ABSTRACT
MATTHEW 6:10 —THY KINGDOM COME
—IS ISAIAH’S PEACEABLE KINGDOM REALIZED?
At least two non-biblical views are held regarding the meaning of the Kingdom of God
—that Christ Jesus will not return to rule on David’s literal throne from geographic Jerusalem
—and/or that now the Church is the manifest mediatorial kingdom. Both views are indefensible.
Elements of these errors include:
1. Christ’s true Church now enjoys the promises given to Israel
2. The Church was founded on no date in the New Testament
3. The Church began in the Old Testament as the true Israel of God
4. A new and spiritual Israel is the Church, the true twelve tribes of Israel
5. The Kingdom of God is already present; the Church already lives in the last age
Augustine (354-430) used allegorical interpretation to deny the literal return of Christ —
claiming the Universal Church is the millennial Kingdom that began with Christ’s first coming.
By this error the Church entered the dark ages, giving rise to Roman Catholicism and a worksbased religion. Not until the 17th century was premillennial theology able to challenge that error.
Covenant theology, new covenant theology, 5 point biblical covenant theology, and
progressive dispensational theology perpetuate these ancient errors today. Reconstructionist,
dominionist, preterist, “already / not yet,” and “realized” eschatological systems deny three
elements that are necessary for accurate interpretation of things to come:
1. Literal interpretation of Scripture
2. Distinctive identity of Israel, the Church, and the Messianic Kingdom
3. The overarching biblical theme kavod —God’s glory —has salvation as the sub theme
Replacement theology (RT) is the false teaching that the Church has replaced Israel in
God’s plan for the ages. But correct identification of people addressed in the Bible recognizes
we are all either —Jew, Gentile or One New Man (ONM), the Church. The first two are natural
men; the third is Paul’s spiritual believer who matures beyond carnal belief and life.
Rather, understanding 8 biblical covenants God made with man (five with Israel) —and
these covenants in right relation to 7 dispensations (we live in the sixth) is the key to correct
interpretation and application of the meaning of Isaiah’s peaceable millennial Kingdom. Jesus
carried the Gospel of the Kingdom to Israel while His Apostle, Paul, carried the Gospel of Grace.
2
MATTHEW 6:10 —THY KINGDOM COME
—IS ISAIAH’S PEACEABLE KINGDOM REALIZED?
—————————
A Research Paper
Submitted in partial fulfillment of
Old Testament 515
Dr. Ed Hindson
Veritas Evangelical Seminary
——————
By
M.J. Greene
pprsinc@gmail.com
April 28, 2015
copyright © 2015 M.J. Greene, all rights reserved
2
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from The New American Standard Bible
(NASB), copyright © by Lockman Foundation, 1977. Scripture quotations indicated (NKJV) are
from The Holy Bible, New King James Version, copyright © by Thomas Nelson, 1984. Scripture
quotations indicated (KJV) are from the Holy Bible, King James Version.
Copyright © 2015 by M. J. Greene
All rights reserved
2
Naturalism has replaced the Christian worldview in Western culture,
and many of the intellectual elite believe that the Christian hope
of Christ’s future coming is a myth…the very idea that God
directly intervenes in any way in the world order of things
is considered mythical…people do not expect God to
personally or directly intervene in world affairs.
Craig A. Blaising
DTS, W.H. Griffith Thomas Lectureship, 2011
4
This fledgling work is dedicated to the memory of
J. Dwight Pentecost.
On February 22, 2015 the author wept —but then rejoiced
—learning one of her heroes of the faith was called Home on April 28, 2014.
Unwavering in teaching the pre-trib translation of the saints,
no believer in our lifetime deserved to experience 1 Thess 4:15-16
more than did Dr. Pentecost. Alas, he will now experience
1 Thess 4:13-14. I look forward to meeting him in the air!
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introducing this Polemic………………………………………………………………………......7
Controversy Is Framed in Historically Positioned Beliefs………………………………………..8
Double-mindedness Hesitates Between Opinions………………………………………...9
Some Definitions Reference the Discussion…………………………………………………….10
Aberrant Theology Requires Biblical Correction, Not Literary Analysis……………………….12
Three-Prong Distinction Must Remain Constant……………………………………………….14
How Can Anyone Not Know Who They Are?...................................................................14
Essential Building Blocks of Dispensational Systematics………………………………………16
George N. H. Peters, Alva J. McClain, and J. Dwight Pentecost………………………………..16
Features and Contra Features Call for Observing Context, Not Pretext…………………17
McClain Characterized Kingdom According to Extent and Method……………….........18
Why the Urgency for Believers to Understand the Kingdom? …………………………………19
Sensus Plenior As Regards Continuity and Discontinuity………………………………………20
Doxologic Includes Soteriologic in Comprehensive Theme of God’s Word………………21
“5 Point Structure of the Biblical Covenant” is Not Biblical…………………………22
Biblical Infrastructure is Covenants in Right Relation to Dispensations…….23
Literal “Hermen” Remains the Lead Player on the Dispensation Team………………………...24
Jesus Carried the Kingdom Gospel in Parables to Lost Sheep of the House of Israel…………..26
Regarding Isaiah 40-66 —Distance of Mountain Ranges Is Difficult to Determine……………28
Do Some Actually Believe Christ Has Returned? —That Satan is Bound?.................................29
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….31
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………….....33
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………..36
6
MATT 6:10 THY KINGDOM COME: IS ISAIAH’S PEACEABLE KINGDOM REALIZED?
Introducing this Polemic
Five years into studying this topic, I now accept I could entirely focus my foundation
research just to conceptualize, corral, critique, and catalogue the near endless biblical and
theological ‘data’ on the soon-coming Kingdom of our Lord —and would still not uncover all
the best scholarship available. So, regarding closure on this study —I admit —I am far from
satisfied. I don’t mean I waiver regarding what the Bible teaches on the topic; I am confident
divine truth corrects the controversies surrounding chiliasm. However —since I am still this side
of Christ gathering His Bride to Him —I cannot —in my pre-glorious state —hope to grasp the
vast magnitude of kingdom truth through academic inquiry —except by Phil 1:9-10 discernment.
Further, I know rewards received at the Bema seat will accompany our entrance into the
Kingdom with our specific millennial assignment(s) based on those rewards. Therefore, with
great concern I ask of my brothers and sisters, “If this is the future for all believers —why do so
many fail to anticipate reigning on earth with their King —that future duration ten times longer
than most of us live in this lifetime?” But even more disturbing is that many believe one or both
of two non-biblical views of Kingdom theology —that Christ Jesus will not return to rule on
David’s literal throne from geographic Jerusalem —or that the Church is the manifest
mediatorial kingdom now! I find no biblical basis for these views —by use of sound evidence.
This paper surveys a range of contested elements of the discussion. I say, with
confidence, we do know where we are situated in the divine sequential prophetic plan for the
ages. In biblical unction (2 Cor 1:21, 1 John 2:20) I pray readers will forsake error, embracing
the truth of Christ’s glorious future Kingdom —that Kingdom entirely yet to come.
7
Controversy is Framed in Historically Positioned Beliefs
Over sixty years ago Presbyterian theologian John Bright (1908-1995) wrote:
Christ, then, announced that the Kingdom of God had come into the world, and He
summoned men to that Kingdom…that those who have obeyed the call of Christ are His
true Church, and heirs of all the promises given to Israel (e.g., Rom 4:13-15; Gal 3:29;
Titus 3:7; James 2:5)…The Church was founded on no date and can observe no formal
anniversary. It began in those few [gathered] about Jesus who had been obedient to the
call of the Kingdom. Nay, it began in the Old Covenant itself and in the Old Testament
longing for the true Israel of God’s purpose…Israel will indeed inherit the Kingdom of
God, but it must be a new and spiritual Israel…the Church is the true twelve tribes of
Israel (James 1:1)…If the Church is the true Israel, the people of the Kingdom of God,
then it is heir to all the promises…In the service of the victorious and already present
Kingdom of God, the Church is given a joyful and triumphant task…as…the
“eschatological community” which was living already in the age to come.1
Identifying twelve theological errors in Bright’s position is elementary. 2 In contrast,
eighteen years earlier a noted dispensational teacher wrote about tribulation in Isaiah 13:17-22:
…is it possible that any sober mind could insist that this prophecy has been finally and
exhaustively fulfilled in the past?...[further,] many centuries pass, and still the Spirit of
Christ [through Paul] assured those who were then living that the Day of the Lord had not
yet come (2 Thess 2:3) [“it” is Day of the Lord in 2:2]. Nor, as I write, nineteen centuries
after the Lord Jesus took His seat at the right hand of Majesty on high, has that “Day”
even yet come, although we see its approach to be very near indeed.3
Comparing Bright and Jenning’s beliefs, at least three points are evident. First, ample
ink teaches that “near” and “at hand” do not mean “here,” “accomplished,” or “complete.”
