1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 and the Rapture (Part 1)

Introduction

Numerous eschatological facts can be gleaned from the epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians. We shall begin by looking at a vital text in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11. With regard to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, all Bible Presbyterians and Dispensationalists will agree that it refers to the rapture of the New Testament church.

Commenting on 1 Thessalonians 4:17, Jeffrey Khoo writes: “The “live” saints will be raptured soon after “dead” saints have been “caught up.” How soon? The whole event will happen “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye” (1 Cor. 15:52). It will all be over in a micro-second.”^[1]

Rev Dr Jack Sin, previously the lecturer in Church History and Pastoral Ministry of Far Eastern Bible College, explains further:

“The second coming of Christ will be in two phases - first the Rapture, then the Second Advent. The Rapture, mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, is a special event when the Church will be caught up into heaven. At the Rapture, Jesus Christ will appear out of heaven and there will be a great shout followed by the voice of an archangel and the trumpet of God. . . . Both OT and NT saints will be caught up into the clouds to meet Jesus in the air (1 Thess 4:13-18). The Rapture delivers the Church from the wrath to come (1 Thess 1:10). So we should expect the Rapture to precede the period of wrath in the tribulation period (Matt 24:15, Rev 6:17).”^[2]

Does 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 really teach a pretribulation rapture? We shall begin by examining the issues Paul was addressing in this portion of Scripture.

A Problem in the Thessalonian Church

In this passage, the Apostle Paul was dealing with certain questions raised by the young Thessalonian church. In order to understand this passage better, it is beneficial for us to ask ourselves, “What exactly were the Thessalonians worried about?” From 1 Thessalonians 4:13, 18 and 5:11, it is evident that Paul was comforting the Thessalonians concerning their loved ones who had passed away. The subject of “comfort” is noticeably the leitmotif of this passage of Scripture. Paul admonished them to “sorrow not, even as others which have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13).” Why, then, did the Thessalonians grieve as unbelievers when their loved ones died? What exactly was the Apostle Paul trying to convey to the Thessalonians? It is their misunderstanding concerning the resurrection of believers – both the living and the dead – that Paul is attempting to correct in this passage of the epistle. The Thessalonians had wrongly thought that the resurrection of living believers will precede (“prevent”) those that are “asleep.”

Paul emphasized his understanding of the resurrection in 1 Thessalonians 4:14, “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.” He reassured the Thessalonians that the dead in Christ will not be left behind in the grave when Christ comes again. Those that “sleep in Jesus” have the confidence of eternal life with the Lord. Paul reiterated his teachings in 1 Thessalonians 5:10, that “whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.” It is obvious that the Thessalonians had doubts concerning the resurrection of the dead in Christ. But Paul comforted the young church that whether believers are dead or alive, all will assuredly be with the Lord when He returns again. In fact, “the dead in Christ shall rise first (1 Thess. 4:16b)”; the living Christians will not “prevent” or precede those that are asleep.

Commenting on 1 Thessalonians 4:15, D. Michael Martin writes:

“Paul stated emphatically that at the parousia the living “will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.” This may indicate that the church feared that the dead would be raised at some time after the parousia and so miss the glories of that day. But it is far from certain that this was the problem in the church. It seems safer to find the emphasis in Paul’s words on his statement of the problem in v. 14 and his climactic statement in v. 17. In these verses the emphasis does not seem to fall on the sequence of the participation of the living and the dead but on the understanding that the dead will in fact participate in the parousia. This need not mean that Paul previously had not taught this in Thessalonica. The problem may well have been the difficulty of appropriating the doctrine of the resurrection into the way that enabled these Gentile believers to manage the trauma of death. Paul wanted to spare believers the sorrow of hopeless loss so common to the pagan world. He did so by reiterating truths in traditional language and applying them to immediate needs.”^[3]

While the resurrection of the dead believers and the rapture of living Christians occur in a definite sequence, these events also occur “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed (1 Cor. 15:52).”

The Secret Silent Rapture

Is it true that the church will be raptured secretly and quietly? According to Pretribulationists, the Parousia of Christ to rapture the saints will be an invisible event; it is a coming that is concealed from the eyes of unbelievers. 1Thessalonians 4:16 tells us that “the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God.” The word “shout” here, according to the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, means “an order, command, spec. [or specially] a stimulating cry, either that by which animals are roused and urged on by man, as horses by charioteers, hounds by hunters, etc., or that by which a signal is given to men, e.g. to rowers by the master of a ship, to soldiers by a commander (with a loud summons, a trumpet call).”^[4]

Leon Morris writes,

“I do not doubt that, if he so chose, God could make the voice of the archangel, the shout, and the trumpet audible only to believers. But I very greatly doubt whether that is what Paul is saying.”^[5]

The student of the Bible can consult any Greek lexicon available on the market, but he will not encounter a description of this word which even hints at a “silent, inaudible” shout. The “shout of command” given at Christ’s Parousia is inevitably an audible shout. The description by Paul of the “voice of the archangel” and “the trump of God” adds to the conclusion that Christ’s return is not meant to be a secret, silent event. Can Paul’s language be any plainer?

