========================================================================
  WRITINGS OF EUGENE KIMBLE
  by Eugene Kimble
========================================================================

A collection of theological writings, sermons, and essays by Eugene Kimble,
compiled for study and devotional reading.

  Chapters: 4

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 00.00. Titles/Contents
    2. S. Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible
    3. S. Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Principles Of Progressive Revelation
    4. S. The Prophetic Time Frame In The Day Of The Lord Prophecies

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 00.00. TITLES/CONTENTS
========================================================================

Kimble, Eugene - Library

S. Alleged Descrepancies in the Bible

S. Biblical Theology Hermeneutical Principles of Progressive Revelation

S. Prophetic Time Frame of the Day of the Lord Prophecies


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: S. ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES IN THE BIBLE
========================================================================

Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible Eugene Kimble, Ph.D.

Some critics of the Bible say there are discrepancies in the numbers found in
the Bible, therefore the Bible is unreliable and not accurate. I propose that
such alleged discrepancies in the numbers reported in the Bible can be resolved
with diligent study and illumination by the Holy Spirit.

Here are ten examples of alleged numeric discrepancies and their resolutions
that prove this hypothesis:

1. How many soldiers did Joshua send to ambush Ai? 30,000 or 5,000? a. He sent
30,000 men the night before the battle, Joshua 8:3-9. b. The next morning he
sent another 5,000 reinforcements to conceal themselves in the immediate
precincts of the town, Joshua 8:10-13 2. How much did Solomon pay the King of
Tyre for materials and labor that Hiram provided for the temple at Jerusalem? a.
1 Kings 5:8-11 (NASB) is Solomon’s payment to Hiram’s royal household. b. Ezra,
in 2 Chronicles 2:10, records the amount Solomon paid Hiram’s servants who did
the actual work.

3. How many men did Adino the Eznite slay? 2 Samuel 23:8; 1 Chronicles 1:1. a. 2
Samuel may well be referring to a different person and/or a different event than
that noted in 1 Chronicles. Read both texts carefully. b. If both books should
refer to the same person, Adino could have slain 800 on one occasion and 300 on
another.

4. How much did David actually pay Araunah for his threshing floor/temple site?
a. In obedience to God’s Word through the prophet Gad, David bought the
threshing floor and oxen (paying 50 shekels of silver) in order to offer a
propitiatory sacrifice to stay a devastating plague – 2 Samuel 1:1-25 b. In the
second instance (1 Chronicles 21:18-30; 1 Chronicles 22:1-6), Ezra combines the
first purchase of the oxen and threshing floor for 50 shekels of silver with
David’s later purchase of the entire site (for an additional 600 shekels of
gold) as a place to build the temple (See 1 Chronicles 21:25 and 1 Chronicles
22:1 ff).

5. How many males, twenty years old and upward, were in the tribe of Simeon? a.
At the first census they numbered 59,300 (Numbers 1:23) b. At the second census,
about 40 years later, there were 22,200

(Numbers 26:14)

Answer: In his prophecy concerning each of the twelve tribes, Jacob had foretold
that Simeon would not prevail but would be scattered in Israel

(Genesis 49:5-7). Then just prior to the second census, God sent a plague upon
Israel, destroying twenty-four thousand men because of their immorality and
idolatry with the daughters of Moab (Numbers 25:1-18, Numbers 26:1). Because
Zimri, a prince of Simeon (Numbers 25:14), was a main participant in this
rebellion again the Most High, we probably should conclude that the majority of
the rebels slain in the plague were Simeonites. Because of these factors the
tribe of Simeon declined in numbers over the forty-year span, whereas the other
tribes maintained a relatively stable population.

6. How many people did the Lord strike down in the small town of Beth- shemesh?
“[God} struck down some of the men of Beth-shemesh because they had looked into
the ark of the Lord. He struck down of all the people 50,070 men, and the people
mourned because the Lord had struck the people with a great slaughter” (1 Samuel
6:19, NASB. Cf. NIV). a. According to the Hebrew, “He struck down of all the
people, 70 men [and] fifty sW†à† (aleph) men. b. sW†à† (aleph) is hard to
translate in some contexts because it has several different meanings. It does
not always mean 1,000 (10 x 100). It may mean:

(1) Cattle (herd), Deuteronomy 28:4, Deuteronomy 28:18, Deuteronomy 28:51, etc.
(à is the Hebrew letter “A,” taken from the pictogram of a steer’s face and
horns). Perhaps, since most of Israel’s cattle were domesticated, selT (a form
of sW†à†) was used to designate a docile, gentle lamb, (Jeremiah 11:19), a close
friend, (Psalms 55:13), or a woman’s husband, (Proverbs 2:17)

(2) selT also designated the chief of a clan, (1 Chronicles 1:51). Apparently
since sW†à† can mean “herd (unit) of cattle” then óeJà‡ “chief” is the head of a
group (unit) of people.

(3) Family, clan, unit, group. In 1 Samuel 10:19 “thousands” (the plural form of
óI†à†) in the KJV is translated “clans” in the NIV and NASB because the context
clearly defines “thousands” (1 Samuel 10:19, KJV) as “clans [extended families]”
(1 Samuel 10:21). Also, In Numbers 1:16; Numbers 10:4; Joshua 22:21, Joshua
22:30; 1 Samuel 23:23; Micah 5:2, the KJV has “thousands” where the other major
versions have “clans, families.” Further, in Judges 6:15 “My family” in the KJV
is literally “My thousand” (étÄIÀ`Ç) in the original. But in Numbers 10:36 the
major versions rightly have ”thousands.”

Conclusion: 1 Samuel 6:19 might mean that God struck down at Beth- shemesh
seventy men and fifty of their cattle, which would have been “a great slaughter”
for a small town. This view is probably the correct one because:

(1) Beth-shemesh was just a small town. (2) If 50,070 referred only to people,
the round number of 50,000 would likely have been used. (Cf. 2 Samuel 10:18 and
1 Chronicles 19:18 below, and many other references, where very large numbers
are usually round numbers). (3) “The 70 stands before the 50,000, which is very
unusual,” K-D, Vol. V, p.68. Like English, the Hebrew language, when combining
two numbers, normally puts the larger number first. This usual order would hold
true if the meaning is “70 men and 50 of their cattle,” but not for 70 men and
50,000 men. (4) The footnote in the New King James Version, dated 1990, states,
“6:19a Or ‘He struck seventy men of the people and fifty oxen of a man.’”

7. How many charioteers, horsemen, and foot soldiers were slain in David’s
battle with the Syrians? a. “700 charioteers . . . and 40,000 horsemen,” (2
Samuel 10:18) “7,000 charioteers and 40,000 foot soldiers,” (1 Chronicles 19:18)
b. As shown above in 6-b (3), aleph, the Hebrew word for thousand, also has the
meaning of unit: i.e., family, tribe, clan, cattle, etc. (Cf. Judges 6:15; 1
Samuel 10:19-21; Deuteronomy 28:4, Deuteronomy 28:18, Deuteronomy 28:51, etc.).

(1) 2 Samuel records 700 charioteers slain, whereas 1 Chronicles records that 7
óI†à† (units) of charioteers were slain. That is, 2 Samuel 10:18 defines the
charioteers as being seven hundred in number, whereas 1 Chronicles 19:18 defines
them as being seven units in number. This interpretation is reasonable, because
when writing the Hebrew text, the scribe would be unlikely to confuse the number
100 (èBàîÅ) with the number 1,000 (óIÆàÆ).

(2) Of the 40,000 slain part were horsemen and part were foot soldiers, with
each author setting forth a different part of the whole. (Cf., Matthew, Mark,
and Luke’s history of Jesus’ ministry, where each writer often gives only part
of the whole). Also, cf. the biblical use elsewhere of a part for the whole
(synecdoche, e.g., Php 2:10-11) and the whole for a part (e.g., Mark 1:5).

8. Some alleged discrepancies are simply the Scripture’s way of stating the
statistic as a round number. a. Genesis 15:13 states that Israel would sojourn
in Egypt four hundred years. Later revelation in Exodus 12:40 gives the exact
time as four hundred and thirty years. b. Numbers 25:7-9 gives the number of
those who died of the plague as

24,000. 1 Corinthians 10:8 gives the total as 23,000. The actual number could
have been between 23,000 and 24,000 slain. c. 1 Kings 7:26 says the Sea (holding
water to cleanse both priests and burnt offerings) held two thousand baths. 2
Chronicles 4:5 says the Sea held three thousand baths. The Sea probably held
around 2,500 baths. d. Compare: “Then all Jerusalem was going out to [hear] him
(i.e., John Baptist), and all Judea, and all the district around the Jordan,”
(Matthew 3:5).

