Interpreting Biblical prophecy is not exactly like reading the morning newspaper. To read Biblical prophecy is to encounter statements about mighty bulls of Bashan, strange composite beasts, armies of locusts, and cataclysmic events in the heavens and on earth. One doesn't often encounter language like that even in the more extravagant tabloids. Interpreting this sort of language is a challenge, especially since we are no longer surrounded by the cultural and linguistic context in which Biblical prophecy was originally given. Interpreting prophecy, however, is a challenge that every Christian should accept. All Scripture is profitable for doctrine and instruction, not just the easier to understand portions of Scripture.
The dispensationalist and the Reformed interpreter have basic disagreements about how the language of prophecy should be interpreted. It would be impractical to go through all the prophecies of Scripture in this chapter and to explain the differences between dispensational and Reformed approaches to their interpretation. A more practical approach would be to examine some of the general issues in the interpretation of prophecy as these relate to the basic differences between dispensational and Reformed prophetic interpretation.
A primary criticism that dispensationalists have of the Reformed interpretation of prophecy is that the Reformed interpreter treats prophecy with a different hermeneutic (i.e., system of interpretation) than he uses with the rest of Scripture. According to Dr. Walvoord, the non-dispensational interpreter "uses two methods of interpretation, the spiritualizing method for prophecy and the literal method for other Scriptures."1 According to Dr. Charles C. Ryrie:
What, then, is the difference between the dispensationalists' use of this hermeneutical principle [literalism] and the nondispensationalists'? The difference lies in the fact that the dispensationalist claims to use the normal principle of interpretation consistently in all his study of the Bible. He further claims that the nondispensationalist does not use the principle everywhere. He admits that the nondispensationalist is a literalist in much of his interpretation of the Scriptures, but charges him with allegorizing or spiritualizing when it comes to the interpretation of prophecy.2
In other words, the nondispensationalist position is simply that the literal principle is sufficient except for the interpretation of prophecy. In this area, the spiritualizing principle must be introduced.3
The basic issue here is the simple question of what was "normal" language when God spoke about the then distant future. Should we expect God to have spoken through the prophets about the then distant future with the same basic language that He used when He chronicled the history of the covenant people? Or should we expect a basic literary difference between Genesis and Zechariah, between 1 Samuel and Daniel, between the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse of John? Is the only literary difference between history and predictive prophecy that one looks at the past and the other at the future? Should we interpret predictive prophecy as if it were prewritten history or futuristic newspaper reporting? According to Reformed interpreters, there is a basic literary difference between historical chronicles and prophetic visions. Many Old Testament prophecies were given in dreams, visions, and dark sayings (Numbers 12:6-8) in which one should expect to find more figurative speech than in historical accounts or didactic literature. One should not interpret the prophets as if their message is in the simple literary form of prewritten history.
One of the greatest contrasts between the Reformed and dispensational understanding of "normal" language in the prophets revolves around the question of whether the prophets ever spoke of the future in terms of the past. The Reformed position is that God through the Old Testament prophets revealed selected truths about the then coming church age without revealing everything about the church age. There were certain mysteries about the church age that were not revealed until New Testament times, such as the believing Gentiles' becoming full members of the people of God under the new covenant without their submitting to the Mosaic ceremonial laws as Jewish proselytes. In the Old Testament prophets, God revealed these selected truths about the church age in the descriptive context of the basic Old Testament religious and political economy with which the prophets and their listeners were familiar. God prophetically spoke of the unknown future in terms of then known and understood realities. God, in the prophets, predicted certain essentials of the church age in terms of the concrete details of the Old Testament world even though some of these details would pass away in the coming age. For example, God, in the prophets, revealed that in the Messianic age, many Gentiles would worship and serve the God of Abraham along with Israel, but, as mentioned above, with no hint that the ceremonial dividing wall between Jew and Gentile would be torn down. According to the Reformed interpreter, this was God's normal way of revealing selected truths about the distant future. According to the dispensationalist, this would have been a deceptive way for God to have spoken about the distant future:
