Millennium or Kingdom              21

New Covenant Theology

and

Prophecy

John G. Reisinger

Millennium or Kingdom              21

Books by

John G. Reisinger

Abraham’s Four Seeds

The Believer’s Sabbath

But I Say Unto You

Chosen in Eternity

Christ, Lord and Lawgiver Over the Church

Continuity and Discontinuity

Grace

The Grace of Our Sovereign God

In Defense of Jesus, the New Lawgiver

John Bunyan on the Sabbath

Limited Atonement

The New Birth

Our Sovereign God

Perseverance of the Saints

Studies in Galatians

Studies in Ecclesiastes

Tablets of Stone

The Sovereignty of God and Prayer

The Sovereignty of God in Providence

Total Depravity

What is the Christian Faith?

When Should a Christian Leave a Church?

New Covenant Theology

and

Prophecy

John G. Reisinger

Millennium or Kingdom              21

New Covenant Theology

and

Prophecy

Copyright 2012 © by

Sovereign Grace New Covenant Ministries

Cover design by Matthew Tolbert

Published by:              New Covenant Media

5317 Wye Creek Drive

Frederick, MD 21703-5938

Orders: www.newcovenantmedia.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher, except as provided by USA copyright law.

Printed in the United States of America.

ISBN 13: 978-1-928965-46-6

Millennium or Kingdom              21

Dedication

Les Clemens is pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Lewisburg, PA. This has been my home church for many years. Les has been a constant encouragement to me in my life and ministry. He is a classic example of what it means to fulfill 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

Millennium or Kingdom              21

Table of Contents

Chapter One

Millennium or Kingdom?              1

Chapter Two

God’s Promises to David and Solomon              23

Chapter Three

Revelaton 20:1-9              37

Chapter Four

An Examination of  the Literal Principle              53

Chapter Five

New Covenant Theology Hermeneutic              69

Chapter Six

The New Interprets the Old              81

Millennium or Kingdom              21

Chapter One[1]

Millennium or Kingdom?

Let me clearly state my millennial position at the very beginning of this book. I am not a premillennialist, an amillennialist, or a postmillennialist. I am a millennial agnostic. I honestly do not know what to believe about a millennium. In one sense, I am an existential millennialist, since I am unsure if an objective viewpoint exists, and even if it does, I am by no means certain that I can access it. I have no hope of finding the final answer. Let me explain.

1. Most Premillenialist requires an earthly, Jewish kingdom that lasts one thousand years (a literal millennium).[2] If this kingdom fails to materialize, God has broken his covenant with Abraham, because part of that covenant included a Promised Land. An earthly kingdom requires an actual place, capable of being located on a map. At the risk of over-simplifying, the minimal requirement for premillennialism is one thousand years of Jewish rule in the physical Promised Land. If this is an accurate account of premillennialism, then I cannot be a Premil. I see no necessity for a millennium of earthly rule to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies concerning an “everlasting kingdom.” It seems to me that the hermeneutic that produces this view is flawed. If we insist on a rigid literalism in this matter, then one thousand years of rule does not qualify as everlasting. In the light of forever, one thousand years is a tiny fraction. Furthermore, if we posit an everlasting kingdom that is marked by certain geographic boundaries on this planet as it presently exists, then we preclude the possibility of a literal new earth. Here is a typical Premil statement.

In order for God to keep His promises to Israel and His covenant with David (2 Samuel 7:8-16, 23:5; Psalm 89:3-4), there must be a literal, physical kingdom on this earth. To doubt this is to call into question God’s desire and/or ability to keep His promises, and this opens up a host of other theological problems. For example, if God would renege on His promises to Israel after proclaiming those promises to be “everlasting,” how could we be sure of anything He promises, including the promises of salvation to believers in the Lord Jesus? The only solution is to take Him at His word and understand that His promises will be literally fulfilled.[3]

2. Amillennialism, as I understand it, requires that there is no earthly Jewish kingdom that lasts for one thousand years (a literal millennium). If this is an accurate understanding of a millennialism, then I cannot be an Amil. Where is there a Scripture text that says there cannot be an earthly Jewish kingdom that lasts for one thousand years? The belief that there is no necessity for a thousand-year earthly kingdom and the belief that the Bible teaches that there will be no such thing are two different beliefs. I feel the same way about an earthly millennium that I do about the gift of tongues. I see no reason for the revival of the gift of tongues and I do not see a biblical reason to believe that such a revival will occur. However, I also have no text of Scripture that specifically states that tongues will not be revived. Again, I think the hermeneutic that produces this view is flawed.

3. Postmillennialism, as I understand it, requires a millennial reign of righteousness resulting from either a gradual conversion of the world, or a “latter-day revival” that converts the world. If this understanding is accurate, then I cannot be a Postmil. I do not find such a tenet in Scripture, and I believe this position, like the others, comes from a flawed hermeneutic.

As is often the case in theological discussions, the conversation about prophecy is complicated in two ways: through the use of non-biblical terminology and through careless definition of the biblical terms that are used. Few people realize that the Old Testament contains no references at all to a millennial reign of the Messiah. The New Testament contains only six references, all within a single passage—Revelation 20:2-6. If we were to eliminate Revelation 20:2-6 from the conversation, we would have no reference point for a millennium, and thus no millennial views, yet we could retain and meaningfully discuss the multiple Old Testament references to an eternal kingdom. In other words, some of the Old Testament writers referred frequently to a coming eternal kingdom, but none of them ever mention a millennial (thousand-year) kingdom. As I pointed out earlier, a millennial kingdom is not the same thing as an eternal kingdom. A thousand-year kingdom cannot fulfill the promise of an eternal kingdom. We must not equate the millennium and the eternal kingdom and allow six verses in Revelation 20 to frame our understanding of the promised eternal kingdom of God.

When I was in Bible school, over fifty years ago, the predominant theological trend was to treat the words kingdom and millennium as interchangeable. The word premillennial meant pre-kingdom. It meant that the return of Christ was prior to the establishment of the kingdom that God had promised to Abraham and the children of Israel. In this scheme, the millennial reign of Christ described the kingdom that Messiah offered the Jews at his first coming. They rejected it, and thus God postponed its implementation until Messiah’s second coming. More recently, premillennialists maintain that the millennium is an aspect of the kingdom. The words “millennium” and “kingdom” are no longer interchangeable.

What would happen if we used the phrase eternal kingdom instead of the word millennium to describe and define our prophetic view? We would then have the following three views IF we maintained the current categories used in this discussion: pre-eternal kingdom; a-eternal kingdom; and post-eternal kingdom. Let us, then, pose the following question: What is the relationship of the second coming of Christ to the eternal kingdom promised to Abraham, David, and the Jewish nation? Has Messiah already established that kingdom or will he do so in the future?

Those who hold the a-eternal kingdom view would believe there is no eternal kingdom. This position would indeed make God unreliable in that he has promised something that will not happen. Who wants to adopt this view? I think we could eliminate this category from the discussion. There would be no a-eternal kingdom (amillennial view).

Those who favor the post-eternal kingdom perspective would believe the establishment of the eternal kingdom precedes the second coming, but if the kingdom is eternal, there is no after-the-kingdom, and thus we are hard-pressed to speak meaningfully about a temporal second coming. Some Christians have adopted the doctrine of a non-physical return of Messiah, but no Christians I know of suggest a non-temporal return. Nothing can happen after the eternal kingdom, because given the nature of eternity, there is no after. Given the terms of the discussion, it would seem impossible to hold a post-eternal kingdom (postmillennial view).[4]

An individual who holds the pre-eternal kingdom view would have to believe that the eternal kingdom has not yet come. Who wants to deny that the kingdom has come in some sense and to some degree? I think we can eliminate this view, too, from the discussion. There would be no pre-eternal kingdom (premillennial view).

If we recast the conversation with the promised kingdom terms, we eliminate all three millennial views. This is why I am an existential millennialist. I am not, however, an existential or an agnostic kingdomist (if I may coin a new term for this discussion). The hermeneutical point that prevents this is the way that the authors of the New Testament Scriptures interpret the kingdom promises recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures. The authors of the New Testament grant us access to two views of these promises: their understanding of the promises, and their understanding of how the individuals to whom the kingdom promises were made understood those promises. My reading of these New Testament writers challenges the view that these authors understood the kingdom promises in the Old Testament in a literal sense and never spiritualized them.

For the purposes of this book, let us consider two examples. Both Abraham and David received kingdom promises from God. The question that we want to answer concerns their understanding of those promises. Did they spiritualize those promises or did they understand them in natural language (as we define “natural” in the early twenty-first century)—that is, did they take the promises literally? Exactly what did Abraham believe that God was promising him in Genesis 15:18-21? Exactly what did David expect in the promises that God made to him in 2 Samuel 7? What resources do we have to help us resolve this interpretive dispute: the natural (literal) versus a spiritual understanding of the kingdom promise in the Old Testament Scriptures?

We will begin by surveying the basic information. First, God gave Abraham and his seed a specific promise about a clearly defined piece of real estate—the land bordered by the river of Egypt and the Euphrates (Genesis 15:18-21). We refer to this as the Promised Land. God promised David that his son would establish an eternal kingdom and would sit on the throne of that kingdom (2 Sam. 7:11b-16). Next, we ask how Abraham and David understood their promises. What did they expect as the fulfillment of those promises? When and how were the promises to be fulfilled? How can we discover whether Abraham understood the promise to him in a literal sense (with the occupation of the Promised Land as the fulfillment of the covenant) or if he spiritualized the promise (with the occupation of the land as a type of inheriting heaven)? How do we know what David expected?

To attempt to answer our particular question, we will begin with the biblical text concerning the promise to Abraham. If we allow the Old Testament Scriptures to give us our answers, we likely will embrace a premillennial understanding of Abraham’s and David’s expectations. At the risk of over-simplifying, we will refer to this as a Dispensational hermeneutic. If we use the texts in the New Testament Scriptures that deal with the promise to Abraham we likely will favor the amillennial position. Again, at the risk of over-simplifying, we will call this a Covenant hermeneutic (short for Covenant theology). Currently, New Covenant theology has no clearly defined hermeneutic. Adherents of New Covenant theology have attempted to answer this question by modifying either Covenantal hermeneutics or Dispensational hermeneutics. This book represents an attempt to begin serious work toward establishing New Covenant hermeneutics from the ground up—that is, without beginning with either Covenantal or Dispensational hermeneutics.

I propose that we frame the discussion in terms of the word kingdom instead of the word millennium, as I have done thus far. Next, I propose that we look first for explicit answers within the biblical texts, considering the evidence from both the Old and New Testaments. Some readers might object that the New Testament authors were removed from both Abraham and David by time and culture, and thus what those New Testament writers offer us tells us more about their thought world than it does about the thought world of Abraham and David. Astute readers might point out that we cannot even assume continuity between the thought worlds of Abraham and David. These objections would be serious indeed if we did not have the assurance that the Scriptures, both Hebrew and Greek, are God’s inspired Word to his people. Thus, we can trust what the New Testament authors tell us about Abraham and David. Furthermore, the New Testament writers, although removed from Abraham and David by time and place, are much closer to them than we are. We would be hermeneutically arrogant to privilege our common sense reading of Abraham and David over the New Testament writers’ inspired reading of those men. Therefore, as a tenet of New Covenant hermeneutics, I propose that when the New Testament Scriptures speak to our questions, we allow what it says to be the final word and the word from which we build doctrine.

Having proposed the desirability of examining all of God’s Word for answers to our question, let us refine that question. Do the authors of Scripture who post-date Abraham and David and who refer to the kingdom promise explicitly state that the promises to Abraham and David (1) have been fulfilled, (2) are in the process of being fulfilled, or (3) are awaiting future fulfillment? Is the well-known statement, “The new is in the old concealed and the old is in the new revealed,” correct? Specifically, what do the new covenant Scriptures say about the land promised to Abraham and the eternal kingdom promises to David? According to those Scriptures, exactly how did Abraham and David understand what was being promised to them?

I used to state that if the Old Testament were all of the Scripture to which I had access, I would be a premillennialist. I would believe that the land promised to Abraham had not yet been totally fulfilled and I would believe that David’s kingdom and throne had not yet been established. I would no longer say that. A fellow pastor recently offered proof from the New Testament Scriptures that old covenant believers knew and understood more than we usually credit them with knowing.

Christ chided Nicodemus (John 3:10), the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:24-27, 44-47), the Pharisees (John 5:39, John 8:56), and his disciples (Acts 1:8 as the answer to Acts 1:6) for failing to interpret their Scriptures (our Old Testament) typologically. Christ expected, at the least, that his audience would understand that all of the Hebrew Scriptures were about him, and that they should read those Scriptures Messianically. His expectation of their reading lens precluded a wooden, literalistic (plain sense everywhere) hermeneutic. From: Chad Bresson

In addition to the New Testament evidence, the Old Testament itself does not allow me to stand by my previous statement. Joshua sees God’s kingdom promises to Abraham as having been fulfilled. Amillennialists use this passage from the Old Testament to support their position. If this is all that God said about the land promise, I would join their ranks. However, such is not the case.

