The Millennial Temple of Ezekiel 40-48

The Millennial Temple of
Ezekiel 40-48

(An Exercise in Literal Interpretation)


Dr. John C. Whitcomb
[used by permission]

Those who have discovered that the key to interpreting God's Word properly is to understand it in a normal/literal way, will also discover that Ezekiel 40-48 is not a burden to the Bible student, but a delight. What joy God brings to the heart of the believer when he realizes, perhaps for the first time, that God did not give us any portion of His Word to confuse us, but rather to enlighten us. God really does mean what He says!

The last nine chapters of Ezekiel serve almost as a test case for God's people. In the words of Charles Lee Feinberg, a great Old Testament scholar of the 20th century, “Along with certain other key passages of the Old Testament, like Isaiah 7:14 and 52:13-53:12 and portions of Daniel, the concluding chapters of Ezekiel form a kind of continental divide in the area of Biblical interpretation. It is one of the areas where the literal interpretation of the Bible and the spiritualizing or allegorizing method diverge widely. Here amillennialists and premillennialists are poles apart. When thirty-nine chapters of Ezekiel can be treated detailedly and seriously as well as literally, there is no valid reason a priori for treating this large division of the book in an entirely different manner." (The Prophecy of Ezekiel. [Chicago: Moody Press, 1967], p. 233).

God will fulfill His covenant promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God's "chosen people" will enjoy their "promised land" some day, after they have experienced national regeneration (Jer. 31:31-34; Rom. 11:25-26). Not just for the Church, but also for Israel, "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom. 11:29).

We now present seven arguments in support of, and three arguments in opposition to a literal interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48.

Arguments in Support of a Literal Interpretation

1. A careful reading of Ezekiel 40-42 gives one the clear impression of a future literal Temple for Israel because of the immense number of details concerning its dimensions, its parts and its contents (see Erich Sauer, From Eternity To Eternity, chapter 34). Surely, if so much space in the Holy Scriptures is given to a detailed description of this Temple, we are safe in assuming that it will be as literal as the Tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon. The fact that its structure and ceremonies will have a definite symbolical and spiritual significance cannot be used as an argument against its literal existence. For the Tabernacle was a literal structure in spite of the fact that it was filled with symbolic and typical significance. Such reasoning might easily deny the literalness of Christ's glorious Second Coming on the basis that the passages which describe His coming are filled with symbolical expressions (see Matthew 24 and Revelation 19).

2. Ezekiel was given specific instructions to "declare all thou seest to the house of Israel" (40:4), which seems strange if the Temple were to symbolize only general truths. Even more significant is the fact that the Israelites were to "keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them" (43:11). This is an exact parallel to the pattern of the Tabernacle which Moses saw in the Mount, and which God commanded him to construct (Exodus 25:8,9).

3. All will agree that the Temple of Ezekiel 8-11 was the literal Temple of Ezekiel's day, even though the prophet saw it "in the visions of God" (8:3) while he himself was still in Babylon (8:1). In these four chapters we find mention of "the door of the gate of the inner court" (8:3), "the porch" (8:16), "the altar" (8:16), "the threshold of the house" (9:3), and "the east gate of Jehovah's house" (10:19). Now without any indication whatever than an ideal temple instead of a literal Temple is being set forth in chapters 40-42, we find similar if not identical descriptive formulas being used: "in the visions of God" (40:2; cf. 8:3), "a gate to the inner court" (40:27; cf. 8:3), "the porch of the house" (40:48; cf. 8:16), "the altar" (43:18; cf. 8:16), and "the gate which looketh towards the east" (43:3; cf. 10:19), through which the glory of the God of Israel is seen returning, exactly as He had departed, according to 10:19 and 11:23. Now if the Millennial Temple is not to be a reality, then why insist that the return of the God of Israel is to be a reality?

4. Ezekiel is not the only Old Testament prophet who saw a future, glorious Temple for God's chosen people Israel, complete with animal sacrifices, in the Holy Land:

a) Prophecies of a Millennial Temple:
Joel 3:18
Isaiah 2:3
Isaiah 60:13
Daniel 9:24
Haggai 2:7,9

b) Prophecies of animal sacrifices in the future Temple:
Isaiah 56:6,7
Isaiah 60:7
Jeremiah 33:18
Zechariah 14:16-21

5. God has definitely promised to the line of Zadok an everlasting priesthood (1 Sam. 2:35; 1 Kings 2:27,35). This confirms God's promise of an everlasting priesthood to Zadok’s ancestor Phinehas (Num. 25:13), which also confirms His promise of an everlasting priesthood to Phinehas' grandfather Aaron (Exodus 29:9; 40:15). See 1 Chronicles 6:3-8, 50-53 for the full genealogy. Furthermore, this promise of an everlasting priesthood was strongly confirmed by God through Jeremiah 33:17-22, who links the perpetuity of the Levitical priests with the perpetuity of the Davidic Kingship and the perpetuity of the earth's rotation on its axis! In view of these promises of God, confirmed again and again, it is highly significant that the Millennial Temple of Ezekiel will have the sons of Zadok as its priests! (40:46, 44:15). God apparently means what He says! The intrinsic probability of this being fulfilled literally is strengthened tremendously by the mention of 12,000 Levites who will be sealed by God during the yet future seventieth week of Daniel (Rev. 7:7). If these are literal Levites it would hardly be consistent to maintain that the Temple is spiritual or figurative. And if God's promises to Aaron, Phinehas, and Zadok are spiritualized, how can we insist that His promises to David will be fulfilled literally (2 Sam. 7:13,16)?

6. The Bible clearly teaches that while there is no such thing as an earthly Temple, an altar, or animal sacrifices in true Christianity (John 4:21, Heb. 7-10), there will be such provisions for Israel following the rapture of the Church (Matt. 24, 2 Thess. 2:4, Rev. 11:1,2. Compare also Hosea 3:4,5 with Daniel 9:24,27). Furthermore, Revelation 20:9 indicates that Jerusalem, the "beloved city," will once again be "the camp of the saints" during the millennial age. The clear New Testament teaching of a post-rapture "holy place" and "temple of God" in Jerusalem, complete with "the altar" (Rev.11:1), prepares us to anticipate a Millennial Temple in connection with the "holy city" Jerusalem, in harmony with Old Testament teaching.

7. The only real alternatives to the literal interpretation are unbelieving modernism which does not hesitate to say that this Temple was a mere figment of Ezekiel's imagination, and a fanciful idealism, usually amillennial, which says that this Temple depicts certain realities of the Church which shall be fulfilled in our times or in the eternal state. (See, for example, Beasley-Murray on Ezekiel in the New Bible Commentary: Revised, 1970, p. 684.) Andrew W. Blackwood, Jr., in Ezekiel, Prophecy of Hope (Baker Book House, 1965), believes that the centrality of the altar in Ezekiel's Temple points to centrality of the communion table in the Christian church! In light of this, Dr. Blackwood is disturbed that "in many of the beautiful Protestant churches that are being built today, the table of Holy Communion is crowded back against the wall at the greatest possible distance from the congregation, as was the medieval Roman Catholic custom. But today in the beautiful new Roman Catholic churches that are being constructed the sacramental table is brought away from the wall; so that the congregation, insofar as it is physically possible, surrounds the table. Ezekiel certainly is telling us that church architecture should be an expression of theology" (p. 240).

So widespread is this type of interpretation that even some prominent dispensationalists have been influenced by it. Dr. J Sidlow Baxter, for example, tells us that "the main meanings of the striking symbols are clear ... The various cube measurements symbolize their divine perfection. In the description of the sacrificial ritual we see the absolute purity of the final worship" (Explore the Book IV, 34, Academie Books, Grand Rapids, 1966). We shall leave it to the reader to decide, after studying Ezekiel 40-42 again, whether these are "clear" meanings of these "symbols." We are also very disappointed to see that even Dr. Harry Ironside, whose prophetic insight was usually very clear, fell into the same spiritualizing tendency. Notice how he attempted to spiritualize the Temple river of Ezekiel 47: "Ezekiel's guide measured a thousand cubits, that is, fifteen hundred feet, and he caused the prophet to enter into the waters: they were up to his ankles. May this not suggest the very beginning of a life of fellowship with God? 'If we live in the Spirit let us also walk in the Spirit' (Gal 5:25). The feet were in the river and the waters covered them, but the guide measured another thousand cubits and caused Ezekiel to pass through the waters, and they were up to his knees. Who will think it fanciful if we say that the waters up to the knees suggest praying in the Holy Spirit? But the guide measured another thousand and caused the prophet to pass through the waters, and now they were up to his loins, suggesting the complete control of every fleshly lust in the power of the Spirit of God. He measured another thousand, and that which had begun as a small stream was a river so that Ezekiel could not pass through, for the waters were risen, waters to swim in. Surely this is to live in the fullness of the Spirit to which every child of God should aspire" (Ezekiel the Prophet, pp. 327,328, Loizeaux Brothers, 1949).

In my opinion, such an exposition of Holy Scripture is not only fanciful but dangerous, causing the student to wonder whether each expositor is not, after all, a guide unto himself, the blind leading the blind. If the commentator rejects the literal interpretation of the passage, and fails to find support elsewhere in Scripture for a consistent figurative or symbolic interpretation, he should confess his ignorance, leave the passage alone, and go elsewhere. For many centuries the Church has been subjected to various spiritualizing interpretations of Old and New Testament prophecies concerning the Second Coming of Christ. It is our prayer that God will raise up many faithful students of His Word in these last days who will search the prophetic Scriptures in the belief that God actually means what He says.

