Psalm 45 Publications

A Cursory Examination of the Eschatological Expectation of the Scriptures

It is an interesting observation that the subject of “the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Tit. 2:13), has a greater portion of scripture dedicated to its detailed examination than almost any other single subject; and yet it is perhaps the least agreed upon subject in professing evangelicalism at large. It may be fair to say that all of evangelicalism looks forward to the appearing of Christ in all his glory; but the different sequences of events leading up to, and the different circumstances surrounding that appearing are almost endlessly diverse. Amillennialism, postmillenialism, historic premillenialism, dispensational premillennialism, pre-, mid-, and post-tribulationalism — these and a hundred other “-isms”, each in a thousand different flavors, indicate a very daunting milieu in which to examine eschatological expectations with any degree of certainty. Is it possible that the root problem underlying the widespread confusion and the proliferation of eschatological systems is the decontextualization of eschatology itself? In other words, could there be too strong a tendency in modern scholarship to look at the scriptures as a somewhat diverse collection of various genres of inspired literature, each answering to its own theological intent? If the different portions of scripture each arose to address some specific situation, and if the exigencies of the time, culture, and circumstantial necessities determined to a large degree why inspired writings were added to the canon, what form they took, and what subjects they addressed; then that understanding has necessary implications for how the interpreter goes about the process of studying. In attempting to understand the prophecies of Daniel, for instance, the interpreter must be eminently concerned with the circumstances in which he wrote and the common culture of the day; and with regard to these preliminary considerations he may undertake the task of interpreting the symbolic significance of all his dreams and visions. But does this approach really give the serious student a solid enough foundation to interpret confidently? The milieu of sixth century Babylon as a contextual grid for understanding Daniel’s prophecies is too narrow a foundation to provide sufficient guidance for the interpretive task. Is the abomination of desolations which he speaks of to find its fulfillment in the temple desecration of Antiochus Epiphanes? Or does the prophecy demand a fuller fulfillment in an end time personal antichrist, who will be essentially an antitype of Antiochus Epiphanes, and will desecrate a future Jewish temple, and put an end to a God-ordained return to a commemorative sacrificial system carried out by his earthly people, national Israel? Or on the other hand, does the prophecy look forward to a fulfillment consistent with the New Covenant shift of types and shadows to spiritual realities, and find its ultimate answer in the persecutions and blasphemies of the Medieval Papacy? These questions cannot easily be answered by an isolated study of the book of Daniel without its first being placed in the unified progression of revelatory history. But with a broader perspective, these dilemmas can be approached with a greater degree of certainty. It is the author’s belief that understanding the unfolding of God’s eternal redemptive plans as a unified and organic progression, like a mustard seed growing into a mature plant, is a sufficient foundation for answering these questions. God’s plan for the ages is marked by a vast and Christocentric unity. And in the unfolding of historical events, as well as the inscripturation of biblical materials, he is ever at work to cause the mustard seed of the gospel, as first recorded in Genesis 3:15, to develop into the fully grown tree that inhered in the seed from the beginning. That is, the bible was not added to in response to circumstantial necessities, but the very circumstances, as well as God’s scriptural interpretation of those unfolding circumstances, read like a unified epic, and point to a certain conclusion. When this understanding is obscured, confusion reigns. If we attempt to isolate prophecies of the eschaton from their position in God’s unfolding story of redemption, we are left with no certain standard of interpretation. The minute examination of individual tesserae yields only limited results. The simple observation of their placement in a mosaic reveals the intended picture, and therefore, the precise functioning of each tessera. In light of these considerations, the purpose of this article will be to place the study of eschatology within the broad context of redemptive history, and to draw some necessary conclusions from that redemptive-contextual framework. From the outset, the author realizes the massive difficulties inherent in this attempt, and will welcome any dialogue questioning the conclusions drawn in this article, or refining the interpretation of the scriptural passages made use of. May Christ ever be using such constructive exegetical debate to move his entire body closer to a full understanding of the faith!

Foundational Considerations

If scriptural history is a unified history of the person and work of the promised Messiah, then we may expect to find elements of the first mention of that Messiah which will imply the nature of the work that he was planning to accomplish. The first prophecy of Christ was given in response to a foundation that had just been laid, showing the need for his coming. Accordingly, we find listed for us in the first three chapters of Genesis what God’s expectations for mankind were from the beginning, and how, through sin, mankind became unable to fulfill those expectations. These primeval expectations laid upon original man have two aspects: an upward aspect, in relation to God his Creator; and a downward aspect, in relation to the rest of creation, which God had placed under his feet. With regard to God, man was expected to obey him and find joy in a personal fellowship and pure-hearted worship. With regard to creation, man was expected to show forth the image of God in a righteous and just dominion over the earth and all its inhabitants. When the devil, in the form of a serpent, enticed man to sin, he destroyed man’s ability to fellowship with a holy God. He also destroyed man’s ability to display accurately God’s image in his subjugation of the earth. It is in this context that God established his covenant relationship of grace with mankind, and promised a Messiah that would crush the serpent. No evangelical questions the necessity of the promised Christ to destroy the effects of Satan’s temptation with regard to the upward aspect of man’s original responsibility. Through sin, man lost his innocence, and thereby his ability to worship and enjoy fellowship with a holy God. Man needs a Redeemer and Forgiver of sins, and only Christ, truly God and truly man, could be sufficient to restore man’s lost righteousness and fellowship with God. But if it was prophesied that this Christ would destroy the serpent, and if this serpent also led to man’s inability to fulfill his obligations with regard to the creation under him, then the gospel promise of Genesis 3:15 points no less emphatically to a redemptive work that would enable him to have dominion over all the earth. If even weeds and thistles came as a result of the fall of Adam, then the promise of a Redeemer points to one who would conquer weeds and thistles, and place the earth once again under the dominion of man. In other words, the Christ of Genesis 3:15 has a broader task than simply restoring man’s relationship to God. He must also restore man’s relationship to the world beneath him.

This conclusion is borne out as God’s redemptive plan is more clearly seen in the progress of revelation. When David testifies that God has placed all things under man’s feet, and the author of Hebrews observes that we do not yet see all things in subjection to man, we must conclude that God’s expectations for mankind in regard to the earth beneath him have not changed after the fall, and that they have not yet fully been realized in the present state of affairs. But we see Jesus, who tasted death for every man, and was crowned with glory and honor upon his victorious ascension from the grave; and in this sight we apprehend a Redeemer who, as the consummate man, must restore man’s dominion over the earth in order to fulfill all that was prophesied of him Ps. 8:4-8; Hb. 2:6-9. Only a Redeemer who restores the dominion of man over the earth answers the expectations of Genesis 3:15.

That God’s covenant of grace includes man’s original responsibilities to the earth beneath him becomes very evident when we observe the reiteration and expansion of the covenant at key historical events. When God established his covenant with Noah, and so preserved the promise of a coming seed, he was very clear to repeat in that covenant that his expectations for man to rule the earth had not changed. Hence we find the command, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” And again, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, his blood shall be shed by man; for He made man in the image of God. And you be fruitful and multiply. Bring forth abundantly in the earth, and increase in it.” In addition, God makes clear that his covenant, established on the basis of the coming work of Christ, is not merely with mankind, but involves all of creation as well. As God clearly says, “Behold! I, even I, establish My covenant with you, and with your seed after you; and with every living creature that is with you, of the birds, of the cattle, and of every animal of the earth with you; from all that go out from the ark, to every animal of the earth” (Gn. 9:1-11). The expectation of Christ included a restoration of all the earth, not simply a restoration of man’s fallen soul.

When God further develops and establishes his covenant with Abraham, the idea of a restored and fruitful land is once again very apparent. At the official inauguration of God’s covenant with Abraham, he solemnly swears, “I am Jehovah that brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit it.” And a little later on, “I have given this land to your seed, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates” (Gn. 15:1-18). Throughout Israel’s history, this promise of a fruitful land, answering to the original paradise of Eden, remains a key factor in the covenant expectations of God’s people.