So the LORD gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their ancestors, and they took possession of it and settled there. The LORD gave them rest on every side, just as he had sworn to their ancestors. Not one of their enemies withstood them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hands. Not one of all the LORD’s good promises to Israel failed; every one was fulfilled. (Joshua 21:43-45, NIV)

These verses are explicit. They specifically state that (1), “the Lord gave Israel ALL the land he had sworn to their ancestors.” Israel literally (2) “took possession of it” (i.e., the Promised Land) and they (3) “settled there” (in the Promised Land). (4) “God gave them rest on every side, just as he had sworn to their ancestors,” and (5), “not one of their enemies withstood them; the Lord gave all of their enemies into their hands.” (6) Verse 45 is an explicit, comprehensive statement, “Not one of all the LORD’s good promises to Israel failed; every one was fulfilled.” According to Joshua, Abraham’s descendants occupied the land as an everlasting possession. This would seem to be the kind of explicit text that we are seeking. Indeed, if this were the final verse in the Scriptures that mentioned the Abrahamic kingdom promise, we would be justified in stating that God has definitely already fulfilled that promise.

The text in Joshua, however, is not the final word. Some of the Old Testament writers who post-date Joshua present the promise as still in effect and awaiting another fulfillment (see 1 Chron. 16:13-18; Psalm 105:6-11; Jer. 32:37-41 as examples). If we ask, “Has God fulfilled every promise to Abraham and his seed, including the land promised in Genesis 15?” The answer, according to Joshua 21, is, “Yes, beyond question.” If we ask, “Do other Old Testament Scriptures, written long after Joshua wrote, clearly hold out the land promise as still future?” The answer again must be, “Yes.” Are we contradicting ourselves? We certainly are not contradicting Scripture since both answers come from Scripture. On the one hand, Scripture says, “The Lord gave Israel ALL the land he had sworn to their ancestors (Joshua 21:43, emphasis mine). On the other hand, long after Joshua died, David reiterated God’s promise and applied it to Israel in conflict with the Philistines over the Promised Land, thus making the promise’s fulfillment salient to the circumstances about which he wrote.

He remembers his covenant forever, the word he commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant he made with Abraham, the oath he swore to Isaac. He confirmed it to Jacob as a decree, to Israel as an everlasting covenant: To you I will give the land of Canaan as the portion you will inherit. (Psalm 105:8-11, NIV)

We might want to consider this passage as a confirmation of the fulfilled promise: the threat from the Philistines might have caused some Israelites to wonder if God was going to break his promise. David is assuring them that their victory over the Philistines is evidence of God’s faithfulness. They will continue to retain possession (everlasting possession) of the Promised Land precisely because the promise has been fulfilled. But Jeremiah, writing even later, reiterates the promise again and applies it to a captive Israel in exile. Abraham’s offspring are not in possession of the Promised Land; it is no longer their kingdom; it would seem that the “everlasting possession” part of the promise has failed. Jeremiah offers hope by referring to an everlasting covenant whose kingdom promise sounds remarkably like that given to Abraham, yet the fulfillment of this promise is future:

I will make an everlasting covenant with them … and will assuredly plant them in this land … in the territory of Benjamin, in the villages around Jerusalem, in the towns of Judah and in the towns of the hill country, of the western foothills and of the Negev …” (Jer. 32:40, 41, 44, NIV)

This text is not enough to make me a Premillenialist but it is enough to keep me from being an Amillennialists. It is clear that God’s people did not view the promise as over and done with the initial settling of Canaan. Joshua 21:43-45 is not enough to make us believe that there cannot be some future fulfillment, but it is enough to keep us from insisting that God’s people viewed the fulfillment as entirely future.

So how did Abraham understand this promise? When (and if) we know that, we will get help in knowing how to interpret the Old Testament promises concerning the kingdom. While we cannot know everything that Abraham and David believed about their promises, we can know exactly how they understood the essence of the respective covenants that God made with each of them. We know exactly what Abraham understood God was promising in the land promise, and we know exactly what David expected God was going to do in the kingdom promised to him. We know, because the New Testament explicitly states their expectations. Remember our New Covenant hermeneutic: when the New Testament Scriptures speak to our question, we allow that answer to be the final one; the one from which we build doctrine.

Allow me, for the sake of illustration, to offer the following constructed interview with Abraham, conducted in the present.

Interviewer: Abraham, I understand God made a covenant with you and promised to give you a son by Sarah. He reaffirmed that promise when both you and Sarah were far too old to beget or bear children.

Abraham: That is correct. And God kept that promise and miraculously enabled Sarah to conceive and to give birth to a child whom we named Isaac.

Inter.: God also promised to give you and your seed a specific piece of land where you would eternally dwell in security and safety.

Abr.: That is correct. That promise is recorded in Genesis 15:18-21.

Inter.: Did you and your seed inherit that land in fulfillment of that promise?

Abr.: Yes. Scripture, in both Joshua 21:43-45 and Hebrews 11:8-11, records the fulfillment of that promise. Joshua said, “the LORD gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their ancestors, and they took possession of it and settled there” (Joshua 21:43). Hebrews 11:9 records how I understood the promise: “[Abraham] made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country.” While actually living in the Promised Land, I felt like a stranger still waiting for a permanent home. I knew God had something far better and greater than Canaan.

Inter.: While you were making your home in the Promised Land, what were you thinking? Did you view your sojourn in the Promised Land to be the fulfillment of the promise God made to you in Genesis 17:8? Did you understand that you had found what you had been looking forward to by faith in God’s covenant promise?

Abr.: No, not at all. The author of Hebrews accurately conveyed my state of mind and my expectations: By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. (Heb. 11:8-10)

Inter.: Let me be sure I understand you. Are you saying that at the very moment you were making your home in the Promised Land, you realized that this land was not the essence of the promise God made to you?

Abr.: That is correct. I knew, by faith, that the true land that God promised to me was a spiritual land and not physical dirt. I was looking past Canaan to a heavenly city. You can read about it in Hebrews 11.

Inter.: From your vantage point of now being in heaven, are you waiting for Messiah to come again and this time to establish Israel, along with yourself, in the Promised Land? If God does not give you and your seed the Promised Land as a permanent possession, will you be disappointed and feel that God was unfaithful to his covenant?

Abr.: You are joking! Or are you? Who in his right mind would trade what every glorified saint, including myself, and all the Jews who died in faith, now enjoy in the true “Promised Land” of heaven for ten thousand lands of Palestine?

End of interview.

It seems clear from the account in Hebrews that Abraham understood God’s promise in a spiritual sense. While living in the Promised Land, Abraham still considered himself a stranger. He was looking beyond Canaan for a spiritual city whose maker and builder was God. The author of Hebrews clearly spiritualizes God’s promise to Abraham. The question has been legitimately raised concerning exactly how Abraham understood what Hebrews attributes to him. A fellow pastor has given a good answer to that question.

When the N.T. writer tells us what Abraham believed concerning a city whose foundations were built by God, why should I just assume that Abraham somehow exegeted (spiritualized) that from what was previously given to him? In other words, why can’t I entertain the notion that God simply told him that (Heb. 11:10)? Did Abraham have to spiritualize what was already said, or was he told something extra by God—something Moses didn’t know to write down but the writer of Hebrews was given to write down and give to us? In other words HOW was Abraham made aware of that city without foundations? If you say Abraham spiritualized what was told him, can you prove that? Why couldn’t someone just say God told him about that heavenly city in some other encounter that we weren’t told in Genesis about? After all, in John 8:56 Jesus tells us information that Abraham knew about Christ and rejoiced. Am I to assume that Abraham got that understanding about Christ from exegeting only what he was told in Genesis, or was he shown new revelation—something extra that Genesis doesn’t tell us about specifically? I mean we know Abraham believed in a city without foundations (and rejoicing in Christ). What we’re not told is HOW that knowledge came to him—or do we? From Pastor Mark LaCour

This spiritualization of the Promised Land raises some questions about the way the new covenant authors treated the land promise. Clearly, one of the key components of God’s covenant with Abraham as recorded in the Old Testament was the land described in Genesis 15:18-21. This land promise figured prominently in the reiteration and application of the Abrahamic covenant beyond the initial settlement, as we saw from the Scriptures we cited. How do the authors of the new covenant Scriptures treat the land promise in the light of the Old Testament record? Did Jesus and his apostles hold out to the Israel of their day the same land promise that the Old Testament prophets held out to the Israel of their day? Or did the writers of the New Testament Scriptures point their fellow Jews to the cross and the resurrected Messiah as the blessed hope, or did they point the Jews to some future act of God in which God finally will literally fulfill his covenant promises of the land? These questions address the New Covenant hermeneutic we are trying to establish. They directly apply to our understanding of the relationship between the old and new covenants in their respective teaching about the eternal kingdom promised to Abraham and David.

At this point in my investigation, I have found no New Testament reiteration or application of the land promise as God made it in Genesis 15. The New Testament authors do not refer to the land promise in the way that David or Jeremiah did. The eleventh chapter of Romans may be a debatable section concerning the future conversion of Israel, but no one suggests that Paul mentions the land as part of his argument. We may disagree about the status of the prophecies in the Book of Revelation—whether they are already fulfilled or are awaiting future fulfillment, but no one asserts that the land promise reappears anywhere in the entire Book of the Revelation. The closest thing to a New Testament reiteration of the land promise made to Abraham is Romans 4:13.

It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

So where do we stand in our attempt to establish a New Covenant hermeneutic? What have we accomplished so far? Several things seem clear. First, the land promise made to Abraham was, at a given point in time, completely fulfilled. Abraham and some of his offspring literally dwelt in the land of promise, for some period of time. We have explicit and unambiguous evidence in Joshua 21:34-45. Some may want to argue that Abraham did not actually possess the land in its entirety, but that is not the way that Joshua viewed it. He states his view emphatically, in both positive and negative terms: “Not one of all the LORD’s good promises to Israel failed; every one was fulfilled.” Remember, those good promises included the Promised Land!

Second, an initial fulfillment does not rule out subsequent fulfillments, either of the same nature or of a complementary nature. The authors of Scripture sometimes view promises as having double fulfillment in time or in essence. We will say more about this when we look at how David understood God’s covenant to establish his kingdom forever and to seat one his sons on that kingdom’s throne. For now, we see the New Testament Scriptures’ spiritualization of Abraham’s understanding of God’s land promise. Abraham took possession of it and settled there, but even while occupying the land, he viewed himself as a stranger because he was looking past Canaan to a heavenly city whose maker and builder was God. He was looking for heaven, not Canaan. This prompts us to ask if Abraham’s understanding of God’s kingdom promise is unique, or is this the uniform understanding of the authors of the New Testament Scriptures as they interpret Old Testament kingdom promises? Does Hebrews 11:8-11 provide a hermeneutical principle for interpreting all kingdom prophesies?

As more people move into New Covenant theology, we face an increasing need for a clearly articulated New Covenant hermeneutic. Recently, someone raised the question as to whether one can consistently hold to both New Covenant theology and Dispensational theology. New Covenant theology adherents currently include self-identified premillennial and dispensational theologians. The Bunyan Conference has profited from speakers such as Jack Jeffery, David Morris and Fred Zaspel, all of whom espouse some form of premillennialism and some form of dispensationalism . We have no desire to deprive ourselves of what they have to offer.

Should we even try to establish a New Covenant hermeneutic? Would it perhaps be wiser to leave the subject alone and continue to borrow the US military’s slogan, “Don’t ask, don’t tell”? If we discuss the subject, do we run the danger of splitting the camp? There is no question that it is impossible for a Covenant theologian to hold to New Covenant theology. Is the same thing true of dispensationalism? Will a New Covenant hermeneutical articulation result in a fixed either/or position with regard to understanding prophecy, or will our hermeneutic be fluid enough to accommodate different understandings as legitimate and acceptable? I am convinced that an open dialogue concerning the hermeneutical principles that we use to settle questions like continuity/discontinuity is long overdue. Ultimately, we must decide if the issue is one of submission to Scripture or if the biblical treatment of the matter allows for tenuous and conditional positions. If the latter is the case, the question becomes one of intellectual co-existence.

Andy Wood offers the following quotation in a web article titled “Dispensational Hermeneutics: The Grammatico–Historical Method.”[5]

The interpreter should, therefore, endeavour to take himself from the present, and to transport himself into the historical position of his author, look through his eyes, note his surroundings, feel with his heart, and catch his emotion. Herein we note the import of the term grammatico-historical interpretation. (Terry, Milton S. Biblical Hermeneutics. NY: Philips and Hunt, 1883; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976. 231.)

When I studied Abraham and God’s promises to him, I tried to live, breathe, and walk in Abraham’s shoes. When God described the Promised Land so clearly and so specifically (Gen. 15:18-21), it was impossible for me not to take it literally. The problem with this approach, however, was that I took my twentieth-century, culturally-conditioned self with me. I created Abraham in my image, a move that we earlier categorized as an improper hermeneutic. Since we can neither prove nor disprove that my common sense response is ubiquitous (stretching across both time and culture and thus constituting a universal human response), we have to find other ways to ascertain Abraham’s response. When the seeds of New Covenant theology began to take root in my mind, I realized that I could not transport myself into the historical position of Abraham (because I would inevitably project me onto Abraham), but I could use the New Testament to see if it shed light on Abraham’s expectations.