Bible Presbyterian scholars at Far Eastern Bible College should all the more accept the plain, literal meaning of these terms. To believe in a secret, pretribulation rapture is to understand that 1Thessalonians 16 speaks of an inaudible shout, a muffled voice of the archangel, and a trumpet of God that makes no noise. Unless heavenly beings suffer from severe bouts of laryngitis, with the added inconvenience of mechanical malfunctions of the trumpet, how else can we explain the silent “shout,” “voice,” and “trump?”

William Hendricksen observes,

“From all this it becomes abundantly clear that the Lord’s coming will be open, public, not only visible but also audible. There are, indeed, interpreters, who, in view of the fact that the Bible at times employs figurative language, take the position that we can know nothing about these eschatological events. To them these precious paragraphs in which the Holy Spirit reveals the future convey no meaning at all. But this is absurd. Scripture was written to be understood, and when it tells us that the Lord will descend from heaven with a shout, with a voice of an archangel and a trumpet of God, it certainly must mean at least this: that in addition to the shouted command of our Lord (which might be compared with John 11:43) . . . a reverberating sound will actually pervade the universe.”^[6]

Meeting with the Lord

Pretribulationists characteristically understand 1 Thessalonians 4:17 to mean that during the secret rapture, believers will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. The believers will subsequently return to heaven with the Lord. “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord (1 Thess. 4:17).”

It is interesting to consider the Greek word apantesis which is translated as “meet” in verse 17. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament comments that “the word ἀπάντησις (also ὑπάντησις, DG) is to be understood as a tech. [or technical] term for a civic custom of antiquity whereby a public welcome was accorded by a city to important visitors. Similarly, when Christians leave the gates of the world, they will welcome Christ in the ἀήρ, acclaiming Him as κύριος.”^[7]

Notice that this meeting (apantesis) is a customary welcome whereby citizens of the city escort the visitors back into the city itself. In this custom, the citizens do not accompany the visitor to his hometown or his country of origin. The same Greek word is used only in two other passages of New Testament Scripture.

In Acts 28:15, the preposition and noun εις απαντησιν are used to denote that the brethren went out “to meet” Paul. Ironically, dispensationalist Stanley D. Toussaint agrees that the noun apantēsin in Acts 28:15 refers to the customary “meeting” of an official or dignitary going into the city. Dr Toussaint writes,

“The Christians at Rome soon heard of Paul’s coming, so they traveled as far as the Forum of Appius (a market town 43 miles from Rome) and the Three Taverns (33 miles from Rome) to meet him and his companions. The noun apantēsin, translated as an infinitive “to meet,” was used in Greek literature of an entourage coming out of a city to meet an official going to the city.”^[8]

In the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13), the virgins were waiting to meet the bridegroom. They were to return with him to the marriage feast subsequently. Matthew 25:1 and 6 use the same noun apantēsin (απαντησιν). It should be obvious to the reader that the virgins were not planning to return with the bridegroom to where he came from, but back to the marriage feast.

Considering the usage of the Greek word apantesis in the New Testament, “to meet” in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 would mean exactly the opposite of what the Pretribulationists would want it to mean. Believers, during the rapture, would meet the Lord in the air, and subsequently escort Him back to earth. The consistent usage and meaning of the word apantesis in the New Testament would, at the very least, be unsupportive of the pretribulation rapture theory.

References

---

[1] Jeffrey Khoo, 1 Thessalonians: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, n.d.), 21. These are printed course notes used in Far Eastern Bible College. Available from http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/studyresource/1%20Thessalonians.pdf; Internet; accessed 08 April 2006.

[2] Jack Sin, “The Judgement Seat of Christ,” The Burning Bush 6, no. 2 (2000): 313-314.

[3] D. Michael Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians: The New American Commentary (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1995), 149.

[4] Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (1996), s.v. “Κέλευσμα.”

[5] Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians: New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1991), 145.

[6] William Hendricksen, Exposition of Thessalonians, the Pastorals, and Hebrews: New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, (1955) 2002), 117.

[7] Gerhard Kittel & Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 380-381.

[8] Stanley D. Toussaint, “Acts” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 429-430. Dr Toussaint was at that time the Chairman and Senior Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary.

An Introduction to the Pretribulation Rapture

In the next few blog posts, we shall look at another doctrinal ramification of a strict Israel/Church distinction: the pretribulation rapture theory. Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians (at least in Singapore) understand that the Church has no part in the Great Tribulation, because it is a time of Jacob’s trouble. As the Church and Israel are distinct entities, the prophetic clock for Israel will start ticking again after the Church is raptured pretribulationally, that is, before the Great Tribulation.