The next major event in the unfolding of God’s eternal plan of redemption is the establishment of his covenant with David. In this covenant, God promises that a seed of David will reign on his throne forever; thus the expectation of the coming Messiah is not only that he be a Savior and Redeemer of his people, but also that he be an eternal king, ruling over the earth without end. The significance of this development should be immediately apparent: Christ, born of the line of David and therefore fully human, will fulfill the original dominion mandate placed upon mankind. But even more striking is the immediate context of the covenant inauguration. David had desired to build a house in which the Lord of Hosts might dwell among his people. In response to this desire, God declares that, instead, he himself will build a place where his people can dwell in fellowship with him: “And I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them so that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more. Neither shall the sons of wickedness afflict them any more, as before. And even from the time that I commanded judges to be over My people of Israel, so will I cause you to rest from all your enemies. Also Jehovah tells you that He will make you a house” (II Sm. 7:10,11). So we find that God will indeed dwell among his people in a land that will be cleansed from corruption by evildoers; but this great work will be accomplished by God himself, through the coming seed of David, the long-awaited Messiah, and not by any attempt of fallen mankind. All of this is in strict accordance with our initial expectation from Genesis 3:15 that the restorative work of Christ will involve a re-establishment of righteous dominion over the earth, so that man will not only be able to experience a renewed fellowship with God, but that he will experience it in a renewed place, a land in which the effects of sin are reversed. A perusal of the royal psalms — both of the King and of his kingdom — make it very evident that David himself, as well as the other psalmists, understood God’s covenant with him in this manner. In Psalm 2 we read that Christ will exercise an absolute and sovereign reign over the entire earth, in which the wicked will be utterly destroyed, but those who put their trust in him will be blessed. Furthermore, he will reign from Zion, the seat of the kingdom: and in this circumstance we may derive the understanding that a place which is restored from the effects of man’s fall is just as integral to the expectation of the promised Messiah as the reality of his dominion. Christ must reign over the hearts of men — indeed, he must change them, replacing stony hearts with hearts of flesh — in order to fulfill prophecy. But in addition, he must reign over the earth itself, changing its cursed state to a condition similar to that before the fall, in order to meet the expectations of the Messianic psalms. For this reason, we find frequently repeated throughout the psalms not merely praise for the coming King, but a rejoicing in the seat of his kingdom, which is so gloriously described in such psalms as 48 and 72 that nothing other than a restored earth can fittingly answer to these descriptions. The latter is particularly clear in looking ahead to the dominion of the coming King over the earth itself. In the days of his consummate kingdom, even the tops of the hills will be filled with grain: and that this fruitfulness is essentially connected with a reversal of the curse is evident from the declaration that “The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills by righteousness” (Ps. 72:3). The restored seat of Christ’s kingdom will be a place characterized by peace and righteousness as well as abundant fruitfulness.

Prophetic Development of the Covenant Expectation of a Restored Earth

As we turn to the prophets to examine this theme of a restored land in the redemptive work of the Messiah, we find nothing to challenge our previous expectations; on the contrary, the theme is emphasized and intensified far more than in any preceding portion of scripture, just as we would assume from our understanding of the progressing clarity of the revelation of God’s redemptive plan. Therefore, in passages such as Isaiah 65, we read that “Sharon will be a fold of flocks, and the Valley of Achor a resting-place of herds for My people who have sought Me” (Is. 65:10). This promise of the latter day fruitfulness of real geographical locations is extreme to the point of a massive reversal of the curse, so that “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the food of the snake. They will not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, says Jehovah” (Is. 65:25). Similar prophetic passages containing a high degree of eschatological optimism are almost endless, but for time’s sake it may be expedient to mention just one of the broadest and most inclusive glimpses we have of the coming triumph of the Christ at the end of the age. Nebuchadnezzar’s famous dream of the statue gives a clear indication that the major world empires would have all ostensible earthly power for just a little while longer. Then, in the days of the Roman world power, the Messianic King would crush the kingdoms of this world, and his kingdom in turn would spread until it fills the earth, and Christ reigns in peace over a fruitful land. The expectation of a glorious king and a restored land over which he must reign reaches its pitch fervor in the longings of the prophets.

But do the prophets give us any further indication of the nature of this coming kingdom or the means of this restoration? In light of the statue of Nebuchadnezzar, and similar prophecies, it is understandable that the Jews of Christ’s day were looking for an immediate physical restoration of political authority and earth-fruitfulness. All they had seen in the past conditioned the heart unenlightened by faith to be looking for a kingdom that was essentially the same as the glorious theocratic state in their own past, and the subsequent world powers that followed David and Solomon. But the problem with this expectation is that they missed a vital point in connection with the glorious prophecies of Christ’s coming kingdom: it was to come through the power of the gospel, and it was to be a kingdom essentially different from that which was fitting for the time when God’s people was under a schoolmaster, in the age of shadows. The message of the prophets clearly demands a change from the old types to the spiritual realities which they were intended to convey. Take for example our passage in Isaiah 65, which begins with the declaration, “I am sought by those who asked not for Me; I am found by those who did not seek Me. I said, Behold Me, behold Me, to a nation not calling on My name. I have spread out My hands all the day to a rebellious people who walk in the way not good, after their own thoughts;” In Romans 10, Paul unmistakably declares that this passage is referring to God’s casting off of physical Israel as his people, and bringing in the Gentiles to share in all of Israel’s blessings, with no ethnic distinctions or favoritism. Therefore, when we read a little later the promise of God that, “I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah one who inherits My mountains; and My elect will inherit it, and My servants will dwell there” (Is. 65:9), we can only understand by this that the new “seed of Jacob” in the eschatological expectation of the prophets is not a physical seed, but rather one who believes, as faithful Abraham. Or in the words of the apostle Paul, “if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29). These considerations must lead us to an understanding that the blessings of the coming Christ involve a change from the Old Covenant types and shadows to the spiritual realities of the New Covenant. This change from types to realities is so pervasive throughout the writings of the prophets that one cannot miss it without doing serious damage to his ability to grasp the prophetic message. In Isaiah 66, we read that God will call Israel’s brothers from every nation, and choose some of them to be priests and Levites; in accordance with which, Peter tells us that the church of his day, including ethnic Jews and Gentiles, is “built up into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (Is. 66:18-21; 1 Pt. 2:5). Furthermore, we read in Hosea that God will cast off his people so utterly that they become “lo-ammi” — “not-my-people”. However, this “not-my-people” will again become “my-people,” and “the sons of Israel” When Paul tells us in Romans 9 that this prophecy was fulfilled when God called ” not only us, of Jews, but also of the Gentiles” to be his people, we must come to grips with the understanding that the restored “sons of Israel” will not be Israelites on the basis of any ethnic distinctions. On the contrary, God cast off the Jews as his distinctive people so thoroughly that they became exactly the same as the rest of the nations of the earth, so that all the world was “not-my-people” with God. Therefore, when the time came for God to restore Israel, according to his promise, he drew without distinction from a world that was “lo-ammi” and made them into the Israel of God. To quote Paul again, “he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that outwardly in flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart; in spirit and not in letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God” (Rm. 2:28,29).

In a similar manner, the prophecies of a new and glorious temple, such as is described in Ezekiel chapters 40-48, could never be fulfilled by a rebuilding of a physical Jewish temple, with a return to the old sacrificial systems. Any return to the blood of bulls and goats would be considered blasphemy by the author of Hebrews, who tells us that the sacrificial system “was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices that could not make him who did the service perfect as regards the conscience, which stood only in meats and drinks, and different kinds of washings and fleshly ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But when Christ had become a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building nor by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered once for all into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption for us“ (Hb. 9:9-12). But if this prophecy could not be fulfilled by a physical temple, it must be given in expectation of a coming change from types to the spiritual realities they conveyed; as Jesus spoke of rebuilding the temple in three days, and meant by that statement the resurrection of his body, as the reality symbolized by the Old Covenant temple which typified God’s dwelling among man and was fulfilled when God actually took on human flesh to dwell with us Jn. 2:19-21. In a similar vein, we find throughout the New Testament that believers are the temple of God, offering up spiritual sacrifices of well-doing and praise; that the true Jerusalem is from above, and is in no way to be mistaken for the present-day physical Jerusalem; that believers who worship are entering into the spiritual Zion; and a host of other specific instances in which it becomes manifestly clear that the Old Covenant land, people, temple, sacrificial system, and so on, have given way in the days of the New Covenant to those realities which it had been their purpose to convey from the beginning cf. Eph. 2:11-22; 3:5,6; Gal. 4:1-11,21-31; Hb. 12:18-24; 13:10-16.

In light of this massive change from tangible types to spiritual realities, it may be difficult to see any real necessity in the prophets for a physical restoration of the earth at all. Could not the prophecies of a fruitful and renewed earth be given as types of a state of spiritual blessing and fruitfulness? If the reconstitution of Israel involves an inward, spiritual change, could not the reconstitution of its land simply involve a state of spiritual enlightenment which leaves unchanged the physical effects of sin, such as weeds and thistles? Could not the prophecies of the lion lying down with the lamb indicate a spiritual reality of those who are enemies by nature coming together in peace because of their unity in Christ? The problem with these objections is that they miss a vital point: the restoration of Israel involves a true change in man’s nature, so that what was affected by sin is restored. In Israel’s restoration, God promises to give a new heart to his people. That is, he promises to change in them what was marred by original sin. Similarly, in God’s promise to restore the earth, what can he mean but that he will change the effects of sin upon the earth? And the weeds and thistles and violence and pain and drought and famine we see all around us are very really the effects of sin in the world. The New Covenant fulfillment of the Old Covenant national Israel is a people from the entire world who are genuinely changed by Christ. So the New Covenant fulfillment of a typical land situated in the Middle East and “flowing with milk and honey” must be an entire earth genuinely changed by Christ. Besides, if we see the prophecies of a restored earth as indicating only a state of spiritual blessing, we run into certain problems with such texts as Isaiah 65:20, which states, “There will not be an infant, nor an old man that has not filled his days. For the child will die a hundred years old; but the sinner who is a hundred years old will be despised.” In this prophecy, we see that the physical blessings of a rejuvenated earth, resulting in remarkably long life, will be extended even to those who are still sinners. If this prophecy conveyed a state of spiritual blessedness, it would be promising the spiritual blessings which Christ purchased for his people to the wicked. But if the prophecy is referring to a change in the nature of the corrupted earth, before Christ returns to inaugurate the eternal state, then the prophecy makes perfect sense. The amillennial tendency to see all of the restored earth prophecies as indicative of spiritual change alone fail to do justice to the biblical theological expectations we have observed. There is a vast host of prophetic writings that predict in very glorious and specific terms that the earth itself will be changed [e.g. Is. 2:2-4; 11:4-16; 25:6-8; 30:18-26; 32:13-20; 35:1-10; 41:17-20; 43:19-21; 49:8-12; 55:12,13; 65:8-25](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=isaiah%202:2-4; 11:4-16; 25:6-8; 30:18-26; 32:13-20; 35:1-10; 41:17-20; 43:19-21; 49:8-12; 55:12,13; 65:8-25&version1=9); Ez. 36:29,30; Hos. 2:21-23; Joel 3:17,18; Mic. 4:1-4; Zch. 3:10; 8:12. Understanding the physical earth by these prophecies is in perfect harmony with what we have come to expect from the promised Christ of Genesis 3:15. No other interpretation will do justice to the full-orbed prophetic expectation of his work.