In general, the kind of question we are asking requires grammatico-historical exegesis—bringing out of the text the meaning the writers intended to convey and which they expected their audience to gather. When we want to know what someone thought, surely it is appropriate to consider the nuances of language they used, the genre in which they expressed their ideas, the historical background of their era, and the life setting (the culture) of their faith community. However, when we have New Testament evidence that states explicitly what they thought, we have a surer witness. In the case of Abraham’s expectations, we have that surer witness. Furthermore, we fail to privilege that which God has so graciously provided for us (the surer witness) when we base our interpretation of Abraham’s understanding solely on the Old Testament accounts of Abraham and then make that the basis of interpreting the New Testament teaching on Abraham. What Abraham understood about the land promise is not settled in Genesis, but in the New Testament. Since I have New Testament evidence, I must get a clear understanding of Abraham’s thinking and expectations from the New Testament Scriptures, and then read that back into the Old Testament teaching on Abraham. This kind of reading would be anachronistic (an improper hermeneutic, to be sure) were it not for the doctrine of inspiration, but since we do hold to that doctrine, we can make this kind of reading the first biblical principle of New Covenant hermeneutics. As a first principle, it is necessary and not optional. When we have New Testament evidence about the interpretation of an Old Testament text, we privilege the New Testament and not our common sense reading of that Old Testament passage. It would seem therefore, that New Covenant theology must not interpret Hebrews 11:8-11 with Genesis 15:18-21; rather, it must interpret Genesis 15:18-21 with Hebrews 11:8-11. Or am I missing something?

One last note before we conclude. I have framed this discussion in terms of kingdom, rather than millennium. Our discussions, however, may continue to include the term millennialism. When we talk about millennialism, we are talking about something that, if it happens, will happen after we are long gone. This is why at this point I refuse to make any prophetic view a test of fellowship. If some of the best of believers in the New Testament missed Messiah the first time he came because they did not understand the nature of the prophetic promises in their Scriptures, should we not be careful about how we treat those who understand the details of his second coming differently than we do? I fear that if Christ returned today, some would compare what was happening with their charts, and it would not fit. Let us not be among them of whom it was written, “there standeth one among you whom you know not” (John 1:26).

We have focused primarily on Abraham in this chapter. In the next chapter, we will look at the New Testament evidence about how David understood God’s covenant with him.

God’s Promises to David and Solomon              35

Chapter Two

God’s Promises to David and Solomon

In our previous chapter, we looked at how Abraham understood the promise of the land described in Genesis 15:18-21. In this chapter, we want to look at how David understood the covenant that God made with him concerning his son, an eternal kingdom, and a dwelling place for God. Our sources of information include both the Old Testament Scriptures and the New. Our hermeneutic privileges the New—we are examining how the writers of the New Testament Scriptures interpret the kingdom promises of the Old Testament Scriptures. This examination functions as a case study within an attempt to establish hermeneutical principles that will help us understand biblical prophecy. Thus far, we have established three principles: First, we consider the promise/prophecy as stated in its Old Testament text. Next, we ask questions of that text. Finally, we turn to the New Testament for answers to those questions.

First, let us discover exactly what God promised in the covenant he made with David, which is described in 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17.

In 2 Samuel 7:1-7, we read that David, after achieving peace for Israel, told the prophet Nathan that he wanted to build a house for God to replace the tabernacle. Nathan agreed, and was sure that God would bless the idea. That night, God told Nathan that he, God, did not want David to build him a house. Instead, God wanted Nathan to inform David that, he, God, was going to build a house for Israel and for David (vv 9b-17):

‘Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men on earth. And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies.

‘The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’ Nathan reported to David all the words of this entire revelation. (NIV)

In this revelation, God promises:[6]

1) to make David famous

2) to give Israel their own permanent homeland and security from all their enemies

3) to build a house for David[7]

4) to raise up one of David’s sons to succeed him

5) to allow that son to build God’s house

6) to establish David’s house, throne, and kingdom forever

David responds to these promises with gratitude, humility, and assurance (2 Samuel 7:18-29).

Next, let us ask questions of the text. Did God keep those promises to David? Did God build a house for David? Did God raise up one of David’s sons to sit on David’s throne? Did that son build God a house? Is some son of David presently seated on that throne and will he and his descendants continue forever to rule their kingdom? To how many of these details can we answer affirmatively (yes, God has done this, and here is the biblical evidence), and to how many must we answer negatively (no, we have no biblical evidence that this promise has been fulfilled and therefore we conclude that its fulfillment is future)?

These questions are similar to those we asked concerning God’s covenant with Abraham and his seed. How did David understand the promises that God made to him? Did he literalize them or spiritualize them? How are we, who live at a time so greatly removed from David, to understand these promises?

As we seek to answer these questions, we need to be aware of the trap of creating a false dichotomy. Sometimes, answers are not a straightforward yea or nay. Sometimes, answers are both. We may find that, as we investigate these questions, their scriptural answers fall into the category of double fulfillment. Some of the promises concerning offspring are fulfilled by Solomon alone, some by Jesus alone, and some by both Solomon and Jesus.

Before we proceed further, let us establish the legitimacy of reading Jesus back into this passage. If one of our hermeneutical tasks is to understand the text as David understood it, how can we possibly place Jesus in it? David lived roughly one thousand years before Jesus was born. Our answer is that we have no indication from this Old Testament text that David had knowledge of this particular offspring. But although our hermeneutical task begins with David in this text, it does not end there. We have the inspired testimony of the writers of the New Testament, and they inform us that David, knowing that God would place one of his descendents on his throne, spoke of the resurrection and exaltation of Messiah (Acts 2:30, 31, 34, 35).

The writers of the New Testament believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah; therefore, they read him into God’s promises to David. David’s understanding of God’s promises included a messianic fulfillment, even though he did not know the specific identity of Messiah (i.e., David did not know that Messiah would be Jesus of Nazareth). So which of the promises may we view as fulfilled by David’s offspring, Solomon, which by David’s offspring, Messiah Jesus, and which by both?

God raised up Solomon, who succeeded David as King of Israel. We have the testimony of 1 Kings that David understood Solomon as his successor in keeping with God’s promise (1 Kings 1:48): “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, who has granted someone to sit on my throne this day, my own eyes seeing it.” We know, also from 1 Kings 2:4, that David envisioned Solomon as the beginning of a provisional, continuous line of successors: “[t]hat the LORD may establish his word that he spoke concerning me, saying, ‘If your sons pay close attention to their way, to walk before me in faithfulness with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel’” (NIV).

With regard to this promise, or rather, to this conflation of two promises (to raise up one of David’s sons to succeed him and to establish David’s house, throne, and kingdom forever), we have the testimony of Peter in Acts 2. Peter, in his sermon, alludes explicitly to the promise of 2 Samuel 7:12 and equates David’s descendant with Messiah, whom he identifies as Jesus. Notice that the son, whom God promised in the Old Testament Scriptures to “raise up” and whose kingdom he would establish, becomes, in the New Testament Scriptures, Christ (Messiah Jesus) who is “resurrected.”

And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up THY SEED after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. (2 Sam. 7:12, KJV, emphasis added)

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up CHRIST to sit on his throne… (Acts 2:29, 30, KJV, emphasis added)

According to Peter, David understood this (he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ [Acts 2:31]). As I mentioned earlier, we learn this only from the New Testament Scriptures.

When God promised to establish an everlasting kingdom and to raise up one of David’s sons to sit on the throne of that kingdom, he was talking in one sense about Solomon and his immediate descendants, and in another sense, about the resurrection, ascension, and enthronement of Messiah. David was a prophet to whom God revealed these things; thus, he understood the double fulfillment aspect of the promise.

Let us examine this kingdom in a bit more detail. Look at the timing of the establishment of the kingdom promised to David. It is to take place while “David sleeps with the fathers,” or before the general resurrection that takes place at the second coming. On the day of Pentecost, God established, through David's greater son, the kingdom that he had promised David. God did this “while David slept with the fathers.”

And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. (2 Sam. 7:12, KJV, emphasis added)

First Chronicles 17:11 also establishes the Davidic kingdom prior to the resurrection of the dead—while David is in the grave.

And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go [to be] with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. (KJV, emphasis added)

The Holy Spirit is explicit about the timing of the kingdom’s establishment. It happens while David is sleeping in the grave. Why else would Peter call attention to the fact that David was dead and in a tomb at that very moment? It is because the establishing of the kingdom was to take place while David slept with the fathers. In Acts 2, Peter is saying, “The kingdom is right on schedule. David is in that tomb, as you can see, just as God told David, and Christ, David’s greater son, has been raised up—resurrected—and is right now seated on the promised throne at God’s right hand reigning over his newly established kingdom.”

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. (Acts 2:29, KJV)

Peter tells us that David was fully aware of what would take place. Christ would be “raised from the dead and sit on his throne” (Acts 2:30). The “seated on the throne” immediately follows the “raising up” or resurrection of Christ. Peter gives no indication that either he or David anticipated a thousand year period between the resurrection of Christ and the establishment of his kingdom. According to Peter, when David contemplated God’s promise, he included in it the resurrection of Messiah, which necessarily entailed the establishment of the promised kingdom.

David understood what was going to happen. He was going to die and he would be buried. While he was dead in the grave, God was going to raise up one of his sons, Christ, to sit on his throne. David saw that resurrection and enthronement as the fulfillment of the covenant promise that God made to him in 2 Samuel 7. Peter views the day of Pentecost as evidence of the ascension to the throne promised to David’s son and the establishment of the kingdom promised in Joel. All of this takes place pre-general resurrection, while “David is sleeping with the fathers.” As I write this, David is still sleeping in the grave, awaiting the second coming, and his greater son, Christ, currently sits on the throne of the eternal kingdom he established at his resurrection and ascension. As far as David and Peter are concerned, the kingdom God promised to David is not awaiting fulfillment; it has been established.

What of the other promises? God promised that David’s son would build a house for God. Solomon built a great house for God (2 Chron. 2:6). This was a physical temple made with stone and wood. It must have been a beautiful piece of architecture. Messiah Jesus also built a great and beautiful house for God. This is a spiritual temple made with living stones. The church is the “temple of God,” the location where God dwells. Again, we have a double fulfillment, with both Solomon and Jesus fulfilling the promise.

How are we to understand God’s promise to build David a house? David wanted to build a house for God, but God said he would build David a house. The house that God promised to build for David is the same house that David’s greater son was going to build for God. Here, too, we have the blending of two promises into one fulfillment. David’s house is the temple that God the Holy Spirit built for David’s greater son. It was the church—the temple described in the New Testament Scriptures. Solomon understood this.

But who is able to build him an house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him? who [am] I then, that I should build him an house, save only to burn sacrifice before him? (2 Chron. 2:6, KJV)

Both Stephen and Paul echoed this same truth. They knew that the physical temple was not God’s ultimate fulfillment; it was only a type of God’s true and final temple.

…Solomon built him an house. Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet. (Acts 7:47, 48, KJV)

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands. (Acts 17:24, KJV)

The book of Hebrews gives us clear New Testament evidence as to the ultimate intent in the promise of God to build a house for David. The author of this text specifically calls the church—redeemed sinners—“God’s house” and “his house.” We, the church, are the temple, or house, where God dwells. We are the “house of David.” The church is the dwelling place for God where he would be, not just with us, but actually in us. This is the ultimate goal of redemption. God does not build with bricks and mortar; he builds with redeemed men and women. He uses living stones.

Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess. He was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God’s house. Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house, testifying to what would be said in the future. But Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast. (Hebrews 3:1-6, NIV)

Some may ask if double fulfillment could apply to God’s promise to build David a house. In such a scenario, the church would serve as the true temple, spiritually fulfilling the promises made to David, with the physical temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 functioning as the natural, literal fulfillment. Included in that literal fulfillment are animal sacrifices. Scofield provides a heading at Ezekiel 40:5—Vision of the millennial Temple—that indicates his belief that God’s “house” promise to David awaits future fulfillment. In a note, Scofield comments, “The last nine chapters of Ezekiel have posed numerous problems for expositors. Five explanations have been offered.” The problem to which he refers is the identity of the temple. He lists four explanations and explains why he thinks that they are untenable. He then lists the fifth option, which is the one he holds. He understands the temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 as a material building, yet to be constructed:

(5) The preferable interpretation is that Ezekiel gives a picture of the millennial Temple. Judging from the broad context of the prophecy (the time subsequent to Israel’s regathering and conversion) and the testimony of other Scriptures (Isa. 66; Ezek. 6; 14), this interpretation is in keeping with God’s prophetic program for the millennium. The Church is not in view here, but rather it is a prophecy for the consummation of Israel’s history on earth.[8]

A bit further into the section, at Ezekiel 43:19, Scofield provides another heading—The offerings—and another note. This note addresses the verse that prescribes a sin offering as part of the temple ritual, and in it, Scofield comments on the problem of animal sacrifices in the millennial temple:

A problem is posed by this paragraph (vv. 19-27). Since the N.T. clearly teaches that animal sacrifices do not in themselves cleanse away sin (Heb. 10:4) and that the one sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ that was made at Calvary completely provides for such expiation (cp. Heb. 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10, 14), how can there be a fulfillment of such a prophecy? Two answers have been suggested: (1) Such sacrifices, if actually offered, will be memorial in character. They will, according to this view, look back to our Lord’s work on the cross, as the offerings of the old covenant anticipated His sacrifice. They would, of course, have no expiatory value. And (2) The reference to sacrifices is not to be taken literally, in view of the putting away of such offerings, but is rather to be regarded as a presentation of the worship of redeemed Israel, in her own land and in the millennial Temple, using the terms with which the Jews were familiar in Ezekiel’s day.[9]

These two notes seem hermeneutically incompatible with each other. If his second option for understanding the animal sacrifices as figurative is valid, then why not adopt the same view for the temple? Scofield acknowledges that one view of the temple is to see it as the church, but he rejects it on the ground of inadequacy.

