Eschatology1 (2)

Mark H. Stevens, M.Min

15 October, 2010

TH-7004 Eschatology I

Freedom Bible College and Seminary

1


15 October, 2010


Chapter One

This impressive book begins the journey into Eschatology by dealing with the most

controversial aspect of it. The methods of interpretation are the source of great discussion

in Seminaries, Bible Colleges, and Coffee Houses the world over. No one can boast with

absolute certainty that they really understand Eschatology. The study of the “End of

Days” is probably the most controversial in Christian Theology and even in other

Religions. There are so many views about the Last Days and thousands of books have

been written and everyone thinks they have it figured out. But this book doesn’t come

across like that it give a wide panoramic view of the study of Eschatology. Yes Jesus will

return but NO ONE knows when or really even how it will occur. I saw this quote from

C.S. Lewis that kind of speaks to this first chapter:

C.S. Lewis: "God will invade. But I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere

openly and directly in our world quite realize what it will be like when He does. When

that happens, it is the end of the world. When the author walks on to the stage the play is

over.

"God is going to invade, all right, but what is the good of saying you are on His side

then, when you see the whole natural universe melting away like a dream and something

2

else--something it never entered your head to conceive--comes crashing in; something so

beautiful to some of us and so terrible to others that none of us will have any choices left?

For this time it will be God without disguise; something so overwhelming that it will

strike either irresistible love or irresistible horror into every creature. It will be too late

then to choose your side... That will not be the time for choosing: it will be the time when

we discover which side we really have chosen, whether we realized it before or not.

"Now, today, this moment, is our chance to choose the right side. God is holding back to

give us that chance. It will not last forever. We must take it or leave it."

There are two major views about Eschatology and they are the Pre-Millennial View

and the A millennial View. The Pre-Millennial view is a literal interpretation, while the

Amillenialist View spiritualizes the study of Eschatology. Both points of view are

accepted by a number of Christian denominations and Sects. The predominant

eschatological view among Bible-believing Christians in the twentieth century is

premillennialism. Premillennialism is the view that after His second coming, Jesus Christ

will rule the earth for 1000 years. Thus Christ’s second coming is before the millennium

(premillennial). Premillennialists teach that at the second coming of Christ, the living

saints are raptured and the dead saints are raised from the dead. All these saints are given

glorified, immortal bodies. They meet Christ in the air and return to rule with Him on

earth for 1000 years. This 1000-year period is one of worldwide peace and righteousness.

At the end of the 1000-year period Satan is loosed from his prison to deceive the nations.

Vast armies rebel and attack Christ and the saints in Jerusalem; these armies are then

destroyed by fire from heaven. After the defeat of these rebel armies the final resurrection

3

and judgment take place; then comes the eternal state. This, in brief, is the essence of

premillennialism; there are many variations. Among premillennialists there are pre-

tribulation, mid-tribulation and post-tribulation rapturists. Dispensational

premillennialists place the rapture not at the second coming but at the beginning of the

seven-year tribulation.

Amillennialism is the name given to the belief that there will not be a literal 1000-year

reign of Christ. The people who hold to this belief are called amillennialists. The prefix

“a-” in a millennialism means “no” or “not.” so, “amillennialism” means “no

millennium.” This differs from the most widely accepted view called premillennialism

(the view that Christ’s second coming will occur prior to His millennial kingdom and that

the millennial kingdom is a literal 1000-year reign) and from the less-widely accepted

view called postmillennialism (the belief that Christ will return after Christians, not

Christ Himself, have established the kingdom on this earth).

However, in fairness to amillennialists, they do not believe that there is no millennium at

all. They just do not believe in a literal millennium—a literal 1000-year reign of Christ on

earth. Instead, they believe that Christ is now sitting on the throne of David and that this

present church age is the kingdom over which Christ reigns. There is no doubt that Christ

is now sitting on a throne, but this does not mean that it is what the Bible refers to as the

throne of David. There is no doubt that Christ now rules, for He is God. Yet this does not

mean He is ruling over the millennial kingdom.

Clear biblical indications that the kingdom will be a literal, earthly kingdom are:

4

1) Christ's feet will actually touch the Mount of Olives prior to the establishment of His

kingdom Zechariah, 14:4- 9

2) During the kingdom, the Messiah will execute justice and judgment on the earth

Jeremiah 23:5-8

3) The kingdom is described as being under heaven (Daniel 7: 13-27)

4) The prophets foretold of dramatic earthly changes during the kingdom –Acts 3:21;

Isaiah 35:1-2 and Amos 9:11-15

5) The chronological order of events in Revelation indicates the existence of an earthly

kingdom prior to the conclusion of world history (Revelation 20).

The amillennial view comes from using one method of interpretation for unfulfilled

prophecy and another method for non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy. Non-

prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy are interpreted literally or normally. But,

according to the amillennialist, unfulfilled prophecy is to be interpreted spiritually, or

non-literally. Those who hold to amillennialism believe that a “spiritual” reading of

unfulfilled prophecy is the normal reading of the texts. This is called using a dual

hermeneutic. (Hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation.) The

amillennialist assumes that most, or all, unfulfilled prophecy is written in symbolic,

figurative, spiritual language. Therefore, the amillennialist will assign different meanings

to those parts of Scripture instead of the normal, contextual meanings of those words.