Objections to a Literal Interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48

1. "The area of the temple courts (500 x 500 "reeds," or about one square mile) would be larger than the entire ancient walled city of Jerusalem, and the holy portion for priests and Levites (20,000 x 25,000 reeds, or about 40 x 50 miles) would cover an area six times the size of greater London today and could not possibly be placed within present-day Palestine, that is between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea (Ezek. 47:18), to say nothing of the "portion of the prince" on either side of this area (45:7, 47:21). The Millennial Jerusalem would be about 40 miles in circumference and thus ten times the circumference of the ancient city. Furthermore, it would be somewhat north of the present site of the city, and the Temple area would be about ten miles north of that, on the way to Samaria! This is quite unthinkable, for such a city would not be the Jerusalem of Jewish memories and associations, and a Temple in any other locality than Mount Moriah would hardly be the Temple of Jewish hope" (J. Sidlow Baxter, Explore the Book, IV, 32).

Answer:
Israel will have the only sanctuary and priesthood in the world during the millennial age, so the Temple courts and sacred area will need to be greatly enlarged to accommodate the vast number of worshippers and the priests who will serve them (Isa. 2:3, 60:14, 61:6, Zech. 8:20-23). Various Old Testament prophecies speak of great geological changes that will occur in Palestine at the time of Christ's Second Coming, so it is not impossible to imagine a 2,500 square mile area for the Temple and city fitted into a reshaped and enlarged land. See Isaiah 26:15, 33:17, 54:2, and especially Zechariah 14:4-10. The latter passage tells us of new valleys and rivers, and a flattening of portions of land "like the Arabah" which then "shall be lifted up." Presumably the entire Dead Sea region will be lifted more than 1,300 feet, above the present sea level, for it will contain fish "after their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many" (Ezek. 47:10). Revelation 16:20 informs us that at the end of the Great Tribulation gigantic earthquakes will cause islands and mountains to vanish. Thus, both testaments speak of topographical and geographical changes that will accompany the inauguration of the millennial kingdom. Jerusalem itself will be the capital of the world, the beloved city (Rev. 20:9), and its size will surely be proportionate to its importance. If Nineveh, the capital of one ancient empire, was sixty miles in circumference (Jonah 3:3; cf. Baxter's discussion, IV, 170), why would it be impossible for the millennial Jerusalem to be forty?

With regard to the problem of the Millennial Temple being located about ten miles north of Jerusalem, God specifically indicates to Ezekiel that the Temple area will no longer adjoin the royal palace as in the days of old (43:7-9). The point is clearly stated in 43:12 -- "This is the law of the house: upon the top of the mountain the whole limit thereof round about shall be most holy. Behold, this is the law of the house." Vast topographical changes will not make Palestine less the Promised Land for Israel, nor will a centralized, enlarged Temple ten miles removed from the city be a disappointment to Israelites who have been accustomed to thinking of it in terms of Mount Moriah. The important thing is that the glory of Jehovah will fill the Temple (43:5), and the city will be renamed on the basis that "Jehovah is there" (48:35).

2. "It is unthinkable that a system of animal sacrifices will be reinstituted after the one perfect sacrifice of Christ has been accomplished, especially in the light of Hebrews 7-10."

Answer:
While this might seem to be a most formidable objection to the literality of the Millennial Temple, several important considerations tend to modify the force of this objection:

[1] The millennial system of sacrifices described by Ezekiel differs profoundly from the Aaronic system, so that it is not simply a reinstitution of Mosaic Judaism as many have claimed. These changes could not have escaped the notice of post-captivity Jews, such as Zerubbabel and Joshua, who, seeing the glorious context into which Ezekiel placed these new ordinances, would have realized immediately that the prophecy could only be fulfilled in the kingdom age. Therefore, they made no effort to build such a temple after the exile. Dwight Pentecost (Things to Come, 1958, pp. 520-524) points out that there will be no Ark of the Covenant, Table of the Law, Cherubim, Mercy Seat, Veil, Golden Candlestick, or Table of Showbread. Instead of a high priest, there will be a prince who has some royal and priestly powers, but will actually be neither king nor high priest. The Levites will have fewer temple privileges except for the sons of Zadok who will serve as priests. The Feast of Pentecost is omitted as well as the great Day of Atonement, and there is no evening sacrifice. The dimensions of the temple and courts are changed and they are removed from the city. With regard to additions that will be made, Nathanael West (The Thousand Years in Both Testaments, p. 429; quoted by Pentecost, p. 522) states: "The entrance of the 'Glory' into Ezekiel's Temple to dwell there, forever; the Living Waters that flow, enlarging from beneath the Altar; the suburbs, the wonderful trees of healing, the new distribution of the land according to the 12 tribes, their equal portion therein, the readjustment of the tribes themselves, the Prince's portion, and the City's new name, ‘Jehovah-Shammah,’ all go to prove that New Israel restored is a converted people, worshiping God 'in Spirit and in Truth.'"

The later rabbis, who lost the true significance of Old Testament prophecy, were deeply troubled by the contradictions between Moses and Ezekiel, and hoped that Elijah would explain away the difficulties when he returns to the earth! Blackwood (op. cit., p. 22) cites another rabbinic source to the effect that "the entire prophecy would have been excluded from the canon were it not for the devoted labor of Rabbi Hanina ben Hezekiah, a scholar of the first century A.D., who must have written an extensive commentary on Ezekiel: 'Three hundred barrels of oil were provided for him for light and he sat in an upper chamber where he reconciled all discrepancies' (Babylonian Talmud, Menahoth 45a)." A similar dilemma confronts modern Christian scholars who deny a literal millennium. For example, the contributor to Ellicott's Commentary on Ezekiel twice insists that the prophecy cannot be literally fulfilled "except on the supposition of physical changes in the land"; but this is exactly what the Bible tells us will happen at the time of inauguration of the millennium. Such objections, therefore, simply beg the question.

[2] Just because animal sacrifices and priests have no place in Christianity does not mean that they will have no place in Israel after the rapture of the Church; for there is a clear distinction made throughout the Scriptures between Israel and the Church. And just because God will have finished His work of sanctification in the Church by the time of the Rapture, is no warrant for assuming that He will have finished His work of instruction, testing, and sanctification of Israel. In fact, one of the main purposes of the thousand-year earthly kingdom of Christ will be to vindicate His chosen people Israel before the eyes of all nations (Isaiah 60, 61). It is obvious that the Book of Hebrews was written to Christians, and we have no right to insist that Israelites during the Millennium will also be Christians, without priests, without sacrifices, and without a Temple. Saints like John the Baptist who died before Pentecost were not Christians (John 3:29, Matt. 11:11); and those who are saved following the rapture of the Church will likewise be excluded from membership in the Bride of Christ, though they will be "made perfect" like all the redeemed (Heb. 12:23).

[3] Even in the age of grace, God deems it necessary for Christians to be reminded of the awful price that Jesus paid, through the symbolism of the bread and the cup. Drinking of this "cup of blessing" (1 Cor.10:16) does not involve a re-offering of the blood of Christ in contradiction to the Book of Hebrews, but serves as a powerful "remembrance" of Christ and a powerful proclaiming of "the Lord's death till he come" (1 Cor. 11:25-26). Likewise, in the context of distinctive Israelite worship, the five different offerings, four of them with blood-shedding, will serve as a constant reminder to millennial Jews (who will not yet be glorified) of the awful and complete sacrifice which their Messiah, now present in their midst, had suffered centuries before to make their salvation possible. In view of the fact that there may be no other bloodshed in the entire world, because of a return of semi-Edenic conditions (cf. Isa. 11:6-9), such sacrifices upon the Temple altar would be doubly impressive.

However, such sacrifices will not be totally voluntary and purely memorial as is true of the Christian eucharist. Ezekiel says that God will "accept" people on the basis of animal sacrifices (43:27), and they are "to make atonement for the house of Israel" (45:17; cf. 45:15). In other words, just as in Old Testament times, the privilege of life and physical blessing in the theocratic kingdom will be contingent upon outward conformity to the ceremonial law. Such conformity did not bring salvation in Old Testament times, but saved Israelites willingly conformed. Only faith in God could bring salvation, and this has been God's plan in every dispensation. It is a serious mistake, therefore, to insist that these sacrifices will be expiatory. They were certainly not expiatory in the Mosaic economy ("it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins" -- Hebrews 10:4), and they will not be so in the Millennium. But their symbolic and pedagogic value, unlike the communion service, will be upheld by a legalistic system of enforced participation. For example, those who decide to neglect the annual Feast of Tabernacles will be punished by a drought or a plague (Zech.14:16-19). If the true significance of the five offerings be understood, it is not difficult to see how they could serve as effective vehicles of divine instruction and discipline for Israel and the nations during the Kingdom age. (For a detailed discussion of the theological and exegetical issues involved, see J. C. Whitcomb, "Christ's Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel" (Grace Theological Journal 6:2 [Fall, 1985], pp. 201-217), published in abbreviated form (same title) in Israel My Glory 45:2 [April/May, 1987].)

3. "When we read in Ezekiel 47:1-12 of a stream that issues from the Temple and increases to a great river within a few miles with no tributaries, enters into the Dead Sea and heals it of its death, and has trees growing on its banks which have perennial foliage and fruit, the leaves being for "medicine" and the fruit, although for food, never wasting, surely we are in the realm of idealism! We find such a stream pictured in the eternal state (Rev. 21:1,2), but surely we cannot picture such a stream during the millennial age."

Answer:
Such an objection is based largely upon the fallacious notion that the supernatural aspects of eschatology (including the descriptions of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21 and 22) are purely idealistic pictures. Doubtless many Jews who studied the Old Testament Messianic prophecies before the First Coming of Christ felt the same way. But when Christ came, He changed water to wine, multiplied loaves and fishes, instantly calmed a great storm, healed the sick and raised the dead (Isa. 35:5,6; Matt. 11:5). He said that those who did not believe all that the prophets spoke were "fools and slow of heart" (Luke 24:25).

