Eschatology, the Study of Last Things
by James T. Bartsch
The Nature of the Rapture
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
by James T. Bartsch, WordExplain
Reason 3. Program
A Post-Tribulation Rapture Confuses God's Program for Israel with His Program for the Church
3. Program. A Post-Tribulation Rapture is not credible because it fails to distinguish adequately between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church. This is true both during the Church Age, during the Tribulation period, and during the Eternal State, which will be lived out in New Jerusalem in connection with New Earth.
God's Program for Israel. The angel Gabriel revealed to Daniel that seventy sevens of years had been determined upon His people (Israel) (Dan. 9:24-27). After the first 69 sevens of years, Messiah would be cut off (crucified) and have nothing. That is past history. Jesus was crucified some time within the window of circa AD 30-32. Then Gabriel predicted that "the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary" (Dan. 9:26). We know from history that the Roman Empire destroyed the city of Jerusalem and Herod's Temple in A.D. 70. But there has been an ongoing hiatus between the 69th seven and the 70th seven of years. As of the time of this writing (2015), that hiatus has lasted nearly 2000 years. What will mark the beginning of the still future 70th seven? Gabriel identified that event in Daniel 9:27: "And he (i.e., "the prince who is to come" - Dan. 9:26) will make a firm covenant with the many (Israel) for a week (i.e. seven years), but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." This means that a future leader of a Revived Roman Empire will make a seven-year peace treaty with Israel. But he will break his treaty with Israel in the middle of that seven-year period. He will put a stop to sacrifice and offering in a presumably rebuilt Jewish temple. He himself will sit as God in this temple (2 Thess. 2:4). Presumably an image of him will also be placed in the temple, and people will be forced to worship the image on pain of death (Rev. 13:14-15). This abominable desolation will last until he, the leader of the Revived Roman Empire, comes to his predetermined end (Dan. 9:27; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 19:20).
My point is this. Ever since the Romans destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70, God's prophetic clock for Israel has stopped ticking. There has been a centuries-long hiatus between the 69th seven-year period and the final, 70th seven-year period revealed to Daniel by the angel Gabriel. In general terms, we are now living in the Church Age, and the Church is God's present missionary program for the world. That does not mean God has not been working on Israel's behalf. Certainly He has. Israel's successful war for independence in 1948, and her repeated overcoming of Arab attacks since then have been a thundering affirmation of that fact. Still, Israel does not have the international community's blessing for building in her own land. She does not even control certain portions of land that God gave to her. It is occupied by the so-called "Palestinians." And she has no temple, for a Muslim shrine and mosque sit atop her temple mount, defiling it.
God's Program for the Church. These have been what Jesus termed "the times of the Gentiles." He Himself predicted that "Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (Luke 21:24). Doubtless, during that time, God has changed His program of using Israel to reach the nations of the world (Exod. 19:5-6). Now He has brought in a separate program, hinted at, but not fully revealed in the Old Testament. God's present program is the Church. Jesus, before He was crucified, revealed that He would build His Church (ekklęsia, 1577) (Matt. 16:18). So at that time, Jesus' Church was still future. Jesus revealed disciplinary conduct in the still-future church (Matt. 18:17). The next time the word ekklęsia is used (Acts 5:11), the Church had already been founded. We conclude that the Church began on the Day of Pentecost with the promised descent of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-47). To be certain, Jewish people who trust in Jesus as their Messiah become part of the Church. But they do not surrender their ethnic and national status. The Church has never replaced Israel. And Jewish Christians never lose their Jewish identity. They possess what I call "Dual Citizenship." They are members of the Church and they are members of Redeemed Israel. By way of illustration, my family and I lived, for a period of time, in Australia. We had two children who were born there. We registered them as American citizens born abroad. For a time, at least, these two children possessed dual citizenship - they were Australian citizens and they were American citizens. So it is with Messianic Jews today. They have Israeli citizenship and they have Church citizenship.
