III. THE SOLEMN RATIFICATION OF THE COVENANT

The ratification ceremony described in Genesis 15:9-17 when compared with near Eastern custom indicates that God alone obligated Himself to fulfill the terms of the covenant since only He walked between the pieces of the sacrificial animals. The significance of that is striking: it means that God swore fidelity to His promises and placed the obligation on their fulfillment on Himself alone. Abraham made no such oath; he was in a deep sleep, yet aware of what God promised (see Cleon L. Rogers, Jr., “The Covenant with Abraham and Its Historical Setting,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 127:241-56). Clearly the Abrahamic Covenant was not conditioned on anything Abraham would or would not do; its fulfillment in all its parts depends only on God’s doings.

IV. ALLEGED CONDITIONS IN THE COVENANT

The unconditionality of the Abrahamic Covenant furnishes an important support for premillennialism, since the land promise needs a future time (the Millennium) in which it will be fulfilled. Therefore, amillennialists allege that there were in fact conditions attached to the fulfillment of the covenant which make it impossible to view the covenant as unconditional.

A. Genesis 12:1

The imperative, “Go forth from your country,” expresses a condition that would have invalidated the covenant if Abraham had not obeyed. However, grammatically this imperative, followed by two imperfects and a series of cohortative imperfects in verses 2-3, expresses an intention, namely what God intended to do for Abraham. Other examples of this use are found in 30:18 and 45:18.

B. Genesis 12:2

The phrase “be a blessing” is seen by some to be a condition for fulfillment of the covenant. However, grammatically this expresses a consequence which is expected to occur with certainty or an intention. The Genesius, Kautzsch, Cowley Hebrew grammar cites this passage as an example of intention ([Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1898], p. 325).

C. Genesis 17:1

Some understand “walk before Me” as a condition for fulfillment of the covenant. However, the grammar is the same is in 12:1 and expresses intention.

D. Genesis 22:16-18; 26:5

Since the covenant has been firmly established several times before these events, it would be incongruous to view these passages as conditions imposed after the clear statements of unconditionality. Rather, in these instances God acknowledged the worthiness of Abraham to remind him and his descendants that faith and obedience were necessary for participation in the benefits of the unconditional promises of the covenant (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978], pp. 93-4).

V. VIEWPOINTS AS TO THE FULFILLMENT OF THE COVENANT

A. The Amillennial Viewpoint

Amillennialism teaches that all the provisions of the covenant have been fulfilled, including the land promise. This is done either by spiritualizing the land promise so that the church fulfills it, or by seeing it fulfilled in Israel’s past history. One such supposed fulfillment occurred in the days of Joshua. In Joshua 21:43-45 we read that God told Joshua that He had now kept the promises made to Israel in giving them the land which He promised to their fathers. Of course, they did not possess the land of Canaan forever, nor had they fully conquered it at that time. But, those considerations aside, God did declare that what had happened was a fulfillment of the covenant. How could this be? In the several statements of the covenant the land promised was both from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates (Gen. 15:18) and the land of Canaan (17:8). The former, which was greater, included the latter, which was smaller. Under Joshua the Israelites in no way occupied the larger limits of the land, but they had staked their claim to the land of Canaan. So neither promise has been fulfilled everlastingly.

The same is true for the alleged fulfillment of the land promise under King Solomon (1 Kings 4:21). Though Solomon’s kingdom was extensive, he did not reign over all the territory promised to Abraham, nor did he do it eternally.

Perhaps an illustration will help. Suppose I promise to pay for a student’s entire college education. This might normally mean four one-year payments. At the end of the first year I could say that I have kept my promise. And I could even say (like Gen. 26:5), because you have made such good grades I am happy to pay the next year’s tuition. The larger promise of paying for the total education includes the lesser promises to pay for each year’s expenses.

The larger promise of the land between the two rivers includes the land of Canaan and the territory Solomon ruled, but it does not mean that the land of Canaan or Solomon’s kingdom is equivalent to the larger area.

Please observe the inherent self-contradiction of the amillennial position. If the covenant is conditional, then even the amillennialist does not need to look for a fulfillment in the days of Joshua or those of Solomon. If the covenant was fulfilled in either of those times, then it was not conditional. If it was fulfilled under Joshua or Solomon, then the church does not fulfill it. If the church fulfills it, then one need not look for a fulfillment in the days of Joshua or Solomon. It would appear that the amillennialist needs to have the spare tires of possible fulfillments under Joshua or Solomon or by the church in case the argument for conditionality goes flat!

