(By Matt Waymeyer)

I want to recommend to you a fantastic book that I just read on the subject of dispensationalism. But first a little personal history: Back in 1994 I was attending a Presbyterian church in Orlando, taking a Greek class at Reformed Theological Seminary, and beginning to appreciate all things reformed. At the time, I was also thinking seriously about going to seminary full time. I had narrowed it down to either Westminster Theological Seminary or The Master’s Seminary, and I was having a difficult time deciding between the two.

The main problem is that I had never studied the issue of covenant theology vs. dispensationalism. To get me started, one of my covenantal friends suggested two books, one to help me understand covenant theology and the other to help me understand dispensationalism. The first book was O. Palmer Robertson’s The Christ of the Covenants, which is widely regarded as a classic presentation of covenant theology. A very good recommendation. The other book, unfortunately, was John Gerstner’s Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, a diatribe against dispensationalism by a covenant theologian. Not such a good recommendation. [For an excellent review of Gerstner’s book, see Dr. Richard Mayhue’s article in The Master’s Seminary Journal.]

As I began reading Gerstner, I realized pretty quickly that the dispensationalism he was critiquing was certainly not the kind of dispensationalism that TMS president John MacArthur advocated. Gerstner seemed to equate dispensationalism with Arminianism and easy-believism, and since MacArthur was the one who had grounded me in a biblical understanding of the sovereignty of God and the Lordship of Christ, I was pretty sure this book wasn’t going to help me decide where to go to seminary. In fact, Gerstner’s book did more to confuse my understanding of dispensationalism than to clarify it. Eventually I found books and articles that were more helpful, but the process was a long and difficult one, and Gerstner was definitely an ill-advised place for me to start my theological journey.

Why am I telling you this? Because I just finished a book I wish I could have read 14 years ago when I was first studying this issue. That book is Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths by Dr. Michael J. Vlach (Theological Studies Press, 2008), and it is unsurpassed in terms of clearly setting forth the core elements of dispensational theology. In this book, Vlach, an Assistant Professor of Theology at The Master’s Seminary, brings a rare level of simplicity and clarity to a very difficult and complex subject. If you are seeking to understand dispensationalism, this is absolutely the place to begin.

The format of the book is simple enough. In the introduction, Vlach describes how common misrepresentations of dispensationalism have created the need to define clearly the essential beliefs of this theological system. As Vlach explains, his goal in writing was to meet this need:

This book is not an attempt to delve deeply into every issue related to dispensationalism. Nor is it written to iron out in detail all the points of difference between variations within dispensationalism . . . . Instead, I am looking to give the reader a basic introduction to the foundational beliefs of dispensational theology so a better understanding of this theology can occur (p. 4).

In the first chapter, Vlach provides a brief history of the theology of dispensationalism, focusing on three key periods: (1) Classical Dispensationalism (1800s to 1940s), (2) Revised or Modified Dispensationalism (1950-1985), and Progressive Dispensationalism (1986 to the present). This is a helpful overview of the development of dispensationalism over the past 150 years, and unfortunately one that is often missing from these kinds of discussions. As Vlach observes later in the book, “when reading some critiques of dispensationalism, one gets the impression that dspensational thought was frozen by 1950” (p. 53).

The nucleus of the book is found in chapter 3, where Vlach sets forth six essential beliefs that are at the heart of dispensationalism. As Vlach explains:

By “essential” I mean foundational beliefs of dispensationalism that are central and unique to the system, beliefs upon which the system stands or falls. These are also beliefs that if denied, would probably make one a nondispensationalist (p. 18).

The primary strength of this chapter is how Vlach is able to distinguish clearly between core essentials of dispensationalism and possible applications of the system. In contrast, most critiques of dispensational theology focus on the latter to the virtual exclusion of the former. To whet your appetite, the first essential belief concerns the nature and implications of progressive revelation: “Progressive revelation from the New Testament does not interpret or reinterpret Old Testament passages in a way that changes or cancels the original meaning of the Old Testament writers as determined by historical-grammatical hermeneutics” (p. 18).

In chapter 3 Vlach exposes five common myths about dispensational theology which are often promoted by non-dispensationalists, a breath of fresh air for those of us who have grown weary from all the caricatures and straw men. As Vlach explains, many of these myths flow out of the erroneous assumption that dispensationalism is inherently linked to soteriology. Put simply, being dispensational doesn’t mean you believe in multiple ways of salvation; it doesn’t mean that you are Arminian, antinomian, or non-lordship in your theology; and it doesn’t require that you affirm the seven dispensations often associated with classical dispensationalism. According to Vlach, “Those studying dispensationalism should focus on the real issues and avoid such myths” (p. 49).

The final chapter contains a series of questions that Vlach is often asked about the issue and the debate surrounding it. My favorite part of this chapter was his response to the charge that dispensationalism should be rejected since it is a relatively new theological system which was not formalized until the 18th century. According to Vlach, several key elements of dispensational thought were held by the early church, and therefore the early church was closer to dispensationalism than it was to covenant theology. Furthermore, says Vlach, if someone rejects dispensationalism simply because it is new, then he should also reject covenant theology which did not start to take recognizable form until the 17th century (and therefore is not that much older than dispensationalism). As Vlach notes, the better approach is to “focus on whether any system of theology is biblical or not and no so much on when it started” (p. 55).

In the end, regardless of where you land on the spectrum of continuity vs. discontinuity—and regardless of whether you consider yourself a dispensationalist, a covenant theologian, or something in between—if you have a desire to understand the core essentials of what dispensationalism is all about, this book is a must-read. If only Dr. Vlach had written it 14 years ago!

(Compiled by Nathan Busenitz)

Will there be a mass conversion of ethnic Jews at the end of the age?

Matt Waymeyer’s two articles have answered “yes” to that question, based on Paul’s teaching in Romans 11:25–26.

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”

But what do other exegetes from church history have to say in response to this question. Many others could be added to the following list, but here’s a “brief” survey of twenty five.(A word of thanks goes out to Michael Vlach for the first eight of these – see his website for bibliographic info.)

1. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) held that the tribes of Israel would be gathered and restored in accord with what the prophet Zechariah predicted:

And what the people of the Jews shall say and do, when they see Him coming in glory, has been thus predicted by Zechariah the prophet: “I will command the four winds to gather the scattered children; I will command the north wind to bring them, and the south wind, that it keep not back. And then in Jerusalem there shall be great lamentation, not the lamentation of mouths or of lips, but the lamentation of the heart; and they shall rend not their garments, but their hearts. Tribe by tribe they shall mourn, and then they shall look on Him whom they have pierced; and they shall say, Why, O Lord, hast Thou made us to err from Thy way? The glory which our fathers blessed, has for us been turned into shame.” 

2. Tertullian (c. 155-230) urged Christians to eagerly anticipate and rejoice over the coming restoration of Israel: “It will be fitting for the Christian to rejoice, and not to grieve, at the restoration of Israel, if it be true, (as it is), that the whole of our hope is intimately united with the remaining expectation of Israel.”

