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
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
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
The Epistle to the Galatians and Pauls Ecclesiology
42
Abrahams Seed 42
Sarah and Hagar 45
Pauls Understanding of Isaiahs Prophecy 48
The Israel of God 51
Jeffrey Khoos Reliance on Johnsons Paper 55
Problems with the Dispensational Understanding of the
Israel of God 57
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
The Pre-Tribulation Rapture
82
An Introduction to the Pretribulation Rapture 82
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
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
2 Thessalonians and the Rapture
97
2 Thessalonians 1:4-10 97
The Apokalypsis 98
The Thessalonian Problem 102
Rapture or Apostasy? 104
The Doctrine of Imminence 106
A Further Example of Bible Presbyterian Literal
Hermeneutics 107
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
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 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

Gods 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 Ezekiels Temple Vision 234
Problems with the Dispensational View 239
Circumcision 240
The Lords 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
Whitcombs View and Far Eastern Bible College 251
The Passing of Types and Shadows 251
Progressive Revelation and Redemptive Regression 254
Whitcombs 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
Daniels Seventy Weeks and the Parenthesis Interpretation
299
23
300
The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 300

A Progressive Dispensationalists 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 Presbyterians Theological-Hermeneutical Grid: a
Conclusion 308
24
Bible Presbyterianism: A Need for Redefinition?
312
Epilogue 312
Bibliography
317
Contents
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 Khoos course. In fact, a principal contention of this book is: an
adherence to Dispensationalisms sine qua non does not allow a theologian to avoid
the appropriate appellation of dispensational. Thirdly, I would like to illustrate that
ones prophetic schema is determined by ones 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 ones
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 ones 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 Gods Word. It is
sometimes even claimed that prophecy is irrelevant to a Christians 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 Gods 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 readers 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
Gods purpose for Israels 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
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 Israels 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.
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 Presbyterians 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 Gods 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
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
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.
Bible Presbyterians and Dispensationalists believe that the Church does not fulfill or
take over any of Israels 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.
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
worlds 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 worlds
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.
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
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
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 Mathisons 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), 1631. 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. 2:2829), 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
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 Gods 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 dispensationalists straw man (e.g.
Replacement Theology, anti-Semitism) as the genuine Reformed position on Israel.
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 11:1124).
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 Gods 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.
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 Gods 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 Matthews teaching. Jesus, a
literal descendant of Abraham, himself a Jew, is the Israel who is the object
of Gods 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.
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 Khoos 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; youre 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.
12
Churchs 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 Churchs attitude towards similar
heretical ideas, such as replacement theology.
A careful perusal of Khoos 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--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 Gods 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
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 Gods 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 churchs 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 Daniels 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.
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 Israels 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 Gods
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 Daniels 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 Gods 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.
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 arent todays 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 Hitlers
criminal mind.52 Thus, in the minds of Dispensational Premillennialists, the
exclusion of national Israel from Gods 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
Lindseys The Road to Holocaust (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 26.
49
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 dont
interpret all Israel to mean every Israelite who has ever lived. They dont
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 Daniels
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.
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 Israels 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 Todays 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.
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 Elijahs day (Rom. 11:2-4), between enemies and companions in
Davids day (11:9-10), between believers and disobedient in Isaiahs 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 Gods
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 Christs 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.
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
Christs 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.
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 Presbyterians consistently literal hermeneutics, all means
some, and some means all.
Finally, let us remember that Gods redemptive grace and election are not dependent
upon a persons 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 persons 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.

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.
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
dispensationalists use of this hermeneutical principle and the
nondispensationalists? The difference lies in the dispensationalists 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
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.
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
Presbyterians 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
24
For the purpose of discussion, we shall consider a verse from Pauls 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 Coopers 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 Coopers 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 Coopers 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
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.
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 Gods 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
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
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.
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, Israels 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
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,
Christs 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.
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 Christs 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 Gods 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.
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.
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 ()
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.
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.
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 Jeremiahs 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. 3:1619; 16:19), yet Jeremiah, in
referring to Abrahams 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. 8:613).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.
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 Lords
Supper was instituted for the remembrance of the New Covenant in Christs blood,
which was shed for the Church. The atonement in Christs 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 Scofields 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
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. Khoos 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 Christs
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 Gods Prophetic Program, in Essays in Honor of J.
Dwight Pentecost, eds. Stanley Toussaint and Charles Dyer (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986),
149.
54
38
Both Khoos and Scofields 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. Khoos 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 Israels New Covenant blessings, why not the other Old
Testament prophecies made to Israel? Khoos 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
Israels 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 Khoos 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
59
Ibid.
60
This is a classical dispensationalists 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
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 Israels 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 Gods purpose
for Israel and His purpose for the Church. Israels covenant, however, is new only because it
replaces the Mosaic, but the Churchs covenant is new because it introduces that which is
Gods mysterious and unrelated purpose. Israels new covenant rests specifically on the
sovereign I will of Jehovah, while the new covenant for the Church is made in Christs
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.
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.
41
Chapter 3: The Epistle to the Galatians and Pauls Ecclesiology

Abrahams 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 Pauls 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 mans 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
Abrahams seeds. This passage, at the very least, obliterates the normative
dispensationalist claim of being the ones who are consistently literal. Dutch Reformed
Galatians and Pauls 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 Abrahams
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
Abrahams 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 Christs, then are ye
Abrahams 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 Abrahams 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.
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 Pauls 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 Pauls 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
Abrahams seed, for Paul writes, And if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams 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 Abrahams seed; they are spiritual descendants of Abraham just as surely as the
Jewish believers are Abrahams biological descendants.
Bruce summarizes Pauls argument that there is now no distinction between Jews
and Gentiles as far as the gospel is concerned:
Pauls 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
laws 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 Gods Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 160.
5
Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 188.
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 Abrahams 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. Pauls

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.
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 Pauls 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 Pauls 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 apostles understanding
of the spiritual significance of Jerusalem contradicts that of the Jewish leaders.
The Jews apparently still believed that Israel was Gods covenant nation. But the
earthly Jerusalem, even in Pauls day, is no longer the promised city of Gods 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.
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 Gods free people, whereas the Gentiles were outside the covenant as
the slave womans 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 Pauls 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 Hagars son. Isaac is
11
Pauls 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: Pauls Charter of Christian Freedom (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 146.
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 Pauls language and understanding, the Church is the true Israel, or
rather, the Israel after the spirit. The heir of the Abrahamic promise is Abrahams
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).
Pauls Understanding of Isaiahs 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 Isaiahs
prophecy (Isa. 54:1) of Israels 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 Isaiahs 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.