A novel approach to the fulfillment of the land promise was proposed by Anthony Hoekema who sees multiple fulfillments of the land promise during Israel’s history but an ultimate antitypical fulfillment on the new earth. He expands the Promised Land to include the entire earth and the recipients of the promise to include all the redeemed. He clearly denies any fulfillment on the present earth during a future Millennium (The Bible and the Future [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], pp. 206-12, 274-87).

B. The Premillennial Viewpoint

Premillennialism insists that all the provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant must be fulfilled since the covenant was made without conditions. Much of the covenant has already been fulfilled and fulfilled literally; therefore, what remains to be fulfilled will also be fulfilled literally. This brings the focus on the yet-unfulfilled land promise. Though the nation Israel occupied part of the territory promised in the covenant, she has never yet occupied all of it and certainly not eternally as the covenant promised. Therefore, there must be a time in the future when Israel will do so, and for the premillennialist this will be in the coming millennial kingdom. Thus the Abrahamic Covenant gives strong support for premillennial eschatology.

I. THE PROVISIONS OF THE COVENANT (2 SAM. 7:12-16)

David desired to build a temple for the Lord to replace the temporary tentlike tabernacle. Since David himself lived in a house of cedar, it seemed only fitting that there be a more permanent building for the worship of God. But God revealed to Nathan the prophet that He had something far greater in mind for David, and that revelation is the Davidic Covenant.

A. Promises Related to David

1. Descendants. David would have a son who would succeed him and establish his kingdom (v. 12).

2. Kingdom. David’s house, throne, and kingdom would be established forever (v.16). However, the covenant did not guarantee uninterrupted rule by David’s family though it did promise that the right to rule would always remain with David’s dynasty. The Babylonian Captivity did, of course, interrupt the Davidic rule.

B. Promises Related to Solomon

1 Temple. Solomon, rather than David, would build the temple (v. 13a).

2. Throne. The throne of Solomon’s kingdom would be established forever (v. 13b).

3. Punishment. He would be chastened for his sins, but not deposed (vv. 14-15).

God did not promise specifically that the posterity of David would be through the line of Solomon. Jeconiah (or Coniah), one of Solomon’s descendants, was decreed by God to be “childless” (Jer. 22:30). Actually Coniah had seven sons (perhaps adopted, 1 Chron. 3:17-18), though none occupied the throne.

Thus as far as a continuing dynasty was concerned, Coniah was “childless.” His line did retain legal throne rights which were claimed for Jesus through His legal father Joseph (Matt. 1:7, 12, 16).

Again it is important to remember that these promises were made unconditionally. Still some attempt to deny that it was unconditional, claiming that the covenant could be broken and citing the “if,” (KJV) in 2 Samuel 7:14 and verses like 1 Kings 2:4; 8:25; 9:4-5; Isaiah 24:5 and Ezekiel 16:59. The resolution is simply this: “The ‘breaking’ or conditionality can only refer to personal and individual invalidation of the benefits of the covenant, but it cannot affect the transmission of the promise to the lineal descendants. This is why God would staunchly affirm His fidelity and the perpetuity of the covenant to David in spite of succeeding rascals who would appear in his lineage. For in that case, He ‘finds fault with them’ but not with His Abrahamic-Davidic-New Covenant” (Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978], p. 157).

II. OLD TESTAMENT CONFIRMATION OF THE COVENANT

Actually all Old Testament passages which describe the Messiah as King and His coming kingdom confirm the promises of the Davidic Covenant. All the royal psalms, for example, give more information about the Davidic kingdom (Pss. 2, 18, 20-21, 45; 72; 89; 101; 132; 144). Psalm 89:3-4, 19-37 provides strong confirmation of the immutability of the covenant. It seems almost as if God was anticipating the amillennial claim that the kingdom promise should be spiritualized into the church when He said that even though chastisement for sin would come, the covenant would not be broken or altered (vv. 32-34).

A number of passages in Isaiah also predict and describe the visible, earthly kingdom promised in the Davidic Covenant. Isaiah predicted the reign of Messiah “on the throne of David and over his kingdom” (9:7). In other places he describes some of the characteristics of that kingdom (chaps. 11; 24-25; 54; 60-61).

Other significant Old Testament promises concerning the Davidic kingdom include Jeremiah 23:5-6; 30:8-9; 33:14-17, 20-21; Ezekiel 37:24-25; Daniel 7:13-14; Hosea 3:4-5; Amos 8:11; and Zechariah 14:4, 9.