Donald Campbell agrees that “a recognition of the distinction between Israel and the church supports the belief that the church will be removed from the earth before the Tribulation at the rapture, the first phase of Christ’s return. This is true because the Tribulation primarily concerns Israel, . . . although this period will see the wrath of God poured out on the entire earth, the period relates particularly to Israel.”^[1]

The strict dichotomy between Israel and the Church is paramount to the entire pretribulation rapture theory. If the Church is the true, spiritual Israel, the entire foundation for this theory is destroyed. We have seen in the previous blog posts that a dispensational understanding of ecclesiology – the distinction between Israel and the Church – is not founded upon sound hermeneutics. It fails to do justice to the New Testament understanding of what the Church is. This ecclesiology, particularly the distinction between Israel and the Church, is foundational to dispensational theology. In the forthcoming blog posts, we shall also see why a dispensationalist is primarily one who adheres to this strict Israel and the Church distinction.

Pretribulationism is a doctrinal conviction of many Far Eastern Bible College lecturers.^[2] Amongst them are Dr Jeffrey Khoo, Dr Quek Suan Yew and Dr Prabhudas Koshy.^[3] Khoo, who clearly advocates pretribulationism, writes:

“The Bible tells us that the world will become increasingly wicked culminating with the evil rule of the Antichrist who will set himself up as God, and demand worship from all. During the seven-year Tribulation period, he will persecute Israel. This seven-year Tribulation period is called “the time of Jacob’s Trouble” (Jer 30:7). Israel will suffer during this period. It is “Jacob’s” trouble. Jacob is Israel, not the Church. The Church will not be present during this time, but will be raptured, snatched up in a micro-second to be with Christ in heaven (1 Thess 4:16-17). During this Tribulation period, God will pour out His wrath upon the unbelieving inhabitants of the earth. It will end with Christ returning to earth with His saints to fight the Antichrist and his armies, destroying all of them at the battle of Armageddon (Rev 16:16, 19:11-21).”^[4]

In another place, Dr Khoo reiterates the same doctrine:

“The rapture of the saints will occur before God judges the world with His wrath during the 7-year Tribulation period. This dreadful period is called “the great day of His wrath” (Rev 6:17, 11:18, 15:1, 7, 16:1, 19, 19:15).”^[5]

It must be emphasized that the Israel/Church distinction is the only hermeneutical basis for the pretribulation rapture theory. This theory will inevitably encounter problems when the reader considers the fact that numerous people, mainly Jews, will be saved during the Great Tribulation. These tribulation saints are obviously part of the church of Christ; even Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians must concede that these saints are to be saved via the same gospel. If the Church is to be raptured prior to the time of Jacob’s trouble, why not also the local churches founded during the Great Tribulation? Therefore, if tribulation saints belong to the Church, the practical rationale for a pretribulation rapture – the deliverance of the Church from the Great Tribulation - is completely demolished.

The pretribulation rapture is not a position explicitly taught in the Scriptures.^[6] One cannot arrive at this view unless one sees an artificial dichotomy between Israel and the church. Dr John Walvoord, arguably the most influential and prominent defender of the pretribulation rapture position, candidly admits that this doctrine is entirely inferential. It rests squarely upon the sine qua non of Dispensationalism i.e. the distinction between Israel and the church.

John Walvoord elaborates:

“It is safe to say that pretribulationism depends on a particular definition of the church. . . . If the term church includes saints of all ages, then it is self-evident that the church will go through the Tribulation, as all agree that there will be saints in this time of trouble. If, however, the term church applies only to a certain body of saints, namely, the saints of this present dispensation, then the possibility of the translation of the church before the Tribulation is possible [sic] and even probable.”^[7]

Even if we graciously allow dispensational ecclesiology to be a tenable position (which all Covenant theologians believe to be clearly unscriptural), Dr Walvoord admits that the pretribulation position is only possible, or at best, probable. But given the erroneous ecclesiology of Dispensationalism, where, then, is the foundation for a pretribulational rapture? Will the Bible Presbyterians accept the dispensationalist’s definition of the term church i.e. that it “applies only to a certain body of saints, namely, the saints of this present dispensation?” Surely the Bible Presbyterians are not trying to insinuate that Old Testament saints are not part of the church.

Dr Walvoord emphasizes the fact that “if the term church includes saints of all ages, then it is self-evident that the church will go through the Tribulation.” Bible Presbyterians, therefore, must consider whether the Church includes saints from all ages, that is, both the Old Testament saints and the New Testament saints. If they accept the Reformed teaching of the Church as consisting of saints from all ages, then they must seriously rethink their position on pretribulationism.

William Cox summarizes the Reformed position on ecclesiology:

“The church existed in the Old Testament in the form of the elect remnant within national Israel. Israel was the type while the Christian church is the antitype or fulfillment. Christ, by dying on the cross, tore down the middle wall of partition, took the two men – Israelites and Gentiles – and made the two into one man thus constituting the body of Christ. (Eph. 2:14-16). Though the mystery was hidden from the Old Testament prophets in general, it was God’s plan all along to include Gentile believers in the body of which the believing remnant of Israel was the human foundation. (Eph. 3:4-6).”^[8]

Dispensationalists, therefore, err gravely by putting asunder what God had joined together.

References

---

[1] Donald K. Campbell, “The Church in God’s Prophetic Program,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, eds. Stanley Toussaint and Charles Dyer (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 150.