Misunderstood language causes many to trip over the text. Second, if Jennings appears a 2 Pet
3:3 ‘scoffer’ —questioning the long interval between Christ and 1935 —doubt is eliminated by
1
John Bright, The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and Its Meaning For The Church, New York:
Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1953, (224-232), emphasis added. “Eschatological community” is a Romanist notion.
2
The twelve errors —nearly the entire statement —are found by making distinction according to 2 Tim 2:15.
3
F. C. Jennings, Studies in Isaiah, Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1935, (170-171), emphasis added.
8
his confident inference it is possible to discern the lateness of the hour. (Comparative point
three is discussed later.) Representing polarities of this controversy —we see one man claims
the Kingdom has already come while another says that which Scripture declares must precede
the Kingdom —Jacob’s Trouble —has not yet come! Logic answers the question, “How is it
possible to arrive at a destination before one makes the journey?” The cart is before the horse…
Double-mindedness Hesitates Between Opinions
There are always identifiable fields where public as well as private combat are conducted
in obedience to Paul’s admonition to Jude: contend for the faith. The Evangelical Theological
Society is one field. Defending biblical inerrancy and established theological hills, after the
publishing of major progressive titles in the past two decades, ETS members have considered the
impasse between theologians over this significant issue. As recent as January 2015 we read the
status of the battle that very much impacts our understanding of the coming Kingdom.
“…regarding…ETS, “it seems that both moderate dispensationalists and moderate covenant
theologians are moving toward each other in rapprochement.” 4 Robbie Dean continues:
In other words they are trying to find a compromise, and one of my criticisms of this
movement [PD] is that it was a desire to find a middle ground between two theological
systems. It wasn’t motivated by a desire to understand the text more fully and more
completely in order to base their theology on a text. In my opinion they ended up having
to twist their hermeneutics, their system of interpretation, in order to fit a system that is
really neither fish nor fowl. So it was that desire to find a middle ground that was their
chief motivation and not to find an exegetically correct and Biblically correct theological
system.5
4
Robert Dean, “Progressive Dispensationalism,” http://deanbible.org/index-of-topics/message/36progressive-dispensationalism-b/read, retrieved 12 Feb 15
5
Ibid.
9
Tracking over sixteen hundred years of belief about the millennium, Nyberg summarizes:
In the early days of his Christian faith Augustine (354-430) was premillennial.
However, through time he abandoned the idea of a literal return of Christ to
establish a physical kingdom on earth. He used this new allegorical method of
interpretation to explain away the literal return of Christ and thus amillennialism
was born. In his book, The City of God, Augustine taught that the Universal
Church is the Messianic Kingdom and that the millennium began with Christ’s
first coming. When the church lost the hope of the imminent return of Christ it
plunged headlong into the dark ages. The seeds of false interpretation bore fruit
giving rise to Roman Catholicism and a works-based religion. Augustine’s
amillennial teaching continued to be the standard view of organized Christendom
until the 17th century. Occasionally premillennial groups challenged that doctrine
throughout the dark ages, but they were a small voice compared to the powerful
Roman Catholic church.6
So it continues today with eschatological discussion stumbling over seeming conundrum.
Erudite men and women believe they are faithful to discern the Scriptures —viewing the exact
same facts —yet coming to entirely different conclusions. As explanation for this contradiction,
I am reminded why creationists and evolutionists also handle the same facts and yet reach
divergent conclusions: they begin with different presuppositions. I posit that Bright’s statement
presupposes the positions of covenant theology (CT), new covenant theology (NCT) —and
together —these point to later theologies: five point covenant theology (5Point) and progressive
dispensation theology (PD). I believe all four of these systems are in 1Jn 4:5-6 and 1Cor 2:12-16
error —leading the Bible student away from accurate dispensational handling of Kingdom truth.
Some Definitions Reference the Discussion
Fred G. Zaspel, a theonomist, defines CT and NCT:
Covenant Theology is designed to show the unity in God’s purpose in human
redemption. It is called “covenant” theology not because of an emphasis on the
Biblical/historical covenants as such but on certain “theological” covenants – the
covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace. The covenant
6
Bob Nyberg, “Covenant Theology Versus Dispensationalism: A Matter of Law Versus Grace,”
http://4himnet.com/bnyberg/dispensationalism01.html, n.d., accessed 22 Feb 15, emphasis added.
10
of grace is essentially the promise made in Gen.3:15 of the coming deliverer, and all of
history is a progressive unfolding of this covenant. With this emphasis on the unity of
God’s purpose there is a strong tendency in Covenant Theology to carry over the old
order into the new: the church is the new Israel, the law of the old covenant is still
binding in the new, and so on.
Between [CT and dispensational theology (DT)] is what we call New Covenant
Theology…made most clear in Mat.5:17-20…the crux interpretum is v.17 – “I came to
fulfill” the law.7
But Zaspel does not acknowledge the lack of any meaningful distinction between NCT
and CT. New Covenant Theology is basically the Reform Baptist or Particular Baptist position
that follows Calvin’s doctrine of salvation —standing apart from the General Baptist belief that
“Jesus died to make all men, in a universal sense, savable. Particular Baptists hold to
the…understanding that Jesus died only for the elect…” While there is no official Reformed
Baptist denomination Particular Baptists subscribe to the LBCF (1689) —essentially the
Westminster Confession of Faith reworded as it pertains to baptism. Reformed Baptists have
included Bunyan, Carey, and Spurgeon. 8
Notice that Zaspel agrees CT is not systematized around eight “Biblical/historical
covenants” but rather around man-conceived covenants labeled redemption, works, and grace.
Certainly, these three words and their teaching are passim throughout the Bible; yet the
theological meaning of these doctrinal words is no more defined by or confined in extra-biblical
constructs than are the theological words trinity, substitution and parousia defined by or
confined in man-conceived vehicles. My thesis is that CT, et al began in contrivance and its
tributaries continue in that vein to their non-biblical end.
7
Fred G. Zaspel, “New Covenant Theology and the Mosaic Law: A Theological and Exegetical Analysis of
Matthew 5:17-20,” www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/expostudy/nctlaw.htm, accessed 6 Apr 15, emphasis added.
8
http://www.gotquestions.org/Reformed-Baptist-church.html#ixzz3XlwhR1Hs
11
Zaspel defines dispensational theology (DT) from his distinct theonomist perspective:
Dispensational Theology is designed to show the various differences in God’s
dealings with men. A “dispensation” has to do with the various administrations of
Divine truth. With new revelation come new responsibilities and/or privileges.
This change results in a new “economy” or dispensation. With this emphasis on
the various changes in God’s program, Dispensationalism labors to show the
differences between the old and new economies or dispensations. For the
Dispensationalist, law is a thing of the past and not relevant to the new covenant
believer.9
Inaugurated eschatology is a certain scheme of eschatology—the study of the
latter days or the end times. Inaugurated eschatology basically says that the
kingdom of God, as prophesied in Isaiah 35, began at the first coming of Jesus
and is now here, although it will not be fully consummated until His second
coming. Inaugurated eschatology is also sometimes referred to as a “partially
realized eschatology” and is associated with the “already but not yet” concept.10
I find my former professor, Dr. Fruchtenbaum, is an unmatched consistent dispensational
teacher. I learned from him not to focus on apocalypse —since critics claim much traditional
use of oikonomia is only sensational. The following I learned taking his Bibliology course:
Knowing which dispensation is indicated by a Bible passage contributes to our
accurate understanding of the text. The Greek word meaning dispensation,
oikonomia, translates “to manage.” Understanding dispensations means
understanding God’s management of human activity over the different ages along
with man’s corresponding obedience or disobedience to obey God’s directives
during an age. “Dispensation” is revealed in 1 Cor 9; Eph 1 and 3; and Col 1. 11
Aberrant Theology Requires Biblical Correction, Not Literary Analysis
Regretfully, it is the observation of this researcher that nontraditional advocates do not —
as yet —acknowledge that elements of their positions disqualify as biblical. The reason for this
9
Note: Zaspel’s DT definition does not shed light on differences between traditional and progressive beliefs.
