The Church And Israel

By Stanley Toussaint [1]

[Senior Professor Emeritus in Bible Exposition, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX]

Importance of the Subject

In his classic work, Dispensationalism Today, Ryrie sets forth a threefold sine qua non of dispensationalism—a distinction between Israel and the Church, a literal hermeneutic, and the glory of God as His purpose on earth.[2] Of these three, undoubtedly the most important is the distinction between Israel and the Church. Ryrie calls this “the most basic theological test of whether or not a man is a dispensationalist.”[3]

He calls it the “essence of dispensationalism.”[4] He goes so far as to say, “The nature of the church is a crucial point of difference between dispensationalism and other doctrinal viewpoints. Indeed, ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the Church, is the touchstone of dispensationalism.”[5]

All dispensationalists would agree that these statements are true. However, the degree of the difference has been and still is a matter of debate. If the Church and Israel become so blurred in dispensationalism that there is no separation between them, dispensationalism will become as extinct as the pitied dodo bird.

Changes in Viewpoint

In the original form of Darby’s dispensationalism, the line drawn between Israel and the Church was heavy, dark, and broad. According to Darby the promises to the Church are spiritual and heavenly whereas those to Israel and the nations are earthly. The tribulation and the millennium do not concern the Church for those prophecies are earthly. This distinction in Darby’s theology has been summarized succinctly and accurately by Blaising.[6] In a word in classical dispensationalism the Jews are God’s earthly people and the Church is made up of God’s heavenly people. This dualism was maintained by dispensationalists for more than a hundred years by men like Gaebelein, Larkin, Scofield and Chafer.

Gaebelein, whose commentary on Matthew was published in 1910, wrote that the promises to Israel are “all earthly” and then asserted, “The church, however, is something entirely different. The hope of the church, the place of the church, the calling of the church, the destiny of the church, the reigning and the ruling of the church is not earthly, but it is heavenly.”[7] In 1920 Larkin wrote, “Again the ‘wife’ (Israel) is to reside in the earthly Jerusalem during the Millennium, while the ‘Bride’ (the Church) will reside in the New Jerusalem.”[8]

C. I. Scofield, whose annotated Bible first published in 1909 influenced so many both pro and con regarding dispensationalism, made a distinction between God’s purposes for Israel and the Church. In the train of his predecessors he believed God’s goal was earthly for Israel and spiritual for the church.[9] The New Scofield Reference Bible is not as clear in its statements although it implies an earthly destiny for Israel.[10]

Lewis Sperry Chafer, a founding father and the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, was very influential in making a division between God’s earthly purpose for Israel and His heavenly purpose for the Church. Concerning Israel he wrote, “The particular point in view here is the fact that all her blessings, her riches both temporal and spiritual, become her portion when she enters the land. This is the heart of Old Testament prediction. Israel can never be blessed apart from her land.”[11] He draws a sharp line between God’s purposes for Israel and the Church in writing,

Every covenant, promise, and provision for Israel is earthly, and they continue as a nation with the earth when it is created new. Every covenant or promises for the Church is for a heavenly reality, and she continues in heavenly citizenship when the heavens are recreated.[12]

Such statements can be found throughout Chafer’s Systematic Theology.

With Ryrie’s Dispensationalism Today published in 1965 a definite shift is seen, a revisionism that had been in process for some 10 or 15 years. Blaising notes,

It is amazing that in the writings of Walvoord, Pentecost, Ryrie, and McClain published in the 1950’s and 1960’s, the heavenly/earthly dualistic language is gone. A distinction between Israel and the church is vigorously asserted and all the theological structures of distinction are present except that the eternal destinies of the two peoples share the same sphere. Consequently the heavenly/earthly descriptions are dropped. Thus is begun a slow movement away from the scholastic, classic, absolute distinction found from Darby to Chafer …[13]

Walvoord, Pentecost, Ryrie, and McClain take various positions as to the destinies of Israel and the Church. Pentecost believes that during the millennium saved Jews and Gentiles who survive the tribulation will inherit Christ’s kingdom on earth. The Jews will have prominence in the kingdom as they enter into their blessings promised in the Old Testament. The resurrected saints of both Testaments will inhabit the heavenly Jerusalem from which the Lord and the saints will rule during the millennium. This heavenly Jerusalem will be in the air over the earth. During eternity the New Jerusalem will be on earth to be inhabited by God’s saints while Israel, all of whom will have glorified bodies, reside on the purged earth.[14]

Sauer believes all saved—resurrected and non-resurrected—will be on earth during the millennium and then in eternity will be inhabitants of the New Jerusalem on a renovated earth.[15] Interestingly Ice and Demy state, “Scripture is not clear as to whether Israel, the church, and other believer groups will maintain their distinctions throughout eternity.”[16]

Fruchtenbaum sees the Church ruling with Christ over Gentiles during the millennium with Israel as the leading nation, but then projects the New Jerusalem on a new earth will be the eternal abode of all the redeemed.[17] McClain believes the resurrected saints will rule with Christ during the millennium but in the eternal refurbished earth the Church will have a special place in the New Jerusalem. He wrote, “The members of the Church will be its honored citizens (Phil. 3:20, ASV). But the saved of all ages will have free access to its glories and benefits (Rev. 21:24–26).[18]

Progressive dispensationalism[19] has taken a new tack. It still makes something of a difference between Israel and the Church[20] but that distinction is not nearly as sharp. Those who hold to this position believe the promised kingdom has already begun; progressive dispensationalists assert the Old Testament covenants and promises have had a beginning, a partial fulfillment in the Church, but will have their ultimate fulfillment in the millennium and eternity.[21] Their view of the kingdom is similar to Ladd’s. That is, progressive dispensationalists believe the kingdom was present when Christ ministered on earth[22] but His reign was not initiated until His ascension. At that time He took His seat on the throne of David.[23] Thus the kingdom has been inaugurated but will only come in its fullness in the millennium and eternity.[24] The terms “already…not yet” punctuate their discussion. Undoubtedly this does represent a shift from classical and revised dispensationalism. For progressive dispensationalists the primary distinction between Israel and the Church is found in the Old Testament covenants, promises and prophecies. These were made with and spoken to Israel. Even though the Davidic kingdom has already been inaugurated, according to this view, the Church has been brought into Jewish blessings today. It is alleged that although the Church may be called “the new Israel,”[25] Israel will yet see the fulfillment of their promised blessings in God’s future program. In this they see a distinction between the Church and Israel because the covenants—Abrahamic, Davidic, and New—were given to Israel.