Another factor that may contribute to this spiritual understanding of restored-earth prophecies is an honest look at the present state of affairs. In the world today and during the last two thousand years of world history, we find ample evidence of the prophecies regarding a spiritual people of God being fulfilled. The gospel has gone forth and God has used it mightily to change fallen men. But where is there any sign of change in this cursed earth? This objection may be countered by a closer look at the extent of the prophecies concerning the work of the gospel and the spread of Christ’s kingdom in the latter days. We read in Isaiah 2 that, “in the last days the mountain of Jehovah’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow into it. And many people shall go and say, Come, and let us go to the mountain of Jehovah, 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 out the Law, and the Word of Jehovah 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 pruning-hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Is. 2:2-4). The gospel has truly had a tremendous impact throughout the last two thousand years of world history; but no advance of the gospel to date can even begin to compare to the worldwide effects it will have in the future. We still await the day when, “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea” (Is. 11:9). As Douglas Wilson put it,

The sun is risen, but is not yet at its zenith (Mal. 4:2). The mustard seed has been planted, but the tree is not yet full-grown (Matt. 13:31-32). The leaven of the kingdom is in the loaf, but the loaf is not yet fully risen (Matt. 13:33). The rock has struck the pagan statue on the feet, but the rock is not yet a mountain that fills the earth (Dan. 2:44). The trickle of living water has cleared the threshold of the temple, but has not yet become the river which cannot be crossed (Ez. 47:1-5). The Lord is seated at the right hand of the Father, but his enemies are not yet his footstool (Ps. 110:1). The root of Jesse has been raised as an ensign for the people, but the stream of Gentiles coming to him is so great that we can honestly say that after many millions of converts, it has barely started (Is. 11:10). The Child has been given to us, but the increase of his government will have no end (Is. 9:7). In short, the Scriptures teach that the taking of this dark world will be as slow and methodical as it is sure and glorious.

Nothing that we have yet seen in the history of the spread of Christ’s kingdom can compare to the countless prophecies we have which describe it in its glory. When the days come in which the whole world turns to Christ, the impact of the gospel will be so great that even the physical earth will be rejuvenated. This is the blessed hope of the prophets of Israel.

Further Development in the Teaching of Christ

If the prophecies of a glorious kingdom spreading throughout the whole earth, changing the hearts of men, and rejuvenating the world itself are so dominant a theme in the writings of the prophets, then we may certainly expect to see the same teaching developed in the ministry of Christ, in whom all the prophetic promises find their consummate fulfillment. And in this expectation we are not disappointed: in the beginning of his ministry, Christ is very clear that the long-awaited kingdom had arrived, and that he was the Messianic king who had long been prophesied. Matthew tells us that from the time Christ came to dwell in Capernaum, he started preaching, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near” (Mt. 4:17). From the beginning of his ministry, then, Christ was proclaiming the commencement of the prophetic kingdom. That he was not merely offering himself to be the King of national Israel until they rejected him and caused him to rescind the offer is patently clear from his own testimony. For instance, when the Pharisees accused him of casting out devils by the power of Beelzebub, he demonstrated that on the contrary he was casting them out by the Spirit. Having observed this, he made the application, “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you” (Mt. 12:28). If Christ was doing these mighty works through the power of the Spirit, then the kingdom had come. Christ was not offering himself as King, but proclaiming himself to be King and declaring that his kingdom had already been inaugurated. This point is missed when one misunderstands the nature of his kingdom, as did the Jews and Pontius Pilate. They expected a kingdom that would be immediately visible on the earth. Christ himself deals with these misconceptions, declaring to the erring Pharisees, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation. Nor shall they say, Lo here! or, behold, there! For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst” (Lk. 17:21). Christ’s clear teaching was that his kingdom had come and was already spreading — but it was not a kingdom which could be seen. He makes the same point again when standing before Pontius Pilate, who poses the question, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus’ reply is very emphatic: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would fight so that I might not be delivered to the Jews. But now My kingdom is not from here” (Jn. 18:33-37).

These observations lead us to a dilemma: if the Messianic kingdom came with the beginning of Christ’s earthly ministry and was not a kingdom which could be seen, then how are we to account for the prophetic passages which seem to refer to an eminently visible kingdom? We see an answer hinted at in Christ’s response to Pilate, when he states that his kingdom “is not now from here.” In this response, we may note two things: first, that Christ’s kingdom had already commenced, but not in a manner that made it “of this world”; and second, that Christ expected a time in the future when his already inaugurated kingdom would be of this world. This understanding finds support in some of the statements made by Christ to his disciples. Although Christ clearly taught that the kingdom of God had already come, he also recognized that there was a sense in which it had not yet come. Therefore, he tells his disciples during his last supper with them, “I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God shall come” (Lk. 22:18). In a similar vein, Christ teaches his disciples to pray to the Father, “Your kingdom come” (Mt. 6:9-13). What could he have meant by this, if the kingdom had already come in all its fulness? The question then becomes, in what manner will Christ’s spiritual kingdom advance, or continue to come? This question eminently concerns us, because that advance is what we are commanded to pray for and labor to see. In Christ’s response to Pilate, there is an indication, at least, that the future coming of the kingdom of Christ would include a change that would make it more patently “of this world”. This understanding is perhaps supported by such passages as Matthew 4:23, “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.” From these statements we see what appears to be an integral relationship between the gospel of the kingdom, and salutary physical effects. If the gospel will one day be so victorious that the very earth will be changed, what better foretaste could there be of that consummate state than Christ’s physical healing of people in conjunction with his preaching of the gospel to them? In Christ’s earthly ministry, we have a very real foretaste of the physical effects of redemption being intimately connected with its spiritual effects. There will be an end time restoration of all the earth — but this physical rejuvenation can only come about through the power of the gospel; no mere scientific advancements of mankind will suffice. All of this is in accordance with Christ’s teaching on end time events, where he declares, “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come” (Mt. 24:14). In conclusion, then, Christ taught that his kingdom had already commenced, and that his disciples must pray and labor to see it advanced until it spread throughout all the world. Then the end would come, and his kingdom would finally be of this world. We must here make one last observation, that, just before he ascended, in response to their question about the timing of the kingdom’s consummation, Christ promised to clothe his disciples with power from the Holy Spirit, in order that they might see this universal advance of the kingdom. It was not theirs to know the times and the seasons: that they would have the power of the Spirit to bring about the universal reign of Christ through the preaching of the gospel was sufficient for them Acts 1:6-8.

Development in the Epistles

When Christ was taken up from his disciples, he left them with a clear testimony that all royal authority was now his, and with a direct mandate to preach the gospel of the kingdom to every creature, and to labor to see the kingdom advance throughout all the earth [Mt. 28:18-20]. Throughout the book of Acts and in the epistles to the early church we find that the apostles labored diligently to do this very thing. In Acts 3, we find Peter persuading the Jews to repent of what they had done to Christ on the basis of this eschatological hope. In Acts 28:23, Luke leaves off his account with Paul “testifying the kingdom of God, and persuading them the things concerning Jesus, both out of the Law of Moses and out of the Prophets, from morning until evening.” Paul’s understanding that the kingdom had to spread throughout all the earth, and that then the end would come, is therefore evinced in his daily practice. But what of his writings? What does he teach in his epistles concerning the actual event of Christ’s final return? We find Paul’s eschatology explained the most clearly in the fifteenth chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians. In this passage, Paul testifies that final victory will include a change of physical bodies, both of mankind and the universe. This physical change will come at the end of time, “at the last trumpet.” It is a necessary change, because “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption” (1 Cor. 15:50-52). Verses 22-28 tell us,

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

We see here that Paul’s eschatology is an eschatology of the perpetual advance of the kingdom, until, at the last, even death itself will be defeated by the power of Christ. This last victory will take place in connection with Christ’s coming in glory to deliver over the kingdom to the Father. At that time (note in particular the phrase, “at his coming”) Christ will finalize his victory over the effects of the fall by raising the dead, of which event his own resurrection was the firstfruits. Christ is reigning now, and he must continue to reign until, in fulfillment of prophecy, every enemy including death itself is placed under his feet. In summary, when Christ returns, he will effect a worldwide change of corruptible to incorruptible, including but not limited to a change in the nature of the bodies of his saints. This change will be the final defeat of death, and will mark the consummation of his kingdom. And immediately subsequent to this consummation, having now fulfilled all prophecies and having seen all things placed under his feet, he will deliver the kingdom over to the Father. We find further support that this end time event of final victory and the rejuvenation of the earth is identical with the return of Christ and our being gathered together with him, when we compare a parallel eschatological passage in the book of First Thessalonians. There, Paul tells us again that this same time, when the last trumpet is being sounded, is precisely the time when we will be raised to incorruptible life and Christ will return in glory: “For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. And so we shall ever be with the Lord” (1 Thes. 4:16,17). Clearly, then, when the Lord returns in all his glory to deliver over the kingdom to the Father, the final effects of the gospel, including the physical reversal of the curse, will then be realized. This poses a problem to premillennial thinking, which teaches that when Christ returns, he will reign an additional thousand years before finally conquering death and delivering over the kingdom to the Father. Amillennial thinking is more consistent with this passage, but retains a problem of another sort; namely, that before this glorious event the gospel must spread through all the earth, in accordance with the teachings of Christ and the expectation of the prophets.