[2] As discussed in chapter 1, dispensational ecclesiology contradicts the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV, sections I, II and III, as well as the Belgic Confession of Faith, article 27.

[3] James Oliver Buswell, however, “took the mid-tribulational view of the rapture of the church. According to him the “last trump” of 1 Cor 15:52 is to be identified with the seventh and last trumpet of Rev 11:15. The Church Age (“the times of the Gentiles,” Luke 21:24) ends at this moment.” See Jeffrey Khoo, “Dispensational Premillennialism in Reformed Theology: The Contribution of J. O. Buswell to the Millennial Debate,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 4 (2001): 713. But this understanding of the Church Age also sees it as essentially a parenthesis within God’s prophetic program for Israel.

[4] Jeffrey Khoo, “Three Views on the Millennium: Which?,” The Burning Bush 5, no. 2 (1999): 71.

[5] Jeffrey Khoo, Fundamentals of the Christian Faith: A Reformed and Premillennial Study of Christian Basics (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press, 2005), 133.

[6] For an introduction to the problems of pretribulationism, see Brian Schwertley, Is the Pretribulation Rapture Biblical? [article on-line]; available from http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/rapture.htm; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005. Please note that Schwertley’s eschatological position is Postmillennialism.

[7] John Walvoord, The Rapture Question, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 21-22.

[8] William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1966), 56. See pp. 34-56 for a concise, yet superb rebuttal of Dispensational ecclesiology. Cox was a former Dispensationalist who subsequently became an Amillennialist.

The New Testament Understanding of the Land Promise

The land of Palestine in the Old Testament typifies the promised rest of the elect in Christ. Just as the nation of Israel looked forward to her everlasting rest in the Promised Land, which was never fulfilled due to her faithlessness, the elect of God now find rest in their Savior Jesus Christ. Faith is, and always will be, the requirement to enter God’s rest. As Holwerda explains:

“The promised rest, symbolized by the land, was never really enjoyed in the Old Testament, at least not for long. The rest joyfully proclaimed by Joshua became only a temporary blessing later lost. Thus within the history of Israel in the Old Testament the original occupation of the land became only an anticipation of a rest still to be enjoyed. As faith was required then, so Hebrews declares that now faith in Christ is required to enter God’s rest (Hebrews 4). This rest is not achievable within the territorial boundaries of any specific land on earth because it is a blessing associated with a heavenly country and city, a land and a city whose builder and maker is God (Hebrews 11).”[1]

In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ proclaimed, “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (Matt. 5:3-5).” Our Lord promised the kingdom of heaven to the “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3, cf. Luke 6:20), and the earth to the “meek” (Matt. 5:5). Concerning the recipients of these heavenly blessings, Brueggemann aptly comments:

“The land will be given not to the tough presuming ones, but to the vulnerable ones with no right to expect it. The vibrations begin about the “meek” inheriting the land, not the strident. This is a discernment that Israel would no doubt have wished to reject. The world believes that stridency inherits, but in its vulnerability Israel learns that the meek and not the strident have the future.”[2]

From the New Covenant perspective, it is clear that God has promised His covenant children the earth as an inheritance, and not just a localized piece of land in Palestine. The scope of the inheritance of God’s covenant people has been expanded, and indeed, has acquired a universal character. Jesus evidently applies the Abrahamic covenant, including the land promise, to the Church by expanding the original promise of Palestine to include the New Earth (Rev. 21:1).

The apostle Peter writes, “Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Pet. 3:13).” Peter did not exhort the New Testament believers to anticipate a period of residency in Jerusalem or Palestine; he urged them to look for “a new earth,” which is part of the redeemed creation following the Parousia of Christ. Likewise, Jesus did not limit the land inheritance to only the Jews, but emphasized that the “meek” shall “inherit the earth,” regardless of nationality or ethnicity. “Yet many theologians in the present day continue to interpret the promise of the land in the old covenant in terms of its shadowy, typological dimensions, rather than recognizing the greater scope of new covenant fulfillments.”[3]

Elsewhere, Robertson writes:

“[The] land-possession always fitted within the category of shadows, types and prophecies characteristic of the old covenant in its presentation of redemptive truth. Just as the tabernacle was never intended to be a settled item in the plan of redemption, but rather was designed to point to Christ’s tabernacling among his people (cf. John 1:14), and just as the sacrificial system could never atone for sins, but could only foreshadow the offering of the sacrifice of the Son of God (Heb. 9:23-26), so in a similar manner the patriarch Abraham received the promise of the land but never experienced the blessing of full possession. By this non-possession, the patriarch learned to look forward ‘to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God’ (Heb. 11:10). Abraham and his immediate descendants never returned to the fatherland which they had left, because ‘they were longing for a better country – a heavenly one’ (Heb. 11:15-16).”[4]

The earthly city of Jerusalem is a type which points towards the anti-type: the new, heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2). As we have seen in the previous chapter, the earthly city of Jerusalem – which is a symbol of Judaism - is in bondage to the law (Gal. 4:21-31). “But there is another Jerusalem, a Jerusalem that is above, from which the enthroned Son of God sends forth his Spirit. Apart from this Jerusalem, none of us would have a mother to bring us into the realm of God’s redemptive working, for she is the mother of us all (Gal. 4:26).”[5]