5

http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Zechariah%2014.9


15 October, 2010


Chapter Two

The History of Interpretation

The history of the collection of ancient texts held sacred by Jews, Christians, and

Moslems, typically called the Bible or the Torah (though what each religious tradition

means by that word differs) is two different histories: a history of the writing itself and a

history of the writings interpretation. Unless a reader is an extreme literalist who believes

that God dictated the books directly to scribes who recorded them verbatim and who

believes that people of faith have always interpreted the texts in exactly the same way,

modern readers and scholars understand that these texts and their interpretations are the

products of changing historical conditions. Because they hold these texts sacred,

believers can come to a deeper appreciation of the ways in which the Bible continues to

speak to people in different historical conditions. At the same time, non-believers

acknowledge that the prevalence of Western monotheism, the religions of Jews,

Christians, and Moslems that constitute the so-called "People of the Book," means that

the Bible is perhaps one of the most significant literary and cultural texts available for

their study. Understanding the history of the Bible's composition and transmission, on the

one hand; and the history of its interpretation on the other hand can enrich its reading for

both believers and non-believers alike.

6

Even the Christian scriptures, the New Testament, the product of an historical period,

emerged from oral traditions. This is evident in the activity of Jesus of Nazareth as

recorded in the gospels. Jesus is never depicted as a writer or scribe but always as an oral

teller of tales and teacher. The early apostles and disciples kept remembered Jesus in

word and sacrament, particularly the ritual of the breaking of the bread. Similarly, the

letters of Paul allude to an oral tradition in which the memory of Jesus was kept alive in

hymns, liturgy, and recitation of Jesus' sayings and stories. To this day Christians still are

divided over who wrote The Gospel of Mark and the Book of Hebrews. Through

Interpretation theologians and scholars used interpretation to narrow down the odds as to

who really wrote what. This is down by careful examination. Some say that Marks’

Gospel was either written by Peter or influenced by the Apostle because of the direct

style and the way Jesus is portrayed. The greatest arguments often come on the subject

Eschatology. The coming of a Messianic Age is something that Jews, Christians and

Moslems teach from their holy text. Even in the Christian circles there is a great divide

over the study of Last Days. The author of this book spends a great deal of time

examining the various takes on the Messianic implications of Eschatology. The Literalist

believe the text without room for spiritualizing or allegory.

Since the first Christians were Jews, they employed Jewish methods of biblical

interpretation, which we see at work in the Christian scriptures, the New Testament. The

four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the epistles, and the book of Revelation are all

glosses on the Jewish scriptures, which Christians reinterpret in light of their

understanding of the meaning of Jesus of Nazareth. Eventually, however, Christians

developed complex interpretive strategies of their own over the next two thousand years.

7

These include Christian exegesis (the process of recovering the linguistic meaning of a

word or phrase in an ancient text, now undertaken by Greek and Latin speakers rather

than Hebrew readers), Christian theological interpretation (the process of establishing

the doctrinal significance of an ancient text), and, more recently, historical-critical

methods (the process of establishing the historical, social, linguistic, theological, and

literary context of an ancient text).

8


15 October 12, 2010


Chapter Three

General Considerations in Interpretation

Most of the Bible can be easily interpreted by simply taking the language (either in the

original or translation) in the usual way (Jn. 3:36; Acts 1:11). In other words, if the plain

sense makes sense, seek no other sense. This is the literal grammatical point of view. A

plain sense reading should not be confused with a literalistic interpretation. We should

allow for figures of speech (Mk. 1:5; Lk. 22:19).

If a passage contains symbols or a special literary genre this should be indicated in the

text, either by textual cues, or because symbolism is required in order to make sense of

the text. Most symbols are explained by the Bible itself (Rev. 1:9-20) Historical

interpretation means that we take into account the historical background of the author and

the recipients as possible. The Bible was written to common people, and is

understandable to anyone. However, it was written thousands of years ago to a different

culture. Therefore, as modern readers, we have to try to recover a general sense of the

meaning of words, phrases and concepts in the ancient cultures.

Amillennialists cite scripture references to the kingdom not being a physical realm:

Matthew 12:28, where Jesus cites his driving out of demons as evidence that the kingdom

of God had come upon them; Luke 17:20-21, where Jesus warns that the coming of the

9

kingdom of God can not be observed, and that it is among them; and Romans 14:17,

where Paul speaks of the kingdom of God being in terms of the Christians' actions.

In particular, they regard the thousand years references as a figurative expression of

Christ's reign being perfectly completed, as the "thousand hills" referred to in Psalm

50:10, the hills on which God owns the cattle, are all hills, and the "thousand

generations" in 1 Chronicles 16:15, the generations for which God will be faithful, refer

to all generations.

Dispensationalist see most of their Escahtological views through the lenses of

support for Israel and the promises of God for Israel. One of the main tenets of

Dispensationalism is the strict dichotomy that dispensationalists claim exists between

Israel and the New Testament Church. This is expressly denied by Covenant Theologians

who claim the existence of a relationship via "Spiritual Israel." A dispensationalist would

claim that none of the prophecies pertaining to Israel are or will be fulfilled in or by the

New Testament Church. Covenant Theologians would claim that some of the prophecies

pertaining to Israel are, will, or may be fulfilled in or by the New Testament Church

10


15 October 12, 2010


Chapter Four

The Interpretation of Prophecy

The interpretation of Biblical prophecy is something that is very important for any

student of the Bible and is unfortunately very neglected by pastors and lay people alike.

Between 1/4 to 1/3 of the Bible is prophecy and this alone makes proper interpretation

important for anyone who wants to understand the Bible.

The interpretation of Biblical prophecy has gained importance all the more in our era

however as more and more people are claiming that we are near the end times.

If this is true, we need to know what we can expect - and whether or not we will even be

on earth to witness most of it. And even if the end time events are still very distant, it is

prophecy that gives us a glimpse of heaven and what we can expect.

The most important question concerning prophecy is whether we should interpret it

literally or figuratively. This has been a divisive issue for centuries going well back into

the early church of the third and fourth centuries.

Augustine was one who advocated a so called "dual hermeneutic." In other words,

interpret normal scripture to be literal, interpret anything prophetic to be symbolic.