10
http://www.gotquestions.org/inaugurated-eschatology.html, retrieved 12 Feb 15.
11
M.J. Greene, “The Seven Dispensations of God Taught in the Bible,” in Priority Research:God’s Program:1
Bibliology, (Knoxville, TN: Paraclete Press Research Service, Inc., 2014).
12
seems obvious. Over time key individuals and institutions have given CT, NCT, 5Point, and PD
theology a Proverbs 16:30 winking pass —failing to require those systems be vetted in light of
the whole counsel of God. As a seminary student I sometimes find that instead of scholars
marking teaching according to Rom 16:17 —noting absence or misuse of Scripture in the
formulation of unbiblical ideas —they instead allow themselves to be taken down philosophical
paths through extra-biblical arguments that are preferred by those who are not convinced of the
sufficiency of Scripture alone. Persisting, I still ask, “If we claim to defend Scripture, don’t we
need to use the words of Scripture in that defense? I find non dispensational systems do not
effectively use Scripture to prove their positions; worse, quasi-dispensationalists do not require
non dispensational advocates to stick to Scripture in forming their apologia.12
Biblical Dispensationalist Ron Bigalke does use Scripture to refute error. As an editor of
a key apologia in 2005 —and warning again in 2006 —his words are foretelling:
The emphasis in PD upon similarity and continuity of the dispensations to the
exclusion of discontinuity is more in common with covenant theology than
traditional dispensationalism. Progressives are currently committed to futurist
eschatology, but the stress upon continuity raises concern as to what extent they
will continue to distinguish God’s program for Israel and the church (major deemphasis on the uniqueness of the church has already been articulated in PD
writings). If PD completely commingles Israel and the church (i.e. replacement
theology), then it will be obvious that the system is not a valid form of
dispensationalism. Of course, if biblical dispensationalists do not challenge the
threat with a reasonable response, when progressives have finally found their
“definition” they may have so eroded formerly dispensational schools to the point
of no return.13
12
For an effective popular critique see George Zeller, “Progressive Dispensationalism: Some Observations,”
revised 9/00, 1/04 at http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/dispen/progresi.htm, retrieved 18 Feb 15.
13
Ron Bigalke, “Problems with Progressive Dispensationalism” Pre-Trib Study Group Fifteenth Annual
Meeting, December 4-6, 2006, http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/problems-with-progressive-dispensationalism,
accessed 22 Feb 15. Emphasis is added to Bigalke’s warning.
13
Rejoining the third of comparative points, I view Jennings’ statement offers more than an
opposing presupposition. In 1935, Jennings based his position on lack of evidence for
fulfillment in 70 A.D. of the cataclysmic events of Isaiah’s text (therefore, refuting preterism);
that added to Christ’s assurances circa 33 A.D. —all continuing in lack of evidence two
millennia later. This meant in 1935 there still was no prophetic fulfillment of Isaiah’s Kingdom.
In 2015, 80 years later —Isaiah’s prophecy —contrary to C.H. Dodd, et al —is yet to be realized.
Three-Prong Distinction Must Remain Constant
To understand the cause and course of Bright’s error —error that continues today —I
find his statements express allegoric theory whereas the nature of Jennings’ statements express a
literal practicum. And what is the literal practicum on which unfolding prophecy turns? It is the
three-pronged reality that Christ’s body is not Israel; the church is not spiritual Israel; and Israel
is not replaced by the church. Replacement theology (RT) is anathema to the cohesive,
corroborated, complete picture of things to come. Correctly identifying people necessarily
recognizes we are all either —Jew, Gentile or One New Man (ONM) —the first two are natural
men; the third is Paul’s spiritual believer maturing beyond carnal belief and life (1 Cor 3).
Therefore, identifying people by other than these divine distinctions requires false identities be
mounted on the shoulders of RT, with that eyesore sourced to CT, NCT, 5Point, and/or PD.
How Can Anyone Not Know Who They Are?
It is not possible to characterize identity in theoretical terms (as I believe allegoric
interpretation attempts to do). This is so because personal identity in Christ —being in Him —is
entirely intrinsic to one’s existence —leaving no room for confusion whether new life according
to John 3:3, 5, and 7 identifies one spiritually in Christ’s heavenly body or whether that rebirth
14
identifies one according to physical membership —whether church, messianic community, 14 or
chosen nation. At minimum —it is non-sensical —and in the extreme —it is irrational for those
professing faith in Christ to fail to understand their identity in Him is not the same as identity in
His chosen nation, Israel —except this evidences inconsistent contradiction. Remarkably, Miles
Stanford and Arnold Fruchtenbaum are two of few theologians who consistently maintain
revealed distinct identities: Israel is God’s wife, Isa 54; the Church is Christ’s Bride, 2 Cor 11.15
For those who don’t like this apparent rigidity that seems to set the church aside, adequate
excellent teaching explains why God is not confounded and is not reducing His power and love
by distinguishing different purposes for His creations —Israel and the Church. All
misunderstandings of God’s Word are reconcilable if those claiming to know the Bible submit to
the following: “Effective master of Holy Scripture necessitates teachable students, willing to
rightly divide the Word of Truth, seeking Spirit filled teachers to elucidate and confirm that
truth. This contrasts with willful, self-determined private interpretation, confusion, and error.”16
The assurance we need that unity of dichotomies is indeed biblical is well stated by
Stanley Toussaint. “The church is constituted, blessed, and directed by the same Person who
shall bring about the literal Jewish kingdom.”17 Different plans are in the single Planner’s sight.
14
Sadly, the rich teaching of OT messianic meaning in the NT can devolve into Judaist and theological error.
Messianic Jewish and Messianic Israel doctrine is not immune from evidencing some error among its great truths.
15
Christ’s Bride is also the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:2, 9-10); reference here is to the people, not the place.
16
M.J. Greene, distinctive number nine of “13 Distinctive Teachings of this Ministry”, (Knoxville, TN:
Paraclete Press Research Service, Inc., 2009, 3). The best wording of 2 Tim 2:15 is “right handling” not dividing.
17
Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1980), 300.
15
Essential Building Blocks of Dispensational Systematics
Building on Dr. Ryrie’s essential criteria of dispensations in three points,18 Dale Dewitt
fleshes out those points with additional elements that assist Bible students to fully defend Paul’s
teaching of the mysteries taught him by his ascended Master, Christ Jesus.19 Dewitt’s list20
follows with [the author’s bracketed commentary]:







Literal interpretation of Scripture
[spiritualized text voids its unchangeableness]
Saved by grace without Israel or Israel’s Law
[we’re also kept by grace, not law]
Genuine progress in revelation of God’s truth
[mystery is progressively revealed]
The Covenants and Dispensations as the plan of God
[satisfies His doxologic plan]
Distinction between Israel, the Church, and the Kingdom [these 2 peoples are not realm]
The Church as a Pauline revelation
[Christ appointed The Apostle to teach the church]
The Pretribulational Rapture of the Church
[Titus 2:13 instructs in our hope]
I find historical detractors of sound dispensational teaching first malign these truths —
then try to force oikonomia’s full doctrine into few points producing a mere apocalypticism.
George N. H. Peters, Alva McClain, and J. Dwight Pentecost
George N. H. Peters’ 1884 work, The Theocratic Kingdom, is in the author’s estimation,
the historically unsurpassed leader in answering objections, anchoring Scriptures, and proposing
206 points in a full-orbed theology of the Kingdom —and without compromising divine truth to
fit a contrived system. The standard bearer published in the last fifty years is Things to Come.