The Kingdom: A Crucial Issue

Of great importance in this whole discussion of progressive dispensationalism is the concept of an inaugurated kingdom. Without the doctrine of an inaugurated kingdom the cohesion of that entire system is basically destroyed. In addition, the concept of an inaugurated kingdom does tend to lend itself to replacement theology as is seen in the Church being called “the New Israel,” as noted above.

All dispensationalists agree the prophesied kingdom of the Old Testament is a major theme of the Scriptures. Kenneth Barker says this is the major motif of the Bible.[26] In fact, this is such a dominant idea in progressive dispensationalism that Ryrie suggests that it more aptly may be called ‘revised’, ‘reconstructed’, ‘new’, or ‘kingdom’ dispensationalism.[27] According to progressive dispensationalists, because the promised kingdom has been inaugurated, the Church is the first stage of the millennial kingdom. Is this the New Testament sense of the kingdom covenanted and prophesied in the Old Testament? Has that kingdom been inaugurated? To these questions progressive dispensationalists would answer, “Yes.”

The viewpoint presented in this chapter is neither new nor novel; however, it is not held by the majority of dispensationalists in either the classical or revised camps. It certainly is not a tenet of progressive dispensationalism for it is totally contradictory to that system. The doctrine propounded here holds to a consistent meaning of “kingdom” in the New Testament. This means the term “kingdom” always refers to the promised, yet future fulfillment of Israel’s Old Testament covenants, promises, and prophecies. The kingdom was not present when Christ Jesus was here and it is not here even in “mystery form” in this Church age. It is totally future, awaiting fulfillment in the millennium and eternity. Although this is not the normative view of dispensationalism, it does bear up under careful exegetical scrutiny.

The Kingdom in the Early Chapters of the Gospels

In dealing with this subject Blaising very ably defends the idea that the gospel narratives from the pre-conception of Christ, to His birth, to His worship by the magi, to His baptism by John the Baptist, to John’s warning of coming judgment are related to the kingdom envisioned in the Old Testament.

Interestingly, Blaising says that at this point only the kingdom was near.[28] It is not without significance that Blaising acknowledges John’s emphasis on judgment preceding the coming of the kingdom. He states, “The kingdom itself is understood in the terms of Old Testament prophecy. Its coming would be marked by judgment, a Day of the Lord.”[29] This of course causes one to ask, “If the kingdom began in the ministry of Christ, where is the prophesied judgment in the Gospels? Were the Old Testament prophets and John incorrect in their message?” Concerning John the Baptist Blaising states, “Like the earlier prophets, he expected the kingdom to come in a revelation of judgment and wrath.”[30] This is exactly what dispensationalists of every kind have taught about the millennium; it is preceded by judgment! After the prophesied judgment the kingdom will come.

The Proclamation of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ

Both John the Baptist and Christ Jesus pronounced the kingdom as being at hand (cf. Matthew 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:15). This same message was proclaimed by the Twelve (Matthew 10:7) and the Seventy (Luke 10:9, 11). In every announcement the verb ηγγικεν is used. Blaising consistently translates it as “near” or “at hand”. However, he also states that the kingdom was present in the person of Jesus when He was ministering on earth.[31] To buttress his viewpoint he uses Matthew 11:12; 12:28, Luke 11:20, and Luke 17.21.[32] These verses will be discussed later. Bock, however, argues that the clause, “The kingdom has drawn near” means “here” in the sense of “arrival.”[33] However, none of the illustrations used by Bock support the meaning of arrival. In discussing the meaning of the verb ηγγικεν Lane concludes, “The linguistic objections to the proposed rendering ‘has come’ are weighty, and it is better to translate ‘has come near.’”[34] It may be noted that the Old Testament uses an adjective meaning “near,” sometimes not in the sense of proximity but with the idea of imminence, of something impending. This is especially true of passages pronouncing the nearness of the Day of the Lord (Isa. 13:6; Ezek. 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1; 3:14; Obad. 15; Zeph. 1:7, 14). It is best to conclude that the kingdom was not proclaimed as being present by John the Baptist, the Lord, the Twelve or the Seventy, but only as being in a condition of nearness.

The Lord and the Message of the Kingdom

It is often alleged that the Lord in several passages said the kingdom had arrived. One such interpretation is made by Blaising concerning Matthew 11:12.[35] He argues that the kingdom was present because it suffered violence from the days of John the Baptist until that very moment. He contends the kingdom had to be present for it to be treated so harshly. However, this is not necessarily true. The preceding verse says, “Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matthew 11:11). The same term “kingdom of heaven” occurs in both verse 11 and 12, a fact Blaising recognizes. He also acknowledges the obvious fact that in verse eleven “the kingdom of heaven is a future reality.”[36] But then he argues that the same expression, “the kingdom of heaven,” in verse 12 refers to some form of the kingdom then present. It would be far better to seek for a more consistent meaning of the phrase. If it is future in verse 11 its meaning most probably is future in verse 12.

The question then may be asked, “How can the future kingdom ‘suffer violence’ if it was not present during the Lord’s ministry on earth?” The explanation is found in a parallel passage, Luke 16:16, “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since then the kingdom is preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.” The translation and meaning of the last clause of Luke 16:16 is debated, but whatever interpretation is given to it, the idea of a violent response to the message is clear. The proclamation of the future kingdom of heaven in Matthew 11:12 was suffering violence at the hands of evil men in that the message of the kingdom was being so violently rejected. Luke’s Gospel emphasizes the preaching of the message, and Matthew emphasizes the response to it. The message was being violently rejected. That this is the correct meaning is seen in the following clause, an admittedly difficult saying, “Violent men take it by force.” Concerning Matthew 11:12 Nigel Turner writes, “The words of Jesus are still puzzling but we need have no doubt that St. Matthew understood him to mean that the kingdom was now facing opposition.”[37] This is true; the kingdom was facing opposition because the message was being rejected.[38] This interpretation is confirmed by the Lord’s own explanation in Matthew 11:16–19 where He compares that generation of Jews to children in the marketplace who could not be pleased by either the asceticism of John or the ministry methods of the Lord Jesus. Matthew 11:12 can hardly be used to say the kingdom was present during the Lord’s earthly ministry.

Another passage used by Blaising to show the presence of the kingdom during the Lord’s earthly ministry is Matthew 12:28, “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” In commenting on this verse Blaising writes,

The kingdom of God is present (it has come) by virtue of the fact that He is exorcising demons by the power of the Holy Spirit…The fact that the King Himself is there, acting in the power of the Spirit, forms a basis for speaking of the presence of the eschatological kingdom.[39]

The question revolves about the meaning of the verb “has come” (εφθασεν). The same verb with the identical following prepositional construction occurs in Luke 11:20, “But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” After a lengthy discussion of the verb φθανω, A. J. Mattill, Jr. summarizes his findings by noting there are three basic meanings of φθανω.