15
Likewise, Fung concurs, In proof of the existence of a new Jerusalem composed of Gods
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
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 Abrahams seed and heirs of the Abrahamic covenant.
Therefore, according to Pauls 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). Gods 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 Abrahams 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 Pauls 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
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:
Pauls later, non-allegorical (but still in intention typological) reference to
Abrahams 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 Pauls 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 Pauls epistle to the Galatians contradicts the Bible Presbyterian
understanding of national Israel and the Abrahamic promise. Pauls 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.

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
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 before the phrase Israel of God is an explicative or
appositional . 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 Pauls 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.
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 Pauls 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. Johnsons polemic against LaRondelle is clearly unconvincing.
Johnson continues his critique of LaRondelle,
That the professor [LaRondelle] overlooked Pauls careful language is
seen in his equation of terms that differ. He correctly cites Pauls 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 Johnsons writing in this section is that Khoo uses
Johnsons 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.
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 LaRondelles point.
LaRondelle writes, According to Hebrews 8-12, the Church of Jesus represents the true
fulfillment of Jeremiahs predicted new covenant. Far from being an abrogation of Israels
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 Gods 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
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.
Johnsons 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? Johnsons dispensational
ecclesiology is apparently clouding his understanding of LaRondelles 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 LaRondelles 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 Johnsons 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
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.
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 Abrahams 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. Johnsons
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 LaRondelles 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
Pauls 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 Israels
covenant promise (3:26-29).35
Jeffrey Khoos Reliance on Johnsons Paper

Relying heavily upon Johnsons 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 Johnsons paper on Paul and
35
LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy, 110.

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 Johnsons essay, Khoo makes no attempt to provide exegetical
arguments for his interpretation of Galatians 6:16 in his commentary on Galatians.
37
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 Johnsons interpretation of
Galatians 6:16.
40
187.
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 Johnsons 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
57
In view of the Gospel age, Pauls 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 Gods 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
Pauls day, or to those Israelites who are allegedly saved at the Messiahs 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
187.
48
Hendricksen, Exposition of Galatians, 246.
49
193.
50
51
Ibid., quoting J. C. ONeill, The Recovery of Pauls Letter to the Galatians (London, 1972),
71.
58
The rule instituted by Paul in verse 15 - which states that for one to be counted
amongst Gods 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 Pauls 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 Pauls 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.

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 Witheringtons 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
192.
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 (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 Pauls 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

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 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. Pauls Epistles to the
Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians, 321.
57
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 Pauls 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 Messiahs 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.
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
Gods 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, Gods 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
Abrahams 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 Gods gift to Israel, it never belongs to Israel. The Promised
Land belongs to God. In reality, the land is never at Israels 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 Lords, not Israels. Amazingly, the
people Israel are called aliens and tenants in the Lords 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, Israels 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 LORDS
land; but Ephraim shall return to Egypt, and they shall eat unclean things in Assyria
(Hosea 9:3). With Israels continual unfaithfulness to Yahweh, the Lord of the
covenant eventually removed the land from Israels 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 Gods 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
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 Gods 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 Gods covenant is not unconditional in the sense that an apostate
nation will continue to claim the right of inheritance to Gods 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 Gods covenant
requirements.
The prophet Jeremiah, likewise, reiterated the conditional nature of Gods 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 potters 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 Lords 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 Davids 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

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 Sizers 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 Gods 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 Gods covenant blessing, and the exile of Israel to Assyria
and Babylon, Gods 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 Gods 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, Gods people must become holy as God is holy.13 Thus, Israels 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.

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
Gods commandments were crucial for Israels 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).
Gods 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 Christians 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 Joshuas
conquests. According to the Bible Presbyterians 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 Joshuas successful conquest of the land of Canaan, Israels 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 Israels experience of the good and spacious land
would be short-lived (cf. Josh. 23:12-13). Thus the fulfillment of the
territorial promise in Joshuas 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 Testaments 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 Gods 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 Gods 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.
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 Gods 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 Christs
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 Gods 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 Gods 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
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
Israels covenant promise when He applies it to the Church. He is expanding the
covenant to include Gentiles, and widening Israels 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). Gods 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 Abrahams 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 Gods 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. Hoekemas 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 Dispensationalists 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 Gods
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

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 Jacobs 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 Christs 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 Gods 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 Gods prophetic program for Israel.
2
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 Jacobs Trouble (Jer 30:7). Israel will suffer during this
period. It is Jacobs 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
Jacobs 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
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 Schwertleys eschatological position is Postmillennialism.
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
dispensationalists 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 Gods plan all along to include Gentile believers in the body
7
John Walvoord, The Rapture Question, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 21-22.
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.
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.
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.
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 Pauls 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
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 Strongs 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 Christs 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 Christs return is not meant to be a secret,
silent event. Can Pauls language be any plainer?
D. Michael Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians: The New American Commentary (Nashville,

Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1995), 149.
4
Enhanced Strongs Lexicon (1996), s.v. .
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.
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 Lords 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 (also , 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 , acclaiming Him as .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.
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 are used to denote that the
brethren went out to meet Paul. Ironically, dispensationalist Stanley D. Toussaint
agrees that the noun apantsin 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 Pauls 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 apantsin, 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 apantsin (). 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

IL: Victor Books, 1983), 429-430. Dr Toussaint was at that time the Chairman and Senior
Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary.
90
erroneous impression that Pauls 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 Lords 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 Todays World Events in Biblical Prophecy, 149-150.
Khoo, 1 Thessalonians, 32. Also see Khoo, Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, 133.
10
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 () 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
() 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 Gundrys discussion of The Day of the Lord in chapter six of his book.
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 Pauls 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
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 Christians duty nor destination to face
Gods 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 Gods 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 Christians duty nor destination to face Gods 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.
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
Christians 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 pretribulationists 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 Christs
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
Gods 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 Gods 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.
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. 1617 as one preceding and separate from the parousia, the
day of the Lord (cf. 5:49). 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. 1517 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.

