

the one making the covenant to a certain course of

action, may have blessings attached to the covenant

that are conditional upon the response of the recipient

of the covenant, which blessings grow out of the

original covenant, but these conditional blessings do

not change the unconditional character of that

covenant. (Pentecost 68)

Hill 182

D. The nature of the covenants: There are certain facts

which are to be observed concerning the covenants into which God

has entered.

1. First, as previously established, covenants are literal

and are to be interpreted literally. Dr. Peters elaborates on

this important proposition:

In all earthly transactions, when a promise, agreement,

or contract is entered into by which one party gives a

promise of value to another, it is universally the

custom to explain such a relationship and its promises

by the well-known laws of language contained in our

grammar or common usage. It would be regarded absurd

and trifling to view them in any other light. The very

nature of a covenant demands, that is should be so

worded, so plainly expressed, that it conveys a

decisive meaning, and not a hidden or mystical one that

requires many centuries to revolve in order to develop.

(Peters and Smith 290-291)

Such an interpretation would be in harmony with the

established literal method of interpretation.

Hill 183

2. Secondly, these irrevocable covenants, according to the

Scriptures, are eternal. What part of eternal can the Replacement

theologist not understand? The Abrahamic Covenant is called

eternal in Genesis 17.7, 13, 19; 1 Chronicles 16.17; and Psalm

105.10. The Palestinian Covenant is called eternal in 2 Samuel

23.5; and Isaiah 55.3. The New Covenant of the Old Testament to

Israel is called eternal in Isaiah 24.5; 61.8; Jeremiah 32.40;

50.5; and Hebrews 13.20.

3. Thirdly, inasmuch as these covenants are literal,

eternal, and depend solely upon the undeniable integrity of God

for their fulfillment they must be unconditional in character.

This should, but does not, end the debate.

4. Finally, these covenants were made with a covenant

people, Israel. In Romans 9.4 Paul states emphatically the nation

Israel had received covenants from the Lord. In Ephesians 2.11-12

he states, conversely, that the Gentiles have not received any

such covenants and consequently do not enjoy covenant

relationships with God. These two passages paint the picture for

us that the Gentiles were without covenant relationships and that

God had entered into covenant relationships with Israel.

Hill 184

I. The Importance of the Abrahamic Covenant

The first great covenant employed by God Himself with the

nation Israel, one of the four great foundational covenants, the

Abrahamic covenant, which many scholars consider the basis of the

entire covenant program. To say that the Scriptures abound in

references to the covenant that God entered into with Abraham,

and its application is an understatement. Soteriology and this

covenant are inseparable. Paul when writing to the Galatians,

shows that all believers enter into the blessings promised to

Abraham. (Galatians 3.14, 29; 4.22-31) Paul used the same

argument in his writings to the Romans, which was based upon the

same covenant promise made to Abraham. (Romans 4.1-25) (Hill

“Foundational Covenant”)

Starting with the fall of man God revealed His plan to

provide salvation to sinners. As this program gradually was

revealed by God to His mankind, the promise made to Abraham

represents God’s bold step to man. Dr. Peters speaks to the

Divine Purpose:

In Him the Divine Purpose becomes more specific,

detailed, contracted, definite, and certain. Specific,

Hill 185

in distinguishing and separating him from others of

the race; detailed, in indicating more of the

particulars connected with the purpose of salvation;

contracted, in making the Messiah to come directly in

his line, to be his “seed”; definite, in entering into

covenant relation with him, as his God; and certain,

in confirming his covenant relationship by an oath.

(Peters and Smith 293)

If we have the promises of Abraham, which includes an

eternal covenant from God, then the Abrahamic covenant has a

direct effect on the doctrine of the resurrection. Please read

Matthew 22.23-32 carefully the resurrection covenant is the basis

that Jesus Christ refutation of the unbelief of the Sadducees.

As today, the Sadducees then denied the possibility of

resurrection. Jesus Christ affirmed that resurrection was not

only possible but necessary. Listen carefully; since God revealed

Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exodus 3.15),

with whom He had entered into eternal covenant relationships, and

we know that these men had passed without receiving the

fulfillment of the promises (Hebrews 11.13), therefore we also

Hill 186

know that the covenants could not be broken because it was

necessary for God to raise these men from the dead in order to

fulfill His Word. (Hill “Foundational Covenant”)

Remember Paul, later in his life, had to go before Agrippa

in Acts 26.6-8, where he unites “the promise to the fathers” with

the resurrection of the dead as his defense of the doctrine. Dr.

Peters and his graduate student Smith make an interesting point,

The fact of the physical resurrection is proved by the

Lord and Paul from the necessity laid upon God to

fulfill His covenant, even though it entails physical

resurrection to do so. Consequently the fact of the

believer’s resurrection is united to the question of

the kind of covenant God swore Himself to with Abraham.

(Peters and Smith 297)

The doctrine of the resurrection is denied more today and is

more widespread than it was in the days of Jesus denying the

unbelief of the Sadducees. In a 2013 study, only 64 percent of

Christians believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead

physically. (Rasmussen ‘Resurrection’)

Hill 187

The Abrahamic covenant has an important bearing on the

doctrines of Eschatology. The eternal aspects of the covenant

provides Israel a permanent national existence for one. For

almost 1,900 years this was impossible. But on May 14, 1948,

Israel began a climb to the most important nation in the world.

They have a perpetual title to the land of promise, and guarantee

Gentile nations share in these blessings through Christ, and

determines the entire eschatological program of the Word of God.

This covenant becomes the seed from which all the covenants

spring forth from. From the Abrahamic covenant the land, the

seed, and the blessing, only expand in the following Covenants.

(Hill “Foundational Covenant”)

I will attempt to show the relationship between the

Abrahamic covenant and the other gracious covenants of God with

the nation Israel. The road ahead is always formed with materials

from the past. Haggai may have said it best when he said, “The

glory of this latter temple shall be greater than the former,’

says the Lord of hosts. ‘And in this place I will give peace,’

says the Lord of hosts.” (Haggai 2.9) Below I present how the

Hill 188

eternal covenants build on each other as new generations of

covenanted people learn what they mean.

The Abrahamic covenant The other covenantsThe promise of a nationalexistence. (Genesis 12.3,

13.14-15, 17)

The Palestinian covenant gaveIsrael final, permanent access

to the land. (Deuteronomy30.3-5; Ezekiel 20.33-37; 42-

44)The promise of redemption,national and universal.(Genesis 12.3, 22.18;

Galatians 3.18)

The New covenant gave Israelspiritual blessings and

redemption. (Jeremiah 21.31-40; Hebrews 8.6-13, etc.)

The promise to numerousdescendants in forming a greatnation. (Genesis 12.2, 13.16;

17.2-6, etc.)

The Davidic covenant promisesdynasty, nation, and throne.

(2 Samuel 7.11, 13, 16;Jeremiah 33.20, 21; 31.35-37,

etc.)

It may be said the land promises of the Abrahamic covenant

are defined in the Palestinian covenant. The seed promise was

developed in the Davidic covenant, and the promises of blessing

in the New covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant is the anchor

covenant for every covenant God made with Israel.

III. The Requirements of the Abrahamic Covenant

Our references for the Abrahamic covenant are from Genesis

12.1-3, and are confirmed and expanded to Abraham in Genesis

12.6-7; 13.14-17; 15.1-21; 17.1-4; 22.15-18, and entitled certain

Hill 189

eternal promises. The Amillennialists deny these this covenants

are in effect. To summarize the promises.

a. Abraham’s name shall be great. (Genesis 12.2)

b. That a great nation shall come out of him. (Genesis 12.2)

c. His blessing is so great that all the families of the

earth are blessed. (Genesis 12.3)

d. God gave to Abraham and his seed Palestine forever.

(Genesis 13.14-15)

e. The volume of his seed shall be as the dust of the earth.

(Genesis 13.16)

f. A blessing for those that bless Israel, and curse for

those who curse Israel. (Genesis 12.3)

g. Abraham would be the father of many nations. (Genesis

17.5)

h. Kings shall proceed from him. (Genesis 17.6)

i. The covenant is an everlasting or perpetual one. (Genesis

17.7)

j. The land of Canaan is an everlasting possession. (Genesis

17.8)

k. God will be a God to him and his seed. (Genesis 21.17)

Hill 190

l. His seed, Israel, will possess the gate of his enemies.

(Genesis 21.17)

m. In his seed, Israel, all the nations of the earth be

blessed. (Genesis 21.18)

When these many promises from God to Abraham are analyzed it is

easy to see the individual promises to him personally, certain

national promises given to the nation Israel, of which he was the

father. There are certain universal promised that encompass all

nations which were give through him. One of my favorite Bible

teachers, the late John Walvoord, says:

The language of the Abrahamic covenant is plain and to

the point. The original covenant is given in Genesis

12.1-3, and there are three confirmations and

amplifications as recorded in Genesis 13.14-17; 15.1-7;

and 17.1-18. Some of the promises are given to Abraham

personally, some to Abraham’s seed, and some to Gentiles,

or “all families of the earth” in Genesis 12.3. The

promise to Abraham himself is that he would be the father

of a great nation in Genesis 12.2, including kings and

nations other than the seed itself in Genesis 17.6. God

Hill 191

promises His personal blessing on Abraham. His name shall

be great and he himself shall be a blessing. The promise

to Abraham’s seed is the nation itself will be great in

Genesis 12.3, and innumerable in Genesis 13.16 and 15.5.

The nation is promised possession of the land and the

covenant itself expressly called everlasting in Genesis

17.7 and possession of the land is defined as an

everlasting possession in Genesis 17.8. The promise to

the Gentiles in all the families of the earth are

promised blessing in Genesis 12.3. It is not specified

what this blessing shall be. As a general promise it is

probably intended to have a general fulfillment.

(Walvoord 293)

It is common sense to keep the covenant blessings in the

different areas in which promises were made clearly with

different entities. Transferring covenants to another race of

people causes confusion, doctrinal differences, and certainly

causes interpretational conflicts which have not abated over

time. Personal promises may not be transferred to the nation, and

promises to Israel may not be transferred to the Gentiles either.

Hill 192

Clearly deviation from these principles have contributed to the

creation of over 32 major denominations, or fractures, of the

Church today.

IV. The Character of the Abrahamic Covenant

We have established that the Abrahamic covenant entailed:

1. God gave Israel eternal title deed to the land of

Palestine.

2. Israel’s continuation as a nation to possess the

land given by God.

3. Israel’s redemption to enjoy the blessings in the

land under her King.

With all the confusion in hermeneutics, it is of utmost

importance to conclude the method of fulfillment. Since the

Abrahamic covenant is a literal covenant to be fulfilled

literally, it stands to reason Israel must be well-kept,

converted, and restored. If the covenant were an unconditional

covenant, the events in Israel’s national life are inevitable.

The answer to the above statements determines one’s whole

eschatological position.

Hill 193

A. Are there conditional elements in the covenant program

with Abraham? Abraham lived in the home of Terah, an idolater,

which we know from Joshua 24.2. God chose Abraham telling him to

pick up and leave his home in the land of Ur, despite the fact it

included a torturous journey to a strange land unfamiliar to him

and his family. (Hebrews 11.8) It also included specific promises

to him that depended on this act of obedience to what God has

asked him. Abraham, in partial obedience, did not separate

himself from his kindred, instead journeying up river to Hara

from Genesis 11.31. He, of course, did not receive any of the

promises there. Abraham chose to obey after the death of his

father in Genesis 11.32. It was not until after this that Abraham

begins to realize any of the promises that God had given to him.

God did not choose to steer Abraham to where he was to go until

after he obeyed. (Genesis 12.7)

Obedience to the covenant program is necessary for God to

deliver the blessings. God required that Abraham first to leave

the land. Instead, he went up river to Haran. After obeying was

accomplished, and Abraham obeyed God, He instituted an

irrevocable, unconditional covenant by leading him to the land

Hill 194

promised. Abraham’s obedience allowed God to begin the program he

had for him in Genesis 22.8. It was the offering of Isaac, a type

of God and Jesus, which showed clear evidence of Abraham’s

attitude toward God. Walvoord pens:

As given in the Scriptures, the Abrahamic covenant is

hinged upon only one condition. This is given in

Genesis 12.1. The original covenant was based upon

Abraham’s obedience in leaving his homeland and going

to the land of promise. No further revelation is given

to him until he was obedient to this command after the

death of his father. Upon going into the land of

promise, Canaan, the Lord immediately gave Abraham the

promise of ultimate possession of the land. (Genesis

12.7) Subsequently, God enlarged the land of promise

and reiterated the original promise, as well. The one

condition having been met, no further conditions are

laid upon Abraham; the covenant having been solemnly

established is now dependent upon divine veracity for

its fulfillment. (Walvoord 309)

Hill 195

Whether there would be a covenant program depended upon

Abraham’s obedience. But once Abraham obeyed, the covenant

depended not on Abraham, but upon the promise of the One who gave

it. The fact of the over-all covenant depended on obedience;

however, the kind of covenant instituted was totally unrelated to

continue compliance of Abraham or his seed.

B. Arguments to support the unconditional character of the

covenant. The question as to whether the Abrahamic covenant is

conditional or unconditional is recognized as the crux of the

discussion of the problem relating to the fulfillment of the

covenant. I have made extensive arguments that support the

premillennialist view of the unconditional nature of the Abraham

covenant. Dr. Walvoord presents perhaps the most compelling

reasons:

1. All Israel’s covenants are unconditional except for

the Mosaic. The Abrahamic covenant is expressly

declared to the eternal and, therefore,

unconditional in numerous passages. (Genesis 17.7,

13, 19; 1 Chronicles 16.17; Psalms 105.10) The

Palestinian (land) covenant is likewise declared to

Hill 196

be everlasting. (Ezekiel 16.60) The Davidic covenant

is described forever and eternal. (2 Samuel 7.13;

16, 19; 1 Chronicles 17.12; 22.10; Isaiah 55.3;

Ezekiel 37.25) Israel’s New covenant is also

eternal. (Isaiah 61.8; Jeremiah 32.40; 50.5; Hebrews

13.20)

2. Except for the original condition of leaving his

homeland and going to the Promised Land, the

covenant is made with no conditions whatever.

3. The Abrahamic covenant is confirmed repeatedly by

reiteration and enlargement. In none of these

instances are any of the added promises conditional

upon the faithfulness of Abraham’s see or of Abraham

himself. Nothing is said about it becoming

conditioned upon the future faithfulness of either

Abraham or his seed.

4. The Abrahamic covenant was solemnized by a divinely

ordered ritual symbolizing the shedding of blood and

passing between the parts of the sacrifice (Genesis

15.7-21; Jeremiah 34.18). This ceremony was given to

Hill 197

Abraham as an assurance that his seed would inherit

the land in the exact boundaries given to him in

Genesis 15.18-21. No conditions whatever are

attached to this promise in this context.

5. To distinguish those who would inherit the promises

as individuals from those who were only physical

seed of Abraham, the visible sign of circumcision

was given (Genesis 17.9-14). One who was not

circumcised was outside the promised blessing. The

ultimate fulfillment of the Abraham covenant and

possession of the land by the seed is not hinged,

however, upon the faithfulness in the matter of

circumcision. In fact, the promises of the land were

given before the rite was introduced.

6. The Abrahamic covenant was confirmed by the birth of

Isaac and Jacob to both of whom is the promises are

repeated in their original form (Genesis 17.19;

28.12-13).

7. Notable is the fact that the reiterations of the

covenant and the partial early fulfillment of the

Hill 198

covenant are in spite of acts of disobedience. It is

clear that on several instances Abraham strayed from

the will of God. In the very act of disobedience,

the promises are repeated to him.

8. The later confirmations of the covenant are given in

the midst of apostasy. Important is the promise

given through Jeremiah that Israel as a nation will

continue forever (Jeremiah 31.36)

9. The New Testament declares the Abrahamic covenant

immutable (Hebrews 6.13-18; cf. Genesis 15.8-21). It

was not only promised but solemnly confirmed by the

oath of God.

10. The entire Scriptural revelation concerning Israel

and its future as contained in both the Old and New

Testaments, if interpreted literally, confirms and

sustains the unconditional character of the promises

given to Abraham. (Walvoord 28-40)

An explanation of an event which occurs in Genesis 15,

because it has a bearing on the question of the unconditional

aspect of the covenant, is explained further. You will remember

Hill 199

from Genesis 14 Abraham, in trusting God, refused to accept

riches from the king of Sodom. If Abraham questioned his own

decision in refusing the riches, God gives Abraham an assurance

that He is Abraham’s shield and exceedingly great reward.

(Genesis 15.1) Abraham then asked God about the promised heir,

and He affirms that he will have a son, and “Abraham believed

God.” (Genesis 15.6) God gives Abraham a clear sign of the

promised fulfillment, in response to Abraham’s faith (Genesis

15.9-17). God showed Abraham further that the seed and the land

would come to him through Him (Genesis 15.18). God tells Abraham

to prepare an animal of sacrifice, cut and lay it in a figure

eight, then they together could enter into a blood covenant.

Keil and Delitzsch say about this:

The preceding corresponding rather to the custom,

prevalent in many ancient nations, of slaughtering

animals when concluding a covenant, and after dividing

them into pieces, of laying the pieces opposite to one

another, that the persons making the covenant might

pass between them (figure eight). Thus, God

condescended to follow the custom His oath to Abram the

Hill 200

Chaldean. It is evident from Jeremiah 34.18 that this

was still customary among the Israelites of the later

time. (Keil and Delitzsch 214)

Due to his Chaldean background, Abraham was thoroughly

familiar of the process involved in entering into a binding

agreement. After preparing the sacrifice, Abraham must have

expected to walk with God through the figure eight for custom

demanded such. He would be very familiar the practice and the

solemnity of the occasion. After all, violation by either party

of the covenant would be bound their own blood in forfeit. But

when it was time for the covenant to be entered into, God puts

Abraham to sleep so that he could not participate in the

covenant, but only be a recipient of the benefits of the

agreement to which he brought nothing into in the way of

obligations. Keil and Delitzsch explain the passage this way:

From the nature of this covenant, it followed, however,

that God alone went through the pieces in a symbolical

representation of Himself, and not Abram also. For

although a covenant always establishes a reciprocal

relation between two individuals, yet in that covenant

Hill 201

which God concluded with a man, the man did not stand

on an equality with God, but God established the

relation of fellowship by His promise and His gracious

condescension to the man. (Keil and Delitzsch 216)

God symbolically and actually tells Abraham, but what He is

doing, that he has promised him the land and seed by a blood

covenant that He is bound by. God makes it abundantly clear that

his promise to Abraham was unconditional, to be fulfilled by the

integrity of God alone. The only way for the amillennialists to

misconstrue this solemn oath is for them to fit the allegory of

the promise to their theology.

C. The arguments of the amillennial against the

unconditional character and nature of the covenant are presented.

Oswald Allis almost wrote the position of the amillennialists of

our day, by systemizing the amillennialist thinking of countless

universities, professors, pastors and priest away from the

unconditional character of the covenant. Oswald states:

(1) First of all it is to be observed that the

condition may be involved in a command or promise

without its being specifically stated. This is

Hill 202

illustrated by the career of Jonah. Jonah was

commanded to preach judgment, unconditional,

unqualified: “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be

overthrown!” The unstated condition was presupposed

in the very character of God as a God of mercy and

compassion. The judgment on Eli’s house (1 Samuel

2.30) is a very striking illustration of this

principle. (Allis 22)

Allis argues that conditions may be implied that are not

stated. In reply to this line of reasoning, it is easy to see

Allis begins with an obvious damaging admission—there are no

stated conditions in Scripture to which the amillennialists may

turn to for confirmation of their position. Think about it—his

entire argument rests on silence, on implied and unstated

conditions. In Allis case, there is not one shred of evidence in

his parallel whatsoever. Pentecost says, “Eli was living under

the Mosaic economy, which was conditional in character, and the

Mosaic economy was unrelated to the Abrahamic covenant.”

(Pentecost 78)

Hill 203

In Allis reference to Jonah, there is no parallel involved

either. Jonah’s preaching can never be misconstrued as a covenant

from God, and in no way parallels the Abrahamic covenant. Quite

to the contrary, the Abrahamic covenant is a well-established

Scriptural principle (ref. Jeremiah 18.7-10; 26.12-13; Ezekiel

33.14-19) that repentance would remove God’s judgment. In Jonah’s

case, Ninevah’s leadership and people did repent and judgment was

averted. But there is no parallel between Jonah’s preaching which

alters in any way the Abrahamic covenant.

(2) It is true that, in the express terms of the

covenant with Abraham, obedience is not stated as a

condition. But that obedience was presupposed is

clearly indicated by two facts. The fact is that

obedience is the precondition of blessing under all

circumstances. The second fact is that in the case

of Abraham the duty of obedience is particularly

stressed. In Genesis 18.17, it is plainly stated

that, through His choice of Abraham, God proposed to

bring into being, by pious nurture, a righteous seed

which would “keep the way of the Lord,” in order

Hill 204

that, as a result, and reward of such obedience “the

Lord may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to

him.” (Allis 33)

Allis again admits the Scripture does not contain one

statement of a stipulated situation. It is absolutely false to

state that obedience is always a precondition to blessings. If

this were true, how could any sinner be saved? Dr. Walvoord

speaks to this:

It is not true that obedience is always the condition

of blessing. The seed of Abraham have been disobedient

in every moral category. Yet in spite of that

disobedience they have fulfilled many of the promises

of the covenant. The security of the believer is quite

independent of human worth or faithfulness. As a

Calvinist, where is Allis’ doctrine of unconditional

election? (Walvoord 105)

Again I reiterate an unconditional covenant in a covenanted

program certainly might, in fact, have attached conditional

blessings. However, the unconditional portion will be carried to

fulfillment, but individual blessings of that program may be

Hill 205

delayed until the conditions of the fulfillment of blessing are

met. To illustrate this, it has already been conceded that

whether God instituted a program with Abaham depended on his

obedience in leaving his home, but after the Abrahamic covenant’s

initiation it was without any conditions whatsoever. The

coventant, in fact, is reaffirmed and enlarged to Abraham after

specific acts of disobedience. (Genesis 12.10-20; 16.1-16) Allis

speaks to this in a negative fashion:

(1) That obedience was virtually connected with the

Abrahamic covenant is shown with especial clearness

by the fact that there was connected with it a sign,

the rite of circumcision, to the observance of which

the utmost importance was attached. Cutting off from

the covenant people was the penalty for failure to

observe it. The rite was in itself an act of

obedience. (1 Corinthians 7.19) (Allis 34)

It is easy to observe that the rite of circumcision, which

occurs at Genesis 17.9-14, comes many years after the covenant

and several repeated reaffirmations of the covenant with Abraham

(Genesis 12.7; 13.14-17; 15.1-21). Dr. Walvoord points out,

Hill 206

“What point is there in requiring a sign to continue the covenant

when the covenant is clearly operative before the institution of

the sign?” (Walvoord 142) If one carefully studies the rite of

circumcision it is related to the enjoyment of the blessings of

the covenant instead of the institution or continuance of the

covenant. Dr. Walvoord continues:

All agree that the individual enjoyment of blessing

under the covenant is to a large degree dependent upon

the individual’s faith and obedience. This is quite

different that stating that the fulfillment of the

covenant as a whole is conditioned upon obedience of

the nation as a whole. (Walvoord 149)

Allis speaks along the same general line when he continues

his points:

(2) That those who insist that the Abrahamic covenant

was wholly unconditional do not so readily regard it

is shown also by the great importance which

Dispensationalists attach to Israel’s being “in the

land” as a precondition of blessing under the

covenant. (Allis 24)

Hill 207

(3) That Dispensationalists do not regard the

Abrahamic covenant as wholly unconditional is

indicated also by the fact that we never hear them

speak of the restoration of Esau to the land of

Canaan and to full blessing under the Abrahamic

covenant. But if the Abrahamic covenant was

unconditional why was Esau excluded from the

blessings of the covenant? (Allis 35)

Allis last two arguments can be addressed together. Please

observe in each case that it is the relationship to the blessings

which are in view, and not the overall continuation of the

covenant. As I have stated previously, the blessings were

conditioned upon obedience. However, the covenant itself remained

in effect for the nation Israel regardless of being in the land,

recipients of blessing or otherwise or not. Contrariwise, if the

disobedience and removal of the land annulled the covenant, then

Esau being in the land or not would not have any effect.

The issue with Esau is one of his birthright. Blessings

would come on the covenanted people of Israel. Esau exclusion was

because he was not eligible for the blessings of the covenant

Hill 208

because of his unbelief and despising his birthright (Genesis

25.27-34) What his actions indicated was that Esau despised the

promise to which he was heir under the Abrahamic covenant. Esau,

as a Jew, knew about the Abrahamic covenant and that it rested on

the integrity of God alone. Esau can then be seen as a man who

either did not believe God could or would fulfill His Word. He

willingly gave up his birthright and forfeited the blessing that

was due him under the covenant. Dr. Pentecost summarizes Esau

actions, “The rejection of Esau illustrates the fact the covenant

was selective, and to be fulfilled through God’s own chosen

line.” (Pentecost 81)

(4) The certainty of the fulfillment of the covenant

is not due to the fact that it is unconditional, or

is its fulfillment dependent upon the imperfect

obedience of sinful man. The certainty of the

covenant and the security of the believer under it,

ultimately depends wholly on the obedience of

Christ. (Allis 36)

Here Allis changes direction completely. He previously

argued that the covenant was conditional and would not be

Hill 209

fulfilled. Now he argues that the fulfillment of the covenant

rests on the obedience of Christ. The amillennialists now concede

because of our spiritual blessings being the outgrowth of the

covenant he must concede some fulfillment of it. Walvoord makes a

salient point, “If it were abrogated, Christ would never have

come.” (Walvoord 150)

If the security of the covenant were conditional there would

be no assurance of salvation. We can all agree that the entire

eschatological program, and the Bible depended on the obedience

of Christ. However, that fact does not alter the fact the

character of the covenant that made the coming of Christ

necessary. His perfection is well documented. His death foretold

by the prophets, fulfilled as prophesied by Psalms 69 and other

passages. His death is seen to be a fulfillment of the covenants

as the Psalm says:

For God will save Zion and build the cities of Judah,

that they may dwell there and possess it. Also, the

descendants of His servants shall inherit it, and those

who love His name shall dwell in it. (Psalm 69.35-36)

Hill 210

“We can conclude that the death of Jesus Christ and his

resurrection, and ascent or heaven is fulfillment of the

covenants which will be literally fulfilled also,” (Peters and

Smith 303) It is my conjecture that the method that God has

always used to fulfill prophecy historically will be His method

of fulfillment of all prophecies in the future. The part of the

Abrahamic covenant that has been fulfilled literally, gives me

cause to believe the unfulfilled portions will be performed

literally, as well.

The patriarchs themselves understood the covenant to be

eternal, unconditional, unequivocal, and certain as to its

fulfillment. Consider the words of Isaac to Jacob when he was

going away:

May God Almighty bless you, and make you fruitful and

multiply you, that you may be an assembly of peoples;

and give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and your

descendants with you that you may inherit the land in

which you are a stranger, which God gave to Abraham.

(Genesis 28.3-4)

Hill 211

One professor I have sat under his teaching clearly

demonstrates the source of the hatred towards the Jews throughout

history, Dr. Missler states:

The covenant birthright was a point of contention

between Sarah vs. Hagar, Isaac vs. Ishmael, and which

then became the root of the hb’yae ~l’A[ olam ebah—the

“Everlasting Hatred”—beginning in the womb with Esau and

Jacob, and Esau’s subsequent contempt of the covenant

birthright, and resulting in Esau’s spiteful

intermarriage with the Ishmaelites, which continued the

“everlasting hatred” to this very day. Recognition of

this “Everlasting Hatred”—and its embodiment in Islam—is

essential to our understanding its eschatological

implications, as well as the daily newscasts that

dominate our mainline press. (Missler 132)

V. Eschatological Implications of the Abrahamic Covenant

The patriarchs obviously understood the covenant to be

eternal, unconditional, unequivocal, and certain as to its

fulfillment. Consider the touching words of Isaac spoken to Jacob

when he was going away:

Hill 212

May God Almighty bless you, and make you fruitful and

multiply you, that you may be an assembly of peoples;

and give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and your

descendants with you that you may inherit the land in

which you are a stranger, which God gave to Abraham.

(Genesis 28.3-4)

One professor I have sat under his teaching clearly

demonstrates the source of the hatred towards the Jews throughout

history, Dr. Missler states:

The covenant birthright was a point of contention

between Sarah vs. Hagar, Isaac vs. Ishmael, and which

then became the root of the hb’yae ~l’A[ olam ebah—the

“Everlasting Hatred”—beginning in the womb with Esau and

Jacob, and Esau’s subsequent contempt of the covenant

birthright, and resulting in Esau’s spiteful

intermarriage with the Ishmaelites, which continued the

“everlasting hatred” to this very day. Recognition of

this “Everlasting Hatred”—and its embodiment in Islam—is

essential to our understanding its eschatological

Hill 213

implications, as well as the daily newscasts that

dominate our mainline press. (Missler 132)

VI. Eschatological Implications of the Abrahamic Covenant

If we have demonstrated that the Abrahamic covenant to be an

unconditional covenant between God and Israel, and may not be

abrogated or fulfilled by any other people other than Israel.

With that, we can also see that Israel has unconditional promises

regarding the land and a seed which determines the future program

of God. Three words summarize the eschatological portion of the

covenant: land, seed, and blessings. The Scripture itself leads

us to this conclusion:

Genesis 12.7 - To your descendants I will give this

land.

Genesis 13:15-16 - For all the land which you see I

give to you and your descendants forever. And I will

make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that

if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your

descendants also could be numbered.

Genesis 15.18 - On the same day the Lord made a

covenant with Abram, saying:

Hill 214

“To your descendants I have given this land, from the

river of Egypt to the great river, the River

Euphrates.”

Genesis 17.7-8 - And I will establish My covenant

between Me and you and your descendants after you in

their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be

God to you and your descendants after you. Also, I give

to you and your descendants after you the land in which

you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an

everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”

When these Scriptures are read in context it is impossible

to misconstrue that the Abrahamic covenant is with Abraham and to

the physical seed of Abraham which includes blessings to the seed

and land given to them by God. The question then becomes: How do

the seed and the land determine their effect on future events?