1. Phthanō = precede, come before, come first, reach before, come sooner, go ahead of …
2. Phthanō = reach, arrive at, attain, just arrive, come up to, overtake, come into contact …
3. Phthanō = come near, come close, draw near, approach, advance toward, be about to.. But neither the translations sanctioned by 2) bare contact, or by 3) imminent contact, gives support to the thesis of realized eschatology that for Luke the kingdom is a present process at work in this age on this earth.”[40]

Mattill goes on to say that even if his research on the meaning of φθανω is faulty, the aorist could be taken as a prophetic past tense.[41] The idea then would be that the future coming of the kingdom is viewed as being so certain that the kingdom is looked upon as having already arrived. In other words, the normal translation of the verb still does not vindicate inaugurated eschatology. That the kingdom had not yet arrived is implied in Matthew 12:29, the verse that follows the Lord’s statement regarding the approach of the kingdom seen in His exorcism. “Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house” (Matthew 12:29). Satan is not yet bound and Christ has not yet taken possession of the “strong man’s house.”

Perhaps the passage most used to support the idea that Christ said the kingdom was present during His earthly ministry is Luke 17:20–21, “Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, “Look, here it is! Or, “There it is!” For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.’” Concerning this passage Blaising writes,

He is in their midst, the very King of the kingdom. There is no greater sign of the kingdom than Himself, for in fact all other signs point to Him…But for our purposes, we note that His presence at that very time was the occasion for speaking of the kingdom being present.[42]

The Authorized Version, better known as the King James Version, gave impetus to the idea of a spiritual kingdom in the hearts of individuals by translating εντος υμων as “within you,”—”the kingdom of God is within you.” Many scholars have abandoned this idea because the Lord was speaking to Pharisees. Certainly the kingdom was not in the hearts of these people who so bitterly opposed Him. Furthermore, the Lord Jesus never spoke of the kingdom-entering people; He only said people will enter the kingdom. The phrase εντοσ υμων is more commonly taken to mean “among you” or “in your midst.” The present tense of the verb is used to say the kingdom was then in the midst of the people in the person of the King, the Lord Jesus. If this position is taken, it becomes a potent argument for saying the kingdom was indeed present in Christ’s presence during the Lord’s earthly ministry. However, there is another interpretation that fits the context far more suitably.

The best way to take the words of the Lord Jesus in Luke 17:21 is to say that His return with His kingdom would not be gradual so that it can be observed in a slow metamorphosis, but it will be so sudden that it will be said of the kingdom, “Lo, it is in your midst.” This interpretation is vindicated by a number of factors.

The Pharisees had inquired about when the promised eschatological kingdom was going to come (v. 20). To this question the Lord answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed.” The clause “signs to be observed” translates one noun, παρατηρησις, which occurs only here in the New Testament and basically means “observation.” The translation “with signs to be observed” is a bit of a paraphrase or interpretation. The verbal form of the noun is found in Mark 3:2; Luke 6:7; 14:1; 20:20; Acts 9:24 and Galatians 4:10. This verb basically means “to observe” or “to watch carefully, or closely.” What then does the noun παρατηρησις mean? Bock summarizes four views.[43] First, it means “legal observation” in the sense that if one observes or maintains a certain level of righteousness the kingdom will come. Christ Jesus would be denying this. Second, it means visibly. Christ then would be denying a visible manifestation of the kingdom. Third, it describes Israel’s keeping or observing of the Passover. If this is the meaning, the Lord Jesus would be saying the kingdom will not come by observing the Passover. Fourth, it refers to signs of the coming of the kingdom. Bock takes this view, “Most likely παρατηρησις alludes to general apocalyptic signs, so prevalent in early Jewish eschatological speculation, including the desire to calculate the kingdom’s arrival by what is seen…”[44] Bock then would agree with the translation of the New American Standard Bible.

However, there is a fifth view as to the significance of παρατηρησις. This noun, which does not occur in the LXX, was used in the Greek world of observation made by scientists and physicians.[45] It looked at “empirical ‘observation’ as distinct from logical deductions.”[46] The Lord is saying the kingdom will appear so rapidly that its coming will not be able to be observed. It will be no gradual development that can be seen by scientific observation; it will be cataclysmic and sudden. This is supported by verse 21, “Nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.” Verse 24 fits this interpretation as well. “For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day.”

The present tense of “is” in the clause, “the kingdom of God is in your midst,” in verse 21 is no problem; it is futuristic in its significance, a common enough phenomenon.[47] That it should be taken as a futuristic present “will be” is supported by the future tense of “nor will they say” in the same verse. Furthermore, the two occurrences of ερχεται (“comes”) in the present tense in verse 20 look ahead to that future apocalypse. In addition, the immediately following verses describe the return of the Son of Man.

That verse 21 should be taken in a future sense is further seen in it’s parallel with verse 23. Verse 23 is describing the words of false teachers who will say the Messiah can be seen “there” or “here”. Those teachers will be erroneous because when the Son of Man comes the next time He will arrive with His kingdom as suddenly and visibly as a huge bolt of lightning that flashes from horizon to horizon. Then “the kingdom of God will be in the midst” of humanity. It will be as cataclysmic as the flood in Noah’s day and the fire and brimstone on Sodom in Lot’s time (vv. 26–30).

The demonstrative particle ιδου (“lo, behold”) is used like the Hebrew to enliven a narrative and often to point to something new. At the same time it may emphasize the importance of a statement. Thus it is used here.

The Lord Jesus, then, is not saying the kingdom was present when He ministered on earth. Rather, He said the kingdom does not come gradually so that it’s coming can be observed as in a scientific experiment (so one can say it is here or there), but “Behold, the kingdom of God will be in your midst ‘suddenly.’” In reality Luke 17:21 becomes a potent apologetic for the future coming of the kingdom.

The Kingdom in the Parables of the Lord

It is often alleged that the Lord predicted a form of the kingdom for the Church age in His parables, particularly those in Matthew 13. For many years dispensationalists have referred to these parables as teaching a mystery form or a new form of the kingdom. Blaising uses the same term.[48] However, nowhere in Matthew 13 or anywhere does the Lord Jesus use the term mystery form. Rather, He refers to the “mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” (v. 11); that is, the Lord in these parables is giving to His disciples new truths about the kingdom that were hitherto unknown.

