Bible Presbyterianism: A Need For Redefinition?

Bible Presbyterianism: A Need for Redefinition?© 2006 by Vincent Chia All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means — electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise — except for brief quotations for the purpose of review or comment, without the prior permission of the publisher. Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the King James Version. Contents 1 Preface Book Reviews The Distinction between Israel and the Church vi ix 1 Israel and the Church in Bible Presbyterian Ecclesiology 1 The Doctrine of the Church in the Westminster Standards 4 Reformed Ecclesiology 6 Reformed Ecclesiology a Heresy? 12 Replacement Theology or Supersessionism 13 The “all Israel” in Romans 11:26 17 2 An Introduction to Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 22 Literal Hermeneutics 22 The Analogy of Faith 26 A Hermeneutical Dilemma – The Interpretation of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 35 3 The Epistle to the Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 42 Abraham’s Seed 42 Sarah and Hagar 45 Paul’s Understanding of Isaiah’s Prophecy 48 The Israel of God 51 Jeffrey Khoo’s Reliance on Johnson’s Paper 55 Problems with the Dispensational Understanding of “the Israel of God” 57 4 The Promised Land 63 Israel and the Promised Land 63 The Land of Palestine as an Everlasting Possession 65 An Everlasting or a Periodic Possession? 68 The Land Was Possessed by Israel According to the Old Testament 72 The New Testament Understanding of the Land Promise 75 Conclusion 79 5 The Pre-Tribulation Rapture 82 An Introduction to the Pretribulation Rapture 82 6 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 and the Rapture 86 Introduction 86 A Problem in the Thessalonian Church 86 The Secret Silent Rapture 88 Contents i Meeting with the Lord 89 The Close Relationship between 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 and 4:13-18 90 That Day should not Overtake the Church 92 1 Thessalonians 5:9 and the Rapture 94 Summary on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 95 7 2 Thessalonians and the Rapture 97 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10 97 The Apokalypsis 98 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 100 The Thessalonian Problem 102 Rapture or Apostasy? 104 The Doctrine of Imminence 106 A Further Example of Bible Presbyterian ‘Literal’ Hermeneutics 107 8 The Multiple Resurrections and Judgments of Dispensational Premillennialism 113 The Multiple Resurrections and Judgments 113 The General Resurrection and Final Judgment in Reformed Confessions 115 The General Resurrection and Final Judgment in Scripture 118 The General Resurrection and Final Judgment in the Parables of Jesus 120 9 The Teachings of the Epistles Concerning the Resurrection and Judgment 124 The General Resurrection and Final Judgment in the Epistles 124 Romans 2:5-8 125 1 Thessalonians 5:1-10 126 1 Corinthians 15 128 2 Peter 3:3-12 134 10 An Introduction to Revelation 20:1-6 142 The Structure of Revelation 142 The Genre of Revelation and Hermeneutics 144 11 Evidence for Recapitulation in Revelation 20 150 The Chronological Fallacy 150 The Deception of the Nations in Revelation 20:3 151 Thematic Allusions to Ezekiel 38-39 in Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:7-10 155 Contents ii The Seven Bowls of Revelation 15 and the Completion of God’s Wrath 158 12 The Binding of Satan 160 Introduction 160 The Angel 161 The Abyss 162 The One Thousand Years 163 The Binding of Satan 165 Satan Bound with the First Advent of Christ 169 The Meaning of the Binding of Satan 171 Conclusion 173 13 The Reign of Souls 175 Introduction 175 The Thrones 175 The Souls 176 The Saints 177 The Reign 179 14 The First Resurrection 181 Introduction 181 The First Resurrection and Hermeneutics 183 The Meaning of the Resurrection 186 The Ordinal First 187 Conclusion 193 15 Dispensational Premillennialism and the Westminster Standards 195 The Westminster Standards and Eschatology 195 Bible Presbyterianism and the Westminster Standards 199 Conclusion 206 16 Daniel 9:24-27 and the Traditional Messianic Interpretation 208 Introduction 207 The Traditional Messianic Interpretation Versus the Parenthesis Interpretation 210 The Traditional Messianic Interpretation of Daniel 9:24 212 Determining the Terminus Ad Quem of the Seventy Weeks 214 17 Daniel 9:24-27 and the Parenthesis Interpretation of Bible Presbyterianism 218 Introduction 218 The Events of Daniel 9:24 Still Future? 218 Contents iii The Triumphal Entry of Jesus as the Terminus Ad Quem of the Sixty-Ninth Week 219 The Cutting-Off of Messiah Not in the 70th Week 220 The Gap Theory 221 The Jewish Prophetic Clock Theory 225 Who Confirms the Covenant in Daniel 9:27: Christ or Antichrist? 228 Conclusion 231 18 The Millennium Temple and the Problem of Millennial Interpretation 232 Introduction 232 Hermeneutics and Ezekiel’s Temple Vision 234 Problems with the Dispensational View 239 Circumcision 240 The Lord’s Supper and the Passover Feast 241 The Priesthood 242 Animal Sacrifices 244 19 The Ezekielian Sacrifices 246 The Memorial View of the Ezekielian Sacrifices 246 A Hermeneutical Dilemma 248 Bible Presbyterian Options 249 Whitcomb’s View and Far Eastern Bible College 251 The Passing of Types and Shadows 251 Progressive Revelation and Redemptive Regression 254 Whitcomb’s View of the Ezekielian Sacrifices 255 Conclusion 261 20 Bible Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism 263 Introduction: The Dispensational-Covenantal Continuum 263 What the Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism is not 264 Who is a Dispensationalist? 271 The Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism as Defined by Ryrie 272 The Consistently Literal Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism is not a Clearly Defined Distinctive 274 21 The Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism 277 The Israel/Church Distinction is the Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism 277 Various Degrees of Distinction between Israel and the Contents iv Church 281 22 Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 1 285 Introduction 285 The Concept of the Kingdom of God and the Israel/Church Distinction 285 The Pretribulation Rapture 297 Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and the Parenthesis Interpretation 299 23 Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 2 300 The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 300 A Progressive Dispensationalist’s Interpretation of the New Covenant 301 The Reformed Understanding of the New Covenant 303 Hermeneutics and the Understanding of the New Covenant 305 Dispensational Premillennialism 307 The Bible Presbyterian’s Theological-Hermeneutical Grid: a Conclusion 308 24 Bible Presbyterianism: A Need for Redefinition? 312 Epilogue 312 Bibliography 317 Contents v Preface A Preface to Bible Presbyterianism: A Need for Redefinition? In retrospect, my theological position has changed radically since I became a Christian some fifteen years ago. I have moved from an essentially Dispensational framework to my current Reformed convictions. It is neither the intention of this book to trace my theological development, nor to present an exhaustive defense of the Reformed faith. Numerous excellent books and articles have been written to deal with issues such as Calvinism and Covenant theology comprehensively.1 This book is written primarily as a response to a course taught by Dr Jeffrey Khoo of Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC), the only Bible Presbyterian seminary in Singapore. The course is entitled, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. In this series of lectures, Dr Khoo claims that Bible Presbyterians have been falsely labeled “dispensational” by other Covenant theologians. This is despite the fact that Bible Presbyterians in Singapore adhere to the sine qua non of Dispensationalism, as well as to Dispensational Premillennialism. My objectives in writing this book are as follows: Firstly, I would like to present the theological-hermeneutical grid of Bible Presbyterianism as propounded by FEBC. This includes a discussion of the sine qua non of Dispensationalism, and its major ramifications in the areas of Bible Presbyterian ecclesiology and eschatology. Secondly, I would like to correct the caricatured description of Dispensationalism as presented in Dr Khoo’s course. In fact, a principal contention of this book is: an adherence to Dispensationalism’s sine qua non does not allow a theologian to avoid the appropriate appellation of “dispensational.” Thirdly, I would like to illustrate that one’s prophetic schema is determined by one’s underlying theological-hermeneutical grid, be it dispensational or covenantal in structure. The reader will be shown that the essence of Dispensationalism has its greatest implications in the areas of ecclesiology and eschatology. There is a saying that every fourth verse in Scripture was prophetic when written. “There is hardly a book in the Bible,” observes Girdlestone, “which is wholly devoid of the prophetic element.”2 Although eschatology cannot be made a test of one’s 1 Some of these books and articles are mentioned in this book. The reader is encouraged to refer to the original works. 2 Robert Baker Girdlestone, The Grammar of Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1955), 8. Preface vi orthodoxy or salvation,3 the student of the Bible must realize that prophecy constitutes a substantial portion of Holy Scripture. The interpretation of such prophetic passages is governed by one’s hermeneutics, which in turn is directed by how one views ethnic Israel and the Church (i.e. ecclesiology). Furthermore, the subject of eschatology cannot be divorced from the rest of systematic theology. As the eschatology and ecclesiology of a theologian are systematically determined by his underlying theological-hermeneutical grid, an adherence to a particular millennial view (i.e. Dispensational Premillennialism) will disclose to a good extent how the theologian approaches Scripture. A Dispensationalist will read Scripture dispensationally,4 while the Reformed theologian interprets Scripture with a different theological-hermeneutical grid. Some Christian leaders have sadly acquired an agnostic stance with regard to biblical prophecy. Since prophecy constitutes much of Scripture, portions of the Bible are either ignored or misinterpreted by these teachers of God’s Word. It is sometimes even claimed that prophecy is irrelevant to a Christian’s spiritual progress. These claims are often made because it is felt that eschatology should not divide brethren-in-Christ. While it is true that the interpretation of prophecy should not divide Christians, an agreement upon the correct understanding of prophetic Scripture will bring about stronger unity in heart and spirit. This call for unity in the understanding of prophecy becomes imperative when one discovers that prophecy not only comprises a large portion of Scripture, but is also intimately intertwined with all areas of God’s Word. The reader will soon discover that eschatology cannot be isolated from the rest of systematic theology. In fact, major prophetic themes are concerned with either the First or the Second Advent of Christ. The misinterpretation of prophecy also means a misunderstanding of certain aspects of the person or work of Christ. Consequently, in the study of systematic theology, the importance of prophecy cannot be overemphasized. I am aware that the various issues discussed in this book have been fodder for a myriad of theological debates and endless polemics. A comprehensive study of these areas is outside the scope of this book. It is hoped that, with this book, a healthy inquisitiveness will be stimulated in the reader’s mind with regard to Bible Presbyterian eschatology and ecclesiology. The reader will then be encouraged to begin his personal study of these complex issues of systematic theology. 3 This excludes the erroneous belief that Christ will not return visibly, physically, and gloriously. 4 To read Scripture dispensationally is to interpret Scripture using the sine qua non of Dispensationalism. This will be discussed in detail in this book. Preface vii I would like to thank Dr Jenson Lim for his willingness to go through the manuscript, and for providing helpful insights and suggestions. I also would like to thank Esther Lim for carefully reading through all portions of the completed manuscript, and for painstakingly checking for errors. Last but not least, I am grateful to my loving wife for providing both emotional and spiritual support, without which I would not have been able to complete the manuscript. Soli Deo Gloria Vincent Chia Year 2006 Preface viii Book Review by Pastor J. Kortering Reflections on the Book When I first took in hand to read the manuscript of Bible Presbyterianism: A Need for Redefinition?, I did so more out of curiosity than to expect a significant contribution to theological debate. There were two reasons for this curiosity. First, the subject seemed to be so restrictive. Already in the Preface, the author states that his objective is to address the issues of Dispensationalism, interpreting biblical prophecy, and those that relate to eschatology and ecclesiology in the context of the teaching of FEBC and its instructors, chief among them is Dr. Jeffrey Khoo. Secondly, the author mentioned that his qualification for writing this treatise was his membership in the BP Church of Singapore and that he took some courses in FEBC, including some under Dr. Khoo. He does not claim, nor is he, a seasoned theologian. As stated above, I was pleasantly surprised when I finished reading the manuscript. It is a well-worked out thesis which includes careful verification of positions taken by meticulous quotation. The burden of the book is to demonstrate that the sina qua non (which can be viewed as the indispensable pre-requisite) of Dispensationalism is the insistence that Israel was and remains throughout all of history a special and separate entity from the church. This includes the prospect that Israel will be restored in a millennial kingdom in Jerusalem and a re-institution of the Old Testament temple worship and ceremonies at that time. In contrast the mark of Reformed ecclesiology and eschatology is that Israel was a special people of God in the old covenant but that God’s purpose for Israel’s unfaithfulness was to open the way for the true Israel which includes believers of all nations who are the true seed of Abraham because they have the same faith as father Abraham. The Bible Presbyterians of Singapore hold to the sina qua non of Dispensationalists and therefore ought to consider a redefinition; they ought to call themselves Dispensationalists and not Reformed in their ecclesiology and eschatology. Vincent Chia develops this argument carefully and his arguments march through the pages of the book with powerful insight and devastating accuracy. I was especially impressed with his methodology. Since he is not an acknowledged theologian, he might well be accused of writing things of which he knows very little. His credibility might be attached on the basis of his own personal qualifications. Wisely, he avoids all of this by his methodology. He does not assume the position of teacher; rather, he assumes the position of collator of the writings of others. He allows others with maturity and theological acumen to speak. In fairness, he does Preface ix this from both sides of the issue. His use of quotations gives depth to his argument as he draws other writers into the debate. He then summarizes what they have to say and continues to build the argument chapter after chapter. We may well ask, who will benefit by reading this book? First, I would hope that our Bible Presbyterian brothers and sisters will take the time to listen to the arguments. Claiming Reformed ecclesiology and eschatology when accuracy would require the nomenclature “Dispensational” is no small issue. At least it requires the careful reading of one who puts forth this effort to demonstrate the historical accuracy involved. Second, the issue raised here among Bible Presbyterians of Singapore extends as well to America and other lands where the churches enjoy fellowship. Faith Seminary in USA would do well to take note of this important contribution for proper identification. Finally, though this is no easy bed-time read, it is clear, and anyone who has a desire to develop their understanding of the future millennial kingdom will profit from this book. Included among the many quotations of qualified men is their explanation of the pertinent passages of the Bible and the Westminster Standards that bear on this subject. This book is an excellent resource for learning how Dispensational vs. Reformed men interpret all the pertinent passages of the Bible that address these subjects. I commend Brother Vincent Chia for this important contribution for our understanding of the Word of God as it relates to the return of our Lord Jesus Christ at the end of history. Pastor J. Kortering Retired PRCA Pastor Preface x Book Review by Rev K. A. Harris A Review of an Unpublished Thesis This book is written in response to courses given by the Far Eastern Bible College in Singapore. Dr. Jeffrey Khoo contends that Bible Presbyterianism is not dispensational. Chia contends that it is because Bible Presbyterianism accepts the sine qua non of Dispensationalism which consists of a radical distinction between Israel and the Church. Chia recognizes that there are variants within Dispensationalism. There are classic dispensationalists who follow Schofield, such as Lewis Sperry Chafer, A.C. Gabalein; revised dispensationalists who reflect the New Schofield Reference Bible such as John F Walwoord, Charles Ryrie and Dwight Pentecost. Progressive dispensationalists are represented by such men as Robert L Saucey. Dr. Khoo belongs to the latter school. Chia argues that these schools are but variants of the sine qua non mentioned before. The author identifies the crux of the problem when he distinguishes between two irreconcilable hermeneutical systems which lie at the root of the distinctives of Dispensational and Reformed and Covenantal theologies. Dispensational hermeneutics insists on the strictest literal interpretation of scriptural prophecy. Reformed theology grants the grammatical-historical principle but in addition believes in the principle of progressive revelation and the analogy of faith. According to our author the two are contradictory. The major part of the book consists in a detailed exegesis of the relevant New Testament passages in Galatians, Thessalonians and Revelation, together with studies in passages from Ezekiel and Daniel. His exegesis is thorough and painstaking and his logic is irrefutable. He does not pretend originality of thought and depends heavily on a number of reformed writers whom he quotes frequently. The complexities of dispensationalism are examined and no stone is left unturned. Readers who wish to pursue these studies will not need to be fainthearted. Some of the vagaries of dispensationalism seem far removed from the simple evangelicalism of the New Testament. We are very surprised to learn that the Bible Presbyterian Church has amended the Westminster Confession of Faith chapters thirty two and three in the interests of dispensationalist teaching, omitting some words and including others. This is scarcely honest. If the Westminster Confession is at fault it should by said so. If it is true it should be accepted as it stands. The author contends that the Bible Presbyterian Church is attempting the impossible in seeking to be both dispensational and reformed. He argues that that the consistent thing to do is to reject the sine qua non of dispensationalism. Preface xi As a critique of Dispensationalism this thesis is devastating. As a critique of the Bible Presbyterian Church, this judgment must be left to those who have a more intimate knowledge of the Church, its history and teaching. No doubt Dr. Khoo and his friends will make a robust reply when this thesis appears in print. We wait with considerable interest to read his defence. What market may be expected for the sale of this book? Probably not a large one. At least as far as the United Kingdom is concerned where dispensationalism is no longer a matter of serious debate. A market will undoubtedly be found in the constituency represented by the Bible Presbyterian Church in Singapore, also in the United States where these issues are very much alive. The principal Bible Colleges would benefit from a copy of this book in their libraries. Dr Chia is to be commended both for his charity and clarity in presenting his case, also for his immense industry. He is particularly to be commended as he is not a professional theologian. Rev. K. A. Harris BA. BD. 17-02-07 Preface xii Chapter 1: The Distinction between Israel and the Church Israel and the Church in Bible Presbyterian Ecclesiology I shall begin by defining the general Bible Presbyterian understanding of the phrase “distinction between Israel and the Church.” Firstly, Bible Presbyterians believe that God has two distinct programs in history, one for Israel and one for the Church. According to Dr Jeffrey Khoo, the Academic Dean of Far Eastern Bible College, “God has two programmes in His salvation plan: one for Israel, and another for the Church.”1 Elsewhere, Dr Khoo writes: “[J. Oliver] Buswell further stressed that Israel was and still is a “national entity,” and thus should not be confused with what is commonly known as “church” today. When talking about the church, he clearly made a distinction between the “church of Israel” and the “church as organized from the day of Pentecost onward.’”2 Secondly, Bible Presbyterians believe that the Church does not fulfill or take over any of Israel’s promises or purposes. In the following statement, Dr Khoo expresses his agreement with Dispensationalism, “The ethnic, land, throne, and temple prophecies and promises God made to Israel will find fulfillment in Israel when Christ returns.”3 This includes the promises of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:3134, which will be fulfilled to ethnic, national Israel according to the dispensational understanding. Khoo elaborates further, “Although national Israel possesses certain ecclesial characteristics of the church local, it is not the NT church. Israel is still very much a nation, and 1 Jeffrey Khoo, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology: A Basic Theology for Everyone Course (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, n.d.), 32. These are printed course notes used in Far Eastern Bible College. Dr Jeffrey Khoo is the Academic Dean of Far Eastern Bible College, the Bible Presbyterian college in Singapore. Also available from http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/studyresource/Dispensationalism%20and%20Covenant%2 0Theology.pdf; Internet; accessed 11 September 2005. Please note that the pagination is different in the course notes on-line. 2 Jeffrey Khoo, “Dispensational Premillennialism in Reformed Theology: The Contribution of J. O. Buswell to the Millennial Debate,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 4 (2001): 708. 3 Ibid., 709. The Distinction between Israel and the Church 1 God continues to deal with her in that way. The very existence of Israel today in Palestine attests to that fact. Thus the OT ethnic/land/throne/temple prophecies and promises God made to Israel must find fulfillment in strictly Jewish and Davidic terms, not in this present age, but in the age to come.”4 In his essay “Dispensationalism Examined,” Dr Jeffrey Khoo succinctly summarizes the Bible Presbyterian’s position on the “distinction of Israel and the Church,” and the understanding that God has two groups of His people in redemptive history: “Dispensationalists see a distinction between Israel and the Church. According to His eternal counsels, God is dealing with two groups of His people throughout biblical history, namely, (1) Israel as a nation, and (2) the Church as the body of Christ. This position is taken because dispensationalists employ a literal/normal hermeneutics in their interpretation of prophetic Scripture. The prophecies and promises of the Bible which God has given to Israel must find fulfillment in Israel. . . . The nation of Israel occupies a prominent place in God’s plan for the last days. . . . This is one thing we can agree with the dispensationalists; they are correct in their eschatology.”5 Thus, it is clear that Khoo is careful to distinguish between national Israel and the New Testament Church. In his hermeneutical approach to Old Testament covenants, promises, and prophecies, Khoo sees the Church as a New Testament institution, distinct from national, ethnic Israel. Khoo and his faculty members “define the Church as “the body of Christ,” which is a characteristically New Testament name, and seem to forget that it is also called “the temple of God” and “Jerusalem,” which are very decidedly names with an Old Testament flavor, cf. I Cor. 3:16, 17; II Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21; Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22. We should not close our eyes to the patent fact that the name “Church” (Heb. qahal, rendered ekklesia in the Septuagint) is applied to Israel in the Old Testament repeatedly, Josh. 8:35; Ezra 2:65; Joel 2:16.”6 This distinction between Israel and the Church undergirds the Bible Presbyterian theological-hermeneutical framework. It determines how a Bible Presbyterian interprets Scripture, and particularly, prophecy. As we shall see later in this book, 4 Ibid., 716. Jeffrey Khoo, Dispensationalism Examined (Singapore: Reformed Tract Distributors, n.d.), 10-11, emphasis mine. Also available from http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/tracts/Dispensationalism%20Examined.pdf; Internet; accessed 10 September 2005. 6 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1941), 571. 5 The Distinction between Israel and the Church 2 this hermeneutical distinction between Israel and the Church results in various Bible Presbyterian eschatological distinctives (for example, Dispensational Premillennialism, the pretribulational rapture of the Church, and the restitution of animal sacrifices in the Millennium).7 As an introduction to the difficulties of such an Israel/Church distinction, I shall begin by reflecting upon two important terms in ecclesiology: “Israel” and “Church.” Is it true that “God has two programmes in His salvation plan: one for Israel, and another for the Church?”8 In other words, are there two separate redemptive plans: one for national Israel, and one for the New Testament Church? Criticizing this proposition, Keith Mathison comments that, “Whether this proposition is true depends on how “Israel” and “church” are defined. If “Israel” means national, unbelieving, political Israel, and the “church” means believers, then obviously there are different purposes for the two. If however “Israel” refers to true [spiritual] Israel and “church” refers to believers of this age or of all ages, then they cannot have two different programs.”9 It is, therefore, obvious that apostate, unbelieving Israel cannot have a similar destiny to the Church. If the Jews remain unbelievers and refuse to repent, there can be no forgiveness of sins, or eternal, heavenly bliss for a faithless nation. On the other hand, if “Israel” refers to true, spiritual Israel, and the “Church” refers to both elect Jews and Gentiles, the two terms are essentially similar. Mathison agrees with this observation, “Scripture teaches that all believers of all ages have one God (Deut. 4:35, 39; 6:4; Eph. 4:6), one Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:5; 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Tim. 2:5), one way of salvation (John 14:6; Acts 4:12), and one eternal destiny (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 20:12). The believers of all ages are one body (Eph. 4:4), one bride (Rev. 21:9-14), one household (Eph. 2:19), and one flock (John 10:16). There is one purpose for all believers, and that is to glorify God (1 Cor. 10:31; Rom. 11:36).”10 7 We shall return to this particular hermeneutical distinctive – the distinction between Israel and the Church – at the end of this book. At that stage, we will tie together all our previous studies, and see how this hermeneutical distinction of Israel and the Church directly affects the Bible Presbyterian theological grid. 8 Khoo, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, 32. 9 Keith Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1995), 25. 10 Ibid., 26. The Distinction between Israel and the Church 3 Bible Presbyterians and Dispensationalists believe that the Church does not fulfill or take over any of Israel’s promises or purposes. They generally agree that the Old Testament promises to Israel cannot find fulfillment in the Church. This includes the Abrahamic, Davidic and New Covenants. According to Bible Presbyterians, God has a separate prophetic-redemptive program for geo-political Israel. Mathison rightly observes that, “[This] second proposition follows logically from the first. If we were to understand Israel as simply the unbelieving nation and the church as believers, or if we were to regard them as two completely separate bodies of believers, then we could assume this second proposition to be true. If, however, the believers in Old Testament Israel and in the New Testament are one body, then it would make sense that the promises to the one might be fulfilled in the other. When we turn to the Scriptures, we see that promises originally made to the literal nation of Israel are in fact being fulfilled today in the church.”11 The Doctrine of the Church in the Westminster Standards The Visible Church According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV Paragraph 2, “The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” The Westminster Larger Catechism is even more concise: Question 62: What is the visible church? Answer: The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children. The visible church is so called because we can actually see how many members there are in a particular church. But we cannot know how many of these members are born again, or genuinely saved. “There is only one [visible church]. But it includes many branches (often called denominations) and is made up of a very large 11 Ibid. The Distinction between Israel and the Church 4 number of particular congregations.”12 Therefore, according to the Westminster Standards, the visible church includes the various Christian denominations in the world, and consists of an immense number of local congregations. Nevertheless, there is only one visible Church. With respect to time, the visible Church “includes believers of all ages of the world’s history, from the time of Adam and Eve to the end of the world. All people of every age who professed faith in the true religion are included in the visible church.”13 Included within the visible Church is the Old Testament church - national Israel and the New Testament church. It even includes believers living before the time of Abraham, such as Abel and Noah. The visible Church is in no way limited to the nation of Israel, or to any gentile nation on the planet. “It includes people in all places of the world, wherever the light of the gospel has penetrated the world’s darkness and some people have professed the true religion.”14 Hodge summarizes the doctrine of the visible Church laid out in the Westminster Standards, “These sections [of the Confession of Faith] teach that there is . . . a catholic or universal visible Church, consisting of those of every nation who profess the true religion, together with their children.”15 As indicated by the Reformed definition of the visible Church, there is obviously no distinction whatsoever between the nation of Israel and the Church. The visible Church includes believers from the nation of Israel and the gentile nations, from the time of Adam to the end of the age. The Invisible Church The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV Paragraph 1 also states, “The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.” The invisible Church is essentially the entire body of the elect. This is clearly defined by the Larger Catechism: 12 Johannes G. Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary, ed. G. I. Williamson (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 2002), 136. 13 Ibid., 137. 14 Ibid. 15 A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1869), 312. The Distinction between Israel and the Church 5 Question 64: What is the invisible church? Answer: The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head. The Larger Catechism teaches that all the elect of all ages are included in the invisible church. The invisible church is so called simply because we cannot see exactly who belongs to this church. Neither do we know the exact number of elect whom the Father has given to the Son. Vos writes: “Are Old Testament saints who died in faith, from Abel to the time of Christ, members of the invisible church? Yes. Christ has only one spiritual body, and the redeemed of all ages - both Jews and Gentiles - are members of it.”16 The invisible Church is a collective body embracing all the elect, from both the Old Covenant dispensation and the New Covenant administration. Once again, there is no distinction between the elect of national, ethnic Israel, and those from the New Testament church. The hermeneutical distinction between Israel and the Church is a sine qua non of Dispensationalism, not Reformed theology. The Westminster Standards teach “that there is a collective body, comprising all the elect of God of all nations and generations, called the Church invisible. The fact that there is such a body must be believed by every person who believes that all men, of every age and nation since Adam, who received Christ and experienced the power of his redemption, are to be saved, and that all who reject him will be lost.”17 Reformed Ecclesiology Reformed theologians see the Church as having its beginning in the Old Testament. The Church has existed since the time of Adam, and her existence extends through the patriarchal period, to the Mosaic Period, and into the current New Testament church age.18 “In the Patriarchial Period the families of believers constituted the 16 Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary, 142. Hodge, The Confession of Faith, 311. For a more extensive treatment of the doctrine of the Church in the Reformed creeds, see Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 2d ed., vol. 2 (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2005), 186-192. 18 For more information on Reformed ecclesiology, study the systematic theology of Reformed theologians. For example, see Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1941), 553-658; Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 179-421; and 17 The Distinction between Israel and the Church 6 religious congregations; the Church was best represented in the pious households, where the fathers served as priest.”19 But during the Mosaic Period, “the whole nation [of Israel] constituted the Church; and the Church was limited to the one nation of Israel, though foreigners could enter it by being incorporated into the nation.”20 In the New Testament period, God expanded the promises of the gospel to all the nations, which include Jews and Gentiles. Under the New Covenant administration, the national boundaries of Israel were dissolved to include the whole world. Wild olive branches are being grafted onto the original olive tree (Rom. 11). Hoeksema explains, “[The Church] is not limited to any particular nation, tongue, or tribe, but embraces all the nations of the world and transcends all human relationships. The church is neither Jew nor Greek, neither German nor American, neither British nor Russian. It swallows up all natural distinctions into one, holy, catholic fellowship. Such is the meaning of the confession [in the Apostles’ Creed], “I believe a holy, catholic church.’”21 The Reformed creeds are unanimous on this understanding of the Church. According to the Reformed teachings on ecclesiology, “the New Testament Church is essentially one with the Church of the old dispensation. As far as their essential nature is concerned, they both consist of true believers, and of true believers only. And in their external organization both represent a mixture of good and evil.”22 However, the Reformers do recognize certain changes between the Old and the New Covenant administrations. Worship in the New Testament is no longer localized in Jerusalem. Animal sacrifices are abolished, and replaced with spiritual sacrifices. By virtue of the accomplished, redemptive work of Jesus Christ, “the Church was divorced from the national life of Israel and obtained an independent organization. In connection with this the national boundaries of the Church were swept away. What had up to this time been a national Church now assumed a universal character. And in order to realize the ideal of world-wide extension, it had to become a missionary Church, carrying the gospel of salvation to all the nations of the world. Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2d ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 805-976. 19 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 570. 20 Ibid. 21 Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 193. 22 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 571. The Distinction between Israel and the Church 7 Moreover, the ritual worship of the past made place for a more spiritual worship in harmony with the greater privileges of the New Testament.”23 This Reformed understanding of the Church is succinctly described in the Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 27: “We believe and profess one catholic or universal church, which is a holy congregation of true Christian believers, all expecting their salvation in Jesus Christ, being washed by His blood, sanctified and sealed by the Holy Ghost. . . . This church hath been from the beginning of the world, and will be to the end thereof; which is evident from this, that Christ is an eternal King, which without subjects He cannot be. . . . Furthermore, this holy church is not confined, bound, or limited to a certain place or to certain persons, but is spread and dispersed over the whole world; and yet is joined and united with heart and will, by the power of faith, in one and the same Spirit.” According to Reformed ecclesiology, the dispensational, hermeneutical distinction between Israel and the Church is unwarranted.24 It must be emphasized that the Reformed understanding of the term “Israel” has no association with anti-Semitic sentiments or “liberal” protestant hermeneutics.25 23 Ibid. See Mathison’s book Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? for an introduction to the issue of “distinction between Israel and the Church.” I strongly recommend this easily accessible book. 25 There are some who accuse non-dispensationalists of being “anti-Semitic.” They usually mean “theological anti-Semitism” rather than racial “anti-Semitism”. True anti-Semitism is defined as prejudice against Semitic people simply because they are Semites. Occasionally, this allegation is part of their defamatory tactics and ad hominem attacks. Old Testament prophecies related to national Israel have been fulfilled in (1) the return of the Jews after their exile into Assyria and Babylon, (2) the first-century establishment of the Jewish church, and (3) the First Advent of Jesus Christ. See William Hendriksen, Israel and Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1968), 16–31. The first century church was made up almost exclusively of Jews. Later, Gentile believers were grafted into an already existing Jewish Church (Rom. 11:19). These believers, consisting of Jews and Gentiles, are the true “Jews” (Rom. 2:28–29), the true “circumcision” (Phil. 3:3), the true “seed of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7, 29), the “children of promise” (Gal. 4:28), the “commonwealth of Israel” (Eph. 2:12, 19). There are also those who refer to amillennialists as being “anti-Israel,” while they reserve the term “pro-Israel” for themselves. Such terms are not helpful in the current theological dialogue between Dispensationalists and Reformed theologians. Terms such as “pro-Church” and “anti-Church” can likewise be coined to refer to Reformed and Dispensational theologians respectively. Just as amillennialists are not “anti-Israel,” Bible Presbyterians would admit that they are not “anti-Church.” 24 The Distinction between Israel and the Church 8 There are Reformed theologians who believe in a future conversion of a large number of Jews to Christianity. But even to concur with a future, mass salvation of elect Jews (Rom. 9-11), or the reception of a Jewish remnant into true, spiritual Israel does not necessitate an a priori or an a posteriori acceptance of the Christian Zionistic expectation – a belief in the re-establishment of a Jewish, Davidic Kingdom on Earth.26 The concept of an earthly, Jewish kingdom cannot be found in the soteriological polemic of Paul in Romans 9-11.27 Reformed theologians do not believe that the Church has replaced Israel. The Church is, in fact, Israel (1 Pet. 2:9, Gal. 6:16, Rom. 2:28-29). She is the mature, adult, spiritual Israel of God. According to Romans chapter 11, Israel and the Church both belong to the same olive tree, i.e. there is only one people of God, and God deals with both Israel and the Church as one people (Eph. 2:11-22).28 After all, there is only one olive tree, not two.29 Charles Alexander reminds us that national Israel has not been completely forsaken; a remnant remains according to God’s election of grace: “All of earthly Israel were not cast away – only the unbeliever. “Some of the branches”. What could be plainer than this, that the apostle is speaking 26 See David A. Rausch, “Christian Zionism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1984), 1201-1202, for more information on Christian Zionism. For a thorough assessment of the theological emphases of Christian Zionism, see Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004), 106-205. For an accessible critique of the Christian Zionistic expectation of an earthly Jewish Kingdom in the Millennium, see Stephen Sizer, “An Alternative Theology of the Holy Land: A Critique of Christian Zionism,” The Churchman 113, no. 2 (1999); available from http://www.christianzionism.org/print.asp?ID=13; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005. 27 An excellent discussion of Romans chapter 11 is found in O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 2000), 167-192. Also see Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1979; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co and Cumbria, UK: The Paternoster Press, 1994), 196-201. 28 See David Holwerda, Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two? (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1995), 1-112. It gives an in-depth analysis of the Reformed position on Israel and the church. 29 To understand what Reformed theologians really taught about ethnic Israel, see Fred Klett, Calvin, Hodge, Murray, Vos, Edwards, Henry: What Do They Say about the Jewish People? [article on-line]; available from http://www.chaim.org/churches/calvinpam.pdf; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005. Do not accept the dispensationalist’s “straw man” (e.g. “Replacement” Theology, anti-Semitism) as the genuine Reformed position on Israel. The Distinction between Israel and the Church 9 of individual believers throughout this great chapter? “Some of the branches” my brethren; not all of them were broken off. The holy stock was not uprooted, just “some of the branches”. Even though history has proved that the old stock was well nigh stripped of its natural branches, there still remained a remnant according to the election of grace.”30 If the Church has truly replaced Israel spiritually, Paul would have described the cutting down of the original olive tree in Romans chapter 11,31 and the planting of a wild olive tree. Natural olive branches can subsequently be grafted onto the wild olive tree. On the other hand, if Israel and the Church are distinct (as Dispensationalists claim), Paul would have described two olive trees i.e. the planting of a wild olive tree beside the natural one, and not the grafting of wild olive branches onto the original olive tree. Frame aptly writes, “The church, composed of Jews and Gentiles (with, of course, their families as equal members of one body), was the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16). The olive tree of Abraham continued, but with some old (Jewish) branches broken off and some new (Gentile) branches grafted in (Rom 11:11–24). The church received the titles of Israel: “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God” (1 Pet 2:9f.; cf. Exod 19:6; Tit 2:14).”32 Professor David Engelsma points out that, “As the true Israel of God, the church is God’s one and only wife. Jehovah God does not have two wives, as premillennial dispensationalism, both traditional and progressive, necessarily teaches. Since the Old Testament teaches that Israel was the wife of God and since the New Testament teaches that the church is the wife of God in Jesus Christ and since dispensationalism teaches that Israel and the church are two different 30 Charles D. Alexander, “Romans Eleven and the Two Israels: An Exposition of Romans 911” (Unpublished lecture notes, n.d.), 15. 31 For a good primer to the meaning of “all Israel” in Romans 11:26, see Herman Bavinck, The Last Things: Hope for This World and the Next, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1996), 104-107. 32 John M. Frame, “Toward a Theology of the State,” Westminster Theological Journal 51, no. 2 (1989): 220. The Distinction between Israel and the Church 10 peoples, dispensationalism holds that God has two wives. For dispensationalism, God is the original bigamist.”33 God, indeed, has only one people. Jesus Christ has only one bride - the Church. Our God is not a bigamist, and it is a serious error to insinuate that He is. According to Reformed ecclesiology, elect Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ. The Church, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles, is the true spiritual Israel in the New Covenant administration.34 Who, then, is a true Israelite? The rightful child of Abraham is no longer identified via ethnicity or genealogical descent (Gal. 3:7), but by faith in the Messiah. “Not ancestry but faith, not human achievement but God’s gift, calling, and election, acknowledged in Jesus, son of Abraham, son of David, Son of God.”35 Concerning the identity of Israel, David Holwerda writes: “Who then is Israel? The answer is never simply a matter of ancestry. Consequently, the central issue in the New Testament is not really Jew versus Gentile. Instead, Israel is the people chosen by God and called to respond in faith and obedience. Israel is the people on whom the Lord sets his love (Deuteronomy 7:7). Such also is Matthew’s teaching. Jesus, a literal descendant of Abraham, himself a Jew, is the Israel who is the object of God’s love. He is chosen by God and responds in perfect obedience, fulfilling the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17) and all righteousness (3:15). Since Jesus is the corporate representative of Israel, God now recognizes as Israel all who respond in faith and obedience to the presence and will of God revealed in Jesus. Of course, the first to so respond are in fact Jews.”36 Contrary to dispensational preconceptions and notions, the New Testament Church is not a Gentile organization. The NT Church is, in fact, a very Jewish organization. Its Messiah is Jewish, and it is founded entirely by Jews. The first converts of the 33 David J. Engelsma, “A Brief Study of Jeremiah 3 on Divorce,” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal 39, no.2 (2006): 15. 34 True spiritual Israel now consists of both elect Jews and Gentiles. For an excellent book collating all Old Testament passages which were addressed to ethnic Israel, and subsequently quoted in the New Testament to refer to the Church, see Charles D. Provan, The Church Is Israel Now (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1987), 49-64. 35 Holwerda, Jesus and Israel, 57. 36 Ibid., 56-57. The Distinction between Israel and the Church 11 Christian Church were all Jews. Even the apostles were Jews, and most, perhaps all, of the New Testament writers were also Jews. The grafting of wild olive branches onto the original olive tree does not turn it into a wild olive tree. The truth is: there is only one olive tree. The dispensational distinction between the nation of Israel and the Church is clearly not founded upon Scripture. Reformed Ecclesiology a Heresy? The Far Eastern Bible College subscribes to the sine qua non of Dispensationalism, particularly, the distinction between Israel and the Church. Yet, Dr Jeffrey Khoo claims that Bible Presbyterians in Singapore are actually Reformed in doctrine. This issue will be discussed further in chapters 20 to 23 of this book. For now, it is sufficient to note that the dispensational sine qua non is extremely vital to the framework of Bible Presbyterian theology in Singapore. The Israel/Church distinction is a salient point in Bible Presbyterian thought, at least in Far Eastern Bible College. In his lecture notes entitled Heresies Ancient and Modern, Khoo intimates that any “anti-Semitic” theological system that attempts to replace national Israel with true spiritual Israel i.e. the Church, is akin to a modern form of Marcionism. We shall now consider in some detail Dr Khoo’s allegations. On page 12, paragraph 6d of Heresies Ancient and Modern, Dr Khoo propounds that “Marcionism thus takes on two basic forms” today, one of which is “found in replacement theologies that seek to replace Israel with the Church.”37 On page 13 paragraph 2e, he describes an encounter Polycarp had with the ancient heretic, Marcion. Khoo writes, Marcion was one day walking down the street and spotted a new visitor to the city, a very old and famous bishop named Polycarp from Smyrna in Asia Minor. Walking up to him, Marcion inquired, “Do you know me?” The bent and venerable Polycarp looked up at him closely. “Yes,” he answered, “I know you; you’re the firstborn of Satan.”38 After using the encounter of Polycarp as an anecdote, Khoo subsequently concludes: “This above refreshingly rough response of Bishop Polycarp we owe to Irenaeus in his work Against Heresies (3.3.4). It well expresses what the 37 Jeffrey Khoo, Heresies Ancient and Modern (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, n.d.), 12. These are printed course notes used in Far Eastern Bible College. Also available from http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/studyresource/Heresies.pdf; Internet; accessed 05 April 2006. 38 Ibid., 13. The Distinction between Israel and the Church 12 Church’s attitude should be toward heretical ideas like those of Marcion.”39 In his aforementioned writings, Khoo unashamedly labels those who adhere to a Reformed understanding of the Church – that it is the true, spiritual Israel – as heretics and “the firstborn of Satan.” He is adamant that the “refreshingly rough response of Bishop Polycarp” should be the Church’s attitude towards similar “heretical ideas,” such as “replacement theology.” A careful perusal of Khoo’s writings will reveal that he is, in effect, insinuating that those who reject the dispensational doctrine of the Israel/Church distinction are guilty of heresy, probably on par with Marcion and the like. Thus, it is clear that Far Eastern Bible College considers the dispensational sine qua non, vis-à-vis the distinction between Israel and the Church, a cardinal doctrine fundamental to its theological system. Replacement Theology or Supersessionism Nondispensationalists have been accused of subscribing to “Replacement Theology,” that is, the belief that the Church has “replaced” the Jewish people in the plan of God. This includes the idea that the Church has “superseded” national Israel. Some Dispensationalists have even purported that those who regard the body of New Covenant believers as “spiritual Israel” are guilty of this “replacement theology” or “supersessionism.”40 This allegation is apparently an ad hominem attack to discredit Reformed theologians.41 What, then, is “Replacement Theology?” According to Price, it can be defined as, “A theological perspective that teaches that the Jews have been rejected by God and are no longer God’s Chosen People. Those who hold to this view disavow any ethnic future for the Jewish people in connection with the biblical covenants, believing that their spiritual destiny is either to perish or 39 Ibid., emphasis mine. Reformed theologians do not believe in “replacement theology,” but “expansion theology.” See Fred Klett, Not Replacement … Expansion! [article on-line]; available from http://www.chaim.org/xpansion.htm; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005, for information on what Reformed Theology really teaches about Jews. 41 For a concise refutation of the “Replacement Theology” allegation, see Gary DeMar, “AntiSemitism and Eschatology,” in Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, 4th rev. ed. (Atlanta, Georgia: American Vision, 1999), 407-423. 40 The Distinction between Israel and the Church 13 become a part of the new religion that superseded Judaism (whether Christianity or Islam).”42 Reformed Theology does not teach the rejection of the Jews in God’s plan of salvation. Salvation is found only in Jesus Christ the Messiah, not Judaism. As a matter of fact, if the Jews do not “become a part of the new religion” called Christianity, they can have no part in the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2). Professor David Engelsma aptly comments, “Genuinely Reformed, covenant theology does not teach “supersessionism.” The church does not “replace” Israel. The church does not “take the place of” Israel. Nothing rightly belonging to Israel is highhandedly “transferred” to the upstart church. The church is Israel grown-up, mature, spiritual Israel - as the apostles teach in 1 Peter 2:9, Galatians 6:16, Romans 2:28, 29, and many other places. For the church is the people, nation, and body of which Jesus Christ is savior, king, and head. And that which made Israel, Israel, that is, the people, nation, and congregation of God in the Old Testament, was Jesus Christ in the midst of her by divine promise. The Jews in the Middle East, and elsewhere, today, are not, and never will be, the reality of Old Testament Israel, except insofar as some of them are brought into the church, where alone anyone can share in the reality of Israel. To the church belong all the promises made to Old Testament Israel. They are the church’s promises. For they are all “yea” and “amen” in Christ (2 Cor. 1:19, 20).”43 According to Dispensational Premillennialism, ethnic Israel does not have any prophetic significance prior to the pretribulational rapture of the Church. The prophetic time clock for Israel has apparently stopped ticking at the end of the 69th week of Daniel’s prophecy (Dan. 9:24-27).44 This clock will only start ticking after the rapture of the Church. From a temporal perspective, this occurs at the signing of the peace covenant between the eschatological Antichrist and the nation of Israel.45 According to Walvoord, the Antichrist “will make a covenant with Israel for a seven-year period. As Daniel 9:27 indicates, in the middle of the seven years he will 42 Randall Price, Unholy War: America, Israel and Radical Islam (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2001), 412. 43 Engelsma, “A Brief Study of Jeremiah 3 on Divorce,” 14-15. 44 We shall study Daniel 9:24-27 in chapters 16 and 17 of this book. 45 Fruchtenbaum writes, “Dispensationalism believes that the Rapture will be pretribulational. Many Dispensationalists have, therefore, assumed that the Rapture will begin the Tribulation. However, this is not so for the Tribulation begins with the signing of a seven-year covenant between the Antichrist and Israel.” See Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1989), 769. The Distinction between Israel and the Church 14 break the covenant, stop the sacrifices being offered in the temple rebuilt in that period, and become their persecutor instead of their protector, fulfilling the promises of Israel’s day of trouble (Jer. 30:5-7).”46 Therefore, with respect to the dispensational premillennial schema, the Church has indeed replaced Israel this side of the rapture. This is indubitably true because God’s prophetic program for Israel has been postponed until after the Church has been taken to heaven during the pretribulation rapture. This is when the prophetic time clock for Israel starts ticking again at the beginning of Daniel’s 70th week. As Dispensationalists are the ones who maintain that God is not dealing with ethnic Israel in the present church age, one wonders whether it is dispensational premillennialism that is theologically “anti-Semitic.” Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians often claim that only Dispensational Premillennialism gives the nation of Israel her proper place in God’s redemptive plan. It is allegedly the only “pro-Israel” eschatology for Christendom. But this claim is perplexing for the reader since it is the Dispensational Premillennialist who believes that at least two-thirds of the Jews will be massacred during the postrapture, Great Tribulation period. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, in arguably his magnum opus, writes, “In the Holocaust, under Hitler, one-third of the world Jewish population died. Under the fierce persecution of the Antichrist, controlled and energized by Satan, two-thirds of the Jewish population will die. This will be the largest and most intense persecution of the Jews ever known in Jewish history.”47 Likewise Walvoord, in his commentary on Zechariah 13:8-9, further elucidates, “It was prophesied [in Zechariah 13:8-9] that two-thirds of Israel in the land will perish, “‘In the whole land,’ declared the LORD, ‘two-thirds will be struck down and perish; yet one-third will be left in it. This third I will bring into the fire; I will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call on My name and I will answer them; I will say, “They are My people,” and they will say, “The LORD is our God”’” (vv. 8-9). This prophecy will be fulfilled in the Great Tribulation when two out of three of the Jews in the land attempting to flee their persecutor, the future world 46 John F. Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), 257. 47 Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, 774. The Distinction between Israel and the Church 15 leader, will perish, and only one-third will escape and be waiting for Christ when He comes. The 144,000 of Revelation 7 and Revelation 14 will be part of that remnant.”48 In his book, The Best is Yet to Come, Charles Ryrie states that the Great Tribulation will be for the nation of Israel, “the worst bloodbath in Jewish history.”49 Considering the fact that this would be the greatest Jewish holocaust in human history, the worst mass slaughter of Israelites has yet to come. Surely, with regard to the title of his book, Ryrie is not insinuating that this is “the best” which has yet to come. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics of Israel, the current population in Israel is 7,047,100 or slightly more than 7 million Jews.50 If two-thirds of the Jews were to be massacred during the Great Tribulation, this would mean at least 4,698,066 or approximately 4.7 million deaths! If two out of three Israelites will be killed according to the dispensational understanding of prophecy, why are Dispensationalists rejoicing over the regathering of Jews in the Land of Palestine? As DeMar has reasoned, “Why aren’t today’s dispensationalists warning Jews about this coming holocaust by encouraging them to leave Israel until the conflagration is over? Instead, we find dispensationalists supporting and encouraging the relocation of Jews to the land of Israel. For what? A future holocaust?”51 The return of Jews to the land of Palestine, according to Dispensationalism, is prophetic fulfillment. The next Jewish holocaust during the Great Tribulation, according to Dispensationalism, is prophetic anticipation. In fact, “many evangelical dispensationalists have committed themselves to a course for Israel, that, by their own admission will lead directly to a holocaust indescribably more savage and widespread than any vision of carnage that could have generated in Adolf Hitler’s criminal mind.”52 Thus, in the minds of Dispensational Premillennialists, the exclusion of national Israel from God’s current redemptive dealings with the 48 Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, 332. Charles C. Ryrie, The Best Is Yet to Come (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1981), 86. 50 This is accurate as at 30th June 2006. See Population Statistics [article on-line]; available from http://www.cbs.gov.il/population/new_2007/table2.pdf; Internet; accessed 16 November 2006. 51 Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, 4th rev. ed. (Atlanta, Georgia: American Vision, 1999), 416. 52 Gary DeMar and Peter J. Leithart, The Legacy of Hatred Continues: A Response to Hal Lindsey’s The Road to Holocaust (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 26. 49 The Distinction between Israel and the Church 16 Church,53 and the prophetic anticipation of the greatest Jewish bloodbath in human history, is “pro-Israel” eschatology. With regard to this dispensational, “pro-Israel” eschatology, DeMar further observes, “Dispensationalists will argue that “all Israel” must be saved (Rom. 11:26), and all Israel was not saved in the first century. In the Romans context, “all Israel” is the believing elect remnant (11:5). Dispensationalists don’t interpret “all Israel” to mean every Israelite who has ever lived. They don’t even understand “all Israel” to mean every Jew alive during the postrapture great tribulation since they believe that two-thirds of them will be slaughtered (cf. Zech. 13:8). They mean by “all Israel” the remnant!”54 Reformed theologians have always taught that a Jewish remnant will be saved throughout redemptive history, not just after the Great Tribulation during the Second Advent of Christ. Therefore, it is unjustified at best, to label Dispensational Premillennialism “pro-Israel,” and Reformed eschatology “anti-Semitic.” Following the railing accusations against amillennialists, postmillennialists, and historic premillennialists for their “anti-Semitism,” it is remarkable that Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians look forward to the return of Jews to the “Promised Land,” only to be slaughtered during the Seventieth Week of Daniel’s prophecy. Such is the “pro-Israel” eschatology of Dispensationalism and Bible Presbyterianism. The “all Israel” in Romans 11:26 Since two-thirds of the Jews will be massacred during the Great Tribulation period according to dispensational premillennialism, it is obvious that even Dispensationalists do not believe that “all Israel” (Rom. 11:26) means “most” of national Israel. At the most, “all Israel” can mean only one-third of Jews in Israel during the Parousia of Christ. Literally, only a remnant of the nation of Israel will be saved after the rapture. 53 Dispensational Premillennialists believe that Israel, as a nation, will only be saved towards the end of the Great Tribulation, probably during the Second Advent of Christ. 54 Gary DeMar, All Promises Made to Israel Have Been Fulfilled: Answering the Replacement Theology Critics (Part 4) [article on-line]; available from http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/10-14-05.asp; Internet; accessed 16 October 2005. The Distinction between Israel and the Church 17 Dr John Walvoord, the prolific dispensationalist writer and professor from Dallas Theological Seminary, explains: “When Paul wrote that “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26), he meant that at the Second Coming all Jews who then believe in Christ will be saved and will enter the Millennium. Since many Jews who will return to their land at the Second Coming will be rebels, they will be purged out in this judgment of living Israelites. The Deliverer, Paul wrote, “will turn godlessness away from Jacob” (11:26), so that only believing Jews will enter the Millennium.”55 Fruchtenbaum reinforces this view of national Israel’s salvation, which is actually the salvation of a remnant of Israel: “Israel will undergo the seven years of Tribulation and is to be identified with the Woman of Revelation 12. Israel will suffer persecution during this period, and many will die; but one-third of the nation will survive. The 144,000 are a special class within Israel who will be used to proclaim the gospel world-wide, resulting in the salvation of myriads of Gentiles. At some point in relationship to the second coming, Israel will experience a national salvation; for the blindness will be removed, and all Israel will be saved. Israel will also experience a national regathering and restoration back into the land and will have a prominent place above the Gentile nations in the Messianic Kingdom.”56 Concerning Romans 11:26, the most prevalent view today amongst Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians is that “all Israel” refers to the mass or the majority of Jews alive when God removes His principle of divine hardening (Rom. 11:25). But this understanding is fraught with difficulties.57 If the Dispensationalists are correct, and if God indeed lifts the principle of reprobation from national Israel in the future, it would mean that every single Jew must be converted. If there remains one Jew who does not repent, then the principle of divine hardening or reprobation is still in place. Therefore, if the Dispensationalist 55 John F. Walvoord, End Times: Understanding Today’s World Events in Biblical Prophecy (Nashville, Tennessee: Word Publishing, 1998), 175. 56 Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, 562-563. 57 In this section of my book, I am greatly indebted to Robertson for providing me with information on the logical and exegetical flaws concerning the dispensational understanding of Romans 11:26. See Robertson, The Israel of God, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, 167192. The Distinction between Israel and the Church 18 is to be consistent with his exegesis, he must mean that there will come a day when each and every living Jew will be converted to Christianity. Does “all Israel shall be saved (Rom. 11:26)” mean that every single Israelite will be saved in the future? This understanding contradicts the entire course of redemptive history, including the doctrine of divine election. Even in the Old Testament, God never committed Himself to save an entire generation of Israelites. In redemptive history, “a distinction was made between Isaac and Ishmael (Rom. 9:6-9), between Jacob and Esau (9:10-13), between those spared and those destroyed around the golden calf in Moses’ day (9:14-16, citing Ex. 33:19), between the faithful remnant and unbelievers in Elijah’s day (Rom. 11:2-4), between enemies and companions in David’s day (11:9-10), between believers and disobedient in Isaiah’s day (9:29; 11:8), and between the saved and the lost of Israel in the present day (11:5, 7).”58 From the record of the Old Testament, we read that faithful Jehovah has always redeemed unto Himself a remnant of each generation of Israelites. Never was there a mass salvation of an entire generation of Jews in biblical history. Charles Alexander agrees that, “There is no such thing as national salvation either of Jew or gentile – no, not since the foundation of the world, and never even in a minor sense in the family and immediate descendents of the first and second generations of the Abrahamic stock. Ishmael was never in, not Esau, nor half the sons of Jacob. Read what their father says about them on his deathbed (Genesis 49).”59 The principle of sovereign, divine election and reprobation is consistent with God’s historical-redemptive panorama. Furthermore, citizenship in the heavenly Jerusalem is never based upon nationality or race, but by faith in Jesus Christ. This is true both in the Old and New Testament. To insist upon the future salvation of every single living Israelite is to introduce a foreign innovation into the text of Scripture. However, the problems for the Bible Presbyterian do not stop here. If, indeed, every single Israelite will be saved in the future at Christ’s Second Advent, how do we determine who is and is not an Israelite? Is an Israelite one who has descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Or is one an Israelite simply by virtue of his geo-political or religious associations? Benno Jacob, a distinguished Jewish commentator on Genesis, commented that ethnic descent was not the only basis for participation in the old covenant. He writes, “Indeed, differences of race 58 59 Robertson, The Israel of God, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, 184. Alexander, “Romans Eleven and the Two Israels,” 15-16. The Distinction between Israel and the Church 19 have never been an obstacle to joining Israel which did not know the concept of purity of blood. Circumcision turned a man of foreign origin into an Israelite (Ex. 12:48).”60 In other words, a Gentile may be accepted as a Jew by national Israel when he converts to Judaism. O. Palmer Robertson rightly observes that, “When God set aside Abraham as his instrument of blessing for the world, it was made plain that any Gentile could join the covenant community through the process of proselytism (Gen. 17:12-13).”61 Besides, no legislation exists in Israel that prohibits the marriage of a gentile proselyte with another gentile proselyte. The descendents of such a union would be called Israelites, but these would have no genetic or blood relationship with any of the Jewish patriarchs. “On the other hand, any ethnic descendant of Abraham might be declared a non-Israelite as a result of violating the covenant (Gen. 17:14). For these reasons, “Israel” could never be defined along purely ethnic lines.”62 If it is by converting to Judaism that a person becomes an Israelite, it is, then, true that any Gentile can become an Israelite in a religious or geo-political sense. If we take this reasoning to its logical end, the dispensational understanding of “all Israel (Rom. 11:26)” inevitably leads to another way to God, apart from saving faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hypothetically speaking, if a Gentile unwaveringly and persistently rejects the Gospel despite all efforts to evangelize him, must we consider persuading him to become a Jew by converting to Judaism? Is it not true, then, that he may even have an assurance of salvation if he happens to be alive - as a proselyte of Judaism - during the Second Advent of Christ? Will not “all Israel,” which includes the Gentile proselytes of Judaism, be supernaturally converted to Christianity according to Dispensationalism? The consistent Dispensationalist must, therefore, admit that conversion to Judaism is, at least, a possible alternative for those who refuse to believe in the Gospel. As the Dispensationalists have reiterated, we are possibly living in the last days when Christ’s return is “imminent.” This “any moment” return of Christ will give the Gentile proselyte an “any moment” salvation, because “all Israel” will be saved – and this includes both ethnic Jews and Gentile proselytes to Judaism. The aforementioned considerations will oppose any understanding of “all Israel” in Romans 11:26 as meaning every single Israelite alive in the future. Amillennialists have always believed that a remnant of Jews will be saved throughout redemptive 60 Benno Jacob, The First Book of the Bible, Genesis (New York: KTAV, 1974), 233, quoted in Robertson, The Israel of God, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, 184. 61 Robertson, The Israel of God, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, 184-185. 62 Ibid., 185. The Distinction between Israel and the Church 20 history. But Dispensationalists limit this to the eschatological future when only a remnant of a single generation of Jews will be saved. Yet this remnant is alleged to refer to the “all Israel” of Romans 11:26. If “all Israel” means only “some Israelites,” and if “all Israel” means only “a remnant of Israel,” Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians must admit that “all” does not mean “all” in a literal sense. According to the Bible Presbyterian’s consistently literal hermeneutics, “all” means “some,” and “some” means “all.” Finally, let us remember that God’s redemptive grace and election are not dependent upon a person’s credentials, genealogy, or physical qualities. Salvation is always based upon faith alone in Christ alone, and is not dependent upon the inheritance of Jewish genes, the person’s ethnicity or pedigree. Alexander warns, “Our friends [the Dispensationalists] who triumphantly flourish the sentence, “And so all Israel shall be saved” as though this proves beyond argument that an earthly future of special privilege belongs to Jewry on the ground that they, the Jews, are the natural seed of Abraham to whom the promises have been made, had better be careful what they are about, for they are confusing flesh and spirit, and it is small wonder that in the process they deprive the Church of every significant prophecy in the Word of God and reduce the present status of the Church to that of a mere twilight episode in the purposes of God.”63 This confusion of “flesh and spirit” is sometimes a product of the “consistently” literal hermeneutics – a hermeneutical method which Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians adamantly defend. We now turn our attention to this consistently “literal” hermeneutics of Bible Presbyterianism. 63 Alexander, “Romans Eleven and the Two Israels,” 3. The Distinction between Israel and the Church 21 Chapter 2: An Introduction to Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics Literal Hermeneutics Bible Presbyterians and Dispensationalists often assert that the correct hermeneutics is a consistently literal hermeneutics. The fact is, both Reformed theologians and Dispensationalists interpret some portions of Scripture literally, and other portions symbolically or typologically. They nevertheless disagree as to which portions of Scripture should be interpreted literally or symbolically.1 The bone of contention between Reformed and Dispensational exegetes lies in their interpretation of biblical prophecy, particularly the apocalyptic genre of Scripture.2 For example, our Dispensational brethren would attempt to interpret the Old Testament land promises to ethnic Israel literally, and insist that the Israelites must repossess the Promised Land according to these Old Testament passages.3 What exactly, then, is this elusive method of interpretation called “literal hermeneutics?” Vern Poythress explains that what Dispensationalists mean by “consistently literal” is actually the grammatical-historical method of hermeneutics.4 Poythress further elaborates that “grammatical-historical interpretation deals with what a passage says against the background of its original time and culture, bearing in mind the purposes of the human author.”5 In other words, grammatical-historical hermeneutics takes into consideration the cultural milieu as well as the understanding and intent of the divinely inspired human author. 1 Ramm clarifies, “It must be strongly reiterated here that amillenarians are just as strong in rejecting baseless allegorical speculations as are the ardent literalists. . . . Acceptable “spiritualization” is the interpretation of a passage in which the interpreter finds a broadened or figurative or typical meaning given to it by the Holy Spirit. To accuse the amillenarians of being allegorists and implying that their allegorizations are of the same species as that of Philo or Origen is simply not being accurate with or fair to the amillenarians.” See Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 3d rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 1970), 257. 2 Terry explains, “Apocalyptics is a theological term of recent origin employed in biblical literature to designate a class of prophetic writings which refer to impending or future judgments, and the final glory of the Messianic kingdom.” See Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments (Hunt and Eason, 1890; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999), 338. 3 This issue is discussed in Chapter 4. 4 Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 2d. ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1987), 86. 5 Ibid., 97. Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 22 Dwight Pentecost, one of the most prominent defenders of Dispensational Premillennialism, further describes the literal method of interpretation in the following words: “The literal method of interpretation is that method that gives to each word the same exact basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking. It is called the grammatical-historical method to emphasize the fact that the meaning is to be determined by both grammatical and historical considerations.”6 Dispensationalist Robert L. Thomas likewise concurs that the traditional approach of consistent literalism is “grammatical-historical,” and not “historical-grammaticalliterary-theological.”7 The “grammatical-historical” hermeneutics is “grammatical” in the sense that it reflects common denotations, inflections, and syntax. It is “historical” in the sense that it appeals to the meanings of such denotations, inflections, and syntax as they were understood by the original writers, and in relation to the historical events surrounding them. Therefore, it is proper for the exegete to interact with the historical and cultural aspects of the original writers when interpreting a particular book of the Bible. In his critique of nondispensational hermeneutics, Charles Ryrie charges that nondispensationalists are inconsistent in their usage of the “grammatical-historical” method of interpretation, especially when understanding prophecy. Ryrie writes: “Of course, literal interpretation is not the exclusive property of dispensationalists. . . . What, then, is the difference between the dispensationalist’s use of this hermeneutical principle and the nondispensationalist’s? The difference lies in the dispensationalist’s claim to use the normal principle of interpretation consistently in all his study of the Bible. He further claims that the nondispensationalist does not use the principle everywhere. He admits that the nondispensationalist is a literalist in much of his interpretation of the Scriptures but charges him with allegorizing or spiritualizing when it comes to the interpretation of prophecy. The dispensationalist claims to be consistent in his use of this 6 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1958), 9. Charles Ryrie agrees with this definition as well. See Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1995), 80. 7 See Robert L. Thomas, “The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism,” The Masters Seminary Journal 6, no. 1 (1995): 79-95. Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 23 principle, and he accuses the nondispensationalist of being inconsistent in his use of it.”8 It must, however, be emphasized that even Ryrie recognizes the fact that the nondispensational exegete “is a literalist in much of his interpretation of the Scriptures.” Nevertheless, Dispensationalists and nondispensationalists disagree as to the proper interpretation of prophetic passages. A strictly literal method of interpretation has certain potential weaknesses. Such hermeneutics might not recognize the “literary” significance of the text, for example, rhetorical structure, genre and style. It might also overlook the necessity of the application of a consistent theological grid, derived from an understanding of the whole Bible, upon the interpretation of the text.9 The proper understanding of an obscure or highly symbolical passage, for example a text from the apocalyptic genre, necessitates a strong theological foundation. The meaning of such a passage must be harmonized with the rest of Scripture. Although the “grammatical-historical” method is a necessary starting point for the understanding of Scripture, it is nonetheless inadequate because it fails to give due regards to the literary and theological elements of Scripture, the consideration of which is so essential for proper interpretation. In the understanding of prophecy, the exegete has to take into account the symbolical and typological levels of communication.10 These levels of communication cannot be appreciated unless the Bible is understood as an organic whole. As Poythress has mentioned, “grammatical-historical interpretation is not all that there is to the interpretation of types.”11 The usage of a consistently literal hermeneutics, particularly in the interpretation of prophecy, might result in a failure to acknowledge the visionary, typological, and symbolic elements in such a genre of Scripture. In the Bible Presbyterian’s approach to Old Testament prophetic passages, one might even wonder if they are bordering upon a wooden literalism. 8 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 82. Ramm explains, “Part of the task of hermeneutics is to determine the correct use of the Bible in theology and in personal life. The doctrinal interpretation of the Bible is the work of the theologian. It is advancing beyond the grammatical and the historical sense to the fuller meaning of Scripture. . . . Theological interpretation is thus characterized by: (i) an extension of the grammatical meaning to discover its fuller theological significance, and (ii) a synoptic view of all the Biblical data on a given subject.” See Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 163. Also see pp.163-184 for a discussion on the subject of theological interpretation. 10 This area will be discussed further when we begin our study of Revelation 20:1-6 in chapter 10. 11 Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 91. 9 Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 24 For the purpose of discussion, we shall consider a verse from Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. The Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:27, “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” The New International Version rendering of the text is, “No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize (1 Cor. 9:27).” Using a consistently literal interpretation, Paul was literally saying that he beats his body and makes it his slave. This might lead to the erroneous conclusion that Paul regularly and purposefully punished himself with self-inflicted injuries as part of Christian living. This is the prosaic, normal or plain interpretation of the text according to a consistently literal hermeneutics. In his critique of Reformed amillennialism, Jeffrey Khoo emphatically writes, “David Cooper’s golden rule of interpretation applies: “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.’”12 In another place, Khoo repeats the “golden rule,” “Unless there are compelling contextual reasons against taking a word in its literal sense, we should understand a word in its most natural or common sense.”13 The reiteration of David Cooper’s golden rule of interpretation is a textbook example of an argumentum ad nauseam.14 By repeating this mantra ad nauseam, Dispensationalists hope that readers will accept the rule as factual. But for the syllogism to be true, the major premise – namely, the mandate to take each and every word at its literal or plain meaning – must hold water. David Cooper’s rule is noticeably a dicto simpliciter,15 and it commits the fallacy of generalizing the manner in which how every passage of Scripture is to be interpreted. As Poythress has successfully reasoned, the term “literal interpretation” is hard to define.16 Does it mean that the exegete must not only take the words, but also the sentences and paragraphs literally all the time? Words do change their meanings according to the genre and context of the passage being studied. Indeed, Poythress helpfully suggests that Dispensationalists drop the term “literal” in their description 12 Jeffrey Khoo, “Amillennialism Examined,” The Burning Bush 4, no. 1 (1998): 3. Jeffrey Khoo, Fundamentals of the Christian Faith: A Reformed and Premillennial Study of Christian Basics (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press, 2005), 135. 14 This is the logical fallacy of trying to prove a proposition by repeating it again and again. 15 This is the logical fallacy of making a sweeping generalization and expecting it to be true of every specific case. 16 See Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 78-86. 13 Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 25 of their hermeneutics, simply because that terminology itself is confusing, and does not convey what the Dispensationalists would want it to convey.17 The “grammatical-historical” literal hermeneutics demands that unless there is a compelling reason, we must accept the “plain sense of Scripture” and “seek no other sense.” But that “compelling” reason cannot be “literary” or “theological” in nature. This is because the allegedly adequate hermeneutics is “grammatical-historical,” and not “historical-grammatical-literary-theological.” If we understand 1 Corinthians 9:27 as a metaphor, in view of the preceding metaphorical illustrations made by Paul, we are making a “literary” argument. However, if we contend that Paul cannot be teaching bodily abuse as part of the practice of holiness in view of Colossians 2:23, we are, in fact, making a “theological” argument. So how should a consistent literalist reconcile these passages of Scripture? He must conclude that Paul is teaching a doctrine in 1 Corinthians 9:27 which apparently contradicts what he preached in Colossians 2:23. The Analogy of Faith The interpretation of Old Testament prophetic passages with New Testament revelation is a biblically based method of hermeneutics. Consistent with the principle of the progressive revelation of Scripture,18 this is also known as the Analogia Fidei.19 The analogy of faith is the Reformed principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture. In other words, special attention must be given to clear, didactic passages of New Testament Scripture, so as to harmonize Old Testament Scripture with New Testament revelation. Contrariwise, we must not explain away plain New Testament Scripture with Old Testament types and shadows. 17 Poythress writes, “If dispensationalists are dead serious about advocating grammaticalhistorical interpretation, in distinction from first-thought interpretation, flat interpretation, and plain interpretation, I think they could demonstrate their commitment by dropping the phrase “literal interpretation.” “Grammatical-historical interpretation” unambiguously designates what they want, whereas the word “literal” is ambiguous and tends wrongly to suggest some or all of the alternatives to grammatical-historical interpretation.” See Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 86. 18 “By progressive revelation we mean that the Bible sets forth a movement of God, with the initiative coming from God and not man, in which God brings man up through the theological infancy of the Old Testament to the maturity of the New Testament. This does not mean that there are no mature ideas in the Old Testament nor simple elements in the New Testament. Progressive revelation is the general pattern of revelation.” See Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 102. 19 This is also known as the analogy of faith. See the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I, paragraph 9. Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 26 Terry elaborates that the analogy of faith “assumes that the Bible is a selfinterpreting book, and what is obscure in one passage may be illuminated by another. No single statement or obscure passage of one book can be allowed to set aside a doctrine which is clearly established by many passages. The obscure texts must be interpreted in the light of those which are plain and positive.”20 The analogy of faith is an indispensable, fundamental principle of Reformed hermeneutics. It is also a principle which recognizes God as the divine Author of the Bible, and ipso facto, Christians must interpret Scripture as an organic unity. As Bavinck has aptly commented: “The New Testament is the truth, the essence, the core, and the actual content of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is revealed in the New, while the New Testament is concealed in the Old (Vetus Testamentum in Novo patet, Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet).”21 In the area of prophetic interpretation, Bible Presbyterian theologians might argue that the New Testament writers were inspired, and therefore, they can apply Old Testament prophecies - originally addressed to ethnic Israel - to the church via divine inspiration. Reformed theologians would reply that, following the hermeneutics of Jesus and the Apostles, we must understand Old Testament prophecies in the light of New Testament revelation. Surely Bible Presbyterians are not insinuating that the meaning of a specific Old Testament prophecy is confined to what the original writer or recipient would have understood. To understand kingdom prophecies in the Old Testament using Judaistic glasses, without the light given in the New, would be to limit the meaning of the prophetic text. In the absence of access to future revelation, the original recipients may have understood the prophetic passages in terms of antecedent revelation.22 But for the Church today to insist on understanding these prophetic passages in terms of Old Testament shadowy forms is to ignore subsequent revelation in the New Testament. As Ramm has emphasized, “The New Testament is the capstone of revelation, and God’s word through the supreme instrument of revelation, His Son 20 Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, 449. Also see pp. 449-451. Bavinck, The Last Things, 96-97. 22 This writer disagrees with Walter C. Kaiser who claims that meaning can be ascertained only from the amount of prior information available to the text under consideration. See Walter C. Kaiser, “Analogy of Antecedent Scripture,” in Towards an Exegetical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1981), 90, 134-137, 145. 21 Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 27 (Hebrews 1:2). Because it is the final, full, and clear revelation of God, it would be foolhardy to make the New revolve around the Old.”23 The determination of the fuller meaning of a prophetic passage requires the understanding of the figurative and symbolical style of prophecy, as well as an analysis and comparison of other similar prophecies in Scripture.24 Ultimately, it is inevitable for an exegete to apply a theological grid derived from the entire Bible as an organic whole in his interpretation of Scripture.25 This is because the Old and New Testament are related to each other as type and antitype, prophecy and fulfilment. Whatever theological seed planted in the Old Testament finds its complete fruition and development in the New. Terry writes: “It is of the first importance to observe that, from a Christian point of view, the Old Testament cannot be fully apprehended without the help of the New. The mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known unto men, was revealed unto the apostles and prophets of the New Testament (Eph. iii, 5), and that revelation sheds a flood of light upon numerous portions of the Hebrew Scriptures. On the other hand, it is equally true that a scientific interpretation of the New Testament is impossible without a thorough knowledge of the older Scriptures. . . . In short, the whole Bible is a divinely constructed unity, and there is danger that, in studying one part to the comparative neglect of the other, we may fall into one-sided and erroneous methods of exposition.”26 The exegete must not ignore the typological-symbolical elements present in certain Old Testament prophecies.27 Fairbairn goes even further, stating that type and 23 Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 167. For a detailed discussion of the hermeneutics involved in interpreting prophecy, see Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, 313-389. 25 An example of this exegetical application of a theological grid is given when we study the temple visions of Ezekiel later in this book, which relate to the doctrine of the atonement of Christ. 26 Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, 18 27 “Typological interpretation is specifically the interpretation of the Old Testament based on the fundamental theological unity of the two Testaments whereby something in the Old shadows, prefigures, adumbrates something in the New. Hence what is interpreted in the Old is not foreign or peculiar or hidden, but rises naturally out of the text due to the relationship of the two Testaments. To find Christ or the atonement in the sacrificial system, or to find Christian salvation or experience in the Tabernacle follows from the character of the divine revelation.” See Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 223. Milton S. Terry provides an excellent treatise on the method of interpreting types in Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, 244256. On the typological usage of the Old Testament by the New, see E. Earle Ellis, Prophecy 24 Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 28 prophecy are often interrelated to each other. “Not only do they [type and prophecy] agree in having both a prospective reference to the future, but they are often also combined into one prospective exhibition of the future.”28 The fuller meaning of a prophecy, in particular, a prophetical type, may not be apparent until the time of fulfillment.29 Poythress explains: and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 1993), 165-169. 28 Patrick Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1989), 106. Concerning how types and prophecies may relate to each other, Fairbairn explains, “From the general resemblance between type and prophecy, we are prepared to expect that they may sometimes run into each other; and especially, that the typical in action may in various ways form the groundwork and the materials by means of which the prophetic in word gave forth its intimations of the coming future. And this, it is quite conceivable, may have been done under any of the following modifications. 1. A typical action might, in some portion of the prophetic word, be historically mentioned; and hence the mention being that of a prophetical circumstance or event, would come to possess a prophetical character. 2. Or something typical in the past or the present might be represented in a distinct prophetical announcement, as going to appear again in the future; thus combining together the typical in act and the prophetical in word. 3. Or the typical, not expressly and formally, but in its essential relations and principles, might be embodied in an accompanying prediction, which foretold things corresponding in nature, but far higher and greater in importance. 4. Or, finally, the typical might itself be still future, and in a prophetic word might be partly described, partly presupposed, as a vantage-ground for the delineation of other things still more distant, to which, when it occurred, it was to stand in the relation of type and antitype.” See Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture, 107. Also see especially pp. 106-130 for a discussion of the relations between types and prophecies. 29 Prophecies of Scripture do not contain an occult or double sense. Each prophecy has only one fulfillment. There may be manifold applications of certain prophecies, but not multiple fulfillments. The doctrine of typology and the doctrine of double sense must not be confounded. Terry writes, “Some writers have confused this subject [i.e. the doctrine of double sense] by connecting it with the doctrine of type and antitype. As many persons and events of the Old Testament were types of greater ones to come, so the language respecting them is supposed to be capable of a double sense. . . . But it should be seen that in the case of types the language of the Scripture has no double sense. The types themselves are such because they prefigure things to come, and this fact must be kept distinct from the question of the sense of language used in any particular passage. We reject as unsound and misleading the theory that such Messianic psalms as the second, forty-fifth and seventy-second have a double sense, and refer first to David, Solomon, or some other ruler, and secondly to Christ. If an historical reference to some great typical character can be shown, the whole case may be relegated to biblical typology, the language naturally explained of the person celebrated in the psalm, and then the person himself may be shown to be a type and illustration of a greater one to come.” See Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, 384. Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 29 “The significance of a type is not fully discernible until the time of fulfillment. . . . One can anticipate in a vague, general way how fulfillment might come, but the details remain in obscurity. When the fulfillment does come, it throws additional light on the significance of the original symbolism. In other words, one must compare later Scripture to earlier Scripture to understand everything. Such comparison, though it should not undermine or contradict grammatical-historical interpretation, goes beyond its bounds. It takes account of information not available in the original historical and cultural context. Hence grammatical-historical interpretation is not enough. It is not all there is to interpretation.”30 The biblically sanctioned method of interpretation of Old Testament prophecies is to apply the hermeneutics of the New Testament writers, as well as the ideas communicated by them.31 In fact, New Testament scholar Earle Ellis emphasizes that, “It very probably underlies the conviction of the early Christians that those who belong to Christ, Israel’s messianic king, constitute the true Israel. Consequently, it explains the Christian application to unbelieving Jews of Scriptures originally directed to Gentiles and, on the other hand, the application to the church of Scriptures originally directed to the Jewish nation.”32 For example, the church is referred to as “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:15-16.33 Also, the “sure blessings of David” is applied to the church in Acts 13:32-34, 38-39. The expressions “my chosen” (Isa. 43:20) and “a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation (Exod. 19:6),” used in the Old Testament to refer to Israel, are applied to the New Testament church in 1 Peter 2:9. Furthermore, Old Testament terms such as “Mount Zion” and “heavenly Jerusalem” are used in Hebrews 12:22-24 to address the Church. Last but not least, it is significant that the prophecy in Jeremiah 31:3134, which was addressed to national Israel, is applied to the church in Hebrews 8:613.34 30 Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 115-116. For a technical discussion on how the early New Testament church interprets the Old Testament, see E. Earle Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 1991), 77-121. 32 Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity, 171. 33 Galatians 6:15-16 is discussed in Chapter 3. 34 This passage in Jeremiah will be discussed later in this chapter. A few other noteworthy cases of Old Testament prophecy directly applied to the Church are as follows: Acts 2:15-21, Acts 10:43, Acts 15:14-18, Romans 1:1,2, Romans 4:13-17, 23, 24, Romans 9:32, 33, Romans 15:4, 8-10, 2 Corinthians 6:16-7:1. 31 Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 30 The prophets often used Old Testament language and terminology, which are understood by and familiar to the original recipients, to describe New Testament realities. To understand such terms and language in the Old Testament literally is to force a regression of New Testament realities back into the shadowy forms of ancient Judaism. Dispensationalists, likewise, interpret portions of kingdom prophecies in the Old Testament literally, while furnishing a figurative understanding for other portions which may otherwise engender internal contradictions within the dispensational, prophetic framework. An example is found in Isaiah 2:3-5: “And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.” According to Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians, the context of this passage is the millennial reign of Christ, with Jerusalem as the center of the theocracy. John Martin, the former Dean of Faculty and Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary, comments on Isaiah 2:4, “Universal peace, with no military conflict or training, will prevail because the implements of warfare (swords and spears) will be turned into implements of agriculture (plowshares and hooks; cf. Joel 3:10).”35 Apparently, the reader will find it difficult to reconcile the literal or prosaic meaning of Isaiah 2:4 with the Dispensational understanding of Revelation 20:8-9. According to dispensational premillennialism, there will be a great, worldwide rebellion of Gog and Magog towards the end of the earthly, Davidic reign, led by the Devil himself. This uprising will be quickly quenched, when “fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them (Rev. 20:9b).” Erickson elaborates, “Christ’s second coming will bring Satan and his helpers under control, binding them for one thousand years. . . . Near the end of the millennium, 35 John A. Martin, “Isaiah,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1038. Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 31 however, Satan will be unbound briefly and will launch one desperate, final struggle. Then he and his demons will be utterly vanquished, cast into the lake of fire prepared for them.”36 But in keeping with a consistently literal understanding of Isaiah 2:4, “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”37 That is, there will not be war any longer under the theocratic reign of Christ, and even after the Millennium. If this phrase “no more” is understood plainly, or at face value, it would mean “no longer,” or “not ever again.” There ought to be no longer any war during, or after, the Millennium. The Dispensationalist is therefore forced to interpret either Isaiah 2:4 or Revelation 20:8-9 literally, while rendering the other verses figuratively. Both cannot be taken literally in a consistent manner. It also seems that the dispensational prophetic schema is the final arbiter as to which verse is to be taken literally or figuratively.38 In his magnum opus Systematic Theology, Charles Hodge elaborates upon the proper understanding of prophetic language in the Old Testament: “It is undeniable that the ancient prophets in predicting the events of the Messianic period and the future of Christ’s kingdom, borrowed their language and imagery from the Old Testament institutions and usages. The Messiah is often called David; his church is called Jerusalem, and Zion; his people are called Israel; Canaan was the land of their inheritance; the loss of God’s favour was expressed by saying that they forfeited that 36 Millard J. Erickson, A Basic Guide to Eschatology: Making Sense of the Millennium (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 1998), 92-93. 37 I have consulted more than 12 different translations of this verse, and they all generally agree with the King James translation of Isaiah 2:4b. Even the 1890 Darby Bible renders Isaiah 2:4 as, “And he shall judge among the nations, and shall reprove many peoples; and they shall forge their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-knives: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” 38 Poythress expresses his criticism concerning how a Dispensationalist might interpret figures in prophecy, “How do we tell the difference between a figurative and a nonfigurative expression? Is this always perfectly plain to everyone? Dispensationalists have in fact left themselves some convenient maneuvering room. It is possible that sometimes they have decided what is figurative and what is nonfigurative after the fact. That is, they may have conveniently arranged their decisions about what is figurative after their basic system is in place telling them what can and what cannot be fitted into the system. The decisions as to what is figurative and what way it is figurative may be a product of the system as a whole rather than the inductive basis of it. Or rather we may have a circular process. The needs of consistency with the system help the proponents to decide what is figurative; and making those decisions helps them to produce interpretations of particular texts that support the consistency of the system.” See Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 53. Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 32 inheritance, and restoration of his favour was denoted by a return to the promised land. This usage is so pervading that the conviction produced by it on the minds of Christians is indelible. To them, Zion and Jerusalem are the Church and not the city made with hands. To interpret all that the ancient prophets say of Jerusalem of an earthly city, and all that is said of Israel of the Jewish nation, would be to bring down heaven to earth, and to transmute Christianity into the corrupt Judaism of the apostolic age.”39 It must be emphasized that Reformed theologians are neither advocating an allegorical method of interpretation, nor are they encouraging a typological or symbolical interpretation for just any Scripture text. Rather, they recognize the presence of typological-symbolical elements inherent within prophetic passages. At the same time, they understand that Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted with the light given in the New. Bavinck comments: “The New Testament views itself - and there can certainly be no doubt about this - as the spiritual and therefore complete and authentic fulfillment of the Old Testament. The spiritualization of the Old Testament, rightly understood, is not an invention of Christian theology but has its beginning in the New Testament itself. The Old Testament in spiritualized form, that is, the Old Testament stripped of its temporal and sensuous form, is the New Testament.”40 Sizer also reminds us that Reformed hermeneutics must be distinguished from the allegorical hermeneutics of pre-Reformation Catholicism. He writes: “Because of their commitment to literalism, for example, [Hal] Lindsey and other dispensationalists do not distinguish between the figurative or typological approaches used by the Reformers and the allegorical methods of interpretation found typically in pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism. The distinction between these two methods of interpretation is significant since the former places particular emphasis on the historical context of passages as well as upon the way Scripture interprets Scripture, whereas an allegorical approach finds eternal truths without reference to any historical setting. A typological approach also highlights the way New Testament 39 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1989; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 809. 40 Bavinck, The Last Things, 96. Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 33 writers see Jesus Christ to be the fulfillment of most Old Testament images and types.”41 In setting out the “definitive marks of typological interpretation” described by Leonard Goppelt, Ellis further elaborates, “Unlike allegory, typological exegesis regards the words of Scripture not as metaphors hiding a deeper meaning (ὑπόνοια) but as the record of historical events out of whose literal sense the meaning of the text arises.”42 In other words, typological exegesis is not a subjective means of interpreting Scripture, but is shaped by how the New Testament interprets the Old. It does not seek to find any esoteric, hidden meaning behind the words of Scripture. At the same time, typological exegesis affirms the perspicuity of Scripture, in that Old Testament typological-prophetic elements are clearly interpreted by the Holy Spirit with further revelation in the New. The exegete is not required to search for some subjective, deeper meaning in types and shadowy forms, because the New Testament unveils their antitypes and fulfillment. Therefore, any attempt at making “guilt by association” ad hominem attacks by accusing amillennial or postmillennial exegetes of spiritualizing or allegorizing Scripture like Catholic exegesis is unhelpful in the current dispensational-covenantal dialogue.43 Reformed theologians adamantly reject the dispensational hermeneutics which forces New Testament revelation to conform to Old Testament shadowy forms. Besides historical, grammatical and contextual considerations, good hermeneutics must take into account the literary form of a particular passage of Scripture, as well as the Reformed principle of the analogy of faith. The interpretation of a particular prophetic text must harmonize with the rest of Scripture, and with the systematic theology derived from a thorough understanding of Scripture as a canonical whole. The actual and fuller meaning of a passage should be determined using the “historical-grammatical-literary-theological” hermeneutics. Undoubtedly, a wooden literalism is not biblically warranted in the interpretation of prophecy. 41 Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon, 123. I am aware that, “in the history of interpretation the question has been occasionally asked whether allegorical and typological interpretation are one method of interpretation mistakenly called by two different names, or actually two different methods of interpretation.” See Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 221-222. Also refer to Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 221-227 for a summary of the ongoing controversy between scholars with regard to the distinction between the allegorical and typological methods of interpretation. 42 Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity, 168-169. 43 Reformed exegetes are aware that the allegorical meaning is neither argumentative nor conclusive, i.e. sensus allegoricus non est argumentativus. Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 34 A Hermeneutical Dilemma – The Interpretation of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 In Jeremiah chapter 31, we have an Old Testament prophecy which finds its fulfillment in the New Testament Church according to Reformed theologians. It is, nevertheless, interesting for us to consider how Reformed theologians and Dispensationalists differ in their interpretation of this particular prophecy.44 Jeremiah 31:31-34 states: “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that 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 bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”45 This prophecy of Jeremiah is reiterated by the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 8:8-13. Boettner elaborates, “The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews cited the promise made through Jeremiah and declared that the New Covenant had made the first Covenant old. It was even then vanishing away (Heb. 8:7-13). It would soon vanish completely with the destruction of the temple and its ritual worship, the priesthood, the genealogies, the city of Jerusalem, the devastation of the land and the dispersion of the Jews through the nations in the year A.D. 70. Thus he showed that the Old Covenant had served its purpose and that it had been replaced by the New Covenant.”46 44 This section is a brief survey of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Our current emphasis is the illustration of how Bible Presbyterians attempt to maintain an Israel/Church distinction in their understanding of the New Covenant. 45 Also see Isaiah 24:5; 49:8; 55:3; 54:10; 59:21; 61:8; Jeremiah 32:39-40; 50:5; Ezekiel 11:19; 16:60; 18:31; 34:25; 36:26; 37:26; Hosea 2:18-20. 46 Loraine Boettner, “A Postmillennial Response,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 97-98. Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 35 We recall that the Old Covenant was made exclusively with the nation of Israel. In Exodus 20, when Yahweh made the Sinaitic covenant with national Israel, He proclaimed, “I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage (Exod. 20:2).” It should be obvious to any reader that only the Israelites were delivered from Egypt; hence, the recipient of the Sinaitic covenant was specifically the nation of Israel. The Egyptians, Persians, or Greeks were not in view. This Old Covenant was subsequently replaced with the New Covenant, which was made exclusively with the Church. God has included in this New Covenant men from all nations, not just the twelve Jewish tribes. There is no mention in the New Testament that God retains a special redemptive favor for any particular nation as a whole. A remnant will be saved from the nation of Israel; this has been true throughout redemptive history. Likewise, the gentile elect will not be chosen from any particular, favored gentile nation. God does not obligate himself to save any particular nation wholesale. Commenting on how Jeremiah’s prophecy relates to the Church, Geoff Adams writes: “The Sinaitic covenant was with national Israel, and now Jeremiah refers to the house of Israel, the northern kingdom, and to the house of Judah, the southern kingdom, being reunited after returning from exile. However, the new covenant is with a new and enlarged Israel. The passage makes no direct mention of the Gentiles (cf. Jer. 3:16–19; 16:19), yet Jeremiah, in referring to Abraham’s seed and to a land flowing with milk and honey which was promised to the forefathers, alludes in the context to the Abrahamic covenant (Jer. 32:22; 33:26). The apostle Paul declares that Abraham was pre-evangelized: “All the nations shall be blessed in you” (Gal. 3:8). So we are not surprised when the author of the epistle to the Hebrews directly relates the church with this blessing (Heb. 8:6–13).”47 Therefore, according to Reformed theologians, the New Covenant was made, not with national Israel, but with the “new and enlarged Israel,” the true Israel of God. We now look at how a Bible Presbyterian theologian might interpret this prophecy. If Dr Jeffrey Khoo is consistent with his principle of a consistently literal hermeneutics, he ought not to apply the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34 to the New Testament Church. If truly “Israel means Israel, and Church means Church,”48 the New Covenant promises described in Jeremiah 31 cannot include the Church. This is 47 Geoff A. Adams, “The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-37,” Reformation and Revival 6, no. 3 (1997): 82. 48 Khoo, Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, 135. Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 36 because the prophecy was addressed to the “house of Israel” and the “house of Judah” only. However, if Jeremiah 31:31-34 refers to a New Covenant made with the nation of Israel only, what, then, is the “New Covenant” referred to by the Lord when He says, “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (Matt. 26:28, NKJV)”?49 All Evangelicals agree that the Lord’s Supper was instituted for the remembrance of the New Covenant in Christ’s blood, which was shed for the Church. The atonement in Christ’s blood is not only for a future, isolated group of Jewish remnant; it is for all the elect, encompassing both Jews and Gentiles. In the New Testament, 2 Corinthians 3:4-6 states: “And we have such trust through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (NKJV).” Once again, if Jeremiah 31:31-34 refers to a New Covenant made with Israel alone, which New Covenant is Paul a minister of? Unless Khoo is willing to concede that there are two separate New Covenants - one with Israel and one with the Church - how, then, is he able to overcome the exegetical difficulties encountered in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Can he continue to maintain a distinction between Israel and the Church? Cyrus Scofield seems to understand this exegetical difficulty. It is interesting to note that in the Scofield Reference Bible, Scofield applies the New Covenant to both Israel and the Church. He believes that “the New Covenant . . . secures the perpetuity, future conversion, and blessing of Israel.”50 Continuing his commentary, he writes: “The New Covenant rests upon the sacrifice of Christ, and secures the eternal blessedness, under the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal. 3:13-29), of all who believe.”51 And the phrase “all who believe” refers to the elect, that is, the Church. Commenting on Scofield’s view, Dwight Pentecost writes, “According to this view, there is one new covenant with a two-fold application; one to Israel in the future and one to the church now.”52 Pentecost continues his explanation, “This view places the church under the new covenant, and views the relationship as a partial fulfillment of the covenant. . . . Scofield agrees with Darby fully that the covenant was primarily 49 Cf. Mark 14:24 and Luke 22:20. Cyrus I. Scofield, ed., The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909), 1297, see note 1 on Hebrews 8:8. 51 Ibid., 1298, see note 2 on Hebrews 8:8. 52 Pentecost, Things to Come, 123. 50 Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 37 for Israel and will be fulfilled by them. Any application of it to the church, as the Scofield position holds, does not nullify the primary application to Israel.”53 Just as “Scofield agrees with Darby,” Khoo seems to agree with Scofield on the interpretation of Jeremiah 31:31-34. Dr Khoo writes: “Who are the beneficiaries of the New Covenant? The [sic] are 4 views . . . (1) The church has replaced Israel as the participant in the new covenant. (2) The new covenant is with the nation of Israel only. (3) There are two new covenants, one with Israel and one with the New Testament Church. And (4) There is one new covenant to be fulfilled eschatologically with Israel, but participated in soteriologically by the Church today. This writer holds to view #4. Read also Homer A. Kent Jr., “The New Covenant and the Church,” Grace Theological Journal 6 (1985): 289-98.”54 It is notable that Khoo believes in “a two-fold application” of the New Covenant: one to Israel in the future “eschatologically,” and one to the Church “soteriologically.” Khoo’s view is essentially similar to the position taken by Scofield.55 Donald Campbell notes that “contemporary dispensationalists affirm that the church participates in the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant by inheriting the promise of justification by faith (Gal. 3:6-9, 29) and in the blessings of the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 by experiencing regeneration, the indwelling Spirit, and so on. This participation, however, does not fulfill or abrogate the remaining covenant promises of a national nature, which will find their fulfillment for Israel following Christ’s second advent.”56 Contemporary Dispensationalists, with their insistence upon a distinction between Israel and the Church, will agree with Khoo that the Church does not “fulfill or abrogate” the New Covenant promises made to national Israel in Jeremiah 31:31-34. This is the fundamental difference between the Reformed and dispensational understanding of the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). 53 Ibid., 124 Jeffrey Khoo, Hebrews (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, n.d.), 32. This book is used by Far Eastern Bible College as lecture notes. Also available from http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/studyresource/hebrews.pdf; Internet; accessed 10 November 2005. 55 This “two-fold application” of prophecy will be explored further towards the end of this book. We will then summarize how the Bible Presbyterians’ Israel/Church distinction directly affects their hermeneutics, particularly their interpretation of the New Covenant. 56 Donald K. Campbell, “The Church in God’s Prophetic Program,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, eds. Stanley Toussaint and Charles Dyer (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 149. 54 Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 38 Both Khoo’s and Scofield’s understanding of Jeremiah 31:31-34 and the New Covenant violates two salient distinctives of Bible Presbyterian hermeneutics: (1) the dispensational dichotomy between Israel and the Church, and (2) the consistently literal hermeneutics of Dispensationalism. Khoo’s understanding violates the Israel/Church dichotomy in that it allows application of the New Covenant blessings to the Church, and permits the Church to participate in a prophecy made to national Israel. It allows the Church to be a partial partaker of the covenant which allegedly belongs only to Israel. If the Church can, indeed, participate in this prophecy, and be made a covenant partner of Israel’s New Covenant blessings, why not the other Old Testament prophecies made to Israel? Khoo’s position contradicts his own conviction that prophecies made to the nation of Israel cannot be applied to the Church. Charles C. Ryrie likewise criticizes such reasoning, “If the Church is fulfilling Israel’s promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere else in Scripture, then [dispensational] premillennialism is weakened. One might well ask why there are not two aspects to one new covenant. This may be the case, and it is the position held by many [dispensational] premillennialists, but we agree that the amillennialist has every right to say of this view that it is “a practical admission that the new covenant is fulfilled in and to the Church.’”57 If Jeremiah 31:31-34 is interpreted literally, the New Covenant is made “with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah” only. It is evident that Khoo’s position violates his own insistence that “Israel means Israel, and Church means Church.”58 He is, in effect, tacitly admitting that prophecies made to Israel can be applied to the Church. Despite the fact that there are no “compelling contextual reasons against taking a word in its literal sense” in Jeremiah 31:31-34,59 Khoo is forced to conclude that this prophecy must be applied to the New Testament Church. William Everett Bell, Jr. astutely observes that a consistent Israel/Church distinction would lead to a two-covenant view.60 On the other hand, such a view would entail insurmountable exegetical difficulties. He explains: 57 Charles C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953), 118. 58 Khoo, Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, 135. 59 Ibid. 60 This is a classical dispensationalist’s view which states that there are two New Covenants, one with Israel and one with the New Testament Church. Lewis Sperry Chafer, a Presbyterian, was one of the most, if not the most, prominent of all Dispensational theologians. He believes in this “two New Covenants” view, which is also the most consistent view in light of the Israel/Church dichotomy. Chafer writes, “There remains to be recognized Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 39 “Since the two-covenant view, although it is consistent dispensationalism, has not found wide acceptance among dispensationalists because of its obvious exegetical failings, leading dispensationalists [and Bible Presbyterians] are found to be seriously at odds over the problem. All are agreed that the church must not fulfill any of Israel’s promises, but the method of preserving the dichotomy with regard to the new covenant is elusive. On the one hand, some recognize the exegetical casuistry involved in trying to retain the blessings of the covenant apart from any vital relationship to the covenant, and thus posit a second covenant. On the other hand, others recognize the exegetical impossibility of a second covenant and prefer to ignore the casuistry. In either case, the position is basically untenable and points up rather dramatically the hermeneutical dilemma of dispensationalism in attempting to reconcile scripture to a basic presupposition.”61 How should we, therefore, understand the New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah? Philip Mauro perceptively comments: “The Epistle to the Hebrews explains fully this prophecy of Jeremiah [31:31-34] concerning the new covenant, the prophecy itself being quoted in full in Heb. 8:7-13, and in part in 10:15-17. It is the “everlasting covenant,” secured by the blood of Jesus Christ (Heb. 13: 20). It is established with a heavenly people, those who are “come to Mount Sion, and to the city of the living God the heavenly Jerusalem, . . . and to the church of the first born (ones) who are written (i.e. enrolled) in heaven” (Ch. 12:22, 23). It is “a better covenant established upon better promises” a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people, which is also styled like the preceding one for Israel a “new covenant.” It is made in the blood of Christ (cf. Mark 14:24) and continues in effect throughout this age, whereas the new covenant made with Israel happens to be future in its application. To suppose that these two covenants - one for Israel and one for the Church are the same is to assume that there is a latitude of common interest between God’s purpose for Israel and His purpose for the Church. Israel’s covenant, however, is new only because it replaces the Mosaic, but the Church’s covenant is new because it introduces that which is God’s mysterious and unrelated purpose. Israel’s new covenant rests specifically on the sovereign “I will” of Jehovah, while the new covenant for the Church is made in Christ’s blood. Everything that Israel will yet have, to supply another contrast, is the present possession of the Church - and infinitely more.” See Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1976), 98-99. 61 William Everett Bell, Jr., “A Critical Evaluation of the Pre-tribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian Eschatology” (Ph.D. diss., School of Education of New York University, 1967), 190. Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 40 (Ch. 8:6). It is the covenant whereunder every repentant and believing sinner, whether Jew or Gentile, receives the forgiveness of his sins (Ch. 10:12-18). And finally, it is the only covenant under which God henceforth deals with any part of the human family; for Hebrews gives great prominence to the truth that the old covenant, with its conditional promises of national prosperity and an earthly country (promises long since forfeited by rebellion and apostasy) has been set aside completely and forever (8:13, 10:9).”62 In view of this New Covenant made with the Church, the writer of Hebrews wrote, “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away (Heb. 8:13).” In the New Covenant dispensation, the Old Covenant has clearly been replaced with the New. As Jesus has taught, “Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved (Matt. 9:17).”63 The Old Covenant is thereby obsolete, and interpreters of Scripture who demand a return to the Old Covenant dispensation are running against the redemptive provisions and plans of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. “Under that old covenant earthly blessings were promised to an earthly people, including national existence and the possession of the land of Canaan. Those blessings, moreover (and it is important to observe this) were made to depend upon express conditions, to be faithfully observed by that people, and were to be forfeited if those conditions were not observed. But that covenant, the Lord declares, “they brake.” And now, through Jeremiah, He proclaims the great fact that He will make, in a time then future, “a new covenant,” which was to be of a different sort.”64 Under the provisions of the New Covenant, true Israelites are not determined by genealogical descent, but by faith in Christ. True Israelites constitute the Church universal. We now turn to look at the hermeneutical principles of the apostle Paul, and how he understood the term “Church” as laid out in his epistle to the Galatians. 62 Philip Mauro, The Hope of Israel: What Is It? (Boston, MA: Hamilton Brothers, 1929; reprint, Dahlonega, Georgia: Crown Rights Book Co, 2003), 232-233. 63 Cf. Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37-38. 64 Mauro, The Hope of Israel, 232. Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics 41 Chapter 3: The Epistle to the Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology Abraham’s Seed In this chapter, it is pertinent for us to study how the apostle Paul understood the position of national Israel with regard to its spiritual inheritance. In his epistle to the Galatians, the apostle Paul, amongst other theological issues, was arguing against the notion that Jewish Christians have a status or claim that is distinct from that of the Gentile believer. According to Paul, Jew and Gentile Christians are all one in Christ. “There is neither Jew nor Greek (Gal. 3:28),” for Christ has expanded the Abrahamic covenant to include people from all races and nationality. We begin our discussion by following Paul’s thoughts in Galatians 3:13-16: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” In this passage, Paul directs the attention of his readers to the “seed” of Abraham. The promises of the Abrahamic covenant are made to “Abraham and his seed (Gal. 3:16).”1 Paul emphasizes that the word “seed” is in the singular, remembering that 1 With regard to Galatians 3:16, it is interesting to note what Todd Mangum writes concerning the hermeneutical inconsistency of Normative Dispensationalists, and if I may add, Bible Presbyterians. Mangum comments, “In my opinion, no passage challenges the dispensationalist division between Israel and the Church more than Gal. 3:16. I find myself astonished at how frequently “normative dispensationalists” seem oblivious to the fact that, if neither a spiritual-typological hermeneutic nor a (progressive dispensationalist) complementary hermeneutic is permissible (which is what they have insisted in no uncertain terms against covenant theologians and progressive dispensationalists), then Gal. 3:16 renders their own theological position impossible. If Gal. 3:16 be taken “strictly literally,” then Paul explicitly denies that the Abrahamic covenant does what the dispensational position traditionally has demanded; viz., secure a Divine obligation to obtain a future land and kingdom for “Abraham's seed.” According to Paul in Gal. 3:16 (again, taken “strictly literally”), the Abrahamic covenant concerned Abraham and Christ, and not others of Abraham’s “seeds.” This passage, at the very least, obliterates the “normative dispensationalist” claim of being the ones who are “consistently literal.” Dutch Reformed Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 42 the same word was also singular in Genesis 13:15-16, 17:8, and 24:7. Although “seed” can be used to denote all the descendents of Abraham, Paul specifically states that the seed “is Christ (Gal. 3:16b)” in this passage. Bruce further explains that, “In the first instance [in Galatians 3:16] the reference is to a single descendant, Christ, through whom the promised blessing was to come to all the Gentiles. In the second instance the reference is to all who receive this blessing; in v 29 all who belong to Christ are thereby included in Abraham’s offspring. Paul was well aware that the collective noun could indicate a plurality of descendants as well as a single descendant. So, in Rom. 4:18, he identifies Abraham’s offspring of Gn. 15:5 with the many nations of Gn. 17:5, interpreting the latter as Gentile believers.”2 We note that further down the passage in Galatians 3:26-29, Paul writes, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” As elucidated by Bruce, the word “seed” is used here in Galatians 3:29 to denote “all who belong to Christ.” Therefore, all believers-in-Christ constitute Abraham’s seed, and are heirs of the Abrahamic promise. According to Marshall, Paul understood from the Scriptures that “all the nations would be blessed through Abraham. Part of what Paul means is that God will justify the Gentiles in the same way as Abraham, namely, by faith. The promises were made to Abraham and his descendants, specifically the descendants through Isaac, but Paul knows that the promise included the Gentiles. He therefore has to conclude that the descendants are the people who share the character of Abraham as believers in God, regardless of whether they are physically his offspring or not; believing Gentiles are included, whereas unbelieving physical descendants are excluded. By using the term in a nonliteral sense Paul can supersessionists, in fact, are the ones who take Gal. 3:16 most literally of all!” See R. Todd Mangum, “A Future for Israel in Covenant Theology: The Untold Story” (paper presented to the Evangelical Theological Society, Nashville, Tennessee, 16 November 2000), 11 n. 50, available from http://www.biblical.edu/images/connect/PDFs/A%20Future%20for%20Israel.pdf#search=%2 2todd%20mangum%20a%20future%20for%20israel%22; Internet; accessed 11 September 2006. 2 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982), 172. Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 43 assert that Jewish and Gentile believers are included in the one offspring or “seed” of Abraham; the language speaks of “seed” (singular), not “seeds” (plural).”3 In Galatians chapter 3, what is amazing in Paul’s teaching is that, through the reception of the Jews and Gentiles into union with Christ by faith, the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant are being fulfilled in the church age. Schreiner writes, “The genuinely novel element in Paul’s argument is the claim that the worldwide blessing promised to Abraham is now in the process of fulfillment. Not only is the promise being fulfilled, but it is coming to fruition through the single seed of Abraham Jesus the Messiah (Gal 3:16).”4 Through the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, nations of the world are being brought into Christ by salvific faith. Believers of all ethnicity and race constitute the true seed of Abraham. On the other hand, Jews who are outside Christ are not Abraham’s seed, for Paul writes, “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:29).” There is indeed unity in Christ. But this unity does not come about with biological descent, racial privileges, or any ceremonial practices. Paul emphasizes the fact that Gentile believers were no less than Abraham’s seed; they are spiritual descendants of Abraham just as surely as the Jewish believers are Abraham’s biological descendants. Bruce summarizes Paul’s argument that there is now no distinction between Jews and Gentiles as far as the gospel is concerned: “Paul’s position was clear-cut: had the law shown itself able to impart life, this would have given the Jews an overwhelming advantage; but since the law’s inability to do any such thing had been demonstrated, there was now no distinction between Jews and Gentiles before God in respect either of their moral bankruptcy or of their need to receive his pardoning grace. The law-free gospel put both communities on one and the same level before God, so that ‘in Christ’ there was ‘neither Jew nor Greek’ (cf. also Rom. 1:16; 3:22f.; 10:12; 15:8f.; 1 Cor. 1:24; Eph. 2:13-22; 3:6; Col. 3:11).”5 Can the physical descendants of Abraham now claim any spiritual blessings apart from the gospel of Christ? It is obvious that the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant are for his seed, and this affirms the fact that Jews outside of Christ can have no part 3 I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 226. 4 Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 160. 5 Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 188. Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 44 in the Abrahamic blessings. Jews cannot claim any special inheritance or blessings apart from salvific faith in Jesus as their Messiah. Paul, therefore, answers the Judaizers with these points, “The Mosaic law does not make sons of God, does not make us Abraham’s seed, does not constitute us heirs. It is the promise alone which was fulfilled in Christ.”6 Paul further develops his arguments against the Judaizers with the allegory of Sarah and Hagar in Galatians 4:21-31. Sarah and Hagar In Galatians 4:22-26, Paul teaches: “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” According to Young, this passage of Scripture is noted to be “the sharpest polemic against Jerusalem and Judaism in the New Testament.”7 Paul begins by referring to two of the sons of the patriarch Abraham: Isaac whose mother was Sarah, and Ishmael whose mother was the bond-slave Hagar. Although he acknowledges the historicity of the events surrounding the patriarch, his wife, and the bondwoman, Paul understands that Hagar and Sarah allegorically represent two covenants: the covenant of law, and “the covenant of grace sealed in the blood of Christ, the only foundation for real freedom and release from sin and death.”8 As Ridderbos has commented, “For it is said of Hagar and Sarah that they represent two covenants, the first that of the law and the bondage resulting from it, the second that of the Spirit and the liberty given by him (cf. 2 Cor. 3:6).”9 6 R. C. H. Lenski, Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1937), 191. 7 J. C. Young, Jerusalem in the New Testament (Kampen: Kok, 1960), 106. 8 Timothy George, Galatians: The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1994), 340. 9 Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), 217. Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 45 Commenting on this passage in Galatians chapter 4, Ronald Fung writes: “The two women stand for . . . two covenants. On the one hand, Hagar stands for the covenant derived from Mount Sinai and producing children for bondage: just as the children of a slave-wife (unless acknowledge as true children by the husband and master) were destined to be slaves themselves, so the covenant of law given at Sinai committed all who embraced it to its binding power. Over against Hagar and the covenant of law which she represents . . . stands the free woman (v. 22b), with the other covenant represented by her. The unnamed free woman is obviously Sarah while the other covenant, similarly unnamed, is obviously the covenant of faith referred to in [Galatians] 3:17 in contrast with the law (though the latter is not there specifically called a covenant). Paul takes it as selfevident that a straight line runs through Sarah and Isaac, the covenant of faith (because it depends on promise), the Jerusalem above (v. 26), and Christians – these being held together and interrelated by the fact that freedom can be postulated of all of them, although it is explicitly postulated of the third member only.”10 Paul is therefore linking together the bond-slave Hagar, Ishmael, the Sinaitic covenant of law, the present city of Jerusalem, and all who adhere to the Mosaic law as the means of salvation and justification. This is contrasted with the “Jerusalem which is above,” “which is the mother of us all (Gal. 4:26).” History tells us that Paul’s religious education was not completed within a seminary in America or Singapore. Being a former disciple of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), he was well-versed in Pharisaism and Jewish traditions. Taking into account his religious influence and background, together with the prevalence of Judaism in Paul’s era, is it not surprising that Paul sees Hagar as representing Sinai and the Jerusalem of his time, which is in slavery with her children? Remarkably, the apostle’s understanding of the spiritual significance of Jerusalem contradicts that of the Jewish leaders. The Jews apparently still believed that Israel was God’s covenant nation. But the earthly Jerusalem, even in Paul’s day, is no longer the promised city of God’s grace and presence. It has evidently lost all its significance as the city of salvation. Instead of referring to Jerusalem as the city of God, Paul amazingly describes another Jerusalem, “which is above” and heavenly (Gal. 4:26). The promises of salvation 10 Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians: New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1988), 206-207. Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 46 and the covenant of grace are now associated with this heavenly Jerusalem, “which is the mother of us all (Gal. 4:26).” Paul, in fact, associates the entire Judaistic system of worship with the Sinaitic covenant of law, the present city of Jerusalem, and Ishmael, the son of the slave woman, Hagar.11 Instead of pandering to the Jewish notion that the nation of Israel possesses any spiritual privilege apart from the gospel of Christ, Paul turns the argument around and alleges that the Judaizers are, in effect, putting people under the bondage of the law and reversing the course of redemptive history. As Morris has noted, “the Judaizers would have argued that they were the descendants of Isaac, the ancestor of God’s free people, whereas the Gentiles were outside the covenant as the slave woman’s son was. But Paul turns this interpretation on its head. The spiritual descendants of the slave woman are those who are in bondage to the law, whereas the spiritual descendants of the free woman are those who live in the freedom of the gospel.”12 It is clear that the physical descendants of Abraham will have no spiritual blessings outside the covenant of grace and the Church of Christ. We have noted that in his epistle to the Galatians, and culminating in chapter 4, Paul explains his doctrine of ecclesiology. In his commentary on Romans 11, Alexander aptly summarizes Paul’s ecclesiology in Galatians 4:21-31: “Paul is pursuing an allegory, as he did also when writing to the Galatians (Gal. 4:22-31). He is treating Ishmael as the representative of all Israel after the flesh, though in fact no Jew was descended from Hagar’s son. Isaac is 11 Paul’s teachings in Galatians 4:21-31 “would have been very disturbing to any patriotic Jew just as it must have been to the Judaizers of Galatia. Everyone knew that the Jews were the sons of Isaac and the Gentiles were the descendants of Ishmael. Paul, however, had correlated the covenant of Sinai and the present religious system centered at Jerusalem with the offspring of the slave woman. They were those who sought to be justified before God “according to the flesh,” that is, by observing the works of the law. Conversely, the children of the free woman were those who had embraced the promise of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone. They were the children of the covenant of grace. For Paul, it was completely irrelevant to their identification as the offspring of Sarah whether or not people were circumcised, of Jewish birth or Gentile background. No doubt much of the opposition that was mounted by the Judaizers related to the fact that the renewed people of God, the church of Jesus Christ, which began on the Day of Pentecost as an exclusively Jewish enclave, was coming increasingly to include a preponderance of Gentiles, many of them won to Christ through the efforts of Paul and his coworkers. Although the Judaizers may not have seen it in this light, efforts to make circumcision and observance of the law an entrance rite into the Christian faith were nothing less than a futile attempt to reverse the divinely ordained course of redemptive history.” See George, Galatians, 342. 12 Leon Morris, Galatians: Paul’s Charter of Christian Freedom (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 146. Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 47 put forward as the representative of all Israel after the spirit, though these include a stupendous majority of gentiles who in fact were never descended from Isaac. . . . The one (Ishmael) represents Israel after the flesh, to whom no promises are made and who are not considered as the Seed of Abraham at all. The other (Isaac) represents Israel after the spirit or the true Church of the Redeemed, and of the Firstborn, who are written in heaven, and these – Jews and gentile together – are the true Seed of Abraham to whom the promises were made.”13 Therefore, in Paul’s language and understanding, the Church is the true Israel, or rather, the “Israel after the spirit.” The heir of the Abrahamic promise is Abraham’s seed; this does not include all the physical descendants of Abraham, but only the believing Jews who have been incorporated into the true Israel of God, the Church (Gal. 3:29). Paul’s Understanding of Isaiah’s Prophecy In Isaiah 54:1-3, the prophet sees the city of Zion as barren. She is likened to a barren woman, because her children have been exiled to Babylon. However, Jehovah God reveals to the prophet that though Zion is now barren, the post-exilic Zion will have more children than before the exile. This prophecy, therefore, seems to refer to Jerusalem during the days of her exile. But in Galatians 4:27, Paul quotes Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa. 54:1) of Israel’s restoration and return from exile in Babylon, and applies it to the New Testament Church. Bruce comments: “So by Paul the promises of Is. 54 are understood as addressed to the church of the new age, Jerusalem above. But for Paul the contemporary church was a predominantly Gentile community. Formerly the Gentiles were spiritually sterile, producing no fruit for God, but now their response to the gospel has made them more fruitful than the synagogue: the new Jerusalem has more children than ever the old Jerusalem had.”14 Paul thus sees the new Jerusalem as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy – a prophecy which seems to proclaim that the future, post-exilic Jerusalem will have more children than the pre-exilic Jerusalem, “for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband (Gal. 4:27).”15 This fulfillment is aptly 13 Alexander, “Romans Eleven and the Two Israels,” 2-3. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 222. 15 Likewise, Fung concurs, “In proof of the existence of a new Jerusalem composed of God’s redeemed people, Paul quotes the Septuagint of Isa. 54:1, where a greater prosperity is prophesied for restored Jerusalem as compared with the old. . . . The prophet [Isaiah] says that 14 Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 48 stated by Paul, “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise (Gal. 4:28).” In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul is adamant that all who believe in Christ by faith are the children of this free woman, irrespective of ethnicity, genealogy or nationality. They are Abraham’s seed and heirs of the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, according to Paul’s understanding, the prophecy in Isaiah 54:1-3 is closely related to the Abrahamic covenant. Hendricksen explains further, “The promise given to Sarah, who also was barren, will be fulfilled (Gen. 17:16). God’s church will be extended among the Gentiles. Large multitudes will thus be added to the company of the saved. Zion, the Jerusalem (that is) above, will have an abundant posterity on earth. Hence, she will have to make her tent more spacious by lengthening its cords. At the same time she will have to see to it that the stakes are strengthened, that is, that the tent-pins are fixed into the ground more firmly, because the dwelling-place of the church as God sees it will never be broken up (Isa. 54:2, 3; Rev. 3:12; 7:9; cf. John 6:37, 39; 10:28).”16 The Church, consisting of Jews and Gentiles saved by faith in Christ, are heirs of the promises to Abraham’s seed. In Galatians 4:28, Paul reiterates the fact that believers are the children of promise, who are typologically represented by Isaac. As such, believers are not under the bondage of law. Fung highlights Paul’s continuing argument that, “underlying, and corresponding to, the contrast between slavery (characterizing Hagar and Ishmael, the Sinaitic covenant of law, and the earthly Jerusalem of Judaism and the Judaizers) and freedom (characterizing Sarah and Isaac, the new covenant of promise, the heavenly Jerusalem, and the Christian believers) is the contrast between righteousness by law and righteousness by faith.”17 As Bruce has aptly commented, “Legal bondage and spiritual freedom cannot coexist.”18 Paul ends his polemic against the Judaizers in Galatians chapter 4 with this forceful statement: both Ishmael and the nation of Israel, which is under the bondage of legalism, have been completely disinherited. The apostle exclaims, “Nevertheless Jerusalem as she would be after the exiles had returned would have more children than she did before the Exile robbed her of her children.” See Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, 210-211. 16 William Hendricksen, Exposition of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon: New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1968, 2004), 185. 17 Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, 212. 18 Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 225. Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 49 what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free (Gal. 4:30-31).” In his commentary on Galatians 4:31, Bruce writes: “Paul’s later, non-allegorical (but still in intention typological) reference to Abraham’s sons in Rom. 9:7-9 comes to mind. There, emphasizing the sovereignty of the divine election, he insists that it is spiritual, not natural, descent that matters: ‘Not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named” [Gn. 21:12]. This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants’ – the ‘word of promise’ being that spoken by God to Sarah in Gn. 17:21, confirming that she would give birth to a son.”19 As in the epistle to the Galatians, Paul emphasizes in Romans that, “They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed (Rom. 9:8).” The true heirs of the promise are not physical Israelites, but the spiritual Israelites, the true seed of Abraham. Sadly, without repentance and faith in the Messiah, the nation of Israel remains in bondage to legalism and Judaism. What, then, is the hope for Israel after the flesh? Robertson laments that, “Jerusalem today remains as it was in Paul’s day. It is still in bondage to legalism and rejects the gracious gift of salvation that has come through the Messiah. It must not be assumed that those who live in Jerusalem today without faith in Jesus have been chosen by God for salvation. Apart from repentance and faith, the inhabitants of Jerusalem continue to be in bondage and are “without hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). To suggest anything else is to slight Jesus Christ and his sacrifice on the cross, while at the same time imperiling the souls of many by encouraging false assumption.”20 The entire thrust of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians contradicts the Bible Presbyterian understanding of national Israel and the Abrahamic promise. Paul’s ecclesiology is obviously not dispensational ecclesiology. He sees the Church as fulfilling the position and role of spiritual, heavenly Israel. God does not have two separate 19 20 Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 225-226. Robertson, The Israel of God, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, 29-30. Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 50 “programs” or “covenants”: one with Israel and another with the Church. The Church, consisting of both believing Jew and Gentile, is the heir of the Abrahamic covenant, not apostate, unbelieving national Israel. Thus, it is apparent that the apostle Paul categorically rejects the false notion that ethnic Israel has a continuing claim to any covenant promise apart from faith in the Messiah. The Israel of God In Galatians 6:16, Paul actually addresses the Church as “the Israel of God.”21 The New International Version seems to provide an accurate rendering of the verse: “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God (Galatians 6:15-16).” Witherington reminds us that, “Many interpreters . . . have understood the final καὶ here to mean ‘that is’ in which case the text reads ‘peace upon them and mercy, that is upon the Israel of God.’ In other words, Israel here refers to all Christians, both Jews and Gentiles united in Christ, both the author and his audience, and others.”22 Hans K. LaRondelle, likewise, believes that the term “Israel of God” refers to the 21 This is the understanding that the καὶ before the phrase “Israel of God” is an explicative or appositional καὶ. Wuest translates Galatians 6:16 as follows, “And as many as by this rule are ordering their conduct, peace be upon them, and mercy, even upon the Israel of God.” See Kenneth S. Wuest, The New Testament: An Expanded Translation (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961). 22 Ben Witherington III, Grace In Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 452. In fact, the Dispensationalist scholar, Lewis Johnson, acknowledges that “it is well-known that Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho is the first author to claim an identification of the term Israel with the church. Of the commentators, Chrysostom is one of the earliest to identify apparently the church with Israel, affirming that those who keep the rule are “true Israelites.” Others who follow this view include Daniel C. Arichea, Jr., and Eugene Nida, Ragnar Bring, John Calvin, R. A. Cole, N. A. Dahl, Donald Guthrie, William Hendricksen, Robert L. Johnson, M. J. Lagrange, Hans K. LaRondelle, R. C. H. Lenski, J. B. Lightfoot, Martin Luther, Herman Ridderbos, Henrich Schlier, and John R. W. Stott.” See S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, eds. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 183-184, quoting John Chrysostom, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians and Homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians of S. John Chrysostom, new rev. ed. (London: Walter Smith [Late Mosley], 1884), 98. Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 51 Church.23 This is also the general Reformed understanding of the term “the Israel of God.” However, both Jeffrey Khoo and S. Lewis Johnson disagree with this interpretation of “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16.24 Johnson, a dispensationalist, is severely critical of such an interpretation. Shrewdly evading the actual arguments brought forth by LaRondelle in his book The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation, Johnson acknowledges that “the apostle [Paul] makes no attempt whatsoever to deny that there is a legitimate distinction of race between Gentile and Jewish believers in the church.”25 But Reformed theologians do not deny that there is a “legitimate” racial distinction within the church; this is apparently a straw man. What they do emphasize is that believing Jews and Gentiles share a common eschatological future, a joint ecclesiological reality, and equal spiritual blessings and status in Christ Jesus. Which Reformed theologian would “deny sexual differences within the church? Or the social differences in Paul’s day? Is it not plain that Paul is not speaking of national or ethnic difference in Christ, but of spiritual status?”26 Here, Johnson is actually, albeit tacitly, admitting that, with respect to spiritual status and blessings, there are no differences between Jewish and Gentile believers. In fact, Johnson affirms that in terms of spiritual status, “there is no difference in Christ.”27 Surely, Reformed interpreters of Scripture do not teach that Gentile or Jewish believers undergo an ethnic or sexual transformation upon regeneration. During conversion, Gentiles neither have Jewish genes spliced into their genomes, nor do they become hermaphrodites. Johnson’s polemic against LaRondelle is clearly unconvincing. Johnson continues his critique of LaRondelle, “That the professor [LaRondelle] overlooked Paul’s careful language is seen in his equation of terms that differ. He correctly cites Paul’s statement that “‘there is neither Jew nor Greek’ in Christ” (cf. Gal. 3:28) but then a couple of pages later modifies this to “‘there is neither Jew nor Greek’ 23 See Hans K. LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1983), 108-114. 24 The reason I interact with Lewis Johnson’s writing in this section is that Khoo uses Johnson’s essay as part of the seminary course entitled, “Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology” in Far Eastern Bible College. See Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” 181-196. 25 Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” 190. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 52 within the Church” (italics mine), as if the terms Christ and church are identical. This approach fails to see that Paul does not say there is neither Jew nor Greek within the church. He [Paul] speaks of those who are “in Christ.” For LaRondelle, however, inasmuch as there is neither Jew nor Greek within the church and in Christ, there can be no distinction between them in the church.”28 Notice that Johnson here assumes an a priori distinction between Israel and the Church, which cannot be found within the text of Galatians 6:16. The bone of contention, however, is not whether there is any racial or genetic “distinction” between Jews and Gentiles in a physical or biological sense. LaRondelle, for certain, is not saying that there can be “no distinction between them in the church” in a physicochemical sense. Indeed, no sane man will deny that there is a biological distinction between Jews and Gentiles within or without the Church. LaRondelle and Reformed theologians are stating, together with the apostle Paul, that there is no distinction in the spiritual destiny of ethnic Jews and Gentiles within the Church.29 Reformed exegetes believe that the New Covenant blessings of Jeremiah 31:31-34 are being fulfilled in the Church of Christ.30 Believing Israelites and Gentiles share a 28 Ibid. Actually, Johnson needs only to read the rest of the chapter to see LaRondelle’s point. LaRondelle writes, “According to Hebrews 8-12, the Church of Jesus represents the true fulfillment of Jeremiah’s predicted new covenant. Far from being an abrogation of Israel’s new covenant. It is rather a type and guarantee of the final consummation of the new covenant, when true Israelites of all ages will join in the wedding supper of the Lamb in the New Jerusalem (Matthew 8:11, 12; 25:34; Revelation 19:9; 21:1-5).” See LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy, 121. 30 The Pauline perspective of the New Covenant and the Christian Church is aptly summarized by Ridderbos, “It is on account of this fulfillment of the prophecy of the New Covenant in the Christian church that all the privileges of the Old Testament people of God in this spiritual sense pass over to the church. To it, as the church of Christ, the pre-eminent divine word of the covenant applies: “I will be their God, and they shall be my people. . . . I will receive you, and I will be to you a father, and you shall be to me sons and daughters” (2 Cor. 6:16ff.). Out of this fulfillment in Christ the whole nomenclature of all the privileges Israel as God’s people was permitted to possess recurs with renewed force and significance in the definition of the essence of the Christian church: being sons of God (Rom. 8:14ff.; Eph. 1:5); being heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:29; 4:7); sharing in the inheritance promised to Abraham (Rom. 8:17; cf. 4:13; Col. 1:2); being heirs of the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9, 10; 15:50; Gal. 5:21). For this reason the church may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God (Rom. 5:2; 8:21; 2 Cor. 3:7ff., 18; Phil. 3:19), the splendor of the presence of God among his people, once the privilege of Israel (Rom. 9:4). Likewise the worship of God, at one time the prerogative of Israel (Rom. 9:4), is now the distinguishing mark of the Christian church as “spiritual worship” (Rom. 12:1), the service of God by the Spirit (Phil. 3:3), as Paul knows 29 Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 53 common spiritual destiny in Christ Jesus, and there is no longer any distinction between them in the New Covenant perspective. The New Covenant promises are not only for the ethnic Jews or for any particular nation in a geo-political sense. The covenant blessings are being fulfilled in the Church age, and do not await a future eschatological fulfillment in a Jewish remnant (cf. Rom. 11:26). The Church, which is the seed of Abraham, consists of the elect from “all nations” (Matt. 28:19) and all races. Johnson’s aforementioned argument begs the question: Are not those who are “in Christ” also the ones that constitute the invisible, universal Church? This is not because “as if the terms Christ and church are identical.”31 Physicochemical distinctions notwithstanding, how can there be any spiritual distinction between Jews and Gentiles within the Church of Jesus Christ? Johnson’s dispensational ecclesiology is apparently clouding his understanding of LaRondelle’s line of reasoning. The terms “Christ” and “Church” are obviously not identical, but the phrases “to be in Christ” and “to be within the invisible Church of Christ” must mean the same thing: to be saved. Concluding his critique of LaRondelle’s reasoning, Johnson writes, “Finally, to sum up his position, Professor LaRondelle affirms that since the church is the seed of Abraham and Israel is the seed of Abraham, the two entities, the church and Israel, are the same. The result is a textbook example of the fallacy of the undistributed middle.”32 In order to answer his arguments, we have to reflect upon Johnson’s definition and usage of the terms “Church” and “Israel.” Firstly, by the term “Church,” is Johnson referring to the Reformed understanding of an invisible, universal Church? Reformed theologians understand “Church” to mean all the elect (Gal. 3:7, 9, 16, 2629), including Old Testament believers.33 This is not the classic or revised dispensational understanding of the term “Church.”34 himself to be the leitourgos of Jesus Christ who in the priestly administration of the gospel has to see to the irreproachableness of the offerings of the gentiles (Rom. 15:16; cf. Phil. 2:17). In a word, all the richly variegated designations of Israel as the people of God are applied to the Christian church, but now in the new setting of the salvation that has appeared in Christ.” See Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 336-337. 31 Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” 190. 32 Ibid., 190-191. 33 See chapter 1 for a discussion on the meaning of “Church.” 34 See chapter 21 for the differences between classical and revised/normative Dispensationalism. Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 54 Secondly, Johnson does not define clearly what he means by “Israel.” Does this term refer to spiritual Israel, or to national, ethnic Israel? If “Israel” means all biological Jews by genealogical descent, “Israel” cannot be Abraham’s seed. Only a remnant of ethnic Israelites has believed in Christ throughout all redemptive history. What LaRondelle really taught is this: the “Israel of God” has been expanded to include both Jews and Gentiles. The Church is the true, spiritual Israel. From the New Covenant perspective, the “Israel of God” is not limited to earthly, national Israel, but embraces all believers irrespective of nationality or ethnicity. Johnson’s polemic is, therefore, a “textbook example” of a red-herring. He subtly blurs the definition of key terms, namely, the “Church” and “Israel.” As part of his diversionary maneuver, he attempts to introduce the dispensational understanding of Israel and the Church. In the process, he weakens the thrust of LaRondelle’s polemic considerably. LaRondelle correctly observes: “Dispensational theologians grant that Paul, by the term “the Israel of God”, meant believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. Because of their dispensational concern to keep Israel and the Church separate, however, they insist that Paul must have had Jewish Christians in mind as a distinct class within the Church. But to single out Jewish believers within the Church as “the Israel of God” is a concept that is in basic conflict with Paul’s message to the Galatians. He declares categorically that “there is neither Jew nor Greek” within the Church, and that the Church as a whole – all who belong to Christ – is the seed of Abraham, the heir of Israel’s covenant promise (3:26-29).”35 Jeffrey Khoo’s Reliance on Johnson’s Paper Relying heavily upon Johnson’s paper, Jeffrey Khoo likewise applies an a priori hermeneutical distinction between Israel and the Church in his interpretation of Galatians 6:16. In contrast to the general Reformed understanding of this verse, Khoo believes that, “The ‘Israel of God’ here [in Galatians 6:16] refers to saved Israelites who lived according to faith like their father Abraham (cf. 3:6-7). Paul was perhaps hoping that some of the Judaizers might see the error of their message and turn to Christ alone for their salvation. For a study on the term, “The Israel of God,” read S. Lewis Johnson’s paper on “Paul and 35 LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy, 110. Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 55 ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 181-196.”36 With regard to ecclesiology, Reformed theologians do not accept the dispensational Israel/Church distinction. Conversely, there is indeed a marked distinction between Reformed theology and dispensationalism. By rejecting the general, Reformed understanding of Galatians 6:16, Khoo evidently finds himself in agreement with dispensational exegetes. Both Khoo and Johnson are sympathetic to the following interpretations of the term “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16: (1) The “Israel of God” refers “to believing ethnic Israelites in the Christian Church,”37 and (2) The “Israel of God” refers “to the Israel that shall turn to the Lord in the future in the events that surround the second advent of our Lord.”38 In either case, the “Israel of God” refers to elect Jews, and not the Church. In his essay “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological CaseStudy,” Johnson makes a classic argumentum ad numerum.39 Johnson comments “that the weight of contemporary scholarship is opposed to the prevailing interpretation of amillennial interpreters that “the Israel of God” refers to the church, composed of both Jewish and Gentile believers, although the subjective nature of this comment is recognized by the author.”40 Even if all of “contemporary scholarship” is agreeable with Johnson, it does not necessarily prove that his view is true. Johnson, however, acknowledges earlier in his essay that a good number of reputable scholars adhere to the “amillennial” 36 Jeffrey Khoo, Galatians (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, 2000), 45. This book is used by Far Eastern Bible College as lecture notes. Also available from http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/studyresource/Galatians.pdf; Internet; accessed 10 November 2005. Relying on Johnson’s essay, Khoo makes no attempt to provide exegetical arguments for his interpretation of Galatians 6:16 in his commentary on Galatians. 37 Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” 185. 38 Ibid., 186. 39 This is the fallacy of attempting to prove something by appealing to numbers, and in this case, the number of “contemporary” scholars who agree with Johnson’s interpretation of Galatians 6:16. 40 Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” 187. Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 56 interpretation.41 He further agrees that “the list of names supporting this [amillennial] view is impressive.”42 Although I am avoiding the logical fallacy of an argumentum ad antiquitatem,43 it is true that the amillennial interpretation is supported by an “impressive” list of theologians and exegetes. Having even the support of certain Anti-Nicene and Nicene Fathers,44 such as Justin Martyr and Chrysostom, the amillennial interpretation must have its strengths. It must be emphasized that, although traditional interpretations are not always correct, the understanding of Galatians 6:16 by the Reformers (e.g. John Calvin, Martin Luther) and faithful exegetes of Scripture must not be frivolously substituted with “contemporary scholarship.” Furthermore, the Word of God has always been inerrant, infallible and unchanging. Why would “contemporary scholarship” be in anyway superior to the “prevailing” interpretations of older or more antiquated exegetes? I am sure Johnson is not insinuating that contemporary scholars are superior to John Calvin, Martin Luther or J. B. Lightfoot. Problems with the Dispensational Understanding of “the Israel of God” What are the exegetical problems inherent in Khoo and Johnson’s interpretation of the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16? We shall begin by examining the preceding verse, namely, Galatians 6:15. It should be remembered that “Gal 6:16 must be interpreted in accordance with its own specific context and in the light of the entire argument of this particular epistle.”45 Who are those who walk according to “this rule” in verse 16? In verse 15, Paul writes, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” Hendricksen explains that, “According to the preceding context, this rule is the one by which before God only this is of consequence, that a person places his complete trust in Christ Crucified, and that, therefore, he regulates his life by this principle. . . . Upon those – all those and only those – who are governed by this rule peace and mercy are pronounced.”46 41 Ibid., 183-184. Ibid., 184. 43 This is the fallacy of trying to prove a point by appealing to antiquity or tradition. 44 Cf. A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, s.v. “Israel of God.” 45 Hendricksen, Exposition of Galatians, 247. 46 Ibid., 246. 42 Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 57 In view of the Gospel age, Paul’s rule states that there must be no distinction between Jew and Gentile, or between the circumcision and the uncircumcision. The only phenomenon that can establish a person as one of God’s people is for him to be a “new creature” via regeneration. In other words, the clause “as many as walk according to this rule” in verse 16 refers to all of the elect, that is, the invisible, universal church. The perennial contention between exegetes concerns the usage of the word kai in the last phrase of Galatians 6:16 “kai upon the Israel of God.” Johnson admits that “there are several well-recognized senses of kai in the New Testament. First and most commonly, kai has the continuative or copulative sense of and. Second, kai frequently has the adjunctive sense of also. Third, kai occasionally has the ascensive sense of even, which shades off into an explicative sense of namely.”47 In Galatians 6:16, Khoo and Johnson reject the explicative or epexegetical sense of kai, preferring to understand the term “Israel of God” to “mean “the Jews,” or “all such Jews as would in the future be converted to Christ.”48 They favor the continuative or copulative sense of kai, although they might appreciate that kai is also “only slightly ascensive” in Galatians 6:16.49 Even if one accepts the copulative sense of kai, “the question still remains as to what “Israel” refers to.”50 According to Khoo and Johnson, “the Israel of God” refers to Jewish believers in Paul’s day, or to those Israelites who are allegedly saved at the Messiah’s return (in the sense of Romans 11:26). These interpretations have their difficulties. Firstly, the expression “Israel of God” cannot refer to Jews as a distinct, ethnic community, apart from the Gentiles. Ronald Fung reminds us that, “The specifying phrase “of God” makes it unlikely that the reference is to [ethnic] Israel as such (or even the eschatological Israel in the sense of Rom. 11:26), and Paul “can hardly have meant to bless the whole of Israel . . . , irrespective of whether or not they held to the canon of the cross of Christ.’”51 47 Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” 187. 48 Hendricksen, Exposition of Galatians, 246. 49 Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” 193. 50 Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, 310. 51 Ibid., quoting J. C. O’Neill, The Recovery of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (London, 1972), 71. Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 58 The rule instituted by Paul in verse 15 - which states that for one to be counted amongst God’s people, he must experience a new creation - must be extended to verse 16. Paul cannot be pronouncing his benediction of “peace and mercy” upon the Jews irrespective of their belief or unbelief. This understanding contradicts the entire thrust of Paul’s epistle, as well as the rule he has just established in verse 15. According to Hendricksen, “This interpretation tends to make Paul contradict his whole line of reasoning in this epistle. Over against the Judaizers’ perversion of the gospel he has emphasized the fact that “the blessing of Abraham” now rests upon all those, and only upon those, “who are of faith” (3:9); that all those, and only those, “who belong to Christ” are “heirs according to promise” (3:29). These are the very people who “walk by the Spirit” (5:16), and “are led by the Spirit” (5:18). Moreover, to make his meaning very clear, the apostle has even called special attention to the fact that God bestows his blessings on all true believers, regardless of nationality, race, social position, or sex: “There can be neither Jew nor Greek; there can be neither slave nor freeman; there can be no male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (3:23). By means of an allegory (4:21-31) he has reemphasized this truth. And would he now, at the very close of the letter, undo all this by first of all pronouncing a blessing on “as many as” (or: “all”) who walk by the rule of glorying in the cross, be they Jew or Gentile by birth, and then pronouncing a blessing upon those [ethnic Jews] who do not (or: do not yet) walk by that rule? I refuse to accept that explanation.”52 Can “the Israel of God,” then, refer to believing Jews in Paul’s day? If kai is to be understood in the continuative or copulative sense, it should be rendered as and. This translation has inherent problems. Based on this rendering, Paul would be pronouncing his apostolic benediction in verse 16 upon “as many as,” that is, all those who adhere to the rule in verse 15. He would subsequently be extending his blessing to another category of people, namely, the elect or believing Jews in verse 16b. The discerning reader can quickly recognize the problems in such a rendering. Firstly, the “as many as (hosoi)” includes all the elect. It is, therefore, unnecessary for Paul to mention the elect Jews again in a separate phrase within verse 16. Secondly, for Paul to mention the believing Jews as a separate category of elect people in his benediction would mean that he has violated his own rule in verse 15. 52 Hendricksen, Exposition of Galatians, 246-247. Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 59 In his commentary on Galatians 6:16, Witherington concludes with these observations: “Finally, if I am right that Paul distinguishes between the Mosaic Law and the Law of God now expressed in and as the law of Christ, we must expect a transfer of the term Israel to Jew and Gentile united in Christ. As Weima says it “is difficult to believe . . . that in a letter where Paul has been breaking down the distinctions that separate Jewish and Gentile Christians and stressing the equality of both groups, that he in the closing would give a peace benediction addressed to believing Jews as a separate group within the church” much less to non-Christian Jews whom he nowhere really discusses in this letter.”53 Likewise, Fung concurs with Witherington’s comments: “The view that v. 16 refers to, respectively, “the Gentiles who believe the gospel and the Jewish Christians who recognize the unimportance of circumcision” faces the objection that “whoever” (hosoi) would naturally include Jewish as well as Gentile Christians; moreover, particularly in the light of v. 15, it is improbable that Paul, with his concern for the unity of the church . . . , would here single out Jewish Christians as a separate group within his churches.”54 Also, to interpret the expression “Israel of God” to mean the “all Israel” of Romans 11:26 creates similar difficulties. Johnson admits that this interpretation “takes the term “the Israel of God” to refer to ethnic Israel but locates their blessing in the future.”55 Israelites, as well as Gentiles, saved in the past, present and future constitute the elect, and are therefore included in the “as many as (hosoi).” Furthermore, there is little probability that Paul would isolate a group of Jewish elect in his apostolic benediction, thus contradicting his rule established in verse 15. In his exegesis of verse 16, Fung perceives that, “Perhaps the least unsatisfactory view is to suppose that in the two parts of his benediction Paul is thinking first of those of his readers who qualify 53 Witherington, Grace In Galatia, 453, quoting J. A. D. Weima, “Gal. 6:11-18: A Hermeneutical Key to the Galatian Letter,” Calvin Theological Journal 28 (1993): 105. 54 Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, 310-311, quoting C. H. Pinnock, Truth on Fire: The Message of Galatians (Grand Rapids, 1972), 89. 55 Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” 192. Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 60 under the hosoi and passes from there on to the new Israel, the new people of God – both Jews and Gentiles being included in each instance.”56 The most satisfactory interpretation is, perhaps, that “the Israel of God” refers to the Church. This is the so-called amillennial interpretation. As Clowney has stated, “The church is the λαός (laos, 2 Cor 6:16), the true Israel as over against Israel of the flesh (Rom 9:6, 7, 24-26; cf. 1 Cor 10:18; 12:2); the people of the new covenant (2 Cor 3:3-18); the sons of Abraham (Gal 3:7); the circumcision (Phil 3:3); the children of the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal 4:21-31); no longer strangers or aliens but fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God (Eph 2:12, 19).”57 The amillennial interpretation involves understanding the Greek conjunction kai in the explicative sense. The kai is taken to be epexegetical of “as many as walk according to this rule.”58 This interpretation satisfies both the context and syntax of Galatians 6:16. R. C. H. Lenski adds, “Paul has a special, telling reason for adding this explicative apposition. It is a last blow at the Judaizers, his final triumph over them and their contention. As many as shall keep in line with this rule, they and they alone constitute “the Israel of God” from henceforth, all Judaizers to the contrary notwithstanding.”59 John Calvin, the great reformer, concurs with this interpretation of the expression “Israel of God.” In his commentary on Paul’s epistle to the Romans, Calvin writes: “And so all Israel [Romans 11:26a] Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would again be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning - “When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both . . .” The same manner of speaking we find in 56 Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, 311. Edmund Clowney, “Toward a Biblical Doctrine of the Church,” Westminster Theological Journal 31, no. 1 (1968): 37. 58 Lightfoot writes, “It [the expression “Israel of God”] stands here not for the faithful converts from the circumcision alone, but for the spiritual Israel generally, the whole body of believers whether Jew or Gentile; and thus καὶ is epexegetic, i.e. it introduces the same thing under a new aspect, as in Heb. 11:17, etc.” See J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1896), 225. 59 Lenski, Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians, 321. 57 Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 61 Gal. vi.16. The Israel of God is what he calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles; and he sets the people, thus collected from their dispersion, in opposition to the carnal children of Abraham, who had departed from his faith.”60 In our brief discourse on Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, we further reinforce the understanding that Reformed ecclesiology is, in fact, Pauline ecclesiology. The Church is the true Israel of God, and is the blessed recipient of all the promises of the New Covenant. As believers who follow the rule, which states that “neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature (Gal. 6:15),” we can praise and thank God for including both Jews and Gentiles in His gracious redemptive plan. God does not have two redemptive plans in history, one for ethnic Israel, and one for the Church. There can be no such Israel/Church distinction under the New Covenant administration, for “the Old Testament promises are realized in the advent of the Messiah and the gathering of Messiah’s people, the true Israel of God. Christ comes as Immanuel, the Lord of the covenant and the Son of the covenant. He thus completes both the promised work of God and the required response of his people. As true God he is the Lord who has come; as true man, he is the head of the covenant, the new and true Adam, Israel, Moses, and David. All promises are complete in him (2 Cor 1:20), for in him dwells the fullness of the godhead in bodily form (Col 2:9). He is the Amen (Rev 3:14), the Alpha and the Omega (Rev 22:13).”61 60 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, ed. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1998), 437. 61 Clowney, “Toward a Biblical Doctrine of the Church,” 49. Galatians and Paul’s Ecclesiology 62 Chapter 4: The Promised Land Israel and the Promised Land The land promised to Israel and the patriarchs is described in the Old Testament as God’s gift to his covenant people (Gen. 12:1, 7; 13:14-17; 15:18-21; 17:1-8; Deut. 1:5-8; Ps. 44:1-3). The land of Palestine was, in fact, God’s gracious gift to Abraham and his descendants, and carries with it a salvific significance.1 Holwerda notes that “the promises of salvation have an unbreakable tie to the land. From the call of Abraham (Genesis 12) to his conflict with Lot (Genesis 13), from Abraham’s concern about an heir (Genesis 15) to the promise of the birth of Isaac (Genesis 17), God promises again and again to give the land to Abraham and his descendants. . . . The land was promised and this promise was confirmed by an oath sworn by God.”2 Despite the land being God’s gift to Israel, it never belongs to Israel. The Promised Land belongs to God. In reality, the land is never at Israel’s disposal. It cannot be permanently bought, sold, or given to others. Leviticus 25:23 states clearly that, “The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.” The Israelites are never owners, but sojourners of the land in Palestine. The land belongs to the God of the covenant, and the Israelites are only tenants in His land. Psalm 78:54 reminds us that the land is “His holy border” (NKJV) and “his holy land” (NIV). Holwerda writes: “The land is first of all and always the Lord’s, not Israel’s. Amazingly, the people Israel are called “aliens and tenants” in the Lord’s land since they have no permanent title to it and possess it with no absolute legal right to it (Leviticus 25:23). Thus the land never ceases being a gift, even when Israel possesses it.”3 1 As the theology of the land is too vast in scope to discuss in any detail in a single chapter, the reader is advised to refer to the following books for more in-depth treatment of this subject: Holwerda, Jesus and Israel; Robertson, The Israel of God, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow; Philip Johnston and Peter Walker, eds., The Land of Promise (Leicester, England: Apollos, 2000); Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon. 2 Holwerda, Jesus and Israel, 88-89. 3 Ibid., 92-93. The Promised Land 63 Furthermore, Israel’s occupation of the land in Palestine is dependent on their faith in Yahweh, and the resultant obedience which flows out from this faith. During the wilderness wanderings, God warned the Israelites: “Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you (Lev. 18:24-28).” When Israel turned from the law and commandments of God, Jeremiah wrote, “And I brought you into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit thereof and the goodness thereof; but when ye entered, ye defiled my land, and made mine heritage an abomination” (Jer. 2:7). The Lord God Jehovah, through the prophet Hosea, pronounced an impending judgment upon the wayward, apostate Israel, “They shall not dwell in the LORD’S land; but Ephraim shall return to Egypt, and they shall eat unclean things in Assyria (Hosea 9:3).” With Israel’s continual unfaithfulness to Yahweh, the Lord of the covenant eventually removed the land from Israel’s possession (Jer. 17:1-4; 15:1314). With the culminating rejection of the Messiah in the Gospels, apostate Israel ceased to be heirs of the earthly Jerusalem. Israel cannot claim possession of the Promised Land apart from faith in the Messiah. Rejection of Christ Jesus would only mean the rejection of Israel by Yahweh. Holwerda observes: “If Jesus is God’s beloved Son, the one who represents and takes the place of chosen Israel, what is the status of Old Testament Israel? If the promises given to Israel are fulfilled in Jesus and if in Jesus the kingdom of God has appeared, the eternal kingdom promised to David by which God rules his people Israel, what happens to those who do not accept the testimony of Jesus? If Jesus is Emmanuel, the prophesied presence of God with his people, what happens to those “heirs of the kingdom” who do not acknowledge that presence? . . . Continued possession of promises cannot be maintained apart from the faith that God gives to his people.”4 4 Ibid., 53-54, emphasis mine. The Promised Land 64 The Land of Palestine as an Everlasting Possession Bible Presbyterians and Dispensationalists reason that the land of Palestine, specified by its geographical borders, was given to Abraham and his seed “for an everlasting possession (Gen. 17:8).” But they fail to understand that God has intended a better possession for the elect. The saints and patriarchs “desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city (Heb. 11:16).” That “city” is not an earthly Jerusalem or a piece of land in the Middle East; it is a heavenly city, the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2). In the New Testament, God has expanded the Abrahamic land promise to include both Jews and Gentiles under the New Covenant, and the inheritance to include the new heavens and the new earth. During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught, “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth (Matt. 5:5).” The meek shall inherit the earth, not just the land of Palestine. It is significant that our Lord did not reiterate the geographical boundaries of the Promised Land. The discerning reader will also notice that “the boundaries of the promised land were never defined with geographic precision. Various descriptions were given at various times and under varying historical circumstances.”5 As we shall see later in this chapter, the Promised Land is a typological representation of a physical reality presented in the New Testament; it points towards the inheritance of the elect, namely, the renewed creation and the heavenly city of Jerusalem. The Abrahamic land promise was unconditional in the sense that, “while enjoyment of the promised land was denied to those who lacked faith and were disobedient, the behaviour of that one generation did not result in the nullification of the promise. Rather, ‘the promise continued even though possession of the land was deferred.’”6 5 Ibid., 89. Also cf. Genesis 15:17ff.; Exodus 23:31ff.; Numbers 34:1-10; Deuteronomy 11:24; Joshua 1:2-4. 6 Paul R. Williamson, “Promise and Fulfilment: The Territorial Inheritance,” in The Land of Promise (Leicester, England: Apollos, 2000), 23-24, quoting Holwerda, Jesus and Israel, 89. Passages that seem to emphasize the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic land promise are Genesis 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:7, 18-21; 28:13, 15; 35:12; Exodus 3:8, 17; 6:8. The Promised Land 65 On the other hand, we must not ignore the conditional nature of God’s land promise to Israel, which is reiterated in the Bible.7 Only the faithful and obedient Israelites would inherit the land. Immediately after the rebellion of the Jews on hearing the reports of the twelve spies, God pronounced His verdict upon the disobedient nation: “Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me, Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun. But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised. But as for you, your carcases, they shall fall in this wilderness (Numbers 14:29-32).” It is obvious that God’s covenant is not unconditional in the sense that an apostate nation will continue to claim the right of inheritance to God’s promise. Disobedient Israelites will not inherit the Promised Land. After the Israelites were delivered from the land of Egypt, Moses proclaimed, “Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will shew to you to day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever (Exod. 14:13).” But only forty years later, when Moses addressed the children of Israel, he warned the Jews of the consequences of disobedience, “And the LORD shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you (Deut. 28:68).” Therefore, after pronouncing that the Israelites will apparently see the Egyptians “no more for ever (Exod. 14:13),” Moses assured them that they would be brought “into Egypt again with ships (Deut. 28:68)” if they failed to keep God’s covenant requirements. The prophet Jeremiah, likewise, reiterated the conditional nature of God’s promise to Israel: “O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the 7 Cf. Exodus 20:12; 23:23-33; 34:24; Lev. 18:3, 24-27; Deuteronomy 4:1-5, 40; 5:33; 6:18; 8:1; 11:8ff.; 16:20; 18:9-14; 19:8-9; 21:23; 24:4; 25:15; 30:16; 32:47. The Promised Land 66 evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them (Jeremiah 18:6-10).” In the same manner, the apparently unconditional promise of blessings to the house of Eli was forfeited through disobedience (1 Sam. 2:30-32). Therefore, “curses of exile and destruction like that which fell on Sodom and Gomorrah will fall on Israel if it violates the commandments and forsakes the covenant of the Lord; blessings of prosperity and continuous possession of the land will fall on Israel if it keeps the commandments and walks in the Lord’s ways (Deuteronomy 27-29).”8 Without further reference to other parts of Scripture, the prosaic meaning of the phrase “everlasting possession (Gen. 17:8),” which refers to the land in Palestine promised to Abraham, appears to point toward an unconditional possession. But a perusal of similar, seemingly unconditional, promises mentioned in the Bible will show otherwise. The word “forever” must not be interpreted apart from the other statements made in connection to the land promise to Israel. It is apparent that no promise will be fulfilled to a defiant and rebellious people. Concerning the words “forever” and “everlasting”, Loraine Boettner elucidates, “But the same thing [that is, the words “forever” and “everlasting”] is said of the perpetual duration of the priesthood of Aaron (Ex. 40:15), the Passover (Ex. 12:14), the Sabbath (Ex.31:17) and David’s throne (2 Samuel 7:13, 16, 24). But in the light of the New Testament all of those things have passed away.”9 For example, the high priest of the Church is not of the order of Aaron, but of the order of Melchisedec. He is none other than our Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 7:11). Clearly, the “everlasting” in Exodus 40:15 does not mean until “eternity future.” The normal, prosaic reading of a sentence does not always convey the divine, authorial intent. Scripture must always be studied in the light of the other portions of Scripture. This is the Reformed, hermeneutical principle of the analogy of faith. In his polemic against Christian Zionism, Stephen Sizer raises similar criticisms against the dispensational understanding of the Abrahamic land promise. He writes: “The statement God made to Abraham that the land would be “an everlasting possession” is not necessarily understood in literal terms. Insisting on literal fulfillment is a double-edged sword. In 1 Chronicles 15:2, for example, David insists that the Levites would carry the ark of the 8 9 Holwerda, Jesus and Israel, 92. Boettner, “A Postmillennial Response,” 98. The Promised Land 67 Lord and minister before Him forever. Was this fulfilled literally on earth or figuratively in Christ? In 1 Chronicles 23:13 God similarly promises that the Aaronic priesthood would continue “forever”. The same question may be asked, is this being fulfilled literally now on earth or figuratively in Christ? In 2 Chronicles 33:7 God says that he has put his name in the temple in Jerusalem forever. Is that being fulfilled literally now on earth or figuratively in Christ and the Church? In 1 Chronicles 23:25, God promises that He has come to dwell in Jerusalem forever. Is that being fulfilled literally now on earth or figuratively in Christ and the Church? Likewise in 2 Samuel 7:12-16, God promises that a descendent of David will sit on his throne forever. Is that being fulfilled literally on earth or figuratively in Christ?”10 The answers to Sizer’s rhetorical questions are obvious to any Reformed theologian. As Willem VanGemeren has aptly answered, “the Messiah is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, and as such his work encompasses the realization of all of God’s promises.”11 An Everlasting or a Periodic Possession? Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians find the fulfillment of the Abrahamic land promise in the future earthly millennium, when Israel will rule and exercise sovereignty over the Promised Land. But according to this dispensational understanding of fulfillment, the “everlasting possession” (Gen. 17:8) of the Promised Land would mean a temporal possession of Palestine during the eschatological millennium at best. Considering the 70 years of Babylonian captivity, and almost two millennia since the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 until the formation of the present state of Israel, the 1000 years of millennial reign would barely make up half the time when Israel was dispossessed of the land in Palestine. As an analogy, if I were to purchase a free-hold property in Singapore, and was dispossessed of the property for half the time, would that be legally regarded as an “everlasting possession?” For the purpose of our present discussion, let us briefly consider the Noachian covenant God made with the patriarch Noah in Genesis 9: “And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10 Sizer, An Alternative Theology of the Holy Land. Willem VanGemeren, “Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy II,” Westminster Theological Journal 46, no. 2 (1984): 295. 11 The Promised Land 68 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. . . . And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth (Genesis 9:8-11, 16-17).” In this covenant with Noah, God declared that he will never destroy the Earth again with a universal flood. Genesis 9:16 explicitly states that it is an “everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.” If God were to postpone the Noachian covenant for two millennia, and destroyed the world a few more times with universal floods, could He still claim that it was an “everlasting covenant?” But this is exactly what Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians are propounding: that the “everlasting” covenant with Abraham is delayed or postponed for at least two millennia. The Abrahamic covenant will find its fulfillment when national Israel possesses the Promised Land in the eschatological millennium. In the meantime, God is not dealing with Israel, but with the Church. God has temporarily suspended His eschatological time clock for Israel, and His “everlasting” covenant with Abraham. He will, nevertheless, ensure that His land promise to Abraham will be fulfilled in the future, earthly, millennial rule. What Dispensationalists are actually doing is forcing an indefinite time gap called the “Church Age” into the everlasting nature of the Abrahamic covenant. They are interpreting the literal meaning of the word “everlasting” to mean “postponed” or “delayed.” The Hebrew word for “everlasting” is used several times in the Old Testament. For example in Genesis 13:15, in the context of the Abrahamic covenant, the word is translated to “for ever.” “For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever (Gen. 13:15).” Again in Genesis 17:7-8, the same word is translated “for an everlasting” twice. “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God (Gen. 17:7-8).” The idea of postponement cannot be derived from the Hebrew word for “everlasting.” Bible Presbyterians, who emphasize the so-called “consistently The Promised Land 69 literal” hermeneutics, should interpret the Hebrew word “everlasting” to mean exactly that: everlasting, forever and ongoing. The Abrahamic land promise cannot be postponed for almost two millennia, and yet be everlasting in any sense. Likewise, the Noachian covenant cannot be postponed for any period of time without forfeiting the everlasting nature of the promise. Indeed, when God made the Abrahamic promise to Israel, it was intended to be conditional in a sense. That is, Israel will possess the land as long as she chooses to hold it or until certain conditions are changed. From the Reformed perspective, all the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament were either fulfilled in Christ and His Church, or were forfeited through disobedience. The blessings of the covenant were not postponed or delayed. Adams observes that obedience through faith in the Messiah is required to bring about national blessing for Israel: “Then the nationalistic covenant with Israel was conditional. The people committed themselves, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do!” (Ex. 19:8). Obedience would bring nationalistic blessing; disobedience would bring a curse (Deut. 28). In this sense, “the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, he who practices them shall live by them” (Gal. 3:12). Blessing as a nation could be experienced only by loyalty to the covenant, as was similarly true of suzereign/vassal treaties of the Middle East.”12 Despite the withdrawal of God’s covenant blessing, and the exile of Israel to Assyria and Babylon, God’s faithfulness to His covenant is evident in the prophecies of Jeremiah (Jer. 30-32). “For, lo, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the LORD: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it (Jer. 30:3).” Concerning the Promised Land as God’s gracious gift to Israel, Holwerda writes, “Even when Israel failed and lost the land, the promise of possession did not cease. The promise that the land will be possessed is irrevocable. But if possession is to be maintained, God’s people must become holy as God is holy.”13 Thus, Israel’s return from exile was still conditioned by its repentance and return to God. Moses proclaimed to the Israelites: 12 13 Adams, “The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-37,” 88. Holwerda, Jesus and Israel, 95. The Promised Land 70 “And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers (Deuteronomy 30:1-5).” It is obvious that the Promised Land was never meant to be an unconditional blessing to a disobedient nation. Faith, repentance, and subsequent obedience to God’s commandments were crucial for Israel’s restoration. It is notable that only a remnant of Israel, and not the entire nation, was eventually brought back to the land in Palestine. “The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God. For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness (Isa. 10:21-22).” God has never promised to save each and every Israelite; only a remnant was brought back to the Promised Land. Likewise, in the New Testament, the apostle Paul tells us that, “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace (Rom. 11:5).” God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel is demonstrated by the fact that a remnant from every generation of Jews is redeemed in Christ Jesus. God has, indeed, not forsaken the Israelites. He is redeeming unto Himself a people from every tribe and tongue, Jews included. Even in the Old Testament, restoration of Israel to its Promised Land cannot be accomplished apart from a covenant relationship with Yahweh. In relation to the New Covenant dispensation, nowhere does the Old Testament envision an unconditional, geo-political reconstitution of Israel as a nation. From a New Covenant perspective, the recognition and acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah is the necessary condition of return to the Promised Land. The land in Palestine cannot, therefore, be claimed by those who reject the Messiah as Savior and Lord. The Promised Land 71 The Old Testament patriarchs were saved by faith (Heb. 11), not by genealogy or the biological inheritance of Jewish genes. Only by looking forward to the promised Messiah and by faith in His deliverance were the Old Testament saints justified. Holwerda writes concerning the disinheritance of national Israel: “Judgment falls on those who do not believe. Even though, as the Old Testament people of God, Israel possessed the mysteries of the kingdom in the law and the prophets, they did not understand the mysteries. They had a different understanding of the kingdom of God, a kingdom of political might and power defeating the enemies of Israel and overwhelming the forces of evil, and, as a result, they did not believe that the kingdom of God has arrived in the person and ministry of Jesus. Consequently, their privileged position as the heirs of the kingdom would be taken from them: “For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away” (Matthew 13:12).”14 The land is never promised to the Israelites unconditionally. Apart from saving faith in the promised Messiah, the New David, Israel as an unbelieving nation can have no part in the new, heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22). The Land Was Possessed by Israel According to the Old Testament In the book of Joshua, God assured Joshua that He would deliver the land of Palestine into the hands of the Israelites, “Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them (Josh. 1:6).” Bible Presbyterians believe that, since Israel has never literally or geographically occupied the Promised Land from the Nile to the Euphrates, the Abrahamic land promise has yet to be fulfilled literally. But this understanding ignores the testimony of the Old Testament writers, and their understanding of the land promise. Similarly, according to Dispensationalism, Israel has yet to occupy the Promised Land based on geographical and historical evidence. But this begs the question: Should a Christian’s understanding of Scripture be based upon fallible science, geography and history, or should his interpretation rest upon the internal evidence of Scripture alone? 