3. Origen (185-254) believed in “two callings of Israel.” The first calling of Israel refers to Israel’s calling before Christ that eventually led to their stumbling and falling. The second calling of Israel, however, is future and will take place after the period of the fullness of the Gentiles. In Origen’s words: “But when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, then will all Israel, having been called again, be saved.”

4. John Chrysostom (349–407) said this in regards to Romans 11:26:

[Regarding the fact] that they [the Jews] shall believe and be saved, he [Paul] brings Isaiah to witness, who cries aloud and says, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” (Isaiah 59:20.) … If then this has been promised, but has never yet happened in their case, nor have they ever enjoyed the remission of sins by baptism, certainly it will come to pass.

In his commentary on Matthew, Chrysostom also noted:

To show therefore that [Elijah] the Tishbite comes before that other [second] advent . . . He said this. . . . And what is this reason? That when He is come, He may persuade the Jews to believe in Christ, and that they may not all utterly perish at His coming. Wherefore He too, guiding them on to that remembrance, saith, “And he shall restore all things;” that is, shall correct the unbelief of the Jews that are then in being.

5. Augustine (354-430) concurred:

It is a familiar theme in the conversation and heart of the faithful, that in the last days before the judgment the Jews shall believe in the true Christ, that is, our Christ, by means of this great and admirable prophet Elias who shall expound the law to them. . . . When, therefore, he is come, he shall give a spiritual explanation of the law which the Jews at present understand carnally, and shall thus “turn the heart of the father to the son,” that is, the heart of the fathers to the children.

6. Cyril of Alexandria (378-444): Although it was rejected, Israel will also be saved eventually, a hope which Paul confirms . . . . For indeed, Israel will be saved in its own time and will be called at the end, after the calling of the Gentiles.”

7. Theodoret of Cyrus (393-457): And he [Paul] urges them not to despair of the salvation of the other Jews; for when the Gentiles have received the message, even they, the Jews, will believe, when the excellent Elijah comes, bringing to them the doctrine of faith. For even the Lord said this in the sacred gospels: ‘Elijah is coming, and he will restore all things.’

8. Cassiodorus (c. 485-585) [commenting on Psalm 103:9]: This verse can be applied also to the Jewish people, who we know are to be converted at the world’s end. On this Paul says: Blindness in part has happened in Israel, that the fullness of the Gentiles should come in, and so all Israel should be saved.

9. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274): It is possible to designate a terminus, because it seems that the blindness of the Jews will endure until all the pagans chosen for salvation have accepted the faith. And this is in accord with what Paul says below about the salvation of the Jews, namely, that after the conversion of the pagans, all Israel will be saved.

10. The Geneva Study Bible (16th century): He [Paul] speaks of the whole nation, not of any one part. . . . The blindness of the Jews is neither so universal that the Lord has no elect in that nation, neither will it be continual: for there will be a time in which they also (as the prophets have foretold) will effectually embrace that which they now so stubbornly for the most part reject and refuse.

11. William Perkins (1558–1602): The Lord says, All the nations shall be blessed in Abraham: Hence I gather that the nation of the Jews shall be called, and converted to the participation of this blessing: when, and how, God knows: but that it shall be done before the end of the world we know.

12. Elnathan Parr (d. 1630) [on Romans 11:26]: That all the elect shall be saved? Who ever doubted that? But of the calling of the Jews there is doubt. He calls their salvation a secret or mystery but there is nothing mysterious about all the elect being saved. He shows that there is an unbroken reference to Israel/Jacob, that is, ethnic Israel. [From verses 25-28 Parr concludes,] Before the end of the world the Jews in regard to their multitude will be called.

According to the Banner of Truth article on Parr’s interpretation of Romans 11:26: In this [Parr] is followed by Matthew Poole and Matthew Henry. . . .  [More recent] expositors who endorse Parr’s interpretation are Charles Hodge, Robert Haldane, John Brown of Edinburgh, H G C Moule, Frederic Godet, W G T Shedd, Prof John Murray, Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, C E B Cranfield, James Dunn and Thomas R Schreiner in his recently published commentary on Romans.

13. Matthew Poole (1624–1679): [On Romans 11:26] By Israel here (as in the precedent verse) you must understand, the nation and people of the Jews. And by all Israel is not meant every individual Israelite, but many, or (it may be) the greatest part of them. . . . These prophecies and promises [from Isaiah 27:9; 59:20 and Jer. 31:33], though they were in part fulfilled when Christ came in the flesh, (see Acts 3:26,) yet there will be a more full and complete accomplishment thereof upon the Jewish nation and people towards the end of the world.

14. Increase Mather (1639–1723): That there shall be a general conversion of the tribes of Israel, is a truth which in some measure hath been known and believed in all ages of the church of God, since the Apostles’ days.

15. Matthew Henry (1662–1714): Another thing that qualifies this doctrine of the Jews rejection is that though for the present they are cast off, yet the rejection is NOT final; but, when the fullness of time is come, they will be taken in again. They are not cast off for ever, but mercy is remembered in the midst of wrath.

. . . The Jews shall continue in blindness, till God hath performed his whole work among the Gentiles, and then their turn will come next to be remembered. This was the purpose and ordination of God, for wise and holy ends; things should not be ripe for the Jews’ conversion till the church was replenished with the Gentiles, that it might appear that God’s taking them again was not because he had need of them, but of his own free grace.

16. Cotton Mather (1663–1728): This day, from the Dust, where I lay prostrate before the Lord, I lifted up my Cries . . . for the conversion of the Jewish nation, and for my own having the Happiness, at some time or other, to Baptize a Jew that should by my ministry be brought home unto the Lord.

17. Thomas Boston (1676–1732): There is a day coming when there shall be a national conversion of the Jews or Israelites. The now blinded and rejected Jews shall at length be converted into the faith of Christ.

18. James Robe (1688–1753): Me thinks I hear the nation of the Jews (for such is the cry of their case) crying aloud to you from their dispersion, . . . we have now been rejected of God for more than sixteen hundred years, because of our unbelief, and for this long, very long while, wrath to the uttermost hath been lying upon us! There are many promises and predictions that we shall be grafted in again. . . . Pray therefore, and wrestle with God, that he may, according to his promise, pour forth upon the Spirit of grace and supplication, that we may look upon him whom we have pierced, and mourn. . . . Help us with your prayers.

19. The Puritans in General:

According to Ian Murray, The Puritan Hope, 43: This same belief concerning the future of the Jews is to be found very widely in seventeenth-century Puritan literature. It appears in the works of such well-known Puritans as John Owen, Thomas Manton and John Flavel. . . . It is also handled in a rich array of commentaries, both folios and quartos – David Dickson on the Psalms, George Hutcheson on the Minor Prophets, Jeremiah Burroughs on Hosea, William Greenhill on Ezekiel, Elnathan Parr on Romans and James Durham on Revelation: a list which could be greatly extended.