Still another view is the claim that the picture is one of the Church and its blessings in this age. This view does not explain the symbolism, nor why large areas of Christian doctrine are omitted.[10]

It seems to me that if we can explain a part of the whole as figurative and couched in vocabulary familiar to the audience, then we can legitimately explain all of it in the same manner.

It also seems to me that Scofield’s first option—animal sacrifices as memorials of Christ’s sacrifice—misuses the theory of double fulfillment. Theoretically, the natural precedes the spiritual. This is the way Paul uses the theory in 1 Corinthians 15:46. Double fulfillment proceeds from natural to spiritual, but not the other way round. You do not first fulfill the land promise by inheriting heaven and then inherit an earthly piece of dirt as a type of heaven. God does not have David’s greater son build a spiritual temple to fulfill God’s covenant with him and then have Israel build a physical memorial temple to fulfill the same promise. Furthermore, once a promise has been fulfilled, we cannot posit with certainty a double fulfillment unless later revelation specifically states that there will be double fulfillment. Scripture clearly presents the promise to David that one of his sons will build a temple for God to dwell in as doubly fulfilled: first by Solomon, then by the church. If we are going to claim that Ezekiel’s temple is to be built in the future (a triple fulfillment, from physical to spiritual and back to physical), we need to support that claim with New Testament evidence.

We can suggest that in God’s sovereign providence, such a scenario is possible, just as we can suggest that God may revive the gifts of the Spirit (although we see no need of that), but we need clear promises before we make such expectations into articles of faith. I strongly urge any reader who struggles with this point to read Gary George’s excellent booklet Prophetic Fulfillment: Double, Natural, or Spiritual available from New Covenant Media.

The temple, as the dwelling place of God, occupies a significant place in Old Testament revelation. God met with man there. It was the only place where the sinner could find forgiveness through blood offerings. Geerhardus Vos, in his excellent work, Biblical Theology, has some insightful comments on how the temple functions symbolically and typically.

The tabernacle affords a clear instance of the coexistence of the symbolical and the typical in one of the principal institutions of the Old Testament religion. It embodies the eminently religious idea of the dwelling of God with His people. This it expresses symbolically so far as the Old Testament state of religion is concerned, and typically as regards the final embodiment of salvation in the Christian state.…That its main purpose is to realize the indwelling of Jehovah is affirmed in so many words [Ex. 25:8; 29:44, 45].[11]

I copied the following some time ago and did not record the source. The first quotation is similar in content to Vos (pp. 154-155), but it does not match verbatim. I cannot remember the source for the second quotation. If anyone knows, please inform me so that I can give credit where credit is due.

In its typical significance, the temple was a shadow or type of the reality of the Lord’s dwelling with his people. According to the New Testament, this reality is now found in Christ himself (John 1:14; 2:19—22; Col. 2:9) and in the church as the place of God’s dwelling by the Spirit (Eph. 2:21—22; 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 3:6; 10:21; 1 Pet. 2:5). Christ and the church are the fulfillment of the symbolical and typical significance of the temple. Moreover, in the final state of consummation, when the Lord dwells forever in the presence of his people in the new heavens and earth, it is expressly taught that there will no longer be any temple for the Lord will dwell in their midst (Rev. 21:22).

The dispensationalist insistence that the temple is an institution which pertains, in its literal form, peculiarly to Israel, fails to appreciate its typical significance in biblical revelation. The idea that the temple would be literally rebuilt and serve as a focal point for the worship of Israel during the period of the millennium, represents, from the point of view of the progress and unfolding of biblical revelation, a reversion to Old Testament types and shadows. From this point of view, dispensationalism turns back the clock of redemptive history.

Regardless of what millennial view we hold, we can acknowledge the following about God’s promises to David.

God built a house for David. It is the church. (Heb. 3:1-6)

God raised David’s greater son from the dead, and in so doing, established the promised kingdom. David’s son, Messiah Jesus, presently sits on the throne of that kingdom.

If God, in his sovereign purposes and power, causes the building of Ezekiel’s temple and restores the priesthood and the animal sacrifices, so be it. However, without clear New Testament evidence, no one has a reason to expect that to happen. I know of no such New Testament evidence. It seems to me that to insist that such an expectation is biblical is to invalidate one of the major hermeneutical principles of New Covenant theology, namely, the New Testament Scriptures must interpret the Old Testament Scriptures.

Christ is the “seed” who was promised in Genesis 3:15 as the one who would bruise Satan’s head. He is the “seed” of Abraham who would beget a great nation, inherit the Promised Land, and be the means of bringing great blessings to the world. He is the “seed” of David who would establish a kingdom of grace, defeat sin, death, and Satan, and save his people from their sin.[12]

Revelation 20:1 -9              41

Chapter Three

Revelation 20:1-9

In most discussions of biblical prophecy, attention quickly turns to Revelation 20:1-9. The obvious reason for this turn is that this passage is the only place in all of Scripture that mentions a thousand year reign of Christ. Both the Old and the New Testament Scriptures include references to an eternal kingdom, but only Revelation 20:1-9 mentions a thousand year kingdom. One way of reading this passage, that is employed by premillennialists, views the thousand years, along with the rest of the passage, as literal, natural language. On this reading, one thousand years must mean one thousand calendar years of three-hundred and sixty-five twenty-four hour days. Other ways of reading conceive of the thousand years in a spiritualized sense. Both ways of reading, however, pose interpretive difficulties. The primary goal of this book is to explore the difficulties posed by a pre-millennial reading of Revelation 20:1-9. Some of those difficulties have a serious nature. The secondary goal is to remind readers that one’s hermeneutic determines one’s prophetic view. Thus, prophetic views reflect a commitment to the inspiration and authority of Scripture. The variations between views arise from different rules for interpreting those inspired Scriptures. I want to be as emphatic as I possibly can that this discussion is an in-house disagreement. All parties in this discussion, whether premil, amil, or postmil, adhere to the doctrine of inspiration.

How, then, do we read Revelation 20:1-9?

And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that time, he must be set free for a short time.

I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshipped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. (NIV)

One significant point about the millennium in this passage concerns the binding of Satan: “…he seized…Satan, and bound him for a thousand years” (verse 2).

The stated purpose of this thousand year imprisonment is to prevent Satan from deceiving the nations: “…and sealed it over him to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended” (verse 3).

When the thousand year period has ended, Satan will be loosed for a season and once more will deceive the nations: “After that he must be set free for a short time.… from his prison, and will go out to deceive the nations…” (vv. 3, 7, 8).

According to this passage, Satan experiences certain conditions during certain times. Perhaps a chart will help us visualize those conditions and their corresponding timeframes.

First Time Frame

Second Time Frame

Third Time Frame

Satan Not Bound

Satan Bound

Satan Freed

Satan Deceives Nations

Satan Cannot

Deceive Nations

Satan Deceives Nations

Here, John follows a device used by other authors of Scripture—they employ categories to divide history. Peter divides it in relationship to judgment (2 Peter 3:5-7, 13). He writes of the world that WAS (before the judgment of water—the flood), the world that NOW IS (after the judgment of water and before the judgment of fire—the conflagration), and the world TO COME (after the judgment of fire). Paul, in Romans, divides history according to the law. There was a time before the law was given (Romans 5:13); a time after the law was given (Roman 5:20); and a time of “not under the law,” (Romans 6:14). John, in Revelation 20:1-9, divides time according to the activity of Satan. There was a time when Satan was free to deceive the nations. At some given point in time, he is bound so he cannot deceive the nations. And there is a time when he is released and is again free to deceive the nations.

It is imperative that we identify exactly when John’s distinct eras occur in history. When does each timeframe begin and when does each one end? All parties in this discussion agree that the first timeframe (Satan is free) begins at Genesis 3:7 with the entrance of sin into God’s creation and Satan’s victory over Adam. At that time, Satan became the god of this world, holding this world captive to his power. He was free and unrestrained in deceiving the nations. Upon the entrance of sin, God immediately promises that One will come who will defeat Satan and destroy his power.[13] We all read this promise to refer to Christ who will “bruise Satan’s head” (destroy his power) at the expense of “bruising his own heel,” that is, dying (Gen. 3:15). This promise was the hope of God’s people prior to the first coming of Christ. There is little disagreement that Genesis 3:15 refers to the cross as the means of bruising Satan’s head, but there is great disagreement over the relationship between that bruising and the binding of Satan (Rev. 20:1-9).

John’s first timeframe ends with the binding of Satan for the purpose of protecting the nations from his deceit. This binding ushers in the second timeframe. This second timeframe, during which Satan is continually bound, must be John’s thousand year reign (he mentions it six times in Rev. 20-1-9, all within the context of this second timeframe). All of this seems quite clear. What is not as clear, perhaps, is the historical setting of this second timeframe. Many passages of Scripture indicate that this second timeframe (the time when Satan is bound) begins with the first coming of Christ.

Consider Colossians 2:15: And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. It would seem that Paul viewed the cross as the time when Satan was conquered and defeated. Matthew, too, seems to think that Jesus bound Satan and spoiled his house.

Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? And then he will spoil his house. (Matt. 12:22-29, KJV)

If Matthew’s binding is the same as John’s binding, then the second timeframe began with the work of Christ during his first advent. Mark also uses this theme:

When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils. (Mark 11:21-22, KJV)

The strong man is Satan and the stronger man is Christ. By offering Christ a different path to his (Satan’s) goods, Satan tried to avoid being bound. He offered Christ all the kingdoms the world if he would bow down and worship him.

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” (Matt. 4:8-9, NIV).

Satan offered Christ the very thing he came to secure. With that offer came the temptation to secure the goal by a different means—without going to the cross. Satan could deliver his goods—all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor—apart from the pain and shame of the cross. The world was Satan’s to give. It was under his control. True, he stole it, but it was still under his control. By wresting the kingdom from Satan, Christ destroyed his armor and disempowered him. Satan’s armor is ignorance and unbelief. He has “blinded the minds of them that believe not.” He has deceived them.

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.  (2 Cor. 4:4-6, KJV)

If Christ had accepted Satan’s offer of a peaceful exchange of leadership, Satan would have retained his power and his armor, and remained unbound and unrestrained. He would have been free to mount guerilla raids on Christ’s kingdom, to take captive citizens of that kingdom, to threaten the stability and security of that kingdom, and to keep Christ from building his kingdom according to his plan. The gospel—the good news—is that Christ has defeated and bound Satan, thus freeing his people from Satan’s power. Of course, if Christ would have taken Satan’s offer, Satan would have said, “Well done thou good and faithful servant, here is what I want you to do next.”

Paul and the authors of the Gospels view this second timeframe as the period during which God spoils Satan by fulfilling the Messiah-promises recorded in the Old Testament. The gospel age, with its preaching to every tribe and tongue, with its light and liberty that dispels the ignorance and darkness that reigned since Adam’s fall, names and identifies John’s second timeframe. This view accords with amillennialism. Premillennialism, however, does not identify the second timeframe with the gospel age, but with the second coming. This raises the question of where Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension fit on the chart we sketched earlier, as well as how to regard the binding that will occur at the Second Coming.

First Time Frame

Second Time Frame

Third Time Frame

Satan Not Bound

Satan Bound

Satan Freed

Satan Deceives Nations

Satan Cannot

Deceive Nations

Satan Deceives Nations

Premillennialism teaches that the thousand year binding of Satan takes place at the second coming of Christ. In this view, the second coming marks the beginning of the second timeframe, thus placing the first coming, the cross, and the gospel age in the first timeframe, which the text marks as characterized by Satan remaining free to deceive the nations. This seems difficult to reconcile with the biblical passages cited above that indicate that the first coming, the cross, and the gospel age are all evidence that Satan has been bound and his power spoiled. Premillennialism recognizes that the text of Revelation 20:1-9 requires a binding of Satan that ushers in the second timeframe, but their system necessitates that the cross was not the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15. Premillennialism’s commitment to a literal thousand year reign prevents them from placing the first coming, the cross, and the gospel age at the beginning of the second timeframe. If they were to do that, the year AD 33 or thereabouts would mark the beginning of the second timeframe and the year AD 1033 or thereabouts would mark the end of the second timeframe. That would place everything after AD 1033 in the third timeframe, which would mean that the first resurrection is over (those who came to life and reigned with Christ, v. 4); Christ’s millennial reign is over; and the second resurrection is over (the rest of the dead who come to life at the end of the thousand years, v. 5). All that is left is the final battle and the conflagration described in Revelation 20:7-10.