14 Ibid., 55. The Promised Land 72 Although the secular historian or archaeologist might argue against the notion that the Israelites did exercise geo-political sovereignty over all of the Promised Land, the Old Testament provides us with an infallible record of this land possession: “So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war (Josh. 11:23).” Again, the Scripture records, “And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass. (Josh. 21:43-45).” Scripture emphasizes the fact that the LORD Jehovah gave unto Israel “all the land” which He promised to give to the patriarchs, and not just part of the land. The texts of Joshua 11:23 and 21:43-45 contradict the dispensational expectation of a yet future, literal fulfillment of the land promise: “There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass (Josh. 21:45).” Israel did possess the land of Palestine according to Scripture; all the promises of God did come to pass (Josh. 21:45). The land was given to Israel via Joshua’s conquests. According to the Bible Presbyterian’s consistently literal hermeneutics, it is difficult, if not impossible, to interpret “all the land” to mean “some of the land.” Perhaps only through the usage of creative, exegetical acrobatics can “all” mean “some.” The Book of Nehemiah, likewise, affirms the actual possession of the land by national Israel. In Nehemiah 9:22-24, the Levites confessed: “Moreover thou [Yahweh] gavest them [the Israelites] kingdoms and nations, and didst divide them into corners: so they possessed the land of Sihon, and the land of the king of Heshbon, and the land of Og king of Bashan. Their children also multipliedst thou as the stars of heaven, and broughtest them into the land, concerning which thou hadst promised to their fathers, that they should go in to possess it. So the children went in and possessed the land, and thou subduedst before them the inhabitants of The Promised Land 73 the land, the Canaanites, and gavest them into their hands, with their kings, and the people of the land, that they might do with them as they would.” The Book of Nehemiah, together with the Book of Joshua, testify that Israel “possessed the land,” and not simply a part of the Promised Land. Despite the temporal occupation of the Promised Land, the Jews lost possession of it through disobedience. There is no biblical evidence that an unrepentant, faithless nation will repossess the physical, land blessings of God. The reader might begin to ask, “Should the New Testament Church understand the Abrahamic land promise as referring to a physical, geographically limited piece of land in Palestine?” Furthermore, should the actual, everlasting possession of this piece of land be considered as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant? Despite Joshua’s successful conquest of the land of Canaan, Israel’s temporal possession of the Promised Land was not the fulfillment of the Abrahamic land promise. Williamson elaborates: “Nevertheless, while the territorial promise was fulfilled in the conquest of Canaan, it was only partially fulfilled, or rather, this was only the first stage of fulfillment (Josh. 13:1-2). Although the land had been allocated to the various tribes, Israelite control of the territory was still limited. As long as there were pockets of resistance, there could be no permanent state of rest. . . . Moreover, as repeatedly emphasized in Deuteronomy, the continual enjoyment of such rest was dependent on covenant loyalty (cf. Deut. 4:2528), without which Israel’s experience of the ‘good and spacious land’ would be short-lived (cf. Josh. 23:12-13). Thus the fulfillment of the territorial promise in Joshua’s day fell short, not only in relation to the geography, but also – and more significantly – in respect to the ideology of the promised land.”15 The temporal possession of the Promised Land in the Old Testament was but a typological anticipation of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic land promise which has yet to come. This fulfillment is not limited to the nation of Israel, but also includes the Gentile nations, and will be universal in scope and dimensionality. Williamson continues: “While the promise of land was certainly fulfilled to some extent in the period covered by Genesis-Kings, it was never fully realized. Rather, its 15 Williamson, “Promise and Fulfilment: The Territorial Inheritance,” 23-24, quoting Holwerda, Jesus and Israel, 30-31. The Promised Land 74 fulfillment in the nation [of Israel] was but a preliminary stage and a symbol of its climactic fulfillment. It is not surprising, therefore, that other Old Testament writers should envisage a future and more permanent fulfillment of the territorial promise – one that would impact not just Israel, but all the nations of the earth.”16 Therefore, in order for us to understand the ideology behind the Promised Land, we must first consider the New Testament’s expectation of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic land promise. The New Testament Understanding of the Land Promise The land of Palestine in the Old Testament typifies the promised rest of the elect in Christ. Just as the nation of Israel looked forward to her everlasting rest in the Promised Land, which was never fulfilled due to her faithlessness, the elect of God now find rest in their Savior Jesus Christ. Faith is, and always will be, the requirement to enter God’s rest. As Holwerda explains: “The promised rest, symbolized by the land, was never really enjoyed in the Old Testament, at least not for long. The rest joyfully proclaimed by Joshua became only a temporary blessing later lost. Thus within the history of Israel in the Old Testament the original occupation of the land became only an anticipation of a rest still to be enjoyed. As faith was required then, so Hebrews declares that now faith in Christ is required to enter God’s rest (Hebrews 4). This rest is not achievable within the territorial boundaries of any specific land on earth because it is a blessing associated with a heavenly country and city, a land and a city whose builder and maker is God (Hebrews 11).”17 In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ proclaimed, “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (Matt. 5:3-5).” Our Lord promised the kingdom of heaven to the “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3, cf. Luke 6:20), and the earth to the “meek” (Matt. 5:5). Concerning the recipients of these heavenly blessings, Brueggemann aptly comments: “The land will be given not to the tough presuming ones, but to the vulnerable ones with no right to expect it. The vibrations begin about the “meek” inheriting the land, not the strident. This is a discernment that Israel 16 17 Ibid., 32. Holwerda, Jesus and Israel, 105. The Promised Land 75 would no doubt have wished to reject. The world believes that stridency inherits, but in its vulnerability Israel learns that the meek and not the strident have the future.”18 From the New Covenant perspective, it is clear that God has promised His covenant children the earth as an inheritance, and not just a localized piece of land in Palestine. The scope of the inheritance of God’s covenant people has been expanded, and indeed, has acquired a universal character. Jesus evidently applies the Abrahamic covenant, including the land promise, to the Church by expanding the original promise of Palestine to include the New Earth (Rev. 21:1). The apostle Peter writes, “Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Pet. 3:13).” Peter did not exhort the New Testament believers to anticipate a period of residency in Jerusalem or Palestine; he urged them to look for “a new earth,” which is part of the redeemed creation following the Parousia of Christ. Likewise, Jesus did not limit the land inheritance to only the Jews, but emphasized that the “meek” shall “inherit the earth,” regardless of nationality or ethnicity. “Yet many theologians in the present day continue to interpret the promise of the land in the old covenant in terms of its shadowy, typological dimensions, rather than recognizing the greater scope of new covenant fulfillments.”19 Elsewhere, Robertson writes: “[The] land-possession always fitted within the category of shadows, types and prophecies characteristic of the old covenant in its presentation of redemptive truth. Just as the tabernacle was never intended to be a settled item in the plan of redemption, but rather was designed to point to Christ’s tabernacling among his people (cf. John 1:14), and just as the sacrificial system could never atone for sins, but could only foreshadow the offering of the sacrifice of the Son of God (Heb. 9:23-26), so in a similar manner the patriarch Abraham received the promise of the land but never experienced the blessing of full possession. By this non-possession, the patriarch learned to look forward ‘to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God’ (Heb. 11:10). Abraham and his immediate descendants never returned 18 W. Brueggemann, The Land (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 39, quoted in Holwerda, Jesus and Israel, 89, n. 7. 19 Robertson, The Israel of God, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, 27. The Promised Land 76 to the fatherland which they had left, because ‘they were longing for a better country – a heavenly one’ (Heb. 11:15-16).”20 The earthly city of Jerusalem is a type which points towards the anti-type: the new, heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2). As we have seen in the previous chapter, the earthly city of Jerusalem – which is a symbol of Judaism - is in bondage to the law (Gal. 4:21-31). “But there is another Jerusalem, a Jerusalem that is above, from which the enthroned Son of God sends forth his Spirit. Apart from this Jerusalem, none of us would have a mother to bring us into the realm of God’s redemptive working, for she is the mother of us all (Gal. 4:26).”21 The earthly Jerusalem is no longer the city of promise; it has lost all its significance as the Holy City of God, the city of God’s covenant people. Just as the patriarchs desired a better, heavenly city (Heb. 11:16), the Church looks forward to an eschatological, heavenly Jerusalem. “But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all (Gal. 4:26).” Therefore, according to the New Testament record, “the historical disobedience of Jewish Israel has shattered the salvific significance of historical Jerusalem.”22 The promises associated with the city of Jerusalem are still in force today, but the New Testament explains to us that these promises can no longer be associated with this earthly city. God has now built a heavenly city; He has redeemed unto Himself a people who shall inherit this New Jerusalem by faith via the New Covenant administration. Holwerda elaborates: “An underlying premise of New Testament teaching is that the promises that once were attached to the earthly Jerusalem are now attached to the heavenly and New Jerusalem. Believers in Christ have been born in Zion because Jerusalem is “our mother.” . . . The New Testament affirms that believers from every tribe and nation are citizens of Jerusalem and heirs of its promised salvation. Jerusalem has become a universal city and, as such, a symbol of the new earth. The fulfillment of the promise of land is under way, and the meek will inherit the earth.”23 The Psalmist proclaimed that “the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. . . . The righteous shall inherit the land, and 20 O. Palmer Robertson, “A New-Covenant Perspective On the Land,” in The Land of Promise (Leicester, England: Apollos, 2000), 125-126. 21 Ibid., 138. 22 Holwerda, Jesus and Israel, 109. 23 Ibid., 110. The Promised Land 77 dwell therein for ever (Ps. 37:11, 29).” Consistent with the Reformed understanding of the Abrahamic land promise, our Lord Jesus applies Psalm 37 to the New Testament Church in His Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is not spiritualizing away Israel’s covenant promise when He applies it to the Church. He is expanding the covenant to include Gentiles, and widening Israel’s territorial promise to encompass the whole of redeemed earth. The Apostle Paul, likewise, comprehended the land promise to be universal in scope: “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:13; emphasis added).” God’s covenant with Abraham, in the light of the New Covenant, has no geographical boundaries. Jesus and the apostle Paul undoubtedly interpreted the Abrahamic land promise to be universal and cosmological in extent and dimensionality. This inheritance was not to be granted based upon race or nationality, but “through the righteousness of faith” (Rom. 4:13) in the Messiah. In the light of New Testament revelation, we understand that Abraham’s children (Gal. 3:6-7) will not only inherit the land in Palestine, but the entire cosmos (Rev. 21:1-2). The land in Palestine served as a type of the true inheritance of the elect, which is “a better country, that is, an heavenly (Heb. 11:16).” This land of promise is not limited in its scope, but includes the renewed Heaven and Earth. This is also the Promised Land which the patriarchs had looked forward to, which is embraced by faith in the promised Messiah. The promises of God to Abraham thus find their glorious fulfillment in the New Testament Church: “The New Testament has neither forgotten nor rejected the promise of the land. Earthly Jerusalem has been transcended, but the present location of the city in heaven is viewed within the continuing history of redemption, which will culminate on the renewed earth. The heavenly Jerusalem will descend as the new Jerusalem, but not until its citizens have been gathered from among the nations of the world. Judging from this perspective of fulfillment, one may conclude that the original land of Canaan and the city of Jerusalem were only an anticipatory fulfillment of God’s promise. As such they function in Scripture as a sign of the future universal city on the renewed earth, the place where righteousness dwells.”24 24 Ibid., 111-112. The Promised Land 78 Hence, from the New Covenant perspective, the land promise has acquired a universal scope. The meek shall inherit not only the New Earth, but will also be made citizens of the new, heavenly Jerusalem.25 Conclusion We have seen in chapter 2 that the primary premise of dispensational hermeneutics is the assumption that a consistent, literal reading of Scripture will provide us with its intended, authorial meaning. But this principle of hermeneutics is apparently inadequate. The assumption that a literal understanding of Old Testament prophecy is the correct understanding undermines and ignores how New Testament writers interpreted similar passages of the Old Testament. From a New Covenant perspective, the exegete should employ the principles of interpretation laid out in the New Testament by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Old Testament prophecies cannot be completely understood apart from New Testament revelation. Furthermore, the exegete should not interpret all Old Testament prophecies with a crass, wooden literalism. A more serious blunder would be to impose the erroneous, literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecies upon New Testament Scripture.26 With progressive revelation, Old Testament typological and shadowy forms become lucid and clear in the New Testament. In his analysis of Christian Zionism and Dispensationalism, Sizer accurately perceives that the fundamental error of dispensational hermeneutics is its failure to interpret Old Covenant shadows with the light of New Covenant reality. Sizer elucidates: “Christian Zionism [and Dispensationalism] errs most profoundly because it fails to appreciate the relationship between the Old and New Covenants and the ways in which the latter completes, fulfils and annuls the former. It is fundamental that Christians read the Scriptures with Christian eyes, and that they interpret the Old Covenant in the light of the New Covenant, not the other way round. . . . Under the Old Covenant, revelation from God 25 Current amillennial thinking has emphasized the earthy nature of the consummative phase of the Kingdom. For example, see Anthony A. Hoekema’s book The Bible and the Future. 26 Sizer explains that “Christian Zionism is born out of the conviction that God has a continuing special relationship with, and covenantal purpose for, the Jewish people, apart from the church, and that the Jewish people have a divine right to possess the land of Palestine. This is based on a literal and futurist interpretation of the Bible and the conviction that Old Testament prophecies concerning the Jewish people are being fulfilled in the contemporary State of Israel.” See Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon, 20. The Promised Land 79 came often in shadow, image, form and prophecy. In the New Covenant that revelation finds its consummation in reality, substance and fulfillment. The question is not whether the promises of the covenant are to be understood literally or spiritually as Dispensationalists like to stress. It is instead a question of whether they should be understood in terms of Old Covenant shadow or in terms of New Covenant reality. This is the most basic hermeneutical assumption which Christian Zionists consistently fail to acknowledge.”27 Rejecting the Dispensationalist’s tendencies of regression to Old Testament types and shadows, Reformed theologians anticipate an inheritance well beyond the land of Palestine. In the light of New Covenant reality, the Reformers look forward to a kingdom far more glorious than any Jewish monarchy in the land of Palestine. Contrary to the Judaistic expectation of a reestablished throne of David on earth, the New Testament sees the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant with Christ ruling on the throne of David at the right hand of the Father. It is with confidence that Christians can declare that, “we have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens (Heb. 8:1b).” For a Christian today, the subject of Israelology extends beyond its theological ramifications. A correct perspective of Israel and its land promise have far greater implications than some might want to admit.28 Christian Zionists and those who support their theology of Israel (i.e. Israelology) are inadvertently directing Jewish eyes to look away from the heavenly realities, and down towards the physical piece of land in Palestine. Instead of guiding the Israelites to look at the far greater fulfillment of Old Covenant promises in Christ Jesus and His Church, it is sad that some well-meaning Christians are in fact misdirecting the Jewish people back to Old Testament shadowy forms and figures. Surely, Reformed theologians must reject such a retrogressive interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. Robertson observes that, “In the process of redemptive history, a dramatic movement has taken place. The arena of redemption has shifted from type to reality, from shadow to substance. The land which once was the specific place of God’s redemptive work served well in the realm of old covenant forms as a picture of paradise lost and promised. But in the realm of new covenant fulfillments, the land has expanded to encompass the whole world. In this 27 Sizer, An Alternative Theology of the Holy Land, emphasis mine. For the profound political implications of Christian Zionism, see Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon, 206-253. 28 The Promised Land 80 age of fulfillment, a retrogression to the limited forms of the old covenant must be neither expected nor promoted. Reality must not give way to shadow. By claiming the old covenant form of the promise of the land, the Jews of today may be forfeiting its greater new covenant fulfillment. Rather than playing the role of Jacob as heir apparent to the redemptive promises made to Abraham their father, they could be assuming the role of Esau by selling their birthright for a fleshly pot of porridge (Gen. 25:29-34; cf. Heb. 12:16).”29 Therefore, if the Jews are to continue with their insistence of a literal fulfillment of the Abrahamic land promise, the tragedy for national Israel today will be the forfeiture of the blessings of the New Covenant for a piece of temporal, earthly inheritance. 29 Robertson, The Israel of God, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, 30-31. The Promised Land 81 Chapter 5: The Pretribulation Rapture An Introduction to the Pretribulation Rapture In the next few chapters, we shall look at another doctrinal ramification of a strict Israel/Church distinction: the pretribulation rapture theory. Bible Presbyterians understand that the Church has no part in the Great Tribulation, because it is a time of Jacob’s trouble. As the Church and Israel are distinct entities, the prophetic clock for Israel will start ticking again after the Church is raptured pretribulationally, that is, before the Great Tribulation. Donald Campbell agrees that “a recognition of the distinction between Israel and the church supports the belief that the church will be removed from the earth before the Tribulation at the rapture, the first phase of Christ’s return. This is true because the Tribulation primarily concerns Israel, . . . although this period will see the wrath of God poured out on the entire earth, the period relates particularly to Israel.”1 The strict dichotomy between Israel and the Church is paramount to the entire pretribulation rapture theory. If the Church is the true, spiritual Israel, the entire foundation for this theory is destroyed. We have seen in the previous chapters that a dispensational understanding of ecclesiology – the distinction between Israel and the Church – is not founded upon sound hermeneutics. It fails to do justice to the New Testament understanding of what the Church is. This ecclesiology, particularly the distinction between Israel and the Church, is foundational to dispensational theology. In the later chapters of this book, we shall also see why a dispensationalist is primarily one who adheres to this strict Israel and the Church distinction. Pretribulationism is a doctrinal conviction of many Far Eastern Bible College lecturers.2 Amongst them are Dr Jeffrey Khoo, Dr Quek Suan Yew and Dr Prabhudas Koshy.3 Khoo, who clearly advocates pretribulationism, writes: 1 Campbell, “The Church in God’s Prophetic Program,” 150. As discussed in chapter 1, dispensational ecclesiology contradicts the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV, sections I, II and III, as well as the Belgic Confession of Faith, article 27. 3 James Oliver Buswell, however, “took the mid-tribulational view of the rapture of the church. According to him the “last trump” of 1 Cor 15:52 is to be identified with the seventh and last trumpet of Rev 11:15. The Church Age (“the times of the Gentiles,” Luke 21:24) ends at this moment.” See Khoo, “Dispensational Premillennialism in Reformed Theology: The Contribution of J. O. Buswell to the Millennial Debate,” 713. But this understanding of the Church Age also sees it as essentially a parenthesis within God’s prophetic program for Israel. 2 The Pre-Tribulation Rapture 82 “The Bible tells us that the world will become increasingly wicked culminating with the evil rule of the Antichrist who will set himself up as God, and demand worship from all. During the seven-year Tribulation period, he will persecute Israel. This seven-year Tribulation period is called “the time of Jacob’s Trouble” (Jer 30:7). Israel will suffer during this period. It is “Jacob’s” trouble. Jacob is Israel, not the Church. The Church will not be present during this time, but will be raptured, snatched up in a micro-second to be with Christ in heaven (1 Thess 4:16-17). During this Tribulation period, God will pour out His wrath upon the unbelieving inhabitants of the earth. It will end with Christ returning to earth with His saints to fight the Antichrist and his armies, destroying all of them at the battle of Armageddon (Rev 16:16, 19:11-21).”4 In another place, Dr Khoo reiterates the same doctrine: “The rapture of the saints will occur before God judges the world with His wrath during the 7-year Tribulation period. This dreadful period is called “the great day of His wrath” (Rev 6:17, 11:18, 15:1, 7, 16:1, 19, 19:15).”5 It must be emphasized that the Israel/Church distinction is the only hermeneutical basis for the pretribulation rapture theory. This theory will inevitably encounter problems when the reader considers the fact that numerous people, mainly Jews, will be saved during the Great Tribulation. These tribulation saints are obviously part of the church of Christ; even Bible Presbyterians must concede that these saints are to be saved via the same gospel. If the Church is to be raptured prior to the time of Jacob’s trouble, why not also the local churches founded during the Great Tribulation? Therefore, if tribulation saints belong to the Church, the practical rationale for a pretribulation rapture – the deliverance of the Church from the Great Tribulation - is completely demolished. The pretribulation rapture is not a position explicitly taught in the Scriptures.6 One cannot arrive at this view unless one sees an artificial dichotomy between Israel and the church. Dr John Walvoord, arguably the most influential and prominent defender 4 Jeffrey Khoo, “Three Views on the Millennium: Which?,” The Burning Bush 5, no. 2 (1999): 71. 5 Khoo, Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, 133. 6 For an introduction to the problems of pretribulationism, see Brian Schwertley, Is the Pretribulation Rapture Biblical? [article on-line]; available from http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/rapture.htm; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005. Please note that Schwertley’s eschatological position is Postmillennialism. The Pre-Tribulation Rapture 83 of the pretribulation rapture position, candidly admits that this doctrine is entirely inferential. It rests squarely upon the sine qua non of Dispensationalism i.e. the distinction between Israel and the church. John Walvoord elaborates: “It is safe to say that pretribulationism depends on a particular definition of the church. . . . If the term church includes saints of all ages, then it is selfevident that the church will go through the Tribulation, as all agree that there will be saints in this time of trouble. If, however, the term church applies only to a certain body of saints, namely, the saints of this present dispensation, then the possibility of the translation of the church before the Tribulation is possible [sic] and even probable.”7 Even if we graciously allow dispensational ecclesiology to be a tenable position (which all Covenant theologians believe to be clearly unscriptural), Dr Walvoord admits that the pretribulation position is only possible, or at best, probable. But given the erroneous ecclesiology of Dispensationalism, where, then, is the foundation for a pretribulational rapture? Will the Bible Presbyterians accept the dispensationalist’s definition of the term church i.e. that it “applies only to a certain body of saints, namely, the saints of this present dispensation?” Surely the Bible Presbyterians are not trying to insinuate that Old Testament saints are not part of the church. Dr Walvoord emphasizes the fact that “if the term church includes saints of all ages, then it is self-evident that the church will go through the Tribulation.” Bible Presbyterians, therefore, must consider whether the Church includes saints from all ages, that is, both the Old Testament saints and the New Testament saints. If they accept the Reformed teaching of the Church as consisting of saints from all ages, then they must seriously rethink their position on pretribulationism. William Cox summarizes the Reformed position on ecclesiology: “The church existed in the Old Testament in the form of the elect remnant within national Israel. Israel was the type while the Christian church is the antitype or fulfillment. Christ, by dying on the cross, tore down the middle wall of partition, took the two men – Israelites and Gentiles – and made the two into one man thus constituting the body of Christ. (Eph. 2:14-16). Though the mystery was hidden from the Old Testament prophets in general, it was God’s plan all along to include Gentile believers in the body 7 John Walvoord, The Rapture Question, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 21-22. The Pre-Tribulation Rapture 84 of which the believing remnant of Israel was the human foundation. (Eph. 3:4-6).”8 Dispensationalists, therefore, err gravely by putting asunder what God had joined together. 8 William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1966), 56. See pp. 34-56 for a concise, yet superb rebuttal of Dispensational ecclesiology. Cox was a former Dispensationalist who subsequently became an Amillennialist. The Pre-Tribulation Rapture 85 Chapter 6: 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 and the Rapture Introduction Numerous eschatological facts can be gleaned from the epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians. We shall begin by looking at a vital text in 1 Thessalonians 4:135:11. With regard to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, all Bible Presbyterians and Dispensationalists will agree that it refers to the rapture of the New Testament church. Commenting on 1 Thessalonians 4:17, Jeffrey Khoo writes: “The “live” saints will be raptured soon after “dead” saints have been “caught up.” How soon? The whole event will happen “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye” (1 Cor. 15:52). It will all be over in a micro-second.”1 Rev Dr Jack Sin, currently the lecturer in Church History and Pastoral Ministry of Far Eastern Bible College, explains further: “The second coming of Christ will be in two phases - first the Rapture, then the Second Advent. The Rapture, mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, is a special event when the Church will be caught up into heaven. At the Rapture, Jesus Christ will appear out of heaven and there will be a great shout followed by the voice of an archangel and the trumpet of God. . . . Both OT and NT saints will be caught up into the clouds to meet Jesus in the air (1 Thess 4:13-18). The Rapture delivers the Church from the wrath to come (1 Thess 1:10). So we should expect the Rapture to precede the period of wrath in the tribulation period (Matt 24:15, Rev 6:17).”2 Does 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 really teach a pretribulation rapture? We shall begin by examining the issues Paul was addressing in this portion of Scripture. A Problem in the Thessalonian Church In this passage, the Apostle Paul was dealing with certain questions raised by the young Thessalonian church. In order to understand this passage better, it is 1 Jeffrey Khoo, 1 Thessalonians: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, n.d.), 21. These are printed course notes used in Far Eastern Bible College. Available from http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/studyresource/1%20Thessalonians.pdf; Internet; accessed 08 April 2006. 2 Jack Sin, “The Judgement Seat of Christ,” The Burning Bush 6, no. 2 (2000): 313-314. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 and the Rapture 86 beneficial for us to ask ourselves, “What exactly were the Thessalonians worried about?” From 1 Thessalonians 4:13, 18 and 5:11, it is evident that Paul was comforting the Thessalonians concerning their loved ones who had passed away. The subject of “comfort” is noticeably the leitmotif of this passage of Scripture. Paul admonished them to “sorrow not, even as others which have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13).” Why, then, did the Thessalonians grieve as unbelievers when their loved ones died? What exactly was the Apostle Paul trying to convey to the Thessalonians? It is their misunderstanding concerning the resurrection of believers – both the living and the dead – that Paul is attempting to correct in this passage of the epistle. The Thessalonians had wrongly thought that the resurrection of living believers will precede (“prevent”) those that are “asleep.” Paul emphasized his understanding of the resurrection in 1 Thessalonians 4:14, “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.” He reassured the Thessalonians that the dead in Christ will not be left behind in the grave when Christ comes again. Those that “sleep in Jesus” have the confidence of eternal life with the Lord. Paul reiterated his teachings in 1 Thessalonians 5:10, that “whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.” It is obvious that the Thessalonians had doubts concerning the resurrection of the dead in Christ. But Paul comforted the young church that whether believers are dead or alive, all will assuredly be with the Lord when He returns again. In fact, “the dead in Christ shall rise first (1 Thess. 4:16b)”; the living Christians will not “prevent” or precede those that are asleep. Commenting on 1 Thessalonians 4:15, D. Michael Martin writes: “Paul stated emphatically that at the parousia the living “will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.” This may indicate that the church feared that the dead would be raised at some time after the parousia and so miss the glories of that day. But it is far from certain that this was the problem in the church. It seems safer to find the emphasis in Paul’s words on his statement of the problem in v. 14 and his climactic statement in v. 17. In these verses the emphasis does not seem to fall on the sequence of the participation of the living and the dead but on the understanding that the dead will in fact participate in the parousia. This need not mean that Paul previously had not taught this in Thessalonica. The problem may well have been the difficulty of appropriating the doctrine of the resurrection into the way that enabled these Gentile believers to manage the trauma of death. Paul wanted to spare believers the sorrow of hopeless loss so common to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 and the Rapture 87 the pagan world. He did so by reiterating truths in traditional language and applying them to immediate needs.”3 While the resurrection of the dead believers and the rapture of living Christians occur in a definite sequence, these events also occur “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed (1 Cor. 15:52).” The Secret Silent Rapture Is it true that the church will be raptured secretly and quietly? According to Pretribulationists, the Parousia of Christ to rapture the saints will be an invisible event; it is a coming that is concealed from the eyes of unbelievers. 1Thessalonians 4:16 tells us that “the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God.” The word “shout” here, according to the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, means “an order, command, spec. [or specially] a stimulating cry, either that by which animals are roused and urged on by man, as horses by charioteers, hounds by hunters, etc., or that by which a signal is given to men, e.g. to rowers by the master of a ship, to soldiers by a commander (with a loud summons, a trumpet call).”4 Leon Morris writes, “I do not doubt that, if he so chose, God could make the voice of the archangel, the shout, and the trumpet audible only to believers. But I very greatly doubt whether that is what Paul is saying.”5 The student of the Bible can consult any Greek lexicon available on the market, but he will not encounter a description of this word which even hints at a “silent, inaudible” shout. The “shout of command” given at Christ’s Parousia is inevitably an audible shout. The description by Paul of the “voice of the archangel” and “the trump of God” adds to the conclusion that Christ’s return is not meant to be a secret, silent event. Can Paul’s language be any plainer? 3 D. Michael Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians: The New American Commentary (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1995), 149. 4 Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (1996), s.v. “Κέλευσμα.” 5 Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians: New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1991), 145. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 and the Rapture 88 Bible Presbyterian scholars at Far Eastern Bible College should all the more accept the plain, literal meaning of these terms. To believe in a secret, pretribulation rapture is to understand that 1Thessalonians 16 speaks of an inaudible shout, a muffled voice of the archangel, and a trumpet of God that makes no noise. Unless heavenly beings suffer from severe bouts of laryngitis, with the added inconvenience of mechanical malfunctions of the trumpet, how else can we explain the silent “shout,” “voice,” and “trump?” William Hendricksen observes, “From all this it becomes abundantly clear that the Lord’s coming will be open, public, not only visible but also audible. There are, indeed, interpreters, who, in view of the fact that the Bible at times employs figurative language, take the position that we can know nothing about these eschatological events. To them these precious paragraphs in which the Holy Spirit reveals the future convey no meaning at all. But this is absurd. Scripture was written to be understood, and when it tells us that the Lord will descend from heaven with a shout, with a voice of an archangel and a trumpet of God, it certainly must mean at least this: that in addition to the shouted command of our Lord (which might be compared with John 11:43) . . . a reverberating sound will actually pervade the universe.”6 Meeting with the Lord Pretribulationists characteristically understand 1 Thessalonians 4:17 to mean that during the secret rapture, believers will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. The believers will subsequently return to heaven with the Lord. “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord (1 Thess. 4:17).” It is interesting to consider the Greek word apantesis which is translated as “meet” in verse 17. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament comments that “the word ἀπάντησις (also ὑπάντησις, DG) is to be understood as a tech. [or technical] term for a civic custom of antiquity whereby a public welcome was accorded by a city to important visitors. Similarly, when Christians leave the gates of the world, they will welcome Christ in the ἀήρ, acclaiming Him as κύριος.”7 6 William Hendricksen, Exposition of Thessalonians, the Pastorals, and Hebrews: New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, (1955) 2002), 117. 7 Gerhard Kittel & Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 380-381. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 and the Rapture 89 Notice that this meeting (apantesis) is a customary welcome whereby citizens of the city escort the visitors back into the city itself. In this custom, the citizens do not accompany the visitor to his hometown or his country of origin. The same Greek word is used only in two other passages of New Testament Scripture. In Acts 28:15, the preposition and noun εις απαντησιν are used to denote that the brethren went out “to meet” Paul. Ironically, dispensationalist Stanley D. Toussaint agrees that the noun apantēsin in Acts 28:15 refers to the customary “meeting” of an official or dignitary going into the city. Dr Toussaint writes, “The Christians at Rome soon heard of Paul’s coming, so they traveled as far as the Forum of Appius (a market town 43 miles from Rome) and the Three Taverns (33 miles from Rome) to meet him and his companions. The noun apantēsin, translated as an infinitive “to meet,” was used in Greek literature of an entourage coming out of a city to meet an official going to the city.”8 In the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13), the virgins were waiting to meet the bridegroom. They were to return with him to the marriage feast subsequently. Matthew 25:1 and 6 use the same noun apantēsin (απαντησιν). It should be obvious to the reader that the virgins were not planning to return with the bridegroom to where he came from, but back to the marriage feast. Considering the usage of the Greek word apantesis in the New Testament, “to meet” in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 would mean exactly the opposite of what the Pretribulationists would want it to mean. Believers, during the rapture, would meet the Lord in the air, and subsequently escort Him back to earth. The consistent usage and meaning of the word apantesis in the New Testament would, at the very least, be unsupportive of the pretribulation rapture theory. The Close Relationship between 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 and 4:13-18 We have mentioned previously that all Bible Presbyterians and Dispensationalists understand 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 to refer to the secret rapture of the New Testament church. In order to defend the Pretribulation Rapture theory, Bible Presbyterians must insist that Paul begins with a different subject matter in 1 Thessalonians 5:1ff. In fact, the uninspired chapter division has reinforced the 8 Stanley D. Toussaint, “Acts” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 429-430. Dr Toussaint was at that time the Chairman and Senior Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 and the Rapture 90 erroneous impression that Paul’s discourse regarding the “Day of the Lord” in 1 Thessalonians 5:1ff. is somehow separated from the events discussed in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. The implication is that 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 refers to the rapture (also known as the “Day of Christ” according to dispensational terminology), and 1 Thessalonians 5:1ff. discusses the “Day of the Lord.” Pretribulationists have generally agreed that the “coming of the Lord” in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 and the “Day of the Lord” in 1 Thessalonians 5:2 are two separate events. The secret rapture, according to Bible Presbyterians, will remove the Church from the “Day of the Lord.” Most dispensationalists understand the “Day of the Lord” to refer to events beginning with the Great Tribulation and ending with the future Millennium. Dr John Walvoord describes his understanding of the “Day of the Lord,” “The future Great Tribulation is called “the Day of the Lord”, for in it Israel will experience anguish and mourning (Isa. 2:10-21; Amos 8:10; Zeph. 1:718). The Lord’s anger will be demonstrated in “the Day of the Lord” when Christ returns and destroys enemy nations (Isa. 24:21) – including Edom (Isa. 34:8-9; Obad.) – at the Battle of Armageddon (Zech. 14:1-5). It will be a time of darkness (Isa. 24:23; Amos 5:18, 20; 8:9). “The Day of the Lord” also includes the blessings of the Millennium, as seen in Zechariah 3 and Zechariah 14, in which Israel will be restored, cleansed, and comforted (Isa. 61:2; Amos 9:11; Mic. 4:6-7; 5:10-14).”9 Jeffrey Khoo agrees with Walvoord that “the Day of the Lord” refers to the Great Tribulation and the millennial reign of Christ on earth. According to Dr Khoo, “The “day of the Lord” refers to the whole period of end-time wrath upon unbelievers during the Great Tribulation of 7 years (Isa 13:9-13; Zech 14:15) which leads to the millennial reign of Christ on earth (Isa 12:1-6; 14:3; Zech 14:8-11) and ending with the final fiery destruction of this present heaven and earth (2 Pet 3:10, Rev 20:7-9).”10 Did Paul begin with a radically different subject matter in 1 Thessalonians 5:1ff.? Is it correct to interpret the “coming of the Lord” in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 and the “Day of the Lord” in 1 Thessalonians 5:2 as two separate events? If, however, the “coming of the Lord” and the “Day of the Lord” describe the same event – that is, the Parousia of Christ – the Pretribulation Rapture theory is inevitably destroyed. 9 Walvoord, End Times: Understanding Today’s World Events in Biblical Prophecy, 149-150. Khoo, 1 Thessalonians, 32. Also see Khoo, Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, 133. 10 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 and the Rapture 91 Some have argued that the “But” in 1 Thessalonians 5:1 demonstrates the beginning of a new subject which is differentiated from the Parousia in 1 Thessalonians 4:1518. Although the Greek particle connecting chapters four and five (δέ) implies a shift in thought, there is an intimate relationship between 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 and 4:13-18. Robert Gundry explains: “The usual meaning of the Greek particle connecting chapters four and five (δέ) contains a mixture of a continuative sense and a slightly adversative sense. In other words, the particle implies a shift in thought, but not without close connection with the foregoing thought. Sometimes the adversative sense drops out altogether. Therefore, it is wrong to claim that the “But” (“Now” in NASB) of 5:1 proves the beginning of a new thought in full contrast to and differentiation from the Parousia described in 4:15-18. Nor does the shift from the pronoun “we” in 4:16ff. to the pronoun “they” in 5:1ff. imply a full contrast, for Paul uses the pronoun “you” in 5:1-5a in writing to the Christians more times than he uses “we” in 4:14-18. And in 5:5b-11 he again uses “we,” more times than in 4:14-18. Hence, an entire shift in subject matter is not to be inferred from the usage of the pronouns. The appearance of “they” in chapter five is accounted for by the bringing into view of the wicked and their relationship to the Parousia. However, the saved also bear a relationship to that day. Therefore Paul retains the “you” and “we.’”11 That Day should not Overtake the Church Pretribulationists would have us believe that the Church will be raptured prior to the “Day of the Lord.” The problem with this view becomes evident when we study 1 Thessalonians 5:1ff. Paul writes, “For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober (1 Thess. 5:2-6).” 11 Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation: A Biblical Examination of PostTribulationism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1973), 105. The reader would benefit greatly from reading Gundry’s discussion of “The Day of the Lord” in chapter six of his book. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 and the Rapture 92 Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to “watch and be sober.” He reminds the brethren that, unlike unbelievers who are in darkness, “that day” should not overtake them as a thief (verse 4). “That day” obviously refers to the “Day of the Lord” in verse 2. “That day” when “sudden destruction” and wrath comes upon the wicked is the same day believers ought to watch for and be sober. If Paul is a Pretribulationist, this passage of Scripture makes no sense. According to Dr Jeffrey Khoo, the church will be raptured prior to the “Day of the Lord.” The Church includes those Thessalonian believers Paul wrote to in 1 Thessalonians. If, indeed, the Thessalonians are to be raptured prior to the “Day of the Lord,” why would Paul exhort them to “watch and be sober?” Again, if the Thessalonians are to be secretly caught up with the Lord during the Pretribulation rapture, why is it necessary for Paul to remind the Thessalonians that “that day” – which is the “Day of the Lord” – should not overtake them like a thief? If the Pretribulation Rapture theory is true, the Thessalonian believers will be resurrected and given glorified bodies before the “Day of the Lord.” Surely there is no need to watch and be sober, for they will be with the Lord forever. They will loose the ability to sin, and their glorification will be finally completed. I believe Dr Khoo will concur with me that glorified saints are inherently sober and watchful. George Eldon Ladd elaborates further: “Believers are to “watch” with reference to the day of the Lord. It will be a day of surprise only for the world; Christian will be prepared for it, for they will not be asleep. The day of the Lord will for the Church mean salvation; for the world it will mean wrath (vv. 8 and 9). Certainly this language suggests that the day of the Lord whose coming Paul warns about in chapter five is the same as the parousia of Christ for the Rapture and the resurrection; otherwise the exhortation has no point. If the Rapture has already taken place before the day of the Lord, then Paul could not say, “But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief” (vs. 4), for “that day,” the day of the Lord, will not overtake believers at all; they will be in heaven, raptured. According to pretribulationism, they do not need to “watch and be sober” for the day of the Lord but for the day of Christ; but this passage is concerned not with the day of Christ, but with the day of the Lord. Surely Paul’s warning to believers to be prepared for the day of the Lord means that they will see that day but will not be surprised and dismayed by it. The warning is 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 and the Rapture 93 without point unless believers are to see that day; and if so, the day of Christ and the day of the Lord are synonymous.”12 1 Thessalonians 5:9 and the Rapture Some Pretribulationists have argued that since the church is saved from the wrath of God, and given that the Great Tribulation is the wrath of God, the Church is apparently delivered from this Great Tribulation. Pretribulationists rely heavily upon this argument for their pretribulation rapture theory. On face value, their reasoning seems logical. One of the “proof-texts” used in their paralogism is 1 Thessalonians 5:9. This verse says, “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess. 5:9).” Commenting on this verse, Dr Khoo writes: “The Christian has been spared from the wrath of God to come (cf. Rev 6:17, 11:18, 15:1,16). It is not the Christian’s duty nor destination to face God’s wrath since he has already been saved by the perfect redemptive work of Christ (Rom 5:9). It is important to know that the terms “wrath” and “salvation” here are opposites. The verse is clearly not talking about a both-and, but either-or situation. If you are under wrath, you are not saved, and if you are saved, you are not under wrath (John 3:36). This certainly argues against the posttribulational rapture view.”13 1 Thessalonians 5:9 contrasts the concept of “wrath” and “salvation.” It is true that God has not appointed Christians to His wrath, but this does not exempt the Christian from the wrath of men, the wrath of the Antichrist, and the wrath of the Devil. Furthermore, the “wrath” mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 5:9 is clearly eternal wrath, that is, eternal perdition. This is supported by the understanding that 1 Thessalonians 5:9b describes “salvation” from God’s judgment, and not simply salvation from the Great Tribulation. 1 Thessalonians 5:9 contrasts eternal wrath with eternal salvation. Surely Dr Khoo must understand this, for he writes: “It is not the Christian’s duty nor destination to face God’s wrath since he has already been saved by the perfect redemptive work of Christ (Rom 5:9).”14 This salvation “by the perfect redemptive work of Christ” is eternal salvation, and comprises of election, regeneration, justification, sanctification and glorification. Obviously, 1 Thessalonians 5:9 is not describing the salvation of Christians from the Great Tribulation. To impose the concept of a pretribulation rapture into the meaning of 1 12 George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1956), 93. 13 Khoo, 1 Thessalonians, 37. 14 Ibid. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 and the Rapture 94 Thessalonians 5:9 is eisegesis. Dr Jeffrey Khoo has yet to explain why 1 Thessalonians 5:9 “argues against the posttribulational rapture view.”15 If, indeed, the exegete insists that 1 Thessalonians 5:9 describes the deliverance of Christians from the Great Tribulation, he cannot escape the entrapment of even more nagging exegetical problems. According to 1 Thessalonians 5:9b, the reason for the Christian’s deliverance is his salvation in Jesus Christ. It cannot be overemphasized that the tribulation saints are likewise saved by the redemption of Christ. If the Church must be exempted from the wrath of God in the Great Tribulation according to 1 Thessalonians 5:9a, how can we justify the pretribulationist’s belief that tribulation saints are left behind to suffer the wrath of God during the Great Tribulation? Is it not true that tribulation saints are also redeemed by Christ’s atoning death? Must the Church be raptured in order for her to be protected from the Great Tribulation? The fact is: presence does not necessitate participation. The Church can be on earth throughout the Great Tribulation and yet be divinely protected from God’s wrath. Israel was in Egypt when God sent the ten plagues. God did not rapture Israel prior to sending His wrath against the Egyptians. Israel was divinely protected from God’s wrath during the entire period. But the pretribulationists would have us believe that the pretribulation rapture of the Church is a certainty. The reason, which has been repeated ad nauseam, is that God has not appointed the Christians to wrath. I believe 1 Thessalonians 5:9 is one of the most misunderstood verses of the Bible, and it is probably due to popular, dispensational eisegesis. The phrase - “For God hath not appointed us to wrath” - has almost become a mantra. Then let the pretribulationist answer why the tribulation saints are left on earth for the “wrath” of God. A pertinent question for the Bible Presbyterians would be, “Are not the tribulation saints also part of the Church?” Summary on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 This passage of Scripture is most consistent with a post-tribulation rapture, not pretribulationism. The language and words of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 do not suggest a silent or secret rapture, but a glorious return of our Lord which is visible and audible to all the inhabitants of the earth. The disciples of Jesus were taught that, “this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven (Acts 1:11).” As our Lord ascended visibly to the right hand of the Father, so shall He return a second time, for “the Lord 15 Ibid. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 and the Rapture 95 himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God (1Thess. 4:16).” The Second Coming of Christ is one unified sequence of events. The rapture and the Second Coming are not separated by 7 years of the Great Tribulation. Christians will be raptured when Jesus returns to judge the living and the dead, “and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left (Matt. 25:33).” The Greek word apantesis which is translated as “meet” in verse 1 Thessalonians 17 is consistent with the post-tribulational view: Christians will be caught up to meet Jesus Christ, and will subsequently return to earth with Him. D. Michael Martin explains the difficulties involved in reconciling this passage with Pretribulationism: “We must note that our present passage does not seem to present the event depicted in vv. 16–17 as one preceding and separate from the parousia, the day of the Lord (cf. 5:4–9). First, in v. 15 Paul explicitly termed the event he was describing the “coming” (parousia) of the Lord and linked the same term with final judgment (2 Thess 2:8; cf. 1 Thess 2:19). Since Paul did not predict two parousias, then the one event must encompass both the gathering of the church and final judgment. Second, v. 17 does not require the removal of the church from the world. It is in fact open-ended, describing nothing beyond the gathering of the church other than the fact of continuing in the presence of the Lord. Finally, vv. 15–17 seem to be cast in language and images depicting the arrival of a grand dignitary. The heralds announce his coming. The crowds surge out of their city to meet him and celebrate his arrival. At this point such a dignitary would not take the crowd with him and leave. Rather, the crowd would escort him into the city. In other words, the most likely way to complete the scenario Paul painted is by assuming that after assembling his people Christ would not leave but would proceed with his parousia. What our passage depicts is not the removal of the church but the early stages of the day of the Lord.”16 16 Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, 154. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 and the Rapture 96 Chapter 7: 2 Thessalonians and the Rapture 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10 The second epistle to the Thessalonians opens with an encouragement from the Apostle Paul. He commended the Thessalonian Christians for their “faith and patience” amidst their “persecutions and tribulations (2 Thess. 1:4).” In verses 5 to 8, Paul urged the Thessalonians to be patient because when the Lord comes (apokalypsei), “the world will see a radical reversal. The afflictors of the church will reap affliction from the Lord, and those afflicted for the sake of the Lord will reap rest in his marvelous presence. Persecution by the wicked demonstrates not only that the wicked deserve punishment but also that the church is on the side of good. If this were not so, the world would not persecute them. Thus God is right when he counts the church “worthy of the kingdom.” At the same time the perseverance of the church (their response to persecution) is also evidence of their genuine faith. Thus their willingness to suffer for the kingdom is evidence that God is right to declare the church worthy of the kingdom.”1 Paul emphasized the fact that Christians will eventually find relief from their persecution when the Lord returns (ἀποκάλυψις) to judge the wicked, and punish them “with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord (2 Thess. 1:9).” Christians, on the other hand, will be awarded with rest. It is clear that this relief from persecution is not pretribulational. Paul did not tell the Thessalonians to look forward to a rapture that will take the Church out of the persecutions and sufferings she encounters. Contrariwise, the Church was urged to persevere until the Lord is “revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thess. 1:7-8).” 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10 presents an immense problem for the pretribulational understanding of the rapture. Gundry writes, “The resultant difficulty for pretribulationism is that Paul places the release of Christians from persecution at the posttribulational return of Christ to judge unbelievers, whereas according to pretribulationism this release will occur seven years earlier.”2 1 2 Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, 206. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 113. 2 Thessalonians and the Rapture 97 Charles Wanamaker agrees that the rewarding of the saints and the punishment of the wicked takes place at the end of the existing age. He notes: “The apocalyptic significance of v. 7a is confirmed by v. 7b. It depicts the end of the existing order at the appearing of the Lord Jesus on the day of Judgment. God’s decisive act of repaying the enemies of Christ’s people with affliction and rewarding the faithful for their endurance of affliction will occur ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ μετ᾽ ἀγγέλων δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ (v. 7b) ἐν πυρὶ φλογός (v. 8a) (“at the revealing of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power [or might] in flaming fire”).”3 At the ‘revelation’ (ἀποκάλυψις), the Lord will judge the living and the dead, and relegate the wicked to everlasting punishment. This is the final judgment at the end of the existing age. It is apparent that 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10 does not describe a secret coming prior to the Great Tribulation. The Apokalypsis Another difficulty with the Pretribulational view is encountered when one considers the Greek word used in verse 7 (apokalypsei). The pretribulationalist will agree that the “revelation” (ἀποκάλυψις) of our Lord is a posttribulational event. They believe that this “revelation” of Christ refers to His Second Coming with His saints 7 years after the pretribulation rapture. The ‘revelation’ is obviously a public, glorious return; it can hardly be a secret occurrence. In order to escape the thrust of this entire passage (i.e. 2 Thess. 1:4-10), the pretribulationist may broaden the meaning of “revelation” (apokalypsei) to include the Great Tribulation as well as the secret rapture. It is, however, unimaginable how a pretribulation rapture can be read into this passage of Scripture when we consider the meaning of apokalypsei. We discussed previously that the Second Coming of our Lord is referred to as his “revelation” (apokalypsei) in 2 Thessalonians 1:7. Elsewhere in the New Testament, it is called his parousia or epiphaneia. Michael Martin explains the biblical meaning of the term “revelation,” 3 Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1990), 225. 2 Thessalonians and the Rapture 98 “The Lord’s arrival on that day is here termed his “revelation” (apokalypsei). The word indicates the disclosing of something previously hidden and is most often used in the New Testament of the revealing of God’s will or nature (1 Cor 14:26; Gal 1:12, 16). It is only used here in the Thessalonian correspondence. Elsewhere the Lord’s arrival was termed his parousia or epiphaneia (cf. 2:8).”4 Commenting on 2 Thessalonians 1:7, Wanamaker likewise understands that the parousia of Christ and the revelation (ἀποκάλυψις) mentioned in verse 7 are one and the same event: “The parousia or coming of Christ is revelatory in that the Lord Jesus is currently hidden in heaven, and therefore those who persecute the readers are in (willful) ignorance about him (cf. v. 9). As a result they have no idea about the danger confronting them in the impending judgment (see vv. 9f.). The parousia of the Lord Jesus will come as an unexpected and frightening turn of events for them. On the other hand, for the oppressed it will vindicate their steadfastness. Paul’s intention may have been to provide his readers with the power to withstand their oppressors through esoteric knowledge of the coming reversal.”5 There is really no biblical basis to allocate the word parousia to a secret coming of Christ, and the word revelation to a visible coming. According to 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10, His revelation will bring immediate destruction to the wicked. At the same time, a much awaited rest will be awarded to His saints. His Church will obviously still be on terra firma when He comes again; she is not raptured prior to the Great Tribulation. Robert Gundry gives us a summary of the exegetical problems associated with the unnecessary distinction between the terms parousia and apokalypsis: “Three main terms appear in the NT for the second coming: “revelation” (ἀποκάλυψις), “appearing” (ἐπιφάνεια), and “coming” or “presence” (παρουσία, parousia). Almost all contemporary pretribulationists acknowledge that the three terms are used indiscriminately for what they regard as the two phases of Jesus’ return. Ἀποκάλυψις appears in 1 Corinthians 1:7 and 1 Peter 1:7, 13; 4:13 concerning the hope of believers in the present age. And παρουσία appears in Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39 and 2 Thessalonians 2:8 concerning the posttribulational advent. Thus, the 4 5 Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, 209. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, 225-226. 2 Thessalonians and the Rapture 99 distinction which used to be made between the pretribulational Parousia and the posttribulational revelation breaks down.”6 Considering the aforementioned reasons, it is, therefore, ludicrous to contrive a twophased coming of our Lord Jesus when one studies 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10. Where can we find in this passage a secret, hidden coming of Jesus prior to the Great Tribulation to rescue His saints? Vern Poythress concludes, “In short, the consignment of non-Christians to hell is simultaneous with the relief of Christians in the rapture. There is no intermediate stage of tribulation between the two events. Therefore the rapture of the saints and the open appearing of Christ take place together. 2 Thessalonians 1 is in tension at this point with pretribulational and midtribulational premillennialism.”7 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 in the NIV reads: “Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.” Paul begins the second chapter of the epistle with these words, “Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him (2 Thess. 2:1, NIV).” Here, Paul once again discusses the parousia (παρουσία) of Christ. The parousia and the gathering (rapture) of Christians are referred to as one event. This is clear from the usage of the single article which connects the coming of Christ and the gathering of Christians. Commenting on 2 Thessalonians 2:1, Leon Morris explains that “the use of the single article shows that the coming of the Lord . . . and the 6 Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 158. Chapter 13 of Gundry’s book gives a concise discussion of the terms “revelation,” “appearing,”, and “parousia.” 7 Vern S. Poythress, “2 Thessalonians 1 Supports Amillennialism,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37, no. 4 (1994): 532. In his excellent paper, Poythress elucidates that 2 Thessalonians chapter 1 is in tension with both Premillennialism and Postmillennialism. 2 Thessalonians and the Rapture 100 gathering of the saints are closely connected. Indeed, they are two parts of one great event.”8 This understanding is consistent with Paul’s teaching in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 that the parousia of Christ (1 Thess. 4:15) is accompanied by the simultaneous rapture and resurrection of Christians. It must also be emphasized that the parousia in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 is the same term used in 1 Thessalonians 4:15. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, therefore, must be studied in conjunction with 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. We shall begin to see the difficulties encountered by the pretribulationist in this passage. The inseparable events of the parousia and the gathering of saints are apparently placed after the great religious apostasy (verse 3) and the appearance of the Antichrist (verse 8). These events (i.e. the apostasy and the Antichrist’s unveiling), according to the pretribulationist, occur during the Great Tribulation. The posttribulational motif in this passage is hard to ignore. In view of the preceding chapter (2 Thess. 1) and Paul’s discourse on Christ’s posttribulational advent, it is reasonable to understand the parousia (2 Thess. 2:1) as one and the same event discussed in 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10. It is highly unlikely that Paul suddenly turns his attention from a posttribulational advent of Christ to a secret pretribulational coming which is not mentioned in the first chapter of this epistle. Robert Gundry elucidates further: “In [2 Thess.] 2:1 Paul mentions “our gathering” second in order to the Parousia. In the light of the immediately preceding description of the posttribulational advent, it seems natural to regard the Parousia as a reference to that event rather than a sudden switch to a pretribulational Parousia unmentioned in the first chapter and unsupported in 1 Thessalonians. Several verses later (2:8) the Parousia again refers to the posttribulational advent of Christ. If then the context of 2:1 leads us to regard the Parousia there as posttribulational, it is singularly strange that “our gathering together to Him” should be connected with it and mentioned second in order - unless the rapture, too, is posttribulational.”9 The aforementioned evidence gives us a hint that the parousia and the gathering of Christians mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 is a posttribulational event. 8 9 Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 213. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 113-114. 2 Thessalonians and the Rapture 101 The Thessalonian Problem In 2 Thessalonians 2:1ff., Paul was required to correct certain doctrinal aberrations held by the Thessalonians “concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him.” The doctrinal error Paul corrected in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 was a belief that “the day of the Lord has already come (2 Thess. 2:2, NIV).” The Greek verb translated “has come” (ἐνέστηκεν) is in the perfect tense. This means that the action of the verb has happened in the past, although it has lasting results in the present. Leon Morris agrees with this understanding: “The content of the particular report was “that the day of the Lord has already come” . . . . Some commentators hold the meaning to be that the day of the Lord was on the very point of occurring. The verb, however, does not mean “to be at hand” but rather “to be present.’”10 Thus, the Thessalonian problem was not a misunderstanding that the Day of the Lord was at hand or imminent. Their error was to believe that they were already at the early stages of the Day of the Lord. Michael Martin elaborates on this doctrinal error that had affected the Thessalonian church, “The false teaching is identified in v. 2. Somehow the church had heard that “the day of the Lord has already come.” The day of the Lord in Scripture is a fairly flexible concept. The title could signify a specific event of judgment at the end of time or a complex of events that may somewhat extend its temporal scope. In this passage, however, Paul used “the day” of a climactic point of eschatological judgment concurrent with the “splendor of the coming” of the Lord Jesus (v. 8). The “rebellion” and the revelation of the “man of lawlessness” (v. 3) are presented as preliminary.”11 A proper understanding of the Thessalonian error will allow us to glean much precious information regarding Paul’s understanding of the eschaton. Paul wrote, “Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction (1 Thess. 2:3, NIV).” The Thessalonians had misunderstood that the Day of the Lord will include the Great Tribulation. Furthermore, the Thessalonians even believed that they had already entered the Great Tribulation. Paul corrected their misinterpretation by stating that “that day will not come (2 Thess. 2:3)” unless the apostasy takes place and the Antichrist is revealed. These two prominent events 10 11 Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 216. Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, 227. 2 Thessalonians and the Rapture 102 must precede the Day of the Lord (ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου, also known as the Day of Christ in the KJV).12 This means that the Day of the Lord does not include the Great Tribulation. Thus, the Day of the Lord begins with the revelation of Jesus Christ at His parousia. This contradicts the Bible Presbyterian understanding that the Day of the Lord includes the Great Tribulation.13 Our conclusion is devastating to the pretribulation rapture theory. George Eldon Ladd writes: “If this “day of the Lord” is to be identified with the glorious Revelation of Christ at the end of the Tribulation, then Paul’s argument in this prophecy has omitted its most important point, namely, that the Rapture is the first event which will take place; and since the Rapture had not taken place and the Thessalonian Christians were still on earth, it was impossible that the Day of the Lord had come. Such things as the apostasy and the appearance of the Man of Lawlessness could have only an academic interest for the Thessalonians if they were to be caught up from the earth before these events took place. . . . Paul’s failure at this point to assert that the Rapture of the Church would be the first in this succession of events would be a surrender of his strongest argument to settle the Thessalonian problem. The day of the Lord could not possibly have come, for the Rapture had not taken place. Why did he not simply assert this to be true? He does not do so; there is no affirmation of a pretribulation rapture here.”14 Apparently, the Thessalonians had also misunderstood that the Second Coming was in the immediate future. This would explain why some of them had given up their 12 See Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001), 189. Some dispensationalists have attempted to distinguish between “the day of Christ” and the “day of the Lord.” Oswald Allis writes: “Scofield has attempted to draw a distinction between the “day of Christ” and the “day of the Lord,” making the one refer to the rapture, the other to the revelation. But the words used by Paul to refer to it seem to indicate quite clearly that no such difference exists. Paul would hardly put the two words together, “day of our Lord Jesus (Christ)” as he does in 1 Cor. i. 8, 2 Cor. i. 14 (cf. 1 Cor. v 5), if there were an important difference between the “day of the Lord” and “the day of Christ” (Phil. i. 10, ii. 16) or “of Jesus Christ” (Phil. i. 6). Darby apparently drew no distinction between the two. If there were an important difference, the words “as ye see the day approaching” (Heb. x. 25) would be dangerously ambiguous. They clearly suggest that there will be signs of its approach. Yet the writer does not say “the day of the Lord” or “the day of Christ” but simply “the day,” as if there were only one day which could be called “the day.’” 13 Khoo, 1 Thessalonians, 32. Also see Khoo, Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, 133. 14 Ladd, The Blessed Hope, 74-75. 2 Thessalonians and the Rapture 103 secular employment in fanatical excitement and wild anticipation of the parousia (2 Thess. 2:2, 3:6-14). Unfortunately - for pretribulationism - Paul did not teach an imminent or any-moment return of Christ. He was convinced that two conspicuous events must take place prior to the Day of the Lord, namely, a religious apostasy and the revealing of the Antichrist. In fact, the parousia of Christ is coupled with the destruction of the man of lawlessness. “And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. (2 Thess. 2:8, NIV).” This statement implies a close temporal association between the unveiling of the Antichrist and the parousia, that is, the Antichrist will be revealed shortly before the Second Coming. Rapture or Apostasy? Few scholars, for example E. Schuyler English and Kenneth S. Wuest, have proposed that “the rebellion” (ἀποστασία) in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 means departure, and that it refers to the rapture itself. If English and Wuest are correct, this would place the rapture prior to the unveiling of the Antichrist. This would serve to squeeze the concept of a pretribulation rapture into 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. Robert Gundry, in his book The Church and the Tribulation: A Biblical Examination of Post-Tribulationism, argues ably against this understanding of ἀποστασία.15 Is Gundry the only scholar who rejects this understanding of ἀποστασία? The fact is: the majority of scholars, both Reformed and Dispensational, believe that ἀποστασία means a religious apostasy in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. According to Gundry, “NT Lexicons uniformly give ἀποστασία the special senses of religious apostasy and political rebellion – BAG, Kittel, Cremer, Abbott-Smith, Thayer, and others. No wonder also that scholarly commentators on 2 Thessalonians interpret ἀποστασία as bearing this meaning – Alford, Ellicott, Moffatt, F. F. Bruce, Frame, Milligan, Morris, and others.”16 Charles A. Wanamaker, in his commentary The Epistles to the Thessalonians, rejects the understanding that ἀποστασία means a departure or rapture: “Although ἀποστασία, signifying the state of apostasy or rebellion, was used in both a political and religious sense, the latter dominates in the Greek Bible (cf. LXX Jos. 22:22, 2 Ch. 29:19; 33:19; Je. 2:19; 1 Macc. 2:15; and in the NT see Acts 21:21; see also the use of the cognate verb ἀφίστανται in Lk. 8:13; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 3:12). In the apocalyptic context 15 16 See Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 114-118. Ibid., 115-116. 2 Thessalonians and the Rapture 104 of 2 Thessalonians 2, the rebellion referred to is a religious one directed against God.”17 In either case, whether ἀποστασία refers to a political or religious rebellion, it cannot be made to denote a pretribulation rapture. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament agrees with the understanding that ἀποστασία refers to a religious apostasy in 2 Thessalonians 2:3: “In 2 Th. 2:3 ἀποστασία is used in the absol. sense as an event of the last days alongside or prior to (?) the appearance of the ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας. Here a Jewish tradition is adopted which speaks of complete apostasy from God and His Torah shortly before the appearance of the Messiah. This is applied to the apostasy of Christians from their faith to error and unrighteousness (v. 11f.) in the last days (Mt. 24:11 f.).”18 The reader might be curious to know whether Dallas Theological Seminary, the bulwark of dispensationalism and pretribulationism, understands the word ἀποστασία as referring to the rapture. Professor Thomas Constable of Dallas Theological Seminary, in the popular The Bible Knowledge Commentary, observes: “Some interpreters have taken this “departure” as a reference to the Rapture of the church (e.g., E. Schuyler English, Rethinking the Rapture, New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1954, pp. 67-71), but this is not too probable. D. Edmond Hiebert refutes this view that apostasia here refers to the Rapture (The Thessalonian Epistles, p. 306). Some scholars believe that this apostasy (called by Paul “the” apostasy) will consist of people turning from God’s truth to worship the Antichrist, who will set himself up in God’s temple and claim to be God (v. 4).”19 Therefore, both dispensational and non-dispensational exegetes understand the word ἀποστασία as referring to a religious apostasy prior to the unveiling of the Antichrist. According to Paul’s epistle, the parousia (παρουσία) of Christ follows two prominent events in history – the apostasy and the appearance of the Antichrist. Our Lord’s second coming is most certainly not any-moment or imminent. It apparently requires much more than some tenuous exegetical gymnastics to overcome the 17 Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, 244. Kittel and Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1, 513. 19 Thomas L. Constable, “2 Thessalonians” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 718. Dr Constable was at that time the Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary. 18 2 Thessalonians and the Rapture 105 insurmountable barrier of a posttribulational understanding in 2 Thessalonians 2:112. The Doctrine of Imminence Is it true that Christ’s Second Coming will occur at any moment? According to Pretribulationists, one of the reasons why the rapture must occur prior to the Great Tribulation is because Christ’s parousia is allegedly imminent. Gundry defines the pretribulationist’s doctrine of imminence as follow: “By common consent imminence means that so far as we know no predicted event will necessarily precede the coming of Christ. The concept incorporates three essential elements: suddenness, unexpectedness or incalculability, and a possibility of occurrence at any moment.”20 In our previous discussion of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, we have seen that the rapture cannot happen until the religious apostasy and the revelation of the Antichrist have occurred. But these are not the only reasons why the parousia cannot be imminent. In fact, a perusal of the New Testament will inform the perceptive reader that there must be a necessary delay before the rapture can take place. The first century Christians did not believe in the doctrine of imminence. The apostles and the early disciples knew that the Great Commission would incur an indeterminate period of delay prior to the parousia (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 22:21). In fact, Jesus taught that “this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come (Matt. 24:14).” The Lord did not indicate that he would rapture the apostles and the disciples prior to the fulfillment of the Great Commission. The rapture was not an “any-moment” event for the disciples. The Apostle Paul himself did not believe in the doctrine of imminence. When he was in the custody of the chief captain, “the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome (Acts 23:11; cf. Acts 27:24).” Paul could not have thought of an imminent rapture prior to his witness in Rome and before Caesar. The Apostle Peter, likewise, did not hold to an imminent rapture theory. On account of Christ’s prophecy of his martyrdom (John 21:18-19; 2 Pet. 1:14), Peter would not 20 Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 29. Gundry provides us with a detailed critique of the doctrine of imminence in chapter 3 of his book. 2 Thessalonians and the Rapture 106 have expected an “any-moment” rapture. Peter’s predicted death in old age would require a substantial amount of delay. Christ’s prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-38) must also be fulfilled before His parousia. The autographs of many New Testament epistles were written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem at AD70. The original readers of these epistles would most certainly anticipate the impending devastation of Jerusalem, not the any-moment rapture. For “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled (Luke 21:24).” Therefore, Peter, Paul and the first century Christians did not even imagine an imminent return of Christ, definitely not prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. It is, indeed, strange that the pretribulationist insists on an “any-moment” rapture of the Church despite all the New Testament evidence against it. Even stranger still is this: Why do the Bible Presbyterians jump onto the dispensationalist’s bandwagon of pretribulationism? A Further Example of Bible Presbyterian ‘Literal’ Hermeneutics The Gospels teach that Christ will gather His elect (i.e. rapture) from the four winds “after the tribulation” (cf. Matt. 24:29-31, Mark 13:24-27, Luke 21:25-28).21 For the purpose of discussing the issue of pretribulationism, we shall examine Matthew 24:29-31 very briefly. The reader is reminded to pay attention to a parallel terminology used in several apocalyptic passages of Scripture: the trumpet. According to Matthew 24:31, the Son of Man will “send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” Bible Presbyterians and Dispensationalists agree that the phrase “immediately after the tribulation (Matt. 24:29)” refers to events occurring immediately after the Seventieth Week of Daniel. Pretribulationists generally understand that this gathering of the “elect from the four winds” (Matt. 24:31) includes Tribulation saints, that is, Christians converted during the Great Tribulation. It is interesting to note that Bible Presbyterians are divided as to whether Old Testament saints are included here. Some Bible Presbyterians believe 21 This is especially true if one rejects the Preterist’s understanding of the Olivet Discourse. See Gundry’s book The Church and the Tribulation: A Biblical Examination of PostTribulationism for a discussion of the immense problems of pretribulationism. Given the fact that Gundry is a premillennial scholar, the book is both accessible and irenic for dispensationalist readers. Gundry discusses the Olivet Discourse in pp. 129-139. Also see Ladd, The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture. 2 Thessalonians and the Rapture 107 that Old Testament saints are “raptured” before the Great Tribulation together with the New Testament saints. Those that adhere consistently to the distinction between Israel and the Church will claim that Old Testament saints are to be raptured after “the time of Jacob’s trouble (Jer. 30:7).”22 This is the view of Louis A. Barbieri, Jr.23 In his commentary on Matthew 24:29-31, Barbieri wrote: “Immediately following the distress of that period, the Lord will return. His return will be accompanied by unusual displays in the heavens (v. 29; cf. Isa. 13:10; 34:4; Joel 2:31; 3:15-16) and by the appearing of His “sign” in the sky (Matt. 24:30). The appearance of the sign will cause all the nations to mourn (cf. Rev. 1:7), probably because they will realize the time of their judgment has come. . . . Whatever the sign, it will be visible for all to see, for the Lord will return on the clouds . . . with power and great glory (cf. Dan. 7:13). He will then send His angels forth to regather His elect from the four winds, which relates to the earth (cf. Mark 13:27), from one end of the heavens to the other. This involves the gathering of those who will have become believers during the Seventieth Week of Daniel and who will have been scattered into various parts of the world because of persecution (cf. Matt. 24:16). This gathering will probably also involve all Old Testament saints, whose resurrection will occur at this time, so that they may share in Messiah’s kingdom (Dan. 12:2-3, 13).”24 It is important to note that at the “great sound of a trumpet,” the elect are gathered from the four winds. We shall compare the occurrence of the word “trumpet” with another New Testament passage in Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 15:51-52, Paul expounded to the Corinthian believers: “Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a 22 The “time of Jacob’s trouble” refers to the Great Tribulation according to Dispensationalists. See Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 209. Allis wrote: “Jeremiah xxx. 7 speaks of a day which is called “the time of Jacob’s trouble.” It is described as “great,” so that there is “none like it.” It is difficult to see in this verse any definite reference to the great tribulation. “Great” may be used in the sense of “long” (great in length); and this is favored by the word “time” which follows. This prophecy was probably uttered before the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. There is no reason for believing that it refers exclusively to a brief period of three and a half years which are still wholly future.” 23 Louis A. Barbieri, Jr. is the former Dean of Students and Assistant Professor of Bible Exposition, Dallas Theological Seminary (1976-1986). 24 Louis A. Barbieri, Jr., “Matthew,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 78. 2 Thessalonians and the Rapture 108 moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” Pretribulationists believe that 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 as well as 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 refer to the rapture. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:50-57, Jeffrey Khoo writes: “There will be a rapture; a sudden catching up of saints to meet the Lord in the air (cf. 1 Thess 4:13-17). This will happen in “a moment.” . . . In an atomic second, “in the twinkling of an eye,” at the sound of the last trumpet (cf. Rev 11:15-19?) we shall all be changed and shall put on an incorruptible body.”25 Both of these passages (i.e. 1 Cor. 15:51-52, and 1 Thess. 4:15-17) mention a “trump” or trumpet, but 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 describes it as the “last trump.” A literal understanding of the expression “last trump” would mean the last trumpet in a series of trumpets. Some midtribulationists, for example Dr Timothy Tow, equate this trumpet with the seventh trumpet in Rev. 11:15-19. Dr Tow admits: “In regard to the Rapture of Saints I followed Dr. [Oliver] Buswell in its occurrence at the sounding of the last and seventh trumpet (1 Cor 15:52; Rev 11:15-18).”26 Dr Khoo’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:50-57 bears an uncanny resemblance to common dispensational expositions on the passage.27 We shall now refer to a Dallas Theological Seminary professor’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:51-52. David Lowery writes: “Paul had revealed the same truth to the Thessalonians (1 Thes. 4:15-17). The Rapture of the church was a mystery (mystērion) in that it had not been known in the Old Testament but now was revealed. (Cf. other “mysteries”— now revealed truths—in Matt. 13:11; Luke 8:10; Rom. 11:25; 16:25; 1 Cor. 4:1; Eph. 1:9; 3:3-4, 9; 5:32; Col. 1:26-27; 2:2; 4:3; 2 25 Jeffrey Khoo, First Corinthians (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, n.d.), 60. These are printed course notes used in Far Eastern Bible College. Available from http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/studyresource/FirstCor.pdf; Internet; accessed 12 April 2006. 26 Timothy Tow, The Story of My Bible-Presbyterian Faith (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press, 1999), 15. Dr Tow is the Principal and Lecturer in Systematic Theology in Far Eastern Bible College. 27 See Khoo, First Corinthians, 60 2 Thessalonians and the Rapture 109 Thes. 2:7; 1 Tim. 3:9, 16; Rev. 1:20; 10:7; 17:5.) The dead in Christ will first be raised, and then the living will be instantaneously transformed. The trumpet, as in the Old Testament, signaled the appearance of God (cf. Ex. 19:16). It is the last blast for the church because this appearance shall never end (cf. 1 Cor. 13:12).”28 We recall that 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 refers to the pretribulation rapture according to Bible Presbyterians and Dispensationalists. The pretribulation rapture is supposed to occur at the “last trump (1 Cor. 15:52).” Since this is the “last blast” or “last trumpet”, and this occurs before the Seventieth Week of Daniel (i.e. before the Great Tribulation) according to Pretribulationists, the trumpet sounding in Matthew 24:31 after the Great Tribulation contradicts a literal understanding of the word “last.” How can there be another trumpet being blown in the posttribulational period (i.e. in Matt. 24:31), especially after the last trumpet was sounded in 1 Corinthians 15:52? All language in Scripture will loose its meaning if “last” does not mean last. God could have used the phraseology “the penultimate trump” in 1 Corinthians 15:52. This would allow an actual last trump after the Great Tribulation in Matthew 24:31.29 Is it not remarkable that Dispensational Premillennialists, who insist on a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, understand the “last trump” (1 Cor. 15:52) as not being the last? This inconsistency occurs in both Pretribulationism and Midtribulationism. Bible Presbyterians can avoid this inconsistency by saying that the “last trump” in 1 Corinthians 15:52 refers to a last trumpet with several blasts from the same trumpet at different periods of time. This “last” trumpet may indeed be the same trumpet being blown in Matthew 24:31. In other words, the last trumpet is sounded in 1 Corinthians 15:52, and subsequently sounded again in Matthew 24:31. But 1 Corinthians 15:52 states that “at the last trump,” “the trumpet shall sound,” implying that this is the last blast of the trumpet of God, and not merely a trumpet used for a series of blasts. 28 David K. Lowery, “1 Corinthians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 545-546. David K. Lowery was at that time the Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. 29 Vern Poythress dedicates an entire chapter of his book Understanding Dispensationalists to discuss this issue of “the last trumpet.” See Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 7177. I am indebted to Poythress for some profitable insights. 2 Thessalonians and the Rapture 110 Another solution might be to suggest that the last blast or sounding of the trumpet is actually of seven years or three-and-a-half years duration, depending on whether one is pretribulational or midtribulational. But the dead are raised immediately with the last trumpet sounding, at “the twinkling of an eye.” This resurrection of the dead cannot occur over a seven years period or any prolonged duration of time. The last blast is clearly a quick final blowing of the trumpet in 1 Corinthians 15:52. Finally, Bible Presbyterians can understand Matthew 24:31 as depicting the rapture, and not the visible Second Coming of Christ. But the verse before it obviously describes a visible Coming of Christ, “And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Matt. 24:30, emphasis mine).” A literal interpretation of Matthew 24:30 does not allow a secret rapture in this verse. In his defense of the posttribulational view, Robert Gundry writes: “Posttribulationists equate the rapture with the gathering of the elect by angels at the sound of a trumpet (Matt. 24:31). The Lukan parallel supports the equation, for there Jesus says, “But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near” (Luke 21:28). The posttribulational view gains further support from parallel terminology in Paul’s Thessalonian discussion of the Church’s rapture, where we read of a trumpet, clouds, and a gathering of believers just as in the Olivet Discourse (1 Thess. 4:16, 17; 2 Thess. 2:1).”30 Kim Riddlebarger explains that “the trumpet call of God was an important theme in Paul’s writings, for the trumpet will announce the long-expected day of resurrection.”31 If the exegete understands the term “trumpet” as a parallel terminology in apocalyptic literature, and that it forms an essential key in understanding prophetic passages, the consistent literalist will inevitably arrive at a posttribulational view of the rapture. In conclusion, the Scriptures, and especially the Apostle Paul, do not divide the Second Coming of Christ into a secret coming and a subsequent visible coming. There is only one Second Coming of Christ. In his book Prophecy and the Church, Oswald T. Allis aptly summarizes the issue at hand: 30 Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 135. Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 2003), 176. 31 2 Thessalonians and the Rapture 111 “The question which confronts us is this. If the distinction between the rapture and the appearing is of as great moment as Dispensationalists assert, how are we to explain Paul’s failure to distinguish clearly between them? And the failure of other writers, Peter, James, and John, to do the same? Paul was a logician. He was able to draw sharp distinctions. If he had wanted, or regarded it important, to distinguish between these events, he could have done so very easily. Why did he use language which Dispensationalists must admit to be confusing? [Charles] Feinberg recently made the following surprising statement regarding the three words we have been discussing [namely, “revelation” (ἀποκάλυψις), “appearing” (ἐπιφάνεια), and “coming” (παρουσία)]: “We conclude, then, that from a study of the Greek words themselves the distinctions between the coming of the Lord for His saints and with His saints is not to be gleaned.” Such an admission raises the question whether the distinction itself is valid. If the distinction is of importance, Paul’s ambiguous language is, we say it reverently, inexcusable. If the distinction is negligible, accuracy of statement would be quite unnecessary. We conclude, therefore, that the language of the New Testament and especially of Paul not merely fails to prove the distinction insisted on by Dispensationalists but rather by its very ambiguity indicates clearly and unmistakably that no such distinction exists.”32 32 Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 184-185, quoting Charles Lee Feinberg, Premillennialism or Amillennialism? (Winona Lake, IN: BMH, 1980), 207. Feinberg is a noted dispensationalist scholar. 2 Thessalonians and the Rapture 112 Chapter 8: The Multiple Resurrections and Judgments of Dispensational Premillennialism The Multiple Resurrections and Judgments Premillennialists believe that Jesus Christ will return to resurrect the saints prior to the millennium. This is followed by the earthly reign of Christ from Jerusalem for one thousand years. The final judgment will take place at the end of this millennium, when the wicked dead will be resurrected and condemned to eternal perdition. The premillennial eschatological schema includes at least two resurrections and two judgments. A one thousand year gap is posited between the Second Coming and the final judgment. Consequentially, the resurrection of the saints and the resurrection of the wicked are separated by a millennium. If this sequence of events appears complex, the dispensational eschaton is by far the most complicated of all eschatological schemes. Jesus does not only return just before the millennium; He returns secretly before the Great Tribulation to rapture the saints. According to Pretribulationism, Jesus comes secretly for His saints before the Great Tribulation, and He comes gloriously with His saints after the tribulation to usher in the millennium. Between the pretribulation rapture and the glorious, visible return of Christ, a judgment of the saints takes place in the heavenly realms. In his essay on the Judgment Seat of Christ, Dr Jack Sin writes: “The Judgement Seat of Christ is not the Judgement of the Great White Throne (Rev 20:1-15). The latter is meant only for the unregenerate who “are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3: 18). That is the final judgement which will take place after the millennium (Rev 20:6). Believers, on the other hand, will appear before the Judgement Seat of Christ. The privilege of standing before the Judgement Seat of Christ comes from being born again. . . . When will the Judgement Seat of Christ take place? According to Scriptures, the Judgement Seat of Christ will take place between the Rapture and the return of Christ to earth.”1 So according to Bible Presbyterians, a separate judgment of the saints - the Judgment Seat of Christ – occurs prior to Christ’s Second Coming (apokalupsis). 1 Sin, “The Judgement Seat of Christ,” 302, 314. The Multiple Resurrections 113 The wicked, however, are not judged until the end of the earthly millennium. In dispensational jargon, this judgment of the wicked dead is called the Great White Throne Judgment. John Walvoord explains, “The final judgment of the human race is recorded in Revelation 20:11-15. This judgment will occur when the present earth and heavens have fled away (20:11; 21:1). Before the Great White Throne, on which Christ will be seated, will be gathered the remaining dead, the unsaved of all ages, who will be resurrected for this judgment, a judgment that will result in all being cast into the lake of fire.”2 Bible Presbyterian scholar, Dr Quek Suan Yew, concurs with Dr Walvoord: “The Great White Throne Judgement is the final place of judgement for all unbelievers. Great not only points to its size but also its majestic authority and significance, it being the final throne scene. White as usual symbolizes purity, holiness and perfect justice. . . . All the unbelievers who had died and sent to Hell will be delivered from Hell and forced to stand before God for judgement.”3 But another judgment must take place especially for the millennial saints. The millennial saints are Christians who are living on earth at the end of the Millennium or those who have died in the Millennium. These saints cannot be judged at the Great White Throne because, according to dispensational thinking, the Great White Throne Judgment is only for the wicked. In his book End Times: Understanding Today’s World Events in Biblical Prophecy, Dr Walvoord explains the dispensational understanding of the judgment for millennial saints: “The Scriptures are silent on how God will deal with saints living on earth at the end of the Millennium or saints who have died in the Millennium. . . . It is probable that the righteous who die in the Millennium will be resurrected, much as the church will be at the Rapture, and that living saints will be given bodies suited for eternity like those living church saints will receive. It is clear that the millennial saints will not be involved in the 2 Walvoord, End Times: Understanding Today’s World Events in Biblical Prophecy, 177. See Quek Suan Yew, DAY FIVE: Revelation 19-22 (Singapore: Calvary Pandan Bible Presbyterian Church, n.d.), 152-153; available from http://calvarypandan.org/revelation0603.doc; Internet; accessed 01 April 2006. These are lecture notes for a course on Revelation conducted by Rev (Dr) Quek Suan Yew. The entire series of course notes is available from http://calvarypandan.org/r.htm; Internet; accessed 01 April 2006. 