Certainly, his ideas are popular even to this day.

11

But the question must be asked, was prophecy intended to be interpreted literally or

figuratively. I believe that the question can be answered by looking at prophecies that we

know have been answered.

Abraham was promised descendants as numerous as the sand on the seashore even

though he was old and did not have an heir. This was fulfilled literally despite the

improbability of it.

In Isaiah 7:14 the prophet predicts that the virgin will be with child, we see this fulfilled

literally in the birth of Jesus, despite the impossibility of it.

When Daniel tells King Belshazzar the meaning of the words "mene mene tekel parsin"

and informs him that his kingdom will be taken from him that very night, it happens

literally that very night.

And of course there are numerous other prophecies, many concerning the coming of

Christ that have been fulfilled literally. So the question must be asked, would God fulfill

some prophecies literally and other prophecies figuratively? And if God would do such a

thing, how does one discern which will be fulfilled literally and which will be

figuratively?

The second important thing to consider when studying prophecy is the concept of time.

Time means very little with prophecy and this lead many to miss the coming of Christ.

They saw prophecies of a coming Messiah that would overthrow the oppressors and rule

from David's throne. What they missed was the prophecies that speak of a suffering

Messiah and they could not untangle the two.

12

Looking at prophecy is like looking at a set of mountains. From a distance, the back

mountain looks like it is right behind the first mountain. It is only when a person is on

top of the first mountain that the realize the second mountain is quite a distance off.

It is the same with prophecy. It may look like all one part, but often there is a time gap.

Only when the first part has been fulfilled are we able to look and realize that the next

part is still future.

This is no better illustrated than perhaps in Luke 4:18-21. Jesus speaks:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the

poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the

blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of

everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them,

"Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

Jesus quotes Isaiah 61:1-2 in this passage, but he stops speaking abruptly in the middle of

the second verse. Verse 2 in its entirety says, "... to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor,

and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn..."

So why did Jesus stop in the middle of the sentence? The day of vengeance was still

future. However, if Jesus is speaking the truth, the first part of this prophecy was

fulfilled in their hearing.

13

So how do we distinguish prophecy and prevent the same errors as the Jews of Jesus'

time? We may pay close attention to what scripture says and understand what has

already been fulfilled and what has not been fulfilled. If a prophecy has not been fulfilled

literally, it is safe to conclude that it is yet future, even if part of the prophecy has already

been fulfilled.

A third step is to determine what are conditional promises and what are unconditional

promises. God gives some promises that hinge upon a people acting a certain way while

other promising are unconditional and will happen regardless of what happens.

For a conditional prophecy, consider the book of Jonah. It was Jonah's job to go to

Nineveh and prophesy that God would destroy the city. But Jonah did not desire to do

the Lord's will because Nineveh was a very wicked city and he did not want to pronounce

God's judgment upon it. If this was an unconditional promise, Jonah would have

delighted in seeing the destruction of a wicked city full of the enemies of God.

But when Jonah finally goes and prophecies the people repent and he complains to God

in Jonah 4 , "'O Lord, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was

so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow

to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity."

Jonah had prophesied to Nineveh that it had forty days left, but the unspoken condition

was that this was true if they did not repent.

For an unconditional prophecy, consider Psalm 89 where God guarantees an eternal

throne for the kingdom of Israel. Verses 30-37 tell us of unconditional promises:

14

"If his sons forsake my law and do not follow my statutes, if they violate my decrees and

fail to keep my commands, I will punish their sin with the rod, their iniquity with

flogging; but I will not take my love from him, nor will I ever betray my faithfulness. I

will not violate my covenant or alter what my lips have uttered. Once for all, I have

sworn by my holiness-- and I will not lie to David-- that his line will continue forever and

his throne endure before me like the sun; it will be established forever like the moon, the

faithful witness in the sky."

The fourth principle in interpreting prophecy should be a given but it is often

overlooked. Scripture does not contradict itself. If another passage of scripture would

appear to contradict your interpretation of a prophecy one of two things must be done.

Either explain why that passage does not contradict your interpretation of the prophecy or

re-evaluate your interpretation of this passage.

The positions many people take on prophecy involve ignoring certain passages of

scripture because they can offer no explanation for them. For a blatant example of this,

consider the position taken by some amillennialists. (An amillennialist is a person who

does not believe in a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ at the second coming.)

Some amillennialists say that we are currently living in the millennial kingdom,

beginning at the first coming of Christ, or at the coming of the Holy Spirit. Revelation 20

describes that during this time, Satan will be bound. This means that if we are living in

the millennial kingdom, Satan is currently bound.

15

Yet, if Satan is bound during this time, one has to explain the casting out of demons that

occurs in the New Testament. If Satan was bound at the first coming of Christ, one has to

explain how Satan entered Judas in John 13:27. And if Satan was bound at the beginning

of the church age, one has to find a way to explain 1 Peter 1:8 which says, "Be self-

controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for

someone to devour."

If one has found a way to satisfactorily explain these passages, that is fine. As such, I

have not heard an explanation and many choose to ignore these passages. If one re-

evaluates their view on this, they must then re-evaluate how Satan can not be bound and

still consider the present age to be part of millennial kingdom.

The important thing is that one considers all of the details and makes sure that they do not

contradict other scriptures.

In summary, the four keys to interpreting prophecy are:

Determine if prophetic passages should be taken literally

Understand that time doesn't matter in regards to prophecy - parts may be fulfilled and parts may yet be future

Determine if the prophecy is conditional or unconditional

Understand that scripture cannot and does not contradict itself. If your interpretation contradicts scripture, you must either explain the contradictory passage or re-evaluate your view.