It is strange that so many dispensationalists claim a new form of the kingdom is introduced in Matthew 13. Dispensationalists argue strenuously for a literal, earthly kingdom that is the fulfillment of the Old Testament when John, Jesus, and His disciples announce its nearness. Then suddenly these dispensationalists change the meaning in Matthew 13. How much better to say that the same kingdom is being discussed but now the Lord Jesus is providing further revelation about that kingdom.[49]

It should be noted that when the Lord says, “The kingdom of heaven is like” or “may be compared to,” He does not mean the kingdom is like a man, or a woman, or a seed, or leaven, etc. It means there is a truth in the parable that is related to the kingdom. A good illustration is the parable of the unforgiving slave in Matthew 18:23–34. The kingdom itself is not like any specific thing in the parable. The truth taught in the parable is obvious: heirs of the kingdom should be forgiving because they have been forgiven an impossible debt. So then, the clause “the kingdom of heaven (or God) is like” means some truth tangential to the kingdom is found in the parable. In Matthew 13 the truths are ones that had not before been revealed.

Matthew 13 has eight parables with the first and the last serving as introductory and concluding parables.[50] Because they function in this way, they do not give any new truths about the kingdom. Interestingly, in neither of these does the Lord use a form of the formula, “The kingdom of heaven is like. .” It is in the interior six parables that Christ presents new truths.

In the first of these, the parable of the wheat and tares, the new truth is clear: there is going to be a previously unforeseen age preceding the kingdom in which good and evil coexist. The kingdom had been proclaimed as being near at hand; it was so near that the ax was already at the base of the tree (Matt. 3:10). Now that imminent judgment is being postponed and a new age has intervened, this is a new and unexpected revelation.

Blaising, however, contends that this parable teaches the kingdom is present in this age. It must be noted first that the term “sons of the kingdom” in verse 38 does not imply the kingdom is present in this age; it simply describes those who are or should be heirs of the future kingdom (cf. Matt. 8:12). The clause Blaising uses to defend his position is, “they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness.” He argues:

This would appear to identify a situation before the coming of the Son of Man as His kingdom. Both those who belong to Him and those who will be condemned are present in that form of the kingdom. After His coming, only the saved will be present in the kingdom. Both conditions, before and after His coming, are called “kingdom.”[51]

It seems Blaising is drawing his line at the wrong place. Precisely when does the kingdom begin? The Lord will return with His angels according to Matthew 16:27 and 25:31. In Matthew 24:30–31 the Lord Jesus appears and then sends forth His angels. It would seem His earthly kingdom begins with His appearance and return. The judgment is the introduction to His kingdom; judgment marks the beginning of His reign. Since this is so, it would be natural to say angels will gather sinners out of His kingdom. Matthew 13:41 does not prove there is a present form of the kingdom.

The parable of the mustard seed (13:31–32) does not argue for a present form of the kingdom either. On the contrary, a new truth is revealed about a new age preceding the kingdom. In this age the number of the sons of the kingdom, that is the heirs, will grow in this present age from an insignificant number to a very large group. The analogy of a tree large enough to house birds looks back to the Old Testament which uses this to picture something as being large and prosperous (Ezekiel 17:23; 31:3–9; Daniel 4:12, 21). The disciples were expecting judgment and the coming of the kingdom. Instead of a cataclysmic soon-coming of the kingdom there will be an inter-advent age for gathering heirs of that kingdom.[52] This was a whole new truth.

The parable of leaven in Matthew 13:33 is something of an enigma. Many take the leaven to portray good so that this parable parallels the preceding parable. It illustrates the growth in the number of the heirs of the kingdom. This is a very possible interpretation. However, it has a couple of difficulties. First, what does the Lord mean by “until it was all leavened?” If the leaven represents good, this appears to teach a form of postmillennialism. Furthermore, why does Christ Jesus say the woman “hid” (εγκρυπτω, a verb used only here in the New Testament) the leaven? It appears that she is doing something sinister. But the main objection is found in the New Testament usage of leaven. Although it must be conceded that leaven in the Old Testament does not consistently typify evil, leaven when used figuratively in the New Testament always portrays evil (Matt. 16:6, 11–12; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1; 1 Cor. 5:6–8; Gal. 5:9; the only other occurrence of “leaven” [ζυμν] in the New Testament is Luke 13:21 where it is used in a parallel passage in the same parable).

It may be better to take the leaven as picturing the growth of evil in this age. This parable then would be in contrast to the preceding one. In spite of the growth in the number of the heirs of the kingdom, there will be the increase of apostasy until the man of sin will be ruling the world when Christ returns. In either interpretation there is a new revelation concerning the new age between the Lord’s two comings.

The two parables of the hidden treasure and the precious pearl (Matt. 13:44–46) likewise have differing interpretations. One commonly taken view asserts that the purchaser is a person who gives up everything to purchase the field and the pearl. Again, this is a possible explanation. However, it founders on one major problem. No human can buy his ticket into the kingdom. The reception of the gospel may prove costly to some, but no one can pay something in order to receive it.

It would seem that the purchaser is the Lord Jesus. If this is correct, the hidden treasure that is unearthed represents the kingdom. For centuries it was buried but when the Lord announced its nearness, it was unburied. With His rejection it was hidden, and then purchased by His death. When He returns, it will be unearthed. At any rate, neither interpretation says the kingdom is present in this age.

The parable of the costly pearl may have the same two different interpretations as the parable of the hidden treasure. On the one hand it may portray a lost person giving up everything for the sake of the kingdom. But, again, no one can purchase the privilege of entering that future kingdom. More probably it describes the Lord’s redemption to ransom the body of the redeemed. Neither explanation of the parable proves the present existence of the kingdom.

The final “kingdom parable” is the parable of the drag net (Matt. 13:47–50). It simply describes the postponement of judgment that had formerly been proclaimed as near. In this sense it parallels the parable of the tares and wheat.

The concluding parable, like the introductory parable, gives no new revelation regarding God’s kingdom program; therefore, it is not introduced with the formula, “the kingdom of heaven is like” or some such similar clause. Rather, this parable places the responsibility on the disciples for teaching the truths of the kingdom. They now have things that are “old”, that is the Old Testament revelation regarding the kingdom, and things that are new, the “mysteries” taught by the Lord Jesus in the kingdom parables.

In Matthew 13 there is no new form of the kingdom that is being revealed. McClain pointed this out a generation ago when he wrote:

The fiction of a present “kingdom of heaven” established on earth in the Church, has been lent some support by an incautious terminology sometimes used in defining the “mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 13:11).

The parables of this chapter, it is said carelessly by some, describe the kingdom of heaven as now existing in “mystery form” during the Church age. Now it is true that these parables present certain conditions related to the Kingdom which are contemporaneous with the present age. But nowhere in Matthew 13 is the establishment of the Kingdom placed within this age. On the contrary, in two of these parables the setting up of the Kingdom is definitely placed at the end of the “age” (vss. 39 and 49 ASV, with 41–43). And it is to be noted that in each of these references, our Lord is speaking as the infallible interpreter of His own parable.