The practical result of this understanding of "normal" language in prophecy is the dispensational position that no Old Testament prophecy can refer directly to the church age. For example, since the prophecies about Gentiles' worshiping the God of Abraham in the Messianic age are generally given in the descriptive context of the basic Old Testament religious and political economy, these prophecies must be fulfilled in the coming Jewish age when this basic religious and political context will be literally reestablished. For these prophecies to be fulfilled in the church age apart from a nationalistic Jewish kingdom would be a divine deception, according to the dispensationalists. The church age, therefore, must be viewed as a totally unrevealed parenthesis in the Jewish program prophesied in the prophets. It is instructive to contrast this view of the church age and the Old Testament prophets with that of the apostle Paul:New revelation cannot mean contradictory revelation. Later revelation on a subject does not make the earlier revelation mean something different. It may add to it or even supersede it, but it does not contradict it. A word or concept cannot mean one thing in the Old Testament and take on opposite meaning in the New Testament. If this were so, then the Bible would be filled with contradictions, and God would have to be conceived as deceiving the Old Testament prophets when He revealed to them a nationalistic kingdom, since He would have known all the time that He would completely reverse the concept in later revelation.4
It is almost standard among detractors of the literal method to explain prophecy in terms of "Jewish coloration," "historical and contemporary garb," "Israelitish form," and "Old Testament outer covering." By these slogans, interpreters mean that the words or forms of prophecy are colored and influenced by the prophet's contemporary backgrounds, and should therefore not be interpreted literally. ... God allegedly manipulates things before the prophets so that spiritual, heavenly ideas appear in earthly, comprehensible garb.5
It is incredible that God should in the most important matters, affecting the interests and the happiness of man and nearly touching his own veracity, clothe them in words, which, if not true in their obvious and common sense, would deceive the pious and God-fearing of many ages.6
Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: that Christ should suffer and that He should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles. Acts 26:22-23 In the last chapter, we quoted Malachi 1:11 where God prophesied a coming age in which God's name would be great among the Gentile nations. The prophet spoke of the coming day when the God of Abraham would be universally worshiped in terms of the universal offering of incense and pure offerings. The Reformed interpreter sees a direct fulfillment of this prophecy in the church age in which Christians from many nations throughout the world worship the God of Israel. According to this interpretation, Malachi spoke about the coming church age in terms of the Old Testament worship system. To the Reformed interpreter, such usage of language in prophecy is both normal and non-deceptive. The dispensationalist insists that this prophecy can be directly fulfilled only in a coming Jewish age in which the worship of God through literal incense and offerings will be reinstituted.
Dr. John F. Walvoord gives an example of the dispensational interpretive mind set in the following:
Dr. Walvoord is commenting on Isaiah 61:5-6:The idea that Gentiles should be on exactly the same plane as Israelites and furthermore, in intimate relationship as being members of the same body, is absolutely foreign to the Old Testament. According to Isaiah 61:5,6, the Gentiles are pictured as being the servants and Israel as the priests of God. While it is true that the Gentiles were promised blessings in the future millennial kingdom, they are never given equality with the Jews in the Old Testament. What was new and unpredicted as far as the Old Testament is concerned, here forms the content of the special revelation given Paul concerning the church, the body of Christ. A Jew or a Gentile who through faith in Christ becomes a member of the body of Christ, by so much is detached from his former situation, and his prophetic program then becomes that of the church rather than that of Jews or Gentiles as such. It is only as the prophetic program of the church as the body of Christ is distinguished from that of Israel or that of the Gentiles that confusion can be avoided in the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy.7