In the light of these First Coming fulfillments and our Lord's strong admonition, it would seem to be the better part of wisdom to take these millennial prophecies literally. Who are we to say that there cannot be any supernatural aspects to the millennial reign of the glorified Christ on the earth? Some who deny the literality of the Temple stream admit that Edenic conditions will largely prevail in that age, with longevity, universal peace, transformation of animal life, and blossoming of deserts. But if we consider carefully some of the conditions that existed in the Garden of Eden, we will discover that among them were trees and fruits that had super-vegetative powers and a stream from the Garden that divided into four rivers (Gen. 2:10-14). Few who deny the literality of the Temple stream of Ezekiel 47 would go so far as to deny the literality of the rivers and trees of Genesis 2. But is not this an inconsistency? Cannot God accomplish these things for His own purposes in ways which we cannot now understand? If the natural processes of our present world serve as the ultimate guide for what can or cannot happen in the age to come, we not only wipe out much of the Biblical eschatology, but end up denying even the miraculous works of Christ. This is simply too great a price to pay to maintain the idealistic view of Ezekiel's prophecies.

What Is Progressive Dispensationalism?

What Is Progressive Dispensationalism?
by Thomas Ice
Two Dallas Theological Seminary professors have edited a major new book calling into question previous formulations of dispensationalism, while at the same time attempting to develop a new kind of dispensationalism. This new approach has been labeled by its advocates “Progressive Dispensationalism” (PD) in 1991. PD is often critical of older dispensationalism while incorporating elements from theological systems which in the past have been in opposition to traditional dispensational understandings of the Bible.
Dr. Craig Blaising teaches Systematic Theology at Dallas and Dr. Darrell Bock is in the New Testament Greek Department. Their new book is Dispensationalism, Israel and The Church: The Search For Definition, (DIC) (Zondervan, 1992), which was released in late September 1992. It will not take those attempting to read this new book long to find that this book is difficult to read because of it’s erudite and technical style. This is a marked change from a previous generation of dispensationalists, often typified by Dr. Charles Ryrie, who were known for their clear, direct, and concise brand of scholarship. In DIC it is sometimes hard to get a grip on what is being said, even after reading a passage several times.
CHANGES IN DISPENSATIONALISM
No one can debate that some are proposing radical changes within the dispensational camp. The questions that arises relates to the nature and virtue of the change. While I do not agree with most of the changes being put forward by the advocates of PD, I do want my disagreement to be irenic, since I know through personal discussion with many who are proposing these changes believe that they are doing the right thing. Also, I do not believe that their writings, nor my personal discussions evidence a personal dislike for dispensationalism as is often evident in many of the attacks by “outsiders.” However, at the same time I believe that these men are in the process of destroying dispensationalism. In personal discussions with many of the older dispensationalists their either believe that they have gone as far as one could go and still be said to be a dispensationalist (if they good any further then they will have left dispensationalism, they say), or some believe that they have already gone too far and should not be viewed as a true dispensationalist.
I am not opposed in any way to scholars attempting to discuss and sharpen a system of theology, or even suggesting changes. As Craig Blaising has argued, change has always occurred within dispensationalism. However, I also reserve the right to say that I believe someone has gone too far. I believe that to be the case with PD. There is a need for the changeless truths of the theology of the Bible to be articulated to each new generation, taking into account the particular ethos and questions produced by successive age groups.
My experience within the dispensational movement has paralleled Stan Gundry’s statement of self-examination from the book’s Foreword.
At its best, within dispensationalism has always been a dynamic that drives it to be constantly correcting itself in the light of Scripture. . . .
Critics of dispensationalism have always found it easier to identify the simplistic approaches of Scofield, to criticize the excesses of Lewis Sperry Chafer, and to poke fun at the charts of Clarence Larkin than to understand
and appreciate the self-critical and self-corrective drive that has characterized dispensationalism at a deeper level.1
However, just because dispensationalism does have a history of development, does not mean that all proposals for change are necessarily correct or necessarily wrong. I know PD would agree. So in the same spirit in which those within the PD camp felt free to voice their criticism of older dispensationalists, I want to interact with these newer ideas.
My goal in this article will be to give some of the background leading up to the development of the PD movement; to explain PD in contrast with what older dispensationalists have believed; and to interact with specific PD viewpoints. Since I will not have enough space in this article, I hope to continue interaction in future articles in the coming year.
A BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
If a father of the PD movement can be identified, it would most likely be Dr. Robert Saucy of the Talbot Graduate School of Theology in Southern California. Dr. Saucy wrote a number of articles throughout the 1980’s (beginning in 1984), dealing with dispensational themes. In some of these articles Dr. Saucy began to moderate a few of his dispensational views. At the same time (during the 80’s), other dispensationalists wrote articles in books and journals often disagreeing with older dispensational interpretations of Scripture or theology. Yet these writers still considered themselves to be dispensationalists.
Within this environment of flux and redefinition, it is not surprising that an organization arose meeting in conjunction with the annual Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) convention in 1985, held at Talbot Seminary in California. (These yearly conventions usually meet in late October.) The “dispensational study group” (DSG) grew out of this informal meeting at Talbot for the purpose of discussing “current trends and ideas relating to the topic of dispensationalism.”2 It is the DSG which has been a leading forum for PD.
The first public gathering of the DSG was in conjunction with the ETS gathering in Atlanta in 1986. Format of the meetings have revolved around a major presentation followed by discussion. Craig Blaising made the first presentation of a paper in Atlanta,3 in which he argued that dispensationalism has changed over the years. This is the foundational apologetic used to justify many of the major changes being suggested for dispensationalism.
The DSG meet at Gordon-Conwell Seminary in Massachusetts in 1987. Darrell Bock of Dallas Seminary presented his ground-breaking paper entitled “The Reign of Christ.”4 Bock’s suggestion that Christ is now reigning (spiritually but not yet physically) on David’s throne, which constitutes an inaugural fulfillment of the Davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 7 is a tenet of PD which presents the greatest difficulty for older dispensationalists to agree with. Traditionally dispensationalists have distinguished between Christ’s ascension to the right hand of the Father’s throne and the future time when He will descend from heaven, thus leaving the right hand of the Father’s throne, and reign literally from David’s throne in Jerusalem during the millennium. However, Bock has admittedly borrowed the “already/not yet” dialectic from the late George E. Ladd (and other European theologians) to support his view of the reign of Christ.
In 1988 the meeting was held in Wheaton, Illinois. Mark Bailey, who teaches Bible Exposition at Dallas Seminary, presented a paper entitled “Dispensational Definitions
of the Kingdom.” Bailey is not a PD, but instead fits into the older dispensational mode. Dr. John Master of Philadelphia College of the Bible (also not a PD) notes5 that during the discussion period varying views were presented in attempts to define the essentials of dispensationalism. Dr. Charles Ryrie’s three-part “sine qua non” was discussed,6
since his definition has dominated discussion since 1965. Master noted that it did not appear that the audience could agree on the importance of these items in defining dispensationalism. In fact, at the conclusion of the meeting, there was no agreed upon definition of dispensationalism.
Dr. Vern Poythress of Westminster Seminary, an millennial covenant theologian, presented material from his book Understanding Dispensationalists7 at the 1989 meeting in San Diego. This meeting signaled a desire to open a dialogue with nondispensationalists, yet without coming to a consensus within dispensationalism regarding the matter of essentials.
New Orleans was the site of the 1990 meetings. Dialogue with amillennial covenant theologians continued as Dr. Tremper Longman of Westminster, presented a paper, as did Dr. Elliot E. Johnson of Dallas, both dealing with hermeneutics. Both men, from differing theological perspectives, claimed to be using a grammatical, historical, and contextual approach to the Scriptures. This is important in light of the fact that dispensationalists have long boasted of using a consistently literal hermeneutic, while accusing others of spiritualizing things like Israel and the church. This has lead to a belief by PD that there is not really a hermeneutical distinction between dispensationalists and nondispensationalists as Ryrie had declared in his sine qua non. “As evangelicals have worked together exploring these developments,” said Blaising, “the old divisions of spiritual versus literal interpretation have been left behind” (DIC:32).
In 1991 they meet in Kansas City. Dr. Doug Oss presented a paper on dispensationalism from the perspective of one committed to the Pentecostal/charismatic movement. A major focus of the paper dealt with the question of the cessation of gifts in the present dispensation. This meeting did not appear to have produce noticeable development of PD. However, the term “progressive dispensationalism” surfaced as a term which many following the PD agenda began using to describe their new position. I will provide a description/definition later in this paper.
At the time of this writing, the most recent engagement (1992) took place in San Francisco. This meeting involved a presentation by Bock and Blaising of their new book DIC. I attended this meeting and the significance seemed to be that this new formulation called PD finally has a written expression. It was also interesting to informally observe that while PD have dominated the agenda surrounding the DSG, there is far from overwhelming support from the rank and file at the meeting. Many questions and concerns remain to be discussed in the days to come. Further development of PD surely seems to be in the works with Robert Saucy coming out with a book on the subject scheduled for a 1993 release date. Bock and Blaising also plan a follow up book for late 1993 or 1994.
Blaising and Bock have been the major forces behind the discussions of the DSG and in formulating PD. Their material has provided the framework for the discussions that have taken place over the last few years. I have spent many hours in personal discussion during these years with them (mainly with Blaising) in an effort to understand what they are saying. I appreciate the time spent discussing these issues and do not want to misrepresent their views. However, it is difficult at times to
understand just what they are really saying. I have made every effort to properly present their views. Now I will attempt to describe PD.
WHAT IS PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM?
It is hard to define exactly what PD is for a number of reasons. First, it is still in the development stage. Second, it is easier to say what they don’t believe and how they are different than older dispensationalists, than what they actually believe since it appears that some of their thought is tentative. Third, even though the final chapter of DIC includes a section called “Progressive Dispensationalism” (380-85) there is not really a definition or a list of things that are essential to this new brand of dispensationalism. There is only a listing of “patterns” (379) of those who claim to be dispensationalists.
Even though DIC is said to be “The Search for Definition,” apparently the journey has not yet reached its destination. Blaising does not think that anyone can isolate essentials of dispensationalism, instead they can only observe patterns which those calling themselves “dispensationalists” have put forth (379). By avoiding essentials and providing only descriptive patterns, Blaising has in effect made it impossible (using his terms) to evaluate whether or not one is truly a dispensationalist. (How can a definition be formulated if their are no discernible essentials?) Therefore, an issue becomes whether or not to accept Blaising’s terms for the discussion or not. If one uses an older form of dispensationalism as a standard, then there would be a reasonable basis to question whether or not PD is really a modified form of dispensationalism or whether or not it is closer to a modified form of Covenant Theology, thus not really dispensationalism at all. One current professor at Dallas Seminary who is strongly opposed to this new formulation of dispensationalism has described the issue to me as follows: One has to decide whether or not PD is merely rearranging the furniture in the room (i.e., development of dispensationalism), or whether or not they are removing key pieces of furniture from the room (i.e., abandonment of dispensationalism).
A Description of Progressive
PD’s tell us they are using the word “progressive” to refer to a progressive fulfillment of God’s plan in history (380-82). They see a progressive relationship of past and present dispensations as well as between the present and future dispensations. PD sees a greater continuity than did older forms of dispensationalism. This continuity is viewed as progress between the dispensations, thus the term PD. “It is continuity through progress: the progress of promissory fulfillment.” “This continuity is variously expressed in terms of one (new) covenant that unifies both dispensations” (381). Blaising and Bock give the following explanation:
The label progressive dispensationalism is being suggested because of the way in which this dispensationalism views the interrelationship of divine dispensations in history, their overall orientation to the eternal kingdom of God (which is the final, eternal dispensation embracing God and humanity), and the reflection of these historical and eschatological relations in the literary features of Scripture. (380)
Features of Progressive Dispensationalism
Hermeneutics: Blaising is clear in his rejection of Ryrie’s insistence that an essential element of “dispensationalism claims to employ principles of literal, plain or normal, interpretation consistently.”,8 Blaising says of Ryrie:

