Select Bibliography for the Book of Revelation

Introductory Guides to the Book of Revelation

Vern S. Poythress, The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation (P & R) -- Highly recommended basic guide.  Good background material, theological content.  Best place to start.

Michael Wilcock. The Message of Revelation, The Bible Speaks Today (IVP) -- Part of the IVP “Bible Speaks” series.  Good for personal study.  Includes study/discussion questions.

Commentaries on Revelation

Simon J. Kistemaker, Revelation (Baker) -- Solid Reformed amillennial approach to the text, part of the series of commentaries begun by William Hendricksen.

G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Eerdmans) -- The best academic commentary on Revelation in print, period!  But it is for advanced readers and quite expensive.

William Hendricksen, More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation (Baker) -- For many years the Reformed standard, now outdated.

Dennis E. Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation (P & R) -- The best all-around commentary on Revelation.  If you plan to buy only one book on Revelation, this should be it.

Specialized Studies

Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge) --  Very good topical treatment of the major themes running throughout Revelation.

Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy (T & T Clark) -- For advanced students, very insightful look at some of the structural and theological issues facing the interpreter of Revelation.

Colin Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia: In Their Local Settings (Eerdmans) -- Background information on the seven churches.  Updates and replaces Ramsey

Mark Wilson, Charts on the Book of Revelation: Literary, Historical, and Theological Perspectives (Kregel) -- Very helpful material, indeed invaluable.

666 and the Mark of the Beast

If you are a futurist and believe that the beast of Revelation 13 is not connected to the Roman Empire of the first century and remains yet to be revealed at the end of the age (i.e., during the seven-year tribulation period, as dispensationalists teach), then you will not look at the mark of the beast through the lens of the New Testament and the historical situation when John was given his vision.  Instead, you will understand this mysterious mark as something still hidden in the future.  And given the breakneck pace of the advance being made in all forms of technology, it is only natural that futurists would see John’s reference to the mark of the beast as somehow connected to the technological advantage by which the beast and false prophet will enslave the inhabitants of the world and deceive them into worshiping the Antichrist.

As futurists see it, when John speaks of the mark of the beast, he’s essentially predicting that some future form of technology will be utilized by Antichrist to dominate and control the world’s population.  According to Peter and Paul Lalonde, “The Bible says that the mark of the beast and its accompanying technology will be installed by the antichrist–not as an end in itself, but as a means of managing the new world order that is even now being created” (Peter LaLonde and Paul LaLonde, Racing Toward the Mark of the Beast,  Harvest House Publishers, 1994, 148).

The futurist approach to Revelation is misguided because it pushes off into the distant future what was already a serious threat to Christians in the first century (emperor worship), by ignoring the historical context for the visions of Revelation 13 and 17.  Instead, John’s comments about the mark of the beast should be seen against the backdrop of the imperial cult and the worship of the Roman emperor.  The emperor’s blasphemous image was everywhere in John’s world (Asia Minor), from coins to statues identifying various emperors as deities in most major cities ( cf. S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, Cambridge University Press, 1984).  John’s reference to the mark being placed upon the back of the hand or the forehead makes perfect sense in light of the wide-spread first century practice of branding or tattooing slaves–a mark of shame and subjugation (Caird, The Revelation of St. John, 173).

To read the rest of this article, Click here: Riddleblog - The Mark of the Beast

The Two Age Model as an Interpretive Grid

It is important to consider the basic eschatological framework provided for us by the New Testament writers, who speak of eschatological matters with one voice when they depict God’s sovereign control of history as the out-working of two qualitatively distinct and successive eschatological ages, known variously as “this age” and the “age to come.” 

Throughout the New Testament, “this age” is used in reference to the present course of human history, while the “age to come” is used of the eschatological age of redemption promised throughout the Old Testament, which is now realized with the coming of Jesus Christ, and manifest for all to see in the triumph associated with his bodily resurrection and exaltation.

I believe that the period of time between the first advent of Jesus Christ until his Second Advent–the time between the establishment of Christ’s kingdom as described in the gospels and the consummation of all things–is the same period of redemptive history described in Revelation 20 as “a thousand years.”  This means that the so-called “millennium” is a present reality and not a future hope.  This means that events depicted in Revelation 20, refer not the future but to the present.  This also means that the thousand years is that same period of time in which citizens of “this age” await “the age to come”–though given the fact of the present reality of the kingdom of God (Matthew 12:28, Luke 10:1-20; 17:20-21; Romans 14:17) and the work of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14), “the age to come” is already a present reality for the believer in Jesus Christ.  

