Archive for Prophecy
What Moses Saw From Mount Nebo
(Deut. 34: 1-4) “And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And the Lord showed him all the land of Gilead, unto Dan. And all Naphtali, and the land of Ephraim, and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah, unto the utmost sea. And the south, and the plain of the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees, unto Zoar. And the Lord said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, and unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.”
In their desperation to maintain the view that the church superseded Israel, Replacement Theologians have made all kinds of false claims respecting the land that God gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The popular view is to concede that the inheritance is the literal land of Canaan, but that the promises were fulfilled in Old Testament times. Joshua 21: 43-45 is often quoted as if that text sets the matter at rest.
However, we cannot forget that the land was promised to each of the patriarchs as a personal possession (see Genesis 13: 15; 26: 3; 28: 13; 35: 12). This promise was certainly never made good in their lifetime, for Stephen later affirmed that God “gave [Abraham] none inheritance in it, no not so much as to set his foot on: yet He promised that He would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child” (Acts 7: 5).
Paul also refers to land of promise as the country in which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob sojourned, dwelling in tents (Hebrews 11: 9). From this it is evident that the patriarchs never received any fulfillment of the promise in their own lifetimes. The promise must therefore be made good in resurrection.
True, Paul declares that Abraham looked for “a city which hath foundations, whose builder and Maker is God” (Hebrews 11: 10). However, this same city was later seen, in prophetic vision, descending to earth (Rev. 21: 2). So there is no contradiction between the promise made to the patriarchs, and the ultimate realization of that promise as depicted in the New Testament.
Regardless of what we today may think, the early Christians certainly believed that the land promises would be fulfilled during the Millennium. Irenaeus writes: ”If, then, God promised [Abraham] the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just” (Against Heresies, V. xxxii. 2).
What Moses saw from Nebo certainly confirms the fact that what God promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was a literal alotment of land, and not a mere spiritual inheritance! It is our firm belief that what God promised will be made good; and that we, who receive blessings with Abraham will surely inherit the world (Romans 4: 15) and judge angels (1 Cor. 6: 3). In view of these promises, we await the time of our Lord’s return, with joy unspeakable.
The Coming In Clouds: Literal or Figurative?
“And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Matthew 24: 30).
Most Christians are agreed that the above passage details Jesus Christ’s glorious second advent, when He will appear to the salvation of Israel. Preterists, however, have sounded a note of dissent, asserting that the passage refers to a figurative ‘coming‘ which took place in A.D. 70. As part and parcel of their interpretive scheme, Preterists claim that the “cloud coming” language is entirely ‘metaphorical.’ Barring the question of whether there is a single metaphor in the entire passage (note: what Preterists label ‘metaphor’ is most often the figure ‘hypocatastasis‘), it remains to be seen whether or not the Preteristic contention is true.
In order to bolster their view that the cloud-coming language is symbolic, Preterists point to a number of Old Testament passages, in an attempt to show that such language was used of local judgments that have already been fulfilled. In Isaiah 19: 1 it is used to describe the judgment of Egypt; and in Psalm 18: 9-11 almost identical imagery is employed to depict David’s deliverance from the hand of Saul. Preterists are wont to claim that because such passages were already fulfilled in history, an A.D. 70 view of Matthew 24 is not as unreasonable as most Christians suppose.
And yet the Preteristic reasoning breaks down woefully when we examine the very passages they use to support their theory. For if the truth be told, neither Isaiah 19: 1 nor Psalm 18: 9-11 refers to any judgment unto destruction – which is what the Preterists affirm Matthew 24: 30 teaches. When taken in their entire context, it is evident that both passages speak of a judgment to salvation. Egypt will be smitten, but healed (Isaiah 19: 22); and David, as we recall, was delivered from Saul; he was not destroyed! Another passage in Habakkuk (see Hab. 3: 3-15), sometimes cited by Preterists as proof of allegorical interpretation, explicitly teaches the national deliverance of Israel (Hab. 3: 12-13). So even if such passages were symbolic, they would teach the exact opposite of what Preterists hold. They can in no sense be used to teach a destruction of the Jewish nation in A.D. 70.
That said, we must now ask the question: what does the cloud-coming language of Matthew 24: 30 actually mean? Well, it is interesting that we may take the same approach that Preterists take, and have recourse to the analogia fidei. Since “Scripture interprets Scripture,” we may best narrow down the meaning of these disputed passages by looking at passages where language affords us a maximum of certainty, and a minimum of speculation.
In my studies of the inspired Word, I have found that when relating to any ‘adventual‘ theme, clouds are always associated with the personal visitation of Deity. This was the case when Jehovah came down to Mount Sinai at the giving of the law. We read that there were “thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the Mount, and the voice of a trumpet exceeding loud” (Exodus 19: 16; cf. Deut. 4: 11). The whole passage must be studied, as language remarkably similar is used in Matthew 24: 27-30. Why this correspondence is ignored by many students of prophecy, is beyond our ability to explain. It defies explanation.