The scenario sketched above shows what happens if we accept the biblical evidence that indicates that Satan was bound and spoiled by Christ’s cross work and we retain a literal interpretation of a thousand years. In this view, Christ’s millennial reign included such historical events as the writing of the texts that became the New Testament, the Jewish War with Rome and the subsequent destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, various persecutions and martyrdoms, and the legitimization of Christianity in the Roman Empire. It also encompassed the great ecumenical councils with their development of orthodoxy, the brief and unsuccessful attempt of Julian to return Rome to a pagan state, and the eventual edict of Theodosius making Christianity the official state religion of Rome. This historical era also saw the establishment of Islam and the rise of Rome as the power center of the church. Christ’s reign ended, according to a literal view of the thousand years, just prior to the Crusades, which began in 1095.

While it might be possible to spin all the historical events that occurred between AD 30-ish and AD 1030-ish as reflecting the victorious thousand year reign of Christ, other events included in John’s vision of the second timeframe did not occur. So far as we know, martyrs did not return to life and rule as priests until 1030. Nor did a great resurrection of the non-martyred dead occur after 1030. Furthermore, some of the significant events within the premillennial description of the millennium failed to occur. The temple described in Ezekiel was not built, nor were sacrifices re-established. Large numbers of Jews have not converted to Christianity. The curse remains on nature, contrary to premillennial expectations. It would seem that there is no way to view Christ’s first advent, the cross, and the gospel age as fitting into the second timeframe while at the same time retaining a literal reading of Revelation 20:1-9.

One way out of this difficulty is to keep a literal hermeneutic (maintain a literal thousand years) and deny that Satan is currently bound according to John’s view of binding. This hermeneutic move drives a wedge between John’s use of binding and that of the other authors of the New Testament texts. Texts (apart from Revelation) that utilize the binding theme assert some kind of victory of Christ, but not the victory promised by Genesis 3:15. Those who accept this hermeneutic have to be prepared to biblically answer others who ask what Christ accomplished in his redemptive work on the cross. What kind of binding and spoiling are Matthew, Mark, and Paul discussing?

One’s hermeneutic drives one’s understanding of the relationship between the cross and God’s promise in Genesis 3:15. Did Christ, in his life, death, resurrection, and ascension, fulfill Genesis 3:15, or is that promise awaiting a future fulfillment—a future binding and spoiling of Satan? The hermeneutic determines whether you believe that Christ conquered sin, death and Satan by his redemptive cross work.

Premillennial readings of Revelation 20:1-9 pose other difficulties as well. One of these difficulties is that of equating the camp of God’s people, the city he loves (v. 9), with the physical nation of Israel. In this view, ethnic Israel is the focal point of God’s activity during the millennium. When I hear some people talk about the millennium as the time when God manifests his great power by dealing once more with Israel, I think about a football game. The first half (God’s first dealings with Israel) is over and everyone is eagerly awaiting the second half (the resumption of God’s dealing with Israel). But first, we have to get through halftime (God’s dealing with the church). Halftime is marked by a marching band, the performance of some famous singers, and goodness knows what else. Few people, however, are paying much attention to the halftime show. Many folks have gone to get food or to use the restroom. The mood is anticipatory. The conversation is about what is going to happen in the second half—when the interesting and important action occurs. Until then, not much of real consequence is happening. Halftime is merely killing time.

So it is when some people describe the millennium. Israel is the real chosen people of God. They are analogous to a train, removed from the main track and temporarily set aside.  Meanwhile, God has put the church on the main track. At the second coming, God will take the church off the track altogether (he raptures it, taking it out of the world), and he will put Israel back on the main track—he will resume his program for Israel. The second half of redemptive history will begin, and God will finally fulfill his promises for Israel. Those days will display God’s great glory and power. We live in a time of great expectation for the second half, when the really amazing manifestations of God’s power will take place. God’s primary interest is Israel; the church is only a parenthesis until he resumes his dealings with Israel.

I cannot predict the future for either Israel or the church, but I do know one thing for sure. The greatest display of the wisdom, power, and grace of God the world will ever see is the cross and the salvation and transformation of rebels into the image of Christ. Nothing will ever eclipse the church as a manifestation of God’s grace and power. No upcoming second half will upstage the church.

I once heard a famous preacher, I think it was Vernon Magee, say, “If William Pettingill held a conference in our church on the ‘Marks of the Beast,’ the auditorium would be full every night. If Harry Ironsides held a conference in our church on ‘The Person and Work of Christ,’ there would be more empty seats than occupied seats.” The preacher then made this observation: “Something is amiss when God’s people are more interested in knowing about the Beast than they are in knowing about Christ.”

This kind of thinking does not grow out of a vacuum. Hermeneutics promote ideas. One of the serious consequences of a premillennial prophetic view is its inadvertent diminution of the cross, the resurrection, and the ascension. What are the correct rules we should follow in interpreting the Bible so we are Christ-centered, not Israel-centered, in our conclusions? Are there special rules we should use for understanding the Bible or do we use the same rules for interpreting the Word of God that we use when reading the newspaper? Do we interpret all of the books in the Bible the same way? The Bible is not one book with sixty-six chapters; it is one book that contains sixty-six individual, self-contained books. Some of those sixty-six books are poetic texts, some are historical texts, some are apocalyptic texts, filled with symbols, and some are a mix of more than one literary genre. Regardless of their respective genres, all sixty-six books are in some way related to the redemptive work of Jesus Christ our Lord. The sixty-six books constitute only one Bible.

When we start thinking about rules for interpreting Scripture, the first question is this: Do we use the same method of interpretation when studying the Song of Solomon as we do when interpreting the book of Acts? Are books like Ezekiel and Revelation, which everyone agrees are full of symbolic language, to be interpreted in the same way as Romans? Is it the case of a one-size-fits-all interpretive strategy, or does poetry need a different hermeneutic[14] than history does? Do we approach Revelation with a literal hermeneutic that takes every word in its natural meaning unless the context forces us to take it symbolically, or do we reverse our interpretative method and take everything symbolically unless the context forces us to take it literally? If we adopt the first method, we will likely fit into a dispensationalist camp. If we use the second method, we likely will not fit into dispensationalism.

No one argues that we should take every word and statement in Scripture literally. Everyone spiritualizes and symbolizes some passages. Thus, the question is not, “do we spiritualize some things in the Bible?” The question for our purposes is how do I know when to take something literally and when to take it symbolically? Context often indicates which hermeneutic move to use. We all agree that Genesis 3:15 describes Christ’s defeat of Satan, and none of us believes that Jesus literally bruised Satan’s heel. The text depicts the cross in symbolic imagery. It uses metaphoric language. So far as I know, no one involved in this discussion believes that Jesus wants us to pluck out an offending eye and cut off an offending hand. We would all agree that Jesus is speaking metaphorically for effect.

David, in Psalm 22, uses metaphor. When he writes, “But I am a worm…v.6; Many bulls have compassed me…v.12; as a roaring lion…v.13, Dogs have compassed me…v.16; Save me from the lion’s mouth…, the wild ox’s horn… v.21,” we know that we are not to take the words, “bulls, worm, dogs, lion, and ox” literally, but symbolically. Psalm 22 pictures our Lord on the cross. Wild animals did not surround our Lord when he was on the cross. He was in the presence of people who acted like dogs, lions, wild oxen, and raging bulls. When the psalmist writes, but I am a worm and not a man, he did not mean that Jesus changed species, morphing from human into worm.

Isaiah also uses animal imagery (Isa. 11), but for different effect. He mentions lions and other animals who act in a manner contrary to their nature. The young lion is having straw for lunch and then taking a nap with a fatling.

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.  (Isa. 11:6, 7, KJV)

Dispensational hermeneutics allow for lion in Psalm 22 as metaphor: it means ungodly men acting like roaring lions. However, a dispensational reading of lion in Isaiah 11 takes the word literally: it means a real four-legged lion. In Psalm 22, lion refers to a man acting like a lion, but in Isaiah 11, the same word refers to a lion acting like something else. Dispensationalists may be correct in their conclusion, but what interpretive rules guide them? Both passages allow a poetic reading, so why would we take the word lion literally in one passage (Isaiah 11), and symbolically in another (Psalm 22)? Contextually, both passages refer to the time of Messiah. Both passages have something to say about the nature of Messiah’s kingdom. Psalm 22 indicates the violent means by which Messiah wins the kingdom and the equally violent nature of those outside the kingdom. Isaiah 11 describes the peaceful nature of the citizens of the kingdom after it has been established. What indicates that we ought to interpret lion in Isaiah 11 as a four-legged animal instead of as a symbolic picture of a two-legged man? Why can we not consider Isaiah to be referring to someone like Saul of Tarsus, whose nature was transformed from that of a roaring lion into a gentle lamb by the power of the gospel? Your theology may not allow you to believe it, but Saul of Tarsus, transformed by the gospel and eating with Christ’s lambs, instead of eating them or persecuting them unto death, fits Isaiah 11 quite nicely, just as the symbolic language of beastly behavior fits Psalm 22.

Let me add that I have no problem believing that the scenario described by Isaiah 11could take place in a literal sense during a millennial reign of Christ if God so willed it. God can easily change the nature and the digestive system of a lion. However, I do not find any New Testament evidence that Jesus shed his blood so that a lion can eat straw. Our Lord died to change the nature of human beings, not the nature of animals.

It is neither my intention nor my hope to convert anyone to my prophetic view. It is my intention, however, to raise awareness about the link between hermeneutics and prophetic views. Hermeneutics drives theology. All theologies, including NCT, derive from an interpretation of the promise/fulfillment motif and its significance for the nature of the kingdom of Christ. It is also my intention to refute the notion that rejection of the hermeneutics of both dispensationalism and Covenant theology equates with rejection of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. It is my hope that all parties in this discussion will acknowledge that the people who read lion symbolically in Isaiah 11 love God’s Word just as much as do those who read it literally, and vice versa. It is also my hope that we will clearly understand why we read as we do.

In our next chapter, we will look at the first rule of hermeneutics held by most Christians and unanimously among dispensationalists. Andy Wood, in his extremely informative article, “Literal, Grammatical, Historical Methodology”[15] uses this definition:

Post-reformation biblical interpretation employs what is called the literal, grammatical, historical method of interpretation. Let us break this phrase down into its component parts. The dictionary defines literal interpretation as that type of interpretation that is “based on the actual words in their ordinary meaning...not going beyond the facts.” Two concepts seem to be in view. First, according to Ram, literal interpretation encompasses the idea of assigning to every word the same meaning it would have in its normal usage, whether employed in speaking, writing, or thinking.[16]

Wood then refers to this method of hermeneutics as “Cooper’s Golden Rule of Interpretation” and states that it “incorporates such an understanding of literalism:”

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.[17]

We will apply this principle to Revelation 20:1-9 to determine whether to apply a literal or symbolic approach to the term one-thousand years and other words in the text.

An Examination of the Literal Principle              67

Chapter Four

An Examination of

the Literal Principle

In our last chapter, we briefly discussed vital differences in hermeneutic approaches among sincere Christians. Should we use the same interpretive rules for all of the books in the Bible? For example, should we interpret the Song of Solomon in the same way that we interpret the book of Acts? One hermeneutical method is to use a literal approach when reading non-symbolic books and to reverse it (take everything symbolically unless the content forces a literal reading) with poetry or symbolic material. With this approach, interpretive rules for dreams, visions, and apocalyptic literature differ from those for history and narrative. A different hermeneutical method is to understand the entire Bible—every word in every book—literally, unless the context forces the reader to spiritualize it. Here is a typical quotation advocating the literal view of interpretation:

The Literal Principle. We assume that each word in a passage has a normal, literal meaning, unless there is good reason to view it as a figure of speech. The exegete does not go out of his way to spiritualize or allegorize. Words mean what words mean.

So, if the Bible mentions a “horse,” it means “a horse.” When the Bible speaks of the Promised Land, it means a literal land given to Israel and should not be interpreted as a reference to heaven.[18]

Is this a valid assumption? In a previous chapter, we noted that the context of Psalm 22 qualifies as a good reason to view the word lion as figurative, but the context of Isaiah 11 is ambiguous. All agree the word lion in Psalm 22 refers to a person who acts like a furious lion. It is symbolic. The word lion in Isaiah 11, however, could refer to either a literal or a symbolic lion. The context allows for either hermeneutical move. One task, then, for those who adhere to the literal principle, is to establish clear qualifications for a good reason to spiritualize or allegorize.