This tension between the “already” and the “not yet” characterizes much of the New Testament eschatological hope as Christians await the final consummation of Christ’s present kingdom on the great and glorious day of the Lord Jesus.  As Geerhardus Vos points out, “Christianity in its very origin bears an eschatological character.  It means the appearance of the Messiah and the inauguration of His work.”  Therefore, the starting point in developing this Christ-centered eschatology is “the historico-dramatic conception of the two successive ages,” which are variously designated “this age” and “the age to come” (Geerhardus Vos, “Eschatology of the New Testament,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, ed., Richard Gaffin, P & R, 1980, 25-28). According to Vos, since the very fabric of redemption itself is eschatological, the key to understanding this is to correlate eschatological language predicated of these two ages to the historical events surrounding the person and work of Jesus Christ.  This will become clear when we examine terms such as “this age,” “the age to come,” and the biblical texts in which they occur.

Both Jesus and Paul repeatedly speak of “this age” and “the age to come” as two successive and qualitatively distinct eschatological periods.  In three places in the synoptic gospels our Lord explicitly contrasts “this age” with “an age to come.”  In Matthew 12:32, Jesus is speaking of the impossibility of forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, either “in this age or the age to come.”  In Luke 18:29-30, Jesus is speaking about the kingdom of God, in response to the unbelief expressed by the rich young ruler.  Jesus says, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.” Finally, in Luke 20:34-35, Jesus declares, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.”

From these texts it is clear that our Lord understands these two ages as successive and qualitatively distinct.  “This age,” say Jesus, is characterized by marriage and things temporal.  “The age to come,” on the other hand, is characterized by resurrection life and immortality, hence the impossibility of natural, earthly life continuing in any form after the general resurrection which occurs at our Lord’s return (John 6:39-40, 44, 54).  This notion of a the general resurrection occurring at Christ’s Second Advent presents a very serious problem for those forms of premillennialism in which it is argued that people in natural bodies continue to populate the earth during Christ’s millennial rule after the resurrection of the righteous.  If the “age to come” is the age of resurrection in which there is no marriage or sexual relationships, just how is it that people somehow escape this universal event so as to repopulate the earth, after Christ returns?  This is an impossibility.

Paul sets out the same eschatological understanding of history in Ephesians 1:21, speaking of the present exaltation of Jesus Christ, who is “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.”  Like Jesus, Paul sees these two ages as consecutive and distinct, though Paul adds to our understanding the important point that Christ’s rule is already a present reality which began with his resurrection and exaltation.  As Lincoln points out, “the terminology and structure involved in this contrast play a large part in the apostle’s thought” (Andrew T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, Cambridge University Press, 1981, 170 ff.  Geerhardus Vos also sees this as a fundamental structure in Paul’s thought, in The Pauline Eschatology, (Baker Book House, 1982,  1-41).

The impact of this two-age eschatological framework upon the question of millennialism becomes very apparent when we examine how these terms are used throughout the New Testament.  Whenever the term “this age” is used it is always in reference to things temporal, things destined to perish.  Consider the following things predicated by the biblical writers of “this age.”  The end of the age will be preceded by signs (Matthew 24:3), and Christ himself will be with us until this age ends (Matthew 28:20).  There are material rewards in this age (Luke 18:30), and the people of this age marry and are given in marriage (Luke 20:34).  According to Mark, the present age is an age of homes, fields and families (Mark 10:30).  Paul, on the other hand, puts this in ethical terms.  We are not to be conformed to the pattern of this age (Romans 12:2), for this present age is evil (Galatians 1:4).  The wisdom of this age is the godless speculation of the philosophers (1 Corinthians 1:20), and is characterized by rulers who do not know the truth (2 Corinthians 2:6-8).  In fact, says Paul, Satan himself is the “god” of this age (2 Corinthians 4:4) for the ways of this age are evil (Ephesians 2:2).  Paul exhorts those who are rich in this age not to put their hopes in their riches for the age to come (1 Timothy 6:17), for we are to live godly lives now as we await the age to come (Titus 2:12).

