The New Covenant and the Church

By Homer A. Kent, Jr.

The relevance of the new covenant to the church today requires a careful look into both the OT and the NT. When Jesus mentioned the new covenant as he was instituting the bread and the cup, he clearly indicated its significance for the church. When the OT is examined to discover what this new covenant involved, and when the NT is investigated for further clarification, it becomes clear that only one new covenant is in view, even though different groups may derive somewhat varying benefits from it. The essence of the new covenant is spiritual regeneration, enjoyed now by Christian believers and prophesied for national Israel at the second coming of Christ.

* * *

The concept of “covenant” is a pivotal one in biblical studies. Both the OT and NT utilize words denoting this idea, and their contexts reveal how crucial certain covenants were in explaining the actions which followed. Gleason Archer’s definition of the term may serve as a working guide:

A compact or agreement between two parties binding them mutually to undertakings on each other’s behalf. Theologically (used of relations between God and man) it denotes a gracious undertaking entered into by God for the benefit and blessing of man, and specifically of those men who by faith receive the promises and commit themselves to the obligations which this undertaking involves. [1]

Students of Scripture are particularly concerned with the covenants which God has announced for man. Inasmuch as these are expressions of his will, his promises, and his demands, they are supremely important to the Christian who has committed his trust and allegiance to God and the doing of his will.

In the OT six covenants are clearly mentioned: Noahic (Gen 6:18; 8:20–9:17); Abrahamic (Genesis 15, 17); Mosaic or Sinaitic (Exod 19:5, 20); Palestinian (Deuteronomy 29–30); Davidic (2 Sam 7:4–16; 23:5); and New Covenant (Jer 31:31–34; Ezekiel 36–37). In addition some would posit by deduction an Edenic Covenant, and would separate the Mosaic into Sinaitic and Levitical. [2] Much of Reformed Theology also sees two or three theological covenants: The Covenant of Works, the Covenant of Redemption (debated by some covenant theologians), and the Covenant of Grace. [3] This article will consider the biblical New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah, referred to by Jesus, and mentioned with some extended discussion elsewhere in the NT.

The OT Background

When Jesus ate the last supper with his disciples in the upper room, he introduced the memorial drinking of the cup with the words, “This cup is the new testament (ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη) in my blood” (Luke 22:20). No further explanation is given as to the identity of this covenant, yet the presence of the article implies that a specific and presumably understood covenant is in view. Thus one logically concludes that the disciples would have thought in terms of their own biblical heritage. The new covenant recorded as prophecy by Jeremiah seems almost certainly to have been the covenant of which the disciples would have thought.

Jeremiah’s announcement of the new covenant was made during a very dark period for Israel. The northern kingdom had already been overthrown and its citizens led captive by the Assyrians (2 Kgs 17:5–6). Foreign colonists were brought into the land to repopulate it (2 Kgs 17:5–6, 23–24). The southern kingdom was likewise in dire straits. The prophet had begun his ministry in the days of Josiah and lived to see the Babylonian captivity begin. It was during those momentous days that God gave him the prophecy of the new covenant that offered better things for the suffering nation.

The new covenant recorded in Jeremiah would be made with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah (31:31). This implies that the two kingdoms would both exist and presumably be united, inasmuch as only one new covenant is mentioned. The Jewish contemporaries of Jeremiah would have understood that God was promising to them a new kind of relationship. In the context preceding this prophecy, they had been informed that the people would be regathered to their land (30:1–3). This would occur after the time of Israel’s greatest suffering known as “Jacob’s trouble” (30:7), when all their enemies have been destroyed (30:16), and their homeland rebuilt (30:17, 18).

God promised that the new covenant would be a different sort than the Mosaic one he had given. It would bring a spiritual transformation by an inward change, not just by imposition of external code (31:33). Forgiveness of sins would be complete, and the knowledge of God would be universal among participants (31:34). God also called it an everlasting covenant (32:40).

This was not, however, a totally new concept when Jeremiah voiced it. In the eighth century B.C. Isaiah spoke of a different covenant which God was promising:

Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you may live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you, According to the faithful mercies shown to David [55:3; all biblical quotations from NASB]. 

And as for Me, this is my covenant with them, says my Lord: My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring’s offspring, says the Lord from now and forever [59:21 ]. 

And I will faithfully give them their recompense, And I will make an everlasting covenant with them [61:8 ].

Ezekiel, a contemporary of Jeremiah in the sixth century B.C., was also aware of this promise of a new covenant from God:

Nevertheless, I will remember My Covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you…. Thus I will establish My covenant with you and you shall know that I am the Lord [16:60–62 ]. 

And I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever. My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be my people [37:26–27 ].

The same thought is obviously in view in another passage in Ezekiel, although the word “covenant” is not used:

For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean: I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. And you will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers: so you will be My people, and I will be your God [36:24–28 ].

Thus, there is an extensive OT background to the New Covenant. This enabled Jews in the NT era to receive the concept as familiar terminology.

The NT Teaching

Explicit mention of the New Covenant occurs six times in the NT, although the thought is found more frequently than these few references. Of special interest is the Greek term διαθήκη/’covenant, testament’, which is employed in each of these instances. It was not the usual term among the Greeks for a treaty or agreement. That concept was usually reserved for συνθήκη—a covenant or agreement negotiated by two parties on equal terms. Rarely was διαθήκη used in the sense of treaty. J. Behm can cite only one instance of this term with the sense of “treaty,” and that was with the meaning of “a treaty between two parties, but binding only on the one according to the terms fixed by the other.” [4] Consequently, διαθήκη had the more common meaning of “will” or “testament,” both in legal circles in every period, and in popular usage also. Apparently the NT writers without exception chose this term in referring to God’s covenant with man because in its one-sidedness it was more like a will than a negotiated treaty.

Jesus’ Reference to the New Covenant

The sole reference in the Gospels using the phrase “new covenant” is found in Luke. Parallels in Matthew and Mark mention “covenant” but not “new covenant” (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24). Luke wrote, “And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20).

Because of Jesus’ previous disclosures to his disciples that he was the Messiah and that the kingdom of heaven was at hand (Matt 4:17; 16:16–17), the hearers at the last supper would have had no reason to suppose he was referring to any other new covenant than the one foretold in the OT. The absence of any clarification or further disclosure by Jesus reinforces this conclusion.

The Lord Jesus used the occasion in the upper room on the eve of crucifixion to announce that his death would establish the New Covenant. His words also made it clear that his blood was shed “for you”; hence the disciples were participants and beneficiaries in some sense. Furthermore, the context records the command for perpetuation of the ceremony as a remembrance, thus pointing to the future significance for those disciples and others whom they would enlist (Luke 22:19).

Paul’s References to the New Covenant

The first Pauline use of the phrase “new covenant” occurs in his first canonical letter written in Corinth, “In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me” (1 Cor 11:25). Here Paul was endeavoring to correct some abuses in the church at Corinth regarding inappropriate conduct at the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:20). The meal they were eating together had become a selfish, uncharitable scene of mere temporal gratification. Surely it was an unworthy preparation for the ceremonial bread and cup to follow. Consequently Paul referred the readers to the events of the last supper, and quoted the words of Jesus regarding the meaning of the symbols. It is clear that he regarded the Corinthians’ observance as the perpetuation of what Jesus had instituted, even though it had undergone some gross distortion by their practices. It was the distortion he was correcting, not their understanding of Jesus’ command that the blood of the new covenant was to be remembered by them.

Paul’s second use of the phrase occurs in a totally different context, although written to the same church. He wrote, “who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6). In this passage Paul was exulting in the ministry which God had given him under the New Covenant as compared to the Mosaic covenant, which he characterized as a ministry of condemnation and death. The OT period was a time of fading glory (3:7) with Jewish hearts being veiled from clear understanding (3:14). However, as Paul proclaimed the gospel of Christ, the energizing power of the Spirit made alive those who responded. The obscuring veil was removed (3:16), true spiritual liberty resulted (3:17), and life was possessed by every believer (3:6). Allowing Paul to define his own terms, the “new covenant” (which his preaching of the gospel was promoting) was the same new covenant which Jesus announced in the upper room and which his death secured for believers.

References to the New Covenant in Hebrews

The expression “new covenant” occurs three times in the epistle to the Hebrews. In one of these the word “new” is different from the other two. In addition several other references in Hebrews employ the word “covenant” alone but are presumably references also to the New Covenant (8:10, 13; 9:15b; 10:16).

The first reference is the author’s quotation of Jer 31:31, “For finding fault with them, He says, Behold days are coming, says the Lord, when I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (8:8). In this section of Hebrews the author cited the entire paragraph from Jeremiah (31:31–34) and used it to support his contention that Christ had become the mediator of a better covenant than that of Moses; Christ established the New Covenant of Jeremiah’s prophecy. The author cited enough of Jeremiah to convey the basic promises of the New Covenant. This enabled the readers to see clearly that their Christian experience paralleled much of what had been promised.

The first promise mentioned that under the New Covenant God’s laws would be implanted in the very minds and hearts of the participants (Heb 8:10; Jer 31:33). No longer would those laws be only an external code inscribed on stone. Thus compliance would be by inner desire, not by outward compulsion. This transformation is the very essence of regeneration. This promise of inner change was clearly specified also in Ezek 36:26–27.

This does not mean that no Jew under the Mosaic Covenant had a transformed heart. What is being stated is that the New Covenant itself would provide this for every participant. Such was not the case with the Mosaic Covenant. Even though it was obviously possible to know God and have a transformed heart during OT times, the old covenant itself did not provide this. Many Jews lived under the provisions of the Mosaic Covenant and still died in unbelief. The New Covenant, however, guarantees regeneration to its beneficiaries.

The second promise of the New Covenant assured that its provisions would be efficacious to every participant (Heb 8:11; Jer 31:34a). The knowledge of God would not be dependent upon further revelation and instruction from prophets, priests, or more knowledgeable neighbors. Only true believers will participate in the New Covenant, and God will plant the knowledge of himself in their hearts by his Spirit. Every believer without exception will have this knowledge.

