Realized Eschatology

By John F. Walvoord

[John F. Walvoord, President, Dallas Theological Seminary, Editor, Bibliotheca Sacra.]

Higher criticism during the last century has been marked by an unrelenting attack on any form of literal eschatology. The concept that the Bible can actually prophesy future events in detail with accuracy is abhorrent to the liberal mind. Every effort accordingly is made to date prophetic utterances after the event prophesied as illustrated in the dating of Daniel in the second century B.C. The premise is that detailed prophecy of the future is impossible for either God or man. Although it is often couched in terms of objective scholarship, it is obvious that such a premise is extremely subjective and prejudicial to any calm evaluation of the data. It is built on a thesis that God is not sovereign, is not omniscient, and is not omnipotent. Further, it involves a theory of revelation which renders impossible communication of details to man beyond his natural wisdom. Such higher criticism spares no fundamental of orthodoxy and is free to revise its theology as well as the statements of Scripture to harmonize with the thesis involved. The concept of realized theology must be understood as an outgrowth of this approach to prophecy.

The place of eschatology in liberal theology has undergone in the last generation a dramatic change. The extreme skepticism expressed by Harnack[1] which regarded eschatology in Scripture contemptuously has been replaced by a new study of the eschatological aspects of Scripture largely due to the influence of Albert Schweitzer’s Quest of the Historical Jesus.

This trend toward eschatology has been analyzed by Suggs as follows: “…during the years since World War I there has been a growing appreciation of the breadth, depth, and complexity of eschatological thought in the Bible. We have come a long way since Harnack spoke of eschatology as the ‘husk’ rather than the ‘kernel’ of Jesus’ teaching, with the result that Christianity became the delineation of an ideal ethic rather than the proclamation of judgment and salvation.”[2]

Suggs goes on to explain the role of Schweitzer in this renewed analysis of eschatology: “We work now with a more positive appraisal of the centrality of eschatology to the early preaching…. The literary roots of this revival actually extend beyond the turn of the century to the work of J. Weiss on the kingdom of God in the gospels. But it was Albert Schweitzer’s Quest of the Historical Jesus (German edition, 1906), which issued an inescapable challenge to the nineteenth century understanding of the New Testament message by setting the eschatological concern at the very center of Jesus’ teaching. From that day, the problem of biblical eschatology became a major interest of historical study,…”[3]

Schweitzer, however, had ended up with the conclusion that Jesus’ eschatological hope was not fulfilled, suggesting that Jesus was mistaken. As Suggs expresses it: “Schweitzer’s own answer to that question [of the relevancy of the eschatological proclamation] was a simple religious commitment inspired by his mistaken hero [Jesus] and the development of a philosophy of reverence for life which has only tenuous connections with the historical faith.”[4]

Even liberal scholarship, however, has not followed Schweitzer, although they are probably in agreement that Jesus was mistaken. To leave Christian faith in such an impasse is not satisfactory even to a liberal. It is in this context that another point of view, that of realized eschatology, was advanced by C. H. Dodd in the aftermath of World War I, aided somewhat by Rudolf Otto. A third point of view relative to eschatology is that of a mediating school attempting to harmonize Schweitzer and Dodd.

C. K. Barrett observes that in relation to “the eschatological material in the gospels” there are “no more than three fairly well defined groups.”[5] Barret finds that the first group headed by Schweitzer are those who held that “the thought and activity of Jesus were alike radically eschatological, determined by the prospect of an imminent coming of the kingdom of God which would be heralded by the woes of the elect. It was to secure the coming of the Age to Come that Jesus died. It follows that Jesus was mistaken, since He died and the kingdom did not come.”[6]

The second group is represented, according to Barrett, by von Dobschutz, R. Otto, C. H. Dodd, and others, who offered the viewpoint of realized eschatology.[7]

A third view is a mediating position between Schweitzer .and Dodd which is neither futurist eschatology after Schweitzer nor realized eschatology after Dodd.[8]

The discussion concerning eschatology, however, has to be seen in the larger context of the rise of neoorthodoxy which tended to limit the effect of Dodd’s influence on liberal theology as a whole. Suggs has summarized this as follows: “The fact that the church at large was not driven to Schweitzer’s position is traceable to a number of factors, only some of which are academic. First, there was the discovery of R. Otto and C. H. Dodd of the element in primitive Christian eschatology which is usually spoken of as ‘realized.’ Secondly, there was the appearance of a new historical skepticism in European scholarship which focused attention on the Christ of faith rather than upon the embarrassingly Jewish Jesus of history. Thirdly, there was the rise of a new theology which formed a more positive place for eschatology because of a negative anthropology which demanded a transcendent rather than an immanent hope.”[9]

Dodd, however, has unquestionably influenced the attitude of liberal scholarship toward eschatology and an understanding of his position is essential in approaching liberal theological concepts of the twentieth century. Three major areas of Dodd’s contribution need to be examined: (1) Dodd’s concept of eschaton in relation to history and time, (2) the nature and content of the kerygma, and (3) the resulting theological concept related to realized eschatology.

The Concept of Eschaton in Relation to History

Although C. H. Dodd recognizes that Christianity is a faith based upon historical facts, his view of past as well as future history is different than that usually adopted in orthodoxy. Concerning history he writes: “Christianity…is an historical religion. Some religions can be indifferent to historical fact, and move entirely upon a plane of timeless truth. Christianity cannot. It rests upon the affirmation that a series of events happened, in which God revealed Himself in action, for the salvation of men.”[10]

As far as past history is concerned, however, he feels that history should be considered in its religious sense. Hence, he writes: “This principle of the universality of the divine meaning in history is symbolically expressed in Christian theology by placing the history of the Old and New Testaments within a mythological scheme which includes a real beginning and a real end…. I have described this as mythological, and as such it must, I think, be understood. Creation and Last Judgment are symbolical statements of the truth that all history is teleological, working out one universal divine purpose. The story of Creation is not to be taken as a literal, scientific statement that the time series had a beginning—an idea as inconceivable as its opposite, that time had no beginning. Nor must the story of the Fall, which is the necessary complement of the creation-story, be taken as a literal, historical statement that there was a moment when man first began to set himself against the will of God. The story of creation and the fall is a symbolic summing-up of everything in secular empirical history which is preparatory to the process of redemption and revelation.”[11]

Dodd’s view of history, therefore, determines his view of eschatology, holding as he does that neither history nor eschatology should be considered literally as a series of events. The Bible fundamentally is a religious document rather than a historical one according to Dodd. Hence, prophecy does not need to be taken any more literally than the doctrine of creation. Dodd thus finds a supra-historical factor in history which is its real significance.[12]

This leads to his view of eschaton, that history as well as eschatology is realized in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Accordingly, eschatology is now rather than future and hence, “realized.” Dodd equates eschaton with “the day of the Lord” which to him is the summation of all the eschatological purposes. Eschatology is, therefore, already fulfilled in the sense that God’s purpose has been completely realized. Dodd writes: “The real, inward, and eternal meaning, striving for expression in the course of history, is completely expressed in the eschaton, which is therefore organically related to history. Nevertheless, it is unique and unlike any other event, because it is final. It is not as though the Creator had arbitrarily fixed a certain date as the ‘zero hour’ of his world, so that events which might conceivably have followed it are not permitted to happen. It is such that nothing more could happen in history, because the eternal meaning which gives reality to history is now exhausted. To conceive any further event on the plane of history would be like drawing a check on a closed account.”[13]

In support of his view of eschatology now, in Dodd’s Parables of the Kingdom which introduced the term “realized eschatology” in 1935, Dodd held that the predicted kingdom of God on earth had already arrived. The key to his interpretation was found in two Greek words, ephthasen, translated “is come” in the statement found in Matthew 12:28, “Then the kingdom of God is come unto you,” and eggiken, translated “at hand” in the expression in Mark 1:15, “The kingdom of God is at hand.” Dodd holds that both of these terms indicate absolute arrival instead of nearness as is normally held. The pros and cons of this have been argued by Robert F. Berkey who points out that while the Matthew 12:28 passage could conceivably be construed as the kingdom of God being present, the Mark 1:15 passage implies only nearness.[14]

Orthodox scholars have tended to regard both concepts as true: that is, that a spiritual kingdom was indeed introduced by Jesus Christ in His first coming, but that a literal kingdom was still a future eschatological event, and hence was near in the sense that the King was present but that the kingdom promises were not fulfilled.

Donald Selby states concerning Dodd: “The fundamental difficulty that appears in the hypothesis of ‘realized eschatology’ lies in Dodd’s failure to distinguish between the anticipated events and the eschaton itself. Is it not possible to understand the high pitch of expectance and hope that were admittedly present during the ministry of Jesus to mean that the guarantee of the eschaton was with them? That is to say, the preliminary events had begun to appear. But there seems to be no warrant for saying that the disciples believed that the ‘event’ itself had yet arrived…. The point is, there must be a distinction made between the eschatological Man and the eschatologieal Event.”[15]

In order to accomplish his purpose, Dodd tends to emphasize passages which support his position, and spiritualize or ignore passages which contradict it. It is rather obvious that his treatment is subjective and selective and does not provide in any sense a literal fulfillment of either the Old Testament prophecies relating to the kingdom nor of Christ’s statements concerning it as in Matthew 24—25. Dodd’s point of view, of course, fits an existential age in which the present is emphasized at the expense of history and the future.

The Nature and Content of the Kerygma

Dodd uses the term kerygma as the proclaimed message of the early church. While he does not go as far as Bultmann in distinguishing between the kerygma and the actual message of Christ when He was on earth, he attempts to show that his concept of realized eschatology was the view of the early church. According to Dodd, the early church believed that the kingdom was here and now.

Even liberal scholars have difficulty in following Dodd at this point as the New Testament very clearly predicts future aspects to the kingdom such as in Matthew 24 and the question of the disciples concerning the coming of the kingdom in Acts 1:6. While they recognized a spiritual kingdom on earth as in Romans 14:17, they also expected future fulfillment of such passages as Luke 22:29–30 which prophesied a future kingdom in which the disciples would sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. All such passages, however, are dismissed as not worthy of literal interpretation.