In every case, the qualities assigned by the biblical writers to “this age” are always temporal in nature and represent the fallen world and its sinful inhabitants awaiting the judgment to come at our Lord’s return.  This becomes clear when we see “this age” as the biblical writers intend—an age which stands in stark contrast to the eschatological “age to come.”

What do the Scriptures say about the “age to come”?  The gospel writers record our Lord as saying that there will be no forgiveness in the age to come for speaking blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:32), and that it is a period of judgment when the weeds are thrown into the fire (Matthew 13:40).  It is also an age of eternal life (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30) and when, as we have seen, there is no longer marriage or giving in marriage.  It is an age, says Paul, where life is truly life (1 Timothy 6:19).

This means that the “age to come” is an age of eternal life and immortality.  It is characterized by the realization of all of the blessings of the resurrection and consummation.  It is not an age in which people await the consummation!  When we consider those additional texts where Paul speaks of the consummation of the kingdom of God, the evidence against premillennialism becomes even stronger.  According to Paul, evil-doers will not inherit this kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-10), while flesh and blood cannot (1 Corinthians 15:50).  Those who live evil lives will not enter this kingdom (Galatians 5:21), nor will the immoral (Ephesians 5:5).  Thus, it is clear that “the age to come” refers to that period of time after the resurrection, the judgment and the restoration of all things.  Those who participate in the “age to come” are no longer characterized by the temporal, but the eternal—a point particularly problematic for all forms of premillennialism which insist upon an earthly existence of some sort in a millennial age of half-way consummation after Christ’s return, as well as for those influenced by preterism, who see “this age” as the Jewish era and “the age to come” as that which follows God’s judgment upon Israel in A.D. 70.

The inability of dispensationalists in particular and premillennarians in general to deal with this argument becomes clear when we look at how dispensationalists deal with the rather extensive biblical data about the two ages.  As J. Dwight Pentecost argues,

    As it is used in the New Testament, according to the normal usage of the words, this present age refers to that period of time in which the speaker or writer then lived.  As used in reference to Israel in the Gospels this present age referred to the period of time in which Israel was anticipating the coming of the Messiah to fulfill all her covenant promises.  The coming age was the age to be inaugurated by the Messiah at His advent.  In reference to the church the term this present age refers to the inter-advent period, that period from the rejection of the Messiah by Israel at His second coming.  The phrase coming age could be used in its earthly aspect, to which the church will be related (as in Eph. 1:21), or in its eternal aspect (as in Eph. 2:7) (J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, Zondervan, 1980, 131-32).

But, we must ask, “are we ever justified in saying the coming age was to be inaugurated, but was not, because Israel rejected her Messiah”?  “Does the age to come has an earthly aspect as well as a eternal one?  Pentecost’s understanding of this matter simply does not fit with the data we have already seen, and it seems to me as though the two ages have not been properly considered as a major interpretive grid.  More recently, Elliot Johnson has tried to weaken the thrust of this argument by pointing out that since so many interpreters of the New Testament cannot precisely agree upon what is entailed by the terms “the already” and the “not yet,” it must be because the terms fail to clarify what is already fulfilled and what remains yet to be fulfilled (Elliot E. Johnson, “Prophetic Fulfillment: The Already and the Not Yet,” in Willis and Master, eds., Issues in Dispensationalism, 188).  

The solution to this over-stated dilemma is to connect the terms the “already and not yet” to the more concrete terms, “this age” and the “age to come.”  The already refers to the eternal blessings of the age to come which are realized in the present, while the not yet refers to the blessings of the age to come, yet to be realized in the consummation.  Neither dispensationalists, nor millennarians in general, can account for the significance of the biblical writers view of history as a non-millennarian and successive unfolding of two qualitatively distinct eschatological ages.

Adapted from my book, A Case for Amillennialism (Baker, 2003). Click here: Riddleblog - A Case for Amillennialism - Understanding the End

Jesus, the True Temple

When Jesus declared of himself, “I tell you, something greater than the temple is here,” (Matthew 12:6) and when he told a Samaritan woman that he can give her “living water” (John 4:10-14), we are given a major clue that the authors of the New Testament have reinterpreted the pre-messianic understanding of God’s temple in the light of the coming of Jesus, Israel’s Messiah.  