Dr. Charles Ryrie gives us what the covenant means when he

says:

All agree that the Abrahamic covenant is one of the

outstanding covenants in the Word of God. Its crucial

issues in relation to Premillennialism are two: a. Does

Hill 215

the Abrahamic covenant promise Israel a permanent

existence as a nation? If it does, then the Church is

not fulfilling Israel’s promises, but rather Israel as

a nation has a future yet in prospect, and b. does the

Abrahamic covenant promise Israel permanent possession

of the Promised Land? If it does, then Israel must yet

come into possession of the land, for she has never

fully possessed it in her history. (Ryrie 48-49)

A. Who is the seed of Abraham? In this internet age, it

would seem to be obvious to all who are not trying to

misrepresent the plain literal teaching of Scripture, that the

seed of Abraham, of necessity, are the physical descendants of

Abraham. Walvoord states:

An examination of the whole context of the Abrahamic

covenant shows that first of all it was vitally

connected with Abraham’s physical seed, Isaac. God said

of Isaac before he was born, “I will establish My

covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with

his descendants after him.” (Genesis 17.19) How did

Abraham understand the term seed here? Obviously, it

Hill 216

had reference to the physical seed, Isaac, and his

physical descendants. God did not say that no spiritual

blessing would come to those outside the physical seed,

but the physical line of Isaac would inherit the

promises given to the “seed of Abraham.” (Walvoord 137-

138)

It is quite obvious from the Scriptures that Abraham, Isaac,

and Jacob knew that God was using terms they understood as

referring to their physical lineage. And again, Dr. Walvoord

states, “The term Israel as a title given to Jacob, meaning

prince of God, it has commonly been used to designate the

physical descendants of Jacob.” (Walvoord 139) It should not come

as a surprise to read the statement on this subject of a leading

amillennialists, Allis, who disagrees with the Israel

interpretation says:

Carrying to an almost unprecedented extreme that

literalism which is characteristic of millenarianism,

they insist that Israel must mean Israel, and that the

kingdom promises in the Old Testament concern Israel

Hill 217

and are to be fulfilled to Israel literally. (Allis

218)

It is fair to point out that the view of a literalist and

premillennialists can hardly be characterized as “unprecedented

extreme” when taking the Old Testament use of Israel to mean

Israel. It might to be fair to call the amillennialists view

“unprecedented extreme” to think Israel means anything else but

the apple of God’s eye. Dr. Charles Hodge, a postmillennialist

says:

It is important to observe that one must distinguish

between the personal promises to Abraham himself, the

national promises to Abraham’s seed, and the universal

promises to “all the families of the earth.” It is not

denied that the Abrahamic covenant offers universal

blessings to those who are not the physical seed of

Abraham, but it is affirmed that the national promises

can only be fulfilled by the nation itself. Thus, the

word Israel is taken in its usual, literal, sense to

mean the physical descendants of Abraham. (Hodge 589)

Hill 218

B. On the amillennial view of the seed of Abraham, Pieters,

one of the leading experts of the amillennial system of today,

defines the seed:

The expression of the “seed of Abraham,” in Biblical

usage, denotes that visible community, the members of

which stand in relation to God through the Abrahamic

covenant, and thus are heirs to the Abrahamic promise.

Whenever we meet with this argument that God made

certain promises to the Jewish race certain facts are

pertinent. (Pieters 19)

Dr. Pieters shows his amillennial and anti-Semitic views

when he says:

God never made any promises to any race at all, as a

race. All the promises were to the continuing

covenanted community, without regard to its racial

constituents or to the personal ancestry of the

individuals in it. Hence no proof that those whom the

world now calls “the Jews” are descended from Abraham,

if it could be supplied (which it cannot), would be of

any avail to prove they are entitled to the fulfillment

Hill 219

of any divine promise whatsoever. These promises were

made to the covenanted group called “the seed of

Abraham,” and to that community they must be fulfilled.

What is the needed is that one shall bring forward

proof of his membership in that group.” (Pieters 20-22)

Dr. Pieters has this anti-Semitic view while reading the

same Bible we do, but he does not see Israel in the Abrahamic

covenant. Dr. Walvoord, in answering Dr. Pieters succinctly

states this view as to their beliefs:

Pieters, staunch in his amillennial viewpoint, as

represent by the following positions:

1. God never made any promises to the physical

seed of Abraham as a race, the nation Israel.

2. The Abrahamic promises are given only to the

spiritual seed of Abraham or the “continuing

covenanted community”;

3. Jews today have no claim on the promise to

Abraham because:

(a) They are not the spiritual seed;

Hill 220

(b) They could not prove that they are the

physical seed anyway. (Walvoord 137)

Dr. Pieters view is not only anti-Semitic, but borders on

arrogance. According to the amillennialist, in their view the

seed would be the whole “household of faith,” or all believers of

all ages. What we are discussing here comes down to the method of

interpretation. If one is to interpret Scriptures figuratively

then the amillennial view is logical, but if the Scriptures are

to be interpreted literally the premillennial view is necessary.

The kinds of seeds mentioned in Scripture can be clarified

if one simply reads the Scripture and observes there are more

than just one seed in view that Abraham is the Father. The ruin

of not observing this differentiation of Scripture has led to the

divergent views and confusion in those who attend church. Dr.

Walvoord has addressed this salient point by saying:

There are, then, three different senses in which one

can be a child of Abraham.

(1) There is the natural lineage, or natural seed.

This is limited largely to the descendants of Jacob

in the twelve tribes. To them God promises to be

Hill 221

their God. To them was given the law. To them was

given the land of Israel in the Old Testament. With

them God dealt in a special way.

(2) There is the spiritual lineage within the

natural. These are the Israelites who believed in

God, who kept the law, and who met the conditions

for present enjoyment of the blessings of the

covenant. Those who ultimately possess the land in

the future millennium will also be of spiritual

Israel. Third, there is the spiritual seed of

Abraham who are not natural Israelites. Here is

where the promise to “all the families of the earth”

comes in. This is the express application of this

phrase in Galatians 3.6-9. In other words, the

children of Abraham (spiritually) who come from the

heathen or Gentiles in the first place, not the

promises pertaining to Israel. The only sense in

which the Gentiles can be Abraham’s seed in the

Galatians context is to be “in Christ Jesus”

(Galatians 3.28). It follows: “And if you are

Hill 222

Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs

according to the promise.” Christ’s are Abraham’s

seed in the spiritual sense only and heirs of the

promise given “to all the families of the earth.”

(Walvoord 420)

This distinction may explain how the church might be a

relative of the promises of the Abrahamic covenant without being

the covenant people in the national promises; these are being

fulfilled right before our eyes, if they are open. This leads to

the conclusion that we are the seed of Abraham spiritually by the

new birth in Christ Jesus. This, of course, does not lead to mean

that we are the physical seed of the patriarch, which we are not.

A. The corporate church is not now or has ever been, the

physical Israel. The only reasonable conclusion that can grow out

of this debate is that the Gentile believers of the present day,

which reckoned as a seed of Abraham, are not the seed in which

the national promises are to be fulfilled. This is crystal clear

by observing the facts presented in the New Testament.

1. Natural Israel and the Gentiles are clearly

differentiated in the early Church (ref. Acts 3.12;

Hill 223

4.8; 21.28; Romans 10.1). Then there is the fact

that Israel, the nation, and is always addressed as

a nation after the establishment of the church (1

Corinthians 10.32). The term Jew continues to be

used long after the beginning of the church (Romans

9, 10, and 11). These, along with many previous

stated facts, establishes that the Gentiles do no

supplant Israel in God’s covenant program.

2. Natural and national Israel and the church are

clearly juxtaposed in the New Testament (Romans

11.1-25; 1 Corinthians 10.32). In Romans 11, Paul

shows that God has temporarily blinded Israel, which

also takes them out of the place of blessing, but

will restore the to the promised blessings when His

program with the church is terminated. This

consideration very clearly reveals that the Gentiles

do no supplant Israel in God’s covenant program.

3. Messianic (Jewish) Christians, are to be a part of

spiritual Israel, and the Gentile Christians are

clear delineated in the New Testament in Paul’s

Hill 224

theological masterpiece, the book of Romans, at

Romans 9.6. Dr. Ryrie says, “This is where he

contrasts these promises which belong to Israel who

enters into them by faith; Galatians 6.15-16, is

where Paul specifically (Greek συγκεκριμένα) states

that Messianic Jews are included in his touching

benediction distinctly on the whole body of Christ.”

(Ryrie 70)

I believe I have more than demonstrated that the church body

on the earth today cannot be Israel in whom the covenants are

being, and will be fulfilled further in the future. It is this

confusion caused by the replacement theologist and the resultant

anti-Semitism which are flourishing in a country that is tolerant

instead of homosexuals and the insidious Islamic theology. The

covenants create and sustain the foundation for the whole

expectancy of the Word of God that should never be overlooked.

Nevertheless, the majority of the church deny their right to the

covenant and their relevancy to the road ahead.

B. What is the relationship of the church to the Abrahamic

covenant? As I have more than established that the church

Hill 225

corporate can never be the seed in whom the covenants are

fulfilled, it is appropriate to consider the question of the

churches role in the whole covenant program. Any relationship

which the church enjoys derives from not the physical birth, but

only from the new birth, as heirs because individuals are “in

Christ Jesus." Peters points this out when he writes:

It is said that “the seed” shall inherit the land; and

we are told by many that this was fulfilled in the

history of the Jews under Joshua, the Judges, and the

Kings. What, however, are the facts as given by the

Holy Spirit? Certainly, in the interpretation of the

covenant promises, Holy Writ should be allowed to be

its own interpreter, that we may ascertain the meaning

intended by God. Let God, then, and not man, explain:

“Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He

does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of

one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. (Galatians

3.16) “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And

to your Seed,” who is Christ. If language has any

definite meaning, then, without a doubt we have here

Hill 226

the simple declaration that when God promised “unto the

seed will I give this land,” He meant that the land of

Canaan should be inherited by a single person—pre-

eminently the Seed—descended from Abraham, even Christ

Jesus. (Peters and Smith 302)

The corporate church is the recipient of the promises solely

because of the Headship and our relationship with the One in whom

the promises find fulfillment. She should be participating with

Him in everything she does to bring the covenant to completion.

Peter, in Acts 3.25, applies the collective characteristics of

the points of the covenant to those to whom he was speaking. The

national aspects of the Abraham covenant must await future

fulfillment by the nation Israel.

C. Will the seed possess the land? This might be anti-

climactic because of the previous discussion of the covenant. No

one but the physical seed of Abraham that were promised by God

the eternal possession of the land, Walvoord teaches:

The promise of possession of the land by the seed of

Abraham is a prominent feature of the covenant, and the

way the promise is given enhances its significance. The

Hill 227

promise as given emphasizes that (1) it is gracious in

its principle; (2) the land is the inheritance of the

seed; (3) its title is given forever; (4) the land is

to be possessed forever; (5) the land promised includes

specific territory defined by boundaries. (Walvoord

218)

D. The new birth in Christ Jesus does not imply, or has it

every meant in any way that we are the physical seed of the

patriarch. So, to reiterate, the church is not now, or can it

ever be Israel. The only reasonable conclusion that can grow out

of this debate is that the Gentile believers of the present day,

which reckoned as a seed of Abraham, are not the seed in which

the national promises are to be fulfilled. This is crystal clear

by observing the facts presented in the New Testament.

1. The physical nation of Israel and the Gentiles are

contrasted in the early church (re. Acts 3.13; 4.8;

21.28; Romans 10.1, and others). The undeniable fact

that the physical nation of Israel being addressed

as a nation after the establishment of the church is

conclusive (1 Corinthians 10.32), and Paul continues

Hill 228

to use the term “Jew” well after the establishment

of the church (Romans 9, 10, and 11) institutes that

the Gentiles do no supplant Israel in God’s covenant

program.

2. The physical seed of Israel and the church are

clearly differentiated in the New Testament (Romans

11.1-25; 1 Corinthians 10.32). In Romans 11, Paul

hammers away that it is God who blinded the physical

seed Israel out of the place of blessing only for

the moment, however, but when the church is raptured

He will restore their spiritual eyes and return them

to the place of blessing. Again, I believe this

conclusively demonstrates that Israel is not

supplanted by the church.

3. Messianic Jews, who may or may not be part of

spiritually Israel, and Gentile believers are

contrasted in the New Testament in Paul’s

theological masterpiece, Romans 9.6. Dr. Ryrie

says, “This is where he contrasts these promises

which belong to Israel who enters into them by

Hill 229

faith; Galatians 6.15-16, where he specifically

mentions believing Jews in the benediction

pronounced on the whole body of Christ.” (Ryrie 70)

So to repeat one additional time; I believe we have

conclusively demonstrated that the body of Christ is not a

physical seed Israel in which the covenants are being and will be

fulfilled. The confusion caused by replacement theologist and the

resultant anti-Semitism are flourishing in a country that is

tolerant of homosexual lifestyles and Islamic religion. The

covenants that God made with Israel formulate such a solid

foundation for the complete expectation of the infallible Word of

God that they cannot be discounted, even by the very ones who

deny their obvious existence or the relevancy to the

eschatological program.

E. This brings up the significant question of the

relationship of the church to the Abrahamic covenant? We have

present solid Biblical evidence that the church is not the

physical seed in which the covenants are and will be fulfilled.

It is then appropriate to consider the churches role in the whole

covenant program. Any of the covenant promises enjoyed by church

Hill 230

derive not from our physical birth, but from the new birth in

Jesus Christ. Peters points this out when he writes:

It is said that “the seed” shall inherit the land, and

we are told by many that this was fulfilled in the

history of the Jews under Joshua, the Judges, and the

Kings. What, however, are the facts as given by the

Holy Spirit? Certainly, in the interpretation of the

covenant promises, Holy Writ should be allowed to be

its own interpreter, that we may ascertain the meaning

intended by God. Let God, then, and not man, explain:

“Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He

does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of

one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. (Galatians

3.16) “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And

to your Seed,” who is Christ. If language has any

definite meaning, then, without a doubt we have here

the simple declaration that when God promised “unto thy

seed will I give this land,” He meant that the land of

Canaan should be inherited by a single person—pre-

Hill 231

eminently the Seed—descended from Abraham, even Christ

Jesus. (Peters and Smith 302)

The church benefits from the promises of the covenant solely

on the basis of the headship and relationship to the One in whom

the promises find fulfillment. She should be participating with

Him in all He does to bring the covenant to completion. Peter, in

Acts 3.25, applies the universal benefits and aspects of the

covenant to those to whom he was speaking. The national aspects

of the Abraham covenant must await future fulfillment by the

nation Israel.

F. Will the seed possess the land? This might be anti-

climactic because of the previous discussion of the covenant.

Israel, the physical seed of Abraham, received the promise from

God of the eternal possession of the land. Dr. Walvoord teaches:

The promise of possession of the land by the seed of

Abraham is a prominent feature of the covenant, and the

way the promise is given enhances its significance. The

promise as given emphasizes that (1) it is gracious in

its principle; (2) the land is the inheritance of the

seed; (3) its title is given forever; (4) the land is

Hill 232

to be possessed forever; (5) the land promised includes

specific territory defined by boundaries. (Walvoord

218)

This promise is the centerpiece of expectation of the Old

Testament prophets and their message. If God has rejected Israel

for its unbelief, he would have abandoned America some fifty

years ago. There is a fundamental difference between being

rejected by God and God turning his back on the nation’s

corporate sin. Eternal covenants are one of the reasons that God

has never rejected Israel as a nation. God will never reject

Israel because of its unbelief, but will delay the blessings of

the covenant, if warranted. Dr. Ryrie, on the same subject, pens:

Since some insist that the nation has been completely

rejected of God, two passages of Scripture must be

carefully examined. The first is Matthew 21.43:

“Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be

taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits

of it.” Any accurate literal interpretation of this

Scripture has to answer three questions:

Hill 233

1. What will be taken away, from whom is it taken, and

to who is it given?

It is the kingdom of God that is taken from them. The

kingdom of God is the sphere of true faith in God. The

Lord is saying to these Jews that, because they

rejected Him, they could not enter the kingdom of God,

for “except a man be born again, he cannot see the

kingdom of God” (John 3.3).

2. From whom was the kingdom of God taken? It seems

clear that you refer to the generation to whom the Lord

was speaking.

3. To whom the kingdom be given? By application, “the

nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” may mean any

generation which will turn to Christ; but in its strict

interpretation it refers to the nation Israel when she

shall turn to the Lord and be saved before entering the

millennial kingdom.

The second passage which shows this conclusively that

Israel will be restored is the passage which deals with

her future salvation, Romans 11.26-27:

Hill 234

And so all Israel will be saved (delivered), as it is

written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He

will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is My

covenant with them, when I take away their sins.”

From this verse, careful exegetes agree the Israel

means Israel, in contrast to the remnant being saved

today, will be saved at the Second Coming of Christ.

From these two passages, it is clear that Israel has

not been cast off but will be restored to the place of

blessing in the future. Israel, because she has not

been disinherited, will be in a position to fulfill the

Abraham covenant. (Ryrie 70-73)

Has the Abrahamic covenant been fulfilled? There are

academics and religious writers who contend the Abrahamic

covenant is not to be fulfilled in the future because its

fulfillment was in the past. One of these representative of this

stance is George L. Murray who says:

The is ample proof to be adduced from the Word of God

that God fulfilled to Abraham and to Abraham’s seed the

promise that they should possess Canaan. Today, the

Hill 235

ashes of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob mingle with the soil

of the “Cave of the field Machpelah before Mamre in the

land of Canaan,” which Abraham bought “for a possession

of a burying place.” He possessed Canaan during his

earthly life, and his ashes rest in Canaan until the

resurrection. The same can be said of his seed, Isaac

and Jacob. “The heirs with him of the same promise.”

Surely God has fulfilled his promise to Abraham to give

him and his seed a permanent place in the land. (After

quotes Genesis 15.13-14, he says) This covenant does

not include the word forever although it is contended

by some that its full terms are yet to be fulfilled and

that the Israelites have never possessed the land to

the extent described here. Happily, the Word of God

gives the true and final answer here, too. We invite

our readers to turn to 1 King 4.21, 24 where we read:

“So Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the River to

the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of

Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the

days of his life.” And, “For he had dominion over all

Hill 236

the region on this side of the River from Tiphsah even

to Gaza, namely over all the kings on this side of the

River; and he had peace on every side all around him.”

(Murray 26)

It is obvious to me, in order to state an historical

fulfillment it is also necessary to deny the Abrahamic covenant

was eternal in character. It would be interesting to see how

Murray handles the word “eternal." After some research into his

writings, I have found where he writes of his thoughts on

“eternal”:

The literalist reminds us of the word “forever” which

to him is the all-important word here. We are

frequently reminded that the “forever” must mean “for

ever.” This is not without difficulty even for the

literalist. Man’s tenure of any part of the earth is

not permanent. “And as it is appointed for men to die

once, but after this the judgment.” His leases and

contracts in material possessions must come to an end.

What, then, does God mean? What would Abraham

understand by the word “forever”? If a man is

Hill 237

threatened with eviction from his home and a friend of

proven ability, to implement his promises, will give

him a promise that he shall possess the home forever,

how shall he interpret those words? He will not expect

to live there eternally. The most he could expect from

the promise would be that he should spend his natural

life there and that his dust should rest there after

death. This was what God plainly promised and fulfilled

to Abraham. He possessed the land of Canaan in every

sense in which a man can possess the land. (Murray 27)

I personally would hate to stand before God and explain how

He does not mean what He says. How empty is the contention the

covenanted possession of the land is fulfilled in the ashes of

Abraham resting in the soil? I contend that God spoke to man in

terms that he could understand. In the forming of a new nation,

Abraham understood it, more than likely, that Israel would

possess the land forever. Peters has a different take than Murray

when he states:

To say that all this was fulfilled in the occupation of

Palestine, by the preparatory or initiatory possession

Hill 238

of it by the descendants of Abraham, is not only

contradicted by Scripture, but is a virtual limiting of

the promises. Kurtz observes, what history attests,

that the descendants never possessed the land promised

to Abraham from the Nile to the Euphrates. (Peters 297)

My conjecture is that it is an insult to God’s intelligence,

as if there was a way for a man to do this, that He could not

convey meaning to Abraham with words that convey the religiously

accepted connotation. Additional weight is added to Peters

counter argument when he writes:

Whatever may be said respecting the temporary

possession of Canaan, or whatever may be asserted

respecting the descendants being meant “as yet in his

loins,” etc., one thing is most positively stated in

the Bible, viz.; that this promise was not fulfilled in

the Patriarchs, in any of the forms alleged by

unbelief. The Spirit, foreseeing this very objection,

provided against it, lest our faith should stumble.

Thus Stephen, full of the Holy Ghost, tells us in Acts

7.5, “And God gave him no inheritance in it, not even

Hill 239

enough to set his foot on. But even when Abraham had no

child, He promised to give it to him for a possession,

and to his descendants after him.” As if Stephen’s

words were not enough the Holy Spirit used Paul’s

confirmation in Hebrews 9.8, 9, “The Holy Spirit

indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All

was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle

was still standing. It was symbolic for the present

time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered

which cannot make him who performed the service perfect

in regard to the conscience.” And Hebrews 11.13-40

which promptly informs us that the Patriarchs sojourned

in “the land of promise,” which they were to receive as

“an inheritance,” “pilgrims and strangers,” and that

“they died in faith, not having received the promises,

but having seen the from afar off, and were persuaded

of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they

were pilgrims and strangers on the earth.” How, with

such evidence before us, can we attribute to only their

Hill 240

posterity which is directly asserted of themselves

personally? (Peters 298-299)

God’s Abrahamic covenant contains several keys. God gave

several individual promises to Abraham among them promises of the

preservation of the nation, and the possession of the land by the

nation which was given to a specific covenant people, Israel. It

is both unconditional and also eternal, and yet has never been

fully fulfilled. It must await a future fulfillment. Israel,

reborn 14 May 1948, makes it Israel’s smartness and God’s

faithfulness to preserve them as a nation. They must inherit the

land to God promised her, and be blessed with spiritual blessings

to make this inheritance possible. Dr. Walvoord says:

The restoration of Israel is the capstone of the grand

structure of doctrine relating to the Abrahamic

Covenant. In bringing to a close consideration of this

covenant as it pertains to premillennialism, attention

should be expected again to the strategic importance of

this revelation to Scriptural truth. It has been seen

that the covenant included provisions not only to

Abraham but to Abraham’s physical seed, Israel, and to

Hill 241

Abraham’s spiritual seed, all who follow the faith of

Abraham whether Jew or Gentile in this age. It has been

shown that Abraham interpreted the covenant literally

as pertaining primarily to his physical seed. The

unconditional character of the covenant has been

demonstrated—a covenant resting upon God’s promise and

faithfulness alone. The partial fulfillment recorded to

the present has confirmed the intent of God to give

literal fulfillment to the promises. It has been shown

that Israel’s promise of perpetual possession of the

land is an inevitable part and conclusion of the

general promises given to Abraham and confirmed to his

seed. Israel’s continuance as a nation, implied in

these promises, has been sustained by the continued

confirmation of both Testaments. It was shown that the

New Testament church in no wise fulfills these promises

given to Israel. Finally, Israel’s restoration as the

natural outcome of these promises has been presented as

the express teaching of the entire Bible. If these

conclusions reached after careful examination of the

Hill 242

Scriptural revelation are sound and reasonable, it

follows that premillennialism is the only satisfactory

system of doctrine that harmonizes with the Abrahamic

covenant. (Walvoord 303)

2. The Palestinian Covenant

In classes I have taken on the Torah, the Palestinian

Covenant has been characterized as the Land Grant. It comes from

the closing chapters of Deuteronomy when the nation of Israel,

the physical seed of Abraham, are facing a national crisis. They

are transitioning from the proven leadership of Moses over to the

untried leadership of God’s chosen, Joshua. They are now at the

very river that separated from the land that was promised to them

by God in terms that they understood:

Genesis 12.7 states: “To your descendants I will give

this land.”

Genesis 13.15 states: “for all the land which you see I

give to you and your descendants forever.”

Genesis 17.7-8 states: “And I will establish My

covenant between Me and you and your descendants after

you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant,

Hill 243

to be God to you and your descendants after you.  Also,

I give to you and your descendants after you the land

in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as

an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”

However, the land promised to Israel is inhabited by their

enemies, who have shown they are more than capable of

withstanding Israel’s attempt to enter the land promised them.

God had steered them slowly out of captivity, and, at this time

would not allow them to go back. But the land they were to enter

as “strangers and pilgrims” seemed formidable and shut before

them. This presented them with certain important considerations

which must be faced by the nation as a whole. Many questions

passed before their minds, but none more important as this. Could

Israel choose to believe God and enter into permanent possession

of the Promised Land in the face of such opposition?

To answer this and other critical inquiries God again stated

again His covenant promise concerning Israel’s possession and

inheritance in the land of Deuteronomy 30.1-10, which declaration

we call the Palestinian covenant, which land was originally

promised in the Abrahamic covenant.

Hill 244

I. The Importance of the Palestinian Covenant

This is another extremely important covenant which is the

basis of much of the misunderstanding and conflict in the world

we live in today. One only has to read the headlines or watch the

news to know this is as controversial today as it was when God

made the covenant with the apple of His eye, Israel. This

covenant does many important things which reaffirm critical

provisions to Israel.

1. It provides a title deed to the land of promise. In

spite of their unbelief and unfaithfulness, which has

been frequently a national characteristic of Israel’s

history from the promise to Abraham, the covenant was

not abrogated. God still promised them the land was

theirs by His Word.

2. At the time of this covenant, Israel was living

under a conditional Mosaic covenant which obviously in

no way set aside any of the original gracious promise

in the Abrahamic Covenant. This is the basis of Paul’s

argument when he writes:

Hill 245

And this I say, that the law, which was four

hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the

covenant that was confirmed before by God in

Christ, that it should make the promise of no

effect. (Galatians 3.17)

3. Our covenant is not only confirms and enlarges the

original Abrahamic covenant, but the Palestinian

covenant enlarges the land features. Now add to this

that it comes after a wilful unbelief and

disobedience in the life of a nation. This also

supports the argument that the original promise was

given to be fulfilled in spite of disobedience.

II. The Provisions of the Palestinian Covenant

To review the Palestinian covenant which is stated in

Deuteronomy 30.1-10, it is always good to read what the Lord

said:

Now it shall come to pass, when all these things

come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I

have set before you, and you call them to mind

among all the nations where the Lord your God

Hill 246

drives you, and you return to the Lord your God

and obey His voice, according to all that I

command you today, you and your children, with all

your heart and with all your soul, that the Lord

your God will bring you back from captivity, and

have compassion on you, and gather you again from

all the nations where the Lord your God has

scattered you. If any of you are driven out to

the farthest parts under heaven, from there the

Lord your God will gather you, and from there He

will bring you. Then the Lord your God will bring

you to the land which your fathers possessed, and

you shall possess it. He will prosper you and

multiply you more than your fathers. And the Lord

your God will circumcise your heart and the heart

of your descendants, to love the Lord your God

with all your heart and with all your soul that

you may live. Also the Lord your God will put all

these curses on your enemies and on those who hate

you, who persecuted you. And you will again obey

Hill 247

the voice of the Lord and do all His commandments

which I command you today. The Lord your God will

make you abound in all the work of your hand, in

the fruit of your body, in the increase of your

livestock, and in the produce of your land for

good. For the Lord will again rejoice over you for

good as He rejoiced over your fathers, if you obey

the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His

commandments and His statutes which are written in

this Book of the Law, and if you turn to the Lord

your God with all your heart and with all your

soul.

When we analyze this covenant it will show seven main

features of the covenant program here unfolded:

1. God promises Israel they will pay for their

unfaithfulness by removing them from the land

for its unfaithfulness. (Deuteronomy 28.63-68)

2. A prophecy says there will be a future

repentance for Israel. (Deuteronomy 28.63-68;

30.1-3)

Hill 248

3. Israel’s Messiah will return. (Deuteronomy

30.3-6)

4. Israel will be restored to the land.

(Deuteronomy 30.5)

5. Israel will be converted as a nation.

(Deuteronomy 30.4-8)

6. Israel’s enemies will be judged. (Deuteronomy

30.7)

7. The nation will then receive her full blessing.

(Deuteronomy 30.9)

Does God take Israel’s right to the land seriously? One only

has to survey this to see that in this one passage He does. God

not only guarantee’s Israel the right to the land, but also He

also obligates Himself to judge all their enemies and remove them

from the land. God also will give Israel a new heart transplant,

a conversion, prior to placing them in all He has promised them.

The Palestinian land grant covenant will again be confirmed

at a later juncture in Israel’s history. It becomes a subject of

Ezekiel’s prophecy. Dr. Louis Sperry Chafer picks it up here by

saying:

Hill 249

God reaffirms His love for Israel in this important

junction in her infancy (Ezekiel 16.1-7); He reminds

her that He chose her and she is related by marriage

(Ezekiel 16.8-14), but she played the harlot (Ezekiel

16.15-34); however, the chastisement of dispersion was

meted out to her (Ezekiel 16.35-52), but God will not

set them aside, instead He will restore them (Ezekiel

16.53-63). (Sperry 317)

Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in

the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee

an everlasting covenant. Then thou shalt remember thy

ways, and be ashamed, when thou shalt receive thy

sisters, thine elder and thy younger: and I will give

them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant.

And I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou

shalt know that I am the Lord. (Ezekiel 16.60-62)

We find in Ezekiel a confirmation of the Palestinian land grant

covenant where it is called an eternal covenant where only He is

bound by His great love for Israel.

III. The Character of the Palestinian Covenant

Hill 250

With all the doubt within the church notwithstanding, the

Palestinian covenant must be viewed as an unconditional bond

between Israel and God on whom its integrity is resting. I have

several reasons to support this.

(1) It is spoken of by God an eternal in Ezekiel 16.60

(above). It could be eternal only if divergent from human

responsibility and brought to rest only the Word of the

Eternal One.