Jesus taught the same truth: “It is written in the prophets, and they shall all be taught of God. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to me” (John 6:45). The apostle John conveyed the same truth: “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know” (1 John 2:20); “And as for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you” (1 John 2:27). Of course John did not mean that no teachers are ever needed by believers. Christ gave the gift of teaching to some believers (Eph 4:11; 1 Tim 3:2), and John himself was teaching as he wrote these words. The sense is that the function of human teachers is not to convey new revelation or knowledge, but to clarify and unfold the intuitive knowledge which, in germ at least, is possessed by all believers.

The third promise of the New Covenant provides complete forgiveness to all who are under its provisions (Heb 8:12; Jer 31:34b). Sins would be put away permanently in a sense different from the old covenant. Later in the epistle the point is made that repeated sacrifices reminded Israelites that no final sacrifice for sin had been offered (Heb 10:3, 4). The New Covenant would deal with sins in such a way that no continued remembrance by repeated sacrifices would occur. Christ’s death provided complete expiation for sins once-for-all. It is obviously the intention of the author to show that the promises of the New Covenant are all experienced by Christians.

The second Hebrews usage mentions Christ as the mediator of the new covenant.

And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance [9:15].

Christ’s death not only made possible the provisions stated in Jeremiah regarding the New Covenant, but also superseded the old covenant. It provided an expiation for the guilt of those who lived under the Mosaic Covenant. Their sin had been “covered” by animal sacrifices, but that could not provide true expiation (Heb 10:4). Christ’s death thus validated the New Covenant and also implied that the old covenant was obsolete and could disappear (Heb 8:13).

The final usage of the phrase in Hebrews uses a different adjective for “new,” and mentions the covenant in a context that brings together a number of different parties. Heb 12:24 reads, “And to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.”

The adjective “new” used here is νέας, which denotes something recent as distinguished from καίνος, the adjective used in all other instances with διαθήκη, which denotes what is new in quality or nature. [5] The author presumably had in mind the recent revelation of Jesus Christ. Of course, he was referring to the same new covenant.

The context of Hebrews 12 describes the Christian readers as the spiritual colleagues of those in the city of the living God in the presence of myriads of angels (v 22). They have joined with the church of the firstborn ones enrolled in heaven—a reference apparently to living NT believers (v 23a). They are also now in association with the spirits of righteous men made perfect (v 23b). These were OT saints with whom Christians share a common salvation. They are called “spirits” because they are not yet united with their bodies in resurrection, but their spirits have been made perfect because Christ’s sacrifice for sins has provided expiation (11:40). Thus the New Covenant has relevance for OT believers as well as the NT ones.

The Relevance for the Christian Church

In spite of certain obvious connections between the biblical teaching regarding the New Covenant and the blessings experienced by the NT church, the careful student of Scripture recognizes other problems that must be resolved before the issue can be fully answered. To whom does the New Covenant actually apply? How does the NT church fit into its framework?

Amillennialists usually view the nation of Israel, with whom the New Covenant was specifically connected in OT revelation, as being permanently displaced. All of the promises to Israel are now being fulfilled by the NT church. O. T. Allis is representative of this position as he states:

The passage [Heb 8:8–13] speaks of the new covenant. It declares that this new covenant has been already introduced and that by virtue of the fact that it is called “new” it has made the one which it is replacing “old,” and that the old is about to vanish away. It would be hard to find a clearer reference to the gospel age in the Old Testament than in these verses in Jeremiah. [6]

Premillennialists, on the other hand, have dealt with this issue in various ways. Some have insisted that the new covenant was made with Israel, and will be fulfilled with Israel alone at the second coming of Christ (Rom 11:26–27). J. N. Darby, for instance, represents this viewpoint:

The first covenant was made with Israel; the second must be so likewise, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah…. We enjoy indeed all the essential privileges of the new covenant, its foundation being laid on God’s part in the blood of Christ, but we do so in spirit, not according to the letter. [7]

A smaller group of premillennialists explains the data as pointing to two new covenants, one for Israel and one for the NT church. This explanation attempts to treat the OT data in its straightforward, historical sense, and yet recognizes that the NT references do relate the church to the New Covenant. L. S. Chafer explains:

There remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people, which is also styled like the preceding one for Israel a “new covenant.” It is made in the blood of Christ (cf. Mark 14:24) and continues in effect throughout this age, whereas the new covenant made with Israel happens to be future in its application. To suppose that these two covenants—one for Israel and one for the Church—are the same is to assume that there is a latitude of common interest between God’s purposes for Israel and His purpose for the Church. [8]

The commonest explanation among premillennialists is that there is one new covenant. It will be fulfilled eschatologically with Israel but is participated in soteriologically by the church today. By this explanation the biblical distinction between national Israel and the church is recognized, the unconditional character of Jeremiah’s prophecy which made no provision for any forfeiture by Israel is maintained, and the clear relationship of certain NT references to the church and the New Covenant are upheld. The notes in the Scofield Reference Bible state that, “The New Covenant secures the personal revelation of the Lord to every believer (v. 11)…and secures the perpetuity, future conversion, and blessing of Israel.” [9]

The reasons supporting this understanding offer the best explanation of the biblical references. First, the normal way of interpreting the various references to “the New Covenant” is to see these as one New Covenant rather than two covenants with the same name and with virtually the same contents. Second, the crucial passages on the New Covenant in Hebrews are addressed to Christians. They may well have been Jewish Christians, but the essential fact is that they were Christians. Third, it is difficult if not impossible to maintain a consistent distinction between a New Covenant for Israel and a New Covenant exclusively for the church in the reference at Heb 12:23–24.

In that passage both the church (“church of the firstborn”) and OT saints (“spirits of just men made perfect”) are related to the New Covenant, not two covenants. Fourth, Christ’s mention of the New Covenant in the upper room discourse (Luke 22:20) would certainly have caused the apostles to relate it to Jeremiah 31. Yet Christ connected it with the symbolic bread and cup which he was instituting for the church. Fifth, the apostle Paul clearly connected the upper room instruction regarding the New Covenant to the practice of the Christian church (1 Cor 11:25). He further called himself and his associates “ministers of the new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6). Sixth, the discussion in Hebrews 8 argues that the title “New Covenant” implies a corresponding “old covenant” which is now being superseded. The Mosaic Covenant is the old one for Israel. If the church has a totally separate New Covenant, what is the old one which it replaces?

In the light of all factors, the last interpretation encounters fewer hermeneutical difficulties and provides the most plausible explanation. Charles C. Ryrie, who at an earlier time preferred the two New Covenants view, [10] appears to have come to this conclusion:

Concerning the Church’s relation to the covenant, it seems best understood in the light of the progress of revelation. OT revelation of the covenant concerned Israel alone. The believer today is saved by the blood of the new covenant shed on the cross. All spiritual blessings are his because of this, and many of his blessings are the same as those promised to Israel under the OT revelation of the new covenant. However, the Christian believer is not promised blessings connected with the restoration to the Promised Land, and he is not made a member of the commonwealth of Israel. He is a minister of the new covenant, for there is no other basis than the blood of that covenant for the salvation of any today. Nevertheless, in addition to revealing these facts about the Church and the new covenant, the NT also reveals that the blessings promised to Israel will be experienced by her at the second coming of Christ (Rom 11:26–27). [11]

Notes

1. G. L. Archer, “Covenant,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984) 276.
2. J. B. Payne, “Covenant in the Old Testament,” Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975) 1.1007–10.
3. R. A. Killen and John Rea, “Covenant,” Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia (Chicago: Moody, 1975) 1.387,390; and M. E. Osterhaven, “Covenant Theology,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984) 279-80.
4. J. Behm, “Διαθήκη,” TDNT 2 (1964) 125. His entire discussion of this term is excellent and highly recommended (see pp. 104-34).
5. J. Behm, “Καίνος,” TDNT 3 (1965) 447.
6. Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1945) 154.
7. J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible (New York: Loizeaux, rev. ed., 1942) 5.329.
8. L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1948) 7.98–99.
9. C. I. Scofield, ed., Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University, 1917) 1297. The note at Heb 8:8 in the New Scofield Reference Bible (1967) 1317, is similar.
10. Charles C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (New York: Loizeaux, 1953) 105-25.
11. C. C. Ryrie, “Covenant, New,” Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia (Chicago: Moody, 1975) 1.392.

The Continuity of Scripture and Eschatology: Key Hermeneutical Issues

By David L. Turner

Heated polemical debates over eschatology among evangelicals are deplorable. Covenant theologians are not necessarily “allegorizers,” and neither are dispensationalists necessarily “hyperliteralists.” The NT use of the OT and the complex nature of the present and future aspects of God’s kingdom are crucial topics for future discussion. Such future discussion should focus upon the exegesis of key OT and NT texts, not upon vague or abstract hermeneutical issues.

* * *

Introduction

Research in the current evangelical literature dealing with eschatology reveals about forty recurring issues in the argumentation. Logic, exegesis, and a brotherly spirit are sometimes lacking in this debate, and often the focus is on peripheral rather than central issues.

This study has isolated three issues which are believed to be central. These issues are (1) the practice (not theory) of literal hermeneutics, (2) the NT use of the OT, and (3) the present and future aspects of the kingdom. And beneath all three lies an even more basic one: the continuity of Scripture in progressive revelation. This study is offered in order to focus further debate upon the central issues and to encourage a courteous spirit among evangelicals who enter the debate.