When we consider the fact that the temple occupies a major role in the witness of Israel’s prophets regarding God’s future eschatological blessing for the nation, and that this imagery points forward to person of Jesus, we are greatly aided in our understanding of the nature and character of the millennial age as a present reality.

We begin with the Old Testament expectation regarding the temple of the Lord.  Both Isaiah 2:2-4 and Micah 4:1-5, speak of God’s future blessing upon Israel in the last days, when God’s people will go up to mountain of the Lord, and to the temple, where God’s people will once again learn the ways of the Lord.  

In Isaiah 56, we read of those who hold fast to God’s covenant (v. 4), and who love the name of the Lord and keep his Sabbaths (vv. 6-8).  They will be brought to the holy mountain and house of the Lord, which is that temple and the house of prayer for all the nations (v. 7).  A similar vision is given in Isaiah 66:20-21.  Here we are told that the Israelites will bring their grain offerings to God’s temple, and God will renew his priesthood (vv. 20-21).  In Zechariah’s prophetic vision, we learn that one day the sacrifices of Israel will once again be offered and will be acceptable to God (Zechariah 14:16-19).

With all of this prophetic expectation in the mind of virtually every Jew living in Palestine in the first century, it is no wonder that Jesus’ declaration of God’s judgment upon the temple–“Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down” (Matthew 24:2)–came as such a shock and offense.  How dare this man say that all of this expectation of a glorious temple is fulfilled in him.  Speaking of himself, Jesus said, “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). 

It was not until after Christ’s resurrection that the meaning of these words became plain–when Jesus spoke of the destruction of the temple, he was speaking of his own body (John 2:22).  This is what he meant when he said that one greater than the temple has come!

Furthermore, there is the Old Testament prophecy of a new and glorious temple, found in Ezekiel 40-48.  Ezekiel envisions a future time for God’s people in which the temple will be rebuilt, the priesthood will be re-established, true sacrifices will once again be offered and the river of life will flow forth from the temple.  How we interpret this prophecy will have a significant bearing on the question of whether or not there will be a future millennial age upon the earth.
    
It should come as no surprise that dispensationalists believe that this prophecy will find a literal fulfillment in the millennial age.  According to J. Dwight Pentecost, “the glorious vision of Ezekiel reveals that it is impossible to locate its fulfillment in any past temple or system which Israel has known, but it must await a future fulfillment after the second advent of Christ when the millennium is instituted.  The sacrificial system is not a reinstituted Judaism, but the establishment of a new order that has its purpose the remembrance of the work of Christ on which all salvation rests.  The literal fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy will be the means of God’s glorification and man’s blessing in the millennium” (J. D. Pentecost, Things to Come, Zondervan, 1978, 531).

Sensitive to the traditional amillennial criticism that such images of perpetual animal sacrifice and temple worship after the second advent of Jesus undercut his saving work, especially given the fact these aspects of Mosaic economy of the Old Testament are fulfilled at calvary,  Pentecost is careful to argue that Ezekiel’s prophecy is not connected a renewed Mosaic economy, but to an entirely new order, one which commemorates the saving work of Christ in the distant past.

Again, because Pentecost is committed to a “literal fulfillment” of Old Testament prophecies, and because he is aware that the Christ’s own redemptive work fulfills the typology of the Mosaic economy, Pentecost is forced to argue that temple worship in the millennial is associated with a wholly new order.  

But is this what the authors of the New Testament teach us about these prophecies?  Elsewhere, the New Testament teaches that Christ is the true Israel and David’s greater son (Click here: Riddleblog - The Latest Post - Amillennialism 101 -- Jesus Christ: The True Israel).  It is in Christ’s church--as Jesus' mystical body--that we find the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies regarding Jerusalem and the Mountain of the Lord.  The promise of a land, will be fulfilled in a new heaven and earth in the consummation (cf. Romans 4:13; Hebrews 11:9-10).  The New Testament clearly teaches that Christ is the New Temple and that any new order of commemoration involving the ceremonies typical of the earthly temple found in a future millennium, can only commemorate the types and shadows, not the reality.

This presents a serious problem for dispensationalists, who argue, in effect, that redemptive history takes a U-turn in the millennial age, as the reality which is in Christ now supposedly returns to the types and shadows of the Old Testament.