And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers. But ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord: men shall call you Ministers of our God: ye shall eat of the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.He is saying that this prophecy can be fulfilled only in the Jewish millennial age where there will be literal Gentile servant status before national Israel and where there will be a revival of the literal Old Testament priesthood. After all, does not servant mean servant and does not priest mean priest? Is this not the normal meaning of the language as understood by the original recipients? Is this not the fulfillment that many Jews were expecting at the time of Christ? So reasons the dispensationalist. He sees this passage as the prophecy of an age that stands in contrast to the Christian church where believing Jew and Gentile are spiritual equals.The Reformed interpreter understands the above prophecy, not in contrast to, but in the light of the New Testament truth that believing Jews and Gentiles are spiritually equal in this age. The prophecy is not teaching that there will be literal Old Testament priests and literal Gentile subservience before national Israel at the time of its fulfillment. The prophecy is not teaching an absolute functional and religious dichotomy between Jews and Gentiles in the Messianic age. The prophecy is simply contrasting the coming age with the Old Testament era during which the Gentiles rejected the God of Israel and generally were hostile toward Israel. In the Messianic age, the previously pagan Gentiles will serve the God of Israel as their God. The Jews will exercise a priestly ministry in that salvation will come from the Jews (John 4:22) through the Messiah. And the believing Gentiles will bring, through their service and finances, new outward strength to the people of God. In his exhortation in Romans 15:27 to the Christians at Rome to help the "poor saints which are at Jerusalem," Paul gives an example of a New Testament fulfillment of this prophecy:
For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.For another example of the contrast in dispensational and Reformed interpretation of prophecy, let us look at the prophecy found in Zechariah 2:4-5: "Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein: for I, saith the Lord, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and will be the glory in the midst of her." Is the final fulfillment of this prophecy dependent upon the literal, earthly city of Jerusalem? There was a partial fulfillment of this prophecy under the old covenant in the city's divine protection during the vulnerable days when her walls were being rebuilt under the leadership of Nehemiah and in the future growth of the city's population. There, however, is a more significant fulfillment in this age and in the age to come. In this age of the Messiah, the forces of hell are the ones in need of defensive walls (Matthew 16:18). Today the Lord Jesus Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth, and the wicked one cannot touch His people (1 John 5:18), for greater is He who is in them than he who is in the world (1 John 4:4). The church is no longer on the defensive but is on the Great Commission offensive. The church is no longer isolated from the pagan nations by a wall of ceremonial law but is under orders to go and to disciple the pagan nations. Christ has bound Satan the strong man (Matthew 12:29), and the church is now plundering Satan's treasures as men are translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of the Son of God's love. In the New Testament era, God's kingdom has expanded from the confining walls of Jewish Jerusalem to include people, together with their possessions, from the uttermost parts of the earth. In the New Testament, physical Jerusalem was judged by God to become a desolation (Luke 21:20) and ceased to have significance for God's people (John 4:21; Galatians 4:25; Hebrews 13:14). In the new covenant era, God's people are citizens of the antitypical heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22; Galatians 4:26; compare Hebrews 11:10,16; Revelation 21:2). Every citizen of the heavenly city is also a living stone in the temple and is filled with the glory of God through the indwelling Spirit. And the blessings of this age are but a foretaste of the blessings of eternity when the heavenly city will descend to the new earth and the glory of the Lord will be its light. These new covenant fulfillments of this prophecy are not dependent on the existence of a literal, earthly, Jewish city. A prophecy spoken in terms of Old Testament physical Jerusalem can be fulfilled in terms of the antitypical heavenly Jerusalem, of which all the elect become members at salvation. There is no need for a future Judaistic age in which Old Testament Jerusalem is rebuilt for the sake of a "literal" fulfillment of prophecy.
I will quickly mention on last prophecy from Zechariah. The following is taken from the Messianic prophecy associated with the royal crowning of Joshua the priest:
Notice the striking similarity between this prophecy and the message of Paul in Ephesians chapter 2:
Behold, the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord: even he shall build the temple of the Lord; ... And they that are far off shall come and build in the temple of the Lord, ... Zechariah 6:12b-13a,15a Is the above prophecy from Zechariah directly fulfilled through Jesus Christ's building up the spiritual temple of His church with Gentile living stones? Or will Jesus have to build a literal Jewish temple out of literal stones in a future age to fulfill this prophecy? Which of these do you think the Apostle Paul would have regarded as the "normal" interpretation of Zechariah chapter six?