The Continuity of Scripture and Literal Hermeneutics

Valid and Invalid Approaches

Writers of various eschatological stripes have commonly expressed the view that differences in eschatological systems arise “primarily out of the distinctive method employed by each in the interpretation of Scripture.” [1] Though there is a degree of truth in such a statement, it is simplistic. One’s consistency in taking biblical language literally will have an obvious influence upon one’s theology, but the reverse is also true—one’s theology will have an obvious influence upon his hermeneutics. It is mistaken to speak of either a “literal” or a “spiritualizing” hermeneutic as a purely inductive, overall approach to Scripture. To speak in such generalities obscures the real issue: the interpretation of specific biblical passages. Any study of Scripture involves a certain degree of exegetical, theological, and hermeneutical preunderstanding. Even the cultural and historical circumstances of the interpreter tend to sway his understanding of Scripture, as Gundry has appropriately warned: “We as Christian exegetes and theologians are susceptible to influences from the moods and conditions of our times, and especially so in our eschatologies.” [2]

All of this is not to say that hermeneutics is unimportant, or that a consistent literal hermeneutic is unattainable. Indeed, such a hermeneutic is essential in handling the whole Bible, including poetry, prophecy, and figurative language. Properly used, the result of a literal hermentic is not “wooden letterism,” but sensitivity to figures of speech. [3] However, in the exegesis of specific biblical passages, the exegete must realize that his use of a literal hermeneutic is preconditioned by his theological presuppositions. The same holds true for the practicioner of a “spiritualizing” hermeneutic. It is common for dispensationalists to accuse nondispensationalists of spiritualizing or allegorizing the Bible, especially the OT, and for covenant theologians to charge dispensationalists with hyperliteralism. As long as the debate is carried on in such vague generalities there will be no progress whatsoever. It is time to heed the advice of Bahnsen:

The charge of subjective spiritualization or hyperliteralism against any of the three eschatological positions cannot be settled in general; rather, the opponents must get down to hand-to-hand exegetical combat on particular passages and phrases. [4]

The Question of Consistency

In their attempt to discover the continuity of Scripture dispensationalists have consistently attempted to utilize a literal hermeneutic. [5] In their view this is the only means whereby the continuity of Scripture may be discovered. Of course, as nondispensationalists have been quick to point out, dispensationalists are not always consistent in their literal approach. [6] Nevertheless, dispensationalism avows a consistent literal hermeneutic which is applied to all of Scripture, regardless of whether the Scripture being studied is prophetic, poetic, narrative, or didactic in nature. Anything less is branded as a dual hermeneutic and even as allegorizing. [7]

Another perspective on the continuity of Scripture is exemplified by covenant theologians, whether historic premillennialists, postmillennialists, or amillennialists. In this approach the emphasis is upon the NT use of the OT as the inspired model of hermeneutics. [8] Hermeneutical consistency comes from imitation of the NT use of the OT, not from a consistently literal hermeneutic. It must be emphasized that the approach is not allegorical. Hamilton, an amillennialist, said that

the literal interpretation of the prophecy is to be accepted unless (a) the passages contain obviously figurative language, or (b) unless the New Testament gives authority for interpreting them in other than a literal sense, or (c) unless a literal interpretation would produce a contradiction with truths, principles, or factual statements contained in non-symbolic books of the New Testament. [9]

In response to (a) it should be recognized that a literal hermeneutic should not be abandoned when figurative language is encountered. Indeed, sensitivity to historical, grammatical, and cultural matters is the only way to arrive at the meaning intended by the figure. Hamilton’s latter two points get to the heart of the matter—amillennialists believe that the continuity between the OT and NT is sacrificed if prophecy is interpreted literally.

This debate over biblical continuity and hermeneutical consistency may be conveniently illustrated by the dialogue found in The Meaning of the Millennium. Here Ladd, Hoekema, and Boettner converge against Hoyt on the matter of hermeneutics. [10] From Ladd’s perspective, Hoyt is too literal in his interpretation of NT passages dealing with the kingdom because of his literal view of OT prophecy. Boettner and Hoekema agree with Ladd here, but then charge Ladd with being too literal in his view of Revelation 20. Radmacher’s analysis is correct: “the major criticism that Hoekema and Boettner use on Ladd’s interpretation of Revelation 20 is the criticism that Ladd uses on Hoyt and dispensational premillennialists. [11] Ladd is caught in the middle—his hermeneutic is not literal enough to satisfy Hoyt, but neither is it “spiritualized” enough to please Hoekema and Boettner!

Conclusion

It would appear that vague generalities about theoretical hermeneutics accomplish very little. The cavalier dismissal of eschatological systems on the sole ground of hermeneutical theory serves only to obscure the more pertinent issues. Advocates of a “dual hermeneutic” cannot be dismissed with the charge of “allegorizing” and neither can dispensationalists be shouted down with the rebuke of being “hyperliteralists.” However, hermeneutical conclusions on specific issues may be viewed as being inconsistent with one’s professed hermeneutical method. When there is a discrepancy between the two, both dispensationalists and covenant theologians should take heed.

The main burden of these thoughts on the hermeneutical question is that any profitable debate must focus upon concrete issues, such as the NT use of the OT and the nature of progressive revelation. Here specific passages may be exegeted and profitably debated.

The Continuity of Scripture and the New Testament Use of the Old Testament

Two Basic Approaches

Those who hold to some form of covenant theology (whether premillennial, postmillennial, or amillennial) generally emphasize the unity of the Bible by stressing the NT’s supposed reinterpretation of the OT. Ladd was probably the most prominent premillennial advocate of this position. He echoed Augustine’s famous words, “Novum testamentum in vetere latet; vetus testamentum in novo patet” and then added that

the Old Testament must be interpreted by the New Testament. In principle it is quite possible that the prophecies addressed originally to literal Israel describing physical blessings have their fulfillment exclusively in the spiritual blessings enjoyed by the Church. It is also possible that the Old Testament expectation of a kingdom on earth could be reinterpreted by the New Testament altogether of blessings in the spiritual realm. Therefore our question must be whether the exegesis of the New Testament requires the inclusion of millennial doctrine. [12]

Here one may note that Ladd agrees with amillennialists on hermeneutical principle but goes on to disagree with them on the exegesis of specific NT passages (mainly Revelation 20, though 1 Cor 15:21–28 and Romans 11 are also involved). In another place Ladd stated emphatically that “a millennial doctrine cannot be based on Old Testament prophecies but should be based on the New Testament alone.” [13]

At exactly this point dispensationalists part company with covenant theologians. It is their contention that the NT supplies no “reinterpretation” of OT prophecy which would cancel the OT promises to Israel of a future historical kingdom. In their view the NT use of the OT does not radically modify the OT promises to Israel. Hoyt argues that “in passage after passage Ladd insists that the New Testament is interpreting the Old when the New Testament is simply applying a principle found in the Old Testament.” [14] Walvoord views Ladd’s reinterpretation approach as tantamount to a contradiction and cancellation of the OT promises.

The issue…is not progressive revelation versus nonprogressive revelation, but rather in progressive revelation there is no contradiction or correction of what was commonly assumed to be the main tenor of OT revelation. Accordingly, the issue is whether the Old Testament teaches a literal fulfillment of specific promises for Israel and whether the New Testament contradicts or supports literal interpretation. [15]

Similarly Feinberg stresses that though the NT uses the OT in a number of ways it does not empty the OT of its valid predictive meaning. [16]

Relative Priority of Old Testament or New Testament

As the two approaches meet head on, it is immediately noted that a crucial issue concerns the priority assigned to the OT or NT in the exegetical method. Thus the whole issue of the nature of progressive revelation lies just below the surface of the debate. Ladd contrasts the two approaches in this manner: “Dispensationalism forms its eschatology by a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and then fits the New Testament into it. A nondispensational eschatology forms its theology from the explicit teaching of the New Testament.” [17] Hoyt denies Ladd’s description of the issues and offers his own instead: “The dispensationalist interprets the New Testament in the light of the Old, whereas the nondispensationalist, it seems, comes to the New Testament with a system of interpretation which is not derived from the Old Testament and superimposes this upon the New Testament.” [18] Feinberg argues similarly that a dispensational approach is scientifically inductive and does not, like Ladd, “wipe out the testimony of the Old Testament because of a certain view of the New.” [19]

The upshot of all this is that covenant theologians and dispensationalists disagree on the nature of progressive revelation. Each group accuses the other of misinterpreting the NT due to alien presuppositions. It is a case of conflicting preunderstandings. Yet a legitimate question is raised concerning biblical continuity. If NT reinterpretation reverses, cancels, or seriously modifies OT promises to Israel, one wonders how to define the word “progressive.” God’s faithfulness to his promises to Israel must also be explained.

Feinberg’s point on induction is well taken. It reminds one of the principle of “antecedent theology” popularized by Kaiser. [20] Though not known as a dispensationalist, his insistence that the Bible is an organic unity and that interpreters must not read later revelation back into earlier revelation resembles the dispensationalist’s insistence that the NT does not alter the plain meaning of the OT.

A Test Case

One passage Ladd includes in his argument for OT reinterpretation in the NT is the use of Hos 1:10; 2:23 in Rom 9:25–26. in Ladd’s view Paul deliberately takes prophecy about the future of Israel and applies it to the church, thus showing that the passage in Hosea is clearly fulfilled in the Christian church. [21] Hoyt responds to this approach with the assertion that Paul is simply applying Hosea’s material to the church “for the purpose of explaining something that is true of both.” [22] Of course, even Hoyt’s analogy view implies some continuity between Israel and the church.