The earthly Jerusalem is no longer the city of promise; it has lost all its significance as the Holy City of God, the city of God’s covenant people. Just as the patriarchs desired a better, heavenly city (Heb. 11:16), the Church looks forward to an eschatological, heavenly Jerusalem. “But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all (Gal. 4:26).” Therefore, according to the New Testament record, “the historical disobedience of Jewish Israel has shattered the salvific significance of historical Jerusalem.”[6]

The promises associated with the city of Jerusalem are still in force today, but the New Testament explains to us that these promises can no longer be associated with this earthly city. God has now built a heavenly city; He has redeemed unto Himself a people who shall inherit this New Jerusalem by faith via the New Covenant administration. Holwerda elaborates:

“An underlying premise of New Testament teaching is that the promises that once were attached to the earthly Jerusalem are now attached to the heavenly and New Jerusalem. Believers in Christ have been born in Zion because Jerusalem is “our mother.” . . . The New Testament affirms that believers from every tribe and nation are citizens of Jerusalem and heirs of its promised salvation. Jerusalem has become a universal city and, as such, a symbol of the new earth. The fulfillment of the promise of land is under way, and the meek will inherit the earth.”[7]

The Psalmist proclaimed that “the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. . . . The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever (Ps. 37:11, 29).” Consistent with the Reformed understanding of the Abrahamic land promise, our Lord Jesus applies Psalm 37 to the New Testament Church in His Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is not spiritualizing away Israel’s covenant promise when He applies it to the Church. He is expanding the covenant to include Gentiles, and widening Israel’s territorial promise to encompass the whole of redeemed earth.

The Apostle Paul, likewise, comprehended the land promise to be universal in scope: “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:13; emphasis added).” God’s covenant with Abraham, in the light of the New Covenant, has no geographical boundaries.

Jesus and the apostle Paul undoubtedly interpreted the Abrahamic land promise to be universal and cosmological in extent and dimensionality. This inheritance was not to be granted based upon race or nationality, but “through the righteousness of faith” (Rom. 4:13) in the Messiah. In the light of New Testament revelation, we understand that Abraham’s children (Gal. 3:6-7) will not only inherit the land in Palestine, but the entire cosmos (Rev. 21:1-2).

The land in Palestine served as a type of the true inheritance of the elect, which is “a better country, that is, an heavenly (Heb. 11:16).” This land of promise is not limited in its scope, but includes the renewed Heaven and Earth. This is also the Promised Land which the patriarchs had looked forward to, which is embraced by faith in the promised Messiah.

The promises of God to Abraham thus find their glorious fulfillment in the New Testament Church:

“The New Testament has neither forgotten nor rejected the promise of the land. Earthly Jerusalem has been transcended, but the present location of the city in heaven is viewed within the continuing history of redemption, which will culminate on the renewed earth. The heavenly Jerusalem will descend as the new Jerusalem, but not until its citizens have been gathered from among the nations of the world. Judging from this perspective of fulfillment, one may conclude that the original land of Canaan and the city of Jerusalem were only an anticipatory fulfillment of God’s promise. As such they function in Scripture as a sign of the future universal city on the renewed earth, the place where righteousness dwells.”[8]

Hence, from the New Covenant perspective, the land promise has acquired a universal scope. The meek shall inherit not only the New Earth, but will also be made citizens of the new, heavenly Jerusalem.[9]

Conclusion

We have seen in the previous blog posts that the primary premise of dispensational hermeneutics is the assumption that a consistent, literal reading of Scripture will provide us with its intended, authorial meaning. But this principle of hermeneutics is apparently inadequate. The assumption that a literal understanding of Old Testament prophecy is the correct understanding undermines and ignores how New Testament writers interpreted similar passages of the Old Testament.

From a New Covenant perspective, the exegete should employ the principles of interpretation laid out in the New Testament by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Old Testament prophecies cannot be completely understood apart from New Testament revelation. Furthermore, the exegete should not interpret all Old Testament prophecies with a crass, wooden literalism. A more serious blunder would be to impose the erroneous, literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecies upon New Testament Scripture.[10] With progressive revelation, Old Testament typological and shadowy forms become lucid and clear in the New Testament.