According to J. Van Den Berg, Puritan Eschatology, 140: For . . . virtually all Dutch theologians of the seventeenth century, ‘the whole of Israel’ indicated the fullness of the people of Israel ‘according to the flesh’: in other words, the fullness of the Jewish peole. This meant that there was a basis for an expectation of a future conversion of the Jews–an expectation which was shared by a large majority of Dutch theologians.

20. John Gill (1697–1771): And so all Israel shall be saved. . . . Meaning not the mystical spiritual Israel of God, consisting both of Jews and Gentiles, who shall appear to be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation, when all God’s elect among the latter are gathered in, which is the sense many give into; but the people of the Jews, the generality of them, the body of that nation, called “the fullness” of them, Romans 11:12, and relates to the latter day, when a nation of them shall be born again at once; . . . when they as a body, even the far greater part of them that shall be in being, shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David their King; shall acknowledge Jesus to be the true Messiah, and shall look to him, believe on him, and be saved by him from wrath to come.

21. Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758): . . . the Jews in all their dispersions shall cast away their old infidelity, and shall have their hearts wonderfully changed, and abhor themselves for their past unbelief and obstinacy. They shall flow together to the blessed Jesus, penitently, humbly, and joyfully owning him as their glorious King and only Savior, and shall with all their hearts, as one heart and voice, declare his praises unto other nations. . . . Nothing is more certainly foretold than this national conversion of the Jews in Romans 11.

22. Charles Hodge (1797–1878): The second great event, which, according to the common faith of the Church, is to precede the second advent of Christ, is the national conversion of the Jews. . . . The restoration of the Jews to the privileges of God’s people is included in the ancient predictions and promises made respecting them. . . . The future restoration of the Jews is, in itself, a more probable event than the introduction of the Gentiles into the church of God.

23. Robert Murray M‘Cheynne (1813–1843): Converted Israel . . . will give life to the dead world. . . . just as we have found, among the parched hills of Judah, that the evening dew, coming silently down, gave life to every plant, making the grass to spring and the flowers to put forth their sweetest fragrance, so shall converted Israel be when they come as dew upon a dead, dry world. The remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the Lord, as the showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for man, nor waiteth for the sons of men.

24. J.C. Ryle (1816–1900): It always seemed to me that as we take literally the texts foretelling that the walls of Babylon shall be cast down, so we ought to take literally the texts foretelling that the walls of Zion shall be built up—that as according to prophecy the Jews were literally scattered, so according to prophecy the Jews will be literally gathered—and that as the least and minutest predictions were made good on the subject of our Lord’s coming to suffer, so the minutest predictions shall be made good which describe our Lord’s coming to reign. And I have long felt it is one of the greatest shortcomings of the Church of Christ that we ministers do not preach enough about this advent of Christ, and that private believers do not think enough about it.

25. Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892): I think we do not attach sufficient importance to the restoration of the Jews. We do not think enough of it. But certainly, if there is anything promised in the Bible it is this.

(Spurgeon again): The day shall yet come when the Jews, who were the first Apostles to the Gentiles, the first missionaries to us, who were far off, shall be gathered in again. Until that shall be, the fullness of the Churches’ glory can never come. Matchless benefits to the world are bound up with the restoration of Israel; their gathering in shall be as life from the dead.

In Romans 11:26, the apostle Paul predicts an eschatological salvation of the ethnic nation of Israel. Of this I am firmly convinced. I realize full well, however, that others are less than convinced, and still others are firmly convinced I am dead wrong.

One of the most common reasons people reject this view of Romans 11:26 is because they believe it contradicts the entirety of Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11. Charles M. Horne has articulated this objection well.

He writes this:

If Paul is speaking in 11:26 of a future mass conversion of the nation of Israel, then he is destroying the entire development of his argument in chaps. 9–11. For the one important point that he is trying to establish constantly is exactly this: that God’s promises attain fulfillment not in the nation as such (that is, all of ethnic Israel) but rather in the remnant according to the election of grace. It would seem from this fact therefore that the widely-held theory that the term “all Israel” refers to the nation as a whole is incorrect.

According to fellow objector William Hendriksen, if Romans 11:26 teaches a mass conversion of the Jews, it would seem that Paul is saying, “Forget what I previously told you earlier in Romans 9–11.”

Those who raise this objection often appeal to two verses in particular: Romans 9:6b and Romans 10:12. First, in Romans 9:6b, Paul substantiates his claim that the promises of God to Israel have not failed, writing, “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.” According to Ben Merkle, this verse teaches that

God’s promises to Abraham never included the promise that his descendants would be saved based on their ethnic identity. True Israel consists of those who are the children of the promise, rather than children of the flesh. God never promised that every individual Jew would be saved, but only those he unconditionally elected within Israel.

As a result, Paul’s statement in Romans 9:6b is said to preclude any interpretation of Romans 11:26 in which the nation of Israel as a whole is saved.

Second, in Romans 10:12, the apostle Paul writes, “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him.” According to Anthony Hoekema: “Paul’s point here is that as far as the obtaining of salvation is concerned, there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. If this is so, a future period of time in which only Jews will be saved . . . would seem to be ruled out.” In the words of N.T. Wright, the issue is this:

If Paul rejects the possibility of a status of special privilege for Jews in [Romans 9 and 10], how does he manage, apparently, to reinstate such a position in [Romans 11]? It is this apparent inconsistency that has led many to suggest that the section contains a fundamental self-contradiction.

To summarize, this objection from Romans 9-11 can be broken down into two parts: (1) God never promised that every individual Jew would be saved, only those He unconditionally elected within Israel; and (2) God clearly denies that He will save Israelites based on their ethnic identity, for salvation is irrespective of ethnicity and open to Jew and Gentile alike. It may surprise those who reject my view of Romans 11:26 to find that I do not disagree with these two statements. Instead, my disagreement involves the implications they have on a proper interpretation of Romans 11:26. Let me explain.

Regarding the first half of the objection, I fully agree that God never promised to save every single Jew. Furthermore, I fully agree that He promised to save only those whom He unconditionally elected within the nation of Israel. But my view of Roman 11:26 does not claim salvation for very single Israelite throughout history, only for the nation as a whole at the end of history. As Thomas Schreiner explains:

It is crucial to observe that Paul promises the salvation of ethnic Israel only after the fullness of Gentiles has been incorporated into God’s saving promises. He does not argue that all ethnic Israelites throughout history will be saved. That would contradict the argument in chapter 9.

In other words, as Schreiner says later, Romans 11:26 “does not promise salvation to all Israel throughout history but to ‘all Israel’ at the end of history. Such a salvation of ‘all Israel,’ therefore, is still the salvation of only a remnant of Israel throughout history.” And for this reason, an eschatological salvation of the nation does not contradict Paul’s affirmation in Romans 9:6b that not all physical Jews are also spiritual Jews.

Regarding the second half of the objection, I fully agree that God saves people regardless of their ethnicity, for all who cry upon the Lord will be saved, whether Jew or Gentile. However, to claim that Romans 10:12 precludes the possibility of a future conversion of national Israel goes far beyond what the verse actually says.