He is quite insistent that the difference between a dispensational and a nondispensational hermeneutic is that the former is consistent in the employment of literal or normal interpretation. The presence of spiritual or allegorical interpretation to any extent “in a system of interpretation is indicative of a nondispensational approach.” (26)
Blaising and Bock do not believe that dispensationalists practice a unique approach to hermeneutics.
The issue is not a distinct hermeneutic but debate about how to apply the hermeneutic that we share that we share. The question most simply put is, How does “new” revelation impact “old” revelation and expression? (392)
Blaising and Bock want to put forth what they call a “complementary hermeneutic.” Complementary hermeneutics appears to be a synthesis of the two older approaches which have battled each other for years—the spiritual and literal approaches—in their handling of how the New Testament uses the Old Testament.
Third, does the New Testament complement Old Testament revelation? According to this approach, the New Testament does introduce change and advance; it does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation. In making complementary additions, however, it does not jettison old promises. The enhancement is not at the expense of the original promise. (392-3)
This hermeneutical approach is used to support their “already/not yet” interpretation of the Davidic Covenant.
Davidic Covenant: Bock’s contribution to PD is the notion that there is an unanticipated inauguration of the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant with Christ currently reigning on David’s throne spiritually. Bock uses a dialectical phrase “already/not yet” (46) to support his form of realized eschatology. In the past, dispensationalists have seen the current Church Age as distinct in purpose and administration from the future Kingdom Age or Millennium. Dispensationalists have made a distinction between Christ’s current reign at the right hand of the Father (Rev. 3:21) and His future reign on earth in Jerusalem during the Millennium upon David’s Throne, thus fulfilling the blessings of the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7). In the past, nondispensationalists have seen the present Church Age as a realized form of the Kingdom. They do not make a distinction between Christ’s present session at the Father’s right hand and the rule of Christ on David’s throne. Thus, creating a conflict between dispensationalists and nondispensationalists over the timing of the Kingdom.
Bock has attempted to merge the two views by creating out of thin air (in my opinion), an artificial view that the Kingdom is both present and future at the same time. Thus, the current Church Age is not distinct from the future Kingdom. Instead Bock views our current age as “the ‘already,’ the ‘sneak preview,’ or the ‘invisible’ kingdom rule of Jesus” (65). Bock explains:
Thus the new community, the church, is the showcase of God’s present reign through Messiah Jesus, who inaugurates the fulfillment of God’s promises. . . . Jesus reigns from heaven invisibly but powerfully, transforming people
through his Spirit. . . . He invites all into God’s kingdom, where promises are beginning to be realized, a kingdom that functions distinct from and in the midst of the kingdoms of earth. The current phase of the kingdom has continuity with the kingdom to come, because it shares the call to reflect the activity and presence of God’s righteousness in the world. (65-6)
Rather than following traditional logic that reasons if the church is currently in the Messianic Kingdom, then it is present and not future. Instead Bock says that there is also a future phase of the Kingdom, yet to be fulfilled. Bock explains:
In the second stage, the promise moves to ultimate consummation. . . . When Jesus returns, he will do all that the prophets of the Old Testament promised. The language chosen specifically ties itself to the concept of Israel’s restoration, which is an element that is totally absent in the current activity of Jesus. . . . There is no indication that earthly and Israelitic elements in Old Testament promises have been lost in the activity of the two stages. In the “not yet,” visible, consummative kingdom, Jesus will rule on earth. He will rule before and over all. (66)
In a future issue I hope to deal more in depth with Bock’s views, but some problems with his view include: 1) His use of an invalid spiritual hermeneutic at key points to support his “already” view of the Kingdom. 2) After reading the presentation of his view I do not see where Bock gets from the Bible the dialectic of “already/not yet.”
This is simply an arbitrary device to allow him to support a realized kingdom and at the same time hold to a premillennial futurism. I think a dialectical approach is employed by both theologians when they attempt to blend elements of contradictory ideas. Bock and others like him simply need to make up their minds. 3) As John Master pointed out at ETS this year, how can something be both fulfilled and yet not fulfilled? This is an amazing use of a word that has a clear sense of finality to it. 4) If Bock’s exegetical approach can be used to support a current spiritual Davidic fulfillment (even though partial) then why can’t the same approach be used to apply an “already” fulfillment to Israel’s land promises found in the Palestinian Covenant? Put another way, why stop where PD has stopped thus far in breaking down distinctions? Why not apply this wonderful new development of dispensationalism across the board?
Israel and the Church: PD blunts distinctions between Israel and the Church, while the older forms of dispensationalism highlight distinctions. Even though some distinctions are maintained by PD I wonder how long it will be before this new form of “dispensationalism” will become the highway leading one totally away from most, if not all, of the distinctions of dispensationalism? Blaising explains that their search for a new dispensationalism
has led many dispensationalists to abandon the transcendental distinction of heavenly verse earthly peoples in favor of a historical distinction in the divine purpose. The unity of divine revelation, of the various dispensations, is found in the goal of history, the kingdom of God. (33)
One of the few distinctions which PD has maintained from older dispensationalism is their rejection of replacement theology. If a full replacement of Israel for the church were to start to happen, then no one could successfully argue that this could be a valid
form of dispensationalism. PD current commitment to a futurist eschatology keeps them from totally commingling the church and Israel. But their is no question about their overall tendency to stress unity of the dispensations at the expense of diversity when compared to older dispensationalism.
Some of the problems created by PD’s de emphasis on distinctions between God’s plan for Israel and His plan for the church include: 1) The church loses its distinctiveness as a special work of God apart from Israel. Thus, the church is reduced to a second rate expression of the Kingdom lacking the fullness of God’s power that will accompany the future “phase” of the Kingdom. 2) Since much of the theological support for the pretribulational rapture is based upon the exegetical conclusion that God's plan for the church is totally distinct from His plan for Israel, then this change will only undermine support for the pretrib position.
BLAISING’S HISTORICAL JUSTIFICATION
DIC begins with a historical polemic in the Introduction by Craig Blaising in an apparent attempt to justify the need for their new brand of dispensationalism and most likely to lay a groundwork for those who might suggest that PD has gone too far and is no longer a valid form of dispensationalism. In the final chapter of the book Blaising and Bock deny that an essential of dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the church (they still hold to distinctions, they just do not believe that they are essential) and conclude that if this were the case “then any change or modification of that view is departure” (377). They then show why they interpret the history of dispensationalism as a futile attempt to locate essentials when they declare:
The problem with this is that it ignores the fact that essentialist dispensationalism that which found its dispensational identity in the sine qua non) was only one form of a tradition in which other forms preceded it. This in itself raised the possibility that other forms may also follow. . . . It leads us to search for a new definition of dispensationalism, one that embraces the various historical manifestations of the tradition and that places the emergence of this postessentialist form of dispensationalism in perspective. (377-8)
Their search did not lead them to find a new sine qua non for dispensationalism, instead they only observed “patterns” of what dispensationalists in the past have believed.
This agnostic conclusion serves their purpose. If essentials cannot be clarified then their new PD cannot be viewed as a departure from dispensationalism. So the matter of dispensationalism’s history is of central importance in evaluating their case for PD.
At least two items are important to Blaising’s interpretation of American dispensationalism. First, is his classification and interpretation of the stages of American dispensationalism. Second, his conclusion that Ryrie has been wrong to see historic essentials that have given definition to dispensationalism. Instead he believes that dispensationalism has always been in flux and void of true universal characteristics. These two items, if true, would lend support to Blaising’s claim that PD is simply another turn of the wheel in the development of dispensationalism, instead of a departure from dispensationalism as some have charged. It should also be pointed out that Blaising’s historical interpretation is an attack upon Ryrie’s brand of dispensationalism and his view of the history of dispensationalism. If Ryrie’s dispensationalism or view of dispensationalism’s history is correct, then PD would
have to be judged from that framework to be a departure form dispensationalism. Thus, Blaising’s historical arguments are crucial to making the case for PD as a new development in dispensationalism and not a departure.
Overview of American Dispensationalism
Blaising begins his historical argument by dividing the development of American dispensationalism into four stages of development: 1) Niagara premillennialism, 2) Scofieldism, 3) essentialist dispensationalism of Charles Ryrie, and 4) progressive dispensationalism or postessentialist dispensationalism. I do not have any particular problem with these categories, other than with the title essentialist dispensationalism. The essentialist label implies that Ryrie invented the sine qua non late in the game, instead of observing and distilling the essence of historic dispensationalism. Since Blaising’s interpretation of the history of dispensationalism is used by him to put a spin upon the development of dispensationalism that allows advocates of PD to justify their radical changes, I will interact with key elements of each era of American dispensationalism.
Niagara
The annual gathering of the Niagara Bible Conference (1883-1897) was spearheaded by the father of American dispensationalism—James H. Brookes—with the aid of A.J. Gordon. Niagara grew out of earlier Bible Study conferences that were being held as early as 1878 in Clifton Springs, New York.9 Blaising correctly notes that these conferences were “the forum for introducing and developing American dispensationalism.” “Two features of the conference,” continues Blaising, “especially lent themselves to the development of dispensationalism” (16). The first feature “a view of the church that went beyond local churches and denominations” (16). “The second feature of the Niagara Conference that lent itself to the development of dispensationalism was its emphasis on the Bible” (17).
The first point Blaising makes regards the ecumenical nature of the Niagara Bible Studies. “Niagara sought a visible experience of unity among those who belonged to and continued in different churches and denominations,” notes Blaising. DIC gives the impression that PD is restoring dispensationalism to the ecumenical unity of Niagara that was fractured by the narrow dogmatism of essentialist dispensationalism. While it is true that Niagara dispensationalism featured a certain kind of ecumenical unity, I think that there are significant differences between the “community of scholars” (385) assembled around PD in our day and the dynamics responsible for earlier dispensationalism.