9. How many sons did Abraham have? “By faith Abraham, when God tested him,
offered Isaac as a sacrifice . . . his one and only son,” (Hebrews 11:17, NIV).
a. Abraham had many sons, Genesis 25:1-6. b. Genesis 22:2, “Take now your son,
your only son, whom you love, Isaac.” The Hebrew word for “only”(ãéç”éŸ) also
has the meaning of “beloved, favored, precious,” (Psalms 35:17, (NIV), Proverbs
22:20, etc).

Conclusion: Abraham gave gifts to his other sons and sent them away from Isaac
(Genesis 25:6). “Only” son shows that Isaac was first in rank, or first in
importance to God’s Messianic program. See Victor P. Hamilton, Genesis, The New
International Commentary on the Old Testament, II, 122, Note 10, “Isaac was
Abraham’s uniquely precious son, but not his only begotten.” F. F. Bruce,
Hebrews, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 311, “Isaac was
unique and irreplaceable.”

10. Saul’s regnal age and length of reign in 1 Samuel 13:1. a. I`ÅøˆNÀP IKÇ
jIÇîÈ äðÈLÈ ézÅLŠŠŠŠe BëIšî˜aš IeàL˜ äðˆLˆ

ïa–. See the various translations. b. Literal translation: “Saul was the ‘son of
a year’ (äðÈLˆ ïá–) when he began his reign, and he reigned two years over
Israel,” 1 Samuel 13:1 a.

(1) When the Bible speaks of a one-year reign, or one-year span of time, the
Hebrew reads úç—à— äðŸLˆ (one year), as in 2 Kings 8:26; 2 Chronicles 22:2 (also
compare Exodus 23:29-30, 2 Chronicles 9:13; Ezra 1:1; Ezra 5:13; Ezra 6:3, etc).

(2) The dozens of times äð˜L˜ ïá– (son of a year) occurs elsewhere than in 1
Samuel 13:1 it always refers to a mature, yearling animal, as in Exodus 12:5;
Numbers 7:15ff, and etc.

(a) A yearling is an animal between one and two years old.

(b) “If it was already a yearling (NEB), then it was fully grown as well,” Alan
Cole, Exodus, TOTC, 106.

(c) “A year old, because it was not till then that it reached the full, fresh
vigor of its life,” Keil and Delitzsch, II, 11.

(3) The Passover Lamb typified Christ (1 Corinthians 5:7).

(a) Who began His ministry when He was fully grown (Luke 3:23; Exodus 12:5).

(b) Slain by the people, not by the priest (Exodus 12:6).

(c) His blood gave redemption to the people (Exodus 12:7, Exodus 12:13).

(d) Was without defect (Exodus 12:5; cf. 1 Peter 1:18-19).

(e) When partaking of Him, we are to set our heart on leaving the world (Exodus
12:11).

Conclusion: “Saul was a fully mature man when he began to reign,”

(i.e., somewhere between thirty and forty years old, 1 Samuel 13:1 a. See NIV,
its footnote, and NASB translations on 1 Samuel 13:1 a).

(1) Immediately after Saul’s reign began, He was sufficiently powerful to rescue
the city of Jabesh Gilead from Nahash (1 Samuel 11:1-11).

(2) “Then Saul reigned two more years,” (1 Samuel 13:1 b) in order to solidify
his kingship before taking on the much more powerful Philistines. (Cf. 1 Samuel
13:2 with 1 Samuel 13:5-7). Also, He had enemies among his own people the Jews
(1 Samuel 10:27) whom he wished to win over as allies before going to war (1
Samuel 11:12-13).

(3) The Philistine war in 1 Samuel 13:2-10 undoubtedly occurred in the early
part of Saul’s reign. This might imply that 1 Samuel 13:1 also refers to the
first part of Saul’s reign.

(4) Translation: “Saul was a fully mature man when he became king. Then when he
had reigned two years over Israel, Saul choose three thousand men from Israel
[to do battle with the Philistines],” 1 Samuel 13:1-2. This translation fits the
context and culture, while doing justice to and preserving the integrity of the
Hebrew text

(5) Interestingly, of the major translations, the KJV (“Saul reigned one year;
and when he had reigned two years over Israel, Saul choose him three thousand
men of Israel [to do battle with the Philistines].”) best translates the Hebrew
text, although it fails to catch the “fully mature” (yearling) meaning of ben
shanah ( äð˜L˜ ïa–, “son of a year”).

Conclusion: We are to accept the original text God has preserved for us.
Changing the text only results in confusion of the author’s intended meaning
rather than enlightenment. With some diligent study and the Holy Spirit’s
illumination, most so-called discrepancies can be easily resolved.

© Copyright, Biblical Studies Ministries International, Inc., April 2003.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: S. BIBLICAL THEOLOGY: HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES OF PROGRESSIVE REVELATION
========================================================================

Introduction To interpret the Bible properly, one’s hermeneutical principles
must be based upon a correct understanding of biblical revelation. For some
years now, God has been illuminating His Church with the understanding that
biblical revelation is progressive.1

1 Joseph Addison Alexander, Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, reprint, 1953), II, 91; Thomas Dehany Bernard, The Progress
of Doctrine in the New Testament – Eight Lectures Delivered before the
University of Oxford on the Bompton Foundation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961);
John Edward Carnell, The Case for Orthodox Theology (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1959), 52-64; James Orr, Revelation and Inspiration (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952); J. Barton Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 18-19; Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical
Interpretation (Boston: W. A. Wilde Company, 1956), 101-104; W. Graham Scroggie,
Ruling Lines of Progressive Revelation (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott,
Ltd., n. d.); Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, Old and New Testaments (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 14; and “The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and
as a Theological Discipline,” www.bsmi.org, 7; Daniel B. Wallace, “New Testament
Eschatology in the Light of Progressive Revelation: Special Focus on the Coming
Kingdom,” www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/nteschat; Benjamin B. Warfield,
“Revelation,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1960), IV, 2576, 2577.

However, an unbiblical view of progressive revelation has been proposed by the
religious evolutionists, who recognized the progressive waves upon the surface
of the divine ocean, but viewed evolutionary development as the cause.2 They
assumed that Israel’s religion, along with that of the pagans, arose from
polytheism and then gradually progressed in the minds of the Israelites into a
monotheistic concept. This view is advocated by W. O. E. Oesterley and Theodore
H. Robinson, who say, “Hebrew religion, as the study of Semitic Comparative
Religion abundantly proves, was very closely related to the religion of all the
Semitic nations; indeed it was made up of elements common to the religions of
all early Semites.”3 Thus they believe that biblical revelation is a record of
man’s search for God and not the scriptural view of God’s revealing Himself to
man in infallible words.

2 On page 24 of his book, The Modern Use of the Bible (New York: Macmillan,
1924), Harry Emerson Fosdick uses the term “progressive revelation.” What he
really means by it, however, is the evolutionary development of man’s religious
thinking, as he makes plain in A Guide to Understanding the Bible (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1938), ix.

3 Hebrew Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1930), xvii.

Neither does neo-orthodoxy rise higher than classical liberalism in its view of
biblical revelation. For example, Karl Barth’s view of the inspiration of
Scripture closely parallels that of Oesterley and Robinson.

Not for all ages and countries, but certainly for our own, it is part of the
stumbling- block that like all ancient literature the Old and New Testament know
nothing of the distinction of fact and value which is so important to us,
between history, on the one hand, and saga and legend on the other…But the
vulnerability of the Bible, i.e., its capacity for error, also extends to
religious or theological content…It amounts to this, that, as we see it, many
parts, especially of the Old Testament, cannot be accepted as religious and
theological literature, but only as documents of secular legislation and history
and practical wisdom and poetry, although the Synagogue and later the Church
claimed to find in them witness of Revelation 4

4 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Part 2 The Doctrine of the Word of God (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956), I, 1, 203.