Though Hoyt is correct that Ladd’s interpretation is gratuitous, a third view is preferable to Hoyt’s. Examination of the context of Romans 9 shows an exclusive reference to Israel until 9:24, where Paul introduces the Gentiles who along with Israel are “vessels of mercy” (9:23). Gentiles are again contrasted with Israel in 9:30–31. However, the overwhelming emphasis of Romans 9 is upon Paul’s burden for unbelieving Israel. In 9:27 Paul cites what Isaiah says “concerning Israel.” This fits the context of Hosea perfectly. There is thus no evidence that Paul is thinking primarily of the church in Rom 9:25–26. Instead, he is thinking (along the same lines as Hosea) of the present unbelief and future restoration of the nation of Israel. [23]

Conclusion

The NT use of the OT is a complex matter deserving much more study. It is encouraging that this appears to be a popular topic for scholarly study at present. At least three courses of action should be pursued as such study proceeds. First, both the covenant theologian and the dispensationalist must sharpen their positions on the NT use of the OT. It appears exceedingly doubtful that the NT reinterprets the OT so as to evaporate the plain meaning of its promises. This comes perilously close to conflicting with such NT passages as Matt 5:18 and John 10:35b. On the other hand, it is clear that the NT is not always as literal in its handling of the OT as some dispensationalists might think. Genuine typology and analogy between OT and NT should not be viewed as destructive to the literal fulfillment of the OT promises to Israel, but rather an indication of a greater continuity between Israel and the church than dispensationalists have often been willing to admit.

A second course of action to be pursued is semantic—the clearing up of definitions. Crucial terms such as “literal,” “typological,” “reinterpretation,” and “application” must be defined in a consistent manner agreeable to both groups. For example, what the covenant theologian calls the NT “reinterpretation” of the OT may be viewed by the dispensationalist as NT “application” of the OT. Third, the covenant theologian must beware of a tendency to erase the future of the nation of Israel from Scripture, [24] and the dispensationalist must beware of a tendency to exaggerate the biblical distinctions between Israel and the church. [25] One aspect of the Israel/church question concerns the nature of the kingdom of God, which will be addressed next.

The Continuity of Scripture and the Presence and Future of the Kingdom

Introduction

In the larger context of the scholarly debate on NT eschatology, the central question seems to revolve around the nature of the kingdom of God in Jesus’ teaching as being either present/immanent or future/transcendent. Today it is customary to merge the present and future views in an “already but not yet” inaugurated or proleptic eschatology. This rather simplistic summary may supply a larger context into which this present study may be integrated. [26]

Two Basic Approaches

Postmillennialists and amillennialists seem to agree that the millennium is either identical with, inclusive of, or included within the present age. [27] Chronologically the two systems are similar. Amillennialism views the millennium as strictly present; the only literal reign of Christ upon the earth is reserved for the new earth or eternal state. [28] Postmillennialism is more difficult to analyze on this point, but it is characterized by a greater degree of optimism in its view of the prospects of the church before the second coming of Christ. (In some postmillennial schemes the present age blends into the millennium.) Indeed, the postmillennialist Rushdoony styles amillennialists as “merely premillennialists without any hope for the historical future.” [29] Granted this difference between postmillennialism and amillennialism, it is still true that these two systems are at one in emphasizing the presence, not the future, of the millennium (God’s reign).

All premillennialists, on the other hand, stress the future reign of Christ upon the earth as the consummation of history prior to the inauguration of the new heavens/new earth or the eternal state. Yet premillennialists are divided over the present nature of the kingdom. Ladd is one premillennialist who is convinced that Scripture demands a view which emphasizes the present nature of the kingdom. [30] In fact, he views the present aspect of the kingdom as exegetically more defensible than its future aspect. [31] On the other hand, dispensationalists have traditionally maintained the offer, rejection, suspension, and final establishment scenario, [32] though there have been some exceptions. [33] The tendency of dispensationalists has been to view NT references to a present kingdom as judicial or proleptic in nature. [34] Ladd argues instead that the kingdom should be viewed more as God’s dynamic rule (in present and future) than as a static future realm. [35]

Problems with the Approaches

It appears that a major problem with amillennialism and postmillennialism is found in the preaching of John the baptizer and Jesus. John and Jesus challenged Israel to repent in view of the kingdom which was at hand (Matt 3:1–2; 4:17). What was meant by the term “kingdom?” [36] Feinberg observes that

no explanation is offered as to the meaning of the “Kingdom”…, for the people knew what was implied…. After a study of the Old Testament prophetic Scriptures, what else could one expect…? There was no need to describe the conditions and characteristics of the Kingdom, for that had been done so repeatedly and minutely. [37]

Many amillennialists and postmillennialists, however, do not believe that the kingdom John and Jesus announced should be equated with the promised kingdom of the OT. And here is where a major discontinuity arises in their view of progressive revelation. If the kingdom announced in the NT is not to be equated with that kingdom promised in the OT, then what is it? And why were the Jews so accountable for rejecting the signs which pointed to it? [38]

This discontinuity between OT and NT is also noticeable in Ladd. [39] The amillennialist Kushke welcomes Ladd’s emphasis upon the kingdom as a present reality but points out that Ladd’s view results in a major discontinuity between OT and NT. In Kushke’s view Ladd’s position raises serious questions about the good faith of the OT prophecies. [40] Evidently Kushke would agree with Ladd that the kingdom offered in the NT was spiritual but would deny that the OT prophets predicted a future earthly kingdom for Israel. Mawhinney has also argued that Ladd’s view of the NT kingdom as being present in realm as well as reign renders a future kingdom as realm unnecessary. [41]

Dispensationalism also has its problems in articulating the continuity of Scripture in terms of a present and future kingdom. The pre-cross NT offer of the kingdom has been viewed by many as suggesting the possibility of salvation apart from the work of Christ on the cross. Unfortunately, some dispensationalists have articulated this doctrine in a manner which implies that the cross was unnecessary or that it represented an emergency “Plan B” which replaced the original kingdom program. [42] Such implications must be disavowed by dispensationalists as untenable—God decreed the cross work of Christ; it was always a necessity in his plan (1 Pet 1:20). However, as many passages in the gospels indicate, Israel was accountable to respond to the kingdom message. In a genuine exercise of human responsibility the nation as a whole rejected this message, and, from a human perspective, Israel’s national experience of the kingdom was postponed.

All of this is somewhat problematic, as some dispensationalists have admitted. [43] However it is only another aspect of the divine sovereignty/human responsibility tension which may be observed elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Matt 26:24; Acts 2:23). The cardinal example of such tension might indeed be the fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2–3. What if Adam and Eve had not rejected God’s plan for them (Gen 2:16–17)? Is this question really all that different from the one which asks what if Israel as a nation had accepted the kingdom offer? God knew that Adam and Eve would fall and that Israel would nationally reject the kingdom offer. Yet there was a genuine exercise of human responsibility and a resulting culpability in both cases. [44] Covenant theologians should thus have no problems in principle with the dispensational articulation of the offer of the Kingdom. And what of those who did respond in faith to Jesus’ message? Dispensationalists must improve their articulation of the present dynamic rule of God in the lives of believers (Matt 12:28; Col 1:13).

Conclusion

The tension between the present and future aspects of the kingdom is problematic for all eschatological positions. Amillennialists and, to a lesser degree, postmillennialists and historic premillennialists, have emphasized the presence of the kingdom. Dispensationalists have emphasized the future of the kingdom. All of these views need further refinement and modification in the light of further study and debate. As the evidence continues to be studied, covenant theologians should exhibit more openness to the possibility of a future kingdom of God upon this earth in literal fulfillment of the OT. Similarly, dispensationalists should be more open to the legitimate exegetical insights of Ladd and others concerning the present aspect of God’s rule. There is no reason why this should invalidate the millennium or other legitimate dispensational distinctives.

Conclusion

This study has outlined three hermeneutical issues which impact the contemporary debate on eschatology. It has been argued that evangelicals should avoid brash charges of “allegorizing” or “hyperliteralism.” Instead, debate should focus upon issues such as specific NT uses of the OT (e.g., Acts 2/Joel 2; Acts 15/Amos 9) and specific passages revealing the complex nature of the kingdom of God. The continuity of Scripture (as demonstrated in specific passages) is the broad issue at stake here—not theoretical hermeneutics.

My research in this area has shown that eschatological debates are often destructive rather than constructive. A bitter and polemical spirit ill becomes discussions within the body of Christ. It is easier to erect and demolish straw men than it is to courteously and carefully confront real issues. [45]

Twentieth century “eschatologians” should take to heart the words and spirit of the second century father Justin Martyr. Evidently Justin was a premillennialist. In his Dialogue with the heretic Trypho he claimed to share premillennialism with “others, who are right-minded Christians on all points.” Yet he admitted that “many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” [46] Let us save our polemics for modern Tryphos and discuss eschatology in a manner befitting Christians.