(2) It is wholly only part, and enlargement of parts of the

unconditional Abrahamic covenant. This makes the

reaffirmation of the Abrahamic covenant eternal like its

predecessor and unconditional as well.

(3) The Palestinian covenant has God’s guarantee that he

will do in the land grant everything he has said he will

do. This is confirmed in:

1. Romans 11.26-27, And so all Israel will be saved, as it is

written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will

turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is My covenant

with them, when I take away their sins.”

Hill 251

2. Hosea 2.21-23, “It shall come to pass in that day that I

will answer, says the Lord; I will answer the heavens, and

they shall answer the earth. The earth shall answer with

grain, with new wine, and with oil; they shall answer

Jezreel. Then I will sow her for Myself in the earth, and

I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy; then

I will say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My

people!’ And they shall say, ‘You are my God!’”

3. Deuteronomy 30.6, “And the Lord your God will circumcise

your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the

Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul,

that you may live.”

4. Ezekiel 11.16-21, Therefore say, 'Thus says the Lord God:

"Although I have cast them far off among the Gentiles, and

although I have scattered them among the countries, yet I

shall be a little sanctuary for them in the countries

where they have gone.” Therefore say, 'Thus says the Lord

God: "I will gather you from the peoples, assemble you

from the countries where you have been scattered, and I

will give you the land of Israel. And they will go there,

Hill 252

and they will take away all its detestable things and all

its abominations from there. Then I will give them one

heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take

the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart

of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My

judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I

will be their God…”

There is no doubt in my mind that Israel has suffered

greatly for her unfaithfulness. There is also little doubt that

Israel has been restored to the land just as God predicted some

3,000 years ago. The same God that restored her to a desolate

land has blessed her immensely and has written in the Word of God

that she also awaits future fulfillment that is in His hands.

Israel’s history has been rich in examples of her enemies being

judged, and that will occur again when the second advent of

Christ occurs.

Partial fulfillment which were all literal fulfillment, all

indicate the future fulfillment as literal, as well. Some have

argued of the conditional nature of the Palestinian covenant

because of the statements of Deuteronomy 30.1-3, “The word of the

Hill 253

Lord came to me again, saying, “Son of man, prophesy and say,

‘thus says the Lord God: “Wail, ‘Woe to the day!’ For the day is

near, even the day of the Lord is near; it will be a day of

clouds, the time of the Gentiles.” Dr. Pentecost gave a

reasonable answer to this argument by saying:

It should be observed that the only conditional element

here is the time element. The program is certain; the

time when this program is fulfilled depends upon the

conversion of the nation. Conditional time elements do

not make the whole program conditional, however.

(Pentecost 98)

IV. The Eschatology Implications of the Palestinian Covenant

On the basis from previous statements that the covenant is

unconditional there are several things that have happened from

the Scriptures. Israel must be converted as a nation; Israel has

been regathered from world-wide dispersion for the most part, and

have been restored in the land if even partially, will witness

the judgment of her enemies when Jesus Christ returns, and will

receive the material blessings promised to her in the covenants.

Hill 254

The Palestinian covenant is seen to have a wide influence on our

eschatological expectation.

This is an unconditional and eternal covenant which demands

a fulfillment, we then must provide for such future fulfillment

in our outline of future events. This was the expectation of the

prophets of God who wrote His very Words not just to the Jewish

race, but to the world of the Gentiles.

These are the promises offered to the apple of His eye

(Zechariah 2.8), regardless of that generation being the one that

lives to see the Messiah come and confirm the promises, or if

they reached the land through the resurrection, peace was theirs

because they would see what God had promised. Israel has been

restored partially to the very land that God gave them

originally. The David covenant will restore them to the rest when

the King comes and smites her enemies at the conclusion of

tribulation.

3. The Davidic Covenant

What the Abrahamic covenant means to eschatological

implications lie in the words land and sea. The Palestinian

covenant enlarges the land promises and confirms the covenant as

Hill 255

well. The next covenant of Israel’s is the one God made with

David, where God enlarges and confirms the seed promises. This is

the subject in the passages leading up to the formation of the

Davidic covenant.

2 Samuel 7.12, “When your days are fulfilled and you

rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after

you, who will come from your body, and I will establish

his kingdom.”

Psalm 89.3-4, “I have made a covenant with My chosen, I

have sworn to My servant David: ‘Your seed I will

establish forever, and build up your throne to all

generations.”

Jeremiah 33.22, “As the host of heaven cannot be

numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I

multiply the descendants of David My servant and the

Levites who minister to Me.”

Jeremiah 33.25-26, “Thus saith the Lord; If my covenant

be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed

the ordinances of heaven and earth; Then will I cast

away the seed of Jacob and David my servant, so that I

Hill 256

will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the

seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause

their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.”

The seed promise so prevalent in the Abrahamic covenant is

the centerpiece of the Davidic covenant. It encompasses both the

seed of Israel and David’s seed line, with his kingdom, house,

and the throne, all amplified.

I. The Importance of the Davidic Covenant

Essential in the Davidic covenant are many crucial issues

that face the student of Eschatology. For example, will there be

a literal millennium? Is the church the kingdom? What is God’s

kingdom? What is Christ’s kingdom? Will the nation Israel be

restored under her Messiah? Is the kingdom present or future?

These and many more crucial issues can only be decided by the

correct interpretation of that which was covenanted to David.

Louis Berkhof, himself an amillenarian, shows he is one when

he writes, “The only Scriptural basis for this theory (the

premillennial view of a thousand year kingdom) is Revelation

20.1-6, after an Old Testament content has been poured into it.”

(Berkhof, Systematic, 715) His statement “after an Old Testament

Hill 257

content has been poured into it…” shows a somewhat contemptuous

attitude toward the authenticity of the Bible. Otherwise, one can

only refute such a view stating what is so enormous a determining

place in the Word of God, the Davidic covenant, which promises

both a kingdom and a King, the Lord Jesus Christ.

II. The Provisions of the Davidic Covenant

It is helpful to know the promises made to David by God

which are given in 2 Samuel 7.12-16, where we read:

When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your

fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will

come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.

He shall build a house for My name, and I will

establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be

his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits

iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and

with the blows of the sons of men. But My mercy shall

not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I

removed from before you. And your house and your

kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your

throne shall be established forever.”

Hill 258

The Biblical account of the Davidic covenant is well covered

in the Word of God. God was dwelling in a tent made of leather

while David lived in a house of cedar. So it was the desire of

David to build God a suitable dwelling place. However, God knew

that David was a man of war and He could not allow him to build

it. God told David that his son Solomon would be the one to build

His sanctuary, because Solomon was known as the prince of peace.

However, God made pivotal promises to David concerning the

perpetuity of his house. Dr. Walvoord lists those promises.

The provisions of the Davidic covenant include, then,

the following items:

1. David will have a child, yet to be born, who is to

succeed him and will establish his kingdom.

2. David’s son (Solomon) shall build the temple

instead.

3. The throne of his kingdom shall be established

forever.

4. The throne will not be taken away from him even

though his sins justify chastisement.

Hill 259

5. David’s house, throne, and kingdom shall be

established forever. (Walvoord 98)

The keywords of this covenant, eschatologically, are three

words in Samuel 7.16: house, kingdom, and the throne. Dr.

Walvoord does the best job of defining these terms as used in the

covenant. He writes about the major terms of the covenant:

What do the major terms of the covenant mean? By

David’s “house” it can hardly be doubted that reference

is made to David’s posterity, his physical descendants.

It is assured that they will never to slain in toto,

nor displaced by another family entirely. The line of

David will always be the royal line. By the term

“throne” it is clear that no reference is made to a

material throne, but rather to the dignity and power

which was sovereign and supreme in David as king. The

right to rule always belonged to David’s seed. By the

term “kingdom” there is reference to David’s political

kingdom over Israel. By the expression “forever” it is

signified that the Davidic authority and Davidic

kingdom or rule over Israel shall never be taken from

Hill 260

David’s posterity. The right to rule will never be

transferred to another family, and its arrangement is

designed for eternal perpetuity. Whatever its changing

form, temporary interruptions, or chastisements, the

line of David will always have the right to rule over

Israel and will, in fact, exercise this privilege.

(Walvoord 99)

As with the other covenants of Israel, we find that the

Davidic covenant is restated and confirmed in later Scriptures.

In Psalm 89 the Psalmist is extolling God for His mercies, and in

Psalm 89.3 these mercies come because: “I have made a covenant

with My chosen, I have sworn to My servant David:  ‘Your seed I

will establish forever, And build up your throne to all

generations.’”

We know these promises are sure because:

My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that

has gone out of My lips.

Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to

David: His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as

the sun before Me; (Psalm 89.34-36)

Hill 261

This is confirmed in many places like Isaiah 9.6-7; Jeremiah

23.5-6; 30.8-9; 33.14-17; 20-21; Ezekiel 37.24-25; Daniel 7.13-

14; Hosea 3.4-5; Amos 9.11; and Zechariah 14.4, 9. This promise

to David is established by God as a formal covenant and then

thereafter is referred to as the basis on which God is operating

in regard to the kingdom, the house, and the throne.

III. The Character of the Davidic Covenant

As is the case with preceding covenants, the determinative

factor is the character of the covenant itself. Determine if it

is conditional and temporary or unconditional and eternal. The

amillennialist is bound to argue for a conditional covenant and a

spiritualized fulfillment, so that the throne on which Christ is

now seated at the right hand of the Father becomes the “throne”

of the covenant. Of course, the household of faith is the “house”

of the covenant, and the church becomes the “kingdom” of the

covenant. Dr. George L. Murray, an amillennialist, gives their

point of view when he writes:

The Davidic covenant, of which much has been said, was

to the effect that his seed would sit upon his throne

and had its natural fulfillment in the reign of king

Hill 262

Solomon. Its eternal aspects include the Lord Jesus

Christ of the seed of David; and in the book of Acts,

Peter insists that Christ’s resurrection and ascension

fulfilled God’s promise to David that his seed should

sit upon his throne. (see Acts 2.30) Why insist, then,

on a literal fulfillment of a promise which the

Scriptures certify to have had a spiritual fulfillment.

(Murray 44)

Summarizing Murray’s amillennial synopsis, Dr. Peters says

“It must be noted all the temporal aspects of the covenant are

said to have been fulfilled by Solomon and the eternal aspects

fulfilled by the present reign of Christ over the church. This

would make the “seed” the church and the “kingdom” promised in

the covenant. The kingdom becomes heavenly, not earthly and the

Davidic rule a type of Christ. Only by extensive allegorization

can such a view be held.” (Peters and Smith 345)

A. The Davidic covenant is unconditional in its character.

Carefully read, the only conditional portion of the covenant was

whether David’s descendants would continually occupy the throne,

or not. Disobedience might bring chastening, but never abrogate

Hill 263

the covenant. Peters addresses the obvious unconditional nature

of the covenant:

Some wrongfully infer that the entire promise is

conditional over against the most express declarations

to the contrary as to the distinguished One, the pre-

eminent Seed. It was, indeed, conditional as to the

ordinary seed of David (compare Psalm 89.30-34, and see

force of “nevertheless,” etc.), and if his seed would

have yielded obedience, David’s throne would never have

been vacated until the Seed, par excellence, came; but

being disobedient, the throne was overthrown, and will

remain thus “a tabernacle fallen down,” “a house

desolate,” until rebuilt and restored by the Seed. The

reader will not fail to observe that if fulfilled in

Solomon, and not having respect unto the Seed, how

incongruous and irrelevant would be the prophecies

given afterwards, as e.g. Jeremiah 33.17-26, etc.

(Peters and Smith 346)

David anticipated there would be an unbroken succession of

kings in his line, but nevertheless affirms the eternal character

Hill 264

of the covenant. In Psalm 89 David foretold the overthrow of his

kingdom (Psalm 89.38-45) before he realized what had been

promised (Psalm 89.20-29). Yet he anticipates the fulfillment of

the promise (Psalm 89.46-52) and blesses the Lord. Such was the

faith of David.

There are a number of good reasons that the Davidic Covenant

is unconditional.

1. The first and most important thing, like the rest of

Israel’s covenants, it is called eternal. It is eternal

in 2 Samuel 7.13, 16; 23.5; Isaiah 55.3; and Ezekiel

37.25. The only way it can be called eternal is that it

is unconditional and rests solely upon the integrity and

faithfulness of God for the execution.

2. Like each of Israel’s covenants, the Davidic covenant

only amplifies the “seed” promises of the Abrahamic

covenant, which has been demonstrated as unconditional.

The Davidic therefore partakes of the original character

of the Abrahamic.

3. The unconditional character of the Davidic covenant was

affirmed after repeated acts of disobedience by the

Hill 265

nation, Israel. Never forget, Jesus Christ came to offer

the Davidic kingdom after generations of apostasy. This

reaffirmation alone would and could not have been offered

if the covenant were conditional upon the response of the

nation.

B. The only way to interpret the David Covenant correctly is

literally. Dr. Peters addresses the question of literal

fulfillment more thoroughly perhaps than any other author. His

argument for the literal interpretation of the Davidic covenant

is presented:

Before censuring the Jews for believing that Jesus

would literally restore the Davidic throne and kingdom.

We must consider in fairness that they were justified

in so doing by the language of the covenant. It is

incredible that God should in the most important

matters affecting the interests and the happiness of

man and nearly touching His own veracity, cloth them in

words, which, if not true in their obvious and common

sense, would deceive the pious and God-fearing of many

ages.

Hill 266

(1) The words and sentences in their plain grammatical

acceptation, do expressly teach their belief. This

is denied by no one, not even those who then proceed

to spiritualize the language.

(2) The covenant is distinctly associated with the

Jewish nation and none other.

(3) It is called a perpetual covenant, i.e. one that

shall endure forever. It may, indeed, require time

before its fulfillment; it may even for a time be

held, so far as the nation is concerned, in the

background, but it must be ultimately realized.

(4) It was confirmed by oath (Psalm 132.11, and 89.3,

4, 33), thus giving the strongest possible assurance

of its ample fulfillment.

(5) To leave no doubt whatever, and to render unbelief

utterly inexcusable, God concisely and most forcibly

presents His determination (Psalm 89.34) “My

covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that

has gone out of My lips.” It would have been sheer

presumption and blindness in the Jews to have

Hill 267

altered (under the plea—modern—of spirituality) the

covenant, and to have refused to accept of the

obvious sense covered by the words; and there is a

heavy responsibility resting upon those, who, even

under the most pious intentions, deliberately alter

the covenant words and attach to them a foreign

meaning. (Peters and Smith 316)

Dr. Peters, and his graduate student Horace Smith, gives a

list of 21 compelling reasons for believing that the whole

concept of the Davidic throne and kingdom is to be understood

literally. He writes:

If the Davidic throne and kingdom is to be understood

literally, then all other promises necessarily follow;

and as the reception of this literal fulfillment forms

the main difficulty in the minds of many, a brief

statement of reasons why it must be received, is in

place.

1. It is solemnly covenanted, confirmed by oath, and

hence cannot be altered or broken.

2. The grammatical sense alone is becoming a covenant.

Hill 268

3. The impression mad on David, if erroneous, is

disparaging to his prophetical office.

4. The conviction of Solomon (2 Chronicles 6.14-16) was

that it referred to the literal throne and kingdom.

5. Solomon claims that the covenant was fulfilled in

himself, but only in so far that he too as David’s son

sat on David’s throne.

6. The language is that ordinarily used to denote the

literal throne and kingdom of David, as illustrated in

Jeremiah 17.25 and 22.4. 7.

7. The prophets adopt the same language, and its

constant reiteration under Divine guidance is evidence

that the plain grammatical sense is the one intended.

8. The prevailing belief of centuries, a national

faith, engendered by the language, under the teaching

of inspired men, indicates how the language is to be

understood.

9. The throne and kingdom is one of promise and

inheritance and hence refers not to the Divinity but to

the Humanity of Jesus.

Hill 269

10. The same is distinctively promised to David’s son,

“according to the flesh” to be actually realized, and,

therefore, He must appear the Theocratic King as

promised.

11. We have not the slightest hint given that it is to

be interpreted in any other way than a literal one; any

other is the result of pure inference.

12. Any other view than that of a literal

interpretation involves the grossest self-

contradiction.

13. The denial of a literal reception of the covenant

robs the heir of His covenanted inheritance.

14. No grammatical rule can be laid down which will

make David’s throne to be the Father’s throne in third

heaven.

15. That if the latter is attempted under the notion of

“symbolical” or “typical” then the credibility and

meaning of the covenants are left to the

interpretations of men, and David himself becomes “the

symbol” or “type” (creature as he is) of the Creator.

Hill 270

16. That if David’s throne is the Father’s throne in

heaven (the usual interpretation), then it must have

existed forever.

17. If such covenanted promises are to be are to be

received figuratively, it is inconceivable that they

should be given in their present form without some

direct affirmation, in some place, of their figurative

nature, God foreseeing (if not literal) that for

centuries they would be preeminently calculated to

excite and foster expectations, e.g. even from David to

Christ.

18. God is faithful in His promises, and deceives no

one in the language of His covenants.

19. No necessity existed why, if this throne promised

to David’s Son meant something else, the throne should

be so definitely promised in the form given.

20. The identical throne and kingdom overthrown are the

ones restored.

21. But the main, direct reasons for receiving the

literal covenanted language, is that David’s throne and

Hill 271

kingdom are made a requisite for the display of that

Theocratic ordering which God has already instituted,

but now holds in abeyance until the preparations are

completed, for the restoration and exaltation of the

Jewish nation which is preserved for this purpose, for

the salvation of the human race, which comes under the

Theocratic blessing, and for the dominion of a renewed

curse-delivered world. Such a throne and kingdom are

necessary to preserve the Divine Unity of Purpose in

the already proposed Theocratic line. (Peters and Smith

343-344)

The literal nature of the Davidic covenant is supported by

certain compelling evidences. For example:

1. The fulfilled portions of the covenant have been

fulfilled literally. As has been seen previously, any

encountered partial fulfillment governs the process to

use to understand the unfulfilled portion. Dr. Ryrie

states:

It is only necessary to mention briefly that David had

a son, that David’s throne was established, that

Hill 272

David’s kingdom was established, that Solomon built a

temple, that his throne was established and that he was

punished for disobedience. (Ryrie “Premillennial” 78)

2. Evidence is clear from the way David was led to

understand it. It is clear to see David understood that

God had given him a literal covenant, to be fulfilled

literally. Peters enlarges on this thought:

How did David himself understand this covenant? This is

best stated in his own language. Read Psalm 72 which

describes a Son infinitely superior to Solomon; reflect

Psalm 132, and after noticing that “the Lord had sworn

in truth unto David, He will not turn from it; of the

fruit of the body will I set upon thy throne” (where

Peter, Acts 2.30, 31, expressly refers to Jesus);

consider the numerous Messianic allusions in this and

other Psalms (Psalm 89; 110; 72; 48; 45; 21; 2; etc.),

so regarded and explicitly quoted in the New Testament,

by inspired men; ponder the fact that David calls Him

“my Lord,” “higher than the kings of the earth,” and

gives Him a position, power, dominion, immortality, and

Hill 273

perpetuity, that no mortal king can possibly attain to,

and most certainly we are not wrong in believing that

David himself, according to the tenor of the covenant

“thy Kingdom shall be established forever before thee,”

expected to be in this Kingdom of His Son and Lord both

to witness and experience its blessedness. (Peters 314)

Keep in mind, David himself, in his last words emphatically

said, "Yet He has made with me an everlasting covenant, Ordered

in all things and secure. For this is all my salvation and all my

desire.” (2 Samuel 23.5b) The prophet Isaiah reiterates by

pronouncing it an eternal covenant, “Incline your ear, and come

to Me. Hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an

everlasting covenant with you—the sure mercies of David.” (Isaiah

55.3) From this, it is hard to misconstrue that this denotes an

everlasting covenant this is sure and to never be revoked. Dr.

Peters makes a valid argument:

That David himself expected a literal fulfillment of

the promise is evident from his language which follows

the giving of the covenant; and in this literal

anticipation of the promise he returns thanks to God

Hill 274

and praises Him for selecting his house for honor and

in this establishing it for the ages, even forever (2

Samuel 7.8, etc., 1 Chronicles 17.16, etc.). It is

presumption to suppose that David returned thanks, and

thus prayer under a mistaken idea of the nature of the

covenant. (Peters and Smith 316)

3. There is ample evidence for the literal interpretation of

the Davidic covenant from the interpretation of the

covenant by the nation Israel. There is many literal

references throughout the Old Testament to the Davidic

covenant, especially in the prophetic books. This literal

hermeneutic continued throughout Jewish history, all the

way into today. Ryrie states:

The concept which the Jews had of this kingdom at this

time may be summed up under these five characteristics:

earthy, national, Messianic, moral, and future. The

hope was for an earthly kingdom. When Israel saw

Palestine under the rule of a foreign power, here hope

was the more intensified, because the kingdom she

expected was on that would be set upon the earth and

Hill 275

one that would naturally carry with it release from

foreign domination. The kingdom was to be national;

that is, the expected kingdom had a specific

relationship to Israel, being promised to that nation

alone. The kingdom was to be a moral kingdom, for

Israel was to be cleansed as a nation. Obviously the

kingdom was not yet in existence and was, therefore,

future at the time of the first coming of the Lord

Jesus Christ. Even all the glory under David and

Solomon was not comparable to the expected kingdom.

Consequently, all of Israel’s beliefs concerning this

kingdom were of the nature of unrealized hopes. Israel

looked to the future. (Ryrie 91)

4. There is evidence in New Testament Scriptures to support

literal interpretation of the Davidic covenant. Dr.

Walvoord writes of the New Testament as a whole as he

states:

The New Testament has in all fifty-nine references to

David. It also has many references to the present

session of Christ. A search of the New Testament

Hill 276

reveals that there is not one reference connecting the

present session of Christ with the Davidic throne. It

is almost incredible that in so many references to

David and in so frequent reference to the present

session of Christ on the Father’s throne there should

be not one reference connecting the two in any

authoritative way. The New Testament totally lacks in

positive teaching that the throne of the Father in

heaven is to be identified with the Davidic throne. The

inference is plain that Christ is seated on the

Father’s throne but that this is not at all the same as

being seated on the throne of David. (Walvoord 110)

From studies, I’ve conducted research where it can be shown

from the preaching in the New Testament concerning the kingdom by

John (Matthew 3.2), by Christ (Matthew 4.17), by the twelve

(Matthew 10.5-7), by the seventy (Luke 10.1-12); each of these

can be studied to see the earthly kingdom not once offered to

Israel in any fashion but literal.

Dr. Ryrie adds to this line of thought when he says, “Even

when Israel rejected the offer and the announcement of the

Hill 277

mystery of the kingdom (Matthew 13) Christ anticipates such an

earthly kingdom (Matthew 25.1-13, 31-46).” (Ryrie 102)

It is interesting to analyze the message of Gabriel, the

angel, whose message to her came directly from mouth of God, and

says to Mary:

And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring

forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be

great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and

the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father

David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob

forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

(Luke 1.31-33)

The angelic message of the Davidic covenant centered in on

three key and consistent points, the throne, the house, and

kingdom, each of which promised future fulfillment. The Davidic

held an important place in the first church council in Acts

15.14-17, where Dr. Walvoord writes:

The problem of the passage resolves into three

questions: 1) What is meant by the “tabernacle of

David”? 2) When is the “tabernacle of David” to be

Hill 278

rebuilt? The first question is settled by an

examination of the source, Amos 9.11, and its context.

The preceding chapters and the first part of chapter

nine deal with God’s judgment of Israel. It is summed

up in two verses which immediately precede the

quotation, “For surely I will command, and will sift

the house of Israel among all nations, as grain is

sifted in a sieve; yet not the smallest grain shall

fall to the ground. All the sinners of My people shall

die by the sword, who say, ‘The calamity shall not

overtake nor confront us.” (Amos 9.9-10) (Walvoord 111)

What follows almost immediately after the passage of the

judgment come the undeniable promise of blessing, “On that day I

will raise up the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, and

repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as

in the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom,

and all the Gentiles who are called by My Name,” says the Lord

who does this thing.” (Amos 9.11-12) Pentecost says the

reference refers to “the tabernacle of David as an expression

Hill 279

referring to the whole nation of Israel, and that in contrast to

the Gentile nations.” (Pentecost 110)

What is the meaning of the quotation of James in Acts 15.16-

17? Dr. Walvoord explains the passage in plain English. Speaking

of James, Walvoord says:

He states, in effect, that it was God’s purpose to

bless the Gentiles, as well as Israel, but in their

order. God was to visit the Gentiles first, “to take

out of them a people for his name.” James goes on to

say that this is entirely in keeping with the prophets,

for they had stated that the period of Jewish blessing

and triumph should be after the Gentile period. Instead

of identifying the period of Gentile conversion with

the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David, it is

carefully distinguished by the first (referring to

Gentile blessings), and after this (referring to

Israel’s coming glory.) The passage, instead of

identifying God’s purpose for the church and for the

nation Israel, established a specific time order,

Israel’s blessing will not come until “I return,” God

Hill 280

will first conclude His work for the Gentiles in the

period of Israel’s dispersion; then He will return to

bring in the promised blessings for Israel. It is,

needless to say, that this confirms the interpretation

that Christ is not now on the throne of David, bringing

blessing to Israel as the prophets predicted, but He is

rather on His Father’s throne waiting for the coming

earthly kingdom and interceding for His own form the

church.” (Walvoord 113)

This meeting formed the future of the church in the 1st

century. Dr. Ryrie, from one of his lectures spoke of the same

passage saying:

In regard to the Amos quotation in Acts 15.14-17, Arno

Clemens Gaebelein (1861-1945) gives a good analysis of

James’ words citing four points in the progression of

thought. First, God visits the Gentiles, taking from

them a people for His name. In other words, God has

promised to bless the Gentiles as well as Israel, but

each in his own order. The Gentile blessing is first.

Secondly, Christ will return. This is after the out

Hill 281

calling of the people for His name. Thirdly, as a

result of the Coming of the Lord, the tabernacle of

David will be built again; the kingdom will be

established as promised in the Davidic covenant. Amos

clearly declares that this rebuilding will be done “as

in the days of old” (Amos 9.11); that is, the blessing

will be earthly and national and will have nothing to

do with the Church. Fourthly, the residue of men will

seek the Lord, that is, the Gentiles will be brought to

the knowledge of the Lord after the kingdom is

established. Isaiah 2.2; 11.10; 40.5; 66.23; teach the

same truth. (Ryrie 102-103)

I believe it can be said with certainty, both the Old and

New Testaments speak to the Davidic covenant as being literal. As

this study has shown, there are deeply seated hermeneutic

differences between those that believe that he Bible can be read

literally where appropriate and those that want to make any of

the 200 different rhetorical devices to be read allegorically, or

make it say what they want to fit their theology.

Hill 282

C. What are the problems of a literal fulfillment that are

cited in academics? It can be said with captaincy that the

literal hermeneutic on the Davidic covenant is not without its

critics. We have already submitted a few, but perhaps we could

spend a little time reviewing the critic’s points. I have found

two contradictory answers which we will review.

Dr. Walvoord states, the problem of fulfillment does

not consist in the question of whether Christ is the

one who fulfills the promises, but rather on the issue

of how Christ fulfills the covenant and when He

fulfills the covenant. Concerning this question, there

have been two principal answers: 1) Christ fulfills the

promise by His present session at the right hand of the

Father in heaven; 2) Christ fulfills the promise of His

return and righteous reign on earth during the

millennium. (Walvoord 114)

In addressing these questions Dr. Peters speaks to the first

by saying:

No sophistry in spiritualizing, symbolizing, or

typicalizing can transmute the promise of the Davidic

Hill 283

throne and kingdom into something else, as e.g. into

the Father’s throne, the Divine Sovereignty, the

Kingdom of Grace, Gospel Dispensation, etc., for the

simple reason that the identical throne and kingdom,

now overturned, is the one that is promised to the

Messiah to be reestablished by Himself, as e.g. Amos

9.1l, Acts 15.16, Zechariah 2.12, Zechariah 1.16, 17,

etc. The Theocratic crown cast down, the Theocratic

throne overturned, the Theocratic kingdom overthrown,

is the crown, throne, the Kingdom that the Christ is to

restore. These belong to Christ by “right” (Ezekiel

31.25-27), and will be “given to Him.” These, too, are

linked with the restoration of the Jewish nation,

Jeremiah 33.14, Micah 4.6, 8, etc. These facts—the

existence of the throne at one time, its non-existence

for a period, its restoration again, it connection at

the restoration with the ancient people and land that

formed the original kingdom—these facts, as well as

many others that will be brought forward, indicate as

fully as language can possibly express it, that the

Hill 284

ancient faith in covenanted language must not be

discarded. (Peters 347)

Dr. Ryrie states something I believe deeply:

According to the Word of God, added to an adherence to

the established principles of interpretation, the

Davidic covenant demands a literal fulfillment. This

means that Christ must reign on David’s throne on the

earth over David’s people forever. (Ryrie 384)

Our second issue surrounds the history of David and Solomon

as related to the overall history of Israel. Dr. Ryrie more than

adequately deals with this issue when he writes:

The question that must be answered is this: does the

historical partial fulfillment disallow a future

literal fulfillment? The chief difficulties which

history brings up are three: One—there has been no

continuous development or continued authority of the

political kingdom of David. Two—Israel’s captivity and

the downfall of the kingdom would seem to argue against

a literal interpretation for a future fulfillment.

Third—the centuries which have passed since the first

Hill 285

advent of Christ would seem to indicate that a literal

fulfillment should not be expected. The premillennial

position holds that the partial historical fulfillment

in no way mitigates against the future fulfillment for

these four reasons. First, the Old Testament prophets

expected a literal fulfillment even during Israel’s

periods of great apostasy. Secondly, the covenant

demands a literal interpretation which also means a

future fulfillment. Thirdly, the New Testament teaches

that the present mystery form of the kingdom no way

abrogates the future fulfillment. Fourthly, the very

words of the covenant teach that, although Solomon be

disobedient, the covenant would nevertheless remain in

force, and that Solomon’s seed was not promised

perpetuity. The only necessary feature is that the

lineage cannot be lost, nor that the throne be occupied

continuously. (Ryrie 80)

When the Jews mistook the Messiah on the first try does not

mean the whole program of the Davidic covenant ended. We have

previously shown through the testimony of Stephen before the

Hill 286

Sanhedrin that the Jews have a history of getting it right on the

second try. The prerogatives of the throne are intact with Israel

in the land and the reestablishment of throne is still future.