As John Piper observes, Romans 3:22 and 10:12 define the ways in which there is no difference between Jew and Gentile: “In 3:22 there is no difference in the sense that ‘all have sinned and lack the glory of God’ (3:23). In 10:12 there is no difference in the sense that ‘the same Lord is over all, rich to all who call upon him (10:12; cf. 3:29f).” But neither of these imply that God will not save the nation of Israel at the end of present age.

Frankly, this objection seems to flow out of the assumption that God cannot or will not do in the future what He has not done in the past. In turn, this assumption seems to have silenced the teaching of Paul in the last part of Romans 9–11 by turning Romans 11:11–32 into a reiteration of his teaching in Romans 9:6–11:10. In contrast, as I pointed out in yesterday’s post, I believe that Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11 culminates in Romans 11:11-32 where the apostle affirms that the present hardening of Israel will be removed at the return of Christ and all Israel will be saved.

Back to the objection itself, the overriding concern is that ethnicity cannot be the basis for the salvation of Israel, because this would undermine the unconditional nature of God’s sovereign election. This, however, is simply not the case with my view of Romans 11:26. As Schreiner points out, “Israel’s ancestry does not amount to a claim on God. God freely pledged to bestow his grace upon Israel as an expression of his lovingkindness.” In the words of commentator C.E.B. Cranfield: “Israel is beloved because God is faithful to His own love, which in His sovereign freedom He bestowed upon the fathers on no other ground than His love, which knows no cause outside itself (cf. Deut. 7:7f).”

In the end, I think John Piper said it best:

Since God’s free and unconstrained election of Israel from all the nations of the earth (Deut 7:6) embraced from the outset his intention to bless Israel for centuries in unique ways among the nations and in the last days to purify and save the whole people, his fulfillment of this intention is just as free from human constraints as the initial election of Abraham. We may infer from Rom 9:6ff that God has employed four thousand years of redemptive history to teach that he is free and not bound to save anyone because of his Jewishness nor to condemn anyone because of his non-Jewishness. Can he not at the end of the age, having demonstrated his freedom beyond the shadow of a doubt, bring his free and sovereign election of Israel to a climax by banishing ungodliness from Jacob and saving the whole people?

Can He not, in other words, have mercy on whom He desires (Rom 9:14–18)?

(By Matt Waymeyer)

The Salvation of Israel in Romans 9-11

In Romans 9–11, the apostle Paul addresses the question of how to reconcile the faithfulness of God and the unbelief of Israel. In the words of Scott Hafemann:

Israel’s rejection of the Messiah seems to call into question God’s faithfulness to the very covenant promises and privileges outlined in [Romans 9:4–5], promises and privileges which entail and imply the eschatological redemption of Israel. For Paul it is thus God’s word and consequently his trustworthiness which is ultimately at stake.

The apostle’s assertion in Romans 9:6a addresses this dilemma directly and establishes the theme for the entirety of Romans 9–11: “But it is not as though the word of God has failed.” In other words, in spite of the fact that most of Israel has rejected the Messiah, God’s covenant promises to His chosen nation nevertheless have not failed. God is faithful, and He will fulfill His promises.

To support this claim, Paul begins in 9:6b–13 by reminding his readers that God never promised to save every ethnic Israelite, for there is a spiritual Israel within physical Israel which is the recipient of that promise. This leads to Paul’s question in 9:14a about whether or not God is just in choosing to save only some of the Jews. Paul responds to this question in 9:14b–29 by affirming God’s justice and His sovereign right to do as He pleases. This, in turn, leads to the question in 9:30–31 of why the Gentiles have attained righteousness while Israel did not. Paul responds in 9:32–10:21 by setting forth the failure of the Jews to embrace Christ and the gospel.

This description of the failure of the majority of the Jews to embrace the Messiah leads to Paul’s question in 11:1a, which is repeated in 11:2a. His question is whether or not—in light of Israel’s disobedience and obstinacy (10:21)—God has permanently rejected His chosen people, the nation He set His love upon. His immediate reply is an emphatic negative—“May it never be!” God has not rejected Israel. In the remainder of Romans 11, Paul expounds on His answer to the question.

In 11:1–10, Paul asserts that the present hardening and unbelief of Israel is only partial (for a believing remnant does exist), and in 11:11–32 he asserts that it is only temporary (for the nation as a whole will one day be saved). There will be a time, Paul says, when Israel’s “transgression” and “failure” will give way to her “fulfillment” (v. 12), when her rejection by God becomes her acceptance by Him (v. 15), and when her unbelief turns to belief and she is grafted in again (vv. 23–24). The current hardening that has come upon the majority of Israel will be removed at the end of the age (v. 25), and in this way all Israel will be saved (v. 26a). This salvation of the nation at the time of Christ’s return will be the fulfillment of Old Testament promises and ultimately the fulfillment of the New Covenant itself (vv. 26b–27).

Until that time, however, the nation of Israel can be regarded from two perspectives. From the perspective of her rejection of the gospel, she is the enemy of God, but from the perspective of God’s choice of the nation as His own possession, she is still beloved (v. 28), for God will not go back on the promises He made to her forefathers (v. 29). As Thomas Schreiner writes:

The salvation of Israel at the end of history, then, is the fulfillment of the covenantal promises that were made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God will not forsake his people but has pledged, in accordance with his covenantal love, to graft them again onto the olive tree.

In this way, as Hafemann notes, Romans 11:25–32 provides “the last and perhaps the most important support” for Paul’s assertion in Romans 9:6a. Why has God’s word not failed? Because, just as He has promised, all Israel will be saved.

To Be Concluded Tomorrow

Many theologians deny that the ethnic nation of Israel has any kind of distinct role in the future plan of God. According to Bruce K. Waltke, “no clear passage [of Scripture] teaches the restoration of national Israel” because “the Jewish nation no longer has a place as the special people of God.” In the words of Herman Ridderbos, “The church . . . as the people of the New Covenant has taken the place of Israel, and national Israel is nothing other than the empty shell from which the pearl has been removed and which has lost its function in the history of redemption.”

One of the many passages which present a problem for this view is Acts 1:6-7. In verse 6, just before Jesus ascended into heaven, the eleven disciples asked Him: “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” This question is profound, and its meaning is unmistakable. In fact, even covenant theologian O. Palmer Robertson—who denies a future restoration of Israel—summarizes it quite well:

What can be said about the nature of this kingdom as understood by the disciples? The fact that they spoke of its being “restored to Israel” indicates that they were thinking of it as a national entity with its center located in Jerusalem and its domain encompassing the land of their fathers. They were expressing the Jewish hope that God would establish his rule, so that Israel would be freed from its enemies and reconstituted as the great nation that it once was.

The significance here is obvious: At the time of Christ’s ascension, the disciples were still expecting a future restoration of the kingdom to the ethnic nation of Israel. How, then, is it reasonable to deny a future for Israel?