III. NEW TESTAMENT CONFIRMATION OF THE COVENANT

The crucial question concerning the New Testament evidence about the kingdom is this: did the teachings of Christ or the apostles in any way change or alter the Old Testament concept of an earthly kingdom? At the time of our Lord’s first advent the national hope for a kingdom was exceedingly strong among the Jewish people. The terms “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven” were on everyone’s lips. The chief characteristics of this kingdom in the conception of the Jewish people were that it would be: (a) earthly, (b) national, (c) messianic,(d) moral, and (e) future. This meant: (a) on this earth, (b) specifically related to the nation Israel, (c) ruled on by the personal presence of Messiah, (d) with high, God-given standards, and (e) not yet in existence. Did the teachings of the Lord or others change this conception?

A. In The Preaching of John The Baptist

His message was simplicity itself: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:1-2). His emphasis was on repentance and not on describing the kingdom, though his preaching confirmed the promises of the Davidic Covenant.

B. In The Preaching of Christ

Gabriel announced to Mary that God would give to her Child the throne of His father David and rulership over Israel forever (Luke 1:31-33). The magi sought the “King of the Jews” (Matt. 2:2). Our Lord proclaimed the kingdom was at hand (4:17, 23; 9:35). He insisted on righteousness for entrance into the kingdom (5:20). He also commissioned the seventy disciples with this same message (Luke 10:1-9).

However, as His message continued to be rejected by the people, and especially by their leaders, our Lord introduced the mysteries of the kingdom (Matt. 13). These described aspects of the kingdom not revealed up to that time, for they describe what form the kingdom would take between the first and second advents of Christ. Did this mean that the Davidic kingdom would take a new form with the church fulfilling the promises made to David? No, for the simple reason that the Lord continued to speak of the Davidic kingdom to the end of His earthly life (note esp. 25:34). Also, when the disciples questioned the Lord just before His ascension concerning when the kingdom promised to Israel (not to the church) would come, He did not tell them that the kingdom had been changed to the church, but only said that He could not reveal the time when the kingdom would come (Acts 1:6-8). In other words, whatever form the kingdom would take in the present age (i.e., the mysteries of the kingdom) would not change or abrogate the promises of the Davidic Covenant concerning the future, earthly kingdom.

Thus the teaching of the New Testament confirms the Davidic Covenant.

I. EVENTS SURROUNDING THE END OF THE CHURCH AGE

A. Increasing Apostasy

The term “last days” covers the entire period from the first to the second advents of Christ (Heb. 1:2). Defection and apostasy, among other things, will characterize that entire period (2 Tim. 3:1). So the presence of apostasy is not in itself indicative of the end of the Church Age, but the increase of it is Apostasy is both present and future when the climactic apostasy will occur which leads to the religious reign of the man of sin during the Tribulation period (2 Thes. 2:3). We may expect apostasy to become increasingly widespread as we draw nearer to the Tribulation days.

1. The doctrinal characteristics of apostasy. These include at least three: (a) a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity (1 John 2:22-23); (b) a denial of the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ (1 John 2:22; 4:3; 2 John 7). In John’s day this took the form of denying the true and real humanity of Christ, though it also takes the form of denying the true deity of Christ. Rejecting either the Trinity or the Incarnation denies the existence of the God-Man which is essential to our salvation. If Jesus Christ were not a man He could not have died; but if He were not also God, that death could not atone for sins; (c) a denial of the doctrine of the return of Christ (2 Peter 3:4).

2. The Lifestyle characteristics of apostasy. Defection in doctrine always brings a decline in morals. Paul lists eighteen characteristics of such declension in 2 Timothy 3:1-5. They are: love of self, love of money, a spirit of pride, blasphemy, disobedience to parents, lack of thankfulness, lack of holiness, lack of natural affection, unceasing enmity so that men cannot be persuaded to enter into treaties with each other, slander, lack of self-control, savagery, opposition to goodness, traitors, headiness (rashness or recklessness), high-mindedness, love of pleasure, a pretense of worship without godliness of life.

B. Preparation for the Ecumenical Church

During the first part of the Tribulation days, organized, ecumenical religion will have its heyday. This apostate religious system is described in Revelation 17 under the label, “Mystery, Babylon.” It will be worldwide (v. 15), unfaithful to the truth and to the Lord (the term “harlot” appears in vv. 1, 5, 15-16), have extensive political clout (vv. 12-13), be a “whited sepulcher,” that is, be inwardly corrupt while outwardly glorious and splendid (v. 4), and will persecute the saints of the Tribulation days (v. 6).

The groundwork for such a system will apparently have to be laid before the Tribulation begins, that is, during the closing years of the Church Age. The preparation will likely include both organizational moves toward unity in Christendom as well as the ascendancy of doctrines to which diverse groups can give support.