Both of these views hold that man’s search for God evolved from much error mixed
with little truth to less error mixed with more truth. J. Barton Payne comments,
“The Old Testament is thus made [by liberal theologians] to conform to the
contemporary thought patterns of the pagan world and to an assumed evolutionary
progress.”5 So, neither classical liberalism nor neo-orthodoxy has any concept
of an authoritative, final revelation of God to man in infallibly recorded
words, for both maintain that revelation is imperfect and still continues.6 5
Payne, op. cit., 527, 528.

6 Barth, op. cit., 23; Fosdick, A Guide to Understanding the Bible, op. cit.,
xiv. In contrast to classical liberalism and neo-orthodoxy, biblical progressive
revelation with its organic unity of Scripture requires perfection of doctrine
at every stage, from Genesis to Revelation. A valid, that is to say, biblical,
definition of the proper attitude toward progressive revelation is given by
Bernard Ramm and Geerhardus Vos:

By progressive revelation we mean that the Bible sets forth a movement of God,
with the initiative coming from God and not man, in which God brings man up
through the theological infancy of the Old Testament to the maturity of the New
Testament.7 7 Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Boston: W. A. Wilde Company,
1956), 102. The truth of revelation, if it is to retain its divine and absolute
character at all, must be perfect from the beginning. Biblical Theology deals
with the product of a supernatural divine activity, and is therefore bound by
its own principle to maintain the perfection of revealed truth in all its
stages.8

8 “The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline,”
op. cit., was Dr. Vos’ inaugural address as Professor of Biblical Theology in
Princeton Seminary, May 8, 1894.

Both definitions firmly reject any evolutionary development of biblical truths
by describing revelation as God’s action, not man’s quest.

Organic Growth of Revelation As other growth, progressive revelation is (1)
organic, (2) periodic, and (3) climactic. By being organic, revelation is
understood to be absolutely perfect at all stages of progression; therefore, it
can increase in complexity and quantity but not in quality as Vos notes:

It is sometimes contended that the assumption of progress in revelation excludes
its absolute perfection at all stages. This would actually be so if the progress
were non- organic. The organic process is from seed form to the attainment of
full growth; yet we do not say in the qualitative sense the seed is less perfect
than the tree. The feature in question explains further how the soteric
sufficiency of the truth could belong to it in its first stage of emergence: in
the seed form the minimum of indispensable knowledge was already present.9 9
Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1959), 15-16. The DNA in the apple seed has all the information needed
to progress from a seed to a seedling to a sapling to a mature, apple-bearing
tree. Because of its organic nature, the seed is not less perfect than the
full-grown tree. An untrained eye examining a seed might not conclude that it
would develop into a fruit tree. But it will, because of the indispensable
minimum of information contained in its DNA. Similarly, the first revelation has
in seed form all the truth of later stages. Apple seeds and God’s revelation
both grow just as Jesus illustrated the growth of God’s Kingdom:

This is what the Kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground.
Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though
he does not know how. All by itself the soil produces grain—first the stalk,
then the head, then the full kernel in the head, (Mark 4:26-28, NIV).

Moreover, Scripture’s organic nature is demonstrated by the progressive
revelation of salvation through the Lamb of God from Genesis to The Revelation:

In Genesis the lamb is a necessity. The lamb is the sacrifice slain by an
offended, yet compassionate, LORD God to provide salvation for our guilty
ancestors (“The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and
clothed them,” Genesis 3:21). Then, Abel “brought of the firstlings of his
flock,” (Genesis 4:4; cf. Hebrews 9:22). Later, God provided a lamb as a
substitute to die in the place of Isaac whom his father Abraham had been
instructed to slay, ([God] “said, take now your son, your only son, whom you
love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt
offering…and Abraham went and took the lamb and offered him up for a burnt
offering in the place of his son,” Genesis 22:1-19). In Exodus the lamb has
efficacy. God had promised that when He came in judgment upon the land of Egypt,
if He saw the lamb’s blood sprinkled upon the doorpost, “When I see the blood I
will pass over you” (Exodus 12:13). The sprinkled lamb’s blood effects
deliverance from God’s judgment for all who take refuge under it, then and now.
In Leviticus the lamb has purity (without blemish): “take two male lambs without
blemish and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish…and the priest shall
offer the sin offering, and make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed
from his uncleanness” (Leviticus 14:10; Leviticus 14:19). This unblemished
yearling male represented the perfection of the species, even as did Christ who
was “a lamb unblemished and spotless” (1 Peter 1:19) and “who has been tempted
in all things as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). The blood of both the
type (the lamb) and the reality (Christ) made atonement for sin, which was not
merely a covering for sin (the older sense) but a true “at-one-ment” with God.10
(10 See R. H. Harrison, Leviticus, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 67.) In Isaiah the lamb has personality.
At this point in God’s progressive revelation, the Lamb becomes a man: “He was
pierced for our transgressions,” (Isaiah 53:5, NIV) and “led like a lamb to the
slaughter” (Isaiah 53:7, NIV) and “cut off out of the land of the living for the
transgression of my people” (Isaiah 53:8). The personified Lamb’s “grave was
assigned with wicked men” (Isaiah 53:9), after which “the LORD will prolong His
days” (Isaiah 53:10) by resurrection to life, followed by great honor from God
(Isaiah 53:12).

All earlier revelation of the lamb reaches its full maturity and development in
the New Testament. H. D. McDonald concurs, “All the ideas surrounding the figure
of the lamb built up through the progressive revelation of the Old Testament may
indeed go into the concept as it occurs in the New Testament.”11

11 “Lamb of God,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1984), 618-619.

In the Gospel of John the Lamb is identified. The personified lamb in Isaiah is
revealed by John the Baptist to be the promised “Messiah” (John 1:41), even
“Jesus…the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Heaven
itself testifies to the power of the Lamb’s blood to cleanse from sin. “After
this I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count…clothed in
white robes…These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and have
washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Revelation
7:9; Revelation 7:13-14). Thus both John the Baptist and John the Apostle took
all guesswork out of our quest for a personal Savior. In the Gospel accounts,
the Lamb is crucified, telling us in what manner His blood would be “poured out
for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28; cf. Is. 53:5; 1 Peter
1:18-21) and as a result His death would establish God’s “new covenant” with His
Church (Luke 22:20). In the Epistles the lamb is typified. To instruct us that
the Passover lamb with its efficacious blood pointed directly to Jesus, the Holy
Spirit moved Paul to write, “For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed”
(1 Corinthians 5:7). Peter also under the Spirit’s inspiration added more detail
to the effectiveness of the Lamb’s blood to cleanse every sin, “Knowing that you
were not redeemed with perishable things…but with precious blood, as of a lamb
unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ” (1 Peter 1:18-19). In Revelation
five the Lamb is magnified with worship (Revelation 5:8; Revelation 5:14) and
praise from all creation (Revelation 5:11-13), because “with your blood You
purchased men for God” (Revelation 5:9). In Revelation twenty-two the Lamb Jesus
is glorified because of His own inherent worth and obedience in bringing mankind
into rulership in God’s Kingdom through the cross. He and the Father sit upon
one “throne of God and of the Lamb” as co-rulers over the eternal Kingdom of
God, (Revelation 22:3). In this manner, salvation through the Lamb progressed
from seed form in Genesis (“the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his
wife,” Genesis 3:21) to the attainment of full growth and development in The
Revelation (“worthy [is the Lamb]…because you were slain and with your blood you
purchased men for God,” Revelation 5:9, NIV; and “the throne of God and of the
Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him; and they will see His
face, and His name will be on their foreheads…and they will reign forever and
forever,” Revelation 22:3-5). This last revelation in which the Lamb rules
jointly with His bond- servants over the eternal Kingdom of God clearly shows
that justification is not an end in itself, but that salvation through the Lamb
is God’s means to bring fallen, sinful men into rulership in His eternal Kingdom
(cf. Romans 8:16-17; Revelation 5:9-10), where God had intended for man to be
from the very beginning (Genesis 1:26; Hebrews 2:5-8).12

12 This is the revised form of a previous article I wrote on “The Lamb of God,”
with thanks to H. D. McDonald for help with assonance in the Old Testament part.
Ibid.

Vos likewise illustrated the organic nature of Scripture by demonstrating the
progressive revelation of salvation through the covenants.