Dr. Walvoord says that God played a little baseball and threw a

curve at Satan:

The line which was to fulfill the promise of the

eternal throne and eternal kingdom over Israel was

preserved by God through a lineage which, in fact, did

not sit on the throne at all, from Nathan down to Jesus

Christ. It is, then, not necessary for the line to be

unbroken as to actual conduct of the kingdom, but it is

rather that the lineage, the royal prerogative, and

right to the throne be preserved and never lost, even

in sin, captivity, and dispersion. It is not necessary,

then, for continuous political government to be in

effect, but it is necessary that the line be not lost.

(Walvoord 161)

To this point I believe I have presented more than

adequately that in the New Testament many passages show an

expectancy in a literal fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. This

Hill 287

sense of urgency, while natural, does not mitigate against the

attitude of a literal restoration of the Davidic kingdom that was

taught to the early church by the New Testament writers.

D. In regard to the question, has the covenant been

fulfilled historically? Amillennialist present this argument that

the covenant has been fulfilled historically in the empire of

Solomon. In their hypothesis they state the land ruled over by

Solomon (1 Kings 4.21), fulfills the Davidic covenant making any

future fulfillment unnecessary. As a literalist, you have to love

Dr. Ryrie’s reply to this:

In the very fact of using this text, the amillennialist

is admitting that the covenant was literally fulfilled!

Why, then, does he look for spiritual fulfillment by

the Church? However, we can point out four things which

were not fulfilled by Solomon. There was no permanent

possession of the land as promised to Abraham. All the

land was not possessed. “From the river of Egypt”

(Genesis 15.18) and “from the border of Egypt” (1 Kings

4.21) are not equivalent terms geographically. Solomon

did not occupy all this land; he merely collected

Hill 288

tribute. Temporary over-lordship is not everlasting

possession. Finally, hundreds of years after Solomon’s

time the Scriptures still abound in promises concerning

future possession of the land. This must prove that God

and His prophets realized, whether the amillennialist

does or not, that Solomon had not fulfilled the

Abrahamic covenant. (Ryrie 60-61)

In as much as the covenant has not been fulfilled literally

in Israel’s history, the future literal fulfillment of the

Davidic covenant is assured as it is an unconditional covenant.

This is true despite the age of skepticism, the U.S. and Germany

and France, and the United Nations of the god of this world at

this time.

IV. The Eschatological Implications of the Davidic Covenant

Because of the anticipation of a future literal fulfillment

of the Davidic covenant, certain facts present themselves

concerning the future of Israel.

1. Israel’s preservation as a nation is the first important

fact of the literal fulfillment of the Davidic covenant.

This was the favorite argument of the amillennialist up

Hill 289

until 14 May 1948; that Israel was not in the land. Dr.

Peters expounds on this point.

The covenanted Davidic throne and kingdom, allied as it

is with the Jewish nation necessarily requires a

preservation of the nation. This has been done, and

today we see the nation wonderfully continued down to

the present, although enemies, including the strongest

nations and most powerful empires, have perished. This

is not chance work; for, if our position is correct,

this is demanded, seeing that without the restoration

of the nation it is impossible to restore the Davidic

kingdom. The covenant language, the oath of God, the

confirmation of the promise by the blood of Jesus, the

prophetic utterances—all, notwithstanding the nations’

unbelief, requires its perpetuation, that through it

finally God’s promises and faithfulness may be

vindicated. God so provides that His Word may be

fulfilled. Every Jew, if we will but ponder the matter

that we meet on our streets is a living evidence that

the Messiah will yet some day reign gloriously on

Hill 290

David’s throne and over His Kingdom, from which to

extend a world-wide dominion. (Peters 351)

2. With Israel being in the land since 1948, the next step

for her is to inherit the land that David’s kingdom had

geographically. These boundaries were a feature of what

was promised to David, and will someday future be given

to her as part of the site of their national boundaries.

3. As a part of the Davidic covenant, the Jesus Christ must

return to the earth physically and literally, to rule and

reign over the Davidic kingdom from Jerusalem. Dr. Mark

Hitchcock states, “The allegation that Christ is seated

on the Father’s throne reigning over a spiritual kingdom,

the church, simply does not fulfill the promises of the

covenant.” (Hitchcock 452)

4. One of the highlights of this covenant is a literal

kingdom on earth which will be brought into existence by

the Lord Jesus Christ when he reigns from Jerusalem. Dr.

Peters states:

The fulfillment of the covenant promises implies, in

view of this restored Davidic throne and kingdom, that

Hill 291

the Messianic Kingdom is a visible, external Kingdom,

not merely spiritual, although embracing spiritual and

divine things. Its visibility, and a corresponding

acknowledgment of the same is a feature inseparable

from the language of promise. (Peters 352)

5. This kingdom will be an earthly kingdom forever.

Subsequently, the “throne,” “house,” and “kingdom” each

promised to David forever, therefore, the kingdom will

have no end and the Messiah’s reign over the Davidic

kingdom for David’s throne is yet future.

It is somewhat an understatement that the Davidic covenant

is of vital importance to our understanding the road ahead. It is

also the biggest hermeneutical difference with the adherents of

covenant theology.

4. The New Covenant Argument – Israel or the Church?

On the road ahead, we have arrived at the last of the four

determinative covenants into which God entered into with Israel;

the New covenant.

I. The Importance of the New Covenant

Hill 292

This New covenant guarantees Israel a converted heart as the

cornerstone foundation to all her blessings. God has a specific

procedure according to the principles laid out in the Old

Testament for the conversion to occur, or it cannot be effected

permanently. There can be no conversion without the shedding of

blood; the New covenant requires a sacrifice that is acceptable

to a righteous God, as the foundation on which it is instituted.

Now the good news for every Jew in the entire world. God offered

up the Son of God in the center of an ages-long plan of

redemption for mankind. Since this covenant entails that

sacrificial offering, great importance is to be attached to it.

Dr. Pentecost defines the importance of this covenant when he

says, “The whole covenant takes on importance, in addition, for

amillennialism attempts to show that the church is fulfilling

Israel’s covenants because the church today is redeemed by

blood.” (Pentecost 116)

Hitchcock says, “The amillennialist states if the church

fulfills this covenant, she may also fulfill the other covenants

made with Israel and there is no need for an earthly millennium.”

Hill 293

(Hitchcock 452) Because of these considerations the New covenant

must be examined.

II. The Provision of the New Covenant

The New covenant promises to Israel are stated in Jeremiah

31.31-34, where we read:

Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will

make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with

the house of Judah—not according to the covenant that I

made with their fathers in the day that I took them by

the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My

covenant which they broke though I was a husband to

them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I

will make with the house of Israel after those days,

says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and

write it on their The New covenant promises to Israel

are stated in Jeremiah 31.31-34hearts, and I will be

their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall

every man teach his neighbor, and every man his

brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall

know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of

Hill 294

them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity,

and their sin I will remember no more.

Dr. Ryrie, the former dean of the Dallas Theological

University, well summarizes the important provisions and

implications of the New covenant with Israel when he states:

The following provisions for Israel, the people of the

New covenant, to be fulfilled in the millennium, the

period of the New covenant, are found in the Old

Testament.

1. The New covenant is an unconditional, grace covenant

resting on the “I will” of God. The frequency of the

use of this phrase in Jeremiah 31.31-34 is striking.

(cf. Ezekiel 16.60-62)

2. The New covenant is an everlasting covenant. This is

closely related to the fact that it is unconditional

and made in grace (Isaiah 61.2; Ezekiel 37.26;

Jeremiah 31.35-37)

3. The New covenant also promises the impartation of a

renewed mind and heart which we may call

regeneration (Jeremiah 31.33, cf. Isaiah 59.21)

Hill 295

4. The New covenant provides for restoration to the

favor and blessing of God (Hosea 2.19-20, cf. Isaiah

61.9)

5. Forgiveness of sin is also included in the covenant,

“for I will remove their iniquity, and I will

remember their sin no more” (Jeremiah 31.34b).

6. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit will be

manifested, and the will of God will be known by

obedient hearts (Jeremiah 31.34)

7. The teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit will be

manifested, and the will of God will be known by

obedient hearts (Jeremiah 31.34)

8. As is always the case when Israel is in the land,

she will be blessed materially in accordance with

the provisions of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 32.41;

Isaiah 61.8; Ezekiel 34.25-27)

9. The sanctuary will be rebuilt in Jerusalem, for it

is written, “I will set My sanctuary in their midst

forevermore. (Ezekiel 37.26-27)

Hill 296

10. War will cease and peace will reign according to

Hosea 2.18. The fact that this is also a definite

characteristic of the millennium (Isaiah 2.4)

further supports the fact that the New covenant is

millennial in its fulfillment.

11. The blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is the

foundation of all the blessings of the New covenant,

for “Because of the blood of your covenant, I will

set your prisoners free from the waterless pit.”

(Zechariah 9.11)

By way of summary, it may be said that as far as the

Old Testament teaching of the New Covenant is

concerned, the covenant was made with the Jewish

people. Its period of fulfillment is yet future

beginning when the Deliverer shall come and continuing

throughout all eternity. Its provisions for the nation

Israel are glorious, and they all rest and depend on

the very Word of God. (Ryrie “Premillennial” 112-114)

The New covenant was one that I was forced to learn early on

in my ministry career. Replacement Theology, whose theology

Hill 297

teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s program, is

a false teaching. Confirmation of the New covenant is specified

in many places, one of which is Isaiah 61.8-9, identified by the

prophet here as everlasting, and again in Ezekiel 37.21-28. Dr.

Walvoord enlightens us with the following points:

(1) Israel is to be regathered. (2) Israel to be one

nation, ruled by one king. (3) Israel no longer to

be idolatrous, to be cleansed and forgiven. (4)

Israel to dwell “forever” in the land after

regathering. (5) The covenant of peace with them to

be everlasting. (6) God’s tabernacle to be with

them, i.e. He will be present with them in a visible

way. (7) Israel to be known among Gentiles as a

nation blessed of God. All of these promises are

implicit in the basic passage of Jeremiah, but they

confirm, enrich, and enlarge the covenant. (Walvoord

197)

It is safe to say this covenant covers:

1. The regathering of Israel, and

Hill 298

2. Israel again possessing the land as a national force

ruled by the King Jesus.

3. Israel will be forgiven, and justified.

4. Israel will be restored under the blood of the Lamb

to blessings unabated.

III. The Character of the New Covenant

As with all of Israel’s covenants, once again this covenant

is both literal and unconditional. Here are the highlights I have

observed.

(1) It is identified as an eternal covenant in Isaiah 24.5;

61.8; Jeremiah 31.36, 40; 32.40; 50.5. What is so

difficult to understand about the word eternal?

(2) This covenant shows God’s grace and depends on the “I

will” statements of God for its fulfillment in Jeremiah

31.33. It does not depend upon man’s compliance. If it

did, they would not be in the land.

(3) This covenant amplifies the third great area of the

Abrahamic covenant, in the area of “blessings.” Inasmuch

as this is only an amplification of the original

Hill 299

Abrahamic covenant, which has been shown conclusively as

unconditional and literal, this covenant must be also.

(4) Salvation is the cornerstone of this covenant with the

cleansing from sin and the impartation of a new heart.

Salvation is solely a work from God. The New covenant

guarantees salvation to the nation Israel (Romans 9, 10,

and 11) which is apart from all human agency and

therefore unconditional.

IV. The Fulfillment of the New Covenant

Amillenarians use the New Testament in referencing the

Scriptures in an effort to substantiate that the church has

somehow fulfilled the Old Testament promise to Israel. If this is

true, and it is not, there would be no need of a millennium,

because under their scenario the church is the kingdom. Dr. Allis

is representative of the amillennialist when he discusses Hebrews

8.8-12 by saying:

The passage speaks of the new covenant. It declares

that this new covenant has

been already introduced and that by virtue of the fact

it is called “new” it has made the one which it is

Hill 300

replacing “old,” and that the old is about to vanish

away. It would be hard to find a clearer reference to

the gospel age in the Old Testament than in these

verses in Jeremiah. (Allis 154)

In reply to such unsupported allegations, it becomes

essential to examine the pertinent points of the New covenant.

A. Let us identify the nation with whom the New covenant is

made. From Scriptures already cited, it should be abundantly

clear the New covenant was made by God with Israel. Israel is the

physical seed of Abraham according to the flesh, and with them

alone. This is made crystal clear with these three facts:

a. One only has to study the words of the prophet in

the establishment of the covenant itself, Jeremiah

31.31. Other passages supporting this fact include:

twice in Isaiah 59.20-21; 61.8-9; twice in Jeremiah

32.37-40; 50.4-5; and three time in Ezekiel 16.60-

63; 34.25-26; 37.21-28.

b. The Old Testament clearly teaches the New covenant

is for Israel alone is seen in the name of the

covenant when contrasted with the Mosaic covenant.

Hill 301

Obviously, throughout the covenant program, all were

made with the same people and nation in mind, the

Jews and Israel. The Scriptures confirm this: Romans

2.14, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law,

by nature do the things in the law, these, although

not having the law, are a law to themselves, who

show the work of the law written in their hearts,

their conscience also bearing witness, and between

themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing

them)…”; Romans 6.14, “For sin shall not have

dominion over you, for you are not under law but

under grace.”; Galatians 3.24-25, “Therefore the law

was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might

be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we

are no longer under a tutor.”; 2 Corinthians 3.7-11,

“But if the ministry of death, written and engraved

on stones, was glorious, so that the children of

Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses

because of the glory of his countenance, which glory

was passing away, how will the ministry of the

Hill 302

Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of

condemnation had glory, the ministry of

righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even

what was made glorious had no glory in this respect,

because of the glory that excels. For if what is

passing away was glorious, what remains is much more

glorious.”; Leviticus 26.46, “These are the statutes

and judgments and laws which the Lord made between

Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai by

the hand of Moses.”; Deuteronomy 4.8, “Hear, O

Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! You shall

love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all

your soul, and with all your strength. “And these

words which I command you today shall be in your

heart. You shall teach them diligently to your

children, and shall talk of them when you sit in

your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie

down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a

sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets

between your eyes.” When carefully studied and

Hill 303

abandoning preconceived notions of thinking, there

is little room for doubt as to who the law pertains.

Moses gave the law to Israel, and the Mosaic

covenant, being the old covenant, was made

exclusively with Israel. Made between two parties,

The New covenant was an agreement between God and

one country—Israel.

c. The New covenant was a two party agreement between

God and Israel alone, established for perpetuity.

God promised to bring her back to the land which was

a vital part of this two party agreement (Jeremiah

31.35-40).

Dr. Ryrie, on this very subject states,

Thus, we conclude that for these three incontrovertible

reasons: the very words of the text, the name itself,

and the connecting with the perpetuity of the nation,

the New covenant according to the teaching of the Old

Testament is for the people of Israel. (Ryrie

“Premillennial” 116)

Hill 304

B. What is the timing of the fulfillment of the New

Covenant? From the facts known, the timing of the New covenant

was future. From the Old Testament, it is clearly a future event

from the covenant prophecies. For example, Hosea 2.18-20, which

seems to imply the regathering of Israel in 1948; Isaiah 55.3,

which emphatically states this it is an external covenant with

Israel; Ezekiel 16.60, 62, where it clearly speaks of the New

Covenant as yet future; Ezekiel 20.37, the purging process by God

that could not happen until Israel is in the land; and 34.25-26,

may be happening now as well as in the future, all these with the

one nation Israel as a covenant. With the covenant firmly made

with Israel it has to be future for one obvious reason, it

guarantees their salvation and restoration to all the land. Dr.

Ryrie elaborates:

The sequence of events set up by the prophet (Jeremiah

32.37, 40-41) is that Israel will first be regathered

and restored to the land and then will experience the

blessings of the New covenant in the land. History

records no such sequence. God cannot fulfill the

covenant until Israel is regathered as a nation. Her

Hill 305

complete restoration is demanded by the New covenant,

and this has not yet taken place in the history of the

world. Fulfillment of the prophecies requires the

regathering of all Israel, their spiritual rebirth, and

the return of Christ. (Ryrie “Premillennial” 116b)

The timing of the covenant must follow the return of Christ

at the second coming. The blessings of the covenant will not be

realized until the salvation promised Israel, and this salvation

follows the return of the Deliverer.

And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The

Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away

ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with

them, when I take away their sins.” (Romans 11.26-27)

Paul here is referring directly to New covenant which is

obvious because this New covenant of all the unconditional

covenants expressly states that God will by his grace remove all

there ungodliness “when I take away their sins.” It is also

stated to be actually after the coming of the Deliverer. It is my

conjecture, this covenant will occur and be realized in the

millennium. Dr. Ryrie agrees:

Hill 306

Passages such as Jeremiah 31.34; Ezekiel 34.25; and

Isaiah 11.6-9, which give descriptions of the blessing

to be experienced in the time of the fulfillment of the

New covenant, show that the New covenant will be

realized by Israel in the millennial age. (Ryrie 118)

This fact alone establishes one as a dispensationalist. Our

conclusion to the question of timing of the New covenant is

future because it was future during the time of the prophets, and

was future during the time of the New Testament, it can only be

realized after the Second Advent of Jesus Christ in the

millennium age.

C. What is the relationship of the church to the New covenant? I

have found five clear references to the New covenant in the New

Testament. They are Luke 22.20, which occurs during the last

supper where Jesus teaches the disciples the communion procedure,

symbolically of his body and blood; 1 Corinthians 11.25, in which

Paul is teaching the communion procedure as he had been taught to

the church at Corinth; 2 Corinthians 3.6, Paul again teaching the

communion procedure in a slightly different context and perhaps a

different home church at Corinth; Hebrews 8.8; 9.15, both

Hill 307

passages by the writer of the Hebrew letter, whether Paul or not,

speaks to the New covenant which includes the Redeemer’s return

to cleanse Israel’s sin through the blood of the Lamb. There are

six additional references to the New covenant. They are Matthew

26.28, speaking of Jesus blood shed for the remission of sin

without New being attached to it in the Greek; Mark 14.24; Romans

11.27; Hebrews 8.10-13, and 12.24. The church is not a building,

but the believers who makeup the congregation. The question

arises then, what is the relationship of the believers of the

present age of the New covenant? The question is extremely

important, because we have already demonstrated the contention of

the amillennialist that the church is now fulfilling the Old

Testament prophecies and, therefore, there is no need of a

millennium.

A. Three Premillennial Views of the Relationship of the Church

to the New Covenant

1. Our study of the road ahead will review each of the three

premillennial views as to their differences and how they relate

to the church, keeping fresh in our minds that this covenant was

made by God with Israel.

Hill 308

a. John Nelson Darby provides the first view. William Kelly

has extensive writings of Darby’s works and says, “He

presents the view that there was one and only one New

covenant in Scripture, made with the house of Israel and

Judah and to be realized at a future time, to which the

church bears no relationship whatsoever.” (Kelly, “Darby”

Kelly continues with Darby saying:

This covenant of the letter is made with Israel, not

with us, but we get the benefit of it. Israel is not

accepting the blessing, God brought out the church, and

the Mediator of the covenant went on high. We are

associated with the Mediator. It will be good to Israel

by and by. (Kelly, “Darby” 565)

Darby, in another book, said this:

The gospel is not a covenant, but the revelation of the

salvation of God. It proclaims the great salvation. We

enjoy indeed all the essential privileges of the New

covenant, its foundation being laid on God’s part in

the blood of Christ, but we do so in the spirit, not

according to the letter. The New covenant will be

Hill 309

established formally with Israel in the millennium.

(Darby 286)

Dr. Kelly writes that Darby makes another important

observation of the blood of the Mediator when he says:

The foundation of the new has been laid in the blood of

the Mediator. It is not to us that the terms of the

covenant, quoted from Jeremiah by the apostle, have

been fulfilled, or that we are Israel and Judah, but

that while the covenant is founded, not upon the

obedience of a living people, to whom the blessing

thereupon was to come, and the blood of a victim shed

by a living mediator, but upon the obedience unto death

of the Mediator Himself, on which (as its secure,

unalterable foundation of grace) the covenant is

founded. (Kelly, “Darby” 79)

Darby makes this final observation:

It is, then, the annexed circumstances of the covenant

with which we have to do, not the formal blessings

which in terms have taken place of the conditions of

Hill 310

the old, though some of them may, in a sense, be

accomplished in us. (Darby 288)

Darby takes the position that, in all the New covenant’s New

Testament references, the New covenant is likened to the covenant

of Jeremiah 31. Even in the New Testament there is not one

mention of the church age, although the blessings of the covenant

comes to others besides the nation of Israel, since Jesus

Christ’s blood “was shed for many.” Darby believes it will,

however, be literally fulfilled in the millennium.

I agree with Darby on certain points presented by him.

1. The Mediator work was necessitated by Jeremiah 31

and it was completed in the precious act of the

death of Christ that makes the New covenant even

possible.

2. Darby states, “The New covenant was originally made

with the houses of Israel and Judah and will be

fulfilled in them literally in the millennium. The

covenant can only be fulfilled by those it was made

with, and since the church is not Israel, the church

cannot fulfill that covenant.” (Darby 113)

Hill 311

3. Even though the church today is in the “Laodicea

period,” any blessings which Christ bestows on his

body of believers are all based on the sacrifice He

made by spilling his blood, also necessarily shed to

make possible the New covenant.

b. The second view is that of Scofield. His view is more

generally accepted than the view by Darby. Scofield says,

“The New covenant secures the perpetuity, future

conversion, and blessings of Israel, and it secures the

eternal blessedness of all who believe.” (Scofield 1297

and 1298)

With Scofield’s view there is a two-fold application in the

New covenant; one to the church during the church age, and one to

the nation of Israel in the future in the millennium. Dr. Lincoln

writes:

The blood of the New Covenant shed upon the cross of

Calvary is the basis of all of the blessings of all of

the blessings of the believer in the present age. The

believer, therefore, participates in the worth to the

sinner of the New covenant, so that he partakes of the

Hill 312

Lord’s supper in remembrance of the blood of the New

covenant, (2 Corinthians 3.6). It is also said of the

believer that he is a child of Abraham because he is of

faith (Galatians 3.7), and of Christ, (Galatians 3.29).

He is also said to partake of the root and fatness of

the olive tree, which is Abraham and Israel, (Romans

11.17). So too, though as an unbelieving Gentile he is

an “alien” and “stranger,” (Ephesians 2.12), he is no

longer such, (Ephesians 2.19), because he has been made

nigh by the blood of Christ, (Ephesians 2.13). He

benefits in the New covenant as a fellow-citizen of the

saints and of the household of God, (Ephesians 2.19),

and not as a member of the commonwealth of Israel,

(Ephesians 2.12). (Lincoln 202)

F.W. Grant on the church and the New covenant states:

We must remember that God is speaking here explicitly

of His earthly people, and not of any heavenly one. The

people with whom this covenant will be made will be a

people in that day entirely according to His mind. It

will be asked how, according to this, the New covenant

Hill 313

applies at all to us. Other Scriptures answer this

clearly by assuring us that if we have not the covenant

made with us, it can yet, in all the blessings of which

it speaks, be ministered to us. (Grant 48)

Grant’s view has the body of Christ on the earth, the

church, within the scope of the New covenant, which puts the

church relationship clearly as partial fulfillment of the

covenant, as well, Grant agrees with Scofield and the Scriptures

that the blood of Christ is the driving force of the New covenant

with Israel and any relationship that the church may have through

Jesus Christ. Christ death was sufficient for Israel and the

church. The church, however, cannot replace Israel in any way

under the covenant. Scofield and Darby agree Israel is the main

recipient of the covenant and a majority of the future

fulfillment of it is for them. Any application of the covenant to

the church, as the Scofield position holds, does not negate the

primary application to Israel.

c. The third view is the two-covenant view. (Chafer 325) The

view as described by Chafer maintains there are two

covenants in view in the New Testament. One with Israel

Hill 314

which reaffirms the covenant promise in Jeremiah 31, and

another with the church being wrapped up in this age.

Pentecost shows how this would work when he says:

This view, essentially, would divide the references to

the New covenant in the New Testament into two groups.

The references in the Gospels and in Hebrews 8.6; 9.15;

10.29; and 13.20 would refer to the New covenant with

the church, Hebrews 8.7-13 and 10.16 would refer to the

New covenant with Israel, and Hebrews 12.24 would

refer, perhaps, to both—emphasizing the fact of the

mediation accomplished and the covenant program

established without designating the recipients.

(Pentecost 124)

This view accepts Darby’s view that Israel alone will

fulfill the New covenant. Additionally, it views the role of the

church as its relationship with God through the New covenant as

their part that was establish with them. It is not my place to be

a mediator to settle the differences of opinions among the

different premillennialism theologies on this question of the

relation of the church on the New covenant. Without regard to the

Hill 315

relationship of the church within the New covenant, there is

agreement between all three parties on one general point.

Jeremiah 31.31-34 is the New covenant the will be fulfilled by

the nation Israel alone and never by the church. They each have

different origins, and they each have different destinies as

well.

Since this was a literal and unconditional covenant made with the

nation Israel, who came from the physical seed of Abraham, the

relationship of the church is through the blood sacrifice of the

Lord Jesus Christ which is required by covenant which does not

mitigate the covenant promises of God which He made with Israel.

Separately from the relationship of the church through the blood

of Christ Jesus, the covenant stands unfulfilled and still

future.

B. The Jeremiah 31 included in Hebrews 8 Controversy

2. Is Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8 which would necessitate the

church would be fulfilling that covenant?

A brief summary of the question above is from the source,

which is Replacement theology and/or Covenant theology. You will

recall the Allis contended the Hebrews 8 “declares that this new

Hill 316

covenant has been already introduced.” (Allis 154) Carefully

study Hebrews 8, and the result will yield no intimation or

intentional statement within the Hebrew passage. What Hebrews

does, on the contrary, is use the quotation of Jeremiah 31 to

show the old covenant was ineffectual and temporary and was

superseded by an effectual covenant. This would aid the Hebrew

people to understand not to be surprised that a new and better

covenant should be preached. Further, it is not wise to put their

trust in the old which had been done away with. Dr. Walvoord

wrote the following in regard to Hebrews 8:

The argument of Hebrews 8 reveals the truth that Christ

is the Mediator of a better covenant than Moses,

established upon better promises (Hebrews 8.6). The

argument hangs on the point that the Mosaic covenant

was not faultless—was never intended to be an

everlasting covenant (Hebrews 8.7). In the confirmation

of this point, the new covenant of Jeremiah is cited at

length, proving that the Old Testament itself

anticipated the end of the Mosaic law in that a new

covenant is predicted to supplant it. The writer of

Hill 317

Hebrews singles out of the entire question the one word

new and argues that this would automatically make the

Mosaic covenant old (Hebrew 8.12). A further statement

is made that the old covenant is “becoming old” and “is

nigh unto vanishing away.” It should be noted that

nowhere in this passage is the new covenant with Israel

declared in force. The only argument is that which was

always true—the prediction of a new covenant

automatically declares the Mosaic covenant as a

temporary, not an everlasting covenant. (Walvoord 201)

So, in Hebrews 8 the promise of Jeremiah is quoted only to

illustrate that the Mosaic covenant, that is the old, was

temporary from the beginning, and Israel should not put their

faith in that which was old and temporary, instead look forward

in faith to the eternal to come. Here, as in Hebrews 10.16, the

Jeremiah is brought forward not to state what is promised, or

what is promised is now in effect or operational, but instead

ineffectual and temporary, and anticipatory of a new covenant. It

is misleading of this theology to teach that the Hebrew writer

Hill 318

was saying the New covenant with Israel is now operative in the

church.

C. The New Covenant and the Disciples

3. Historically, how did the disciples view the New

covenant? Jesus Christ disciples who lived, talked, and walked

with Him daily were all raised in the Torah and were familiar

with the Septuagint. So when they were with Jesus the evening

before his death they would have had no other historical

reference in which to understand the Lord but Jeremiah 31,

Several things are to be observed about the record of this

reference on that occasion.

From the passages of Matthew 26.28 and Mark 14.24 the

statements are recorded: “For this is My blood of the new

covenant…” When carefully analyzed, the emphasis of this

statement is really on the soteriological aspects of the

covenant. The blood of the Messiah was being offered as a

requirement for the purpose of giving remission of sins, the

basis of the promised New covenant in Jeremiah 31.

Hill 319

From both Luke 22.20 and 1 Corinthians 11.25 we see the same

statement “This is the new covenant in my blood…” This statement

is emphasizing the eschatological aspects of the New covenant,

stating the authentication of the New covenant is His death. Now

the passage and principle stated in Hebrews 9.16-17 becomes much

clearer:

For where there is a testament, there must also of

necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament

is in force after men are dead, since it has no power

at all while the testator lives.

The importance of the following cannot be understated. Jesus

was using the New covenant as a reference to Israel’s forthcoming

covenant of Jeremiah. It seems the Lord must have been stating

that the very covenant was being instituted with His death, and

they were all ministers of the blood. This was the soteriological

aspect of the New covenant which God originally gave them.

However, Israel will not receive the full extent of its

fulfillment nor the full extent of the blessing until it is made

actual to them at the second advent of Christ (2 Corinthians

3.6). Then “all Israel shall be saved…for this is my covenant

Hill 320

unto them, when I shall take away their sins. (Romans 11.26-27)

This is the passages where after the incremental number of

believers is received and the rapture of the church, the blinders

will be taken off the eyes of the Jewish race to see the Messiah.

(Romans 11.26-27)

D. Reasons Why the Church is not Fulfilling Israel’s New Covenant

4. There are several considerations to show that the church

has never, is not now fulfilling, or will ever fulfill Israel’s

New covenant. I will list a few that show this premise

conclusively, that the church is not now fulfilling Israel’s New

covenant.