Notes

1. This example comes from the postmillennialist Loraine Boettner, “Christian Hope and a Millennium,” Christianity Today 2:25 (Sept 29, 1958) 13. Similar statements implying the absolute precedence of hermeneutics to theology may be found in such dispensationalists as Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody, 1965) 86 and J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958) 1. The amillennialist Floyd Hamilton expressed the same view in The Basis of Millennial Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1942) 38.
2. Stanley Gundry, “Hermeneutics or Zeitgeist as the Determining Factor in the History of Eschatologies?,” JETS 20 (1977) 55. See also J. I. Packer’s perceptive discussion of the hermeneutical circle, “Hermeneutics and Biblical Authority,” Themelios 1 (1975) 3-12.
3. See any textbook of biblical hermeneutics for support of this statement. Alva J. McClain (The Greatness of the Kingdom [Chicago: Moody, 1968] 139) did not exaggerate when he said, “This method, as its adherents have explained times without number, leaves room for all the devices and nuances of language, including the use of figure, metaphor, simile, symbol, and even allegory.”
4. Greg Bahnsen, “The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism,” Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3 (1976) 57. In view of Bahnsen’s advice the present study seeks to identify crucial exegetical issues and encourage their study.
5. Examples could be multiplied, but see, e.g., Herman Hoyt, “Dispensational Premillennialism, “ in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1977) 66-67.
6. Here may be noted Anthony Hoekema’s “An Amillennial Response” to Herman Hoyt in The Meaning of the Millennium. Hoekema believes he has found six examples of nonliteral interpretation in Hoyt. He goes on to speak correctly of the “gross oversimplification” that the basic issue in eschatological debates is over literal versus nonliteral hermeneutics (105–7). Actually, Hoekema’s six examples relate to exegetical conclusions, not hermeneutical method.
7. E.g., see Pentecost, Things to Come, 3–4.
8. E.g., see Hoekema, “An Amillennial Response,” 107–8; Clarence B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960) 151-53; and P. E. Hughes, Interpreting Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 9-10.
9. Floyd Hamilton, The Basis of millennial Faith, 53–54.
10. Meaning of the Millennium, 47, 54, 94-95,107.
11. Earl D. Radmacher, “Differences on the Millennium,” Christianity Today 22:14 (Apr 7, 1978) 46. Yet Radmacher elsewhere may excessively rely on a literal hermeneutic as the panacea for today’s eschatological difficulties. See his “The Current Status of Dispensationalism and its Eschatology” in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology, ed. K. S. Kantzer and S. N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 163-76.
12. George E. Ladd, “Revelation 20 and the Millennium,” RevExp 57 (1960) 167. For similar statements see Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952) 136-42; The Presence of the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 199,204-5,227-28; and The Last Things (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 8-10.
13. Ladd, Meaning of the Millennium, 32.
14. Hoyt, Meaning of the Millennium. 42–43.
15. John F. Walvoord, “Does the Church Fulfill Israel’s Program?” (part 1) BSac 137 (1980) 20. Later Walvoord states the issue as “whether progressive revelation ever reverses preceding revelation and denies its validity” (29).
16. Charles L. Feinberg, Millennialism: The Two Major Views (3d ed; Chicago: Moody, 1980) 60. It is interesting to note that the disciples’ expected literal fulfillment was not denied by Christ in Acts 1. Christ merely told them that the time of the fulfillment was not their concern.
17. Ladd, Meaning of the Millennium, 27. Similarly, see Hoekema, Meaning of the Millennium, 107.
18. Hoyt, Meaning of the Millennium, 43.
19. Feinberg, Millennialism, 56; see also 52, 61.
20. Walter C. Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978) 14-19; and Toward an Exegetical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981) 134-40.
21. Ladd, Meaning of the Millennium, 43–44. It ought to be noted that Boettner and Hoekema agree with Ladd’s hermeneutic (47, 55).
22. Hoyt, Meaning of the Millennium, 43. Though both Ladd and Hoyt speak of the NT “applying” the OT to the church, Ladd means that the church fulfills the OT and Hoyt means that the church is similar to Israel.
23. This approach has been argued well by John A. Battle, “Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:25–26, ” GTJ 2 (1981) 115-29.
24. It is encouraging that Anthony A. Hockema’s The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) shows some openness to the future of the nation of Israel upon the new (renewed) earth (23-40,146-47). Hoekema’s well stated “Critique of Dispensationalism” (194–222) deserves serious attention and response from dispensational scholars. Attention should also be drawn to Willem A. Van Gemeren’s two part series “Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy,” WTJ 45 (1983) 132-44; and 46 (1984) 254-97. Van Gemeren’s overview of reformed eschatology since Calvin is enlightening. His description of some reformed OT exegesis takes the form of a parody upon the familiar words of Augustine: “the Old is by the New restricted and the New is on the Old inflicted” (269). He calls upon the reformed community to realize that the NT does not so much “fulfill” the OT as to “confirm” that “all the expectations of the OT prophets will be fulfilled” (280).
25. See Kenneth L. Barker, “False Dichotomies Between the Testaments,” JETS 25 (1982) 3-16. It is encouraging here to note two recent essays by Robert L. Saucy. In “Contemporary Dispensational Thought,” TSF Bulletin 7:4 (1984) 10-11, he shows how some dispensationalists “have come to see a greater unity in the historical program of God” without giving up the literal fulfillment of Israel’s OT promises (11). See also “Dispensationalism and the Salvation of the Kingdom,” TSF Bulletin 7:5 (1984) 6-7. One might also note W. Robert Cook, The Theology of John (Chicago: Moody, 1975) 167-68,226–27, n. 27, who argues that the Israel-church distinction will become less and less clear in the future. Some of the continuity stressed by Cook and Saucy may have been anticipated by Erich Sauer in From Eternity to Eternity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954) 166,177; and in The Dawn of World Redemption (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953) 147. Elliott E. Johnson argues for a NT basis for dispensationalism in “Hermeneutics and Dispensationalism” in Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody, 1982) 239-55. Stanley D. Toussaint’s “A Biblical Defense of Dispensationalism” in the same volume (81–91) includes some helpful clarifications (83–84).
26. For useful surveys of thought on the nature of the kingdom see McClain, Greatness, 7–14; Ladd, The Presence of the Future, 3–42; Norman Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM, 1963) 13-89; and Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 288–316.
27. This may be seen, e.g., in the similar views of Boettner and Hoekema in The Meaning of the Millennium.
28. E.g., Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 41-54,201-14,220-38,274-87.
29. Rousas J. Rushdoony, cited by Gary North, “Editor’s Introduction,” Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3:2 (1976) 5.
30. Key texts showing the presence of the kingdom include Matt 3:2; 4:17; 10:7; 12:28; Luke 17:21; and Col 1:13. See Ladd, The Presence of the Future, 149–217.
31. George E. Ladd, “Review of The Greatness of the Kingdom” EvQ 32 (1960) 48-50.
32. See, e.g, McClain, Greatness of the Kingdom, 259–430; G. N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom (3 vols; reprint; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952), 1.375-78,590-91,621-31; 2.224-25,461-72,668-730; 3.29-31,582-602; and, more recently, Feinberg, Millennialism, 229–49.
33. Notably Sauer, Eternity to Eternity, 175–77.
34. McClain, Greatness of the Kingdom, 434–39.
35. Ladd, Presence of the Future, 149–217.
36. It is unnecessary here to debate whether “kingdom of heaven” in Matthew is identical to or different from “kingdom of God” in the other gospels. However, it is believed that dispensationalists who distinguish between the two terms are in error.
37. Feinberg, Millennialism, 131. See also McClain, Greatness of the Kingdom, 274–303; and Hoyt, Meaning of the Millennium, 85.
38. This problem is not so noticeable in the articulation of this issue by Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 13–22. It is more obvious in several of the older works cited by McClain, Greatness of the Kingdom, 274ff, and in Hughes, Interpreting Prophecy, 24–28. Of course some would argue that the OT never predicted an earthly kingdom for Israel.
39. Ladd, Meaning of the Millennium, 94; and Crucial Questions, 113.
40. Arthur W. Kushke, “Review of G. E. Ladd: Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God,” WTJ 15 (1953) 157-58.
41. Allan Mawhinney, “Review of G. E. Ladd: The Presence of the Future,” WTJ 37 (1975) 285-86. Similarly, see McClain, Greatness of the Kingdom, 275, n. 7.
42. Hughes, Interpreting Prophecy, 104–5; Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 212–14: and Ladd, Meaning of the Millennium. 94.
43. E.g., McClain, Greatness of the Kingdom, 319–20.
44. See Feinberg, Millennialism, 146.
45. One wonders how much good would have been accomplished had Ladd and McClain enjoyed a more constructive dialogue than that which appears in Christianity Today 4:1 (Oct 12, 1959) 38-40; and 4:10 (Feb 15, 1960) 23-24. Ladd heatedly attacked McClain’s position, but McClain responded that Ladd had seriously misconstrued that position. It is encouraging to note Radmacher’s belief that a growing rapprochement is taking place in more recent days (“Current Status of Dispensationalism,” 163).
46. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 80, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, rev. A. C. Coxe (reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1973) 239.

Luther: The Life and Legacy of the German Reformer (Full Documentary)

Are the Seven Letters of Revelation 2-3 Prophetic?

By James L. Boyer

The letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2–3 outline the course of Church History from the first advent of Christ to his second advent. This interpretation does not compromise the doctrine of imminence since the prophecy is implicit and thus not discernible until its fulfillment has been accomplished. Some have failed to see the correspondence between the characteristics of the seven churches and the history of the church because they have failed to recognize that the seven churches are true churches (λυχνία, ‘lampstands’).

* * *

Introduction

Traditionally, dispensational premillenialists often have seen in the letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2–3 three interpretations which, taken together, comprise the meaning of the passage. The three interpretations may be called the historical interpretation, the typical or representative interpretation, and the prophetic interpretation.

The historical interpretation understands the seven churches to be seven actual historical churches in provincial Asia in the first century. Some of them are mentioned elsewhere in Scripture (Ephesus and Laodicea) while others are known from church history. There seems to be almost total agreement on this interpretation; the only view known to the present writer that would deny it holds that the seven churches are seven Jewish congregations in the future Tribulation period. [1]

The usual interpretation sees these churches as seven types of churches in any age. That is, these churches exhibit characteristics which may be found in any church of any time or place. This interpretation is also nearly universally held by all dispensational premillenialists and does not in any sense replace or contradict the historical interpretation.

Third is the prophetic interpretation which additionally sees a prophetic or predictive element in these seven letters. Each church in Revelation 2–3 exhibits qualities and conditions which become predominant in a certain period of church history from the first advent of Christ to his second advent. [2] Thus, just as there are types of churches, there are types of church periods. [3]

These three interpretations are not antithetical; not many interpreters teach the historical only, or typical only, or prophetic only. The question addressed here is whether the prophetic interpretation is part of the meaning of Revelation 2–3. This has been denied by some dispensationalists. [4]

Some Preliminary Considerations

It may be desirable at the outset to dismiss a few minor arguments to clear the way for the more important considerations. I believe that some well-meaning but over-zealous expounders of the prophetic view have claimed too much or have sought to pile up evidence by using weak arguments. This has actually hurt the credibility of the prophetic interpretation more than it has helped because it gives opponents something to refute, thus making the whole position look weak.

One such argument is that the book of Revelation is a prophetic book; hence it would be appropriate to find a prophetic aspect here. [5] This of course is true, as everyone will agree. But it proves nothing.