What is certain in the teaching of these difficult parables is that the present age, viewed from the standpoint of the Kingdom, is a time of preparation. During this period the Son of man is sowing seed (vs. 37), generating and developing a spiritual nucleus for the future Kingdom, a group called “sons of the kingdom” (vs. 38, ASV). At the same time He is permitting a parallel development of evil in the world under the leadership of Satan (vss. 38–39). It is the purpose of God to bring both to a “harvest,” when the good and bad will be separated, and then to establish the Kingdom in power and righteousness (vss. 41–43, 49).[53]

The Kingdom in Acts

It is clear the Apostles were anticipating the coming of the kingdom in Acts 1. Significantly, the Lord invested His forty-day post-resurrection ministry to these Apostles in instructing them about the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3). After this teaching they were still expecting a future kingdom. Blaising cogently notes, “This passage in Acts, standing as it does at the close of Jesus’ preascension ministry, is a most significant testimony to the continuity of Jesus’ teaching with that of the Old Testament prophets. The notion of a political, earthly kingdom has not dropped out or been resignified.”[54] As part of His concluding message, the Lord Jesus told the disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the promised Holy Spirit (1:4–5). After this command from Christ, the Apostles asked, “Lord, is it at this time you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” This was a completely logical inference because in the Old Testament the future manifestation of the Holy Spirit was associated with the coming of the Holy Spirit (Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 36:27–28; 39:28–29; Joel 2:28–3:1; Zech. 12:8–10).

Very significantly, the Lord did not say “Yes” to their question. His answer was much more ambiguous. “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority” (1:7). By this response Christ did not say they had an incorrect view of the future kingdom; it was not for them to know the time of its coming. As Bock states, “Jesus simply notes that the time is not theirs to know, not that the question is improper.”[55] What the Lord does is to separate the time of the coming of the kingdom from the time of the coming of the promised Holy Spirit. The coming of the Holy Spirit did not automatically mean the coming of the kingdom. After all, the presence of the kingdom was contingent upon Israel’s response (cf. Acts 3:19–21).[56]

Acts chapters 2 and 3 are crucial to the question of whether the kingdom is present in this age. Chapter 2 describes the fulfillment of the promised baptism by the Holy Spirit. Progressive dispensationalists also claim that the Lord Jesus took the Davidic throne in heaven at this time and inaugurated the promised kingdom. But was the kingdom inaugurated here? Several factors say it was not. First, the word kingdom does not occur in Acts 2, a fact Bock concedes.[57] However, he claims, “the imagery of rule and the features of God’s covenant are present.”[58] It is difficult to explain why Luke suddenly does not use the term if the kingdom is being inaugurated. He employs it 45 times in his Gospel and uses it two more times in Acts 1. Of course, one can discuss kingdom concepts without using the term “kingdom,” but one would expect Luke to use the word if such a startling thing as the inauguration of the kingdom had taken place. The fact that Luke uses “kingdom” only eight times in Acts after such heavy usage in his Gospel implies the kingdom had not begun, but was, in fact, postponed.

Progressive dispensationalists assert that the Lord Jesus, by being seated at the right hand of the Father, is now seated on the throne of David. But such an outstanding theological statement is never made anywhere in the New Testament, even though the name David occurs 55 times. Nevertheless, Bock, by using terms such as “link”, “allusion,” or “association” contends Christ is now on the Davidic throne. He states emphatically, “Being seated on David’s throne is linked to being seated at God’s right hand” (emphasis his). It seems, however, that Bock is missing the point of Peter’s argument in his Pentecostal sermon.

First, in Acts 2:22–32 Peter is arguing for the resurrection of Christ by using Psalm 16:8–11. That the resurrection of Jesus is the theme is seen in the repetition of “God raised again” in verses 24 and 32, which bracket the paragraph; the Greek text uses the same vocabulary, θεος ανεστησεν. Peter does this by making it clear that Psalm 16:8–11 is predictive of the Lord Jesus. Paul uses the same argument in Acts 13:34–37. The reference to Psalm 132:11 in Acts 2:30 is not included to say that Christ is now on the throne of David but that He is the One who will sit on that throne. Because that future great King was to be incorruptible, but also human, it was necessary for Him to be resurrected. That is the logic of the passage. The ascension of Christ is not in this paragraph (2:24–32); the point is the resurrection of Christ.

The ascension of the Lord comes to the fore in Acts 2:33–36. It was the ascended and exalted Jesus Christ who poured forth the promised Holy Spirit. This was in accordance with the words of the Lord Jesus in John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7 (cf. John 7:39). Peter than quoted Psalm 110:1 to defend the doctrine of the Lord’s ascension, which in turn proves who He is: Lord and Messiah. It says nothing of being seated on David’s throne. The emphasis in verses 33–36 is on Christ’s ascension and His present session, not on the throne of David. In a word Acts 2:24–36 strongly sets forth two crucial doctrines-the Lord’s resurrection and His ascension.

Evidently Peter believed the kingdom would come in the near future. This is seen in the warning of Acts 2:40, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” Peter knew judgment preceded the coming of the kingdom and he evidently is warning his hearers about this assize. It may also be implied in the quotation of Joel 2:28–32 in Acts 2:17–21, especially verse 21.

The kingdom is certainly future in Acts 3:19–21. “Repent therefore and return that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.” Concerning this passage Bock writes, “After calling the people to repentance (v. 19), Peter outlines Jesus’ remaining career in three parts: the coming of periods of refreshing, the sending of the appointed Jesus, and the necessity of heaven receiving Jesus until the promised times of restitution come (vv. 19–21).”[59] The problem with Bock’s interpretation is found in his explanation of “seasons of refreshing.” He takes it to refer to the present time.[60] This simply does not suit the Greek text. Two purpose clauses separate two time periods. The first is the present time and deals with forgiveness of sins. The second looks ahead to the future return of Christ when there will be seasons of refreshing, the return of Christ, and the restoration of all things.

This, of course, anticipates the kingdom yet to come.[61]

Still another passage in Acts used to support the idea that Christ is now reigning on the throne of David is Acts 13:32–35.[62]

And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, “THOU ART MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE.” And as for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no more to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: “I WILL GIVE YOU THE HOLY AND SURE BLESSINGS OF DAVID.” Therefore He also says in another Psalm, “THOU WILT NOT ALLOW THY HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.”