One response is to say that the disciples were significantly misguided in their thinking. According to John Calvin, “[T]heir blindness is remarkable, that when they had been so fully and carefully instructed over a period of three years, they betrayed no less ignorance than if they had never heard a word. There are as many errors in this question as words.” Similarly, according to Robertson, “these disciples’ understanding of the nature of Christ’s kingdom was little better than had been displayed by the Jews in the days of the Maccabees or by the Zealots in Jesus’ own day.” In other words, even though the disciples fully expected the kingdom to be restored to the nation, this expectation was in vain, and it betrayed an astonishing ignorance of both the nature and the recipients of the kingdom.

Although the disciples were certainly misguided and in need of correction on several occasions throughout the ministry of Christ, it is difficult to believe that this was one of them. Instead, Acts 1:6-7 clearly indicates that there is indeed a future for the nation of Israel in the redemptive plan of God. I say this for two reasons.

The Context of the Question

The disciples’ question did not come in a vacuum. It came at the end of the 40-day period between the resurrection and ascension of Christ in which He appeared to the disciples and continued to teach them. It is reasonable to assume that Jesus taught them many things during this time, but Acts 1:3 mentions only one: “the things concerning the kingdom of God.”

As Jews, the disciples were certainly aware of the OT prophecies concerning the kingdom that would be restored to Israel, and during the earthly ministry of Christ, they continued to expect this very restoration. And although they did not initially understand that the death of Christ was necessary for its establishment, they listened to the resurrected Jesus teach about the kingdom over a 40-day period, and at its conclusion, one thing remained clear in all of their minds: the kingdom would be restored to Israel.

The content of Jesus’ teaching must have included an explanation of the nature and recipients of the kingdom. That much seems undeniable. In addition, the hours of instruction would have provided ample opportunity for dialogue, including questions from the disciples and clarifications from Jesus. Therefore, those who insist that the disciples were misguided in Acts 1:6 must believe that even though Jesus taught them clearly about these things, somehow they were not able to understand even the basics of what He said. This seems implausible, particularly in light of Luke 24:45.

According to Luke 24:45, Jesus not only taught His disciples during this time period, but He also “opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.” The Greek verb translated “opened” is the word used in Acts 16:14 of how the Lord “opened” Lydia’s heart to respond to the gospel. In Luke 24:45 it speaks of a supernatural opening of the disciples’ minds which enabled them to understand the things spoken about Jesus throughout the Old Testament.

In light of this, how can one insist that the disciples were deceived in thinking that God was planning to restore the kingdom to the nation of Israel? Jesus Himself instructed them clearly, and He even enlightened their minds to understand the things He taught, so how could they be so radically misinformed about features of the kingdom as basic as its nature and recipients? As Robert L. Saucy writes:

There is no question but that the disciples had difficulty with some of the spiritual teaching about the kingdom. This is evident in their failure to understand the teaching of Jesus at some points, especially with regard to the salvation of the kingdom through his death. But to charge them with a total misunderstanding of the kingdom hope of Israel based on an alleged reinterpretation of this hope is difficult to substantiate in Scripture.

The Answer to the Question

If the disciples were so radically misinformed about the nature and recipients of the promised kingdom, one would certainly expect Jesus to have set the record straight, to have provided the needed correction at this crucial moment in redemptive history. After all, He was commissioning His disciples to be His witnesses to the nations, and this was their final question before His departure. In addition, Jesus’ consistent track record was that of correcting those who were in error. But here He provides no correction whatsoever. Instead, He simply says: “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority” (Acts 1:7).

Picture a little girl asking her father: “Daddy, is today the day that you are going to give me a pony?” To which her father responds: “Sweetie, it is not for you to know when.” What would this so obviously imply about whether or not her father was planning to give his daughter a pony, especially if he had previously promised her one? Rather than explaining that there was a misunderstanding and that he had never intended to give her a pony, the father has confirmed his daughter’s hope by simply saying that the timing is not for her to know. In Acts 1:6-7, Jesus does the same thing with the kingdom promised to Israel.

Some have responded by insisting that Jesus redefines the promised kingdom in His very next statement: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). According to this view, the kingdom promised by Jesus is different from the nationalistic expectations of the disciples. Instead, the kingdom would be established as the Holy Spirit worked through the disciples as they proclaimed the gospel throughout the earth.

The problem with this view is that it still does not account for Jesus’ failure to correct the disciples. In the collective mind of the eleven, the question was not if, but when, and rather than setting the record straight, Jesus confirmed their understanding by saying that the timing was not for them to know. It seems more than a little naïve to think that Jesus’ simple statement in Acts 1:8 would have succeeded in redefining the kingdom in the disciples’ minds when 40 days of instruction and enlightenment had failed to do just that.

The words of Jesus in Acts 1:8 are perfectly compatible with the disciples’ view that the kingdom would be restored to Israel, and those words give no indication that a correction or redefinition was being offered. The disciples asked Jesus if now was the time (v. 6), and He responded by saying it was not for them to know the time (v. 7). However, their immediate objective involved something they could know, namely that the Holy Spirit would come shortly and empower them to be His witnesses to the nations (v. 8 ). As Saucy writes, “This was to be their immediate concern before the final fulfillment of their hope for their people Israel.”

According to Jesus, God the Father not only knows the timing of Israel’s restoration, but He Himself has fixed the day (Acts 1:7). This is reminiscent of Mark 13:32 where Jesus said that only the Father knows the timing of the Second Coming. The connection here is interesting, especially in light of the biblical teaching elsewhere that the restoration of Israel will coincide with the return of Christ, the Deliverer who will take away their sins (Romans 11:25-27). At this time, the nation will look upon the One they have pierced and embrace the Messiah, receiving the covenant blessings of a God who is faithful to keep His promises.

It’s not a matter of if, but when.

In keeping with Jonathan Moorhead’s mystery quotation last Friday (from R.C. Sproul), we thought we’d put up a few more on the topic of Israel and the future. For those who missed it at Jonathan’s site, here is part of the Sproul quote:

(By Nathan Busenitz)

This week has seen some good discussion here on Pulpit. It’s been vigorous, fun, and I hope profitable to all who have participated. Today we will wrap up the discussion (bringing an end to “the end”), closing the comment threads at 5:00 PM PST.

Why Premillennialism?

With all the theological garbage that parades itself under the name “dispensational premillennialism,” I think this is a fair question. (I for one certainly wouldn’t mind thinking up a new label.) So — why would anyone be a premillennialist? Is it because of the colorful charts? Or maybe the fast-paced novels? Maybe it’s the funky hair-dos on all those prophecy TV programs.

Actually… it’s not any of those. In fact, for me it’s not ultimately about eschatology at all. It’s about the clarity of Scripture and the irrevocable nature of God’s promises.