It seems reasonable to spiritualize or allegorize passages when we find biblical precedence to do so. For example, both Abraham and David spiritualized the promises that God made to them, so we may confidently follow suit. We examined these cases in some detail in earlier chapters. If, however, we were to adopt the literal principle as stated above, we would have to conclude that Abraham and David had no valid reason to interpret those promises as they did. The last line of the above quotation reads: “When the Bible speaks of the Promised Land, it means a literal land given to Israel and should not be interpreted as a reference to heaven.” But that is exactly what Abraham did! He spiritualized the promise of a physical piece of ground and looked forward in hope of heaven itself (Heb. 11:8-10). He saw the Promised Land as a type of heaven. Abraham’s understanding of the land promise, as recorded in Hebrews 11:8-10, contradicts (and perhaps invalidates) the literal principle of interpretation.

Let us further test the literal principle by applying it to Revelation 20:1-8. What parts of this passage may we read literally and what parts symbolically? Is the key that the angel holds a physical key, or is the word key here a figure of speech? Is the great chain the angel uses to bind Satan a literal chain or is it symbolic? Is the thousand-year imprisonment a real imprisonment, calculated in calendar years, or are both symbolic terms? Is one literal and the other symbolic? Again, it is important that we understand not only how we interpret a given passage, but why we interpret it as we do.

Let me quote the verses we will be looking at.

1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. (KJV)

Verses 1-3 depict a thousand year binding of Satan. The expressed purpose of this binding is to prevent him from deceiving the nations, which, up to that point, he apparently was able to do without interference. Verse 4 describes some unidentified persons sitting on thrones as judges. John also saw the souls (but not, apparently, the bodies) of some martyred saints who were beheaded for their faithful witness for Christ which included the refusal to worship the beast (or its image) or to bear its mark. All of these souls came back to life and reigned with Christ during the thousand year period that Satan was bound. In verse 5, John continues to recount his vision: the rest of the dead (the non-martyrs?) remained dead until the end of the thousand year era. John identifies the resurrection of the beheaded ones, prior to the end of the thousand years, as the first resurrection. Verse 6 describes those who have a part in the first resurrection as blessed and holy and states that the second death cannot hurt them—they are secure from any condemnation. These people are priests of God and reign with Christ during the thousand years. Are these verses describing a future, earthly millennium or is describing the church age?

The work of binding and the angel doing the binding likely refer to Christ, since he alone has the power to subdue Satan. Having stated that, I find nothing else in the first three verses to be literal except the curtailment of Satan’s power to deceive the nations. A bottomless pit is a geological impossibility. If we were to make two lists and label one literal and the other figurative, we would place bottomless pit in the latter, on the authority of the world as God has created it. John himself comments that the words dragon and serpent refer to Satan. So we place dragon and serpent in the latter list, on John’s authority. Based on what we know of the nature of Satan (gleaned from Scripture), we know that there is no literal chain that could bind him, nor any lock, key, or door, that could contain him. These items go on the figurative list, too, on the authority of Scripture. Furthermore, the language here, if taken literally, has the angel placing a seal over a bottomless pit. This, too, is impossible in the world as we know it. You cannot seal something that has no bottom. The only thing in these verses, other than Satan and the nations, that can go (but not necessarily must go) on the first list is the thousand years. But what hermeneutic principle dictates where to place the thousand years? If the words bottomless pit, key, chain, dragon, serpent, binding, and seal are symbolic, can we assume that the thousand-year span is also symbolic? This is not an unreasonable assumption since the phrase occurs in a book that is full of symbols.

Let us use the same approach to the phrase thousand years as we did with the rest of the passage. The world as we know it allows for a literal thousand years, so we cannot use that as a criterion to place this item on the figurative list. That does not automatically mean that we place it on the literal list, though. We have other criteria to consider. Does John qualify the thousand years in the way he does the words dragon and serpent? No. John himself does not assist us with the interpretation of this particular phrase. Does the rest of Scripture bear out the idea that one-thousand years must be literal or does Scripture sometimes use the term symbolically? This criterion is more helpful than the other two. Writers in Scripture use the word thousand in at least two different ways. Sometimes, the context makes it clear that they mean a literal one thousand. Sometimes, the context indicates that the writer is using the term symbolically to mean a real number that cannot be known. Consider the following texts where writers use the word in the second sense.

A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: a thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. (Dan. 7:10, KJV)

The NIV translates this phrase, Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. I think that Daniel means “a whole bunch of people,” or thousands upon thousands, ministered unto the Ancient of Days, and an “even bigger bunch,” or ten thousand times ten thousand, stood before him.

Hosea 1:10 states that, the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered, but the beings gathered around the throne in Rev. 5:11 was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousand. The phrase, “ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, seems to be interchangeable with the phrase, “sand of the sea.” Ten thousand times ten thousand is a definite number but the number of the grains of sand is not a definite number. Both seem to be used symbolically.

And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; (Rev. 5:11, KJV)

The author of Psalm 50 uses the word thousand to indicate a large number.

For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. (Psalm 50:10, KJV)

The context of the psalm makes it clear that God’s ownership of cattle is not limited to those who graze on a literal one thousand hills. The author is not implying that the cattle on all the rest of the hills belongs to someone else. God owns all cattle, not just those on one thousand hills.

I do not think that the Psalmist expects us to take the word thousand literally in Psalm 91:7.

A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it [the deadly pestilence] shall not come nigh thee. (Psalm 91:7, KJV)

Likewise, Paul never imagined that any of us would have ten thousand instructors.

For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. (1 Cor. 4:15, KJV)

One final text speaks clearly to the subject.

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2 Peter 3:8, KJV)

In this passage, Peter is telling us that God’s schedule does not run the way our does. God is not limited or in any way restricted by clocks or seasons. One day, ten days, or a thousand years are the same to God. I am reminded of the story of the little boy asking God if it was true that one day was as a thousand years in his sight. God answered, “Yes.” The little boy then said, “Then a million dollars in your sight would be like a penny.” God replied, “Right again.” The boy then confidently said, “Would you give me a penny?” God said, “I would be glad to, in a minute.”

This brief survey does not establish that one thousand years in Revelation 20 must be understood symbolically and not literally; however, I think I have demonstrated that the term can possibly mean “a definite and real period of time that cannot be known.” I hope I have proven that biblical authors, in many instances, use the word one- thousand in a symbolic manner. This biblical evidence allows us to at least consider a figurative use in Revelation 20.

What happens to our understanding of Revelation 20:1-6 if we do indeed read one thousand as a large unspecified number? We have already established the binding of Satan as something depicted symbolically by the words key and chain. When we read that an angel bound Satan with a chain, we ought not to envision Satan wrapped in steel chains with a lock and the angel holding a big key. The binding of Satan refers to God restraining Satan’s power. If we ask, “Is Satan bound today,” the answer is, “Yes, if you compare his power now with what it was before the cross and Pentecost.” Remember that the binding has reference to one specific activity of Satan, namely, deceiving the nations. Prior to the incarnation, Satan, in some way, deceived the Gentiles. The incarnation changed that. With the advent of Messiah, Satan no longer deceived the Gentiles. That activity has been curtailed and will continue to be curtailed for a long, long time.

Someone might protest that writers of the New Testament documents sometimes refer to Satan as active and powerful (e.g., 1 Pet. 5:8; 1 John 5:19). Limiting one of Satan’s activities, and eliminating his power and activity all together are two different things. If you tie an animal to a fifty foot rope, you have bound him to a fifty foot territory. If you shorten the rope to ten feet, you have bound the animal to a ten foot territory. Either way, the animal is bound. In some sense, the cross bound Satan and prevented him from deceiving the Gentiles as he had been doing, or else our Lord’s redemptive work was ineffective. If that binding is the same as that described by John in Revelation 20, the Gentiles have some kind of freedom that they previously did not have. That freedom may be the opportunity to become part of God’s people without having to adopt Jewish identity markers such as circumcision, the observance of food laws, and other similar practices that separated Jews and Gentiles. I may be wrong in my understanding of what the binding work was, but we must have some kind of binding of Satan at the cross.

We have an instance in the Old Testament of Satan being bound. When God accepted Satan’s challenge concerning Job’s loyalty, God put a specific limit on how far Satan could go. He bound Satan with a “so far but no further” rope. He kept giving Satan more rope but Satan was always bound or limited in his power over Job. Today Satan goes about as a “roaring lion, seeking to devour whom he may” (1 Peter 5:8). Satan did not go about as a roaring lion in the Old Testament. He did not have to. The kingdoms of this world were all under his sway. It was only when his kingdom was invaded by Christ and he bound Satan that Satan roared (Matthew 12:22-29). As long as the world “lays in the lap of the wicked one,” his kingdom is secure.

John, in his vision, sees certain people who had been dead come back to life and live and reign with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead remained dead for a long, long time—they lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This does not necessarily mean that once the long time ended, the rest of the dead came to life, although that certainly is one way to read it. It could mean that they never lived again. An example of this use of the phrase is 1 Samuel 15:35.

And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel. (KJV)

This does not mean that Samuel stayed away from Saul up to the point of Saul’s death, but then he came to see Saul at the time of Saul’s death; it means that Samuel never again saw Saul.

John then adds that this is the first resurrection. While there is much debate on what John’s words in verses 3 and 4 mean, the words “this is the first resurrection,” in verse 5 are much easier to understand.

First, John is not introducing a new idea. What he says about the first resurrection is truth his readers already know. The same John who wrote Revelation also wrote the gospel of John. In that gospel, he refers to the same two resurrections. In Revelation 20:5, John refers again to the same two resurrections. Look carefully at what John wrote in his gospel.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in  which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (John 5:24-29, KJV)

John, in verse 24, declares that a person becomes a child of God (has everlasting life) through faith in God’s word. John describes this experience as “passing from death unto life.” The movement from death to life is resurrection. This “first resurrection” occurs when someone believes what Jesus said about himself. It took place in the first century and continues to take place now. Every child of God takes part in this resurrection. This resurrection refers to regeneration. In regeneration, God places spiritual life into a person who previously was spiritually dead. The resurrection is spiritual. John is emphatic, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. People who are spiritually dead are right now made alive spiritually. Sinners who are “dead in sin” are “quickened,” or made alive (Eph. 2:1). These words are not talking about a future millennium, they are talking about today. The first death (in the garden) was spiritual; the first resurrection is spiritual. Adam did not die physically the moment he ate the fruit; he died spiritually and began to die physically. In the first resurrection, the Holy Spirit breathes spiritual life into a dead soul. John describes this infusing of spiritual life as “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God.”

What happens in a resurrection? Dead people leave the state of death. That is what happens in the new birth. Spiritually dead sinners “hear the voice of Christ;” they are regenerated; they come alive spiritually. They come out of the graveyard of sin and unbelief. In addition to the spiritual resurrection, a physical resurrection will take place at the second coming. Jesus taught Nicodemus that regeneration, the first resurrection, was invisible, but that Nicodemus should not marvel about that (John 3:5-8). Jesus repeats the admonition to not marvel in John 5:28 when he speaks about another resurrection that will take place in the future, connected with judgment. Notice carefully that there is an “hour that is coming and now is”—the present age in which we live, in which the first resurrection (spiritual) takes place—and another “hour that is coming”—the future age, in which the second resurrection (physical) takes place. This second resurrection includes all who are in the graves, believers and unbelievers alike. Everyone who is physically dead shall hear the voice of Christ and come forth. This “hearing the voice of Christ” is not regeneration. It is not being effectually called out of the graveyard of sin; it is being brought out of a physical graveyard to face God in the final judgment. This resurrection, which includes all humanity, sometimes is referred to as “the great white throne of judgment.”

Jesus’ words here indicate that both the good and the bad, believers and unbelievers, are present at the judgment. If we read Revelation 20:1-6 with the literal principle, we have to place one-thousand years between the resurrection of those who have done good and those who have done evil. We have to posit two resurrections separated by a millennium, in which case, the verses here would read this way:

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And SOME shall come forth AND BE RAPTURED; THIS REFERS TO THE CHURCH, they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, THE REST OF MANKIND will be RAISED 1,000 YEARS LATER AT the resurrection of damnation.

Where the writers of the biblical text have two hours and two resurrections, the literal principle requires three hours and three resurrections. On this view, the phrase, “all shall hear his voice” in verse 28 does not mean “all at the same time.” Those who died in a state of grace will be raised from the dead and joined to the living saints. These people will ascend bodily into heaven. This is Christ coming for his saints. One-thousand calendar years later, Christ will return with his saints. Then, the rest of the dead (unbelievers) will be physically raised from the dead and will stand before God in judgment. Believers do not appear at this judgment in that system.

John’s description of those who take part in the first resurrection (Rev. 20:6) indicates people who live prior to the second coming.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

These people are:

blessed,

holy,

the second death cannot harm them,

they are priests before God,

they reign with Christ for a thousand years.