Verse 34 refers to the “sure blessings of David,” an obvious quotation of Isaiah 55:3, “Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you may live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you, According to the faithful mercies shown to David.” The everlasting covenant with David clearly looks ahead to the reign of His greater Son in the coming kingdom. In Isaiah 55:3 the faithful hearer is promised life in that future kingdom. For the covenant to be everlasting the Son of David must be incorruptible. This is why it was necessary for the Messiah to be resurrected from the dead. That is the logic of Acts 13:34, “And as for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no more to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I WILL GIVE YOU THE HOLY AND SURE BLESSINGS OF DAVID.’” This also explains why the following verse is introduced with “therefore” (διοτι), or “because” and goes on to discuss the Lord’s resurrection. Acts 13:34 does not indicate the kingdom is present.

It is clear from Acts 14:22 that the kingdom is future, “… strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, ‘Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.’” The kingdom here is eschatological.

Some may argue that because the kingdom is proclaimed by Stephen and Paul in the Book of Acts (8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31), it must have a present form. But this is not necessarily so. After all, the Lord Jesus went about proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom when it was not present (Matt. 4:23; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:43; 8:1). In Luke 9:2 the Twelve announced the kingdom (cf. 9:60); this evidently means they proclaimed the message of how people may enter the future kingdom. Concerning Acts 28:23 Harrison wrote, “He talked about ‘the kingdom of God.’ Here, as elsewhere in Acts, this is a comprehensive term for the Gospel.”[63] Haenchen is more direct in commenting on the same passage, “If, on the other hand, as here and in 8:12 and 28:31, it is mentioned along with the events of Jesus, then it has the ‘futuristic’ meaning of which 14:22 speaks. At the Parousia the future kingdom will come with the returning Jesus: Lk. 21:31.”[64] This means that in 28:23 Paul related the Old Testament to Christ’s ministry and the future kingdom. This same message was extended to Jews and Gentiles in Acts 28:31.

As in the Gospels so also in Acts, the kingdom is seen as being future and eschatological.

The Kingdom in the Pauline Epistles

Several passages are used from Paul’s epistles to argue for a present form of the kingdom. Romans 14:17 is one such passage, “… for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Ladd states, “The Word of God does say that the kingdom of God is a present spiritual reality,” and then he quotes Romans 14:17 to prove his point.[65] He goes on to say, “Righteousness and peace and joy are fruits of the Spirit which God bestows now upon those who yield their lives to the rule of the Spirit.”[66] This interpretation is fortified by the present tense “is” (εστιν).

But does this passage say the kingdom is here now? One must be careful about arguing from the present tense because Paul normally looks at the kingdom as being future (1 Cor. 6:9, 10; 15:24, 50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; Col. 4:11; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:5; 2 Tim. 4:1, 18). If this is his usual view of the kingdom, then it is probable he is looking at the future in Romans 14:17 also.[67] Wallace, who makes a careful distinction between “aspect” and Actionsart, says the futuristic use of the present tense is relatively common. He goes on to say that only the context makes clear whether the emphasis is on immediacy or certainty.[68] Here it is on certainty.

It should be noted that the negative, “the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking,” by no means denies the material aspects of the future kingdom. It was common for the Jews to say “not … but” and simply mean the emphasis is not this but that (cf. Matt. 6:19–20; 1 Cor. 4:20; 1 Pet. 3:3–4). In that coming kingdom the emphasis will not be on food but on spiritual realities. If that will be true in the future, the Christian’s present conduct should reflect it. The future does influence the present (cf. 2 Pet. 3:11).

What was said of Romans 14:17 may also be stated about 1 Corinthians 4:20, “For the kingdom of God does not consist in words, but in power.” There is no verb in the Greek text so it must be supplied. That Paul is anticipating the future is seen in verses five and eight of the same chapter. When the kingdom comes in the future, it will arrive with power and not mere propaganda. Paul’s ministry could demonstrate the authority of that future kingdom. In discussing the kingdom of God in this passage Barrett states, “It is always an eschatological concept … .”[69]

A third Pauline passage is used to defend the idea of a present form of the kingdom, Colossians 1:13, “For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.”[70] Again, one must note that in eleven other references to God’s kingdom in Pauline literature it is looked at as being future. One therefore should be biased toward a future interpretation here. It is true both verbs are past tense (aor. ind.) and refer to past action. But these are also both positional in their theology. Just as Ephesians says believers are blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies, so positionally Colossians 1:13 sees Christians as no longer being under the authority of Satan, but now heirs of the coming kingdom. McClain writes, “The context here suggests that the action must be regarded as de jure rather than de facto.[71] He goes on to assert:

Although we are not yet de facto seated in the heavenlies, the thing is so certain that God can speak of it as already done. In the same sense, we have been (aorist tense) transferred judicially into the Kingdom of our Lord even before its establishment. Being what He is, God “calleth the things that are not, as though they were” (Rom. 4:17, ASV). Such at times is the language of divine inspiration.[72]

It must be concluded then, that in Paul’s epistles the kingdom is seen as a future glorious kingdom.

The Kingdom in Hebrews

Two passages in Hebrews may be used to attempt a proof of a present form of the messianic kingdom. The writer of Hebrews exalts the Lord Jesus in writing Hebrews 1:8, “But of the Son He says, ‘THY THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.’” Because this is a quotation from Psalm 45 this anticipates Christ’s future rule. Hodges notes, “The quotation found in verses 8–9 is derived from Psalm 45:6–7 which describes the final triumph of God’s messianic King.”[73]

A second passage in Hebrews which may be used to show a present form of the kingdom is Hebrews 12:28, “Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe.” The participle translated “we receive” is present tense, but because it is a participle it is inherently timeless. The previous verses clearly look ahead to the shaking of the world in judgment. That future kingdom will not and cannot be shaken. Bruce notes, “The present participle παραλαμβανοντες suggests that the people of Christ have not finally entered into their royal heritage with him, although it is already theirs by promise.”[74] That kingdom is future.

The Kingdom in the General Epistles

The only times the term kingdom occurs in the general epistles are in James 2:5 and 2 Peter 1:11. In both occurrences the kingdom is clearly eschatological.

The Kingdom in the Apocalypse

Several passages are taken from the Book of Revelation to substantiate the idea of a present kingdom. One of these is Revelation 1:6, “And He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father; to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.”

The explanation of this verse is found in 5:10 which anticipates the future reign of believers with Christ, “And Thou hast made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.” Clearly the kingdom in 1:6 is eschatological.