How, then, is the temple imagery from the Old Testament fulfilled by Jesus Christ in the New?  In Exodus 40:34, we are told that the glory of the Lord filled his temple.  When viewed against the overall backdrop of redemptive history, we can see how this pointed forward to the day of Pentecost, when, through the indwelling Holy Spirit, the glory of the Lord filled his true temple, the mystical body of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12 ff.–cf. Kline, Structure of Biblical Authority, 194).  

If Christ’s body is the true temple–as Paul puts it, “For we are the temple of the living God” (2 Corinthians 6:16)–what use remains for an a future literal temple?  That to which the temple had pointed, is now a reality through the work of the Holy Spirit.  Why return to the type and shadow?

It is also clear from chapters 8-10 of Hebrews, that in his death, Jesus fulfilled the priesthood typology of the Old Testament, and in his own blood, he puts an end to the sacrificial system, once and for all!  Says the author of Hebrews, “Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man” (Hebrews 8:1-2).  

If the reality to which the Old Testament sacrifices and priesthood pointed is to be found in this true sanctuary and tabernacle in heaven, why look for a return to the shadows in the form of an earthly temple, which served throughout Old Testament revelation to point us to this very heavenly scene?

Contrary to the view of dispensationalists, the prescribed New Testament commemoration of the ratification of the New Covenant is not to be found in a new order of temple worship, an order which includes a new temple, a new priesthood and further animal sacrifice, supposedly yet to be reinstituted in an earthly millennial kingdom.  Rather, when Jesus utters the words of institution, “this is my body, this is my blood, do this in remembrance of me,” he institutes the divinely-approved method of commemoration of his sacrificial work, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.  It is in this way that the people of God feed on the savior through faith and commemorate his doing and dying on their behalf.

When Jesus tells the Samaritan women that he can give her living water and that “everyone who drinks from this water will never be thirsty again,” Jesus is self-consciously declaring that he fulfills that prophetic image of which Ezekiel had foretold in the thirty-seventh chapter of his prophecy, when he spoke of the water flowing from the sanctuary (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Eerdmans, 1971,  259-261).  If Jesus is the true temple of God, then he alone gives us that “living water” which takes away the thirst of human sin and longing.
    
Therefore, the dispensationalist’s insistence upon a return in the millennial age to the shadows and types associated with the Old Testament prophetic expectation, amounts to a serious misunderstanding of the very nature of redemptive history.  By arguing for a new commemorative order based upon Old Testament typology and yet to begin in the millennial age, dispensationalists see the future not as a consummation, but as a return to the past.  And this, of course, sadly obscures the person and work of Christ by seeing the ultimate reality not in him, but in those types and shadows which were destined to perish when the reality himself entered the theater of redemption.

Jesus Christ: The True Israel

If we stand within the field of prophetic vision typical of Israel’s prophets after the exile and captivity, and with them we look to the future, what do we see?  Israel’s prophets clearly anticipate a time when Israel will be restored to its former greatness.  But will that restoration of the nation of Israel to its former glory mirror the days of the monarchy?  Or does the monarchy itself point us to the monarch?

Such a prophetic vision includes not only the nation, but the land of Canaan, the city of Jerusalem, the throne of David, as well as the temple in Jerusalem.  Since the nation had been divided and the people were hauled off into captivity in Babylon some five centuries before the coming of Jesus, the magnificent temple destroyed and the priesthood gone, such prophetic expectation related to Israel’s future quite naturally spoke of a reversal of fortune and the undoing of calamity which had come upon the nation.  

But with apostolic hindsight Peter speaks of how “concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.  It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.” (1 Peter 1:10-12).

In Isaiah 41:8-9, the prophet spoke of a future restoration of Israel in these terms.  “But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, `You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off.'”  The same promise is reiterated in the next chapter of Isaiah (42:1-7), when the LORD declares of his servant, “I am the Lord; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations”( v. 6).  Isaiah continues to speak of this servant in chapters 44 (vv. 1-2) and 45 (v. 4).