At the Rapture, God will terminate His program for the Church on Earth and resume His program for Israel on Earth. It makes most sense to understand that God's present program for the Church on Earth will terminate at the Rapture. It is then that God will resume His program for Israel. A world ruler will emerge on the scene of world history. He will endeavor to negotiate a seven-year peace treaty with Israel (Dan. 9:27), and will appear to succeed. This treaty will grant Israel the right to exist without Arab interference, and, apparently, with permission to rebuild a Jewish temple. But in the middle of that seven-year treaty, the world ruler will double cross Israel, will occupy the Jewish temple, and will lead an international conspiracy against Israel to occupy and destroy her (Dan. 9:27; Zech. 12:2-3; 13:8-9; 14:1-2). It is then that Israel's Messiah will return and save her (Zech. 14:3-9).
A Pre-Tribulation Rapture removes the Church from the Earth during the Tribulation period. God's program for the Church on the Earth in this age will have been completed. The Church's removal from the Earth is the perfect timing for God's program for Israel to begin operating once again in terms of the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.
A Post-Tribulation Rapture confuses and intermingles God's distinct programs for Israel and the Church. The Bible labels the Tribulation period "the time of Jacob's distress" (Jer. 30:4-7). To the church of Philadelphia, Jesus promised something that, I believe, applies to the entire Church: 'Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. (Rev. 3:10).
A Pre-Tribulation Rapture keeps God's program for the Church distinct from His program for Israel. A Post-Tribulation Rapture confuses the two programs.
An Illustration - Historical Premillennialism. This non-dispensational school of thought operates on the assumption that "longer is better." A statement by Alexander Reese, an advocate of "Historic (sic) Premillennialism", illustrates this viewpoint:
Until the second quarter of the nineteenth century general agreement existed among pre-millennial advocates of our Lord's Coming concerning the main outlines of the prophetic future: amidst differences of opinion on the interpretation of the Apocalypse and other portions of Scripture, the following scheme stood out as fairly representative of the school.
I would dispute Reese's statement. I believe it can be ascertained that the writers or Scripture were not Historical Premillennialists. They were Pre-Tribulational Premillennialists. Furthermore, "longer" is not necessarily "better." The way Jesus has directed His Church is this: There have been refinements in the interpretation of Scripture down through the millennia. Just as the view of Athanasius won out over the view of Arius at the Council of Nicea in the early Fourth Century; just as Reformers brought new clarity to the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith apart from works (Eph. 2:8-10) in the Sixteenth Century; so Dispensationalism, in the Nineteenth Century, brought new clarity of thought to God's prophetic plan and His distinct programs for Israel and for the Church as revealed in both the Old and New Testaments.
Nevertheless, Reese continued on:
(I) The approaching Advent of Christ to this world will be visible, personal, and glorious.
(2) This Advent, though in itself a single crisis, will be accompanied and followed by a variety of phenomena bearing upon the history of the Church, of Israel, and the world. Believers who survive till the Advent will be transfigured and translated to meet the approaching Lord, together with the saints raised and changed at the first resurrection. Immediately following this Antichrist and his allies will be slain, and Israel, the covenant people, will repent and be saved, by looking upon Him whom they pierced.
Instead of understanding that God has a separate program for the Church during the present age, and another program for Israel during the Tribulation, Reese merges both entities during the Tribulation period. Thus, he fails to differentiate God's separate programs.
Michael Vlach has written an excellent article, How Does Historic Premillennialism Differ from Dispensational Premillennialism? We have already observed, under the Hermeneutics section, that Historical Premillennialists believe that the NT has priority over the OT, and that the NT interprets and reinterprets the OT. That is a faulty position to take. More accurately, the writings of both Testaments have parity. Though the NT can explain the OT Scriptures, and though it can amplify the NT Scriptures, the NT can never invalidate the promises made to the people of the OT. God promised Abraham a specific land populated by a specific progeny of people in perpetuity. No valid understanding of the NT can or will violate the promises of God confirmed by an oath and a covenant. If God cannot be trusted to keep His promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel), how can He be trusted to keep His promises to us Gentiles?