16


15 October 12, 2010


Chapter Five

The Abrahamic Covenant

A covenant is an agreement between two parties. There are two types of covenants:

conditional and unconditional. A conditional or bilateral covenant is an agreement that is

binding on both parties for its fulfillment. Both parties agree to fulfill certain conditions.

If either party fails to meet their responsibilities, the covenant is broken and neither party

has to fulfill the expectations of the covenant. An unconditional or unilateral covenant is

an agreement between two parties, but only one of the two parties has to do something.

Nothing is required of the other party.

The Abrahamic Covenant is an unconditional covenant. God made promises to Abraham

that required nothing of Abraham. The Bible describes a part of the Abrahamic Covenant,

specifically dealing with the dimensions of the land God promised to Abraham and his

descendants.

The actual Abrahamic Covenant is found in Genesis 12:1-3. The ceremony recorded in

Genesis 15 indicates the unconditional nature of the covenant. The only time that both

parties of a covenant would pass between the pieces of animals was when the fulfillment

of the covenant was dependent upon both parties keeping commitments. Concerning the

significance of God alone moving between the halves of the animals, it is to be noted that

17

it is a smoking furnace and a flaming torch, representing God, not Abraham, which

passed between the pieces. Such an act, it would seem, should be shared by both parties,

but in this case it is doubtless to be explained by the fact that the covenant is principally a

promise by God. He is the one who binds Himself. God caused a sleep to fall upon

Abraham so that he would not be able to pass between the two halves of the animals.

Fulfillment of the covenant fell to God alone.

God determined to call out a special people for Himself through whom He would bring

blessing to all the nations. The Abrahamic Covenant is critical to a proper understanding

of the kingdom concept and is foundational to Old Testament theology. (1) The

Abrahamic Covenant is described in Genesis 12:1-3 and is an unconditional covenant.

There are no conditions attached to it (no “if” clauses, suggesting its fulfillment is

dependent on man). (2) It is also a literal covenant in which the promises should be

understood literally. The land that is promised should be understood in its literal or

normal interpretation—it is not a figure of heaven. (3) It is also an everlasting covenant.

The promises that God made to Israel are eternal.

There are three main features to the Abrahamic Covenant:

1. The promise of land. God called Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees to a land that He

would give him ,This promise is reiterated in Genesis 13:1-4 where it is confirmed by a

shoe covenant; its dimensions are given in Genesis 15:1-7. The land aspect of the

Abrahamic Covenant is also expanded in Deuteronomy which is the Palistinian

18

Covanant

2. The promise of descendants (Genesis 12:1-2) God promised Abraham that He would

make a great nation out of him. Abraham, who was 75 years old and childless, was

promised many descendants. This promise is amplified in (Genesis 17:6) where God

promised that nations and kings would descend from the aged patriarch. This promise

(which is expanded in the Davidic Covenant of (II Sam. 17) would eventuate in the

Davidic throne with Messiah’s kingdom rule over the Hebrew people.

3. The promise of blessing and redemption (Genesis 12:3) God promised to bless

Abraham and the families of the earth through him. This promise is amplified in the New

Covenant and has to do with “Israel’s spiritual blessing and redemption.” (Jeremiah

31:34) anticipates the forgiveness of sin. The unconditional and eternal nature of the

covenant is seen in that the covenant is reaffirmed to Isaac (Genesis Chapters 21 and 26)

The “I will” promises suggest the unconditional aspect of the covenant. The covenant is

further confirmed to Jacob .It is noteworthy that God reaffirmed these promises amid the

sins of the patriarchs, which fact further emphasizes the unconditional nature of the

Abrahamic Covenant.

God’s method of fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant is literal, inasmuch as God partially

fulfilled the covenant in history: God blessed Abraham by giving him the land. This

covenant fully unfolds in Christian Eschatology because of God’s unwavering love for

Israel and the desire to see them saved in the Last Days.

19


15 October 12, 2010


Chapter Six

The Palestinian Covenant

The Palestinian Covenant is recorded in Deuteronomy chapters 29 and 30, and was made

between God and Israel right before Moses died and Israel entered the Promised Land.

This covenant came after the Mosaic Covenant and after Israel had wandered in the

wilderness for forty years until the generation that had refused to enter the Promised Land

had passed away. God made this covenant with Israel while they were in Moab waiting to

go into the Promised Land, and the covenant would serve this new generation of

Israelites as a reminder of their special covenant relationship with God.

The Palestinian Covenant has many similarities to the Mosaic Covenant made at Mount

Sinai but is a separate and distinct covenant as clearly seen in Deuteronomy 29:1. “These

are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the

children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which He made with them in

Horeb.” Before making this covenant with Israel, God reminded them that if they obeyed

the Mosaic Law, He would bless the nation abundantly and warned them that

disobedience to the Law would result in His cursing the nation.

Besides the promises that God would bless them if they obeyed His commandments and

curse them if they disobeyed, the Palestinian Covenant also contains some special

20

promises to Israel that many believe will not be completely fulfilled until the millennial

reign of Christ. First, God promised to gather the scattered Israelites from all over the

world and to bring them back into the land He had promised to their ancestors. Second,

God promised to regenerate the Israelites of that time and their descendants by

circumcising their hearts so that they would love Him totally . Third, God promised to

judge Israel’s enemies and, fourth, He promised that the Israelites would obey God and

that God would prosper them in their obedience. While some might see these promises

being fulfilled when Israel was returned from captivity in Babylon at the time of Ezra and

Nehemiah, there seem to be some aspects of this that have not been fully realized yet.