But if this worldwide evangelization, resulting in the prophetic expectation that, “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to Jehovah; and all the families of the nations shall worship before You (Ps. 22:27,28)” is truly the case, how do we account for such teachings of Paul as, “in the end times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and teachings of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, being seared in their own conscience, forbidding to marry, saying to abstain from foods which God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth” (I Tm. 4:1-3)? If the prophets looked ahead to a time of the great advance of the gospel before the eternal state; and if Christ taught that same thing, and commanded his apostles to be laboring to see his kingdom spread, and promised them power to accomplish this mighty task, how then can Paul have these dark expectations of the end times? To address this question, we must first understand the “end times” terminology. A brief perusal of the usage of the term throughout the New Testament makes it evident that the end times began with the ministry of Christ, and will continue until the final consummation. For example,

“But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel: ‘And it shall be in the last days, says God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh. And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.’” (Acts 2:16,17)

“And all these things happened to them as examples; and it is written for our warning on whom the ends of the world have come.” (1 Cor. 10:11)

“God, who at many times and in many ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds,” (Hb. 1:1,2)

“(for then He must have suffered often since the foundation of the world), but now once in the end of the world He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” (Hb. 9:26)

These and similar passages clearly indicate that the end times comprises the entirety of history from the advent of Christ to the eternal state. With this understanding, then, we must only acknowledge that in this era of redemptive history, and some time after the apostle Paul, times would wax much worse. It is difficult to imagine how this prophecy could have been more dramatically fulfilled than it was under the medieval papacy. That Paul was likely referring to the black state of the world in the middle ages, and not some dark time yet to come, is supported by the very nature of the heresies that were going to arise. In the papal mandate of celibacy for the priesthood and the command to abstain from meats on Fridays and during Lent, we find a very obvious fulfillment of Paul’s prophecy that heretics would arise “being seared in their own conscience, forbidding to marry, saying to abstain from foods which God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” With this understanding, we arrive at a conclusion that Paul’s eschatology demanded a time of intense darkness and persecution which would bring the church to the very brink of extinction; but Christ’s kingdom would ultimately prevail, and usher in “the times of refreshing from the hand of the Lord” (Acts 3:19). And this could only be accomplished by a genuine, worldwide repentance in response to the message of the gospel.

Final Development in Revelation

We now come to the final development of the biblical eschatological hope in the book of the Revelation of Christ. There is probably no book of the bible understood in a greater diversity of ways than the book of Revelation. The impossibility of fully developing an interpretation of the book in a short article is obvious, so a few cursory observations will have to suffice. The first thing we must notice about Revelation is its organic connection with the book of Daniel. Revelation picks up the prophetic story where Daniel leaves off. Daniel devotes a great deal of space to relating the sequence of world events leading up to the time of Christ. With regard to the times following, he speaks only in broad and general terms. Although he explains in great detail the nature of the different portions of the statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, especially when he gives a very particular sequence of the events of the kingdoms broken off from the empire of Alexander the Great, he devotes relatively little space to the particular sequences of the spread of the Messianic kingdom. With regard to that final era, he only speaks of the stone which crushes the statue as becoming a mountain that fills the earth. He leaves untouched the process by which this stone would grow. The book of Revelation is full of prophecies of the growth of Daniel’s stone. Therefore, we must labor to interpret the prophecies of Revelation in the same way we interpret those of Daniel. Dispensationalism has done tremendous harm to this principle. No dispensationalist is looking for a literal goat with one horn that moves so swiftly he never even touches the ground. Without exception they see that image as symbolically representing the swift advance of the empire of Alexander. Why then do they look for literal scorpions shaped like horses, and having women’s hair? Would it not be more consistent to see these visions as symbols of the events connected with the spread of Christ’s kingdom? If this is the case, and the prophecies of Revelation depict the circumstances surrounding the spread of Christ’s kingdom, then we must be struck by the accordance of the last two thousand years of history with these prophetic symbols. How could the persecution of the Old Covenant church until it brought forth Christ, his ascension to heaven, the rage of Satan against the New Covenant church by the Roman persecutions, God’s preservation of his people, and Satan’s next attempt to destroy the church through a flood of heresies be more clearly depicted than by the symbol of the woman in Revelation 12? In the prophecies of Antichrist persecuting the church fiercely for 1260 days, devastating it to the point of almost utter distinction, so that it might be symbolized by only two witnesses, failing to overcome it because of the power given to those witnesses and the resurrection authority of Christ, exalting himself above everything declared to be an object of worship, and doing all this from spiritual Babylon, which is said to be situated on seven hills, as was the city of Rome Rev. 17:9 (in accordance with which, compare also Daniel’s vision of the final kingdom crushed by the Messianic kingdom being a Rome which was changed in nature from the first Rome); in these prophecies, how can one fail to see the rise of the papacy, which held such dominant sway over the earth for approximately 1260 years until the time of the Reformation, and which ultimately assumed blasphemous demands for worship and bloodied its hands with the martyrs of the church? If this, then, is the proper interpretive grid for the book of Revelation, then we must be struck by two things. First, the end times would be a period of intense persecution, a waxing worse and worse, as Paul revealed in 2 Timothy 3:13, and Christ taught in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. But second, these dark times would not be the end. Afterwards Christ would cause his kingdom to triumph in great glory. In chapter18, and continuing through the tenth verse of chapter 19, we see that God will gloriously judge spiritual Babylon, avenging the blood of the saints; and that subsequent to this great victory will be the final, consummate, eternal joy of the marriage feast. It is perhaps best to view the following prophecy of 19:11 through the end of the book as being parallel with 18:1-19:10, only given in greater detail. Here we see that Christ will come conquering the whole world by the sword which proceeds from his mouth. What can this sword signify, but the preaching of the gospel? And when this gospel sword has conquered the world and the enemies of the gospel are destroyed, then the saints will have dominion over all the earth, reigning with Christ for the prophetic thousand years, that is, a lengthy period of peace and prosperity and worldwide fruitfulness answering to the prophecies of the Old Covenant. In this period, Christ will still be reigning from the throne of David, as he is now, but his reign will be more universal in its impact. Satan will be bound, Babylon will be destroyed, and nations will dwell together in peace, with their swords beaten into plowshares. At the end of this period of peace and fruitfulness, Satan will be allowed once more to stir up a rebellion, but will be utterly defeated, for Christ will quickly return in all his glory to raise all the dead, judge his enemies, create new heavens and a new earth, deliver over the kingdom to the Father, and dwell together in peace with his saints (We run into a problem here if we understand this prophecy of Christ’s coming to be identical to his bodily return in which he establishes the new heavens and new earth. But there are reasons for understanding this coming of Christ in a different way. It is difficult to imagine that when Christ returns bodily he will be wielding a literal sword with his mouth. What seems to be conveyed is that Christ will come in the sense that he will be entering into the hearts of men through the preaching of the gospel. In this manner, the proclamation of the gospel, that is, the sword which proceeds from his mouth, will destroy his enemies. In this understanding, the coming of Christ is essentially parallel to the coming of his kingdom as a mode of expression for the advance of the gospel.). If we have this understanding of the prophecies of John (and it is difficult to understand them in any other way without doing damage to 1 Corinthians 15), then in the book of Revelation, as in the teaching of Christ, the expectation of the prophets, and even the inference from the first revelation of the gospel in Genesis 3:15, it is clear that before the end the gospel must go forth into all the world. This is the occupation with which we must be primarily engaged as long as we are left upon the earth. But it is a joyous occupation, for its outcome is certain. Christ’s kingdom will prevail.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, we are confronted with a syllogism which is impossible to circumvent. The first premise is that the gospel must spread until “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to Jehovah; and all the families of the nations shall worship before You. For the kingdom is Jehovah’s; and He is the ruler among the nations” (Ps. 22:27,28). The second is that Christ’s coming is at the end of the age, in accordance with 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4. The conclusion which we must draw is that, before Christ returns in his glory, the gospel will spread to the ends of the earth so that all the nations worship him and the earth itself is gloriously changed, so that “the desert blossoms like a rose” (Is. 35:1). This is the goal for which we are laboring. This is the goal which Christ will certainly accomplish. The problem with amillennialism is that it fails to take into account the vast extent of numerous prophecies regarding the success of the gospel in these end times. The problem with historic premillennialism is that it fails to grapple with the testimony of Christ and the apostles and prophets that his coming will be at the end of the age. The problems with dispensational premillennialism are too numerous to be satisfactorily dealt with here. This is perhaps the most unscriptural framework of eschatology enjoying currency today. The whole dispensational schema is based upon a division of the people of God into two peoples, a national people and a spiritual people, in the face of the overwhelming New Testament teaching to the contrary. In the dispensational framework, Christ will blow the last trumpet, rebuild the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles that he had previously torn down by his work on the cross, blow seven more trumpets after the “last” one, rapture his church to enjoy peace and fellowship at his marriage supper, while consigning his other people to intense persecution and sanctioning for them a return to a sacrificial system which he had done away with once and for all in the sacrifice of himself. Then, after seven years but before the millennium, Christ will raise the dead a second time in what John refers to as “the first resurrection” (Rev. 20:5). These ideas are too absurd, and more importantly, too unscriptural to be given any credence whatsoever. Furthermore, if we grant the underlying dispensational tenets of an ongoing distinction between two peoples of God, and a personal eschatological Antichrist who will desecrate a future Jewish temple, those very tenets cause a collapse of dispensational eschatology in the light of such passages as 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4, which clearly states that the rapture of the church cannot take place before the arrival of this antichrist, and his exalting himself in the temple of God. Dispensationalism, in spite of its current popularity, is an entirely unscriptural and dangerous framework from which to interpret the bible.