It might be claimed that since the prophecies of the tribulation period come after chaps. 2 and 3 (cf. 4:1, “after this”), then chaps. 2 and 3 must cover the church age—otherwise there would be a gap in the succession of events. But again this proves nothing; “after this” would be just as true even if there were a gap, and the occurrence of a gap is certainly not unusual in prophetic literature.

I personally do not put great significance in the argument based upon the etymologies of the names of the seven churches [6] for two reasons. First, the proposed etymologies are very uncertain and hypothetical. Second, the argument is based on a very questionable method of exegesis. While it is true that names may have meanings (as Miller and Smith and Fisher have in English) and sometimes were given with deliberate reference to that meaning (as Benjamin and Joshua-Jesus in Scripture), this was not normally the case. The ministry of Paul is not explained by studying the etymology of his name.

Explicit Versus Implicit Prophecy

One of the objections given against the prophetic view is that the passage does not explicitly claim to be prophetic. [7] It is readily admitted that this is true. Nowhere in Revelation 2–3 does it say that these letters are dealing with seven long periods of time which must transpire before the second advent. Indeed if it had said that, it would have effectively denied the plain teaching of Scripture elsewhere that the Lord’s coming is imminent, to be constantly expected and watched for.

But the fact that it is not explicitly prophetic does not at all mean that it is not prophetic. Bible prophecy elsewhere is often implicit rather than explicit. It is the character of Bible prophecy to unfold as it is fulfilled. OT messianic prophecy is an example. The OT did not say explicitly that there would be two comings separated by a long period of time. That time element was the specific aspect which the prophets themselves could not understand (1 Pet 1:11). Nor did OT prophecy make it clear that the offer of the Kingdom would be rejected and postponed to that later coming. But as the fulfillment unfolded, the two comings (which were implicit in the OT prophecy) could be understood (Luke 24:25–27).

Here is also the answer to that most serious of all objections to the prophetic understanding of Revelation 2–3, namely, that it denies the doctrine of imminence. [8] It indeed would, if it stated explicitly that there would be a period of at least two thousand years before the second advent, or even if it had stated explicitly that there would be “seven periods of church history.” But the implicit prophecy could not be understood until it was made clear by fulfillment, and by that time it could no longer be said, “My Lord delays His coming” (Matt 24:48). So the charge that the prophetic view destroys the doctrine of imminence is answered.

A significant argument for the prophetic view may be seen in the number of churches listed in these chapters. Although the symbolism of numbers has been grossly abused by many in their treatment of the book of Revelation, few will deny that in this book the number seven occupies a place of importance and must be recognized as significant. And most would see that significance as representing completeness, fullness, the “whole” of something. [9] Applying this symbolic significance to the seven churches of Revelation points to this sevenfold picture as presenting in some way the whole of the church. Now if the meaning is limited to the historical view, the question may be asked why only these seven churches were addressed. Certainly they were not the complete list of historical churches of John’s day, not even all the churches of Asia; Colosse is right in the midst of them (in fact, within sight of one of them). Nor can importance be the deciding factor, as Colosse again shows.

One might add the typical interpretation to the picture and say that the seven represent the seven types of churches. But again one faces the question, why these seven? Certainly these seven are not the only seven types of churches. The NT itself furnishes many examples of church types not included in these seven, such as the Galatian and the Corinthian types. When one tries to label every church with which he is acquainted by assigning it to one of these seven, he has difficulty. These seven cannot represent a total list of church types.

However, when the prophetic view of the seven churches is recognized, the number seven becomes meaningful. The seven do not represent all churches or all types of churches but all the periods in the progressive historical development of the church in this age.

Fulfillment in Fact

What is it that prompts expositors to see implicit prophecy in these letters? It is the remarkable correspondence in fact with the course of history and the realization that the characteristics of these seven churches have appeared in succession in the historical developments of the church age. It is not within the purpose of this paper to expound or to defend this claim; it has been presented in the literature of those who hold it. [10] Perhaps sufficient for the present purpose is the observation that this is especially clear of the first two and the last two periods, the ones with which modern Christians are most familiar. The apostolic age, which began with the zeal of “first love,” showed a diminishing of that ardor (as in the letter to the church in Ephesus). The second clearly discernible period was one of persecution and martyrdom, when the Roman Empire tried to destroy the Christian faith (as in the letter to the church in Smyrna). The “open door” of the letter to the church in Philadelphia corresponds closely with the evangelistic and missionary movements of the nineteenth century. And the lukewarmness and materialistic self-sufficiency of the church in Laodicea describes well the present situation. It should be remembered that all types of churches are present in all periods, but one type is predominant and characterizes each period.

But it is at this point that opponents of this view voice one of their major objections. They claim that there is no such correspondence in fact between the letters and church history. They add that the view is highly subjective with wide difference of opinion between proponents. [11] They label the view as simply another “continuous-historical” interpretation—an approach to Revelation which views the book as a whole to be “a symbolic presentation of the entire course of the history of the church from the close of the first century to the end of time.” [12]

First, to label the prophetic view as another continuous-historical interpretation demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the prophetic view. The continuous-historical method of interpreting the book of Revelation attempts to see fulfillment of specific passages in Revelation in specific events of history, such as the conversion of the Roman Empire, the invasion of the Turks, or the First World War. The prophetic view propounded here does absolutely none of this. It is in no sense a prediction of events or persons or organizations of which it could be said, “This is the fulfillment of that.” Rather it is a recognition that the Lord foreknew and foretold the trends and movements throughout the church age. These are not immediately and definitely discernible but may be discerned by hindsight.

The claim that the prophetic view is subjective and differs widely from person to person [13] is also based on the same misunderstanding. When the many continuous-historical writers are included, it is of course true that there are wide divergencies. Such subjectivity is a legitimate argument against that interpretation. But those who actually hold the prophetic view of these passages repudiate the spiritualizing and allegorizing of that method, holding instead to a literal or natural interpretation, and there is remarkable agreement in the identification of the seven periods.

Second, it is claimed that the view of church history used by the advocates of the prophetic view is faulty, taking into consideration only “Western Christianity,” hence the correspondence in fact is not true. The answer to this objection is very simple, but very important and often neglected even by the proponents of the view.

Such a claim involves a faulty understanding of the nature of the churches in Revelation 2–3. The seven periods of church history are wrongly conceived as embracing all churches, all Christendom. The churches of Revelation 2–3 are symbolized as “candle-sticks” (KJV) or “lampstands” (NASV,NIV). The Greek word used is λυχνία and refers to the pedestal or stand upon which the lamp was placed or hung; the lamp itself is λύχνος or λαμπάς. [14] The churches are not lamps or the light; they are the holders of the lamps. They hold up the light of the gospel so it may be seen by the world. When Revelation describes these churches as “light-holders,” it is labeling them as holders of the true gospel. They represent the place where men may find the gospel. They are true churches. In Rev 2:5 the Lord threatens to remove their lampstand out of its place if they do not repent. In other words they will cease to be light-holders; they will cease to be true churches. Therefore, those churches represented in Revelation 2–3 are not false, apostate, or heretical—otherwise, they would not be lampstands. Western Christianity has been the major center for world evangelism and thus fits the description here.

The implications of this insight are crucial. It cancels the objection that the prophetic view fails to take into account the whole of church history. Revelation 2–3 provides a picture of trends and movements within true churches, not within Christendom. All through the years there have always been churches where the light of the gospel was being held up to view, even in the darkest days of the age. Such churches may have reflected some of the spirit of their false contemporaries, but they did not lose their light. Dead and apostate “churches” are not the addressees of these letters.

Conclusion

This insight also forces a reevaluation of the whole approach to understanding these letters. For example, the Laodicean church is not the theologically liberal church down the street, nor the apostate church of the end times. It is the Bible-believing evangelical church which possesses and upholds the light of the gospel, but which is conforming to the values of the world and refusing to get overly involved in the Lord’s work. It is materially rich and increased with goods, needing nothing, but it is unaware that it is spiritually wretched and poor and miserable and blind and naked (3:17). It is lukewarm—not cold and unresponsive to the things of God, but not hot and “on fire” for the Lord who bought it. Rather it is somewhere in between. It is trying to enjoy the good things and to avoid the unpleasant things of both worlds.

Is this the case with us and with the people in our churches? Then ours is a Laodicean church. And to the degree that Laodicea characterizes the churches—the true gospel churches—of our time, may we hear what the Spirit says to the churches: “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten; be zealous, therefore, and repent” (Rev 3:19).

Notes

1. E. W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse: The Day of the Lord (3rd ed., rev.; London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1935) 68-71.
2. This approach is commonly taken in dispensational commentaries; see e.g., Herman A. Hoyt, The Revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ (Winona Lake, IN: BMH, 1966) 17,25–29, and John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1966) 52, who holds the view cautiously. See also Menno J. Brunk, “The Seven Churches in Revelation 2–3 ,” BSac 126 (1969) 240-46, and Gary G. Cohen, Understanding Revelation (Collingswood, NJ: Christian Beacon, 1968) 44-65, who presents a more impressive argument. Of course, a prophetic view is held by nondispensationalists as well (e.g., J. P. Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures—Revelation [reprint; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.] 139). See also the survey of R. C. Trench, Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia (6th ed., rev.; reprint; Minneapolis: Klock and Klock, 1978) 237-45.
3. Hoyt, Revelation, 28; and Walvoord, Revelation, 52.
4. E.g., Robert L. Thomas, “The Chronological Interpretation of Revelation 2–3 ,” BSac 124 (1967) 321-31. George Ladd’s equation of dispensationalism with the prophetic view is thus an overgeneralization. See Ladd’s A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 12.
5. E.g., Brunk, “The Seven Churches,” 244; and Cohen, Understanding Revelation, 63.
6. E.g., Cohen, Understanding Revelation, 62–63; and H. A. Ironside, Lectures on the Book of Revelation (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux, 1920) 37-38.
7. Thomas, “Chronological Interpretation,” 329–30.
8. Ibid., 328-29.
9. For a careful study of numbers in the Bible and a cautious approval of the symbolic significance of the number seven, see John J. Davis, Biblical Numerology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968) 115-19.
10. E.g., Cohen, Understanding Revelation, 48–49; and J. A. Seiss, The Apocalypse (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, n.d.) 76–86.
11. E.g., Thomas, “Chronological Interpretation,” 325–27, and Trench, Epistles to the Seven Churches, 247–50.
12. Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957) 137. See also Tenny’s entire discussion of this view (137–39).
13. E.g., Thomas, “Chronological Interpretation,” 326.
14. BAGD, 483.