18
Dr. Ryrie codified essentials of dispensational theology: a historical-literal hermeneutic; distinct identities
for Israel and the church; the goal of history is the Godhead’s glory —not solely Christ’s salvific work on the cross.
19
Point of caution: “Ascended Master Jesus Christ” is a new age false god but Christ Jesus is the risen Lord.
20
Dale S. DeWitt, Dispensational Theology in America During the Twentieth Century: Theological
Development and Cultural Context, Grand Rapids: Grace Bible College, 2002,
http://www.bbc.edu/council/documents/2012/Gromacki_Distinctives_of_Dispensational_Preaching.pdf, accessed 30
Mar 15, emphasis and bracketed commentary added.
16
Author J. Dwight Pentecost heavily cites Peters in Things to Come, comparing dispensational
and alternate prophetic theologies. And Alva McClain, coming between Peters and Pentecost, is
also unsurpassed in his contribution to elucidation of Christ’s Gospel of the Kingdom.
Features and Contra Features Call for Observing Context, Not Pretext
Dr. McClain stated over half a century ago, “the kingdom of God may be defined broadly
as the rule of God over his creation.” He describes contrasts that a Kingdom paradox reveals:
Feature
Contra Feature
The Kingdom is eternal
All that exists is within the Kingdom
God rules His Kingdom directly
Unconditional rule is the Kingdom
The Kingdom has a beginning
The Kingdom exists locally on earth
The Kingdom is channeled through men
Kingdom rule is based on divine covenant
I submit the Kingdom is not self-contradictory as might be presumed if comparing
features and contra features. This is unequivocal: Except one maintains the covenants made with
Israel —in right relation to the last five dispensations —the kaleidoscope that is the Kingdom
twists into a shapeless blur. But there is no contradiction between intangible and tangible
elements of the Kingdom when Scripture is allowed to speak for itself. The challenge for the
Bible student requires accurately identifying context to develop their Kingdom theology, often
acknowledging future and not historical meaning. Five verses demonstrate this principle:
1 Corinthians 6:9a
Or do you not know that the
unrighteous will not inherit
the kingdom of God?
1 Corinthians 15:50a
Now I say this, brethren, that
flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God;
17
Context means some now who
profess faith will be excluded
later; this text indicates future
since wheat and tares coexist.
Context means we are now
confined in the flesh; flesh
will be made new, taking on
incorruption when our
Bridegroom fetches us.
Galatians 5:21, Eph 5:5
Envyings, murders,
drunkenness, revelings, and
such like: of the which I tell
you before, as I have also told
you in time past, that they
which do such things shall not
inherit the kingdom of God.
2 Peter 1:11
…for in this way the entrance
into the eternal kingdom of
our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ will be abundantly
supplied to you.
Context is the same as 1 Cor
6:9a; full inheritance awaits
time the testator’s will goes
into effect, not just testator’s
death. (My inherited Trust
had a 20 year proviso.) Full
justice is proviso, requiring
waiting for future fulfillment.
Context anticipates what is not
yet theirs but encourages the
hearer in righteous living to
prepare for everlasting reign
with our Lord and Saviour.
George Gunn sums up to my satisfaction what others cannot abide except they claim
“KingdomNow” or “already/not yet” theology: “The NT epistles only sparingly use the
king/kingdom metaphor for the church age. [Yes] in a general sense God is always King over
His creation, and over His people, but this is quite different from the Davidic Kingship of the
Messiah.”21 Hence, identifying context is the first consistency that avoids the error of pretext.
McClain Characterized Kingdom According to Qualities of Extent and Method:
In one sense it would not be wholly wrong to speak of two kingdoms revealed in
Scripture. But we must at the same time guard carefully against the notion that these two
kingdoms are absolutely distinct one from the other. There is value and instruction in
thinking of them as two aspects or phases of the one rule of our sovereign God… I have
found nothing better than the adjectives universal and mediatorial. They are not
commensurate terms, of course, but describe different qualities, the first referring
to extent, the latter to method.22
21
George A. Gunn, “Psalm 2 and the Reign of the Messiah,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 169 (Oct-Dec 2012), 442,
footnote 42. Three NT texts are cited as metaphors for church that may be typos; yet Gunn’s point is well taken.
22
http://verticallivingministries.com/2013/07/09/alva-j-mcclain-on-the-greatness-of-the-kingdom-part-1/,
accessed 19 Feb 15, emphasis added.
18
Why the Urgency for Believers to Understand the Kingdom?
Just as one must not be confused regarding their identity as Jew, Gentile, or of One New
Man —in order to gain maximum eternal reward — one must appreciate their placement on
God’s prophetic timeline of history. Not all centuries are equal in terms of prophetic
significance. Since Christ physically walked among those to whom He preached 2,000 years
ago, those living during His short earthly ministry had great responsibility to receive Him as the
One foretold in the Scriptures. Failure to embrace Messiah was damning for those touched by
His presence yet who were not changed by His touch. As is the case today, most then did not
know the Hebrew Scriptures. Therefore, the soil of their lives was left barren —unresponsive to
the planted Seed. Today, many professing faith are also taught to discard and ignore Hebraism.
By spiritualizing and “Gentilizing” (applying Greek understanding only) —that erring believer
does not apprehend the Scriptures in their context. An example is interpreting Psalm 2:
Psalm 2 describes Jesus’ future role…; it does not refer to His activities being
carried out in the present church age. The New Testament references to Psalm 2
support this interpretation. Christ’s present ministry is a priestly ministry
designed to reconcile men to God. His role as King awaits His coming at His
second advent. Church ministry is not one of establishing a kingdom…23
With all indications Christ’s return is at hand, 24 all are responsible to accurately
apprehend the soon coming King and His program for the ages. Because signs of His coming
are so vivid it is incumbent that we understand both the elements and sequence of prophetic
events. In order to gain a hundred fold reward —believers at the Judgment Seat will need to
present evidence of Bible study that shows them approved —having applied that study to their
23
George A. Gunn, 427, emphasis added.
24
Prophetic signs point to Christ’s second coming with no sign pointing to His gathering Home of believers.
Rapture is an imminent event— not contingent. Titus 2:13 teaches that in obedience we are directed to look for Him.
19
life. The trite saying, “I’ll be happy just to get into heaven —willing just to sweep the streets”
—does not satisfy Hebrews’ admonition to seek Christ’s better inheritance —and Paul’s call to
seek maximum heavenly reward. Lukewarm believers are admonished (Rev 3:14-18) to upgrade
their knowledge of God’s Word from the milk of elementary content in quarterlies, devotionals,
and singspiration. Eating (Heb 5:12) meat according to Acts 17:11 will gain highest reward.
Sensus Plenior as Regards Continuity and Discontinuity
Sensus Plenior does not validate teaching that the church was revealed in the OT in the
form of Israel —continuing in the NT —as the replacement of Israel. The church, the body of
Christ, is not even hinted at in the OT. She is entirely revealed by the Church’s Apostle, Paul.
Christ in Matthew only announces what He leaves to be fully taught and accomplished after He
is on His Father’s throne in heaven. Walter Kaiser explains:
To argue for a sensus plenior, a fuller, deeper or secondary theological sense, which
arises either from the principal divine author of Scripture or from the totality of revelation
in general and the New Testament in particular —especially a meaning which eluded the
human author in the act of giving the Old Testament text —is to make nonsense out of
revelation and to lead Christ’s Church into the neo-orthodox confusion between
illumination and revelation. 25
In 2015, Kaiser’s 1975 use of neo-orthodox requires caution: “The broadness of the term
“neo-orthodox”…has led to its abandonment as a useful classification, especially after new
emphases in mainline Protestant theology appeared during the 1960s.”26 However, Kaiser is spot
on regarding illumination (Holy Spirit teaching in each believer) and revelation (God revealing
Himself through His Word). Demonstrating the difference, I sometimes find in working with
25
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “The Present State of Old Testament Studies,” JETS 18 (spring 1975); 73-74.
26
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-orthodoxy, accessed 10 April 2015.
20
believers a willful, private interpretation (2 Pet 1:20) that insists Israel continues as the Church
in the NT —though accurate study of the Scriptures corrects that error. Often —to grow in true
knowledge —we must unlearn bad theology in order to move on and embrace better teaching.