Dodd traces a change in the point of view of the writers of Scripture and of the church from the earlier Jewish apocalyptic to his concept of realized eschatology. He writes, “Now Jewish apocalyptic has some very noble elements, but from a psychological point of view it must be described as a form of compensation in fantasy for the sense of futility and defeat. Historically it was bred of the despair of the world which fell on the Jews under acute and prolonged oppression. It is in fact one way of dealing with the problem of evil when it presents itself in an emotionally overwhelming form.”[16]

Dodd goes on to state: “There is another way of confronting the problem of evil. It is to believe that although there is evil in the world, yet it is God’s world, and the sphere of His Kingdom. His purpose is becoming effective in every part of it, though with varying degrees of intensity. Its inhabitants are all His children, and it is His will to save them all.”[17]

Dodd further claims that Paul swung around to this position. He states: “In principle, Paul was committed to the second position from his conversion…. He still made personal claims on life for power, satisfaction, and vindication. He still resented humiliation, suffering, and defeat. But in the inward crisis represented by 2 Corinthians he seems finally to have come to terms with life. It is no accident that from this time also we find in his epistles a revised eschatology combined with a generous recognition of the natural goodness of man and of human institutions, a willingness to claim all sides of human life as potentially Christian, and a larger hope for mankind and the whole universe.”[18] Dodd’s interpretation of Paul on this point, however, is mostly wishful thinking, and it is interesting that he cites no specific Scriptures in support of his conclusion.

In expounding his point of view concerning realized eschatology, Dodd faces the fact that a number of passages seem to indicate a future kingdom rather than one already realized. He writes: “So we seem to be left with several groups of sayings which on the face of them point in different directions. Sometimes, it seems, they associate the coming of the Son of Man in glory, the kingdom of God, and the Last Judgment, with the historical ministry of Jesus Christ; sometimes they associate it with historical crisis yet to come; and sometimes with that which lies beyond all history, in another world than this. I put it to you that He meant all these, and all at once. Does that sound far-fetched? Let me remind you that poets very often used language with just such a double meaning; one meaning on the surface, another beneath the surface. This doubleness of meaning is not ambiguity or confusion of thought. That is the way poets see life; …The human mind of Jesus Christ was a poet’s mind…. He saw the great Day of the Lord; not only saw it, but acted it out. He saw that Day come, in the brief spell when He worked and suffered in Palestine. He saw it extended into history yet to be. He saw it extended into the world beyond history, where alone the kingdom of God can be perfectly revealed. And yet it was there, really and actually. The Day had come.”[19]

Dodd goes on to argue that the apostles also had a similar point of view and that his interpretation was the interpretation of the early church. He holds that the concept of “futuristic eschatology” was something that came later as a corruption of the early purity of the truth. When it became apparent that Christ might not immediately come, he states: “The church therefore proceeded to reconstruct on a modified plan the traditional scheme of Jewish eschatology which had been broken up by the declaration that the kingdom of God had already come.”[20] Dodd further claims that the source for this revision was the apocalyptic literature of the day. He explains 2 Thessalonians in this way: “The eschatological passage in the first chapter of that epistle (7–10), which most critics have noted as being in style unlike that of Paul, is best understood as a virtual quotation of some current apocalypse, whether Jewish or Jewish-Christian. There is nothing distinctly Christian either in its contents or in its general tone, apart from the fact that the figure of Messiah is identified with Jesus.”[21]

This type of proof, of course, well illustrates Dodd’s method. When Scripture seems to support his case, he will build upon a single word. When whole chapters disagree with him, he finds them unreliable. The subjective nature of such interpretation has been recognized even by liberals who for the most part have not followed Dodd. The New Testament taken as a normal, reliable, and authoritative document does not support his concept of the kerygma as being synonymous with realized eschatology.

Doctrinal Concepts of Realized Eschatology

It is not maligning Dodd to say that he has a low view of inspiration and revelation. Following most of the normal conclusions of higher criticisms he deals with a text subjectively, quoting it when it agrees with him and denying it when it disagrees with his thesis. He rejects as authoritative a number of the Pauline epistles and follows the usual documentary theories of the Gospels.

Dodd has a low view of the person of Christ, specifically denying the hypostatic union. He sees, therefore, no union of God and man in Christ. Dodd states: “The question in Paul’s mind is not a question of the scarcely thinkable combination in one person of the contradictory attributes of transcendent Deity on the one hand and of the purely ‘natural’ and nondivine humanity on the other. Humanity itself means Christ, and has no proper meaning without Him. Unless a man is a ‘son of God,’ he is so far less than man.”[22]

It is also quite clear that Dodd rejects the normal orthodox interpretation of the atonement, holding that Christ was merely a moral example in His death and in no sense a satisfaction of God’s righteousness. He states: “The Jerusalem kerygma does not assert that Christ died for our sins. The result of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is forgiveness of sins, but this forgiveness is not specifically connected with his death.”[23]

Dodd denies any kind of penal offering on the part of Christ. He writes: “The interpretation of the saving efficacy of the death of Christ is a task which Christian theology has never yet brought to a completely satisfactory conclusion. Already within the New Testament there are pointers to various lines of interpretation. But that in thus dying He showed, not only a martyr’s devotion to a cause, but also a divine charity toward men who had sinned deeply against Him and against God, is a point upon which there is substantial agreement among New Testament writers who otherwise differ considerably in outlook.”[24]

It may be concluded that in the concept of the person and work of Christ Dodd is seriously divergent from traditional orthodoxy. In his concept of God he follows the liberal tendency to emphasize the love and goodness of God without proper respect to God’s righteousness and holiness, and does this to the extent of rejecting Scripture which seems to teach contrary to his point of view.

In his overall treatment of Scripture, Dodd is hopelessly subjective. He belabors a point literally if it supports his case; rejects it as nonliteral or in error if it contradicts his point of view. His selection of Scripture proof texts is obviously motivated by the desire to make a case for his theology, but in the process he ignores many Scriptures which contradict it. Nowhere is Dodd’s theology more bankrupt than in his concept of the future. While he recognizes that there has to be an ultimate end of human history and some sort of a final last judgment, he finds no content in Scripture to help him, and he refers to the last judgment as “a terrifying prospect.”[25]

Strange to say, both liberals and conservatives have tended to reject Dodd’s teachings on the same broad principle, namely, that while there are obviously some present forms of the kingdom of God operating spiritually in the world, these do not exhaust the prophecies that relate to future consummation.

Roderic Dunkerley in his essay on “Unrealized Eschatology,” strongly opposes C. H. Dodd’s realized eschatology. After stating the extent to which Jesus did not achieve His mission, he writes: “In view of all this, must we not say that the term ‘realized eschatology,’ of which we have heard so much in recent years, is a most unfortunate misnomer?” It is, of course, obvious that the kingdom was in a sense present wherever Jesus spoke and acted in the name and power of God—to that extent ‘the kingdom of God has come’ is a statement that may be allowed. The long-hoped-for advent of the Messiah had taken place. But the hopes and promises and expectations associated with his coming did not take place—the eschatology which included them was not realized. ‘Something more than this was promised, something more has kept the advent hope living in the hearts of men.’ I suggest that the time has come when we should speak rather of ‘unrealized eschatology.’“[26] In the last analysis, eschatology has not been fully realized and awaits a literal coming of Christ and a future kingdom.

* * *

A. H. Dewey Duncan in his office as Secretary of the President since 1933 has also served as manuscript editor for many years. From the beginning of publication of Bibliotheca Sacra by Dallas Theological Seminary in 1934, he edited the early contributions of Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer and others, and in recent years has been the manuscript editor of the entire publication. His retirement on September 30 brings to a close a long and faithful service both to the Seminary and to Bibliotheca Sacra.

Notes

1. Adolf Harnack, What Is Christianity?
2. M. Jack Suggs, “Biblical Eschatology and the Message of the Church,” Encounter, XXIV (Winter, 1963) 4–5, cf. Adolf Harnack, What Is Christianity? p. 55.
3. Suggs, ibid., p. 5.
4. Ibid.
5. C. K. Barrett, “New Testament Eschatology,” Scottish Journal of Theology (June, 1953), 151–52.
6. Ibid., p. 153.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., pp. 153-55.
9. Suggs, op. cit., p. 5.
10. C. H. Dodd, History and the Gospel, p. 15.
11. Ibid., pp. 168-69.
12. Ibid., p. 170.
13. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching, p. 144.
14. Robert F. Berkey, “ΕΓΓΛΖΕΛΝ, ΦΘΑΝΕΛΝ, and Realized Eschatology “ Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXII (June, 1963), 177–87.
15. Donald Joseph Selby, “Changing Ideas in New Testament Eschatology,” Harvard Theological Review, L (Jan., 1957), 23.
16. C. H. Dodd, New Testament Studies, p. 126.
17. Ibid., p. 127.
18. Ibid., pp. 127-28.
19. Dodd, The Coming of Christ, pp. 20-21.
20. Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, p. 55.
21. Ibid., p. 56.
22. Dodd, The Meaning of Paul for Today, p. 89.
23. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching, p. 32.
24. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, p. 84.
25. Ibid., p. 121.
26. Roderic Dunkerley, “Unrealized Eschatology,” The London Quarterly and Holborn Review, CLXXXVI (July, 1961), 54.

Revival of Rome

By John F. Walvoord

[John F. Walvoord, President, Dallas Theological Seminary, Editor, Bibliotheca Sacra.]

The question of whether the ancient Roman Empire will be revived in the prophetic future at the end of the age is one of the intriguing interpretative problems of the Scriptures. Liberal theologians have been quite sure that such an expectation is a vain hope, and that prophecy cannot be taken that literally.[1] Evangelicals have not all been agreed on the answer to the question either, but many, particularly premillenarians, have felt that the prophetic foreview of both Daniel and Revelation anticipates the revival of Rome politically and religiously. The Protestant reformers like John Calvin interpreted prophecies of the end time to refer to the Roman Catholic Church, and tended to relate the political implications to the existing political situation.