But, as Vlach has noted, Historical Premillennialists do not stop with a hermeneutical mistake. Because of their faulty hermeneutic, they arrive at a faulty conclusion. They believe the Church is the New Israel. Ladd asserted that the Church is the new "spiritual Israel."  And Millard Erickson has stated, "To sum up, then: the church is the new Israel. It occupies the place in the new covenant that Israel occupied in the old."  In so doing, Historical Premillennialists garble God's program for Israel with His program for the Church.
It should not surprise us, then, that, according to Vlach, Historical Premillennialists often do not believe in a future restoration of the State of Israel. George Ladd, for example, believes in the salvation of ethnic Israel, but he views that salvation as Israel being incorporated into the Church.
We conclude, then, that even though Historical Premillennialists are cousins to Dispensational Premillennialists, there are some fundamental disagreements. Historical Premillennialists confuse God's program for Israel with His program for the Church.
Michael Riccardi has written an excellent analysis of the way in which nondispensationalists confuse God's program for Israel with God's program for the Church. His article is entitled, The Seed of Abraham: A Theological Analysis of Galatians 3 and its Implications for Israel. I am indebted to Riccardi for much of the material discussed in the Program portion of this larger piece.
Charles Ryrie, in his book, Dispensationalism (p. 46) cited the theological distinction between Israel and the Church as "the most basic test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist." Conversely, a trait shared almost universally by nondispensationalists is that they replace Israel with the Church. What are the means by which they do so?
According to Riccardi, "The heart of the nondispensational interpretation of Galatians 3 revolves around two key issues; namely, the identity of 'the seed of Abraham,' and the implication that has for those who will receive the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant" (p. 52). Let us examine each of these two issues.
The Identity of the Seed of Abraham.
Paul uses "Jewish" language in describing Gentile Christians. He identifies them as "sons of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7) and "the seed of Abraham" (Gal. 3:29). Furthermore, Paul identifies Christ as the one ultimate seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16).
Nondispensationalists have, in my opinion, drawn the wrong conclusions from these passages.
Because of these statements by Paul, nondispensationalists have, according to Riccardi, concluded as follows:
Because Paul identifies Christ as the true Seed of Abraham and thus the ultimate recipient of the Abrahamic promises, nondispensationalists conclude that we should expect no future fulfillment of any of the Abrahamic promises for the nation of Israel.... Further, since the church is also Abraham’s seed because of union with Christ and thus heirs of the promises to Abraham (cf. Gal. 3:7, 29), the church is understood to receive the Abrahamic blessing to the exclusion of the nation of Israel. (pp. 53, 54)
This is a summation of what is aptly termed, "Replacement Theology," the view that the Church has permanently replaced the State of Israel in the Providence and Program of God. Let me demonstrate that this view is incorrect. As Riccardi points out,
There are multiple uses of the term "Seed of Abraham." Both the Hebrew word for seed (zera, 2233) and the Greek word for seed (sperma, 4690) can be used in a collective sense even while appearing in the singular. Clearly, Paul (in Gal. 3:16) does argue that Jesus Christ is the singular seed who is the ultimate fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham. Yet he also argues for the collective sense of the singular word seed in Gal. 3:29. There he states, "If you (plural), moreover, are of Christ, then the of Abraham seed (singular) you (plural) are" (author's own literal translation). Doubtless, Paul argues for a spiritual use of seed in Gal. 3:29. He is stating that all believers in Jesus Christ, regardless of whether they are Jewish or Gentile, constitute the seed of Abraham.