Seeing these things are so, what manner of people ought we to be, in holy behavior and godliness? As Peter tells us, we ought to be “looking for and rushing the coming of the Day of God, on account of which the heavens, being on fire, will melt away, and the elements will melt, burning with heat (The objection may here be raised, “If the spread of the gospel will be efficacious in the renewal of the earth, how is it that Christ will destroy this rejuvenated earth and create it anew at his coming? It is true that the earth will be largely rejuvenated when Christ appears; but it will still not be as pure and glorious as the new earth which Christ will create at the time of his coming. Take for instance the prophecy of Isaiah 65:20, “There will not be an infant, nor an old man that has not filled his days. For the child will die a hundred years old; but the sinner who is a hundred years old will be despised.” We see that the restored earth of the latter times will be significantly more salutary than it is now — one who dies at a hundred years old will still be a child. But in spite of this tremendous progress, it will still not be perfect, inasmuch as there remains death at all. Even this gloriously restored but yet imperfect earth must give way to the new earth, in which death will be utterly abolished.). But according to His promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pt. 3:11-13). Let us rise up in hope and joy, laboring fervently for the spread of the gospel throughout the earth, and purging our own hearts as the gospel has its glorious success in our lives. The kingdom is Christ’s. All authority is his. We cannot fail in our gospel mission. “Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

Addendum

Subsequent to my writing this article, I was constrained through ensuing dialogue to revise my conclusions in two significant ways. I have listed these revisions below for my current readership. As always, I welcome any further discussion.

1. The millennial kingdom is now

   Although this article clearly expressed that Christ’s coming marked the commencement of the prophesied kingdom, and that upon his resurrection, Christ began his reign from the throne of David, it nevertheless retained a disconnect between Christ’s present reign and his reign as prophesied in Revelation 20. Upon further reflection, such a disconnect seems unwarranted. The purpose of the Apocalypse seems to be an explanation of the dilemma confronting those Christians who had embraced the belief that Christ’s kingdom had been inaugurated and must continue to spread until it embraced the whole world. In light of this expectation, the persecution of the church, in which circumstance all kingly authority seemed concentrated in the hands of Christ’s enemies, must have presented a massive difficulty in the thinking of early, persecuted Christianity. John, therefore, was giving his readers a true perspective on the present political situation. In spite of the appearance of power which Satan continues to possess, the Lamb is nevertheless reigning at the right hand of the Father. All of history is moving toward his desired end. In a very real sense, as Christ revealed to the apostle John through a series of visions, Satan has been bound and defeated, Christ’s reign is real and all-encompassing, and all that remains to be fulfilled is the final effect of what has already been accomplished in principle, when Satan is cast forever into hell with the beast and the false prophet (the political and religious world systems) and death and the curse are forever done away with. With these considerations in mind, it seems much more congruous to understand Christ’s millennial reign as identical to his current reigning from the throne of David.

2. The rejuvenation of the earth will be effected subsequent to Christ’s physical return

   A close examination of 1 Corinthians 15 seems to indicate that the physical effects of the gospel and Christ’s redemptive work are to be realized only at his physical return. The Old Testament prophecies which have been interpreted as indicating a pre-eternal state millennial reign could be better understood as prophetic of the eternal state itself. In any estimation, however, it must be confessed that there is a blending in the prophecies between the latter day reign of Christ which commenced at his resurrection, and the eternal state, in which the final effects of his reign are ultimately accomplished. However it may be, any attempt at precise chronological sequencing of Old Testament prophecies should not pre-empt the clearer didactic teachings of epistolary literature. While there may be some hesitancy as to whether a prophecy should be interpreted as referring to the present, spiritual reign of Christ, or his eternal reign over a renewed earth, there is no compelling reason to place the fulfillment of the end time fruitfulness of the earth before the eternal state. 1 Corinthians 15, as well as, for example, Matthew 24, 2 Thessalonians 2, and so on, would mandate otherwise.

   In light of these additional observations, the label “optimistic amillennialism” is perhaps preferable to “postmillennialism”. The former label allows for an understanding that Christ’s kingdom truly is progressing, and will continue to progress until all the nations of the world bow down before Christ, and the old heavens and earth dissolve in a fervent heat to make way for the new. In addition, it retains a necessary emphasis on the present reign of Christ, and better accommodates the New Testament expectation that the circumstance of Christ’s physical return will be contemporaneous with the long-awaited fulfillment of the restored-earth prophecies.

11 Responses to “Your Kingdom Come”

1. fitzage says:

   June 12, 2005 at 10:05 am

   While eschatology is a difficult and convoluted subject, you have done an excellent job of tying in many elements that are often treated individually, skewing the interpretive results.

   Thank you for this “short article.”
2. Pittsley says:

   July 11, 2005 at 6:26 pm

   I was getting the hint that you were no longer of the premillennial persuasion. I appreciate your modifications to the traditional/Augustinian amillennialism.

   I understand that you think my teaching is dangerous, but I am at a loss as to what makes it so.

   I am Trinitarian according to the 1689 Baptist Confession. I believe in inerrancy as explained by Warfield. I believe in the substitutionary death and physical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God. I believe in the resurrection of all the saints to glory, and in the just, eternal, conscious torment of all the damned. I teach Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola fide, Sola Gracia, Sola Deo Gloria, total depravity (and inability), unconditional (individual) election, particular redemption (as generally expressed by Grudem), irresistible grace (and the priority of regeneration to conversion), and perseverance of the saints (including the Reformed view of sanctification as presented in 1689 Baptist Confession and Sinclair Ferguson’s essay in the five-views book). Though those in the Reformed camp have traditionally disagreed on apologetics (Warfield vs. Kuyper; Clark vs. Van Til; Sproul vs. Bahnsen), I am, as you are, presuppositional in my apologetic, understanding the Christian worldview to provide the only reasonable basis for knowledge, ethics, morality, and brushing one’s teeth. I fail to see how a distinction between the eschatological roles of true Israel and the true Church puts any of these doctrines in danger. While other dispensationalists may not be as conservative on these things as I am, they made up a strong contingent of conservative, Bible-believing Christians in America of the twentieth century.

   As Fitz said, eschatology is a difficult subject, but it is worth our study. Your change in position implies that you agree with me on both counts. I understand that you passionately believe what you have stated; I too passionately believe what I have stated elsewhere on this forum. That means that we both think the other person is dead wrong. Nonetheless, patience with one another is essential to forwarding the conversation, and, in my view, calling one another “dangerous” should be somewhat further down the road of disagreement.
3. pitchford says:

   July 13, 2005 at 9:24 am

   I accept your rebuke all the more seriously, perhaps, by reason of my own experiences in being labeled unorthodox for teaching what I understood then, and still understand, to be derived exclusively from the scriptures (e.g. for calling sanctification monergistic). Before I respond specifically to your question as to my labeling of Dispensationalism as “dangerous,” let me affirm to you that I am not now, and certainly never intended before now, to call you a heretic, or to say that what you believe, as you have explained yourself, is heresy. I truly and honestly rejoice at your clear and sincere commitment to the great and fundamental doctrines of the faith. I am both encouraged and rebuked by your passionate love for Christ and your diligence in studying carefully the word of our God. But I am not sure (even if I stated it too harshly or was too little specific in what precisely I was warning against) — I am still not sure that I am ready to rescind my assessment of Dispensationalism as “dangerous.” Even in using the term, I intend to imply a difference between heresy and the simple schema of Dispensationalism – it is dangerous because it may lead (as I believe) to heresy, or it may assume forms which are heretical. Although those specific forms of Dispensationalism which I would call heretical I have never heard espoused by you or anyone I know from your Detroit circles, and neither do I expect to. But let me move from these realms of vague generalities, and mention what I perceive to be dangers of the system. All of these “dangers” are either things that I have been clearly and specifically taught as Dispensationalism, or things about which I have been confused – things which largely shaped my thinking – when I was a dispensationalist. I think some of these things you will agree with me are “dangerous” (or downright heretical): but you will not agree that they are necessarily dispensational. I would argue that they are (1) clearly taught by many dispensationalists, or (2) clearly demanded by consistent loyalty to dispensational tenets.