The differences between the unity of Niagara and that of the modern movement is more like two high-speed trains, on separate tracks, passing each other, going in opposite directions. Further explanation of this first point moves us into discussion of Blaising’s second feature, the emphasis on the Bible. Niagara was a Bible Study conference that met together to inductively study the Bible with an eye on answering attacks on the Bible coming from a growing modernist movement. Ryrie’s disagreement with Kraus’ understanding of the purpose behind Niagara supports this point:
His [Kraus] attempt to link the prophetic conferences with dispensationalism is in reverse gear. He tries to show that since there was some dispensational teaching in the conferences this was the cause of their being convened. The
truth is that the calling of prophetic conferences as a protest to modernism was the cause, and a gradual understanding of dispensationalism was the effect. The conferences led to dispensationalism, not vice versa. To be sure there was an inevitable and eventual link between the conferences and dispensationalism, but dispensationalism grew out of the independent study which resulted from the interest in prophecy.10
Niagara’s unity was the product of those from within liberal denominations who meet together for Bible Study to counter the lack of biblical input they were not receiving from their mainline churches. The result was that they saw in dispensationalism an answer to modernism’s approach to tearing down the biblical faith. PD is not made up of those who are dissatisfied with liberal denominations, instead they are Evangelicals who are dissatisfied with the dispensationalism of their forefathers and have met together to change it. Our Niagara fathers were premillennialists and they did not include amillennialists and postmillennialists (for the main part) in their formulations. Today, however, PD’s are including nonpremillennialists in their “community” which helps explain why they are arriving at a synthesis between premillennialism and “an inaugurated eschatology”11 (i.e., an amillennial or postmillennial view that the current age is the Davidic kingdom or millennium) as stated in their “already/not yet” dialectic. The Niagara fathers meet for inductive Bible Study and the result was the formulation of dispensationalism. However, today, PD has been the product, in my opinion, of ideas that need to be supported by study of the Bible. Niagara stressed distinctions found in Bible Study, while PD stresses continuity and unity in the Bible. Niagara used as its standard for resolving differences an appeal to the Bible, while PD seems to place great weight up theological dialogue between opposing theological systems.
Blaising says “Niagara dispensationalism was inclusive; it had no distinct identity as ‘dispensationalism.’ But dispensations and dispensational ideas were present in the study of premillennialism” (20, f.n.). This is an interesting statement. How could “Niagara dispensationalism” be classified as dispensationalism and yet not be considered dispensationalism? I believe a better understanding of Niagara dispensationalism would see their view of dispensations (the early term for dispensationalism) as more dispensational than Blaising would admit. Like the perspective of many modern television shows and movies, Blaising wants to project the modern ethos upon a previous generation that viewed their concerns from a different perspective. About half of Kraus’ book Dispensationalism In America covers the Niagara period in which he believes that their views of dispensations clearly constituted dispensationalism. There was just as much talk during the Niagara period about learning to distinguish the dispensations as there has been since Ryrie’s day where similar interests have been expressed in term of distinguishing between Israel and the Church.
Blaising’s desire to have his readers view Niagara as a time of strong ecumenical sentiment, I believe, is to overrate and misinterpret the true place of unity at the conference. It was a feature of Niagara, but to emphasize it as one of the two or three key elements at Niagara goes to far. Instead, it appears that Blaising is stressing this feature because he wants it to be an aspect of the current dialogue on dispensationalism. This would cast PD in a better light if he can compare today’s noble efforts with those of our natal past. An ecumenical impulse such as this could be one of the hidden motives explaining the rise of PD.
The leadership of Niagara developed a detailed doctrinal statement of essentials (clearly an essentialist mentality which Blaising opposes) that served to narrow and eliminate those who did not want to unite under such a restrictive banner. The attitude at Niagara, while opposing harsh and inflammatory rhetoric, was that they would stand for what they believed the Bible taught regardless of the impact upon the “community of scholars.” On the other hand, PD’s unity is based upon an inclusive, “don’t-let-doctrinal-differences-stand-in-our-way” kind of unity. Blaising and Bock have concluded that, “this is the nature of theological dialogue in the context of community” (394). The following statement clearly indicates that they place unity, at least on this matter, above Biblical conviction.
This work indicates where many dispensationalists are today, while recognizing that it is part of a larger theological community that is the body of Christ. Our discussion should continue, but not at the expense of our unity. (394)
Niagara’s “promotion of a nonpartisan method of Bible study” (18) often known today as the inductive approach, consisted of three features, according to Blaising.
They are 1) Christocentricity, 2) piety, and 3) an inductive or scientific approach to Bible Study (18).
Christocentricity is said by Blaising to mean that “[a]ll Scripture points to Christ and is interpreted correctly only with respect to Christ” (18). Contrary to Blaising this is a feature that has been an emphasis universally recognized by all dispensationalists (Luke 24:27, 44). Yet Blaising and Bock want to give the impression that PD has returned to the Christocentricity of Niagara and that the Scofield and Ryrie (essentialist) eras had abandoned this principle with their alleged “anthropologically centered” (383) and “doxological unity” (27).
What is needed today is a new approach to defining dispensationalism. . . . one that may rehabilitate and revise features that were central to an earlier dispensationalism but may have been eclipsed by the concerns of an intervening generation [such as Scofield and Ryrie—TDI] (such as the factors of exclusivity and Christocentricity, which present-day dispensationalists share more closely with the Niagara dispensationalists than they do with their immediate predecessors). (30)
Scofield and Ryrie demonstrate that they are just as Christocentric as Niagara:
The Central Theme of the Bible is Christ. It is this manifestation of Jesus Christ, his Person as “God manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16), his sacrificial death, and his resurrection, which constitute the Gospel. Unto this all preceding Scripture leads, from this all following Scripture proceeds. . . . etc. (The Scofield Reference Bible, 1917 edition: vi; 1967 edition: xi)
The outstanding theme that ties those sixty-six books together is God’s provision of a Savior in Jesus Christ. The Old Testament predicts His coming, and the New Testament announces the good news of His coming. Not every verse, of course, directly mentions Him, but He is the theme that ties the Bible together. (Ryrie’s Concise Guide to the Bible Here’s Life Publishers, 1983:13)
Blaising and Bock use this point about Christocentricity as their integrating principle between Old and New Testament theology. (382)
The dispensationalism of this book distinguishes itself from the immediately preceding dispensationalism [i.e., Ryrie—TDI] and Scofieldism by the fact that instead of being anthropologically centered on two peoples, it is Christologically centered. (383)
It appears to me that Blaising and Bock are using Christocentricity in a different way than Niagara and other dispensationalists. They seem to be using it as a mechanism to break down dispensational distinctives (hardly the same direction that those of the Niagara era were moving). They seem to be using Christocentricity in the same way that a Covenant Theologian uses the covenant to argue against distinctions seen by dispensationalists. Christocentricity is one of the devices they use to argue for a present form of a Davidic rule for Christ.
The movement from the past to the present and then to the future dispensations is not due to a plan for two different kinds of people but rather is due to the history of Christ’s fulfilling the plan of holistic redemption in phases (dispensations). (383)
For Blaising to describe PD as Christocentric, as set against the characterization that Scofield's dispensationalism is anthropologically centered or Ryrie's is defectively theocentric is an arbitrary judgment. I could just as likely say (I am not saying this, just illustrating) that Blaising and Bock's dispensationalism is influenced by Karl Barth, since Barth often is described as having a Christocentric theology. It would be better to see each brand of dispensationalism as having a certain view of each aspect of theology. Each view has an anthropological dimension. Each view has a Christological position, etc. So it does not make one form of dispensationalism any better or more heroic (better able to explain the Bible) to say that PD is Christocentric, as set against other forms of dispensationalism.
In the next issue I want to deal with Blaising's attempt to cast a bad light upon inductive Bible study and literal hermeneutics. I am not saying that Blaising rejects inductive Bible study and a form of literal hermeneutics, but that he wants to taint older systems of dispensationalism as having been influenced for the bad by secular thought from the culture. With all the current discussion of preunderstanding and the need to be aware of cultural influences upon how we view the Bible, I did not see a self- examination in this area by Blaising. Has the existential idealism of modern America influenced their hermeneutics and theology causing them to devalue consistent literal interpretation for an element of spiritualization? These matters will have to wait until next issue, since as finite creatures we are limited by boundaries such as space and time.
NOTE: This was the first in a series of articles on PD, but no other articles were ever produced.
ENDNOTES
1 Stanley N. Gundry, Foreword to Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Editors Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Zondervan Publishing House, 1992):11-12.
2 Ronald T. Clutter, “Dispensational Study Group: An Introduction,” Grace Theological Journal, 10:2 (1989):123.
3 Blaising paper, while later published in Dallas Seminary’s Bibliotheca Sacra (145, 1988), his introductory chapter in DIC is a later edition of his paper.
4 The essence of this paper can be found in DIC, chapter 1 “The Reign of the Lord Christ.”
5 John Master in a private discussion with Thomas Ice, December 1992.
6 Ryrie’s much quoted statement is as follows: “The essence of dispensationalism, then, is [1] the distinction between Israel and the Church. This grows out of the dispensationalist’s consistent employment of [2] normal or plain interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of [3] the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well.” Dispensationalism Today (Moody Press, 1965):47.
7 Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists (Zondervan Publishing House, 1987).
8 Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today :20.
9 For one of the most extensive, though not always reliable, accounts of Niagara and the development of the Bible Study movement see C. Norman Kraus, Dispensationalism in America: Its Rise and Development (John Knox Press, 1958):71-110.
10 Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today :81, f.n. 28.
11 Kenneth L. Barker’s statement in DIC:295.