If I were asked to give a brief defense of why I am a premillennialist, I would say that it ultimately comes down to those two things. In other words —

(1) God cannot lie and He can communicate clearly — Thus, when I read the Old Testament, taking His promises at face-value, I come away a premillennialist. In the same way that the prophecies regarding Christ’s first coming were fulfilled literally, so (I believe) the prophecies surrounding Christ’s second coming should be also taken at face value. The New Testament does not annull the OT promises (but rather affirms them — in passages like Acts 1:6-8; Romans 9-11; and Rev. 20:4-6). The burden of proof, then, falls on the amillennialist — to demonstrate that what God promised is (in actuality) somehow different than what He will bring to pass.

Amillennialists will perhaps reply that they are interpreting the Old Testament in the way the NT authors interpreted it. But this becomes very difficult in light of the fact that the NT authors do not approach the Old Testament in a consistent way, nor do they give us normative instruction to spiritualize the OT.

For that matter, if later revelation is to be read into earlier revelation (as amillennialism suggests), then why is Revelation 20:4-6 so quickly discounted? As Craig Blaising asks:

Considering that this book [Revelation] is a late revelation from the Lord himself to the churches (Rev. 1:1; 22:16), with the admonition that the words are “faithful and true” (22:6), we ask, is this wise [to discount it]? Should not one be open to what the Lord himself says about how (i.e., the manner and the time) he will fulfill those things that he has previously revealed, especially as it is the most detailed explanation given on the topic? (Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond, 151-52).

In any case, I’m trying to be brief… so I’ll move on to my second point:

(2) God’s unconditional covenants with the nation of Israel are irrevocable — This includes the Abrahamic, Land, Davidic, and New Covenants. As Arnold Fruchtenbaum demonstrates in this article, these unconditional promises necessitate a physical kingdom on this earth for the nation of Israel.

If the promises given in the Old Testament could not be taken at face value by those who received them, then what guarantee do I have when I take the New Testament promises at face value? This is an honest question that I would ask my amillennial brothers. Isn’t it possible that New Testament prophecy (like Old Testament prophecy) doesn’t really mean what it says? How much stock can I put in the literalness of 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Peter 3; or Revelation 21-22 if it’s possible that those prophecies were never intended as literal?

Well, anyway… those are honest questions. I don’t claim to have everything figured out on my own eschatological chart. Nor would I ever question the intelligence or sincerity of my amill and post-mill brethren. But, at the end of the day – without overwhelming evidence to the contrary — I’m left with no other choice than to believe that God will do exactly what He said He would do in the Old Testament, in exactly the way He said He would do it.

As those who are soteriologically reformed, we take God’s promises very seriously. In fact, we stake our eternities on them. That’s why Dr. MacArthur titled his message, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist.” It wasn’t a dig, so much as a call to really consider the basis for premillennialism — the very promises of God. If those promises did not hold literally true for the nation of Israel, why would we expect them to hold literally true for us?

Today’s post is a continuation from yesterday and Tuesday. This concludes our Q&A series on eschatology (with one final post on eschatology to come tomorrow). Next week we hope to respond to some of the questions dealing with other aspects of theology.

***** 

8. I can see premillennialism in the Old Testament. But is there any New Testament evidence for premillennialism? 

It is important to note that the New Testament writers do not abrogate the Old Testament promises to Israel — something which would be expected if the writers of the New Testament understood the Old Testament promises to no longer be valid.

Beyond this, there are New Testament passages that do point to Israel’s glorious future. Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30 (more info); Acts 1:6-8 (more info); Acts 3:12-26 (more info); Romans 9-11 (more info); Rev. 20:1-6 (more info) would be among these. Other passages could also be listed. One helpful resource in this regard is The Coming Millennial Kingdom (edited by Campbell and Townsend), because it presents an exegetical (rather than systematic) defense of the premillennial position.

***** 

9. My one “hang up” that continues to gnaw at me is the reinstitution of the sacrificial system in the millennium, as taught in Ezekiel. Isn’t that returning to the shadow now that the substance has come?

Dispensational premillennialists believe in millennial sacrifices because Ezekiel clearly says that they will take place. We believe that the burden of proof is on those who want to dismiss Ezekiel’s sacrifices when there is no exegetical reason to do so.

These sacrifices do not infringe in any way on the once-for-all, all-sufficient atoning sacrifice of Christ. They are no more efficacious than the sacrifices of the Old Testament. No sacrifice before or after Christ saves. They only point to Him as the one true Lamb who takes away sin. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial that looks back to Calvary and in no way diminishes the cross. Israel rejected their Messiah, but when they have received Him and are in His kingdom, they will have a memorial of sacrifices that point to Him. They will have missed the memorial of the Lord’s Supper, but will then have their own memorial sacrifices for the duration of the millennial kingdom.

For more on millennial sacrifices, please see the articles by Thomas Ice and Kevin Bauder.

*****

10. What about Galatians 6:16?  Doesn’t Paul refer to the New Testament church as “the Israel of God”?

As was noted in the comments section on Tuesday, dispensational premillennialists assert that “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 refers to believing Jews within the church and not to the church as a whole. Premillennialists further assert that none of the references to Israel in the New Testament refer to the church, but rather refer only to the ethnic nation Israel.

Here is an extended portion from Michael Vlach’s helpful analysis that explains why the amillennial understanding of Galatians 6:16 is grammatically untenable: 

Replacement theologians claim that Paul is calling the church the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16. In fact, as Hans K. LaRondelle has stated, “Paul’s benediction in Galatians 6:16 becomes, then, the chief witness in the New Testament in declaring that the universal church of Christ is the Israel of God, the seed of Abraham, the heir to Israel’s covenant promises.” Though many scholars uphold this view, there are serious problems with this interpretation.

The major problem with the replacement interpretation of Galatians 6:16 is grammatical and concerns the meaning of kai. The view that the kai, before the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16, should be taken in the explicative sense of “even” seems unlikely and goes against the most common use of the word in the New Testament. An examination of the New Testament, as well as standard Greek grammars, reveals that kai, in the majority of cases, is used in the continuative or copulative sense of “and.” The second most frequent meaning of kai is the adjunctive sense of “also.” A third, and much less frequent use of kai, is the explicative sense of “even.” The explicative sense of “even,” though, is very rare in the New Testament. As S. Lewis Johnson has noted, “it is doubtful that Paul ever uses kai in ‘so marked an explicative sense.’”

The rareness in which the explicative sense of kai is used in the New Testament is a serious problem for the replacement view of Galatians 6:16. As Marvin R. Vincent has stated, “The explicative kai is at best doubtful here and is rather forced.” Proper hermeneutical procedure indicates that when determining the meaning of a term, the primary use of a term should be favored unless there are strong contextual reasons to go with a secondary or rarer meaning. Replacement theologians, however, opt for the rarer meaning.

… The best approach is to interpret the kai of Galatians 6:16 in its normal copulative sense of “and.” Thus, in Galatians 6:16, Paul is singling out Christian Jews within the church who have rejected the legalistic teaching of the Judaizers and have stood firm to the correct view that salvation comes only through faith apart from works of the law. This text, then, cannot be used to support the view that the church is called “Israel.”

Additional articles on this and related topics can be found here, here, and here.