Doxologic Includes Soteriologic in Comprehensive Theme of God’s Word
Accurate hermeneutic (interpretation) exposes erroneous views that the encompassing
theme of the Bible is salvation rather than doxology (God’s glory). “Scripture is not mancentered as though salvation were the main theme, but it is God-centered because His glory
[doxology] is the center. The Bible itself clearly teaches that salvation, important and wonderful
as it is, is not an end in itself but is rather a means to the end of glorifying God.”27 I would
qualify Ryrie’s axiom only by adding that revealed creation is also a means (theme) by which we
know Christ’s glory; further, that all prophecy displays its content in three distinct subjects —
“the Land, the Messiah, and the End.”28 These three together validate the Bible’s master theme,
God’s glory. This encompassing theme is broader than its sub-theme —Messiah’s redemption of
creation. Dr. Ice adds regarding organizational and thematic structure of the Bible:
…[CT’s] covenant of grace provides the organizing structure for [that] view of
history…[the CT] goal for history is personal salvation within the current age and since
this age is the climax of history, then there can be no future for national Israel…
[But] Old Testament [prophecy] speaks of a future time of blessing for national
Israel…When the Old Testament passages are read historically, instead of through the
soteriological lens of covenant theology, then they clearly speak of a future time of
national Israel’s blessing as head of the nations.”29
27
Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, (Chicago: Moody, 1965), 46.
28
Zola Levitt, “Prophecy: Thus Saith the Lord” in Old Testament Home Study Course (Dallas: Zola Levitt
Ministries, 1995), III-5.
29
Thomas D. Ice, “Covenants and Dispensations”
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=pretrib_arch, May 2009, pp 2-3,
retrieved 12 Feb 16, brackets and italic added.
21
“5 Point Structure of the Biblical Covenant” is Not Biblical
Reconstructionist Gary North references Ray Sutton’s “Five Point Structure of the
Biblical Covenant” (built on Meredith Kline’s five point structure). 30 Presented as the ‘structure’
of Deuteronomy, these and other men claim this is also the structure of the entire Bible:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The transcendence and immanence of God
The hierarchy of God’s creation
The dominion of biblical law/ethics
The judgment (blessings and cursings) of God
The inheritance (or disinheritance) of God31
Gary North rewords these points as questions, devising a “boots on the ground” theology:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Who’s in charge here?
To whom do I report?
What are the rules?
What happens to me if I obey (disobey)?
Does this outfit have a future?32
The structure, viewed by the author, gives only parts of a systematic that confuses data:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Referencing only two of all equally important elements of the Godhead’s existence
Referencing only God’s work of creation, not including His greatest work on the cross
Referencing the closed dispensation of law rather than the open dispensation of grace
Referencing judgment —not divine grace that supports God’s Plan for the Ages
Referencing birthright without clarifying heirs —those of the earth and of heaven
Territory covered in Sutton’s list does not teach the same covenants as revealed in the
Bible. Proponents of like systems declaring ‘covenantal’ authority or “covering” use the word
without reference to its Hebrew meaning in the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Land, Davidic, and New
Covenants. Nor do those systems recognize these Covenants are made with Israel —not the
30
One cannot help but notice the parallel to five points of Calvinism. But just as TULIP bears no
resemblance to Eph 1:3-14 —Sutton’s five proposed “covenants” bear no resemblance to eight divine covenants.
31
32
http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/position/8701.pdf, accessed 10 April 15.
Ibid.
22
Church —and not mankind as a whole. An example of misuse of unilateral divine covenant is a
‘covenant of marriage’ based on Mal 2:14. But this is not two in covenant with God; it is
between a man and his wife. This and other misuses of biblical covenant do not demonstrate
God’s conditional and unconditional agreements with the three people groups of the Bible.
Biblical infrastructure is Covenants in right relation to Dispensations
Rather than the 5 Point covenant scheme, God’s Word reveals eight unilateral covenants,
dominated by Israel as primary beneficiary. Even the unfulfilled New Covenant is made with
national Israel —the church the spiritual beneficiary in this age —as partaker —not overtaker of
the Covenant that will not be fully ratified until all Israel cries, “Blessed is He who comes in the
name of the Lord.” Each biblical covenant is progressively revealed and successively
reconfirmed. This litmus test of covenant integrity cannot be passed by covenants envisioned in
‘federal head,’ reconstructionist, dominionist or theonomist systems. Conversely, God’s eight,
unilateral, progressively revealed covenants are:
Edenic
Adamic
Noahic
Abrahamic
Mosaic
Land
Davidic
New Covenant
Dispensations frame covenants in their progressive unfolding. The following charts show
two interpretations of the number and description of dispensations. To date, the author does not
appreciate the wisdom of reducing the number to four —except to interject chaotic flux in the
consistent nature of unchanging Scripture. In 2004 a seminary professor presented the author
23
with his rationale for compressed dispensations —in a Bibliology course written by seven
dispensation advocate, Dr. Fruchtenbaum . The origin of compressed dispensations is now clear.
Dispensations
Scripture Covered
Innocence
Genesis 1 - 3
Conscience
Genesis 3 – 8
Civil Government
Genesis 9 – 11
Promise
Genesis 12 – 19
Law
Exodus 20 – Acts 1
Church
Acts 2 – Rev 20
Kingdom
Revelation 20:4-6
Eternity (eternity is timeless; not a dispensation) Revelation 20 - 22
Compressed Dispensations
Scripture Covered
Patriarchal
Genesis 1 – Exodus 19
Mosaic
Exodus 20 – Acts 1
Ecclesial
Acts 2 – Rev 20
Zionic
Revelation 20 - 22
Literal “Hermen” Remains the Lead Player on the Dispensation Team
Regarding hermeneutic, it is said that traditional, classical, Pauline, and progressive
dispensation positions all rely on the literal-historical-grammatical rules of interpretation —this
24
despite PD’s admitted re-definition (change) of those rules —claiming a more ‘literaryhonoring’ complementary hermeneutic improves dispensationalism.’33
Robert L. Thomas writes regarding PD’s complementary hermeneutic in his review of
Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and
Progressive Views:
Evangelical grammatical-historical interpretation was . . . broadening in the midtwentieth century to include the field of biblical theology. Grammatical analysis
expanded to include developments in literary study. . . Historical interpretation came to
include a reference to the historical and cultural context of individual literary pieces for
their overall interpretation. And by the late 1980s, evangelicals became more aware of
the problem of the interpreter’s historical context and traditional preunderstanding of the
text being interpreted. These developments . . . were not considered by earlier
interpreters, including classical and many revised dispensationalists . . . [and] have led to
what is now called “progressive dispensationalism.” 34
But explaining how something happens does not validate what happens. Roy Zuck taught
the author to remain consistent —using the plain, literal, grammatical-historical sense of the text:
A complex, ingenious, or devious interpretation should not be given preference over a
simple and more natural explanation. [For example:] When Jesus said in Matthew 16:28,
“I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the
Son of man coming in His kingdom,” He was obviously not referring to the coming
millennial kingdom, because all those to whom He addressed those words experienced
[physical] death. Instead, the more natural and simple explanation is that He was
referring to a foretaste of His kingdom evidenced in His appearance on the Mount of
Transfiguration, which occurred only six days later (17:1-13).35
33
A personal experience suggests what I think is PD’s actual hermeneutic. Forty years ago I briefly worked
as a Home Interiors displayer. Taught the basics of interior design I was introduced to what was (and still is) called
“eclectic” style. Eclectic is not modern, traditional, baroque, art deco or English country, etc. Eclectic is none of
these— and all of these. In essence, eclectic is about selecting elements that combine user whim and available
resources to meet the goal of projecting an immediate image —not necessarily making a statement of permanent
value. Proponents of eclectic say it “…is about making different styles work cohesively.” “…an eclectic mix…can
simply overcome… stylistic stagnation…” (www.designbuildideas.eu/). “…eclectic style is a combination of
styles…which…make the whole design look as one piece of work.” (http://www.cruzine.com/2011/02/24/eclecticstyle-interior-design/). Hence, eclectic is a style displayed in many college dorms and struggling newlywed
apartments, serving temporary and practical needs. So, my estimation is that PD’s changes may temporarily
overcome perceived stylistic stagnation, i.e., literal-grammatical-historical motif —yet will likely not endure.