"Will there be animal sacrifices during the millennial kingdom?"

Question: "Will there be animal sacrifices during the millennial kingdom?"

Answer: There are several passages in the Old Testament that clearly indicate animal sacrifice will be re-instituted during the millennial kingdom. Some passages mention it in passing as the topic of the millennial kingdom is discussed, passages like Isaiah 56:6-8; Zechariah 14:16; and Jeremiah 33:15-18.

The passage that is the most extensive, giving the greatest detail, is Ezekiel 43:18-46:24. It should be noted that this is part of a greater passage dealing with the millennial kingdom, a passage that begins with Ezekiel 40. In Ezekiel 40, the Lord begins to give details of the temple that will exist during the millennial kingdom, a temple that dwarfs all other temples previously built, even Herod’s temple that was quite large, which existed during the earthly ministry of Christ.

After giving details concerning the size and appearance of the temple and the altar, the Lord then begins to give detailed instruction as to the animal sacrifices that will be offered (Ezekiel 43:18-27). In chapter 44, the Lord gives instructions as to who will be offering sacrifices to the Lord. The Lord states that all of the Levites will not be offering blood and fat to the Lord due to previous sin; it will be those from the lineage of Zadok (verse 15). Chapters 45 and 46 continue to mention that animal sacrifices will be made.

The primary objection made to the idea of animal sacrifices returning during the millennial kingdom is that Christ has come and offered a perfect sacrifice for sin, and there is therefore no need to sacrifice animals for sin. However, it must be remembered that animal sacrifice never removed the sin that spiritually separated a person from the Lord.

Hebrews 10:1-4 says, “For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (NASB).

It is incorrect to think that animal sacrifices took away sins in the Old Testament, and it is incorrect to think they will do so in the millennial kingdom. Animal sacrifices served as object lessons for the sinner, that sin was and is a horrible offense against God, and that the result of sin is death. Romans 3:20 says, “Because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.”

Most premillennial scholars agree that the purpose of animal sacrifice during the millennial kingdom is memorial in nature. As the Lord’s Supper is a reminder of the death of Christ to the Church today, animal sacrifices will be a reminder during the millennial kingdom. To those born during the millennial kingdom, animal sacrifices will again be an object lesson. During that future time, righteousness and holiness will prevail, but those with earthly bodies will still have a sin nature, and there will be a need to teach about how offensive sin is to a holy and righteous God. Animal sacrifices will serve that purpose, "but in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year" (Hebrews 10:3).

"What is the Nazirite/Nazarite vow?"

Question: "What is the Nazirite/Nazarite vow?"

Answer: The Nazirite/Nazarite vow is taken by individuals who have voluntarily dedicated themselves to God. The vow is a decision, action, and desire on the part of people whose desire is to yield themselves to God completely. By definition, the Hebrew word nazir, simply means “to be separated or consecrated.” The Nazirite vow, which appears in Numbers 6:1-21, has five features. It is voluntary, can be done by either men or women, has a specific time frame, has specific requirements and restrictions, and at its conclusion a sacrifice is offered.

First, the individual enters into this vow voluntarily. The Bible says, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as a Nazirite’” (Numbers 6:2). This shows that it is individuals who take the initiative to consecrate themselves to the Lord. There is no divine command involved. While generally done by the individual by his own choice, two individuals in the Old Testament, and one in the New Testament, were presented to God by their parents. Samuel and Samson in the Old Testament, (1 Samuel 2:8-28; Judges 13:1-5), and John the Baptist in the New Testament received the Nazirite vow from birth (Luke 1:13-17).

Second, both men and women could participate in this vow, as Numbers 6:2 indicates, “a man or woman.” The Nazirite vow was often taken by men and women alike purely for personal reasons, such as thanksgiving for recovery from illness or for the birth of a child. However, under the Mosaic law, the vow or oath of a single woman could be rescinded by her father, and that of a married woman by her husband (Numbers 30).

Third, the vow had a specific time frame, a beginning and an end as these two statements indicate: “Throughout the period of his separation he is consecrated to the LORD... Now this is the law for the Nazirite when the period of his separation is over” (Numbers 6:8, 13a). So, the Nazirite vow usually had both a beginning and an end.

Fourth, there were specific guidelines and restrictions involved with the Nazirite vow. Three guidelines are given to the Nazirite. Numbers 6:3-7 tells us that he/she was to abstain from wine or any fermented drink, nor was the Nazirite to drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins, not even the seeds or skins. Next, the Nazirite was not to cut his hair for the length of the vow. Last, he was not to go near a dead body, because that would make him ceremonially unclean. Even if a member of his immediate family died, he was not to go near the corpse.

Numbers 6:13-20 shows the procedure to follow to complete the vow. A sacrifice was made (vv.13-17), the candidate’s hair was cut and put on the altar, and the priest did the final task of completing the sacrificial process, which ended the vow (v. 20). This section concludes with the statement, “This is the law of the Nazirite who vows his offering to the LORD in accordance with his separation, in addition to whatever else he can afford. He must fulfill the vow he has made, according to the law of the Nazirite”(6:21).

Although the Nazirite vow is an Old Testament concept, there is a New Testament parallel to the Nazirite vow. In Romans 12:1-2 Paul states, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” For Christians, the ancient Nazirite vow symbolizes the need to be separate from this world, a holy people consecrated to God (2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Peter 1:15).

Is it okay for a Christian to get a tattoo?

Is it okay for a Christian to get a tattoo?
by Matt Slick

Tattoos are making a comeback in present-day culture. From teenagers to housewives, they are appearing everywhere even among Christians. So then, is it okay for Christians to get tattoos? To answer this, we need to see what the Bible says about it, if anything.

First of all, making marks on the skin is mentioned in several verses. The first is in Leviticus, and the rest are in the Book of Revelation which deal with the Mark of the Beast.

Lev. 19:28, "‘You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead, nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."
Rev. 13:16-17, "And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand, or on their forehead. 17 and he provides that no one should be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name." See also: Rev. 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4.
Any Christian would have no problem denouncing the Mark of the Beast and saying it is sinful. Whether or not it is a physical mark has been debated, but it goes without saying that we are not to receive that mark. It is the Leviticus passage that we must now examine. To do that, we need to quote its context.

Lev. 19:26-30, "You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor practice divination or soothsaying. 27 You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard. 28 You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead, nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord. 29 ‘Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land may not fall to harlotry, and the land become full of lewdness. 30 You shall keep My sabbaths and revere My sanctuary; I am the Lord."

As you can see, tattooing is mentioned in the context of ancient pagan practices. But does this mean that tattooing is in itself a bad thing to do because unbelievers did it? We have to be careful not to make a logical error known as the genetic fallacy. This error says that something is false because of its origin. For example, it would be a fallacy that because the Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle, that the VW Beetle is a bad car. Likewise, just because unbelievers get tattoos, does not mean Christians should not.

The Leviticus context also tells the Israelites to not round off the hair on the side of their heads nor shave the edges of their beards. Apparently, this is what the Egyptians did, and God's people were called to be separate from them. But, why such detail about hair? Perhaps Moses was concerned about the superstitious beliefs of the Egyptians to which shaving the head and beard had a religious significance. If this were the case, then God's people were certainly called to be separate from the false nations and their superstitions.

But, such religious practices that require tattooing, cutting one's own skin and/or shaving the head and beard, are not around in present-day Western culture. So, the admonition against tattooing based upon the cultural norm can't apply for today.

If we must conclude that tattooing is automatically bad in and of itself, then we must also conclude that shaving off the hair on the side of the head and shaving edges of men's beards is also equally bad. But, since cutting hair and shaving beards is not sinful in itself, how could we conclude that tattooing is also automatically sinful? We can't.

Freedom in Christ
Something we must examine is whether or not we Christians are required to keep Old Testament Law. No, we are not. Now, this does not mean it's okay to lie, to cheat, and to steal. It means that we are not required to keep Old Testament Law in order to get or maintain our salvation. This is because we have died to the law; and because of that, all things are lawful to us.

"Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? . . . 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God," (Rom. 7:1, 4).
"All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything," (1 Cor. 6:12).
If a person wants to maintain that a Christian should keep the Old Testament Law concerning tattoos, then do they also keep the Old Testament law concerning not shaving the beard? Also, what would they do with the Scriptures that say we have died to the law and that all things are lawful? Would they require legalism?