(1) The term Israel is nowhere identified in Scripture

for anything but the physical descendants of Abraham.

The church, on the other hand, is composed

predominately of Gentiles with an increasing number of

Jews without national distinction. It then becomes

impossible for the church to fulfill these promises

made to the nation Israel.

(2) Within the New covenant, as we have previously

outlined the dynamics of the provisions, it contained

Hill 321

both earthly promises and spiritual blessings. Both the

church and Israel are promised salvation through the

forgiveness of sin and the ministry of the Holy Spirit,

only Israel is promised inheritance of the land, and

material blessings abounding on the earth. Israel will

also benefit from the rest from the oppression of her

enemies which currently surround her. In addition to

this, Israel is also promised under the New covenant a

new life in the millennial earth as all the benefits of

the covenant are realized. Realistically the church is

in no way is fulfilling the material portions of the

covenant. One only has to refer to the persecution of

the church throughout the ages to see this point.

Additionally, the church in America has been so blessed

by God that they are now lazy, naked and blind.

Unrighteousness rules the land, and the church is but a

distant rumbling without compassion for the lost and

dying, the sick, the homeless, and stand securely in

the circle of apostasy.

Hill 322

(3) Now the church does receive the blessing of the

Abrahamic covenant according to Paul to the Galatia

church (Galatians 3.14; 4.22-31). This is appropriated

by faith without the church being under or fulfilling

the Abrahamic, but does receive blessings under the New

covenant while not being under or fulfilling the New

covenant either.

(4) Even the time element of the New covenant, both

originally or in its restatement in the Hebrew letter,

precludes the church from agency in its fulfillment.

The fulfillment for Israel will, as I have previously

stated, occur at the end of the tribulation when Israel

cries out to the Deliverer “Blessed is He who comes in

the Name of the Lord (Matthew 23.39).” Then immediate

relief from that terrible time on the earth will

instantly come from Jesus Christ.

(5) While the church has gone through periods of

persecution and tribulation it has never been through

the promised “Day of our Lord” tribulation, after the

rapture of the church. The belief that that church is

Hill 323

already in the millennium prevails in America today,

which is clearly impossible. Scripturally, the New

covenant will only be realized after the second advent

of the Messiah, this according to the passages in

Romans 11.26-27.

Some final thoughts on the church taking Israel’s position

in the New covenant. Clearly scriptures tell us that the

principal in the covenant will not realize fulfillment of the

covenant until after the tribulation, those that believe this

need to consult the Scriptures through the power of the Holy

Spirit. The body of Christ was never birthed to suffer through

God’s wrath.

V. The Eschatological Implications of the New Covenant

We have clearly demonstrated that the New covenant has never

been fulfilled to the nation Israel. What is yet to be fulfilled

will show how extensively an eschatological program awaits

fulfillment. Israel, by the New covenant decree, must be restored

to all the land that God promised them, which they will someday

possess as their own. The world is not trying to fulfill the

land-grant portion of the New covenant, in fact, quite the

Hill 324

opposite. However, the New covenant also guarantees the

preservation of the nation, which is dependent on God entirely.

This takes place during greatest event ever to been seen by

mankind, the return of Messiah to the earth. Israel must

experience the greatest outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the

history of the world which, with the Messiah, will produce

righteousness in each individual and teach each one so that there

will be the fullness of knowledge of God. Jesus Christ, ruling

and reigning from Jerusalem, will give Israel material blessings

directly from the hand of the King. The land that belongs to

Israel that others have taken will be reclaimed, built, and will

be the most magnificent center that the entire world to want to

see. The Messiah, Jesus Christ, who came and shed his blood as

the foundation of the covenant is personally coming back to the

earth to effect that salvation, restoration, and blessing of the

national Israel. All of these important eschatological principles

are made necessary by Israel’s New covenant.

My concluding thoughts on the covenants we have covered. The

four unconditional covenants between God and the nation Israel

have been surveyed to show they are not only unconditional, but

Hill 325

also eternal covenants. These were made with covenanted people,

and are going to be fulfilled only because of the faithfulness of

the One who gave the covenants. These covenants have a

significance with one nation only, the nation Israel. The

covenants bind God to a course of action in relation to future

events, which determines the course of Eschatology. When we

carefully study analytically, we find seven great features which

are determinative, provided by Dr. Chafer:

1. A nation forever (reborn 14 May 1948)

2. A land forever

3. A King forever

4. A throne forever

5. A kingdom forever

6. A new covenant, and

7. Abiding blessings. (Chafer 315)

Chapter 7

The Course of the Present Age – Dispensation Theology

I. The Divine Program of the Ages

A. The relation of Jesus Christ to the history of the

creation of the world. It is not difficult to recognize, unless

Hill 326

you are an agnostic or atheist, when Jesus Christ is mentioned in

the New Testament and Scripture makes references to the program

of the ages it will always reveals the name of the King. For

example, 1 Timothy 1.17, Paul relates Christ to the program of

the ages, where He is called the “King of the ages.” Hebrews 9.26

and 1 Corinthians 10.11 the ages are seen to center on the

sacrificial act that Christ did for each of us on the cross for

the sins of the world. This was planned before time even was

created, 1 Corinthian 2.7; 2 Timothy 1.9; Titus 1.2, and in past

ages that are now known what was not revealed, Romans 16.25.

Chafer says, “The ages are the time periods within which God is

revealing His divine purpose and program as it centers in the

Lord Jesus Christ. (Chafer 255)

B. The use of “age” in the New Testament. The Greek word

aión (αἰών), or age or ages, is essentially a time work. Abbot

and Smith defines the age this way:

…a space of time, as, a life, a generation, period of

history, an indefinitely long period; in the New

Testament an indefinitely long period, an age,

Hill 327

eternity. …the sum of the periods of time, including

all that is manifested in them… (Abbott and Smith 15)

Kosmos (Greek κόσμος), or the world, denotes the ordered

universe, the scheme of material things, and oikoumené, or the

world, denotes the inhabited earth, while the word aión views the

world in the aspect of time. At times, it is associated with

oikoumené as in Titus 2.12. There are occasions where aión is

used synonymously with kosmos, where it refers to an organized

system under the domination of Satan, like in 2 Corinthians 4.4;

Ephesians 6.12 and 2 Timothy 4.10. Abbott and Smith say it is

used “in an ethical sense, of the ungodly, the world apart from

God and thus evil in tendency (John 7.7, 14.17, 27, 1 Corinthians

1.21, James 1.27, 1 John 4.4…). (Abbot and Smith 15) It is also

used often in the separation of the ages of God’s dealings with

men. When so used it may refer to a past age, the present age, or

a coming age. For example, Israel’s present age is the subject of

Matthew 12.32; 13.39-40; 24.3; Mark 10.30, and Luke 18.30; 20.35.

Aión is frequently in the same sense as eternity, the sum

total of the ages (Matthew 6.13; Luke 1.33, 55; John 6.51, 58;

8.35; 12.34; Romans 9.5; 11.36; 2 Corinthians 1.21; Revelation

Hill 328

15.7 are just a few). It is also used to the separate ages of

God’s dealing with man. When so used, it can refer to past age,

the present age, or future ages. The present age for Israel is

cited in Matthew 12.32; 13.39-40; 24.3; Mark 10.30; and Luke

18.30 and 20.35. In regard for the program of the church, there

is a reference to the present age in 1 Corinthians 1.20 and

Galatians 1.4, and to a future age in Ephesians 1.21. The

connotation of the terms present age and future age may not

always be used the same. The present age for the church, which is

used by Paul, are not the same as the present age of Israel,

spoken of by Jesus Christ. Nor is the expectation in the future

age for the church the same as it is for Israel. In order to

determine the usage of these terms one must clearly define the

scope of the passage and to whom it is addressed. Confusion has

clearly resulted from a failure to see this distinction.

The present age according to the normal usage of the word

refers to a period of time in which the writer or speaker then

lived. The present age as used in reference to Israel in the

Gospels is the period of time in which Israel was anticipating

the coming of the Messiah. It is also used of the millennial age

Hill 329

to be inaugurated by the Messiah at His second coming. In

reference to the church the term this present age refers to the

inter-advent period is the time from Israel’s rejection of the

Messiah to their coming acceptance of the Messiah at His second

coming.

In the New Testament, the coming age is referred to as “an

evil age” (Galatians 1.4). It is also “under the dominion of

Satan” which the Bible defines as the god of this age (2

Corinthians 4.4). This age is marked by “spiritual darkness”

(Ephesians 6.12). This darkness produces its own “wisdom," in

which there is no light (1 Corinthians 2.6-7). The age is marked

by “ungodliness” and “lusts” (Titus 2.12), from which the

believer is turn away (Romans 12.2), even though formerly he

walked in conformity to its wisdom and standards (Ephesians 2.2).

C. Is there a distinction between this present age and the

preceding ages?

The present age differs from the ages that preceded are

numerous and beyond the scope of this paper to list them all. Dr.

A.C. Gaebelein does a great summarization when he writes:

Hill 330

1. The previous ages all anticipated the coming of the

Messiah, Jesus Christ. In the present age, He has come,

died, and was resurrected and is now pleading the prayers

of the saints at the right hand of the Father. Wise men

still seek Him.

2. The Holy Spirit, came upon certain men in former ages to

empower them for certain tasks, has taken his residence

in every believer.

3. In previous ages, the good news of the Messiah was

anticipated, but in the present age the declaration of

the good news of Jesus Christ brings salvation to mankind

who He calls out of the world.

4. The revelation in past ages was incomplete, but in the

present age, Jesus Christ came to reveal the Father, and

revelation is complete.

5. The present age is characterized by antagonism to God,

and his anointed, and is an “evil age” which was not

applied to any previous age.

Hill 331

6. There is little doubt that the present age is under the

domination of Satan, its god, in unique and unprecedented

ways.

7. The nation Israel is set aside as the object of God’s

dealings and cannot expect the fulfillment of her

promises during this age. (Gaebelein 12-14)

These seven distinctions institute the fact that the present age

is distinct from all preceding ages.

II. The Divine Purpose of the Present Age

The Old Testament age, in which God stated what he purposed

for Israel in covenants which God is bound, closed with those

purposes unrealized. After the life, death, and upon resurrection

of Jesus Christ, God instituted a new divine program which was

never intended to replace His divine program for Israel, however,

only to interrupt that divinely covenanted program. The new

program was anticipated in the upper room by the Lord in His

discourse found in John, chapters thirteen through sixteen. This

becomes real to them and tangible when the Holy Spirit came

flowing down like rain on the day of Pentecost.

Hill 332

Next is what is referred to as the first Jerusalem council

(Acts 15.14) where it is said, “God at first did visit the

Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name.” The

blessing is stated as “to take out of them a people for His

name…” constitutes God’s present-age program. The church is not a

building, but the men, women, and the children who makeup the

body of Christ on the earth. Yeshua Meseach, not the pope, is

the head (Ephesians 1.22-23). The branch, as the church is

described, of which He is the vine (John 15.1). The bride, as the

church is known, of which He is the bridegroom (Ephesians 5.25-

27, 32). Jesus Christ is the cornerstone (Ephesians 2.19-22), and

we are the flock of which He is the Shepherd (John 10.7-27).

The divine purpose in the outcalling of the church is to

display the infinity of God’s grace. Ephesians 2.7, says it all,

“So God can point to us in all future ages as examples of the

incredible wealth of his grace and kindness toward us, as shown

in all he has done for us who are united with Christ Jesus.”

Chafer writes:

There was that in God which no created being had ever

seen. They had seen the glory, His majesty, His wisdom,

Hill 333

and His power; but no angel or man had ever seen His

grace. Other attributes might be subject to a variety

of demonstrations; but the manifestation of grace is

restricted to what God may do for those among men who,

in spite of the fact that they deserve His judgments,

are objects of His grace. As every other attribute or

capacity of God must have its perfect exercise and

exhibition—even for His own satisfaction—in like manner

His grace must also have it infinitely perfect

revealing within the restricted undertaking by which He

saves the lost. To say that a sinner is saved by grace

is to declare that, on the ground of a Substitute’s

death and in response to faith in that Savior, God has

wrought a work so perfect in its entirety and so free

from the cooperation of other beings that it a complete

all satisfying to God demonstration of His grace.

(Chafer 228)

III. The Character of This Present Age

This present age, dating from the rejection of the Messiah

by Israel unto the coming joyous reception of their Deliverer and

Hill 334

Messiah by Israel at His second coming, is viewed in Scripture as

a mystery. Paul says this in his own writing:

I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in

my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ,

for the sake of His body, which is the church, of which

I became a minister according to the stewardship from

God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word

of God, the mystery which has been hidden from ages and

from generations, but now has been revealed to His

saints. To them God willed to make known what are the

riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles:

which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. (Colossians

1.24-27)

The apostle Paul clearly calls the age we live in in the

divine program, the church age is a mystery. This age was known

to God and Jesus Christ from eternity, but could not be known

unless revealed by them. It was unknown in the time of the

prophets, but now is known by revelation. Mysteries are sacred

secrets, previously unknown, but revealed by grace. From the

twenty-seven New Testament usages of the word mystery, where the

Hill 335

body of truth is prevalent, is referred to as a mystery truth

related to the age we live in. Let’s review Ephesians 3.1-5 to

glean some truth from the passages.

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus

for you Gentiles—if indeed you have heard of the

dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me

for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the

mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which,

when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the

mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made

known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed

by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets…

Dr. Chafer comments on the Ephesians passages where the

definitive definition of a mystery is written by the most

prolific writer of the entire Word of God, the apostle Paul:

No better definition of a New Testament mystery will be

found that set forth in this context. A New Testament

mystery is a truth hitherto withheld, or “hid in God”

(verse 9), but now revealed. The sum total of all the

mysteries in the New Testament represents that entire

Hill 336

body of added truth found in the New Testament which is

unrevealed in the Old Testament. On the other hand, the

New Testament mystery is to be distinguished from the

mystery of the cults of Babylon and Rome, whose secrets

were sealed and held on penalty of death; for the New

Testament mystery, when it is revealed, is to be

declared to the ends of the earth (verse 9), and is

restricted only to the extent of the limitation of the

natural man (1 Corinthians 2.14). (Chafer 75-76)

The existence of the present age, which is interrupting

God’s established program with Israel, was a mystery (Matthew

13.11). Israel’s blindness, which is temporary, so that the

Gentiles who God calls out will might be brought into a right

relationship to Gob by “a mystery” (Romans 11.25). The full body

of believer that make up the church include both Jews and

Gentiles within the overall body, was a mystery (Ephesians 3.3-9;

Colossians 1.26-27; Ephesians 1.9; Romans 16.25). The whole

worldwide program of God of those He has called out resulting in

salvation was called a mystery (1 Corinthians 2.7). The

relationship of Christ to men in redemption was called a mystery

Hill 337

(Colossians 2.2; 4.3). Our union to God is based entirely on

Jesus Christ is itself is called a mystery (1 Timothy 3.16), not

a fact but as to its accomplishment.

The ongoing and increasing level of evil continues to grow

until their father of sin is revealed (2 Thessalonians 2.7) and

the apostate religious system is now evident in our age (1

Corinthians 15.51). What you have here is a revealing and

exciting part of the road ahead, God’s program for the present

age, which was never revealed in other ages, but is now known by

revelation from God. The very existence of the church age, which

only temporarily interrupts Elohim’s program for apple of his

eye, Israel, has to be one of the strongest arguments for the

premillennial position. It is then necessary for one who rejects

the interpretation to prove that the church itself is the

consummation of God’s program. Pentecost says, “To do so he must

prove that there is no new revealed program of God in the present

age.” Dr. Allis, defending amillennialism, writes concerning the

mysteries:

To describe a person or subject as a mystery, does not

necessarily imply that he or it was entirely unknown.

Hill 338

It might be known, yet be a mystery because not fully

known. Consequently, according to Paul, the mystery may

be the truth which can only be understood by believers

or a truth only partly known to them, but not

necessarily something entirely new or utterly unknown.

(Allis 90)

Commenting on the mystery of the oneness of the body

comprised of both Jew and Gentile, Allis continues:

He describes it first of all as something which “in

other generations was not made known to the sons of

men.” This declaration taken by itself would seem to

imply that it was absolutely new. So we must note that

it is at once qualified by three supplementary and

limiting statement: 1) “as it has now been revealed,”

2) “unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit,”

3) “that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-

members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the

promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” We would

do well to examine these three limiting clauses very

carefully. (Allis 91)

Hill 339

Dr. Allis admits that what is stated here seems to be an

entirely new revelation of truth. He rejects the obvious

implication that this truth is absolutely new by making the “as”

clause in Ephesians 3.5 a limiting or restrictive clause.

Walvoord makes a very compelling argument to Allis as he writes:

Just what is the significance of the clause “as it has

now been revealed?”… Any student of the New Testament

Greek will find it rather amazing that a scholarly

writer would in this way ignore the other possibilities

in this grammatical construction. Allis is assuming

that the only possible interpretation is a restrictive

clause. The Greek word hós, here translated “as” is

subject to many interpretations. It is used primarily

as a relative adverb of manner and as a conjunction in

the New Testament. A. T. Roberson in one of many

discussions of this word lists it various uses as

“exclamatory,” “declarative,” “temporal,” and used with

superlatives, comparatives, and correlatives. He notes

further that basically most clauses of this kind are

“adjectival.” While used in an adverbial clause in this

Hill 340

passage, the force grammatically is relative. Robertson

says significantly in this connection. “The relative

clause may indeed have the resultant effect of cause,

condition, purpose or result, but in itself it

expresses none of these things. It is like the

participle in this respect. One must not read into it

more than is there. Allis has assumed that a clause

which is normally an adjectival idea, i.e., merely

giving additional information, is a restrictive—

qualifying absolutely the preceding statement. In

support of his arbitrary classification of this clause,

he supplies no grammatical argument whatever, and gives

the impression that his interpretation is the only

possible one.” (Walvoord 213)

There is little question that Paul is explaining, not

limiting, the mystery set forth here. That he is explaining the

concept, instead of analogizing, the entire age we are in with

the program in place was not revealed in the Old Testament. It

has been illustrated in this paper how God knew of the way people

would react and what His reaction would be before in the mind of

Hill 341

God. Mankind’s sum total of knowledge in all the history of the

world is in a cell within Adonai’s brain. Bullinger weighs in on

this subject when he says:

There are many places in Scripture in which this

passing over of the present dispensation is very

plainly evident; and where, in our reading, we have,

like our Lord, to “close the book,” If we fail to do

this, and if we refuse to notice these so-called

“gaps,” we cannot possibly understand the Scriptures

which we read. We give a few by way of example, placing

this mark (--) to indicate the parenthesis of this

present Dispensation, which comes between the previous

Dispensation of the Law, and the next Dispensation of

Judgment which is to follow this present Dispensation

of Grace. Psalms 118.22, “The stone which the builders

rejected

has become the chief cornerstone.” And Isaiah 9.6, “For

unto us a Child is born,

Unto us a Son is given; (--) and the government will be

upon His shoulder. And His name will be called

Hill 342

Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father,

Prince of Peace.” (Compare Luke 1, 31, 32) Isaiah

53.10-11, “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He

has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an

offering for sin, (--) He shall see His seed, He shall

prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall

prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His

soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous

Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their

iniquities.” (Bullinger 103-104)

Allowance had to be made for this present age, without its

actual existence ever having been specifically revealed in the

Old Testament. G. H. Pember well states the relationship this

way:

The times of the Church are not properly a part of the

fifth dispensation, but a parenthesis fixed in it on

account of the perversity of the Jews; an inserted

period, unknown to Old Testament prophecy, and set apart

for the preparation of a heavenly, and not an earthly

people. (Pember 231)

Hill 343

IV. The Course of This Present Age

This is important. The present age is defined from the

rejection of the Messiah by Israel to His welcome by Israel

during His Second Advent which is outlined in two separate

portions of the Word. Matthew 13 and Revelation 2 and 3. The

Matthew account, interestingly enough, is from the viewpoint of

God’s kingdom program, with the latter from the viewpoint of the

church program. It is appropriate then to track the course of the

present age from these two passages.

A. Matthew Thirteen

Matthew 13.11 is where our Lord is speaking in order that He

may teach the course of the “mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.”

This instruction comes through the proper interpretation of the

parables which are recorded here. There are three basic

approaches of interpretation that are common to this chapter.

1. There are those who do not believe there is a shred of

prophetic significance form this passage and study it

only for its spiritual or moral lesson as it affects

believers today. These emphasize the unity of God’s

Hill 344

purpose from taking into consideration all of the events

from the fall of Adam and Eve to the end of the age. What

they fail to do is recognize the major differences

between God’s program for Israel and that for the church,

and as a consequence, they see only the church truth in

this portion. In spite of the contradictions that such a

method entails, they persist in it. Such is the non-

dispensational approach of Replacement theology,

postmillennialism and amillennialism.

2. There are those who believe that Israel is not in the

picture here and the church has taken her place. Then

there are we who are recognizing the distinction between

Israel and the church, hold that this portion is totally

limited to God’s program for Israel and regulate it to a

revelation concerning Israel in the tribulation period

when God is preparing them for the coming King. Pentecost

says, “This is the ultra-dispensational approach.”

(Pentecost 139)

3. There are Christians who Then there are those who

believe that this portion of Scripture gives a picture of

Hill 345

conditions on the earth in respect to the development of

the kingdom program during the time of the King’s absence

from the earth. These parables describe the events of the

entire inter-advent period. This is the approach to this

passage for our study.

4. The use of the parabolic method. Do you sense a note

of surprise and amazement in those that asked Jesus, “Why

do You speak to them in parables?” (Matthew 13.10). A

variation in the emphasis of the question would indicate

several possible causes for the surprise. If it read,

“Why speak to them in parables?” the question would then

raise the issue as to why the Lord would speak to the

multitude, as in Matthew 13.1-3, at all after in the

previous chapter after they spurned the Holy Spirit’s

testimony of the personhood of Jesus Christ by the nation

Israel after He said, "An evil and adulterous generation

seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it

except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” (Matthew 12.39).

The problem being why do you continue to teach the nation

Hill 346

that has publically announced their decision that you are

the son of Satan?

The nature of the Lord’s reply in the verses that follow

bring up a legitimate question why even speak to them “in

parables.” As you will recall, there was nothing new in the use

of parables themselves, because Jesus had used the method

frequently before to instruct and illustrate the truths He

desired to leave them. The disciples must have acknowledged a new

emphasis in the Lord’s teaching method.

Jesus Christ, the master teacher, in response to the

disciple’s question, gave three reasons for use of the parabolic

method of instruction.

a. It was a means of continuing to establish His claim

as the Messiah (Matthew 13.34-35). In addition to

the many evidences to prove His claim, there was a

sign in relation to Isaiah’s prophecy.

b. It was His method of imparting truth to the

believing hearer (Matthew 13.11).

c. It was His method of hiding truth from the

unbelieving hearer (Matthew 13.13-15).

Hill 347

The reason behind hiding the truth will be more evident in

the following considerations.

5. The setting of the chapter in the Gospel. One must

remember the Gospel of Matthew is the Gospel which

presented Jesus as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah," the

Messiah and King of Israel. Matthew, forever the Jew,

unfolds the appearance of the Messiah to Israel. W.

Graham Scroggie says:

More than any other of the Gospels, Matthew’s is allied

with the Hebrew Scriptures in theme and tone; their

subjects are its subjects, the Messiah, Israel, the

Law, the Kingdom, and the Prophecy. Jewish ideas and

terms characterize the whole record. Its witness would

not have impressed either the Roman, for whom Mark

wrote, or the Greek, for whom Luke wrote, but to Jews

it significance would be inescapable. (Scroggie 248)

Dr. Scroggie was a no holds barred, straight shooting kind

of preacher who got right to the point. The fact of Matthew is

borne out by numerous references to the Son of David (10 times),

to the fulfillment of prophecy (15 times), to Jewish customs (2

Hill 348

times), to the Mosaic Law (14 times), to the Sabbath (8 times),

and to the Holy city Jerusalem, and the Holy place (3 times).

Christ is related to prophecy throughout this illuminating

Gospel. The book of Matthew has an important bearing on the

meaning of the term “kingdom of heaven.”

The thirteenth chapter holds a unique place in the

development of the theme of the Gospel. Throughout Matthew,

Christ is presented as the Messiah. Chapters one and two present

His legal right to the throne; in chapter three it is depicted as

the dedication of the King; in chapter four His moral right as

King is demonstrated; in five through seven His judicial right as

King is shown; from eight to ten the authority of the King is

shown, as His prophetical right is demonstrated by His ministry

to Israel; in chapters eleven and twelve there is a massive

opposition to the King.

The great question before Israel: “is not this the son of

David?” (Matthew 12.23). It is also evident that Israel over-all

is answering that question in the negative. Christ shows that

both He and His forerunner have been rejected (Matthew 11.1-9),

and this rejection will result in the judgment (Matthew 11.20-

Hill 349

24). It is because of the ultimate rejection of the cross that

Jesus Christ can offer a new invitation (Matthew 11.28-30), an

invitation to all. In chapter twelve, the rejection finally comes

to a climax. People everywhere were debating the person of Christ

(Matthew 12.23). The Pharisees went ever further: “Now when the

Pharisees heard it they said, ‘This fellow does not cast out

demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.’” (Matthew

12.24)

The Holy Spirit had screamed out His witness to the person

of Christ through His words, His works, and the leaders who

examined the evidence have made the determination His credentials

and works come from Satan, not from heaven. The great warning of

judicial blindness and judgment were given by the Lord to Israel

(Matthew 12.31-32). The chapter closes (Matthew 12.46-50) as the

Lord indicates He is setting aside all natural relationships, the

one between Him and Israel and the covenant promises by physical

birth, and established a new relationship built entirely on

faith. William Kelly states:

He renounced all earthly connection for the present

time. The only tie He acknowledged now is the

Hill 350

relationship to the heavenly Father, formed through the

Word of God received into the soul. Thus, we have in

this chapter the Lord closing with Israel, as far as

testimony is concerned. In the next chapter, we shall

find what comes dispensationally of those new relations

that the Lord was about to unfold. (Kelly 262)

Dr. Pentecost asked the definitive question “With Israel

rejecting the kingdom Jesus offered, the question reasonably and

naturally becomes, “Since the Jews rejected Her King and He is

now in heaven, what is to become of God’s kingdom program?” The

kingdom was the subject of an irrevocable covenant it is

unthinkable that it could be abandoned.

The “kingdom of heaven” will be explained further. Kingdom

in the Scriptures is used in basically seven different ways:

1. The kingdom of the Gentiles,

2. The kingdoms of Israel and Judah,

3. The kingdom of Satan (this world),

4. God’s universal Kingdom

5. A spiritual kingdom,

6. The millennial Davidic kingdom,

Hill 351

7. The mystery form of the kingdom.

From this study, there is general agreement among

theologians concerning the first four classifications. The last

three are concerned with the realm of Eschatology and are

subjects of debate as a result. Some discussion of these is

necessary.

a. The spiritual kingdom, closely related to God’s

universal kingdom, is defined as made up of God’s elect

of all ages of the past, who are reborn and experienced

the new birth by the Godly power of the Holy Spirit.

The new birth through Jesus Christ is the absolute

requirement for entry into the spiritual kingdom.

Scripture references for the spiritual kingdom are

Matthew 6.33; 19.16, 23, 24; John 3.3-5; Acts 8.12;

14.22; 19.8; 20.25; 28.23; Romans 14.17; 1 Corinthians

4.20; 6.9-10; 15.50; Galatians 5.21; Ephesians 5.5;

Colossians 4.11; 1 Thessalonians 2.12; 2 Thessalonians

1.5.

b. Declared to be a literal kingdom, the millennial

kingdom has been prayed for trillions of times as a

Hill 352

kingdom on earth that Jesus Christ rules from

Jerusalem, Israel on David’s throne in fulfillment of

the Davidic covenant. It is clearly denied by some 80

percent of the organized church and more than that by

the greater American population. Nevertheless, it is

coming. (2 Samuel 7.8-17; Luke 1.32). The kingdom is

the subject of many Old Testament prophecies (2 Samuel

7.8-17; Isaiah 9.6-7; 11.1-16; Jeremiah 23.5; 33.14-17;

Ezekiel 34.23; 37.24; Hosea 3.4-5; Micah 4.6-8; 5.2;

Zechariah 2.10-12; 8.20-23; Psalm 2.6, 8-10; 72.11, 17;

Malachi 3.1-4). This kingdom was proclaimed as being

“at hand” at Christ first advent (Matthew 3.2; 4.17;

10.5-7), but was rejected by Israel and consequently

postponed (Matthew 23.37-39). It will again be offered

to Israel in the tribulation period (Matthew 24.14).

They will receive the Messiah with open arms at the

Second Advent of Christ and He setting up the kingdom.

(Isaiah 24.23; Revelation 19.11; 20.1-6).

c. The mystery form of the kingdom is a concept

divergent from the prior two. Jesus had even taught as

Hill 353

an example for the masses to pray for a kingdom on

earth. It, therefore, should be no mystery that God was

going to establish the millennial kingdom. Since the

first sin, which occurred in heaven, when God’s

sovereignty was challenged, it was His purpose to

manifest His sovereignty with the establishment of the

kingdom over which He ruled. From the time Adam was

created he was given dominion (Genesis 1.26) so he

might manifest the sovereignty that belonged to God,

which was Adam’s by appointment. But Adam sinned and

there was no such manifestation of God’s authority. Our

reign of conscience, which came from the fall, was

intended to bear witness to the individual as Dr.

Pentecost says “to his/her responsibility to the

sovereignty of God, but man failed the test.”

(Pentecost 187)

But without this valuable inborn gift what would the world

be? Hitchcock elaborates on man’s ability to fail the God’s

tests,

Hill 354

Human government was ordained that men might recognize

that government was a manifestation of God’s

sovereignty, but man rebelled against that. God

appointed judges so that these might manifest God’s

authority, but man rejected this display of

sovereignty. God created the theocracy, in which God

was recognized as sovereign, but man rebelled against

it (1 Samuel 8.7). God then revealed his purpose to

display his sovereignty through David’s seed who would

reign (2 Samuel 7.16). When Christ came even this

manifestation of God’s purpose to reestablish

sovereignty was rejected. Sinful man has consistently

rejected each manifestation of the authority of God.