In his analysis of Christian Zionism and Dispensationalism, Sizer accurately perceives that the fundamental error of dispensational hermeneutics is its failure to interpret Old Covenant shadows with the light of New Covenant reality. Sizer elucidates:

“Christian Zionism [and Dispensationalism] errs most profoundly because it fails to appreciate the relationship between the Old and New Covenants and the ways in which the latter completes, fulfils and annuls the former. It is fundamental that Christians read the Scriptures with Christian eyes, and that they interpret the Old Covenant in the light of the New Covenant, not the other way round. . . . Under the Old Covenant, revelation from God came often in shadow, image, form and prophecy. In the New Covenant that revelation finds its consummation in reality, substance and fulfillment. The question is not whether the promises of the covenant are to be understood literally or spiritually as Dispensationalists like to stress. It is instead a question of whether they should be understood in terms of Old Covenant shadow or in terms of New Covenant reality. This is the most basic hermeneutical assumption which Christian Zionists consistently fail to acknowledge.”[11]

Rejecting the Dispensationalist’s tendencies of regression to Old Testament types and shadows, Reformed theologians anticipate an inheritance well beyond the land of Palestine. In the light of New Covenant reality, the Reformers look forward to a kingdom far more glorious than any Jewish monarchy in the land of Palestine. Contrary to the Judaistic expectation of a reestablished throne of David on earth, the New Testament sees the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant with Christ ruling on the throne of David at the right hand of the Father. It is with confidence that Christians can declare that, “we have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens (Heb. 8:1b).”

For a Christian today, the subject of Israelology extends beyond its theological ramifications. A correct perspective of Israel and its land promise have far greater implications than some might want to admit.[12] Christian Zionists and those who support their theology of Israel (i.e. Israelology) are inadvertently directing Jewish eyes to look away from the heavenly realities, and down towards the physical piece of land in Palestine. Instead of guiding the Israelites to look at the far greater fulfillment of Old Covenant promises in Christ Jesus and His Church, it is sad that some well-meaning Christians are in fact misdirecting the Jewish people back to Old Testament shadowy forms and figures. Surely, Reformed theologians must reject such a retrogressive interpretation of Old Testament prophecy.

Robertson observes that,

“In the process of redemptive history, a dramatic movement has taken place. The arena of redemption has shifted from type to reality, from shadow to substance. The land which once was the specific place of God’s redemptive work served well in the realm of old covenant forms as a picture of paradise lost and promised. But in the realm of new covenant fulfillments, the land has expanded to encompass the whole world. In this age of fulfillment, a retrogression to the limited forms of the old covenant must be neither expected nor promoted. Reality must not give way to shadow. By claiming the old covenant form of the promise of the land, the Jews of today may be forfeiting its greater new covenant fulfillment. Rather than playing the role of Jacob as heir apparent to the redemptive promises made to Abraham their father, they could be assuming the role of Esau by selling their birthright for a fleshly pot of porridge (Gen. 25:29-34; cf. Heb. 12:16).”[13]

Therefore, if the Jews are to continue with their insistence of a literal fulfillment of the Abrahamic land promise, the tragedy for national Israel today will be the forfeiture of the blessings of the New Covenant for a piece of temporal, earthly inheritance.

References

---

[1] David Holwerda, Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two? (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1995), 105.

[2] W. Brueggemann, The Land (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 39, quoted in Holwerda, Jesus and Israel, 89, n. 7.

[3] O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 2000), 27.

[4] O. Palmer Robertson, “A New-Covenant Perspective On the Land,” in The Land of Promise (Leicester, England: Apollos, 2000), 125-126.

[5] Ibid., 138.

[6] Holwerda, Jesus and Israel, 109.

[7] Ibid., 110.

[8] Ibid., 111-112.

[9] Current amillennial thinking has emphasized the earthy nature of the consummative phase of the Kingdom. For example, see Anthony A. Hoekema’s book Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1979).

[10] Sizer explains that “Christian Zionism is born out of the conviction that God has a continuing special relationship with, and covenantal purpose for, the Jewish people, apart from the church, and that the Jewish people have a divine right to possess the land of Palestine. This is based on a literal and futurist interpretation of the Bible and the conviction that Old Testament prophecies concerning the Jewish people are being fulfilled in the contemporary State of Israel.” See Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004), 20.

[11] Sizer, An Alternative Theology of the Holy Land, emphasis mine.

[12] For the profound political implications of Christian Zionism, see Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon, 206-253.

[13] Robertson, The Israel of God, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, 30-31.

Israel and the Promised Land: Part 2

An Everlasting or a Periodic Possession?

Dispensationalists find the fulfillment of the Abrahamic land promise in the future earthly millennium, when Israel will rule and exercise sovereignty over the Promised Land. But according to this dispensational understanding of fulfillment, the “everlasting possession” (Gen. 17:8) of the Promised Land would mean a temporal possession of Palestine during the eschatological millennium at best. Considering the 70 years of Babylonian captivity, and almost two millennia since the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 until the formation of the present state of Israel, the 1000 years of millennial reign would barely make up half the time when Israel was dispossessed of the land in Palestine. As an analogy, if I were to purchase a free-hold property in Singapore, and was dispossessed of the property for half the time, would that be legally regarded as an “everlasting possession?”

For the purpose of our present discussion, let us briefly consider the Noachian covenant God made with the patriarch Noah in Genesis 9:

“And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. . . . And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth (Genesis 9:8-11, 16-17).”

In this covenant with Noah, God declared that he will never destroy the Earth again with a universal flood. Genesis 9:16 explicitly states that it is an “everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.” If God were to postpone the Noachian covenant for two millennia, and destroyed the world a few more times with universal floods, could He still claim that it was an “everlasting covenant?”