For example, the promised restoration of Israel to the land would not happen until all the

blessings and curses promised them were fulfilled. and we know that Israel as a nation

rejected Jesus Christ as their Messiah and was once again cursed and cut off from the

land when the Romans conquered Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Second, we see that one of the

promises in this covenant was that God would circumcise their so that they and their

descendents would obey Him .These same promises are repeated in Jeremiah and Ezekiel

and are part of the blessings and promises of the New Covenant. Also, it seems that the

final or ultimate restoration of Israel to the land and to an everlasting relationship with

God is what Paul is looking forward to in Paul’s’ letter to The Romans when he says that

“a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in

and thus all Israel will be saved.”

The Palestinian Covenant also serves to reinforce the promises made to Abraham, Isaac

21

and Jacob that God would establish Israel as His chosen people. Even though God set

before Israel the promise of His blessings for obedience and His curses for disobedience,

He knew full well they would turn from Him and His covenant and turn to idols. This is

why He also promised to one day restore them to the land and have compassion on them,

therefore, the ultimate outcome of this covenant does not depend on Israel and its

obedience, but instead it depends on God and His faithfulness. The Palestinian Covenant

focuses on what God is going to do more than what Israel is supposed to do. While

Israel’s prosperity is closely tied to her obedience to God’s commands, and they will still

be punished for their disobedience to God, there is coming a day when God will return

them to the land (the full extent of the land as outlined in Genesis 15 and they will

possess it, and God will bless them forever.

At that time God will circumcise their hearts so they will obey Him .This covenant is

again reaffirming the Abrahamic Covenant in that someday the seed of Abraham will

possess the Promised Land forever. Unlike the Mosaic Covenant whose promises are

conditional upon Israel’s obedience to the Law, ultimate fulfillment of the promises of

the Palestinian Covenant are not dependent upon Israel’s obedience. Instead, the

Palestinian Covenant is an unconditional, eternal covenant because it is a part of the

Abrahamic Covenant and an amplification of it

22


15 October 12, 2010


Chapter Seven

The Davidic Covenant

The Davidic Covenant refers to God’s promises to David through Nathan the prophet and

is found in 2 Samuel 7 and later summarized in I Chronicle 17:11, This is an

unconditional covenant made between God and David through which God promises

David and Israel that the Messiah (Jesus Christ) would come from the lineage of David

and the tribe of Judah and would establish a kingdom that would endure forever The

Davidic Covenant is unconditional because God does not place any conditions of

obedience upon its fulfillment. The surety of the promises made rests solely on God’s

faithfulness and does not depend at all on David or Israel’s obedience.

The Davidic Covenant centers on several key promises that are made to David. 1) God

reaffirms the promise of the land that He made in the first two covenants with Israel (the

Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants). This promise is seen in II Samuel, “Moreover I will

appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place

of their own and move no more; nor shall the sons of wickedness oppress them anymore,

as previously.” 2) God promises that David’s descendant or “seed” will succeed him as

king of Israel and that David’s throne will be established forever. This promise is seen in

II Samuel, "I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will

23

establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the

throne of his kingdom forever.” This is a reference to the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ.

The provisions of the covenant are summarized in II Samuel, “And your house and your

kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established

forever.” The promise that David’s “house,” “kingdom” and “throne” will be established

forever is significant because it shows that the Messiah will come from the lineage of

David and that He will establish a kingdom from which He will reign. The covenant is

summarized by the words “house,” promising a dynasty in the lineage of David;

“kingdom,” referring to a people who are governed by a king; “throne,” emphasizing the

authority of the king’s rule; and “forever,” emphasizing the eternal and unconditional

nature of this promise to David and Israel.

24


15 October 12, 2010


Chapter Eight

The New Covenant

The new covenant is spoken about first in the book of Jeremiah. The old covenant that

God had established with His people required obedience to the Old Testament Mosaic

law. Because the wages of sin is death , the law required that people perform rituals and

sacrifices in order to please God and remain in His grace. The prophet Jeremiah predicted

that there would be a time when God would make a new covenant with the nation of

Israel.

"'The day will come,' says the Lord, 'when I will make a new covenant with the people of

Israel and Judah. . . . But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on

that day,' says the Lord. 'I will put my law in their minds, and I will write them on their

hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people'" (Jeremiah 31:33). Jesus Christ

came to fulfill the law of Moses (Matt. 5:17) and create a new covenant between God and

His people. The old covenant was written in stone, but the new covenant is written on our

hearts, made possible only by faith in Christ, who shed His own blood to atone for the

sins of the world (Luke 22:20) says, "After supper, Jesus took another cup of wine and

said, 'This wine is the token of God's new covenant to save you – an agreement sealed

with the blood I will pour out for you.'"

25

Now that we are under the new covenant, we are not under the penalty of the law. We are

now given the opportunity to receive salvation as a free gift (Ephesians 2:8). Through the

life-giving Holy Spirit who lives in all believers we can now share in the inheritance of

Christ and enjoy a permanent, unbroken relationship with God. Hebrews 9:15 declares,

“For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may

receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that He has died as a ransom to set them

free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”

26


15 October 12, 2010


Chapter Nine

Prophecies of The Present Age

According to some, the present age of scripture is the Christian age. Many writers express

this viewpoint largely because they see the "age to come" as heaven. Their futuristic view

of the return of Christ is the basis for viewing the scriptures per above.

We believe that there are serious exegetical problems with making the "present age" of

scripture the Christian age. The difficulties of such a view only multiply when the "age to

come" is viewed as a yet future entrance into heaven at an alleged future return of Christ.

In the Galatian letter, Paul, speaking of Christ writes, "Who gave himself for our sins,

that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and

Father" (Galatians 1:4). Of primary importance is the fact that Christ died for "our" [the

Jews] sins. Secondly, he died to deliver the saints from the "present age." Third, the

apostle describes the present age as "evil."