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 () 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

Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 113.
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. Gods decisive act of repaying the enemies of Christs people
with affliction and rewarding the faithful for their endurance of affliction
will occur
(v. 7b) (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 (), 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 () 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.
98
The Lords 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
Gods will or nature (1 Cor 14:26; Gal 1:12, 16). It is only used here in the
Thessalonian correspondence. Elsewhere the Lords 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 () 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. Pauls 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
(), appearing (), and coming or presence
(, parousia). Almost all contemporary pretribulationists
acknowledge that the three terms are used indiscriminately for what they
regard as the two phases of Jesus return. appears in 1
Corinthians 1:7 and 1 Peter 1:7, 13; 4:13 concerning the hope of believers
in the present age. And appears in Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39 and 2
Thessalonians 2:8 concerning the posttribulational advent. Thus, the
4
5

Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, 225-226.
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 2:1-3 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. Dont 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 () 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
Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 158. Chapter 13 of Gundrys 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.
100
gathering of the saints are closely connected. Indeed, they are two parts of one great
event.8
This understanding is consistent with Pauls 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 Antichrists
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 Pauls discourse on Christs
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.
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 () 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 Pauls understanding of the eschaton. Paul wrote,
Dont 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.

102
must precede the Day of the Lord ( , 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 Pauls 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. . . . Pauls 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.
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 () 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 .15 Is
Gundry the only scholar who rejects this understanding of ? The fact is:
the majority of scholars, both Reformed and Dispensational, believe that
means a religious apostasy in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. According to Gundry, NT
Lexicons uniformly give 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 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 means a departure or rapture:
Although , 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
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.
104
of 2 Thessalonians 2, the rebellion referred to is a religious one directed

against God.17
In either case, whether 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 refers to a religious
apostasy in 2 Thessalonians 2:3:
In 2 Th. 2:3 is used in the absol. sense as an event of the last
days alongside or prior to (?) the appearance of the .
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
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
Gods truth to worship the Antichrist, who will set himself up in Gods
temple and claim to be God (v. 4).19
Therefore, both dispensational and non-dispensational exegetes understand the word
as referring to a religious apostasy prior to the unveiling of the Antichrist.
According to Pauls epistle, the parousia () of Christ follows two
prominent events in history the apostasy and the appearance of the Antichrist. Our
Lords 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
105
insurmountable barrier of a posttribulational understanding in 2 Thessalonians 2:112.
The Doctrine of Imminence

Is it true that Christs 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 Christs parousia is allegedly imminent. Gundry defines the
pretribulationists 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 Christs 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.
106
have expected an any-moment rapture. Peters predicted death in old age would
require a substantial amount of delay.
Christs 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
dispensationalists 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 Preterists understanding of the Olivet Discourse.
See Gundrys 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.
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 Jacobs 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 Messiahs 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 Pauls 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 Jacobs 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 Jacobs 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.
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 Khoos 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 professors 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 (mystrion) in that it had not
been known in the Old Testament but now was revealed. (Cf. other
mysteries now revealed truthsin 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
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.
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 Pauls Thessalonian discussion of the
Churchs 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
Pauls 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

Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co,
2003), 176.
31
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 Pauls 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 (), appearing
(), and coming ()]: 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, Pauls 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.
112
Chapter 8: The Multiple Resurrections and Judgments of

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 Christs 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
Todays 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
Walvoord, End Times: Understanding Todays 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
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 Christs parousia, one after the tribulation for
tribulation saints after Christs 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 Dispensationalists 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.
Walvoord, End Times: Understanding Todays World Events in Biblical Prophecy, 178
See ibid., 153-165 for the dispensationalists order of resurrections.
6
Ibid., 165.
7
See ibid., 167-184 for the dispensationalists order of judgments.
5
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
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
archangels 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 Christs 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 Christs 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
Christs 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
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 () 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
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 Lords 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 Fathers 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
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 (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.
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 Gods
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 Gods purpose.
Gods purpose is fully accomplished as he determined that purpose from
Herman Hanko, The Mysteries of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Jesus Parables, 2nd ed.
(Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1975), 54.
121
before the foundation of the world. . . . From Gods 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
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 Khoos 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
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.
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 Lords
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 Gods 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
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.
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).
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 Lords 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 Gods 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 Scribners 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), 177201; B. K. Smith, Obadiah, in Amos, Obadiah, Jonah:
New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 195201.
6
7
Grier, The Momentous Event, 54.
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 Christs
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 Christs 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 Todays 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.
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 Christs 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). Christs 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 Pauls 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).
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 Christs
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
lifes mortal enemy: death. Even though death continues to wield power as
Christs last enemy (v. 26), Paul knows that God will destroy it. Deaths
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 Premillennialists teaching that there will be death in the millennium.
How can there be death after the permanent defeat of Death at Christs 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.
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 Noahs time. There
will still be death.12
Evidently, Dr Queks 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 Pauls 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 Christs 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 Todays World Events in Biblical Prophecy, 199.
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 Christs 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 Christs 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 Christs Messianic work come. The words the end
suggest not only last in sequence but also the conclusion of Christs
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 Christs
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
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 Christs 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 Christs 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, Pauls Understanding of Christs 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.
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 Pauls
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 Gods 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
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 Pauls. 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
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 () days preceding the
consummation. 3. They proclaim Gods 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.
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 Testaments 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
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 Gods 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 LORDS 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.
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 Christs 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 Gods 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 Gods 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.
138
There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christs 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 Lords 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 Russells Best, ed. Robert E. Egner (London:Routledge, 1958),
53-54.
33
Kenneth S. Wuest, In These Last Days, Wuests Word Studies from the Greek New
Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1954), 65.
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 Isaiahs prophecy (Isa. 34:4), Peter predicts that the heavens will
34
Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 255.

140
vanish at Christs 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. Peters 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 Christs 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. Peters
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 Christs 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.
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 Christs
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 Hendricksens structural division of Revelation into seven parallel sections must only be
accepted as a general approach to Johns 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 Johns
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).
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
143
elucidates that the conflict is actually spiritual warfare between Christ and the devil.
It is the outward manifestation of the devils 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
Israels 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
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
144
When one attempts to interpret prophetic portions of the Book of Revelation, it

becomes difficult to distinguish between the two genres in Johns writings, that is,
apocalypse and prophecy. Johns 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 Johns 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 mans 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
Carson and Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 715.