The same may be said of Revelation 1:9, “I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos, because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” Thomas notes, “Little difference of opinion exists over the meaning of basileia in 1:9. It is the millennial kingdom described more fully in Revelation 20…”[75]

Bock places stress on Revelation 5:5, “And one of the elders said to me, ‘Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals.’” The verb “has overcome” is aorist. Concerning this Bock writes, “The victory, or at least the decisive act, has already occurred. He is qualified to open the scrolls (sic.) and the seals because of what he has already done as a Davidite.”[76] He goes on to say, “The timing of Revelation 5:5 is crucial, since it precedes the seal judgments and the second coming, so the text shows Jesus has his regal victorious status before he returns in Revelation 19.”[77] But this does not prove a present form of the kingdom. Christ’s death and resurrection have defeated Satan but the kingdom is clearly future; this is especially seen in The Apocalypse. As McClain notes,

That the second advent and the Kingdom are brought together as the main subjects of the last book of Scripture, will occasion no surprise to those acquainted with divine revelation. For these two great eschatological events are inseparable as the goal of history, as we have already noted especially in the teaching of Christ Himself. The personal and glorious coming of Messiah will bring in the Kingdom, and without such a coming there can be no Messianic Kingdom.[78]

It must be concluded that the kingdom in Revelation anticipates the millennial reign of Christ which in turn merges and extends into the eternal kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24).

Conclusion

This long discussion concerning the futurity of the kingdom has many implications. Two are pertinent to the present discussion. First, if the Lord’s messianic kingdom is totally future, then the “already…not yet” view set forth by progressive dispensationalists crumbles. There is no “already” kingdom of Christ. He is still waiting to rule, as the Scriptures so plainly state (Psa. 110:1; Heb. 10:12–13).

A second important implication relates to the distinction between Israel and the Church. If there is no present form of the messianic kingdom, then the present age is something of a parenthesis. From Genesis 12 through the Gospels and deep into Acts, God’s primary purpose dealt with Israel. In the Gospels and Acts the Lord Jesus is offered as Messiah to Israel. The coming of the kingdom was contingent upon their response.[79] Because of Israel’s negative response, God is now working with the Church, distinct from Israel (Rom. 9–11; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:1–12). The Church therefore is a mystery, never prophesied in the Old Testament (Eph. 3:4–6). It is not a “new Israel” nor a new form of the kingdom.

The term Israel occurs 66 times in the New Testament. It is never used of the Church. Galatians 6:16 is often used to show the Church is the New Israel; however, Johnson has shown decisively that such an equation cannot be drawn.[80] It must be conceded that the promises to Israel (Acts 3:25; Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:12) are not being fulfilled in the Church as a form of the messianic kingdom. The fulfillment of those kingdom prophecies and promises awaits the future (cf. Rom. 11:15, 25–27).

The Church and the Promises to Israel

If the kingdom is not now in existence and the Church is living in a sort of parenthesis in God’s program, the question must be asked, “What is the relationship of the Church to Israel’s promises?” At the beginning of this discussion various answers were introduced, most of which seemed to be unsatisfactory in some way.

It is the position of this writer that the New Testament Church enters into Israel’s millennial promises. Several factors support this conclusion. The first is Matthew 19:28, “And Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I say to you, that you who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’” Much the same is stated in Luke 22:28–30. When it is recognized these same Twelve Apostles (except Judas Iscariot) are the foundation stones of the church in Ephesians 2:20, the conclusion becomes inescapable. The Apostles who are part and parcel of the Church are going to reign over Israel in the land during the millennium.

The figure of the olive tree in Romans 11 confirms the same truth. The root of the tree (11:16) may refer to the patriarchs or to the early church, which was Jewish. In either case, the hopes of each anticipated the millennial kingdom (cf. Acts 3:20; Rom. 9:4–5; 11:26–27). If the wild olive branches are grafted in to the olive tree, then it must indicate the believing Gentiles participate along with believing Jews in earthly blessings.

It would seem 1 Corinthians 6:2 looks at the Church as ruling with Christ in the future kingdom age, “Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?”

The same idea is found in Galatians 3:29, “And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” The same chapter of Galatians refers to the promises spoken to Abraham and to his seed (v. 16). The phrase “and to your seed” includes the land promises in Genesis (Gen. 13:15; 17:7–8; cf. 15:18; 24:7; 26:3; 28:4, 13; 48:4), The Church then must somehow be related to the land promises.

Ephesians 2:19 says the Church is comprised of those who “are no longer strangers and aliens [to the covenants of promise, v. 12], but you are fellow citizens with the saints.” It is interesting to notice the duplication of “strangers” in verses 12 and 19. Both are looking at the covenants of promise given to Israel. It must be assumed the Church becomes a participant in the Jewish hope and covenants.

Hebrews 11:39–40 clearly associates the Church with the heirs of Old Testament promises. “And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they should not be made perfect.” The pronouns “us” and “they” look at the church and Old Testament believers as being joined somehow in participation in future blessings.

The famous parable of Luke 19:11–27 looks at the Lord returning to reign. His faithful servants are given responsibilities to rule over cities in His kingdom, depending on their faithfulness in this age.

How this will be accomplished is difficult to describe. Dillow believes the co-reigning with the Lord Jesus involves the universe.[81] Walvoord sees the raptured and resurrected Church as inhabiting the New Jerusalem, which may be in orbit about the earth. He writes:

Though the Bible does not comment on this, it is possible that the New Jerusalem will be a satellite city in relation to the millennial earth and that those with resurrected bodies, as well as the holy angels, will occupy the New Jerusalem during the thousand-year reign. They will be able to commute to the earth, much as people go from the country to their city offices and participate in earthly functions without necessarily living in the city. In the descriptions of the millennial kingdom, the saints are described as those who are still in their physical bodies, building houses and planting crops (Isa. 65:21–23), but no picture is ever drawn of the resurrected saints as living beside them. Accordingly, while this provides a possible solution, it should be borne in mind that there is very little direct Scripture to back this up, and it therefore cannot be a dogmatically held doctrine.[82]

The reigning of the church with Christ on earth does not blur the distinctions between Israel and the church. They are distinct in this age and they will be in the future millennium. That such a distinction exists is seen in the difference Paul makes between the natural branches and the wild branches (Rom. 11:17–18). This separation is carried into the millennium as Romans 11:24 indicates. Furthermore, the promises were made to Israel, not the Church. The Church only enters into the promises because of their association with and being joined to the promised Messiah (Gal. 3:29). If the New Jerusalem has twelve gates named after the twelve tribes of Israel and twelve foundation stones identified with the twelve apostles of Christ, it should not be thought strange to have one body of the redeemed with two peoples in it.

In summary it may be stated that progressive dispensationalism errs in making the Church a present form or “sneak preview” of the promised kingdom. There is no promised kingdom on earth in this age; the Church is a unique mystery. However, she will enter into the millennium and into her promised blessings because of her association with the promised Messiah.