In the twentieth century the question of the revival of Rome has taken on new prominence with the revival of the Middle East as a whole, the formation of the new State of Israel, the reformations of the Roman Catholic Church, and many other factors which again are directing attention to the Middle East. Accordingly, the revival of Rome becomes once again a live question.

Previously the author contributed an article on the ten-nation confederacy, dealing with four major Scripture passages (Dan 2:34–35, 40–45; 7:7–8, 19–24; Rev 13:1–2; 17:3, 7, 12–16).[2] It was demonstrated that these passages prophesy a future ten-nation confederacy in the Middle East which will form a large part in prophecy of the end time and be the forerunner of the ultimate world government. The author has also contributed to the subject several chapters on the place of Rome, including one specifically on the revival of Rome.[3] The present study is directed specifically to the question as to whether these prophecies anticipate a revival of Rome politically and religiously.

Presuppositions

In approaching this complicated interpretative problem of prophetic Scripture, certain assumptions are implicit in the argument. First of all, the Scriptures must be regarded as an authentic and accurate revelation of future events, that is, prophecy must be taken literally and seriously. The liberal contention that the Bible is unreliable in its prophetic utterances is denied, and the normal, orthodox, evangelical point of view is assumed. To debate the whole issue of the accuracy of prophetic Scripture would be beyond the compass of this article.

Second, the general reasons for supposing that the fourth empire of Daniel’s prophecies is the ancient Roman Empire will be set forth without formally arguing all the points. Obviously, if the fourth empire were not Roman, there is no hope of a future revival of the Roman Empire prophetically. The identification of the fourth empire as Roman was the majority view of biblical scholarship until the rise of modern criticism.

C. F. Keil is typical of conservative expositors when he states: “There yet remains for our consideration the question, What are the historical world-kingdoms which are represented by Nebuchadnezzar’s image (ch. ii), and by Daniel’s vision of four beasts rising up out of the sea? Almost all interpreters understand that these two visions are to be interpreted in the same way. ‘The four kingdoms or dynasties, which were symbolized (ch. ii) by the same parts of the human image, from the head to the feet, are the same as those which were symbolized by the four great beasts rising up out of the sea.’ This is the view not only of Bleek, who herein agrees with Auberlen, but also of Kranichfeld and Kliefoth, and all church interpreters.”[4] Keil goes on to identify the fourth kingdom as Roman: “These four kingdoms, according to the interpretation commonly received in the church, are the Babylonian, the Medio-Persian, the Macedo-Grecian, and the Roman.”[5]

With these two major assumptions, the question will be faced as to whether the future form of the kingdom, the ten-nation confederacy anticipated in prophecy, will be a genuine Roman empire in revived form; and if so, how this relates to the ultimate religious character of the end of the age.

The Fourth Empire of Daniel as the Roman Empire

In the prophecies of Daniel, especially Daniel 2 and 7, prophetically four world empires are set forth. In the image of Daniel 2 the head of gold is related to Babylon by practically all expositors. Most expositors also recognize three other empires in the shoulders of silver, the lower part of the body of bronze, and the legs of iron and the feet part of iron and part of clay.

The similar vision in chapter 7 of Daniel with its four beasts seems to correspond to the same four empires of chapter 2. The great majority of evangelical expositors accept this point of view. Liberals who place the Book of Daniel in the second century, and thereby consider it a pious forgery, deny that the fourth empire is Roman and try to make the entire Book of Daniel to be history.

In contrast to the usual orthodox point of view that the four empires are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, liberals usually divide the Medo-Persian empire into two empires which, while admittedly historically inaccurate, they claim is the point of view of the writer of Daniel. Hence the fourth empire becomes a Macedonian or Grecian empire of Alexander the Great. They consider Rome an impossibility because to admit that the fourth empire was Rome would be to admit that Daniel predicts accurately the future.

The arguments pro and con on this have been debated for many generations. The several works of Robert Dick Wilson, particularly his Studies in the Book of Daniel, have demonstrated satisfactorily to most evangelicals that the liberal point of view that Daniel is a forgery is unfounded, and with it their arguments against interpreting the fourth empire as Roman. The genuineness of Daniel has been more recently confirmed by the finding of the Book of Daniel among the Dead Sea Scrolls which seems to require a much earlier date for Daniel than the liberals would allow, and accordingly forces recognition of the genuine predictive character of Daniel.

Simply from the standpoint of history it is unthinkable that any genuine prophetic foreview of world history in its political context would omit the Roman Empire, which by all odds was the greatest empire of history. Beginning several centuries before Christ, it continued into the Christian era for almost fifteen centuries, and its total impact upon the world of its day, as well as modern times, is inestimable. The detailed description of the fourth beast of Daniel 7 pictured as a cruel iron beast so precisely corresponds to the ancient Roman empire in its ruthless conquest of many peoples that most expositors who take this passage seriously have assigned it to Rome.

Leupold, in his interpretation of the iron teeth, writes: “That must surely signify a singularly voracious, cruel, and even vindictive world power. Rome could never get enough of conquest. Rivals like Carthage just had to be broken: Carthago delenda est. Rome had no interest in raising the conquered nations to any high level of development. All her designs were imperial; let the nations be crushed and stamped underfoot.”[6]

The two legs of the image of Daniel 2, likewise, portray the eastern and western divisions of the Roman Empire. The unequal duration of the eastern empire, which continued long after the western empire had fallen apart, is not seen in Daniel’s prophecy because it occurs in the period of the present church age which does not seem to be in Daniel’s foreview. The unfulfilled aspects of the prophecies provide the clue for the future revival of Rome. Any other view has never achieved majority status among evangelicals at least because the prophecies taken literally lead to this conclusion.

While some evangelicals like King interpret the fourth empire as other than Roman,[7] usually those who accept the inspiration and genuineness of Daniel identify the fourth kingdom as Roman. The controversy in the main is one between liberals and conservatives. As Keil said long ago: “These four kingdoms, according to the interpretation commonly received in the church, are the Babylonian, the Medio-Persian, the Macedo-Grecian, and the Roman. ‘In this interpretation and opinion,’ Luther observes, ‘all the world are agreed, and history in fact abundantly establishes it.’ This opinion prevailed until about the end of the last century, for the contrary opinion of the individual earlier interpreters had found no favour. But from that time, when faith in the supernatural origin and character of biblical prophecy was shaken by Deism and Rationalism, then as a consequence, with the rejection of the genuineness of the Book of Daniel the reference of the fourth kingdom to the Roman world-monarchy was also denied. For the pseudo-Daniel of the times of the Maccabees could furnish no prophecy which could reach further than the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. If the reference of the fourth kingdom to the Roman Empire was therefore a priori excluded, the four kingdoms must be so explained that the pretended prophecy should not extend further than to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.”[8]

Is the Ten-Nation Confederacy of the Future Roman?

If the large discussion available in evangelical literature supports the conclusion that the fourth empire of Daniel was Roman, the question remains whether its future revival will also be Roman in character, and whether the Scriptures specifically teach this.

The expositor is here faced with two major alternatives. He can attempt, as many postmillenarians and some amillenarians have done, to find fulfillment of the entire prophecy of the fourth empire of both chapters 2 and 7 of Daniel in history. Under this concept the smiting stone which destroys the image of Daniel 2 is the conquest of the church destroying the Roman Empire, and the ten-nation confederacy of Daniel 7 are ten successive kings of the historic Roman Empire now already fulfilled. There has been a long debate on this, but the issue hangs not on the details, but whether the prophecy should be taken literally. It is rather obvious from history that as a matter of fact the Christian church did not destroy the Roman Empire, and that it actually fell apart for moral and political reasons, but not because of the impact of the church. Certainly there was no sudden destruction as is contemplated by the stone’s smiting the image in the feet in Daniel 2.

The most important problem, however, is that the fourth empire of Daniel is succeeded by an empire brought in by Jesus Christ. It is the advent of the coming King that really destroys the fourth empire. The postmillennial concept that this refers to the first advent of Christ and that the church is gradually conquering the world, with its premise that the kingdom is a spiritual rather than a political kingdom, has come more and more into disfavor. The twentieth century has devastated the optimism of the postmillennial view that the gospel has the power in itself to transform the nations. The premillennial concept is more and more justified, and supports the conclusion that there will be no correction of the world righteously or religiously until Jesus Christ comes back in power and glory. This, according to the premillennial interpretation, means that when Christ comes He will conquer the world by His power and will inaugurate a literal kingdom on earth, the fifth kingdom of Daniel 7, and that this future event is that which concludes the fourth kingdom. The argument, therefore, hinges upon the superiority of the premillennial interpretation of prophecy as opposed to amillennial or postmillennial prophecy. With postmillennialism almost a dead issue in prophetic interpretation, and amillennialism conceding more and more that only the second advent of Christ will solve the world’s problems, it becomes evident that the final form of the fourth kingdom must, therefore, be future, not historic. Even Leupold, an amillenarian, relates the destruction of the fourth beast to the second coming of Christ.[9] If so, it argues for a future ten-nation kingdom which is Roman in its political context.

The ten-nation confederacy is anticipated in the feet-stage of the image, and although the toes are not said to be ten in number, this is the implication. More specific details are given in Daniel on the fourth beast of his vision in chapter 7. There in the latter stage of development the beast is declared to have ten horns. This is interpreted in Daniel 7:24 as “ten kings that shall arise.” Further light is cast on this in Revelation 13 where a beast is seen to come out of the sea having “ten horns.” The fact that the ten-horns stage of the kingdom was still prophetic when the book of Revelation was written clearly makes it either Roman or post-Roman in its historical fulfillment.

The ten-nation confederacy of the future anticipated in these prophecies would naturally be considered a revival of the Roman Empire if for no other reason than that it is portrayed as an integral part of the fourth empire. As far as Daniel and Revelation are concerned, there is no sharp break between the historic and the prophetic, and the present age in which the church is being called out from Jew and Gentile alike is not taken into consideration in Daniel’s foreview. Accordingly, the fourth empire of the past and the future confederacy are looked upon as if they are parts of the same empire. If the fourth empire is Roman, it would follow that the ten-nation confederacy will also be Roman in character, at least from the divine point of view.