Although the knowledge of God has received material increase through the ages,
this increase nowhere shows the features of external accretion, but throughout
appears as an internal expansion, an organic unfolding from within. The elements
of truth, far from being added one to the other in lifeless succession, are seen
to grow out of each other, each richer and fuller disclosure of the knowledge of
God having been prepared by what preceded, and being in its turn preparatory for
what follows…each subsequent increase consisted in what was germinally contained
in the beginning revelation. The Gospel of Paradise is such a germ in which the
Gospel of Paul is potentially present; and the Gospel of Abraham, of Moses, of
David, of Isaiah and Jeremiah, are all expansions of this original message of
salvation, each pointing toward the next stage of growth, and bringing the
Gospel idea one step nearer to its full realization. In this Gospel of Paradise
we already discern the essential features of a covenant relation, though the
formal notion of a covenant does not attach to it. And in the covenant-promises
given to Abraham these very features reappear, assume greater distinctness, and
are seen to grow together, to crystallize as it were, into the formal covenant.
From this time onward the expansive character of the covenant-idea shows itself.
The covenant of Abraham contains the promise of the Sinaitic covenant; the
latter again from its very nature gives rise to prophecy; and prophecy guards
the covenant of Sinai from assuming a fixed, unalterable form, the prophetic
word being a creative word under the influence of which the spiritual, universal
germs of the covenant are quickened and a new, higher order of things is
organically developed from the Mosaic Theocracy, that new covenant of which
Jeremiah spoke, and which our Savior brought to light by the shedding of His
blood. So dispensation grows out of dispensation and the newest is but the
fullest expanded flower of the oldest.13 13 Vos, “The Idea of Biblical Theology
as a Science and as a Theological Discipline,” op. cit., 7.

Scripture further manifested its organic nature through the progressive
unfolding of the doctrine of the Trinity: beginning in Genesis (“Let Us make man
in Our image, according to Our likeness,” Genesis 1:26); continued by the Angel
of the LORD in Exodus (“My name is in him,” Exodus 23:21); and further developed
in the virgin-born Son (Is. 7:14) who would be the “Mighty God, Eternal Father,”
(Exodus 9:6). The perfect seed form of earlier revelation concerning the Trinity
burst into full bloom in the New Testament which identified Jesus Christ as the
“only begotten [Son, Himself] God” (John 1:18, author’s translation), who
fulfilled the Old Testament prophecy of the coming virgin-born Son who would be
God in human flesh (Is. 7:14; 9:6; cf. Matthew 1:23). Later revelation
associated Jesus with the manifested Trinity (Matthew 3:16-17) and then
furthered the progression by revealing the glorified Jesus Christ in heaven
receiving equal worship with the Father (Revelation 5:13-14) and the two
reigning co-equally upon one “Throne of God and of the Lamb” (Revelation 22:3)
over the universal kingdom of God “forever and forever” (22:5). Robert H. Mounce
comments on Revelation 5:13, “The praise of the entire created order is
addressed to the One who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb. Throughout the
Apocalypse the two are regularly joined.”14 Leon Morris concurs with Mounce,

This song ends by linking Him that sitteth upon the throne with the Lamb. The
two are joined in a way which is characteristic of this book (Revelation 6:16;
Revelation 7:9-10; Revelation 7:17; Revelation 14:1; Revelation 14:4; Revelation
21:22-23; Revelation 22:1; Revelation 22:3). There cannot be the slightest doubt
that the Lamb is to be reckoned with God and as God.15 14 Robert H. Mounce, The
Book of Revelation, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 150.

15 The Revelation of St. John, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1981),

102. The Holy Spirit, of course, appears in The Revelation as the One who speaks
to the churches through Christ’s Word (Revelation 2:7; etc.) and is manifested
there as the “seven lamps of fire burning before the Throne, which are the seven
Spirits of God” (Revelation 4:5, cf. Zechariah 4:1-6 where the seven lamps are
equated to the one Spirit).

Further still, the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the Old and New
Testaments should not be viewed as inferior old covenant empowering by God’s
Spirit in believers’ lives versus a richer, fuller new covenant empowering. One
is the earlier and germinal revelation of the Spirit’s work, and the other is a
later, fuller, and more detailed revelation of the earlier universal
principle.16 After all, Old Testament believers were indwelt by the Spirit (1
Peter 1:11), filled with the Spirit (Exodus 35:31; Numbers 27:18), empowered by
the Spirit (Judges 13:25; Judges 14:19), spoke by the Spirit’s power (Numbers
11:25-26; cf. Luke 1:67), wrote by the Spirit’s inspiration (Acts 4:25-26), and
at times grieved the Holy Spirit (Judges 16:17-20; Psalms 51:11). Can anyone
really find a major difference between Noah’s Spirit-empowered preaching to the
wicked people of his day (1 Peter 3:18-20; cf. 1 Peter 4:6; 2 Peter 2:5) and
that of Spirit-filled Peter’s proclaiming the Gospel to his rebellious
countrymen at Pentecost, or between Isaiah’s divine inspiration and that of
Paul? It seems somehow a little bit out of place to think that if Abraham,
Moses, Samuel, David, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, et al., had by the Spirit what
we have today, they would have really been blessed and more effective in God’s
work. God’s revelation and progressive illumination have always been divinely
given to meet the current needs of His people for further enlightenment and
spiritual strength. God’s grace in giving advanced revelation in the New
Testament and then later progressive illumination upon particular aspects of
certain truths might mean nothing more than our present rebellion against God
and the darkness of our spiritual understanding is much greater than that of
earlier generations. Divine revelation is also periodic with its growth periods
corresponding roughly to God’s giving of the several biblical covenants. These
divinely revealed truths develop organically in cycles of varying degrees and
times, with the degree of doctrinal growth depending upon the need for that
particular truth in the lives of God’s people. Lastly, revelation is also
climactic, which is to say, the doctrine reaches a stage where it is fully
developed. There may be later reflection upon it but nothing new is added. The
periodic and climactic characteristics of progressive revelation are
self-evident and require no further proof.17

16 Neither is there a difference in principle in the Old Testament statement
(“the Spirit came upon, fell upon”) and the New Testament phrase (“filled with
the Holy Spirit”). See Timothy Lin, How the Holy Spirit Works in Believers’
Lives Today, www.BSMI.org, 23.

17 Vos, ibid., 16.

Progressive Revelation Is the Key to Biblical Hermeneutics

“The concept of progressive revelation is the Key to Biblical hermeneutics,”
wrote Edward John Carnell.18 He then set down five hermeneutical rules to
interpret progressive revelation:

(1) The New Testament interprets the Old Testament, (2) The Epistles interpret
the Gospels, (3) Systematic passages interpret the incidental, (4) Universal
passages interpret the local, and (5) Didactic passages interpret the
symbolic.19 18 Edward John Carnell, The Case for Orthodox Theology
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1959), 52.

19 Ibid., 53-64.

Carnell’s rules are basically sound; but it is best to condense his five rules
into two, to add an entirely new one, and then to explain clearly their proper
use. Carnell’s first two rules can be shortened into one: (1) Later revelation
interprets earlier revelation. One principle of interpretation should be added
to Carnell’s list: (2) Earlier revelation elucidates later revelation.
Otherwise, the Old Testament would be unable to aid in interpreting the New
Testament. Then Carnell’s last three rules can be condensed into one: (3)
Individual instances, local application, and symbolic passages in biblical
revelation are to be interpreted according to universal principles. As deduced,
therefore, from the progressive and organic nature of revelation, three
Hermeneutical Principles20 by which to interpret Scripture are:

20 These principles relate only to the progressive nature of revelation as it
touches upon hermeneutics. Other rules and approaches must also be utilized to
arrive at a proper understanding of Scripture.