11
Ibid., 80-81.
10
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 Johns Revelation.
Johns visions are not historical narrative. Poythress notes that a literal
understanding of individual words in Johns 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 Johns 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
14
Poythress, Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1-6, 41.
15
Ibid., 42.
146
The numbers and images found in Johns 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 5:68 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. 68). 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 Gods 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 19:78. The linguistic level consists in the
textual description of 19:78. 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 Johns 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 Johns 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.
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 () 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 Johns Apocalypse.
Ironically, those that advocate a strict literalism in hermeneutics have to reconsider
the flexibility of their literalism when interpreting portions of Johns 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 9:111 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.
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
passages 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.

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 Johns 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 Hendricksens 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 (19:1120:3), a subsequent interregnum (20:4
6), and a judgment of Satan and the nations following that interregnum (20:710).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 19:1120:10, 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) 28990, and G. E. Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of
John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951) 25963. See White, Reexamining the Evidence for
Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-10, 319 n. 1.
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 Satans 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 prophets 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 Christs 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:

152
The contention that there is a discrepancy in a chronological approach to

19:1120:3 is based on the observation that reading the events of 19:1121
and 20:13 in historical sequence does not yield a logically coherent
picture. The incongruence of 19:1121 and 20:13 surfaces when we
consider that 20:13 describes actions taken to prevent Satans deception of
the very nations who had just been destroyed in 19:1921 as a result of
their deception by Satan (16:1316). In other words, the discrepancy
consists in this: it makes no sense to speak of protecting the nations from
deception by Satan in 20:13 after they have just been both deceived by
Satan (16:1316, cf. 19:1920) and destroyed by Christ at his return in
19:1121 (cf. 16:15a, 19).6
Furthermore, if the nations are annihilated, and the wicked are judged at Christs
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 Christs 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 premillennialists
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 Christs 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.
153
Fowler White notes that in 19:1821, Johns narration emphasizes the

completeness and finality of Christs 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 Christs 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 Warriors kingdom-protectorate (5:910; cf. 3:10; 20:9).8
The Premillennialists 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
Premillennialists 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 Johns 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 19:1120:3 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 Johns 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
10
9
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 Ezekiels 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 Johns visions reiterate certain motifs used in Ezekiels 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
Gods enemies.
11
12

Ibid.
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 Ezekiels and
Johns visions are remarkable. Kline observes that most striking is the distinctive
motif of Gods 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 Christs victory over the beast and his
assembled armies in Rev 19:1718.13
In Revelation 19:21, Johns vision describes the fulfillment of Ezekiels 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 Lords 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 Gods 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.
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 Christs
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 Ezekiels
prophecy. On the contrary, Johns 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 Gods enemies at Christs
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 Christs Second Coming. With an understanding
of the recurring Har Magedon motifs in both Ezekiel 38-39 and Johns 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

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 Gods 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 Gods wrath envisioned by John in Revelation 15. In
Revelation 15:1, John explains that the seven last plagues will complete or
fulfill () Gods 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 Gods wrath is fulfilled or completed.
This means that, according to Revelation 15:1, the seven plagues will bring an end to
Gods 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 Gods
(temporal) wrath against the nations, Gods 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 Johns
apocalypse.
158
must coincide with Christs 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 Christs 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 Gods wrath in 16:17-21.
This coincidence of 19:19-21 with 16:17-21 means that Christs wrath in
19:11-21 falls within the time frame which 15:1 established for the
completion of Gods 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 Gods wrath against the wicked nations in human history. This wrath is,
of course, referring only to Gods temporal wrath and judgment against the nations,
and expressly excludes Gods eternal judgment against unbelievers. With the
fulfillment of Gods 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 Christs wrath in the battle of
20:7-10, and the completion of Gods 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 Gods wrath against the Gog-Magog rebels in 20:710 after Christs 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
Gods wrath on Gog-Magog and Satan after Christs return without
exceeding the deadline set for the completion of Gods wrath in 15:1.19
However, if we understand Revelation 20:7-10 as a recapitulation of 19:11-21,
Gods wrath against the Gog-Magog dissenters would fall comfortably within the
time frame established by 15:1 for the fulfillment of Gods 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
19
Ibid.
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 Johns Apocalypse, the exegete
must not ignore the visionary and symbolic meaning of the apostles writings. The
apocalyptic genre of Revelation demands that, in order to understand Johns vision
in Revelation 20:1-6 properly, the exegete must interpret the highly symbolical
meaning of the apostles 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 Satans 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
Seets paper Premillennialism, especially his aforementioned comments, fails to
do justice to the principles behind Reformed hermeneutics, and the amillennial
1
Seet, Premillennialism, 99.

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
Johns 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:

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.
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 Christs 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 Christs authority over death, Hades and even demonic powers, Beale
identifies the angel in 20:1 as Christs intermediary. Beale explains that Christs
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
Gods 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 Johns 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

Ibid.
6
Charles D. Alexander, Revelation Spiritually Understood (Trelawnyd, Wales: K & M
Books, 2001), 494.
5
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

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
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 Johns 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
Christs 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. Johns 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

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
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 Peters 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 Christs 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.