34
http://www.tms.edu/JournalBookReview.aspx?ID=724, retrieved 12 Feb 15.
35
Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth (Colorado
Springs: Cook Communications, 1991), 111, emphasis added.
25
Having learned from Dr. Zuck and other traditional hermeneutists, I find the “Chicago
Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics” with commentary by Norman Geisler is the best standard
to use to interpret Scripture. Therefore, since I assess literary-based, complementary
hermeneutics as complex —not meeting the standards of the Statement —it can be said that
system fails to reach a satisfactory end point of interpretation (EPI). EPI is exactly what “new
thought” philosophy seeks —as the Church bridges historically successful defense of the faith to
indefensible deconstruction of the faith. Deconstruction is necessary in forming the false
religion of the Coming Prince. While the author’s hermeneutic study at Southern California
Seminary under Dr. Ed Herrelko was an overall positive and needed addition to her study of the
Bible —the course’s primary textbook, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, presented multiple
complex departures from the normative and needed hedges of protection in the historicalgrammatical method. An objective survey of that book reveals a preponderance of particular
philosophical and literary genre explanations for the authors’ proposed Triad —to the exclusion
of sound biblical exegesis and systematic theological argument. In short, nearly everything
learned in lifelong study of God’s Word —both privately and as a seminary student —was
negatively challenged by the system introduced in that textbook. Deductively —sometimes it is
easier for an outsider —in this case a seminary student and grandmother —to mark a leopard’s
changing spots —than for those who in the same arena with the leopard to recognize the spots.
Jesus Carried the Kingdom Gospel in Parables to Lost Sheep of the House of Israel
Paul’s Gospel of grace by which all are saved in this dispensation (the last 2,000 years) is
not equivalent to the Gospel of the Kingdom that Christ preached to the Lost Sheep of Israel: 36
36
The author admits this is the foundational point on which her research stands or falls. Discerning truth
from error (1Jn 4:5-6, 1Cor 2:12-16) —she is at peace embracing what grates against much of Christendom’s claim
26
…the Synoptic tradition itself distinguishes temporal from eschatological. (1) John the
Baptist spoke compellingly and only about eschatological salvation. (2) Although people
came to Jesus for both, Jesus did not initiate teaching about healing or exorcism, but
initiated much teaching on eschatological salvation. (3) The first third of Jesus’ ministry
in each Synoptic Gospel contains a good deal of both temporal and eschatological
salvation, but from that point on the temporal aspect wanes and Jesus ends his public
ministry in each Synoptic with considerable teaching on eschatological salvation.37
The following is possibly the most important take-away from this research. Dr. McClain
summarizes the Kingdom as taught in the Parables. In order that new students to Kingdom
theology avoid confusion, the author suggests memorizing Dr. McClain’s summary. [The author
has added bracketed numbers and corresponding commentary. ]
What is certain in the teaching of these difficult parables is that the present age, viewed
from the standpoint of the Kingdom, [1] is a time of preparation. During this period the
Son of Man is [2]sowing seed (vs. 37), generating and developing a spiritual nucleus for
the future Kingdom, a group called the “sons of the kingdom (vs. 38, ASV). At the same
time He is [3]permitting a parallel development of evil in the world under the leadership
of Satan (vss. 38-39). It is the purpose of God to bring both to a “harvest,” then the good
and bad will be [4]separated, and then to [5]establish the Kingdom in power and
righteousness (vss, 41-43, 49).”38
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
The church age is in a ‘holding pattern’ with future prophecy not advancing.
In this age the church is being added to daily with Christ seeding the harvest.
This life is “a momentary light affliction” due to Satan’s evil and our sin.
Justice regarding evil and sin awaits a later time of restitution at the harvest.
Fulfillment of God’s glorious plan in Christ’s Kingdom is our blessed hope.
I appreciate Stanley Toussaint’s scholarship distilled to axiomatic truth for the layman.
His presentation at a Pre-Trib Study Group focused on consistency. Toussaint outlines
that Christ offers only one ‘good news.’ She believes she will be rewarded —not corrected in eternity —for her 2
Tim 2:15 study of Scripture. Jesus was also lonely —standing away from the crowd —but only for a season.
37
Edmond K. Neufeld, “The Gospel in the Gospels: Answering the Question “What Must I Do to be Saved?
from the Synoptics,”” Footnote 10, JETS 51/2 (June 2008), 267-96, accessed 12 February 2015.
38
Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1959), 17, emphasis
added.
27
dispensational consistencies compared to some of PD, et al’s inconsistencies in interpreting
Christ’s parables, that teach the Gospel of the Kingdom:
There may well be disagreement over the interpretation of these parables. That does not
actually change the purpose of this paper. Its primary intent is to contend the Lord is not
describing some form of His kingdom today but is revealing new truths about His
kingdom program. Christ is not describing a kingdom presently in existence. Instead He
is presenting new truths about His kingdom program, truths that had not before been
revealed. 39
Regarding Isaiah 40-66 —Distance of Mountain Ranges is Difficult to Determine
Gracious consideration of contradicting interpretation of Christ’s Kingdom acknowledges
the latter day church does not agree on commencement of the thousand years. Written at least as
early as 680 BC, Isaiah —the anchor of OT prophets —is possibly the most contested prophet
based on historical and chronological controversy. Yet, if theology —the queen of the sciences
—is to have her way —we can look for other data about the Kingdom that trumps those
contradictions. Remembering that divine purpose glorifying the Godhead is the point of fulfilled
prophecy —we know it was inward renewal that was missing after the Hebrews returned from
Babylon. This same lack of national Jewish renewal in 2015 —manifest in scale-covered
spiritual eyes —all for the benefit of Gentiles —is further evidence the time is not now for
commencement of the Kingdom —that commencement entirely contingent on inward Jewish
renewal. Let us agree. This lack of redemption and restoration cannot be evidence of an
already-not yet presence of the Kingdom. God is yet preparing His people. For Jewish benefit
—we must not discard future application of the peaceable Kingdom. Ed Hindson writes, “It is
true that prophecy has its roots in history. In some cases however, it also has a definite reference
39
Stanley Toussaint, “The Kingdom in Matthew 13”, http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/ToussaintTheKingdomInMatthew13.pdf, accessed 18 Feb. 2015, emphasis added.
28
to the future. That reference is taken from the writer’s historical standpoint; the prophet does
speak primarily to men of his own time and his message springs out of the circumstances in
which he lives. Yet, for all this, the source of that message is supernatural, not natural”40 —the
former interpreted by theology and the latter interpreted by history. Astigmatic perception of
distant events works against our correct apprehension of prophecy. Gary Yates observes
regarding the problem of fulfillment of Kingdom texts in Isaiah 40-66:
What Isaiah portrays as a single event in fact contains elements that were
immediately fulfilled with the return from exile but other distant elements that
remain unfulfilled and are pushed into the distant future. The prophet’s vision of
the future (or the vision of the series of prophets reflected in canonical Isaiah)
does not clearly distinguish between the mountain ranges of near and far.41
Finally, we benefit by the work of servants of God who have done their due diligence to
organize Scripture’s truth. Dr. Willmington and Dr. Vine provide us answers about the
peaceable kingdom in Isaiah with their detailed analysis of the texts. See the APPENDICES.
Do Some Actually Believe Christ Has Returned? —that Satan is Bound?
How do we know that Christ has not already returned? The answer to this question seems
intuitively obvious. Yet, others say the life of the church satisfies the claim that Christ is now
present. But this position enures significant problems. Since the church was born at Pentecost
—not long after Christ ascended —does this mean He made a quick stop in heaven and came
40
Edward E. Hindson, “Isaiah Introduction” in King James Version Bible Commentary, (Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 2005), 770.