But this is exactly what Dispensationalists are propounding: that the “everlasting” covenant with Abraham is delayed or postponed for at least two millennia. The Abrahamic covenant will find its fulfillment when national Israel possesses the Promised Land in the eschatological millennium. In the meantime, God is not dealing with Israel, but with the Church. God has temporarily suspended His eschatological time clock for Israel, and His “everlasting” covenant with Abraham. He will, nevertheless, ensure that His land promise to Abraham will be fulfilled in the future, earthly, millennial rule.

What Dispensationalists are actually doing is forcing an indefinite time gap called the “Church Age” into the everlasting nature of the Abrahamic covenant. They are interpreting the literal meaning of the word “everlasting” to mean “postponed” or “delayed.” The Hebrew word for “everlasting” is used several times in the Old Testament. For example in Genesis 13:15, in the context of the Abrahamic covenant, the word is translated to “for ever.” “For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever (Gen. 13:15).” Again in Genesis 17:7-8, the same word is translated “for an everlasting” twice. “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God (Gen. 17:7-8).”

The idea of postponement cannot be derived from the Hebrew word for “everlasting.” Dispensationalists, who emphasize the so-called “consistently literal” hermeneutics, should interpret the Hebrew word “everlasting” to mean exactly that: everlasting, forever and ongoing. The Abrahamic land promise cannot be postponed for almost two millennia, and yet be everlasting in any sense. Likewise, the Noachian covenant cannot be postponed for any period of time without forfeiting the everlasting nature of the promise.

Indeed, when God made the Abrahamic promise to Israel, it was intended to be conditional in a sense. That is, Israel will possess the land as long as she chooses to hold it or until certain conditions are changed. From the Reformed perspective, all the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament were either fulfilled in Christ and His Church, or were forfeited through disobedience. The blessings of the covenant were not postponed or delayed.

Adams observes that obedience through faith in the Messiah is required to bring about national blessing for Israel:

“Then the nationalistic covenant with Israel was conditional. The people committed themselves, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do!” (Ex. 19:8). Obedience would bring nationalistic blessing; disobedience would bring a curse (Deut. 28). In this sense, “the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, he who practices them shall live by them” (Gal. 3:12). Blessing as a nation could be experienced only by loyalty to the covenant, as was similarly true of suzereign/vassal treaties of the Middle East.”^[1]

Despite the withdrawal of God’s covenant blessing, and the exile of Israel to Assyria and Babylon, God’s faithfulness to His covenant is evident in the prophecies of Jeremiah (Jer. 30-32). “For, lo, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the LORD: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it (Jer. 30:3).”

Concerning the Promised Land as God’s gracious gift to Israel, Holwerda writes, “Even when Israel failed and lost the land, the promise of possession did not cease. The promise that the land will be possessed is irrevocable. But if possession is to be maintained, God’s people must become holy as God is holy.”^[2] Thus, Israel’s return from exile was still conditioned by its repentance and return to God. Moses proclaimed to the Israelites:

“And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers (Deuteronomy 30:1-5).”

It is obvious that the Promised Land was never meant to be an unconditional blessing to a disobedient nation. Faith, repentance, and subsequent obedience to God’s commandments were crucial for Israel’s restoration.

It is notable that only a remnant of Israel, and not the entire nation, was eventually brought back to the land in Palestine. “The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God. For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness (Isa. 10:21-22).” God has never promised to save each and every Israelite; only a remnant was brought back to the Promised Land.

Likewise, in the New Testament, the apostle Paul tells us that, “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace (Rom. 11:5).” God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel is demonstrated by the fact that a remnant from every generation of Jews is redeemed in Christ Jesus. God has, indeed, not forsaken the Israelites. He is redeeming unto Himself a people from every tribe and tongue, Jews included.

Even in the Old Testament, restoration of Israel to its Promised Land cannot be accomplished apart from a covenant relationship with Yahweh. In relation to the New Covenant dispensation, nowhere does the Old Testament envision an unconditional, geo-political reconstitution of Israel as a nation. From a New Covenant perspective, the recognition and acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah is the necessary condition of return to the Promised Land. The land in Palestine cannot, therefore, be claimed by those who reject the Messiah as Savior and Lord.

The Old Testament patriarchs were saved by faith (Heb. 11), not by genealogy or the biological inheritance of Jewish genes. Only by looking forward to the promised Messiah and by faith in His deliverance were the Old Testament saints justified.

Holwerda writes concerning the disinheritance of national Israel:

“Judgment falls on those who do not believe. Even though, as the Old Testament people of God, Israel possessed the mysteries of the kingdom in the law and the prophets, they did not understand the mysteries. They had a different understanding of the kingdom of God, a kingdom of political might and power defeating the enemies of Israel and overwhelming the forces of evil, and, as a result, they did not believe that the kingdom of God has arrived in the person and ministry of Jesus. Consequently, their privileged position as the heirs of the kingdom would be taken from them: “For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away” (Matthew 13:12).”^[3]

The land is never promised to the Israelites unconditionally. Apart from saving faith in the promised Messiah, the New David, Israel as an unbelieving nation can have no part in the new, heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22).