While it is now apparent that the thousand years begin with the binding of Satan, we
must begin to unravel the meaning inherent in Johns 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.
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 Ananiass 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 Satans temptations (1 Cor. 7:5; 2 Cor. 2:11; 11:14). It seems that
Satan has not been bound since Christs 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
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 Satans 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 Johns 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

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 Messiahs 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.
168
devil is thus bound, and this restraint of Satan is a direct result of Christs
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 Christs 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 Christs 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 mans 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 () 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. Satans grip
over the pagan nations was broken with the coming of Gods kingdom. The devil
can no longer prevent these nations from learning about the truth of Gods 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, Satans kingdom was being dealt a severe blow. A
restriction of the devils power or a binding of Satans influence over the pagan
22

Craig Blomberg, The New American Commentary Volume 22: Matthew (Nashville,
Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1992), 203.
23
169
nations had taken place. Robert Stein notes that in the exorcisms of the seventy(two), Jesus saw Satans defeat resulting from his coming.24
Satans 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 Christs
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 () is derived from
the root word translated cast () 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 Gods
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
Christs 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
26
Kistemaker, Exposition of the Book of Revelation, 535-536.
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 Gods 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). Christs 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 Johns 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.
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 Ezekiels 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 Gods 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 Christs 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
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 Gods 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 Christs 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 Christs return, Satan will
again be allowed, for a little time, to stop the preaching of the gospel and
34

Ibid., 497.
36
35
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 devils 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 Satans 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.
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 Johns 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

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 Johns 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)
() elsewhere in the book clearly locate the thrones in heaven. The
remaining three uses refer either to Satans or the beasts 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. Mller 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. Mller, 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 Noahs 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 (), therefore, is not used as a synecdoche in 20:4, and does not
refer to living bodies. Beale explains that,
Though soul () 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

Ibid.
8
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 ( , 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 Gods 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
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 Lords 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.
16
15
The Reign of Souls
179
physically resurrected at Christs 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 () translated by the phrase and they lived is
highly disputed. This verb is the aorist active indicative form of the primary verb zao
(), 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 Lords 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.
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 Alfords 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 (), 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

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (Boston: Lee and Shepard. 1872), IV, 732, quoted in
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 believers spiritual resurrection during conversion, or
the believers 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
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 Johns Apocalypse, we must consider four levels of communication in 20:1-6.
The linguistic level consists of the text of 20:16. The visionary level consists of
Johns 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
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 Johns
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 Johns
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
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 () 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
(resurrection) is found in Revelation only in 20:5-6. Moreover,
the ordinal first () 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 (Prtos) must be
explored in our interpretation of the phrase first resurrection.
Beale argues that (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 Gods 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
16
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 and (or the cognate noun , 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 premillennialists 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
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 (Prtos) are dealt with in detail by Meredith Kline.
It is Klines 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 prtos 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 Prtos, 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. Prtos 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 (Prtos) 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.
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.
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 Gods 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 Gods 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.
Prtos 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 prtos is used for the
provisional and transient stage in contrast to that which is consummative, final, and
enduring.27
Pauls 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
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 (prtos), 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 prtos 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 prtos does not convey an idea of priority
or preeminence, but rather provides a contrast and antithesis. The antithetical
function of prtos 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 prtos 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 prtos 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 prtos in the first-(second) resurrection pattern must be the same as
the usage of prtos 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 prtos 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
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.
Klines 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 Christians 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.
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

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 Johns 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 Johns Apocalypse, Westminster Theological
Journal 58, no. 2 (1996): 210-221.
37
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;
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 Catechisms 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
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.
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?
For a commentary on Question 88, see Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism: A
Commentary, 206-209.
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.
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
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]
churchs 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

John A. Battle, Eschatology in the Bible Presbyterian Church, Western Reformed
Seminary 11, no. 2 (2004): 19-20.
12
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.
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
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 Christs 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.
203
not understand a day to mean a literal day.20 But in his reiteration of David
Coopers 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 Presbyterians version of
the Confession.
21
22
Timothy Tow, The Truth Shall Make You See (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press,
1999), 26.
204
In verses 11-16 Isaiah spoke of the Lords 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
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

IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1300.
27
28
Ibid., 41.
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.
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 Presbyterians 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 Daniels prophecy. The 70th
week of Daniel begins with the Antichrists 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 Daniels 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, Daniels 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
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 Daniels 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, Daniels
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 Daniels seventy weeks forms an indispensable foundation for
Bible Presbyterian eschatology. According to Gentry:
The chronology provided in Daniels 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), 400401.
6
Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 320-321, quoting Robert Duncan Culver, Daniel and the
Latter Days, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), 144.
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 Daniels 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 Daniels 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.
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 Daniels 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 Christs 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
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 Youngs
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.
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
Messiahs passive obedience his atoning sacrifice encompasses the work of
breaking the power of sin over Gods 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). Christs 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.
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
213
ix. 12) for all His elect.16 Both Gentry and Young argue that the anointing in verse
24 speaks of the Christs 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 Christs 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 Daniels 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

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
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 Daniels
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

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
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 earths 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

Kline, The Covenant of the Seventieth Week, 468-469. According to Leviticus 25:1-22,
the first seven weeks of years of Daniels 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
216
Edward Young, however, restrains himself from drawing a dogmatic conclusion

with regard to the timing of the seventieth weeks 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 Daniels 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 Daniels 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.
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 Daniels 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

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.
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
Daniels 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.
219
crucifixion!5 From McClains mathematical calculations, Tow apparently thinks

that Christs 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 McClains 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
Gods beloved Son.8
Nonetheless, it is obvious that Far Eastern Bible College follows McClains
parenthesis interpretation faithfully, including his arithmetic.
The Cutting-Off of Messiah Not in the 70th Week

A study of Timothy Tows 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
McClains 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.
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 Khoos 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 Dispensationalists 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 Daniels prophecy of 490 years. Despite the
Bible Presbyterians 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.
See Tow, Visions of the Princely Prophet, 93. In Tows 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 Gods
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.
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 Seets 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 Seets 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,
Seets 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.
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 Daniels prayer in 9:20-27, the seventy years of captivity was drawing to a
close. According to Daniels understanding, the seventy years of Jeremiahs
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 Israels 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
223
Therefore, just as Daniel understood the seventy years of Israels 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 Israels 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 Israels 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 didnt
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. Lets
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.
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 Daniels 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 Presbyterians 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 Jeremiahs 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
Daniels 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.
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 Daniels 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 Nebuchadnezzars 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 Daniels 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

Ibid., 119.
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 Daniels 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 Daniels
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 Daniels 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
Nebuchadnezzars 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 Daniels 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
26
DeMar, Last Days Madness, 326.
27
Ibid.
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 Israels
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

Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, 257.
30
Tow, Visions of the Princely Prophet, 94.
29
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 Gods 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
Gods 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

33
Young, Daniel, 208-209.
34
Kline, The Covenant of the Seventieth Week, 463.
32
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 brt.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. krat.
37
Ibid.
38
Kline, The Covenant of the Seventieth Week, 465.
36
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 Daniels 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 Daniels 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 Christs 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 Daniels 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