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. ... And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. Ephesians 2:13,20-21 Another profitable area to examine is the "normal" interpretation of prophetic types. If a sportscaster made a comment about a football team's recruiting a real Goliath for their defensive line, then what would be the "normal" understanding of this statement? Should we expect the rookie lineman to be a literal Philistine? Should we expect to see him on the playing field in ancient armor and with a spear whose shaft is like a weaver's beam? Should we expect the rookie to be the resurrected original with his head stitched on? Or should we understand this comment only to mean that the new lineman is an unusually big, powerful and intimidating opponent on the football field and possibly also, depending on the statement's broader context, boastful, disrespectful, defiant, and showy? What would be the "normal" interpretation of the sportscaster's statement?
This basic figure of speech used by our hypothetical sportscaster is called a prophetic type when used in Biblical prophecy. In using a prophetic type, one takes an event or a person or an institution from the past and uses it to speak of the present or future. The chosen event, person, or institution has both a form and a substance. The substance of Goliath includes his being a big, strong, formidable foe. The form of Goliath includes such things as his being a Philistine and an ancient warrior. The substance is the outstanding general characteristic and the real essence of the matter, and the form involves all the detailed but incidental specifics. When a prophetic type is used to divinely predict the distant future, it is not normal to expect an exact reproduction of all the incidental details or a reappearance of the literal original.
An example of a prophetic type is found in the prophecy in Amos 9:11-12 about the resurrection of the fallen booth of David. In a previous chapter, we noted the use of this prophecy in Acts 15 and the controversy over whether it refers to the church age or to the dispensational Jewish millennium. There is also controversy over who is meant by the name David in the prophecy. Reformed theologians believe that this prophecy which mentions King David will be fulfilled through his antitype, King Jesus. Some leading dispensational interpreters who are genuinely striving to be consistently literal instead believe that this and other similar prophecies which mention David in the context of the Messianic age8 must be fulfilled through the literal, resurrected Old Testament David who will be given a millennial viceroyship. For example, Dr. John F. Walvoord says the following:
One of the interesting aspects of the millennial government is the fact that resurrected David will apparently be a prince under Christ in administering the millennial kingdom in so far as it relates to Israel. According to Ezekiel, David will act as a shepherd over the people of Israel. ... Some have interpreted this mention of David as a reference to Christ. However, there is no good reason for not taking it in its ordinary sense inasmuch as David will certainly be raised from the dead and will be on the scene. What would be more natural than to assign him a responsible place in the government of Christ in relation to the people of Israel?9And Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost makes the following comments:Newell represents this view when he says:Literally speaking, David is no more Jesus than Israel is the church. If the prophet had meant Jesus, why did he not say "Son of David"? And if typological interpretation such as this is valid in Amos, then why not elsewhere? To admit its validity here is truly to allow the Reformed camel's nose into one's hermeneutical tent.We must never confuse in our minds this situation. We must believe the plain words of God. David is not the Son of David. Christ, as Son of David, will be King; and David, His father after the flesh, will be prince, during the millennium.
There are several considerations which support this interpretation. (1) It is most consistent with the literal principle of interpretation. (2) David alone could sit as regent in the millennium without violating the prophecies concerning David's reign. ... It would be concluded that in the government of the millennium David will be appointed a regent over Palestine and will rule over the land as prince, ministering under the authority of Jesus Christ, the King. The prince thus might lead in worship, offer memorial sacrifices, divide the land allotted to him among his faithful seed without violating his position by resurrection.10
Another good case in point is the prophecy found in the last two verses of the Old Testament (Malachi 4:5-6) that Elijah would precede the coming of the Christ:
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.Was this prophecy to be fulfilled through the reappearance of the literal Old Testament Elijah or through a prophet who would come in the spirit and power of Elijah? We read in Luke 1:17 that an angel told Zacharias the following about his yet to be born son, John the Baptist:And he shall go before [God] in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.This passage indicates that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of both the Elijah prophecy of Malachi 4:5-6 and the preparatory messenger prophecy of Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. Later, Jesus Christ said the following about John the Baptist and Elijah after John sent his message from prison and after the three disciples saw literal Elijah on the mount of transfiguration:Like Elijah, John the Baptist was a forceful preacher of repentance and judgment who at times lived in desert regions. The only possible exegetical argument against John's being the fulfillment of Malachi 4:5-6 is that in John 1:19-21, when some priests and Levites from Jerusalem asked John if he were the Christ or Elijah or the Prophet, John answered no. As John Calvin explains in his commentary on these verses, John the Baptist was answering the Jews' question in the spirit in which it was asked. The Jews were expecting the reappearance of the literal Old Testament Elijah before the coming of the Messiah; John the Baptist understood that the Jews by their question were asking him if he were the literal Old Testament Elijah, and John the Baptist knew himself not to be the literal Old Testament Elijah. John the Baptist fulfilled the Malachi prophecy about the coming Elijah but not in the literal sense expected by the Jews.