I think all will agree that the first four things mentioned all apply to Christians who live in this present age (after the incarnation and before the Second Coming). Children of God are blessed (Matthew 5:1-11) indeed. God has given them every spiritual blessing and already seated them in heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 1:6). The word “holy” carries two connotations: set apart or chosen, and righteous and acceptable to God. Both meanings apply to believers, but only to believers. They alone are chosen and set apart as God’s special possession. They also are totally justified and sanctified in Christ. No death of any kind can truly harm Christians. They are robed in the righteousness of Christ. There can be no condemnation to any who are in Christ (Romans 8:1). All Christians are priests and kings and members of the royal (kingly) priesthood (1 Peter 2:5, 9).

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: (1 Peter 2:9, KJV)

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen (Rev. 1:6, KJV)

It would be intellectually dishonest to state or to imply that the position and understanding that I have set forth is problem free. I have more than one unanswered question. However, as I mentioned at the beginning of this series, every view has problems. A crucial question for New Covenant theologians is this: Does any one view of prophecy make it intellectually, and biblically, mandatory that a New Covenant theologian hold to that particular view of prophecy? Is there a biblical New Covenant hermeneutic that settles the question of prophecy? I think I have demonstrated that a non-dispensational and non-millennial view of prophecy is plausible, but I make no claim that I have proven that such a view is mandatory.

I would appreciate feedback from our readers. My primary concern is whether my New Covenant friends think that the subject needs an open discussion or that it should be left alone. On the one hand, I am not interested in creating a split among those New Covenant folk who espouse some form of dispensationalism/premillennialism and those who hold to amillennialism. On the other hand, I am slow to say, “The Bible is not clear on the subject so we will not talk about it.” I remember my frustration when my Arminian friends used that rationale to opt out of discussions when we tried to talk about Calvinism. It seems to me that it is time to develop (or to attempt to develop) a biblical hermeneutic for New Covenant theology.

At this point, I question if the Literal, Grammatical, Historical Methodology is consistent with New Covenant theology. Perhaps I do not understand the former correctly, but the material I presented on Abraham and David’s understanding of the promises God gave them seems to contradict the presupposition that underlies the literal method of hermeneutics. Can one insist that the new covenant must interpret the old covenant and hold to the literal hermeneutic at the same time? What happens when a new covenant writer spiritualizes an old covenant statement? I hope I have convinced everyone that our rejecting of both premillennialism and dispensationalism does not turn us into allegorizing twenty-first century Origens.

In our next chapter, we will look at several passages that seem to me to invalidate the premises upon which the Literal, Grammatical, Historical Methodology rests.

New Covenant Theology Hermeneutic              79

Chapter Five

New Covenant Theology Hermeneutic

We continue our discussion of hermeneutics. We are trying to establish whether there is, or is not, such a thing as a specific and unique New Covenant Theology (here after “NCT”) hermeneutic. All agree that it is not possible to believe both Covenant Theology and NCT. The basic presuppositions of those two systems are totally antithetical. The question we have been trying to answer is whether the same thing is true of Dispensational Theology and NCT. Is it possible to biblically hold to Dispensationalism and NCT at the same time, or are Dispensationalism and NCT, like Covenant Theology and NCT, antithetical? At the moment, there are people who call themselves New Covenant theologians and also embrace some form of Dispensationalism. Some of the regular contributors to Sound of Grace hold to some form of Dispensationalism. Are these people inconsistent, or do they have a biblical warrant for their convictions?

One of the basic presuppositions of NCT is our insistence that the New Testament must interpret the Old Testament. The question we want to look at in this chapter is central to our overall discussion. “How do the New Testament writers interpret the kingdom promises of the Old Testament?” Do the New Testament writers give a literal, or “natural,” meaning to the kingdom promises in the Old Testament, or do they spiritualize those prophecies? In previous chapters, we have seen that both Abraham and David clearly spiritualized the kingdom promises made to them. Is this the normal method used by the NT writers, or are these examples exceptions? Is a “literal” interpretation the method used? We will look at how several other Old Testament kingdom passages are interpreted in the New Testament.

As I mentioned in the last chapter, it seems to me that the basic presupposition of Dispensationalism cannot be reconciled with the basic presupposition of NCT. Dispensationalism is based on applying the “literal, grammatical, historical methodology” of interpretation to all of Scripture. NCT uses this method to interpret history and normal narrative but not symbolic (apocryphal) sections (see our last chapter).

We will first look at the passage describing the temple in Ezekiel 40-48. John Whitcomb has a clear and concise chapter defending the historical and classical Dispensational interpretation of this passage (google “The Millennial Temple of Ezekiel 40-48.”). He sees this passage as a “continental divide” between amillennialists and premillennialists. All Dispensationalists do not agree with Whitcomb, especially modern Dispensationalists.

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, quoted by Whitcomb).

Whitcomb then proceeds to give seven arguments to support his position and answers three major objections. Here is his first argument.

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. Ibid

I agree there is a definite “literal ring” to the many clear and specific measurements of the temple and courts described in Ezekiel 40-48. I will go further and agree that if all we had on the subject of a future temple was Ezekiel 40-48, we would accept the Dispensational view. The readers to whom Ezekiel wrote would have every reason to take everything in chapters 40-48, along with everything else in the book, literally. However, the problems that a literal interpretation of the passage presents, when compared with the New Testament Scriptures, dulls this argument. Whitcomb admits there are problems and tries to answer them. The first objection he discusses is from J. Sidlow Baxter, a widely known exponent of Dispensationalism.

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 (J. Sidlow Baxter, Explore the Book, IV, 32, quoted by Whitcomb).

Whitcomb answers this objection this way:

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 (Whitcomb).

The Scofield Bible has a side-bar at 40:3 titled “Difficulties of Interpretation.” Scofield gives five different explanations. The one he accepts is number 5.

The last nine chapters of Ezekiel have posed numerous problems for expositors.

(1) Some feel these chapters describe the Solomanic temple before the destruction in 586 B.C.

(2) Some hold it is a description of the restoration temple completed in the sixth century…

(3) Others maintain that the chapters portray an ideal temple never realized…

(4) Still another view is the claim that the picture is one of the church and its blessings in this age…

(5) The preferable interpretation is that Ezekiel gives a picture of the millennial temple. Judging from the broad context of the prophecy (the time subsequent to Israel’s regathering and conversion and the testimony of other Scripture (Isa. 66; Ezek. 6:14), this interpretation is in keeping with God’s prophetic program for the millennium.

The church is not in view here, but rather it is a prophecy for the consummation of Israel’s history on earth (Scofield Study System, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003, p. 1096).

Both Whitcomb and Scofield set forth the classic historical Dispensational view of Ezekiel 40-48. Also both acknowledge there are serious problems with their interpretation. The size of the temple and courts is not the only problem. God can, if he so chooses, build a temple complex that is 200 square miles, or six times the size of modern London in England, but it certainly is very unlikely. A more difficult problem is raised by the reinstitution of a priesthood that offers blood sacrifices. A literal interpretation of Ezekiel’s temple is essentially a return to Judaism. A return to Judaism raises the question: “What has Jesus Christ actually accomplished with his birth, life, death and resurrection?”

Both Scofield and Whitcomb acknowledge and make note of this problem, but Whitcomb insists on the consistent literal view. Scofield proceeds to cop out of a consistent application of the “good and necessary consequences” of Dispensationalism. In Ezekial 43:18-27, he acknowledges there is a serious problem. Here are the texts and the response of both Whitcomb and Scofield to the problem. These verses seem, on the surface, to be every bit as “literal” as those describing the measurements.

18 And he said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord God; These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon. 19 And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord God, a young bullock for a sin offering. 20 And thou shalt take of the blood thereof, and put it on the four horns of it, and on the four corners of the settle, and upon the border round about: thus shalt thou cleanse and purge it. 21 Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place of the house, without the sanctuary. 22 And on the second day thou shalt offer a kid of the goats without blemish for a sin offering; and they shall cleanse the altar, as they did cleanse it with the bullock. 23 When thou hast made an end of cleansing it, thou shalt offer a young bullock without blemish, and a ram out of the flock without blemish. 24 And thou shalt offer them before the Lord, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering unto the Lord. 25 Seven days shalt thou prepare every day a goat for a sin offering: they shall also prepare a young bullock, and a ram out of the flock, without blemish. 26 Seven days shall they purge the altar and purify it; and they shall consecrate themselves. 27 And when these days are expired, it shall be, that upon the eighth day, and so forward, the priests shall make your burnt offerings upon the altar, and your peace offerings; and I will accept you, saith the Lord God (Ezek. 43:18-27).

The Scofield Study System has a side-bar at Ezek. 43:29 titled “The Problem with Sacrifices.”

A problem is posed by this paragraph (vv. 19-27). Since the N.T. clearly teaches that animal sacrifices do not in themselves cleanse away sin (Heb.10:4) and that the one sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ that was made at Calvary completely provides for such expiation (compare Heb. 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10, 14), how can there be a fulfillment of such a prophecy? Two answers have been suggested:

(1) Such sacrifices, if actually offered, will be memorial in character. They will, according to this view, look back to our Lord’s work on the cross, as the offerings of the old covenant anticipated his sacrifice. They would, of course, have no expiatory value. And

(2) the references to sacrifices is not to be taken literally, in view of the putting away of such offerings, but is rather to be regarded as a presentation of redeemed Israel, in her own land and in the millennial temple, using the terms with which the Jews were familiar in Ezekiel’s day.

This is an amazing cop out. Scofield wants a literal temple and a literal priesthood, but the offerings of the priest are not literal. When push comes to shove with regard to the sacrificial system, Scofield is willing to deny his basic “literal” hermeneutic.

Whitcomb argues differently. He quotes the objection, “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,” and he then proceeds to answer it:

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;[19] for there is a clear distinction made throughout the Scriptures between Israel and the church.[20] 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.[21] 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) (Whitcomb).

Whitcomb is to be admired for his consistency. He consistently and logically applies the “literal, grammatical, historical methodology” of interpretation of classic historical Dispensationalism to Ezekiel 40-48, including the blood sacrifices. If that method of interpretation is biblical, then Whitcomb’s interpretation is correct.

All Dispensationalists, both today and in Whitcomb’s day, do not agree that Ezekiel 40-48 was to be understood literally. Whitcomb chides some of his contemporary Dispensationalists for their inconsistency in coping out on a literal interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48. He chides some of his contemporary Dispensationalists for saying the passage should be understood symbolically.

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, quoted by Whitcomb).

A non-Dispensationalist can say what Baxter and Ironsides said, but a consistent Dispensationalist cannot believe the “literal, grammatical, historical methodology” of interpretation and say the same thing. I do not agree with Whitcomb, but I do agree that his view is the honest application of the “literal, grammatical, historical methodology” of interpretation.

When we apply the NCT principle of allowing the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament, Whitcomb’s view seems to lack biblical support. When we ask, “What does the New Testament say about the temple God would build, about the priests who would serve in that temple, and about the sacrifices they would offer,” not a single New Testament text literalizes the temple, the priesthood, or the sacrifices. Each of these three is spiritualized in the New Testament Scriptures. If the Old Testament prophecies are understood as interpreted and applied by the writers of the New Testament, the church is now God’s temple[22] or dwelling place. All New Covenant believers are his priests[23] and our sacrifices are spiritual[24]. There is no room in the least for a temple made with brick and mortar, no room for a physical priestly order, and surely no room for a blood sacrifice intended to gain acceptance with Godand Ezekiel specifically notes that animal blood sacrifices would be the ground of acceptance with God.

The temple that God is building in his kingdom is not made out of bricks and mortar; it is made out of living stones. It is described in 1 Cor. 3 as a temple and in Hebrews 4 as God’s house. As the ultimate dwelling place of God, it can by no means be made to fit a literal interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48.

The New Covenant priesthood is made up of every believer—not just the men from one Israelite tribe. God’s New Covenant priests do not offer bulls and goats; they offer “spiritual sacrifices” (I Peter 2:5). It is impossible to imagine a New Covenant priest being in a “different class” than any other believer. It is even more impossible to imagine a New Covenant priest shedding the blood of an animal as sin offering. We will say more about this when we look at other New Testament passages.

For now, we must see that the New Covenant principle of allowing the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament will not allow a “literal, grammatical, historical methodology” of interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48. We must also see that it would seem that it is not possible to hold a “literal, grammatical, historical methodology” of interpretation of Scripture and not also believe that some time in the future there will be a 500 cubit square temple complex with Israelite priests offering burnt and sin offerings.

In our next chapter, we will look at how the New Testament writers interpret some additional Old Testament passages.

The New Interprets the Old              91

Chapter Six

The New Interprets the Old

We have been seeking to see how the New Testament Scriptures interpret Old Testament kingdom prophecies. Does the New Testament interpret the Old Testament as “literal,” meaning using “natural” language, or does the New Testament spiritualize the Old Testament kingdom promises? We have been testing one of the basic hermeneutical principles of Dispensational theology called the “literal, grammatical, historical,” method of interpretation. In this method, every word is understood in its literal or natural meaning. The word “man” means a real man, and the word “lion” means a real four legged lion, house means house, etc. NCT will agree we should use this method when interpreting books like Romans and the gospel of John but not when interpreting symbolic books like the Song of Solomon or the book of Revelation. All agree that the context will force a symbolic interpretation of some texts. In a previous chapter we demonstrated this with the following texts from Psalm 22 and Isaiah 11.

Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion…For dogs have compassed me … Psalm 22:12, 13 &16.

No one would insist that four legged bulls, four legged dogs and four legged roaring lions were gathered around the cross. The text is describing, in symbolic language, two legged men who were acting like mad bulls, furious lions and barking dogs. All interpreters, including the most die -hard Dispensationalists, will agree that such an interpretation of Psalm 22 is “obvious” and clearly demonstrated by the context. The language in these texts cannot be taken in a “literal, grammatical, historical” sense. They must be understood symbolically. The problem arises when there are texts where it is just as “obvious,” at least to me, that should be taken symbolically but the Dispensationalist says, “No, no, we must take the Bible literally. We must be consistent with the ‘literal, grammatical, historical’ hermeneutic.” An example of this is a text like Isaiah 11:6, 7. In this text we are told that the word lion must be taken literally instead of symbolically as in Psalm 22.

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. Isa.11:6, 7.

The vital question is what rule of hermeneutics says “roaring lion” in Psalm 22 is symbolic; it means a man is acting like a wild animal, but the same word in Isaiah 11 must be taken literally and means a four legged animal acting totally contrary to his nature. What makes it “obvious” that Psalm 22 is to be understood symbolically but Isaiah 11 is to be understood literally, meaning in “natural” language?

Again, all agree that the context in Isaiah 11 is talking about the “kingdom” Christ would establish. The question is whether it is describing the present spiritual kingdom that he established at his first coming or the so-called future earthly “millennial” kingdom taught by Dispsationalism. Is Isaiah 11 describing a present spiritual kingdom or is it describing a literal physical millennial kingdom in the future at the second coming as the Dispensationalist insists.

I agree that Isaiah 11 does not clearly resolve the problem since the context does not absolutely prove that the lions and lambs must be four legged or two legged. Let’s look at two Old Testament kingdom prophesies that are interpreted for us with New Testament apostolic authority and see how New Covenant apostles interpreted Old Testament prophecies concerning the kingdom. The first passage is Jeremiah 31:31-34.

31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34  And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.  Jeremiah 31:31-34.

This prophecy is predicting a new covenant replacing the old covenant made at Sinai. The prophecy is very clear that the new covenant will be made with the “house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.” It is said to be made with the children of the Israelites who were redeemed out of Egypt as recorded in the book of Exodus. The essence of the promised covenant literally guarantees the full salvation of the house of Israel, and the house of Judah. Any honest literal interpretation of these words, taken by themselves, demands a new covenant being made with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah whereby every member of the house of Israel and the house of Judah would be regenerated and justified. If the “literal, historical and grammatical” hermeneutic is correct, then the Dispensationalist is correct in his understanding of the animals in Isaiah 11. The new covenant, as promised in Jeremiah 31, beyond question guarantees the future salvation of Israel. The “literal, grammatical and historical” hermeneutic demands this understanding. The problem is that such an idea cannot be made to agree with the New Testament. The New Testament is quite clear that the new covenant promised in Jeremiah has nothing to do with a future conversion of Israel. The new covenant is already fulfilled. According to both Jesus and the apostles, the promised new covenant in Jeremiah 31 is made with the church, not with Israel. The New Testament “spiritualizes” the “house of Israel” in Jeremiah 31 to mean the church. Notice that our Lord’s understanding of the prophecy of the new covenant states it is made with the church, not with Israel.

23  For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24  And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25  After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament [NIV, covenant] in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.  1 Cor. 11:23-26.

The new covenant established by our Lord has nothing to do with either Israel’s future conversion or their restoration to the Holy Land. It has to do with his atoning sacrifice on the cross for the elect or the church. Neither Israel nor the land is mentioned in this passage. It is clear that our Lord spiritualized Jeremiah 31 and applied the promise of the new covenant to the church for which he shed his blood. Some Dispensationalists, seeking to explain the obvious problem with their understanding of the new covenant, have said there are two new covenants, one for Israel, which is still future, and another one for Gentiles which is present. It is impossible to get any such idea into the texts. Just as Jeremiah 31:31-34 would need a “literal” physical kingdom to fulfill it if the “literal, historical, grammatical” hermeneutic was correct, so our Lord’s words when instituting the Lord’s Supper demands the new covenant must be spiritualized to apply to the church and the kingdom of grace. You cannot demand a “literal” fulfillment of the promise in Jeremiah 31 and then “spiritualize” the New Testament interpretation of the same text.

It is obvious that our Lord did not follow a “literal, historical, grammatical” interpretation of the old covenant promise of a new covenant. The choice is not “spiritualize” versus “total literal.” Everyone does both. The question is who or what establishes the reason that lion must be symbolized in Psalm 22 and taken literally in Isaiah 11. The Dispensationalist, in the New Testament (1 Cor. 11:23-26; Heb. 8 and 10), takes Jeremiah literally and spiritualizes the New Testament interpretation of it. The non-Dispensationalist does the opposite. He takes the New Testament interpretation of Jeremiah as a literal spiritual interpretation of Jeremiah 31. We will admit without question that if Jeremiah 31 was the only Scripture text to speak of a new covenant, we would agree that the new covenant is made with the nation of Israel and has not yet been fulfilled. However, both our Lord and his apostles (1 Cor. 11:23-26; Heb. 8 and 10) make it abundantly clear that the new covenant is made with the church and the kingdom promise of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 is already fulfilled. This is one of the many examples of how NCT is radically different in its insistence that the New Testament must interpret the Old Testament.

Look at how the writer of the book of Hebrews understood the promise of the new covenant given in Jeremiah 31. After quoting Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Hebrews 10:16-18, the writer applies the truths of the new covenant blessing of access into God’s presence. He is talking about the new covenant blessing of entering into the most holy place with assurance because we are robed in the righteousness of Christ. Christ is the true high priest over God’s true redeemed house. The priest he is talking about is Christ and the house of God over which this priest reigns is the church. Read the words carefully and see if the writer of Hebrews “literalizes” the Jeremiah passage or “spiritualizes” it. See if he is talking about something future or something in the present, talking about the church for which Christ died or something in the future pertaining to Israel and the land. Does the writer to the Hebrews literalize or spiritualize Jeremiah 31:31-34?

15  Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16  This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17  And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

19  Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20  By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

21  And having an high priest over the house of God;

22  Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.  Hebrews 10:15-22.

The second kingdom prophecy we want to look at is Joel 2:28-32.

28  And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

29  And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

30  And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.

31  The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD come.

32  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

The kingdom promise made in Joel 2:28-32 is a passage that will test your consistency in your hermeneutics. How much of this prophecy should we take “literally” and how much should we “spiritualize”? How much of the prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost and how much awaits a future fulfillment? The first question that must be asked is simple and, if we really believe the Old Testament must be interpreted with the New Testament, is clearly answered in Acts in Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost. Peter tells us how to understand Joel 2:28-32.

12  And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

14  But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

15  For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

16  But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17  And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18  And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19  And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:

21  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.  Acts 2:12-21.

When the crowd heard many different tongues being spoken, some accused the speakers of being drunk. They asked, “What does this mean?” Peter assured them the men speaking were not drunk. He told them the things they were seeing were evidence that Joel’s prophecy was being fulfilled. The kingdom God had promised had come. The events of Pentecost proved it. Peter declared, “this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.” Peter definitely saw the events of Pentecost as fulfilling the prophecy of Joel. The kingdom Joel foretold was coming had come. Joel’s prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost. Dispensationalism, in order to be consistent, must take Joel’s words “literally” but cannot take Peter’s words literally. This is obviously a real problem. One way out of their dilemma is to deny that Pentecost is a real fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. Instead of taking Peter “literally,” they make Peter’s words to mean the events of Pentecost are only a type, a fore-shadowing of a future event. Peter is not saying Joel’s prophecy is “literally” fulfilled, he is only saying it is kind of a foretaste, or type, of the real thing. An example of this view is found in the comments in John MacArthur’s Study Bible in his introduction to the book of Joel.

A second issue confronting the interpreter is Peter’s quotation from Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:16-21. Some have viewed the phenomena of Acts 2 and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as the fulfillment of the Joel passage, while others have reserved its fulfillment to the final Day of the Lord onlybut clearly Joel is referring to the terrible Day of the Lord. The pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is not a fulfillment, but a preview and sample of the Spirit’s power and work, to be released fully and finally in the Messiah’s kingdom after the Day of the Lord” (The MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1268).

I will leave it to the reader to decide whether the words “this is that” really means Pentecost is the fulfillment of Joel’s kingdom prophecy or if those words are only “a preview and sample” of that kingdom. Do we take Joel literally, and be consistent with the “literal” hermeneutic of Dispensationalism and symbolize Peter’s interpretation of Joel, or do we symbolize Joel and take Peter’s “this is that” literally? It seems strange to me that militant defenders of a literal interpretation of Joel’s Old Testament kingdom prophecy are forced to spiritualize a New Testament writer’s interpretation of that same Old Testament prophecy.

I doubt my book will persuade any Dispensationalist to change their view. I do hope some people who act like Dispensationalists are the only people who really believe in verbal (in their minds meaning “literal”) inspiration will realize that is not true. Non-Dispensationalists, including A-mils, are just as deeply committed to the full verbal inspiration of the Scriptures as the Pre-mils. Likewise, I hope others will see that our Dispensational brethren are just as committed heart and soul to Scripture as their sole rule of life and theology as we non-Dispensationalists are. Regardless, it seems obvious to me that Peter’s words, “this is that,” really means “this is that.” Peter is declaring the kingdom promised in Joel has been fulfilled. The New Testament is clearly spiritualizing an Old Testament kingdom promise. The promised new covenant has been established.

One last word. I want to emphasize again my deep conviction that the New Testament Scriptures must interpret the Old Testament Scriptures. We must use Hebrews and I Corinthians to interpret the book of Joel. We do not form a “literal” interpretation of Joel 2:28-32, and other kingdom passages in the Old Testament, and force that understanding into the New Testament. We must make Joel fit into Hebrews; we do not fit Hebrews into Joel. We must let the New Testament interpret the Old Testament. When we use this new covenant principle of interpretation we will discover that “this is that” means the writer is clearly spiritualizing an Old Testament kingdom prophecy.

[1] Publishers Note: The following material first appeared as a series of articles in Sound of Grace. This is a journal dedicated to promoting the truths of the Doctrines of Grace and New Covenant Theology. It is published ten times a year. Back copies are available. For information call 301-473-8781.

[2] I say most because men like Dr. Don Carson would be a Premillenialist but would not be a Dispensationalist.

[3] http://www.gotquestions.org/amillennialism.html

[4] We would have to speak of a mid-kingdom coming; that is, that the second coming will happen after the establishment of the eternal kingdom or during the time of the kingdom.

[5]  http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/documents/articles/25/25.pdf

[6] In this chapter, we will have space to focus only on part of the list we glean from 2 Samuel 7:1-7. We will examine promises 3-6: to build David a house; to raise up one of David’s sons to succeed him; to allow that son to build God’s house; and to establish David’s house, throne, and kingdom forever.

[7] House can mean physical building or it can mean family or posterity.

[8] Scofield Reference Bible, copyright  1967, Oxford University Press, 198 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y., 10098. Copyright 1909, 1917, renewed, 1937, 1945.

[9] Ibid. Note at Ezek. 43:19.

[10] Ibid. Note at Ezek. 40:5.

[11] Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (1948. Reprint, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), 148.

[12] For a detailed exposition of the seed, see John G. Reisinger, Abraham’s Four Seeds (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 1998). Available from New Covenant Media, 5317 Wye Creek Dr, Frederick, MD. 21703-6938.

[13] Bunyan describes this in his book, The Holy War.

[14] The word hermeneutic means “rules of interpretation.”

[15] I do not agree with this writer’s position but he is both thorough and fair in his presentation.

[16] http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/documents/articles/25/25.pdf

[17] Ibid.

[18] http://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-exegesis.html

[19] This means that Christianity is not the religion of the Dispensational millennium.

[20] This is one of the foundation blocks of Dispensationalism. This quotation is classic historical Dispensationalism. It must separate Israel and the church and insist that Israel and the church are under two different covenants with two different goals. It is easy to infer, even if not explicitly stated, from statements like those in this paragraph that Israel and the church have two different gospels, dare I say two different saviors?

[21] This is a most revealing statement. It is statements like this that seem to justify the charge of holding two kinds of salvation.

[22] 1 Cor. 3:16-17: Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple. ESV

[23] 1 Peter 2:9-10: But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. ESV

[24] Rom 12:1: I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. ESV

Table of Contents

Copyright

Dedication

Chapter One [1] Millennium or Kingdom?

Chapter Two God’s Promises to David and Solomon

Chapter Three Revelation 20:1-9

Chapter Four An Examination of the Literal Principle

Chapter Five New Covenant Theology Hermeneutic

Chapter Six The New Interprets the Old