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 Christs 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 Christs 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, Christs Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel, Grace Theological
Journal 6, no. 2 (1985): 215.
4
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 Ezekiels 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 Lords 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 Christs 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, Christs 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, Christs Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in
Israel, 210.
7
See John L. Mitchell, The Question of Millennial Sacrifices, Bibliotheca Sacra 110
(1953): 248ff.
6
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 Christs
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 Ezekiels Temple Vision

The dispensationalists 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 Ezekiels 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 Ezekiels vision of
the temple, Ezekiels 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:
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
234
The fourth temple that will be built in the millennial rule of Christ is also
known as Ezekiels 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 Ezekiels visions in chapters 40 to 46 is
hermeneutically flawed. Due to the genre of Ezekiels 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 Solomons temple, the second
being Herods temple, which was subsequently destroyed in A.D. 70 by General Titus. The
third is the dispensationalists tribulation temple. See Koshy, The Millennial Temple, 2425. The existence of a third temple is implied by the dispensationalists parenthesis
interpretation of Daniel 9:27.
13
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
Ezekiels 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 Ezekiels temple vision, and combines the last two
lines of interpretation in his understanding of the visionary elements. He reasons that
Ezekiels vision likely pertains to the heavenly temple corresponding to Gods
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 Ezekiels 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 Christs sacrifice and the churchs imitation of that sacrifice.19 In other words, a
literalistic understanding of Ezekiels language denies the prophets 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 Churchs 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.
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.
Ezekiels 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 mens 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
Gods 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 Gods
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.
237
is hereby introduced to the theological realities awaiting his own people.

Whereas [Ezekiel] 37:26-27 had spoken of the establishment of Yahwehs
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.
Ezekiels 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 Blocks understanding of an ideal temple, Beale sees an eschatological
focus within Ezekiels temple vision. Beale believes that [Blocks] 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 Ezekiels 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 Gods 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 Churchs Mission, 346.
24
See Beale, The Temple and the Churchs Mission, 346-354. Also study the parallels
between Johns description of the Temple City in Revelation, and Ezekiel 40-48. This is
conveniently tabulated in Beale, The Temple and the Churchs Mission, 351.
25
Ibid., 350.
238
If Revelation 21-22 is the fulfillment, then Ezekiels temple is not to be

established in a temporary millennial period, but in the eternal new
heavens and earth, which is the setting of Johns final vision.26
The strength of Beales interpretation lies in his combined usage of the Analogy of
Faith, and the principle of progressive revelation. Ezekiels 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. Gods 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, Gods 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
Gods unique presence in the structural temple in the Old Testament to the Godman, Christ, the true temple. As a result of Christs resurrection, the Spirit continued
building the end-time temple, the building materials of which are Gods 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 Churchs Mission, 392-393.
27
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 ones exegesis of them and to reject a
careless literalism.30
Concerning his understanding of Ezekiels 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 Ezekiels 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 Jehovahs 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.
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 Lords 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 Lords Supper has
permanently substituted the Jewish ordinance of the Passover Feast. The Lords
Supper is to be a permanent ordinance for the Church of Christ, which
commemorates the Lords 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.
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 Ezekiels 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

Koshy, The Millennial Temple, 29.
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 Ezekiels 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 Ezekiels 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.
243
If we are already reconciled to God in Christ, and if believers can now approach the
Holy of Holies by virtue of Christs 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 Jerusalems 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.
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 Christs 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). Christs 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. Christs self-offering is definitive,
efficacious, final and complete.
The notion that it is Gods will to reinstitute the Levitical ritual of legal sacrifice is,
to say the least, a mockery of Christs death and passion for His people.
39

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 Christs 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 Messiahs 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
Gods perspective, this was surely a major purpose of animal sacrifices; but
1
2
Whitcomb, Christs Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel, 208.

Ibid., 211.
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
Christs death provides atonement for sins in the eternal, infinite, and soteriological
sense.
Contrary to Koshys 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 legalnot 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 15:2229], not defiantly, in open
rebellion against God himself [Num 15:3036]), he was actually forgiven through an
atonement (a ritual cleansing; cf. Heb 9:10, 13) made by the priest (Num 15:2526). See
Whitcomb, Christs 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 Churchs Mission, 344.
5
Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 204 n. 16.
247
It is, consequently, indubitably clear that Koshys 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
Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 90, emphasis mine.

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 Koshys, Ryries, and Goldbergs 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
Ezekiels 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 Koshys 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.
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 Ezekiels
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
Dispensationalist Opinion, 13.
12
13
H. L. Ellison, Ezekiel: The Man and His Message (London: Paternoster, 1956), 140, quoted
in Beale, The Temple and the Churchs Mission, 344.
14
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.
Whitcombs View and Far Eastern Bible College

It is notable that Whitcombs paper, Christs 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 Khoos reliance upon Whitcombs paper
is evident in the following statement:
As regards the millennial temple and sacrifices, read Gary Cohen,
Ezekiels City: A Millennial Vision, Zions Fire (July-August 1998): 1823; Prabhudas Koshy, The Millennium Temple, The Burning Bush
(January 2000): 23-31; and John C. Whitcomb, Christs 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. Koshys view contradicts Whitcombs 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 Christs 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.
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 Ezekiels 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 Whitcombs view of the Ezekielian sacrifices:
17
Whitcomb, Christs Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel, 212-213, quoting Allis,
Prophecy and the Church, 246.
18
Ibid., 213.
19
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
Masters 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.
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
characteristicsa 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 Ezekiels 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 4048 ) 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, Christs Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel, 216.

Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
23
254
animal sacrifices will once again serve as a pedagogical or instructional

resource for millennial Israel.
Whitcombs 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
Whitcombs 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 Whitcombs reasoning found in his paper.
Whitcombs 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 Christs 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
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 10:12), 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 50:715; Isa 1:1220; Amos 4:45; 5:2027; Hos
5:6; Mic 6:68; Jer 6:20; 7:2123 ). 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
Whitcombs view of the Ezekielian sacrifices is also more consistent with the literal
hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, especially when compared to Koshys
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, Christs Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel, 209-210.
31
Ibid., 210.
32
Ibid.
30
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 Christs 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 Whitcombs reasoning lies in his attempt to differentiate
ceremonial and spiritual atonement.35 In order to avoid the clear theological
implications of Christs 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., 209.
35
Ibid., 211.
36
Ibid.
34
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 Christs 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 Christs 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 Christs sacrifice.37
Whitcomb reasons that these sin and burnt offerings in the Millennium Temple do
not function on the level of Calvarys 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 Calvarys 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 4:17). 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 Christs 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

Whitcomb, Christs Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel, 217, emphasis mine.
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 Gods people for Christ sake, and even the sacrifices of praise
(Heb. 13:15-16), are acceptable to God by virtue of Christs 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, Pauls 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,
Ezekiels 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. 1523). 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

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
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 Calvarys 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 Christs 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 Christs
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
Christs 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.

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 Christs 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
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. Gods
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 810).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 Christs 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 Christs sacrifice, for Christ has
appointed another memorial of his death till he come.43
How can a Reformed theologian even begin to embrace Whitcombs 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 Ezekiels 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
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.
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
Ibid., 67-68.
Ibid., 68.
6
5
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 Gods 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 Gods 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 Gods plan in history. This definition omits anything
that is unique to dispensationalism. Virtually every system of Christian
theology recognizes various administrations or economies within Gods
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.
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 [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
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
11
Ibid., 11.
12
Ibid.
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 Gods 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 Feinbergs
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.
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.

20
21
Ibid., 7. The section on Dispensational Antinomianism forms part of Khoos treatise on
what Dispensationalism is and is not.
19
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.

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 Masters Seminary, who is a self-professed five-point Calvinist, as well as a fullblooded Dispensationalist.
23
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 Khoos 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
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
Presbyterians 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
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 ones 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.
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 Gods 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
37
Ibid., 40.
38
See Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 40-41.
35
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 Gods 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.
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 Gods 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 Gods 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 Ices 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 Euclids 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.
274
distinction in ones 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 Gods dealings in
Christianity are completely personal so a restored national Israel is unthinkable; (ii) those who
believe in Israels 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
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
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.
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 Ryries 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
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
4
Mathison, Dispensationalism, 8, emphasis mine.
2
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. Darbys] 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
Gods single program of redemption begun in Israel. It is
dispensationalisms 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 dispensationalists 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 Gods 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:
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.
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 Gods 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
Gods program with Israel and His program with the church, and that
underscores the theological rather than the soteriological nature of Gods
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
Robert P. Lightner, Theological Perspectives on Theonomy, Bibliotheca Sacra 143

(1986): 34, quoting Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 44.
9
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:
Heres my dispensationalism - Ill give it to you in one sentence: theres 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
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.
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 Darbys 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.
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, Ryries
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 Gods
earthly people and the church as Gods 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. 12:2224).18
Revised Dispensationalists perceive two groups of Gods 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

Progressive Views, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids, MI, MI: Kregel, 1999), 272.
17
Ibid., 273.
18
Campbell, The Church in Gods Prophetic Program, 149-150, quoting Ryrie,
Dispensationalism Today, 154, emphasis mine.
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
Christs millennial reign, and serving God along with other members of His
family in the New Jerusalem for all eternity.19
Israels 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 Davids
19
20
Ibid., 161.
Blaising, Development of Dispensationalism by Contemporary Dispensationalists, 276.
283
throne in any sense. Unlike Progressives, Revised Dispensationalists do not accept

the proposition that Christs messianic kingdom reign has begun.
Burns writes:
A more moderate dispensational position has arisen in recent years. On the
basis of the New Testaments use of crucial Old Testament texts,
progressive dispensationalists acknowledge degrees of Old Testament
content in the church, though complete fulfillment of Israels promises
awaits the Millennium as an intermediate kingdom that exists with Israels
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 Gods 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 Gods 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
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 Israels 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
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 Presbyterians and the
Revised Dispensationalists theology of the Kingdom.
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 Israels 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 Israels 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 Gods
kingdom purpose, Israel in its historic meaning will yet fulfill its promised
destiny.3
The Dispensationalists understanding of Israels 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.
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 Gods reign. The
Kingdom of God involves two great moments: fulfillment within history,
and consummation at the end of history.6
Expanding upon Ladds 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 Gods 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
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.
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 Presbyterians and the Revised
Dispensationalists 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 3:35, Rom 14:17, and Col 1:13 refers to the present phase of Gods 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
Christs 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 Christs 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

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.
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 Presbyterians
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 Presbyterians 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 Christs rule at the end of the millennium. Allegedly, Satan will lead the
revolt.
10
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 Dispensationalists 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. Gods program for Israel is theocratic and earthly; Gods 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 Mangums 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 Gods program . . . . George
Eldon Ladd, Historic Premillennialism, in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed.
Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977), 20.
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
Seminarys 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 Pauls 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 Pauls Epistle to the Romans, 379-382.
18
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
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 Israels 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 individuals 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

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
Mangums paper, A Future for Israel in Covenant Theology: The Untold Story, only
serves to undergird this fact. This is true despite Mangums 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 Mangums 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
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 dont 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
Dispensationalists 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 Dispensationalists 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

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
293
According to the Classical and Revised Dispensationalists understanding, prophetic

passages such as Ezekiel 40-48 indicate a future restoration of the Levitical
priesthood, complete with a revival of the animal sacrificial systemindications, 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 Presbyterians 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 Presbyterians 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 Dispensationalists view:
Based on Gods promise that he would establish the kingdom of Davids
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 Israels 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 Christs 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
28
Ibid.
29
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 Christs resurrection and
ascension, God fulfilled his promise that Davids 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 Presbyterians concept of the millennial Kingdom, particularly their
perception of the earthly millennial reign as the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant,
30

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
295
is very close to that of the Normative/Revised Dispensationalists. Khoo further

clarifies the Bible Presbyterian view:
Is Christ sitting on the throne of David right now in the Church Age?
According to Buswell, Christs 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 Davids throne was not only future, but also strictly Jewish and
Davidic. He did not think of Jesus sitting right now at the Fathers right
hand to be a fulfillment of the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7:1214). Buswell
thought of Christs sitting at the Fathers right hand as the resumption of his
royal omnipotence which he temporarily gave up (but always possessed) at
the time of the incarnation. Christs 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 Dispensationalists concept of the Kingdom, the
Bible Presbyterians view is definitely closer to that of the Normative
Dispensationalist. According to Khoos perception, Buswells 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 Christs 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 Davids 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