In Exodus 24: 15-16, an actual cloud is again associated with the personal advent of Jehovah. And one must not forget that the cloud over the tabernacle in the wilderness was a sign of the Lord’s personal presence (see Exodus 40: 34-38). The prophet Ezekiel is also recorded to have been visited by Jehovah, Who appeared out of the midst of a visible cloud (see Ezekiel 1: 4, 26-28). None of these passages are taken in any sense other than the literal. Why? Because no other meaning is possible.
With all these facts and evidences before us, literality must at least be confessed as a possibility. At any rate, such interpretation as the literal is not based on man’s ideas of what may or should be, but on established Biblical precedence. To sweep away the weight of evidence, as Preterists do, is to demonstrate an interpretive bias which will not hold up under careful scrutiny.
Evidence carefully garnered from the New Testament likewise supports our conclusion that Matthew 24: 30 is to be interpreted literally. It can hardly be denied that the apostles had an experiential basis for understanding Christ’s language in a literal sense. When on the Mount of Transfiguration, it is recorded that a cloud covered Peter, James, and John; and that Jehovah Elohim spoke out of the cloud (Matthew 17: 5; Mark 9: 7; Luke 9: 34). Since Peter, James, and John were the very disciples addressed by Christ on the Mount of Olives (see Mark 13: 3), it is highly probable that they understood Christ’s words in the literal sense. In fact, there is not the slightest evidence that they believed otherwise!
While this article is not meant to be an exhaustive study of the cloud-coming passages, my hope is that it helps to establish one thing: that the benefit of the doubt must be given to Futurists, who claim that Matthew 24: 30 relates to a future historical reality; and not to Preterists who teach a symbolical “judgment coming” in A.D. 70. In fact, if Preterism is true, we are left wondering whether the judgment itself was literal or figurative! But when the evidence is fairly looked at, one cannot help feeling that the Dispensational understanding of Matthew 24: 30 is based on a firm foundation of Biblical truth, and a right understanding of what the ‘coming in clouds‘ actually denotes. It is none other than the personal return of Jesus Christ to earth. In our opinion, this closes the case against Preterism.
The Right of The Firstborn
“If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath; that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: but he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his” (Deut. 21: 15-17).
The above passage is often left out of the reckoning by Replacement Theologians who say that God permanently excommunicated Israel in A.D. 70. Indeed, among the great majority of Preterists that is deemed the standard theme of our Lord’s Olivet Discourse. But as we have demonstrated several times, Replacement Theology, of whatever mold or make it may be, is patently untrue.
The quotation above once again confirms our view that it is impossible for God to permanently cast away Israel. For Israel is Jehovah’s firstborn (Exodus 4: 22; Jeremiah 31: 9). According to the above statute, it is unlawful to set the firstborn aside in preference to another, or to deny him the double portion.
But this is exactly what Replacement Theologians do. They assert that Israel was cast away in A.D. 70, without any hope of a restoration according to a fulfillment of the law and the prophets – notwithstanding that Jesus Christ said that every jot and tittle must be fulfilled before heaven and earth pass away (Matthew 5: 17).
We, on the other hand, believe that Israel is a married wife (Jer. 3: 14), which though set aside for a season (Hosea 3: 3-4), will yet be recalled by Jehovah (Isaiah 54: 6-8) and blessed with a double portion during the Millennium (Isaiah 61: 7). For it is not in the Lord’s counsels that Israel should be cast away:
(Hosea 11: 8-9) “How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? How shall I deliver thee, Israel? How shall I make thee as Admah? How shall I set thee as Zeboim? Mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together. I will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not come against the city.”
Admah and Zeboim were cities which were destroyed along with Sodom and Gomorrah (Deut. 29: 23). The nation of Israel will not suffer the same fate. For Jehovah is God and not man! Although man would have Israel cast away forever, the Lord promises to restore them. He expressly affirms, through His inspired prophet and mouthpiece, that He will not destroy Israel. Because He is God and changeth not, the sons of Jacob are not consumed (Malachi 3: 6). The gifts and calling of God are without change of mind (Romans 11: 29). That settles the issue of Replacement Theology.
The church is not Israel, but is likened to an espoused bride (2 Corinthians 11: 2). The marriage has not yet taken place. Whereas Israel is a married wife. R.T.’s need to note this difference, because it forms a real distinction between Israel and the church. The church is being built up during the time when Israel abides in blindness. This blindness is not permanent (Romans 11: 11), but will be removed at the Lord’s second coming (Romans 11: 26-27; Isaiah 29: 18-19).