   1.) Dispensationalism led me to a Kierkegaardian conception of faith.

   I adduce this danger as one having suffered from it personally. I was always taught that, although salvation was always by faith alone, the content of that faith differed in other dispensations (The position which Ryrie clearly espouses). The way this was presented to me (and the way I understood and believed it) was that, essentially, Noah was saved by believing it would rain. And so on. In other words, it was not faith in Christ alone, but faith with respect only to itself that saved a person (and similarly, even today the abstraction “faith” has some mystical eternal life-giving power in itself). Obviously this conception of faith is somewhat Kierkegaardian, but I am convinced it affects the minds of far more evangelicals than we would like to admit. Faith itself is nothing, it only turns our eyes to someone who is everything. Dispensationalism taught me that faith was what saved, and not that faith was the means through which Christ saved. Regardless of how else we may differ on Acts 2 interpretations of OT prophecies, I think we would both admit that Peter was quite confident that David had a faith which looked ahead to a resurrected Christ, as did all the OT saints. The genuinely Christocentric nature of faith and salvation from the beginning is obscured (dangerously) by dispensationalism.

   2.) Dispensationalism was destructive to my ability to grasp the unity and significance of the biblical story.

   For instance, when I was a dispensationalist, the Davidic Covenant was of almost no import whatsoever to me. It revealed God’s gracious condescencion to mankind, as did, for instance, his promise to Hezekiah that he would live fifteen more years, and so on. But as far as structuring the biblical story, I saw nothing monumental in it. I thought the bible was structured in “dispensations,” and the giving of the covenant did not mark a new administration essentially different from that of “law”. When I forsook dispensationalism, I was shocked by how central that covenant was in the writing prophets particularly in advancing the eternal kingdom of God. And I was much better equipped to make sense of Acts 2 (again) and Christ’s reigning from the throne of David in the New Testament. In brief, the grand, Christ-centered, organically-connected, unified story of redemption and the spread of the kingdom was for me split into several inter-related, but not organically progressing, periods. And in the process the glory of Christ and his grand drama of redemption was dangerously eclipsed. In the exchange, by the way, the stories of the OT became “Aesop’s fables,” tales that contain a moral for upright living, but have no real connection to me, and no real glorying in Christ alone, and no real awe-struck wondering at how the story of redemption was unfolding until it reached its height of glory in the spiritual realities of the New Testament that were promised and typified and illustrated and yearned for in the Old Testament, much as a mustard tree growing until it is the greatest of all the herbs, and excels in the glory which inhered in its seed from the beginning.

   3.) Dispensationalism tainted my mindset with leanings towards Arminianism.

   This particularly with regard to the dispensational teaching of the offering of the kingdom. What is more absurd than the idea of a king “offering” to reign? This whole mindset of a God who is “sovereign” by invitation only – who reigns unless he is rejected – strikes me as fundamentally Arminian. Again, I know that you are not in any way Arminian – but I believe that Armninianism is consonant with dispensationalism, and the largely Arminian worldview of many christians is reinforced by dispensational teaching. Let me add here, dispensationalism contributed to my blind acceptance of the philosophy of easy-believism. If Christ was only teaching that we must give up everything to follow him into some crassly physical thousand year reign, then eternal salvation (in my mind something wholly distinct) might well have had other demands. Simply faith which was ultimately Kierkegaardian, and demanded no accepting of Christ as “lord,” became the abstraction by which I assured myself of eternal life, with no regard for the persevering work of Christ continuing in my life.

   4.) Dispensationalism (as it was taught to me) embraces a horrendously insufficient view of the new covenant in Christ’s blood.

   I have had more than one well-respected dispensationalist (in our old stomping grounds) try to convince me that the new covenant in Christ’s blood has nothing to do with us. Because (forget the four gospel accounts, 1 Cor. 11, Heb 8,10, etc.) the new covenant was prophecied for “Israel” which can never be anything other than ethnic Israel (forget also what Paul said about a true Jew being one who is a Jew inwardly). So how does the blood of Christ affect us, the church (as distinct from the rest of the redeemd)? We get, (and I quote) “peripheral benefits” of Christ’s blood. I consider this blasphemy, and although I do not believe that you hold to this assessment (on the contrary, your comments have apprised me otherwise), yet I think this position is one that is ultimately demanded by the dispensational way of reading OT prophecies.

   5.) Dispensationalism (as it was taught to me) embraces what must be considered a blasphemous idea of a return to a system of priests and sacrifices of bulls and goats.

   The author of Hebrews leaves me no doubt that any return to priests other than Christ or any spilling of sacrificial blood now that Christ’s has been spilled, can be nothing other than blasphemy. But this is precisely what has been taught to me by well-respected dispensationalists (in our old circles).

   6.) Dispensationalism tends toward a real ethnocentrism as regards Israel (which springs from a veiled materialism).

   I used to think that America’s allying herself with Israel, regardless of the political situation and Israel’s justice or injustice at the time, would unconditionally result in blessings from God. This thinking did not come isolated from my dispensationally-flavored world view. Where did this whole mode of thinking come from? In embracing old types and shadows to the minimization of the spiritual realities that they were meant to convey. The vast extent of NT teachings on the church loving and caring for each other must be a truer response to the status of “Israel” as God’s chosen people than the modern cult of red-heifer hopefuls displaying a racist favoritism toward a particular ethnic group.

   7.) In summary, dispensationalism tends to downplay the Christocentric nature of all reality.

   If some of these other things are true – if faith, not the object or “content” of that faith is what is important – and if the physical offspring of Abraham, not those who are in Christ, the true seed of Abraham, are God’s chosen people – and if a physical Jewish millennium, not Christ’s spiritual reign over the entire earth is the goal of human history, and so on – if all these things are true, then the extent of Christocentrism must be limited (dangerously). This is my biggest problem with dispensationalism.

   I want to reaffirm that I am not accusing you of believing any of these things specifically, or of teaching anything which you suppose may detract from the glory of Christ. But I am observing that these results are very real and very extreme in many dispensationalists I have known (In myself when I was a dispensationalist). And I don’t think it’s because all of those affected misunderstood what dispensationalism really is. I think it’s because the very schema of dispensationalism lends itself to these conclusions.

   Please don’t doubt my sincere love for you in the bonds of our precious Savior, Jesus Christ. If these things I have written are not true, show me (scripturally) how they are not, and I will, to that extent, modify my position.

   In Christ,

   NP
4. Corbett says:

   July 13, 2005 at 9:47 pm

   Thanks, brother, for making available these excellent resources! I am slowly assimilating them as possible, in between stints of Hebrew vocab. memory :-(.

   In regards to this article, I too am growing increasingly suspicious of views which relegate the Kingdom of God to a static point in the future and create the need for multiple resurrections among other questionable inferences. This is a big topic and one that it is easy to run from (and justify our neglect on the basis of the over attention eschatology tends to enjoy in certain schools of thought). Thanks so much for helping bring clarity to this confusing but glorious subject.

   Your general eschatological optimism was overall refreshing, but I was glad to see your qualifications in the addendum. We have to admit that the increase of apostasy and tribulation is no small theme in Scripture. Your interpretation of I Tim. 4:1-3 was plausible, but other texts beg to be answered (II Thess. 2:3-12; Luke 18:8; 21:25-28; Rev. 13; Matt. 26:4-14…). That all of these could refer to the happenings of A.D. 70 or Medieval Catholicism strictly is to this brother unlikely.

   Then there is the testimony of history. This century opened with more countries engaged in civil war than at any point in history. Famine, disease and terror are rampant. The 20th century witnessed the martyrdom of more Christians than all previous centuries back to Christ combined. Islam is gaining footholds across the globe. The “visible� church is plagued with apostasies and relativistic ideology. On this continent, we have experienced quite a moral decay since the days when Jonathan Edwards predicted Northampton, MA as the locus of the arrival of the Kingdom of God. It is no co-incidence that post-millennialism lost significant adherence with the advent of the World Wars. All of this while Christ reigns on the throne of David in the heavenly Jerusalem in fulfillment of Kingdom promise (Acts 2:22-26).