A second argument in favor of the identification of the future empire as Roman would come from the geographic evidence that the center of the stage is the Middle East in the end of the age. It is here that the great final world war is fought according to Daniel 11:36–45, confirmed by the reference to Armageddon in Revelation 16:16, and other geographic indications such as the River Euphrates, the city of Jerusalem, and similar geographic factors. If the future activities relating to the ten-nation confederacy are in the Middle East, it would also support the concept that it is a revival of the ancient Roman Empire, at least geographically.

One of the most specific references, however, is found in the difficult prophecy of Daniel in which Israel’s history is unfolded as recorded in Daniel 9:24–27. One of the important factors in this prophecy is Daniel 9:26 where it is stated that after the Messiah or the Anointed One is cut off that “the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” Although there have been many destructions of Jerusalem, most commentators agree that the fulfillment of this prophecy was in A.D. 70 when the Roman General Titus surrounded the city of Jerusalem, slaughtered its inhabitants, and burned the beautiful temple whose construction had been completed only six years before. If this prince is the same as the little horn (Dan 7:8), who subdues three of the ten nations in the confederacy and assumes control, it would follow from this that the prince who will come, because of his relation to the people who destroyed the city in A.D. 70, will be a Roman prince. This view is far preferable to the interpretation of “the prince that shall come” as a reference to Christ.

Although this does not establish his racial background, and debate continues as to his particular nationality, politically he will be a Roman and will be the final ruler of Roman power in the world until the second coming of Jesus Christ. Accordingly, many expositors identify the prince that shall come as the ultimate world ruler mentioned in Revelation 13 and other passages.

That this is related to end-time events, and therefore either Roman or post-Roman, is confirmed by the reference in the Olivet Discourse where Christ cited the abomination of desolation, prophesied in Daniel 9:27, as being the sign of the beginning of the great tribulation. In the context, Christ relates this to Judea and again fixes the center of events as being in the Middle East. Accordingly, on the basis of the prophecy of Christ and the future anticipations of Revelation 13, the liberal contention that all of this was fulfilled in the second century B.C. becomes completely untenable. In making the prophecy of Matthew 24, Christ also confirms the prophetic accuracy of Daniel, and takes the prediction of the future abomination of desolation, which refers to the desecration of a future temple in Jerusalem, as a literal event of great significance to the people of Israel.

On the basis of the conclusion that the fourth empire of Daniel is Roman, that geographically the future ten-nation confederacy is in the area occupied in history by the Roman Empire, and the specific reference to the prince that shall come as being related to the Roman people, a conclusion can be drawn that there will be a revival of Rome politically, which will fulfill the unfulfilled aspect of the fourth empire, both in Daniel and in Revelation. This leads, then, to the question as to whether religiously there will also be a revival of Rome.

Revival of Rome Religiously

The classic interpretation of Revelation 17 as offered by the Protestant reformers and many since is that the harlot, the wicked woman who is the symbol of religious power in this chapter, is none other than the Roman Catholic Church in its apostate form.[10]

While the reformers identified it with the Roman Catholic Church of their day, contemporary Protestant interpreters tend to qualify this identification. Rather than the Roman Catholic Church specifically, the religious entity that is portrayed seems to be a world religion which could conceivably embrace all branches of Christianity—Roman, Greek Orthodox, and Protestant—as well as non-Christian religions.

In the vision given the Apostle John as recorded in Revelation 17, he is invited to see this amazing, wicked woman who is described as sitting “upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns” (Rev 17:3). She is further portrayed as decked in purple and scarlet, with gold and precious stones. The total picture is well adapted to describe religion typified by the woman in alliance with the political which is seen as a scarlet colored beast, identified as the future political power of the end time in Revelation 13:1.

The woman is described according to Revelation 17:5 as having a name: “MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” This, of course, gathers in much material referring to Rome politically in that Rome as an empire had borrowed much of its religious system from ancient Babylon, but it also introduces the question as to whether the woman is specifically Roman.

On the basis of the evidence, the identification of the woman of Revelation 17 as being specifically the Roman Catholic Church needs to be qualified. That it includes Romanism could be deduced from the association of the woman with the beast of Revelation 13, which previously has been shown to be the revival of the Roman Empire. Her intimate association with Roman rulers in the end time is further supported by Revelation 17:9–12, even if, for the sake of argument, the “seven mountains” are not a specific reference to the city of Rome, a conclusion which many have challenged. It is, nevertheless, true that the seven kings mentioned in Revelation 17:10 are obviously Roman and that the ten horns representing ten kings in Revelation 17:12 are kings who are part of the ten-nation confederacy which is also Roman. Hence the woman religiously is affiliated with the revived Roman Empire.

To identify the woman as specifically the Roman Catholic Church, however, is to go beyond the Scriptures. Actually, according to Revelation 17:15, the woman is pictured in a place of authority over “people, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.” Her sphere of rule is obviously worldwide and goes beyond the bounds of the Roman Empire politically, at least in its earlier stage.

In view of the fact that there does not seem to be any religious opposition to the woman, and her sway seems to be complete except for individual saints whom she persecutes, the evidence seems to support the fact that the woman represents an ecumenical or worldwide church embracing all of Christianity religiously, and therefore including not only the Roman Catholic Church but Protestant and Greek Orthodoxy as well. It should also be observed that the state of the situation is not precisely what is true today, but what will eventuate in the political context of this future period. At that time apparently the apostate religious entity described here will be devoid of any true Christians, and those described as saints will be outside this apostate church and the object of its persecution.

If the religious entity described here is an ecumenical church, it casts new light upon the significance of the ecumenical movement in the world today. At the present time the ecumenical movement, although worldwide, does not embrace all major sections of Christianity. A merger between protestantism, Greek Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Church, while contemplated by some, has not been consummated. There is also active opposition religiously to the ecumenical movement based on its theological liberalism and its centralization of ecclesiastical power. If, as many Christians believe, the rapture or the translation of the church will occur before these end-time events, it will mean that genuine Christians today will be removed from the scene before the ecumenical church comes to its completion as pictured here in Revelation 17.

Accordingly, it may be concluded that while the Roman Empire will be specifically revived, fulfilling the last stages of the prophetic anticipations of the fourth empire, the religious characteristics of the end time, while including the Roman Catholic Church and being Roman in its political alliances, will be wider in its inclusion. All branches of apostate Christendom and possibly non-Christian religions will be embraced within its organization. Symbolically this will be a harlot, a wicked woman, utterly opposed to God and a persecutor of true believers.

A dramatic conclusion is revealed according to Revelation 17:16 in that the ten kings destroy the woman. This seems to pave the way for the final form of world religion which will be the worship of the political ruler himself, as revealed in Revelation 13:8 where it is declared “all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him,” except for those who are true believers. The final form of world religion will not even be Christian in name, and will actually be an atheistic, humanistic, satanic system which denies everything related to the true God, and is the persecutor of all who fail to worship the political ruler.

The contemporary reformations in the Roman Catholic Church, which make a merger between Romanism and Protestantism or a merger between Romanism and Greek Orthodoxy more credible, are therefore significant as being a part of the trend toward a world church. The world church as portrayed in Revelation 17 will not actually be consummated in its final form until after the true church, the body of Christ, is caught up to be with the Lord. The present movement in ecumenicalism is therefore significant as another sign that the end of the age may soon be upon the world.

The history of prophetic fulfillment supports the conclusion that prophecy will be fulfilled literally. In keeping with this principle is the belief that there will be a fulfillment of the details of the fourth empire in its final stage which were left unfufilled in history. Hence there will be a revival of Rome politically, and a revival of Rome religiously, which will eventually center both political and religious power in the Middle East and ultimately culminate in a world government and a world religion (Rev 13:7–8). Present trends in this direction are another reminder that the coming of the Lord may be near.

Notes

1. Cf. James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Montgomery, in his entire exposition of the Book of Daniel like many modern liberal expositors refuses to recognize any genuine prophetic revelation, and by not taking Scripture literally, and by placing the writing chronologically after the event, finds them fulfilled prior to the emergence of the Roman Empire.
2. John F. Walvoord, “Prophecy of the Ten-Nation Confederacy,” Bibliotheca Sacra, CXXIV (April-June, 1967), 99–105.
3. The Nations in Phophecy, pp. 83-102.
4. C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, p. 245.
5. Ibid.
6. Herbert C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, pp. 297-98.
7. Geoffrey R. King, Daniel, pp. 72-73.
8. Keil, ibid., pp. 245-46.
9. Leupold, ibid., p. 308.
10. For an exposition of this chapter, see the author’s The Revelation of Jesus Christ, pp. 243-57.

Will Israel Build a Temple in Jerusalem?

By John F. Walvoord

Recent Events Revive Temple Question

One of the important results of the six-day war of June, 1967, when Israel conquered Jerusalem, was the revival of the question whether Israel would rebuild a temple on the traditional temple site in Jerusalem. Orthodox Jews for many years have been praying daily for the rebuilding of the temple. In this expectation, they have had the support of premillenarians who interpret Scriptural prophecies as meaning what they say when they refer to a future temple in Jerusalem. The world as a whole, as well as the majority of the church, have tended to ignore this expectation as being too literal an interpretation of prophecy. Often this disinterest was based on the fact that Israel was not in position to accomplish such an objective, and disbelief about rebuilding the temple stemmed from disbelief concerning any future for Israel as a nation.

The majority of the church for the last several generations has followed amillennial interpretation, which either spiritualizes promises concerning the nation Israel and its possession of their land and city or has considered these promises forfeited by unbelief. According to amillenarians, Israel would never return to their ancient land, never restore the kingdom of Israel, and never rebuild the temple.

The stirring events of the twentieth century have caused many of them to rethink this question, for the facts of history have supported the orthodox Jewish hope as well as the expectation of premillennial Christians. Now the fact that Israel has greatly extended the territory under its control and has for the first time in many centuries possessed the ancient city of Jerusalem has renewed the question concerning the rebuilding of the temple.