First, if the "present age" is the Christian age as alleged by the futurists, then it is the age

ushered in by Christ's death and resurrection. The present age would find its beginning on

Pentecost and belong to the gospel dispensation. It is here that we must raise the first red

flag. If the present age is the Christian age, then Christ died to deliver the saints from the

age which he came to establish.

27

Further, this means that the age which Christ came to establish (the Christian age) was

no more effective than the Jewish age in which men previously lived. Consider this. Paul

writes, "Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not. For if there had been

a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law"

(Galatians 3:21). So, life could not be achieved in the Jewish age, hence the need to

deliver the Jews from it (Romans 7:6).

However, since it is argued by some that life is not achieved in the Christian age, then

Paul should likewise have written the following: Is the gospel then against the promises

of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a gospel given which could have given life,

truly righteousness would have been by the gospel. According to the futurists, they were

in the gospel age. According to Paul, they were yet through the Spirit eagerly awaiting

the hope of righteousness (Galatians 5:5). Therefore, there was no advantage of the

gospel (Christian age) over the law with respect to achieving the hope of

life/righteousness.

Secondly, it means that Christ died to deliver the church from an age which did not then

exist at the time of his death. As a matter of fact, not even the church existed. Christ had

to die to bring the church into existence. Then he had to create an age in which to place

the church so he could immediately begin to deliver them out of it! He allegedly takes

them out of the Jewish age at his death, only to place them in an age from which they yet

must be delivered. No doubt this was a great tribulation for the church. All that slinging

around and movement from age to age made them quite dizzy to say the least!

28

A further complication to this matter is the fact that Christ taught through inspiration

that their deliverance from the "present age" was "at hand" and "coming in a little while"

(James 5:7-9; Hebrews 10:37). This must be the case since deliverance from the age is

accomplished at the return of Christ. However since the traditionalist futuristic viewpoint

alleges that these time statements are "elastic" and "relative," then Christ was merely

"pulling their leg" with those "I come quickly" rubberband time statements. Generations

have come and gone and are still going and going like the Duracell battery and yet there

is no deliverance from the "present evil age."

A more ridiculous picture of scripture trifling and chicanery could not be made of the

redemptive-historic, glorious work of Christ. Consider this scenario. A bodyshop

repairman offers to replace your broken windshield. The only problem is that the

windshield is not broken. Advising the repairman of this fact, he then responds by

smashing the windshield with a hammer and saying, "It is now"!

This corresponds somewhat with the plight of the new covenant saints. Christ died, per

the traditionalists, and ended the law (Jewish age) at the cross. Therefore, on their terms,

no one was in it. According to Galatians, Christ also died to deliver them from the present

evil age, an age which he had to create, place the saints into, then like the repairman

above, offer to deliver them out of it. Would it not have been easier for the repairman

never to have broken the windshield? Would it also not have been easier for Christ never

to have made an age from which the saints immediately needed deliverance?

A third problem in making the "present age" the Christian age, is the absurdity it makes

of the defection of Demas. "For Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present age,

29

and has departed for Thessalonica-Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia," (2 Timothy

4:10). What was so evil about the "present age" (if in fact it is the Christian age) that

loving it can be termed as apostasy? Is Christ the minister of Sin? God Forbid! If Demas

forsook Paul for the present age (alleged Christian age) then in what age did that leave

Paul? Not the Jewish age if it passed away at the cross. Not the "age to come," since it is

argued to be yet future.

Can we attribute the present age to which Demas apostatized as the age which Christ

came to establish? Does not this passage show clearly that the gospel which Paul held

firmly till his death (2 Timothy 4:6-8) did not belong to the "present age" of scripture?

What a bind we all are in today if loving the Christian age is apostasy.

Fourth, if the "present age" is the gospel dispensation, then the apostles did not speak

the wisdom that belonged to the gospel age. "However, we speak wisdom among those

who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are

coming to nothing" (1 Corinthians 2:6). Not only could they not speak the wisdom of this

age, but God apparently gave the authority to the gospel age to some other than the

apostles.

Who are these "rulers" of "this age"? Paul clearly identifies them as those who in

ignorance crucified the Lord of glory. Compare this with Peter's words in Acts. "Yet now,

brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers" (Acts 3:17). See

also v.14. Peter calls those who crucified the Lord of glory his Jewish brethren and their

rulers. These are the Jews. The rulers were none other than the chief priests, elders, and

sanhedrin council. Did Christ die to deliver the Jews from the law, only to create a new

30

age subjecting it to the law-zealous rulers of the old age? Perhaps now we can understand

why Judaism was such a problem in the church. God cut off the Jewish age at the cross

only to make the Jewish rulers who crucified Christ the rulers of the gospel age.

Now how can any man believe that these Jewish rulers who crucified Christ were rulers

of the Christian age? They were yet ruling the age at the time of Paul's writing for he says

they were coming to nothing. I suppose they would come to nothing when their age no

longer existed. They would no longer have any realm in which to rule. If the Jewish age

ended at the cross, why are they yet ruling the age?

Apparently there was quite a conflict, for Paul and the church wrestled with these rulers.

"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers,

against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the

heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12). "This age" is characterized as both "evil" and

"darkness." That does not sound like the age Christ came to establish. Such is the self-

contradictory and unwarranted consequences of making the "present age" of scripture the

Christian age.

Fifth, an overlapping of ages becomes an exegetical nightmare for those who interpret

the "present age" as the Christian age. Jesus spoke of the consummation of an age

concurrent with Jerusalem's fall in A.D.70. "Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the

disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when will these things be? And what

will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" (Matthew 24:3). This age

was present before the death of Christ and remained intact until A.D.70. It ended with the

coming of Christ in "this (first century) generation" (Matthew 24:34). It was therefore a

31

"present age" throughout the ministry of the apostles. Certainly they did not get all those

"present ages" mixed up.