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. Matthew 11:13-14 And [Jesus'] disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, "Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, that Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them." And the disciples understood that he spake of John the Baptist. Matthew 17:10-13
(compare Mark 9:13)There are dispensationalists who recognize that John the Baptist directly fulfilled Malachi 4:5-6,11 but some do not. As evidenced by the following quotation, some dispensationalists, in the name of literalism, are looking for the literal Old Testament Elijah to appear and to fulfill this prophecy before the second coming of Christ:
We affirm that John's coming does not literally fulfill Malachi's prophecy but typifies and foreshadows the yet-future coming of Elijah the Tishbite. ... John did not fulfill Malachi's prophecy regarding the coming of Elijah the Tishbite; he is a type and prefigurement of the yet-future Elijah. ... John the Baptist would have been the personal, literal Elijah had the Jews accepted Christ and His offer of the kingdom.12As I have said, not all dispensationalists accept this interpretation. Even though this interpretation is the most literal and the most consistent with the popular Jewish understanding of the kingdom, this interpretation, much like the two-covenant view of the new covenant, is difficult to reconcile with the testimony of the New Testament. Dispensationalist Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost, for example, has said the following:... the prophecy is interpreted by the Lord as being fulfilled, not in literal Elijah, but in one who comes in Elijah's spirit and power. If literal Elijah must appear Christ could not be making a bona fide offer of the kingdom, inasmuch as literal Elijah had to come and John could not have fulfilled that requirement.13That some dispensationalists would defend the literal Elijah interpretation in spite of the witness of the New Testament about John the Baptist does reveal something about the general effects of the dispensational assumptions on prophetic interpretation. Literally speaking, Elijah is no more John the Baptist than Israel is the church. If the prophet had meant "someone in the spirit and power of Elijah," then why did he not literally say so? If a "spiritualized" interpretation such as this is valid in Malachi, then why not elsewhere? Considerations such as these and the desire for consistency explain why some dispensationalists are drawn to the literal Elijah theory.Another interesting area of study is the New Testament's use of Old Testament prophecy. Dispensationalists routinely claim that every fulfillment of prophecy in the New Testament is a strictly literal fulfillment.14 That claim simply is not true. Look at the fulfillments of prophecy in Matthew 2:13-18. Hosea 11:1 spoke of the exodus of Israel from Egypt, and Matthew saw Christ's return to Palestine from Egypt as a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1. Jeremiah 31:15 spoke of the weeping of a metaphorical Rachel, the mother of Benjamin, when Jewish captives were deported to Babylon from Ramah, a city in the territory of Benjamin. Matthew saw Herod's slaughter of the babes at Bethlehem (the place of Rachel's grave) as a fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15. Matthew leaves no doubt that he is identifying a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy:
Were those literal fulfillments of prophecy? No, they were typological fulfillments in which national Israel was a type of Christ, the ultimate Seed of Abraham.15 God's protecting the nation Israel in Egypt in the nation's infancy during a perilous famine and then calling the nation out of Egypt to Canaan was typologically prophetic of Christ's fleeing to Egypt as an infant until the death of Herod. Also, the grief at Ramah where the Babylonians assembled the last band of Jewish captives was typologically prophetic of Herod's attempt to destroy the Messianic Seed of Abraham. Not all the fulfillments of prophecy mentioned in the New Testament are strictly literal fulfillments.