Rumors are rife that plans are already well advanced for rebuilding such a temple. An article appearing in The Christian and Christianity Today reports news “received from authoritative sources in Sellersburg, Indiana” to the effect that 500 railroad carloads of stone from Bedford, Indiana, are already en route to Israel and that a portion of it has arrived in Israel. Included in the report is the information that the two bronze pillars for the new temple have already been cast.[1] Although the Israeli government flatly denies the entire story and the authority for it is vague, the rumor highlights current interest in the question concerning the rebuilding’of the temple. The Limestone Institute of America has been unable to find any confirmation of such an order, and Israel’s ambassador states that if a temple is built native stone would be used.

Two radically different groups in Israel are in favor of building the temple.The one consists of extreme nationalists who regard it as a symbol of Israeli victory and the center of religious culture.The other is the relatively small group of orthodox Jews who are motivated principally by religious concepts. The main body of Jews throughout the world have not committed themselves definitely to the project. It would seem, however, a natural result of the revival of Israel both as a nation and as a religious entity that ultimately such a temple should be built. This is supported by the long history of the temple as the heart of Israel both as a nation and as a religious group.

History of Previous Temples

The first Temple which served the people of Israel was that built by Solomon, the details of which are given in 1 Kings 5:1—6:38; 7:13–51; 2 Chronicles 2:1—4:22. The plans for the Temple were revealed by God in detail, and construction included lavish use of precious metals, making it one of the most costly structures in the ancient world. The dedication of the Temple was likewise an elaborate procedure (1 Kings 8:1–66; 2 Chron 5:1—7:11). The Temple served as the center of Israel’s religious life for four hundred years, until it was finally destroyed in 586 B.C.

For seventy years the Temple lay desolate. The pilgrims returning under Zerubbabel beginning in 541 B.C. began the process of the restoration of Israel in the land. Soon after arrival they laid the foundation for a new Temple. This early attempt to build the Temple was stopped approximately 535 B.C. Construction was not renewed until 520 B.C. when Darius gave authority for resumption of the building (Ezra 6:1–12). Finally in 516 B.C., the Temple of Zerubbabel was completed with mingled joy and sorrow, joy for the restoration of the Temple, but sorrow because the new Temple fell far short of the grandeur of Solomon’s Temple which had been destroyed.[2] According to the dimensions given in Ezra 6:3–4, the new Temple was about one-third larger than Solomon’s Temple, but lacking its magnificence.[3] The Talmud mentions five things lacking in Zerubbabel’s Temple that were found in Solomon’s, that is, the ark, the sacred fire, the shekinah glory, the Holy Spirit, and the Urim and Thummim.[4] Instead of the ark a stone was placed in the holy of holies.

This Temple served Israel also for about four hundred years when its rebuilding was undertaken by Herod in 20 B.C., not long before the birth of Christ. Its building progressed during Christ’s lifetime on earth, and was brought to completion in A.D. 64, only a few years before its destruction in A.D. 70. From that day until this, there have been no Jewish sacrifices and no Jewish temple.

The Larger Question of the Form of Jewish Revival

The answer to the question of whether Israel will rebuild their temple is integral to the larger question of whether the Bible teaches Israel’s restoration as a nation. As previously pointed out, amillenarians tend to deny any restoration to Israel at all and claim that the present activity in the Middle East on the part of the nation Israel has no prophetic or religious significance. Albertus Pieters, for instance, writes: “In conclusion, some will ask what we think of Zionism and of the establishment of the state of Israel in Palestine…. No doubt God has His plans for this new development, as for the whole course of affairs in the world, but as students of prophecy it is our task to determine what He has revealed concerning such plans; and whether this new state becomes permanent or not, we are still sure that no such thing is to be found in the scriptures.”[5]

Postmillenarians like Charles Hodge, in answer to the question, “Are the Jews to be restored to their own land?” state: “The idea that the Jews are to be restored to their own land and there constituted a distinct nation in the Christian Church, is inconsistent not only with the distinct assertions of the Scriptures, but also with its plainest and most important doctrines…. The restoration of the Jews to their own land and their continued national individuality, is generally associated with the idea that they are to continue a sort of peerage in the Church of the future, exalted in prerogative and dignity above their fellow believers; and this again is more or less intimately connected with the doctrine that what the Church of the present is to look forward to is the establishment of a kingdom on earth of great worldly splendour and prosperity. For neither of these is there any authority in the didactic portions of the New Testament.”[6]

In contrast to the amillennial and postmillennial denial of a future restoration of Israel to their ancient land, premillenarians have long taught that Israel will be finally regathered in their ancient land to enjoy the kingdom of Christ on earth for a thousand years.[7] This is based on interpreting Scripture in its normal sense in its reference to Israel in the land and to another temple in Jerusalem.

Scriptural Evidence for a Future Temple

The fact that Israel is now in their ancient land organized as a nation, and the impressive recent events which have put the city of Jerusalem itself into the hands of Israel, have to a large extent revealed the premises and conclusions of both the amillenarians and postmillenarians to be in error. To claim that this supports the entire premillennial interpretation may be presumptive, but it certainly gives added force to the normal interpretation of Scripture in predicting such a situation. A number of important Scriptures may be cited in support of the concept of a future rebuilding of the temple.

Matthew 24:1–2, 15. One of the most important prophecies relative to a future temple is found in the Olivet Discourse. In the introduction to Christ’s prophecy concerning the end of the age, He predicted concerning the great Temple being built by Herod: “There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” This prophecy was strikingly fulfilled in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed. The Temple indeed was left with not one stone standing upon another. The wailing wall still standing in Jerusalem may have been part of the extreme western outer wall which was not a part of the Temple itself. Later in the seventh century, the Mosque of Omar was built by Caliph Omar supposedly on the precise site of the Temple which presumes its complete destruction.

In Matthew 24:15, however, as an immediate sign of the second advent of Christ, the prediction is made that those living in that generation will “see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand).” This prediction obviously could not refer to A.D. 70 as it is an event immediately preceding the second advent of Christ described, in Matthew 24:27–31. The prediction, however, gives us the clue concerning the future Temple.

The abomination of desolation has reference to a future event paralleling to some extent “the abomination that maketh desolate” of Daniel 11:31 fulfilled in the desolation of the Temple in the second century B.C. by Antiochus Epiphanes which sparked the Maccabean revolt.

The future abomination of desolation is mentioned in Daniel 9:27 where, according to premillennial interpretation, “the prince that shall come” (Dan 9:26) will break his covenant of seven years in the middle and “he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate.” The act of desolation is confirmed in Daniel 12:11 where it is stated: “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate is set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.” If the usual premillennial interpretation is correct, this act of desecration of the sacrifice will take place approximately three and one-half years before the second advent.

This interpretation obviously presents some difficult problems including the question as to whether orthodox Jews will renew the Mosaic sacrificial system. Judging by Scriptures, this is precisely what they will do as it would be impossible to cause sacrifices to cease if they were not already in operation. The usual method of dismissing this as something which occurred in A.D. 70 does not provide a reasonable explanation of the text nor account for the fact that the second coming of Christ occurs immediately thereafter.[8]

The question of renewal of sacrifices in this period prior to the second advent should not be confused with another eschatological problem, that of sacrifices in the millennium which are related to prophecies of Ezekiel’s temple (cf. Ezek 40—48). The Jews who offer the sacrifices which are forcibly stopped are orthodox Jews, not Christians, and there is no real relationship between the problem of Ezekiel’s temple and the sacrificial system predicted with that of the temple and its desecration described by Christ. The implication is clearly in favor of a temple prior to the second advent which is different in structure and function than Ezekiel’s temple.

2 Thessalonians 2:1–4. Additional confirmation of this concept of a temple in the period preceding the second advent is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–4. In this passage prediction is made that the future man of sin “who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped” assumes the role of deity, “so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess 2:4). Using this passage as an interpretation of the prediction of Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15, it may be concluded that following the desecration of the Jewish temple and its sacrifices the future man of sin identified by many as “the prince that shall come” (Dan 9:26) will become an object of worship. A later phase of this is that he is replaced by an idol or image of himself, according to Revelation 13:14–15. The passage does not say precisely, however, that the image is in the temple, but this would be a reasonable location.

Problems of Fulfillment

Problems incident to rebuilding the temple are considered in an illuminating essay by Daniel Fuchs.[9] The contemporary difficulties in the way of rebuilding such a temple are tremendous. The Mosque of Omar now occupies the site which many believe was the location of the holy of holies of Solomon’s temple. This magnificient mosque recently completely rebuilt at an expense of many millions of dollars could not be razed without precipitating a major war. This is commonly recognized by most Jews, and only extreme nationalists have dared to suggest that the Temple should be built upon this site. When Col. Chlomo Goren held a religious service in the present mosque area in August, 1967, he was almost universally condemned by the Israeli press.[10] Orthodox Jews considered this area off limits as desecrated by Gentiles and fear lest they should walk upon the holy ground unwittingly.

In addition to political problems, real difficulties face any attempt to restore a Mosaic system of sacrifices in a temple. In addition to the Scriptures themselves, the Jewish Mishna contains many laws and specifications which orthodox Jews would consider necessary. Orthodox Jews tend to believe that the temple will not be built until the Messiah returns and hence oppose a temple being rebuilt now. Such a temple would also involve animal sacrifices to which the majority of Israel are now opposed.

In attempting to solve these problems, one is reminded of all the insuperable difficulties which lay in the way of Israel’s return to their ancient land. History has recorded that Israel did return in spite of the difficulties. It is safe to conclude that future history will also record a rebuilding of the temple. Such a rebuilding could take place before the rapture of the church but not necessarly. The temple could be built anytime in the period after the rapture but prior to the desecration of the temple, which will occur three and one-half years before the second coming of Christ to the earth.