Dispensationalists, given their so-called "literal hermeneutic," are bound to interpret such passages literally, thereby assign the fulfillment of these prophecies of Isaiah to a future earthly millennium in which Israel co-exists with Gentiles under the reign of the Davidic king (See Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, 302-304; and Pentecost, Things to Come, 503-508).   In effect, this amounts to the restoration of the monarchy as Jesus takes his place on David's royal throne and rules the nations from this restored Israel.

But is this how the New Testament interprets these messianic prophecies regarding the servant of the Lord?  Who is this servant of the Lord?  It is the nation of Israel, or is it Jesus, Israel’s Messiah?

In order to answer this questions, we must see that the gospel writers interpret these prophecies from Isaiah as fulfilled in the messianic mission of Jesus.    First, in Matthew 12:15-21, for example, when Jesus withdrew from the crowds who had followed him, Matthew reports that this event fulfilled what had been spoken in Isaiah the prophet.  This event serves to demonstrate that Jesus is the true servant of the Lord.

Second, as Jesus cast out demons and healed the sick, Matthew saw in this the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies of a suffering servant who would take upon himself our infirmities and carry our diseases (Matthew 8:17 with Isaiah 53:4).

Third, in Luke’s gospel, Luke speaks of both Israel (cf. Luke 1:54) and David as the servant of God (Luke 1:69).  Yet in Acts, Luke pointedly speaks of Jesus as the servant of God (Acts 3:13).  After his crucifixion, God raised Jesus from the dead so that people everywhere might be called to repentance (3:26).

Fourth, when the Ethiopian eunuch hears a reading from Isaiah 53:7-8 and asks Philip about whom this prophecy refers, Luke tells us that Philip informed the Ethiopian that this passage does indeed refer to Jesus (Acts 8:34-35).

But this is not all that is in view here.  In Hosea 11:1, Hosea predicted a time when “Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.”  But in Matthew 2:15, the evangelist tells us that Hosea’s prophecy was fulfilled when his parents took Jesus to Egypt to protect him from Herod’s “slaughter of the innocents” (Matthew 2:3-18).  Yet, after Herod had died, God called Jesus and his family to return to Nazareth.  Matthew takes a passage from Hosea, which clearly refers to Israel, and tells his reader that this passage is now fulfilled in Jesus Christ!  He does this to prove to his largely Jewish audience that Jesus is the servant of the Lord, foretold throughout the Old Testament (especially Isaiah).

By now it should be clear that according to many New Testament writers, Jesus is the true servant, the true son and the true Israel of God.  Recall too that it was Isaiah who spoke of Israel and the descendants of Abraham as the people of God.  It as through the seed of Abraham that the nations of the earth would be blessed.  

Therefore, even as Jesus is the true Israel, he is the true seed of Abraham.  This is the point that Paul is making in Galatians 3:7-8, when he says “know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.  And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, `In you shall all the nations be blessed.'”  

Paul’s words here, are important for several reasons.  First, Paul tells us that Abraham believed the very same gospel that he preached to the Gentile Galatians.  There has only been one plan of salvation and one gospel from the very beginning.  This, of course, raises very serious questions about the dispensational notion of “clearly distinct” redemptive purposes for national Israel and the Gentiles, as is evident when Paul goes on to say in Galatians 3:29, that “if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.”  

Second, the one gospel promise from the very beginning of redemptive history is that the true children of Abraham, whether they be Jew or Gentile, are heirs of the promise, if they belong to Jesus Christ, the true seed of Abraham.  But as Robert Strimple points out, an important word of clarification is certainly in order.  “We [amillennarians] say: `Yes, the nation of Israel was the people of God in the old covenant.  Now in the new covenant the believing church is the people of God.’  And thus we quickly run past (or we miss the blessed point entirely) the fact that we Christians are the Israel of God, Abraham’s seed, and the heirs to the promises, only because by faith, we are united to him who alone is the true Israel, Abraham’s one seed.”  (See Strimple, “Amillennialism,” in Bock, ed., Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond, 89).

The ramifications for this upon one’s millennial view should now be obvious.  If Jesus is the true Israel of God, and if the New Testament writers apply to Jesus those Old Testament prophecies referring to Israel as God’s son or servant, then what remains of the dispensationalist’s case that these prophecies remain yet to be fulfilled in a future millennium? They vanish in Jesus Christ, who has fulfilled them!

For more information, Click here: Riddleblog - A Case for Amillennialism - Understanding the End