41
Gary E. Yates, "Isaiah’s Promise of the Restoration of Zion and Its Canonical Development," in Faculty
Publications and Presentations, Paper 231, 2009, 6-7, http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs/231, accessed
12 February 2015, emphasis added.
29
right back to earth? How did that work out for the Father and the Son —anticipating reunion —
after the longest, worst separation any two could ever know? Was the Father satisfied with the
Son’s fleeting presence? If Christ, the second Person of the Godhead is among us now —along
with the third Person, the Holy Spirit —does this mean the body and her Head have comingled
corruption with incorruption in combined identity? How would this be possible? Christ Jesus’
Person is not my person. Yes, I am in Christ and He is in me by virtue of the supernatural
indwelling of the Spirit. But this spiritual reality is not at all the same as declaring Christ
satisfies or partially satisfies His Second Coming now in the life of the body. If we believe this
error we must also believe the body operates or functions now for her Head —not in submission
to Him. It is absurd to claim sinful believers are Christ’s presence in the world. Just as a Gentile
cannot claim they are a Jew (equating circumcised hearts with circumcised foreskin) —we
cannot say corporeal Christ is actually present in this world —except we embrace Romanist
error. 42 Rather —Scripture declares —on the fortieth day of counting the omer, Christ Jesus
ascended to heaven. He is now physically at the right hand of the Father —interceding for us.
(Acts 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3, 8:8, 10:12). Already/not yet, partial, or
realized theories are each in error.
Is Satan bound now? Many contend a non-dispensational view, citing John’s Revelation
for the ‘binding of Satan.’ But John Walvoord corrects this error:
According to Rev 20:3, Satan is not only bound but also an angel “threw him into the
abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him.” This is not the picture of partial limitation…
According to the Scriptures Satan is [now] far from being totally inactive either in heaven
or in earth. While…Satan is now judged through the work of Christ on the cross (John
42
Adoration of Roman Catholic Eucharist in the monstrance epitomizes heresy that Christ is among us now.
30
16:11), and the actual dismissal of Satan from access to heaven will not occur until the
time of the great tribulation…Satan knows he has only a short time (Rev 12:12). 43
Further, “If the binding of Satan and his being shut up in the abyss occur at the same
time, then it is inaccurate and misleading to say that Satan is now bound. While his
power is limited and…glorified saints in heaven are free from his assaults, it is not proper
to refer to this limitation as the binding of Satan.”44
Conclusion
Notwithstanding agreement with Blaising’s statement in the epigraph, I do not believe
his system —formed in alliance with Saucy and Bock —and heavily sourced to other
Augustinian theologies —provides effective means to change the hearts of those claiming the
“…very idea that God directly intervenes in any way in the world order of things…is a myth.”
In order to be changed, the lost need first-century salvation truth, not last-days theology. To turn
from idols (1 Thess 1:9) —embracing the Living God and His prophetic program —requires
renewal by the power and the work of the Spirit —using the power of the Living Word.
Regarding the effect of progressing theologies, it is possible to tinker with a good thing
—in this case the richness of Pauline doctrine as codified in normative dispensations —to the
point that its usefulness is disfigured and dismantled —one tiny piece at a time. True
dispensationalists have done well to point out that progressive changes result in unrecognizable
parts. According to the law of entropy, I look for the time when forthcoming theological pop
stars will announce the union of PD with its closeted partners —Covenant Theology, New
Covenant Theology, and 5Point Biblical Covenant Theology —and all demanding recognition
and affirmation of their unconfessed sin of Replacement Theology. Joyously though, I see all
this as a positive sign of the times. The Risen Christ is not glorified in schemes of morphing
43
John Walvoord, “Is Satan Bound?” in Vital Prophetic Issues: Examining Promises and Problems in
Eschatology, Roy B. Zuck, gen. ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel Resources, 1995, 91-92, emphasis added.
44
Ibid, 92.
31
postmillennial, amillennial, “realized,” “partially realized,” “already/not yet” or dominion
theologies. What do we imagine Christ makes of claims He is not now on His Father’s throne or
else that He will never sit on David’s throne? If Christ has abdicated heaven — then who is
there to plead our case?! And, unless He returns —as promised —we are, as Paul says —most
miserable indeed in our false trust in the blessed hope.
Echoing J. Dwight Pentecost’s oft repeated ‘summary judgment’ against false
interpretation and application of Scripture to form false doctrine —I conclude these theological
aberrations covered in the research are indeed standing —but standing only as “contrary to the
teaching of Scripture.” Surely, incorrect teaching —even by sincere believers —will not reap
reward at the Judgment Seat. I believe the best antidote for all controversy is Christ’s certain and
soon return. Maranatha! (1 Cor 16:22b)
32
APPENDIX A
Harold L. Willmington’s very helpful outline of the Book of Isaiah, listed according to topic:
Main theme: The Glorious Millennium
The Millennial King:
Jesus the glorious and beautiful (28:5-6; 33:17)
Jesus the righteous (32:1-4)
Jesus the light-giver (24:23; 60:19-20)
The Millennial Kingdom:
Israel in the Millennium
Its citizens purified (4:4; 66:19-21)
Its country glorified (60:1-18)
Its capital magnified (2:1-3; 4:2-6; 33:5-6, 20-23; 52:1-10; 62; 65:18-19; 66:10+)
Gentile nations in the Millennium
Wars will cease (2:4; 9:5)
Worship will begin (11:10)
The needy in the Millennium
Deaf and blind will hear and see (29:18; 35:5)
Lame and mute will walk and talk (35:6)
Humble and poor will rejoice (29:19)
Sick will be healed (33:24)
Captives will go free (52:11-12)
Ignorant will learn (29:24)
Sorrowful will sing (30:29-33; 35:10; 42:10-17; 65:19)
Godless will vanish (29:20-21; 32:5-8)
Fearful will be unafraid (29:22-23; 35:3-4)
Petitioners will be heard (65:24)
Dying will live (25:8; 65:20)
Nature in the Millennium
Plant life (29:17; 30:23-25; 32:15-20; 35:1-2, 7; 65:21-23)
Animal life (11:6-9; 65:25)
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=will_know, retrieved 18 Feb 15.
33
APPENDIX B
W. E. Vine views the Book of Isaiah as one indivisible work in two identifiable parts —
chapters 1 – 35 and chapters 36 – 66. He gleans sixteen themes as details binding the parts to
form the unity of Isaiah’s prophecy. 45 The following table lists in parallel columns the themes
Isaiah weaves throughout the unified whole of his Holy Spirit-superintended writing. Vine’s
analysis is further evidence that theories of multiple authors writing in different periods —i.e.,
Proto-Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and Trito-Isaiah —are not supported by the Scriptures themselves.
Evidence in chapters 1 – 35
Evidence in chapters 36 - 66
God’s abhorrence of mere formal worship
1:11, 13
66:3
Lord’s Throne in the high and holy place
6:1
57:15; 66:1
His regard for the lowly soul
6:5-7
57:15; 66:2
His House and Mountain as a resort
2:2-3
56:7; 60:12-14
His making every high thing low
2:11,17; 5:15-16
40:4
His overruling of human pride and violence
10:5, 7;
37:26; 47:6; 54:16-17
The chastisement of rebellious Israel
1:2, 5; 31:1-2
63:8, 10
The sickness and healing of the nation
1:5-6; 6:10
57:18-19
People and land forsaken
6:12; 17:9; 27:10; 32:14
49:14; 54:6-7; 62:4, 12
Judicial deafness and blindness
6:10; 29:18; 32:3; 35:5
42:7, 18
A remnant saved
1:27; 4:2-3; 10:20, 22
37:31-32; 59:20; 65:8-9
A sign or covenant concerning the sure mercies
7:14; 9:7
55:3-4
The Spirit of the Lord resting upon Messiah
11:2
61:1
Israel fruitful by the Spirit of God
32:15
44:3-4
Waiting for God who has hidden His face
8:17
64:4-7
The setting up of a standard
5:26; 11:10, 12; 18:3
49:22; 62:10
Thematic Detail
of David
45
W.E. Vine, Isaiah: Prophecies, Promises, Warnings (Grand Rapids: Lamplighter Books, 1971),
APPENDIX.