Principle One. Earlier revelation (e.g., the Lamb personified in Isaiah
fifty-three) should be interpreted according to later revelation of the same
truth (e.g., the Lamb identified and crucified in the Gospel accounts). Further,
not only should the “Lamb” in the New Testament interpret the “Lamb” in the Old
Testament, but within the Old Testament itself, Isaiah fifty-three interprets
the Passover Lamb in Exodus twelve, and both interpret God’s salvation implied
by “garments of skin” in Genesis 3:21. Further still, within the New Testament,
the revelation that the atonement of Christ makes possible our own
justification, sanctification, and glorification21 interprets more fully what
Christ Himself said, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for
many for the forgiveness of sins” and what Peter preached at Pentecost, “Repent,
and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of
your sins,” Acts 2:38. Hence, we should conclude, I would suggest, (1) there was
progression in biblical revelation before as well as after Christ’s earthly
ministry, and (2) all later revelation concerning a certain truth sheds light
upon earlier revelation of the same truth. Concerning the first conclusion
Daniel B. Wallace says, “I am simply arguing that we need to read the Bible in
light of the progress of revelation—not only between the testaments but also
within each testament. Even within the New Testament there is progressive
understanding.”22

Concerning the second conclusion, I will later argue that instead of using
earlier revelation to interpret the Apocalypse, as is frequently done, that book
should govern and guide all earlier interpretations of the same truth. This
principle applies to many truths (e. g., personal salvation through the Lamb of
God, the Trinity, the millennium, the full deity of Christ, the believers’
rulership in the eternal Kingdom of God, etc.). However, I will use the
Apocalypse primarily to interpret earlier revelation concerning the fact of the
Rapture, the judgment seat of Christ, and His Second Coming in the light of
progressive revelation.

21 See all of Romans 4:24 to Romans 8:29, but especially, “He was delivered over
to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification,” Romans
4:25, NIV; “For we know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the
body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to
sin,” Romans 6:6, NIV; “For those God foreknew He also predestined to be
conformed to the likeness of His Son,” Romans 8:29.

22 Wallace, op. cit., 2. This principle, that later revelation of a particular
truth interprets earlier revelation, extends from The Revelation to Genesis. For
example, the full revelation of God’s intention for man to be joint-heir with
the Lord Jesus Christ over the universal Kingdom of God is given in The
Revelation (“To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give
authority over the nations—He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash
them to pieces like pottery—just as I have received authority from my Father,”
Revelation 2:26-27; see also, Revelation 3:21; Revelation 5:10; Revelation 12:5;
Revelation 20:4; Revelation 21:7; Revelation 22:5); and clearly shows that God’s
original plan for man (“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according
to Our likeness; and let them rule…,” Genesis 1:26) has been brought to a
triumphant conclusion, despite man’s sinfulness and Satan’s schemes.

Principle Two. Conversely, earlier revelation (e.g., the Kingdom of God in the
Old Testament, Genesis 1:26 and subsequent passages) elucidates later revelation
of the same truth (e.g., the Kingdom in the synoptic Gospels and The
Revelation). Moreover, the sacrificial, atoning death of the Lamb in Exodus
twelve and Isaiah fifty-three strengthens the truth that Christ’s crucifixion
for sin was more than a mere moral example of selflessness, and that it
certainly was not just a first century method of explaining Christ’s death,
which, as a doctrine, is no longer binding.23 Rather, the Old Testament truth of
the Lamb’s substitutionary atonement (e.g., Is. 53:5-7) strengthens the later
revelation that Christ willingly gave Himself upon the cross to die for us
(Matthew 26:42) and then presented His Own blood to God the Father to placate
His holy wrath against our rebellion and sin (Hebrews 9:11-28). In fact,
“Hebrews nine and ten show that the same basic system of sacrifice underlies
both testaments.”24 23 Ramm, op. cit., 101.

24 Ramm, ibid., 229. The book of Hebrews’ description of the Old Testament
institution as a “figure,” a “copy,” and a “shadow”25 has reference to their
illustrating by visible means eternal realities which the New Testament further
explains through Christ’s death; however, the illustration (earlier revelation)
is by no mean inferior to the explanation (later revelation), for both are
simply means of revealing to man the eternal truth of God’s plan of salvation
completed before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8).

25 Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 9:23; Hebrews 10:1. The Old Testament serves as an
illustration to the New Testament in two ways. (1) It taught spiritual and moral
principles that are equally applicable to every age through the use of
historical events and symbolical ceremonies. (2) It prepared for New Testament
revelation through prophesying future events as well as illustrating them by
types. Old Testament history and poetry are written for didactic example for
every age (“Now these things happened [to Israel] as examples for us,” 1
Corinthians 10:6; cf. 1 Corinthians 10:11; Romans 15:4) and are a rich source
for devotional and homiletical study. For example, the lives of the main Genesis
patriarchs vividly portray the Christian’s spiritual life from beginning to end
with Adam representing the sinner saved by grace, Cain and Abel indicating the
distinction between lost and saved, Noah showing the deliverance from great
destruction that God’s grace brings (“But Noah found grace in the eyes of the
LORD,” Genesis 6:8 NKJV), Abraham demonstrating the trials and triumphs of
faith, Isaac suggesting the life and growth of sonship, Jacob evidencing the
responsibility of serving God through one’s life and work as a servant, and
finally Joseph representing the reigning with the powerful king (Genesis
41:38-43) which awaits every good and faithful servant of Christ (“He who
overcomes, and he who keeps my deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY
OVER THE NATIONS,” Revelation 2:26). Old Testament prophecy of Messiah’s virgin
birth (Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:6-7), Spirit-filled ministry (Isaiah 11:1-5; Isaiah
42:1-4), and death by crucifixion as the Suffering Servant (52:13-53:12) clearly
prepared the way for the Gospels. The Passover and the tabernacle served as
dramatic symbols of the future work of Christ as God’s Paschal Lamb slain for
sinners (“For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed,”1 Corinthians 5:7)
and as the victorious High Priest Who entered the eternal Holy of Holies once
for all on every sinner’s behalf (“He entered the holy place once for all…who
through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God,” Hebrews
9:12; Hebrews 9:14; cf. Hebrews 9:1-28; Hebrews 10:10-14; Hebrews 10:19-22). By
keeping in mind the organic nature of progressive revelation and carefully
avoiding allegorical or typological extremes, the Christian exegete can use the
historical and poetic sections of the Old Testament to illustrate eternal
principles for spiritual and moral living and can use Old Testament prophecy and
types to illustrate vividly Christ’s work. Because of its tremendous importance
in laying the foundation for the New Testament, it may be validly asserted that
no man can fully understand New Testament theology without an adequate
understanding of its Old Testament background.

Therefore, it is not hermeneutically sound to say that the New Testament
interprets the Old, without stating the converse, that the Old Testament
elucidates the New. In other words, later and earlier revelations of the same
truth strengthen and clarify each other. Without this second principle, the Old
Testament becomes useless as our authority for theology, preaching, and
practical living. Regarding this point, Ramm states as one of his rules of
hermeneutics, “The Old Testament must be continuously searched for help in
interpreting the New Testament.”26 J. C. K. von Hofmann adds:

Just as the Old Testament would lose its saving significance if its contents
were interpreted as ordinary history rather than as holy history, so also the
spiritual value of the New Testament would be diminished by such a purely
historical interpretation in which the antitypical character of its events and
the Old Testament forms of expressing its message were not appreciated.27 26
Ramm, op. cit., 116.

27 Interpreting the Bible, trans. Christian Press, (Minneapolis: Augsburg
Publishing House, 1959), 169.

Jesus never discredited the Old Testament but exalted it as the inspired eternal
Word of God whose basis principles are valid in every age. Anyone who disregards
the earlier revelation God gave in the Old Testament in any way is not following
the example of Christ.

Thus the organic nature of progressive revelation insures its perfection and
saving sufficiency at every stage. A lesser degree of detail does not mean
inferiority of revelation, neither should any part of Scripture ever be exalted
above another, but each should be treated as an integral part of an organic
whole that mutually strengthens and interprets each part.

Principle Three. Individual instances, local application, and symbolic
passages28 of revelation are to be interpreted according to universal
principles. Later revelation (e.g., the Epistles) elucidates earlier revelation
(e.g., the Gospels) in two ways: (1) by giving the divine interpretation of the
significance of the facts recorded in the Gospels and (2) by further applying
the ethical principles of Christ to the local problems of the church. This rule,
however, should not be applied in such a way as to consult only the Epistles for
a doctrine, because in every case to properly interpret a doctrine or moral
principle every reference to it in the Old Testament, the Gospels, and the
Epistles in a progressive order should be collected and examined in order to
establish the complete biblical teaching.