*****

11. Is it necessary to hold a dispensational pretrib/premill view of eschatology to preserve the uniqueness of Israel or can historic premill do the same thing?

For a run-down on the differences between the major eschatological views, please see this helpful chart, from a non-premillennial source.

*****

12. How would you define your brand of dispensationalism? It seems to have some elements of covenantal themes; and can you be more substantive than “leaky” dispensationalist?

The following comes from a Q&A session with John MacArthur here at Grace Church:

Now what is a proper dispensational viewpoint?  I’ll put it to you very simply. The whole of my dispensationalism can be stated in one sentence. It is a distinction between the church and Israel period. That is it. That’s really all you need. And secondly, if you just wanted a little corollary, see more continuity between the old covenant and the new covenant, there’s more continuity there then the old dispensationalists were willing to admit. I see there’s much more of a flow between the Old and New Testaments. There’s grace in the Old, there’s law in the New. In the Old they were saved by grace, Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, did he not?  And that’s how he was redeemed. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Salvation was always by grace through faith even in the dispensation of law, the age of law. The bottom line is that I want to maintain the clear distinction between Israel and the church which is a hermeneutical issue. If the Bible says that God is going to give a kingdom to Israel, I believe He means Israel, not the church. So we have to maintain that hermeneutical distinction.

From an appendix in Faith Works:

Many people are understandably confused by the term dispensationalism. I’ve met seminary graduates and many in Christian leadership who haven’t the slightest idea how to define dispensationalism. … Perhaps we can [respond] simply and without a lot of theological jargon.

Dispensationalism is a system of biblical interpretation that sees a distinction between God’s program for Israel and His dealings with the church. It’s really as simple as that.

A dispensation is the plan of God by which He administers His rule within a given era in His eternal program. Dispensations are not periods of time, but different administrations in the eternal outworking of God’s purpose. It is especially crucial to note that the way of salvation—by grace through faith—is the same in every dispensation. God’s redemptive plan remains unchanged, but the way He administers it will vary from one dispensation to another. Dispensationalists note that Israel was the focus of God’s redemptive plan in one dispensation. The church, consisting of redeemed people including Jews and Gentiles, is the focus in another. All dispensationalists believe at least one dispensation is still future—during the thousand-year reign of Christ on earth, known as the millennium, in which Israel will once again play a pivotal role.

Dispensationalism teaches that all God’s remaining covenant promises to Israel will be literally fulfilled—including the promises of earthly blessings and an earthly messianic kingdom. God promised Israel, for example, that they would possess the promised land forever (Gen. 13:14–17 ; Exod. 32:13). Scripture declares that Messiah will rule over the kingdoms of the earth from Jerusalem (Zech. 14:9–11). Old Testament prophecy says that all Israel will one day be restored to the promised land (Amos 9:14–15); the temple will be rebuilt (Ezek. 37:26–28); and the people of Israel will be redeemed (Jer. 23:6 ; Rom. 11:26–27). Dispensationalists believe all those promised blessings will come to pass as literally as did the promised curses.

We recognize that there are a lot of theological aberrations that exist under the broader heading of “dispensationalism” — and we would reject these fringe elements. Nonetheless, we embrace the term insofar as we have defined it above. For more on this, see Matt Waymeyer’s helpful article, “Am I a Dispensationalist?”

Today’s post is continued from yesterday — responding to questions we received during the 2007 Shepherds’ Conference.

*****

5. Can you say more in defense of your understanding of Acts 1:6–8?

The fact that Jesus (in v. 7) does not deny the disciples’ expectation of a literal, earthly kingdom involving Israel is highly significant. It suggests that their understanding of the promised kingdom (in v. 6) was correct, except for the time of its coming. If they were mistaken about such a crucial point in His kingdom teaching, His failure to correct them is mystifying and deceptive. A far more likely explanation is that the apostles’ expectation of a literal, earthly kingdom mirrored the Lord’s own teaching (from the previous 40 days) and the plan of God clearly revealed in the Old Testament.

This article, by Michael Vlach, further explains why we believe the premillennial understanding of Acts 1:6–8 is preferred.

Dr. Vlach’s article concludes as follows:

Acts 1:6 seems to be significant evidence for the nonsupersessionist view. The fact that these disciples had immediately experienced forty days of kingdom instruction from the risen Jesus (see Acts 1:3) makes it unlikely they could be so wrong about the nature of the kingdom and national Israel’s relationship to it. Plus, Jesus’ answer, although not an explicit affirmation of their hope, appears to assume the correctness of their expectation. As Scot McKnight states:

Since Jesus was such a good teacher, we have every right to think that the impulsive hopes of his audience were on target. This is not to say that they, at times, drew incorrect references or came to inaccurate conclusions about time or about content, but it is to admit that Jesus believed in an imminent realization of the kingdom to restore Israel and that he taught this with clarity.

We thus conclude with Paul W. Walaskay that Jesus said nothing that “dampened the hope of his disciples for a national kingdom.” Acts 1:6–7, therefore, is evidence for the restoration of the nation Israel.

***** 

6. What is the “fullness of the Gentiles” versus the “times of the Gentiles”? How do these phrases relate to a premillennial paradigm?

The “fullness of the Gentiles” (Romans 11:25) refers to the complete number of Gentiles chosen by God to come to salvation during the church age. After the “fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (meaning the church age has ended), “all Israel” (the entire nation that survives the Great Tribulation) “will be saved.”

For a thorough defense of this interpretation of “all Israel” in Romans 11:26, see Matt Waymeyer’s thesis here (or his shorter journal article here) or Michael Vanlaningham’s article here. Also, for a treatment of the entire section (Romans 9 – 11) please see this study by S. Lewis Johnson.

The “times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24) is a phrase unique to Luke. It has been a time which, in accord with God’s purpose, Gentiles have dominated or threatened Jerusalem. The era has also been marked by vast spiritual privileges for the Gentile nations.

Regarding Luke 21:24 (and its connection to Romans 11:25), Thomas Ice writes this:

Luke 21:24 ends by saying that Jerusalem will be under Gentile domination “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” The little word “until” clearly denotes that there will be a time when the current domination of Jerusalem by the Gentiles will come to an end. The current “times of the Gentiles” in which we currently live will indeed come to an end in the future. Thus, the end of verse 24 serves as a transitional period between the prophecy that refers to the past A.D. 70 event (Luke 21:20-24) and the prophecy that looks to a future fulfillment at Christ second coming (Luke 21:25-28). We now live in the “times of the Gentiles.”

A clear connection is established between Luke 21:24 which speaks of the current era of “the times of the Gentiles” being fulfilled and coming to an end and Romans 11:25 which speaks of “the fullness of the Gentiles” having “come in.” Both passages speak of Israel’s redemption (Luke 21:28; Romans 11:26–27). When we consider that the Old Testament pattern which says that Israel will pass through the tribulation, repent toward the end when they recognize Jesus as the Messiah, experience conversion, and then the second coming will occur to rescue them from their enemies, it follows that “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26) in connection with the tribulation. This is exactly the pattern of Luke 21:25–28.