Summary of Predictions

On the basis of Matthew 24:15 with supporting Scriptures from Daniel, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 13, it may be concluded that Scriptures anticipate a future temple with a sacrificial system which will be under way at the time “the prince that shall come” exercises his authority, desecrates the temple, and establishes himself as the object of worship.

If such a temple is to be built, it is reasonable to assume that it will be built in Jerusalem as no other site would be acceptable for a temple built in fulfillment of the Mosaic system. One of the remarkable features of the recent history of Israel is that the stage is set precisely for such a move, and if so, the end of the age may be very near.

Notes

1. The Christian and Christianity Today, August 4, 1967, pp. 7-8.
2. Cf. the picture and description of Solomon’s Temple with meager details given of the new Temple in article on “Temple,” The International Bible Encyclopaedia, V, 2930–34.
3. Cf. article, “Temple,” Unger’s Bible Dictionary, pp. 1079-80.
4. Ibid.
5. Albertus Pieters, The Seed of Abraham, p. 148.
6. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, III, 810–11.
7. Cf. John F. Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom, pp. 159-220, 256–334.
8. For further discussion, cf. John F. Walvoord, The Return of the Lord, pp. 58-79.
9. Cf. The Chosen People, December, 1967, pp. 1-5.
10. Cf. Fuch’s discussion, ibid., pp. 2-3.

The Times of the Gentiles

By John F. Walvoord

Recent events in the Middle East have focused attention on the political and prophetic significance of Israel’s possession of their ancient capital of Jerusalem. For the first time since A.D. 70, Israel is in complete possession of the city of Jerusalem and its surrounding territory. Under these circumstances, it is only natural that attention should be focused upon the prophecy recorded in Luke 21:24, “And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” Does the present occupation of Jerusalem signify, in keeping with this prophecy, that the times of the Gentiles have come to an end? A superficial study of this passage would seem to indicate that this is the case, and that now Israel is moving into a new phase of its long history. Careful students, acquainted with the history of the interpretation of this verse, however, sense the danger of reaching too hasty a conclusion. As a matter of fact, there are a number of important considerations which affect the interpretation of this passage.

The Question of Definition of Terms

Expositors, pondering the meaning of Luke 21:24, soon become aware of the fact that this term, “the times of the Gentiles,” is found only here in the Bible. The problem of definition of terms, therefore, becomes an acute one, inasmuch as in this passage we have only the description that Jerusalem “shall be trodden down by the Gentiles” as indicating the character of this period. Under these circumstances, a variety of definitions may be expected depending upon the theological presuppositions of the interpreter.

If all varieties of interpretation be considered, at least half a dozen different views could be itemized. In general, however, they can be classified as postmillennial, amillennial and premillennial.

Postmillennial definition. Typical of the postmillennial view is that advanced by Plummer who interprets the passage spiritually as meaning Gentile possession of the spiritual promises of Israel. Under this interpretation, Jerusalem symbolically is considered representative of Jewish promises of blessing, and Gentiles trodding down the city of Jerusalem means Gentile possession of the promises forfeited by Israel for unbelief and failure. Plummer indicates preference of this view over five other alternatives which he mentions.[1]

Amillennial definition. Although the amillennial view is very similiar to the postmillennial, generally speaking, it tends to introduce another element, namely, that of judgment of the Gentiles. H. A. Meyer, for instance, states: “Til the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled, i.e., til the time that the periods which are appointed to the Gentile nations for the completion of divine judgments (not the period of Grace for the Gentiles, as Ebrard foists into the passage) shall have run out.”[2]

Lenski, also an amillenarian, does not emphasize the thought of judgment of the Gentiles, but considers the times of the Gentiles as the “seasons” which “continue from the destruction of Jerusalem to the time of the Parousia.”[3] Lenski specifically defines the period as beginning with the destruction of Jerusalem and ending with the second coming of Christ and holds it has nothing to do with the empires of Daniel.[4] Hence the expression “the times of the Gentiles” is regarded by some as a period in which Gentiles inherit Israel’s blessings, and by others is taken as the season for executing divine judgments upon the Gentiles, especially at the end of the age.

Premillennial definition. Premillenarians tend to take the expression “trodden down by the Gentiles” in a more literal way as referring to the physical possession of Jerusalem by the Gentiles. Normally, this is not related to inheritance of spiritual blessings, although premillenarians recognize that during the period of the times of the Gentiles there may be special blessings allotted to Gentile believers. Alford considers the times of the Gentiles as “the end of the Gentile dispensation.”[5] Alford finds that the plural of times corresponds to the plural of Gentiles,[6] and ridicules Meyer’s view that the time indicated is the period in which the Gentiles shall have completed their experience of wrath.

Under premillennial interpretation, the physical possession of Jerusalem becomes of central importance. The fact that Israel was dispossessed of their ancient city in A.D. 70, and has today repossessed the city, therefore, becomes a matter of physical and prophetic significance.

Relation to “The Fullness of the Gentiles”

In attempting to define the expression “the times of the Gentiles,” it becomes exegetically important to determine what relation, if any, there is between this term and that found in Romans 11:25 where it is stated: “Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.” The tendency on the part of many postmillennial and amillennial writers is to equate this with the times of the Gentiles, making them both refer to the same period of time.

The determination of the meaning of the phrase “the fullness of the Gentiles” is, in itself, an exegetical problem of no small moment. There are just as many divergent views of this term as there is of the expression “the times of the Gentiles.” Because of their interrelationship, however, it is impossible to clarify one without defining the other.

The eleventh chapter of Romans deals with the subject of Israel’s future. The chapter is introduced with the question, “Hath God cast away his people?” The point of view is taken that Israel, for the moment, has been set aside and that Gentiles are in the place of primary blessing. The theme of the chapter, however, is that the time will come when Gentile blessing will cease and Israel again will be blessed of God. The argument is summarized in Romans 11:12: “Now if the fall of them [Israel] be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fullness?” In other words, the present “fullness” of the Gentiles is contrasted with the future “fullness” of Israel.

It is with this background that we come to Romans 11:25, where it is stated, “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own, conceits: that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.” It is clear from the passage that the contrast is between the culmination of present state of the Gentiles and the future state of Israel.

The word fullness (Gr. pleroma) is given a variety of meanings by expositors. Some envision a great revival among the Gentiles at the close of the age, as does Charles Hodge in keeping with his postmillennial point of view.[7] Hodge states, “It is not Paul’s doctrine that all Gentiles who ever lived are to be introduced into the kingdom of Christ. Nor does it mean that all the Gentiles who may be alive when the Jews are converted shall be true Christians. All that can be safely inferred from this language is, that the Gentiles, as a body, the mass of the Gentile world, will be converted before the restoration of the Jews, as a nation.”[8] A number of other expositors take it as referring to the large number of Gentiles who are saved with the emphasis on quantity rather than time.

The time element, however, is clearly indicated by the word “until.” This definitely introduces a time factor, contrasting the present situation to that which will follow when the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.

When the two concepts, “the times of the Gentiles” and “the fullness of the Gentiles” are compared, it becomes evident that the times of the Gentiles is primarily a political term and has to do with the political overlordship of Jerusalem. By contrast, the term “the fullness of the Gentiles” refers to the present age in which Gentiles predominate in the church and far exceed Israel in present spiritual blessing. It becomes clear, therefore, that, while the two concepts may be contemporaneous at least for much of their fulfillment, the termini of the two periods are somewhat different. The times of the Gentiles will end only when Israel will permanently gain political control of Jerusalem at the second advent of Christ, whereas the fullness of the Gentiles will be completed when God’s present task of winning Jew and Gentile to Christ is completed.

The final decision presupposes a system of theology, and the interpretation necessarily depends upon it. Accordingly, amillenarians and postmillenarians usually make the two periods end at the same time, namely, at the second coming of Christ. Premillenarians, who distinguish the rapture occurring before the time of tribulation from the second coming of Christ to the earth which follows the tribulation, bring the period of the fullness of the Gentiles to a close at the rapture of the church. Obviously, because the passages in themselves are not completely definitive, any expositor necessarily has to refer by way of reference to his larger scheme of prophecy and its fulfillment and interpret the passages accordingly. However, in the nature of the fact that the close of the interadvent period will bring terrible judgment upon the Gentile world, it is reasonable to assume that the period of Gentile blessing will end before the period of Gentile judgment comes. In any event, it is safe to say that the two terms do not mean precisely the same thing and do not have the same characteristics, and it is better, therefore, to interpret the two terms in the light of their context.

Termini of the Times of the Gentiles

As already indicated, the time period involved in the times of the Gentiles varies greatly with many expositors. Generally speaking, most expositors bring the times of the Gentiles to a close with the second coming of Christ, and the variety of opinions concentrate more upon the time of its beginning. Because the expression is cast in the context of a future time when Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies and destroyed, a prophecy fulfilled in A.D. 70, many have concluded that the times of the Gentiles will begin at that time, as does Lenski.[9]

A close examination of the passage in Luke 21, however, does not indicate that the times of the Gentiles began with the destruction of Jerusalem. The passage deals only with the time of conclusion of the times of the Gentiles, not its beginning. For this reason, a sound judgment in the matter must be based upon the total teaching of the Bible concerning the relationship between Gentiles and the people of Israel.

Here, many expositors find the answer in the prophecies of the book of Daniel which trace the course of Gentile power from Nebuchadnezzar, 600 B.C., to the coming of the Son of Man from heaven which, according to the premillennial interpretation, is fulfilled by the second coming of Jesus Christ to the earth to reign. Both from the prophecies of Daniel and the New Testament, however, it is clear that Gentile dominion does not end until the second coming of of Jesus Christ to the earth. The tensions between Israel and the Gentile world cannot be finally resolved until Jesus Christ Himself returns to reign. This, accordingly, casts its light upon the interpretation of Luke 21:24.

With this as a background, the question now can fairly be faced. Is the present occupation of Jerusalem by Israel the terminus ad quem indicated in Luke 21:24? Has, as a matter of fact, the predicted sway of Gentiles over Israel ceased?

A careful survey of the Scriptures indicates that the present occupation of Jerusalem must necessarily be temporary. Gentiles are still in a dominant position in world politics and the fullness of the Gentiles has not yet been brought in. The rapture of the church has not taken place.