First, we must retain the truth that we are not to violate any moral law of God. It is always wrong to lie, cheat, and to steal. Such commands are clearly reiterated in the New Testament and are based on the character of God. So, the Old Testament law dealing with morality is definitely to be upheld. All of the Ten Commandments (except Sabbath-keeping) are referenced in the New Testament as still being valid (Mt. 19:17-19; 1 Cor. 5:11; 6:9; Rev. 13:6).

Second, we see no New Testament commands that tell us to keep the sacrificial system, forbid work on the Sabbath, forbid the shaving of beards, or forbid tattoos, etc. Since we have died to the law and all things are lawful (excluding, of course, sin), then the Christian is not under obligation to keep the Old Testament command not to get tattooed. Remember, if tattooing is a sin, then so is shaving the beard--if we were to retain its command and the ones with it.

Third, let me ask a question. Is it okay to eat meat that has been deliberately sacrificed to idols? Would it be a sin to buy such meat in the marketplace and consume it as a Christian? The answer is, it's not a sin.

"Eat anything that is sold in the meat market, without asking questions for conscience sake; 26 for the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains. 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you, and you wish to go, eat anything that is set before you, without asking questions for conscience’ sake. 28 But if anyone should say to you, 'This is meat sacrificed to idols,' do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience‘ sake; 29 I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience?" (1 Cor. 10:25-29).

Paul is telling us that a Christian does not need to worry about a "pagan connection" because he is free in Christ. In this case, the Christian is free to eat meat sacrificed to idols. But, Paul makes it clear that we are not free to stumble anyone else such as a weaker Christian. We need to be wise in the application of our freedom and not cause anyone to stumble.

The point is that we are free and because of our sanctification in Christ, what we touch becomes sanctified. The meat sacrificed to idols does not hurt the Christian when the Christian consumes it. If it were a sin to buy and consume such meat, Paul would have said so. Likewise, if tattooing is to be considered a sinful act because of its connection with the pagans of the Old Testament, and thereby we are not have anything to do with it, why did not Paul carry over the same logic to the issue of meat openly sacrificed to idols?

What about Christian tatoos?
Some people say that getting a Christian themed tatoo of a cross or a Scripture, etc., can be used as a witness. Perhaps this is true. But, we do not want to make the mistake of saying the ends justifies the means. On the other hand, it can be used as a witness. I suppose that the motive of the person needs to be examined and his/her choice is his own.

Conclusion
So, should a Christian get a tattoo? There is no should or should not as far as I can see. Personally, I would not get one. I would not mark my body permanently, and I have doubts about its wisdom since some might misinterpret it as being "ungodly." But, this is my opinion. Other Christians have other opinions, and each Christian is free to choose what he or she should do in this matter. The Christian should seriously consider the ramifications of a permanent marking upon the skin. The Christian should ask whether or not it is a good witness, and this is something only that individual Christian should decide.

Should we divide over this?
No, we should not divide over this. If personal opinions override Scriptural teaching concerning our freedom in Christ and division and anger are the result, then those who are dividing over this are the ones in sin.




Matt Slick

God created only one race--The Human Race

There is Only One "Race" - The Human Race


Acts 17:24-26



Racism 1“What race are you?” How do you answer this question? We have been conditioned to answer, “Caucasian,” or “African American,” “Hispanic,” “Asian,” etc. Many think in terms of skin color, “White,” “Black,” etc.

As far as the Bible is concerned, there are many nationalities, but there is only ONE RACE! Therefore, why not answer: “The Human Race?”

Speaking to those in ancient Athens, the apostle Paul reminds us, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that God made every nation of men from “one blood.”

“God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings…” (Acts 17:24-26).

Without exception, we are all born of that “ONE BLOOD.” When we consider our origins, all of us share two key ancestors. The first ancestor we share is Adam, who was the first human (Gen. 1-3). Interestingly, the Hebrew word translated “human” in the Old Testament is “adam.” The second ancestor we share is Noah, who by meeting God’s grace with his faith, survived the flood. Because all of mankind was destroyed in that flood, we are told in the book of beginnings that the whole earth was populated from Noah and his three sons.

“Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.” (Gen. 9:18-19).

Therefore, we are all related to one another through Noah! As if this kinship isn’t enough to unite upon, it is important to remember that, through Adam, we are ALL created in God’s image.

“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Gen. 1:26-27)

Thus, we are all created from the same original Blueprint. We are all of ONE IMAGE! Realizing this, to think less of our fellow man is to think less of God! It is in His image we are all created!

We also must recognize that Jesus died for the sins of every creature under heaven (cf. Acts 10:35; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47). Regardless of skin color, we are all sinners (Rom. 3:23), and Christ died to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). In Christ, faith is the only thing that matters (Gal. 3:26-29)! Nationality is not an issue (Col. 3:11-12; Rom. 10:12; 1 Cor. 12:13, et al). Skin color is not even considered or mentioned — it is insignificant and inconsequential! If it does not matter to our Creator, why does it ever matter to us—His creation?

We are all of ONE RACE, ONE BLOOD, and ONE IMAGE! In light of these three simple realities, let us resolve to view ALL men and woman as members of the human race! Starting at this point, we can begin to lay aside all wrongs—perceived or genuine. We can and must forgive one another as Christ forgives us (Col. 3:13). We can and must love one another as Christ loves us (John 13:34-35). Only then, can we begin to overcome the “racial” ignorance, prejudice, stereotypes, bitterness and hatred that Satan so easily uses to divide and destroy us today!

Jesus teaches, “And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise” (Luke 6:31). Do not allow yourself to be a pawn or minion in Satan’s game of blind hatred today! Choose to treat your fellow man in the same way you expect him to treat you! It’s just that simple.

Is America in Bible Prophecy????????

Is America in Bible Prophecy?

One thing that comes to mind in these contemporary times regarding the United States is its magnetic attraction to peoples around the world. This nation might be likened to the Planet Jupiter. It is huge in most of the ways human beings see as alluring, giving it the greatest gravity–materially speaking—of any nation state to grace earth’s surface. God has indeed blessed America "from sea to shining sea."

While all other nations orbit this one, realization about the liberty that is synonymous with the U.S. to worship, move about, work, play, or even just be slovenly doesn’t escape even those kept from knowing much about things going on around the rest of the planet. Indeed, America’s gravity dynamically draws all peoples toward its irresistible opulence. With the exception of a very few people, no one makes noises about leaving this nation to live elsewhere. Billions look in America’s direction as the shining light on the hill, as President Ronald Reagan once called it.

Even the defectors who sought to dodge the draft during the Vietnam era have since done all they could to come back to the nation they deserted. The Hollywood types–like Barbra Streisand, for example—who periodically threaten to leave America because they don’t get their way, politically, decide to stay when it comes down to the moment of leaving or staying. In southern parlance, they know on which side their bread is buttered.

Perhaps to get right to the heart of what has made America the center of the universe of nations, and to try to determine its status so far as involvement in Bible prophecy might be concerned, I would like to consider a well known historical observation by a man outside this country--a Frenchman, no less!

French social philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, while touring the United States in the 1800s said about America: “America is great because America is good. If she ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” De Tocqueville no doubt was speaking of how he viewed cultural and societal good. But, upon observing the nation’s Christian church foundation he encountered, he must have based his conclusion on the fact that America’s goodness in the societal sense was a result of Christianity running throughout the country’s cultural fiber. What he likely didn’t understand was what that “goodness” really means in God’s economy.

God’s Word speaks of this “good”: “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God” (Mar. 10:18).

Jesus was not saying to the man who fell on his knees before the Lord that He, Jesus, was not “good,” but the Lord was acclaiming that God, alone, is the only good. Jesus was–and is--the only “good” flesh-and-blood person to ever walk the earth’s surface following the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. That is because Jesus IS God.

Christianity is the God-sent only belief system through which any people–individually or collectively--can ever be considered “good” in God’s holy, omniscient eyes. Belief in Jesus Christ for salvation is the ONLY way to reconciliation with God, which redeems lost man from sin. Christianity is the belief that says Jesus, alone, was the lamb that takes away the sins of the world. All other belief systems we call religions constitute the broad way to eternal destruction apart from God and heaven.

“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matt. 7:13-14).

Jesus said this: “…I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the father, but by me” (John 14:6).

A Prophetic Nation

So, it is through His Son, Jesus Christ, the second member of the triune godhead, that God the Father recognizes “good.” The Christian roots of this nation called America gives this country claim to the only “good” that is found therein. America has been blessed only because of its “goodness.” Let’s have a look at this seemingly elitest declaration.

President George Washington said in his farewell address, "Reason and experience both forbid us that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." John Adams, America's second president, said, "The United States Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

We have only to look at what is inscribed upon the edifice that houses the U.S. Supreme Court, and what is etched in the surfaces of walls that frame other government buildings, to understand what is the “religion” to which Washington and Adams referred as being the basis for America’s “morality”. The Ten Commandments that flow from the mind of God so influenced the founding fathers of America that they saw His directions for godly living as inseparable from their own governance.

Here is what Jesus, the Son of God, said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17).

Jesus, the founder of God’s only outreach to mankind with the offer of redemption through Christ’s shed blood on the cross at Calvary, fulfilled the Ten Commandments, that Mosaic Law that is everywhere one looks in Washington, D.C., and in capitals around America. This, despite incessant attempts by those who would destroy all vestiges of our Christian heritage.

The question we who teach, preach, and write about Bible prophecy get practically every time there is a forum for Q & A, is something like: “What about America –is it in Bible prophecy?”

The answer that must be given, if we are to be absolutely faithful to truth found in God’s Word is: No, America isn’t mentioned by name in Bible prophecy. But, it is always appropriate to follow up with: However, America is certainly in prophecy in the sense of being among the nations foretold to influence the course of human history while the end of the age approaches and the tribulation looms on the prophetic horizon. We can say that, because here we are, right in the mix of things moving the world toward the climax of human history.