   While you have demonstrated well the expectation of the prophets, apostles and Christ that the kingdom will engulf the earth gradually and progressively, other parables predict the growth of tares alongside the wheat (Matt. 13:24-30), and rotten fish alongside the edible (47-50) to the degree that it is necessary for Christ Himself to come and sort out the mess by crushing the children of Satan and vindicating the children of the Kingdom (2 Thess.1:5-12). In apparent sync with these prophesies, the history of the Church is far more glad and victorious than the broader history of mankind. I don’t know that our optimism concerning the progress of the Kingdom of heaven in this age would be at all violated by the anticipation of a contemporaneous increase in wickedness and disease in the kingdom of this world which she operates inside of.

   Additionally, Scripture seems to teach that the return of Christ is impending (probably better than “imminentâ€? – Mt. 24:48; Heb. 10:37; Rev. 16:15, etc.), and for me, amillennialism, with its more ambiguous interpretations of pre-parousia happenings, best accommodates this theme.

   Finally, your call to global missions, cemented in the immutable victory purchased by Christ, was inspiring (weak word, I know). May the Lamb receive the sure reward of His sufferings from among all peoples and tongues and extend His kingdom on earth through the frail and foolish means of our gospel proclamations forever mingled with a fellowship in the sufferings of Christ at the hands of the Kingdom of this world!

   Anyways, by no means do I want to interupt your highly useful dialogue with Pittsley, but thought I’d check in with a hearty thank you for taking the time to create these literary windows into your brain. SDG.
5. pitchford says:

   July 13, 2005 at 11:59 pm

   Thanks for the feedback. I think you rightly pointed out some of the weaknesses of the original article. I hope the addendum helped to point us back in a sounder direction. I echo Fitzy that “eschatology is a difficult and convoluted subject,” and I am thankful for your helpful comments. I think your observation of a dual motif of end time degradation being prophesied contemporaneously with the end time advance of the kingdom is both correct and immensely helpful. An emphasis on the one which excludes the reality of the other (as I think I was initially guilty of) must have some negative effects on the final analysis. Thanks again. Keep up the Hebrew vocab. studies. Rejoice in the advance of his kingdom.

   NP
6. fitzage says:

   July 14, 2005 at 1:09 am

   The more I have thought over this subject, the more questions I have had. Corbett answers these well, with his view to the advance of the kingdom in this age not referring to the world as a whole, but to the kingdom of God that is in (but not of) the world.
7. fitzage says:

   July 14, 2005 at 1:20 am

   Wow. I think your delineation of many of the dangers of dispensationalism in this comment is excellent. It deserves it’s own article.
8. Pittsley says:

   July 14, 2005 at 12:40 pm

   I thoroughly enjoyed the critique of the dangers of dispensationalism, and I see your point in a lot of these areas.

   (1) Concerning the nature of faith I am surprised you did not mention the tendency to reduce faith to mental assent as the Zane Hodges crowd has done. Even Kierkegaard involved the volition in his idea of faith! A dose of good Calvinism would do us good here. I appreciate how you emphasized the centricity of the Coming Seed in the faith of these OT believers. I haven’t seen what you think about the concept of progress of revelation. Is that on any of these posts here?

   (2) On the unity and significance of the Biblical story, I agree that many dispensationalists have made the dispensations like so many mailboxes on a country road. Nothing can go in more than one box, and you better not put anything in the wrong box. Everything is neat and tidy to be sure, but cohesion is missing. That’s why I have appreciated McClain’s Greatness of the Kingdom so much. He really does a good job maintaining cohesion as the plot of the Scriptures develops.

   (3) I think I understand your point with the phrases, “God who is ‘sovereign’ by invitation only – who reigns unless he is rejected.” Obviously a statement like that is repugnant to Calvinists of all stripes. I do see Israel rejecting the offer, but that doesn’t mean God isn’t behind their blindness, hardening them in their sin. The church is not plan B, instituted because God couldn’t convince those rascally Jews to go with Plan A.

   (4) One New Covenant in which the church participates, enough said.

   (5) On the reinstitution of the sacrifice, I have a question. What do you think about Paul’s circumcision of Timothy over against his refusal to do so with Titus? These items (first century circumcision and millennial sacrifices) may not be related to you, but they are related in my system, so I want to see what you have to say.

   (6) I like the phrase “red-heifer hopefuls.” It has a ring to it. This is actually a part of dispensationalism which does not belong to the system of thought as it has been presented (with reasonable consistency) in the credible literature. Dispensationalists are futurists. Twentieth-century Zionism has nothing to do with God’s eschatological dealings with Israel (at least as far as we can know). I’m glad people are eager for God’s blessing, but as you said it seems to be simply veiled materialism, and twisting God’s arm by helping Israel develop nukes and satellite intelligence is not healthy thinking, especially when it makes all the other oil-producing nations angry.

   (7) I am sensitive to your call for Christocentricity in exegesis, theology, and all of life. I think we dispensationalists can be a little too mailbox-oriented. We can miss the forest for the trees. But we are agonizing and learning with the other conservative traditions to gain a good vista of both forest and trees through the Scriptures.

   Thanks again for the critique it has been helpful to me. The theological portion of my exegesis paper relates to the distinction between Israel and the Church, so I have been using you as a sounding-board to some extent. I hope that you do not mind. I’ll be sure to find representatives of your views in print for the paper, but in the mean time this discussion has been very helpful for my thinking and writing. I appreciate it immensely.

   It’s nice to see you join in the conversation, Corbett. Your contribution is well-written, Biblically-saturated, and intriguing. Your view seems closer to the traditional amillennial position, but you reminded me of some strong points of the position.
9. pitchford says:

   July 20, 2005 at 12:36 am

   Here’s some further clarification on some of the points from my last comment.

   1.) I did include the tendency of Hodges/Ryrie to reduce faith to mere intellectual assent under point number three. I included that particular problem there, because I believe the tendency has arisen, largely, due to the wrong dispensational understanding of the kingdom “offer”. Although I do agree that the emphasis on faith per se, over against faith in Christ, must contribute to the error. Concerning my view of the progress of revelation, the current post that deals with the topic to a greater degree than any other is the third post in the series of Institute lessons on hermeneutics (called “The Living Word”). The third post in that series deals with the centrality of Christ in the scriptures.

   2.) I have not read McClain’s Greatness of the Kingdom. Regarding that whole topic, a couple works that I would recommend are Jonathan Edwards’ History of Redemption, and O. Palmer Robertson’s Christ of the Covenants.

   3.) You are missing my point in your response to number three. I did not even address the whole “Plan B” argument that is so commonly raised in objection to dispensationalism. I suppose that objection, as I have usually heard it, can be countered in the same way that the objection against the Calvinist’s understanding of the genuine offer of the gospel can be countered. But that is not my point. My point is that, in your scheme, Christ offers to reign on the Davidic throne, as was prophesied of him in the prophets, and due to the Jews’ rejection of him, he postponed that Davidic reign. So then, the reality of his prophesied reign was indeed delayed by the Jews. in a very real sense, then, Christ reigns by invitation only. You will perhaps attempt to circumvent this observation by dichotomizing his eternal reign from his throne-of-David reign; but even in this, you will not have dealt sufficiently with the reality that, the rejection of the kingdom idea makes the Davidic reign a reign that is merely offered, and must be ratified by the people. In this, Christ’s long-prophesied reign looks strangely like the reign of the modern English monarchs, for instance in which the real power of authority resides in the will of the people. Christ’s Davidic reign is a reign of crushing those who are opposed to him with a rod of iron, not a reign of looking to his enemies for ratification.

   4.) and 5.) If you are so clear on the “One New Covenant in which the church participates,” then how can you turn around and imagine a time in which the Old Covenant sacrifices will be re-instituted? When AH declares that the New Covenant causes the Old Covenant to vanish away (8:13), he immediately goes on to express just what it is about the Old Covenant that cannot exist in the reality of the inaugurated New Covenant. The whole OC worship cult is thus made obsolete (9:1); and at the heart of this cult is the blood of bulls and goats (9:12). The law only had a shadow of the coming things of Christ, and was able to accomplish nothing. The very continuance of the sacrifices brought to mind that no sacrifice had been sufficient. If one were sufficient, then they would have ceased to be offered (10:1-4). Therefore, when Christ came with a sacrifice that could suffice to take away sins, sacrifices did cease to be offered. And any renewal of these sacrifices would blasphemously presuppose that there remained a sacrifice necessary to take away sin – that Christ’s sacrifice had not been sufficient. It is the height of blasphemy, and the most grievous error of dispensationalism, to suppose that there will ever be a return to the old sacrifices of bulls and goats after Christ sacrificed himself for the putting away of sins. As far as your question of Timothy and Titus, I can’t help but believe that with Timothy, Paul allowed his circumcision simply to avoid any obvious social difference that may come up as a peripheral issue to the gospel that was to be Timothy’s main concern. I don’t think that Paul was dealing with those who were claiming that circumcision is necessary for salvation. When that mindset did reveal itself, the whole issue became integral to the very nature of the gospel, not just a side-issue, and so Paul clearly opposed the demand for circumcision lest he should be thought of as implicitly agreeing with the Judaizers’ teaching of circumcision as essential for salvation. Similarly, the Acts fifteen counsel wisely forbade Gentile Christians from doing anything that would serve as an irritant to the Jews who had been saved out of Judaism. But when anyone took the peculiarities of Judaism and taught them as integral to the way of salvation, Paul was the first to stand up and denounce them as teachers of another gospel (cf. Galatians).