Buswell to the Millennial Debate, 714, quoting Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the
Christian Religion, 2:352; 2:347.
35
Ibid.
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 Presbyterians 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
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.
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 ones
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

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
298
Daniels 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 Presbyterians 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 Daniels 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
Daniels 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, Gods 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

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 Daniels prophecy.
48
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 Scofields 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 Scofields
view. However, Henzel argues that Walvoord wasnt preparing to totally abandon [Lewis
Sperry] Chafers Two New Covenant view. Ronald M. Henzel, Darby, Dualism, and the
Decline of Dispensationalism (Tucson, AZ: Fenestra Books, 2003), 176. Also see Henzels
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, Khoos 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
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 Dispensationalists 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.
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 Gods
covenant people in succession.12
On the dispensational-covenantal continuum, the Progressive Dispensationalists
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
Progressive Views, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids, MI, MI: Kregel, 1999), 208.
11
Ibid., 210.
12
Ibid.
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 Dispensationalists 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 Reymonds arguments presented in pp. 525-528.
15
Ibid., 406.
14
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 Lords 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 Wares 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
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 Jeremiahs 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 Bibles 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 Gods 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
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 Khoos 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
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.
306
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. Ones 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 Gertsners 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 Gods 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 Christs return to establish it. Dispensationalists identify
that purpose as being the fulfillment of Gods promises to Israel of a
messianic reign of righteousness and peace with Israel as the head, and not
the tail (Deut 28:13; cf. 30:15) 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
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 Gods 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 Gods 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 Presbyterians 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 (18951977) of Faith Theological Seminary is a founding
Bible Presbyterian theologian,31 it is interesting to note Khoos description of
Buswell:
[Buswells] 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 Israels part in the Second Coming of Christ and her preeminence during our Lords 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.
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 Gods redemptive plan
would ultimately redound to His glory.32
Bible Presbyterianism has developed much since Buswells 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

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
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

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 Khoos description of Buswell. The
title of this paper is also telling he labels the Bible Presbyterians 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.
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.

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 Blaisings 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 Pauls
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.
Gods dealings with Israel were arbitrarily terminated towards the end of the 69th
week of Daniels 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 Pauls 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 ones race or
nationality, but genuine faith in our risen Lord.
By understanding the Church as being distinct from Gods 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
Daniels 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

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. Ryries threefold test with flying colors;10 they subscribe
wholeheartedly to the sine qua non of dispensationalism.11

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 Churchs 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
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 Lindseys 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
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.
Johns Revelation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1963.
________. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Pauls
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. Daniels 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: Pauls 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
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.
Mller, 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
________. 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
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 Johns Apocalypse. Westminster
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.

Rushdoony, Rousas John. Thy Kingdom Come: Studies in Daniel and Revelation.
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 Gods 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 Scribners 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
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.
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 Todays 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. Christs Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel. Grace
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.
Williamson, G. I., ed. The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary.
Willis, W. R. and J. R. Master, eds. Issues in Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody,
1994.
Witherington III, Ben. Grace In Galatia: A Commentary on Pauls 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.
________. Wuests 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

Bible Presbyterianism: A Need For Redefinition?

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Bible Presbyterianism: A Need For Redefinition?

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Bible Presbyterianism: A Need for Redefinition?

2006 by Vincent Chia

Israel and the Church in Bible Presbyterian Ecclesiology 1

An Introduction to Bible Presbyterian Hermeneutics

The Epistle to the Galatians and Pauls Ecclesiology

The Promised Land

Israel and the Promised Land 63

The Pre-Tribulation Rapture

An Introduction to the Pretribulation Rapture 82

1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 and the Rapture

Meeting with the Lord 89

2 Thessalonians and the Rapture

The Multiple Resurrections and Judgments of

The Multiple Resurrections and Judgments 113

The Teachings of the Epistles Concerning the Resurrection

The General Resurrection and Final Judgment in the Epistles

An Introduction to Revelation 20:1-6

The Structure of Revelation 142

Evidence for Recapitulation in Revelation 20

The Chronological Fallacy 150

The Seven Bowls of Revelation 15 and the Completion of

The Binding of Satan

The Reign of Souls

The First Resurrection

Dispensational Premillennialism and the Westminster

The Westminster Standards and Eschatology 195

Daniel 9:24-27 and the Traditional Messianic Interpretation

Daniel 9:24-27 and the Parenthesis Interpretation of Bible

The Triumphal Entry of Jesus as the Terminus Ad Quem of

The Millennium Temple and the Problem of Millennial

The Ezekielian Sacrifices

The Memorial View of the Ezekielian Sacrifices 246

Bible Presbyterianism and Dispensationalism

Introduction: The Dispensational-Covenantal Continuum

The Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism

The Israel/Church Distinction is the Sine Qua Non of

Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 1

Applications of the Israel/Church Distinction Part 2

The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 300

Bible Presbyterianism: A Need for Redefinition?

Book Review by Pastor J. Kortering

Book Review by Rev K. A. Harris

As a critique of Dispensationalism this thesis is devastating. As a critique of the

Chapter 1: The Distinction between Israel and the Church

The Distinction between Israel and the Church

The Doctrine of the Church in the Westminster Standards

number of particular congregations.12 Therefore, according to the Westminster

Johannes G. Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary, ed. G. I. Williamson

Question 64: What is the invisible church?

Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary, 142.

The Distinction between Israel and the Church

The Distinction between Israel and the Church

There are Reformed theologians who believe in a future conversion of a large

See David A. Rausch, Christian Zionism, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed.

of individual believers throughout this great chapter? Some of the

The Distinction between Israel and the Church

peoples, dispensationalism holds that God has two wives. For

David J. Engelsma, A Brief Study of Jeremiah 3 on Divorce, Protestant Reformed

Reformed Ecclesiology a Heresy?

Churchs attitude should be toward heretical ideas like those of

Replacement Theology or Supersessionism

Ibid., emphasis mine.

The Distinction between Israel and the Church

become a part of the new religion that superseded Judaism (whether