28 The interpretation of individual instances, local application, and symbolic
passages are Carnell’s rules 3 through 5. The organic whole of revelation is
made up of all the systematic passages and individual instances and thereby
forms certain universal principles that must be followed in interpreting each
particular revelation. Whereas certain passages deal with specific truths in a
systematic way (e.g., justification by faith in Romans and Galatians), other
passages deal with these truths only incidentally (e.g., 1 Peter 1:18-25;
Revelation 5:9). All of the passages related to a specific truth, whether
systematic or incidental, together make up the universal principle. This means
that the unity of the whole of revelation is tremendously important to proper
interpretation. J. C. K. von Hofmann’s comment is instructive:

“It is in its totality and intrinsic unity that [Scripture] forms the object of
Biblical hermeneutics.The foremost question is how the activity of the
interpreter of Holy Scripture is determined by the specific way in which he is
confronted by the Bible in its totality.”29 29 Op. cit., 18.

Further, the systematic passages in the Epistles (e.g., justification by faith
in Romans and Galatians) should interpret all the incidental references to this
doctrine (e.g., Php 3:6-9; Titus 3:5-7). But they cannot be used to explain all
other doctrines. Neither Romans nor Galatians systematically teaches reigning
with Christ; yet this is the ultimate end of justification.30

30 Revelation 5:9-10; Revelation 22:3-5. To teach justification as the ultimate
goal and chief emphasis of Christianity shows a two-fold error of failing to
understand the general theme of Scripture and of neglecting the progression of
illumination. The Kingdom is the theme of all Scripture from Genesis 1:26 to
Revelation 22:5, and justification is actually the means to the end of reigning
with Christ. Failure to emphasize the end leaves the Christian life after
justification with only a vague indefinite purpose. Since justification by faith
was the Reformation doctrine used by God at that time to be especially stressed
to correct the Catholic Church’s concept of justification by works, to insist
that it should be the chief doctrine emphasized in every age is to deny
progressive illumination, for in successive ages, as Strong has pointed out, God
has illumined men to explain certain doctrines never understood before to meet
the particular need of the times.31 Finally, the systematic principle of various
doctrines must be properly related to each other by comparison of their biblical
revelation; for example, the purpose of justification by faith, sanctification,
and glorification is to prepare the redeemed to reign with Christ (“His
bondservants will serve Him…the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign
forever and forever,” Revelation 22:3; Revelation 22:5). Hence, these doctrines
can never be completely understood except in light of their relation to the
Kingdom.

31 Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: The Judson Press,
1958), 340. Progressive revelation must be viewed as complementary and not as
contradictory to Systematic Theology. Both are tools enabling the interpreter to
better understand God’s Holy Scriptures.

Moreover, local application of revelation should be interpreted by the universal
principle. This principle is necessary for the practical use of the Bible as the
contemporary authority for the spiritual life, even though it was written to
meet particular needs in ancient times. The distinction must be made between
local application and the essential universal principle, or else Scripture has
no relevance for succeeding generations and diverse cultures. For example, the
solemn apostolic injunction for Christian women to have long hair and to wear
veils32 was a local application to teach, “The head of the woman is the man”;33
for in first century Corinthian society no virtuous woman wore short hair or
went unveiled. To obey the essential principle of subordination to the husband,
the Christian wife of Paul’s day needed to have long hair and to wear a veil;
however, in the twenty-first century a Christian wife does not need to wear her
hair by the first century style nor does she need to wear a veil in order to
obey the universal principle of the Pauline injunction. To insist that women
wear a heavy veil similar to that intended by Paul would certainly not per se be
a public testimony to the scriptural obedience of a wife to her husband.
Therefore, to understand proper application of Scripture to the present and to
avoid hindering the Gospel by extreme reactionary practices, every local
application must be interpreted in the light of its intended principle.

32 1 Corinthians 11:3-16.

33 1 Corinthians 11:3.

Finally, symbolic passages must be interpreted by the universal principle. The
universal principle for symbolic passages is obtained by means of first
understanding the symbol, then to take the definition of that symbol as clearly
stated in an obviously literal passage and to apply its meaning to a highly
figurative passage. For example, the Lamb who had been slain in Revelation
5:6-14 is identified by John 1:29 and 1 Peter 1:19 as Christ Jesus Himself. The
explanation of the vision of one like the Son of Man in Revelation 1:12-18 is
made plain by considering that over eighty times in the Gospels Christ called
Himself the Son of Man. Sometimes the interpreter must go as far back as Genesis
to get the incidental revelations. However, in making the final interpretation,
extra weight should be given to information the author places in his own book to
be sure the interpretation fits his context. Also, special attention should be
given to the use of double symbols in Scripture; for example, sin is pictured as
a crouching lion in Genesis 4:7, and Satan is clearly called a roaring lion in 1
Peter 5:8; yet in Revelation 5:5 Christ, “the Root of David,” is called “the
Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In every instance the local context of the symbolic
passage must determine the validity of the identification suggested by the
literal passage. Later, I will use this principle as an aid to interpret “Throw
out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place where will be
weeping and gnashing of teeth,” (Matthew 25:30).

Conclusion

Progressive revelation is not an evolutionary development of biblical truths but
a movement of God, with the initiative coming from Him and not from man, in
which God makes Himself, His Word, and His plans known to mankind by a gradually
advancing organic growth from perfect seed form to the full manifestation. Such
disclosure is perfect at every stage because of its organic nature and the
perfection of God. Because of its organic nature, possessing a minimum of
soteric knowledge at every stage, later revelation interprets earlier
revelation; and conversely, earlier revelation elucidates later revelation and
both hermeneutical principles can be illustrated by the progression of salvation
revealed through the Lamb of God, as well as through the covenant-idea existing
in Eden in germinal form and fully revealed in the new covenant which was
ratified at the cross by the shed blood of our Lord Jesus Christ (“and in the
same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured
out for you is the new covenant in My blood,’” (Luke 22:20).

All biblical truths progress as the historic, linear unfolding of the mind and
will of God—even prophetic/apocalyptic truths. Charles Augustus Briggs said more
than a century ago,

The [Olivet] discourse of Jesus…is intermediate between the apocalypse of Daniel
and the apocalypse of John. As it depends upon the former and advances upon the
Messianic idea contained therein so it is the prelude to the latter and the key
to its interpretation…We ought to expect that Jesus in His predictions would
bridge the time between the apocalypse of Daniel and the apocalypse of John, and
give an intermediate stage in the development of apocalyptic prophecy.34 34 The
Messiah of the Gospels (Edinburg: 1894), 132, 134.

Daniel B. Wallace speaks even more specifically to the topic I will address when
he writes,

Curiously, most students of the Bible assume progress between the Testaments,
but deny it within the New Testament. To be sure, the time frame is much
shorter. But there is ample evidence of progressive revelation within the New
Testament about several themes—that is, certain themes are not
developed/recognized until after some time (including the deity of Christ and of
the Spirit, the idea that our souls go immediately to heaven, the fact of the
rapture, etc.)35

35 www.Bible.org/docs/soapbox/netschat, 1. In his brief article, Dr. Wallace
gives the caveat, “The following rough essay is intended to be something to
think about; it is neither a polished piece nor altogether finalized in my own
thinking. I welcome interaction and criticism from all quarters.”

Therefore, I will use the first and second hermeneutical principles of
progressive revelation as an aid to interpret the fact of the Rapture, the
Judgment Seat of Christ, and the Second Coming of the Son of Man primarily in
the Gospels, the Epistles, and The Revelation with a glance at Daniel. Further,
when I get to Revelation 12:5 (“and she gave birth to a son, a male child, who
is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to
God and His throne”) I will use hermeneutical principle three of progressive
revelation as an aid to answer the question, “Who is this child?”

I am greatly indebted to Timothy Lin and his understanding of Biblical Theology.
This article is an expanded version of a paper I wrote for Problems of Old
Testament Interpretation, c. 1963. August 31, 2002

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture is 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."

Copyright © 2002 Biblical Studies Ministries International, Inc. All rights
reserved. You are welcome to download this without any charge. Furthermore, you
may photocopy this material by complying with our Reprint Policy at
www.bsmi.org. Direct all questions and comments to bsmi.org.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: S. THE PROPHETIC TIME FRAME IN THE DAY OF THE LORD PROPHECIES
========================================================================

The Prophetic Time Frame In The Day Of The Lord Prophecies Eugene Kimble, Ph.D.