The church does not receive blessings here on earth. The church’s blessings are in heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 1: 3). Israel’s blessings are on earth, and to them pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises (Romans 9: 4). Let R.T.’s take careful note of that last statement: to Israel pertains the promises. And Jesus Christ came to confirm these promises (Romans 15: 8).
In no Scripture does it state that the church has “replaced” or “superseded” Israel. This is an unbiblical figment of man’s theology, and comes from a Roman Catholic mindset in which it is assumed (without Biblical warrant) that the visible church receives all the promises made to Israel. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that the very church which gave us the sale of indulgences and the veneration of icons is she which hath replaced Israel.
No. That is simply not true! Israel was never replaced, but only set aside for a season, that salvation might go out to the Gentiles. The Gentiles do not inherit any of Israel’s earthly blessings. Israel has already been adopted to receive these blessings, and nothing can or will annul God’s decree. However, the church can and does receive spiritual blessings, which Israel will also enjoy during the Millennium (Jer. 31: 31-34). And this will be the “double portion” that Israel receives. May all of God’s promises reach fruition.
Maybe It Ain’t Quite Like They Thought It Was
Since I started this blog back in July of 2008, I’ve had lots of correspondence from people who endorse the Preterist view. Preterists basically believe that most, if not all, of Bible prophecy was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The view strongly relies on the support of liberal scholarship, and agrees with that perspective known as “Replacement Theology.” Preterists believe that the church is the “true Israel.” And thus Christians who look for the future restoration of Abraham’s natural descendants are branded as misguided and erroneous – sometimes even subversive.
But when one hears these views espoused, one really has to wonder whether or not proponents of Preterism have seriously studied their Old Testaments. For even after the fulfillment of the curses of Deut. 28 (which Preterists say happened in A.D. 70), a restoration is promised, during which the Lord will re-gather His scattered people and bring them into the land of their fathers (Deut. 30: 1-5). This will be accompanied by the regeneration of the remnant (Deut. 30: 6) and judgments upon the Gentiles (see Deut. 30: 7). According to the Old Testament prophets, the Gentile judgments are inextricably tied to the outcome of the Day of the Lord (see Zephaniah 3: 8; Micah 5: 15; Zech. 14: 3).
Nobody who studies the Old Testament according to its grammatical, lexical, and obvious sense, will fail to see that Israel’s predicted blessings will be realized at the Lord’s second coming.
Even prophecies which speak of the New Covenant look forward to a restoration of the literal city of Jerusalem (Jer. 31: 38-40). It is simply impossible to discount the many prophecies which speak of Israel’s ultimate salvation and restoration, without wilfully ignoring the entire meta-narrative of the Old Testament. And the New Testament doesn’t trump that, either. For Christ came to confirm the promises made to the fathers (Romans 15: 8). And Paul says that the “gifts and calling of God are without change of mind” (Romans 11: 29).
One of the reasons I am a Dispensationalist, is that I believe in the literal, historical fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ. The prophecies regarding Christ’s first advent were all fulfilled in what spiritualizers would probably consider a ridiculously literal fashion. And yet past realization forms the foundation and precedent for future fulfillment. Even Preterists utilize this working principle when they (wrongly) cite Old Testament passages in support of their allegorical reading of Matthew 24.
But the prophets speak in literal terms. Consider, for example, the New Testament fulfillment of Isaiah 53: 4, in which the prophet said: “Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.” Well, says the allegorizer, this must be restricted to something spiritual. No, says the New Testament! It involves physical healing of the sick (see Matt. 8: 16-17). We are not suggesting that the prophecy doesn’t also include spiritual healing (that is obvious from a literal reading of Isaiah). However, the New Testament record declares that the “fulfillment” of Isaiah 53: 4 was literal and historical in nature.
Now, since the Old Testament makes no distinction between the first and second advents of Christ, how are unfulfilled Messianic texts to be interpreted? They must not be carelessly relegated to Christ’s first advent, as some of the church fathers used to do. For if the Messiah’s work was totally fulfilled with His first advent, what need was there for a second coming? Neither should we relegate second advent prophecies to any A.D. 70 ‘judgment coming.’ For according to Preterists, that was not a personal coming of Christ. Yet the Old Testament Messianic prophecies deal with a literal, historical Jesus. Will Preterists be so bold as to claim that the Old Testament never refers to the second advent? If that is the case, then what Scriptures was Paul using when he taught Christ’s second coming? Ah, thou art beginning to see my point, young man!
The simple fact is, that the Old Testament predicts both advents of Christ, and the New Testament makes the distinction between the two, which allows us to go back to the O.T. and see which prophecies were fulfilled, and which remain future. Lest we be lost in confusion, all Messianic prophecies are to be interpreted according to the same “normative” hermeneutic. And once this principle is followed, it becomes clear that Israel will be saved and restored at Christ’s second advent. Paul says so (see Romans 11: 25-27).