3 The Multiple Resurrections 114 judgment of the Great White Throne, however, because this judgment relates to the wicked dead.”4 Therefore, the Reformed understanding of a general resurrection and a judgment of both the righteous and the wicked is replaced with a sequence of multiple resurrections and judgments. According to the dispensational eschaton, there is one resurrection before the tribulation at Christ’s parousia, one after the tribulation for “tribulation saints” after Christ’s apokalupsis, at least one separate resurrection for those saved during the millennium, and a resurrection of the wicked at the Great White Throne judgment after the millennium.5 John Walvoord, in fact, finds a series of seven resurrections in New Testament teachings. Walvoord writes, “Seen in their chronological order, the seven resurrections are proof that there will be not just one final resurrection and judgment in the future, but rather a series of judgments and resurrections.”6 Likewise, there are at least three separate judgments according to Dispensationalism and Bible Presbyterianism: the Judgment Seat of Christ, the Great White Throne Judgment, and the judgment of the millennial saints.7 The Bible Presbyterians have apparently adopted the Dispensationalist’s eschatological schema as biblical truth, together with the multiple resurrections and judgments. The General Resurrection and Final Judgment in Reformed Confessions Have the Reformed churches ever taught a complex series of resurrections of the dead? According to the Reformed Confessions of Faith - the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXXII sections II and III, and the Belgic Confession Article 37 - the resurrection of the just and the unjust will be a single event. During this general resurrection, both the wicked dead and the righteous dead will be resurrected together. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXXII state: At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up, with the self-same bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls for ever. 4 Walvoord, End Times: Understanding Today’s World Events in Biblical Prophecy, 178 See ibid., 153-165 for the dispensationalist’s order of resurrections. 6 Ibid., 165. 7 See ibid., 167-184 for the dispensationalist’s order of judgments. 5 The Multiple Resurrections 115 The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonour: the bodies of the just, by His Spirit, unto honour; and be made conformable to His own glorious body. The second paragraph of the Confession, Chapter XXXII, begins with the phrase “at the last day.” It asserts that “all the dead shall be raised up,” and this general resurrection occurs “at the last day.” “All the dead” obviously refers to all of the dead, both elect and reprobates. The Confession explains that “the bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonour: the bodies of the just, by His Spirit, unto honour; and be made conformable to His own glorious body.” The Confession incontrovertibly describes a general resurrection of both the just and the unjust. There is no mention of any time gap between the resurrection of the wicked and the saints. In Paragraph 1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXXIII, it is stated that: God hath appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ. To whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil. With regard to the time frame, the phrase “God hath appointed a day” makes it clear that the Confession does not have in mind two different judgments: one for the saints and another for the reprobates, which are separated by at least one thousand years. That it will be a general judgment of both the just and the unjust is ascertained by the statement, “In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ.” “All persons,” that is, the saved and the damned, shall appear before the glorious Christ “at the last day.” The Belgic Confession, Article 37, similarly describes a general resurrection and a single judgment at the last day. Finally, we believe, according to the Word of God, that when the time, ordained by the Lord but unknown to all creatures, has come and the number of the elect is complete, our Lord Jesus Christ will come from heaven, bodily and visibly, as He ascended, with great glory and majesty. He will declare Himself Judge of the living and the dead and set this old The Multiple Resurrections 116 world afire in order to purge it. Then all people, men, women, and children, who ever lived, from the beginning of the world to the end, will appear in person before this great Judge. They will be summoned with the archangel’s call and with the sound of the trumpet of God. Those who will have died before that time will arise out of the earth, as their spirits are once again united with their own bodies in which they lived. Those who will then be still alive will not die as the others but will be changed in the twinkling of an eye from perishable to imperishable. Then the books will be opened and the dead will be judged according to what they have done in this world, whether good or evil. Indeed, all people will render account for every careless word they utter, which the world regards as mere jest and amusement. The Belgic Confession teaches that at Christ’s Second Coming, which shall be “bodily and visibly,” “all people, men, women, and children, who ever lived, from the beginning of the world to the end, will appear in person before this great Judge.” The final judgment is obviously a general judgment. The Belgic Confession does not mention a secret coming of Christ prior to the Great Tribulation, and a subsequent rewarding of the saints at the Judgment Seat of Christ. Both the saints and the wicked will be judged at the same time at Christ’s Parousia. Furthermore, the phrase “those who will have died” refers to the dead in general, and makes no reference to either the saved or the damned. Both Confessions are consistent with the explicit teachings of Scripture, particularly Daniel 12:2, John 5:28-29, and Acts 24:15. The obvious teaching of these passages is a general resurrection of both the just and the unjust. There is no mention of a one thousand years or, according to pretribulationists, a one thousand and seven years gap between the resurrection of the saints and the resurrection of the wicked. The Scripture and Reformed Confessions agree that there will only be one general resurrection of the dead, and one Second Coming of Christ, not a complex series of resurrections separated by time gaps, or multiple “second” comings of Christ. Also, it is clear that the Reformed Confessions teach a general, final judgment. The notion that Christ will come secretly to rapture and resurrect the saints prior to the Great Tribulation is foreign to the Reformed Confessions of Faith. Premillennialism demands two separate resurrections: the resurrection of the just at Christ’s Parousia, and the resurrection of the wicked at the end of the millennium. The Reformed Confessions, unfortunately, do not allow the intercalation of a millennium between two separate resurrections. Consequentially, the eschatological The Multiple Resurrections 117 schema of dispensational premillennialism contradicts the Reformed Confessions’ doctrine of a general resurrection and judgment. The General Resurrection and Final Judgment in Scripture The doctrine of the resurrection is found not only in the New Testament, but also in the writings of the Prophets. Daniel prophesied: And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased (Dan. 12:1-4). Daniel apparently sees a general resurrection of the dead, “some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt (Dan. 12:2).” Our Lord Jesus reiterates the teaching of a general resurrection prophesied by Daniel in the Gospel of John, “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation (John 5:28-29).” According to Jesus, there is no mention of an interjectory gap of one millennium within “the hour.” At that hour, “all that are in the graves shall hear his voice.” The “resurrection of life” and “the resurrection of damnation” occur at “the hour.” Some dispensationalists might object to this point, claiming that in John 5:25, the same word “hour” is used to describe the entire gospel age, a time span which has since lasted for more than two millennia. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live (John 5:25).” They might argue that since the “hour” in verse 25 has lasted for more than two thousand years, a series of two resurrections separated by one millennium can easily fit into the “hour” of verse 28. In response to this argument, we must first note that the Apostle John uses the word “hour” (ὥρα) to mean various periods of time, the duration of which depends upon the context of the passage in consideration. For example, John uses the word “hour” in the same sense as verse 25 in John 4:23. “But the hour cometh, and now is, when The Multiple Resurrections 118 the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him (John 4:23).” In both instances, the word “hour” denotes the entire gospel age, whereby the elect hear the inward calling of the Holy Spirit, as well as the outward call of the gospel, and becomes regenerated. In other cases, the Apostle uses the word “hour” to indicate a specific point in time which has either arrived (John 12:23; 13:1; 16:21; 19:14, 27), or which has yet to arrive (John 7:30; 8:20). If dispensationalists insist that verse 28 should parallel verse 25, they must consider the fact that the regeneration of sinners is occurring throughout the gospel period. In which case, the resurrection of the just and the unjust should likewise be taking place all through the earthly millennium; but according to dispensationalism, the resurrection of the just occurs only prior to the millennium, while the resurrection of the wicked takes place at the end of the one thousand years reign of Christ. To interpret verse 28 as a parallel of verse 25 would be too much for even the hidebound dispensationalist. If the exegete must understand “hour” in verse 28 to mean a very long period of time – a period of no less than a millennium – he must contend with the hermeneutical absurdity of having the voice of the Lord resounding throughout the one thousand years. For the Apostle John wrote, “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation (John 5:28-29).” So, is John saying that “a long, long period of time is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice resounding all through the millennium?” According to the context of this passage, it is obvious the Apostle John is indicating that, at a particular point of time in the future, the Lord’s voice will be heard once, and all who are in the graves shall resurrect. The just shall be awarded the resurrection of life, while the wicked will be given the resurrection of damnation. John is, of course, not suggesting that Jesus’ voice will be sounded more than one time, or worse, multiple times. John 5:28-29, therefore, inevitably teaches a general resurrection of the dead that occurs contemporaneously. In four instances in the Gospel of John alone, Jesus taught that the resurrection of the just shall occur at the last day, not one thousand years before the resurrection of the wicked. Our Lord elucidated, “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the The Multiple Resurrections 119 Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:39-40).” Again in John 6:44 and John 6:54, Christ taught, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. . . . Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” Loraine Boettner concurs, “The notion that the resurrection of the righteous is to occur a thousand years before the end of the world is contradicted by Jesus who, on four different occasions, said that He would raise up those who believe in Him at the last day (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54). Clearly there can be no other days after the last day.”8 The Apostle Paul, when he was brought before the Roman procurator Felix in Caesarea, proclaimed, “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust (Acts 24:14-15).” In verse 15, the Greek word αναστασιν (anastasin), which is translated “a resurrection,” is singular. If Paul had in his mind at least two separate resurrections, the Holy Spirit could have used the plural form of this word. The burden of proof is, at the very least, upon the Bible Presbyterians and Dispensationalists. Unless they produce conclusive and incontrovertible evidence that Scripture teaches otherwise, there is no reason why we must reject the eschatology of the Reformed Confessions: that there will be one general resurrection of the dead and one final judgment for both the just and the unjust. The General Resurrection and Final Judgment in the Parables of Jesus The parables of Jesus, likewise, contradict the dispensational notion that a one thousand year gap separates the Second Coming and the final judgment. In the parable of the wheat and the tares, both wheat and tares are to grow together until the end of the world. Jesus recounts, “Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn (Matthew 13:30).” 8 Loraine Boettner, The Millennium, rev. ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1957), 169. The Multiple Resurrections 120 In fact, the tares are gathered first in the parable. But according to dispensational premillennialism, the wheat is gathered before the tares. If there is any gap between the resurrection of the just and the unjust – but of course, there is none – dispensationalists have got the sequence of resurrections reversed. Worse, Bible Presbyterians insist that the wheat be gathered first, leaving only the tares for the Great Tribulation. In keeping with dispensational premillennialism, a second harvest is mandatory, as there will be wheat growing out of the tares during the Great Tribulation. Yet a third harvest is needed for those converted during the millennium. But Jesus is adamant that the harvesting occurs only at the end of the world, and only once. Herman Hanko, commenting on this parable, explains, “The harvest in the parable is the end of the world. This is the end of the world in the absolute sense. Jesus knows only of this one end, not the many “ends” of which premillenninlism speaks. It is that moment when God’s purpose, according to his counsel, is realized, for all that he has determined to do has been accomplished. Creation and history are brought to their telos (their purpose, their goal). Then all things are ready. The wicked have filled the cup of iniquity, and the filling of this cup has made them ripe for judgment. The church is ripe for her final salvation, and all things are ready for Christ to return.”9 In the parable of the dragnet (Matt. 13:47-50), the separation of the good fish and the bad fish shall be performed “at the end of the world.” The wicked are separated from the just. Both the just and the unjust shall be judged, and the wicked will be cast into the furnace of fire. Once again, the just will not be separated from the wicked in a rapture one thousand years – or one thousand and seven years according to pretribulationism – prior to the final judgment. The final judgment will be a general judgment of both the saints and the reprobates. The general resurrection and the final judgment occur “at the end of the world.” Hanko writes, “The final separation of the good and bad fish takes place at the “end of the world.” This is not an arbitrary end, nor an end among many ends. It is the final and absolute end of the age from the viewpoint of God’s purpose. God’s purpose is fully accomplished as he determined that purpose from 9 Herman Hanko, The Mysteries of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Jesus’ Parables, 2nd ed. (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1975), 54. The Multiple Resurrections 121 before the foundation of the world. . . . From God’s point of view, there is no possibility of history continuing. It cannot go on for another moment.”10 Furthermore, the final judgment is clearly depicted in the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31-46. “When the Son of man shall come in his glory (Matt. 25:31),” the separation of the wicked and the just shall occur at the same time. The linchpin of premillennialism, that is, a thousand year gap between the Second Coming of Christ and the final judgment, is absent from this parable. The eschatological schema presented in this parable, as well as the others, is consistent with amillennialism. Even staunch premillennialist, George Eldon Ladd, had to concede that the scheme of prophecy presented in this parable is essentially amillennial: “A final question remains to be asked. If this is the final judgment, what do we do about the millennium? There seems to be no room for it. The author is frank to admit that if we had to follow this passage as our program of prophecy, there would be no room for a millennium. I would have to be an amillennialist.”11 Indeed, Professor Ladd would be more consistent with Scripture if he was an amillennialist. How, then, did he escape the inescapable conclusion that Jesus did not teach a millennium in this parable? He concluded that this parable has nothing to do with the “program of prophecy.” “It is a dramatic parable,” he said,12 and it merely conveyed instructions to Jesus’ disciples concerning the Great Commission. In the following words, Ladd attempted to dissipate the eschatological thrust of the entire parable: “Jesus knows that he is about to leave his disciples in the world with a commission to take the gospel to all nations. He is in effect saying to them, “I am entrusting the destiny of the Gentiles into your hands. Those who welcome and receive you welcome and receive me, and they will be blessed in the day of judgment. Those who reject and exclude and punish you do so to me, and it will go ill with them in the day of judgment.’”13 10 Ibid., 93. George Eldon Ladd, The Last Things (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1978), 101. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 11 The Multiple Resurrections 122 By denying the obvious conclusions taught in the parable of the sheep and the goats, Ladd contradicted his own principle of hermeneutics - that the exegete must never avoid the “clear and unambiguous” meaning of language in Scripture.14 Marcellus Kik, a postmillennialist, explains that “in Matthew 25:31-46, a universal judgment is depicted and all people who have lived upon the earth are judged according to their works. The average Christian reader of the Matthew passage believes that the final judgment is set forth. And he is right. The premillennialist has to explain this passage away because it does not fit in with his eschatological views. Actually he has to forsake his “literal” interpretation which he so stoutly maintains is the only proper way of interpretation.”15 In my perusal of Dr Jeffrey Khoo’s writings, I am absolutely perplexed as to why he has avoided a discussion of Matthew 25:31-46 in both his book The Gospels in Unison, and his lectures notes The Life of Christ.16 Is it true that he, too, has found it difficult to reconcile the parable with dispensational premillennialism? 14 George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1972), 266. 15 J. Marcellus Kik, An Eschatology of Victory (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1971), 169. 16 See Jeffrey Khoo, The Gospels in Unison: A Synthetic Harmony of the Four Gospels in the KJV (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press, 1996). Also see Jeffrey Khoo, The Life of Christ (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, n.d.). These are printed course notes used in Far Eastern Bible College. Available from http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/studyresource/Life%20Of%20Christ.pdf; Internet; accessed 10 May 2006. The Multiple Resurrections 123 Chapter 9: The Teachings of the Epistles Concerning the Resurrection and Judgment The General Resurrection and Final Judgment in the Epistles The teachings of the Apostles concerning the last judgment and the general resurrection are consistent with those of Jesus and the Prophets. According to the Gospels and the epistles, the Second Coming of Christ is accompanied by the rapture, the simultaneous resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment of both the righteous and the wicked. Furthermore, the Second Coming is not preceded by a secret, preliminary coming of Christ in the clouds for His saints. As discussed in preceding chapters, the Second Coming, or the Parousia of Christ, is one single, visible, and glorious event. In our previous study of 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10, we understood that at the Lord’s Apokalupsis, which is also known as the Parousia, all the dead will be resurrected and the persecutors of the Church will be judged. The elect will be glorified and will spend eternity with the Lord, while the wicked dead will be consigned to hell. This is when the angelic legions will remove the tares from among the wheat, and deliver the reprobates to eternal perdition (Matt. 13:36-43). William Grier writes concerning 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10: “We may notice that when the Saviour comes for the deliverance of His troubled saints, He comes ‘in flaming fire’ – no secret rapture here! But it is even more important still to notice how the reward of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked are interwoven with each other as to time, and made to follow, both of them, immediately on the coming of the Lord. Surely this passage should make perfectly clear that there is no secret rapture to be followed at an interval of seven years by an open revelation of the Lord and His glory to the world. Surely it is perfectly clear also that since the coming of the Lord brings upon the wicked ‘eternal destruction away from the face of the Lord,’ there are no wicked who will survive His coming to be ruled over in a millennium to follow. But there must be wicked people surviving, according to the premillennial scheme. And even at the very close of the millennial reign there are wicked in number as the The Teachings of the Epistles 124 sand of the sea (Rev. 20:8), according to the pre-millennial scheme of interpretation.”1 Romans 2:5-8 “But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath (Rom. 2:58).” The final judgment of both the just and the unjust is likewise taught in Romans 2:58. This general judgment will take place on the same day, and is not separated by one thousand years. “The day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God (Rom. 2:5)” is synonymous with the Day of the Lord, which is also referred to as the Parousia in the New Testament. At the last day (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54), Christ “will render to every man according to his deeds (Rom. 2:6).” The saints shall receive “eternal life (Rom. 2:7),” while the reprobates will face the “wrath (Rom. 2:8)” of God. Robert Mounce comments, “This wrath will be brought against them on the day when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. The wrath of God spoken of in [Romans] 1:18 is being revealed in the present time. In [Romans] 2:5 it is eschatological. It belongs to the end time when God will reward righteousness and punish wickedness.”2 There should be no doubt as to what “the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God (Rom. 2:5)” is. Moo perceives that the “day of wrath” is “quasi-technical biblical language for the time of final judgment. This strongly suggests that Paul is looking here at the climactic outpouring of wrath at the end of 1 William J. Grier, The Momentous Event: A Discussion of Scripture Teaching on the Second Advent (Belfast: Evangelical Bookshop, 1945; reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1970), 71-72. 2 Robert H. Mounce, Romans: The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 90. The Teachings of the Epistles 125 history; and the Jew who refuses to repent is even now accumulating the wrath that on that day will be revealed.”3 William Shedd concurs with Moo that, “This day is the great day of final judgment.”4 This is the day when all man will be resurrected and judged, “they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation (John 5:29).” 1 Thessalonians 5:1-10 Paul consistently taught in his epistles that the Second Coming of Christ, the simultaneous resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment will all occur on the same day: the Day of the Lord. We discussed in chapter six that “that day should [not] overtake [believers] as a thief (1 Thess. 5:4).”5 Although the Day of the Lord will come like “a thief in the night (1 Thess. 5:2)” upon unbelievers, “Paul did not apply the implication of the thief analogy to believers. They were, in fact, specifically excluded. The Lord’s coming will not be as a thief in the night for members of the church (v. 4). Believers expect it, though they do not know when the day will arrive.”6 The Parousia of Christ will arrive suddenly. In that day, both believers and unbelievers will have to face God’s judgment. In 1 Thessalonians 5:1-10, “Paul associates the second coming with the resurrection and the ensuing glory of the saints and the sudden destruction of the wicked. Without the shadow of a doubt, that day has its reference to both parties:—believers are to look for it (1 Th. 5:4-10), for then they shall obtain salvation in all its fullness (vs. 9), then they shall ‘live together with him’ (vs. 10); while that same day will bring the false security of unbelievers to an end in their ‘sudden destruction.’”7 It should be obvious to readers that Paul did not have in mind the secret removal of Christians seven years prior to the Second Coming of Christ. Paul, in fact, exhorted 3 Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans: New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1996), 134-135. 4 William G. T. Shedd, A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1879; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), 38. 5 For a discussion of the Day of the Lord in the Old Testament, see H. H. Rowley, The Faith of Israel (London: SCM, 1956), 177–201; B. K. Smith, “Obadiah,” in Amos, Obadiah, Jonah: New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 195–201. 6 Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, 159. 7 Grier, The Momentous Event, 54. The Teachings of the Epistles 126 believers to “watch and be sober (1 Thess. 5:6).” He said, “But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. (1 Thess. 5:4-5).” The Day of the Lord should not overtake Christians unexpectedly. In other words, believers are to expect the Day of the Lord and the final judgment; they are to watch for the signs of the times. Simon Kistemaker comments, “Jesus says that the believer must watch the signs of the times. Some of these signs are the proclamation of the gospel to all nations (Matt. 24:14), the appearance of false Christs and false prophets (Mark 13:22), a period of increased lawlessness (II Thess. 2:7), and the coming of the Antichrist (1 John 2:18). By observing the signs, believers are strengthened in their faith that God is at work in directing world history to the glorious day of Christ’s return.”8 Contrary to Bible Presbyterian belief, saints are not raptured away secretly in the pretribulation rapture. Furthermore, if all the wicked are suddenly destroyed (cf. 1 Thess. 5:3) at the Parousia, and if all the saints are given glorified bodies, no humans will be left on Earth to reproduce and to populate the planet during the one thousand years reign of Christ. Glorified saints do not give birth, and they definitely do not require the services of obstetricians. Nevertheless, Walvoord writes, “As children are born in the Millennium and grow up, many of them may not trust in Christ. Those who rebel against Him will be punished (Zech. 14:16-19), and some will be put to death. And unbelievers living at the end of the Millennium who rebel with Satan against Christ will be judged by Him (Rev. 20:1-9).”9 His views are echoed by Bible Presbyterian scholars in Far Eastern Bible College.10 If, according to Paul, the entire wicked population is to be annihilated, while all the saints are to be glorified at Christ’s Parousia, how do we explain the dispensational phenomenon of mortals being born during the earthly millennium? Moreover, Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians believe that the millennial birthrate is high enough to produce generations of wicked pagans to rebel against Christ and the 8 Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and of the Epistle of Jude: New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books House Co, 1993), 327. 9 Walvoord, End Times: Understanding Today’s World Events in Biblical Prophecy, 199-200. 10 For example, see Quek, DAY FIVE: Revelation 19-22, 149; Khoo, Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, 136. The Teachings of the Epistles 127 saints, who are allegedly encamped at Jerusalem towards the end of the millennium. The onus is, therefore, on the Bible Presbyterians to resolve this logical inconsistency. 1 Corinthians 15 Unequivocally, the Apostle Paul taught that the Parousia of Christ and the resurrection of the saints will occur immediately before the final state. At the resurrection of believers, the final enemy – death – will be destroyed forever. There shall no longer be death after the glorification of the saints. The Second Coming of Christ will usher in the consummation of this age. Paul wrote: “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death (1 Cor. 15:20-26).” As “the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18),” Christ is the first fruit of the resurrection of life (1 Cor. 15:23). Christ’s resurrection will ensure the full harvest in due time; this will be the resurrection of all the saints. But this passage cannot be made to support the notion that a sequence of resurrections, or even a series of seven resurrections according to Walvoord, will take place in the future. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:23-24 described two categories: Jesus Christ and the saints. The order of resurrection in keeping with Paul’s teaching is, firstly, the resurrection of our Lord Jesus, and secondly, the resurrection of all the saints at His Second Coming. The general resurrection is immediately followed by the final state, “Then cometh the end (1 Cor. 15:24).” Corroborating this passage with 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, we learn that during His Parousia, the dead in Christ shall resurrect first, followed by the saints who are alive at His Coming. “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord (1 Thess. 4:16-17).” The Teachings of the Epistles 128 Consistent with the eschatology laid out in his epistles to the Thessalonians, Paul, in the succeeding context, revealed to the Corinthians a mystery, “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory (1 Cor. 15:50-55)?” Due to the fact that “corruption” cannot inherit the incorruptible Kingdom to come, the bodies of the saints will be transformed into incorruptible bodies at Christ’s Second Coming. “So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality (1 Cor. 15:54),” Death shall be defeated forever. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:54-55, Simon Kistemaker writes, “Looking back at Jesus’ triumph over death and forward to the resurrection of all believers, Paul bursts out in jubilation. He understands the demise of life’s mortal enemy: death. Even though death continues to wield power as Christ’s last enemy (v. 26), Paul knows that God will destroy it. Death’s days are numbered.”11 Indeed, at the Parousia of Christ, with the resurrection of the saints “at the last trump” (1 Cor. 15:52), Death shall be annihilated. This doctrine of Paul apparently opposes the Premillennialist’s teaching that there will be death in the millennium. How can there be death after the permanent defeat of Death at Christ’s Second Coming? Premillennialists believe that Christ will come before the millennium to set up the Davidic Kingdom. But the concept of death in the millennium contradicts the clear teachings of Paul. Dr Quek Suan Yew, in his lecture notes on the book of Revelation, wrote: 11 Simon Kistemaker, Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians: New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books House Co, 1993), 585. The Teachings of the Epistles 129 “There are two kinds of saints entering the millennium. The saints with the glorified body where they can never sin again or die will be the first group. The second group of saints would include the 144,000 Israelites mentioned in Revelation 7 together with other Gentiles and the Danites. The second group include (sic) those who have come through the Great Tribulation with their mortal bodies. The sinful nature would still reside in their mortal body. They will still be able to procreate and have children. They would live long years like the time before the Great Flood of Noah’s time. There will still be death.”12 Evidently, Dr Quek’s doctrine of the millennium cannot be differentiated from that of Dispensationalist professor, Dr John Walvoord. Walvoord taught: “The subjects of the kingdom will include (a) all those who have been resurrected, that is, all the righteous (Old Testament saints, church-age saints, and martyred Tribulation saints), and (b) those who have survived the Tribulation, whether Jews (believing Israelites restored to their land) or Gentiles, still in their natural bodies. Presumably those in their natural bodies will bear children; then they will die after their normal course of life is complete. There will be sin, though it will be sharply curtailed by the righteous rule of Christ (Isa. 65:20). . . . The Scriptures are silent as to the ultimate destiny of believers in the Millennium who will die, but undoubtedly they will be resurrected at some time, perhaps at the end of the Millennium. The Bible is also silent on what will happen to the saved who will still be in their natural bodies at the end of the millennial kingdom. Apparently these, too, will be given resurrected bodies.”13 Despite the apparent contradiction with Paul’s teaching of a final victory over Death at the Parousia, some Premillennialists insist that 1 Corinthians 15:23-24 supports premillennialism. Reverend Charles Seet, a dispensational premillennialist and a Bible Presbyterian minister, comments on 1 Corinthians 15:23-24 in his defense of premillennialism: “Although there is no mention of a thousand years in these verses, there is clear evidence of a long time-gap between Christ’s second coming and the end of the world. . . . The first resurrection was that of Christ, and that took place nearly 2000 years ago. The second one will occur at the Second Coming of Christ - this is when those that are His will be resurrected from their graves. The third one will occur at the end, when death itself will 12 13 Quek, DAY FIVE: Revelation 19-22, 149, emphasis added. Walvoord, End Times: Understanding Today’s World Events in Biblical Prophecy, 199. The Teachings of the Epistles 130 finally be defeated, resulting in all the rest of the dead being resurrected. But when will that take place? Now look at verse 24 and you will see that the verse begins with the word “Then.” Now this word “then” does not mean “at the time of Christ’s coming,” but “after that.” It actually has the same meaning as the word “afterward” used earlier on in the verse, and we have already seen that that word could mean a time span of 2000 years! Since there are clearly two time intervals in this verse, the second one, which is between Christ’s coming and the end must then refer to the millennium by comparing this scripture with Revelation 20.”14 Is it true that there is an indeterminable time gap between verses 23 and 24 of 1 Corinthians 15, and that “there are clearly two time intervals” in this passage? Kistemaker explains that in 1 Corinthians 15:24, “the first clause of the Greek text lacks a verb; one must be supplied to complete the thought. This supplied verb can be either “comes” or “will come.” The end will occur after the resurrection of the people whom Christ redeemed.”15 This is why the Authorized Version translates this verse as, “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.” Kistemaker proceeds to elucidate that the alleged time gap between verses 23 and 24 of 1 Corinthians 15 is unjustified: “With the word then Paul introduces not the resurrection of a third group but simply the end. In other words, this adverb does not necessarily suggest an interlude between the resurrection of the believers and the end of time. Because of its brevity, the clause then comes the end does not appear to support the teaching of an intermediate kingdom before the consummation of the age. Rather, it signifies that “after all this has happened, will the end or the consummation of Christ’s Messianic work come.” The words the end suggest not only “last in sequence” but also the conclusion of Christ’s redemptive work for his people.”16 In his commentary on First Corinthians, New Testament Scholar Gordon Fee agrees with Kistemaker: “Although the third item is prefaced with another “then,” it is unlikely that Paul intends by this yet another event in the sequence begun by Christ’s 14 Charles Seet, “Premillennialism,” The Burning Bush 3, no. 2 (1997): 102-103. Kistemaker, Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 551. 16 Ibid., 552, quoting Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 184. 15 The Teachings of the Epistles 131 resurrection. The “order” of resurrections is only two: Christ the firstfruits; the full harvest of those who are his at his Parousia. Paul shows no interest here in anything beyond these. The “then” in this third instance is sequential to be sure, but in a more logical sense, meaning that following the resurrection of believers at the Parousia the final two “events” transpire. With the resurrection of the dead, the end, or goal, has been reached.”17 To place an indeterminable time gap between verses 23 and 24 is eisegesis, whereby the exegete fallaciously forces his eschatological schema to fit into the passage of Scripture.18 It is clear that Paul has only two categories in mind: the Lord Jesus, and those that are His. In this passage, Paul lays out the sequence of resurrection. At the consummation of this age, when Christ returns to glorify His saints, He will usher in the New Heavens and the New Earth. Nowhere does Paul mentions a third category – the millennial saints. If a time gap exists, and if Paul has in mind an earthly Davidic Kingdom of one thousand years duration, he would have mentioned the resurrection of the millennial saints which should occur after the millennium. But 1 Corinthians 15:23-24 only speaks of two categories of resurrection, “Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.” In order to avoid the amillennial view, the premillennialist has to squeeze the millennium into 1 Corinthians 15:23-24. Gordon Fee writes, “It is pure presumption to read into this text a third resurrection. So also is the concern to find here an intermediate stage between the resurrection of “those who are Christ’s” and the final handing over of the kingdom to God the Father. Paul may have believed in such, but it lies quite outside his present concern. The point is that he neither explicitly nor allusively speaks of such, which he was fully capable of doing, had it been of any interest to him. What he says is, “then the end.” Without a verb this can only mean that following the resurrection of believers is the end, which then is described in its two parts.”19 17 Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1987), 753-754. 18 For further information, see Wilber B. Wallis, “The Problem of an Intermediate Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 18 (1975): 22942; C. E. Hill, “Paul’s Understanding of Christ’s Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28,” Novum Testamentum 30 (1988): 297-320; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2000),1230-1231. 19 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 753 n. 38. The Teachings of the Epistles 132 Charles Seet rightly says that “the way to test any doctrine is to compare it with other verses of Scripture.”20 According to him, “there are actually other significant verses that support the literal interpretation of Revelation 20. One important verse is 1 Corinthians 15:23-24.”21 However, it seems that Seet failed to even consider the immediate context of the passage, especially 1 Corinthians 15:50-55. Paul, in this passage, emphasizes that the end result of the Parousia and the resurrection is the abolition of Death itself. “So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory (1 Cor. 15:54).” The defeat of death is an everlasting victory. The notion of having death in the millennium contravenes Paul’s proposition of a permanent victory over Death. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:54, Gordon Fee writes, “With the rhetorically powerful full repetition of the two clauses from v. 53, Paul advances the argument by indicating the net results of the Parousia-resurrection-transformation process - the abolition of death itself. In vv. 23-28 he had argued that resurrection is a divine necessity, inaugurated through the resurrection of Christ, as God’s way of destroying the last enemy, death. Now he returns to that theme, not so much in terms of its necessity as in exultation and triumph. “Take that, death,” he exults, “for when mortality is clothed with immortality, you have lost both your victory and your sting.” No more can death tyrannize, because it has been “swallowed up” by resurrection. . . . At the resurrection-transformation God will abolish death forever, just as he promised in the words of the prophet.”22 By comparing 1 Corinthians 15:20-26, 50-55 with 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, it is incontrovertible that Paul is elucidating that the defeat of Death occurs immediately after the resurrection of the saints. If only Reverend Seet had compared 1 Corinthians 15:23-24 “with other verses of Scripture,” he would have concluded that the final state will commence simultaneously with the Parousia of Christ. “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away (Rev. 21:4).” 20 Seet, “Premillennialism,” 102. Ibid. 22 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 803-804. 21 The Teachings of the Epistles 133 2 Peter 3:3-12 “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. . . . But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. . . . But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat (2 Pet. 3:3-4, 7, 10-12)?” In this passage, the Apostle Peter is teaching about the Parousia of Christ using the Old Testament concept of the Day of the Lord. His eschatological model is perceptibly identical to that of Paul’s. The Day of the Lord is an expression which is found throughout the prophetic literature of the Old Testament. In order for us to understand the Day of the Lord, we have to peruse the two age eschatological framework presented in the New Testament. Jewish apocalyptic writings as well as canonical Scripture see time in terms of two ages or aeons: this present aeon, and the aeon to come.23 The “present age” is the 23 The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha such as the Sibylline Oracles, the Apocalypse of Ezra, the Apocryphon of Ezekiel, and the Apocalypse of Daniel, often view cosmic eschatology as two aeons. The present aeon is ending, and the coming aeon is to be ushered in via the divine intervention of the Messiah. For example, “in the second half of the Apocalypse [of Daniel] (chaps. 8-14) Daniel describes the end of the age, the Antichrist, the day of judgment, and the appearance of Christ.” Craig A. Evans, Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), 28. Also, “Sib. Or. 4 gives an eschatology that includes an ekpyrosis or universal conflagration because of wickedness (4:159-61, 17178), followed by a resurrection and judgment of all, with the wicked assigned to Tartarus and Gehenna but the righteous living again on earth (4:179-92). Sib. Or. 5 also includes destruction by fire (5:155-61,527-31).” Lester L. Grabbe, Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh (London: Routledge, 2000), 120. “One view [of Jewish cosmic eschatology] was that the approaching end time would be heralded by a series of eschatological “troubles” or “woes” (sometimes referred to as the “Messianic woes” or “birth pangs of the Messiah”). These have a parallel in some of the classical writers (e.g. Herodotus) who report “prodigies” that herald important events. In The Teachings of the Epistles 134 present course of history before the return of Christ, which is temporal and passing away. The “age to come,” in contrast, is an age of eternal life and immortality.24 The Jewish expectation of the “age to come,” which is the age of peace and righteousness under the rule of the Son of David, becomes a present reality with the First Advent of Christ. Hoekema explains that according to the New Testament, the “age to come” is already present in the midst of us. The New Testament believer therefore lives in “this age” and in the “age to come,” all at the same time. Hoekema writes: “In his Pauline Eschatology, published in 1930, [Geerhardus] Vos further developed these insights [that the “age to come” is anticipated in the present], particularly as they reflected the teachings of the Apostle Paul. For the Old Testament writers, he states, the distinction between “this age” and the “age to come” was thought of simply in terms of chronological succession. But when the Messiah whose coming these Old Testament writers had predicted actually arrived on the scene, the eschatological process had in principle already begun, and therefore the simple scheme of chronological succession between this age or world and the age or world to come was no longer adequate. The Messianic appearance now began to unfold itself into two successive epochs; “the age to come was perceived to bear in its womb another age to come.’”25 Jewish literature a major feature of these “woes” is the reversal of normality: the world is turned upside down; the expected order of society has become its opposite; nothing is the way it should be; chaos has reentered the cosmos. Yet even though these increase the suffering of mankind, they are welcome because God will soon intervene to bring an end to all human suffering. In some cases, the righteous escape the endtime woes, but this does not always seem to be the case.” Grabbe, Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period, 269-270. 24 Earle Ellis elaborates, “Jesus and the New Testament apostles and prophets are at one with apocalyptic Judaism in several respects. 1. They conceive of history within the framework of two ages, this world or age and the age to come, and they identify the kingdom of God with the coming age. 2. They view themselves to be living in the last (ἔσχατος) days preceding the consummation. 3. They proclaim God’s final redemption to be a salvation in history, that is, a redemption of matter in time.” See Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity, 102. 25 Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 298, quoting Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1930), 36. This two age eschatological model of the New Testament is developed by various New Testament scholars, particularly Geerhardus Vos. For a detailed discussion on the structure of Pauline eschatology, see Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1930; reprint, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1994), 1-41. For the recent trends in eschatology, see Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 288-316. The Teachings of the Epistles 135 Ellis further elaborates that the two age model of the New Testament is distinct from that of Judaism, in that the “age to come” has been ushered into the “present age” with the First Advent of Christ. Existentially, the believer is living both in the present, as well as in the eternity future. “The New Testament’s modification of Jewish apocalyptic rests upon the perception that in the mission, death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah the age to come, the kingdom of God, had become present in hidden form in the midst of the present evil age, although its public manifestation awaits the parousia . . . of Jesus.”26 Thus, the Kingdom of God is inaugurated with the First Advent of Christ, but the consummative phase of the Kingdom awaits the Parousia. Ellis elucidates that, “The two-fold consummation of judgment and deliverance that characterized the teaching of apocalyptic Judaism becomes, in the teaching of Jesus and his disciples, a two-stage consummation. As ‘deliverance’ the kingdom of God that Judaism expected at the end of the age is regarded as already present in the person and work of Jesus. As ‘judgment’ (and final deliverance) the kingdom awaits the second, glorious appearing of Messiah.”27 With regard to the two age eschatological framework, this present age is evil and beyond salvageability. The coming aeon is the golden age of the Messiah. However, the transition from one age to another requires divine intervention; human endeavors cannot redeem this planet. According to Jesus and the apostles, this time of intervention is called the Day of the Lord, the Day of Christ, the last day, or that day. This day will come without warning, like a thief in the night (1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10). It is a time of judgment and terror for unbelievers, and includes a universal conflagration which will destroy the present creation. At this last day, the planet earth will be destroyed by fire. This is followed by the ushering in of the New Heavens and the New Earth. In the Old Testament, the Day of the Lord is a term reiterated by the prophets to refer to impending judgment on gentile nations and Israel.28 Herman Bavinck elaborates further on the meaning of this expression, 26 Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity, 165. Ibid., 164. The “already-not yet” concept of the Kingdom of God is discussed further in chapter 22 of this book. 28 For example, in Isaiah chapter 13, the prophet Isaiah issued a warning of judgment upon Babylon: “Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going 27 The Teachings of the Epistles 136 “In Old Testament times the day of the Lord was the time in which God, in a marvelously glorious way, would come to his people as king to redeem it from all its enemies and to settle it with him in Jerusalem in peace and security. In that event of God’s coming began the great turning point in which the old aeon passed into the new and all conditions and connections in the natural and human world changed totally.”29 According to the New Testament, the last portion of the present age commenced with the First Advent of Christ. This last segment of the present aeon is also known as the last days or the last hour (1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 1:2, 9:26; 1 John 2:18). The Parousia or the Second Advent of Christ will usher in the age to come (Matt. 19:28; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30, 20:35; 1 Cor. 15:23; Heb. 2:5). On the Day of the Lord, the age to come begins; the Parousia, the general resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment of both the saints and the reprobates occur forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir. Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger. (Isa. 13:9-13).” Likewise, in Joel chapter 2, the prophet Joel declares looming judgment upon Israel: “Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand; A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations. . . . The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call (Joel 2:1-2, 31-32).” Referring to imminent judgment on Judah, the prophet Zephaniah prophesied about the great Day of the Lord: “The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers. And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung. Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the LORD’S wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land (Zeph. 1:14-18).” 29 Bavinck, The Last Things, 131-132. The Teachings of the Epistles 137 contemporaneously. This is accompanied by the creation of the New Heavens and the New Earth. In 2 Peter 3:3-12, the apostle describes the Second Coming of Christ in terms of the Old Testament picture of the Day of the Lord. Peter begins by elucidating that in the last days (verses 3-4), there shall be scoffers “walking after their own lusts.” These mockers will deny the Second Coming of Christ and His final judgment so as to support their libertinism. They are false teachers, “the servants of corruption” who “allure through the lusts of the flesh (2 Pet. 2:18-20).” Lenski wrote, “Who could let himself go into immoral excess if he believed that the Lord is ready to return to judgment at any time? The climax of the “heresies” mentioned in 2:1 is the denial of Christ’s Parousia. Peter crushes this denial and thereby destroys all the other lesser heresies that cluster around this main one.”30 Apparently, the scoffers know the teachings of Scripture, but they will not accept its authority. They will deliberately trample the truth of God’s Word under their feet (Matt. 7:6). In modern times, these scoffers can come in the guise of scholars, philosophers, scientists, or even false teachers in various churches. However, the multifarious forms adopted by such scoffers should not detract from the fact that they are essentially licentious lovers of self (2 Pet. 3:3). Simon Kistemaker explains further: “Scoffers will come, scoffing.” These people know God’s revelation and his impending judgment. Because they are familiar with the Scriptures, they have become habitual mockers of God and his Word. Scoffing should not be confused with jesting. Jesting depicts frivolity, but scoffing is a sin that is deliberate. Scoffing occurs when men show willful contempt for God and his Son. . . . Arrogantly they deny that the judgment day will come. They repudiate the message that they must give an account of their words and deeds. They scoff at Jesus’ promise that he will return on the last day and contemptuously they ask, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised?”31 Philosopher Bertrand Russell, a vocal critic of Christianity, is an exemplar of such “last days” scoffers. In Why I Am Not a Christian, he mocked the doctrine of eternal punishment, and attacked the character of Christ: 30 R. C. H. Lenski, Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1966), 335. 31 Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and of the Epistle of Jude, 325. The Teachings of the Epistles 138 “There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ’s moral character, and that is that He believed in Hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting Punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching – an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers.”32 Mockers of Christianity are not uncommon in the last days. Believers should be wary of the philosophy of men (Col. 2:8), especially hypotheses that masquerade as empirical science (1 Tim. 6:20). These theories may appear reasonable, but ultimately, they will lead believers to deny the very Lord who redeemed them. In his exegesis of Second Peter, Kenneth Wuest reveals that certain rationalistic theories and philosophies not only question the veracity of Scripture, but also the very Person of Christ: “The end-time mockers will mock at the promise of our Lord’s second Advent. The basis of their rejection of the second Advent according to John in his second letter (v. 7) is that they deny that Jesus Christ comes in flesh. That is, they deny that the Jehoshua of the Old Testament (Jehovah who saves) who is designated as the Anointed One (Christ) in the New Testament, ever would become incarnate, assume a human body and put Himself under human limitations without its sin. The denial of an incarnation today is given a rationalistic basis in the theory of evolution which teaches that the universe and man are such today by reason of the operation of a resident force in matter and man that is developing both from a crude beginning toward a perfect conclusion without the aid of any outside force. In short, the theory will not permit the introduction of anything or anyone from the outside into the unbroken continuity of existence, hence, no incarnation.”33 The Christian is, therefore, reminded that certain philosophical worldviews are not compatible with historic Christianity and the Reformed faith. The theory of evolution, for example, cannot be incorporated into the text of Scripture, and the believer will do well to avoid such exegetical gymnastics. 32 Bertrand Russell, Bertrand Russell’s Best, ed. Robert E. Egner (London:Routledge, 1958), 53-54. 33 Kenneth S. Wuest, “In These Last Days,” Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1954), 65. The Teachings of the Epistles 139 In reply to the scoffers, Peter explains that “the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9).” Although scoffers may scoff for a time, the apostle Peter declares unambiguously that God will judge the reprobates on the Day of the Lord. “But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (2 Pet. 3:7).” The Parousia and the final judgment of the wicked is essentially a theodicy. Peter explains that this present age will terminate with the day of judgment (2 Pet. 2:9) or the Day of the Lord (2 Pet. 3:10). At the last day, the present creation will be destroyed by fire (2 Pet. 3:12). The mockers will be judged for their sins, and there shall be no escape from the wrath of the thrice-holy God. Christians will finally be able to spend eternity with Christ in the New Heavens and the New Earth (2 Pet. 3:13, Rev. 21:1-4). Anthony Hoekema elaborates, “When will the final judgment take place? Though we cannot place it with precision on a kind of eschatological timetable, we can say that judgment will occur at the end of the present age. Peter tells us that the heavens and earth which now exist are being kept until the Day of Judgment (II Pet. 3:7), implying that the new heavens and the new earth will come into existence after the judgment (v. 13).”34 In 2 Peter 3:10-13, the apostle Peter teaches unmistakably that the Parousia of Christ is accompanied immediately by the dissolution of the old earth and the creation of the New Earth. “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Pet. 3:10-13).” The Parousia will come like a thief in the night (2 Pet. 3:10; cf. 1 Thess. 5:2), and the wicked will be taken by surprise. There will be no warning for the mockers. In conjunction with Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa. 34:4), Peter predicts that the heavens will 34 Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 255. The Teachings of the Epistles 140 vanish at Christ’s Second Coming, and the celestial bodies “shall melt with fervent heat.” All the works of man will be judged before the Judgment Seat of Christ. Since everything will be destroyed, Peter exhorts Christians to live holy and godly lives. “Peter’s point is that, though the present earth will be “burned up,” God will give us new heavens and a new earth which will never be destroyed but will last forever. From this new earth all that is sinful and imperfect will have been removed, for it will be an earth in which righteousness dwells. The proper attitude toward these coming events, therefore, is not to scoff at their delay but to be eagerly waiting for Christ’s return and the new earth which will come into existence after that return. Such waiting should transform the quality of our living here and now.”35 Verse 12b repeats the wording of verse 10, “the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.” Here, the apostle reiterates that during the Parousia of Christ, the New Heavens and the New Earth will be ushered in, and the present creation will be completely obliterated. Peter’s eschatological complex is plain: the Second Coming of Christ, the final judgment, and the final state occur contemporaneously. There is no mention of an intermediate reign of Christ on the old earth for a millennium. This present age will pass away, and the new age will begin immediately upon Christ’s return. “The millennium of the premillennialists, therefore, is something of a theological anomaly. It is neither completely like the present age, nor is it completely like the age to come. It is, to be sure, better than the present age, but it falls far short of being the final state of perfection. For the resurrected and glorified saints, the millennium is an agonizing postponement of the final state of glory to which they look forward so eagerly. For the rebellious nations, the millennium is a continuation of the ambiguity of the present age, in which God allows evil to exist while postponing his final judgment upon it.”36 The apostles Paul and Peter teach that Christ will return and judge the wicked on the Day of the Lord. But according to the premillennialist, Christ does not come from heaven to judge the wicked at the Great White Throne Judgment; He is already on earth and reigning from Jerusalem during the millennium! However, Scripture speaks of Christ coming from heaven to execute judgment and to glorify the saints (1 Thess. 4:14-17; 2 Thess. 1:6-10). In conclusion, premillennialism introduces an interim or intermediate kingdom of one thousand years between “this age” and the “age to come,” contradicting the explicit teachings of both apostles. 35 36 Ibid., 284. Ibid., 186. The Teachings of the Epistles 141 Chapter 10: An Introduction to Revelation 20:1-6 The Structure of Revelation The interpretation of the Book of Revelation is fodder for perennial debates amongst notable theologians both from the Reformed as well as the Dispensational persuasions. In chapters 10 to 14, my objective is to discuss Revelation 20:1-6, which I believe is relevant and important for our study of the general resurrection, the final judgment, and the millennium. Unfortunately, this portion of Scripture is one of the most, if not the most, disputed segment of the Revelation of Saint John. Personally, the method of interpretation which I believe to be most consistent with the entire tenor of Scripture is that espoused by William Hendricksen in his commentary More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.1 Hendricksen understands the book of Revelation as consisting of seven parallel sections, each of which depicts the church and the world from the time of Christ’s first advent to His Parousia.2 He writes, “The book of Revelation consists of seven sections. They are parallel and each spans the entire new dispensation, from the first to the second coming of Christ.”3 1 For an able defense and exposition of progressive parallelism, study William Hendricksen, More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1967), 16-50. Hendricksen effectively codified his arguments into nine propositions, which are discussed in pp. 22-50 of his commentary. It must be emphasized that Hendricksen’s structural division of Revelation into seven parallel sections must only be accepted as a general approach to John’s apocalypse. There are inherent difficulties with this divisional generalization, which are discussed by Denis E. Johnson in his book Triumph of the Lamb. See Denis E. Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation (Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2001), 44-47. 2 The following theologians, amongst others, also hold to a parallelistic view of Revelation: Herman Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 4th ed., IV, 663-66; Abraham Kuyper, E Voto Dordraceno (Kampen: Kok, 1892), II, 252-290; M. F. Sadler, The Revelation of St. John the Divine (1894); S. L. Morris, The Drama of Christianity (1928); B. B. Warfield, “The Millennium and the Apocalypse,” Biblical Doctrines (New York: Oxford, 1929), 644-646; R. C. H. Lenski, Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of Saint John’s Revelation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1963); G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1999); Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Book of Revelation: New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 2001). An Introduction to Revelation 20:1-6 142 The seven sections are presented as follow: Christ in the midst of the lampstands (1:1 - 3:22); the vision of heaven and the seals (4:1 - 7:17); the seven trumpets (8:1 11:19); the persecuting dragon (12:1 - 14:20); the seven bowls (15:1-16:21); the fall of Babylon (17:1 - 19:21); the great consummation (20:1 - 22:21). This method of understanding Revelation is known as progressive parallelism. Despite being parallel to each other, each of these sections provides eschatological revelations not presented in other sections. Each section furnishes us with a different perspective of the new dispensation, with varying detail and clarity. For example, the last section (Rev. 20:1 - 22:21) gives us a vivid description of the final judgment, also known as the Great White Throne judgment, which is only briefly mentioned in the second (Rev. 6:12-17) and the first (Rev. 1:7). References to the final judgment are also found in the third (Rev. 11:18), the fourth (Rev. 14:1415), the fifth (Rev. 16:19-20), and the sixth section (Rev. 19:11-21). Each of these sections furnishes us with different pictures and information concerning the Parousia and the final judgment. In fact, the judgment scene is progressively unveiled from section one to section seven, where the vision of the Great White Throne reveals the final defeat of Satan, death and hell. “The seventh or final section (chapters 20-22) not only describes the final judgment, but in this description drops much of the symbolism of the earlier visions. Nothing is vague or indefinite and little is clothed with symbolism (20:12 ff.). The joy of the redeemed in the new heaven and earth is described much more circumstantially than, for example, in 7:9 ff. The book has reached its glorious climax.”4 In his fourth proposition, Hendricksen writes, “The seven sections of the Apocalypse are arranged in an ascending, climactic order. There is progress in eschatological emphasis. The final judgment is first announced, then introduced and finally described. Similarly, the new heaven and earth are described more fully in the final section than in those which precede it.”5 Thus, the term progressive parallelism was used. Hendricksen further classified the seven sections into two groups or divisions. The first division (chapters 1 to 11) consists of three sections, while the second division (chapters 12 to 22) consists of four. In the first division, the apocalypse of John describes how the Church of Christ is persecuted by the world. Nevertheless, the Church is protected, and eventually emerges victorious. The deeper, spiritual background behind this struggle is unveiled in the second division. This division 3 Hendricksen, More Than Conquerors, 22. Ibid., 36. 5 Ibid. 4 An Introduction to Revelation 20:1-6 143 elucidates that the conflict is actually spiritual warfare between Christ and the devil. “It is the outward manifestation of the devil’s attack upon the Man-child. The dragon attacks the Christ. Repulsed, he directs all his fury against the Church. As his helpers, he employs the two beasts and the great harlot, but all these enemies of the Church are defeated in the end. It is evident that the sections which comprise this second group (chapters 12-22), though synchronous, present a continued story. The dragon, the beasts, the harlot (note the order) assail the Church. The harlot, the beasts, the dragon (again, note the order) are overthrown.”6 The Revelation of John concludes with the defeat of the devil, and the ushering in of the New Heavens and the New Earth. The Genre of Revelation and Hermeneutics The genre of the Revelation of John is complex, to say the least. The opening verses “appear to suggest three different genre identifications: apocalypse (1:1), prophecy (1:3) and epistle (1:4).”7 It is difficult, if not impossible, to classify the Book of Revelation under any one genre category. In one sense, it is an epistle from the Apostle John to the seven churches in Asia Minor, especially when we consider his opening address and salutation (Rev. 1:4-5, 9-11). The Revelation of Saint John also belongs to the literary genre apocalypse. This is a unique genre of ancient, pseudonymous Near-Eastern literature whereby the authors assume the names of Israel’s patriarchs or other prominent figures, such as Adam, Abraham, Shem, Zephaniah and Enoch. In apocalypses, the writers utilize extensive symbolism, and their conception of history is usually dualistic. The present age, together with its wicked and sinful generation, is contrasted with the age to come. The new aeon will begin when God intervenes in human history to establish His kingdom. A state of perfection and sinlessness will then be ushered in by the Messiah. Kim Riddlebarger notes that “when apocalyptic writers describe the future, apocalyptic itself becomes a form of prophecy. At this point, it should be easy to see how the lines between apocalyptic and prophecy blur, especially since both these elements are obviously present throughout the Book of Revelation.”8 6 Ibid., 22. D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed.(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 713. 8 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 198. 7 An Introduction to Revelation 20:1-6 144 When one attempts to interpret prophetic portions of the Book of Revelation, it becomes difficult to distinguish between the two genres in John’s writings, that is, apocalypse and prophecy. John’s visions about the Second Coming of Christ and the future consummation, for example, contain elements of both prophecy and apocalypse. Therefore, the rich symbolism so inherent in apocalypses cannot be ignored when we interpret John’s visions. D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo explain: “John certainly suggests that he stands in a prophetic role, and there is a tendency in current scholarship to view Revelation as a prophecy. But a better suggestion is to find elements of both prophecy and apocalyptic in Revelation. Despite the impression given by some scholars, no rigid distinction between these two is possible. They are combined in many Old Testament books (e.g., Daniel, Isaiah, Zechariah) and in Jesus’ Olivet Discourse. In his consciousness of inspiration and of the authority that he assumes, John is truly a prophet. But his prophecy makes use of the forms current in Jewish apocalypses.”9 Dispensationalists have appealed to the literal or plain method of interpreting Scripture, even in the exegesis of the Apocalypse of John. Of course, there is a certain amount of truth in their argument, considering the fact that modernistic and liberal theologians have attempted to avoid the clear doctrines of Scripture with nonliteral hermeneutics. Charles Ryrie argued that “if one does not use the plain, normal, or literal method of interpretation, all objectivity is lost. What check would there be on the variety of interpretations that man’s imagination could produce if there were not an objective standard, which the literal principle provides? To try to see meaning other than the normal one would result in as many interpretations as there are people interpreting. Literalism is a logical rationale.”10 What, then, is the literal hermeneutics of Dispensationalism? Ryrie explains: “Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. This means interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking. . . . Symbols, figures of speech, and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation.”11 9 Carson and Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 715. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 82. 11 Ibid., 80-81. 10 An Introduction to Revelation 20:1-6 145 According to Ryrie, Dispensationalists do not discount the presence of symbolism in apocalyptic literature; nevertheless, such symbols are interpreted plainly via the literal method of hermeneutics. Likewise, Reformed theologians such as Vern Poythress understand “the word “literal” to mean prosaic, nonmetaphorical, nonfigurative and nonsymbolic. “Literalistic” interpretation tends to find only nonfigurative, literal meanings even when the author intends otherwise.”12 This method of interpretation is also known as “flat” or “plain” interpretation. While it may be correct to understand each word of Scripture in its literal sense, this method tends to ignore the literary genre (i.e. apocalypse) of John’s Revelation. John’s visions are not historical narrative. Poythress notes that a literal understanding of individual words in John’s apocalypse is not adequate for a proper interpretation of his visions. Words may have a strict, literal meaning, but the sentences involved may not convey a similar literalness. Poythress writes, “One major aspect of the problem of defining “literal” is that in many instances words, but not sentences, have a literal or normal meaning. Moreover, for both words and sentences context is all-important in determining meaning at any given point in an act of communication. What contexts are to be looked at, and how they are to be looked at, in the determination of meaning is very important.”13 Due to the complex genre of the Book of Revelation, we have to consider four levels of communication when we study this apocalypse. The first level is “the linguistic level, consisting of the textual record itself.”14 This level refers specifically to the words given to John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The second level is the visionary level, which describes the visual experiences of John. The Book of Revelation, understood at this level, consists primarily of numerous visions revealed to the Apostle. The referential level of communication, which is the third level, attempts to explain the images and symbols found in John’s visions as actual historical references. For example, the beast of Revelation refers to something in human history, perhaps some form of antichrist. Finally “a symbolical level, consisting of the interpretation of what the symbolic imagery actually connotes about its historical referent,” makes up the last level of communication.15 12 Vern Sheridan Poythress, “Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1-6,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36, no. 1 (1993): 48 n.15. 13 Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 79. 14 Poythress, “Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1-6,” 41. 15 Ibid., 42. An Introduction to Revelation 20:1-6 146 The numbers and images found in John’s visions are rich in symbolism and meaning. In the proper interpretation of Revelation, it is essential to discover what the symbolical level of communication is for each vision. Vern Poythress explains the four different levels of communication with the examples of Revelation 5:6-8 and 19:7-8: “The vision of Christ in 5:6–8 constitutes another example. For this passage, the linguistic level consists in the textual description sent from John to the seven churches (the actual linguistic material in vv. 6–8). The visionary level consists in the visionary experience that John had of seeing Christ represented in the form of a lamb. The referential level is the reference to the living Christ, enthroned at God’s right hand. The symbolic level consists in the symbolic significance of the imagery used. What is connoted by the imagery of a lamb, the seven horns, the seven eyes, the taking of a scroll? Similarly there are four distinguishable levels in the marriage supper of the Lamb in 19:7–8. The linguistic level consists in the textual description of 19:7–8. The visionary level consists in a vision of a bride and fine linen clothing. The referential level involves the glorified saints enjoying communion with Christ after his second coming. The symbolic level involves the significance of communion, joy, and beauty attached to the wedding imagery.”16 In their interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6, it is apparent that both Bible Presbyterians and Dispensationalists have failed to acknowledge the visionary and symbolic levels of communication. When we consider the literary genre and immediate context of this passage, it becomes clear that the visionary and symbolical elements so inherent in John’s writings cannot be divorced from the linguistic and referential meanings. The literal meaning of each word in this passage must be understood in conjunction with the context of the entire vision of John in Revelation 20:1-6, which is indubitably highly symbolical. Earlier on, we discussed the fact that Dispensational interpreters such as Charles Ryrie have feared the loss of objectivity when one abandons the literal method of hermeneutics. But a wooden literalism will only deny John’s visions their originally intended meanings. Although a literal hermeneutics might appear to be a sufficiently objective standard of interpretation, Reformed theologians have advocated a further hermeneutical principle. The analogia fidei mandates the interpretation of highly symbolic or difficult passages of Scripture in the light of clearer ones. By interpreting Scripture with Scripture, the objectivity of the clearer passages will guide the exegete in obtaining a correct understanding of obscure passages. 16 Ibid., 43. An Introduction to Revelation 20:1-6 147 G. K. Beale elucidates that “it is important to remember the genre of Revelation in approaching 20:1-6, especially the programmatic nature of 1:1, which states the general symbolic nature of the communication from the mediating angel to John. Further, the repeated introductory “I saw” (or similar expressions) throughout the book introduces symbolic visions (e.g., 4:lff.; 12:1-3; 13:1-3; 14:1; 17:1-3) . . . Since “I saw” (εἶδον) introduces both 20:1-3 and 20:4-6, we can assume that there are at least three levels of communication in vv 1-6: (1) a visionary level, which consists of the actual visionary experience that John had in seeing resurrected people and the other objects of his vision, (2) a referential level, which consists of the particular historical identification of the resurrected people and the other objects seen in the vision, and (3) a symbolic level, which consists of what the symbols in the vision connote about their historical referents.”17 Keeping in mind the visionary and symbolic levels of communication and by applying the analogia fidei, the exegete must interpret the symbolic and apocalyptic language of Revelation 20:1-6 in the light of how these symbols are used elsewhere in the Book of Revelation, as well as the entire Bible. Thus, Reformed theologians prefer the historical-grammatical-literary-theological hermeneutics (discussed in chapter 2) over a literalistic method of interpretation. This hermeneutical method emphasizes the analogy of faith whereby Scripture is allowed to interpret Scripture.18 The rich symbolism so inherent in Revelation has even forced certain Dispensational interpreters to resort to spiritualizing certain words and sentences, and to acknowledge the presence of symbolical meanings within John’s Apocalypse. Ironically, those that advocate a strict literalism in hermeneutics have to reconsider the flexibility of their literalism when interpreting portions of John’s visions. Dr Vern Poythress writes: “Literalistic interpreters all admit the presence of symbolism when it is obvious and unavoidable. But they begin to differ in the rigidity of their literalism when they venture out into the parts of Revelation that do not offer such direct guidelines. For example, [J. A.] Seiss interprets the star of Rev 9:1 as symbolic of Satan, but the locusts of 9:1–11 are regarded as literal. [John] Walvoord interprets the locusts as a symbolic representation of hosts of demons, while the five months are still literal. Walter Scott and G. E. Ladd allow that the five months as well as the locusts and the star may be symbolic. Literalists understandably fear the introduction of 17 18 Beale, The Book of Revelation, 973. This is also known as the historical-grammatical-canonical hermeneutics. An Introduction to Revelation 20:1-6 148 uncontrolled subjectivity, if we are no longer certain what items are nonsymbolic. But in fact it is just as subjective to impose a pedestrian, nonsymbolic reading on a visionary genre to which such reading is alien.”19 In summary, sound hermeneutics must comprise the proper understanding of a passage’s genre and context. Apocalyptic literature must be distinguished from historical narratives and didactic letters. In passages of Scripture with visionary and symbolical elements, we must avoid limiting the meaning of the text to the linguistic and referential levels of communications. The only reliable, objective authority for determining the meaning of symbols in apocalyptic literature will be Scripture itself. 19 Poythress, “Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1-6,” 51, emphasis mine. An Introduction to Revelation 20:1-6 149 Chapter 11: Evidence for Recapitulation in Revelation 20 The Chronological Fallacy The Book of Revelation is not a historical narrative whereby the reader is able to deduce the chronological sequence of events merely by reading the apocalypse from beginning to end. When we study John’s apocalypse, we discover that the order of the various visions is not according to actual, historical chronology. We recall that William Hendricksen divides the Book of Revelation into seven parallel sections, each of which depicts the current age from different perspectives. The series of visions in Revelation can be likened to different camera angles, each angle providing us with a different view of the same event. This element of repetition is also known as recapitulation. Denis Johnson concurs that this recapitulation or “repetition in visions sometimes provides a second or third camera angle on the same person, historical event, or institution.”1 Using the camera angle analogy, Johnson writes, “God rewinds the videotape, in effect, and calls John to view the same drama from a different perspective.”2 Thus, the various visions unveil in a progressive manner details regarding a certain person, institution or event in actual history. Although we adopt Hendricksen’s approach of progressive parallelism, we are reminded that “sometimes, however, the repetition that links one vision with another does not mean that the visions refer to the same time period.”3 In these cases, the same events are referred to, but the time frame may be dissimilar. Recapitulation is an important factor to consider when understanding Revelation 20:1-6. Premillennialists and Bible Presbyterians understand the events in Revelation 19:11-20:10 as occurring in a chronological sequence. According to Fowler White, Premillennialists “have viewed the visions as an account of events associated with the second coming (19:11–20:3), a subsequent interregnum (20:4– 6), and a judgment of Satan and the nations following that interregnum (20:7–10).”4 1 Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 44. Ibid., 45. 3 Ibid. Johnson also reminds us that “in interpreting repetition of wording and imagery, we need to give attention not only to the similarities but also to the differences between visions and vision cycles.” See Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 47. 4 R. Fowler White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-10,” Westminster Theological Journal 51, no. 2 (1989): 319. White also recommends, “For the premillennial approach to 19:11–20:10, see, e.g., J. F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus 2 Recapitulation in Revelation 20 150 Premillennialists and Bible Presbyterians find the Second Coming of Christ described in Revelation 19:11-16. The millennium described in Revelation 20:4-6, according to Bible Presbyterians, occurs chronologically after the Parousia (Rev. 19:11-21). If this alleged temporal sequence between Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:16 is untrue, the entire system of premillennial eschatology collapses. There is, however, substantial evidence to suggest that Revelation 20:1-6 begins another series of visions, and is not continuous with Revelation 19:11-21. This evidence for a nonsequential temporal relationship between 20:1-6 and 19:11-21 is often ignored by premillennial interpreters. The Deception of the Nations in Revelation 20:3 In Revelations 20:7-8, we read, “And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.” Here, Satan is described as deceiving the nations, so as to gather them to battle against Christ and the saints. In Revelation 19:19, we read of a similar gathering of the nations against the army of the Most High God, “And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.” Clearly, those people who are gathered to fight against Christ are the unbelievers who “had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image (Rev. 19:20).” These unbelievers form the “nations,” which are mentioned as being deceived by the Devil in Revelation 20:8. The recurring motif of deception of the nations is reiterated in Revelation 16:13-14, “And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.” The “great day of God Almighty” is an obvious reference to the Day of the Lord, also known as the Parousia of Christ, when Jesus shall return to judge the wicked (2 Thess. 1:6-10). The language of Revelation 16:12-16, 19:11-21, and 20:7-10 suggests that John was depicting the same event, which is commonly known as the battle of Armageddon. G. K. Beale explains: Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1966) 289–90, and G. E. Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951) 259–63.” See White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-10,” 319 n. 1. Recapitulation in Revelation 20 151 “Rev. 16:12-16; 19:19-20; and 20:8 have in common not only the same language for the gathering together of forces for the war (noted above), but also the idea that the gathered forces have been deceived into participating. This enforces the impression that Satan’s deception of the nations in 20:8 “to gather them together for the war” is the same event as the deception of the nations in 16:12-16 and 19:19, where, respectively, demons “gather them together for the war” of Armageddon and “the kings of the earth and their armies” are “gathered together to make war” (the latter in connection with mention of the false prophet’s deceptive activities, though that is not directly stated). And, just as the war of Armageddon in ch. 16 is followed by a description of the destruction of the cosmos (16:17-21), so likewise a vision of the dissolution of the world follows the final battle in 20:7-10, which suggests further the synchronous parallelism of the two segments.”5 Another line of evidence suggesting recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-6 is, in fact, the problems encountered when attempting to interpret Revelation 19:15-21 and Revelation 20:1-3 in a chronological fashion. The nations were judged and destroyed by Christ at His Second Advent in Revelation 19:15-21. Symbolically, a sharp sword was used to “smite the nations,” “and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God (Rev. 19:15).” The fowls of the air were called to feed upon the flesh of kings, captains and mighty men (Rev. 19:17-18). Finally, the beast and the false prophet “were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh (Rev. 19:20-21).” Revelation 19:11-21, therefore, describes the utter destruction of the unbelieving nations. Here, even “the remnant” or “the rest” of the nations were killed with the sword of Christ (Rev. 19:21). If the nations are to be completely annihilated with the Parousia of Christ, which is consistent with the events described in 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10, what nations is Revelation 20:3 referring to when it says that the devil “should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled?” Upon Christ’s Second Coming, the saints are glorified, while the wicked are completely destroyed. One wonders what “nations” the Bible Presbyterians would propose if they insist on interpreting Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:1-6 as being chronologically sequential. Fowler White reasons: 5 Beale, The Book of Revelation, 980. Recapitulation in Revelation 20 152 “The contention that there is a discrepancy in a chronological approach to 19:11–20:3 is based on the observation that reading the events of 19:11–21 and 20:1–3 in historical sequence does not yield a logically coherent picture. The incongruence of 19:11–21 and 20:13 surfaces when we consider that 20:1–3 describes actions taken to prevent Satan’s deception of the very nations who had just been destroyed in 19:19–21 as a result of their deception by Satan (16:13–16). In other words, the discrepancy consists in this: it makes no sense to speak of protecting the nations from deception by Satan in 20:1–3 after they have just been both deceived by Satan (16:13–16, cf. 19:19–20) and destroyed by Christ at his return in 19:11–21 (cf. 16:15a, 19).”6 Furthermore, if the nations are annihilated, and the wicked are judged at Christ’s Parousia, how do we account for a second rebellion against Christ at the end of the earthly millennium (Rev. 20:8) as proposed by premillennialists? In fact, the number of rebels “is as the sand of the sea.” In order to explain the number of unbelievers at the end of the millennium, the premillennialists have to propose that there are wicked survivors after the battle of Armageddon. At Christ’s Second Coming, all the saints will be glorified. The problem becomes apparent when we recall that glorified saints do not procreate. Fowler White comments that, “The claim that there will be survivors of Armageddon becomes important as a way for [the premillennialist] to explain the presence of the rebel nations in 20:8 after all rebels were (at least ostensibly) removed in 19:11– 21. Specifically, the rebel nations are present in 20:8 because they are the descendants of the surviving nations in 20:3. In the premillennialist’s speculation, then, the postulate of survivors at the second coming explains the presence of the nations in both 20:3 and 20:8.”7 But in his epistles, the Apostle Paul associates the Parousia of Christ with the sudden destruction of the wicked (1 Thess. 5:3; 2 Thess. 1:6-10). Applying the Analogy of Faith, and by comparing Scripture with Scripture, this is consistent with the interpretation that the wicked are completely destroyed at Christ’s Parousia in Revelation 19:11-21. The only survivors are the saints. Given the fact that all the saints are glorified, who, then, is left in his mortal body to procreate during the earthly millennium? Premillennialists must at the very least bear the burden of proof for the alleged sequential chronology of Revelation 19:15-21 and Revelation 20:1-3. 6 7 White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-10,” 321. Ibid., 323 n. 10. Recapitulation in Revelation 20 153 Fowler White notes that “in 19:18–21, John’s narration emphasizes the completeness and finality of Christ’s victory by describing his enemies in allinclusive terms: all the nations will have taken up arms against the Divine Warrior and all will fall by his sword in the final confrontation. . . . If any are to survive the day of Christ’s coming (cf. 6:17), they will be able to do so precisely and only because they have been redeemed from among the nations and placed within the Divine Warrior’s kingdom-protectorate (5:9–10; cf. 3:10; 20:9).”8 The Premillennialist’s argument that the nations of Revelation 20:3 are the remnant or survivors of the nations who opposed Christ in Revelation 19:11-21 is gratuitous at best.9 The entire thrust of this hypothesis depends, at least partially, upon the argument that the visions found in Revelation 19:11-20:3 are arranged in a historically chronological sequence. This is tantamount to circular reasoning, for the Premillennialist’s insistence that there must be survivors of Armageddon is based upon the presumed sequential, temporal relationship between Revelation 20:1-6 and 19:11-21. But the alleged historical chronology in Revelation 19:11-20:3 is, in fact, the problem under investigation. The Premillennialist should argue for the presence of Armageddon survivors using the content of John’s visions, rather than assuming an a priori temporal relationship between Revelation 20:1-6 and 19:11-21. Fowler White perceptively comments, “It must be kept in mind that the order of the visions in Revelation need not reflect the historical relationship of the events in those visions; it need only reflect the sequence in which John has presented the visions he received. Any historical relationship among the visions must be demonstrated from the content of the visions, not simply presumed from the order in which John presents them. The discrepancy discussed above is one indication that the order in which John presents the visions of 19:11–20:3 cannot be, as premillennialists would have it, reflective of the sequence in which the events depicted there will occur in history.”10 Given that the content of John’s visions in Revelation 19:11-20:3 does not convincingly support a historical chronology of events, the onus is upon the Premillennialist to prove the viability of such a postulate: that the nations of 8 Ibid., 324 For example, see Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation: New International Commentary on the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1998), 363. 10 White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-10,” 324. 9 Recapitulation in Revelation 20 154 Revelation 20:3 are the remnant of the nations that battled at Armageddon in Revelation 19:11-21. Thematic Allusions to Ezekiel 38-39 in Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:7-10 Revelation 20:7-10 makes repeated allusions to the imagery of Ezekiel’s prophecy in Ezekiel 38 and 39. If this is true, then Revelation 20:7-10 is a recapitulation of the battle mentioned in Revelation 19:11-21, which likewise refers to the imagery of Ezekiel 38-39. There are marked similarities between Revelation 20:7-10, 19:11-21, and Ezekiel 38-39. When we peruse these apocalyptic passages, it becomes apparent that John’s visions reiterate certain motifs used in Ezekiel’s prophecy of the defeat of Gog and Magog. With regard to the battle described in Revelation 20:8-10 and 19:17-21, Beale observes that “both also use variants of the expression “gather them together for the war” (so 20:8, “gathered to make war,” in 19:19; cf. 19:17).”11 He further notes that “[Revelation] 16:12-16 recounts the same battle and is highlighted in [verse] 14 by the same expression (identical to the form in 20:8). If 20:1-6 precedes the time of 20:7-10 and 19:17-21 is temporally parallel to the battle in 20:7-10, then 20:1-6 is temporally prior to the battle in 19:17-21.”12 If, indeed, Revelation 20:1-6 is temporally prior to the battle in 19:17-21, it then points to the fact that the millennium described in 20:1-6 is temporally prior to the Parousia of Christ mentioned in 19:11-21. This sequence destroys the chronology in premillennial eschatology. Prophesying the defeat of Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, the prophet Ezekiel writes, “And, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; Speak unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, even a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood. Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth, of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bullocks, all of them fatlings of Bashan. And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken, of my sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you. Thus ye shall be filled at my table with horses and chariots, with mighty men, and with all men of war, saith the Lord GOD (Ezek. 39:17-20).” Here, the prophet foretells the day when birds and beasts will feast upon the flesh of God’s enemies. 11 12 Beale, The Book of Revelation, 976. Ibid. Recapitulation in Revelation 20 155 This ghastly imagery is reiterated by John in his apocalypse when he describes a scene in the Battle of Armageddon, “And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great (Rev. 19:17-18).” The similarities between Ezekiel’s and John’s visions are remarkable. Kline observes that “most striking is the distinctive motif of God’s summoning the birds and beasts to feed on the carcasses of the defeated armies Gog had gathered, the banquet theme elaborated in Ezek 39:4, 17– 20 and incorporated into the account of Christ’s victory over the beast and his assembled armies in Rev 19:17–18.”13 In Revelation 19:21, John’s vision describes the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy, “and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.” It is clear that Revelation 19:11-21 fulfills the prophecy of Ezekiel 38-39, and this event shall become historical reality at our Lord’s Second Coming. Allusions to Ezekiel 38-39 are similarly found in Revelation 20:7-10, particularly when we read that the enemies of God are referred to as “Gog and Magog.” Meredith Kline summarizes the allusions made by John in 20:7-10, “The relationship of Rev 20:7-10 to Ezekiel 38-39, obvious enough from the adoption of the Gog-Magog terminology in Revelation 20, is also evidenced by a set of basic similarities: the marshaling of hordes from the four quarters of the earth (Ezek 38:27, 15; 39:4; Rev 20:8); the march of the gathered armies to encompass the saints in the city of God, center of the world (Ezek 38:7-9, 12, 16; Rev 20:9); the orchestration of the event by God (Ezek 38:4, 16; 39:2, 19; Rev 20:3, 7); the timing of the event after a lengthy period in which God’s people were kept secure from such a universal assault (Ezek 38:8, 11; Rev 20:3); the eschatological finality of the crisis (Ezek 39:22, 26, 29; Rev 20:10ff.); and the fiery destruction of the evil forces (Ezek 38:22; 39:6; Rev 20:9-10).”14 In Revelation 20:7-10, the judgment of the nations and the dragon (Satan) are described. This vision provides an alternative camera view of the same judgment event described in 19:11-21, when the beast and the false prophet are cast into the 13 Meredith G. Kline, “Har Magedon: The End of the Millennium,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39, no. 2 (1996): 220. 14 Meredith G. Kline, God, Heaven and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006), 184-185. See especially Kline, “Har Magedon: The End of the Millennium,” 214-220 for a detailed defense of the view that Revelation 20:7-10 describes the eschatological battle prophesied in Ezekiel 38-39. Recapitulation in Revelation 20 156 lake of fire. John is not saying that God will only destroy the devil one thousand years after the judgment of the beast and the false prophet. Rather, Revelation 20:710 is a recapitulation of the battle in 19:11-21. The judgment and destruction of the beast, the false prophet and the devil will occur contemporaneously at Christ’s Second Advent. White argues, “If John expected us to interpret the revolts in Revelation 19 and 20 as different episodes in history, we would hardly expect him to describe them in language and imagery derived from the same episode in Ezekiel’s prophecy. On the contrary, John’s recapitulated use of Ezekiel 38-39 in both 19:17-21 and 20:7-10 establishes a prima facie case for us to understand 20:7-10 as a recapitulation of 19:17-21.”15 From the evidence for recapitulation discussed so far, it is apparent that Revelation 20:7-10 describes the same battle of Revelation 19:11-21. We have seen that the New Testament teaches the complete destruction of God’s enemies at Christ’s Parousia (e.g. 2 Thess. 1:4-10, Rev. 19:11-21). This is consistent with the victory of the saints at the battle of Armageddon, and the final defeat of the devil, the antichrist, and the false prophet at Christ’s Second Coming. With an understanding of the recurring Har Magedon motifs in both Ezekiel 38-39 and John’s apocalypse, viz. Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:7-10, it is clear that John did not intend Revelation 19:11-20:10 to be chronologically sequential. Kline concludes his observations: “The conclusion is amply warranted that Ezekiel 38-39 is the common source of Rev 20:7-10 and the passages earlier in Revelation that deal with the eschatological battle. This confirms the standard amillennial contention that the Gog-Magog episode of Rev 20:7-10 is a recapitulation of the accounts of the Har Magedon crisis in these other passages. . . . Revelation 20:7-10 is not, as premillennialists would have it, an isolated, novel episode, not mentioned elsewhere in the book of Revelation. Rather, it belongs to a series of passages, including Rev 19:11-21, which premillennialists rightly regard as referring to the antichrist-Har Magedon crisis and the parousia of Christ. It therefore follows that the thousand years that precede the Gog-Magog crisis of Rev 20:7-10 precede the Har Magedon-parousia event related in the other passages. Har Magedon is not 15 White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-10,” 327. Recapitulation in Revelation 20 157 a prelude to the millennium, but a postlude. Har Magedon marks the end of the millennium. And that conclusion spells the end of premillennialism.”16 The Seven Bowls of Revelation 15 and the Completion of God’s Wrath “Then I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous: seven angels having the seven last plagues, for in them the wrath of God is complete. . . . Then one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God who lives forever and ever. The temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God and from His power, and no one was able to enter the temple till the seven plagues of the seven angels were completed (Revelation 15:1, 7-8, NKJV).” Further evidence for recapitulation in Revelation 20:7-10 can be obtained by studying the seven bowls of God’s wrath envisioned by John in Revelation 15. In Revelation 15:1, John explains that the “seven last plagues” will “complete” or “fulfill” (ετελεσθη) God’s wrath against the nations. With the sixth plague, the dragon, the beast and the false prophet gather “the kings of the earth and of the whole world,” so as to battle the saints on “that great day of God Almighty (Rev. 16:14).” This scene is reiterated in 19:19, “And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.” In Revelation 16:17-21, with the completion of the seventh bowl, “there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done (Rev. 16:17).” This angelic declaration affirms that God’s wrath is fulfilled or completed. This means that, according to Revelation 15:1, the seven plagues will bring an end to God’s wrath upon the wicked nations of the world in secular history. The reader should observe that “since in 15:1 the bowl plagues are said to bring an end to God’s (temporal) wrath against the nations, God’s wrath against the nations in chap. 20 16 Kline, “Har Magedon: The End of the Millennium,” 220. With the understanding that Har Magedon refers to “the mountain of God,” Meredith Kline effectively explores the Har Magedon motifs both in the Old and New Testaments. In his paper, Kline conclusively defends his view that Revelation 16:14-16, 19:11-21, and 20:7-10 are closely intertwined with Gog and Magog of Ezekiel 38-39. In so doing, he argues that Revelation 16:14-16, 19:11-21, and 20:7-10 refer to the same battle. For an excellent discussion of various arguments against recapitulation in Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:7-10, see Beale, The Book of Revelation, 976980. Beale successfully rebuts all such arguments, and ably defends recapitulation in John’s apocalypse. Recapitulation in Revelation 20 158 must coincide with Christ’s Second Coming wrath against the nations in chaps. 16 and 19.”17 Fowler White elucidates further: “To appreciate the bearing of 15:1 on the interpretation of 19:11-20:10, we need to remember that Christ’s wrath against the Armageddon rebels in 19:19-21 concludes the plot line that was dropped in 16:16 and thus must (more or less) coincide with the last plague of God’s wrath in 16:17-21. This coincidence of 19:19-21 with 16:17-21 means that Christ’s wrath in 19:11-21 falls within the time frame which 15:1 established for the completion of God’s wrath.”18 Since the seventh plague (Rev. 16:17-21) coincides with the battle scene of 19:1921, the destruction of the nations in the battle of Armageddon (Rev. 19:11-21) concludes God’s wrath against the wicked nations in human history. This wrath is, of course, referring only to God’s temporal wrath and judgment against the nations, and expressly excludes God’s eternal judgment against unbelievers. With the fulfillment of God’s wrath in the seven bowl judgment, one realizes the difficulty in explaining a further temporal judgment and wrath against the nations in Revelation 20:7-10. The amillennialist understands Revelation 20:7-10 as a recapitulation of 19:11-21. Therefore, there is no contradiction between Christ’s wrath in the battle of 20:7-10, and the completion of God’s wrath in 15:1. White explains, “If we read the visions of 19:11-20:10 as premillennialists do, we are, of course, bound to place God’s wrath against the Gog-Magog rebels in 20:710 after Christ’s return in 19:19-21 and 16:17-21. But, by doing this, we contradict the clear intent of 15:1. For we cannot place the outpouring of God’s wrath on Gog-Magog and Satan after Christ’s return without exceeding the deadline set for the completion of God’s wrath in 15:1.”19 However, if we understand Revelation 20:7-10 as a recapitulation of 19:11-21, God’s wrath against the Gog-Magog dissenters would fall comfortably within the time frame established by 15:1 for the fulfillment of God’s fury. 17 R. Fowler White, “Making Sense of Revelation 20:1-10? Harold Hoehner Versus Recapitulation,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37, no. 4 (1994): 547. 18 White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-10,” 331. 19 Ibid. Recapitulation in Revelation 20 159 Chapter 12: The Binding of Satan Introduction “And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season (Rev. 20:1-3).” We discussed previously that in the interpretation of John’s Apocalypse, the exegete must not ignore the visionary and symbolic meaning of the apostle’s writings. The apocalyptic genre of Revelation demands that, in order to understand John’s vision in Revelation 20:1-6 properly, the exegete must interpret the highly symbolical meaning of the apostle’s visions with the light given in the rest of Scripture, as well as by comparing the usage of similar symbols in other visions within the Book of Revelation. Dispensational Premillennialists, such as Reverend Charles Seet of Life Bible Presbyterian Church in Singapore, often charge Amillennialists with not adhering to a literalistic hermeneutics in their interpretation of Revelation. Criticizing the nonpremillennial understanding of Revelation 20:1-3, Seet writes: “The angel mentioned in 20:1 is Christ Himself [according to the nonpremillennial understanding]. His coming down from heaven is interpreted as His incarnation into this world. His act of binding Satan and casting him into the bottomless pit mentioned in 20:2-3, is interpreted as His death on the cross which removed Satan’s power over believers. . . . As you can see, those who do not interpret this passage literally, take quite a lot of liberties with the text, making it mean things that are not natural to the plain sense of the text. The plain meaning of the text is therefore ignored in favour of a hidden, cryptic message, which only those who are qualified can understand.”1 Seet’s paper “Premillennialism,” especially his aforementioned comments, fails to do justice to the principles behind Reformed hermeneutics, and the amillennial 1 Seet, “Premillennialism,” 99. The Binding of Satan 160 understand of Revelation 20:1-3. Most contemporary amillennial interpreters do not understand the angel in 20:1 as depicting Christ. They neither perceive the binding of Satan as a restriction of his powers over believers, nor do they prefer a “hidden, cryptic message” which only the cognoscenti can decode. Non-premillennial interpreters recognize the symbolic usage of many terms in Revelation, the meaning of which goes beyond the linguistic and referential levels of communication. In Revelation 20:1-3, “John sees an angel coming down out of heaven. He has a key with which he is going to lock the abyss (cf. 9:1, 11). This abyss is a deep hole provided with a shaft (9:1), and with a lid. This lid can be unlocked (9:2), locked (20:3), and even sealed (20:3). Bear in mind, however, that all this is symbolism.”2 The absurdity of consistent literalism in the understanding of such a passage is apparent. John is not conveying the notion that an angel with a literal key, which fits into a keyhole, will open a literal “bottomless pit” on Earth. There can be no doubt that the apostle is not referring to an abyss with a literal lid, which can be locked and unlocked. The angel, the dragon, the chain, the key and the abyss all have symbolical meanings, and such terms should not be understood literally. The identity of the serpent is given for us in the text of Revelation 20:2, which describes “the dragon, that old serpent” as “the Devil, and Satan.” It is unmistakable that the term “dragon” does not refer to a literal dragon or dinosaur, and that the word “serpent” does not represent a literal viper or cobra. This serves to emphasize the fact that terms used in John’s visions contain symbolical connotations, and such words must be carefully interpreted against the backdrop of previous visions where similar symbols were used. Crass literalism will only mutilate the intended meaning of the text. The Angel Although some postmillennial interpreters have attempted to understand the descending angel (Revelation 20:1) as representing Christ,3 amillennial exegetes such as Beale have, in view of the usage of “angel” in other visions recorded in the Book of Revelation, interpreted the meaning of “angel” differently. Beale writes: 2 Hendricksen, More Than Conquerors, 185. For example, see David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance (Tyler, TX: Dominion Press, 1987), 499; J. Marcellus Kik, An Eschatology of Victory (Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971), 194. 3 The Binding of Satan 161 “In striking similarity to 20:1, both 6:8 and 9:1-2 portray good angels (the fourth living creature and the fifth trumpet angel) as Christ’s intermediaries executing his authority over demonic beings in the realm of the dead.”4 On account of the visions in Revelation 6:8 and 9:1-2 which describe angels exercising Christ’s authority over death, Hades and even demonic powers, Beale identifies the angel in 20:1 as Christ’s intermediary. Beale explains that “Christ’s sovereignty over the sphere of the dead is . . . amplified in [Revelation] ch. 6, where his opening of the fourth seal is a depiction of his ultimate authority during the age between his first and second comings over the subordinate Satanic powers of “death and Hades” (6:8). Likewise, “the key of the shaft of the abyss” in ch. 9 represents God’s ultimate authority over demonic powers dwelling in the realm of death (9: 12), whose deceiving powers are limited by God so that they cannot affect those who “have the seal of God” (9:4).”5 The angel in 20:1 has “the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.” The key to the abyss or bottomless pit is likely to be similar to the “keys of hell and of death” mentioned in Revelation 1:18. By virtue of His resurrection, Christ now exercises sovereignty over death itself, including the realm of the dead and Hades. Considering the symbolic connotation of this “key of the bottomless pit,” the context of the vision suggests that the descending “angel” is an angelic intermediary of Christ executing His authority over the demonic realm, the sphere of the dead and Hades. The Abyss The devil was bound with a great chain and cast into the abyss - a bottomless pit according to Revelation 20:1-3. It is apparent that the word “abyss” does not refer to a specific geographical location on earth, and the great chain is not a titanium shackle used to bind gargantuan creatures. As a correct understanding of these symbols is necessary for the interpretation of Revelation 20:1-3, it behooves us to examine carefully the meaning of these terms within the context of John’s vision. Charles Alexander reminds us that “Satan is bound by no material ‘chain’ nor is he sealed in any celestial prison. There is no geography in the eternal world, no pits, no bottomless abysses, nothing like this in a sphere where all is spiritual. Prisons and pits are earthly terms used to denote restriction, restraint, limitation of powers, the frustration and confinement of evil.”6 4 Beale, The Book of Revelation, 984. Ibid. 6 Charles D. Alexander, Revelation Spiritually Understood (Trelawnyd, Wales: K & M Books, 2001), 494. 5 The Binding of Satan 162 It is clear that the devil was not cast out of a physical place in some distant land, and subsequently thrown into an actual bottomless ditch on earth. In conjunction with the usage of the word “abyss” in Revelation 9, the abyss is likely to be symbolic of death and Hades. “It is wrong to picture the devil being “cast out of the earth” in some spatial sense, so that he is no longer present on earth. This would be to take “abyss” in an overly literalistic manner. Rather, like “heaven” throughout the Apocalypse, it represents a spiritual dimension existing alongside and in the midst of the earthly, not above it or below.”7 The aforementioned understanding is particularly important when we realize that premillennial interpreters insist upon a more literal reading of the word “abyss.” Some even argue that Satan cannot be prowling around like a lion (1 Pet. 5:8) if he is indeed bound with chains in the abyss. Nevertheless, we ought to recognize that the abyss refers to a spiritual reality rather than a spatial location, and in so doing, avoid literalistic misinterpretations. According to Beale, “the abyss is one of the various metaphors representing the spiritual sphere in which the devil and his accomplices operate. [Revelation] 9:1-11 portrays an angelic being (probably the devil) using “the key of the shaft of the abyss,” opening the abyss, and releasing demonic creatures so that they torment unbelievers on earth.”8 If we were to understand the abyss as the sphere wherein the devil and his minions operate, the binding of Satan within the abyss does not necessitate the removal of the devil from amongst the earthly dimensions, or the total cessation of satanic activities within the realm of humans. The One Thousand Years There are good reasons for understanding the one “thousand years” of Revelation 20:1-6 figuratively. Primarily, numbers are often used symbolically in the Book of Revelation; inter alia, the physical dimensions of the New Jerusalem described in Revelation 21:9-27 serve as an example.9 Amillennialist Anthony Hoekema observes that “since the number ten signifies completeness, and since a thousand is ten to the third power, we may think of the expression “a thousand years” as standing for a complete period, a very long period 7 Beale, The Book of Revelation, 987. Ibid., 987-988. 9 See Beale, The Book of Revelation, 58-64. Also see pp. 1017-1021, where Beale makes a detailed argument for the figurative interpretation of the one thousand years. 8 The Binding of Satan 163 of indeterminate length.”10 Reformed exegetes, including amillennialists and postmillennialists, generally accept the non-literal understanding of the thousand years in Revelation 20:1-6. It is notable that the premillennial interpreter, George Eldon Ladd, makes a similar remark: “It is difficult to understand the thousand years for which he was bound with strict literalness in view of the obvious symbolic use of numbers in the Revelation. A thousand equals the third power of ten – an ideal time. While we need not take it literally, the thousand years does appear to represent a real period of time, however long or short it may be.”11 We remember that Revelation chapters 20 to 22 constitute the last of the seven sections of John’s apocalypse.12 Considering the evidence for recapitulation discussed in the previous chapter, we understand that Revelation 20:1 does not follow Revelation 19:21 chronologically. The twentieth chapter of Revelation brings us back to the beginning of the New Testament epoch, which follows the First Advent of Christ. With the incarnation of Christ begins the defeat, or the binding, of Satan. The one thousand years indicates an indeterminate period of time between Christ’s First and Second Advent. We shall discuss the meaning of “the binding of Satan” later in this chapter, which will further elucidate the meaning of the thousand years. There is also clear contextual evidence to support a non-literal understanding of the one thousand years. John’s figurative usage of many words such as serpent, chain and abyss in the immediate context points toward a symbolical interpretation of the one thousand years in Revelation 20:1-6. In Revelation 2:10, we read of certain saints having to suffer tribulation for ten days. There is a suggestion that the temporal suffering of the saints for a duration of ten days, which is obviously a figurative number signifying a complete or ideal period of time, will bring with it the reward of millennial glory in the intermediate state and the afterlife. Here we have another example of the usage of the number ten and its multiples in the symbolical representation of completeness. Meredith Kline explains its theological significance: 10 Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 227. George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1972), 262. 12 See Hendricksen, More Than Conquerors, 16-50. 11 The Binding of Satan 164 “There is also the intriguing possibility of a relationship between the numerical symbols of the ten days of tribulation (2:10) and the thousand years of reigning (20:4, 6). The intensifying of ten to a thousand together with the lengthening of days to years might then suggest that the present momentary tribulation works a far greater glory to be experienced even in the intermediate state as the immediate issue of martyrdom.”13 The concept of reward with the enduring of temporal, and a comparatively short duration of, suffering is found in Peter’s exhortation, “Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ. . . . Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. (1 Peter 1:6-7, 4:12-13).” Indeed, the tribulation period of ten days (Rev. 2:10) is dwarfed by the duration of the millennial reign. We must conclude that both the number ten and its multiple, one thousand, are symbolic representations of periods of time, and that the exact duration of these periods cannot be confined to the numerical values themselves. The Binding of Satan While it is now apparent that the thousand years begin with the binding of Satan, we must begin to unravel the meaning inherent in John’s vision as a whole. David Aune points out that “the use of chains to bind Satan and his host is an apocalyptic motif.”14 While this motif signifies a certain restriction of demonic activity, there is much debate as to the extent of such a restriction. Furthermore, the understanding of what the chain connotes has to be studied against the entire motif, that is, the meaning of the binding of Satan. Amillennialists understand that the millennium is the present gospel age, and not a future reality. It is neither an earthly Messianic kingdom ushered in by the Parousia 13 Meredith Kline, “The First Resurrection,” Westminster Theological Journal 37, no. 3 (1975): 373-374. 14 David E. Aune, Revelation 17-22: Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 1081. The Binding of Satan 165 of Christ as taught by premillennialists, nor a golden age established with the preaching of the gospel according to Postmillennialism. The millennium, properly understood, is a spiritual reality enjoyed by saints in the present age.15 The debate regarding the meaning of the binding of Satan concerns the presence of evil in the present gospel age. If, indeed, the millennium is what Amillennialists perceive it to be - a present reality - how do we explain the presence of satanic activity in the world today? Does the binding of Satan mean a complete cessation of satanic or evil activity on earth? Grant Osborne rightly observes that “the primary debate here is the extent to which this binding of Satan with respect to the nations is intended. Is this a total or a partial cessation of demonic activity? This is at the heart of the premillennial-amillennial debate.”16 Premillennialists often criticize Amillennialists for interpreting the binding of Satan as a present reality, but such criticisms are usually unjustified. Harold Hoehner, the professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes: “However, to say that Satan is bound in the present age contradicts several NT passages. In the time of Christ, even after Luke 10:18, Satan entered Judas in connection with his betrayal of Jesus (Luke 22:3; John 13:27), and he tried to control Peter (Luke 22:31). Christians are warned to be on the alert, for the devil is prowling like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour (1 Pet. 5:8). This activity is seen when Ananias’s heart was filled with Satan (Acts 5:3). Satan is the one who blinds unbelievers to the gospel (Acts 26:18; 2 Cor. 4:3-4; Eph. 2:2; 2 Tim. 2:26). Satan also hindered Paul from going to Thessalonica (1 Thess. 2:18). Furthermore, Christians are alerted to Satan’s temptations (1 Cor. 7:5; 2 Cor. 2:11; 11:14). It seems that Satan has not been bound since Christ’s first advent.”17 Before proceeding to a detailed study of the meaning of the binding of Satan, it suffices now to look at a general amillennial understanding of this motif. There is New Testament evidence that Satan was in some sense bound with the First Advent of Christ.18 15 The millennial reign will be discussed further in chapter 13 of this book. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 2002), 702. 17 Harold W. Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20,” in The Coming Millennial Kingdom: A Case for Premillennial Interpretation, eds. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1997), 250. Also see Quek, DAY FIVE: Revelation 19-22, 147148. 18 We shall discuss this further in the later portions of this chapter. 16 The Binding of Satan 166 With the birth, death and resurrection of Christ, Satan no longer possesses the same power and authority he once had. According to Revelation 20:3, Satan is bound so “that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.” The obvious purpose of this binding is that, he should no longer deceive the heathen nations by preventing the spread of the gospel until the millennium has transpired. There is no indication within the text of 20:1-6 that the devil is bound such that he cannot perform any of his mischief. Hendricksen, using an interesting analogy of a dog tied with a chain, elucidates further: “A dog securely bound with a long and heavy chain can do great damage within the circle of his imprisonment. Outside that circle, however, the animal can do no damage and can hurt no-one. Thus also Revelation 20:1-3 teaches us that Satan’s power is curbed and his influence curtailed with respect to one definite sphere of activity: ‘that he should deceive the nations no more’. The devil can do much, indeed, during this present period of one thousand years. But there is one thing which, during this period, he cannot do. With respect to this one thing he is definitely and securely bound. He cannot destroy the Church as a mighty missionary organization heralding the gospel to all the nations. He cannot do that until the thousand years are finished.”19 Literalists allege that Satan cannot be bound in this present gospel age on account of the demonic activity and evil so prevalent in the world today. But the question is this, “Should we interpret the vision of John in Revelation 20:1-3 in a strictly literal sense, or should we acknowledge the symbolical elements inherent in John’s visions, and attempt to understand the visions using the analogy of faith?” Revelation 20:1-3, understood with a literalistic hermeneutic, would convey to us the message that an angel descends from heaven with a literal key, which he subsequently uses to open a bottomless hole in the ground. He then binds the devil with a literal chain, and casts him into the abyss. Having been bound, the devil struggles in vain within the confinement of the thick, strong chain. Complete with horns and fangs, the devil sneers at the angel as he knows that he must be released after the literal one thousand years are over. But for now, he cannot communicate directly with the nations of the world so as to deceive them with his lies. According to literalists, the devil is so tightly bound that he cannot wriggle himself free from those huge chains, and harm the nations with his horns and fangs. But Amillennialists contend that this vision cannot be understood literally. 19 Hendricksen, More Than Conquerors, 190. The Binding of Satan 167 The binding of Satan is an apocalyptic motif which conveys to the readers a spiritual reality rather than a physical, reality. Taking 20:1-3 literally, Satan is indeed bound with huge strong chains which may completely restrict his physical movements and prevent him from prowling around like a lion (1 Pet. 5:8). John, however, is not trying to inform his readers that the devil is merely a brobdingnagian creature restricted with titanium chains for a thousand years. The vision is a symbolic picture of a present spiritual reality, and it means much more than having the devil trapped in a hole on planet earth, totally incapable of any wickedness. Milton Terry explains: “This symbolic picture of the binding of Satan has been greatly misapprehended by supposing it to imply the cessation of all evil among men. It is too readily assumed that if Satan be shut up and sealed in the abyss the angels of Satan and wicked men can have no more place in the world - a most unauthorized assumption. The passage presents only one phase of the triumph of Christ over all his enemies. The final defeat of the devil is described in verse 10, and the Messiah’s triumph over the last enemy, Death and Hades, is told in verses 13 and 14. Hence it is of the first importance to a correct interpretation of these closely related visions to note that they constitute a series of victories which run through the entire period called symbolically a thousand years.”20 Indeed, with the birth, death and resurrection of Christ, His victory over the devil is already sealed, and is an ongoing spiritual reality via the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom. As discussed previously, the abyss should not be understood as a literal bottomless hole in the ground. It is the spiritual sphere wherein the devil and his minions function, and it exists alongside and amidst the realm of human activity. Alexander elaborates that “the bottomless pit is a term describing the condition of restraint laid upon Satan as a consequence of his overthrow at Calvary. Satan can at one and the same time be in prison and at large; bound with a great chain, yet fearsomely active.”21 The abyss, or the sphere of the demonic, is no longer under the jurisdiction of the devil. Christ declares, “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death (Rev. 1:18).” With His death and resurrection, the Lord Jesus now reigns over the sphere of demons. The 20 Milton S. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ in the Canonical Scriptures (New York: Eaton and Mains, 1898; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), 449. 21 Alexander, Revelation Spiritually Understood, 497. The Binding of Satan 168 devil is thus bound, and this “restraint of Satan is a direct result of Christ’s resurrection. If so, the binding, expulsion, and fall of Satan can be seen in other NT passages that affirm with the same terms (“bind,” “cast,” etc.) that the decisive defeat of the devil occurred at Christ’s death and resurrection (Matt. 12:29; Mark 3:27; Luke 10:17-19; John 12:31-33; Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:14). More precisely, the binding was probably inaugurated during Christ’s ministry, which is more the focus of texts such as Matt. 12:29; Mark 3:27; and Luke 10:17-19.”22 Satan Bound with the First Advent of Christ Is there New Testament evidence to suggest that the devil is bound with the First Advent of Christ? We recall reading in the Gospel of Matthew that the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons with the power of Satan. Our Lord answered them, “Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house (Matt. 12:29).” The Greek word used by John in Revelation 20:2 translated as “bound,” is the same word used here by Matthew (δέω) for “bind.” In Matthew 12:29, Jesus was explaining to the Pharisees that since the kingdom of God had arrived, demons were being cast out, and the gospel was being preached to all the nations. Satan’s grip over the pagan nations was broken with the coming of God’s kingdom. The devil can no longer prevent these nations from learning about the truth of God’s Word. Blomberg writes: “One cannot attack a well-protected home without first rendering the guard powerless. So, too, Jesus must first bind Satan before he can plunder (carry off or rob, from the same verb stem as “lay hold of” in 11:12) his house, i.e., cast out his demons. The exorcisms demonstrate that God in Christ is decisively defeating the devil. . . . Satan is in his death throes. His last flurry of activity, to change the metaphor, is like that of a chicken (or perhaps better a snake!) with its head cut off.”23 In Luke 10:17-18, when the seventy disciples returned from their mission trip, Jesus exclaimed to them that he “beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” This, of course, does not mean that Jesus saw the literal fall of Satan from heaven onto the ground of planet Earth. Jesus was saying that, with the missionary activities and preaching of the disciples, Satan’s kingdom was being dealt a severe blow. A restriction of the devil’s power or a binding of Satan’s influence over the pagan 22 Beale, The Book of Revelation, 985. Craig Blomberg, The New American Commentary Volume 22: Matthew (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1992), 203. 23 The Binding of Satan 169 nations had taken place. Robert Stein notes that “in the exorcisms of the seventy(two), Jesus saw Satan’s defeat resulting from his coming.”24 Satan’s fall or binding, in this case, is associated with the preaching of the seventy disciples. Charles Alexander adds that those words of Jesus were “spoken prophetically in anticipation of the worldwide spread of the gospel after Christ’s ascension to the right hand of power. Before the preaching of the Word, Satan would be cast down from his long heathen reign over the gentile world. Heaven is often used as a symbol of power, and Satan is always falling from heaven wherever the irresistible Word of God is proclaimed.”25 In John 12:31-32, Jesus proclaims, “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” Here, we observe that the verb “cast” (ἐκβάλλω) is derived from the root word translated “cast” (βάλλω) in Revelation 20:3, “And cast him into the bottomless pit.” With the casting out of Satan, and the lifting up of Christ as He hangs on the cross, all nations indiscriminately will be drawn to the saving grace of God. The gospel is now no longer limited to the Jewish nation, but also preached to all the nations in the world. As Kistemaker writes in his commentary: “Since Jesus’ ascension, Satan has been unable to stop the advance of the gospel of salvation. He has been bound and is without authority, while the nations of the world around the globe have received the glad gospel tidings. The Son of God has taken possession of these nations (Ps. 2:7-8) and has deprived Satan of leading them astray during this gospel age. Christ is drawing to himself people from all these nations, and out of them God’s elect will be saved and drawn into his kingdom. These nations receive the light of the world (John 8:12) and are no longer living in darkness and deceit. Satan is unable to check the mission outreach of the church, for he cannot prevent the nations from knowing the Lord.”26 The binding of Satan in the Gospels (Matt. 12:26-29; Mark 3:26-27), as well as Christ’s teaching on the fall of Satan as lightning from heaven (Luke 10:18), is consistent with the interpretation that Revelation 20:1-3 signifies the restraint and progressive defeat of the devil in the gospel age. Although Satan is bound, he is still 24 Robert H. Stein, The New American Commentary Volume 24: Luke (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1992), 310. 25 Alexander, Revelation Spiritually Understood, 498. 26 Kistemaker, Exposition of the Book of Revelation, 535-536. The Binding of Satan 170 able to harm humans, including members of the Church. However, he can never prevent the spread of the gospel light to the pagan nations of the world. The Meaning of the Binding of Satan In the Old Testament times, the nation of Israel was to be the light to its pagan neighbors. But Israel failed miserably when it succumbed to the religions of the heathen nations. Instead of witnessing to the world, Israel became like the world. The pagan nations did not know the truth of God’s revelation, except for the occasional person, family or city. These gentile nations were, generally speaking, under the deception of Satan prior to the First Advent of Christ. However, with the ministry of our Lord Jesus, the kingdom of God is being ushered in. Finally, with the cross and empty tomb, death and resurrection, Christ strikes a decisive victory over Satan. Nothing can prevent the Church from spreading the gospel to the pagan nations, and “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18).” Paul writes, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it (Col. 2:14-15).” Christ’s resurrection sealed the defeat of Satan, and the empty tomb guarantees the ultimate end of the devil. This binding of Satan is a progressive activity whereby the preaching of the gospel extends the kingdom of God on earth (Matt. 28:19). Revelation 20:1-3 depicts the restraint of the devil, and how he is prevented from obstructing the progress of the gospel. Furthermore, when Rev. 20:3 is understood in the context of events described in 20:7-9, there is also a sense whereby Satan is bound so that he cannot deceive the heathen nations to war against the saints in the battle of Armageddon. Hoeksema argues that, “If we take these two passages [Rev. 20:3 and 20:8] in connection with each other, it may be regarded as established, in the first place, that the binding of Satan is limited to certain nations which are called Gog and Magog; and, secondly, that his confinement prevents him from deceiving those nations; and, in the third place, that the deception which by his imprisonment, or the restraint that is put upon him, he is prevented from realizing is (sic) what would otherwise cause these nations to gather for battle against the camp of the saints and the beloved city.”27 We have studied earlier in chapter 11 that the battle of Armageddon, which marks the end of the millennium, is described not only in John’s apocalypse (Rev. 19:11- 27 Herman Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! An Exposition of the Book of Revelation, 2d ed., ed. Homer C. Hoeksema (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2000), 642. The Binding of Satan 171 21; 20:7-10), but also in Ezekiel 38-39.28 According to Aune, “the names Gog and Magog, derived from Ezek 38-39, are generic names for nations hostile to Israel who will unsuccessfully attempt to annihilate the people of God. Yet they will be decisively defeated by rain, hail, fire, and brimstone from heaven (Ezek 38:22).”29 In the context of Ezekiel 38-39, “Israel here is to be taken, in harmony with all Scripture, in the New Testament sense of the word. The vision of the restored Israel of which Ezekiel 38 and 39 speak has been realized in the church of the new dispensation.”30 Therefore, we are to understand “Israel” as referring to true, spiritual Israel (the Church) in Ezekiel’s apocalyptic visions. Furthermore, both Hoeksema and Beale identify the hordes in Rev. 20:8 as “antagonistic peoples throughout the earth,” the heathen nations that rebel against God.31 Beale further reasons that, “the “camp of the saints” is equated with “the beloved city,” which further identifies the oppressed community of 20:9 as the church.”32 This reflects the understanding that the “oppressed community” in Rev. 20:9 refers to nominal Christendom in its widest sense. We read in Rev. 20:7-9 that Satan, marshalling the armies of the heathen nations, makes a final attempt at defeating the people of God. But “fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them (Rev. 20:9).” All these events will happen in the eschatological future. In the meantime, Satan is bound by a divine decree, so that he is prevented from accomplishing his diabolical aims. While he is bound, Satan can no longer deceive God’s people en masse, and hinder them from witnessing to the nations. This does not mean that Satan cannot harm the Church, or that the Church is no longer persecuted by the world. Likewise, during the entire period whereby Satan is bound, the devil is unable to deceive the heathen nations to attack “the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city (Rev. 20:9),” or to prevent them from hearing the gospel of grace. This period begins with the First Advent of Christ, and “according to [Revelation] 20:7-9, the end point of the binding occurs immediately before Christ’s final coming.”33 28 See pp. 155-158 of chapter 11 in this book. Aune, Revelation 17-22, 1104. 30 Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh, 642. 31 Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1024. Also see Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh, 642-643. Hoeksema perceptively identifies Gog and Magog with the heathen nations of the world. He writes, “Around it [i.e. the camp of the saints], on the four quarters of the earth, that is, outside of the pale of history, are nations which remain pagan. Although also from them the elect are gathered into the church, as nations they remain distinctly heathen. Gog and Magog, therefore, are heathen nations in distinction from nominal Christendom.” Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh, 643. 32 Ibid., 1027. 33 Ibid., 985. 29 The Binding of Satan 172 In view of this amillennial interpretation of the binding of Satan, the chain (Rev. 20:1) can be understood as “the holy decrees of God.”34 Alexander considers that “the chain, like the binding, is a figure denoting the restrictive decree of God as in the case of the divine control over the rolling sea: ‘Hitherto shalt thou come and no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed.’ Job 38:11.”35 As Calvinists, Reformed interpreters ultimately believe that God has decreed the victory of the Church, the salvation of the elect, and the eventual destruction of Satan. Therefore, the chain in Revelation 20:1 can signify the binding of Satan according to God’s decrees. This harmonizes well with the understanding of the binding of Satan as an apocalyptic motif, which symbolizes the restraining of the devil. Conclusion The binding of Satan occurs between the First and Second Advent of Christ, during the gospel age. This is harmonious with the understanding that the millennium of Revelation 20:1-6 does not follow Revelation 19 chronologically. We have discussed the evidence for recapitulation previously, and have seen that chapters 20 to 22 form the last of the seven sections of the book of Revelation. Therefore, Revelation 20 brings us back to the beginning of the gospel age. The amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:1-3 is also consistent with 2 Thessalonians 2:6-12, “where Satan is said to be “already at work” in a mysterious way, but nevertheless restrained. Immediately before Christ’s final coming the restraint will be removed so that Satan will unleash “false wonders and . . . all deception,” and then he will be judged along with his followers.”36 We read in Revelation 20:3 that Satan must be loosed “a little season” at the end of the thousand years. This is when he will “go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle (Rev. 20:8)” against the “camp of the saints.” Prior to the Parousia of Christ, there will be a time of great deception according to Revelation 20:3, 7-8. Beale writes, “But at the end of the age, directly preceding Christ’s return, Satan will again be allowed, for “a little time,” to stop the preaching of the gospel and 34 Alexander, Revelation Spiritually Understood, 495. Ibid., 497. 36 Beale, The Book of Revelation, 989. 35 The Binding of Satan 173 to draw the curtain of delusion over the nations, especially with the goal of mounting a devastating attack against the people of God, as he did before in Eden, against Israel, and at the cross against Jesus, the true Israel (cf. the use of Ps. 2:1-2 in Acts 4:25-28 and Ps. 2:9 in Rev. 12:5). A lethal attack must be launched against the corporate body of Christ, as earlier against the individual Christ (see further on 11:3-12, esp. 11:1-2, 9).”37 In summary, the binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 refers to the curtailment of the devil’s power so that he can neither prevent the preaching of the gospel to the heathen nations, nor deceive these nations into attacking the church of Christ on earth. Meanwhile, the elect of God are progressively received into the fold of the Church. The binding of Satan is, without a doubt, an encouraging certainty for all believers. It ensures that the preaching of the gospel by the Church will be unhindered. Alexander reminds us that “there is a formidable difference between Satan’s activity before and after Calvary. No more is Satan permitted ‘to deceive the nations’ as once he did. He no longer has power to hold the nations fast in the darkness of paganism and ignorance. Instead of the Word of God being confined to one nation on earth, the small nation of Israel, the boundaries of divine grace have been pushed back so that the whole wide world has come under the power and the preaching of the gospel.”38 Thus, this understanding of the binding of Satan should spur the Church on to labor for the gospel. The kingdom of God is presently extended via the triumphant Church. Christians ought to derive confidence from the fact that Satan is bound, and that the gospel will ultimately bring salvation to all the elect. The powers of darkness can never prevail, for the devil is already defeated at the cross of Calvary. The final destruction of the devil is decreed (Rev. 20:10), and the Parousia of Christ will bring the sufferings of the saints to an end. 37 38 Ibid. Alexander, Revelation Spiritually Understood, 499. The Binding of Satan 174 Chapter 13: The Reign of Souls Introduction “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years (Rev. 20:4-6).” As we begin our exposition of Revelation 20:4-6, we recall that a period of “a thousand years” was described in 20:1-3. Although it is possible to interpret the “thousand years” of 20:4-6 as being distinct from the millennium mentioned in verses 1-3, there are no compelling reasons within the context of the passage to do so. The majority of exegetes, if not all expositors today, agree that the “thousand years” in 20:4-6 is the same millennium described in 20:1-3. Hoeksema concurs, “It is evident that “a thousand years” refers to the same period during the whole new dispensation as that in which the devil is bound with respect to Gog and Magog.”1 This “thousand years” period spans the entire New Testament era, from the First Advent of Christ to just before the Second Coming of our Savior. The Thrones The first three verses of Revelation 20 describe a scene on earth, whereby the abyss is the spiritual realm in which the devil and his minions operate. But where is the location of the scene in 20:4-6? When we read verse 4, we notice that there are thrones mentioned in John’s vision. The term “throne” is doubtlessly symbolical, and it is unlikely that in 20:4, John is referring to literal sets of chair for people to sit upon. “There can be little doubt that the portrayal of beings sitting on “thrones” is not intended to express the literal idea of people sitting on actual pieces of furniture 1 Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 560. The Reign of Souls 175 and ruling from there. This is, rather, a figurative way of saying that they reign over a kingdom.”2 The imagery of souls sitting upon thrones signifies the reign of these souls. Where is the domain of this reign? The location of the thrones will assist us in determining the exact locale of John’s vision. G. K. Beale elucidates that the word “throne” usually refers to a heavenly scene. He writes, “The heavenly location of the thrones in 20:4 is apparent from the observation that forty-two of the forty-six occurrences of “throne(s)” (θρόνος) elsewhere in the book clearly locate the thrones in heaven. The remaining three uses refer either to Satan’s or the beast’s throne, which is likewise not earthly but located in a spiritual dimension. The “thrones” in Dan. 7:9 also appear to be in heaven (cf. Dan. 7:10-13).”3 E. Müller adds that, since the thrones of the enemies of God are located on Earth elsewhere in the Book of Revelation, it is very likely that these thrones of the saints are located in Heaven.4 The Souls Within the context of verse 4, John sees in his vision “the souls of them that were beheaded.” Premillennialists interpret this phrase as describing resurrected saints in glorified bodies, who are seated upon thrones and reigning with Christ in the earthly millennium.5 They argue that the expression - “the souls of them that were beheaded” - is a figure of speech called synecdoche, by which a part is put for the whole. For example, we say that there are a hundred sails, meaning a hundred ships. Occasionally, the Scripture does use the word “souls” to represent persons. “Thus all the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt were threescore and ten (Gen. 46:27). In the ark a few, that is, eight souls were saved (1 Pet. 3:20). On the day of Pentecost about three thousand souls were added to the church (Acts 2:41). There were in all two hundred threescore and sixteen souls with Paul in the ship (Acts 27:37). Hence the chiliast 2 Beale, The Book of Revelation, 995-996. Ibid., 999. 4 See E. Müller, “Microstructural Analysis of Revelation 20,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 37: 233. 5 For example, see Stephen Khoo, The Book of Revelation (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, n.d.), 99-100. These are printed course notes used in Far Eastern Bible College. Rev Stephen Khoo is the pastor of Bethel Bible Presbyterian Church in Australia. 3 The Reign of Souls 176 argues that we must interpret the expression “the souls of them that were beheaded” in the same figurative sense as referring to resurrected persons.”6 But there are serious problems with this premillennial interpretation. Hoeksema argues, “The first objection is that whenever synecdoche is employed, whether in our daily language, in secular literature, or in Holy Writ, uniformly a numeral is used in connection with it.”7 This is very clear when we peruse the examples provided above (i.e. Gen. 46:27; 1 Pet. 3:20; Acts 2:41, 27:37). Eight souls, and not simply “souls,” were saved on Noah’s ark. There were two hundred threescore and sixteen souls with Paul aboard the ship. Scripture always uses a numerical qualifier to accompany the word “souls” whenever it is used as a synecdoche. The word “soul” (ψυχή), therefore, is not used as a synecdoche in 20:4, and does not refer to living bodies. Beale explains that, “Though “soul” (ψυχή) can be a substitute for “living body” (8:9; 12:11; 16:3; cf. 18:13), here its combination with “beheaded” is best suited to indicate a distinction between soul and body, as the almost identical combination “soul of those who were slain” clearly indicates. If such a distinction of soul and body is not held, an awkward picture emerges: “bodies of beheaded people.’”8 Consequently, based upon word usage and context, “soul” does not refer to physically living saints sitting upon thrones. Besides, “the noncorporeal sense of “soul” is suggested further by its close connection with thrones that are in heaven, not on earth.”9 Understood collectively, the thrones and the expression “the souls of them that were beheaded” likely describe a heavenly scene, and not an earthly millennium. This fact alone is devastating to the premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:4-6, which requires this passage to describe the millennial reign of saints on earth. The Saints In his vision, John saw “the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and 6 Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 561. Ibid. 8 Beale, The Book of Revelation, 998. 9 Ibid. 7 The Reign of Souls 177 they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years (Rev. 20:4).” Who exactly are these souls? In order for us to understand verse 4 fully, as well as the identity of these souls who reigned with Christ, we must look at the immediate context of this passage, particularly verses 5-6. It is written in verse 5 that “the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished,” and that the “rest of the dead” will participate in the “second death (Rev. 20:6, 14-15).” It is evident that the “rest of the dead” are unbelievers who shall be “cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15)” at the final judgment of Christ. Therefore, John is clearly describing the souls of saints in verse 4. According to verse 6, those that participate in the “first resurrection” shall not be harmed by the “second death.” By implication and simple deduction, the “souls” mentioned in verse 4 should encompass all the saints, that is, the Church invisible.10 Stephen Smalley notes that “the prophet-seer does not specify the identity of those who are ‘seated on thrones’; nor are the subjects in any part of this scene mentioned by name. But their character and activity make it plain that John is referring broadly to the faithful saints of God. They are the ones who are involved in judgement, and suffer for Christ, and who worship Him rather than the beast; these are also priests of God, who rise and reign with Christ for a thousand years and more.”11 Smalley proceeds to argue that “they are ‘souls’ (τὰς ψυχὰς, tas psychas) who had been martyred for their Christian testimony, and existed therefore in that spiritual state which obtains between death and the final resurrection (verse 4a); and, second, they are faithful witnesses who have testified loyally to Christ, and continue to do so, without being called to seal their faithfulness with martyrdom (verse 4b; cf. 13.11-12).”12 Beale concurs that the souls in 20:4 refer to the souls of saints who have died, “some through martyrdom and others of natural causes, though maintaining their faith to the end (cf. 14:13: “blessed are the dead who die in the Lord”).”13 He adds that “it is 10 Cf. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 999-1000. Beale writes, “Of course, if only literal martyrs are the focus in v 4, then “the rest of the dead” in v 5 includes believing together with unbelieving dead who are to be resurrected subsequently. The problem with this is that v 6 says that those partaking of the first resurrection of v 4 will not be hurt by the “second death,” and 20:14-15 does not limit the promise only to martyrs or a segment of believers but applies it to all of God’s people who trust him throughout their lives.” See Beale, The Book of Revelation, 999. 11 Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 505-506. 12 Ibid., 506. 13 Beale, The Book of Revelation, 999. The Reign of Souls 178 possible that only literal martyrs are spoken of in 20:4, but, if so, they might be portrayed as representative figures for the whole of the church.”14 The case, therefore, is strong that the “souls” described in 20:4 represent or refer specifically to the souls of the saints. Charles Alexander emphasizes the fact that the true Church is a suffering Church. Indeed, it can rightly be called a martyr Church. He writes: “But the Church as a whole is a martyr Church. Some in recent times have yielded up their lives to cruel death, in faithfulness to Christ, but most of the Lord’s people have been permitted throughout the ages to end their days in peace. Yet what is common to all true believers is that they bear their witness in a world which is hostile to Christ and at enmity with God.”15 The martyr Church - the souls of the faithful - will be protected from the “second death (Rev. 20:6, 14-15).” They will reign with Christ for a thousand years in their intermediate state, before the final resurrection of the bodies. The Reign It is described in both verses 4 and 6 that the disembodied souls of the saints shall reign with Christ for a thousand years. This reigning with Christ reinforces the point that the vision is not located on earth, but in heaven where Christ is. Hendricksen elaborates further, “The thousand year reign also occurs where Jesus lives, for we read ‘And they lived and reigned with Christ. . . .’ The question is, where, according to the Apocalypse, is the place from which the exalted Mediator rules the universe? Where does Jesus live? Clearly, it is in heaven. It is in heaven that the Lamb is represented as taking the scroll out of the hand of Him that sat on the throne (Rev. 5). Revelation 12 clearly states that Christ was ‘caught up to God and to his throne. . . Therefore, rejoice O heavens, and ye that dwell therein’. We may safely say, therefore, that the thousand year reign takes place in heaven.”16 According to Premillennialism, this reign lasts for a millennium on earth, and spans the entire period during which Satan is bound. It, however, does not last “for ever and ever (Rev. 22:5).” The amillennialist contends that, if these souls are to be 14 Ibid. Alexander, Revelation Spiritually Understood, 503. 16 Hendricksen, More Than Conquerors, 192. 15 The Reign of Souls 179 physically resurrected at Christ’s Parousia and to be given glorified bodies as Premillennialists claim, they will reign not only for a thousand years, but for all eternity (Rev. 22:5) from the New Jerusalem. In the new, heavenly Jerusalem (21:2), there shall be no more curse (Rev. 22:3), no more death (Rev. 21:4; 1 Cor. 15:5355), and no more night (Rev. 22:5). Revelation 20:4, therefore, describes the reign of souls in their intermediate state with Christ, and not the reign of resurrected saints during the alleged Davidic Kingdom on earth. However, this does not settle the millennial issue. The nature of the resurrection (in 20:1-6) lies at the very heart of the millennial controversy. There will be no resolution concerning the millennial debate unless exegetes can agree upon the meaning of the “first resurrection (Rev. 20:5-6).” The Reign of Souls 180 Chapter 14: The First Resurrection Introduction The key to interpreting Revelation 20:4-6 lies in two highly debated areas. Firstly, exegetes are divided as to the nature of the first resurrection (20:5, 6); secondly, the meaning of the verb ezesan (ἔζησαν) translated by the phrase “and they lived” is highly disputed. This verb is the aorist active indicative form of the primary verb zao (ζάω), and occurs twice in this passage, once in verse 4, and once in verse 5. The meaning of the verb ezesan in verse 4 determines the nature of the first resurrection (20:5). Premillennialists, including Bible Presbyterians, contend that both occurrences of the verb (ezesan) refer to a bodily resurrection. Accordingly, premillennialists – historic and dispensational - see at least a two-phase resurrection in Revelation 20:46. George Eldon Ladd is correct to say that “this is the most important word in the entire passage. The exegete must decide whether or not it means resurrection; and upon this decision will be determined how he interprets the entire passage.”1 We recall that according to the premillennial understanding of Revelation 20:1-6, this passage necessarily follows Revelation 19 chronologically. This interpretation ignores the evidence for recapitulation in Revelation 20. Premillennialism requires both occurrences of the verb (ezesan) to mean a physical, bodily resurrection. In other words, Premillennialism necessitates two bodily resurrections in Revelation 20:4-6. If this point can be contested and repudiated by exegetes, then premillennialism will not stand. Stanley Grenz, expressing the thoughts of Millard Erickson, perceptively notes that “the linchpin of premillennialism is the doctrine of two bodily resurrections. The first will occur at the Lord’s return. The righteous of all ages will rise in order to share in the millennial reign of Christ. Only after the golden age will the rest of the dead come forth from their graves, an event that, however, will place the wicked in the presence of the judge who will consign them to their eternal destiny.”2 1 Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, 265. Stanley J. Grenz, The Millennial Maze: Sorting Out Evangelical Options (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 128-129. Cf. Millard Erickson, Contemporary Options in Eschatology: A Study of the Millennium (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977), 97. In a later edition of the same book, Erickson notes, “The premillennialist insists that the two resurrections mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 are both bodily in nature. Because this point forms the linchpin of the premillennial position, it deserves close scrutiny.” See Erickson, A Basic Guide to Eschatology: Making Sense of the Millennium, 97. 2 The First Resurrection 181 Thus, premillennialists find in this passage (20:4-6) two separate physical resurrections: the resurrection of the saints, and the resurrection of the wicked, both of which are separated by the millennium. Premillennialists, such as Ladd, find no other resurrection mentioned in this passage other than two physical resurrections. Ladd writes, “In Rev. 20:4-6, there is no such contextual clue for a similar variation of interpretation. The language of the passage is quite clear and unambiguous. There is no necessity to interpret either word spiritually in order to introduce meaning to the passage. At the beginning of the millennial period, part of the dead come to life; at its conclusion, the rest of the dead come to life. There is no evident play upon words. The passage makes perfectly good sense when interpreted literally.”3 In his commentary on Revelation, Ladd quotes Henry Alford’s well-known words: “If, in a passage where two resurrections are mentioned, where certain psychai ezesan at the first, and the rest of the nekroi ezesan only at the end of a specified period after that first, - if in such a passage the first resurrection may be understood to mean spiritual rising with Christ, while the second means literal rising from the grave; - then there is an end of all significance in language, and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to anything.”4 Premillennialists understand the second resurrection as a resurrection of the wicked, which is followed chronologically by the Great White Throne judgment. They reason that, if the second resurrection is a physical resurrection, then what John describes as the first resurrection must also be a bodily resurrection. In contrast to the premillennial understanding of ezesan (ἔζησαν), amillennialists do not interpret the first resurrection to mean a physical resurrection. The general teaching of the New Testament elucidates a final, general resurrection (Rev. 20:1115) of both the just and the unjust. This theological understanding, coupled with the analogy of faith, undergird the amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:4-6. Furthermore, we recall that the scene (20:4-6) is set in heaven. The first resurrection, considering the evidence for recapitulation in Revelation 20, occurs prior to the 3 Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, 266. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (Boston: Lee and Shepard. 1872), IV, 732, quoted in Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, 267. 4 The First Resurrection 182 Second Coming of Christ. Taken collectively, all these factors point to the conclusion that a physical resurrection in Revelation 20:4 is very unlikely. But only an exposition of Revelation 20:4-6 will confirm our suspicion. Amillennialists have, in general, understood the phrase “and they lived and reigned with Christ” to mean either the believer’s spiritual resurrection during conversion, or the believer’s death and subsequent reign with Christ in the intermediate state. The later position is taken by William Hendricksen,5 Gregory Beale,6 Anthony Hoekema,7 Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg,8 and Meredith Kline.9 In both cases, the first resurrection is a spiritual resurrection, and occurs prior to the Second Advent of Christ. The First Resurrection and Hermeneutics There are serious hermeneutical differences between dispensational and Reformed exegetes. With regard to eschatology, the primary dissimilarity lies in how these scholars interpret Revelation 20:1-6. Reformed expositors tend to apply the analogy of faith, that is, they study Revelation 20 in the light of the teachings of the entire New Testament. The premillennialist, however, finds a two-phase physical resurrection in 20:4-6, and applies this understanding retrogradely into antecedent Scripture. But the entire New Testament is unanimous on the doctrine of the general resurrection. Instead of interpreting the highly symbolical passage of 20:4-6 using clear New Testament passages, the premillennialists insist on imposing a literal reading of 20:4-6 onto plain, New Testament eschatological teachings. George Murray laments: “The anomaly confronting us here is that one can read the whole Bible without discovering an inkling of this doctrine [the doctrine of two resurrections separated by one thousand years] until he arrives at its third from the last chapter. If, on coming to that chapter, he shall give a literal interpretation to one sentence of a highly symbolical passage, he will then find it necessary to retrace his steps and interpret all the eschatological teachings of the Bible in a manner agreeable to this one sentence. The 5 See Hendricksen, More Than Conquerors, 192. See Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1002-1007. 7 See Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 232-238. 8 See Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, The Revelation of St. John: Expounded for Those Who Search the Scriptures (Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark, 1852; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005), 281-282. 9 See Meredith Kline, “The First Resurrection,” Westminster Theological Journal 37, no. 3 (1975): 366-375. 6 The First Resurrection 183 recognized rule of exegesis is to interpret an obscure passage of Scripture in the light of a clear statement. In this case, clear statements are being interpreted to agree with the literal interpretation of one sentence from a context replete with symbolism, the true meaning of which is highly debatable.”10 We have previously discussed the genre of Revelation, as well as the hermeneutical considerations of interpreting such symbolical passages. In the proper interpretation of John’s Apocalypse, we must consider four levels of communication in 20:1-6. “The linguistic level consists of the text of 20:1–6. The visionary level consists of John’s actual visions of a descending angel, a dragon, a pit, the seizing of the dragon, the sealing of the pit, the thrones, and so on. The referential level consists of the historical referents of the dragon, the pit, the thousand years, and the first resurrection. The symbolic level consists of the symbolic significances of the various figures and events depicted.”11 Premillennialists, in general, agree that the plain reading of 20:4-6 would support a two-phase resurrection sequence. They contend that a literal rendering of the text will inevitably limit the meaning of the “first resurrection” to a bodily resurrection. Thus, the premillennial exegete finds two physical resurrections in 20:4-6, one in verse 4b, and one in verse 5a. But such a literal approach to this highly symbolical passage does not do justice to the full meaning of the text. In the previous chapters, it was reiterated that when we consider apocalyptic passages such as the vision of John in 20:1-6, we must not disregard the visionary and symbolical meaning of the text. Poythress correctly perceives that “many premillennialists . . . neglect the possibility of the presence of a visionary and a symbolic level. Instead they move almost immediately from the linguistic level to the referential level. The language of “living” and “first resurrection” is understood in a literal sense. Anastasis (“resurrection”) elsewhere in the NT is always used of bodily resurrection. And, it is claimed, the context of Revelation 20 does not point away from this normal understanding. Hence “resurrection” must here mean bodily resurrection. Hence the first resurrection refers to the bodily resurrection of believers at the second coming.”12 Poythress explains that in the communication of the vision to John, the apostle had to see the resurrection of actual bodies. This is an essential element in order for the 10 George L. Murray, Millennial Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1948), 153-154. Vern Sheridan Poythress, “Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1-6,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36, no. 1 (1993): 45-46. 12 Ibid., 46. 11 The First Resurrection 184 information to be conveyed to John in visionary format. But the imagery of bodies rising does not in itself determine the referential and the symbolic meaning. What the apostle sees at the visionary stage does not immediately determine the meaning of the vision at the referential or symbolic levels. Poythress argues, “What took place on the visionary level? John saw saints come to life and reign (v. 4). In the context of a vision, one could hardly imagine that John’s experience was anything other than seeing a bodily resurrection and its results. John had to see bodies in order for any information concerning people to be conveyed in a visionary format. The visionary level thus includes bodily resurrection and its results. On the symbolic level the text pictures new life and vindication. And what takes place on the referential level? The referent is some kind of new life, but the exact form remains to be determined. The mere fact that the visionary level involves concrete physical representation does not by itself determine the nature of the referential level.”13 Therefore, what is perceived at the visionary level must not be extrapolated immediately to the referential and symbolic levels. If the visions of John’s Apocalypse were to be understood literally, specifically the vision of 20:4-6, then that would be a gross misunderstanding of the genre and worse, to misinterpret the meaning of those texts. Poythress recognizes that the crux of the entire controversy is hermeneutical in nature. The disparity between premillennial, particularly dispensational, hermeneutics and Reformed hermeneutics ultimately constitutes the exegetical differences with regard to the text in question.14 With regard to Revelation 20:4-6, Poythress summarizes the weaknesses inherent in premillennial hermeneutics: “Many premillennialists have thus skirted some key issues when appealing to the supposed literalness of the first resurrection. They have neglected the visionary and symbolic levels of the discourse. In fact premillennial interpreters have often applied a similar literalistic interpretive strategy to the rest of Revelation and to much of OT prophecy as well. In such a strategy, the visionary level and symbolic level are virtually collapsed into the referential level. Throughout Revelation the visions are then understood 13 Ibid. Reformed hermeneutics refers to the “historical-grammatical-literary-theological” method of interpretation laid out in Chapter 2. 14 The First Resurrection 185 to be direct transcriptions of future history. Partly for this reason most premillennialists are futurist in their interpretation of Revelation.”15 The Meaning of the Resurrection It is often adduced by Premillennialists that, since ezesan (ἔζησαν) in verse 5a refers to a physical resurrection – and few expositors would ever dispute this point – then ezesan in verse 4b must also mean a physical resurrection.16 But there are several considerations which are apparently neglected when one attempts to understand this verb too literally. Gregory Beale writes, “In contrast to this literal approach, it is important to recognize that ἀνάστασις (“resurrection”) is found in Revelation only in 20:5-6. Moreover, the ordinal “first” (πρῶτος) with “resurrection” occurs nowhere else in the OT or the NT. This is a hint that lexical study of words expressing the ideas of “first” and “second” needs to be conducted in order to comprehend the full meaning of “resurrection” in the present context.”17 Therefore, it is paramount that the contextual usage of “first” (Prōtos) must be explored in our interpretation of the phrase “first resurrection.” Beale argues that “ζάω (“live”) has a more fluid of range of meaning in the Apocalypse and elsewhere (for the sense of physical resurrection outside Revelation cf. Matt. 9:18; Rom. 14:9; 2 Cor. 13:4). In the Apocalypse it sometimes refers to physical resurrection (1:18; 2:8) or more generally to some form of physical existence (l6:3; 19:20), but more often it has a figurative connotation of spiritual existence, especially with respect to God’s attribute of timeless existence (six occurrences). In 3:1 the verb refers to spiritual life (and the uses in 7:17 and 13:14 15 Poythress, “Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1-6,” 48. See Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation: New International Commentary on the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1998), 366. Mounce writes, “The strong presumption is that the verb in v. 4 should be taken in the same sense as it is in v. 5. In the second case the statement, “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended,” certainly refers to a bodily resurrection at the close of the millennial period. If “they came to life” in v. 4 means a spiritual resurrection to new life in Christ, then we are faced with the problem of discovering within the context some persuasive reason to interpret the same verb differently within one concise unit. No such reason can be found.” 17 Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1004. 16 The First Resurrection 186 are probably also figurative).”18 The Apostle John could very well have intended to convey a spiritual resurrection as opposed to a physical one expounded by premillennialists. However, according to Beale, the “most striking is the observation that elsewhere in the NT ἀνάστασις and ζάω (or the cognate noun ζωή, “life”) and synonyms are used interchangeably of both spiritual and physical resurrection within the same immediate contexts.”19 Beale provides Romans 6:4-13 and John 5:24-29 as instances whereby the words “life” and “resurrection” are used together within the same context to convey spiritual and physical realities. “These observations do not demonstrate that the same words are used in Rev. 20:4 and 6 of both spiritual and physical resurrection, but only that they can have that dual meaning elsewhere in the same context.”20 The premillennialist’s insistence that the same word cannot possess different meanings within the same context is consequently weakened. The Ordinal First It is contended by premillennialists that the ordinal “first” is used with the word “resurrection” to convey the idea that the “first resurrection” is the first in a series of resurrections of the same kind. It is alleged that a “consistently literal” hermeneutics does not allow any other interpretation of the phrase “first resurrection.” But even the pretribulational, premillennial schema does not fit into this understanding using a strictly literal hermeneutics. If, indeed, the first resurrection is the first in a series of bodily resurrections, the “first resurrection” according to historical chronology must be the pretribulation rapture. If dispensational hermeneutics is correct, what will be the final destiny of saints saved during the tribulation, or during the earthly millennium? According to the dispensational schema, the tribulation and millennial saints will be resurrected after the pretribulation rapture. These are chronologically the second, third, or even fourth resurrection! If we were to understand Revelation 20:6 literally, we would have to conclude that the second death will in fact have power over those saints who do not resurrect at the first resurrection, that is, during the pretribulation rapture. We mentioned above that the usage of the ordinal first with “resurrection” does not occur elsewhere in the New or Old Testament. There are good exegetical reasons to 18 Ibid. Ibid. 20 Ibid., 1005. 19 The First Resurrection 187 believe that John had in mind two different kinds of resurrection in 20:4-6, especially when we consider his employment of the ordinal “first.” This is due to his use of contrast between the “first resurrection” and the “second death (20:6).” This contrast and the use of “first” (Prōtos) are dealt with in detail by Meredith Kline. It is Kline’s contention that the first resurrection is a spiritual resurrection, which is contrasted with the bodily resurrection in verse 5. Kline writes: “One of the critical points in the exegesis of Revelation 20 is the interpretation of prōtos in the phrase, “the first resurrection” (v. 5). Premillennarians understand it in the purely sequential sense of first in a series of items of the same kind. They interpret both “the first resurrection” and the resurrection event described in verses 12 and 13 of this chapter as bodily resurrections. The contextual usage of Prōtos, however, does not support such an exegesis; it rather points compellingly to an interpretation of “the first resurrection” found in (so-called) amillennial exegesis.”21 The usage of the word “first,” according to Kline, suggests a difference in kind rather than a sequential order. He begins his exegesis by turning to the usage of the word “first” in Revelation 21. Revelation 21:1ff provides us with a good starting point of how the Apostle John uses the ordinal “first.” In this passage of Scripture, the word “first” is obviously contrasted with the word “new.” The old or the “first heaven and the first earth (21:1)” is being superseded by the “second” or the “new heaven and a new earth (21:1).” All “the former things (21:4)” are passed away, and God creates “all things new (21:5).” Kline explains, “In this passage to be “first” means to belong to the order of the present world which is passing away. Prōtos does not merely mark the present world as the first in a series of worlds and certainly not as the first in a series of worlds all of the same kind. On the contrary, it characterizes this world as different in kind from the “new” world. It signifies that the present world stands in contrast to the new world order of the consummation which will abide forever.”22 Thus, in Revelation 21, “first” (Prōtos) heaven or the first earth does not mean the first in a series of the same kind. The “old” fallen world and creation is contrasted with the “second” or the new, redeemed heaven and earth. The “first” order of things 21 22 Kline, “The First Resurrection,” 366. Ibid., 366-367. The First Resurrection 188 is passed away, and the “second” order is ushered in. Redeemed creation is contrasted with the corrupted, fallen world. They are clearly not of the same kind. The same contrast is seen in Revelation 20:4-6. The “second death (20:6)” is not physical death in the same sense as the bodily death we encounter on earth. The “first death,” which is implied by the term “second death,” is what we commonly call death in a secular, non-spiritual sense. The “second death,” however, is eternal destruction in the lake of fire (20:14-15). Again, the two deaths are not of the same kind. In Revelation 21:1ff, the term “second” is used as an alternative to “new,” while the “old” or “former things (21:4)” are referred to as “first.” The contrast is obvious: the “second” or “new” serves as an antithesis to the “first” or “old.” Likewise, the second death in 20:6 is distinguished from the first death, which belongs to the order of first things. It is also the first death that leads to the first resurrection for the saints, but the second death leads to eternal destruction for unbelievers. “Whatever accounts for the preference for “first” over “old” in describing the present world, the use of “first” naturally led to the use of “second” alongside “new” for the future world, particularly for the future reality of eternal death for which the term “new” with its positive redemptive overtones would be inappropriate.”23 Evidently, the terms “first” and “second” do not refer to sequence but contrast. The weakness in premillennial exegesis becomes apparent when we consider the contrast between “first” and “second.” Kline elaborates: “In this antithetical pairing of first death (an expression virtually contained in verse 4) and “second death” (v. 8), Revelation 21 confronts us with the same idiom that we find in Revelation 20 in “the first resurrection” (vss. 5, 6) and the second resurrection (an expression implicit in this chapter). The arbitrariness of the customary premillennial insistence that “the first resurrection” must be a bodily rising from the grave if the second resurrection is such is exposed by the inconsistent recognition by premillennial exegesis that, although the first death is the loss of physical life, “the second death” is death of a different kind, death in a metaphorical rather than literal, physical sense.”24 Although premillennialists insist that the two resurrections (20:4, 5) are bodily resurrections, they are forced to concede that the two deaths are not the same kind of 23 24 Ibid., 367. Ibid. The First Resurrection 189 death. The “first death” is bodily, physical death, while the “second death” is a metaphorical description of eternal torment. Kline then proceeds to examine similar usages of the ordinal “first” in the New Testament, and how it serves to distinguish between the old and the new. Kline proposes that “in the Book of Hebrews the terms “first” and “new” are used to distinguish the Mosaic and the Messianic administrations of God’s redemptive covenant (cf. 8:7, 8, 13; 9:1, 15, 18; 10:9).”25 In Hebrews 10:9, the new covenant is also called the “second.” Within the context of Hebrews, the Mosaic economy of God’s redemptive covenant is contrasted with the Messianic administration of the same covenant of grace via the terms “first” and “second.” This usage of “first” in the Book of Hebrews, which refers to the old covenant, does not constitute a sequential chronology, but rather serves as a contrast to the second or new covenant. In the context of Hebrews, Kline explains that “although the term “second” appears along with “new,” it is “new” that predominates as the counterpart to “first.” Accordingly, the significance of “first” in this context is not so much priority in a series but opposition to the idea of “new.” Prōtos thus functions here as an equivalent for “old,” our traditional designation for the Mosaic covenant.”26 In both Revelation 21 and Hebrews, the term “first” denotes the order of things which passes away. “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away (Heb. 8:13).” Kline points out that “in Hebrews as in Revelation 21 prōtos is used for the provisional and transient stage in contrast to that which is consummative, final, and enduring.”27 Paul’s usage of the word “first” in 1 Corinthians 15:45-50 on the theme of resurrection provides another example of such a contrast. The “first man Adam (1 Cor. 15:45)” is contrasted with “the last Adam.” “The “first man Adam” (v. 45; cf. vv. 46f) is not first in the sense of heading an indefinite series of Adams but first in the antithetically qualitative sense of being counterpart to the “last Adam” (v. 45).”28 The last Adam, likewise, is not the last in a series of similar “Adams.” The first Adam is earthly, the second Adam is Christ from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47). Adam stands at the head of the human race, while Christ is the head of all the redeemed. In 25 Ibid. Ibid., 368. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 26 The First Resurrection 190 Adam we die, but in Christ we live. Thus, the first Adam does not mean the first in a series of Adams. The ordinal “first (prōtos),” in the context of 1 Corinthians 15, is used to provide a contrast between two different kinds of Adams: the first Adam and the last Adam, who is Christ. “By eliminating the thought of any intermediate Adams between the “first” and “last” Adams, the term “second” here, as in the Hebrews and Revelation 21 passages, underscores the binary (as over against indefinitely seriatim) framework within which prōtos is functioning and derives its specific meaning.”29 From our study of the word “first” in Revelation 21, the Book of Hebrews, and 1 Corinthians 15, it becomes apparent that prōtos does not convey an idea of priority or preeminence, but rather provides a contrast and antithesis. The antithetical function of prōtos highlights the difference in kinds, rather than having any sequential connotations. Kline writes, “Like Revelation 21, Hebrews uses “first” for an historical stage that passes away. Like Revelation 21, Paul uses “first” and its opposite in 1 Cor 15 for a two-fold structure comprehensive of cosmic history. In none of these passages does prōtos function as a mere ordinal in a simple process of counting objects identical in kind. In fact, precisely the reverse is true in all three passages; in each case it is a matter of different kinds, indeed, of polar opposites.”30 With this meaning of prōtos in mind, and considering the overarching thematic continuity between Revelation 20 and 21, it is essential that exegetes interpret the ordinal first in 20:4-6 according to its usage in chapter 21. We must also consider the contrast between the “first resurrection” and the “second death” found in verses 5b and 6a: “This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.” Kline further suggests that “the usage of prōtos in the first-(second) resurrection pattern must be the same as the usage of prōtos in the intertwined (first)-second death pattern.”31 In light of the aforementioned exegetical considerations, Kline elucidates: “‘The first resurrection” is not, therefore, the earliest in a series of resurrections of the same kind, not the first of two (or more) bodily resurrections. The antithetical usage of prōtos in this context requires a conclusion diametrically opposite to the customary premillennial assumption. If the second resurrection is a bodily resurrection, the first resurrection must be a non-bodily resurrection.”32 29 Ibid. Ibid., 369. 31 Ibid., 370. 32 Ibid. 30 The First Resurrection 191 Kline continues, “What then is meant by “the first resurrection”? The answer must certainly be sought in terms of the striking paradoxical schema of which the expression is an integral part. In this arrangement two binary patterns are combined into a complex double pattern with antithesis between the parts within each pair (i.e., the first-new contrast) and also between the two pairs themselves, the one having to do with death and the other with resurrection.”33 Thus, two binary patterns are presented by John in his vision (20:4-6): the first(second) resurrection pattern and the (first)-second death pattern. This double pattern provides an antithesis within itself, illustrating the fact that the just shall receive the first resurrection, and that the unjust shall ultimately be condemned to the second death. Within each binary pattern, the spiritual and physical realities are contrasted further. The (first)-second death pattern provides contrast between physical death and eternal, spiritual death. In like manner, we expect the first-(second) resurrection pattern to present a similar contrast. Kline’s exegesis leads to an inevitable conclusion - the first resurrection refers not to a bodily resurrection, but a spiritual one. He writes: “The proper decipherment of “the first resurrection” in the interlocking schema of first-(second) resurrection and (first)-second death is now obvious enough. Just as the resurrection of the unjust is paradoxically identified as “the second death” so the death of the Christian is paradoxically identified as “the first resurrection.” John sees the Christian dead (v. 4). The real meaning of their passage from earthly life is to be found in the state to which it leads them. And John sees the Christian dead living and reigning with Christ (vv. 4, 6); unveiled before the seer is the royal-priestly life on the heavenly side of the Christian’s earthly death. Hence the use of the paradoxical metaphor of “the first resurrection” (vv. 5f) for the death of the faithful believer. What for others is the first death is for the Christian a veritable resurrection!”34 In summary, the “first resurrection” of Revelation 20:4-6 is a spiritual resurrection. When believers die physically, they are translated to heaven in their intermediate state. There, they will reign with Christ for a thousand years, which is symbolic for a complete, yet indeterminate period of time. “The believing dead shall worship God and Christ as priests and shall reign with Christ as kings” during the entire 33 34 Ibid. Ibid., 371. The First Resurrection 192 millennium.35 There in heaven, the believing dead shall await the Second Advent of Christ, the physical resurrection of their bodies (i.e. the second resurrection), and the final judgment of the living and the dead. Conclusion The transition from physical death to blessedness and life with Christ in heaven is termed the “first resurrection.” “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years (20:6).” Therefore, those who experience the first resurrection shall not suffer the second death. They shall be raised in the second (bodily) resurrection unto glory and eternal life. However, unbelievers who die (first death) shall be condemned to the second death. They shall be resurrected at the end of the age unto eternal damnation and torment in the lake of fire. Referring to the first and second resurrection of the saints as two stages of blessedness, Ernst Hengstenberg comments: “The Apocalypse invariably points to a double stage of blessedness - the one awaiting believers immediately after their departure out of this life; the other, what they are to receive when they enter the new Jerusalem. . . . There can be no doubt, that by the first resurrection we are here primarily to understand that first stage of blessedness. In so understanding it, we abide in unison with the Apocalypse and the whole of the other books of the New Testament. On the other hand, if we understand by the first resurrection a resurrection in the literal sense - if, accordingly, we suppose that the first resurrection has respect to one part of men, the second to another - we then arrive at a doctrine which in no other part of Scripture finds a ground of support, which, on the contrary, is everywhere explicitly opposed. Now, the only thing which can raise any doubt regarding the most natural and obvious view, is that the resurrection is here spoken of. This expression appears only to suit the heavenly state of blessedness. But when John denotes the two stages by the same name in order to make them known as the component parts of the same salvation, and only distinguishes them, the one as the first, the other as the second resurrection, there must of necessity in the one case attach to the term a certain want of literality. This want is all but expressly indicated by the phrase “first resurrection.” Two resurrections, in the proper sense, are not conceivable - if we would not 35 Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 237. The First Resurrection 193 abandon the ground of Scripture, which nowhere knows of anything but a general resurrection.”36 The amillennial understanding of the “first resurrection” negates any apparent contradiction with the rest of New Testament eschatology. Consistent with the teaching of a general resurrection and a final judgment associated with the Parousia of Christ, such an understanding of Revelation 20:4-6 supports the eschatological schema laid out in antecedent Scripture. It takes into account the Reformed principle of the analogy of faith, the genre of John’s apocalypse, and the evidence for recapitulation in Revelation 20. Finally, the amillennial understanding provides great comfort for those who have lost their loved ones in the Lord. For their reign with Christ begins with the “first resurrection,” for “blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth (Rev. 14:13).”37 36 Hengstenberg, The Revelation of St. John, 281-282. For further study, see Meredith Kline, “The First Resurrection: A Reaffirmation,” Westminster Theological Journal 39, no. 1 (1976): 110-119; Phillip Edgcumbe Hughes, “The First Resurrection: Another Interpretation,” Westminster Theological Journal 39, no. 2 (1977): 316-319; Norman Shepherd, “The Resurrections of Revelation 20,” Westminster Theological Journal 37, no. 1 (1974): 35-45; James Hughes, “Revelation 20:1-6 and the Question of the Millennium,” Westminster Theological Journal 35, no. 3 (1973): 282-303; Paul A. Rainbow, “Millennium as Metaphor in John’s Apocalypse,” Westminster Theological Journal 58, no. 2 (1996): 210-221. 37 The First Resurrection 194 Chapter 15: Dispensational Premillennialism and the Westminster Standards The Westminster Standards and Eschatology In chapter 8, we discussed briefly how the eschatological schema of dispensational premillennialism fails to conform to the Reformed confessions of faith. The Westminster Confession of Faith, particularly Chapter XXXII paragraphs II and III, does not seem to accommodate a series of resurrections. Furthermore, dispensational premillennialism requires at least three judgments, namely, the Judgment Seat of Christ, the judgment of millennial saints, and the Great White Throne Judgment. This doctrine of multiple judgments is apparently inconsistent with the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter XXXIII, paragraphs I and II). The Belgic Confession, especially Article 37, likewise accommodates only a general resurrection and a single judgment on the last day. Our study of Revelation 20, and the hermeneutics involved in the interpretation of this passage, has enabled us to better understand the premillennial position.1 We shall now turn to the Westminster Larger Catechism, which is more specific on the Reformed teachings of eschatology. Question 87 and its answer were written as follows: Question 87. What are we to believe concerning the resurrection? A. We are to believe, that at the Last Day there shall be a general resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust: when they that are then found alive shall in a moment be changed; and the self-same bodies of the dead which were laid in the grave, being then again united to their souls for ever, shall be raised up by the power of Christ. The bodies of the just, by the Spirit of Christ, and by virtue of his resurrection as their head, shall be raised in power, spiritual, incorruptible, and made like to his glorious body; 1 For a discussion of the diverse millennial views, see Loraine Boettner, The Millennium (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1957); Robert G. Clouse, ed., The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977); Millard J. Erickson, A Basic Guide to Eschatology: Making Sense of the Millennium (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 1998); Stanley Grenz, The Millennial Maze: Sorting Out Evangelical Options (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992). The Westminster Standards 195 and the bodies of the wicked shall be raised up in dishonor by him, as an offended judge.2 Vern Poythress observes, “Question 87 is framed as a question about ‘the resurrection’, not several distinct resurrections. In the Catechism’s answer, the language about ‘the last day’ and ‘a general resurrection’ seems to imply one day of judgment, not several. By contrast, dispensationalists postulate at least three judgments and three resurrections, one for church-age believers at the Rapture, one for the nations at the visible Second Coming of Christ, and still a third at the end of the millennium. The first of these judgments includes bodily resurrection for Christian believers, but no bodily resurrection for the wicked until the visible Second Coming.”3 Therefore, based upon Question 87 alone, it could be argued that the Larger Catechism excludes any form of millennial teaching which requires a series of resurrections. This would imply that premillennialism, especially dispensationalism, cannot conform to the schema laid out in Question 87. Poythress continues, “But does the Catechism answer actually exclude premillennialism? If we allow a slight stretch in interpretation, the Catechism answer might be interpreted as describing the general resurrection at the end of the millennium. Dispensationalists and other premillennialists could agree with such a description of the very last resurrection. They would only introduce the further explanation that they still believe in an additional resurrection before the beginning of the millennium.”4 The point is: the prima facie reading of Question 87 indicates a general resurrection, not two resurrections separated by a thousand years. Even more so, the prosaic or literal understanding of the Catechism at this juncture directs the reader away from the premillennial understanding of eschatology. Nevertheless, Premillennialists 2 For a commentary on Question 87, see Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary, 202-206. 3 Vern Sheridan Poythress, “Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism,” in The Practical Calvinist: An Introduction to the Presbyterian and Reformed Heritage, ed. Peter A. Lillback (Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), 417-418. 4 Ibid., 418. The Westminster Standards 196 might be compelled to add an emendation to the Catechism so as to introduce a sequence of resurrections into the wording of the text. Question 88 of the Westminster Larger Catechism also poses an insuperable problem for the dispensational premillennialist: Question 88. What shall immediately follow after the resurrection? A. Immediately after the resurrection shall follow the general and final judgment of angels and men; the day and hour whereof no man knoweth, that all may watch and pray, and be ever ready for the coming of the Lord.5 Again, the Catechism uses the language “the general and final judgment.” This could be stretched to include the judgment of saints at the end of the millennium, as well as the Great White Throne judgment. But taken specifically, the dispensational premillennial understanding of the “final judgment” is actually two separate judgments - one for the just and one for the unjust. It is by no means a “general” judgment. The wicked are evidently, according to dispensationalists, judged apart from the righteous dead at the end of the millennium. Bible Presbyterians agree with Dispensationalists that the Great White Throne judgment is reserved for the reprobates. In order to fit the dispensational schema into the language of Question 88, a dispensational premillennialist would have to interpret it as referring to the judgment at the end of the millennium. But this is apparently a difficult, if not impossible, feat. With regard to the Second Coming of Christ, the Catechism states that “the day and hour whereof no man knoweth.” If Question 88 must be interpreted to mean the resurrection after the millennium, millennial citizens can easily count down 1000 years towards the final judgment. After all, according to dispensationalists, man will live extremely long lives during the millennium. If this is the case, the answer to Question 88 must be re-written as “the day and hour man shall know, particularly those who are alive during the millennium.” Millennial saints and reprobates alike must only ensure that their arithmetic is correct. The problems for the dispensational premillennialist are far from over. We continue to consider Question 90 of the Westminster Larger Catechism. Question 90. What shall be done to the righteous at the day of judgment? 5 For a commentary on Question 88, see Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary, 206-209. The Westminster Standards 197 A. At the day of judgment, the righteous, being caught up to Christ in the clouds, shall be set on his right hand, and there openly acknowledged and acquitted, shall join with him in the judging of reprobate angels and men, and shall be received into heaven, where they shall be fully and for ever freed from all sin and misery; filled with inconceivable joys, made perfectly holy and happy both in body and soul, in the company of innumerable saints and holy angels, but especially in the immediate vision and fruition of God the Father, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, to all eternity. And this is the perfect and full communion, which the members of the invisible church shall enjoy with Christ in glory, at the resurrection and day of judgment.6 Question 90 of the Catechism speaks of the “day of judgment.” 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is given as a proof-text for the answer to this question. We remember that Bible Presbyterians and Dispensationalists understand 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 as referring to the rapture, which occurs prior to the millennial reign of Christ. But this creates a problem for interpreting the Catechism in accordance with the premillennial schema. The “day of judgment” in Question 90 obviously refers to the “general and final judgment” of Question 88. We have seen that, in order to fit the premillennial sequence of resurrections and judgments into the Catechism, dispensational premillennialists have to interpret Question 88 as referring to the judgment at the end of the millennium. This understanding of the “final judgment” of Question 88 contradicts the interpretation of the “day of judgment” of Question 90, which supposedly refers to the rapture (1 Thess. 4:17). Poythress elaborates on this point, “The expression ‘being caught up to Christ in the clouds’, together with the footnoted proof-text from 1 Thessalonians 4:17, indicates that church-age believers are in view, not subsequent believers during the millennium. ‘The day of judgment,’ in the light of the immediately preceding questions, must refer to ‘the general and final judgment of angels and men’ (Answer 88), not to a judgment at a time before the beginning of the millennium. Taken together, the answers to Questions 87-90 force us to dissolve the distinction between an earlier judgment for the church and a later one for millennial believers. The Catechism is clearly thinking in amillennial terms.”7 Nevertheless, Poythress notes that there is still a way to resolve this apparent contradiction. Bible Presbyterians can insist that the proof-texts in the footnotes are 6 7 For a detailed commentary on Question 90, see ibid., 213-217. Poythress, “Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism,” 418-419. The Westminster Standards 198 not technically considered as part of the Catechism. And by virtue of the fact that these proof-texts serve only as an illustration to the standards, the minister is not required to subscribe to them. “Thus, a dispensationalist might reject the prooftext (sic) from 1 Thessalonians 4:17 as inapplicable, and still say that Answer 90 accurately describes the judgment at the end of the millennium.”8 However, such a solution is not historically feasible. We understand that the Catechism was designed to have practical implications for the daily Christian life. If it is true that - according to the dispensational reinterpretation of Questions 87-90 the Catechism only speaks of the resurrection and final judgment of the saints after the millennium, then there remain no eschatological teachings in the Catechism which are relevant for the Christian today. Poythress criticizes such an understanding of the Catechism, “Yet this leaves the Catechism in a position where it says nothing about the resurrection and judgment that will take place for Christians in the church age. The practical design of the Catechism demands that it say something practical about the hope that we have as Christians. Thus, an interpretation that shifts Questions 87-90 to another time period (the time 1000 years after the Second Coming) is not historically plausible.”9 We can therefore conclude with Poythress that “it is difficult to square the detailed language of the Catechism with either dispensationalism or historical premillennialism.”10 Bible Presbyterianism and the Westminster Standards The Westminster Standards are, indeed, very specific about issues pertaining to eschatology. We shall now look at the Westminster Confession of Faith once again, particularly chapter XXXIII paragraph 1. Among the chapters of the Confession of Faith which were emended by the Bible Presbyterians, it is notable that an emendation was added to chapter XXXIII paragraph 1. According to Jeffrey Khoo, the emendation was written as follows: “God hath appointed a day (which word in Scripture in reference to the last things may represent a period of time including the thousand years following the visible, personal and premillennial return of Christ), wherein he will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the 8 Ibid., 419. Ibid. 10 Ibid. 9 The Westminster Standards 199 apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil [words in italics added by the Bible-Presbyterian Church].”11 Concerning the emendations to the Confession, Battle further elucidates that, “A committee was appointed to suggest amendments to the [Bible Presbyterian] church’s constitution, consisting of Carl McIntire, J. U. Selwyn Toms, and H. McAllister Griffiths. When the first General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church (BPC) met in September 1938, it adopted the recommended changes. The only changes made in the doctrinal standards were in the Confession of Faith and the Larger Catechism. Many individual parts of the standards were affected. The following changes, made in the Confession, are typical (deletions are lined out; additions are in italics): Chapter 32, Of the State of Man After Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead “2. At the last day return of the Lord Jesus, such living persons as are found alive in him shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead in Christ shall be raised up with the self-same bodies, and none other, although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls for ever.” “3. The bodies of the unjust shall, after Christ has reigned on earth a thousand years by the power of Christ, be raised by the power of God to dishonor; the bodies of the just, by his Spirit unto honor, and be made conformable to his own glorious body.” Chapter 33, Of the Last Judgment Things “1. God hath appointed a day (which day in Scripture in reference to the last things may represent a period of time including the thousand years following the visible, personal and pre-millennial return of Christ) wherein he will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ . . . .”12 11 Khoo, Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, 132. John A. Battle, “Eschatology in the Bible Presbyterian Church,” Western Reformed Seminary 11, no. 2 (2004): 19-20. 