... that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, ... Matthew 2:15 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, ... Matthew 2:17 Whenever a New Testament fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy is not literal enough for the dispensationalist, the dispensationalist simply argues that the fulfillment really was not a fulfillment. Such fulfillments are classified as illustrations, foreshadowings, kingdom breakthroughs, prefigurements, types, and so on. They are said not to be either direct fulfillments or the event the prophet actually predicted. Only by classifying fulfillments in this way is the dispensationalist able to argue that all the fulfillments of the Old Testament found in the New Testament are literal fulfillments.
A last area to examine is the relative emphasis placed on allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture in the two systems. Dispensationalist Dr. Charles C. Ryrie makes the following charge concerning the covenant theologians use of this principle:
... as a result of the covenant of grace idea, covenant theology has been forced to place as its most basic principle of interpretation the principle of interpreting the Old Testament by the New. ...Admittedly, Reformed prophetic interpretation does place a great emphasis on allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. If Peter indicated that Joel's prophecy about the outpouring of the Spirit was fulfilled at Pentecost, then that should influence one's interpretation of Joel's prophecy. If Paul said that the true Seed of Abraham is Christ and those who are in covenant union with Christ (Galatians 3:16,29), then that fact should influence one's interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant. If the author of Hebrews associates the heavenly Jerusalem with the Abrahamic land promise (Hebrews 11:8-16) and if Paul associates the Abrahamic land promise with the entire world (Romans 4:13), then that should influence one's understanding of the Abrahamic land promise. The supposition here is that the only infallible interpreter of Scripture is Scripture itself, and the fallible human interpreter should study this infallible and inspired interpretation of prophecy as a guide to all prophetic interpretation. The dispensationalist, however, rejects this as reading the New Testament back into the Old Testament.17Of course, there is everything right about letting the New Testament guide us in our understanding of the Old Testament, but everything wrong about imposing the New Testament on the Old. And this is exactly what the covenant theologian does under the guise of a basic hermeneutical principle which is allowable only if rightly used. The covenant theologian in his zeal to make Christ all in all is guilty of superimposing Him arbitrarily on the Old Testament. He does the same thing with the doctrine of the Church and with the concept of salvation through faith in Christ.16
The Reformed interpreter regards the New Testament as the source of an added clarity and fullness in the understanding of the Old Testament that was not available to the Old Testament saint. This position is consistent with the Scriptural teaching that God's truth is revealed with greatest clarity in the New Testament. Moses was said to be superior to the other Old Testament prophets in that God spoke clearly to him and not in dark sayings (Numbers 12:6-8). Not another prophet like Moses, "whom the Lord knew face to face" (Deuteronomy 34:10), arose until the Christ, who was counted worthy of more glory than Moses (Hebrews 3:3) and who was the prophesied Prophet like unto Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15,18; Acts 3:22). In the Old Testament God spoke through the prophets "at sundry times and in divers manners," but He has "in these last days spoken unto us by His Son," who is "the express image of His person" (Hebrews 1:1-3), who has seen the Father (John 6:46), who has explained God (John 1:18), and who descended from heaven to bear witness to what He has seen (John 3:11-13). Through the inspiration of the outpoured Spirit, this apex of revelation continued with the Apostles (John 14:26; 16:13-14). The New Testament then is the final, full, and most clear revelation of God.