But Paul's spiritual use of the word "seed" does not invalidate the literal, biological use of the word. Clearly, the NT speaks of the biological seed of Abraham irrespective of whether or not they were believers in the Messiah. Jesus Himself acknowledged that the unbelieving Pharisees were, corporately, the (singular) seed of Abraham, even though they were trying to kill Him (John 8:37; cf. John 8:44)! Mary, in her poetic and highly theological "Magnificat" (Luke 1:46-55), linked the impending birth of the Messiah whom she was bearing with God's help of the nation of Israel in fulfillment of His promises to the fathers, to Abraham, and to Abraham's collective seed (Luke 1:54-55). Clearly Mary's inspired song envisioned the physical seed of Abraham, not the spiritual seed, which would include Gentiles. To those nondispensationalists who want to replace Israel with the Church, the Apostle Paul has a clear word from God. With great passion He states, "I say, therefore, God has not set aside His people, has He? May it never be! I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin" (Rom. 11:1, author's translation). Seed (spermatos) appears here in the singular, but it obviously has a corporate meaning. Paul trumpets his physical descent from Abraham and from Benjamin as a citizen of the State of Israel as proof positive that saved Israelis guarantee a future for Israel, not a disappearance. Replacement theology clearly would not meet Paul's approval.
The Identity of the Recipients of the Promises of the Abrahamic Covenant.
We dispensationalists do not deny that Gentiles, as part of the families of the earth, inherit spiritual blessings by sharing the faith of Abraham (Eph. 1:3-14). However, we deny that God ever intended to convey the land of Canaan (Israel) to anyone other than the physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob who also believed God.
Nondispensationalists disagree. Kim Riddlebarger, for example, claims that "Israel's promises vanish in Christ."  F. F. Bruce claims that Isaac himself “as Abraham’s ‘seed,’ is swallowed up in Christ, in whom the promise to Abraham . . . reached its fruition.”  Anthony Hoekema writes, “From Galatians 3:29 we learn that if we are Christ’s then we are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise. Heirs of what? Of all the blessings God promised to Abraham, including the promise that the land of Canaan would be his everlasting possession.”  And how do they leap to this conclusion? They do so by arguing that, since Gal. 3:18 speaks of ''the inheritance" (klęronomia, 2817), land is included! 
So how do nondispensationalists justify this exegetical sleight of hand? They cannot do so by a plain reading of either the OT or the NT. They have to interpret Scripture nonliterally. They readily admit that the Church does not inherit the land of Canaan literally. So they argue that the land promise is "typological of the creation."  They argue that the land promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob should be spiritualized and expanded to mean the whole world. The ultimate fulfillment of the promise will be to all believers in the New Heavens and New Earth.  To justify their exegetical leap they point to Matt. 5:5, where Jesus said it is the gentle (praus, 4239) who will inherit the earth (gę, 1093) (not merely, they say, the land of Canaan). They also point to Rom. 4:13, which states that God's promise to Abraham or to his seed that he would be heir of the world (kosmos, 2889) did not come about through Law, but through righteousness which comes through faith.
How can we respond to their assertions, which confuse God's program for Israel with His program for the Church?
First, we use logic. Let us assign values to the two different promises. Let us say that A refers to the original promise of God to Abraham and his physical seed - that they would inherit the land of Canaan in perpetuity. Let us say that B refers to Jesus' promise that the meek, or gentle, would inherit the earth (gę) and to Paul's point that Abraham and his seed would be heirs of the world (kosmos). Nondispensationalists are committing a logical fallacy. They are saying that to assert B is to prove not A. But nondispensationalists are making the erroneous assumption that the two terms are mutually exclusive. Why must they be? Or to put it another way, why can both not be true?
Let me illustrate. I happen to have three sons. If I assert, A, that they are all taller than I am, that is true. If I also assert, B, that they are all musical, that is also true. But how does stating B prove not A? It doesn't, and it needn't. The two facts are not mutually exclusive. Both A and B are true.