Is a Posttribulational Rapture Revealed in Matthew 24?

By John F. Walvoord

Matthew 24 is a crucial passage in the debate between pre- and posttribulationists. The context of Matthew 24 and especially vv 40–41 argues that a posttribulational rapture is not being taught. Rather Christ, on the analogy of Noah’s flood, spoke of some being taken in judgment. Thus it can be concluded that no biblical text places the rapture after the tribulation.

* * *

Introduction

Among premillenarians, the question as to whether the rapture of the church occurs before or after the end time tribulation continues to be a live subject for debate. Among other eschatological points of view such as postmillennialism and amillennialism, it is assumed that the rapture is a part of the second coming of Christ and therefore is posttribulational. Postmillenarians and amillenarians accept almost without question a posttribulational rapture because they interpret prophecies of the events leading up to the second coming nonliterally. By contrast premillenialism depends upon a literal interpretation of prophecy.

Among premillenarians, however, the issue of pretribulationism continues to be discussed, and books continue to be published on the issues involved. The differences of opinion stem largely from the question as to whether end time prophecies are to be interpreted literally, especially as they distinguish Israel’s future from that of the church, the body of Christ.

Both pretribulationists and posttribulationists are confronted with the fact that the Scripture does not expressly state either view. Pretribulationists find what approximates a direct teaching of their view in 2 Thessalonians 2 where the lawless one is said to be revealed only after the restrainer is removed. The traditional interpretation among pretribulationists is that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit who indwells the church. Thus, it is the Holy Spirit (and by implication the church) who must be removed before the lawless one can be revealed. [1] If the lawless one is the end time ruler, he would be revealed at least seven years before the second coming of Christ. According to this interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2, then, the rapture occurs prior to the tribulation. Posttribulationists, of course, dispute this interpretation and interpret the passage in a manner that does not yield a pretribulational sequence of end time events. [2]

What is often overlooked in the discussion by posttribulationists is that they also lack a specific statement that the rapture of the church occurs at the time of Christ’s second coming to set up his kingdom. It is quite common for posttribulationists to challenge pretribulationists to offer a single verse in the Bible that teaches their position. Pretribulationism counters by offering passages that imply it, such as 2 Thessalonians 2. Pretribulationists also point out that all the passages clearly identified as referring to the rapture name no preceding events. On the other hand, passages dealing with the second coming of Christ to set up his kingdom predict a complicated series of world-shaking events such as are described in Revelation 6–18 and other passages dealing with the end time.

Posttribulationists are also embarrassed by the fact that the most detailed account of the second coming of Christ, found in Revelation 19–20, nowhere mentions either a rapture or a resurrection in connection with Christ’s coming from heaven to earth, and there is no legitimate place to insert the events of 1 Thessalonians 4. Accordingly posttribulationists recognize the need for a specific passage that will support the posttribulational view. This for many posttribulationists is found in Matthew 24. This chapter of the Bible, therefore, becomes a strategic crux interpretum in the debate between the two views. Those who hold a midtribulational view, that is, that the rapture will occur three and one-half years before the second coming of Christ, also turn to Matthew 24. The discussion of this portion of Scripture and its proper exegesis, therefore, becomes quite determinative in any conclusion as to where the rapture fits into the prophetic scheme. Practically every author who attempts to refute the pretribulational view discusses in some detail Matthew 24 in an effort to find support for posttribulationism. [3]

The Context of Matthew 24

As the Gospels make clear, the Olivet Discourse, contained in Matthew 24–25, occurred only days before the death and crucifixion of Christ. Opposition to Christ and efforts to kill him on the part of religious leaders of the day intensified as the time approached for the death and crucifixion of Christ. All of this troubled the disciples because it did not fit into their expectation that Jesus Christ was their Messiah and Savior, the Son of God, who would deliver them from the oppression of the Roman Empire. They were further troubled by Christ’s own statement that he was to die by crucifixion. This had been implied in his comparison of his own death and resurrection to the experience of Jonah (Matt 12:38–41). Then he had explicitly predicted his death and resurrection three times as recorded in all three Gospels (Matt 16:21; 17:22–23; 19:18–19; Mark 8:31–33; 9:30–32; 10:32–34; Luke 9:22; 9:43–45; 18:31–34). These predictions did not harmonize with the disciples’ expectation that Christ would deliver Israel from the oppression of Rome.

The disciples were further disturbed by Christ’s denunciation of the Pharisees (Matthew 23) when he pronounced seven woes upon them. He denounced them as hypocrites, as whitewashed tombs, and as vipers. He closed his denunciation with the reminder that their forefathers had killed the prophets God had sent them. Accordingly, because they rejected Christ, Jerusalem would also be left desolate. These prophecies did not fit in with the anticipation of a glorious kingdom on earth in which Christ would reign.

It was in this context that the disciples reminded Christ of the beauty of their temple, the symbol of their religion and national solidarity. Here again they were dismayed when Christ announced “not one stone here will be left upon another; every one will be thrown down” (Matt 24:2).

Things came to a head after Christ had crossed the brook Kidron with his disciples and had stopped on the western slope of the Mount of Olives. It was then that the inner circle of the twelve disciples (Peter, James, John, and Andrew, according to Mark 13:3) came to Christ privately with three major questions (Matt 24:3). These questions were (1) “when will this happen,” (2) “what will be the sign of your coming,” and (3) “(what will be) the sign…of the end of the age”? The first question, referring to the destruction of the temple, is answered in Luke 21:20–24 by a prophecy which was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Matthew does not record Christ’s answer to the first question but does record the answers to questions (2) and (3) which both deal with the second coming of Christ. At this time the disciples did not understand the difference between the first and second coming of Christ. What they were really questioning was, what were the signs of the approaching kingdom? Their questions were prompted by their attempt to harmonize in some way the OT prophecies of the Messiah’s death and resurrection with the promises of his glorious reign and the deliverance of Israel.

It is most significant that saints in the OT (including the writers of Scripture [1 Pet 1:10–12]) as well as the twelve disciples in the NT never understood clearly the difference between the first and second coming of Christ. It was only after Christ’s ascension into heaven that the distinction was made clear. With the help of historical hindsight, today the difference between the first and second coming of Christ can be sorted out because in the first coming of Christ the prophecies relating to his birth, life on earth, miracles, death and resurrection were all literally fulfilled while the prophecies of his glorious kingdom reign still await future fulfillment. If major events like the first coming and second coming of Christ could be so mingled in the OT and even in the Gospels, it is not surprising that there should be confusion today between a pretribulational rapture and a second coming of Christ to set up his kingdom.

However, in contrast to the universal confusion of the first and second coming of Christ prior to Christ’s ascension, many students of prophecy today firmly believe that the rapture of the church will be pretribulational. They do this on much the same grounds that the first and second coming of Christ are separated today—that is, they distinguish the two events because they are so different in many characteristics, including the events which precede the event itself, and the events which follow.

Taking all the facts available, it can be determined that the setting for the questions of the disciples was that they did not know how to harmonize events relating to the first and second coming of Christ. It is to this crucial question that Christ gave the answers recorded in Matthew 24–25.

Contemporary Confusion on the Interpretation of Matthew 24

An examination of major commentaries on Matthew 24 demonstrates that there is disagreement as to what the passage really teaches.

Conservative scholars who accept a literal second coming of Christ are usually united in their interpretation that the passage in general refers to the second coming of Christ. This is because the passage is very explicit. The events described will climax in Christ’s coming as stated by Christ himself—”they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory” (Matt 24:30).

The confusion arises in interpreting what Christ said about events leading up to the second coming. G. Campbell Morgan divides the Olivet Discourse into three divisions. He considers Matt 24:5–35 to be talking about Israel. He relates Matt 24:36–25:30 to the church “as the spiritual Israel of God.” He interprets Matt 25:31–46 as a judgment that Christ pronounced on the nations. [4] He holds that Matt 24:6–22 was fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem, but in his exegesis he skips almost completely the problems of interpretation that exist in Matt 24:1–44.

Robert Gundry illustrates the posttribulational interpretation of this passage. He directs attention away from the subject matter to the hypothetical question, “To whom is the passage directed?” He writes, “To what group of redeemed do the Jewish saints addressed by Jesus and represented by the Apostles belong, Israel or the church?” [5] In his complicated answer to this problem, he needlessly misdirects attention. This point of view is adopted by other posttribulationists and midtribulationists. They also insert the hypothesis that the prophecies had to be fulfilled in the lifetime of the apostles—an erroneous approach since the second coming of Christ and the course of the entire preceding age is predicted.

The disciples were both Jews and the initial members of the church, the body of Christ. The answers to their questions concerned anyone who was interested in the events of the end of the age, and they are not limited to the apostolic age. While the disciples obviously were interested in how this related to the Jews, as illustrated by their questions, the answer that Christ gave is largely non-Jewish. It involves prophecies which affect the whole world with the Olivet Discourse specifically concluding with the judgment of the Gentiles. The issue at hand is not to whom Christ’s answer is addressed, but the question of the content of the prophecy itself. Gundry never even mentions the three questions that are being answered in this discourse of Christ.