According to the premillennial interpretation of the end of the age, there is a period still ahead, anticipated in Daniel 9:27, in which a future ruler in the Mediterranean area will make a covenant with the people of Israel for seven years. If this futuristic interpretation is correct, Israel, in the nature of this covenant, will still be under Gentile supervision in the broad sense of the term. As commonly interpreted, the period of peace introduced by the covenant will terminate after it has run half its course and the period of great tribulation will follow. According to the predictions of Christ Himself, Israel will then be forced to flee to the mountains (Matt 24:16) and Jerusalem will again come under the tramp of Gentile feet. It is also clear from Zechariah 14 that Jerusalem will become the bone of contention and the source of a great battle just before the second coming of Christ.

In view of these prophecies, it can hardly be said that Jerusalem, today, is delivered forever from the overlordship of Gentile political power. The fact is that the entire Holy Land will be overrun by the Gentile forces in the final great world conflict. Under these circumstances, it may be concluded that it is hasty to assume that the times of the Gentiles have been completed. If the term itself refers to the entire period of Gentile overlordship over Israel, it can hardly be construed as being completed in contemporary events.

The study of the Scriptures, however, does support the idea that the present reoccupation of Jerusalem by Israel is a matter of tremendous Biblical and prophetic importance. This is not that the times of political overlordship are ended, but it does provide the necessary interlude of Jewish possession to make possible the situation described at the end of the age where Israel, for a time at least, is at peace under covenant relationship with her Gentile neighbors and able to have a temple in which sacrifices once again are offered as indicated in Daniel 9:27. The presence of the Jews in Jerusalem, their ancient city, may be the last preparatory step prior to the important sequence of events that lead to the second coming of Jesus Christ. Christians who believe that the rapture of the church will occur before these events find their ultimate fulfillment have additional reason to hope that the coming of the Lord is indeed near.

Notes

1. Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke, p. 483.
2. H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospels of Mark and Luke, p. 530.
3. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel, p. 1021
4. Ibid., p. 1022.
5. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, I, 637.
6. Ibid.
7. Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 588.
8. Ibid.
9. Lenski, p. 1021.

The Kingdom of Heaven

By John F. Walvoord

The concept of the universe as a divine kingdom over which God as King rules sovereignly is a familiar theme in the Scriptures (cp. 1 Chron 29:11–12). The Psalmist for instance wrote: “Jehovah hath established his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all” (Ps 103:19, ASV).

Within the universal kingdom of God, however, various subdivisions exist. Matthew 12:26 refers to Satan’s kingdom, i.e., the sphere of rule which God has permitted Satan. The Scriptures also recognize earthly kingdoms over which God has allowed evil men to rule (Dan 4:17). It was this sphere of the kingdoms of this world which Satan offered to Christ (Matt 4:8).

Within the universal kingdom of God, however, there are other concepts referred to as kingdoms. Principal among these are the kingdom of God, found seventy-two times in the New Testament, and the kingdom of heaven, found thirty-two times, all in the Gospel of Matthew. Many other expressions can be related to the kingdom of God such as “thy kingdom” (Matt 6:10), “heavenly kingdom” (2 Tim 4:18), “kingdom of his dear Son” (Col 1:13), “kingdom of Christ and of God” (Eph 5:5), “my Father’s kingdom” (Matt 26:29), “everlasting kingdom” (2 Pet 1:11), “my kingdom” John 18:36; Luke 22:30), “his kingdom” (Matt 6:33; Luke 12:31, ASV), and many references simply to “kingdom.”

Countless books have been written in an effort to expound the precise meaning of the concept of the kingdom in the Scriptures. Among conservative scholars there is general agreement that God is sovereign over the universe. However, challenging this sovereignty is the kingdom of evil, directed by Satan. A spiritual rule of God also exists in the hearts and lives of those who put their trust in Jesus Christ. The precise character of the kingdom and its place in the unfolding of the divine plan of God remains, however, in controversy.

One of the principal areas of debate is the premillennial versus the amillennial concept of the kingdom. In a word, this is the question as to whether the earthly phase of the divine kingdom will be fulfilled completely prior to the second coming or whether there is a kingdom on earth for a thousand years in which Christ will reign prior to the eternal state. Amillenarians tend to find the concept of the kingdom of God as having its primary earthly fulfillment in the church in the present age. A good example of this is The Kingdom of God by John Bright, the 1952 Abingdon-Cokesbury award winner. Upholding the concept of a kingdom on earth following the second coming of Christ are such volumes as J. Dwight Pentecost’s Things to Come; The Greatness of the Kingdom, by Alva McClain; and the writer’s The Millennial Kingdom.

The present discussion concerns the particular phrase the kingdom of heaven. Generally speaking, most liberal theologians as well as conservative amillenarians have found the kingdom of heaven to be equivalent to the concept of the kingdom of God and fulfilled in a spiritual rule of God in the hearts of those who put their trust in Christ. Many variations exist such as the theory of Albert Ritschl, who regarded the kingdom as the unification of the human race, prompted by universal love. Some considered the kingdom as future, illustrated in the view of Albert Schweitzer, who anticipated a future intrusion of God into history. Neo-orthodox theologians also contemplate a future time when the social order will be brought to perfection, when human history is caught up in divine history.

Narrowing the field of investigation to premillennialism, one is still beset by a bewildering lack of uniformity in interpretation. Generally speaking, premillenarians recognize a difference between the present form of the kingdom and the future millennial form of the kingdom. The precise character of the kingdom in the present age as well as the precise character of the kingdom in the millennial period, however, is still subject to various definitions.

Major Features of the Kingdom of Heaven

As previously indicated, the expression kingdom of heaven is confined to Matthew’s Gospel. To be sure, the expression heavenly kingdom is found in 2 Timothy 4:18, but there is no contextual evidence that this is an identical expression. Daniel also makes the statement that the “God of heaven” will “set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed” (Dan 2:44; confirmed in the prophecy of Dan 7:13–14, 27.) For all practical purposes, however, Matthew’s use of the term kingdom of heaven is the only important use of this expression.

Ten major features of the kingdom are revealed in the Gospel of Matthew: (1) pronounced at hand (3:2; 4:17; 10:7 ); (2) possession and blessing in the kingdom of heaven promised to the righteous (5:3, 10, 19–20; 7:21 ); (3) Gentiles will be in the kingdom of heaven (8:11 ); (4) kingdom of heaven is composed of both saved and those merely professing faith, the latter to be later cast out (13:24–30, 36–43, 47–51; 22:1–14; 25:1–10 ); (5) kingdom of heaven subject to rapid growth (13:31–32 ); (6) “birds,” symbolic of Satan, lodge in its branches (13:31–32 ); (7) kingdom of heaven has leaven, symbolic of bad doctrine, externalism, unbelief, worldliness, (13:33–35 ); (8) kingdom of heaven difficult to enter (19:23; 23:13 ); (9) some of the features of the kingdom of heaven designated “mysteries” (13:11 ); (10) kingdom of heaven likened unto children (19:14).

Major Features of the Kingdom of God

It is clear from the outline of major features of the kingdom of heaven that it parallels many of the major features of the kingdom of God. The New Testament usage of the kingdom of God indicates at least seventeen descriptive facts related to this expression.

Major features of the kingdom of God include the following: (1) kingdom of God pronounced at hand (Mark 1:14–15; Luke 10:9, 11; 11:20; 21:31 ); (2) some of its features designated mysteries (Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10); (3) kingdom of God includes the saved or the elect, but excludes the unsaved (Mark 4:26–29 [notice no tares]; Mark 9:47 [kingdom of God contrasted to hell]; Luke 13:18–19; cp. also Luke 13:23 with Luke 13:28–29; Luke 18:24–26; John 3:3, 5); (4) kingdom of God subject to rapid growth (Mark 4:30–32; Luke 13:18–19); (5) kingdom of God to come with power (Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27); (6) kingdom of God likened unto children and childlikeness is a condition for entrance (Mark 10:14–15; Luke 18:16–17); (7) kingdom of God difficult to enter (Mark 10:23–25; Luke 18:24–25; John 3:5; Acts 14:22); (8) Christ to drink fruit of the vine with disciples in kingdom of God (Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18); (9) kingdom of God promised to righteous (Luke 6:20; 1 Cor 6:9–10; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; 2 Thess 1:5); (10) “birds,” representing Satan, lodge in its branches (Mark 4:30–32; Luke 13:19 [note that Satan is not a branch, however]); (11) kingdom of God contains leaven, that is, evil in doctrine, externalism, unbelief, and worldliness (Luke 13:20–21); (12) kingdom of God inward and unseen rather than outward and seen (Luke 17:20–21), but the coming of the Son of man will be seen, however (cp. Luke 17:24); (13) kingdom of God not to appear immediately to the world (Luke 19:11–27); (14) kingdom of God characterized by righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom 14:17); (15) kingdom of God to be delivered to the Father (1 Cor 15:24); (16) kingdom of God inherited only by incorruptible beings (1 Cor 15:50); (17) Gentiles will be in the kingdom of God (Luke 13:29).

Major Features True of Both the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven

A comparison of these features of the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God reveal many similarities: (1) both are at hand; (2) some features of both designated mysteries; (3) both entered only by the righteous as even profession requires outward conformity; (4) both include saved men; (5) both grow rapidly; (6) both have “birds” representing Satan and his angels, but in neither are these an organic part of the tree; (7) individuals in both likened unto children; (8) both are difficult to enter; (9) both have leaven, symbolic of bad doctrine, externalism, unbelief, and worldliness; (10) both contain Gentiles.

Because of the similarity of the two kingdoms and the fact that heaven is sometimes used as an equivalent for God, the majority of scholars have taken the position that the terms are identical or at least are used as synonyms. Based on the principle of interpretation that the context must determine the meaning of an expression, it would seem clear that in parallel passages the emphasis is on similarity of concept. The problem arises, however, in that certain features are mentioned of the kingdom of heaven which seem to contradict statements in some passages relating to the kingdom of God. This has led some to the conclusion that at least in some passages the expression should not be taken as completely identical.