The Land Was Possessed by Israel According to the Old Testament

In the book of Joshua, God assured Joshua that He would deliver the land of Palestine into the hands of the Israelites, “Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them (Josh. 1:6).”

Dispensationalists believe that, since Israel has never literally or geographically occupied the Promised Land from the Nile to the Euphrates, the Abrahamic land promise has yet to be fulfilled literally. But this understanding ignores the testimony of the Old Testament writers, and their understanding of the land promise.

Similarly, according to Dispensationalism, Israel has yet to occupy the Promised Land based on geographical and historical evidence. But this begs the question: Should a Christian’s understanding of Scripture be based upon fallible science, geography and history, or should his interpretation rest upon the internal evidence of Scripture alone?

Although the secular historian or archaeologist might argue against the notion that the Israelites did exercise geo-political sovereignty over all of the Promised Land, the Old Testament provides us with an infallible record of this land possession:

“So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war (Josh. 11:23).”

Again, the Scripture records,

“And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass. (Josh. 21:43-45).”

Scripture emphasizes the fact that the LORD Jehovah gave unto Israel “all the land” which He promised to give to the patriarchs, and not just part of the land. The texts of Joshua 11:23 and 21:43-45 contradict the dispensational expectation of a yet future, literal fulfillment of the land promise: “There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass (Josh. 21:45).”

Israel did possess the land of Palestine according to Scripture; all the promises of God did come to pass (Josh. 21:45). The land was given to Israel via Joshua’s conquests. According to the Bible Presbyterian’s consistently literal hermeneutics, it is difficult, if not impossible, to interpret “all the land” to mean “some of the land.” Perhaps only through the usage of creative, exegetical acrobatics can “all” mean “some.”

The Book of Nehemiah, likewise, affirms the actual possession of the land by national Israel. In Nehemiah 9:22-24, the Levites confessed:

“Moreover thou [Yahweh] gavest them [the Israelites] kingdoms and nations, and didst divide them into corners: so they possessed the land of Sihon, and the land of the king of Heshbon, and the land of Og king of Bashan. Their children also multipliedst thou as the stars of heaven, and broughtest them into the land, concerning which thou hadst promised to their fathers, that they should go in to possess it. So the children went in and possessed the land, and thou subduedst before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and gavest them into their hands, with their kings, and the people of the land, that they might do with them as they would.”

The Book of Nehemiah, together with the Book of Joshua, testify that Israel “possessed the land,” and not simply a part of the Promised Land. Despite the temporal occupation of the Promised Land, the Jews lost possession of it through disobedience. There is no biblical evidence that an unrepentant, faithless nation will repossess the physical, land blessings of God.

The reader might begin to ask, “Should the New Testament Church understand the Abrahamic land promise as referring to a physical, geographically limited piece of land in Palestine?” Furthermore, should the actual, everlasting possession of this piece of land be considered as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant?

Despite Joshua’s successful conquest of the land of Canaan, Israel’s temporal possession of the Promised Land was not the fulfillment of the Abrahamic land promise. Williamson elaborates:

“Nevertheless, while the territorial promise was fulfilled in the conquest of Canaan, it was only partially fulfilled, or rather, this was only the first stage of fulfillment (Josh. 13:1-2). Although the land had been allocated to the various tribes, Israelite control of the territory was still limited. As long as there were pockets of resistance, there could be no permanent state of rest. . . . Moreover, as repeatedly emphasized in Deuteronomy, the continual enjoyment of such rest was dependent on covenant loyalty (cf. Deut. 4:25-28), without which Israel’s experience of the ‘good and spacious land’ would be short-lived (cf. Josh. 23:12-13). Thus the fulfillment of the territorial promise in Joshua’s day fell short, not only in relation to the geography, but also – and more significantly – in respect to the ideology of the promised land.”^[4]

The temporal possession of the Promised Land in the Old Testament was but a typological anticipation of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic land promise which has yet to come. This fulfillment is not limited to the nation of Israel, but also includes the Gentile nations, and will be universal in scope and dimensionality. Williamson continues:

“While the promise of land was certainly fulfilled to some extent in the period covered by Genesis-Kings, it was never fully realized. Rather, its fulfillment in the nation [of Israel] was but a preliminary stage and a symbol of its climactic fulfillment. It is not surprising, therefore, that other Old Testament writers should envisage a future and more permanent fulfillment of the territorial promise – one that would impact not just Israel, but all the nations of the earth.”^[5]

Therefore, in order for us to understand the ideology behind the Promised Land, we must first consider the New Testament’s expectation of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic land promise. This we will consider in the next instalment.

---

[1] Geoff A. Adams, “The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-37,” Reformation and Revival 6, no. 3 (1997): 88.

[2] David Holwerda, Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two? (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1995), 95.

[3] Ibid., 55.

[4] Paul R. Williamson, “Promise and Fulfilment: The Territorial Inheritance,” in The Land of Promise (Leicester, England: Apollos, 2000), 23-24, quoting Holwerda, Jesus and Israel, 30-31.

[5] Ibid., 32.