32


15 October 12, 2010


Chapter Ten

The Partial Rapture Position

But let me just clarify something here. I have a lot of sympathy for the partial preterist

point of view. I simply do not call myself a partial preterist because I don't agree with

everything that the partial preterists say. I think that in some cases the partial preterists

make the same mistake that the futurist does, only in reverse. The futurist is in essence

reading the Bible with one hand and the newspaper with the other, and the partial

preterist oftentimes is trying to correlate events in history with what they read in the book

of Revelation - oftentimes when that particular allusion in Revelation is symbolically

intended as opposed to having some literal correspondence in first century history. "Now

that may be a minor point of difference, but it is an important point from my perspective.

Not only that, there are a lot of things that a partial preterist, from my perspective, makes

an either/or proposition that I'm not comfortable making an either/or proposition.

Dispensationalism was largely popularized through the Scofield Reference Bible, and is

now represented, for example, by the notes in the Ryrie Study Bible. Hal Lindsey's book,

The Late Great Planet Earth served to keep the movement in the mainstream of

Evangelicalism in the late 60's and early 70's. The vast majority of the early Charismatic

movement was dispensational in its orientation even though most dispensationalists

emphasized that charismata ceased with the completion of the New Testament. As the

33

Charismatic movement has matured and become more consistent in its own theology,

dispensationalism has largely been jettisoned. Because of this, and because of the

resurgence of questions of ethics (the dispensationalist cannot efficiently use his OT to

answer ethical questions) dispensationalism is apparently on the decline.

34


15 October 12, 2010


Chapter Eleven

The Post Tribulation Rapture Theory

Postmillennialism is an interpretation of Revelation chapter 20 which sees Christ's second

coming as occurring after the “millennium,” a golden age or era of Christian prosperity

and dominance. The term includes several similar views of the end times, and it stands in

contrast to premillennialism (the view that Christ’s second coming will occur prior to His

millennial kingdom and that the millennial kingdom is a literal 1000-year reign) and, to a

lesser extent, amillennialism (no literal millennium).

Postmillennialism is the belief that Christ returns after a period of time, but not

necessarily a literal 1000 years. Those who hold this view do not interpret unfulfilled

prophecy using a normal, literal method. They believe that Rev. 20:4-6 should not be

taken literally. They believe that “1000 years” simply means “a long period of time.”

Furthermore, the prefix “post-” in “postmillennialism” denotes the view that Christ will

return after Christians (not Christ Himself) have established the kingdom on this earth.

Those who hold to postmillennialism believe that this world will become better and better

—all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding—with the entire world eventually

becoming “Christianized.” After this happens, Christ will return. However, this is not the

view of the world in the end times that Scripture presents. From the book of Revelation, it

35

is easy to see that the world will be a terrible place during that future time. Also, inII

Tim. 3:1-7 , Paul describes the last days as “terrible times.”

Those who hold to postmillennialism use a non-literal method of interpreting unfulfilled

prophecy, assigning their own meanings to words. The problem with this is that when

someone starts assigning meanings to words other than their normal meaning, a person

can decide that a word, phrase, or sentence means anything he wants it to mean. All

objectivity concerning the meaning of words is lost. When words lose their meaning,

communication ceases. However, this is not how God has intended for language and

communication to be. God communicates to us through His written word, with objective

meanings to words, so that ideas and thoughts can be communicated.

A normal, literal interpretation of Scripture rejects postmillennialism and holds to a

normal interpretation of all Scripture, including unfulfilled prophecy. We have hundreds

of examples in Scripture of prophecies being fulfilled. Take, for example, the prophecies

concerning Christ in the Old Testament. Those prophecies were fulfilled literally.

Consider the virgin birth of Christ Isaiah 7:14). Consider His death for our sins Isaiah 53.

These prophecies were fulfilled literally, and that is reason enough to assume that God

will continue in the future to literally fulfill His Word. Postmillennialism fails in that it

interprets Bible prophecy subjectively and holds that the millennial kingdom will be

established by the church, not by Christ Himself.

36


15 October 12, 2010


Chapter Twelve

The Midtribulation Rapture Position

Midtribulationism teaches that the rapture occurs at the midpoint of the tribulation. At

that time, the seventh trumpet sounds, Revelations 11:1-5 the church will meet Christ in

the air, and then the bowl judgments are poured upon the earth (Revelation 15–16) in a

time known as the Great Tribulation. In other words, the rapture and Christ’s second

coming (to set up His kingdom) are separated by a period of three-and-a-half years.

According to this view, the church goes through the first half of the tribulation but is

spared the worst of the tribulation which occurs in the last three-and-a-half years. Very

close to midtribulationism is the belief in a “pre-wrath” rapture, i.e., a belief that the

church is caught up to heaven before the “great day of . . . wrath”.

In support of their view, midtribulationists point to the chronology given inII Thess. 2.

The order of events is as follows: 1) apostasy, 2) the revelation of the antichrist, and 3)

the Day of Christ. The midtribulational view teaches that the antichrist will not be

decisively revealed until “the abomination which makes desolate” , which occurs at the

midpoint of the tribulation Daniel 9:27. Also, midtribulationists interpret “the Day of

Christ” as the rapture; therefore, the church will not be caught up to heaven until after the

antichrist is revealed.

37

Another foundational teaching of midtribulationism is that the trumpet of I Cor. 15:52 is

the same trumpet mentioned in Rev11:15. The trumpet of Revelation 11 is the final in a

series of trumpets; therefore, it makes sense that it would be “the last trumpet” of 1

Corinthians 15. This logic fails, however, in view of the trumpets’ objectives. The

trumpet that sounds at the rapture is “the trumpet call of God” I Thess. 4:16 but the one in

Revelation 11 is a harbinger of judgment. One trumpet is a call of grace to God’s elect;

the other is a pronouncement of doom on the wicked. Further, the seventh trumpet in

Revelation is not the “last” trumpet chronologically Matt 24:31 speaks of a later trumpet

which sounds at the commencement of Christ’s kingdom.