Preterist Ken Gentry believes Romans teaches a future conversion of Israel, yet he does not associate it with the tribulation as Scripture repeatedly does. Dr. Gentry declares, “The future conversion of the Jews will conclude the fulfillment (Rom. 11:12–25).” Yet only a futurist interpretation does justice to a harmonization of these passages that are clearly connected (Online Source).

*****

7. How would you respond to those who say the number “one thousand” in Revelation 20 is figurative?

We believe that there is no reason (from the text itself) to deny a literal one thousand years as the duration of the kingdom of Christ on earth. As Robert Thomas writes:

If the writer wanted a very large symbolic number, why did he not use 144,000 (7:1ff.; 14:1ff.;), 200,000,000 (9:16), “ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands” (5:11), or an incalculably large number (7:9)? The fact is that no number in Revelation is verifiably a symbolic number. On the other hand, nonsymbolic usage of numbers is the rule. It requires multiplication of a literal 12,000 by a literal twelve to come up with 144,000 in 7:4–8. The churches, seals, trumpets, and bowls are all literally seven in number. The three unclean spirits of 16:13 are actually three in number. The three angels connected with the three last woes (8:13) add up to a total of three. The seven last plagues amount to exactly seven. The equivalency of 1,260 days and three and a half years necessitate a nonsymbolic understanding of both numbers. The twelve apostles and the twelve tribes of Israel are literally twelve (21:12–14). The seven churches are in seven literal cities. Yet confirmation of a single number in Revelation as symbolic is impossible. (Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Commentary, 408–9)

Moreover, it is highly doubtful that any symbolic number would be repeated six times in a text, as one thousand is here.

For more on the premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:1–6, see the articles by Steve Sullivan or J. Hampton Keathley. (Of special interest is Sullivan’s appendix on the use of numbers in Revelation.)

*****

To be concluded tomorrow.

Also, one resource we did not note in yesterday’s list is J. Dwight Pentecost’s work, Things to Come. The entire manuscript is available online. 

*****

Questions and Responses (in no particular order):

1. Please explain Jeremiah 3:8 and Amos 5:1–2 in light of your premillennial stance. Has God remarried Israel?

In Jeremiah 3:8 and Amos 5:1–2, the prophets speak of God’s rejection of Israel (and her impending judgment) because of her religious apostasy. But these passages do not suggest that God has permanently rejected His elect nation (cf. Isaiah 45:4).

In the same chapter of Jeremiah, it states that God will take Israel back in the future (vv. 16–18), restoring her to Himself. This is similar to Hosea’s restoration of Gomer which was a picture of God taking back His wicked, adulterous people. Or Ezekiel’s depiction of Israel as an idolatrous harlot (in Ezekiel 16), at the end of which God says:

Nevertheless, I will remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. … And I will establish My covenant with you. Then you shall know that I am the LORD. (Ezekiel 16:60, 62)

Amos 5:1–2 refers to the destruction of the northern kingdom by the Assyrian army (and not to the permanent rejection of Israel as a nation). In Amos 9:11–15 the prophet predicts that in the future Israel will be restored in the land.

A related comment should be made about Joshua 21:43–45 (which some suggest was the final fulfillment of the land promise). It is anachronistic to argue that the later prophetic passages (where the land promise is reiterated as a future hope) were fulfilled centuries earlier during the time of Joshua. As Zaspel writes in his article:

It is often assumed that Joshua 21:45 declares a full and final realization of God’s covenanted promises to national Israel. But the verse does not say that at all. Joshua was merely claiming that God had come good on all He had said. That in no way rules out a further and fuller realization of the same promises; this is evidenced by the (later) announcements of the prophets that God was yet to give Israel her land, and that as a permanent possession (e.g., Amos 9:13-15). In other words, Joshua was not at all saying, “This is it! That’s all!” He was merely showing God’s faithfulness in doing as He said He would do. If that is so, then the verse does not end the discussion of Israel’s inheritance of the land.

For much more on the millennial perspective of the Old Testament, please see this article.

***** 

2. Can you comment more on the importance of a consistent literal hermeneutic? Given that the NT authors don’t always seem to follow a literal view of the OT, amillennialists claim that their approach to the OT is demanded by the NT. Any thoughts?

At the heart of the debate over millennial views is the issue of hermeneutics. All sides in the debate agree that interpreting Old Testament prophecy literally leads naturally to premillennialism. Amillennialist Floyd E. Hamilton candidly acknowledges that truth: “Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist pictures” (The Basis of Millennial Faith, 38). Postmillennialist Loraine Boettner agrees with Hamilton’s assessment: “It is generally agreed that if the prophecies are taken literally, they do foretell a restoration of the nation of Israel in the land of Palestine with the Jews having a prominent place in that kingdom and ruling over the other nations” (“A Postmillennial Response [to Dispensational Premillennialism],” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, 95).

As far as the New Testament’s use of the Old, Thomas Ice addresses that topic in detail in this article. Ice (based largely on the work of Fruchtenbaum) demonstrates that a consistently-applied literal-historical-grammatical hermeneutic (and the premillennial conclusion that results) is not at odds with the NT use of the OT.

Robert Thomas, from The Master’s Seminary, also has an extensive journal article on the New Testament’s use of the Old.

***** 

3. How should we interact with our amill brethren? Should we invite them to teach or preach in our local churches?

We would consider eschatology to be a secondary doctrine (in the spirit of Al Mohler’s theological triage). We believe its implications are considerable, since it effects how one interprets roughly one-fourth of the Bible. But we would not exempt godly men, who are committed to the essentials of the gospel, from being guests in our pulpit simply because we disagree with them on this issue.

***** 

4. Can you elaborate on Hebrews 8 and how the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31) applies to the church?

The New Covenant was made with Israel, with the Jews (Heb. 8:8, 10). The New Covenant is not made with the church. Rather, it is made with the same people the Old Covenant was made with: Israel. Gentiles can be beneficiaries of the New Covenant, just like they could be beneficiaries of the Old (cf. Gen. 12:3). But both covenants were made with Israel alone. Israel as a nation rejected God by rejecting His Son. But God has never rejected Israel, nor has He transferred His covenant with her to anyone else.

For the time being, the Gentiles share in the blessings of the New Covenant—as spiritual descendants of Abraham (Gal. 3:7–8, 29). But this does not negate the unconditional nature of the New Covenant made with ethnic Israel. One day, after Gentiles have had sufficient time to respond to the gospel, all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:26). She will be grafted back into the trunk of covenant salvation (cf. Rom. 11:17–24).

For more on this, we would direct you to the articles by Andy Woods, Larry Pettegrew, and Bruce Compton. You can also read John MacArthur’s exposition of Hebrews 8 at Grace to You’s website.

*****

To be continued tomorrow. Please note that we will address passages like Ezekiel 40-46; Acts 1:6-8; Romans 11:26; and Revelation 20:1-6 tomorrow and Thursday.