America, A Golden Cup

Again, is the name “America” given anywhere in Scripture? Of course not. But, the influence this nation has exerted since coming to its full bloom as earth’s greatest superpower in history makes it a prophetic nation. The Creator of all things continues to use America in His mighty hand to accomplish two very distinctive, supernatural purposes. As a matter of fact, the United States, in my view, has an overwhelming presence in Bible prophecy. Its place is at the very heart of the end times things that we observe developing –matters we see unfolding in daily, even hourly, news reports. In this sense, I am of the conviction that God is speaking of America –in type, if not by name, when His Word tells us the following:

“Babylon [hath been] a golden cup in the LORD'S hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad” (Jer. 51:7).

Certainly, the United States of America has been a “golden cup” in the Lord’s hand. No other nation of modern vintage can come close to claiming that achievement. Some nations of Europe were formative in bringing forth Christianity into the world, thus shedding a degree of Gospel light into a world of sin-darkness. But, it is America that, despite its great shortcomings, and more recent degeneration, that has been a shining beacon, reflecting from that golden cup in God’s hand.

Being the first nation in spreading to the whole world the Gospel message –that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross makes possible the only way to redemption for lost mankind—is a feat no other country can claim. This, ultimately, has been done not by the offices, or under the auspices of American ingenuity, but by the omniscience and the omnipotence of the One holding the “golden cup.” It is God’s grace and mercy that has put America as a beacon of God’s light upon that mountain of Gospel dissemination. God’s providence gave this nation the industrial and technological genius –a fact that is denied, or that is so taken for granted today.

America and Babylon

Tragically, the United States, like every other nation of this generation, is the hybrid offspring of the Babylonian system, which God’s prophetic Word has traced from the times of Nimrod on the Plains of Shinar and the Tower of Babel (read Genesis 11). America, which has spread the Gospel message to the entire world, will, sadly, be in one form or another part of the agglomerate beast system mentioned in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel Chapter 2 –the 10 toes on the feet of the multi-metallic man-image. This nation will, in a grotesquely metamorphosed form, become a constituent part of the nondescript beast of Daniel 2, which is prophesied to appear during the tribulation era–as presented in Revelation Chapter 13, as it raises from the sea.

“And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy” (Rev. 13:1).

This world Babylonian hybrid that represents –in the final analysis—total, luciferian rebellion to Jesus Christ, who fulfilled God’s prescription for living righteously, will do all within its Satan-derived power, to destroy all that God holds dear to His heart.

Israel, America’s Saving Grace

This brings us to America’s second reason for existence --toward the purpose of accomplishing God’s great prophetic plan. In my view, this use of the phenomenally powerful American nation is among the most profound indicators we can find that America, indeed, is in prophecy. And, I believe that America’s being in prophecy includes God’s using it to be mid-wife in Israel’s modern birth into the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob those thousands of years ago.

It was President Harry S. Truman–who said he had read the Bible through a number of times—who insisted, despite many voices of opposition, that the embryo country still in the womb of the Holy Land, Israel, come to birth on May 14, 1948. America stood by Israel’s struggle to get to its feet, and through the battles it fought against its attacking, hate-filled enemy neighbors.

God’s hand was at work in unseen ways, it becomes obvious to a careful look at unfolding times leading up to Truman’s assuming the presidency following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death in 1945.

Truman had, as mentioned above, read God’s Word through a number of times. He told those around him that the Jews had promises from God to the land. He apparently believed that America must bless Israel, not curse that people. Historians would say that coincidentally, perhaps even ironically (but I am convinced that the word should be "providentially"), Truman had a Jewish friend–Edward Jacobson--with whom he had co-owned a haberdashery. His partner convinced Truman early on of that nation’s prophetic destiny.

Although Israel now has its own nuclear arsenal, it is America–in human terms—that has provided the most strength, militarily, which discourages overwhelming assaults against the Jewish state. But, looking beyond the physical earthly protection for Israel, it is the Lord of heaven that provides the ultimate hedge of protection.

God has proved in war after war throughout Israel’s earlier and latter incarnations that He keeps His promises to protect them from absolute destruction, despite their many Diasporas and their tribulations as captive and/or outcast people. He uses human military to accomplish this promise that the Jew will always be His chosen people. But, many strange reports have come out of some of those battles, proclaiming supernatural activity having turned the tide. Reports of battles during Israel’s rebirth as a nation in 1948, as an established nation in 1956, 1967, and 1973, brought such reports. And, at a spiritual warfare level in the sense of Ephesians 6: 12, there continue to be conflicts unseen by human eyes.

Christian Soldiers

Israel’s nuclear capability and America’s stupendous military and technological might are strong defensive ingredients for modern Israel’s protection. But, while surrounded by forces of overwhelming numbers whose satanic rage cannot be stemmed, it is a most unconventional army that is Israel’s greatest ally. It is this ally contingent that holds the joint Israeli-American defensive coalition in place, in my view –and, I believe—in God’s prophetic plan. It is a spiritual force that is Israel’s closest friend. Christians, particularly those in America, make up the spiritual army that supports Israel’s right to exist as does no other group on earth.

I must qualify that statement, because today there are so many divergent claims to the name of Christ –differing views about what it means to be “a Christian.” The definition I use here is one who has been “born again” (John 3: 3). This means that a person has been born into the family of God, for all eternity. The only way for this to happen is for an individual to accept Christ’s sacrifice on the cross at Calvary–His shed blood—to pay for the individual’s sin, which separates the individual from God. Those who are “born again” make up this army of defenders of Israel’s right to exist in its ancient homeland. This army doesn’t bear physical arms, or fight, literally on the bloody fields of battles surrounding Israel. This army fights with prayer for the peace of Jerusalem, and does spiritual battle for Israel, God’s chosen people, while that Jewish state moves in blind unrepentance, toward its ultimate great destiny–to be the head of all nations during the Millennium, Christ’s 1000-year reign on Planet Earth.

America Plunges While the Church Arises

America, the golden cup in the Lord’s hand for more than two centuries –having disseminated the Gospel to the world, and having been the mid-wife of Israel’s birth into modern times, then its protector—is not mentioned in Bible prophecy, by name. Supposedly lesser nations of history are mentioned. For example, Persia (present-day Iran), Syria, and others, upon delving into etymological studies of ancient days juxtaposed against the geographical locations of current national entities. Russia, for example, fits into the region known in ancient times as the region called “Rosh.” But this once shining city on the hill called America is nowhere to be found as the very end of days unfold.

So, what happens to the United States of America?

We have looked at my view–which I believe is the biblical view—that God’s people, the Christians of these end times, are Israel’s most fervent friends. But, again I must write a word of qualification. Not all of the born again hold to the position that Israel is God’s chosen nation as given in the Old Testament. Most Christians today (again talking about born-again members of God’s family) don’t even think in terms of Israel and its prophetic destiny one way or the other. This is because these Christians aren’t taught about the truth of these matters by their pastors and teachers. Also, they don’t do enough study on their own to open their spiritual minds on these things, so God the Holy Spirit can instruct them regarding Israel and prophecy yet future. They are ignorant of these things. Many are willfully ignorant.

So, it is a relatively small group who observe prophetic matters as outlined in God’s Word. Nonetheless, all Christians –every single individual who is a member of God’s eternal family—will go to be with Jesus Christ when He shouts: “Come up here” (Rev. 4:1). All of Israel’s most fervent supporters –that Jewish nation’s staunchest allies—will instantly be gone from the planet. I believe it is at this moment on God’s prophetic time line that America’s time as a viable nation will begin a precipitous plunge. It will recede into the depths of history past, so far as its grandiosity is concerned.

Much of the stable, tax-paying base will be removed in that stupefying moment. Its worker-base will be so severely disrupted that it won’t come close to resembling the economic powerhouse it was the moment before the rapture. This, because America has, it is quite safe to presume—the highest percentage of Christians of any nation of significant population.

The politicians and powers that be within governmental and business bureaucracies will flail wildly, trying to bring their turfdoms back into some semblance of order. It will be a task that will be impossible without the most extreme, draconian measures. Ultimately, I’m convinced, these political and governmental powers will readily agree to come under the auspices of the much more stable European Union. The EU–the member nations of which have long-since doused the Gospel light, thus its populations not as severely affected as that of the U.S.-- will grow to immense size and power within perhaps only a few days.

Israel Following Rapture

Israel will suddenly find itself without its staunchest lobby-base with the American government. The U.S. leadership will, itself, find itself so tied up in the staggering problems of trying to regain economic and societal equilibrium that urgent pleas from Israeli leaders will likely go unheeded.

The Islamic world will have lost in the rapture its small children and babies in the wombs of mothers within the Middle Eastern world. But Islamic armies of young, fanatic militants will be untouched by the catastrophe that has caused the disappearance of many millions of people. These, under their enraged leadership, will almost certainly fervently look at Israel to vent their frustrations. Likely the true Islamic fundamentalist fanatics will see what has happened as Allah’s preparing to bring on the end of the world.

Perhaps this is the “hook” in the “jaws,” which Ezekiel the prophet foretold God promises to implement at this time. There will be no one –including America—to offer to defend Israel. It is at this time that the great, supernaturally persuasive world leader who will one day in the future be known as “the beast” –Antichrist—will come forward from the swiftly reforming western alliance. He will propose to all of the antagonists of the forces poised for war a peace covenant they won’t be able to refuse.

Without genuine repentance of her people, America’s time as the apex nation of history will end. She will lose her golden glow. Her former glory will turn black with soot from the fire of judgment and wrath that will be the fate of all who come against Jesus Christ –the God of all creation.

America’s place in prophecy, without repentance before God, is seen in the Babylonian system of rebellion, as represented by the description of the destruction of its chief city.

“Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her” (Reb. 18:8)