“The Day of the Lord” is a sweeping phrase Scripture uses to describe God’s
intervention in human history. First, it may describe a divine visitation within
history: In Joel 1:15, it consists of a locust plague, datable to about the
eighth century B.C.1 In Isaiah 13:6-13 that Day relates to the taking of Babylon
by the Medes and Persians in 539 B.C. In Zephaniah 1:7 it concerns the
destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. Second, “the Day of the Lord” may be a
final divine visitation that climaxes history in which God assembles all pagan
nations to battle and ultimate destruction, delivers His people, and establishes
His royal rule. Zechariah vividly describes such a time:

Behold, a day is coming for the LORD when the spoil taken from you will be
divided among you. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to
battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished,
and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from
the city. Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when
He fights on a day of battle. And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount
of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives
will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that
half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the
south. And you will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the
mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the
earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the LORD, my God, will
come, and all the holy ones with Him! And it will come about in that day that
there will be no light; the luminaries will dwindle. For it will be a unique day
which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but it will come about that
at evening time there will be light. And it will come about in that day that
living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea
and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in
winter. And the LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will
be the only one, and His name the only one. Zechariah 14:1-9 (See also Isaiah
66:18; Ezekiel 38-39; Zechariah 12; Revelation 16:14-16; Revelation 19:11-21).

1 Roland Kenneth Harrison dates Joel in the fifth century B.C. Introduction to
the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1969), 876-79. That Day, also, may
involve a blessing (Joel 2:28-29), a curse (Joel 2:1-17) or both: an
eschatological and apocalyptic destruction of God’s enemies (Zephaniah 3:6-13)
and deliverance for His people (Zephaniah 3:11-20). It may involve cataclysmic
and cosmic upheavals (Joel 2:30-31) or come in a local and providential manner
(Joel 1:1 to Joel 2:28). It may both purify the saint (Jeremiah 46:28) and
exterminate the sinner (Jeremiah 46:10).2 Some have summed up “the Day of the
Lord” as “the day monopolized by Jehovah as His day of victory.”3 2 David W.
Baker, Obadiah, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 94.

3 Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 313

Or, as O. Palmer Robertson says, “On this day, He establishes His sovereign
lordship over men. Either by instituting the covenant or by enforcing the
provisions of the covenant, Yahweh manifests His lordship on that day.”4

4 O. Palmer Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, The New
International Commentary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990),
268 Telescoping Events In “the Day of the Lord” prophecies, chronologically
separate events are often telescoped, “which refers to the joining together in
one context events that are widely separated in their temporal
accomplishments.”5 For example, “the Day of the Lord” prophecy in Joel involved:
(1) a contemporary locust plague (1:1-2:27), (2) the outpouring of the Holy
Spirit at Pentecost (Joel 2:28-29; see Acts 2:17-21), and (3) the yet-to- come
final salvation of Israel and the overthrow of all pagan nations (2:30-3:21).
Joel placed these three prophecies in one context without any time
differentiation, which is a characteristic feature of biblical prophecy whether
the “Day of the Lord” phrase is used or not.6 5 J. Barton Payne, The Theology of
the Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 466.

6 O. Palmer Robertson, op. cit., 267.

Isaiah likewise prophesied without time indicators. He said that the
contemporary Syrian/Israelite war against Judah (“to tear it apart and divide it
among ourselves,” Isaiah 7:6) would ultimately fail. And it soon did. Isaiah
goes on to foretell that God would raise up a virgin-born child to deliver His
people Israel (Isaiah 7:14) and that the child would be God in the flesh, whose
shoulders would carry all government (Isaiah 9:6-7). The first prophecy was
fulfilled about 735 B.C., the second began about 2 - 4 B.C., and the latter part
of the third is still unfulfilled. Some of Isaiah’s other prophecies have also
yet to be realized (cf. Isaiah 11:1-16; Isaiah 66:17-24).

Writing of prophetic telescoping Ladd says,

Jesus spoke both of the fall of Jerusalem and of his own eschatological
parousia. [C. E. B.] Cranfield has suggested that in Jesus’ overview the
historical and the eschatological are mingled, and that the final eschatological
event is seen through the “transparency” of the immediate historical. The
present author has applied this thesis to the Old Testament prophets and found
this foreshortening view of the future to be one of the essential elements in
the prophetic perspective.7 7 George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 198.

Knowing that Old Testament prophecy often telescoped into one context events
separated widely in their temporal fulfillment will enable us to better
understand Matthew 24:1 to Matthew 25:46 where Jesus’ prophecy of the
destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Matthew 24:1-22; see also Luke 21:20) is
compressed into one context with the yet-to-come Rapture and the Second Coming
(Matthew 24:23 to Matthew 25:46). This telescoping could also apply to Paul’s
prophecy in 1 Thessalonians 4:13 to 1 Thessalonians 5:11 and 2 Thessalonians
1:5-10, where the Rapture and Second Coming prophecy may well be two
chronologically separate events compressed into one context. In fact, I will
argue later that such is exactly the case.

Foreshortening Time

Every system has principles and laws which are not necessarily applicable to
other systems. This is true of biblical prophecy’s reference to time in which,
not only are different chronological events telescoped into one context, but
there is also a foreshortening of time. Both “telescoping” and “foreshortening”
are time frames (with both, at times, occurring in the same biblical passage)
that make up the “prophetic perspective.” When prophesying of the coming
destruction of Babylon, Isaiah said (c.732 B.C.), “Wail for the day of the LORD
is near…I will stir up against them the Medes…Babylon, the jewel of
kingdoms…will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah” (Isaiah 13:6; Isaiah
13:17; Isaiah 13:19), which calamity occurred in 539 B.C., roughly 163 years
after Isaiah uttered, “the Day of the Lord is near.” Isaiah again said, “In a
very short time will not Lebanon be turned into a fertile field” (Isaiah 29:17
NIV) referring to Israel’s return home from the Babylonian exile in 539-538 B.C.
Moreover, the same prophecy in Isaiah 29:18 (“On that day the deaf will hear
words of a book, and out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind will
see”) and in Isaiah 29:23 (“But when he sees his children, the work of My hands,
in his midst, they will sanctify My name; indeed, they will sanctify the Holy
One of Jacob and will stand in awe of the God of Israel”) probably refers to the
Church era and was fulfilled about A.D. 30.8 Here we see not only a telescoping
of several events into one context but also a foreshortening of time, with the
phrase “In a very short time” often referring to events which could take
centuries, or even millenniums, to happen.

8 Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), II, 332.
For example, Zephaniah prophesied (c. 625 B.C.), “The great day of the LORD is
near—near and coming quickly” (Zephaniah 1:14 NIV), with the historical referent
probably being the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.9 However, the same
prophecy goes beyond Zephaniah’s historical proximity to God’s final judgment on
the nations (“‘Therefore wait for Me,’ declares the LORD, ‘For the day when I
rise up as a witness. Indeed, My decision is to gather nations, to assemble
kingdoms, to pour out on them My indignations, all my burning anger; for all the
earth will be devoured by the fire of My zeal,’” Zephaniah 3:8) and the
redemption of His people (“Shout for joy, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph,
O Israel!…The King of Israel, the LORD, is in your midst; you will fear disaster
no more. In that day it will be said to Jerusalem: ‘Do not be afraid, O Zion; do
not let your hands hang limp. The LORD your God is in your midst…Behold, I am
going to deal at that time with all your oppressors…At that time I will bring
you in…Indeed, I will give you renown and praise among all the people of the
earth,” Zephaniah 3:14-17; Zephaniah 3:19-20).10 9 David W. Baker, op. cit., 95.