12 The Westminster Standards 200 From our study of the Larger Catechism,13 it has been established that premillennialism, particularly Dispensationalism, is apparently incompatible with the Westminster Standards. Taken together with the Larger Catechism, it is difficult to understand the Confession as expounding two distinct judgments: an earlier judgment for the church before the Judgment Seat of Christ, and a later one after the millennium i.e. the Great White Throne Judgment. The Westminster Standards also oppose any understanding of the Second Advent of Christ as constituting two separate events. According to dispensational premillennialism, there is a secret coming of Christ for His church, and a visible, glorious return of Christ with His church before the millennium. In addition, the dispensationalist postulates at least three judgments and three resurrections. The teachings of the Westminster Larger Catechism cannot be divorced from the Confession of Faith. The Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms, as well as the Confession of Faith, form an integral unit comprising the Standards of the Westminster Assembly. Thus, the Catechisms and the Confession of Faith must be studied together, and not apart from each other. W. Robert Godfrey relates to us that the Larger Catechism was intended to contain a more comprehensive enunciation of the Confession of Faith: “On January 14, 1647, the [Westminster] Assembly had adopted a motion “that the committee for the Catechism do prepare a draught of two Catechisms, one more large and another more brief, in which they are to have an eye to the Confession of Faith, and to the matter of the Catechism already begun.” George Gillespie observed that the Larger Catechism would be “for those of understanding” while other Scottish Commissioners referred to it as “one more exact and comprehensive.” . . . Clearly the Larger Catechism was intended for the more mature in the faith.”14 Frederick W. Loetscher goes further, and states that “[the Larger Catechism is] chiefly designed as an adaptation of the [Westminster] Confession to the didactic functions of the preacher and pastor.”15 It is clear that the Larger Catechism serves as a detailed and exact description of the doctrines set out in the Confession of Faith. 13 This refers to the original Larger Catechism prior to the emendations of the Bible Presbyterian Church. 14 W. Robert Godfrey, “An Introduction to the Westminster Larger Catechism,” in The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary, ed. G. I. Williamson (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 2002), x, quoting John Murray, “The Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly,” Presbyterian Guardian, December 25, 1943, 362. 15 Frederick W. Loetscher, “The Westminster Formularies: A Brief Description,” in The Westminster Assembly (Department of History, Office of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., 1943), 17. The Westminster Standards 201 In fact, it provides a manual of systematic theology for the Reformed pastor and teacher. Thomas Torrance concurs, “The Larger Catechism was designed chiefly as a directory for ministers in their teaching of the reformed faith Sunday by Sunday.”16 How, then, can a self-professed Reformed minister teach a system of eschatology that contradicts the Westminster Standards?17 Can a Reformed church add an emendation to the Confession of Faith, which unashamedly contradicts the original statements of the Larger Catechism, and yet claim to be theologically consistent and Reformed? Apparently, the sine qua non of Dispensationalism has become the “directory” for Bible Presbyterian ministers in their teaching of Dispensationalism “Sunday by Sunday.” It, therefore, appears to be an enigma why Dr Khoo has failed to address the obvious contradictions between the Bible Presbyterians’ emendations of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the original statements of the Larger Catechism. The enigma resolves when we realize that the Larger Catechism is, likewise, emended by the Bible Presbyterian Church to accommodate premillennialism.18 The emendations seem to be an inevitable consequence of attempts to rectify contradictions between the Larger Catechism and the Confession. Changes made in the Larger Catechism are as follows (deletions are lined out; additions are in italics): Q. 87. What are we to believe concerning the resurrection? A. We are to believe, that at the Last Day there shall be a general resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust: when they when Jesus Christ returns the just that are then found alive shall in a moment be changed; and the self-same bodies of the dead in Christ which are laid in the grave, being then again united to their souls forever, shall be raised up by the power of Christ. The bodies of the just, by the Spirit of Christ, and by virtue of his resurrection as their head, shall be raised in power, spiritual, and incorruptible, and made like to his glorious body in the first resurrection. The bodies of the wicked shall, after a thousand years, be raised up in dishonour by him, as an offended judge in the second resurrection. 16 Thomas F. Torrance, The School of Faith (New York: Harper, 1959), 183. We cannot claim to teach the Westminster Standards when we teach something different from the Standards, unless, of course, we change the original statements of the Standards. And this is exactly what the Bible Presbyterian Church has done. 18 With a similar logic, any denomination can emend the Westminster Confession of Faith, as well as the Larger Catechism, and claim to adhere to the Westminster Standards. 17 The Westminster Standards 202 Q. 88. What shall immediately follow after the resurrection? A. Immediately after the second resurrection shall follow the general and final judgment of men and angels, the day and hour whereof no man knoweth, that all may watch and pray, and be ever ready for the coming of the Lord the destruction of the earth by fire, and the ushering in of the new heaven and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. Q. 89. What shall be done to the wicked at the day of judgment? A. At the day of judgment After their resurrection, the wicked shall be set on Christ’s left hand shall be judged, and, upon clear evidence, and full conviction of their own consciences, shall have the fearful but just sentence of condemnation pronounced against them; and thereupon shall be cast out from the favourable presence of God, and the glorious fellowship with Christ, his saints, and all his holy angels, into hell, to be punished with unspeakable torments, both of body and soul, with the devil and his angels for ever. Q. 90. What shall be done to the righteous at the day of judgment? A. At the day of judgment After the resurrection, the righteous, being caught up to Christ in the clouds; shall be set on his right hand, and there openly acknowledged and acquitted; shall join with him in the millennial reign, and the judging of reprobate men and angels; and shall be received into heaven, where they shall be fully and for ever freed from all sin and misery; filled with inconceivable joys; made perfectly holy and happy both in body and soul, in the company of innumerable saints and angels, but especially in the immediate vision and fruition of God the Father, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, to all eternity. And this is the perfect and full communion, which the members of the invisible church shall enjoy with Christ in glory, at the resurrection and day of judgment.19 It is stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter XXXIII paragraph 1, that “God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world”. Despite the didactic, non-symbolical language of the Confession of Faith, it is plain that Dr Khoo does 19 See Westminster Larger Catechism of the Bible Presbyterian Church [article on-line]; available from http://www.bpc.org/wlc/index.html; Internet; accessed 21 November 2006. The Westminster Standards 203 not understand “a day” to mean a literal day.20 But in his reiteration of David Cooper’s “golden rule,” Dr Khoo writes: “In our study of the Bible, it is important that we observe this basic rule of interpretation: “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense” (David Cooper). Unless there are compelling contextual reasons against taking a word in its literal sense, we should understand a word in its most natural or common sense. Thus, 1,000 years means literally 1,000 years. Israel means Israel, and Church means Church. There is a distinction between Israel and the Church.”21 Ironically Dr Khoo, who insists on a consistently literal hermeneutics, does not understand “a day” to mean a day. This self-professed literalist understands neither the “last trump” (1 Cor. 15:52) as being the last, nor the first resurrection (Rev. 20:56) as being the first. Despite the fact that there are no “compelling contextual reasons against taking a word in its literal sense,” Khoo understands “a day” in the Confession of Faith to mean a period of time of more than one thousand years. Moreover, he interprets the “last trump” as not being the last, and the “first resurrection” as not being the chronological first. Yet he demands that “Israel means Israel, and Church means Church.” Commenting on the rebirth of Israel as a nation, Timothy Tow quotes from Isaiah 11:11-12: “This is “the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.’”22 Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians understand that this passage in Isaiah prophesizes the future regathering of Jews from all the corners of the earth, namely Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar and Hamath. Commenting on this text (Isa. 11:11-12), Martin writes, 20 The expression “a day” appears in both the original and the Bible Presbyterian’s version of the Confession. 21 Khoo, Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, 135. 22 Timothy Tow, The Truth Shall Make You See (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press, 1999), 26. The Westminster Standards 204 “In verses 11-16 Isaiah spoke of the Lord’s gathering the people of Israel and Judah from all over the world. . . . The remnant will be drawn by God from the north (Hamath), south (Egypt and Cush), east (Assyria... Elam... Babylonia) and west (islands of the sea)-from the four quarters of the earth. Both Israel and Judah will be regathered (v. 12; cf. Jer. 31:3134).”23 In the immediate context of this passage whereby “Israel” is to be understood literally according to Dispensationalism and Bible Presbyterianism, there is no hermeneutical reason to interpret the other ancient cities figuratively or allegorically. Using the consistently literal hermeneutics of Dr Khoo, one must understand “Assyria” as a literal country called Assyria, “Pathros” as literally Pathros, and “Cush” as Cush. Is it not true, then, that the countries of Assyria, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar and Hamath must be reborn before Israel can be regathered “from the four corners of the earth?” Because “Israel means Israel, and Church means Church,” “Assyria” must mean Assyria, “Pathros” must mean Pathros, and “Cush” must only mean Cush. Dispensationalists, who insist that “Israel means Israel, and Church means Church,” often have to contradict their principle of a consistently literal hermeneutics when it comes to interpreting other ancient cities or nations mentioned in Old Testament prophecies.24 As a further example, “Gog” in Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39 is not literally Gog, but Russia or the Soviet Union according to some dispensationalists.25 This method of allegorical interpretation is further exemplified by Charles Dyer in his commentary on Ezekiel, “Ezekiel spoke of a coalition of several nations, many of which are today aligned with or under the influence of the Soviet Union. These include Iran (“Persia”), Sudan and northern Ethiopia (“Cush”), Libya (“Put”), and Turkey (“Meshech,” “Tubal,” “Gomer,” and “Beth Togarmah”). All these 23 Martin, “Isaiah,” 1057. This principle of interpretation is unfortunately repeated ad nauseam. See Timothy Tow and Jeffrey Khoo, Theology for Every Christian: A Systematic Theology in the Reformed and Premillennial Tradition of J Olover Buswell (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, 2007), 399. Here, the authors wrote, “God means what He says, and says what He means. Israel means Israel; Zion means Zion; Jerusalem means Jerusalem.” 25 See Edwin M. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier: Invading Hordes from the Russian Steppes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1982) for an excellent critique of this erroneous interpretation. 24 The Westminster Standards 205 nations (see [Ezekiel] 38:2-3, 5-6), possibly led by the Soviet Union, will unite to attack Israel.”26 Despite their insistence that “Israel” must be understood literally as Israel, Dispensationalists such as Dyer allegorize the meaning of “Persia,” “Cush,” “Put,” and “Meshech” to mean Iran, Sudan, Libya, and Turkey respectively. In response to such hermeneutical inconsistencies, William J. Grier writes, “The prophets frequently speak of the dooms upon Edom, Philistia, Assyria, etc. The literalist holds that these dooms are yet future. But where are the Edomites, the Philistines, the Assyrians? Who can find them? Zechariah foretold that the families of David, Nathan, and Shimei would weep, every family apart (12:12-14). The literalist holds that this is yet to be, but no one on the face of the earth today can establish their descent from any of these.”27 The analogy of faith is the Reformed principle of interpretation. Old Testament prophecies must be understood with the light of New Testament revelation, not vice versa. Grier is correct to say that “to interpret the Old Testament prophecies with a uniform literalism, as many try to do, is to turn into a stone what the Lord meant for bread.”28 Conclusion It should be clear to the reader that the literalist does not interpret all, or even most, of prophetic Scripture literally. There are certainly occasions whereby he spiritualizes or allegorizes portions of Scripture which do not fit his system of theology, particularly the eschatological schema of Dispensationalism. Contrary to popular claims, this is not a consistently literal hermeneutics. As regards the Westminster Standards, Bible Presbyterians are even compelled to emend the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger Catechism, so as to incorporate dispensational premillennialism into Reformed teachings. But we have seen that the literal, plain understanding of the Reformed confessions does not allow such a system of eschatology. It is, therefore, unlikely that the dispensational 26 Charles H. Dyer, “Ezekiel,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1300. 27 Grier, The Momentous Event, 40. 28 Ibid., 41. The Westminster Standards 206 premillennialist can truly adhere to the Reformed system of doctrine set forth in the Westminster Standards.29 29 This, of course, refers to the Westminster Standards prior to Bible Presbyterian emendation. The Westminster Standards 207 Chapter 16: Daniel 9:24-27 and the Traditional Messianic Interpretation Introduction The dispensational understanding of Daniel 9:24-27 is fundamental to the establishment of the Bible Presbyterian’s end-time schema. The seven year tribulation period which follows the pretribulation rapture, according to Far Eastern Bible College, is the fulfillment of the 70th week of Daniel’s prophecy. The 70th week of Daniel begins with the Antichrist’s signing of a peace treaty with national Israel. This roughly coincides with the secret rapture of Christians. The Antichrist will impose his cruel, despotic rule during the second half of the seven years tribulation period, also known as the Great Tribulation. All converts to Christianity will be fiercely persecuted during these three and a half years. At the end of the 70th week of Daniel, Christ will return visibly with His saints to execute judgment upon the ungodly. Instead of hovering in midair as in the secret rapture, Christ will now touch down upon terra firma.1 A majority of Israelites will now turn to Christ in repentance and faith. Satan will be bound, and Christ begins His Davidic, earthly reign for one millennium. For Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians, “probably no single prophetic utterance is more crucial in the fields of Biblical Interpretation, Apologetics, and Eschatology” than the seventy-weeks prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27.2 In fact, the dispensational exposition of Daniel 9:24-27 “is often appealed to as the conspicuous proof that the entire Church age is a parenthesis in the prophetic program which is to be discovered between vss. 26 and 27 of Dan. ix.”3 The most striking characteristic of the dispensational understanding is the placement of a time gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel’s prophecy. Kenneth Gentry writes, “Dispensationalism incorporates a gap or parenthesis between the sixtyninth and seventieth weeks. This gap spans the entirety of the Church Age from the Triumphal Entry to the rapture.”4 1 Cf. the dispensational understanding of Zech. 14:4-5. Alva J. McClain, Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1940), 9. 3 Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 111-112. 4 Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), 331. Gentry is a postmillennialist, and a Christian Reconstructionist. We shall discuss the gap theory in detail later in this chapter. 2 Daniel 9:24-27 and the Traditional Messianic Interpretation 208 The first 69 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 are understood to be chronologically sequential, and therefore, fulfilled consecutively. However, Bible Presbyterians, following their Dispensational brethren, impose an indeterminable time gap between the last two weeks of Daniel’s prophecy. This time gap is also known as the church age. It is well known amongst exegetes that the exposition of Daniel 9:24-27 is notoriously controversial and difficult. Montgomery laments that “the history of the exegesis of the 70 Weeks is the Dismal Swamp of O.T. criticism. . . . [T]he trackless wilderness of assumptions and theories in the efforts to obtain an exact chronology fitting into the history of Salvation, after these 2,000 years of infinitely varied interpretations, would seem to preclude any use of the 70 Weeks for the determination of a definite prophetic chronology.”5 Gentry concurs that, “This “extremely important prophecy” [of Daniel 9:24-27] is the most difficult for dispensationalists to make credible to those outside of their system. Even dispensationalist Robert Culver admits: “The difficulty of the verses that now lie before us is evident.” “Premillennial writers of two or three generations ago were very far apart on the details. Much of the same diversity appears in premillennial contemporary writers.” In fact, Daniel’s Seventy Weeks prophecy leads dispensationalism into one of its most strained peculiarities: The doctrine of the gap theory of the Church Age.”6 Despite the exegetical difficulty, the entire end-time schema of dispensationalism depends upon an accurate and sound exegesis of Daniel 9:24-27. The dispensational understanding of Daniel’s seventy weeks forms an indispensable foundation for Bible Presbyterian eschatology. According to Gentry: “The chronology provided in Daniel’s prophecy of the Seventy Weeks (Dan. 9:24-27) is a linchpin in the dispensational system, although it is not crucial to any of the other millennial systems. Walvoord comments that the “interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 is of major importance to premillennialism as well as pretribulationism.” Being such, it is the “key” to prophecy and, consequently, “one of the most important prophecies of 5 J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1927), 400–401. 6 Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 320-321, quoting Robert Duncan Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), 144. Daniel 9:24-27 and the Traditional Messianic Interpretation 209 the bible.” Surely [Oswald] Allis is correct when he observes that “the importance of the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks in Dispensational teaching can hardly be exaggerated.’”7 Both Bible Presbyterians and Dispensationalists agree that Daniel’s prophecy of seventy-weeks is an indispensable key to the interpretation of New Testament prophecy. It provides an interpretive grid for Dispensationalists to understand essential prophetic passages such as the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation. In fact, this is a good illustration of how Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians interpret the New Testament in the light of Old Testament prophecies, instead of vice versa. This methodology goes against the Reformed principle of progressive revelation. Since Daniel 9:24-27 forms an integral part of the dispensational, hermeneutical foundation, the entire Bible Presbyterian eschaton will collapse if we can demonstrate the exegetical weaknesses of their interpretation of Daniel’s seventyweeks. Before we critique the dispensational interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 - also known as the Parenthesis interpretation - we shall first proceed to understand the Traditional Messianic interpretation of this passage.8 The Traditional Messianic Interpretation Versus the Parenthesis Interpretation “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are 7 Ibid., 319-320, quoting John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), 24; John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), 201, 216; O. T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1945), 111. 8 See Edward J. Young, Daniel (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1949), 192-195 for the various interpretations of Daniel 9:24-27. The two most popular interpretations of Daniel 9:24-27 are 1) the Traditional Messianic Interpretation; and 2) the Parenthesis Interpretation. Daniel 9:24-27 and the Traditional Messianic Interpretation 210 determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate (Dan. 9:24-27).” The traditional messianic interpretation is in many ways similar to the parenthesis interpretation of dispensationalists. As Oswald Allis has pointed out, the points of agreement are as follows: (1) The seventy weeks represent weeks of years, a total of 490 years. (2) Only one period of weeks is described, as is proved by the fact that the subdivisions (7+62+1) when added together give a total of 70. (3) The “anointed one, the prince” (vs. 25) and the “anointed one” (vs. 26) are we same person, the Messiah. (4) The first 69 weeks or 483 years had their terminus in the period of the first advent; their fulfillment is long past.9 Both interpretations agree that the seventy weeks of Daniel’s prophecy consist of 490 years in human history. Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians, likewise, concur that the prophecy is Messianic in nature, and that “the Messiah the Prince” in verse 25 and “Messiah” in verse 26 refer to Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the first 69 weeks of prophecy is fulfilled within Christ’s First Advent. Both the parenthesis and the traditional messianic interpretation, therefore, stand in opposition to various antimessianic interpretations that have been proposed. However, it is the differences between these two interpretations that result in at least two diametrically antagonistic eschatological grids. The points of difference centre about these questions: (1) Have the great events described in vs. 24 been fulfilled, or is their accomplishment still future? (2) Is the 70th week past, or is it still to come?10 9 Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 112. It is not within the scope of this book to provide a detailed exegesis of Daniel 9:24-27. The reader is advised to refer to Edward Young’s excellent commentary, Daniel. Also see Meredith Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week”, in The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis, ed. John H. Skilton (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1974), 452-469. 10 Ibid., 112. Daniel 9:24-27 and the Traditional Messianic Interpretation 211 Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians, of course, take a futurist approach to these two questions. They both believe that the events of verse 24 have yet to be completely fulfilled, and they both hold to the position that the 70th week is a future occurrence. The Traditional Messianic Interpretation of Daniel 9:24 According to the traditional interpretation, “all of the great transactions referred to in vs. 24 are to be regarded as having been fulfilled at the first advent and, more specifically, in what is to be regarded as the climactic event of the prophecy, the redemption at Calvary, which is referred to literally in vs. 26 and figuratively in vs. 27.”11 Readers will be able to recognize that these transactions of verse 24 speak about the active and passive obedience of Christ. Young understands the 70 weeks as being decreed to accomplish six results or transactions, and he categorizes these six results into two groups of three members each.12 The negative results are referred to as: “to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity (verse 24).” Indeed, the Messiah’s passive obedience – his atoning sacrifice – encompasses the work of breaking the power of sin over God’s elect (Rom. 6:1-2, 14), the removal of the condemnation of sin (Rom. 5:12-19; 6:23), and the atoning for iniquity (Rom. 3:2126). Christ’s death on the cross of Calvary, indeed, took away all the eternal consequences of the curse. Young writes: “To sum up; sin is here pictured as transgression, sins and iniquity. These three words well represent in its fullness the nature of that curse which has separated man from God. The first stated purpose of the decreeing of the period of 70 sevens is to abolish this curse. It is to be restrained, so shut up by God, that it may no longer be regarded as existing; it is to be brought to an end, that it may no longer be present to enslave; it is also to be done away, because the guilt which it involves has been expiated. How is this to be accomplished? The text does not say, but who, in the light of the NT revelation, can read these words without coming face to face with that one 11 12 Ibid., 113. Young, Daniel, 197. Daniel 9:24-27 and the Traditional Messianic Interpretation 212 perfect Sacrifice which was offered by Him, who “appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Heb. 9:26b)?”13 Young refers to the last three results as being positive. These three positive results are spoken of by Daniel in verse 24b, “to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.” In this group of positive transactions, all the three offices of Christ are alluded to: prophet, priest, and king. By His perfect obedience as the final priest (Rom. 5:19), Christ brings in “everlasting righteousness.” This righteousness is the imputed righteousness of the Savior. It is by His righteousness that we can stand righteous before the judgment seat of Christ. “It is the righteousness of God which comes from God. More specifically, it is that state of rightness or right relationship with God which comes to the sinner through faith in Jesus Christ. It is the blessed condition of “being right” with God.”14 Jesus Christ is the Prophet of whom the Old Testament prophets had prophesized. As a prophet, Christ sealed up “vision and prophecy.” This sealing does not mean “to accredit,” but rather, “to seal up” so that prophecy no longer appears. The purpose and function of prophecy is finished, and is no longer needed in the new dispensation. Young comments, “The two words, vision and prophet, therefore, serve to designate the prophetic revelation of the OT period. This revelation was of a temporary, preparatory, typical nature. It pointed forward to the coming of Him who was the great Prophet (Deut 18:15). . . . When sin is brought to an end by the appearance of the Messiah, so prophecy, which had predicted His coming and His saving work, is no longer needed. It has fulfilled its task and is therefore sealed up.”15 According to Allis, “The “anointing of a most holy” may refer either to a person or to a place. If to a person, the reference may be to the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus to fit Him for His Messianic work (Lk. iii. 22, iv. 18); if to a place, it may refer to the entrance of the risen Christ into heaven itself, when “through his own blood he entered once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 13 Ibid., 199. Ibid., 200. 15 Ibid. 14 Daniel 9:24-27 and the Traditional Messianic Interpretation 213 ix. 12) for all His elect.”16 Both Gentry and Young argue that the anointing in verse 24 “speaks of the Christ’s baptismal anointing.”17 Gentry reasons that Daniel 9:24-27 is primarily a Messianic prophecy. The Messiah (mashiyach, “Christ,” “Anointed One”) is specifically mentioned twice in verses 25 and 26. Furthermore, the phrase “Most Holy” rightly describes the Messiah, “that holy thing which shall be born (Luke 1:35).”18 Isaiah prophesized about Christ, the Redeemer, who will usher in the ultimate redemptive Jubilee (Isa. 61:1-2a; cf. Luke 4:17-21). It was also at His baptismal anointing that the Holy Spirit came upon Him (Mark 1:9-11), which marks the beginning of His earthly ministry (Mark 1:14-15). Ultimately, “Christ is preeminently the Anointed One.”19 The six transactions or results of verse 24 are, therefore, Messianic in nature, and are to be understood as having complete fulfillment in Christ’s First Advent, and especially, in His Passion. “In a word, we have in vs. 24 the prophecy of the “satisfaction of Christ,” of His obedience and sufferings, by virtue of which the sinner obtains forgiveness and acceptance with God.”20 Determining the Terminus Ad Quem of the Seventy Weeks The traditional Messianic interpretation understands the death of the Messiah as occurring within the 70th week of Daniel’s prophecy. “For the period of the 70th seven the Messiah causes a covenant to prevail for many, and in the half of this seven by His death He causes the Jewish sacrifices and oblation to cease. His death is thus seen to belong within the 70th seven [or week]. Consequent upon this causing the sacrifices and oblation to cease is the appearance of a desolator over the pinnacle of the Temple, which has now become an abomination. Upon the ruins a determined full end pours out. This event, the destruction of the city [of Jerusalem], does not, therefore, take place within the 70 sevens, but follows as a consequent upon the cutting off of the Messiah in the 70th seven.”21 16 Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 113-114. Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 326. Also see Young, Daniel, 200-201. 18 Cf. 4:34, 41. See also: Mark 1:24; Acts 3:14; 4:27, 30; 1 John 2:20; Rev. 3:7; He is also called the “anointed one” (Psa. 2:2; lsa. 42:1; Acts 10:38). 19 Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 327. 20 Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 114. 21 Young, Daniel, 220. 17 Daniel 9:24-27 and the Traditional Messianic Interpretation 214 Thus, the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 does not fall within the time frame of the 70 weeks. Gentry concurs that “the destruction of the city and the sanctuary with war and desolation (vv. 26b, 27b) are the consequences of the cutting off of the Messiah and do not necessarily occur in the seventy weeks time frame. They are an addendum to the fulfillment of the focus of the prophecy, which is stated in verse 24.”22 From Daniel 9:25, the terminus ad quem of the 69 sevens is fairly clear. According to Gentry, Allis, and Philip Mauro, the terminus of the second period of sixty-two weeks is at the baptism of Christ when He begins His public ministry (A.D. 26).23 This marks the terminus ad quem of the first sixty-nine weeks, and the terminus a quo of the seventieth week. It should be noted that this is the interpretation widely agreed upon by most conservative scholars, excluding Bible Presbyterians and Dispensationalists who place the terminus a quo of the seventieth week at yet a future date. “After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off (Daniel 9:26a).” This would imply that Christ is crucified after the first sixty-nine weeks of Daniel’s prophecy. This climactic event is further referred to in Daniel 9:27, “in the midst of the week he [the Messiah] shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” Christ, by His atoning death, put an end to the Jewish cult of blood sacrifices. As the author of Hebrews writes: “Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (Heb. 10:914).” 22 Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 330. See Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 323; Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 114. Also see Philip Mauro, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation: A Study of the Last Two Visions of Daniel, and of the Olivet Discourse of the Lord Jesus Christ, Rev. ed. (Swengel, PA: Reiner Publishers, 1975; reprint, Dahlonega, Georgia: Crown Rights Book Co, 1998), 55-69. Mauro furnishes us with an excellent treatise on this subject matter. 23 Daniel 9:24-27 and the Traditional Messianic Interpretation 215 Therefore, it is Christ who confirms (higbir) the covenant with many for one week (the 70th week), and His crucifixion takes place in the middle (“the midst”) of the 70th week. Allis comments that, “If “in the midst” is taken in its natural sense, a half-week, or three and a half years, remains to be accounted for after the crucifixion. Many interpreters regard this as referring to the period of the founding of the Church and the preaching of the gospel exclusively to the Jews, a period ending with or about the time of the martyrdom of Stephen. Others hold that the period of three and a half years was graciously extended to some 35 years, to the date of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, a reference to which is found in vs. 26. Both of these explanations may be regarded as possible.”24 How should we, therefore, interpret the terminus ad quem of the 70th week - the last three and half years? Applying the analogy of faith, we ought to interpret Old Testament prophecies with the light of New Testament revelation. I concur with Meredith Kline who understands that in the Apocalypse of John, the apostle reinterprets the last three and half years of the 70th week as “a time, and times, and half a time (Rev. 12:14).” Kline explains his position: “It appears that the last half of the seventieth week [of Daniel] is the age of the community of the new covenant, disengaged from the old covenant order with whose closing days its own beginnings overlapped for a generation. In the imagery of the New Testament Apocalypse, the last half week is the age of the church in the wilderness of the nations for a time, and times, and half a time (Rev. 12:14). Since the seventy weeks are ten jubilee eras that issue in the last jubilee, the seventieth week closes with the angelic trumpeting of the earth’s redemption and the glorious liberty of the children of God. The acceptable year of the Lord which came with Christ will then have fully come. Then the new Jerusalem whose temple is the Lord and the Lamb will descend from heaven (Rev. 21:10, 22) and the ark of the covenant will be seen (Rev. 11:19), the covenant the Lamb has made to prevail and the Lord has remembered.”25 24 Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 114-115. Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week”, 468-469. According to Leviticus 25:1-22, the first seven weeks of years of Daniel’s prophecy are comprised of seven sabbatical years, which is forty-nine years in all. These forty-nine years constitute the Jubilee, in which “seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years (Leviticus 25:8).” This precedes the fiftieth year, which is the Year of Jubilee, when liberty is proclaimed “throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof (Lev 25:10).” Mark Rooker writes, “In addition to allowing the 25 Daniel 9:24-27 and the Traditional Messianic Interpretation 216 Edward Young, however, restrains himself from drawing a dogmatic conclusion with regard to the timing of the seventieth week’s terminus. The difficulty in determining the terminus ad quem of the seventy weeks should not be misconstrued as weakness of the traditional messianic school of interpretation. Young points out that all schools of interpretation are, in fact, faced with this difficulty. Young writes: “The question naturally arises, What marks the termination of the 70 sevens? In answer it should be noted that the text does not say a word about the termination. The terminus ad quem of the 69 sevens is clearly stated, namely, an anointed one, a prince. No such terminus ad quem, however, is given for the 70 sevens themselves. It would seem, therefore, that the terminus ad quem was not regarded as possessing particular importance or significance. No important event is singled out as marking the termination. All schools of interpretation, therefore, are faced with the difficulty of determining what marked the close of the 70 sevens.”26 In summary, we recall that seventy weeks of years are determined to fulfill six great transactions as indicated by Daniel 9:24. According to the traditional interpretation, these messianic transactions had been fulfilled during the First Advent of Jesus Christ. The terminus ad quem of the seventy weeks will not affect our understanding of the messianic fulfillments of Daniel’s prophecy. However, the placement of the terminus a quo of the seventieth week will determine whether the events of Daniel 9:24 have been fulfilled. If, according to Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians, the seventieth week has yet to begin, it might become necessary to deny the complete fulfillment of the transactions of Daniel 9:24. land to lie fallow every seventh year, the year after the seventh sabbatical year, the fiftieth year, was to be the Year of Jubilee, during which each person was to return to his personal property. Thus when a series of seven years went through seven cycles (25:8), the following year, the fiftieth year called for a special celebration. The Year of Jubilee began with a trumpet blast on the Day of Atonement (25:9), thereby proclaiming liberty to all the inhabitants of the land (25:10).” See Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus: The New American Commentary (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 2000), 303. The total period of four hundred and ninety years (seventy weeks) in Daniel’s prophecy, therefore, constitutes ten jubilee eras. The emphasis is upon the ultimate Year of Jubilee, which follows the seventy weeks of prophecy. 26 Young, Daniel, 220-221. Daniel 9:24-27 and the Traditional Messianic Interpretation 217 Chapter 17: Daniel 9:24-27 and the Parenthesis Interpretation of Bible Presbyterianism Introduction After a brief survey of the traditional interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27, we shall now consider the parenthesis interpretation adhered to by both Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians. The parenthesis interpretation “regards vss. 24 and 27 as both referring to events which are still entirely future.”1 This, as we have noted previously, produces an end-time schema which is a drastic departure from the eschatology found in the Reformed confessions. When we peruse the Bible Presbyterians’ understanding of Daniel 9:24-27, we find a striking similarity between their interpretation and the Dispensational parenthesis understanding of the seventy weeks. The Events of Daniel 9:24 Still Future? Conservative scholars generally agree that the first three goals of Daniel 9:24 are fulfilled by the vicarious, substitutionary death of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the timing of the fulfillment of the last three goals that is controversial. Dispensationalists regard Daniel 9:24-27 as a prophecy concerning earthly, national Israel. As one of the ramifications of their theological-hermeneutical system, the literalistic Israel/Church distinction is read into the prophecy of Daniel. As a consequence, Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians insist on finding a nationalistic, Jewish fulfillment of Daniel’s seventy weeks. Concerning the fourth goal mentioned in Daniel 9:24, Kenneth Barker writes, “If “everlasting righteousness” based on the atoning work of Christ is to be brought in for Israel as a nation, it must be brought in while Israel is still constituted as a nation, i.e., before the eternal state begins. The only possible point in time when this could occur and remain within the time parameters offered (i.e., within the 490 decreed years) would be at the end of the Great Tribulation and at the inception of an earthly kingdom.”2 1 Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 115. Kenneth L. Barker, “Evidence from Daniel,” in The Coming Millennial Kingdom: A Case for Premillennial Interpretation, eds. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1997), 145. 2 The Parenthesis Interpretation 218 In this understanding of the fourth goal, “to bring in everlasting righteousness,” Barker sees a parenthesis of more than 1900 years between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel’s prophecy. The 70th week is reinterpreted to be the seven years Tribulation period. The sixth goal, “to anoint the most Holy,” is understood as referring to the Holy of Holies, or the Jewish temple. Once again, the over-literalistic hermeneutics of Dispensationalism demands a literal, earthly temple as the subject of anointing. Barker explains, “If the anointing of a holy of holies in Daniel 9:24 refers to a temple, its provenance must be earthly, inasmuch as there is no temple in the New Jerusalem (cf. Rev. 21:22). The only possible point in time for the anointing of an earthly temple must be late in the Great Tribulation or early in a millennial kingdom . . . If the Temple of Ezekiel 43 is to be taken as millennial, it becomes a likely candidate for this event.”3 According to Allis, “The special reason that Dispensationalists must insist that vs. 24 refers to the future is quite clear. If the fulfillment of the prophecy is still incomplete, and if the predictions relating to the 69 weeks had their fulfillment centuries ago, then the 70th week must be still future. Hence there must be an interval between the end of the 69th week and the beginning of the 70th week; and the entire Church age can be regarded as forming a parenthesis at this point.”4 The Triumphal Entry of Jesus as the Terminus Ad Quem of the Sixty-Ninth Week It is notable that Timothy Tow, the principal of Far Eastern Bible College, concurs with dispensationalist Alva J. McClain that the 69th week ends with the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. After elaborating on a labyrinthine mathematical deduction conceived by McClain concerning the date (32 AD) of the terminus ad quem of the first sixty-nine weeks, Tow exclaims, “Does this not fit with the date arrived at by McClain that Christ rode a donkey on Palm Sunday into Jerusalem? Before Holy Week was consummated, our Lord was cut off but not for himself, by 3 4 Ibid., 145-146. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 116. The Parenthesis Interpretation 219 crucifixion!”5 From McClain’s mathematical calculations, Tow apparently thinks that Christ’s triumphal entry clearly marks the terminus ad quem of the 69th week.6 But Daniel 9:25a only reads, “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.” The phrase “unto the Messiah the Prince” nowhere suggests that the terminus ad quem is marked by the triumphal entry of the Messiah. In fact, there is no exegetical basis for this interpretation based upon a literal understanding of this text. According to Young, “[The Prophet Daniel] therefore was to look for the one who at the same time was both an anointed one and a prince (the definite article is missing) and when such a one appeared, the prophecy would be fulfilled.”7 Apart from McClain’s arithmetic of Byzantine complexity, Tow ignores the fact that the text (Daniel 9:25) does not specifically refer to the triumphal entry as the terminus ad quem of the sixty-ninth week. Allis reminds us that the exegetical basis for such an interpretation is tenuous at best. He argues that, “The word “prince” (nagid) is far too indefinite an expression to warrant such an inference. For that matter, the words of the annunciation to Mary (Lk. i. 32) would justify us in regarding these words as referring to the birth of “the Son of the Highest,” who was acclaimed by the angel as “Christ the Lord”; or they might refer to the baptism, at which He was declared to be God’s “beloved Son.’”8 Nonetheless, it is obvious that Far Eastern Bible College follows McClain’s parenthesis interpretation faithfully, including his arithmetic. The Cutting-Off of Messiah Not in the 70th Week A study of Timothy Tow’s commentary on Daniel elucidates that he places the “cutting-off,” or the crucifixion, of the Messiah in the church age parenthesis, and not within the 70th week. This is because Bible Presbyterians do not understand the 5 Timothy Tow, Visions of the Princely Prophet: A Study of the Book of Daniel (Singapore: Christian Life Publishers, 1995), 94. 6 McClain’s calculations are reproduced in Tow and Khoo, Theology for Every Christian, 402-404. 7 Young, Daniel, 204. 8 Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 116. Allis also repudiates the mathematical methods of deduction used by Sir Robert Anderson and others in pp. 116-117. The Parenthesis Interpretation 220 70th week as being immediately sequential to the antecedent sixty-nine weeks. Between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel is posited an indeterminable time gap, known as the church age parenthesis.9 The Gap Theory Dr J. O. Buswell, according to Dr Jeffrey Khoo, clearly understood a “time gap” between Daniel 9:26 and 9:27. Khoo writes, “The Second Coming will be preceded by a literal seven-year tribulation period that consists of two halves of three and a half years each. The 70th week will commence at the signing of a peace covenant engineered by the Antichrist between Israel and her enemies (Dan 9:27).”10 In accordance with Khoo’s understanding, a time gap of more than 1900 years precedes the 70th week. Towards the end of the parenthesis Church Age, the 70th week “will commence at the signing of a peace covenant engineered by the Antichrist.” In the Dispensationalist’s end-time schema, the indeterminable time gap is essential for the entire premillennial system. “If the gap theory cannot be proved from a study of this messianic prophecy [of Daniel 9:24-27], then there is no validity to dispensationalism, and the entire end-time system called dispensationalism must be rejected. Because dispensationalists understand this, they must devise a way to create a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks.”11 Oddly, the duration of this time gap is almost 2000 years - twice the duration of the entire earthly Millennium propounded by Dispensational Premillennialists, and four times longer than the time frame of Daniel’s prophecy of 490 years. Despite the Bible Presbyterian’s insistence upon a literal hermeneutics, there is no “literal” or obvious hermeneutical basis for the interposition of an indefinite time gap between Daniel 9:26 and 9:27. Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians should at least bear the burden of proof in their exegesis. 9 See Tow, Visions of the Princely Prophet, 93. In Tow’s diagram “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel,” the Messiah is cut-off after the 69th week, during the Church Age parenthesis. Also see Tow and Khoo, Theology for Every Christian, 404. Here, Tow and Khoo unequivocally state, “Between the 69 weeks and the final 70th week, there is an interval: a period of God’s patience (2 Pet 3:9). But when the time is up, the 70th week will commence with the Antichrist making peace with Israel (Dan 9:27), and finally conclude with the battle of Armageddon (Rev 16:16).” 10 Khoo, “Dispensational Premillennialism in Reformed Theology: The Contribution of J. O. Buswell to the Millennial Debate,” 712- 713. 11 DeMar, Last Days Madness, 329. The Parenthesis Interpretation 221 In describing the Bible Presbyterian tradition of a consistently literal hermeneutics, Charles Seet proclaims, “God had given the Scriptures to us in a clear, simple and straightforward manner. The message is meant to be accessible to the rank and file who belong to God. No special class of people such as prophets, teachers, theologians or scholars stands between the people and the message. All of this argues for a principle of interpretation that brings the meaning of the Bible within the grasp of the rank and file of the people of God. This principle, clearly stated, is that of taking the Scriptures in their literal and normal sense, and understanding that this applies to the whole Bible, including passages on eschatology. If the plain sense of such a passage makes good sense, there is no need for us to seek some hidden or symbolic meaning.”12 According to Seet’s “literal and normal” hermeneutics, the “rank and file who belong to God” should be able to decipher an indeterminable time gap between Daniel 9:26 and 9:27 without the assistance of “prophets, teachers, theologians or scholars”. This time gap of almost two millennia should be undeniably obvious to any reader. Seet continues his tirade against non-literalists, “As you can see, those who do not interpret this passage literally, take quite a lot of liberties with the text, making it mean things that are not natural to the plain sense of the text. The plain meaning of the text is therefore ignored in favour of a hidden, cryptic message, which only those who are qualified can understand.”13 According to Seet’s hermeneutics, those who do not interpret prophetic passages literally “take quite a lot of liberties with the text.” In fact, he alleges that unless one understands prophecy “literally,” one is inadvertently practicing eisegesis. This includes making prophetic texts mean “things that are not natural to the plain sense of the text.” But Seet begs the question: Is the time gap of almost two millennia between Daniel 9:26 and 9:27 considered the “plain sense of the text?” After the fulfillment of the first 69 weeks of years in chronological sequence and continuity, Seet’s eschatological schema demands an unnatural, abrupt postponement of the 70th week. In reality, the “rank and file who belong to God” will view such a gap as “a hidden, cryptic message,” which only a forced eisegesis will spawn. 12 13 Charles Seet, “Premillennialism,” The Burning Bush 3, no. 2 (1997): 98-99. Ibid., 99. The Parenthesis Interpretation 222 Seet would do well to heed the advice of Jeffrey Khoo, who perceives that a “dualistic way of interpreting the Scriptures is due to . . . presuppositional bias. . . . The spiritualising method of biblical interpretation is fallacious. It fails to allow the text to say what it actually means (exegesis), but imposes upon the text what the interpreter wants it to mean (eisegesis).”14 The necessity of a chronologically sequential fulfillment of the seventy weeks will become apparent when we consider the background of Daniel 9:24-27. In Daniel 9:1-19, the prophet Daniel prayed that Yahweh would restore Jerusalem and the temple. Daniel prayed, “O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us (Dan. 9:16).” Daniel had understood (Dan. 9:2) from the prophecy of Jeremiah (Jer. 25:11-14) that Israel would go into captivity to Babylon for seventy years. When the angel Gabriel answered Daniel’s prayer in 9:20-27, the seventy years of captivity was drawing to a close. According to Daniel’s understanding, the seventy years of Jeremiah’s prophecy was intended to run consecutively and sequentially. It is obvious that Daniel would not have expected God to place an indeterminable time gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth years of Israel’s captivity. He was anticipating the restoration of Jerusalem at the end of seventy consecutively running years. DeMar explains, “The seventy-year period of captivity as described in Jeremiah 29:20 is a pattern for the “seventy weeks” in Daniel 9:24. “Therefore, as Jacques Doukhan has pointed out, ‘The seventy weeks’ prophecy must be interpreted with regard to history in as realistic a way as Daniel did for the prophecy of Jeremiah.’” From this alone we can conclude that since the seventy years of captivity were consecutive with no gap or parenthesis, the “seventy weeks” must also be consecutive, seeing there is nothing in the text to make us think otherwise. Daniel bases his prayer for restoration to the land on the certainty of the re-establishment promised by God when the seventy years were completed (Jer. 29:10).”15 14 Khoo, “Amillennialism Examined,” 4. DeMar, Last Days Madness, 330, quoting Jacques Doukhan, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: An Exegetical Study,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 17 (Spring 1979): 8. 15 The Parenthesis Interpretation 223 Therefore, just as Daniel understood the seventy years of Israel’s captivity as chronologically sequential earth years, we must interpret the seventy weeks of years (Dan. 9:24-27) as running consecutively without interruption. As God had promised that Israel would go into captivity for seventy years, it would be unreasonable to say that God had kept His word if a time gap is arbitrarily posited between the sixtyninth and seventieth years of Israel’s captivity. After all, God had specified that Israel would be held captive for only seventy years, and not more. DeMar argues, “Could God have placed a “gap” between the sixty-ninth and seventieth years of Israel’s captivity, adding, say, a hundred years and still maintain that He had kept His word? There is no way He could have done it and remained a God of truth. But what if God came back and said, “I didn’t actually add any years; I just postponed the final year by means of a ‘gap’ of 100 years. The ‘gap’ consisting of 100 years, which you assume to be additional years, should not be calculated in the overall accounting.” This would mean that 170 years would have passed. Using “gap logic” the Bible could still maintain that Israel was in captivity for only seventy years. Let’s call this what is it: nonsense.”16 Oswald Allis, likewise, criticizes the dispensational understanding of Daniel 9:2427: “Is it credible that this prophecy, which speaks so definitely of 70 weeks and then subdivides the 70 into 7 and 62 and 1, should require for its correct interpretation that an interval be discovered between the last two of the weeks far longer than the entire period covered by the prophecy itself? If the 69 weeks are exactly 483 consecutive years, exact to the very day, and if the 1 week is to be exactly 7 consecutive years, is it credible that an interval which is already more than 1900 years, nearly four times as long as the period covered by the prophecy, is to be introduced into it and allowed to interrupt its fulfillment? It would seem to be obvious that the more definite and precise the chronology of the weeks is held to be, the more difficult must it become to regard the insertion of a quite indefinite and timeless interval into it as permissible or possible.”17 Covenant theologians should all the more believe in a covenant-keeping God. It is ridiculous, to say the least, to argue that God can delay the fulfillment of a prophecy, 16 17 Ibid., 330-331. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 118. The Parenthesis Interpretation 224 and still be called a covenant-keeping God. The crux of the matter is not whether such a delay in fulfillment can be theologically – and perhaps, euphemistically – labeled as a parenthesis, a postponement, or a gap. If a prophecy is not fulfilled within its determined time frame, then such a prophecy is considered false and unfulfilled. It is strange that Bible Presbyterians, who are professedly covenant theologians, contend that God can insert an indefinite time gap between the last two weeks of Daniel’s prophecy, and yet maintain the integrity of the prophecy which has a specific time frame of 490 years. Ironically, the time gap or delay is almost four times as long as the specified time frame itself: a delay of more than 1900 years. This insertion of an indeterminable time gap is a self-contradictory violation of the Bible Presbyterian’s supposedly literal hermeneutics. Yet, the entire dispensational premillennial schema is dependent upon the parenthesis interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27. The Jewish Prophetic Clock Theory In his commentary on Daniel, the Principal of Far Eastern Bible College, Reverend Timothy Tow, wrote: “While Daniel was thinking that the consummation of 70 years exile according to Jeremiah’s prophecy would usher in the Messianic Kingdom, God rather revealed what would happen to Israel in 70 x 7 prophetic years hereafter. A new Day indeed was coming when the Messiah shall judge this sinful earth and bring in righteousness, but not until 70 x 7 prophetic years had passed. . . . What Daniel actually said in Hebrew was “seventy sevens are determined”. This is to say God was telling him it would not take seventy years but seven times seventy to consummate His saving work with Israel. This was a cryptic way of saying, 490 years. . . . With the cutting off of the Messiah the “prophetic clock” seemed to have stopped ticking. In Daniel’s “prophescope” what is in the distant future is brought into focus, viz the last or seventieth week.”18 It is indubitably clear that Tow believes that the Jewish clock “stopped ticking” sometime during the First Advent of Christ. Allis explains that “Dispensationalists are fond of the illustration of a clock. The ticking clock, they tell us, represents 18 Tow, Visions of the Princely Prophet, 90, 94, emphasis mine. Rev Timothy Tow is also the Lecturer in Systematic Theology of Far Eastern Bible College. The Parenthesis Interpretation 225 “Jewish” time. The mystery parenthesis is “time out.” God only counts time in dealing with Israel, when the people are in the land.”19 Some dispensationalists go further, and add that this Jewish clock will only tick when the nation of Israel is governed by God. But where in the text of Daniel 9:2427 do we find an exegetical basis for this time clock? It is apparent that not only the theological-hermeneutical system of the Bible Presbyterians is similar to Dispensationalism, but even their exegeses of critical prophetic texts are similar to that of Dispensational exegetes. Allis reasons that, according to history, the nation of Israel was in their land for almost 40 years after the clock had allegedly stopped ticking i.e. when Christ was “cut-off.” The Israelites were dispersed only at A.D. 70, when the city of Jerusalem was ravaged by the Roman army. Whether one asserts that the clock stopped at the Triumphal Entry, or at the crucifixion of Christ, there are almost 4 decades to account for, in which the nation of Israel was still in their land after the Jewish clock had supposedly stopped. Therefore, it cannot be that the clock ticks only when Israel is in their land. On the other hand, if one argues that the clock ticks only when Israel is governed by God as a theocracy, we must ask if this condition was fulfilled during the 69 weeks of Daniel’s prophecy. Allis explains, “The last theocratic king of the House of David had lost his throne full 50 years before the edict of Cyrus and nearly 150 years before the decree of Artaxerxes. “The times of the Gentiles” are regarded by Dispensationalists as beginning with Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem. Hence this entire period was distinctly not a period when Israel was “governed by God.” If the clock represents “Jewish” time, with Israel in the land and governed by God, how then could it tick at all during the entire period from 445 B.C. to A.D. 30?”20 Therefore, whether one holds to “the edict of Cyrus” or “the decree of Artaxerxes” as the terminus a quo of Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy, one has to agree that there is no theological or exegetical basis for the Jewish ticking clock theory. It is notable that Dr Jeffrey Khoo, the Academic Dean of Far Eastern Bible College, apparently rejects the notion that “the present church age is a ‘parenthesis’ or ‘intercalation’ during which God has temporarily suspended His primary purpose 19 20 Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 118. Ibid., 119. The Parenthesis Interpretation 226 with Israel.”21 In his other writings, Dr Khoo emphasizes that Bible Presbyterians “categorically reject . . . [the dispensational] theological grid.”22 As the academic dean of the only Bible Presbyterian seminary in Singapore, statements made by Khoo certainly have weight and significance. Despite the aforementioned emphatic declarations, the students in Far Eastern Bible College are being taught that a church age ‘parenthesis’ exists between Daniel’s sixty-ninth and seventieth week.23 As Tow had succinctly written, “With the cutting off of the Messiah the “prophetic clock” seemed to have stopped ticking.”24 Consistent with the dispensational understanding of Daniel 9:24-27, the prophetic clock for Israel “stopped ticking” at the end of the sixty-ninth week of Daniel’s prophecy. Khoo reminded us that the 7 years of Tribulation, according to Bible Presbyterian understanding, is “the 70th week of Daniel (Dan 9:27).”25 This is when the prophetic clock for Israel starts ticking again. Given the evident discrepancies in his writings, I am sure that Khoo was not trying to convey an impression of equivocation, or worse, confusion. It is, indeed, unfathomable how Khoo and Tow can justify the placement of an indeterminable time gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy, and at the same time, repudiate the ‘parenthesis’ theory of dispensational ecclesiology. Surely the dispensationalists appear more candid and consistent in this aspect. No plain or literal reading of Daniel 9:24-27 will allow the dispensationalist or Bible Presbyterian “to insert a period of time between the feet and the toes of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue (Dan. 2:40-43) and between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week of the prophecy outlined in Daniel 9:24-27.”26 This is an egregious violation of the consistently literal hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, “in order to make the dispensational system work.”27 21 See Khoo, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, 28-29 under section on dispensational ecclesiology. 22 See Khoo, Dispensationalism Examined, 12. Cf. idem, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, 46. 23 See Tow, Visions of the Princely Prophet, 93-94. The Church Age as a ‘parenthesis’ is clearly intimated in the diagram entitled “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel” on p. 93. The ‘Church Age’ is placed between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy. Also see Tow and Khoo, Theology for Every Christian, 404. 24 Tow, Visions of the Princely Prophet, 94. Also see Tow and Khoo, Theology for Every Christian, 404. 25 Khoo, Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, 133. 26 DeMar, Last Days Madness, 326. 27 Ibid. The Parenthesis Interpretation 227 Allis aptly concludes, “In short, the clock does not run on Jewish time or on Gentile time. It stops at the triumphal entry and resumes ticking at the rapture simply because the exigencies of the Dispensational theory require it, because room must be found for the entire Church age . . . .”28 Who Confirms the Covenant in Daniel 9:27: Christ or Antichrist? What is the identity of the person who confirms or makes firm a covenant with many in verse 27? Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians believe that this person is the eschatological Antichrist. John Walvoord writes, “[T]his refers to the coming world ruler at the beginning of the last seven years who is able to gain control over ten countries in the Middle East. He will make a covenant with Israel for a seven-year period. As Daniel 9:27 indicates, in the middle of the seven years he will break the covenant, stop the sacrifices being offered in the temple rebuilt in that period, and become their persecutor instead of their protector, fulfilling the promises of Israel’s day of trouble (Jer. 30:5-7).”29 So according to Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians, the Antichrist will make a covenant with many during the seven years Tribulation. The Mosaic ritual of sacrifice will be restored, but in the middle of the seven years Tribulation period, the Antichrist will break the covenant, abolish the temple sacrifices, begins his reign of terror, and persecute the Jews. This begins what Dispensationalists call the Great Tribulation (Matt. 24:21; Rev. 11:2-3). Tow agrees with Walvoord that it is Antichrist, and not Christ, who confirms the covenant in verse 27. Tow writes, “With reference to that prince earlier mentioned, he would be the Antichrist, the last World Dictator: “He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.’”30 As maintained by Dispensationalists, “the prince that shall come (Dan. 9:26)” is the person who will confirm the covenant with many in verse 27. “It is argued that “prince” is the subject of the verb “confirm” because it is nearer to it than is the 28 Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 119. Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, 257. 30 Tow, Visions of the Princely Prophet, 94. 29 The Parenthesis Interpretation 228 word “anointed (one).” But this argument is more than offset by the fact that the subject of the verb “destroy” is not “prince” but “people” (“and the people of the prince, the coming one, shall destroy”). If the nearest subject must be regarded as the subject of the verb “confirm,” it should be “people” not “prince.”31 Dispensationalists agree that “the people of the prince that shall come (Dan. 9:26)” refers to the Roman army under General Titus. If the Dispensationalist insists that “the prince that shall come” must be the subject of the verb “confirm” in verse 27, then the Antichrist must be Titus himself, or Titus redivivus. Gentry concurs with Allis that, “The indefinite pronoun “he” does not refer back to “the prince who is to come” of verse 26. That “prince” is a subordinate noun; “the people” is the dominant noun. Thus, the “he” refers back to the last dominant individual mentioned: “Messiah” (v. 26a).”32 Young reminds us that “the prince (verse 26)” is not even the subject of a sentence. Grammatically, “the people” are in a more prominent position than “the prince.” In fact, “the phrase of the prince in vs. 26 is in such a subordinate position that it is extremely unlikely that we are to regard it as antecedent of “he will confirm.” Furthermore, this entire passage is Messianic in nature, and the Messiah is the leading character. The general theme of the passage, introduced in vs. 24, is surely Messianic.”33 Meredith Kline argues that God’s covenant with Israel forms an overarching redemptive-historical grid which undergirds Daniel 9:24-27. He writes, “The whole context [of Daniel 9:27] speaks against the supposition that an altogether different covenant from the divine covenant which is the central theme throughout Daniel 9 is abruptly introduced here at the climax of it all.”34 According to Kline, the form and content of Daniel 9, as well as the concept of God’s covenant with Israel, anticipates a prophecy about the messianic consummation of the very same covenant God made with the Jews. Therefore, when we read of a covenant in 9:27, it is clear what this covenant is. Besides, the language 31 Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 121. Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 334. 33 Young, Daniel, 208-209. 34 Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week”, 463. 32 The Parenthesis Interpretation 229 throughout Daniel 9 supports the identification of the person who shall confirm the covenant in verse 27. In Daniel 9:26, we read that the Anointed One will be cut off. Even the verb karat, which is translated “cut off (verse 26),” has a covenantal allusion. Kline writes, “There is an interesting link between the Messiah and the covenant in verse 26. His death is there described by the verb karat, the verb regularly employed for the act of ratifying a covenant by a cutting ritual which portrayed the curse of the covenant oath. The statement about the covenant in verse 27 is then in clear continuity with the covenantal allusion in verse 26. Gabriel here assures Daniel that the cutting off of the anointed one (vs. 26) would not mean the failure of His mission but, on the contrary, its accomplishment.”35 The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament further elucidates that “the most important use of the root [word karat] is “to cut” a covenant bĕrı̂t.”36 In fact, “the word here is pregnant with theological meaning. A covenant must be cut because the slaughter of animals was a part of the covenant ritual. . . . Genesis 15 is a significant passage in this regard. The Lord made (cut) a covenant with Abram (v. 18) involving a mysterious ceremony. Animals were cut in half and the parts laid opposite each other.”37 Thus, there is no doubt that the verb karat has strong allusion to the covenantal promise of Yahweh. Although the usual verb used for making a covenant, karat, was used in verse 26, it is paramount for us to note that a different verb higbir was used instead in Daniel 9:27. Kline reminds us that this verb higbir means to “make strong, cause to prevail.”38 This understanding of the verb higbir imposes another difficulty for the futuristic interpretation of Daniel 9:27. Dispensationalists would have us believe that it is the Antichrist who makes a covenant de novo with the nation of Israel. But the use of higbir strongly implies that the covenant in 9:27 is not a new covenant, but a confirmation or enforcement of a pre-existing covenant. Obviously, this covenant is a reference to the covenant of grace which Yahweh had made with the patriarch Abraham, which is now being confirmed by the Messiah with the believers of Israel. In view of the context of the entire passage in Daniel 9:24-27, verse 27 “may properly be taken to mean that during the brief period of His earthly ministry Jesus 35 Ibid. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980), s.v. “kārat.” 37 Ibid. 38 Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week”, 465. 36 The Parenthesis Interpretation 230 fulfilled the terms of the ancient covenant made with the seed of Abraham (cf. Rom. xv. 8), that He secured its benefits to “many,” that is “to the believers in Israel,” for the period up to the stoning of Stephen, or perhaps, in mercy, until the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, at which time the “new covenant,” which was in fact only the full unfolding of the old covenant and made no distinction between Jew and Gentile, went fully into effect through the destruction of the temple and of Jewish national existence.”39 Conclusion With the understanding that the Messiah is the subject of the verb “confirm” in verse 27, we can now safely deduce that the prophecy of Daniel’s seventy weeks had been fulfilled in the First Advent of Christ. The traditional messianic interpretation is superior to the parenthesis interpretation because, firstly, it does not necessitate the introduction of a covenant which is completely foreign to the redemptive-historical grid intrinsic to Daniel’s prophecy. Secondly, the hermeneutics of the traditional interpretation is consistent with the analogy of faith. The understanding that 9:27 refers to the abolishing of sacrifice and oblation by Christ’s atoning death is in accordance with New Testament revelation, viz. Hebrews 10:9-14. Thirdly, it does not require the reinstitution of the Jewish cult of temple sacrifice, only to be terminated by a Titus redivivus. Most importantly, the traditional interpretation adheres more closely to the plain or normal meaning of the text. There is no need of an indeterminate time gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel’s prophecy. “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city (Dan. 9:24).” The seventy weeks of years are given by God as a measuring time frame for the prophecy. If the parenthesis theory is correct, then all concepts of time and measuring are made redundant for the fulfillment of prophecy. In fact, time itself may become irrelevant for the fulfillment of any prophecy. By virtue of this erroneous hermeneutics, prophecy can be made to appear as being fulfilled within any specified time frame. This, I believe, is the most serious weakness of the parenthesis interpretation. 39 Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 122. The Parenthesis Interpretation 231 Chapter 18: The Millennium Temple and the Problem of Millennial Interpretation Introduction Certain prophecies in the Old Testament seem to predict the rebuilding of a Jewish Temple in the future. Central to the dispensational teaching of a millennium temple is the prophecy of Ezekiel in chapters 40 to 46. “Besides Ezekiel 40-46, there are other prophecies in the Bible that talk about a millennial temple [i.e. Isa 56:6-8; Jer 33:15-18; Ezek 20:40; Zech 14:16].”1 In his paper The Millennial Temple, Dr Prabhudas Koshy expounds the Bible Presbyterian understanding of Ezekiel chapters 40 to 46. According to Koshy, “There are generally two views among Bible-believing scholars concerning the number of future temples in Jerusalem. The first view says that there will only be one temple, and it will be built during Christ’s millennial rule. The second view believes that there will be two temples in Jerusalem. The first will exist in the seven-year tribulation period, and the second in the millennial period.”2 Koshy perceives that “bible-believing scholars” adhere to the teaching that at least one Jewish temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem in the future. Indispensable to these “bible-believing” views is the concept of the Millennial Temple, which is purportedly constructed during “Christ’s millennial rule.” In agreement with Dispensationalists, Bible Presbyterians believe that during the earthly Millennium, the Jewish Temple, together with its sacrificial system, will be re-established. In fact, Grace Theological Seminary Professor - Dr John Whitcomb insists that “consistent dispensationalism must teach the practice of animal sacrifices for a restored and regenerated Israel in the Millennium.”3 Jeffrey Khoo, the Academic Dean of Far Eastern Bible College, likewise understands that one of the “characteristics of the millennium” is the reinstitution of Jewish temple “worship (Zech 8:20-24).”4 Consistent with the literalistic 1 Prabhudas Koshy, “The Millennial Temple,” The Burning Bush 6, no. 1 (2000): 26. Ibid., 24. 3 John Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel,” Grace Theological Journal 6, no. 2 (1985): 215. 4 Khoo, Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, 136. 2 The Millennium Temple 232 hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, Khoo believes that “a millennial temple is described in Ezek 40-46.”5 In his Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, Professor John Walvoord aptly elucidates the dispensational doctrine of Ezekiel’s millennial temple, “In the Millennium, apparently, sacrifices will also be offered, though somewhat different than those required under the Mosaic Law, but this time the sacrifices will be memorial, much as the Lord’s Supper is a memorial in the Church Age for the death of Christ.”6 The predominant dispensational understanding of the millennial animal sacrifices is that, these animal offerings are primarily memorial in nature.7 They serve as a commemoration of Christ’s atoning death. Prabhudas Koshy, the Dean of Students and the Lecturer in Hebrew of Far Eastern Bible College, agrees with this dispensational view. He writes, “The millennial sacrifices do not save. They function as reminders. They remind people of what Christ had already done on the cross. Those who object to a millennial temple believe that the Old Testament sacrifices which have been abrogated in the church age would never be reinstated. . . . it is not correct to say that the millennial sacrificial system is exactly the same as that of the Old Testament. There are similarities and differences. The marked differences show us that the millennial sacrifices will be unique and distinct in their features (see Ezek 40:1-46:24; Isa 56:7; 66:205 Ibid. Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, 202. Dispensationalist John Whitcomb, however, disagrees that the animal sacrifices will be memorial. Whitcomb apparently realizes the hermeneutical dilemma dispensationalists had sunk into. To be consistent with the “literal hermeneutics”, he had to agree with critics of dispensationalism that animal sacrifices were not merely memorial or teaching symbols. Whitcomb writes: “But it is equally erroneous to say that the sacrifices were mere teaching symbols given by God to Israel to prepare them for Messiah and his infinite atonement. Such a view is contradicted by precise statements in Exodus and Leviticus.” See Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel,” 208. Whitcomb continues, “Thus, animal sacrifices during the coming Kingdom age will not be primarily memorial (like the eucharist in church communion services), any more than sacrifices in the age of the Old Covenant were primarily prospective or prophetic in the understanding of the offerer.” Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel,” 210. 7 See John L. Mitchell, “The Question of Millennial Sacrifices,” Bibliotheca Sacra 110 (1953): 248ff. 6 The Millennium Temple 233 23; Jer 33:18; Zech 14:16-21; Mal 3:3-4). However, the purpose is the same - not to offer a means of salvation, but to serve as a memorial of Christ’s death.”8 Expanding upon the Bible Presbyterian understanding of the Millennial Temple and its sacrifices, Prabhudas Koshy continues, “What will the future millennial temple be like? . . . There will be feasts and sacrifices. In Ezekiel 44 burnt offerings and sin offerings and trespass offerings are mentioned (40:39). The bullock, the he-goat, and the ram are to be offered (43:19-25). The blood is to be sprinkled on the altar (43:18). The meal offering is also incorporated (42:13). Morning sacrifices will be offered daily (46:13). The priests who are Levites are to officiate (43:19). Moreover, several feasts will also be instituted. The Passover feast will be observed again (45:21-25), and annually the feast of tabernacles will be commemorated (45:25). The year of Jubilee will be observed too (43:45).”9 Hermeneutics and Ezekiel’s Temple Vision The dispensationalist’s teaching of the reinstitution of a Jewish Temple and its cult of blood sacrifices is, inevitably, a product of its literalistic hermeneutics. Koshy criticizes non-dispensational exegetes that a symbolical interpretation tends to ignore the details of Ezekiel’s prophecy. He alleges that “[non-dispensationalists] go to great lengths to explain away the measurements and specifications of the temple building. Such a figurative view seems forced.”10 Merrill Unger similarly argues for a literalistic interpretation of Ezekiel’s vision of the temple, “Ezekiel’s temple is a literal future sanctuary to be constructed in Palestine as outlined, during the Millennium. The words of the prophet are taken in their natural grammatical and literal sense. Nothing is spiritualized or idealized that is not so indicated by the Sacred Text.”11 Agreeing with Unger and other dispensationalists, Koshy believes that a literal, natural reading of Ezekiel 40-46 provides the exegetical foundation for the Bible Presbyterian doctrine of a millennium temple: 8 Koshy, “The Millennial Temple,” 30, emphasis mine. Ibid., 28-29. 10 Ibid., 26. 11 Merrill F. Unger, “The Temple Vision of Ezekiel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 105 (1948): 423-424. 9 The Millennium Temple 234 “The fourth temple that will be built in the millennial rule of Christ is also known as “Ezekiel’s Temple,” for the temple and its system of worship are described in great detail by Ezekiel the prophet (Ezek 40-46). Some interpreters reject the literal meaning of Ezekiel 40-48, and view the description as figurative of the New Testament Church. . . . A natural reading of the text points to a literal physical temple. The golden rule of interpretation is: “When the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense.’”12 But such an interpretation of Ezekiel’s visions in chapters 40 to 46 is hermeneutically flawed. Due to the genre of Ezekiel’s visions, we must not only consider the linguistic and referential levels of communication, but also the visionary and symbolical levels. A literalistic hermeneutics might appear to be an adequately objective method of interpretation. But in the understanding of visions, the Reformed hermeneutical rule of analogia fidei, coupled with the principle of progressive revelation, necessitate the interpretation of highly symbolic or visionary passages of Scripture in the light of New Testament revelation and teachings. As mentioned previously in other chapters of this book, the interpretation of symbolic elements with the objectivity of clearer passages will guide the exegete in obtaining a correct understanding of visions and other obscure passages. Whenever visions are encountered in Scripture, the exegete ought to remember this axiom in his interpretation: “spiritual truths are framed in terms of concrete realities.”13 By using this axiom, the interpreter will avoid overemphasizing the physical elements of the vision, and yet discover the spiritual reality within its symbolical dimensions. Therefore, a more comprehensive and faithful method of interpreting visions is to understand them ideationally. Patrick Fairbairn elaborates upon this principle, “It is to be borne in mind that the description [in chapter 40 to 48] purports to be a vision - a scheme of things exhibited to the mental eye of the prophet “in the visions of God.” This alone marks it to be of an ideal character, as contradistinguished from anything that ever had been, or ever was to be found in actual existence, after the precise form given to it in the 12 Koshy, “The Millennial Temple,” 26. The first temple is Solomon’s temple, the second being Herod’s temple, which was subsequently destroyed in A.D. 70 by General Titus. The third is the dispensationalist’s tribulation temple. See Koshy, “The Millennial Temple,” 2425. The existence of a third temple is implied by the dispensationalist’s parenthesis interpretation of Daniel 9:27. 13 Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 366. The Millennium Temple 235 description. . . . [The visions of Ezekiel] presented a vivid picture of what either then actually existed or was soon to take place, but in a form quite different from the external reality. Not the very image or the formal appearance of things was given, but rather a compressed delineation of their inward being and substance.”14 According to Beale, there are at least four “main lines of interpretation” pertaining to Ezekiel’s temple vision: “First, the vision is prophetic of a literal physical temple to be built in Israel. Second, the vision is figurative of an ideal heavenly temple that was never intended to be built or established on the earth. Third, the portrayal is a figurative vision of an ideal temple. Fourth, the depiction is of a real heavenly temple that would descend and be established on earth in nonstructural form in the latter days.”15 Beale favors an ideal approach to Ezekiel’s temple vision, and combines the last two lines of interpretation in his understanding of the visionary elements. He reasons that Ezekiel’s “vision likely pertains to the heavenly temple corresponding to God’s dwelling in the midst of his people, and not in a physical temple.”16 He further argues that the broad context of Ezekiel 40-48 points to a non-structural end-time temple.17 This is also corroborated by the descriptions within the actual text itself (Ezek. 40-48).18 With regard to the physical descriptions of Ezekiel’s vision, Beale contends that “Ezekiel speaks in the language and images familiar to his audience in portraying sacrifices in a temple to prophesy about the escalated redemptive-historical realities of Christ’s sacrifice and the church’s imitation of that sacrifice.”19 In other words, a literalistic understanding of Ezekiel’s language denies the prophet’s intended message of “redemptive-historical realities” which are fulfilled in Christ and His Church. 14 Patrick Fairbairn, Exposition of Ezekiel (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 2001), 436. 15 G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004), 335. 16 Ibid., 338. 17 Ibid., 336-340. 18 Ibid., 340-343. 19 Ibid., 343. The Millennium Temple 236 Spiritual truths are often conceptualized ideally within visions, and such visions are not meant to be interpreted with mere wooden literalism. Therefore, the correct understanding of such visions would involve the extraction of the underlying spiritual truths, which is expressly concealed within the physical-historical elements of the vision. The very notion of interpreting such imagery literally undermines the redemptive-historical realities contained therein. As we shall study below, it is theologically difficult, if not impossible, to interpret Ezekiel 40-46 literally. Ezekiel’s temple is not a literal temple “made with hands (2 Cor. 5:1; Heb. 9:11, 24).” For God “dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things (Acts 17:24-25).” Clowney explains, “The temple which Ezekiel prophesied is the temple of the covenant, of God’s presence claiming his people forever. The Apostle labored as a master builder in that temple, working in gold, silver, and precious stones, laying no other foundation than the one which God set in place, Jesus Christ.”20 The Church is the temple of the Holy Ghost. Christians are not required to worship God exclusively in Jerusalem, but in Spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Neither do we expect a redemptive regression back into Judaic sacrificial rituals, nor do we anticipate future worship within the locality of Jerusalem. Edmund Clowney exclaims, “Ezekiel prophesies in the name of the Lord, “I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people…” (Ezek 37:26b, 27). Paul responds, “. . . we are a temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (2 Cor 6:16). . . . Do not propose to the Apostle Paul that God’s holy sanctuary of the last days, begun in the Spirit, will be completed in the flesh!”21 Daniel Block likewise agrees that, “It seems best to interpret [Ezekiel] chs. 40-48 ideationally. The issue for the prophet is not physical geography but spiritual realities. . . . The prophet 20 Edmund Clowney, “The Final Temple,” Westminster Theological Journal 35, no. 2 (1973): 186. 21 Ibid. The Millennium Temple 237 is hereby introduced to the theological realities awaiting his own people. Whereas [Ezekiel] 37:26-27 had spoken of the establishment of Yahweh’s permanent residence among his people, following their homecoming, the present vision picks up the theological theme and describes the spiritual reality in concrete terms, employing the familiar cultural idioms of temple, altar, sacrifices, nasi, and land. In presenting this theological constitution for the new Israel, Yahweh announces the righting of all the old wrongs, and the establishment of permanent, healthy deity-nation-land relationships. Ezekiel’s final vision presents a lofty spiritual ideal: Where God is, there is Zion. Where God is, there is order and the fulfillment of all his promises. Furthermore, where the presence of God is recognized, there is purity and holiness. Ezekiel hereby lays the foundation for the Pauline spiritualization of the temple. Under the new covenant, even Gentiles’ communities may be transformed into the living temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16-17). Moreover, through the indwelling presence of the Spirit of God, individual Christians become temples, residences of deity (1 Cor. 6:19).”22 In addition to Block’s understanding of an ideal temple, Beale sees an eschatological focus within Ezekiel’s temple vision. Beale believes “that [Block’s] view of an ideal temple could be combined with an eschatological approach.”23 Consistent with the principle of progressive revelation, Beale understands the temple city of Revelation 21 as a fulfillment of Ezekiel’s temple vision.24 As Beale maintains, “The broad structure of the city from [Revelation] 21:12-22:5 is based on the vision of Ezekiel 40-48. Ezekiel 40-44 prophesies the pattern of the final temple, and Ezekiel 45-48 primarily depicts the future arrangement of the eschatological city and the divisions of the land around the temple compound. Revelation 21:12-22:5 further interprets the yet-future fulfillment of Ezekiel by collapsing temple, city and land into one end-time picture portraying the one reality of God’s communion with his people.”25 Beale continues, 22 Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25-48: New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1998), 505-506. 23 Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 346. 24 See Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 346-354. Also study the parallels between John’s description of the Temple City in Revelation, and Ezekiel 40-48. This is conveniently tabulated in Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 351. 25 Ibid., 350. The Millennium Temple 238 “If Revelation 21-22 is the fulfillment, then Ezekiel’s temple is not to be established in a temporary ‘millennial’ period, but in the eternal new heavens and earth, which is the setting of John’s final vision.”26 The strength of Beale’s interpretation lies in his combined usage of the Analogy of Faith, and the principle of progressive revelation. Ezekiel’s vision is not merely a “lofty spiritual ideal,”27 but also finds an eschatological fulfillment within the Canon of Scripture. The presence of God determines the locality of the temple. Redemptive history sees the development of the Temple from a limited, typological, Judaic perspective progressing to the New Testament reality of God dwelling amongst His people, the Church. God’s Shekinah presence was previously limited to the heavenly realms and the Holy of Holies. By virtue of the redemptive work of Christ, the last Adam, creation is redeemed from sin and death. In the age to come, God’s glorious presence would ultimately extend to the New Heavens and the New Earth, that is, the entire cosmos. “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God (Rev. 21:3).” “Thus, the redemptive-historical development may be explained as proceeding from God’s unique presence in the structural temple in the Old Testament to the Godman, Christ, the true temple. As a result of Christ’s resurrection, the Spirit continued building the end-time temple, the building materials of which are God’s people, thus extending the temple into the new creation in the new age. This building process will culminate in the eternal new heavens and earth as a paradisal city-temple. Or, more briefly, the temple of God has been transformed into God, his people and the rest of the new creation as the temple.”28 Problems with the Dispensational View The overarching weakness of the dispensational view of the Millennium Temple is found in its redemptive implications. At the very least, it seems to impose upon Scripture an overt regression of New Testament realities back into Old Testament shadowy forms. It is notable that even Progressive Dispensationalists are willing to embrace the “typo-prophetic hermeneutical principle” in their interpretation of Old 26 Ibid., 351-352. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25-48, 506. 28 Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 392-393. 27 The Millennium Temple 239 Testament prophecies.29 According to Mangum, a Progressive Dispensationalist, the “careful contextual interpretation of these Old Testament imageries leads one to consider their typological significance in one’s exegesis of them and to reject a careless literalism.”30 Concerning his understanding of Ezekiel’s temple visions, Mangum writes: “In the case of prophetic references to Levitical temple worship, animal sacrifices, and Jewish festivals, it would strike me as odd for God to dispensationally retrogress by re-implementing such heuristic devices in the future. Such a move would seem to me, as well, to go against the arguments presented in Galatians, Ephesians, and Hebrews against setting up JewGentile barriers and against continuing to offer animal sacrifices today.”31 The Bible Presbyterian would do well to reflect upon the following hermeneuticaltheological concerns when exploring interpretative options for Ezekiel’s temple visions. Circumcision If Ezekiel 44:6-9 were to be understood literally, it would mean a reinstitution of the Old Testament sign of circumcision in the millennial age. “Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel (Ezek. 44:9).” A Christian would, therefore, be required to be circumcised in order for him to worship at Jehovah’s sanctuary. This is also true for a stranger; even strangers must be circumcised in the “flesh.” But the Apostle Paul warns, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law (Gal. 5:1-3).” 29 R. Todd Mangum, “Can We Expect a Restoration of Levitical Animal Sacrifices? A Progressive Dispensationalist Opinion” (paper presented to the Northeastern Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Langhorne, Pennsylvania, 30 March 2001), 8, available from http://www.biblical.edu/images/connect/PDFs/Restoration%20.pdf#search=%22todd%20man gum%20a%20future%20for%20israel%22; Internet; accessed 11 September 2006. 30 Ibid., 3. 31 Ibid., 13. The Millennium Temple 240 Again in Galatians chapter 6, Paul reminds us, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God (Gal. 6:15-16).” According to Ephesians 2:11-21, the partition between the circumcised and the uncircumcised has been broken down forever, “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby (Eph. 2:14-16).” If these last nine chapters of Ezekiel were to be interpreted literally, the rite of circumcision would be imperative during the millennium. This would reestablish that which is forever abolished by Christ our Savior,32 and render the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) ineffective. The Lord’s Supper and the Passover Feast In Ezekiel 45:21, we read that the Feast of the Passover is literally restored. Observed on the fourteenth day of the first month, it includes the seven days’ eating of unleavened bread, and the sin offerings of bullocks, rams and kids. Primarily a commemorative ordinance that reminds the children of Israel of their deliverance out of Egypt, it is also a type of the great deliverance wrought by the Messiah for all his elect. This type has been fulfilled by its antitype, the death of the Messiah. Paul writes, “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us (1 Cor. 5:7).” According to the Reformed, Calvinistic view, baptism has replaced the rite of circumcision in the Church, just as the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper has permanently substituted the Jewish ordinance of the Passover Feast. The Lord’s Supper is to be a permanent ordinance for the Church of Christ, which commemorates the Lord’s death “till he come(s) (1 Cor. 11:26)” again. Christ our Passover lamb, who is sacrificed for us, has fulfilled the typological function of the Passover Feast. With the Lamb of God ruling visibly in the alleged earthly millennium according to dispensational premillennialists, why is there a need 32 See Acts 15; Rom. 2:26-29; 4:9-12; 1 Cor. 7:18-19; Gal. 5:2-6; 6:12-15; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11; 3:11. The Millennium Temple 241 for this commemorative ordinance once again? In the eschatological millennium, Christ has indeed come. Allis reasons, “There is only one memorial feast for believers, since the Cross showed so plainly the inadequacy of the blood of bulls and goats, and that is the Holy Supper of the body and blood of Christ, which the Church has observed for centuries and is to keep “until He come.” The thought is abhorrent that after He comes, the memory of His atoning work will be kept alive in the hearts of believers by a return to the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic law, the performance of which is so emphatically condemned in passages which speak with unmistakable plainness on this very subject. Here is unquestionably the Achilles’ heel of the Dispensational system of interpretation. Its literalistic and Old Testament emphasis leads almost inevitably, if not inevitably, to a doctrine of the millennium which makes it definitely Jewish and represents a turning back from the glory of the gospel to those typical rites and ceremonies which prepared the way for it, and having served that necessary purpose have lost for ever their validity and propriety.”33 It is very unlikely, if not impossible, that the vision of Ezekiel is to be understood literally as Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians assert. The Priesthood Bible Presbyterians acknowledge that in accordance with Ezekiel’s vision, “not all Levites will serve as priests, but only the sons of Zadok.”34 Zadok was High Priest in the time of King David, the eleventh in descent from Aaron. Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians believe that during the millennium, the priests were to be from among the sons of Levi, but entirely of the sons of Zadok (Ezek. 40:46). The ministry of the Zadokian priesthood is to offer animal sacrifices – that is, burnt and sin offerings – both for the people and for themselves. The prophet Ezekiel writes, “Yet they shall be ministers in my sanctuary, having charge at the gates of the house, and ministering to the house: they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister unto them. . . . But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall 33 34 Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 247-248. Koshy, “The Millennial Temple,” 29. The Millennium Temple 242 come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord GOD: They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge. . . . And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin offering, saith the Lord GOD (Ezek. 44:11, 15-16, 27).”35 Hebrews chapter 5 teaches that Christ is our High Priest “after the order of Melchisedec (Heb. 5:6).” If Ezekiel’s vision is to be understood as foretelling the resumption of an earthly priesthood and an endless succession of blood sacrifices, our Savior as High Priest must have failed to accomplish what He set out to do. We also read in Ezekiel’s vision that the ministrations of the Zadokian priesthood at the altar, with continual offerings of animal sacrifices, were “to make reconciliation” for the people (Ezek. 45:15-17). But Hebrews 2:17 says, “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” It is Christ the faithful High Priest who had made reconciliation for the sins of the people. If this is true, why is the ministry of the Zadokian priesthood necessary? Unless, of course, one believes that our faithful High Priest has failed to accomplish His ministry of reconciliation. Again, Hebrews chapter 7 clearly describes the passing of the Levitical-Aaronic priesthood when Christ our High Priest entered His Melchizedek Priesthood. There exists now a new order of priest: the Melchizedekan priesthood.36 The writer of Hebrews asks, “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron (Heb. 7:11)?” The book of Hebrews unveils to us that there is, indeed, no need for the restoration of the Aaronic-Zadokian priesthood in the Millennium and the cruel reinstitution of animal sacrifices, together with the incessant flow of animal blood for the reconciliation of man to God. As the Apostle Paul has declared, “And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18-19).” 35 36 See also chapter 43:18-27. Also see Hebrews 5:5-10; 6:20. The Millennium Temple 243 If we are already reconciled to God in Christ, and if believers can now approach the “Holy of Holies” by virtue of Christ’s death, why is there any necessity of animal sacrifices and the Zadokian priesthood for worship in the Millennium as alleged by Bible Presbyterians? Furthermore, the reinstitution of Jewish, temple worship is akin to the restoration of Jewish ceremonial peculiarities, and the reimplementation of a divide between Jews and Gentiles. While the New Testament commands Christians to worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:21-24), for “the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father (John 4:21),” Bible Presbyterians would have us believe that we ought to revert to worship in Jerusalem, and only in Jerusalem’s Millennial Temple. Progressive Dispensationalist Todd Mangum warns: “Classical dispensationalists [and Bible Presbyterians] would do well to remember that, at the moment Jesus commended His soul to the Father in death, the veil of the temple was supernaturally torn in two from top to bottom (Matt. 28:50-51). Paul explains the significance of this Divine act in Eph. 2:11-22. It took the precious blood of Christ, he says, to tear down this dividing wall between the “uncircumcised” and “circumcised.” Likewise, the writer of Hebrews tells us that the precious sacrifice of Christ is what has given believers today free access to the “Holy of Holies” (Heb. 4). I do not have the impression that God achieved these things, at such great cost, for a mere temporary reprieve. A restoration of the Levitical priesthood, however, would mean that God, in the millennial kingdom, plans to restitch this veil that He previously tore down at such great cost and reimplement a dividing wall between Jew and Gentile believers.”37 Animal Sacrifices The most serious error of the dispensational interpretation is the belief in the reinstitution of redemptive sacrifices in the millennium. A literal understanding of numerous passages in the last nine chapters of Ezekiel requires the reestablishment of “the burnt offering and the sin offering and the trespass offering (Ezek. 40:39).”38 Consistent with the dispensational literalistic hermeneutics, bullocks, he-goats and rams will once again be offered in the Millennium Temple. Blood will be sprinkled afresh onto the altar, and the Zadokian priesthood will perform these sacrifices. “Yet Paul speaks of these things as “weak and beggarly elements” which have been 37 Mangum, “Can We Expect a Restoration of Levitical Animal Sacrifices? A Progressive Dispensationalist Opinion,” 4-5. 38 Also see Ezekiel 40:38-43; 42:13; 43:18-27; 44:11, 27, 29; 45:13-25; 46:2-7, 11-15, 20. The Millennium Temple 244 abolished; and the great theme of Hebrews is the fulfillment of the Old Testament typical system of expiation in the high priestly atonement and mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ.”39 Hebrews 10:5-10 elucidates that Christ has, by His First Advent, abolished the old covenant of legal sacrifices through His atoning death on Calvary. “Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Heb. 10:8-10).” If Christ has indeed fulfilled the will of the Father through the offering of His body “once for all (Heb. 10:10),” why would it be necessary to reinstitute the Old Testament types and shadows of animal sacrifices within the New Covenant administration? In fact, the book of Hebrews provides an elaborate and theologically complete exposition of the superiority of Christ’s death. The entire sacrificial ritual of the Old Testament pointed forward to the sacrifice of Christ. Once His atoning death had been accomplished, the former typological ritual of Levitical sacrifices became unnecessary (Heb. 10:5-9). Christ’s single sacrifice for sins is effective for the elect, and never requires to be repeated. With the inauguration of the New Covenant, there is no longer any need of blood sacrifices (Heb. 10:16-18). The writer of Hebrews proclaims to us that “there is no more offering for sin (Heb. 10:18),” “for by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (Heb. 10:14).” The all-sufficient, substitutionary atonement for sin was offered “once for all” at Calvary. Christ’s self-offering is definitive, efficacious, final and complete. The notion that it is God’s will to reinstitute the Levitical ritual of legal sacrifice is, to say the least, a mockery of Christ’s death and passion for His people. 39 Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 246. The Millennium Temple 245 Chapter 19: The Ezekielian Sacrifices The Memorial View of the Ezekielian Sacrifices We have seen earlier that Prabhudas Koshy, together with John Walvoord and most dispensationalists, believes that the animal sacrifices in the millennium serve as a memorial of Christ’s death, and do not possess any expiatory value whatsoever. Whitcomb agrees that this is the prevalent view amongst Dispensationalists, “Without doubt, the large majority of dispensational premillennialists do interpret the Zadokian priesthood and animal sacrifices of the millennial age literally. They also attempt to modify the supposed clash between the OT prophecies of the New Covenant and the book of Hebrews by viewing these animal sacrifices strictly as memorials of the death of Christ, like the Church eucharist of the bread and cup.”1 In other words, most Dispensationalists do not interpret the function of these animal sacrifices literally. There is no exegetical basis at all, according to the consistently literal hermeneutics of dispensationalism, to understanding these sacrifices as merely memorial. Dispensationalist John Whitcomb concedes that the Ezekielian sacrifices are to be understood as making atonement if interpreted literally. He writes, “Ezekiel, however, does not say that animals will be offered for a “memorial” of Messiah’s death. Rather, they will be for “atonement” (45:15, 17, 20 ; cf. 43:20, 26 ).”2 The plain or prosaic understanding of the Ezekielian animal sacrifices suggests that they are a reinstitution of the Levitical ritual of sacrifice, which has the legal function of actually making reconciliation for sin (Lev. 6:30; 8:15; 16:6, 11, 24, 30; Num. 5:8; 15:28; 29:5). Whitcomb elaborates that, “Animal sacrifices could never remove spiritual guilt from the offerer. The book of Hebrews is very clear about that (10:4, 11). But it is equally erroneous to say that the sacrifices were mere teaching symbols given by God to Israel to prepare them for Messiah and his infinite atonement. Such a view is contradicted by precise statements in Exodus and Leviticus. From God’s perspective, this was surely a major purpose of animal sacrifices; but 1 2 Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel,” 208. Ibid., 211. The Ezekielian Sacrifices 246 it could not have been their exclusive purpose from the perspective of Old Covenant Israelites.”3 Old Testament animal sacrifices do possess expiatory value, but this is limited to the ceremonial, external, and temporal realms. They serve to cover the sins of the offerer, while he anticipates the final, infinitely efficacious sacrifice of the Messiah. The animal sacrifices, however, do not possess any soteriological value. Only Christ’s death provides atonement for sins in the eternal, infinite, and soteriological sense. Contrary to Koshy’s memorial view, Ezekiel 45:15, 17, 20 specifically state that the sacrifices “make reconciliation” or “atonement” for the people. Beale emphasizes the fact that “Ezekiel does not call these sacrifices ‘memorials’, but puts them on a par with the Levitical typological sacrifices of atonement.”4 Concerning the expiatory significance of the Ezekielian sacrifices, Anthony Hoekema writes: “Even to suggest, however, that these will be memorial sacrifices violates the principle of the literal interpretation of prophecy. For the Hebrew word used to describe the purpose of these sacrifices in Ezekiel 45: 15, 17, and 20 is the piel form of kaphar (rendered “to make reconciliation” [KJ] or “to make atonement” [ASV, RSV]). But this is precisely the word used in the Pentateuchal description of the Old Testament sacrifices to indicate their propitiatory or expiatory purpose (see Lev. 6:30; 8:15; 16:6, 11, 24, 30, 32, 33, 34; Num. 5:8; 15:28; 29:5). If the sacrifices mentioned in Ezekiel are to be understood literally, they must be expiatory, not memorial offerings.”5 3 Ibid., 208-209. Whitcomb continues, “The Scriptures tell us that something really did happen to the Israelite offerer when he came to the right altar with the appropriate sacrifice; and he was expected to know what would happen to him. What happened was temporal, finite, external, and legal—not eternal, infinite, internal, and soteriological. Nevertheless, what happened was personally and immediately significant, not simply symbolic and/or prophetic. When an Israelite “unwittingly failed” to observe a particular ordinance of the Mosaic Law (in the weakness of his sin nature [Num 15:22–29], not “defiantly,” in open rebellion against God himself [Num 15:30–36]), he was actually “forgiven” through an “atonement” (a ritual cleansing; cf. Heb 9:10, 13) made by the priest (Num 15:25–26).” See Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel,” 209. Whitcomb believes that these animal sacrifices provide for ceremonial cleansing, rather than having any salvific efficacy. 4 Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 344. 5 Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 204 n. 16. The Ezekielian Sacrifices 247 It is, consequently, indubitably clear that Koshy’s understanding of the Ezekielian animal sacrifices violates the principle of the literal interpretation of prophecy. According to the plain reading of Scripture, these offerings are not memorials. They are expiatory in nature and design. A Hermeneutical Dilemma According to Hebrews 9:23-28, “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.” Why, then, is there the need for sin offerings, burnt offerings, and a return to Old Testament types and shadows? Despite their insistence upon a consistently literal hermeneutics, dispensationalists are forced to spiritualize the terms “sin offerings,” “burnt offerings,” “reconciliation,” and “atonement” used in passages such as Ezekiel 45:15, 17, and 20. They postulate that a “sin offering” is not offered for sin in the millennium, but is only memorial in nature. Dispensationalist Charles Ryrie, commenting on the literal hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, writes: “If literal interpretation is the correct principle of interpretation, it follows that it would be proper to expect it to apply to all the Scriptures. This, as we have tried to show, is the reason the matter of consistency in the application of plain interpretation is so important. The nonliteralist is the nonpremillennialist, the less specific and less consistent literalists are the covenant premillennialist and the progressive dispensationalist, and the consistent literalist is a dispensationalist. . . . In other words, consistent literalism is the basis for dispensationalism, and since consistent literalism is the logical and obvious principle of interpretation, dispensationalism is more than justified.”6 Louis Goldberg goes further, claiming that those who reject a literalistic hermeneutics are actually imposing their theological framework upon Scriptures. Goldberg writes that the “two established rules of interpretation are as follows: 1) “When scripture makes common sense use no other sense;” 2) “Prophecy . . . must be interpreted literally . . . The reason a non-literal method of interpretation is adopted is, almost without exception, because of a desire to avoid the obvious interpretation of the passage. The desire to bring the teaching of scripture into harmony with some predetermined system of doctrine instead of bringing doctrine 6 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 90, emphasis mine. The Ezekielian Sacrifices 248 into harmony with the scriptures has kept this practice alive.” The point is that we have to let the prophetic scriptures speak on their own without reading into them!”7 So, in accordance with Koshy’s, Ryrie’s, and Goldberg’s “literal hermeneutics,” exegetes must avoid the “desire to bring the teaching of scripture into harmony with some predetermined system of doctrine.” Contrariwise, we must “let the prophetic scriptures speak on their own without reading into them.” In order to avoid reading a preconceived theological grid into the visions of Ezekiel, the dispensationalists must admit that the “literal, normal, or plain interpretation” of the expressions “sin offerings” and “make atonement (Ezek. 45:15, 17, NIV)” must mean exactly that – sin offerings for sins, and the atonement for sins. If the sacrifices mentioned in Ezekiel’s visions are to be understood literally, they must be expiatory, not memorial offerings. With regard to the dispensationalists’ insistence upon a consistently literal interpretation, Vern Poythress makes an astute, critical observation. He writes, “I suspect, however, that dropping the phrase ‘literal interpretation’ might prove difficult for some dispensationalists, because ‘literal’ has become a watchword or banner. It is a useful watchword, I suggest, precisely because it can become a vehicle for sliding into a flat interpretation or plain interpretation when it is convenient to do so.”8 Apparently, Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians understand Scripture literally only when the literal, natural reading of such passages conforms to their theological grid. The consistently literal hermeneutics of Dispensationalists is “consistently literal” only when their Dispensationalism allows their interpretation to be literal. It must, therefore, be agreed that the term “literal interpretation” is “a confusing term, capable of being used to beg many of the questions at stake in the interpretation of the Bible.”9 Bible Presbyterian Options If one rejects Koshy’s memorial view as being inconsistent with the general tenor of Scripture, at least two options remain. Ironically, the New Scofield Reference Bible gives an alternative, non-literal interpretation of the Ezekielian sacrifices, 7 Louis Goldberg, “Whose Land Is It?,” Issues 4, no. 2 (n.d.); available from http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/4_2/land; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005, quoting Pentecost, Things to Come, 60. 8 Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 86, emphasis mine. 9 Ibid., 96. The Ezekielian Sacrifices 249 “The reference to sacrifices is not to be taken literally, in view of the putting away of such offerings, but is rather to be regarded as a presentation of the worship of redeemed Israel, in her own land and in the millennial temple, using the terms with which the Jews were familiar in Ezekiel’s day.”10 Even Todd Mangum, a progressive dispensationalist, argues for this view, and he prefers to understand the Ezekielian references to animal sacrifices as “typological references to the eternal worship of the crucified and risen Lord God Jesus Christ.”11 In response to such an understanding of the Ezekielian sacrifices by the editors of the New Scofield Reference Bible, Hoekema exclaims, “These words convey a far-reaching concession on the part of dispensationalists. If the sacrifices are not to be taken literally, why should we take the temple literally? It would seem that the dispensational principle of the literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecy is here abandoned, and that a crucial foundation stone for the entire dispensational system has here been set aside!”12 Therefore, as Ellison reminds us, “make the sacrifices symbolic and the temple becomes symbolic too.”13 To concede that the Ezekielian animal sacrifices are typological or symbolical in nature is to admit, albeit tacitly, that the temple visions of Ezekiel (chapters 40-48) can be interpreted with the “typo-prophetic hermeneutical principle” proposed by Mangum and progressive Dispensationalists.14 This would result in an understanding of the Millennial Temple which is closer to the interpretations of Daniel Block and G. K. Beale. 10 Cyrus I. Scofield, ed., New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), 888, emphasis mine. See commentary on Ezekiel 43:19. This volume, a revision of the 1909 edition, has been edited by a committee of nine leading dispensationalist theologians, and is therefore somewhat representative of contemporary Dispensationalism. 11 Mangum, “Can We Expect a Restoration of Levitical Animal Sacrifices? A Progressive Dispensationalist Opinion,” 13. 12 Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 204. 13 H. L. Ellison, Ezekiel: The Man and His Message (London: Paternoster, 1956), 140, quoted in Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 344. 14 Mangum, “Can We Expect a Restoration of Levitical Animal Sacrifices? A Progressive Dispensationalist Opinion,” 8. The Ezekielian Sacrifices 250 The other option for Bible Presbyterians is the view adopted by John Whitcomb, but it soon becomes clear that this view has its inherent weaknesses. Whitcomb’s View and Far Eastern Bible College It is notable that Whitcomb’s paper, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel,” constitutes part of the supplements and syllabus for the course “Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology: A Basic Theology for Everyone Course” organized by Far Eastern Bible College.15 Concerning the millennium temple, Jeffrey Khoo’s reliance upon Whitcomb’s paper is evident in the following statement: “As regards the millennial temple and sacrifices, read Gary Cohen, “Ezekiel’s City: A Millennial Vision,” Zion’s Fire (July-August 1998): 1823; Prabhudas Koshy, “The Millennium Temple,” The Burning Bush (January 2000): 23-31; and John C. Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel,” Grace Theological Journal 6 (1985): 20117.”16 It is apparent that Khoo has not arrived at a conclusion as regards the Ezekielian sacrifices. Koshy’s view contradicts Whitcomb’s view. Nevertheless, both views are offered to the students of Far Eastern Bible College for consideration. Concerning the Millennium Temple and its animal sacrifices, one can, however, be assured that students of Far Eastern Bible College are directed to the writings of rank Dispensationalists for answers. The Passing of Types and Shadows In his paper “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel,” Whitcomb criticizes Anthony Hoekema for assuming, “along with many nondispensational theologians, that animal sacrifices in the millennium would involve a reinstitution of the Mosaic economy, just as if Christ had never died. Oswald T. Allis, another Reformed theologian, stated, for example: “Literally interpreted, this means the 15 See Khoo, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, 47. The discerning reader will quickly notice that the supplementary articles provided are at the very least sympathetic to, and most of the time defend, the dispensational understanding of animal sacrifices in the Millennium Temple. Not a single article supplied is critical of these erroneous views. 16 Khoo, Hebrews, 35. The Ezekielian Sacrifices 251 restoration of the Aaronic priesthood and of the Mosaic ritual of sacrifices essentially unchanged.’”17 Reformed theologians are in general agreement that the Old Covenant types and shadows, together with its ceremonial and Jewish peculiarities, have been forever abolished with the advent of the antitype, Jesus Christ - our Priest, Prophet and King. Although Whitcomb tries to convince his readers that “Ezekiel’s picture of millennial worship and the Mosaic system which had been established nine hundred years earlier exhibit fundamental differences,”18 Allis is correct to say that such a restitution of ceremonial practices and animal sacrifices is essentially similar to the literal restoration of the Aaronic priesthood and the Levitical ritual of sacrifice. As explained above, the reinstitution of the Aaronic-Zadokian priesthood, the Jewish Temple worship, the Jewish rite of circumcision, the Jewish feasts and animal sacrifices, goes against the redemptive teachings of the New Testament. It would mean a restitution of the “weak and beggarly elements (Gal. 4:9),” the types and shadows of the Old Covenant dispensation. The Aaronic priesthood has been fulfilled by its antitype - Jesus Christ, High Priest of the Melchizedekian Priesthood. Likewise, the Levitical ritual of animal sacrifice has been abolished by the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our substitutionary atonement for sin. It is indisputable that the reintroduction of essentially similar rituals and Jewish ceremonial practices is a retrogressive step towards Old Testament shadowy forms and typological entities. Allis answers his critic – John Whitcomb – with this well-worded paragraph, “To make use of the “beggarly elements” before the reality had come, and to do this when directly commanded to do so, was one thing. To return to them after the reality has come and when expressly commanded not to do so, would be quite another thing.”19 Fairbairn, in his Exposition of Ezekiel, provides Jeffrey Khoo and the faculty of Far Eastern Bible College with the reasons why a professedly Reformed institution must not embrace Whitcomb’s view of the Ezekielian sacrifices: 17 Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel,” 212-213, quoting Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 246. 18 Ibid., 213. 19 Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 247. The Ezekielian Sacrifices 252 “The vision of the prophet, as it must, if understood literally, imply the ultimate restoration of the ceremonials of Judaism, so it inevitably places the prophet in direct contradiction to the writers of the New Testament. The entire and total cessation of the peculiarities of Jewish worship is as plainly taught by our Lord and his apostles as language could do it, and on grounds which are not of temporary, but of permanent validity and force. The word of Christ to the woman of Samaria - “Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father” - is alone conclusive of the matter; for if it means anything worthy of so solemn an asseveration, it indicates that Jerusalem was presently to lose its distinctive character, and a mode of worship to be introduced capable of being celebrated in any other place as well as there. But when we find the apostles afterwards contending for the cessation of the Jewish ritual, because suited only to a Church “in bondage to the elements of the world,” and consisting of what were comparatively but “weak and beggarly elements,” - and when in the Epistle to the Hebrews we also find the disannulling of the old covenant with its Aaronic priesthood and carnal ordinances argued at length, and especially “because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof,” that is, its own inherent imperfections, - we must certainly hold either that the shadowy services of Judaism are finally and for ever gone, or that these sacred writers very much misrepresented their Master’s mind regarding them. No intelligent and sincere Christian can adopt the latter alternative; he ought therefore to rest in the former.”20 It is clear from the New Testament teachings that the local churches established and distributed all over the world have replaced the localized, Jewish worship at the temple in Jerusalem. The inauguration of the New Covenant has forever disannulled the “carnal ordinances” of the Mosaic economy. Therefore, “to regard the prophet here as exhibiting a prospect founded on such an unnatural conjunction, is to ascribe to him the foolish part of seeking to have the new wine of the kingdom put back into the old bottles again; and while occupying himself with the highest hopes of the Church, treating her only to a showy spectacle of carnal superficialities. We have far too high ideas of the spiritual insight and calling of an Old Testament prophet, to believe that it was possible for him to act so unseemly a part, or contemplate a state of things so utterly anomalous.”21 20 21 Fairbairn, Exposition of Ezekiel, 440-441. Ibid., 441-442. The Ezekielian Sacrifices 253 Progressive Revelation and Redemptive Regression Whitcomb argues that “after [the Lord] comes, animal sacrifices within a New Covenant structure, endorsed . . . by the living Lamb of God, will constitute a gigantic step forward for Israel [in the Millennium].”22 He reasons, “The concept of progressive revelation guarantees that the New Covenant theocracy will begin with more knowledge than the Church did at Pentecost. Yet this theocracy will retain its distinctive Israelite characteristics—a promised land, a temple, appropriate animal sacrifices, and an earthly Zadokian priesthood . . . These [Ezekielian] sacrifices, illumined by a corporate understanding of the true significance of the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world, will be appreciated all the more for what they can and cannot accomplish for the offerer.”23 As we have discussed above, these “distinctive Israelite characteristics” are part of the Old Covenant typological forms, and as such, have forever been abolished with the institution of the New Covenant administration. In accordance with the principle of progressive revelation, Whitcomb ought to interpret Ezekiel’s vision in the light of New Testament teachings. Instead, he attempts to harmonize apostolic, redemptive doctrines with Old Testament types and shadows. In so doing, he inadvertently infuses the Mosaic shadowy elements into the New Covenant dispensation, and perhaps even confounds the teachings of the New Testament. Whitcomb contends that, according to the principle of progressive revelation, “the two witnesses (Revelation 11), the 144,000 (Revelation 7), and the Zadokian teaching priests functioning in the millennial temple (Ezekiel 40–48 ) will therefore know considerably more than John the Baptist, Apollos, the apostle Paul (who probably never read the book of Revelation), and even the apostle John. They will know about the full and finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. They will see no conflict between Ezekiel and Hebrews.”24 But after making the point “that millennial Israel will have the entire NT available to them, including the Book of Hebrews,”25 we read in the conclusion of his paper that 22 Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel,” 216. Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 23 The Ezekielian Sacrifices 254 animal sacrifices will once again serve as a “pedagogical” or “instructional” resource for millennial Israel. Whitcomb’s reasoning seems to contradict the Reformed doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture, but this is surely not what he intended to convey to his readers. If, according to the principle of providential preservation of Scripture, millennial Israel will have the all sufficient Word of God available to them, why would a restitution of animal sacrifices be necessary “as an instructional and disciplinary instrument for Israel?”26 The Bible as we have it today - consisting of 66 books and a closed Canon - is the all sufficient pedagogical resource, both for the church and, according to Whitcomb’s dispensationalism, millennial Israel. Reformed theologians have acknowledged that the written Word is the principium cognoscendi.27 Therefore, in the spirit of Sola Scriptura, we have to maintain with the Reformers that Scripture is the all sufficient revelation of God to man. There is no necessity within the New Covenant structure for “weak and beggarly elements (Gal. 4:9)” to serve as instructional or pedagogical instruments. Reformed theologians, who acknowledge the sufficiency of Scripture, should all the more repudiate Whitcomb’s reasoning found in his paper. Whitcomb’s View of the Ezekielian Sacrifices We recall that Whitcomb is correct in stating that the Levitical sacrifices are not merely a symbolical-typological means of foreshadowing Christ’s death. With regard to animal sacrifices under the Mosaic order, Kurtz elaborates that “the EXPIATION . . . of the person sacrificing [the offering] is what we meet with everywhere [in Scripture], not only as the first intention, but to a certain extent as the chief and most important end of the bleeding sacrifices in general. When the sacrifice of animals is mentioned in the law, making atonement . . . is nearly always expressly mentioned, and for the most part this alone, as being the purpose, end, and fruit of the sacrifice.”28 26 Ibid., 217. Scripture is the “principle of knowing” or the cognitive foundation of Christians. Epistemologically, the Word of God is also the principium theologiae, the foundation for theology and the knowledge of God. 28 J. H. Kurtz, Offerings, Sacrifices and Worship in the Old Testament, trans. James Martin (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 66. 27 The Ezekielian Sacrifices 255 Likewise, Grabbe observes that “the text [of Scripture] makes it clear that the blood of the sacrifices did take away sin (Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18, 26 [Eng. 6:7]; 19:22; Num. 15:25, 26, 28). One of the main rituals of expiation was the ritual with the two goats on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16).”29 Despite the inherent expiatory value of the Levitical animal sacrifices, Whitcomb rightly perceives that even in the Old Covenant economy, salvation was by grace through faith in Christ alone, and in His redemptive work alone. He explains: “In the covenant at Sinai, God provided a highly complex and rigid structure for his “kingdom of priests.” Within that structure, national/theocratic transgressions would receive national/theocratic forgiveness when appropriate sacrifices were offered to God through legitimate priests at the tabernacle/temple altar. This “forgiveness” was promised regardless of the spiritual state of either the offerer or the priest. However, such sacrificial blood could never cleanse the conscience or save the soul (Heb 10:1–2), so God repeatedly sent prophets to call his people to love and obey their God from the heart. Apart from such genuine faith, all the ceremonially “kosher” animals in the whole world would avail nothing in the spiritual realm (Ps 50:7–15; Isa 1:12–20; Amos 4:4–5; 5:20–27; Hos 5:6; Mic 6:6–8; Jer 6:20; 7:21–23 ). It was not to be either faith or sacrifices; rather, it was to be both faith and sacrifices (cf. Ps 51:19).”30 Consistent with the theology of the writer of Hebrews, Whitcomb recognizes the inferiority of the Levitical ritual of animal sacrifice, and that “all the ceremonially “kosher” animals in the whole world would avail nothing in the spiritual realm.”31 “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins (Heb 10:4).” Neither can such animal sacrifices “cleanse the conscience or save the soul.”32 Whitcomb’s view of the Ezekielian sacrifices is also more consistent with the literal hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, especially when compared to Koshy’s “memorial” view. Whitcomb believes that the Ezekielian sacrifices are not “primarily memorial” in nature, but serve to provide “temporal cleansing and forgiveness” within the theocracy of Israel. He restricts the expiatory value of the animal sacrifices within the boundaries of “ceremonial forgiveness.” Whitcomb elucidates: 29 Grabbe, Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period, 130-131. Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel,” 209-210. 31 Ibid., 210. 32 Ibid. 30 The Ezekielian Sacrifices 256 “Now what does all of this indicate with regard to animal sacrifices in the millennial Temple for Israel under the New Covenant? It indicates that future sacrifices will have nothing to do with eternal salvation which only comes through true faith in God. It also indicates that future animal sacrifices will be “efficacious” and “expiatory” only in terms of the strict provision for ceremonial (and thus temporal) forgiveness within the theocracy of Israel. Thus, animal sacrifices during the coming Kingdom age will not be primarily memorial (like the eucharist in church communion services), any more than sacrifices in the age of the Old Covenant were primarily prospective or prophetic in the understanding of the offerer.”33 Whitcomb is careful to contrast Christ’s atonement for “infinite and eternal guilt” with the “purely temporal cleansing and forgiveness” provided for by the animal sacrifices. According to Whitcomb, “what happened [to the offerer] was temporal, finite, external, and legal - not eternal, infinite, internal, and soteriological.”34 However, the weakness in Whitcomb’s reasoning lies in his attempt to differentiate “ceremonial and spiritual atonement.”35 In order to avoid the clear theological implications of Christ’s perfect atonement for all the sins of the elect, Whitcomb categorizes atonement for sins into two artificial partitions: ceremonial (or the “temporal, finite, external, and legal” atonement for sins) and spiritual (or the “eternal, infinite, internal, and soteriological” atonement for sins). He claims that this distinction is “by no means a minor one, for it is at the heart of the basic difference between the theocracy of Israel and the Church, the Body and Bride of Christ. It also provides a more consistent hermeneutical approach for dispensational premillennialism.”36 This theological division of the atonement derives its validity from a strict dispensational, hermeneutical distinction between Israel (“the theocracy of Israel”) and the Church (“the Body and Bride of Christ”). But with a Reformed hermeneutical-theological grid, there is no basis for such a division. The book of Hebrews clearly teaches that Christ is the perfect sacrifice and atonement for all the sins of His elect. How, then, can Whitcomb justify his thesis that God requires the restitution of animal sacrifices in the millennium for ceremonial cleansing and atonement? 33 Ibid., emphasis mine. Ibid., 209. 35 Ibid., 211. 36 Ibid. 34 The Ezekielian Sacrifices 257 Beale reminds us that, “Numerous commentators have pointed out that this [that is, the restitution of animal sacrifices] would violate the principle of Hebrews: the Old Testament sacrifices pointed to Christ’s ‘once for all’ sacrifice (Heb. 9:12, 26, 28; 10: 10-18), so that to go back to those sacrifices would indicate the insufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice for sin (cf., e.g., Heb. 10:18: ‘Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin’). This would appear to amount to a reversal of redemptive history and, more importantly, a denial of the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice.”37 Whitcomb reasons that these sin and burnt offerings in the Millennium Temple do not function “on the level of Calvary’s Cross,” but yet, on the “quasi-physical” level provide for ceremonial cleansing and forgiveness. In the conclusion to his paper, he writes: “Before the heavens and the earth flee away from him who sits upon the Great White Throne (Rev 20:11), God will provide a final demonstration of the validity of animal sacrifices as an instructional and disciplinary instrument for Israel. The entire world will see the true purpose of this system. Of course, the system never has and never will function on the level of Calvary’s Cross, where infinite and eternal guilt was dealt with once and for all. But the system did accomplish, under God, some very important pedagogical and disciplinary purposes for Israel under the Old Covenant (Gal 4:1–7). There is good reason to believe that it will yet again, and far more successfully from a pedagogical standpoint, function on the level of quasi-physical and thus purely temporal cleansing and forgiveness (cf. Heb 9:13) within the strict limits of the national theocracy of Israel during the one thousand years of Christ’s reign upon the earth in accordance with the terms of the New Covenant.”38 We note that Whitcomb quotes Hebrews 9:13 in the aforementioned paragraph. But let us peruse this passage of Hebrews in its entirety, “For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God (Heb. 9:13-14)?” 37 38 Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 343-344. Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel,” 217, emphasis mine. The Ezekielian Sacrifices 258 If, indeed, Christ has perfectly purged our “conscience from dead works to serve the living God,” why would it be necessary for “the blood of bulls and of goats” to purify the flesh all over again in the millennium? As we are cleansed from sins in the spiritual, internal, infinite and eternal realm by the blood of Christ, why should there be any further necessity for the fleshly, external, finite and temporal cleansing by the blood of animals? Within the administration of the New Covenant, Christians are not required to offer up any animal sacrifices for ceremonial cleansing. Our sacrifices are now spiritual in nature (Rom. 12:1-2, Heb. 13:15-16, 1 Pet. 2:5). These spiritual sacrifices, such as the sufferings of God’s people for Christ sake, and even the sacrifices of praise (Heb. 13:15-16), are acceptable to God by virtue of Christ’s atoning sacrifice for sins. Spiritual cleansing is afforded by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, not by the blood of animals. Cleansing in the New Covenant economy is from the works of the flesh (2 Cor. 7:1), not from ceremonial uncleanness. “Indeed, Paul’s understanding of the beginning fulfillment of the temple described in Ezekiel 37:26-28 involves an ongoing need to ‘not touch what is unclean’ (2 Cor. 6:17) and to ‘cleanse’ oneself ‘from all defilement of flesh and spirit’ (2 Cor. 7:1; so also 1 Cor. 6:18-19). Perhaps, Ezekiel’s enigmatic sacrifices also could be understood along these lines.”39 Nevertheless, there will no longer be any need of ceremonial cleansing as alleged by Whitcomb. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment, “His blood, offered by Himself, purifies not only outwardly, as the Levitical sacrifices on the day of atonement, but inwardly unto the service of the living God (vv. 13, 14). His death inaugurates the new covenant, and the heavenly sanctuary (vv. 15–23). His entrance into the true Holy of Holies consummates His once-for-all-offered sacrifice of atonement (vv. 24-26); His reappearance alone remains to complete our redemption (vv. 27, 28).”40 Whitcomb cannot escape the theological implications of a literal understanding of the Ezekielian expiatory sacrifices. In the temple vision of Ezekiel, we read that the blood of the sacrificial animal will once again be sprinkled onto the altar of the Millennium Temple (Ezek. 43:18). But Kurtz argues that, 39 Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 349-350. Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, vol. 3 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 555, emphasis mine. 40 The Ezekielian Sacrifices 259 “Any blood which was sprinkled upon the altar, and therefore “every sacrifice in which blood was applied to the altar,” was intended as an expiation; and also, that, as blood was applied to the altar in connection with every animal sacrifice, expiation took place in connection with them all; and, so far, every kind of animal sacrifice might be designated as an expiatory sacrifice. But it does not follow from this, that expiation was the sole object in every case, or all equally important object in them all. The words, “to make atonement for him,” are expressly used, in fact, not only in connection with the sin-offering (Lev. iv. 20, 26, 31, 35, etc.) and trespassoffering (Lev. v. 16, 18, vi. 7, etc.), but in connection with the burntoffering also (Lev. i. 4).”41 As Christ has made the ultimate expiatory sacrifice on Calvary’s cross, it is difficult for Whitcomb to insist upon a reinstitution of such animal sacrifices – which include the sprinkling of blood upon the altar of the temple - without sacrificing the precious Reformed doctrine of Christ’s atonement. Also, a recurring phrase in connection with both the sin and the guilt offerings in the Book of Leviticus is, “the priest shall make an atonement for him . . . and it shall be forgiven him (Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35, 5:10, 13, 16, 18, 6:7).” It is apparent that before any reconciliation can take place between the offerer and Yahweh, there must be atonement for sin. The atonement for sin must precede forgiveness; God does not forgive sins for which no atonement has been made. In a similar way to the Levitical sacrifices, these Ezekielian sacrifices are undoubtedly expiatory in nature if understood literally, in that they provide for temporal, ceremonial cleansing and cover for sins. Therefore, such sacrifices represent a regression towards Old Testament typological, shadowy forms. Christ death has secured for us eternal, perfect atonement not only from all our sins, but also from all ceremonial impurities. Therefore, being clothed in Christ’s righteousness, we can “come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need (Heb. 4:16).” We can now, by virtue of Christ’s ministry of reconciliation, approach the Throne of God, let alone the alleged Millennium Temple on earth. The writer of Hebrews continues: “It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made 41 Kurtz, Offerings, Sacrifices and Worship in the Old Testament, 73-74. The Ezekielian Sacrifices 260 with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation (Heb. 9:23-28).” Christ offered Himself once, “to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” In Hebrews 10:12-14, the writer reaffirms our faith in Christ’s atonement for sins, “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” We have previously discussed the theological difficulties encountered when one believes in the restitution of animal sacrifices. One wonders how Whitcomb reconciles the “temporal cleansing and forgiveness” effected by the Ezekelian expiatory sacrifices with clear, NT redemptive teachings (e.g. Hebrews chapter 10)? “He [Christ] taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Heb. 10:9b-10).” Hebrews 9:13 states clearly that animal sacrifices “sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh”. If Jesus Christ has sanctified the elect “once for all” (Heb. 10:10), the insistence upon a restoration of animal sacrifice is tantamount to a blatant rejection of NT revelation. If the exegete is not cautious, he might even be found guilty of rank heresy, that is, to suggest that animal sacrifices are necessary for “cleansing and forgiveness” in the millennium, after Christ “had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever (Heb. 10:12).” Conclusion From the New Covenant perspective, John Frame is correct to observe that, “The new form of the people of God [that is, the church] involved many new things. No longer was there a literal tabernacle or temple; Jesus himself was the temple, and he dwelt, by his spirit, within his people, so that in a sense they became the temple (John 2:19ff.; 1 Cor 3:16f.; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16). Nor was the new people of God identified, even roughly, with a particular group of clans or tribes; it became an international body destined The Ezekielian Sacrifices 261 to cover the globe (Matt 28:19f.). . . . No modern nation, or its government (state), then, will ever play the distinctive role filled by OT Israel. God’s purposes now are wider and broader; the whole world is the promised land (Matt 28:9ff.; 1 Cor 3:21ff.; Eph 6:3; cf. Exod 20:12). We need no longer the types and shadows of the tabernacle and temple, for we have the reality in Christ (Hebrews 8–10).”42 A correct understanding of the New Testament enables us to appreciate the superiority of the New Covenant. Under the New Covenant administration, we no longer have to worship in temples made of stone. We are the very temple of the Holy Ghost, and we are to worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Neither is there any need of the Jewish sacrificial cult, nor the blood of innocent animals upon the altar. “When Christ’s blood has been shed there can be no further sacrifice for sin. For a generation the temple remained while, beginning in its courts, the gospel of a better sacrifice was preached. Because Christ fulfilled and did not destroy the law, the disciples did not leave the temple until they were forced to do so - even Paul worshiped there in a vain effort to show his continuing love for his people. But the issues were made plain to that generation and to all that follow. No animal sacrifice can be offered that is acceptable to God, who has given his own Son as the Lamb. To offer such a sacrifice cannot repeat or symbolize Christ’s sacrifice, for Christ has appointed another memorial of his death till he come.”43 How can a Reformed theologian even begin to embrace Whitcomb’s or the “memorial” view of Ezekielian sacrifices, and yet retain his faithfulness to the Reformed faith? Due to their adherence to the dispensational sine qua non, Jeffrey Khoo and Prabhudas Koshy have sadly compromised dogmatic NT redemptive teachings with the faulty, literalistic hermeneutics of dispensationalism. Consistent with the analogy of faith and the principle of progressive revelation, Khoo and Koshy should understand Ezekiel’s vision with the revelation of Jesus and the apostles, and not vice versa. Whether one perceives the Ezekielian sacrifices as merely memorial, or reinstituted for the ceremonial, temporal forgiveness of sins, one must affirm with the apostles that there is no longer any necessity of sacrifices for sins, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (Heb. 10:14).” We must assert that, “If there is a way back to the ceremonial law, to the types and shadows of what has now become the bondage of legalism, then Paul labored and ran in vain - more than that, Christ died in vain.”44 42 Frame, “Toward a Theology of the State,” 220. Clowney, “The Final Temple,” 188-189. 44 Ibid., 189. 43 The Ezekielian Sacrifices 262 Chapter 20: Bible Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism Introduction: The Dispensational-Covenantal Continuum Theologians from both ends of the dispensational-covenantal spectrum recognize that theological positions can be placed anywhere within this continuum.1 As John S. Feinberg, a Dispensational theologian, states, “Theological positions can be placed on a continuum running from views which hold to absolute continuity between the Testaments to views holding to absolute discontinuity between the Testaments. The more one moves in the continuity direction, the more covenantal he becomes; and the more he moves in the discontinuity direction, the more dispensational he becomes.”2 Feinberg continues to elaborate that most theological systems, in fact, fall in between the two extreme ends of this dispensational-covenantal continuum. He writes: “Generally, systems that move toward absolute continuity fit more in the mold of Reformed or covenantal theologies. Systems that move toward absolute discontinuity fit more in the mold of dispensational theologies. While there are varieties of both kinds, it is unlikely that any actual systems are exactly at either end of the continuum.”3 In order to properly identify the theological grid adhered to by a particular theologian, it is important to delineate the sine qua non of a system. The sine qua nons or the foundational principles of a theological system must be distinguished from views derived from the application of those foundational principles. Feinberg explains: “Not all discontinuity or dispensational positions are alike. Nonetheless, it seems possible to delineate those elements essential to all dispensational 1 For example, see the heuristic spectrum of eschatological positions espoused by Mangum. See Mangum, “A Future for Israel in Covenant Theology: The Untold Story,” 15. 2 John S. Feinberg, “Preface,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), xii. 3 John S. Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 64. Bible Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism 263 systems. . . . As to the distinction, in assessing any conceptual system it is always crucial to distinguish foundational principles from notions which are applications of those foundational principles. The system is generated from the former, and without adherence to them one cannot properly claim to hold the system. Rejecting particular applications of foundational principles, however, does not disqualify one as an adherent to the system. This distinction is especially important for Dispensationalism, for both proponents and critics have too often treated applications of the system like foundational principles. Consequently, dispensationalists have assumed wrongly that rejection of such applications entails departure from the position. Likewise, nondispensationalists have wrongly understood adherence to Dispensationalism to mean agreement with every applicational point.”4 Feinberg makes two important points. Firstly, he emphasizes the fact that a theological system is generated from the sine qua non of that system. One who adheres to the sine qua non of that system can, therefore, be rightly perceived as an adherent of that theological system. Secondly, the rejection of certain applications of the sine qua non “does not disqualify one as an adherent to the system.”5 In our current discussion of what constitutes a Dispensationalist, we must define appropriately and precisely what the sine qua non of Dispensationalism is. Theologians who are adherents of this sine qua non can appropriately be regarded as Dispensationalists. But before I proceed to identify the sine qua non of Dispensationalism, I will briefly state what the sine qua non is not. What the Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism is not Dispensations or Economies In his discussion of the term “Dispensationalist,” Poythress prefers a “neutral designation” for the “sake of clarity.”6 He calls the Dispensationalists, “Dtheologians.” This is to avoid any misconceptions with regard to the definition of the term “Dispensationalist.” A common error is to define Dispensationalism as a system of theology which arises from viewing Scripture in terms of dispensations. But a Dispensationalist is not 4 Ibid., 67-68. Ibid., 68. 6 Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 9. 5 Bible Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism 264 simply a theologian who understands the Bible as consisting of distinctive dispensations. Poythress explains, “D-theologians [or Dispensationalists] have most often been called “dispensationalists” because they divide the course of history into a number of distinct epochs. . . . However, the word “dispensationalist” is not really apt for labeling the D-theologians. Virtually all ages of the church and all branches of the church have believed that there are distinctive dispensations in God’s government of the world, though sometimes the consciousness of such distinctions has grown dim. The recognition of distinctions between different epochs is by no means unique to D-theologians.”7 It is obvious that a dispensationalist is not merely one who understands the Bible in terms of various divine economies or dispensations. Even Covenant theologians see at least two economies in God’s dealings with man: (1) the covenant of works and, (2) the covenant of grace. Jeffrey Khoo recognizes this fact: “It must be said that there is nothing wrong in seeing dispensations in the Bible. Covenant theologians like Charles Hodge, and Louis Berkhof have their own dispensational schemes but all under the umbrella of the covenant of grace. There are not seven dispensations, but only two: (1) the dispensation (or covenant) of works (Gen 1:1-3:14), and (2) the dispensation (or covenant) of grace (Gen 3:15-Rev 22:21).”8 Interestingly, Mathison correctly observes that, “Dispensationalism is too often defined in terms of its lowest common denominator and thus is not adequately distinguished from other systems of theology. For example, Stanley Toussaint defines dispensationalism as the theological system that “recognizes various administrations or economies in (the) outworking of God’s plan in history.” This definition omits anything that is unique to dispensationalism. Virtually every system of Christian theology recognizes various administrations or economies within God’s plan, yet it would be inaccurate to claim that all of these systems are dispensational. Dispensationalism must be defined in terms of its unique 7 8 Ibid., 9-10. Khoo, Dispensationalism Examined, 5. Bible Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism 265 essence, namely that which distinguishes it from other systems of theology.”9 Despite the fact that Dispensationalism is not defined by the identification of dispensations within the Bible, Khoo seems to suggest that a Dispensationalist is merely one who understands the Bible in terms of various “dispensations” or administrations. In his essay, Dispensationalism Examined, Khoo writes, “What then is dispensationalism? The word “dispensation” comes from the Greek oikonomia (literally “house law”) which means “stewardship,” or “administration.’”10 After defining the word “dispensation,” Khoo proceeds to give a brief history of Dispensationalism, and includes an introduction to the various dispensations advocated by Dispensationalists. He also discusses dispensational antinomianism, dispensational Calvinism, and the dispensational view of Israel. Khoo subsequently concludes his treatise with this statement: “Therefore, have we as Bible-Presbyterians become dispensational? No, because we do not hold to a dispensational scheme but a covenantal one.”11 Is it, then, true that a theologian is not dispensational simply because he does not “hold to a dispensational scheme”?12 Dispensationalist John S. Feinberg realizes that a common error is to define Dispensationalism by defining a dispensation. He concurs with the observation that Covenant theologians, likewise, perceive various administrations or economies of the overarching “covenant of grace.” Therefore, the concept of dispensations is not unique to Dispensationalism. Feinberg reasons: “While οἰκονομία [oikonomia] is a biblical word, and a dispensation is to be defined roughly as these men [referring to certain Dispensationalists] have, none of this defines the essence of Dispensationalism, a system or approach to Scripture. . . . The initial error is thinking that the word “dispensation” and talk of differing administrative orders only appears in dispensational thinking. Which covenant theologian thinks οἰκονομία 9 Mathison, Dispensationalism, 3-4, quoting Stanley Toussaint, “A Biblical Defense of Dispensationalism,” in Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), 82-83. 10 Khoo, Dispensationalism Examined, 2. 11 Ibid., 11. 12 Ibid. Bible Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism 266 [oikonomia] is not a biblical word? Moreover, covenantalists often speak, for example, of differing dispensations of the covenant of grace. Since both dispensationalists and nondispensationalists use the term and concept of a dispensation, that alone is not distinctive to Dispensationalism. It is no more distinctive to Dispensationalism than talk of covenants is distinctive to Covenant Theology. Dispensationalists talk about covenants all the time.”13 Tim Warner and other progressive dispensationalists see a single, unfolding redemptive plan within Scripture. Furthermore, all dispensationalists recognize various covenants (i.e. Abrahamic, Davidic, New) in God’s dealings with Man. Warner reveals that “Progressive Dispensationalists see a progression of dispensational economies in a single unfolding plan to redeem mankind. We acknowledge only one means of salvation for all time, by grace through faith.”14 Covenant theologians would likewise affirm that there is “a single unfolding plan to redeem mankind,” and that there is “only one means of salvation for all time, by grace through faith”. Have Progressive Dispensationalists, therefore, become Reformed theologians? In the same breath, Warner emphasizes that, “surely progressive dispensationalists are true dispensationalists.”15 This is because they affirm the dispensational sine qua non.16 While it is true that the recognition of covenants within the Bible does not necessarily make one a Covenant theologian, the acknowledgment of dispensations within Scripture, similarly, does not turn a theologian into a dispensationalist. Feinberg goes further in his analysis of Dispensationalism. He explains that the concept of dispensations is not even a foundational principle of Dispensationalism. Also, “the number of dispensations one holds is not an essential of the [Dispensational] system. . . . The number of dispensations is not at the heart of the system.”17 Therefore, it is not essential whether a Dispensationalist adhere to three 13 Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 69. I highly recommend the reading of Feinberg’s essay “Systems of Discontinuity” on pp. 63-86; it gives a good analysis of what Dispensationalism is as a system of thought. 14 Tim Warner, Progressive Dispensationalism 101 [article on-line]; available from http://www.geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/prodisp.html; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005, emphasis mine. 15 Ibid. 16 We shall discuss the sine qua non of Dispensationalism later in this book. Dispensationalists are in agreement that the true sine qua non of Dispensationalism is the Israel/Church distinction. 17 Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 70. Bible Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism 267 or even seven dispensations. The number of dispensations recognized does not make a theologian any more or less dispensational. Feinberg continues his reasoning: “The error, however, is at an even deeper level. The term and concept “dispensation” are not even at the essence of the system. The fundamental error of [Elliot] Johnson, [Stanley] Toussaint, and others is thinking that they can define a conceptual scheme (Dispensationalism) by defining a term (“dispensation”). Defining a word and defining a concept are not the same thing. Defining a word involves giving an analysis of the ways in which the word is used in various contexts. Defining a concept involves delineating the fundamental qualities that make it what it is. Dispensationalists apparently have not understood the distinction and so have assumed they could define a system of thought (a conceptual matter) by defining a word. Defining the term “dispensation” no more defines the essence of Dispensationalism than defining the term “covenant” explains the essence of Covenant Theology.”18 Therefore, in the current theological dialogue between Dispensationalists and Reformed theologians, scholars “should not shift the ground in the discussion by maneuvering with the term “dispensationalist.’”19 Bible Presbyterians should not attempt to define Dispensationalism as a theological system by defining the term “dispensation.” In the same vein, a theologian is not Reformed simply because he does “not hold to a dispensational scheme but a covenantal one.”20 Antinomianism In his essay, Dispensationalism Examined, Jeffrey Khoo attempts to argue that “Dispensational Antinomianism” is a distinctive of Dispensationalism. He claims that “the dispensational aversion to the Moral Law has led some dispensationalists to advocate that salvation involves receiving Jesus only as Saviour, but not as Lord. This has to do with the “Lordship Salvation” debate.”21 In this manner, he intimates that the Bible Presbyterians’ agreement with the Reformed view of the Moral Law distinguishes them from Dispensationalists. 18 Ibid., 69, emphasis mine. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 11. 20 Khoo, Dispensationalism Examined, 11. 21 Ibid., 7. The section on “Dispensational Antinomianism” forms part of Khoo’s treatise on what Dispensationalism is and is not. 19 Bible Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism 268 However, it is recognized by Dispensationalists that the “dispensational understanding of the law is not an essential of the system. Some argue that Dispensationalism entails antinomianism, since dispensationalists claim that the law is done away, for Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4). Though some may hold this view, it is hardly the norm or necessitated by Dispensationalism. . . . Dispensationalism is neither antinomian nor entails it.”22 Once again, Khoo fails to address adequately the foundational principles of Dispensationalism in his essay, Dispensationalism Examined. Instead, he prefers to discuss certain applicational points of those foundational principles, and only briefly mentions the sine qua non of Dispensationalism at the close of his essay. Calvinism In his essay, Khoo argues that Dispensationalists are “four-point Calvinists.”23 He seems to suggest that “Dispensational Calvinism” is characteristic of Dispensationalism.24 Khoo writes, “Most dispensationalists are four-point Calvinists. The point they reject is the third point - Limited Atonement. They believe that the atonement of Christ is unlimited in both its sufficiency and efficiency. Christ died sufficiently and effectively for the whole world, though only the elect are saved. This is no different from Arminian [sic] view of the atonement.”25 Again, it is imprecise to define Dispensationalism via the applicational points of its foundational principles. This manner of argument is a red-herring at best. Feinberg correctly observes that, “Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism is at the essence of Dispensationalism. Some Calvinists are nondispensationalists, and others, like myself, are dispensationalists. The same is true of Arminians. This matter is not at the essence of Dispensationalism, because Calvinism and Arminianism are very important in regard to concepts of God, man, sin, and 22 Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 71. Khoo, Dispensationalism Examined, 9. 24 Therefore, he seems to imply that Bible Presbyterians are not dispensational because of their Calvinism. 25 Khoo, Dispensationalism Examined, 9. He seems to have left out John F. McArthur, Jr. of The Master’s Seminary, who is a self-professed “five-point Calvinist,” as well as a fullblooded Dispensationalist. 23 Bible Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism 269 salvation. Dispensationalism becomes very important in regard to ecclesiology and eschatology, but is really not about those other areas. Some think salvation is at the heart of Dispensationalism, because they erroneously think Dispensationalism teaches multiple methods of salvation. Those who properly understand the position realize its emphasis lies elsewhere.”26 Here, Feinberg makes some important remarks. The sine qua non of Dispensationalism has its greatest ramifications in the areas of “ecclesiology and eschatology.” Therefore, in Khoo’s definition of Dispensationalism, it is not helpful to evade a discussion of its foundational principles that have their furthest applications in ecclesiology and eschatology.27 Premillennialism I agree most heartily with Khoo when he says “that taking a premillennial position does not necessarily make one dispensational.”28 Dispensationalism cannot be equated with Premillennialism. Covenant Premillennialists, such as George Eldon Ladd, do not adhere to the sine qua non of Dispensationalism. Not only do they disagree with dispensational ecclesiology, their concept of the Kingdom is diametrically opposed to that of Dispensationalism.29 Mathison concurs: “Some have argued that the essence of dispensationalism is premillennialism. That would make it at least part of the definition of dispensationalism. But [Charles] Ryrie disagrees, noting that “being a premillennialist does not necessarily make one a dispensationalist.” . . . If dispensationalism is not simply the recognition of various dispensations, and if it is not premillennialism, then what is it? What distinguishes dispensationalism from other systems of theology?”30 26 Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 70-71, emphasis mine. It is also telling that Bible Presbyterian ecclesiology and eschatology are essentially similar to those of Revised Dispensationalism. 28 Khoo, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, 1. 29 See George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974). In contrast, the Bible Presbyterian’s concept of the Kingdom is similar to that of Dispensationalists. This is discussed later in chapter 22 of this book. 30 Mathison, Dispensationalism, 4, quoting Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 44. 27 Bible Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism 270 In the following pages, we shall begin our discussion of what truly constitutes Dispensationalism. Who is a Dispensationalist? We shall now attempt to define the term “Dispensationalist” generally. At the same time, we recognize varieties within Dispensationalism i.e. Classical, Revised/Normative, and Progressive.31 Poythress rightly perceives that the Israel/Church distinction is what sets Dispensationalists apart from Non-dispensationalists. This distinction is applied through one’s theological-hermeneutical grid, as Poythress explains: “What these men [i.e. Dispensationalists] primarily have in common is a particular view of the parallel-but-separate roles and destinies of Israel and the church. Accompanying this view is a particular hermeneutical stance in which careful distinction is made between what is addressed to Israel and what is addressed to the church. What is addressed to Israel is “earthly” in character and is to be interpreted “literally.’”32 On the other hand, Tan correctly identifies Covenant theologians as those who do not see a distinction between Israel and the Church. This understanding falls at the other end of the dispensational-covenantal continuum. Tan writes: “Covenant theologians believe that Israel and the church are one and the same people; dispensational theologians believe that Israel and the church are two distinct peoples of God.”33 A dispensationalist is, therefore, one who sees a distinction between Israel and the Church. But how is this distinction applied by the Dispensationalist? Tan elucidates that this Israel/Church distinction is primarily a hermeneutical distinction. That is, a Dispensationalist applies the Israel/Church distinction in his reading, interpretation and exegesis of Scripture. Tan also states that this hermeneutical distinction is what qualifies a theologian as a Dispensationalist: 31 According to Poythress, “representative D-theologians [or Dispentionalists] include Lewis Sperry Chafer, Charles L. Feinberg, Arno C. Gaebelein, J. Dwight Pentecost, Charles C. Ryrie, and John F. Walvoord.” See Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 9. 32 Ibid. 33 Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy (Hong Kong: Nordica International, 1974), 246. Tan is a Revised Dispensationalist. Bible Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism 271 “The basic test of a dispensational interpreter is his willingness to distinguish, via normal reading of the Scriptures, the difference between Israel and the church. To see the church as the Body of Christ, an organism different from Old Testament Israel, is to read Scripture dispensationally and to qualify as a dispensational interpreter.”34 The Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism as Defined by Ryrie What, then, is the dispensational sine qua non?35 According to Charles C. Ryrie, the well-known dispensational theologian: “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct . . . This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does will.”36 Therefore, according to Ryrie, “the most practical and conclusive” theological test to distinguish a Dispensationalist from a Non-dispensationalist is whether the theologian adheres to the Israel/Church distinction. Ryrie continues to explain that Dispensationalists generally espouse a “consistently literal” hermeneutics: “This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation. . . . Consistently literal, or plain, interpretation indicates a dispensational approach to the interpretation of Scripture.”37 Also, Dispensationalists assert that God’s purposes center in his glory, rather than the single purpose of salvation.38 Russell Bowers, Jr. summarizes for us the sine qua non of Dispensationalism, which forms a threefold test to identify a Dispensationalist: 34 Ibid., 251. See Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1965), 44-48. This book was subsequently revised and expanded; see idem, Dispensationalism, 3841 for the sine qua non of Dispensationalism. 36 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 39. 37 Ibid., 40. 38 See Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 40-41. 35 Bible Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism 272 “[Charles C.] Ryrie proposed a threefold test to determine whether a theologian is a dispensationalist: (a) a distinction between Israel and the church, which grows out of (b) a consistent use of literal (normal or plain) interpretation, and (c) an understanding that the display of God’s glory is His underlying purpose in the world.”39 Despite the threefold sine qua non as defined by Ryrie, Stanley Toussaint reminds us that the most foundational principle of Dispensationalism is the Israel/Church distinction. He writes: “In his classic work Dispensationalism Today, Ryrie sets forth a threefold sine qua non of dispensationalism - a distinction between Israel and the church, a literal hermeneutic, and the glory of God as His purpose on earth. Of these three, undoubtedly the most important is the distinction between Israel and the church. Ryrie calls this “the most basic theological test of whether or not a man is a dispensationalist.” He calls it the “essence of dispensationalism.” He goes so far as to say, “The nature of the church is a crucial point of difference between dispensationalism and other doctrinal viewpoints. Indeed, ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the church, is the touchstone of dispensationalism.” All dispensationalists would agree that these statements are true.”40 With regard to the threefold sine qua non formulated by Ryrie, Khoo exclaims: “The sine qua non (i.e. essential elements) of dispensational theology are the (1) distinction between Israel and the Church, (2) literal interpretation of prophetic texts, and (3) unifying principle of the glory of God. We, as reformed premillennialists, can agree to all three points.”41 Elsewhere, Khoo reiterates: 39 Russell H. Bowers, Jr., “Dispensational Motifs in the Writings of Erich Sauer,” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (1991): 262. 40 Stanley Toussaint, “Israel and the Church of a Traditional Dispensationalist,” in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1999), 227, quoting Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1965), 45, 47, 132. 41 Khoo, Dispensationalism Examined, 11, emphasis mine. I would contend that Khoo is a dispensational premillennialist, and not a Reformed premillennialist like George Eldon Ladd. Covenant premillennialists do not accept the Israel/Church distinction. Bible Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism 273 “The BPCS [Bible Presbyterian Churches in Singapore] and FEBC [Far Eastern Bible College] – being covenant and premillennial in theology – are agreeable to all three points [of the sine qua non of Dispensationalism].”42 Dispensationalists would agree that, if one embraces the sine qua non of Dispensationalism, one is essentially a Dispensationalist. This is because sane logic demands that “things equal to the same thing are also equal to one another.”43 It is interesting to note that Ice, a Revised Dispensationalist, describes Dispensationalism in the following words: “By Dispensationalism, I have in mind that system of theology that was developed by J. N. Darby that gave rise to its modern emphasis of consistent literal interpretation, a distinction between God’s plan for Israel and the church, usually a pretribulational rapture of the church before the seventieth week of Daniel, premillennialism, and a multifaceted emphasis upon God’s glory as the goal of history. This includes some who have held to such a system but may stop short of embracing pretribulationism.”44 In previous chapters,45 we have observed that Bible Presbyterian theologians in Singapore generally adhere to the pretribulation rapture of the Church. Therefore, even if we use Ice’s definition of Dispensationalism, we are confident that the Bible Presbyterians in Singapore will fit that description perfectly. The Consistently Literal Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism is not a Clearly Defined Distinctive With regard to the threefold sine qua non proposed by Ryrie, the first two points are intimately interlinked.46 On a general note, one cannot apply the Israel/Church 42 Khoo, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, 46. It, indeed, stretches the imagination to conceive of a theological system that concedes with the sine qua non of Dispensationalism, and yet claims to be Covenantal or Reformed. 43 This rule is also known as one of Euclid’s five common notions. 44 Thomas Ice, The Calvinistic Heritage of Dispensationalism [article on-line]; available from http://www.raptureready.com/featured/TheCalvinisticHeritageofDispensationalism.html; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005. 45 See chapters 5 to 9 of this book. 46 The first two points are (1) the Israel/Church distinction, and (2) the “consistently literal” hermeneutics of Dispensationalism. Bible Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism 274 distinction in one’s interpretation of Scripture unless one attempts to adhere to a “consistently literal” meaning for the word “Israel.”47 Concerning this “literal” hermeneutics, Poythress observes that “nearly all the problems associated with the dispensationalist-nondispensationalist conflict are buried beneath the question of literal interpretation.”48 But the definition for “literal interpretation” has received inconsistent, sometimes even opposing, answers from those who claim to adhere to this hermeneutics. Furthermore, the attempt to define “literal hermeneutics” has been confounded by the difficulty of conclusively answering the question of “what is meant by literal?”49 Blaising, in fact, concludes that “consistently literal exegesis is inadequate to describe the essential distinctive of dispensationalism. Development is taking place on how to characterize a proper hermeneutic for dispensationalists. Many do not feel, however, that the hermeneutic itself will be distinctively dispensational. Furthermore dispensational interpretations of various texts are likely to modify as this development continues.”50 Elsewhere, Blaising argues that a consistently literal hermeneutics is not a historically clearly defined sine qua non for dispensationalism.51 As discussed in chapter 2, Reformed theologians do not allegorize or spiritualize Scripture. Covenant theologians, like Dispensationalists, understand the Bible literally. Furthermore, both Dispensationalists and Reformed theologians recognize typological and symbolical elements in Scripture. Therefore, as Mangum has lamented, “simply parroting the older dispensationalist canard that the dispensationalist-covenant theology debate is between those who take the Bible 47 It is interesting to note that “the measure to which literal interpretation is to be followed in Old Testament interpretation is directly related to the problem of the restoration of Israel. [A. B.] Davidson lists four opinions in this regard: (i) those who assert that God’s dealings in Christianity are completely personal so a restored national Israel is unthinkable; (ii) those who believe in Israel’s conversion but not restoration; (iii) those who believe in a conversion and restoration but with no special prominence for Israel; and (iv) those who believe in a conversion of Israel, a restoration of Israel, and the millennial preeminence of Israel.” See Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 255. 48 Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 78. 49 See ibid., 78-96. 50 Craig Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism by Contemporary Dispensationalists,” Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (1988): 272. 51 See Craig Blaising, “Why I Am a Dispensationalist with a Small ‘d,’” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41, no. 3 (1998): 388-390. Bible Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism 275 “literally” and those who “allegorize” or “spiritualize” Scripture should come to an abrupt halt.”52 If the “consistently literal” hermeneutics of Dispensationalism does not effectively define its theological-hermeneutical grid, what, then, is the distinctive of Dispensationalism? We shall answer this question in the next chapter. 52 Mangum, “A Future for Israel in Covenant Theology: The Untold Story,” 21. Bible Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism 276 Chapter 21: The Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism The Israel/Church Distinction is the Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism As Dispensationalists cannot agree upon a unified agreement as to what “literal interpretation” is, Progressive Dispensationalists have proposed a returned to the first sine qua non (i.e. the distinction between Israel and the church) as its “distinguishing factor.” Blaising, a progressive dispensationalist, observes that “among contemporary dispensationalists a general consensus exists that a distinction between Israel and the church is the essential distinguishing factor of dispensationalism.”1 Saucy concurs, saying that “the key distinctive of dispensational theology . . . is the recognition of Israel as a nation set apart from other nations by God for the service of universal salvation for all peoples.”2 The recognition of the Israel/Church distinction as the sine qua non of Dispensational theology is consistent with the observations of Nondispensationalists. For example, Poythress perceives that this distinction is more fundamental than a literal hermeneutics. He writes, “Their [the Dispensationalists’] approaches toward strict literalness seem to be subordinated to the more fundamental principle of dual destinations for Israel and the church.”3 Mathison, a Non-dispensationalist, likewise reaches the following conclusion: “The only one of Ryrie’s three distinctives of dispensationalism that has always been acknowledged as true is the distinction between Israel and the church. The particular dispensationalist understanding of this distinction is the heart of that system of theology. Dispensationalism may, therefore, be defined as that system of theology which sees a fundamental distinction between Israel and the church. This distinction is the cornerstone of dispensational theology.”4 1 Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism by Contemporary Dispensationalists,” 273. Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993), 221. Saucy is also a Progressive Dispensationalist. 3 Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 78. 4 Mathison, Dispensationalism, 8, emphasis mine. 2 The Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism 277 Coming from a historical-theological approach, it is notable that Clarence Bass identifies the Israel/Church distinction as a novel theological innovation within Christendom: “It is not that exegetes prior to his [John N. Darby’s] time did not see a covenant between God and Israel, or a future relation of Israel to the millennial reign, but they always viewed the church as a continuation of God’s single program of redemption begun in Israel. It is dispensationalism’s rigid insistence on a distinct cleavage between Israel and the church, and its belief in a later unconditional fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, that sets it off from the historic faith of the church.”5 As a previous Dispensationalist himself, Bass agrees that the distinctive of Dispensationalism is, indeed, the dichotomy between Israel and the Church. Likewise, Charles Ryrie makes the following observations: “The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the Church. This grows out of the dispensationalist’s consistent employment of normal or plain or historical-grammatical interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well.”6 In this definition of Dispensationalism, Ryrie is making three assertions. First and foremost, the essence of Dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the church. This distinction is the result of an alleged, consistently literal hermeneutics. Furthermore, this distinction reflects the understanding that God’s fundamental purpose is to glorify Himself.7 Robert Lightner, a Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, reinforces the fact that a Dispensationalist is not merely one who adheres to a certain number of “distinguishable economies.” He further reaffirms that premillennialism cannot be equated with dispensationalism. Lightner writes: 5 Clarence Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism: Its Historical Genesis and Ecclesiastical Implications (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1960; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2005), 27. 6 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 41, emphasis mine. 7 This is what Mathison observes. See Mathison, Dispensationalism, 5. The Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism 278 “Granted, there are differences among dispensationalists over the number of dispensations and, as already stated, over the time when the church began. The question then becomes, What is the least common denominator? What must one believe to be classified legitimately as a dispensationalist? It certainly is not the number of distinguishable economies one holds to. “It is not the fact that Scofield taught seven dispensations and Hodge only four that makes the former a dispensationalist and the latter not.” Since some committed premillennialists reject dispensationalism, premillennialism is not determinative either. One must look elsewhere for the sine qua non of dispensationalism.”8 Lightner subsequently concludes that the “all-determinative” sine qua non of Dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church: “Friends and foes of dispensationalism must agree that the alldeterminative conviction without which one cannot be a dispensationalist is the distinction between God’s program for Israel and His program for the church. This distinction is based solidly on the literal (or as many dispensationalists prefer to call it, the normal) interpretation of Scripture. A consistently literal or normal hermeneutic brings one to see distinctions in God’s program with Israel and His program with the church, and that underscores the theological rather than the soteriological nature of God’s primary purpose in the world.”9 Bateman, in his concluding essay in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, documents the general consensus amongst Dispensationalists. This consensus, that “Israel is not the church,” is what distinguishes a Dispensationalist from a Non-dispensationalist. Bateman writes: “What, then, unites one dispensationalist to another? Simply put, the basic unifying issue for all dispensationalists is that Israel is not the church. In fact, [Charles] Ryrie maintains that such a distinction is “the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist.” What is contended among dispensationalists, as we have seen in these essays, is how to define the nature of the Israel/church distinction. . . . Dispensationalists are, however, agreed and like-minded in their stress on 8 Robert P. Lightner, “Theological Perspectives on Theonomy,” Bibliotheca Sacra 143 (1986): 34, quoting Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 44. 9 Ibid., emphasis mine. The Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism 279 the uniqueness of the church and their confidence that a future exists for national Israel.”10 In this section, we have seen that it has been unanimously agreed upon that the sine qua non of Dispensationalism is, indeed, the Israel/Church distinction. We can logically deduce that a Dispensationalist is inevitably one who embraces the sine qua non of Dispensationalism, i.e. the distinction between Israel and the Church. We saw in chapter one that Khoo, the Academic Dean of Far Eastern Bible College, agrees that “God has two programmes in His salvation plan: one for Israel, and another for the Church.”11 He also admits that Far Eastern Bible College embraces the sine qua non of Dispensationalism.12 Despite his adherence to a Reformed soteriology i.e. the five points of Calvinism, famous pastor-teacher - John F. MacArthur Jr. - rightly describes himself as a Dispensationalist. In the following transcript from Bible Questions and Answers, MacArthur says: “Here’s my dispensationalism - I’ll give it to you in one sentence: there’s a difference between the church and Israel - period! If you understand that, you understand the essence of what I believe is a legitimate, biblical dispensationalism. That permits a kingdom, that demands a kingdom, and that makes you premillennial.”13 Although MacArthur rejects antinomianism and accepts Reformed soteriology, he does not call himself a Reformed theologian. He perceives that he is a Dispensationalist simply because he adopts the sine qua non of Dispensationalism. Blaising, a Progressive Dispensationalist, similarly emphasizes that progressive dispensationalists are dispensational because they “clearly articulate (1) a future for 10 Herbert W. Bateman IV, “Dispensationalism Tomorrow,” in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1999), 308-309, quoting Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 39. 11 Khoo, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, 32. 12 See Khoo, Dispensationalism Examined, 11; idem, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, 46. 13 John MacArthur, Jr., Bible Questions and Answers (Panorama City, CA: Word of Grace, 1994), sound cassette GC 70-15. Transcribed by Tony Capoccia, Bible Bulletin Board [article on-line]; available from http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-15-12.htm; Internet; accessed 14 October 2005, emphasis mine. The Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism 280 ethnic Israel and (2) distinguish between the Church and Israel as functioning institutions throughout the plan of God.”14 It becomes apparent that Bible Presbyterians may need to redefine their theologicalhermeneutical grid, or perhaps even simpler, to rename their theological appellation. Since they embrace the sine qua non of Dispensationalism, is there, therefore, a need to drop the label “Reformed?” Otherwise, one would have to redefine the sine qua non of Dispensationalism, so as to preserve the “Reformed” designation. Various Degrees of Distinction between Israel and the Church It is generally agreed that Dispensationalists of different varieties hold to various degrees of distinction or dichotomy between Israel and the Church. These range from a radical dichotomy adhered to by Classical Dispensationalists, to a more moderate Israel/Church distinction held by Progressive Dispensationalists. Classical Dispensationalism By the term “Classical Dispensationalist,” I refer to theologians like Cyrus I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, A. C. Gaebelein, and Clarence Larkin. Classic Dispensationalists maintain a metaphysical distinction between Israel and the Church. They believe that Israel and the Church will be forever distinguished even unto eternity. Israel will inhabit the New Earth, and the Church heaven. Thus, there seems to be an eternal separation between Israel and the Church in this variety of Dispensationalism. Toussaint explains: “In the original form of Darby’s dispensationalism, the line drawn between Israel and the church was heavy, dark, and broad. According to Darby, the promises to the church are spiritual and heavenly whereas those to Israel and the nations are earthly. The Tribulation and the Millennium do not concern the church for those prophecies are earthly.”15 Burns elucidates that according to Classical Dispensationalism, “the underlying premise was that national Israel, as the physical seed of Abraham, was to be 14 15 Blaising, “Why I Am a Dispensationalist with a Small ‘d,’” 390. Toussaint, “Israel and the Church of a Traditional Dispensationalist,” 228. The Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism 281 eternally bifurcated from the church, a heavenly mystery that could not have been known in a dispensation of earthly issues.”16 Hence, in the classical form of Dispensationalism, we see a radical dichotomy between Israel and the Church. Revised/Normative Dispensationalism As Dispensationalism developed, “the New Scofield Reference Bible, Ryrie’s Dispensationalism Today, and other dispensationalists in the mid-twentieth century modified the heavenly/earthly dualistic language, diminished future distinctions between the peoples of God, and debated about how the new covenant should be applied in the present age.”17 Revised Dispensationalists include John F. Walvoord, Charles C. Ryrie, J. Dwight Pentecost and Alva J. McClain. These Dispensationalists jettisoned the eternal metaphysical distinction between Israel and the Church. They allowed a temporal, earthly distinction rooted in a difference between two redemptive-historical purposes, rather than in two different programs extending towards eternity. Campbell, a Dispensationalist and Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary, elaborates: “The distinction between Israel and the church extends beyond the present age into the future. Some dispensationalists [i.e. Classical Dispensationalists] make a sharp distinction between Israel as God’s earthly people and the church as God’s heavenly people, both continuing as such throughout eternity. Others [i.e. Normative Dispensationalists] favor a blurring of such distinctions in eternity. Charles C. Ryrie states, “The redeemed in the Body of Christ, the Church of this dispensation, are the continuation of the line of redeemed from other ages, but they form a distinct group in the heavenly Zion (Heb. 12:22–24).’”18 Revised Dispensationalists perceive two groups of God’s redeemed humanity existing in and confined to redemptive history. The Church exists with its own 16 J. Lanier Burns, “Israel and the Church of a Progressive Dispensationalist,” in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids, MI, MI: Kregel, 1999), 272. 17 Ibid., 273. 18 Campbell, “The Church in God’s Prophetic Program,” 149-150, quoting Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 154, emphasis mine. The Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism 282 principles and purposes differing from those of national Israel. According to Campbell, “The church of Jesus Christ has a glorious future. Her destiny includes being taken out of this world before the Tribulation woes to be with Christ (John 14:1-3), being a part of the “ruling aristocracy” on earth during Christ’s millennial reign, and serving God along with other members of His family in the New Jerusalem for all eternity.”19 Israel’s ultimate historical purpose will be realized in the future, literal, earthly millennium. This is understood as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants with national Israel. Following the millennium, there will be a union of the two people in one redeemed mass forever. Blaising summarizes the differences between the Classical and Revised/Normative varieties of Dispensationalism: “It is amazing that in the writings of Walvoord, Pentecost, Ryrie, and McClain published in the 1950s and 1960s, the heavenly/earthly dualistic language is gone. A distinction between Israel and the church is vigorously asserted and all the theological structures of distinction are present except that the eternal destinies of the two peoples now share the same sphere. Consequently the heavenly/ earthly descriptions are dropped. Thus is begun a slow movement away from the scholastic, classic, absolute distinction [between Israel and the Church] found from Darby to Chafer . . . .”20 Progressive Dispensationalism Recent decades saw the rise of a new variety of Dispensationalism which has moved in a more covenantal direction, while maintaining the Israel/Church distinction, premillennialism, and emended dispensational distinctives. As will be discussed later, Progressive Dispensationalists allow an inaugurated phase of the Kingdom, while maintaining that the ultimate fulfillment of the Davidic covenant lies in the earthly millennium. Revised Dispensationalists, on the other hand, insist that the Kingdom is still in the future. Progressives also see Christ as sitting on the throne of David at this present age, albeit in a spiritual sense. Revised Dispensationalists dispute this view, saying that Jesus is currently exalted at the right hand of the Father, but not sitting on David’s 19 20 Ibid., 161. Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism by Contemporary Dispensationalists,” 276. The Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism 283 throne in any sense. Unlike Progressives, Revised Dispensationalists do not accept the proposition that Christ’s messianic kingdom reign has begun. Burns writes: “A more moderate dispensational position has arisen in recent years. On the basis of the New Testament’s use of crucial Old Testament texts, progressive dispensationalists acknowledge degrees of Old Testament content in the church, though complete fulfillment of Israel’s promises awaits the Millennium as an intermediate kingdom that exists with Israel’s Messiah ruling in the midst of the nations. The progressives insist on distinguishing Israel and the church, but they see both continuity and discontinuity in Israel/church and Old/New testamental relationships. Thus, the fulfillments of messianic promises relate to both present and future ages and both advents of Messiah, an “already-not yet” mediating position.”21 Progressive dispensationalists are “progressive” in the sense that they view each successive dispensation as building upon and developing the principles of the preceding economy. This allows the progression of the one plan of God for His one redeemed people, rather than distinguishing two separate plans and peoples. However, Progressives maintain that the one divine purpose for redeemed humanity will only be ultimately realized in the earthly, Davidic Kingdom. The millennial phase of God’s redemptive-historical plan is necessary so as to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies for national Israel. Progressive Dispensationalists, of all varieties of Dispensationalism, see the least radical dichotomy or distinction between Israel and the Church.22 But as Blaising has asserted, Progressives are bona fide Dispensationalists because they see a future for ethnic Israel, while distinguishing between the Church and Israel as functioning institutions throughout God’s redemptive-historical plan.23 Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock, and Robert L. Saucy are all considered to be Progressive Dispensationalists. 21 Burns, “Israel and the Church of a Progressive Dispensationalist,” 273. Also see Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 131-135 for a succinct discussion of the Israel/Church distinction of Progressive Dispensationalists. 23 See Blaising, “Why I Am a Dispensationalist with a Small ‘d,’” 390. 22 The Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism 284 Chapter 22: Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 1 Introduction In the previous chapter, we saw that Dispensationalists adhere to various degrees of distinction between Israel and the Church. This distinction is not merely a theological distinctive of Dispensationalism, but has also far-reaching hermeneutical and applicational implications. The Israel/Church distinction affects how a theologian might understand salient Christian doctrines, such as the concept of the Kingdom, the Second Coming of Christ, the 70 weeks of Daniel, and the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Most of all, the Israel/Church distinction directly shapes the hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, and undergirds the entire theologicalhermeneutical grid of the Dispensationalist. In the following two chapters, we shall consider in further detail the theological ramifications and applications of the Israel/Church distinction. The Concept of the Kingdom of God and the Israel/Church Distinction Dispensationalists do not only see an eschatological future for ethnic Israel, but also anticipate a literal fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. The fulfillment of the covenants is found in (1) the physical repossession of the Promised Land, and (2) the establishment of an earthly, Davidic Kingdom in the millennium.1 According to Dispensationalism, promises made to national Israel cannot be fulfilled in the Church. This is a direct, hermeneutical consequence of seeing a distinction between Israel and the Church. Ryrie elaborates further on the Israel/Church distinction: “Let it be said emphatically at this point that dispensationalism does not deny that God has His own redeemed people throughout all ages. But that these constitute a people rather than peoples of God we do deny. The fact that God saved people from among the Israelites and today saves people from among the Gentiles does not make the church equal to Israel or make the church the fulfillment of Israel’s purposes and promises. . . . That God is continuing His work of redemption in calling out a people for His name in the church, the Body of Christ, we gladly affirm, but we also insist that 1 A detailed discussion of the concept of the Kingdom is outside the scope of this book. This section attempts to emphasize the similarities between the Bible Presbyterian’s and the Revised Dispensationalist’s theology of the Kingdom. Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 1 285 this Body of Christ is distinct from any previous body of redeemed people in its nature, characteristics, time, and promises.”2 Therefore, if Israel is not the Church, then it logically follows that promises made to Israel cannot be fulfilled in the Church. Although certain Non-dispensationalists do see a future for national Israel, they do not affirm any Israel/Church distinction. According to these Non-dispensationalists, a future salvific restoration of Israel is simply the re-grafting of the natural olive branches back onto the original olive tree, which is the Church. Saucy, a Progressive Dispensationalist, explains the difference between the dispensational and the nondispensational views of Israel’s future: “Many non-dispensationalists today still see a future salvation for ethnic Israel, but only as a part of the new Israel, the church. The Israel of the Old Testament in the aspect of a nation distinct from the gentile nations has no special place or role to play in the future. The Old Testament prophecies that spoke of Israel’s serving the nations have now been assumed by the new Israel. By contrast, dispensationalists affirm that Israel retains its Old Testament meaning as an ethnic people throughout the New Testament. Even though the believers in the church have come to share in the present messianic salvation along with Jews and the church is now serving God’s kingdom purpose, Israel in its historic meaning will yet fulfill its promised destiny.”3 The Dispensationalists’ understanding of Israel’s “promised destiny” influences the manner in which they perceive the Kingdom. All Dispensationalists agree that a fulfillment of promises to national Israel entails the ushering in of an earthly, literal, Davidic Kingdom in the eschatological millennium. Reformed theologians, on the other hand, do not agree with this notion. Inauguration/Consummation of the Kingdom in Two Phases: The Reformed View According to the Reformed view, the Kingdom of God has two phases: an inaugurated/already phase, and the consummation/not-yet phase. The Kingdom is, therefore, both a present and a future reality. “The fact that the kingdom of God is 2 3 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 131. Bible Presbyterians gladly affirm these statements by Ryrie. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 187-188. Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 1 286 present in one sense and future in another implies that there remains a certain tension between these two aspects.”4 At His First Advent, our Lord Jesus Christ ushered in the Kingdom of God. Hence, the Kingdom is a present reality, and is already among us, albeit in a spiritual sense. As Hoekema has aptly commented, “Jesus himself ushered in the kingdom of God whose coming had been foretold by the Old Testament prophets. We must therefore always see the kingdom of God as indissolubly connected with the person of Jesus Christ. In Jesus’ words and deeds, miracles and parables, teaching and preaching, the kingdom of God was dynamically active and present among men.”5 But the Kingdom is not only a spiritual entity. We must also consider both the physical aspects and material dimensions. After all, God will eventually reign over the New Earth and, in fact, the entire creation. This physical reign occurs with the consummation of the Kingdom, which is after the resurrection at the end of the age. In other words, the consummative phase of the Kingdom follows the Parousia of Christ. According to Ladd: “The Kingdom of God is the redemptive reign of God dynamically active to establish his rule among men, and that this Kingdom, which will appear as an apocalyptic act at the end of the age, has already come into human history in the person and mission of Jesus to overcome evil, to deliver men from its power, and to bring them into the blessings of God’s reign. The Kingdom of God involves two great moments: fulfillment within history, and consummation at the end of history.”6 Expanding upon Ladd’s definition of the Kingdom, Hoekema writes: “The kingdom of God, therefore, is to be understood as the reign of God dynamically active in human history through Jesus Christ, the purpose of which is the redemption of God’s people from sin and from demonic powers, and the final establishment of the new heavens and the new earth. It means that the great drama of the history of salvation has been inaugurated, and that the new age has been ushered in. The kingdom must not be understood as merely the salvation of certain individuals or even as 4 Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 52. See Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 41-54 for an excellent discussion on the Kingdom of God. 5 Ibid., 43. 6 Ladd, The Presence of the Future, 218. Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 1 287 the reign of God in the hearts of his people; it means nothing less than the reign of God over his entire created universe.”7 This is the Reformed understanding of the Kingdom of God. Christ is presently reigning from the throne of David in heaven. Contrary to what the Revised Dispensationalist believes, the Kingdom is a present reality. We now proceed to examine the Bible Presbyterian understanding of the Kingdom, and appreciate the similarities between the Bible Presbyterian’s and the Revised Dispensationalist’s views. The Bible Presbyterian Understanding of the Kingdom and Dispensationalism According to Khoo, “Buswell defined the word “kingdom” generally as “the domain of a king” or “the sovereign rule of God.” This domain “may designate the territory of a king with all the people in it, or it may designate the government of which the king is the head.” He saw the kingdom of Christ as one, but having two distinct phases, a present and a future one. Christ is presently King over (1) his universal kingdom (i.e. over all creation and creatures) and (2) his spiritual kingdom (i.e. the Church militant on earth). Thus the kingdom of God spoken of in such passages as John 3:3–5, Rom 14:17, and Col 1:13 refers to the present phase of God’s kingdom which involves his salvific rule in the heart of regenerate people.”8 Reformed theologians will agree with Khoo that the kingdom of God is a present reality, which was inaugurated with the First Advent of Christ. This includes Christ’s “salvific rule in the heart of regenerate people.” Also, the Bible Presbyterian concept of the Kingdom as having “two distinct phases” might appear to be consistent with the general Reformed understanding of the “inaugurated/ consummated” or “already/not-yet” Kingdom model. But a closer look at the Bible Presbyterian model of the Kingdom reveals otherwise. Buswell understood “that there will be a future visible kingdom of Christ, and that this future kingdom, contra historic premillennialists and postmillennialists, “is in a real sense Jewish and Davidic.” The triumphal entry of Christ into Jerusalem, according to Buswell, was a manifestation of Christ’s kingship, and that kingship was “stated as Israelitish and Davidic in specifically prophetic terms.” This kingship has yet to be realized for “Christ is not now exercising the governmental functions of 7 Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 45. Khoo, “Dispensational Premillennialism in Reformed Theology: The Contribution of J. O. Buswell to the Millennial Debate,” 707, quoting J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Singapore: Christian Life Publishers, 1962), 2:346, 347. 8 Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 1 288 an effective king here on the earth.” In order to exercise his full governmental functions, Christ must sit on the throne of his father David and reign over the house of Jacob.”9 It is in the future phase of the Kingdom that Non-dispensationalists defer from both Normative Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians. Both the Normative Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians perceive that the “not-yet” phase of the Kingdom of God includes the establishment of a distinctively Jewish, literal, earthly millennial Kingdom. This intermediate, Davidic Kingdom is ushered in at the Second Advent of Christ, and mandates an earthly reign of Christ on a literal throne in Jerusalem. As Normative Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians see a radical distinction between Israel and the Church, Old Testament prophecies that seem to point towards an earthly Kingdom must be fulfilled in the nation of Israel. Therefore, according to the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:1-3) and the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:12-14; 1 Kings 9:3-9; 2 Chron. 7:11-22), Bible Presbyterians anticipate a restoration of Jews to the Promise Land, and the Son of David exercising His “governmental functions” on a literal throne in Jerusalem. This is required by the Bible Presbyterian’s hermeneutical-theological grid because the Church cannot and must not fulfill any of the promises made to national Israel. As Khoo has previously affirmed, “the OT ethnic/land/throne/temple prophecies and promises God made to Israel must find fulfillment in strictly Jewish and Davidic terms, not at this present age, but in the age to come.”10 Non-dispensationalists, including historic or covenant premillennialists, do not recognize an exclusively “Jewish and Davidic” millennial, intermediate phase of the Kingdom. Allow me to elaborate upon this proposition. Firstly, postmillennialists and amillennialists understand the consummative phase of the Kingdom - following the Second Advent of Christ - as possessing an everlasting nature, and not consisting of a 1000 years interim period.11 Secondly, historic or covenant premillennialists, although they anticipate an earthly golden age after the Parousia, will have difficulty accepting the Jewish elements intrinsic to the Bible Presbyterian’s concept of a millennium. These include the millennial Temple worship, the restitution of animal sacrifices, and the restoration of 9 Ibid., quoting Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 2:347; 2:352. Ibid., 716. 11 As discussed previously, Dispensational Premillennialists believe that there will be a great rebellion against Christ’s rule at the end of the millennium. Allegedly, Satan will lead the revolt. 10 Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 1 289 the Levitical-Zadokian priesthood. All Reformed theologians, irrespective of whether they are postmillennial, amillennial or historic premillennial, decisively reject such a concept of an earthly, Jewish, Davidic reign.12 George Eldon Ladd, arguably the foremost proponent of covenant premillennialism, describes the distinctiveness of the Dispensationalist’s millennial Kingdom: “[Dispensationalism] holds that the millennium is primarily for the Jews. Israel will be restored to her land, will rebuild the temple, and will reinstitute the Old Testament sacrificial system. At this time all of the Old Testament prophecies about Israel as a nation will be fulfilled literally. This is deduced from the conviction that God has two distinct and separate peoples: Israel and the Church, with two different programs and different blessings. God’s program for Israel is theocratic and earthly; God’s purpose for the church is universal and spiritual.”13 Although Ladd believes in the future salvation of national Israel, and understands the “all Israel” of Romans 11:26 as referring to ethnic Jews as a people, he rejects the Israel/Church distinction adhered to by Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians. Dispensationalist Charles C. Ryrie correctly identifies him as a Nondispensationalist because Ladd does not see a distinction between Israel and the Church.14 Ladd writes: “Romans 11 says clearly that Israel as a people are to be saved, but in the same terms of faith in Christ as the church. Today the church is spiritual Israel, and literal Israel is yet to be regrafted back into the olive tree and be 12 It is interesting to note that Progressive Dispensationalists are gradually departing from these exclusively Jewish elements in their perception of the millennial kingdom, i.e. the restitution of temple sacrifices. See Todd Mangum’s paper, “Can We Expect a Restoration of Levitical Animal Sacrifices? A Progressive Dispensationalist Opinion.” This understanding is also a consequence of their lesser degree of Israel/Church distinction, and their resultant complementary hermeneutics which recognizes the typological-symbolical elements in Old Testament prophecies. 13 Ladd, The Last Things, 111-112. 14 Ladd comments, “[Charles] Ryrie correctly identified myself as a nondispensationalist because I do not keep Israel and the church distinct throughout God’s program . . . .” George Eldon Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977), 20. Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 1 290 included in the true Israel of God. Therefore, it is impossible to view the millennium as primarily Jewish in character.”15 It is, therefore, my contention that the Israel/Church distinction is what enables the Bible Presbyterians to see an exclusively Jewish character in the millennial Kingdom, and it is also the theological distinctive which sets them apart from Nondispensationalists and covenant premillennialists.16 Although Dispensationalists in general understand the phrase “all Israel shall be saved” (Rom. 11:26) to mean “a future mass conversion of Jews,”17 this interpretation is by no means exclusive to Dispensational theology. Progressive Dispensationalist Todd Mangum, for example, argues that this interpretation of “all Israel” is present in the writings of certain Scottish Reformed theologians, particularly those of John Murray “who served as Westminster Theological Seminary’s original professor of systematic theology.”18 Despite being Reformed and amillennial in his eschatology, Murray sees a future mass conversion of Jews.19 Since Murray does not accept the dispensational sine qua non of a distinction between the Church and Israel, his perception of this restoration is similar to that of Ladd. Israel as a people will be converted and regrafted back to the olive tree, which is the true Israel of God (i.e. the Church). Murray writes, “The collective restoration of Israel does not require the conversion at a future date of all Jews any more than did the rejection mean the apostasy and reprobation of every Israelite. But it surely must imply the widespread acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and entrance into the Church of Christ.”20 15 Ladd, The Last Things, 112. Ladd categorically rejects the Jewish elements of the millennial kingdom, as seen in the aforementioned quotation. 17 William Hendriksen, Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1981), 379. For a discussion of the three most popular interpretations of “all Israel” in Romans 11:26, see Hendriksen, Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 379-382. 18 Mangum, “A Future for Israel in Covenant Theology: The Untold Story,” 3. 19 See John Murray, “The Last Things,” in Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 2 (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1977), 409-410. Likewise, the amillennialist Vos sees a “comprehensive eschatological recovering of the unbelieving Jews.” Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Princeton: University Press, 1930; reprint, Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1994), 89. 20 Murray, “The Last Things,” 409-410, emphasis mine. 16 Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 1 291 Murray thus sees not two, but one people of God. He does not perceive that God has two programs for “two groups of His people throughout biblical history;”21 that is, one program for Israel which is theocratic and earthly, and another for the Church which is universal and spiritual. Furthermore, various proponents of Postmillennialism have also taught a future mass conversion of Jews. Louis Berkhof comments that “the prevailing view [of Postmillennialism] was that the gospel, which will gradually spread through the whole world, will in the end become immeasurably more effective than it is at present, and will usher in a period of rich spiritual blessings for the Church of Jesus Christ, a golden age, in which the Jews will also share in the blessings of the gospel in an unprecedented manner.”22 Blaising even states that “by the early seventeenth century practically all millennialists expressed the hope for the future salvation of the Jews and the renewal of Israel’s national blessing.”23 Therefore, it is clear that the belief in a future salvation of Israel as a people is not exclusive to dispensational eschatology. The Literal, Earthly, Davidic, Millennial Kingdom of Bible Presbyterianism An individual’s perception of the future conversion of ethnic Israelites per se is not the determining factor which distinguishes a Dispensationalist from a Reformed theologian.24 21 Khoo, Dispensationalism Examined, 10. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 716. 23 Craig A. Blaising, “Premillennialism,” in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), 177. 24 Mangum’s paper, “A Future for Israel in Covenant Theology: The Untold Story,” only serves to undergird this fact. This is true despite Mangum’s proposal that “the future for national Israel” should not be the dividing line between Dispensationalists and Covenant theologians. Mangum, “A Future for Israel in Covenant Theology: The Untold Story,” 3. The problem with Mangum’s argument is: it is not the future of national Israel which is the bone of contention in this theological debate between Dispensationalists and Reformed theologians. It is rather the Israel/Church distinction, which is also the sine qua non of the dispensational system of theology. I acknowledge that Mangum has suggested that “it is time to cease grasping for new sine qua non's, on either side.” Mangum, “A Future for Israel in Covenant Theology: The Untold Story,” 21. Nevertheless, what I am arguing for is the reaffirmation of the sine qua non of Dispensationalism which is recognized and accepted by all Dispensationalists. The Israel/Church distinction is definitely not a sine qua non which was invented de novo by rivals of Dispensationalism. 22 Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 1 292 Mangum recounts, “As recently as August 2000, Darrell Bock has suggested that, of all the issues that are usually raised as differences between dispensationalism and covenant theology, only this one genuinely applies: viz., the future role of national Israel.”25 Bock further elaborates upon what he perceives as the dividing line between Dispensationalism and Reformed theology. He explains, “I don’t necessarily mean the future of the Jews per se, ethnically, as some in the reformed camp see the possibility of a significant number of Jews coming to Christ in the end. I am speaking specifically of a role for national Israel. The issue is whether national Israel as an administrative structure is still in the plan of God. Dispensationalists answer this question ‘yes’ and Covenant theologians tend to answer ‘no.’”26 As a Progressive Dispensationalist, Bock clearly discerns the theological distinctive which divides Reformed theologians from Dispensationalists. Dispensationalism as a theological system is derived from an outworking of a Dispensationalist’s distinctive theological-hermeneutical grid. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the sine qua non of Dispensationalism must ipso facto be the distinctiveness of a Dispensationalist’s hermeneutical grid. The distinction between Israel and the Church, and the resultant interpretative understanding of Scripture which progresses from this hermeneutical distinction, is the distinctive which distinguishes a Dispensationalist from a Reformed theologian. When a Classical or Revised Dispensationalist applies his theological-hermeneutical grid in the understanding of the nature of the future Davidic Kingdom, he sees a more nationalistic, Jewish, and earthly millennial Kingdom when compared to the millennium perceived by Historic or Covenant Premillennialists. This is because a Covenant Premillennialist does not see an Israel/Church distinction. As a result, Covenant Premillennialists do not require a literal fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants in the nation of Israel in a future millennium. Progressive Dispensationalists, who perceive a much less radical Israel/Church distinction, are gradually moving away from the Jewish elements of a millennial Kingdom. 25 Mangum, “A Future for Israel in Covenant Theology: The Untold Story,” 2. “Free Space for Dialogue Outside of Our Circles, Interview with Darrell L. Bock: Does the New Testament Reshape Our Understanding of the Old Testament?” Modern Reformation 9 (July/August 2000): 48-49. 26 Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 1 293 According to the Classical and Revised Dispensationalist’s understanding, prophetic passages such as Ezekiel 40-48 “indicate a future restoration of the Levitical priesthood, complete with a revival of the animal sacrificial system—indications, in their view, that Jesus’ Davidic reign is inherently more ethnically and nationally Jewish than is recognized by either progressive dispensationalism or covenant theological eschatology.”27 The Bible Presbyterian’s understanding of the millennial Kingdom is likewise “more ethnically and nationally Jewish than is recognized by either progressive dispensationalism or covenant theological eschatology.”28 This understanding of the Jewish elements of the millennial Kingdom is inevitably an interpretive outworking of their theological-hermeneutical grid. The earthly, Davidic Kingdom, through the hermeneutical lens of the Bible Presbyterian’s Israel/Church distinction, consists of reinstituted Levitical animal sacrifices, temple worship, the rite of circumcision, the Jewish Passover Feast, and other exclusively Jewish ceremonial peculiarities. Likewise, Revised and Classical Dispensationalists anticipate a literal fulfillment of the Davidic covenant, and insist that Christ must be seated on an earthly throne in Jerusalem to rule over the millennial Kingdom. Kim Riddlebarger further elucidates the Dispensationalist’s view: “Based on God’s promise that he would establish the kingdom of David’s son forever (2 Sam. 7:12-16), dispensationalists believe this promise was partially fulfilled in the first coming of Christ, with the final fulfillment delayed because of Israel’s stubborn refusal to embrace Jesus as her messianic king. This prophecy stated that the throne of David will be established forever. Since dispensationalists believe that such prophecies must be interpreted literally, this necessitates a literal rule of Jesus Christ on the earth during a future millennial kingdom. At that time the postponed kingdom will be finally consummated.”29 In fact, Jeffrey Khoo believes that Christ’s “kingship has yet to be realized for “Christ is not now exercising the governmental functions of an effective king here on the earth.” In order to exercise his full governmental functions, Christ must sit on 27 Mangum, “Can We Expect a Restoration of Levitical Animal Sacrifices? A Progressive Dispensationalist Opinion,” 1. 28 Ibid. 29 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 75. Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 1 294 the throne of his father David and reign over the house of Jacob.”30 Therefore, in order to furnish a literal fulfillment for the covenants (i.e. Abrahamic and Davidic), Christ has to descend from his heavenly throne on the right hand of the Father (Heb. 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22), put on his sandals, walk the streets of Jerusalem and sit on an earthly throne which is allegedly “the throne of his father David and reign over the house of Jacob.”31 This perception of the Kingdom, derived from a Bible Presbyterian hermeneutics, apparently allows the fulfillment of prophecies made exclusively to Israel in the Old Testament. These prophecies include the Abrahamic land promise, and particularly, Old Testament prophecies that seem to point toward an earthly, Davidic, geopolitical reign. Concerning this dispensational understanding of the Kingdom, Clarence Bass comments: “No part of historic Christian doctrine supports this radical distinction between church and kingdom. To be sure, they are not identical; but dispensationalism has added the idea that the kingdom was to be a restoration of Israel, not a consummation of the church. . . . In the light of this principle, it is legitimate to ask whether dispensationalism is not orientated more from the Abrahamic Covenant than from the Cross. Is not its focus centred more on the Jewish kingdom than on the Body of Christ? Does it not interpret the New Testament in the light of Old Testament prophecies, instead of interpreting these prophecies in the light of the more complete revelation of the New Testament?”32 Reformed theologians, however, understand that with Christ’s resurrection and ascension, “God fulfilled his promise that David’s greater son would rule the nations with an everlasting kingdom.”33 Christ is now Prophet, Priest and King. He presently rules from His heavenly throne at the right hand of the Father. The Bible Presbyterian’s concept of the millennial Kingdom, particularly their perception of the earthly millennial reign as the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant, 30 Khoo, “Dispensational Premillennialism in Reformed Theology: The Contribution of J. O. Buswell to the Millennial Debate,” 707, quoting Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 2:352. 31 Ibid. 32 Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism, 31, 151. 33 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 77. Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 1 295 is very close to that of the Normative/Revised Dispensationalist’s. Khoo further clarifies the Bible Presbyterian view: “Is Christ sitting on the throne of David right now in the Church Age? According to Buswell, Christ’s reign on the throne of David is still future, and not fulfilled yet. He said, “Christ is not now exercising the governmental functions of an effective king here on the earth. He is not enforcing the moral law of God or administering the affairs of the nations of the world as a king administers the affairs of a realm in which he actively rules.” Buswell was also convinced that the earthly kingdom of Christ on David’s throne was not only future, but also strictly “Jewish and Davidic.” He did not think of Jesus sitting right now at the Father’s right hand to be a fulfillment of the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7:12–14). Buswell thought of Christ’s sitting at the Father’s right hand as the resumption of his royal omnipotence which he temporarily gave up (but always possessed) at the time of the incarnation. Christ’s enthronement together with his apostles to judge the twelve tribes of Israel, according to Buswell, is an event of the eschatological future.”34 When compared to the Progressive Dispensationalist’s concept of the Kingdom, the Bible Presbyterian’s view is definitely closer to that of the Normative Dispensationalist. According to Khoo’s perception, Buswell’s concept of the Kingdom “would thus differ from progressive dispensationalists, who see Christ as sitting on the throne of David at this present age, albeit in a spiritual sense, their acknowledgment of Christ’s future literal reign on the throne of David in the millennium notwithstanding.”35 Progressive dispensationalism, however, teaches that the Lord Jesus is presently reigning as David’s king in heaven at the right hand of the Father. This is the ‘already’ fulfillment aspect of the Davidic Kingdom; Christ will also reign on earth in the millennium in the ‘not yet’ aspect. Thus, according to Progressive Dispensationalists, the Davidic throne and the heavenly throne of Jesus at the right hand of the Father are one and the same. On the other hand, Bible Presbyterians, in order to maintain the strict Israel/Church distinction, will not agree with the Progressive Dispensationalists who see the Davidic covenant as finding its partial fulfillment in the Church age. Thus, in their 34 Khoo, “Dispensational Premillennialism in Reformed Theology: The Contribution of J. O. Buswell to the Millennial Debate,” 714, quoting Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 2:352; 2:347. 35 Ibid. Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 1 296 hermeneutics, Bible Presbyterians apply a more radical Israel/Church distinction than the Progressive Dispensationalists, especially in their understanding of the Davidic covenant. On the dispensational-covenantal continuum, the Bible Presbyterian’s theology of the Kingdom can be placed somewhere between Progressive Dispensationalism and Revised/Normative Dispensationalism.36 This also indicates that the degree of Israel/Church distinction adhered to by the Bible Presbyterians is greater than that of the Progressive Dispensationalists. The Bible Presbyterian hermeneutics thus allow a more radical dichotomy of Israel and the Church when compared to that of a Progressive Dispensationalist. The Pretribulation Rapture The pretribulation rapture theory is another doctrinal ramification of a radical Israel/Church distinction. As we discussed in Chapter 5, “the distinction between Israel and the church leads to the belief that the church will be taken from the earth before the beginning of the Tribulation (which in one major sense concerns Israel). Pretribulationism has become a part of normative dispensational eschatology.”37 Elsewhere, Feinberg even emphasizes that “Dispensationalists have been predominantly pretribulationists.”38 It is interesting to note that many lecturers of Far Eastern Bible College, the Bible Presbyterian College in Singapore, have adopted the pretribulation rapture position.39 A consistent application of a radical Israel/Church distinction will logically lead to the pretribulation view. As Gundry notes, “In pretribulationism the dealings of God 36 It is interesting to note that Cyrus I. Scofield and Lewis Chafer insisted that recognition of the millennial reinstitution of Jewish temple worship, animal sacrifices, rite of circumcision, and other ceremonial peculiarities were essential to the entire dispensational approach and hermeneutics. The Bible Presbyterians have apparently fulfilled this requirement. See C. I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible: 1917 Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917), 879, 881, 885, 890, nn. on Ezekiel; and Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 3:102-08, 7:272; idem, Grace (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1922), 171-173. 37 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 148. 38 Paul D. Feinberg, “Dispensational Theology and the Rapture,” in Issues in Dispensationalism, eds. Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 225. 39 These lecturers include, and are not limited to, Dr Jeffrey Khoo, Dr Quek Suan Yew and Dr Prabhudas Koshy. Dr Timothy Tow, the Principal of the college, takes a mid-tribulation rapture position. Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 1 297 with the Church are severed from His dealings with Israel.”40 Reiterating some of the arguments made by Gundry,41 Feinberg concurs with him, saying: “[Gundry] is correct in showing that dispensationalism is not a monolithic theological position. There are some who would see the discontinuities between Israel and the church in more radical terms and others who would recognize the differences with less contrast. He is right that the more one emphasizes the distinctions between Israel and the church, the more that distinction favors a pretribulational Rapture of the church.”42 Here, Feinberg makes an important observation. It is generally agreed amongst Dispensationalists that the more radically one sees the Israel/Church distinction, the more likely it is that one will hold to the pretribulation rapture position. Alternatively, “those who do not make the strictest contrast [or distinction between Israel and the Church] may hold to dispensationalism (a moderate or measured form as he [Robert H. Gundry] calls it) and come to a view of the Rapture other than pretribulational.”43 Feinberg agrees with Gundry “that there is a certain independence between one’s views on the relationship of Israel and the church and the Rapture. Not all dispensationalists must come to a pretribulational Rapture position.”44 As a comparison, “progressive dispensationalists believe in a rapture prior to the future seven-year tribulation, but they do so in a rather tentative fashion. Their system could dispense with this doctrine without altering their position significantly. . . . its adherents do not hold the pretrib [or pretribulational] view to be crucial.”45 As Progressive Dispensationalists do not adhere to such a strict Israel/Church distinction, their theological system “could dispense with this doctrine without altering their position significantly.”46 The Bible Presbyterians, by applying the radical Israel/Church distinction in their theological-hermeneutical grid, have systematically arrived at the pretribulation rapture position. In this aspect, they are in full agreement with Revised Dispensationalists. 40 Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 12. See ibid., 12-28. 42 Feinberg, “Dispensational Theology and the Rapture,” 229. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid. 45 Thomas, “The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism,” 79-80. 46 Ibid. 41 Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 1 298 Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and the Parenthesis Interpretation We previously studied the parenthesis interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 in chapter 17 of this book. In effect, the dispensational, parenthesis exposition of Daniel 9:24-27 “is often appealed to as the conspicuous proof that the entire Church age is a parenthesis in the prophetic program which is to be discovered between vss. 26 and 27 of Dan. ix.”47 Kenneth Barker has even stated that this passage in Daniel is used as exegetical evidence to support a dispensational understanding of the Kingdom. He emphasizes that the “kingdom will be characterized by everlasting righteousness and will also demand the presence of an earthly temple.”48 In the Bible Presbyterian’s commentary on the book of Daniel, it is notable that the Church is understood as a form of parenthesis between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy.49 We have also affirmed that the Bible Presbyterians adhere to the dispensational, parenthesis interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27. According to the lecturers at Far Eastern Bible College, the prophetic clock for Israel stopped ticking at the end of the sixty-ninth week. It will start ticking again after the pretribulation rapture of the Church, at the beginning of the seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy. The parenthesis interpretation is not only compatible with dispensational ecclesiology, but also with the requirement of a literal, earthly, Davidic Kingdom in the millennium. With this method of exegesis, God’s dealings with Israel can be separated from His dealings with the Church. Therefore, the parenthesis interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 works hand in glove with the pretribulation rapture theory. It also requires a conception of a radical Israel/Church distinction. In the following chapter, we shall discuss an important point of application of the Israel/Church distinction, that is in the understanding of the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34. 47 Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 111-112. Barker, “Evidence from Daniel,” 146. 49 See Tow, Visions of the Princely Prophet, 93-94. The Church Age as a ‘parenthesis’ is clearly intimated in the diagram entitled “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel” on p. 93. Here, the ‘Church Age’ is posited between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy. 48 Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 1 299 Chapter 23: Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 2 The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 We discussed in chapter two that Khoo essentially adheres to Scofield’s view of the New Covenant, that is, “there is one new covenant with a two-fold application; one to Israel in the future and one to the church now.”1 Elsewhere, Khoo agrees with dispensationalist Homer Kent that “there is one new covenant to be fulfilled eschatologically with Israel, but participated in soteriologically by the Church today.”2 This view allows the Bible Presbyterians to maintain a distinction between Israel and the Church. Furthermore, it allows a future fulfillment of the New Covenant in national Israel. This is the position held by Dallas Theological Seminary professors.3 Reminiscent of the dispensationalist Paul Lee Tan, Khoo is careful to preserve the Israel/Church distinction in his terminology. “He consistently uses the word “fulfillment” to designate the coming to pass of predictions in their most literal form (most often millennial fulfillment is in view). “Foreshadowing” and “application” are preferred terms for the way prophecies may relate to the church.”4 Therefore, in 1 Pentecost, Things to Come, 123. John F. Walvoord also adheres to this view. He writes, “This can best be explained as one New Covenant of grace made possible by the death of Christ, whether applied to Israel as in Jeremiah or the church as in the New Testament.” Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, 140. Walvoord previously holds the “two New Covenants” view of Lewis Sperry Chafer, but he now seems to agree with Scofield’s view. However, Henzel argues “that Walvoord wasn’t preparing to totally abandon [Lewis Sperry] Chafer’s Two New Covenant view.” Ronald M. Henzel, Darby, Dualism, and the Decline of Dispensationalism (Tucson, AZ: Fenestra Books, 2003), 176. Also see Henzel’s reasoning in pp. 170-179. 2 Jeffrey Khoo, Hebrews (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, n.d.), 32. It is telling that in his commentary to the book of Hebrews, Khoo’s list of supplementary articles on p. 49 unveils his preference for the writings of Homer A. Kent Jr. (a revised dispensationalist) in the understanding of the New Covenant. 3 Witmer writes, “Kent accepts the view that there is one New Covenant, which “will be fulfilled eschatologically with Israel but is participated in soteriologically by the church today” (p. 297). Generally this is the position held by Dallas Seminary professors.” See John A. Witmer, “Periodical Reviews,” Bibliotheca Sacra 143 (1986): 166. 4 Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 35. Also study the diagram on p. 36 (“The Nature of Fulfillment”) where Poythress illustrates how Revised Dispensationalists consistently interpret the covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic, New) as having their fulfillment in the millennial kingdom, while allowing a secondary application to the Church in the present Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 2 300 his understanding of the New Covenant, Khoo sees a future fulfillment of the covenant with Israel, whereas the Church is merely a covenant partner who participates in the New Covenant blessings soteriologically. In comparison, Progressive Dispensationalists are willing to see a partial fulfillment of the spiritual promises of the covenants (i.e. Abrahamic, Davidic) in the Church. Nevertheless, they insist upon a future fulfillment of the physical promises in the millennium. Contrariwise, Bible Presbyterians and Normative/Revised Dispensationalists do not see the Davidic covenant as being partially fulfilled in any sense in the Church age. Similarly, they are reluctant to perceive the New Covenant as having any fulfillment in the Church age, although they do believe that some spiritual benefits of the New Covenant are being applied to the Church.5 A Progressive Dispensationalist’s Interpretation of the New Covenant In their understanding of the New Covenant, Progressive Dispensationalists allow a partial fulfillment of the covenant in the Church age, while at the same time, they concede to a lesser degree of distinction or dichotomy between the Church and national Israel.6 In their interpretation of the New Covenant, Progressive Dispensationalists prefer a middle position which falls somewhere between the “two new covenants” view of Classical Dispensationalism and the “one new covenant” view of Reformed theologians. Bruce Ware elaborates, “Between the two extremes of a strict distinction between Israel and the church (two new covenants and hence two distinct peoples of God) and a strict identity of Israel and the church (one new covenant and hence one undifferentiated people of God) there is a middle position that would suggest that Israel and the church share theologically rich and important elements of commonality while at the same time maintaining distinct identities. One of these elements of theologically rich commonality is their age. In comparison, Progressive Dispensationalists (or as Poythress has aptly called, “OnePeople-of-God” Dispensationalists) allow a partial fulfillment of the covenants in the Church age, while insisting upon an ultimate fulfillment in the nation of Israel. 5 In this case, Khoo perceives the spiritual benefits as being soteriological in nature. 6 See Darrell L. Bock, “Covenants in Progressive Dispensationalism,” in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids, MI, MI: Kregel, 1999), 189-194. Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 2 301 coparticipation in the one new covenant, on the basis of which they are united as one people of God.”7 Ware preserves a distinction between Israel and the Church with two emphases in his hermeneutics, and subsequently, in his interpretation of the New Covenant. Firstly, he insists that “there can be no question that the prophets meant to communicate the promise of a national return of Israel to its land.”8 This retains the requirement of a “literal rendering” of the Abrahamic land promise, and demands an ultimate, millennial fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant to Israel. Secondly, he applies the Israel/Church distinction in his hermeneutics by insisting that the New Testament “does not permit a spiritual absorption of the literal promises to Israel by the church.”9 The salient difference between the Revised and Progressive Dispensationists’ views is the conception of the Church as a covenant partner or a covenant people. Elliot Johnson states that, “Although both [the Revised and Progressive Dispensationalists] agree that the church believers are recipients of blessings promised in the Old Testament, the disparity appears in the conception of the people of the church as a covenant partner or a covenant people. This conception is based upon the covenants finding some fulfillment in the church.”10 If the Church in any way fulfills the New Covenant partially, which is what Progressive Dispensationalists believe, the Church is perceived to be a covenant people, and not merely a covenant partner. In comparison, Historic Premillennialists understand that “the church is integrated with Israel as a covenant people,”11 while Progressive Dispensationalists believe that “the church is added to Israel as God’s covenant people in succession.”12 On the dispensational-covenantal continuum, the Progressive Dispensationalist’s interpretation is closer to covenant theology than that of Bible Presbyterians. On the other hand, Bible Presbyterians and Normative Dispensationalists view the Church 7 Bruce A. Ware, “The New Covenant and the People(s) of God,” in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church: The Search for Definition, eds. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 92-93, emphasis mine. Ware is a Progressive Dispensationalist. 8 Ibid., 93. 9 Ibid. 10 Elliot E. Johnson, “Response to Covenants in Progressive Dispensationalism,” in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids, MI, MI: Kregel, 1999), 208. 11 Ibid., 210. 12 Ibid. Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 2 302 as a covenant partner rather than a covenant people. The Church does not fulfill the New Covenant in any sense. This understanding stands in contradistinction with the Reformed view. The Reformed Understanding of the New Covenant Reformed theologians believe that the New Covenant is rightly fulfilled in the Church. Although the Progressive Dispensationalist’s view is a development in the right direction towards the Reformed position, it is nevertheless distinct and distant from the Reformed understanding of the New Covenant. According to Robert Reymond, “The New Testament makes it clear, in conformity to the details of the “new covenant” prophecy in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (see Luke 22:20; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:8-13; 9:15), that, when Gentiles became Christians, they entered into the fellowship of that covenant community designated by the “new covenant” prophecy in Jeremiah 31:31 as “the house of Israel and the house of Judah.’”13 In fact, the Church is “God’s chosen people, the true (not the New) spiritual “Israel.’”14 God has only one covenant people, not two. The Church is not merely a covenant partner, but the covenant people, the true Israel of God. This understanding of ecclesiology is fundamental to Covenant theology. Covenant theologians understand that there is but one covenant of grace, initially disclosed as the protevangelium (Gen. 3:15), and progressively unfolded in redemptive history. “The one overarching “covenant of grace” was historically advanced and administered after Genesis 3:15 by God’s historical covenants with Noah (Gen. 6:18; 9:8-17), Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:18; 17:7-14; 22:15-18), Israel (Exod. 19:5; 24:6-8; Deut. 29:1), David (2 Sam. 7:11-16; 1 Chron. 17:10-14), and finally through the administration of the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34; Luke 22:20; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:8-13), Jesus Christ himself being the Mediator of the New Covenant between God and his elect (Heb. 9:15).”15 This covenant of grace, whereby the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) is an administration of it, is made with God’s covenant people, the Church. The Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter VII, section vi) states: 13 Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 525. Ibid. See Reymond’s arguments presented in pp. 525-528. 15 Ibid., 406. 14 Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 2 303 Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations. According to the Reformed understanding, “the covenant of grace has from the beginning remained in all essential respects the same, in spite of all outward changes in the mode of its administration.”16 Hodge reminds us “that under the old dispensation, this covenant was administered chiefly by types and symbolical ordinances, signifying beforehand a Christ to come, and this administration was almost exclusively confined to the Jewish nation.”17 But in the New Testament administration, “this covenant [of grace] is characterized by its superior simplicity, clearness, fulness, certainty, spiritual power, and range of application.”18 The Church is therefore in continuity with the Old Testament saints as one people of God. Under the New Covenant administration, mediated by Christ the Savior of both Old and New Testament saints, the Church consists of both Jews and Gentiles, and constitutes the true Israel of God. As discussed in chapter one, Reformed theologians do not see any distinction between Israel as an unbelieving nation, and the Church. Bible Presbyterians, on the contrary, insists upon an Israel/Church distinction. In his response to Bruce Ware’s treatise on the New Covenant in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church: The Search for Definition, VanGemeren emphasizes that Jesus Christ is “the fountainhead of all the promises and covenants. He is the key to both the spiritual and the material blessings because he is the Mediator of the new covenant, the covenant of grace, whose benefits extend backward to the saints under the old covenant, and forward to all the saints under the new.”19 Reformed theologians therefore concur with VanGemeren that, “In the light of this postulate [that Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant], I cannot agree with the 16 Hodge, The Confession of Faith, 129. Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Willem A. VanGemeren, “A Response,” in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church: The Search for Definition, eds. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 337. 17 Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 2 304 bifurcation of the new covenant [of Jer. 31:31-34] into two stages: the territorial and political blessings to be given to the Jews in the millennial kingdom, and the spiritual benefits already inaugurated in the church. Does Jeremiah’s prophecy not apply to the postexilic community? Were the territorial and political blessings not realized in principle upon the return of the Jews after the decree of Cyrus (538 B.C.)?”20 Hermeneutics and the Understanding of the New Covenant In contrast to the Bible Presbyterians’ insistence upon a consistently literal hermeneutics, it is notable that Progressive Dispensationalists are at least willing to concede to three levels of reading Scripture, namely, the historical-exegetical, the biblical-theological, and the canonical-systematic levels.21 The canonical-systematic level “brings the pieces of the Bible’s message together,”22 and is essentially similar to the Reformed principle of Analogia Fidei. Progressive Dispensationalists expound a complementary approach to Scripture. Bock explains, “When progressives speak of a complementary relationship between Old Testament and New Testament texts, they are claiming that a normal, contextually determined reading often brings concepts from the Hebrew Scripture together in the New Testament in a way that completes and expounds what was already present in the older portion of God’s Word. As revelation proceeds, the texts themselves, New and Old Testament, are brought together in a way that links concepts together, so that both old and fresh associations are made (Matt. 13:52). Such fresh associations, canonically determined and defined, have a stable meaning because they emerge from within a normal reading of the text. In sum, if there is a difference between progressives and more traditional dispensational readings, it is that progressives are asking dispensationalists to work more integratively with the biblical text.”23 20 Ibid. See Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1993), 100-103. 22 Ibid., 103. 23 Darrell L. Bock, “Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism,” in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1999), 89. See pp. 85-118 for a further discussion on the hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism. 21 Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 2 305 The Progressive Dispensationalists are willing to allow the New Testament to add “fresh associations” and meanings to Old Testament texts. In this manner, their hermeneutics is more consistent with the principle of progressive revelation of Scripture. As Blaising and Bock have emphasized, “The New Testament does introduce change and advance; it does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation. In making complementary additions, however, it does not jettison old promises. The enhancement is not at the expense of the original promise.”24 Bible Presbyterians, on the other hand, insist on seeing a radical dichotomy between Israel and the Church in their understanding of Scripture. This Israel/Church distinction enables them to interpret the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) as having its fulfillment in the nation of Israel in the future, earthly millennium. Thus, the Bible Presbyterians’ approach to Scripture is more literal in its perception of the Israel/Church distinction when compared to the Progressive Dispensationalists’ approach. Concerning Khoo’s assessment of Buswell, it is interesting to consider his comments, “Buswell [cannot] be classified as a progressive dispensationalist. . . . [This is because] his hermeneutical approach to biblical prophecy was much closer to the literal approach of revised or normative dispensationalism than to progressive dispensationalism. He also did not see Jesus fulfilling his earthly office as King on the throne of David presently, which he averred was yet future.”25 Likewise, Bible Presbyterians cannot be classified as Progressive Dispensationalists because they adhere to a more radical Israel/Church distinction, and their “hermeneutical approach to biblical prophecy [is] much closer to the literal approach of revised or normative dispensationalism than to progressive dispensationalism.”26 24 Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, “Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: Assessment and Dialogue,” in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church: The Search for Definition, eds. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 392-393. 25 Khoo, “Dispensational Premillennialism in Reformed Theology: The Contribution of J. O. Buswell to the Millennial Debate,” 716. Khoo is an advocate of the pretribulation rapture theory and the parenthesis interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27. It is, therefore, apparent that Khoo adheres to a more radical Israel/Church distinction, as well as a more literal hermeneutics when compared to Buswell. 26 Ibid. Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 2 306 Dispensational Premillennialism Eschatology as a theological subject cannot be segregated from the other areas of systematic theology. It is, in fact, intimately incorporated into a particular system of theology, be it Dispensationalism or Reformed theology. As Lightner states, “Eschatological interpretations have a definite bearing upon many of the other doctrines which one holds. One’s entire system of theology, view of history, interpretation of Scripture, view of the Church as an organism and as an organization in relation to other organizations, and view of Biblical theology is determined to a great extent by his view of eschatology.”27 In his critique of John Gertsner’s book Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, Dispensationalist John Witmer makes a similar observation, “Eschatology does not exist in isolation from other areas of biblical doctrine but is part of an integrated system of theology. To be consistent, a premillennial eschatology should be a part of dispensational theology.”28 Therefore, it is inconsistent at best, to adhere to dispensational premillennialism, and yet claim to be non-dispensational. Furthermore, dispensational premillennialism is a logical development from the dispensational theological-hermeneutical grid. It is also derived from a systematic outworking of the sine qua non of Dispensationalism. As a matter of fact, a radical Israel/Church distinction allows a theologian to see a literal fulfillment of God’s promises to national Israel in that Jewish, Davidic Kingdom of the millennium. Witmer explains further: “In demonstrating that premillennialism is logically a part of dispensationalism, the basic issue is determining the purpose of the millennium and Christ’s return to establish it. Dispensationalists identify that purpose as being the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel of a messianic reign of righteousness and peace with Israel as “the head, and not the tail” (Deut 28:13; cf. 30:1–5) of the nations. The fulfillment of these promises to Israel also provides a consummation to this present world system begun with the creation of Adam and Eve, which is now controlled 27 Robert P. Lightner, Neo-Evangelicalism (Des Plaines, Il: Regular Baptist Press, 1965), 102. John A. Witmer, “A Review of Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth,” Bibliotheca Sacra 149 (1992): 271-272. 28 Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 2 307 by Satan (see John 12:31; 14:30 ; 16:11 ; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph 2:2; 1 John 5:19). On the other hand most nondispensational premillennialists would describe the millennium as [George Eldon] Ladd does, as “a glorious manifestation of God’s power as Christ exercises his meditorial rule over the world during the millennial age.” Elsewhere Ladd wrote, “The millennial kingdom is not Jewish so much as it is mediatorial.’”29 In fact, according to Witmer, “the messianic purpose of the millennium” is “the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel.”30 As dispensationalism requires a literal fulfillment of these promises to Israel, dispensational premillennialism provides that fulfillment in the earthly millennium, albeit in a strictly Jewish and Davidic sense. Dispensational premillennialism is also compatible with the dispensational concept of the Kingdom, together with its ethnically Jewish elements and ceremonial peculiarities. The Bible Presbyterian’s Theological-Hermeneutical Grid: A Conclusion From chapter 20 of this book onwards, we have discussed how the Bible Presbyterians fit the sine qua non of Dispensationalism. Through a survey of their various applications of the Israel/Church distinction, we have also realized that they adhere to a fairly radical dichotomy between Israel and the Church. This can be appreciated in their adherence to the pretribulation rapture position, the parenthesis interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27, dispensational premillennialism, and their understanding of the Kingdom and the New Covenant. As James Oliver Buswell (1895–1977) of Faith Theological Seminary is a founding Bible Presbyterian theologian,31 it is interesting to note Khoo’s description of Buswell: “[Buswell’s] hermeneutical approach to biblical prophecy was much closer to the literal approach of revised or normative dispensationalism than to 29 Ibid., 272, quoting George E. Ladd, Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 95, 98. 30 Ibid. 31 In 1956, Buswell left Faith to found Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. Bible Presbyterian theologians, such as Dr Timothy Tow, studied under Buswell in Faith Theological Seminary. Tow writes, “One of the outstanding courses taught in Faith Seminary was Israel’s part in the Second Coming of Christ and her preeminence during our Lord’s reign on earth for a thousand years. I learned this doctrine under Dr. Allan A. MacRae, Dr. J. O. Buswell and Dr. R. L. Harris.” See Timothy Tow, The Story of My Bible Presbyterian Faith (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press, 1999), 15. Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 2 308 progressive dispensationalism. He also did not see Jesus fulfilling His earthly office as King on the throne of David presently, which he averred was yet future. . . . Generally speaking, he fitted the sine qua non of dispensational premillennialism as defined by [Charles] Ryrie. Buswell saw a distinction between Israel and the Church, employed a literal hermeneutic towards biblical prophecy, and as a Reformed theologian believed that God’s redemptive plan would ultimately redound to His glory.”32 Bible Presbyterianism has developed much since Buswell’s time. From our discussion in this book, it appears that Bible Presbyterianism is moving closer towards Normative Dispensationalism on the dispensational-covenantal continuum. But we have seen that even Buswell fitted the sine qua non of dispensationalism proposed by Ryrie. Although Bible Presbyterian scholars in Singapore insist on retaining the nomenclature of “Reformed,” and claim that Buswell should not “be classified as a progressive dispensationalist,”33 we can all agree that Bible Presbyterians do adhere to the sine qua non of dispensationalism. From our previous studies, it is evident that the current Bible Presbyterian theological-hermeneutical grid is closer to Normative Dispensationalism than to Progressive Dispensationalism. The Bible Presbyterian sees a radical distinction between Israel and the Church, and acknowledges a separate purpose of God for ethnic Israel.34 On the other hand, according to Ryrie, “progressives [or progressive dispensationalists] do not see the church as completely distinct from Israel as normative dispensationalists have maintained. Neither do they consider the mystery concept of the church to mean that the church was not revealed in the Old Testament, only that it was unrealized. A corollary of this new view erases the idea of two purposes of God - one for the church and one for Israel.”35 By comparing the theological applications of the Israel/Church distinction by Bible Presbyterianism with that of Progressive Dispensationalism, it is clear that the Bible Presbyterians’ adherence to a radical Israel/Church distinction brings them closer to Normative Dispensationalism than to Progressive Dispensationalism on the dispensational-covenantal continuum. Of course, Bible Presbyterian scholars may 32 Khoo, “Dispensational Premillennialism in Reformed Theology: The Contribution of J. O. Buswell to the Millennial Debate,” 716-717. 33 Ibid., 716. 34 For example, see Khoo, “Dispensational Premillennialism in Reformed Theology: The Contribution of J. O. Buswell to the Millennial Debate,” 716. Also refer to chapter one of this book. 35 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 174. Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 2 309 not be pleased to see a reiteration of previous allegations, that is, “Orthodox Presbyterians facetiously labeling Bible Presbyterians “dispensationalists.’”36 Finally, Bible Presbyterians cannot be regarded as “Covenant Premillennial” in their eschatology, because the Covenant Premillenialist “retains the idea of the millennial kingdom, though he finds little support for it in the Old Testament prophecies. The kingdom in his view is markedly different from that which is taught by dispensationalists, since it loses much of its Jewish character due to the slighting of the Old Testament promises concerning the kingdom. Many covenant premillennialists are also posttribulationists, and that seems to be a logical accompaniment of the nondispensational approach.”37 Dr Jeffrey Khoo is, therefore, incorrect when he intimated that Bible Presbyterians are “Covenant Premillennial” in their eschatology.38 This is a misleading statement, to say the least.39 On the contrary, Historic Premillennialists (e.g. George Eldon Ladd, Theodor Zahn, Irenaeus, Tertullian) are bona fide Covenant Premillennialists. The criticisms Mathison raised against the Progressive Dispensationalists can likewise be directed at the Bible Presbyterian movement in Singapore. Mathison lamented: “The church suffers too much damage when people do not identify what they really believe. . . . Even its own proponents [the Progressive Dispensationalists] disagree on what that position is because it is in a 36 Khoo, “Dispensational Premillennialism in Reformed Theology: The Contribution of J. O. Buswell to the Millennial Debate,” 699. 37 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 38-39. Also read H. Phillip Hook, “The Doctrine of the Kingdom in Covenant Premillennialism” (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1959). Cf. Daniel Payton Fuller, “The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism” (Th.D. diss., Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1957), 363-364. 38 Khoo, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, 44-45. Read the section on eschatology. He classifies J.O. Buswell and Rev Timothy Tow as Mid-Tribulational, Covenant Premillennialists, but the both of them are clearly dispensational premillennialists. The description “Mid-Tribulational, Covenant Premillennialist” is also an oxymoron. A Covenant or Historic Premillennialist is a Post-Tribulationist. 39 Cf. Khoo, “Dispensational Premillennialism in Reformed Theology: The Contribution of J. O. Buswell to the Millennial Debate,” 716-717. Study Khoo’s description of Buswell. The title of this paper is also telling – he labels the Bible Presbyterian’s eschatological position as ‘dispensational premillennialism.’ But in Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, which is used as course notes in Far Eastern Bible College, Khoo calls his position ‘Covenant Premillennialism.’ Dr Khoo must make up his mind whether his premillennialism is covenantal or dispensational. Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 2 310 constant state of flux. To arrive at a consistent position they [the Progressive Dispensationalists] either must return to traditional dispensationalism, become historical premillennialists, or become Reformed. My hope and prayer is that they continue their journey toward Reformed theology.”40 Similarly, I believe Bible Presbyterianism has yet to work out all its theological inconsistencies. It is indeed difficult, if not unreasonable, to adhere to the sine qua non of dispensationalism, and yet attempt to retain the designation of “Reformed.” My hope and prayer is that they continue their journey towards Reformed theology, and abandon their adherence to the dispensational sine qua non. 40 Mathison, Dispensationalism, 136-137, emphasis mine. Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 2 311 Chapter 24: Bible Presbyterianism: A Need for Redefinition? Epilogue In this book, we have discussed some of the theological distinctives of Bible Presbyterianism in Singapore, and have conclusively shown that it espouses the sine qua non of Dispensationalism. The application of the sine qua non is clearly demonstrated in its ecclesiology and eschatology. As Feinberg states, “Dispensationalism becomes very important in regard to ecclesiology and eschatology, but is really not about those other areas [for example, soteriology].”1 Perhaps the time has come for Bible Presbyterians to reflect upon their theologicalhermeneutical grid. If it is true that Far Eastern Bible College and the Bible Presbyterian Churches in Singapore do subscribe to the sine qua non of Dispensationalism as admitted by Khoo, should they continue to retain the “Reformed” nomenclature in their statement of faith?2 Before Khoo and the other Bible Presbyterian theologians consider writing a response to my book,3 let it be made clear that I am not saying that the Bible Presbyterians are not Reformed. Rather, I am asking them to consider the possibility that they might be dispensational. If a coterie of scholars or theologians in the United States (e.g. the Professors of Dallas Theological Seminary) is labeled as Dispensationalist by virtue of their adherence to the sine qua non of Dispensationalism, it is confusing to have another group of theologians in Singapore who, likewise, embrace the sine qua non, but continue to insist that they are not dispensational. This might be misinterpreted as an attempt on the part of the Bible Presbyterians to redefine Dispensationalism, so as to preserve the designation of “Reformed.” In the current theological dialogue between Dispensationalists and Covenant theologians, it is important to be candid with regard to what our convictions are. Any 1 Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 70-71. According to Far Eastern Bible College, “The Statement of Faith of the College shall be in accordance with that system commonly called “the Reformed Faith” as expressed in the Confession of Faith as set forth by the historic Westminster Assembly together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.” See Statement of Faith of the Far Eastern Bible College, Singapore [article on-line]; available from http://www.febc.edu.sg/faith.htm; Internet; accessed 24 October 2006. 3 Such a book might fittingly be entitled, “Bible Presbyterianism: We Are Definitely Reformed,” or “Bible Presbyterianism: No Need for Redefinition.” 2 Epilogue 312 attempt to obscure the issues for discussion will only confound the existing theological disagreements and problems. For any fruitful dialogue to take place, theologians from either end of the dispensational-covenantal continuum must take upon themselves the task of defining their theological positions clearly and, most important of all, precisely. Only then can any helpful progress and mutual understanding take place. We would all do well to heed Blaising’s following advice: “Many of us are who we are because we belonged to a church of a certain tradition when we came to Christ and have been satisfied with this association. For others, our traditional identities are a product of a reaction, sometimes quite intense, against the roots of our new beginnings. For still others it is far less shocking a transition and may not even be viewed in coming and leaving terms at all. Exposure to the body of Christ has led to reflection and the development of a sense of strength and weakness about the tradition or traditions with which we identify. In other words, some of us are who we are because we have been that way from our second birth, while others became who we are in conscious comparison to other traditions. Being good theologians and regardless of the route we take, we justify the associations we take with the claims and convictions that we are Biblical in holding to what we believe.”4 I have no doubt that the Bible Presbyterians will contend that their position is closest to the Truth, and that they might even have good Scriptural grounds to do so. I have emphasized that the primary objective of this book is not to repudiate Bible Presbyterianism per se, or even to argue against Dispensationalism. The primary purpose of this book is to unveil the theological-hermeneutical grid of Bible Presbyterianism, and to demonstrate conclusively that Bible Presbyterians do, indeed, fit the sine qua non of Dispensationalism. Therefore, “being good theologians and regardless of the [theological] route we take, we justify the associations we take with the claims and convictions that we are Biblical in holding to what we believe.”5 As we are convicted of our theological position, we can declare with confidence what our theological-hermeneutical grid is. There is, furthermore, every reason to adopt a traditional, theological label which best describes our theological position. To do otherwise might be misconstrued as being anything but truthful and sincere. 4 5 Blaising, “Why I Am a Dispensationalist with a Small ‘d’,” 384. Ibid. Epilogue 313 Blaising continues: “I also want all of us, whatever our tradition, to reflect on what the meaning and limitations of such traditional labels are. What does identifying with a tradition mean in a Biblically oriented group that is quite aware of Paul’s rebuke in 1 Corinthians 1 about being of Paul or of Apollos or even of Christ? . . . As we face much of the world that does not know Jesus, what we have in common is far more important than our differences.”6 By the grace of God, all Dispensationalists and Non-dispensationalists are saved by the gospel of Christ, and we all belong to the true Israel of God. We must, however, remember that theological labels will lose their salient, inherent meanings if theologians of contradictory persuasions insist on adopting similar appellations. On the other hand, theological labels are beneficial only if they are used to promote helpful dialogue and understanding between brethren-in-Christ. As Dispensationalists and Non-dispensationalists are convicted that their respective theological positions are closest to the Truth, such theological labels must continue to preserve their original, intended meanings so as to better represent the theologians who adhere to them. I do love and appreciate the work my Bible Presbyterian brethren are doing for the Kingdom of God. I see them as fellow recipients of the New Covenant blessings in Christ Jesus. Nevertheless, as a Reformed Christian, I categorically reject their Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is not simply a departure from Reformed theology; it is in diametric opposition to Reformed distinctives. As a theological-hermeneutical system, dispensationalism cannot be reconciled with the Reformed confessions, and particularly, the Westminster Standards. The Reformed confessions teach that all the promises of God find their “Yes” in Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 1:20). Christ is the center and the ultimate purpose of all creation and redemption. He is the second Adam, the Head of a New Creation (1 Cor. 15:45), and the Redeemer of one people unto Himself. Throughout redemptive history, God has predestined the salvation of one Church or one people through Jesus Christ. However, Dispensationalism sees a division where no division exists: a distinction between Israel and the Church. It maintains that the Church and Israel are two separate peoples of God, with two separate purposes. God’s dealings with Israel were arbitrarily terminated towards the end of the 69th week of Daniel’s prophecy. Both the Bible Presbyterians and Dispensationalists 6 Ibid. Epilogue 314 recognize an indeterminable time gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel. According to them, the prophetic time clock for Israel has seemingly stopped. It will start ticking again when the Great Tribulation begins. But when we read “New Testament passages such as Romans 9:24-26, . . . we have Paul’s statement that the calling out of Jew and Gentile in the Christian Church is the direct fulfillment of a prophecy of Hosea. In Acts 26:22 Paul claimed that he preached ‘nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come’ (R.V.). In Acts 2, Peter states that a prophecy of Joel is now (in these Gospel times) being fulfilled. Referring to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, he says, ‘This is that spoken by the prophet Joel: “And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh”.’ The prophetic clock is evidently still ticking.”7 Students of the Bible must not confuse the ecclesiology of Bible Presbyterianism with genuine Reformed ecclesiology. According to Bible Presbyterianism, the Church - made up of Jews and Gentiles - is not to be confused with “Israel.” As Khoo has reiterated, “Israel means Israel, and Church means Church.”8 We read in the Book of Hebrews: “But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel (Heb. 12:22-24).” The Church is Mount Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem. Believers in Christ are the covenant people of God, and they constitute the true Israel. The Church is “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people (1 Pet. 2:9a).” Citizenship within the heavenly Jerusalem is not dependent upon one’s race or nationality, but genuine faith in our risen Lord. By understanding the Church as being distinct from God’s chosen nation, Israel, Dispensationalism seems to rob the Church of its rightful glory. But God has only one redemptive purpose in history, and that is to redeem unto Himself one people the Church. The Church is not an intercalation between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel’s prophecy. The Apostle Paul says, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and 7 8 Grier, The Momentous Event, 44. Khoo, Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, 135. Epilogue 315 have been all made to drink into one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13).” Therefore, let no man put asunder what God has joined together in Christ Jesus. Dr Jeffrey Khoo has previously lamented: “So, Bible-Presbyterians have been wrongly labeled “dispensational” because we believe in the premillennial return of Christ! These critics, without deep study, fail to realize that taking a premillennial position does not necessarily make one dispensational.”9 With a meticulous and in-depth study, one can arrive at the following conclusion: Dr Khoo is actually correct. Bible Presbyterians are not dispensational simply because of their premillennialism. Bible Presbyterians are, however, dispensational because they pass Dr Charles C. Ryrie’s threefold test with flying colors;10 they subscribe wholeheartedly to the sine qua non of dispensationalism.11 9 Khoo, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, 1. See Bowers, “Dispensational Motifs in the Writings of Erich Sauer,” 262. 11 Khoo himself admits that Far Eastern Bible College embraces the sine qua non of Dispensationalism. See Khoo, Dispensationalism Examined, 11; idem, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, 46. Also see Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 38-41 for the sine qua non of Dispensationalism. 10 Epilogue 316 Selected Bibliography Adams, Geoff A. “The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-37.” Reformation and Revival 6, no. 3 (1997): 77-96. Alexander, Charles D. Romans Eleven and the Two Israels: An Exposition of Romans 9-11. Unpublished lecture notes, n.d. ________. Revelation Spiritually Understood. Trelawnyd, Wales: K & M Books, 2001. Allis, Oswald T. Prophecy and the Church. Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001. Aune, David E. Revelation 17-22: Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998. Baker, Charles F. A Dispensational Theology. Grand Rapids: Grace Bible College Publications, 1972. Bass, Clarence. Backgrounds to Dispensationalism: Its Historical Genesis and Ecclesiastical Implications. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1960. Bateman, Herbert W., IV, ed. Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999. Battle, John A. “Eschatology in the Bible Presbyterian Church.” Western Reformed Seminary 11, no. 2 (2004): 12-27. Bavinck, Herman. The Last Things: Hope for This World and the Next. Trans. John Vriend. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1996. Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1999. ________. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004. Bibliography 317 Bell, William Everett, Jr. “A Critical Evaluation of the Pre-tribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian Eschatology.” Ph.D. diss., School of Education of New York University, 1967. Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1941. Blaising, Craig A. “Development of Dispensationalism by Contemporary Dispensationalists.” Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (1988): 254-280. ________. “Why I Am a Dispensationalist with a Small ‘d’.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41, no. 3 (1998): 383-396. Blaising, Craig A. and Darrell L. Bock, eds. Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church: The Search for Definition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. ________, eds. Progressive Dispensationalism: An Up-to-Date Handbook of Contemporary Dispensational Thought. Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1993. Blomberg, Craig. The New American Commentary Volume 22: Matthew. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1992. Bock, Darrell L., ed. Three Views of the End of History. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997. Boettner, Loraine. The Millennium. Rev. ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, (1958) 1984. Bowers, Russell H., Jr. “Dispensational Motifs in the Writings of Erich Sauer.” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (1991): 259-273. Bray, John L. Israel in Bible Prophecy. Lakeland, FL: John L. Bray Ministry, 1983. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians: The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982. Brueggemann, W. The Land. Philadelphia:Fortress, 1977. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Ed. Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1998. Campbell, Donald K., ed. Walvoord: A Tribute. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982. Bibliography 318 Campbell, Donald K. and Jeffrey L. Townsend, eds. The Coming Millennial Kingdom: A Case for Premillennial Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1997. Campbell, Roderick. Israel and the New Covenant. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, (1954) 1981. Carson, D. A. and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2d ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005. Chan, James. “Our Bible Presbyterian Faith and Practice.” The Burning Bush 6, no. 1 (2000): 48-57. Chilton, David. The Days of Vengeance. Tyler, TX: Dominion Press, 1987. Clouse, Robert G., ed. The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977. Boettner, “A Postmillennial Response,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views. Clowney, Edmund. “The Final Temple.” Westminster Theological Journal 35, no. 2 (1973): 156-189. ________. “Toward a Biblical Doctrine of the Church.” Westminster Theological Journal 31, no. 1 (1968):22-81. Cox, William E. Amillennialism Today. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1966. ________. An Examination of Dispensationalism. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1963. Crenshaw, Curtis I. and Grover E. Gunn, III. Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow. Memphis, TN: Footstool Publications, (1985) 1989. Culver, Robert Duncan. Daniel and the Latter Days. 2nd ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1977. Davies, John P. “Hermeneutical Issues in the Dispensational Understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant.” Quodlibet Journal 3, no. 4 (2001). Journal on-line. Available from http://www.quodlibet.net/davis-covenant.shtml; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005. Bibliography 319 DeMar, Gary. Answering the Replacement Theology Critics (Part 1-4). Article online. Available from http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/10-07-05.asp; Internet; accessed 14 October 2005. ________. Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church. 4th rev. ed. Atlanta, Georgia: American Vision, 1999. DeMar, Gary and Peter Leithart. The Legacy of Hatred Continues: A Response to Hal Lindsey’s The Road to Holocaust. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989. Ellis, E. Earle. Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 1993. ________. The Old Testament in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 1991. Engelsma, David J. “A Brief Study of Jeremiah 3 on Divorce.” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal 39, no.2 (2006): 2-16. Erickson, Millard J. A Basic Guide to Eschatology: Making Sense of the Millennium. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 1998. Evans, Craig A. Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992. Fairbairn, Patrick. Exposition of Ezekiel. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 2001. ________. Typology of Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1989. Fee, Gordon. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1987. Feinberg, John S., ed. Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988. Frame, John M. “Toward a Theology of the State.” Westminster Theological Journal 51, no. 2 (1989): 199-226. Bibliography 320 Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1989. Fuller, Daniel Payton. “The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism.” Th.D. diss., Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1957. Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians: New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdsman Publishing Co, 1988. Gentry, Kenneth. He Shall Have Dominion Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992. George, Timothy. Galatians: The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1994. Goldberg, Louis. “Whose Land Is It?” Issues 4, no. 2 (n.d.). Article on-line. Available from http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/4_2/land; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005. Goss, Glenn R. Cyrus Ingerson Scofield and the Scofield Reference Bible. Article on-line. Available from http://www.ebccnet.com/scofield.php; Internet; accessed 14 October 2005. Grabbe, Lester L. Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh. London: Routledge, 2000. Grenz, Stanley. The Millennial Maze: Sorting Out Evangelical Options. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992. Grier, William J. The Momentous Event: A Discussion of Scripture Teaching on the Second Advent. Belfast: Evangelical Bookshop, 1945; reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1970. Gundry, Robert H. The Church and the Tribulation: A Biblical Examination of PostTribulationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1973. Hanko, Herman. The Mysteries of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Jesus’ Parables. 2d ed. Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1975. Hendriksen, William. Exposition of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon: New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1968, 2004. Bibliography 321 ________.Exposition of Thessalonians, the Pastorals, and Hebrews: New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, (1955) 2002. ________. Israel and Prophecy. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1968. ________. More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1967. Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm. The Revelation of St. John: Expounded for Those Who Search the Scriptures. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005 Hill, Charles E. Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Future Hope in Early Christianity. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Hodge, A. A. The Confession of Faith. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1869. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology Vol. 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1989; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999. Hoekema, Anthony. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1979; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co and Cumbria, UK: The Paternoster Press, 1994. Hoeksema, Herman. Behold, He Cometh! An Exposition of the Book of Revelation. 2d ed. Ed. Homer C. Hoeksema. Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2000. ________. Reformed Dogmatics. 2d ed., vol. 2. Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2005. Holwerda, David. Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two? Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1995. Hook, H. Phillip. “The Doctrine of the Kingdom in Covenant Premillennialism.” Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1959. Hughes, James. “Revelation 20:1-6 and the Question of the Millennium.” Westminster Theological Journal 35, no. 3 (1973): 282-303. Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. Interpreting Prophecy: An Essay in Biblical Perspectives. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1976. Bibliography 322 ________. “The First Resurrection: Another Interpretation.” Westminster Theological Journal 39, no. 2 (1977): 316-319. Ice, Thomas. The Calvinistic Heritage of Dispensationalism. Article on-line. Available from http://www.raptureready.com/featured/TheCalvinisticHeritageofDispensationalism.h tml; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005. Jacob, Benno. The First Book of the Bible, Genesis. New York: KTAV, 1974. Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, vol. 2. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. Johnson, Denis E. Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation. Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2001. Johnston, Philip and Peter Walker, eds. The Land of Promise. Leicester, England: Apollos, 2000. Keil, C. F. Commentary on the Old Testament: Ezekiel, Daniel, vol. 9. Trans. James Martin and M. G. Easton. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. ________. Commentary on the Old Testament: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, vol. 2. Trans. James Martin. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Khoo, Jeffrey. “Amillennialism Examined.” The Burning Bush 4, no. 1 (1998): 1-5. ________. Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology: A Basic Theology for Everyone Course. Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, n.d. ________. Dispensationalism Examined. Singapore: Reformed Tract Distributors, n.d. ________. “Dispensational Premillennialism in Reformed Theology: The Contribution of J. O. Buswell to the Millennial Debate.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 4 (2001): 697-717. ________. First Corinthians. Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, n.d. ________. Fundamentals of the Christian Faith: A Reformed and Premillennial Study of Christian Basics. Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press, 2005. Bibliography 323 ________. Galatians. Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, 2000. ________. Hebrews. Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, n.d. ________. Heresies Ancient and Modern. Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, n.d. ________. The Gospels in Unison: A Synthetic Harmony of the Four Gospels in the KJV. Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press, 1996. ________. The Life of Christ. Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, n.d. ________. “Three Views on the Millennium: Which?” The Burning Bush 5, no. 2 (1999): 65-72. ________. 1 Thessalonians: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary. Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, n.d. Kik, J. Marcellus. An Eschatology of Victory. Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971. Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the Book of Revelation: New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 2001. ________. Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and of the Epistle of Jude: New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books House Co, 1993. ________. Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians: New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books House Co, 1993. Klett, Fred. Calvin, Hodge, Murray, Vos, Edwards, Henry: What Do They Say about the Jewish People? Article on-line. Available from http://www.chaim.org/churches/calvinpam.pdf; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005. ________. Not Replacement … Expansion! Article on-line. Available from http://www.chaim.org/xpansion.htm; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005. Kline, Meredith G. God, Heaven and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006. ________. “Har Magedon: The End of the Millennium.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39, no. 2 (1996): 207-222. Bibliography 324 ________. “The First Resurrection: A Reaffirmation.” Westminster Theological Journal 39, no. 1 (1976): 110-119. ________. “The First Resurrection.” Westminster Theological Journal 37, no. 3 (1975): 366-375. Koshy, Prabhudas. “The Millennial Temple.” The Burning Bush 6, no. 1 (2000): 2330. Ladd, George Eldon. A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1972. ________. Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1952. ________. The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1956. ________. The Last Things. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1978. LaHaye, Tim and Thomas Ice, eds. The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2003. LaRondelle, Hans K. The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1983. Lenski, R. C. H. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1963. ________. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1937. ________. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1966. Lightfoot, J. B. St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. London: Macmillan, 1896. Lightner, Robert P. Neo-Evangelicalism. Des Plaines, Il: Regular Baptist Press, 1965. Bibliography 325 ________. “Theological Perspectives on Theonomy.” Bibliotheca Sacra 143 (1986): 26-35. Lillback, Peter A. The Practical Calvinist: An Introduction to the Presbyterian and Reformed Heritage. Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2002. MacPherson, Dave. The Incredible Cover-Up. Medford, OR: Omega Publications, 1975. ________. The Rapture Plot. Simpsonville, SC: Millennium III, 1995. Mangum, R. Todd. “A Future for Israel in Covenant Theology: The Untold Story.” Paper presented to the Evangelical Theological Society, Nashville, Tennessee, 16 November 2000. ________. “Can We Expect a Restoration of Levitical Animal Sacrifices? A Progressive Dispensationalist Opinion” Paper presented to the Northeastern Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Langhorne, Pennsylvania, 30 March 2001. Maoz, Baruch. Judaism Is Not Jewish: A Friendly Critique of the Messianic Movement. Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2003. Marsden, George M. “Perspective on the Division of 1937.” Presbyterian Guardian XXXIII (January to April, 1963). ________, ed. Reformed Theology in America: A History of Its Modern Development. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997. Marshall, I. Howard. New Testament Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Martin, D. Michael. 1, 2 Thessalonians: The New American Commentary Volume 33. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1995. Mathison, Keith. Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1995. Mauro, Philip. The Hope of Israel: What Is It? Boston, MA: Hamilton Brothers, 1929; reprint, Dahlonega, Georgia: Crown Rights Book Co, 2003. Bibliography 326 ________. The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation: A Study of the Last Two Visions of Daniel, and of the Olivet Discourse of the Lord Jesus Christ. Rev. ed. Swengel, PA: Reiner Publishers, 1975; reprint, Dahlonega, Georgia: Crown Rights Book Co, 1998. McClain, Alva J. Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 6th ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1940. Montgomery, J. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1927. Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans: New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdsman Publishing Co, 1996. Morris, Leon. Galatians: Paul’s Charter of Christian Freedom. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996. ________. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians: New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1991. Mounce, Robert H. Romans: The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995. _______. The Book of Revelation: New International Commentary on the New Testament. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1998. Müller, E. “Microstructural Analysis of Revelation 20.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 37: 227-255. Murray, George L. Millennial Studies. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1948. Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans: New International Commentary on the New Testament, 2 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1965. Olyott, Stuart. Dare to Stand Alone. Hertfordshire, England: Evangelical Press, 1982. Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 2002. Pate, C. Marvin, ed. Four Views of the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997. Bibliography 327 Pentecost, Dwight. Things to Come. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1958. Poythress, Vern Sheridan. “Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1-6.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36, no. 1 (1993): 41-54. ________. “Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism.” In The Practical Calvinist: An Introduction to the Presbyterian and Reformed Heritage, ed. Peter A. Lillback, 415424. Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2002. ________. Understanding Dispensationalists. 2d ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1987. ________. “2 Thessalonians 1 Supports Amillennialism.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37, no. 4 (1994): 529-538. Price, Randall. Unholy War: America, Israel and Radical Islam. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2001. Provan, Charles D. The Church Is Israel Now. Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1987. Quek, Suan Yew. DAY FIVE: Revelation 19-22. Singapore: Calvary Pandan Bible Presbyterian Church, n.d. Rainbow, Paul A. “Millennium as Metaphor in John’s Apocalypse.” Westminster Theological Journal 58, no. 2 (1996): 210-221. Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. 3d rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 1970. Rausch, David A. “Christian Zionism.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 1201-1202. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1984. Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. 2d ed. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998. Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975. Riddlebarger, Kim. A Case for Amillennialism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 2003. Bibliography 328 Robertson, O. Palmer. The Israel of God, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 2000. Rushdoony, Rousas John. Thy Kingdom Come: Studies in Daniel and Revelation. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1970. Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1995. ________. The Basis of the Premillennial Faith. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953. ________. The Best Is Yet to Come. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1981. Schreiner, Thomas R. Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001. Scofield, Cyrus I., ed. New Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967. Seet, Charles. “Premillennialism.” The Burning Bush 3, no. 2 (1997): 97-106. Shedd, William G. T. A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1879; reprinted, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001. Shepherd, Norman. “The Resurrections of Revelation 20.” Westminster Theological Journal 37, no. 1 (1974): 35-45. Sin, Jack. “The Judgement Seat of Christ.” The Burning Bush 6, no. 2 (2000): 302323. Sizer, Stephen. “An Alternative Theology of the Holy Land: A Critique of Christian Zionism.” The Churchman 113, no. 2 (1999). Also available from http://www.christianzionism.org/print.asp?ID=13; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005. ________. Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Bibliography 329 Skilton, John H. The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1974. Smalley, Stephen S. The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005. Stein, Robert H. The New American Commentary Volume 24: Luke (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1992. Terry, Milton S. Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ in the Canonical Scriptures. New York: Eaton and Mains, 1898; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001. ________. Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. Hunt and Eason, 1890; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999. Thomas, Robert L. “The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism.” The Masters Seminary Journal 6, no. 1 (1995): 79-95. Torrance, Thomas F. The School of Faith. New York: Harper, 1959. Toussaint, Stanley and Charles Dyer, eds. Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986. Tow, Timothy. From Millennium Bug to Millennium Bomb: Can Christ Come Again Within the Next Decade? Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press, 2000. ________. The Story of My Bible-Presbyterian Faith. Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press, 1999. ________. The Truth Shall Make You See. Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press, 1999. ________. Visions of the Princely Prophet: A Study of the Book of Daniel. Singapore: Christian Life Publishers, 1995. ________ and Jeffrey Khoo. Theology for Every Christian: A Systematic Theology in the Reformed and Premillennial Tradition of J Olover Buswell. Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, 2007. Bibliography 330 Vanderwaal, C. Hal Lindsey and Biblical Prophecy. Ontario, Canada: Paideia Press, 1978. VanGemeren, Willem. “Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy.” Westminster Theological Journal 45, no.1 (1983): 132-144. ________. “Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy II.” Westminster Theological Journal 46, no. 2 (1984): 254-297. Vos, Geerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1930; reprint, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1994. Vos, Johannes G. The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary. Ed. G. I. Williamson. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 2002. Walvoord, John F. Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971. ________. End Times: Understanding Today’s World Events in Biblical Prophecy. Nashville, Tennessee: Word Publishing, 1998. ________. Israel in Prophecy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1962. ________. The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990. ________. The Rapture Question. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979. Walvoord, John F. and Roy B. Zuck, eds. The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983. Wanamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians: The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1990. Warner, Tim. Progressive Dispensationalism 101. Article on-line. Available from http://www.geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/prodisp.html; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005. Whitcomb, John. “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel.” Grace Theological Journal 6, no. 2 (1985): 201-217. Bibliography 331 White, R. Fowler. “Making Sense of Revelation 20:1-10? Harold Hoehner Versus Recapitulation.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37, no. 4 (1994): 539-551. ________. “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-10.” Westminster Theological Journal 51, no. 2 (1989): 319-344. Williamson, G. I., ed. The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 2002. Willis, W. R. and J. R. Master, eds. Issues in Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody, 1994. Witherington III, Ben. Grace In Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998. Witmer, John A. “A Review of Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth.” Bibliotheca Sacra 149 (1992): 259-276. Woodrow, Ralph. Great Prophecies of the Bible. Riverside, CA: Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, 1971. ________. His Truth Is Marching On: Advance Studies on Prophecy in the Light of History. Riverside, CA: Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, 1977. Wuest, Kenneth S. The New Testament: An Expanded Translation. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961. ________. Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament, vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1954. Yamauchi, Edwin M. Foes from the Northern Frontier: Invading Hordes from the Russian Steppes. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1982. Young, Edward J. Daniel. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1949. Young, J. C. Jerusalem in the New Testament. Kampen: Kok, 1960. Bibliography 332