When God, in His infinite wisdom, chose to tell His

prophets, it was not the fact that He was going to

establish a kingdom that was a unrevealed secret.”

(Hitchcock 486)

The mystery was the fact that the One in whom God chose to

reveal the program was presented and He was rejected. This

created an almost 2,000 year gap in which we now live. The

Hill 355

program is still to be fulfilled and God’s sovereignty

reestablished at Christ Second Advent. Then it is established

that the age we now live in between Christ’s first and second

coming is the mystery form of the kingdom.

The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven describes the state

of affairs that has happened so far on the earth in the interim

while the King is absent. These mysteries then relate the present

age in which we live to the eternal purposes of God in regard to

His Kingdom. This precludes the mystery form of the kingdom being

equated with the millennium kingdom, for that kingdom was clearly

predicted in the Old Testament.

It cannot be the spiritual form of the kingdom because each

and everyone in the spiritual form of the kingdom have been born

again by the blood of the lamb. It cannot equated to the

millennium or the church. The mystery form of the kingdom has

reference to things which were hitherto unrevealed, is definitely

limited as to time, and represents the entire sphere of

profession in the present age. Eschatologically speaking, it is

important to keep these three usages of the term kingdom separate

and distinct.

Hill 356

d. Last is the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the

heavens where it is to be observed that, while not

synonymous, they are used interchangeably. Any

distinctions are not inherent in the words themselves,

but in their usage in the context. Chafer says: “Both

of these terms are used to designate the millennial

kingdom, the spiritual kingdom, and the mystery form of

the kingdom. While we recognize the distinctions

between the earthly and the eternal aspects of the

kingdom program, we must guard against making the terms

kingdom of God and the kingdom of heavens absolute.

Only the context can determine the meaning intended to

be conveyed by the terms. (Chafer 223)

6. What are the time elements in Matthew thirteen? Dr.

Ryrie writes to show these parables are limited to the

inter-advent period in which we live. He says:

“The kingdom of heaven is like...” This sets the time

limit for the beginning of the subject matter involved.

In other words, the kingdom of heaven was assuming the

form described in the parables at that time when Christ

Hill 357

was personally ministering on the earth. The end of the

time period covered by these parables is indicated by

the phrase “end of the world” or more literally “the

consummation of the age” (Matthew 13.39-49). This is

the time of the Second Advent of Christ when He shall

come in power and great glory. Therefore, it is clear

that these parables are concerned only with that time

between the days when Christ spoke them on earth and

the end of the age. This gives a clue to the meaning of

the phrase “the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.”

(Ryrie 95)

7. What is the key of interpretation of Matthew 13? We

know this is a key chapter of the book of Matthew because

it comes after the Jews rejection of the Messiah by the

hierarchy. There are several keys to be used in the

interpretation of this passage that will assist one from

error.

First of all, some of the parables are interpreted

by the Lord Jesus Himself. The can be no uncertainty

as to their meaning, nor the method by which the

Hill 358

rest of the parables are to be interpreted. Any

interpretation of the whole must, of necessity, be

in harmony with that which has been interpreted by

the

Creator of the earth, the Lord Jesus Christ.

The second important key is to observe that, while

many of the parables are in figurative language,

these figures are very familiar ones throughout the

Word of God and, therefore, will have the same usage

here as used consistently elsewhere. The fact that

these are not isolated figures makes interpretation

easier.

Dr. Scroggie has given us what he considers the key to

interpretation of Matthew 13.52 when he wrote:

It appears to me that the key to the interpretation of

these parables is in Matthew 13:52 of this chapter:

“Every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of

heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which

bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.”

These words are spoken of things which precede, and

Hill 359

surely speak of the parables as some new and some old.

But which are old and which are new? In verse 1, we

read that our Lord “went out of the house, and sat by

the seaside” and taught; and in verse 36 “then Jesus

sent the multitude away, and went into the house” and

taught. Thus the parables are divided into four spoken

in public, and three spoken in private; and the

evidence goes to show (if verse 52 is the key) that the

first four are the new treasures of truth, and the last

three are the old—that is, truths revealed before.

Assuming this, the present age is presented to our view

in a series of seven progressive pictures, describing

the course of the kingdom in mystery.

The New Things

1. The seed and the soils: is the Proclamation of the

Kingdom.

2. The wheat and the Darnel: is the Imitation in the

Kingdom.

3. The Mustard Tree: visible Extension of the Kingdom.

Hill 360

4. The Leaven in the Meat: insidious Corruption of the

Kingdom.

The Old Things

1. The Treasure: Israel as a Nation.

2. The Pearl: Which is the Jewish Remnant during the

Tribulation.

3. The Dragnet: The Judgment of the Nations at the end

of the Tribulation. (Scroggie 125)

8. The interpretation of the parables of Matthew 13. I

don’t find it necessary nor is it even possible to give a

detailed exposition of these parables at this point in

our study. What is desirable is to track the Lord’s

revelation as it pertains to the course of this age and

its eschatological implications, and the road ahead.

a. The Sower and the Seeds (Matthew 13.3-9; 18-23). The Lord

touched on several important facts to learn concerning the

present age. 1) I believe our age is one that is one that is

characterized by the sowing of seed, or preaching which in Mark

4.14, is shown to be the Word, but here is seen to be men who are

sons of the kingdom. 2) Within the age, we live in one where

Hill 361

there is a marked difference in how the soils are prepared for

the reception of the preaching or sown seed. 3) There is a

remarkable opposition to the Word of God by the world,

governments, religions, the flesh, and Satan. There is a

decreasing response to the sowing of the seed by the masses, from

“a hundredfold” to “sixty” to “thirty.” Such is the course of the

age we live in it. Mark 4.13 is where Jesus Christ reveals that

this parable, and gives His warning about simply understanding,

which is basic to having a clue about what the other parables in

the discourse mean. The remaining parables deal with the

development of the seed-sowing program.

b. The Wheat and the Tares (Matthew 13.24-36; 36-43). The

Lord also explains the second parable in a clear, clear manner.

Several important facts He reveals concerned the course of the

age. 1) The true sowing, mentioned in the first parable, is be

kept in check by a false sowing by false teachers. 2) Meanwhile,

there is to be a parallel growth of evil alongside that which is

good which is what the parable plainly said, the two sowings. 3)

A separation of the good from the evil ones will occur in the

judgment at the end of the age when the Lord returns. The evil

Hill 362

will be cast away to the lake of fire while the good will be

received by the Lord and those into the millennial kingdom. 4)

What determines the real character of what has been sowed will be

determined by the fruitlessness or fruitfulness of what grows out

of the seed. Dr. Strombeck, a Biblical expert on New Testament

exegesis says, “Many feel that this second parable is to be

related particularly to the tribulation period and is to be

distinguished from the sowing of the first parable.” (Strombeck

167)

In the first parable, the prominence fell on the “Word,"

“children of the kingdom” in the second (Matthew 13.38). In the

first, the seed is sown in the hearts of men, and the world in

the second. Another decided difference, no judgment is found in

the first, and judgment is the outcome of the second. Dr.

Pentecost says, “This would seem to indicate the sowings are the

same, with the church in sight in the first throughout the age,

with the second occurring in the tribulation period close to the

end of the age when God again is working with Israel.” (Pentecost

146)

Hill 363

What are the indications lead me to believe the second

parable is related to Israel? a) In Matthew 8.11-12 the term

“children of the kingdom” is used to refer to Israel throughout

the Scriptures. b) The judgment in Revelation here relates to the

time that God will again turn his attention to Israel as a nation

that is at the end of the age. c) The wheat and the tares grow

alongside each other until the judgment, however, the rapture

takes the body of believers in the rapture in an indefinite

amount of time prior to the start of the tribulation. d) The

judgment that is specified for those who did not love Jesus

Christ and live for Him is given through the angels before the

righteous are rewarded, so that the sequence of event shows this

is the removal of the wicked, which leaves only the righteous. e)

The promised Davidic millennial kingdom is set up immediately

after the judgment. f) The church insight here is not judged as

to who enters into glory and who will be excluded on the earth.

What this seems to indicate here is the primary focus is on

Israel during the tribulation period. A final note—as to the

wheat and tares, it will be difficult as the entire age comes to

Hill 364

an end; the period is shown to be a false sowing in competition

with the true.

c. A Mustard Seed (Matthew 13.31-32). In Jewish history one

of their idioms, which are used consistently throughout the

parables, is a mustard seed used to weigh what was then

considered the very smallest measurable amount. So what we have

in view here is the insignificant beginning of the new kingdom.

Chuck Missler, who has been to Israel many times, say: “The

mustard bush in Israel does not grow into a tree, instead

achieving a height of about three to four feet where birds are

unlikely to seek refuge.” (Missler 435)

The birds that lodge in the tree could be the very birds who

picked up the seed, or the Word, in the first parable. There the

birds represented the ministers of Satan. Perhaps there was a

different type of the mustard tree in sight here in the time of

Jesus Christ that is not the same bush that is in Israel today.

In any event, great growth of the kingdom is experienced from the

insignificant beginning so that the tree is refuge to both the

wheat and the tares. But in spite of the opposition, multitudes

have benefited from the growth of the church.

Hill 365

d. The Leaven in the Meal Parable (Matthew 13.33). The idiom

in view here is leaven, which is used in Scripture consistently

denoting evil or great sin (Exodus 12.15; Leviticus 2.11; 6.17;

10.12; Matthew 16.6; Mark 8.15; 1 Corinthians 5.6, 8; Galatians

5.9). Leaven is used as a sin because it corrupts by puffing up.

Pride is at the root of all sin, for example, the pride of Satan.

(Isaiah 14) Remember Paul likened leaven with pride in Galatians

5.9. Another point of view on this parable is put forth by Dr.

Pentecost who says:

When leaven is introduced into the meal an irreversible

process has begun, as Paul says, that will continue

until it has been hidden in the meal. This is intended

to stress the way the new form of the kingdom will

develop. The power in the kingdom will not be external

but internal. The parable of the mustard and the leaven

hidden in the meal, then, stress the growth of the new

form of the kingdom. (Pentecost 148)

e. The Hidden Treasure (Matthew 13.44). Israel and the

present age are in view in the parable. Israel, dispensationally

blinded and off the side until the tribulation is over and the

Hill 366

age is completed, yet is not forgotten and does have reference to

that program. For example,

a) That an individual, who is the Lord Jesus Christ, is

purchasing a treasure. That treasure was purchased

effective by His action at the cross.

b) Jesus said this treasure is hidden away in a field,

unseen or uncared for by men, but known to the

purchaser.

c) During the age the purchaser does not come into

possession of His purchased treasure, but only into

the possession of the place in which the treasure

resides.

This teaches clearly that the Lord Jesus Christ came with

the foundationational teaching that salvation was theirs for

accepting Him as the Messiah. Obviously, the age ended without

Jesus Christ taking His treasure. He personally will save the

treasure by opening their eyes to their sin and to who He is as

their salvation. He and they, Israel, will then establish the

Davidic kingdom in the millennium as promised. They may now be

Hill 367

blinded, but then their spiritual and physical eyes to who and

what Jesus Christ is, was, and will always be.

f. The pearl of great price (Matthew 13.45-46). Some relate

the pearl as the believing remnant saved at the end of the age,

however, most observers relate the pearl to the church. Why was a

pearl of great price used by Jesus Christ in this parable? Pearls

are find locked inside the oysters that in Judaism is not kosher

for them to consume. Jews could only eat seafood with scales.

Pearls are the only living organism that is made in response to

irritation that has been introduced. What a fascinating model of

the Church! A Gentile believer grows as a response to irritation.

The Church grew under tremendous persecution. Remember, a pearl,

when found, is then extracted from its place of growth to become

an obect of adoring. This may very well be a Remez about the

Church being removed during the rapture.

g. The Dragnet (Matthew 13.47-50). This parable indicates

that the age is to come to an end in judgment, separating the

good from bad, with the Gentile nations predominately in sight

since the net is cast into the sea (Matthew 13.47). This is

different that the judgment depicted on Israel in the second

Hill 368

parable. Those excluded from the kindom will be the unsaved while

the righteous will be welcomed into it.

Another interesting note—Dr. Strombeck once wrote:

There is a parallel between “the mysteries of the

kingdom of heaven” of Matthew 13 and the mysteries of

Paul and Revelation. The mystery of the sower parallels

the mystery of godliness of 1 Timothy 3.16. The parable

of the wheat and the tares and the parable of the sower

closely parallels the mystery of lawlessness of 2

Thessalonians 2.7, which depicts the individual who is

the head of a system. The parable of the leaven bread

parallels the mystery Babylon of Revelation 17.1-7. The

parable of the hidden treasure parallels the mystery of

Israel’s blindness of Romans 11.25. The parable of the

pearl of great price parallels the mystery applied to

the church mentioned in Ephesians 3.3-9; Colossians

1.26-27; Romans 16.25. (Strombeck 162-167)

B. The Letters to the Seven Churches in Revelation Two

and Three

Hill 369

The road ahead and the course of the age is presented in a

second major passage in Revelation two and three. You will never

have a complete understanding of Eschatology without adequate

knowledge of these two chapters. Almost every idiom and type used

by Jesus Christ, who’s Revelation it is, is defined either in

Revelation or elsewhere in the Word of God.

It is the only book in the Word of God that promises a

blessing for those who hear, read, and keep the words of this

prophecy. (Revelation 1.5) The divine outline of the entire book

is given in one verse. Revelation 1.19 says: “Write the things

which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things

which will take place after this.” The thing that John had seen

was the vision of the church, the things that are is the seven

churches, the things which will take place after this is that

which follows after the Churches.

The mystery of the seven stars are defined at Revelation

1.20, “The mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right

hand, and the seven golden lampstands: The seven stars are the

angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands which you

saw are the seven churches.” Among other dynamics, Revelation two

Hill 370

and three outline the present age in reference to the program in

the church.

The seven churches are the “things which are” in the

Scripture. The question arises why these seven churches? Why not

Jerusalem, Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, or even Rome? The seven

churches were selected God because they meet the dynamics

required for churches of all ages. The design element of these

seven churches are interesting and help explain the question of

why these seven. The seven churches are:

1. They are all local, actual churches which have

been researched archaeologically by Sir William

Ramsey.

2. They are all admonitory with the message to one

church applicable to each, at least to some extent.

3. There is a homiletic is involved with each, “He

who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to

the churches.” (Revelation 2.7, and others) This

applies to each of us because we all have ears who

let him hear.

Hill 371

4. They are prophetic, in the particular order, they

lay out the history of the church throughout history

and the future. They fill the gap implied in Daniel

9.26, and between Revelation 12.5 and 6, etc.

The seven design elements of the seven churches in each of

the Letters:

1. The Name of the Church

2. Title of the Church

3. A Commendation

4. A Concern

5. An Exhortation

6. Promise to the Overcomer

7. “He who has an ear, hear what the Spirit says to the

churches.”

1. The time period of Revelation two and three are stated

above as things that were, thing that are present, and things

that are future. (Revelation 1.19) Walter Scott wrote of the same

thing:

The great divisions of the book are here written for

the instruction of the Church of God. “What thou hast

Hill 372

seen” refers to the vision of Christ just beheld

(Revelation 1.12-16). “The things that are” refer to

the several successive, broadly defined features of the

professing Church and of Christ’s relation thereto,

till its final rejection, not yet accomplished

(Chapters 2 and 3). “The things that are about to be

after these things.” In this third division, the world

and the Jews, and, we may add, the corrupt and apostate

Church, i.e., that which is to be “spued out” are

embraced in this strictly prophetic part of the

Apocalypse (Revelation 4-22.5). Nothing has more

contributed to throw discredit on prophetic studies,

than the erroneous principle on which it has been

sought to interpret this book. Here is the key for its

interpretation hanging at the door; take it down, use

it, and enter in. There is simplicity and consistency

in apportioning the main contents of the book to a

past, a present, and a future. (Scott 50)

Hill 373

In one sense, the seven letters parallel the period covered

by Matthew thirteen. There is perhaps a dissertation in this

subject alone.

2. The purpose of the seven letters is a threefold one from

each of the seven letters. One, Jesus Christ, through John, is

writing to the local congregations and the assemblies.

a. They are actual local congregations, possibly home

churches, in Asia and thoroughly researched

archaeologically and found to all be authentic.

b. Pember agrees: “There can be no doubt that these

letters were primarily intended for the communities

to which they are inscribed, and deal with actual

circumstances of the time.” (Pember 278) Obviously,

as well, there is also a historical aspect to the

churches. The pictures of the sites are available by

a number of sources for those that are curious.

c. These letters reveal the various kinds of assemblies

of individuals throughout the ages. Seiss states it

this way:

Hill 374

The seven churches represent seven varieties of

Christians, both true and false. Every professor of

Christianity is either an Ephesian in his religious

qualities, a Smyrnaote, a Pergamite, a Thyatiran, a

Sardian, a Philadelphian, or a Laodicean. It is of

these seven sorts that the whole church is made up.

Every community of Christian professors has some of the

varied classes which make up Christendom at large.

There are Protestant Papists, and Papistical

Protestants; sectarian anti-sectarians, and partyists

who are not schismatics; holy ones in the midst of

abounding defection and apostasy, and unholy ones in

the midst of the most earnest and active faith; light

in the dark places, and darkness in the midst of light.

I thus find the seven Churches in every church, giving

to those Epistles a directness of application to

ourselves, and to professing Christians of every age,

of the utmost solemnity and importance. (Seiss 144)

Dr. Pember states:

Hill 375

When taken together, they exhibit every phase of

Christian society which would ever be found in the

various parts of Christendom, and so enabled the Lord

to give comfort, advice, exhortation, warning, and

threatening, from which something could be found to

suit any possible circumstance of His people till the

end of the age. (Pember 289)

Without question, there is a spiritual application in

addition to the prophetic and historical.

d. As previous stated, the road ahead could never be

fully understood without the prophetic revelation in

the letters. Pentecost says, “In the order in which

they were given, they foreshadowed the successive

predominant phases through which the nominal Church

was and is to pass, from the time John saw the

vision until the Lord comes.” (Pentecost 151) The

seven churches, which were only seven of many which

Jesus could have chosen to address, seems to have

been specifically chosen because of the significance

of their names. Ephesus means “beloved” or perhaps

Hill 376

“relaxation.” Smyrna means “myrrh” or “bitterness”.

Pergamos means “high tower” or “thoroughly married.”

Thyatira means “perpetual sacrifice” or “continual

offering.” Sardis means “those escaping” or

“renovation.” Philadelphia means “brotherly love.”

Laodicea means “the people ruling” or “judgment of

the people.” Even the names mean and even suggests

the succession of the development of the periods

within the age.

Scott states:

Ecclesiastical pretension and departure from first love

characterized the close of the apostolic-period—Ephesus

(2.1-7). Next succeeded the martyr-period, which bring

us down to the close of the tenth and last persecution,

under Diocletian—Smyrna (2.8-11). Decreasing

spirituality and increasing worldliness went hand in

hand from the accession of Constantine and his public

patronage of Christianity on to the seventh century—

Pergamos (2.12-17). The papal church, which is Satan’s

masterpiece on earth, is witnessed in the assumption of

Hill 377

universal authority and cruel persecution of the saints

of God. Its evil reign covers “the middle ages,” the

moral characteristics of which have been well termed

“dark.” Popery blights everything it touches—Thyatira

(2.18-29). The Reformation was God’s intervention in

grace and power to cripple papal authority and

introduce into Europe the light which for 300 years has

been burning with more or less brilliancy.

Protestantism with its divisions and deadness shows

clearly enough how far short it comes of God’s ideal of

the Church and Christianity—Sardis (3.1-6). Another

reformation, equally the work of God characterized the

beginning of last century—Philadelphia (3.7-13). The

present general state of the professing Church which is

one of lukewarmness is the most hateful and nauseous of

any yet described. We may well term the last phase of

church-history on the eve of judgment, the christless

period—Laodicea (3.14-22). Note that the history of the

first three churches is consecutive; whereas the

history of the remaining four overlaps, and then

Hill 378

practically runs concurrently to the end—the coming of

the Lord. (Scott 55-56)

Scott sees the seven letters of Jesus Christ to be

successive, and Pember states it is important to observe that:

The number of parables (in Matthew 13) and of epistles

is seven, that number being significant of

dispensational completeness; and in each of the two

prophecies, we apparently have set before us seven

successive phases or characteristic epochs which

embrace the whole. Those epochs commence in the order

in which they are given; but any of them may overlap

that which succeeds it, or even extend its influence,

in a greater or less degree, to the end of the age.

(Pember 233)

3. The parallelism between Matthew thirteen and Revelation

two and three is interesting. I find that the mystery form of the

kingdom, while not entirely synonymous with the body of

believers, it is provocative that the time period is much the

same when the two passages are analyzed. Then it is reasonable to

suggest you could expect at least a parallelism of sorts

Hill 379

developing. Then, I hope to demonstrate the parallelism in a

table which shows the relationship and parallelism of Matthew 13

to Revelation 2 and 3. The names of the churches, their symbolic

meanings in their particular age, the dates involved, and the

characteristics of the church and their actions during even to

this particular age. The table is presented below:

Matthew 13 Rev. 2-3

Meaning of the Name

Approximate Date Characteristic

Sower/Ephesus Desired Pentecost to 100A.D.

Apostolic,Sowing,

evangelismWheat

Tares/SmyrnaMyrrh Nero to 300 A.D. The Persecuted

churchMustard

Seed/PergamosThoroughlyMarried

300 to 800 A.D. Married to theworld, papaldomination

Leaven/Thyatira Continualsacrifice

800 to 1570 A.D. Doctrinalcorruption, theMedieval Church.

HiddenTreasure/Sardis

Escaping Reformation Rise ofDenominational

churchPearl/

PhiladelphiaBrotherly love The Missionary

ChurchTrue church ofthe last days.

Dragnet/Laodicea People ruling Apostate churchof the last

days.

Apostasy, andJesus outside

the door.

It is not my intention for there to be inference as to an

identity in the revelation in the two passages, rather, that

there is a similarity in the progress of the road ahead, or end

Hill 380

of age revealed in the two portions. This is at least

provocative.

C. The Closing of the Present Age

The coming of Jesus Christ, predicted by some 300 Old

Testament passages, was rejected by the majority of Jews and

Gentiles His first coming, The second coming of the Lord Jesus

Christ in this present age will be the biggest event in the

history of the doubting world. This will culminate with God

bringing to an end to the fulfillment of the two distinct

programs. One with the church, which will be completed after the

rapture. The other with Israel, which will be completed after the

tribulation at the Second Advent of Christ. Both of the church

and Israel have evocative Scriptures concerning the end times of

their respective programs.

There is a reference to the “last times” for the church at 1

Peter 1.20, “He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of

the world, but was manifest in these last times for you”, and

Jude 17-18, “But you, beloved, remember the words which were

spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: how they

told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would

Hill 381

walk according to their own ungodly lusts.” Another for the

church, 1 Peter 1.5, says:

“…who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation

ready to be revealed in the last time.” Also 1 John 2.18 says,

“Little children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that

the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by

which we know that it is the last hour.”

How touching that the apostle John speaks to we who love and

trust the Lord as little children. If more would act like a

little child in their prayers and petitions to the Lord it would

make a tremendous difference in how they conduct their lives. It

would also alter their perception of the days we live in, that we

are perhaps in the final hours of existence. Then a house

cleaning would occur like no other has occurred. If we could see

the future through the sign of the times we perhaps could see the

time is short.

Obviously Scripture speaks to the “last day” for Israel

(John 6.39, 40, 44, 54), where “day” could speak to the program

rather than a day. It is also expedient to remember and observe

that the references to any given time period must be related to

Hill 382

the program of which it is a part. When used in relation to

Israel’s program it never refers to the program for the church.

Chafer states this in his “Systematic Theology”:

Distinction must be made the “last days” for Israel—the

days of her kingdom glory in the earth (cf. Isaiah 2.1-5)

—and the “last days” for the Church, which are days of

evil and apostasy (cf. 2 Timothy 3.1-5). Likewise,

discrimination is called for between the “last days” for

Israel and for the church and “the last day,” which, as

related to the Church, is the day of the resurrection of

those who have died in Christ (cf. John 6.39-40, 44, 54).

(Chafer 374)

Over 5/6th of the Bible is about one nation, Israel.

Distinction has to be made, or one will relate to the church what

is supposed to be closing events for Israel, or vice-versa. Dr.

Chafer spoke extensively on the last days at Dallas Theological

University, and here he says:

A very extensive body of Scripture bears on the last

days for the Church.

Hill 383

Reference is to a restricted time at the very end of,

and yet wholly within, the present age. Though this

brief period immediately precedes the great tribulation

and in some measure is a preparation for it, these two

times of apostasy and confusion—though incomparable in

history—are wholly separate the one from the other.

Those Scriptures which set forth the last days for the

Church give no consideration to political or world

conditions but are confined to the Church itself. These

Scriptures picture men as departing from the faith (1

Timothy 4.1-2). There will be a manifestation of

characteristics which belong to unregenerate men,

though it is under the profession of “a form of

godliness” (cf. 2 Timothy 3.1-5). The indication is

that, having denied the power of the blood of Jesus

(cf. 2 Timothy 3.5 with Romans 1.16; 1 Corinthians

1.23-24; 2 Timothy 4.2-4), the leaders in these forms

of righteousness will be unregenerate men from whom

nothing more spiritual than this can proceed (1

Corinthians 2.14). The following is a partial list of

Hill 384

the passages which present the truth respecting the

last days of the Church: 1 Timothy 4.1-3; 2 Timothy

3.1-5; 4.3-4; James 5.1-8; 2 Peter 2.1-22; 3.3-6; Jude

25. (Chafer 375)

Because the church has, or should have, the imminent

attitude about the return of Christ the date and time are not

given to her about the timing of the return at the end of the

tribulation. So we will pass by the “signs of the times” to

concentrate on the closing days for the church. From the

Scriptures cited by Chafer, it is easy to see certain revelations

concerning the conditions of the acknowledging body of believers

at the end of the age. These conditions center on a system of

denials. There is denial in not believing what God has promised

(Luke 17.26; 2 Timothy 3.4-5), there is denial in what Christ has

said (2 Peter 3.3-4), this denial displays a remarkable lack of

faith (2 Peter 3.33-4), sound doctrine is denied by a majority of

religious denominations (2 Timothy 4.3-4), a denial of coming out

and being separate from the world (2 Timothy 3.1-7), hundreds and

thousands of rules is a denial of liberty through Christ (1

Timothy 4.3-4), life (2 Timothy 3.1-7), massive immorality is

Hill 385

denial of moral living through Christ (2 Timothy 3.1-8, 13; Jude

18), and a denial of God’s absolute right over the life of a

believer (2 Timothy 3.4).

Anyone who denies these things are occurring in the body of

Christ today have their heads in the sand. More and more

toleration of the things of the world makes it so that it is

difficult to recognize how far this condition has gone. Very much

like a frog in the frying pan who recognizes the water is getting

hot after it is too late. The conditions of the church at the end

of the age seem to agree with the state within the Laodicean

Church, where Christ had to stand outside and knock to even get

in. In view of these conditions, it is easy to see why the age is

called an “evil age” in Scripture.

Chapter 8

The Pretribulation Rapture Theory

There are a number of prevalent interpretations, all based

on hermeneutical differences, as to the timing of the rapture as

it applies to the tribulation period within the church today.

They are:

Hill 386

1. The Partial Rapture Theory – The partial rapture

theory espouses that not all believers will be taken

at the churches rapture, only those who have reached

spiritual attainment, who are actively watching for

His return that makes them spiritual worthy of the

event. This position is based on certain

misunderstanding of the value of the death of Yeshua

HaMashiach and what His shed blood does to free the

sinner from any condemnation and makes him acceptable

to God. This theory of the rapture is false at a

number of Scriptural levels and must be rejected

outright as false.

2. The Post Tribulation Rapture Theory – The post

tribulation folk want the church to go through the

wrath of God, the bloody water, treeless world making

the earth almost inhabitable. Then after being beat up

severely, if not dead, to meet Christ at his second

coming. This theory is gaining acceptance at the

present time among scholars who teach the preachers of

tomorrow. This position on the theory of the rapture

Hill 387

fails to stand up to the literal interpretation of

Scripture, makes absolutely no sense, and thus must be

rejected as false.

3. The Midtribulation Rapture Theory – Less popular

among scholars, the midtribulation rapture is as it

implies, rapture after the first three and a half

weeks of tribulation, When examined fully, this theory

too does not stand up against true interpretation of

Scriptures and, therefore, must be rejected as false

as well.

I. The Necessary Source of the Pretribulation Rapture Theory

Pretribulation rapture rests essentially on one key major

premise—the literal interpretation of the Scriptures. Dr.

Pentecost says, “As a necessary adjunct to this, the

pretribulationist believes in a dispensational interpretation of

the Word of God.” (Pentecost 193)

As I have demonstrated, the church and Israel are two distinct

groups within God’s divine dispensational plan. The church is a

unrevealed mystery in the Old Testament. The present mystery age

we exist within intervenes in the program of God because of

Hill 388

Israel’s rejection of Yeshua HaMashiach in His first coming.

Revelation 4.1 states the church is in heaven before the

tribulation begins which means God will resume His program with

Israel and bring it to completion. The literal method of

interpretation is involved in each of these.

II. The Essential Arguments of the Pretribulation Rapturists

We have a number of points of view are presented in support

of the rapture occurring in the pretribulation period. Not all

of them is as important as some, like life in general, the

cumulative evidence is strong.

The literal method of interpretation is frankly and freely

admitted by the amillennialist as the basic issue in the

controversy with premillennialism. Allis, ever the

amillennialist, says, “The question of literal versus figurative

interpretation is, therefore, one which has to the faced at the

very outset.” (Allis 17) Dr. Allis admits that if the literal

method of interpretation of the Scriptures is the right method

premillennialism is the correct method of interpretation.