I Thess 5:9 says that the church has not been appointed “to suffer wrath but to receive

salvation.” This would seem to indicate that believers will not experience the tribulation.

However, midtribulationism interprets “wrath” as only referring to the second half of the

tribulation—specifically, the bowl judgments. Limiting the word in such a way seems

unwarranted, however. Surely the terrible judgments contained in the seals and trumpets

—including famine, poisoned rivers, a darkened moon, bloodshed, earthquakes, and

torment—could also be considered the wrath of God.

Midtribulationism places the rapture in Revelation 11, prior to the start of “the great

tribulation.” There are two problems with this placement in the chronology of Revelation.

First, the only occurrence of the term “great tribulation” in the entire book of Revelation

is in 7:14. Second, the only reference to a “great day of wrath” is in Rev. 6:17. Both of

these references come too early for a midtribulational rapture.

38

And a final weakness of the midtribulational view is shared by the other two theories:

viz., the Bible does not give an explicit time line concerning future events. Scripture does

not expressly teach one view over another, and that is why we have diversity of opinion

concerning the end times and some variety on how the related prophecies should be

harmonized.

39


15 October 12, 2010


Chapter Thirteen

The Midtribulation Rapture Theory

Pretribulationism teaches that the rapture occurs before the tribulation starts. At that time,

the church will meet Christ in the air, and then sometime after that the antichrist is

revealed and the tribulation begins. In other words, the rapture and Christ’s second

coming (to set up His kingdom) are separated by at least seven years. According to this

view, the church does not experience any of the tribulation.

Scripturally, the pretribulational view has much to commend it. For example, the church

is not appointed to wrath I Thess.1:9-10, and believers will not be overtaken by the Day

of the Lord I Thess. 5:1-9. The church of Philadelphia was promised to be kept from “the

hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world” Rev. 3:10. the promise is not

preservation through the trial but deliverance from the hour, i.e., from the time period of

the trial.

Pretribulationism also finds support in what is not found in Scripture. The word “church”

appears nineteen times in the first three chapters of Revelation, but, significantly, the

word is not used again until chapter 22. In other words, in the entire lengthy description

of the tribulation in Revelation, the word church is noticeably absent. In fact, the Bible

40

never uses the word "church" in a passage relating to the tribulation.

Pretribulationism is the only theory which clearly maintains the distinction between Israel

and the church and God’s separate plans for each. The seventy “sevens” of Daniel 9:24

are decreed upon Daniel’s people (the Jews) and Daniel’s holy city (Jerusalem). This

prophecy makes it plain that the seventieth week (the tribulation) is a time of purging and

restoration for Israel and Jerusalem, not for the church.

Also, pretribulationism has historical support. From John 21:21-23, it would seem that

the early church viewed Christ’s return as imminent, that He could return at any moment.

Otherwise, the rumor would not have persisted that Jesus would return within John’s

lifetime. Imminence, which is incompatible with the other two rapture theories, is a key

tenet of pretribulationism.

And the pretribulational view seems to be the most in keeping with God’s character and

His desire to deliver the righteous from the judgment of the world. Biblical examples of

God’s salvation include Noah, who was delivered from the worldwide flood; Lot, who

was delivered from Sodom; and Rahab, who was delivered from Jericho II Peter 2:9.

One perceived weakness of pretribulationism is its relatively recent development as a

church doctrine, not having been formulated in detail until the early 1800s. Another

weakness is that pretribulationism splits the return of Jesus Christ into two “phases”—the

rapture and the second coming—whereas the Bible does not clearly delineate any such

41

phases.

Another difficulty facing the pretribulational view is the fact that there will obviously be

saints in the tribulation. Pretribulationists answer this by distinguishing the saints of the

Old Testament and the saints of the tribulation from the church of the New Testament.

Believers alive at the rapture will be removed before the tribulation, but there will be

those who will come to Christ during the tribulation.

And a final weakness of the pretribulational view is shared by the other two theories:, the

Bible does not give an explicit time line concerning future events. Scripture does not

expressly teach one view over another, and that is why we have diversity of opinion

concerning the end times and some variety on how the related prophecies should be

harmonized.

42


15 October 12, 2010


Chapter Fourteen

The Events for the Church Following the Rapture

Roman 14:10-12 says, “For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat…so then, each

of us will give an account of himself to God.” II Cor. 5:10 tells us, “For we must all

appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for

the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.” In the context, it is clear that

both scriptures are referring to Christians, not unbelievers. The judgment seat of Christ,

therefore, involves believers giving an account of their lives to Christ. The judgment seat

of Christ does not determine salvation; that was determined by Christ’s sacrifice on our

behalf and our faith in Him, John 3:16 tells us that all of our sins are forgiven, and we

will never be condemned for them Romans 8:1. We should not look at the judgment seat

of Christ as God judging our sins, but rather as God rewarding us for our lives. Yes, as

the Bible says, we will have to give an account of ourselves. Part of this is surely

answering for the sins we committed. However, that is not going to be the primary focus

of the judgment seat of Christ.

At the judgment seat of Christ, believers are rewarded based on how faithfully they

served Christ. Some of the things we might be judged on are how well we obeyed the

43

Great Commission Matthew 28:18 shows how victorious we were over sin, and how well

we controlled our tongues James 3:1-9, The Bible speaks of believers receiving crowns

for different things based on how faithfully they served

44

Documents

Eschatology1 (2)