Notes

1. This article is a chapter taken by permission from a Kregel Publication due to be published in 1999.
2. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), pp. 43–57.
3. Ibid, p. 45.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid, p. 32.
6. Craig A. Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism by Contemporary Dispensationalists,” Bibliotheca Sacra (July 1988),145:273–4.
7. A. C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of Matthew (Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, n.d.), 1: 11.
8. Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth or God’s Plan and Purpose in the Ages (Philadelphia: Clarence Larkin Est., 1920), p. 76.
9. The Holy Bible ed. by C. I. Scofield (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945). Cf. Notes on Isaiah 11:10; Romans 11:1, 26; Revelation 19:7.
10. The New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967). Cf. Notes on Isaiah 10:12; Romans 11:1, 26.
11. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4 Vols. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 4:323.
12. Ibid, 4:47.
13. Blaising, op.cit. 145:276.
14. J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Company, 1958), pp. 532–580.
15. Erich Sauer, From Eternity to Eternity (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), pp. 19, 30-31, 38–39, 41–42, 54–55, 93, 193.
16. Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, Fast Facts on Bible Prophecy (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1997), p. 45.
17. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Footsteps of the Messiah (Tustin, California: Ariel Press, 1982), pp. 275, 280-82, 367.
18. Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 511, cf. pp. 210–211.
19. This movement is the result of the Dispensationalism Study Groups which met just preceding the meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society. The first of these meetings was in the fall of 1986. The title, “Progressive Dispensationalists”, introduced in the 1991 meeting, is not meant to be pejorative of other dispensational viewpoints but to indicate the progressive nature of God’s work. However, to a non-initiated student it does give the impression that all other dispensationalists are not progressive. Cf. Charles C. Ryrie, “Update on Dispensationalism” in Issues in Dispensationalism, (Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master, ed., Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), p. 20.
20. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993), p. 267.
21. Ibid, p. 53.
22. Ibid, pp. 248-250, 279; Darrell L. Bock, “The Reign of the Lord Christ”, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, Craig A. Blaising and Darrel L. Bock, eds. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), pp. 38-45.
23. Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 175–190, 257; Bock, “The Reign of the Lord Christ,” in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, pp. 47–55, 65.
24. Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 251–283; Bock, “The Reign of the Lord Christ,” in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church, pp. 55–64, 66
25. David L. Turner refers to the church as the “New Israel”, cf. David L. Turner, “The New Jerusalem in Revelation 21:1–22:5: Consummation of a Biblical Continuum,” Bock and Blaising, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, p. 288. This is precariously close to replacement theology.
26. Kenneth L. Barker, “The Scope and Center of Old and New Testament Theology and Hope,” Blaising and Bock, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, pp. 306–318.
27. Ryrie, “Update on Dispensationalism,” Issues in Dispensationalism, p. 20.
28. Blaising, “The Kingdom in the New Testament,” Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 32–234.
29. Ibid, p. 234.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid, p. 238.
32. Ibid, pp. 248-251.
33. Bock, “Reign of the Lord Christ” in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, pp. 40–41.
34. William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmann, 1974), p. 65, n. 93. Cf. Stanley D. Toussaint, “The Contingency of the Coming of the Kingdom” in Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck, eds. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Co., 1994), pp. 231–232. For a more thorough defense of the meaning “near” see A. J. Mattill, Jr., Luke and the Last Things (Dillsboro, N. C.: Western North Carolina Press, 1979), pp. 70–77.
35. Blaising, “The Kingdom in the New Testament,” Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, p. 248.
36. Ibid.
37. Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights Into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965), p. 60.
38. The normally deponent verb βιαζομαι is here used in a passive sense. Cf. James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 3, Syntax, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), p. 58; Turner, Ibid.
39. Blaising, Ibid, p. 249.
40. A. J. Mattill, Jr., Luke and the Last Things (Dillsboro, N. C.: Western North Carolina Press, 1979), pp. 175–76.
41. Ibid.
42. Blaising, Ibid, p. 249.
43. Darrell L. Bock, Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 2:1412–1414.
44. Bock, Ibid, 1:1413-1414.
45. Harald Riesenfeld, “τηρεω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972), 8:148.
46. Riesenfeld, Ibid, 8:149.
47. F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Trans. by Robert W. Funk (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 168.; Ernest DeWill Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1955), p. 9; C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: At The University Press, 1960), p. 7; Turner, Grammar, p. 63.
48. Blaising, Ibid, p. 253.
49. Cf. Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1980), pp. 172–176.
50. Cf. Stanley D. Toussaint, “The Introductory and Concluding Parables of Matthew Thirteen,” Bibliotheca Sacra (October, 1964), 121:351–355.
51. Blaising, Ibid, p. 252.
52. The present tense of εστιν in verse 31 does not prove the kingdom is present. It only means the Lord is presently making a comparison.
53. Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), pp. 440–441.
54. Blaising, ProgressiveDispensationalism, p. 237.
55. Bock, “The Reign of the Lord Christ,” Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, p. 45.
56. Cf. Toussaint, “The Contingency of the Coming of the Kingdom,”, p. 232.
57. Bock, Ibid, p. 47.
58. Bock, Ibid.
59. Bock, Ibid, pp. 55-56.
60. Ibid, pp. 56-57
61. For a more complete discussion of this passage see Toussaint, “The Contingency of the Coming of the Kingdom,” pp. 229–230.
62. Bock, “The Reign of the Lord Jesus Christ,” pp. 51–52.
63. Everett F. Harrison, Acts: The Expanding Church (Chicago: Moody Press, 1975), p. 403.
64. Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), p. 723. Cf. Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, The Beginnings of Christianity, The Acts of the Apostles, ed. by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965), 4:4; Homer A. Kent, Jr., Jerusalem to Rome (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972), p. 195.
65. George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmanns Publishing Co., 1959), p. 16.
66. Ibid, pp. 16-17.
67. This is the only occurrence of βασιλεια in Romans.
68. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), p. 536. Cf. Turner, Syntax, 3:60.
69. C. K. Barrett, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968), p. 118.
70. Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 126, 178, 257, 266.
71. McClain, Greatness, p. 435.
72. Ibid, pp. 435-436.
73. Zane C. Hodges, “Hebrews,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds. (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1983), p. 782
74. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), p. 364
75. Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1–7, An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), p. 87.
76. Bock, “The Reign of the Lord Christ,” p. 64.
77. Bock, Ibid.
78. McClain, GreatnessoftheKingdom, p. 433.
79. Toussaint, “The Contingency of the Coming of the Kingdom,” pp. 222–237.
80. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “Paul and the ‘Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer, eds. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), pp. 181–196.
81. Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant King (Miami Springs, Florida: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992), pp. 561–563.
82. John F. Walvoord, Major Bible Prophecies (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), pp. 414–415.