10 O. Palmer Robertson, op. cit., 253-347. This prophetic time frame is not an
incidental, but a prominent, feature of biblical prophecy. Joel’s eighth century
prophecy “the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision” (Joel 3:14), is
yet to happen. A few more examples are: “Hyenas will howl in her strongholds,
jackals in her luxurious places. Her [Babylon’s] time is at hand, her days will
not be prolonged” (Isaiah 13:22 NIV). “My righteousness is near, my salvation
has gone forth, and My arms will judge the peoples” (Isaiah 51:5). Obadiah
foretold, “For the day of the LORD draws near on all the nations. As you
[nations] have done [to God’s people] it will be done to you,” (Obadiah 1:15),
spoken about 585 B. C. and partially fulfilled about 500 B. C. when the Arabs
expelled the Edomites from their ancestral homeland. The last verse of the
prophecy (Obadiah 1:21) is best understood as referring to the establishment of
the Millennial Kingdom, when God’s people will rule the earth under their
Messianic King.11 11 David W. Baker, op. cit., 43. In like manner, Ezekiel said,
“For the day is near, the day of the LORD is near…I will disperse the Egyptians
among the nations and scatter them through the countries…Then they [all Egypt]
will know that I am the LORD,” (Ezekiel 30:3; Ezekiel 30:26 NIV). Verse three
was fulfilled in Ezekiel’s time, but Ezekiel 30:26 is still future.12 And
finally, “Then all your people will be righteous; they will possess the land
forever, the branch of My planting, the work of My hand, that I may be
glorified. I the LORD will hasten it in its time,” (Isaiah 60:21-22). Edward J.
Young comments here, “although the work of God may seem slow to us,
nevertheless, in His own time He hastens it (i.e. He suddenly acts when men are
not expecting it).”13 Young’s concluding comment may explain why God used
foreshortening of time. In both the Old and New Testaments, it is one wonderful
method by which God keeps His people in every generation faithful to Him,
persevering in His cause, by setting up tension between imminence and delay in
the believer’s expectation of Christ’s Return. The stress on imminence is needed
in order to create a response of watchfulness in Christians’ lives. The delay is
needed for God to work His program, to train His people for the coming Kingdom
of God, and to show mercy upon mankind. The prophets (both Old and New
Testament) spoke to people in their historical situation and called upon them to
serve God without reservation as they awaited His salvation. In doing this,
prophecy took on a time-shortened perspective, allowing for both imminence and
delay of future events. Ladd sets forth the grand result: “it is the nature of
biblical prophecy to make it possible for every generation to live in expectancy
of the end.”14

12 John B. Taylor, Ezekiel, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove,
IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1969), 202, 205.

13 Young, Isaiah, III, 457 14 George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary of the Revelation
of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 22.

Conclusion

Understanding God’s telescoping of prophecy helps us to interpret New Testament
passages such as Matthew 24:1 to Matthew 25:46, where the destruction of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the Rapture of the Church and Christ’s Second Coming to
judge the nations follow the established “prophetic perspective.” Many scholars
recognize this telescoping feature in Matthew 15 What is seldom discussed,
however, is that the Rapture and Second Coming in both 1 Thessalonians 4:13 to 1
Thessalonians 5:11 and in 2 Thessalonians 1:3 to 2 Thessalonians 2:12 may well
be a case of events telescoped into one context that later revelation shows to
be distinct and chronologically separate.16

15 Robert H. Mounce, Matthew, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody MA:
Hendricksen Publishers, Inc, 1985, 1991), 228. See also George Eldon Ladd, The
Presence of the Future, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 64-70; J. Barton Payne,
The Theology of the Older Testament, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 466; and
David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, The New Century Bible Commentary, (London:
Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 323.

16 Michael J. Svigel, “The Apocalypse of John and the Rapture of the Church: A
Reevaluation” (www.bible.org). A version of Svigel’s paper was presented at the
Southwest Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Friday, April
7, 2000. Later a 50-page version was published in TrinJ, the Theological Journal
of Trinity Seminary. Wilber B. Wallis, “The Coming of the Kingdom, A Survey of
the Book of Revelation” (www.bsmi.org), 19-22, 36. This article appeared in
Presbuterion, The Theological Journal of Covenant Seminary. Both Svigel and
Wallis argue cogently that the rapture occurs in Revelation 12:5, and the Second
Coming happens some time later in chapter 19. If these scholars are correct, and
I believe they are, they provide significant reasons to believe that the Rapture
and the Second Coming are telescoped in both the Gospels and the Epistles.

Moreover, being aware of the prophetic perspective will help us to understand
more accurately such utterances by Paul as “The God of peace will soon crush
Satan under your feet” (Romans 16:20) and “Let your gentle spirit be known unto
all men. The Lord is near” (Php 4:5). Also, such awareness will enable us to
understand why Christ has not yet returned even though John wrote over 1900
years ago, “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show His
bondservants, the things which must soon take place…Blessed is he who reads and
those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written
in it, for the time is near” (Revelation 1:1; Revelation 1:3). And again,
“‘These words are faithful and true’; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of
the prophets, sent His angels to show to his bondservants the things which must
soon take place…and he said to me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of
this book, for the time is near,” (Revelation 22:6; Revelation 22:10).17 It
should be expected that a biblical prophet would write and speak from the time
frame references of his culture. This John does.

17 R. C. Sproul has a list of verses that speak of the “nearness of the last
days to the Apostles” and “References to the last times.” The Last Days
According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 86-88.

J. Stuart Russell exhibits a weak understanding of the prophetic time frame when
he writes,

If there be one thing which more than any other is explicitly and repeatedly
affirmed in the apocalypse, it is the nearness of the events which it predicts.
This is stated, and reiterated again and again, in the beginning, the middle,
and the end. We are warned that “the time is at hand”; “These things must
shortly come to pass”; “Behold, I come quickly”; “Surely I come quickly.” Yet,
in the face of these express and oft-repeated declarations, most interpreters
have felt at liberty to ignore the limitations of time altogether, and to roam
at will over ages and centuries, regarding the book as a syllabus of church
history, as almanac of politico-ecclesiastical events for all Christendom to the
end of time. This has been a fatal and inexcusable blunder.18

18 J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament
Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming, new ed. (1887; reprint, Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1983), 366.

George Eldon Ladd has a more accurate view of the biblical data:

These events are “soon” to “take place” (cf. 11:18; 22:10). These words have
troubled the commentators…The problem is raised by the fact that the prophets
were little interested in chronology, and the future was always viewed as
imminent. We pointed out in the introduction that the Old and New Testament
prophets blended the near and the distant perspectives so as to form a single
canvas. Biblical prophecy is not primarily three- dimensional but two; it has
height and breadth but is little concerned about depth, i.e. the chronology of
future events. There is in chronology a tension between the immediate and the
distant future; the distant is viewed through the transparency of the immediate.
It is true that the early church lived in expectancy of the return of the Lord,
and it is the nature of biblical prophecy to make it possible for every
generation to live in expectancy of the end. To relax and say, “where is the
promise of his coming?” is to become a scoffer of divine truth. The “biblical”
attitude is “take heed, watch, for you do not know when the time will come”
(Mark 13:33).19 19 George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John,
22-23.

C. H. Dodd agrees with Ladd, saying, “When the profound realities underlying a
situation are depicted in the dramatic forms of historical prediction, the
certainty and inevitability of the spiritual processes involved are expressed in
terms of the immediate imminence of the event.”20

20 C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (London, 1936), 71. See also Louis
Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1950), 150.

Henry Alford also concurs with Ladd: “He told them the attendant circumstances
of His coming; He gave them enough to guard them from error in supposing the day
to be close at hand, and from carelessness in not expecting it as near.”21 21
Henry Alford, “Matthew”, The Greek New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1958),
235.

One of the soundest rules of biblical interpretation is “The Analogy of
Scripture,” based on the principle that the Bible is its own best interpreter.
Since the Old Testament undoubtedly had a “prophetic perspective,” which
included telescoping of events and time foreshortening, those New Testament
passages with a prophetic time frame similar to the Old Testament passages
should be similarly interpreted, which is to say, the New Testament futuristic
phrases including such expressions as “the things which must shortly take
place,” (Revelation 1:1), and “Behold, I am coming quickly,” (Revelation 22:12)
are by the Analogy of Scripture principle to receive the same time frame
interpretation as “the Day of the Lord is near” utterances in the Old Testament.
Furthermore, since time foreshortening is a specific characteristic of prophecy,
John’s description of events in The Revelation as “things which must soon take
place” (Revelation 22:6) does not mean either that he was wrong or that all The
Revelation occurred in the very early history of the church. John was simply
being a first-century Jewish /Christian prophet who, like his Old Testament
counterparts, prophecied of “the Day of the Lord” (“to gather them together for
the war of the great day of God, the Almighty,” Revelation 16:14), and like them
he too used foreshortening of time in his futuristic utterances. This kind of
thinking may be difficult for the modern, occidental man, but it is consistent
with the biblical material. Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture is 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."

Copyright © 2002 Biblical Studies Ministries International, Inc. All rights
reserved. You are welcome to download this without any charge. Furthermore, you
may photocopy this material by complying with our Reprint Policy at
www.bsmi.org. Direct all questions and comments at bsmi.org


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/writings-of-eugene-kimble/
========================================================================