Back to God, Abraham and Paul. It is true, A, that God promised Abraham and his physical seed that they would inherit the land of Canaan in perpetuity. It is also true, B, that Jesus promised the meek would inherit the earth (gę) and that Paul affirmed Abraham and his seed would be heirs of the world (kosmos). Why does asserting B prove that A is not true? Logically, that simply does not follow, just as it did not follow with me and my sons. Both A and B are true. Neither Jesus nor Paul nullified the original promises to Abraham and his physical seed. Both expanded on those promises. Both A and B are true.
Second, we examine the terms used in the original promise and covenant. God made some specific promises to Abram (Gen. 12:1-3). These promises included a specific land, that Abraham would become a great nation, and that he would be blessed. Part of this blessing was that through Abram all the families of the earth would be blessed. The land, in particular, was stated to be a permanent possession for Abraham and his seed (Gen. 13:14-15). God would make Abraham's seed an incalculable number (Gen. 13:16-17). The land promise, in particular, was later confirmed by God in a unilateral blood covenant (Gen. 15:7-21). God repeated the covenant in Gen. 17. Specifically included were Abraham's (he is given a name change in this chapter) "seed" (zera, 2233) (translated "descendants") in Gen. 17:7, 8, 9, 10, 12. Abraham assumed his seed would be Ishmael (Gen. 17:18), but God informed him, "No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants [lit. seed, zera, 2233] after him" (Gen. 17:19). Notice that the covenant is to go through Isaac, not Ishmael; that the covenant includes the seed of Isaac; that God would establish this covenant with Isaac; that God would include in the covenant Isaac's seed after him; that the covenant included specific real estate -- "all the land of Canaan" (Gen. 17:8); and that the land was to be "an everlasting possession" (Gen. 17:8). Observe, furthermore, that God established this covenant with Abraham and his seed after him "throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant" (Gen. 17:7). Literally this was a "covenant of eternity" (Gen. 17:7), or as we would say, an eternal covenant. No nondispensational eisegesis can alter that eternal covenant which God made with the physical seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in regard to their eternal possession of the land of Canaan. That the covenant was meant to be with the physical seed of Abraham, and not the spiritual seed of Abraham can be demonstrated conclusively by God's imposition of the physical sign of circumcision that the beneficiaries were obligated to bear (Gen. 17:10, 11, 12, 13, 14)! Again, no amount of eisegesis can explain away the physical nature of the seed of Abraham and Isaac and the land that belongs to them and to their seed forever. Later promises and explanations may amplify and expand on those promises, but they can never nullify them. Of course we expect the Gentiles to benefit from the Abrahamic Covenant. That was always part of God's plan. But including Gentiles did not and does not jettison that which God promised to the biological seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Third, we examine the context in Galatians 3 of Paul's assertion about believing Gentiles being the seed of Abraham. What application did he derive from that assertion?
The primary issue of the letter to the Galatians is the role of the Law versus the role of faith in bringing us to Christ. The theme of the letter is "The Law as Tutor." The key verse of the letter to the Galatians is Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith." This should immediately alert us to the fact that nondispensationalists are, proverbially, "barking up the wrong tree" when they attempt to use Gal. 3 as proof that Gentile believers inherit all the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant in the same way that Jewish believers do so. Paul's major point is how one is justified, not the identity of the "seed" of Abraham.
In their efforts to justify their thesis that the Church has permanently replaced Israel, nondispensationalists place too much focus on the word "seed" (sperma, 4690) in Galatians 3. "Seed" (sperma) does appear 5X in the book of Galatians, and, interestingly enough, only in this chapter. It appears 3X in Gal. 3:16; once in Gal. 3:19; and once in Gal. 3:29. But sperma, by itself, is far from being the main emphasis of this chapter. It exists in a context of other words used far more frequently. The word "law" (nomos, 3551) is used 15X in Gal. 3. And "faith" (pistis, 4102) is used 14X, and the verb "believe" (pisteuô, 4100) is used another 2X.