Likewise, each of us freely admits that the premillennial

believes in a literal return in the premillennial period of our

Hill 389

Lord and Savior Jesus Christ which is clearly indicated in both

the Old and New Testament prophecies and promises, literally

interpreted where appropriate. Through this literal method of

interpretation, the rapture question is answered. A

pretribulation rapture is a result of a literal interpretation

where God says what He means, and means what He says. Let’s face

it; a postribulationalist has to spiritualize Revelation even

though any and most all symbolization is explained clearly there,

or what is not is elsewhere in the Word of God. If this is not

their view historical is the only way to explain Revelation, in

obvious error, or be force to concede it is yet future. However,

what he attempts to do is try to fit the events spiritualized to

fit their method of interpretation. The hermeneutic violates the

principle of the literal interpretation of Scripture where God

says what he means.

The midtribulation rapturists, in spiritualizing the events

of the first three and a half weeks of tribulation, uses the

literal method of interpretation in the last three and a half

weeks of Daniel’s seventieth week of years. However, in

spiritualizing Daniel’s prophecies first three and a half week of

Hill 390

years of tribulation, it allows the bride of Christ to go through

it. Again, at the least, it is a basis inconsistency. It is

inconsistent to employ one method of interpretation in

establishing premillennialism and another method employed in the

interpretation of the rapture. The literal interpretation,

consistently employed, will lead to no other conclusion that that

the church will be raptured before the seventieth week. Walvoord

makes a valid point when he says, “It should be noted in passing

that this method does not lead one on into

ultradispensationalism, for that system is not the outgrowth of

the use of greater literalness, but rather is based on exegetical

considerations.” (Walvoord 310)

A. Let’s examine the nature of the seventieth week. It would

be beneficial to examine the descriptions of the seventieth week

of years in the Old and New Testaments. These words, when

considered together, give us the essential nature of this period.

1. Wrath – Revelation 6.16-18; 11.18; 14.19; 15.1, 7;

16.1, 19; 1 Thessalonians 1.9-10; 5.9; Zephaniah

1.15, 18.

2. Judgment – Revelation 14.7; 15.4; 16.5-7; 19.2.

Hill 391

3. Indignation – Isaiah 26.20-21; 34.1-3.

4. Punishment – Isaiah 24.20-21.

5. Destruction – Joel 1.15.

6. Darkness – Joel 2.2; Zephaniah 1.14-18; Amos 5.18.

It would be wise to note not one of the passages above

describe any difference to tribulation in any portion of it, so

it can be implied the entire period is marked by some or all of

the characterizations above. But this brings up a good question.

Do you want your bride to be put through the extreme wrath of God

before the wedding?

B. The scope of the seventieth week leaves no doubt that in

this period the entire world will see God’s wrath poured out for

turning their back on him. Revelation 3.10; Isaiah 34.2; 24.1, 4-

5, 16-17, 18-21, and many others make this point abundantly

clear. Dr. Thiessen says, “There is no doubt that the entire

world is in view here: however, this period is particularly in

relation to Israel. Jeremiah 30.7, which calls this period “the

time of Jacob’s trouble, makes this certain. The events of the

seventieth week, especially the last three and a half years, are

the events of the “Day of the Lord” or “Day of Jehovah,””

Hill 392

(Thiessen 402) The use of this name of the deity emphasizes God’s

particular relationship to Israel. When Gabriel gave Daniel the

prophecy from God, he said to him “Seventy weeks are determined

for your people and for your holy city…” (Daniel 9.24).

Is this hard to misinterpret (i.e. the Jehovah’s Witness)?

The entire period is for the Israelites who are Daniel’s people,

Israel, and the holy city of Jerusalem. All you have to do is

read and understand the following New Testament Scriptures. For

example, Ephesians 3.1-6; Colossians 1.25-27, where Dr. Pentecost

says, “Jesus Christ bride is a mystery church is a mystery and

its nature as a body composed of both Jew and Gentile alike were

unrevealed in the Old Testament, the church could not have been

in view in this or any other Old Testament prophecy.” (Pentecost

196)

Pentecost makes the further observation:

Since the church did not have its existence until after

the death of Christ (Ephesians 5.25-26), until after

the resurrection of Christ (Romans 4.25; Colossians

3.1-3), until after the ascension (Ephesians 1.19-20),

and until after the descent of the Holy Spirit at

Hill 393

Pentecost with the inception of all His ministries to

the believer (Acts 2), the church count not have been

in the first sixty-nine weeks, which are related only

to God’s program for Israel, it can have no part in the

seventieth week, which is again related to God’s

program for Israel after the mystery program for the

church has been concluded. (Pentecost 197)

William Kelly wrote extensively on every subject of the

tribulation in which he deals with the question of passages like

Matthew 24, Daniel 12, Luke 21, Mark 13, Jeremiah 30, Revelation

7, Kelly concludes:

The view here maintained follow on a close

investigation of every distinct passage that Scripture

affords upon the subject of the great tribulation. I

should be obliged to anyone who produce me other

passages that refer to it; but I am not aware of them.

I demand of these whether they can point out one word

which supposes a Christian or the Church on the earth

when the great tribulation arrives? Have we not seen

the doctrine of Old and New Testament – of Jeremiah, of

Hill 394

Daniel, of the Lord Jesus, and of the apostle John—is

this, that, just before the Lord appears in glory, will

come the last and unequalled trouble of Israel, though

Jacob and the Gentiles are totally distinct from the

Christians and the Church. As regards the Christian,

the positive promise of the Lord is, that such as have

kept the Word of His patience He will keep out of the

hour of trial, which is about to come upon the whole

habitable world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

(Kelly 235)

With Dr. Kelly above, since every passage dealing with the

tribulation relates to God’s program for Israel, the scope of

tribulation prevents the church from participating in it.

C. The purpose of the seventieth week of Gabriel to Daniel—

the Scriptures indicate that there are two major purposes to be

accomplished in the seventieth week.

1. The first purpose is stated in Revelation 3.10, “Because

you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from

the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test

Hill 395

those who dwell on the earth.” Who will be in the time of testing

is obviously one of the important considerations that is in view.

(1) First of all the period in view here is “them

that dwell on the earth” and not the church. Earth

dwellers has always been the sea of humanity in the

world apart from the saving grace of God through

Jesus Christ. This same expression occurs in

Revelation 6.10; 11.10; 13.8, 12, 14; 14.6 and

17.8.

Henry C. Thiessen, professor of Systematic Theology at

Dallas Theological University says:

Now the word “dwell” used here (Greek, katoikeo) is a

strong word. It is used to describe the fullness of the

Godhead that dwelt in Christ (Colossians 2.9); it is

used of Christ’s taking up a permanent abode in the

believer’s heart (Ephesians 3.17), and of demons

returning to take absolute possession of a man.

(Matthew 12.45; Luke 11.26). It is to be distinguished

from the Greek word, oikeo, which is the general term

for “dwell,” and paroikeo, which has the idea of

Hill 396

transitoriness, “to sojourn.” Thayer remarks that the

term katoikeo has the idea of permanence in it. Thus

the judgment referred to in Revelation 3.10 is directed

against earth-dwellers of that day, against those who

have settled down in the earth as their real home, who

have identified themselves with the earth’s commerce

and religion. (Thiessen 28)

Since the period of the rapture and the beginning of

tribulation is related to “earth dwellers,” those that have

ignored the Lord’s calling and settled down to permanent

occupancy, it can have no reference to the church, which

otherwise would be subjected to the same experiences.

(2) Our second consideration to note is the use of the

infinitive, Greek peirasai, “to try” to express

purpose. Thayer defines the word, when God is its

subject, “to inflict evils upon one in order to

prove his character and the steadfastness of his

faith.” (Thayer 489)

Hill 397

Since the Father never sees the church except in Jesus

Christ, for the true church does not need to be tested to

see if her faith is genuine.

2. The second major purpose of the seventieth week of Daniel

is in relation to the prophet Daniel is the nation Israel. In

Malachi 4.5-6 it says:

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the

coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And

he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,

and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I

come and strike the earth with a curse.”

Daniel states emphatically that the ministry of this Elijah was

to prepare the people for the King who was shortly to come.

Observe what Luke 1.17 says: “He will also go before Him in the

spirit and power of Elijah, ‘to turn the hearts of the fathers to

the children,’ and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to

make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” This verse promises

that the son born to Zacharias would “go before him in the spirit

and power of Elias” and perform the ministry “to make ready a

people prepared for the Lord.” Concerning the promise of Elias

Hill 398

(Elijah), he was to be a sign to Israel, the Lord says in Mark

9.12-13:

…“Indeed, Elijah is coming first and restores all things.

And how is it written concerning the Son of Man, that He

must suffer many things and be treated with contempt? But I

say to you that Elijah has also come, and they did to him

whatever they wished, as it is written of him.”

The Lord was showing whoever would listen that John the Baptist

had the ministry of Elijah of preparing a people for Him. Matthew

11.14 removes any doubt of this and is conclusive, “And if you

are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come.” The

nation Israel now had everything they needed to believe. John the

Baptist had the ministry to prepare the nation Israel for the

coming of the King. It can be concluded of these verses that

Elijah, who is to come before the great and terrible day of the

Lord who has only one ministry—to prepare a remnant in Israel for

the advent of the Lord. It is obvious to me that the church has

no such ministry needed since she by nature is “without spot or

wrinkle or any such thing, but is holy and without blemish.”

(Ephesians 5.27) These two purposes, the testing of earth

Hill 399

dwellers, and the preparation of Israel for the King, have no

relation to the church whatsoever. This is conclusive evidence

that the church will not be in the seventieth week of Daniel’s

prophecy.

D. Let’s briefly look at the nature of the church. There are

certain distinctions one must carefully observe the differences

between the church and Israel which are clearly set forth in

Scripture, but almost totally ignored in a majority of the

church.

(1) There are unmistakable difference between the

church and Israel. They each had different origins

and they each have different destinies. All those

who make up the body of Christ, the church, have

each professed their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

To some this profession is based on reality and to

some no reality at all. The no reality at all group

are destined to go into the tribulation period,

because Revelation 2.22 indicates clearly that the

unsaved professing church will visit this visitation

of wrath. The physical birth marks the membership of

Hill 400

the group called national Israel, and all in this

group who are not saved by the blood of the Lamb and

were not removed by rapture and alive at the time of

the rapture, along with the unsaved group will be

subjected to the wrath of God in tribulation.

(2) There is a distinction between the true church and

the professing church. The true church is composed

of all those in this age who have received Jesus

Christ as Savior. In contrast to this we have the

professing church composed of those who make a

profession of receiving Christ without actually

receiving Him. Only the true church will be

raptured.

(3) There is also a distinction between the true church

and the true or spiritual Israel. Prior to the life

changing event of Pentecost there were individuals

who were saved, but there was not a church, and this

group was part of spiritual Israel, not the church.

After the day of Pentecost and until the event of

the rapture we have the church which is His body,

Hill 401

but no spiritual Israel. After the rapture there is

no church, but a true or spiritual Israel again.

These are distinction that must be kept clearly in

mind.

The rapture takes, or removes, not everyone who acknowledges

their faith in Christ, but the born again only who live the life,

not just talk the life. The Bible describes the masses as

unbelieving earth dwellers and the unbelieving portion of the

visible church and unbelievers in the nation Israel are to go

through the tribulation period.

1. Since the believers are the ones who make up the body of

Christ, or church, it is He who is the Head of the church

(Ephesians 1.22; 5.23; Colossians 1.18). The body of

believers are the bride, of which Jesus Christ is the

Bridegroom ( 1 Corinthians 11.2; Ephesians 5.23). The

body of believers receive the love of the Bridegroom,

Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5.25). The church is the branch

of which the Head is the Root and Stem (John 15.5). The

church is know as the building, of which He is the

Cornerstone and the Foundation (1 Corinthians 3.9;

Hill 402

Ephesians 2.19-22). The believer is a willing doulos of

which there exists a union and unity bring us into the

very closest oneness with Him. Think out about it, if the

church is in the seventieth week, she would be brought

into the wrath of God, the judgment, and indignation

characterizing the tribulation period. Because of our

oneness with the Lord, would He not be subjected to the

same visitation? 1 John 4.17 makes this an impossibility

when it states, “Love has been perfected among us in

this: that we may have boldness in the Day of Judgment;

because as He is, so are we in this world.” Jesus cannot

be brought into judgment again. That goes for the church

of which He is the head which has been perfected and

delivered from judgment according to Romans 8.1; John

5.24; and 1 John 4.17 which says, “Love has been

perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in

the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this

world.” The apostle John in John 5.24 says, “Most

assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and

believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and

Hill 403

shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death

into life.” And the famous, Romans 8.1, “There is,

therefore, now no condemnation to those who are in Christ

Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but

according to the Spirit.” If the church is subjected to

judgment against the promises of God it would make His

Word a lie, and the death of Christ ineffectual. Who

would dare assert the death of Christ failed to

accomplish its purpose? There are individual members who

are experientially imperfect and in need of effectually

cleansing, yet the church of which is His body has a

standing in Christ and could never need such a cleansing.

The very nature of the Wrath of God, and His testing, as

stated in Revelation 3.10 could never subject the

individual believer to this cleansing. The wrath of God

will expose the degradation and need of the heart that is

not born again. The very nature of the church in Christ

prevents such testing.

2. Again, anyone doubting the evidence presented needs to

read and understand Revelation 13.7 which says, “It was

Hill 404

granted to him to make war with the saints and to

overcome them. And authority was given him over every

tribe, tongue, and nation.” If the church was in this

period, in heaven since Revelation 4.1, she would be

subjected to Satan, and the Head of the church, Jesus

Christ would likewise be subjected to Satan’s authority.

Such a thing is impossible and unthinkable. It is easy to

conclude that salvation through Jesus Christ prevents her

from being in the seventieth week along with the body of

believers being promised never to experience the Wrath of

God.

3. The concept of the body of believers as a mystery will be

explored. Closely related to the previous consideration

of the concept given by Jesus Christ that the mystery

lies in their being a body of believers. It was common

knowledge that God was going to provide a Messiah for the

Jews salvation. It was also common knowledge in principle

that God would bless Gentiles with salvation. But it was

real news that God was going to form together both

Gentile and Jew into one body of believers was never

Hill 405

revealed in the Old Testament, and is the source of the

mystery of which Paul speaks of in Ephesians 3.1-7,

Romans 16.25-27, and Colossians 1.26-29.

4. Obviously, the union between Jew and Gentile into one

body was not revealed until after the Jews rejection of

Jesus Christ. The final rejection can be found at Matthew

12.23-24. His announcement about the birth of the

forthcoming church is found at Matthew 16.18. The birth

of the church with the descending of the Holy Spirit in

Acts Sometime after the birth of the church God calls out

an arch enemy of the young church to be an apostle to the

Gentiles, Saul who later became Paul. The mystery nature

of the church is now revealed and cannot be stopped. The

church is birthed at the beginning of the almost 2,000

year delay of God’s program for Israel. God’s program for

Israel will resume fittingly sometime in the period after

the rapture of the body of believers.

5. The mystery program, which was so distinct in its

inception will certainly be separate from the time of

tribulation. This program must be concluded before God

Hill 406

resumes His program with the apple of God eye. (Zechariah

2.8) The mystery conception of the church makes a

pretribulation rapture a requirement.

6. The many distinctions between Israel and the church are

contrasted. Dr. Chafer has set forth twenty contrasts

between Israel and the church that demonstrate without a

doubt that the church and Israel have different origins

and destines and is important to recognize them as such

with different separate programs. Chafer defines the

differences as follows:

(1) The extent of Biblical revelation—Israel is nearly

four-fifths of the Bible; the Church—about one-fifth.

(2) The divine purpose, Israel—the physical seed with

earthly promises in covenants; the Church—the heavenly

promises in the Gospel.

(3) The seed of Abraham; Israel—the physical seed, of

whom some become a spiritual seed; Church—a spiritual

seed.

Hill 407

(4) Birth—Israel—physical birth that produces a

relationship; Church—spiritual birth that brings a

relationship.

(5) Headship—Israel—Abraham; Church—Christ.

(6) Covenants—Israel—Abrahamic and all the following

covenants; Church—indirectly related to the Abrahamic

and New covenants.

(7) National—Israel—one nation; Church—from all

nations.

(8) Divine dealing: Israel—national and individual;

Church—individual only.

(9) Dispensations: Israel—seen in all ages from

Abraham; Church—seen only in the present age.

(10) Ministry: Israel—no missionary activity and no

gospel to preach; Church—a commission to fill.

(11) The death of Christ: Israel—guilty nationally, to

be saved by it; Church—perfectly saved by it now.

(12) The Father; Israel—by a peculiar relationship God

was Father to the nation; Church—we are related

individually to God as Father.

Hill 408

(13) Christ: Israel—Messiah, Immanuel, King; Church—

Saviour, Lord, Bridegroom, Head.

(14) The Holy Spirit: Israel—came upon temporarily;

Church—indwells all.

(15) Governing principle: Israel—Mosaic law system;

Church—the grace system. (16) Divine enablement: Israel

—none; Church—the indwelling Holy Spirit.

(17) Two farewell discourses: Israel—Olivet discourse;

Church—upper room discourse.

(18) The promise of Christ’s return: Israel—in power

and glory for judgment; Church—to receive us to

Himself.

(19) Position: Israel—a servant; Church—members of the

family.

(20) Christ’s earthly reign: Israel—subjects; Church—

co-reigners.

(21) Priesthood: Israel—had a priesthood; Church—is a

priesthood.

(22) Marriage: Israel—unfaithful wife; Church—bride.

Hill 409

(23) Judgments: Israel—must face judgment; Church—

delivered from all judgments.

(24) Positions in eternity: Israel—spirits of just men

made perfect in the new earth; Church—church of the

firstborn in the new heavens. (Chafer 617-618)

These are a clear contrast between Israel and the Church and

show the distinction between them. This clearly makes it

impossible to identify the two in one program, which is made

necessary when you try to make the church subject to the

seventieth week. These distinctions give further support for the

pretribulation rapture position.

E. The doctrine of Imminence. Many signs were given to the

nation Israel, which would precede the Second Advent of Jesus

Christ, so the nation might live in expectancy when the time of

His coming might draw near. Although Israel could not know the

day nor the hour when the Lord would come, yet they could have

known that their redemption draws near through the fulfillment of

these signs. To the church no such signs were ever given. The

church was told to live in the light of the imminent coming of

the Lord to translate them in His presence. (John 14.2-3; Acts

Hill 410

1.11; 1 Corinthian 15.51-52; Philippians 3.20; Colossians 3.4; 1

Thessalonians 1.10; 1 Timothy 6.14; James 5.8; 1 Peter 3.3-4).

Such passages a 1 Thessalonians 5.6; Titus 2.13; Revelation 3.3

all warn the believer to be watching for the Lord Himself, not

for signs that would precede His coming.

It is true that the events preceding the seventieth week

will cast a shading on the world before the rapture, however the

object of the believer’s attention is always directed to Christ,

never to these portents. This doctrine of imminence, or “at any

moment coming,” is not a new doctrine of Darby, as it is

sometimes charged, although he did clarify, systemize, and

popularize it. Such a belief marked the premillennialism of the

early church fathers as well as the writers of the New Testament.

Dr. Thiessen wrote:

They held not only the premillennial view of Christ’s

coming, but also regarded that coming as imminent. The

Lord had taught them to expect His return at any

moment, and so they looked for Him to come in their

day. Not only so, but they also taught His personal

return as being immediately. Only Alexandrians opposed

Hill 411

this truth; but these Fathers also rejected other

fundamental doctrines. We may say, therefore, that the

early Church lived in the constant expectation of their

Lord, and hence was not interested in the possibility

of a Tribulation period in the future. (Thiessen 15)

Although the eschatology of the early church may not be

altogether clear on all points, for that subject was not the

subject of serious consideration, yet the evidence is clear that

they believed in the imminent return of Christ. This same view of

imminence is clearly seen in the writings of the reformers, even

though they may have had different views on eschatological

questions. Chafer quotes some the reformers to show that they

believed in the imminency of the return of Christ.

Luther wrote, “I believe that all the signs which are

to precede the last days have already appeared. Let us

not think that the coming of Christ is far off; let us

look up with heads lifted up; let us expect our

Redeemer’s coming with longing and cheerful mind.”

Calvin also declares, “Scripture uniformly enjoins us

to look with expectation for the advent of Christ.” To

Hill 412

this may be added the voice of John Knox, “The Lord

Jesus shall return, and that with expedition. What were

this else but to reform the face of the whole earth,

which never was nor yet shall be, till that righteous

King and Judge appear for the restoration of all

things.” (Chafer 278)

The doctrine of imminence forbids the involvement of the

church in any part of the seventieth week as has been

conclusively proven. The large volume of signs given to Israel to

stir them up to expectancy would then also be a sign for the

church today that Israel does not have to be looking for Christ

and their judgment. Instead, the church is commanded, and failing

to, watch imminently for Christ, which also precludes her

participation in the seventieth week.

F. What is the work of the Restrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2?

Someone may have erroneously told the Thessalonian church that

they had been left behind by preaching, rumor, or even letter.

That would have left them in the “Day of the Lord,” and that

would have given them much fear of what was going to happen to

them. The church was under persecution that they had endured, as

Hill 413

referred to in the first chapter, may also have given them a

basis for their erroneous consideration. Keep in mind their

communication lacked modern day conveniences as land lines, cell

phones, expressways, etc. Paul wrote them to show them that such

a thing was impossible.

In 2 Thessalonians 2.3, “Let no one deceive you by any

means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes

first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition.” Dr.

LaHaye says,

Paul writes to them that the “Day of the Lord” could

not take place until there was a departure. There are

several possibilities in this verse. First, he may have

been talking about the departure from the faith, or

departure of the saints from the earth, or departure of

the Holy Spirit, some of which have already been

mentioned in verse 1, is beside the point here. Second,

Paul reveals there was to be the manifestation of the

man of sin, or the lawless one, which is further

described in Revelation 13. Paul argues in verse 7 that

although the mystery of iniquity was operational in his

Hill 414

day, that is, the lawless system that was to culminate

in the person of the lawless one was making itself

known, yet this lawless one could not be manifested

until the Restrainer was taken out of the way. In other

words, some One is preventing the purpose of Satan from

coming to the culmination and He will continue

preforming this ministry until He is removed (verses 7-

8). (LaHaye 375)

Those that suggest the identity of the Restrainer such as

human government, the Law, the visible church do not suffice, for

they all will continue to be in existence after the appearance of

the lawless one. While, in hindsight, what we are dealing with

here is an exegetical issue. The only logical One with the power

to hold back the evil world is the One doing it at this very

moment, the Holy Spirit which is within each and every believer.

I believe as long as the Holy Spirit is at home within each

believer, which is His temple, the Spirit’s restraining work

continues preventing the man of sin from being revealed. The

rapture is the only power which can remove the church, or each

member, the temple, before the lawlessness can proceed and

Hill 415

produce the proper environment for the lawless one. The Holy

Spirit’s presence will still be felt bringing people to the Lord

as He calls. He will continue to be omnipresent, with the church

removal, but the restraining ministry does cease.

So the ministry of the Restrainer, the Holy Spirit,

continues as long as His temple is on the earth. Each believer is

a temple, and His ministry ceases immediately when the rapture

occurs. The pretribulation rapture, which Paul clearly taught,

removes the church and unfolds that the lawless one to be

manifested in the beginning of the week, or the first 3 and a

half weeks.

G. The necessity of an interval controversy. The word

apantésis, or to meet, is the word that Luke employed meaning “to

meet to return” in Acts 28.15. Dr. Pentecost defines the

argument,

It is often argued that the same word used in 1

Thessalonians 4.17 has the same connotation and

therefore the church must be raptured to return

instantly and immediately with the Lord to the earth,

denying and making impossible any interval between the

Hill 416

rapture and the return. Not only does the Greek word

not require such an interpretation, but certain events

predicted for the church after her translation make

such an interpretation impossible. The events are (1)

the judgment seat of Christ, (2) the presentation of

the church to Christ, and (3) the marriage supper of

the Lamb. (Pentecost 205)

First, Scriptures like the following: 2 Corinthians 5.9;

1 Corinthians 3.11-16; Revelation 4.4; 19.8, 14 demonstrates by

the time of the Second Advent of Christ the church, a large body

of believers, has already been examined as to her works and has

received a reward. This is another strong argument for the

pretribulation rapture. The events as described makes it

impossible for them to take place at any time except after the

rapture.

Second, the church is presented as a gift from the Father to

the Son. C. I. Scofield wrote:

This is the moment of our Lord’s supreme joy—the

consummation of all His redemptive work. “Husbands,

love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church

Hill 417

and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and

cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that

He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not

having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she

should be holy and without blemish.” (Ephesians 5.25-

27)

“Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and

to present you faultless before the presence of His

glory with exceeding joy.” (Jude 24) (Scofield,

Tribulation, 18)

Third, from the passages at Revelation 19.7-9, it clearly

states the marriage consummation in the union between the church

and Jesus precedes the second coming of the Lord. In many

passages, like Matthew 25.1-13; 22.1-14; and Luke 12.35-41, all

indicate Jesus as a Bridegroom when He comes to smite the enemies

of God with His Word in His second coming indicating the marriage

has already taken place. This too fits a pretribulation rapture

and the expiration of some period of time having taken place

between the rapture and pretribulation.

Hill 418

Fourth, a caveat, or gem of a revelation. Revelation 1.20

defines the lampstands as the seven churches. One of the

renderings of the seven churches is they span the ages of the

life of the church. Revelation two and three have previously been

examined. Then in Revelation 4.1 the term “meta tauta”, or after

this, is used. After what? The lampstands which are the seven

churches are now found in heaven. Here is a little heard of gem

of evidence that the church, of body of believers, is in heaven

well before the “Day of the Lord” and God’s wrath.

H. The dissimilarities between the rapture, which happens

first, and the Second Advent should be obvious. There are a

number of contrasts that become evident when analyzed between the

rapture and the Second Advent which prove conclusively they are

not synonymous in Scripture. W. E. Blackstone has a great list of

the contrast, when he says:

(1) The rapture requires the removal of all true

believers in Jesus Christ, while the Second Advent, or

second coming, and involves possibly the greatest event

of all time, the appearing of the Son of God.

Hill 419

(2) The rapture has saints caught up into the air (1

Thessalonians 4.17), and in the Second Advent Jesus

returns in power and glory.

(3) In the rapture Christ comes to claim a bride,

however in the Second Advent he returns with the bride.

(4) The rapture removes the church from the earth and

in whatever gap is involved starts the tribulation

period, while the Second Advent is the key to

initializing the promised millennial kingdom.

(5) The rapture is imminent, while the Second Advent is

preceded by a multitude of signs.

(6) The rapture is a message of comfort for those who

have waited so long, while the Second Advent brings

judgment.

(7) The rapture is interrelated with the church while

the Second Advent is akin to Israel and the world.

(8) The rapture is a mystery to the uninformed and the

world, while the Second Advent predicted in both the

New and Old Testaments.

Hill 420

(9) After the rapture believers are judged as to

rewards, while at the Second Advent the Gentiles and

Israel are judged.

(10) The rapture leaves creation unchanged, while the

advent entails the change in creation.

(11) At the translation, Gentiles are unaffected, while

at the Second Advent Gentiles are judged.

(12) At the rapture, covenants are unfulfilled, while

at the Second Advent all of Israel’s covenants with God

are fulfilled.

(13) The rapture has no relation to God’s program

against evil, but at the Second Advent evil will be

judged.

(14) The rapture will take place before the day of

wrath, but the Second Advent follows it.

(15) The rapture is for believers who have been born

again, but the Second Advent has an effect on all on

the earth.

(16) The expectation of the church in regard to the

rapture should be “the Lord is at hand” (Philippians

Hill 421

4.5), while the expectation of Israel in regard to the

Second Advent is “the kingdom is at hand” (Matthew

24.14).

(17) The expectation of the church at the rapture is to

be taken into the Lord’s presence while the expectation

of Israel at the Second Advent is to be taken into the

kingdom. (Blackstone 75-80)

There are many more convincing evidences that might be

presented, but these alone support the contention that there are

two different programs that can’t replace the other, and cannot

be unified into one program.

I. The dissimilarities between the rapture, which happens first,

and the Second Advent should be obvious. There are a number of

contrasts that become evident when analyzed between the rapture

and the Second Advent which prove conclusively they are not

synonymous in Scripture. W. E. Blackstone has a great list of the

contrast, when he says:

(1) The rapture requires the removal of all true

believers in Jesus Christ, while the Second Advent, or

Hill 422

second coming, involves possibly the greatest event of

all time, the appearing of the Son of God.

(2) The rapture has saints caught up into the air (1

Thessalonians 4.17), and in the Second Advent Jesus

returns in power and glory.

(3) In the rapture Christ comes to claim a bride,

however in the Second Advent he returns with the bride.

(4) The rapture removes the church from the earth and

in whatever gap is involved starts the tribulation

period, while the Second Advent is the key to

initializing the promised millennial kingdom.

(5) The rapture is imminent, while the Second Advent is

preceded by a multitude of signs.

(6) The rapture is a message of comfort for those who

have waited so long, while the Second Advent brings

judgment.

(7) The rapture is interrelated with the church while

the Second Advent is akin to Israel and the world.

Hill 423

(8) The rapture is a mystery to the uninformed and the

world, while the Second Advent predicted in both the

New and Old Testaments.

(9) After the rapture believers are judged as to

rewards, while at the Second Advent the Gentiles and

Israel are judged.

(10) The rapture leaves creation unchanged, while the

advent entails the change in creation.

(11) At the translation, Gentiles are unaffected, while

at the Second Advent Gentiles are judged.

(12) At the rapture, covenants are unfulfilled, while

at the Second Advent all of Israel’s covenants with God

are fulfilled.

(13) The rapture has no relation to God’s program

against evil, but at the Second Advent evil will be

judged.

(14) The rapture will take place before the day of

wrath, but the Second Advent follows it.

Hill 424

(15) The rapture is for believers who have been born

again, but the Second Advent has an effect on all on

the earth.

(16) The expectation of the church in regard to the

rapture should be “the Lord is at hand” (Philippians

4.5), while the expectation of Israel in regard to the

Second Advent is “the kingdom is at hand” (Matthew

24.14).