II. THE RAPTURE OF THE CHURCH

A. The Concept of The Rapture

Our modern understanding of rapture appears to have little or no connection with the eschatological event. However, the word is properly used of that event. Rapture is a state or experience of being carried away. The English word comes from a Latin word, rapio, which means to seize or snatch in relation to an ecstasy of spirit or the actual removal from one place to another. In other words, it means to be carried away in spirit or in body. The Rapture of the church means the carrying away of the church from earth to heaven.

The Greek word from which we take the term “rapture” appears in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, translated “caught up.” The Latin translation of this verse used the word rapturo. The Greek word it translates is harpazo, which means to snatch or take away. Elsewhere it is used to describe how the Spirit caught up Philip near Gaza and brought him to Caesarea (Acts 8:39) and to describe Paul’s experience of being caught up into the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2-4). Thus there can be no doubt that the word is used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 to indicate the actual removal of people from earth to heaven.

B. The Components of The Rapture (1 Thes. 4:13-18)

1 The return of Christ (v. 16). The Lord Himself will return for His people, accompanied by all the grandeur His presence deserves. There will be a shout of command (whether uttered by the Lord or an archangel is not stated), and the trumpet of God will summon the dead in Christ to their resurrection as well as sounding a warning to those who have rejected Him and thus have missed the Rapture.

2. A resurrection (v. 16). At this time only the dead in Christ will be raised. This means believers since the Day of Pentecost, for though there were believers before then, none of them were placed “in Christ.” The dead in Christ will be raised just before the living are changed. Yet both groups will experience their respective changes “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye” (1 Cor. 15:52). The entire procedure will be instantaneous, not gradual. The word for “moment” is the word from which the word “atom” comes. Because when the atom was discovered it was thought to be indivisible, it was named “atom.” Even though subsequently the atom was split, the word retains its meaning of indivisible. The resurrection of the dead and the translation of the living will occur in an indivisible instant of time.

3. A rapture (v. 17). Strictly speaking, only living believers are raptured (though we use the term to include all that happens at that time). This means they will be caught up into the Lord’s presence without having to experience physical death.

4. A reunion (v. 17). The reunion will be with the Lord and with the loved ones who have died.

5. A reassurance (v. 18). The truth of the Rapture both comforts and encourages us (for the word does have both meanings).

Paul’s descriptions of the Rapture in both 1 Corinthians 15:51-58 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 give no support to the partial Rapture view which teaches that only spiritual believers will be raptured at several times during the Tribulation period. Paul states clearly that “we shall all be changed” at that time, and he wrote those words to the Corinthians, many of whom could hardly be called spiritual.

III. EVENTS OF THE TRIBULATION PERIOD

Since the Scriptures describe so many events during the seven years of Tribulation, and since I would like to try to put them all together in as nearly a chronological sequence as possible, I think it would be best to do this in the following chapter.

IV. EVENTS AT THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST

A. The Second Coming

At the climax of the campaign of Armageddon, the Lord will return to this earth to judge and to reign. His return is described in Zechariah 14:1-11 and Revelation 19:11-16. It is referred to in many other passages, but these two give the most detailed description of it.

B. The Judgments at The Second Coming

These will be discussed in a separate chapter.

THE TRIBULATION PERIOD

I. ITS UNIQUENESS

In describing the period of the Great Tribulation, the Lord said it will be a time “such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall” (Matt. 24:21). It will be a time of trouble unique in the history of the world. There have been many difficult times since the Lord spoke these words, and He Himself warned the disciples, “In the world you have tribulation” (John 16:33). What is it, then, that makes this future period different? How will the Great Tribulation be unique?

Two characteristics will distinguish the Tribulation from all other hard times that the world has seen. First, it will be worldwide, not localized, as stated in the promise of deliverance (Rev. 3:10) and as described in detail in the judgments of the Revelation. The intense local persecutions and calamities of this present day cannot be the beginning of the Tribulation, for that time will affect the entire world.

Then too the Tribulation will be unique because of the way men act. In one of the early judgments, men will hide themselves in the dens and caves of the mountains and say, “Fall on us, and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb” (6:16). When the Great Tribulation comes, men will act as if they think the world is coming to an end.

For years some men have been talking as if they thought the end were near, but at the beginning of the Tribulation they will realize that the end is actually at hand. Scientists, politicians, and even church leaders warn today that the end of human history could be upon us, and even use the term “Armageddon,” but people are not behaving as if they believe it. Real estate is being bought and sold, savings are being accumulated, and plans are continually being made for the future. But when the Tribulation comes, people will hide in bomb shelters and will actually seek death rather than try to preserve life. The future, in those days, will hold no attraction.

The uniqueness of the Tribulation lies in its being worldwide and in its terror, which will cause men to want to die rather than live. For a time during the Tribulation, even suicide will be impossible, forcing men to live.