What was Paul discussing in Galatians 3:1-4:11? The following is excerpted from the author's Annotated Outline of Galatians:
(1) He stated that the Galatians' initial reception of the Holy Spirit was through faith, not through Law. So why should matters change now? (Gal. 3:1-5).
(2) In Gal. 3:6-9, Paul cited the example of Abraham. He was justified by faith, not law.
(3) In the next section, Paul stated that the purpose of the Law was never to provide justification, but to lead to faith in Christ (Gal. 3:10-4:11).
(a) Christ has redeemed believers from the curse of the Law (Gal. 3:10-14).
(b) The Law was unable to overthrow God's promises to Abraham (Gal. 3:15-18).
(c) The purpose of the Law was (Gal. 3:19-29)
(i) To serve as a temporary check on sin (Gal. 3:19-22)(d) God has placed us as sons, not slaves (Gal. 4:1-11)
(ii) To serve as a disciplinarian to lead us to Christ (Gal. 3:23-29)
We can see that Paul's entire discussion was about the means of salvation, not whether Gentiles are the recipients of all the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. How did they receive the Holy Spirit? Was it by keeping the Law or was it by faith (Gal. 3:2-4)? How was Abraham justified? Was it by keeping the Law, or was it by trusting God (Gal. 3:5-6)? Consequently, all who exercise faith are sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:7). And what did Paul mean by his term, "sons of Abraham?" Did he mean we inherit all the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant? No! His focus was that all Gentiles who believe will be justified by their faith (Gal. 3:7-8, emphasis mine). Thus, for Gentiles, blessing has to do with being declared righteous (justified) by means of faith, not by inheriting all the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant, including the promise of the Land Canaan in perpetuity. The context limits the blessing to soteriological blessings. It does not include the physical, material blessings of inheriting the Land of Canaan. That is all God ever meant, and all He meant according to Paul in the book of Galatians.
Furthermore, we can piggyback on Paul's logic in Gal. 3:15-18, where he argued, "the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise" (Gal. 3:17). It is equally valid to argue that "the Church, which came one thousand, four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise." Sadly, that is precisely what nondispensationalists do argue, that the coming of the Church invalidates the literal nature of the land and seed promises God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
So we conclude that nondispensationalists have erred in spiritualizing land promises into the inheritance of the Gentiles when they are never so stated. The conclusion of nondispensationalists is based upon eisegesis, not exegesis! The Church does not replace Israel.
Dispensationalism keeps the program of God for Israel separate from His program for the Church. Before Christ came, God's program was primarily through Israel. With Israel's rejection of her Messiah there was a transitional period when God was working with both the Church and Israel. But by A.D. 70, with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, God was no longer working His prophetic program with Israel. His focus was on the Church as being His priestly mechanism in the world. The Church will be raptured as the Bride of Christ. Then God's prophetic clock for Israel will begin ticking again. It is then that Daniel's 70th week will begin with the signing of a peace treaty with the nation of Israel. That event will usher in the Tribulation period. God's program for Israel will begin again (Rev. 7:4-8; 14:1-5). In the Millennium Jesus will return with His bride, the Church, and sit on the throne of Israel as Israel's King. Even in New Jerusalem, God's program for the Church continues, and God's program for Israel continues, and God's program for redeemed Gentiles who are part of neither Israel nor the Church, continues. A Post-Tribulation Rapture muddles God's program for Israel with His program for the Church.
 George E. Ladd, "Historic Premillennialism," in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977), 25.
 Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 1053.
 Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), 70.
 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1982), 173.
 Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 211.
 Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 230.
 Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton: IL: Crossway, 2012), 633-634.
 Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 211; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 71; Bruce K. Waltke, “Kingdom Promises as Spiritual,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 269.
Prepared by James T. Bartsch
Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE ®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. (www.Lockman.org)