A typical amillennial interpretation is offered by R. C. H. Lenski. He holds that many of the prophecies of this passage, including the great tribulation, have already been fulfilled in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem and the events which preceded it. In general he finds that the prophecies are largely fulfilled already historically, but that they obviously lead up to the second coming of Christ. He does not consider the question as to whether the subject of the rapture is being presented. Everything is related to the second coming of Christ as far as the consummation is concerned. [6]

The great variety of opinions on Matthew 24 indicate that this passage is difficult to interpret. The present discussion will focus on the contribution of Matt 24:31 and Matt 24:37–42 toward understanding the time relationship between the rapture and the tribulation.

The Gathering of the Elect

Immediately following predictions of catastrophic interference with the sun, moon, and stars, Christ states,

At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other [Matt 24:30–31].

Among conservative interpreters of Scripture, there is general agreement that this prophecy concerns a gathering of the elect in connection with the second coming of Christ. Some premillenarians limit the “elect” to the Jewish people because Christ is addressing the apostles in this passage. Others view the “elect” as including all the saved, whether OT or NT saints. Premillenarians, whether pretribulational or posttribulational, recognize that there will be a gathering of all the saints at the time of the second coming of Christ in order that they may all participate in the millennial kingdom. Amillenarians would agree with this, but they would add the resurrection of the wicked as indicated in Rev 20:11–15. Postmillenarians would have essentially the same view as the amillenarians.

The major question raised by premillenarians, whether pretribulationists or posttribulationists, is whether this event includes the rapture of the church. Even if the church is raptured earlier in the sequence of events, it nevertheless would be included in this gathering.

The two essentials of the rapture of the church are resurrection of the dead in Christ and translation of living Christians, as brought out clearly in central passages such as 1 Thess 4:13–18 and 1 Cor 15:51–58. The prophecy in Matthew, however, says nothing of either resurrection or translation and refers only to the gathering of the elect. It may be assumed that the elect so gathered have been either translated or resurrected, but it is not indicated when this occurs. Accordingly the passage cannot properly be used by either the pretribulationists or the posttribulationists as positive proof of their position, although the silence relative to resurrection and translation here would be in favor of the pretribulational position.

Most of the attention between pretribulational and posttribulational arguments, however, has centered on Matt 24:36–42. Here the time factor is specifically discussed. Christ states, “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matt 24:36). This presents a problem for all eschatological views in that Christ states that he does not know the day or the hour, but that only the Father knows. Christ is emphasizing that the time has not been revealed. If Christ did not know it, neither can anyone else.

In the interpretation of end time prophecy, many premillenarians hold that the last seven years referred to in Dan 9:27 will culminate in the second coming of Christ. Even if prophetic years of 360 days are used, it is not clear what day or hour will actually signal the second coming of Christ. [7] The final period of great tribulation leading up to the second coming of Christ is defined as one-half of the last seven years in Dan 9:27. In Dan 7:25 and 12:7 the expression “a time, times and half a time” is usually interpreted as three and one-half years. The same expression occurs in Rev 12:14. In Rev 13:5 the period is referred to as forty-two months. In Dan 12:11–12, the period is described as 1290 and 1335 days. Here the forty-two month period is extended thirty and seventy-five days to uncertain termini. While all of these should be interpreted as literal time periods, they do not reveal the day or the hour of Christ’s return.

Expanding on the uncertainty of the day and the hour, Christ declares it will be like the days of Noah (Matt 24:37). While Noah was building the ark, it was obvious that the flood would not come until he had completed the project. Once the ark was completed the situation changed radically. As observers saw the animals going into the ark by two in a manner contrary to nature, it was obvious that this was a sign that something was about to happen. But the day or the hour still was not clear. Then as they observed Noah’s family enter the ark and the door shutting, they still could not know the day or the hour, but it was obvious that the flood could come at any time.

Because of the uncertainty of the time of the flood and their skepticism as to whether the flood was even going to occur, Christ describes them as continuing in the normal course of life “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark” (Matt 24:38). Christ goes on to say that when the flood came it “took them all away” (Matt 24:39).

Using this OT illustration, Christ compares it to the events which will occur at the second coming of Christ. Like the flood, the second coming will be preceded by specific signs which indicate the approach but not the day or the hour of the coming of the Lord. Like the flood, it will be a time of judgment. This is summarized in Matt 24:40–41, “Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.”

The similarity of this to the rapture of the church has caused many expositors, especially posttribulationists, to liken this to what will take place at the time of the second coming. Alexander Reese, whose major work is The Approaching Advent of Christ, cites these verses as proof that the rapture occurs in connection with the second coming of Christ. His book, on which he spent twenty-five years, has been the regularly-cited classic work on posttribulationism ever since it was published. There is a major problem, however, with this interpretation.

In the illustration of the flood which Christ himself used, the one who is taken is drowned whereas those who are left, that is, Noah’s family, are safe in the ark. To view the one taken as the righteous one and the one left as the judged one is to reverse the illustration completely.

Reese, however, believes he has solved this problem and makes this a major argument for his posttribulational position. He notes that there are two different Greek words used for “taken.” In Matt 24:39 the verb used is ἧρεν from αἴρω. In vv 40–41 the verb παραλαμβάνεται from παραλαμβάνω is used. Reese claims that παραλαμβάνω is used in Scripture only in a friendly sense. In taking this position, he opposes Darby:

Darby, in one of the few instances where he allowed views to influence (and mar) his admirable literal translation, translated paralambanō in Luke xvii:34–5 by seize. The use of this word in the NT is absolutely opposed to this; it is a good word; a word used exclusively in the sense of ‘take away with,’ or ‘receive,’ or ‘take home.’ [8]

Reese and others have pointed out that παραλαμβάνω is used of the rapture in John 14:3. This is an illustration, however, that even a careful scholar may make mistakes. Reese evidently failed to check John 19:16 (“the soldiers took charge of [παρέλαβον] Jesus”), where “took charge of” is hardly a reference to a friendly taking. As a matter of fact, it refers to taking Christ to the judgment of the cross.

Gundry is aware of this problem and attempts to settle the matter dogmatically by stating,

But granting that the context indicates judgment, we are not forced to conclude that ‘one will be taken’ in judgment and ‘one will be left’ in safety. The reverse may just as easily be understood: ‘one will be taken’ in rapture and ‘one will be left’ for judgment. [9]

However, the context completely contradicts Reese and Gundry. The context here is more determinative than the fact that the word παραλαμβάνω is used for the rapture in John 14:3 by a different author.

Interestingly, after additional study, Gundry changed his mind. In his later work (Matthew) he reversed his opinion. He states, “But Matthew’s parallelistic insertion of airen in v. 39, where judgment is in view, makes the taking judgmental in his gospel. Hence, being left means being spared from instead of exposed to judgment.” [10] In other words, he concedes what he formerly refuted and agrees with the pretribulational interpretation of this passage.

If there is any doubt as to the interpretation here, it should be settled by a parallel reference in Luke 17 where Christ, predicting the same event in the same context states, “I tell you, on that night, two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left” (Luke 17:34–35). Gundry also cites this passage [11] but significantly stops before 37, which would have made the matter clear. Here the disciples asked the question, “Where, Lord?” Christ replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.” It is clear that the ones taken are put to death. This actually is a preliminary stage of the judgment that is later detailed in Matt 25:31–46 where the unsaved Gentiles are destroyed.

Conclusion

Posttribulationists and midtribulationists as well have misread the immediate context of Matt 24:40–41 and have reached an unwarranted conclusion that there is a rapture in this passage. Instead, the passage teaches that the righteous will be left as Noah and his family were left alive in the ark, whereas all others will be taken away in judgment. The argument for posttribulationism based upon this text, which even posttribulationists admit is the only passage approximating a direct statement of a posttribulation rapture, collapses upon careful analysis. Even Gundry has reversed his former view of this passage.

The fact that those who are left, are left alive to enter the millennial kingdom because they are saved is further confirmed by Christ in Matt 25:31–46 where the sheep are ushered into the kingdom and the goats are cast into everlasting fire. This indicates the separation of the saved from the unsaved at the time of the second coming. There is no rapture at the second coming because those who survive the period after this purging judgment of God enter the millennium in their natural bodies so that they can fulfill the Scriptures that describe them as living natural lives, bearing children, living, dying, and even sinning. All of these factors would be impossible if every saved person were raptured at the time of the second coming.

A careful study of the passage relating to the second coming of Christ in Matthew 24, therefore, gives no ground for a posttribulational rapture. In fact it confirms the concept that those who are caught up at the rapture are caught up to heaven to the Father’s house as Christ promised in John 14. This will occur at a time preceding the events of Matthew 24–25 which must be fulfilled prior to the second coming of Christ. The rapture therefore is an imminent event which today may be expected momentarily.

Notes

1. E. g., see D. Edmond Hiebert, The Thessalonian Epistles (Chicago: Moody, 1971) 313-14; J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958) 259-63; and John F. Walvoord, “Is the Tribulation before the Rapture in 2 Thessalonians,” BSac 134 (1977) 107-13.
2. E.g., see Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973) 122-28. For a recent discussion of the passage from pre-, mid-, and posttribulational perspectives see Gleason L. Archer, Paul D. Feinberg, Douglas J. Moo, and Richard D. Reiter, The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-tribulational? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984) 126-27,189-90,228-29.
3. E.g., see Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 135–39, 158; George E. Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956) 144-45; and Alexander Reese, The Approaching Advent of Christ (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1932) 29,208,214-15.
4. G. Campbell Morgan, The Gospel According to Matthew (New York: Revell, 1929) 284.
5. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 129.
6. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1943) 956.
7. For dispensational discussions of the seventy-weeks prophecy see Paul D. Feinberg, “An Exegetical and Theological Study of Daniel 9:24–27, ” Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg (ed. John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg; Chicago: Moody, 1981) 189-220; and Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects Of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977) 115-40.
8. Reese, Approaching Advent, 215.
9. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 138.
10. Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 494.
11. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 137.