   6.) Thanks for your comments here. The mere facts of eschatology, i.e. suggested outlines of future events when isolated from the philosophy which underlies them, are to me quite minimal. I can rejoice with those who love the blessed hope and appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ while anticipating a vastly different order of end-time specificities.

   7.) Again, I appreciate your comments here. To the degree that any of us detract from the all-encompassing centrality of Christ, we are to that degree in error, and in need of being corrected. I hope we can be a mutual source of rebuke and encouragement to each other as we strive to carry out this principle in every area of life.

   Feel free, of course, to use our interactions in whatever paper you are presently working on. Although I cannot guarantee that all of my views are precisely in line with the majority concensus of traditional reformed thought, I would like to suppose that I accurately represent that theological tradition at least in all of its major emphases and understandings.
10. Hunt says:

    August 23, 2005 at 9:51 am

    Nate, I truly appreciate this article and your diligence to the texts. I would echo fitzage in that “eschatology is a difficult and convoluted subject”, but your study of it has proven useful to me as I continue along my own journey for truth. I have recently, though slowly, begun to questions several of my views on this subject.

    I would agree with Corbett in that your view of the Papacy does not answer many texts, though several texts do not seem to have a better explanation! It may be that many or most of these prophecies have yet to be fulfilled. We must be ever watching for the return of our Lord (Titus 2:13).

    In the example of 1 Timothy 4, you presented this in light of Catholicism during the dark ages, expressly abstaining from meats and forbidding to marry. Do not forget that first of all, this was a problem in the early church (1 Corinthians 9:5[stretch], Romans 14). Secondly, there are many groups of people throughout history even up to the present who fit this description. Thirdly, the Catholic teaching has progressively gotten worse through the years.

    One ‘danger’ :-) that I see, Nate, that the Reformers had of which we must be careful, is the misconception that the Catholic Church is (or was) the true church. It is understandable to see why those who have this mindset get involved with the ECT movement. God has reserved unto Himself a remnant. This remnant cannot be found in any denomination or creed, but only in the Lambs Book of Life and displayed through His grace in the hearts of His people. Though the Catholics certainly persecuted the church during the Middle Ages, it was not the first, last, or worse persecution the church has experienced. Even today, there are brothers and sisters who are being killed all the day long. Do you not think that the early church thought that these very prophecies were fulfilled in their time when Titus came through and Nero came to rule? Some seemingly were fulfilled then, but not all. I wonder if it is not the same in this situation.

    I would agree with an optimistic view in that the Gospel will spread to the ends of the earth as God calls His remnant from every tongue, tribe, people, and nation. To this end, I devote my life. I strongly desire to spread His Gospel to His children. The most important thing that each of us can learn from eschatology is that our God is the Sovereign of the Universe. He has ultimate power over the universe and every event. It is to this very God that we all owe our lives as a living sacrifice and need not take thought for the morrow as He has it all planned. Let each one of us live our lives in light of this glorious truth and take risks for the kingdom!
11. pitchford says:

    August 24, 2005 at 7:47 am

    Thanks for the comment, brother! It’s good to see you’ve joined the conversation. Let me agree with you, from the outset, on the valuable nature of the contribution Corbett made to the conversation. Perhaps it would set your mind at ease a little if I explained to you my motivation in posting this article. In all honesty, this was the article I had the most misgivings about posting. I wrote it, in fact, precisely because I felt at a complete loss as to how one might scripturally address some of these weighty issues. In other words, I was not intending a polemic for a firmly held schema. On the contrary, I was simply hoping that, in the process of beginning in Genesis and attempting to trace some basic eschatological themes, I would begin to make some sense of what seemed to me a most difficult subject. Difficult in its own right, and not made easier by the background I had in Dispensationalism. But even by the time I was finishing the paper, I was beginning to think differently on some basic points and emphases. It was this factor that almost dissuaded me from posting the article, but I reconsidered only after admitting, after swallowing a little pride, that it might be invaluable as a sort of jumping off point from which I might gain valuable feedback from you and others, and so grow in my own understanding. The plan, to a large degree, has worked: I am confident that I have advanced tremendously in my understanding through the sharpening comments and subsequent thought processes that the original paper sparked. All that to say, simply, that whatever in the article is not very clearly derived from scripture is not written in blood — that is, it is not an issue upon which I am willing to plant my flag and die to defend. I have actually modified my original views, in the points which the addendum addressed, and as well in those points in which Corbett presented a clearer understanding from scriptures.

    A couple of further comments: although the office of the papacy is by no means the only fulfillment of many eschatological prophecies throughout the New Testament, and particularly in the prophecy of John, I still find it hard not to see in that Corruption of truth the pinnacle and most outstanding example of the spirit of the biblical motif of end time degeneracy. And it is not simply the prophecy in I Timothy 4 which occasions me to present this opinion (although of that passage too the papacy is as clear a fulfillment as any other, from the apostolic age until our own). On the contrary, the explicit prophecies in the Apocalypse give me more confidence on this point than any other. Honestly, John, is it likely that, in the future, we will have a religious system spring into being, headed by one who claims virtually divine authority, that supposes his authority by usurping the place of Christ and not by denying him outright, that sits in the very temple of God demanding worldwide obeisance, that is situated, moreover, on a city of seven hills, said to be spiritual “Babylon,” — is it really likely that we’ll see another religious system come into existence that meets all of these specifics and more yet, that I haven’t mentioned? Moreover, is it wise, in the meantime, to suppose that the Catholic church, fulfilling so many of these prophecies so strikingly, has nothing to do with any of them, but just sprang up completely unforeshadowed by any divine revelation during the times of inscripturation? If we look at biblical prophecies with a presupposition that they will be fulfilled, and if we see in history a situation which comprehends the fulfillment of a vast constellation of them, why would we not assume that the prophetic vision of John is indeed unfolding throughout the course of history? But true to the title of this webpage, I’m rambling.

    An additional question: where did you arrive at your view that the reformers assumed the Catholic church to be the true church? Martin Luther said the Vatican was the lid covering the pit of hell. Calvin said in no uncertain terms that the pope was the antichrist, and that the catholic church had long since been rejected by God for her apostasy, and was not at all the true church. And furthermore, having made that assumption, how was it that you supposed that an acceptance of the Catholic church as the true church, or else an embracing of the ECT movement, was an error of which I am in danger? I assure you that such an acceptance of the perversions and blasphemies and idolatries of the Catholic Church is quite the farthest thing from my mind. I’m a little confused how you derived that tendency from an article that calls the pope antichrist — but notwithstanding, I hope I am crystal clear now.

    Once again, thanks. I appreciate your comments. Your recognition that prophecies of the end times do not necessarily have to indicate one historical fulfillment which quite excludes all other circumstances from partaking of the same nature is helpful. I agree that the prophecies seem to indicate an antichristian spirit and worldview and Satanic political/religious system which variously expresses itself all throughout this end time period. Compare John’s statement that there were, in his day, already many antichrists in the world, etc. Those who are religious leaders in the world system are by their nature Satanically-fueled substitutes for the true religion and the office of Christ, regardless of whether they appear in the guise of Muslims, Arians, Papists, or whatever other lie Satan has fabricated to deceive the nations and steal glory from Christ.

    But in the end, Christ will conquer, his kingdom will spread throughout the earth, and every knee will bow to him. I delight to take up my cross and pursue that goal with you, my brother.

    Much love in Him, Nathan

Search

Advertisement

Articles

• 01. Christ and the Cross (11)
• 02. Hermeneutics (5)
• 03. Covenant Theology (3)
• 04. Dispensationalism (9)
• 05. Apologetics (3)
• 06. The Atonement (5)
• 07. Doctrines of Grace (3)
• 08. The Law (5)
• 09. Baptism (6)
• 10. Unity (3)
• 11. Worship (5)
• 12. Missions (6)
• 13. Eschatology (10)
• 14. Book Studies (25)
  • Leviticus (13)
  • The Gospel According to Isaiah (5)
• 15. Exegetical Notes (6)
• 16. Personal & Misc. (7)
• 17. Devotional & Invitational (8)
• 18. New Testament Book Introductions (27)
• 19. New Testament Book Outlines (32)
• 20. Basic Greek Grammar (10)

Site Information

• Contact Information
• Personal Information
  • Baptism Interview

Storefront

• *Bookstore*
• Articles
• Dispensacionalismo (Portuguese)
• Fair Semblances
• Greatness of the Love of Christ, The
• Hidden Treasure, The
• If I Could Tell You Just One Thing
• Images of the Savior
• Images of the Savior from the Pentateuch
• Knowing Our God
• Knowing Ourselves
• Living Word, The
• Poems
• Studies in John
• Themes in Theology, vol. 1 – Christ and the Cross
• Themes in Theology, vol. 2 – The Church: Its Mission and Worship
• Themes in Theology, vol. 3 – The Word: Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies
• Themes in Theology, vol. 4 – Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
• Understanding Isaiah
• What the Bible Says About Baptism
• What the Bible Says About the Doctrines of Grace
• What the Bible Says About the People of God

Recommended Links

• Recommended Articles
• Recommended Books
• Recommended Sites