(17) The expectation of the church at the rapture is to

be taken into the Lord’s presence while the expectation

of Israel at the Second Advent is to be taken into the

kingdom. (Blackstone 75-80)

There are many more convincing evidences that might be

presented, but these alone support the contention that there are

two different programs that can’t replace the other, and cannot

be unified into one program.

J. Dr. Pentecost says, “While argument from analogy is a

weak argument in itself, yet if a teaching is contrary to all

topology it cannot be a true interpretation. The use of types in

Biblical texts, used extensively, are the embodiment of an

Hill 425

anticipatory model of a future event or person. Many types are

found of those that walked by faith were delivered for the

visitation of judgment which most always overtook the

unbelieving. Take the example of a type of the rapture is where

Noah and Rehab and six others escaped the judgment of the flood.

Perhaps the clearest one is Lot, who in 2 Peter 2.6-9 he called a

righteous man.

Peter leads us back into the divine explanation which sheds

light on Genesis 19.22, “Hurry, and escape there. For I cannot do

anything until you arrive there.” The angels of God hurried along

the departure of Lot before the judgment of God on Sodom and

Gomorrah; the angel told Lot that he could do nothing until Lot

was out of the city at a safe distance. If the presence of one

righteous man prevented the outpouring of deserved judgment, how

much more will the existence of the church on earth thwart the

outpouring of divine wrath until after her removal?

A number of evidences have been presented for the belief in

the pretribulation rapture position. The pretribulation rapture

doctrine is not centered on any of the arguments singly, but

however they are presented as accumulative evidences that the

Hill 426

church will be delivered by the rapture prior to the inception of

Daniel’s seventieth week.

Chapter 9

The Event for the Church Following the Rapture

The Scripture is clear about two events into which the

Church will be brought into following the rapture which have

eschatological significance. They are: 1. The judgment seat of

Christ and 2. The marriage and supper of the Lamb. We will

briefly examine both of these to glean what we can from

Scripture. After all, it is on the road ahead.

I. The Judgment Seat of Christ

In 2 Corinthians 5.10, “For we must all appear before the

judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things

done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be

good or bad.” Also, Romans 14.10, “…For we shall all stand before

the judgment seat of Christ.”

It is stated that raptured believers are to be brought into

an examination before the Lord Jesus Christ. Perhaps this is

clearer in 1 Corinthians 3.9-15, “For we are God’s fellow

workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. According

Hill 427

to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master

builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But

let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other

foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus

Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold,

silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will

become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be

revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what

sort it is. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he

will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer

loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.” A

matter that is this serious demands further investigation.

A. The Judgment Seat of Christ. If one carefully studies

this subject you will find 2 references translated “judgment

seat” in the New Testament. The first is the word criterion that

is used in James 2.6; 1 Corinthians 6.2, 4. According to Thayer,

criterion means “the instrument or means of trying or judging

anything; the rule by which one judges” or “the place where

judgment is given; the tribunal of a judge; a bench of judges.”

Hill 428

(Thayer 362) It is much like a judge at an athletic event. The

second word is Bema, about which Thayer says:

A raised place mounted by steps; a platform, tribune;

used as the official seat of a judge. Acts 18. 12, 16

of the judgment seat of Christ, Romans 14.10 of the

structure, resembling a throne, which Herod built in

the theater at Caesarea and from which he used to view

games and make speeches.” (Thayer 101)

According to Sale and Harrison about Bema:

In Grecian games in Athens, the old arena contained a

raised platform on which the president or umpire of the

arena sat. From here he rewarded all the contestants;

and here he rewarded all winners. It was called the

“Bema” or “reward seat.” It was never used of a

judicial bench. (Sale and Harrison 8)

The ideas that are associated with this word are prominence,

dignity, authority, honor, and reward rather than the idea of

judgment and justice. The word that Paul chose to describe the

place before which this event takes place suggests its character.

Hill 429

B. The Timing of the Bema seat of Christ. Walvoord states on

the timing of the Bema seat, “The event herein described takes

place immediately following the rapture of the church out of this

earth’s sphere.” (Walvoord 579) There are several evidences of

this in Scripture that support this view.

(1) In the first placed, according to Luke 14:14, “And

you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you;

for you shall be repaid at the resurrection of the

just.” So reward is associated with the

resurrection. 1 Thessalonians 4.13-17, the

resurrection is an inseparable part of the

translation, reward must be a part of that program.

(2) When Jesus Christ returns in power and glory to

the earth with His bride to reign, the bride is

already seen to be rewarded. This is also featured

in Revelation 19.8, where it must be observed that

the “righteousness of the saints” is plural and

cannot refer to the imparted righteousness of

Christ, which is the believer’s portion, but the

Hill 430

righteousness which have survived examination and

become a basis of reward.

(3) In 1 Corinthians 4.5; 2 Timothy 4.8; and

Revelation 22.12 the reward is linked with “that

day,” that is, the day in which He comes for His

own. Then we observe that the rewarding of the

saints must take place between the rapture and the

revelation of Christ to the earth.

C. The place of the Bema seat of Christ. It is hardly

necessary to mention that this examination will take place in the

sphere of the heavenlies. 1 Thessalonians 4.17 says that we will

be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. Since

the Bema seat follows the translation, the “air” must be the

scene of it. This may be further supported by 2 Corinthians 5.1-

8, where Paul describes events that take place when the believer

is “absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord.” Thus

this even is in the sphere of the “heavenlies.”

D. The Judge at the Bema seat of Christ. 2 Corinthians 5.10

makes it clear that this examination is conducted before the

presence of the Son of God. John 5.22 states that all judgment

Hill 431

into the hands of Jesus Christ. The same event is referred to in

Romans 14.10 as “the judgment seat of God” indicates that God has

committed this judgment into hands of Jesus Christ. A part of the

exaltation of Christ is the right to manifest divine authority in

judgment.

E. The subject of the Bema seat of Christ. The Bema seat is

only associated with believers for rewards for faithfulness. This

first person pronoun occurs with too great frequency in 2

Corinthians 5.1-19 to be a coincidence. Only a believer could

have “a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” (2

Corinthians 5.1) Only the believer could experience “mortality

may be swallowed up by life.” (2 Corinthians 5.4) Only the

believer could experience the working of God, “who also has given

us the Spirit as a guarantee.” (2 Corinthians 5.5) Only the

believer could have the confidence that “while we are at home in

the body, we are absent from the Lord.” (2 Corinthians 5.6) Only

the believer could “walk by faith, not by sight.” (2 Corinthians

5.7)

F. What happens at the examination at the Bema seat of

Christ? It is good to review carefully here the issue is not

Hill 432

whether you are born again or not. That was settled by your being

raptured. The question of salvation is not in view here. This

whole program is related to the glorification of God through the

manifestation of His righteousness in the believer. Kelly

commenting on 2 Corinthians 5.10, says:

So again it is not a question of rewarding service as

in 1 Corinthians 3.8, 14, but retribution in the

righteous government of God according to what each did

whether good or bad. This cover all, just or unjust. It

is for the divine glory that every work done by man

should appear as it really is before Him who is

ordained by God Judge of living and dead. (Kelly 95)

Pentecost says on 2 Corinthians 5.10 “The word translated

“appear” in the text might better be rendered “to be made

manifest,” so that the verse reads, “For it is necessary for all

of us to be made manifest.” This suggests that the purpose of the

Bema seat is to make a public manifestation, demonstration or

revelation of the essential character and motives of the

individual. Dr. Plummer says:

Hill 433

We shall not be judged en masse, or in classes, but one

by one, in accordance with individual merit,

substantiates the fact that this an individual judgment

of each believer before the Lord. The believer’s works

are brought into judgment, called “the things done in

his body” (2 Corinthians 5.10), in order that it may be

determined whether they are good or bad. (Plummer 157)

Concerning the word “bad” (phaulos) it is to be observed the

Paul did not use the usual word for bad (kakos or poneros),

either of which is ethically or morally evil, but rather to the

word, according to Dr. Richard Trent, “Evil under another aspect,

not so much that either of active or passive malignity, but that

rather of its good for nothingness, the impossibility of any true

gain ever coming forth from it. This notion of worthlessness is

the central notion.” (Trent 295)

The Bema seat judgment is not to determine what is ethically

good or evil, but rather that which is acceptable and that which

is worthless. Dr. Pentecost may have said it best when he said,

“It is not the Lord’s purpose here to chasten His child for his

Hill 434

sins, but to reward his service for those things done in the name

of the Lord.

G. What happens after the judgment at the Bema seat of

Christ? 1 Corinthians 3.14-15 reads, “If anyone’s work which he

has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s

work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be

saved, yet so as through fire.” It is declared clearly that there

is a twofold result of this judgment: a reward or a reward lost.

Paul stated it clearly and succinctly when he said in 2

Corinthians 5.10, “For we must all appear before the judgment

seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the

body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” He

also said in 1 Corinthians 3.13, “…for the Day will declare it,

because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each

one’s work, of what sort it is.” From the above verses, it is the

believer’s works that is undergoing examination. Further, it is

evident that the examination is not an eternal judgment, based on

an outward observation, but rather on a test that determines the

inner character and motivation. Dr. Swindoll says, “The entire

purpose of the trail by fire is to determine that which is

Hill 435

destructible and that which is indestructible.” (Swindoll,

Walvoord, Pentecost 19)

Paul has affirmed that there are two classes of building

materials which those that are His, “For we are God’s fellow

workers…,” may use. (1 Corinthians 3:9) The gold, silver and

costly stones are indestructible materials. These are without a

doubt the work of God, which means that they should be used

appropriately. On the other hand, the wood, hay, and stubble are

destructible materials. These are the works that man does with

his own efforts. The apostle is revealing that the examination

which is done at the Bema seat is to determine that which was

done by God through the individual and the works produced through

their own hands. It is a contrast of the works done for the glory

of God and that which was done for the glory of the flesh.

It cannot be determined by outward observation into which of

the above classes any work falls. The works that we do have to be

done for the glory of God and nothing else, in order that its

true character may be proven. There are only two ways works are

going to be judged. Let’s briefly explore the subject of the

choices of works.

Hill 436

1. On the basis of this test there will be two decisions to

make. One, there is a loss of rewards for that which is proven by

the fire to be destructible. If things are done by our own

strength which is doing works for the glory of the flesh,

regardless of what work was done, it will be burned in the fire.

Paul expresses a fear of doing things on the energy of the flesh

rather than the empowerment of the Spirit in light of this he

writes: “But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection,

lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become

disqualified.” (1 Corinthians 9.27)

Paul was meticulous in his use of words he uses like

disqualified where he clearly was not afraid of losing his

salvation, but rather that which he had done should be found as

good for nothing. We should all share this healthy attitude to

keep our works through what God has asked us to do. What He has

asked us to do, God provides whatever we need to get the job

done. Dr. Trench on this verse says:

In classical Greek it is the technical work for putting

money to the dokime, or proof or by aid of the

dokimion, or test. That which endures, the proof being

Hill 437

dokimos, or approved, that which fails, adokimos,

disapproved or rejected, will be burned. (Trench 280)

Paul guarded against improper interpretation that to suffer

a loss means the loss of salvation, Paul adds “…he himself shall

be saved; yet so as by fire.” (1 Corinthians 3.15)

2. There will be rewards bestowed for the work that is

proven to be in the will of God and tested by the fire. In the

New Testament there are five areas where rewards are mentioned:

(1) The “incorruptible crown” for those who get

mastery over the old man. (1 Corinthians 9.25)

(2) The “crown of rejoicing” is the crown for soul

winners. (1 Thessalonians 2.19)

(3) The “crown of life” for those enduring trials.

(James 1.12)

(4) The “crown of righteousness” for those who are

waiting for and loving his appearance. (2 Timothy

4.8)

(5) The “crown of glory” for His who were willing to

feed the flock of God. (1 Peter 5.4)

Hill 438

These seem to suggest some of the rewards that will be

bestowed at the Bema seat of Christ. The word for crowns is

stephanos. Dr. Mayer says of it that it is used:

(1) For the wreath of victory in the games (1

Corinthians 9.25; 2 Timothy 2.5).

(2) As a festal ornament (Proverbs 1.9; 4.9; Isaiah

28.1).

As a public honor granted for distinguished service or private

worth, as a golden crown was granted to Demosthenes…(Mayor 46)

3. The very word Paul chooses to describe the rewards is

that associated with honor and dignity bestowed on the overcomer.

Although we will reign with Christ, the kingly crown is His

alone. The victor’s crowns are ours. Remember in Revelation 4.10,

where the elders cast their crowns before the throne in an act of

worship and adoration, Dr. Pentecost comments,

Clearly the crowns are not be for the eternal glory

of the recipient, but for the glory of the Giver.”

(Pentecost 1 Corinthians 6.20 says, “For you were

bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your

body and in your spirit, which are God’s.” This

Hill 439

becomes our eternal destiny. To place any material

sign of reward at the feet of the One who sits on

the throne (Revelation 4.10). But that act alone

does not complete our destiny to glorify God. This

will continue throughout eternity. Reward is

associated with brightness and shining in many of

the Scriptures. For example, Daniel 12.3; Matthew

13.43; 1 Corinthians 15.40-41, 49; it may be that

the reward given to a believer is a catalyst to

manifest the glory of Jesus Christ throughout

eternity. The greater the reward to the believer,

the greater the capacity to bring glory and honor to

the King. In the exercise of a rewards program, it

is paramount that Christ and not the believer is

glorified by the reward. 1 Peter 2.9 is appropriate

here, “But you are a chosen generation, a royal

priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people,

that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called

you out of darkness into His marvelous light.”

(Pentecost 225, 226a)

Hill 440

II. The Marriage Supper of the Lamb

How many times have you seen in Scripture the relationship

of Christ and the church characterized by the clearly defined

figures of the bridegroom and bride? You can track down a few of

these yourself in John 3.29; Romans 7.4; 2 Corinthians 11.2;

Ephesians 5.25-33; Revelation 19.7-8; 21.1-22.7 to name just a

few. When the church is raptured in an undetermined amount of

time tribulation commences on the earth while Christ is appearing

as a bridegroom to take His bride unto Himself for eternity. This

relationship, that was pledged thousands of years ago, will be

consummated and the two will become one.

A. The time of the marriage is clearly defined in Scripture

sometime between the rapture and the Second Advent. Prior to the

rapture, the church should be filled with anticipation for this

coming event. Revelation 19.7, “Let us be glad and rejoice and

give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come…” The

marriage has taken place at the time of the Second Advent as you

see from the verse above “for the marriage of the Lamb has come…”

This is in the aorist tense, elthen, as “is come,” denotes a

Hill 441

completed action, showing us the marriage has been consummated.

The marriage supper follows the events of the Bema seat of

Christ, because it is explicit that the wife appears in the

“righteousness of the saints” (Revelation 19.8), which can only

speak of those things that have been accepted at the judgment

seat of Christ. So conclusively, the event of the marriage supper

of the Lamb is rightly interpreted in the middle of the judgment

seat of Christ and the Second Advent.

B. The participants in the marriage. The marriage supper and

marriage of the Lamb is an event that from the evidence available

to us involves only Christ and the church. The Word of God is

clear when it says the resurrection of the saints of the Old

Testament and Israel are not going to occur until after Christ

coming to save her. Revelation 20.4-6 states,

And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment

was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those

who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and

for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or

his image, and had not received his mark on their

foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned

Hill 442

with Christ for a thousand years. But the rest of the

dead did not live again until the thousand years were

finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and

holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over

such, the second death has no power, but they shall be

priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him

a thousand years.

The tribulation saints who live through will not be

resurrected until after the Second Advent, as well. At this time,

it becomes compulsory to differentiate between the marriage

supper and the marriage of the Lamb. The marriage of the Lamb is

characterized by and event that takes place in its relationship

with the church and clearly is an event that occurs in heaven.

While Israel is involved in the marriage supper and takes

place on the earth. I realize this stance is controversial.

However, when Scripture clearly shows the marriage supper as an

event taking place with Israel and the location on the earth, one

has to allegorize this to make it any other way. Review Matthew

22.1-14, Luke 14.16-24; and Matthew 25.1-13, where Israel is

awaiting the return of the bridegroom, and the wedding feast or

Hill 443

supper is taking place on the earth. This event has particular

references to physical Israel. Dr. Pentecost writing on this

theological stance says,

This wedding supper, then, becomes the parabolic

picture of the entire millennial age, to which Israel

will be invited during the tribulation period, which

invitation many will reject and so they will be cast

out, and many will accept and they will be receive in.

Because of the rejection the invitation will likewise

go to the Gentiles so that many of them will be

included. (Pentecost 227)

Dr. Walvoord wrote on this event which is a dispensational

stance of literalism,

Israel, at the Second Advent, will be waiting for the

Bridegroom to come from the wedding ceremony to invite

them to the supper, at which the Bridegroom will

introduce His bride to His friends (Matthew 25.1-13).

Dr. Walvoord description seems to indicate one of the

biggest party’s in the history of Israel. It really

should be something. (Walvoord 510)

Hill 444

The announcement in Revelation 19.9, “Then he said to me,

“Write: ‘Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper

of the Lamb!’” And he said to me, “These are the true sayings of

God.” Revelation 19.9 deserves further investigation. There are

clearly more than one interpretation available on this verse. Dr.

Chafer says,

Distinction is call for at this point between the

marriage supper which is in heaven and celebrated

before Christ returns, and the marriage feast (Matthew

25.10; Luke 12.37) which is on earth after his return.

This view anticipates two suppers, one in heaven

preceding the Second Advent, and the one following the

Second Advent on earth. A second interpretation views

the announcement as anticipatory of the wedding supper

that will be held on earth following the marriage and

the Second Advent, about which an announcement is being

made in heaven prior to the return to earth for that

event. Inasmuch as the Greek text does not distinguish

between marriage and marriage feast, but uses the same

word for both, and since the marriage supper

Hill 445

consistently is used in reference to Israel on the

earth, it may be best to take the latter view and view

the marriage of the Lamb as that event in the heavens

in which the church is eternally tied to Christ and the

marriage feast or supper as the millennium, to which

the Jews and Gentiles will be invited, which takes

place on the earth, during which time the bridegroom is

honored through the display of the bride to all His

friends who are assembled there. (Chafer 396)

The church, which was God’s program for the present age, is

now seen to have been translated, resurrected, presented to the

Son by the Father, and has become the object through which the

eternal glory of God is forever manifested. The present age will

see the inception, development, and completion of God’s purposes

in “Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles

to take out of them a people for His name.” (Acts 15.14)

Chapter 10

Conclusions

In an attempt to look at the road ahead in a systematic way,

we have covered many areas of eschatology from the literal method

Hill 446

of interpretation all the way to the most preposterous theories

in Christianity, the rapture. The only thing going for the

harpazo is that it is biblically sound in both the Old and New

Testaments. I also covered the Scriptural answer to what happens

to the church after the rapture in heaven. In the future, I will

cover the tribulation period, millennium, the great White

Judgment of God, and on to the new heavens and the new earth.

I have learned a tremendous amount about the road ahead as I

referenced some 50 books on the times ahead for the church, the

country, and the world. There is literally a wealth of knowledge

available for the person willing to do the digging. There is one

thing for certain, we live in the most interesting of times when

the country, and the rest of the world are turning their backs on

God in record numbers.

Dispensationalism is under attack due to misconceptions

about what it is and what it stands for. It has been labeled by

the liberal theologians who have given up on their faith and the

Word of God. The false charges against Dispensationalism are

ample evidence of this. There is even disagreement among

Dispensationalists themselves with traditional, progressive,

Hill 447

ultra and revisionist dispensationalism all adding to the

discussion. Every Christian has a right to their own convictions

about Biblical truth, but keep in mind as long as we inhabit

earthly bodies none of us is infallible.

This paper completes my requirements for the Masters of

Biblical Studies degree from Bible University under the direction

of Dr. Mike Omoasegun whose guidance is greatly acknowledged. I

also acknowledge the massive patience and endless assistance of

my wife, Judy Ann Hill.

Hill 448

Works Cited

Allis, Oswald T.. Prophecy and the church; an examination of

dispensationalists. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub.

Co., 1945. Print.

Angus, Joseph, and Samuel G. Green. The Bible hand-book; an introduction

to the study of Sacred Scripture. Rev. 2009 ed. New York: Fleming H.

Revell Co., 1990. Print.

Berkhof, Louis. Principles of Biblical interpretation; sacred hermeneutics..

Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1950. Print.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic theology. New ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.:

W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1996. Print.

Blackstone, W. E.. Jesus is coming,. 3 ed. Chicago: F.H. Revell Co.,

1998. Print.

Brand, Chad Owen, Charles W. Draper, and Archie W. England.

Holman illustrated Bible dictionary. Nashville, Tenn.: Holman Bible

Publishers, 2003. Print.

Briggs, Charles A.. General introduction to the study of Holy Scripture: the

principles, methods, history, and results of its several

departments and of the whole. 1997. Reprint. New York: C.

Scribner's Sons, 1899. Print.

Hill 449

Bullinger, E. W.. Figures of speech used in the Bible, explained and

illustrated. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968. Print.

Bullinger, E. W.. How to enjoy the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel

Publications, 1990. Print.

Case, Shirley Jackson. The Millennial Hope. Chicago, Ill.: University

of Chicago Press, 1943. Print.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic theology. Abridged ed. Wheaton,

Ill.: Victor Books, 1988. Print.

Chafer, Rollin Thomas. The science of Biblical hermeneutics; an outline

study of its laws,. Dallas, Tex.: Bibliotheca Sacra, 1939.

Print.

Cooper, David L.. The God of Israel. (Rev. and enl.) By David L.

Cooper. ed. Los Angeles, Calif.: Biblical Research Society,

1945. Print.

Darby, J. N.. Synopsis of the books of the Bible. 2d ed. New York:

Loizeaux Bros., 1950. Print.

Davidson, Andrew B.. Old Testament Prophecy. Pittsburgh, Pa.: ETC

Press, 2008. Print.

Hill 450

Dickens, Charles. A tale of two cities,. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.,

1942. Print.

Douglas, J. D., Merrill C. Tenney, and Moisés Silva. Zondervan

illustrated Bible dictionary. Rev. 23 ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.:

Zondervan, 2011. Print.

Ellicott, C. J.. St. Paul's epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians ... and the

Thessalonians,. 1881. Reprint. Andover: Warren F. Draper,

1981. Print.

Elliott, Charles, and W.J. Harsha. Biblical hermeneutics, trans. by

J.E. Cellerier. 1881. Reprint. New York: Anson D.F.

Randolph, 2003. Print.

Elwell, Walter A.. Baker's evangelical dictionary of biblical theology. 2012

ed. Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 1996. Print.

Engelder, Theodore Edward William. Scripture cannot be broken; six

objections to verbal inspiration examined in the light of

Scripture. St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia publishing house,

1944. Print.

Fairbairn, Patrick. Hermeneutical manual; or, Introduction to the

exegetical study of the Scriptures of the New Testament.

Hill 451

1859. Reprint. Philadelphia: Smith, English & Co., 1989.

Print.

Fairbairn, Patrick. The typology of Scripture: viewed in connection

with the whole series of the divine dispensations. New

York: Funk & Wagnall, 1900. Print.

Farrar, F. W.. History of Interpretation. 1883. Reprint. London:

Macmillan, 2006. Print.

Feinberg, Charles Lee. Millennialism, the two major views: the Premillennial

and Amillennial systems of Biblical interpretation. 3d and enl. ed.

Chicago: Moody Press, 1980. Print.

Fritsch, Charles T.. "Biblical Typology." Bibliotheca Sacra 104.214

(1947): 87-88, 216. Print.

Gaebelein, A. C.. Studies in prophecy. 1913. Reprint. Scotts

Valley,CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing , 2014.

Print.

Geisler, Norman L.. Systematic theology. Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany

House, 2011. Print.

Gigot, Francis E.. General introduction to the study of the Holy Scriptures,.

1900. Reprint. New York: Benziger, 1999. Print.

Hill 452

Gilbert, George H.. The Interpretation of the Bible. 1884. Reprint.

Cambridge: Riverside Press, 1994. Print.

Girdlestone, Robert Baker. The Grammar of Prophecy. 2nd ed. London:

Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1891. Print.

Graham, Billy. World aflame. 1st ed. Waco: Word Publishing, 1965.

Print.

Hamilton, Floyd Eugene. The basis of millennial faith,. Grand Rapids,

Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1942. Print.

Hill, Gary. "The foundational covenant of the entire covenant program, The

Abrahamic covenant." Examiner.com. N.p., 10 May 2012. Web. 18

June 2014.

Hitchcock, Mark. The End: a complete overview of Bible prophecy

and the end of days. Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House

Publishers, 2012. Print.

Hodge, Charles. A commentary on Romans. London: Banner of Truth

Trust, 1972. Print.

Horne, Thomas Hartwell. An introduction to the critical study and knowledge of

the Holy Scriptures. 8th ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,

1970. Print.

Hill 453

Hospers, G. H.. The principle of spiritualization in hermeneutics. East

Williamson, N.Y.: The Author, 1935. Print.

Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch. The Pentateuch:

translated from the German by James Martin.. 1854. Reprint.

Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1964. Print.

Kelly, William. Lectures on the second coming and kingdom of the Lord and

Saviour Jesus Christ. 1865. Reprint. London: W.H. Broom, 2005.

Print.

Kelly, William. The collected writings of J.N. Darby. London: Stow Hill

Bible and Tract Depot, 1956. Print.

LaHaye, Tim. Tim LaHaye prophecy study Bible. United States: AMG

Publishers, 2000. Print.

Lange, Johann Peter, and Philip Schaff. Commentary on the Holy

Scriptures: critical, doctrinal and homiletical. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan Pub. House, 1960. Print.

Lewis, C. S., and Paul F. Ford. Words to live by: a guide for the merely

Christian. New York: Harper San Francisco, 2007. Print.

Lincoln, Charles Fred. Covenant and dispensational studies. 1939.

Reprint. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print.

Hill 454

Lockhart, Clinton. Principles of interpretation. 1915. Reprint. Fort

Worth: S.H. Taylor, 2005. Print.

Masselink, William. Why thousand years? or will the second coming be

pre- millennial?. 4th ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B.

Eerdmans, 1953. Print.

Mayor, Joseph B.. The Epistle of St. James: the Greek text with

introduction, notes and comments. 1892. Reprint. London:

Macmillan, 1998. Print.

Missler, Chuck. Cosmic codes: hidden messages from the edge of

eternity. Couer d'Alene, Idaho: Koinonia House, 1999.

Print.

Murray, George L.. Millennial studies, a search for truth.. Grand

Rapids: Baker Book House, 1948. Print.

Newman, Albert Henry. A manual of church history. Philadelphia:

American Baptist Publication Society, 1900. Print.

Paley, William. A view of the evidences of Christianity. Boston: Printed by

I. Thomas and E.T. Andrews, 1803-1998 Reprint. Print.

Pember, G. H.. The great prophecies of the centuries. 1895. Reprint.

London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2005. Print.

Hill 455

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to come: a study in biblical eschatology. Grand

Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Books, 1964. Print.

Peters, George Nathaniel Henry, and Wilbur M. Smith. The theocratic

kingdom of Our Lord Jesus: the Christ, as covenanted in the Old

Testament and presented in the New Testament. Grand Rapids,

Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1952. Print.

Pieters, Albertus. The seed of Abraham; a Biblical study of Israel, the church,

and the Jew.. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950. Print.

Plaisted, Michael. " Plaisted Papers." Estimates of the Number

Killed by the Papacy in the Middle Ages and later. N.p., 10

June 2006. Web. 5 July 2014. Plummer, Alfred. A critical and

exegetical commentary on the Second epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians.

1917. Reprint. New York: Scribner, 2005. Print.

Ramm, Bernard L.. Protestant Biblical interpretation: a textbook of hermeneutics.

3d rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970. Print.

Rasmussen, Scott. "64% Believe Jesus Christ Rose From the Dead - Rasmussen

Reports™." Rasmussen Reports. 2014 Rasmussen Reports, LLC,

24 Mar. 2013. Web. 15 May 2014.

Rutgers, William H.. Premillennialism in America. 1930. Reprint. Goes,

Holland: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre, 1999. Print.

Hill 456

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Dispensationalism today. Chicago: Moody

Press, 1965. Print.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. The basis of the premillennial faith. 2nd ed. New

York: Loizeaux Bros., 2003. Print.

Scofield, C. I.. The new Scofield study Bible: authorized New King James

Version: new Scofield study system. New 1998 ed. Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print.

Sale-Harrison, Leonard. The judgment seat of Christ. Little Rock, Ark.:

Challenge Press, 1975. Print.

Scofield, C. I.. Will the church pass through the great tribulation?: eighteen

reasons which prove that it will not. Greenville, S.C.:

Gospel Hour Publications, 1967. Print.

Scott, Walter. Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. [4th ed.

Westwood, N.J.: F.H. Revell Co., 1968. Print.

Scroggie, W. Graham. A guide to the Gospels. London: Pickering &

Inglis, 1948. Print.

Seiss, Joseph Augustus. The Apocalypse: a series of special lectures on the

Revelation of Jesus Christ; with revised text. 1913. Reprint. New

York: Charles C. Cook, 1999. Print.

Hill 457

Smith, William. Smith's Bible dictionary. Westwood, N.J.: Barbour

Books, 1987. Print.

Strombeck, J. F.. First the rapture. Moline, Ill.: Strombeck Agency,

1950. Print.

Swindoll, Charles R., John F. Walvoord, and J. Dwight Pentecost.

The road to Armageddon. Nashville: Word, 1999. Print.

Terry, Milton S. Biblical hermeneutics: a treatise on the

interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids,

Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House, 1974. Print.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Will the church pass through the tribulation?. 3rd

- 1997 ed. New York: Loizeaux Bros., 1941. Print.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament. Lafayette,

Ind.: Sovereign Grace, 2000. Print.

Wade, Mason, and John Owen. The world turned upside down: papers. Great

Neck, N.Y.:

Westminster Publications, 1974. Print.

Walvoord, John F.. The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook. 1968. Reprint.

Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 2011. Print.

Hill 458