The logical fallacy of assuming that two terms mean exactly the same because they are used in parallel passages is illustrated in the fact that the same term may often be used in more than one sense. For instance, the statement might be made that Mosher Library is located at Dallas. This statement would be equally true whether “Dallas” meant Dallas County, Dallas City, or Dallas Seminary; but this does not make Dallas Seminary equivalent to the City of Dallas; nor is the City of Dallas equivalent to the County of Dallas. In each case the context has to determine the usage. Hence, if it were stated that Neiman Marcus is located in Dallas, it would refer to Dallas County or Dallas City but not to Dallas Seminary. If the statement were made that Richardson is located in Dallas, it would mean Dallas County not Dallas City or Dallas Seminary. In a similar way, while in many parallel passages the same affirmation can be made of the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God, it is in passages where distinctions may be observed that the contrasts are indicated.

Kingdom of Heaven Contrasted to the Kingdom of God

Those who distinguish the kingdom of heaven from the kingdom of God do so on the principle that the kingdom of heaven seems to include not only those who are saved, but some unsaved men who profess salvation. By contrast, the kingdom of God when used of a spiritual kingdom includes only saved men and elect angels. In support of this distinction, John 3:3–5 states that one cannot enter into the kingdom of God without being born again or born from above. In this passage it is clear that only those who are born again may enter the kingdom of God. This is supported by Romans 14:17, which states “the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (ASV). The experience of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit could never be true of one who merely professed salvation. Another confirmation is found in 1 Corinthians 15:24, where the kingdom is declared to be delivered by Christ to the Father as a token of His victory. In this passage the expression is simply kingdom, but it is obviously the sphere of the kingdom of God which characterizes all references to the divine kingdom outside of Matthew. In 1 Corinthians 15:50 additional confirmation is given in the statement, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” The context goes on to speak of the translation and the resurrection of the righteous. This again could not refer to those who are merely professing faith, but only to those genuinely saved.

By contrast to this, the kingdom of heaven is compared to the sowing of seed in the field which produces both wheat and tares, with the separation coming only at the time of harvest. This is a picture of profession, as the tares look like the wheat, but their true character will be revealed at the final judgment. The same basic concept is also brought out in the parable of the dragnet in Matthew 13:47–50; where the net, which is compared to the kingdom of heaven, gathers of every kind. Those thus gathered are not separated until the final judgment or the harvest, but are distinguished from all fishes in the sea by the fact that they are in the net. The general character of Matthew 13 is that it is dealing with the external aspect of the kingdom, or Christendom in its largest dimension, rather than with the body of the saved particularly.

The Problem of Passages Exactly Parallel

At least five passages in Matthew referring to the kingdom of heaven seem to be precisely parallel to passages in the other gospels in which the expression kingdom of God is used. These passages are Matthew 4:17 (cp. Mark 1:15), Matthew 11:11 (cp. Luke 7:28), Matthew 13:11 (cp. Mark 4:11 and Luke 8:10), Matthew 13:31 (cp. Mark 4:30–31), and Matthew 10:7 (cp. Luke 9:2). How can these parallels be explained, if the terms are not precisely the same in meaning?

Regardless of what solution is followed, the fact remains that the different accounts give different wordings. It is clear that the gospel narratives are reports in which the messages of Christ are condensed and to some extent interpreted under the guidance of the Spirit. Inspiration guarantees that the wording infallibly reveals God’s truth. It is obvious that many quotations in the Bible are not precise, that is, the Holy Spirit quotes with freedom, and quotations may be general when based on a particular statement or particular when based on a general statement. The fact is that Christ probably spoke in Aramaic, and this would require translation as well as condensation. Part of the explanation may lie in the fact that the messages of the four gospels are known to conform to the pattern and theme of the book. This again is under the guidance of the Spirit and does not in any sense misrepresent what Christ has actually said. In every case, however, what is said in Matthew of the kingdom of heaven in these particular verses happens to be equally true of the kingdom of God and vice versa, that is, there is no real contradiction. It is like the statement that Mosher Library is in Dallas Seminary and the statement that Mosher Library is in the City of Dallas. Both statements are true though the City of Dallas is not the same as Dallas Seminary. The parallel usage found in these instances does not require any change in definition of terms.

The Kingdom of God in the Gospel of Matthew

It is of interest that, while Matthew normally uses the expression kingdom of heaven, there are six possible cases where the use of the word kingdom in Matthew refers to the kingdom of God rather than to the kingdom of heaven. In Matthew 6:33 the Authorized Version uses the expression kingdom of God, but the revised versions follow the better Greek text and use simply the word kingdom. It is probable that the reference is to the kingdom of God, for the passage states: “But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matt 6:33 ASV). The passage would obviously have more meaning if kingdom here referred to the sphere of salvation only.

A clear reference to the kingdom of God, however, is found in Matthew 12:28, where it is stated: “But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you” (ASV). Obviously casting out demons would not necessarily prove the coming of a professing kingdom, but indicates the reality of the power of the true kingdom of God.

In Matthew 13:38 another reference is found to kingdom in the statement:”The good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one” (ASV). Here again the reference seems to be to the kingdom of God rather than the kingdom of heaven. If the expression had been, “These are the sons of the kingdom of heaven,” it would obviously have destroyed the concept of the kingdom of heaven as a sphere of profession. The fact that Matthew omits the term “of heaven” is in keeping with his other usage.

According to Matthew 13:43, “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He that hath ears, let him hear” (ASV). Here again the phrase “of heaven” is omitted and the reference seems to be to the sphere of salvation rather than to the sphere of profession.

A quite significant reference is found in Matthew 19.24, where Christ said: “It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (ASV). The fact that Matthew goes out of his way to use the expression “kingdom of God” here in contrast to his normal expression “kingdom of heaven” is supported by the statement which clearly refers to the sphere of salvation rather than to the sphere of profession. The final reference in Matthew to the kingdom of God is found in Matthew 21:31, where Jesus said: “Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you” (ASV). Although the religious rulers of the Jews made a profession of following God which could be said to be in the widest sphere of profession, Christ here again is talking of the sphere of reality or of salvation, and so Matthew’s Gospel uses the expression “the kingdom of God.”

In all of these instances where the context clearly refers to the sphere of salvation, it is most significant that Matthew goes out of his way to use the expression “kingdom of God.” If he had not done so and had substituted the expression “kingdom of heaven,” it would of course be most difficult to maintain that the kingdom of heaven is the sphere of profession.

On the basis of the contextual study of the terms as found in the New Testament, it may be concluded that there is some evidence that while the kingdom of heaven is similar in many respects to the kingdom of God and in some contexts they seem to be used synonymously, in others the kingdom of heaven is contrasted to the sphere of God’s actual spiritual rule. In contrast to the kingdom of God which includes the elect both of men and angels whether in heaven or earth, the kingdom of heaven seems to be limited to the earthly sphere and excludes angels and other creatures, but includes those who profess salvation and who are outwardly identified with God whether or not they were actually saved. By contrast the kingdom of God is everlasting and universal. In some sense it may include all creation, when used as a universal rule, and when used as a spiritual rule, those who are saved in the kingdom of heaven. In contrast to the kingdom of heaven, however, the kingdom of God, when used in a spiritual sense, is entered only by new birth.

The Eschatology of the Kingdom of Heaven

Much of the confusion in the argument concerning the meaning of the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God has arisen, from the mistaken judgment that the distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God is a dispensational one. The facts are to the contrary, as it is purely an exegetical problem. The dispensational distinction does not stem from the difference in meaning of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven, but rather from the distinction between the present forms of these kingdoms and the future forms of these kingdoms. In a word, it is the issue as to whether the present form of the kingdom, whether it be kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven, is the predicted millennial form. Amillenarians tend to affirm that it is. Premillenarians look for a future fulfillment.

In keeping with the dispensational point of view, it may be pointed out that Matthew 13 presents the mysteries of the kingdom, namely, the truths relating to the kingdom in the present age. The future millennial form of the kingdom is no mystery as this is the subject of much Old Testament prophecy. From these Old Testament prophecies it can be demonstrated that the millennial form of the kingdom will be outwardly a sphere of profession and, therefore, conformed to Matthew’s concept of the kingdom of heaven. At the same time it will also be the sphere of the kingdom of God because it will include many who are saved. Much that is obscure in the present age will be open for all to see in the millennium. The rule of Christ as the King of kings and Lord of lords will be obvious to all in that future dispensation (cp. Ps 72). The distinction between the present and the future form of the kingdom rests, as does the entire case for premillennialism, on the normal interpretation of prophecy as being factual and subject to future fulfillment.

The subject of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven will continue to confuse expositors of the Bible, if for no other reason, because its interpretation must necessarily be contextual with the word kingdom which does not always mean the same thing in different passages.

The sphere of profession today, especially in the United States of America, is comparatively an easy state. It must be remembered that in the first century, as in many parts of the world today, even profession without salvation was difficult and costly. It was difficult for a Jew even to make an outward profession of faith because it would mean loss of friends, family, and wealth. It is true also that even those who are saved often fall far short of what they should be. Their doctrine may not be accurate; and they may be guilty of externalism, a measure of unbelief and worldliness, as symbolized in the leaven. By its nature the professing kingdom or the kingdom of heaven requires outward conformity of such similiarity to the kingdom of God that the wheat and the tares can only be separated at the harvest. Hence, it is not talking about mere profession, but about profession that outwardly deceives and conveys the impression of reality. For this reason, from man’s point of view the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are very similar, but God who sees the heart can distinguish the wheat from the tares even now.

Although scholars will continue to differ on this point, a careful exegesis of the passages on the kingdom of heaven seems to confirm the thought that it is a sphere of profession in contrast to the kingdom of God as the sphere of the actual rule of God. The exegetical decision, however, involved in this case does not affect premillennialism as a whole nor dispensationalism; and the system of theology of those who make the terms identical can be almost precisely the same as that of those who distinguish the term.