34
Scripture Index*
Page
Gen
Prov 16:30
Mal 2:14
9, 22
11
21
Page
Ex
22
Isaiah
Page
Psa 2
17
4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30
Matt 5:17-20 9
Matt 16:28
23
Matt 13
25
Matt 17:1-13 23
John 3:3, 5, 7 13
John 16:11
Acts 2
22
Rom 4:13-15 6
Acts 7:55-56 28
Rom 8:34
28
Acts 17:11
Rom 16:17
1 Cor 2:12+
1 Cor 9
2 Cor 1:21
8, 24
10
5
1 Cor 3
12
1 Cor 15:50a 15
2 Cor 11
13
1 Cor 6:9a
15
1 Cor 16:22b 30
Gal 3:29
Eph 1
6
10, 20, 28
Gal 15:21
Eph 3
16
10
Phil 1:9-10
1 Thess 1:9
5
29
Col 1
1 Thess 4
10
Col 3
28
Dedication Page
2 Thess 2:3
2 Tim 2:15
Titus 2:13
6
14, 17
Titus 3:7
6
Heb 1, 8, 10
2 Pet 1:11
28
16
Heb 5:12
2 Pet 1:20
18
19
James 1:1
6
James 2:5
6
1 John 2:20
5
1 John 4:5-6
8, 24
Rev 12:12
Rev 20:3
29
28
Rev 9 – 10
Rev 21:2
13
13
29
Eph 5:5
16
2 Pet 3:3
6
Rev 20 – 22
28
*Excludes Dr. Willmington’s scriptures in APPENDIX
35
18
11
6
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bigalke, Ron J., Jr., ed. Progressive Dispensationalism: An Analysis of the Movement and
Defense of Traditional Dispensationalism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America,
2005.
———“Problems with Progressive Dispensationalism” Pre-Trib Study Group Fifteenth Annual
Meeting, December 4-6, 2006, http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/problems-with
-progressive-dispensationalism
Bock, Darrell L., Gen Ed. Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1999.
——— and Mikel Del Rosario. “The Table Briefing: Does Israel Have a Future in
God’s Program?” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 172 (Jan – Mar 2015).
Bright, John. The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and Its Meaning For the Church.
New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1953.
Chilton, Bruce, ed. The Kingdom of God. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
Chilton, David. The Great Tribulation. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987.
Couch, Mal, Gen Ed. Dictionary of Premillennial Theology: A Practical Guide to the People,
Viewpoints, and History of Prophetic Studies. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996.
Cone, Christopher. Dispensationalism Tomorrow and Beyond. Fort Worth: Tyndale Seminary
Press, 2008.
Dean, Robert. “Progressive Dispensationalism,” http://deanbible.org/index-oftopics/message/36-progressive-dispensationalism-b/read, n.d.
DeWitt, Dale S. Dispensational Theology in America During the Twentieth Century:
Theological Development and Cultural Context, Grand Rapids: Grace Bible College,
2002, http://www.bbc.edu/council/documents/2012/Gromacki_Distinctives_of_
Dispensational_Preaching.pdf.
Erdman, Martin. Building the Kingdom of God on Earth: The Church’s Contribution to Marshal
Public Support for World Order and Peace, 1919-1945. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock
Publishers, 2005.
Feinberg, Charles L. Millennialism: The Two Major Views. Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books,
1936.
Gunn, George A. “Psalm 2 and the Reign of the Messiah,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 169 (Oct-Dec
2012).
36
Hindson, Edward E. “Isaiah Introduction” in King James Version Bible Commentary,
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005.
———and Gary Yates, eds. The Essence of the old Testament: A Survey. Nashville:
B&H Publishing Group, 2012.
Houdmann, Michael S. http://gotquestions.org.
House, H. Wayne. “The Future of National Israel.” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 166 (Oct – Dec
2009).
Ice, Thomas D. “Covenants and Dispensations”
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=pretrib
_arch, May 2009.
Jennings, F.C. Studies in Isaiah. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1935.
Kaiser, Jr., Walter C. “The Present State of Old Testament Studies,” JETS 18 (spring 1975).
Kik, J. Marcellus. An Eschatology of Victory. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reform
Publishing, 1971.
Krieger, Doug. “ANOTHER GOSPEL…Israel and the Church in Covenantal Confusion,
Chapter 11, The False Prophet,” http://www.the-tribulationnetwork.com/new_tribnet/ebooks/false_prophet/ch11_another_gospel.html.
Levitt, Zola. “Prophecy: Thus Saith the Lord” in Old Testament Home Study Course. Dallas:
Zola Levitt Ministries, 1995.
MacDonald, William; Art Farstad, Ed. Believer’s Bible Commentary. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 1995.
Mathison, Keith A. Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R
Publishing, 1999.
McClain, Alva. The Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959.
———http://verticallivingministries.com/2013/07/09/alva-j-mcclain-on-the-greatness-of-thekingdom-part-1/.
McGee, J. Vernon. Notes and Outlines: Isaiah. Pasadena, CA: Thru the Bible Radio, n.d.
North, Gary. http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/position/8701.pdf
37
Neufeld, Edmond K. “The Gospel in the Gospels: Answering the Question “What Must I Do to
be Saved? from the Synoptics.” JETS 51/2 (June 2008).
Nyberg, Bob. “Covenant Theology Versus Dispensationalism: A Matter of Law Versus Grace,”
http://4himnet.com/bnyberg/dispensationalism01.html, n.d.
Otis, Sr., George. Millennium: The 1000 Year Reign of King Jesus. Tulsa, OK: Albury, 2000.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Theology and the Kingdom of God. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1969.
Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology. Grand Rapids:
Academie, 1958.
Peters, George N. H. The Theocratic Kingdom (3 volumes). Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952
(1884).
Russell, J. Stuart. The Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming.
Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1983.
Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism, expanded and revised. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.
Showers, Renald. There Really Is A Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational
Theology. Bellmawr, NJ: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc., 1990.
Sproul, R. C. The Last Days According to Jesus: When Did Jesus Say He Would Return? Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.
Thomas, Robert L. http://www.tms.edu/JournalBookReview.aspx?ID=724.
Tolstoy, Leo. The Kingdom that is Within You: Christianity Not as a Mystic Religion but a New
Theory of Life. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984.
Toussaint, Stanley D. “A Critique of the Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse.” Bibliotheca
Sacra, Vol 161 (Oct – Dec 2004).
——— Behold the King. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1980.
———“The Kingdom in Matthew 13”.
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Toussaint-TheKingdomInMatthew13.pdf, accessed 18
Feb. 15.
——— and Jay A. Quine. “No, Not Yet: The Contingency of God’s Promised
Kingdom.” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 164 (Apr – June 2007).
Vine, W.E. Isaiah: Prophecies, Promises, Warnings. Grand Rapids: Lamplighter Books, 1971.
38
Walvoord, John F. and Roy B. Zuck. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the
Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, Old Testament. Colorado Springs: Cook
Communications, 1983.
West, Nathaniel. The Thousand Year Reign of Christ: The Classic Work on the Millennium.
Grand Rapids: Kregel, c. 1880.
Wilkinson, John. “Israel My Glory” : Or, Israel’s Mission, and Missions to Israel. London:
Mildmay Mission to the Jews, 1894.
Wilkinson, Paul R. “John Nelson Darby and His Views on Israel.” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 166
(Jan – Mar 2009).
————“Dispensationalism and Love for Israel” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 169 (Oct –Dec
2012).
Willis, Wesley R., John R. Master, and Charles C. Ryrie, Eds. Issues in Dispensationalism.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.
Willmington, Harold L. “What You Need to Know About the Book of Isaiah.”
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=will_know.
Witmer, John A. Review of A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times by Kim
Riddlebarger, Bibliotheca Sacra, 164 (April – June 2007): 242.
Wright, N.T. The Millennium Myth: Hope for a Postmodern World. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1999.
Yates, Gary E. "Isaiah’s Promise of the Restoration of Zion and Its Canonical Development," in
Faculty Publications and Presentations, Paper 231, 2009, 6-7,
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs/231.
Zaspel, Fred G. “New Covenant Theology and the Mosaic Law: A Theological and Exegetical
Analysis of Matthew 5:17-20,” www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/expostudy/nctlaw.htm.
Zeller, George. “Progressive Dispensationalism: Some Observations,” revised 9/00, 1/04
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/dispen/progresi.htm
Zuck, Roy B., gen. ed. Vital Prophetic Issues: Examining Promises and Problems in
Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1995.
———Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth. Colorado
Springs: Cook Communications, 1991.
39