Of course, I don’t have any personal complaint against those who endorse the Preterist view. I actually have friends who are Preterists! Nor do I have any personal problem with those who stand against Dispensational theology as a matter of principle – so long as no fines or anathemas are levied upon those (like myself) who respectfully disagree with them. My main complaint is against that straitened dogmatism which seeks to nullify the promises of God, and wipe Israel off the prophetic board. It is largely because of such views that this site exists. As long as Preterism remains an active theology on the internet, my business here is to point out the glaring possibility that perhaps — oh, just perhaps! — prophecy ain’t really like they thought it was. Maranatha!
The Ecclesiology Of I.M. Haldeman
A few months ago on Ebay, I was fortunate enough to snatch up an old harcover reprint of I.M. Haldeman’s 1904 book entitled “How To Study The Bible, The Second Coming, and Other Expositions.” It was originally published as “Friday Night Papers,” but when he issued a second edition, Haldeman changed the title and added over 200 extra pages of material. The book is a classic of Dispensational theology.
I.M. Haldeman (1845-1933) was the longtime pastor of First Baptist Church in New York City. Although mostly forgotten today, he wrote a lengthy response to Philip Mauro’s “Gospel of The Kingdom,” a bitter diatribe against Dispensationalism. During the course of a busy ministry, Haldeman also produced countless expositions, some of which are included in ”How To Study The Bible.”
What makes this title so interesting, is Haldeman’s ecclesiology, which he must have developed and refined over a long period of years. Since I myself hold to certain aspects of Haldeman’s teaching on the nature, intent, and commencement of the Christian church, a review of certain elements of his system are in order.
Contrary to most Dispensational interpreters, who believe that the church began at Pentecost, Haldeman understood the bride of Christ as having two beginnings. The church age commenced secretly in John 20: 22-23 and publicly in Acts 2.
“On the day that Christ arose from the dead, He breathed on His disciples, and by that act quickened them into vital union with Himself as the Risen One, thus uniting them to one another in Himself, and forming the living, mystic, and spiritual body, the Church; this hour was the birth hour of the Church.
” ‘He breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.’ John 20: 22, 23.
“On the day of Pentecost the Spirit was made manifest in the earth, as the witness of the Risen Christ; and then, and there, the Lord baptized His disciples, in the Spirit, into the Body in which, and through which, He was henceforth to manifest Himself on the earth. On that day the Spirit deposited in this spiritual body all the gifts and powers required for service in the name of an ascended Lord” (pg. 354).
Haldeman’s concept of Pentecost was not that it marked the beginning of the church itself. The church officially began in John 20: 22-23, when the Holy Spirit came as the “Comforter.” The Holy Spirit did not come as the ”Comforter” in Acts 2, but as the ”Enduer.” Thus, on the evening of the resurrection the birth of the church took place in secret. On the Day of Pentecost, the church was endued with the gifts of the Spirit, and given power to fulfill its commission.
Such a doctrine as Haldeman’s would appear to solve some of the problems related to cessation of the charismata. While spiritual enduement applies to all believers today, the special gifts must have been in force only so long as they served as testimony to the Jews (see 1 Cor. 1: 22). When the Jews failed to repent, in response to Peter’s admonition in Acts 3: 19-21, their city was destroyed and the second coming postponed.
With the close of the Jewish Dispensation ended the charismata, or the general period of enduement with miraculous gifts. It did not, however, end the Holy Spirit’s role as Comforter. Because the Church really began prior to the miraculous outpouring of power from on high, the cessation of charismatic gifts in A.D. 70 was no indication that the Body of Christ was “complete” in any sense. The Holy Spirit still comes as Comforter today, sealing the hearts of all whosoever believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God, to the saving of their souls.
Although there is no record that Haldeman held the particular conclusions inferred by myself, he did lay the foundation of what I believe is a better understanding of Christian ecclesiology. If Haldeman’s system were followed, certain difficulties relating to the Dispensational transition between the Jewish and Christian economies would be cleared up.
Because Haldeman conceived that the parenthetical church age (which he calls the “Holy Ghost Dispensation“) had two beginnings, he concluded that it must have two endings. It will end secretly with a pre-tribulational rapture, and publicly, with the return of Christ from the Mount of Olives with all His saints (see Zech. 14: 5). These facts can be gleaned through a careful reading of Haldeman’s book. Although it is no longer in print, I’ve heard that it is currently available on the “SwordSearcher” Bible software.
The First Baptist Church in New York City presently has one of Haldeman’s prophecy charts hanging in its hallway. The digital scan above is somewhat difficult to read. However, it is clear that Dr. Haldeman was an ardent student of prophecy, and one of the great pioneers of 20th century Dispensational studies. Although his works have been eclipsed in recent years, they contain hidden riches that will surprise and delight those who seek them out.