The Old Testament is the foundation and background of the New Testament and is indispensable for the proper understanding of the New Testament. The New Testament is the infallible revelation of the divine development of the Old Testament program in the fullness of time and is indispensable for understanding the Old Testament with new covenant clarity. The New Testament tells us about the Old Testament like an oak tree tells us about an acorn. The man who has seen the fully grown oak can better understand the significance and meaning of the acorn. To use another illustration, the New Testament aids in the understanding of the Old Testament like observing a specimen under a microscope with a higher magnification aids in understanding what is seen with a lower magnification. Let us say that two men are observing a specimen magnified twenty times but that one of them also has seen the same specimen magnified one hundred times. That man who has seen the greater magnification will be aware of details the other man cannot even see, and he will more accurately understand and interpret those details that both men can see with the lesser magnification. According to Reformed interpretation, we today, with the aid of the New Testament, can better understand the implications and meaning of the Old Testament than could the original recipients of that revelation because we have had the privilege of observing the same specimen (God's truth) under greater magnification (compare 1 Peter 1:10-12). Many prophets desired to see those things which we have seen but did not see them (Luke 10:24).
I have tried to contrast the basic differences between the Reformed and the dispensational understandings of Old Testament prophecy. These two schools disagree on prophetic interpretation, and the implications of this disagreement are great. If the Reformed principles are correct, then the church age is a continuing fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies about the Messianic age and Old Testament prophecy applies directly to the Christian. If the dispensational principles are correct, then the church age becomes an unrevealed parenthesis in the prophesied Messianic program and Old Testament prophecy applies directly only to the tribulation, the millennium, and eternity. Which principles of prophetic interpretation are correct is an important question with significant theological and exegetical repercussions.
End Notes
1 John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), page 63. 2 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), page 89. 3 Ibid., page 91. 4 Ibid., pages 94-95. 5 Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy (Rockville, Maryland: Assurance Publishers, 1974), pages 217, 218. 6 George N.H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom (3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Kregal Press, 1952), 1.315; quoted in Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy, page 222. 7 John F. Walvoord, The Church in Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1964), pages 46-47. "That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs and of the same body is not a recognition of the Old Testament prediction that, during Israel's coming kingdom glory, Gentiles will be raised to a subordinate participation in those covenant blessings (Isa. 60:12). Those predictions were of an earthly calling, and, being revealed in very much Old Testament prophecy, could be no part of the heavenly calling -- the 'mystery ... hid in God.' This mystery is of a present uniting of Jews and Gentiles into one Body--a new divine purpose, and, therefore, in no sense the perpetuation of anything which has been before."
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 4:76-77.Notice the long list of Old Testament prophecies about Gentiles that are said to be fulfilled in the millennium as opposed to the church age in the following quotation:
"The universal aspects of the Abrahamic covenant, which promised universal blessing, will be realized in that age [the Millennium]. The Gentiles will be brought into relationship with the King. (1) The fact of the Gentiles' participation in the millennium is promised in prophetic Scriptures (Isa. 2:4; 11:12; 16:1-5; 18:1-7; 19:16-25; 23:18; 42:1; 45:14; 49:6; 22; 59:16-18; 60:1-14; 61:8-9; 62:2; 66:18-19; Jer. 3:17: 16:19-21; 49:6; 49:39; Ezek. 38:23; Amos 9:12; Mic. 7:16-17; Zeph. 2:11; Zech. 8:20-22; 9:10; 10:11-12; 14:16-19)."
J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pages 507-508.8 Isaiah 55:3-4; Jeremiah 30:9; 33:15-17; Ezekiel 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hosea 3:5. 9 John F. Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), page 121; see also John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, pages 300-301. 10 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), pages 500-501; quotation from William R. Newell, The Revelation, page 323. 11 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: The New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), page 25, note on Matthew 11:14; J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pages 309-311. 12 Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy, pages 185-187; compare C.I. Scofield, editor, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909), page 1023, note on Matthew 17:10; J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pages 311-312. 13 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, page 312. 14 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pages 10, 61; John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, page 131; Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, page 88; Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953), page 44. 15 See Patrick Fairbairn The Typology of Scripture Viewed in Connection with the Whole Series of the Divine Dispensations (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1900, 1975), 1.380-382. 16 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, page 187. 17 "Nondispensational interpreters (of the covenant theology school) have been guilty of reading back (and sometimes forcing back) the teaching of the New Testament into the Old especially in order to try to substantiate their doctrine of salvation in the Old Testament. ... Covenant theology allows for and even demands this reading back of the New Testament into the Old."
Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, page 34.