The Doctrinal Debate Over Covenant Theology And Dispensational Theology

The Doctrinal Debate Over Covenant Theology And Dispensational Theology

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, May 26, 2026 (Donate)

Many people grow up in churches and may never have heard about these doctrinal positions. And yet, they may not realize that they have been taught one of these theologies from an early age.

The reason this particular debate is so important is because it permeates much of how Bible interpretation is done. In other words, it affects hosts of other doctrines from eschatology, to Law, to the nature of Israel.  

As a point of note of history, most were Covenant Theology in their theological outlook. In the 1800s, the dispensational movement took place and slowly spread beginning with the “Father of Dispensationalism”—John Darby. Though there are some roots to his view he is credited with the movements systemizing it.

So this debate really becomes a central battle that rages over the classical form of Bible interpretation verses the modern form. Let’s evaluate what they are and their differences, then you can check with your local church to see where they stand on this vital debate.

Image requested by Bodie Hodge*

The Unity of Scripture

One of the most foundational differences between Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology is how each system understands the unity of the Bible. Covenant Theology teaches that Scripture reveals one continuous overarching plan of redemption (i.e., one major covenantal system) centered on Jesus Christ. From Genesis to Revelation, God progressively unfolds His covenant promises through various historical administrations while maintaining one consistent redemptive purpose.

Covenant theologians often teach that salvation has always been by grace through faith, whether before or after Christ’s earthly ministry. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and New Testament believers were all saved ultimately through looking forward to Christ in the same way we are saved today by looking back at Christ. Salvation is only through Jesus Christ for all time—whether looking forward or looking back to Jesus and death, burial, and resurrection.

Dispensational Theology, by contrast, divides biblical history into a series of dispensations or stewardships in which God administers His relationship with mankind in different ways. While dispensationalists still affirm salvation by grace, they typically stress discontinuity between periods of redemptive history far more strongly than covenant theologians.

Some suggest this framework tended to fragment the Bible into separate programs rather than seeing Scripture as one organically unified covenantal revelation. In dispensationalism, there is one plan for Israel, a different plan for the church regarding salvation for instance. From his perspective, the Bible presents one unfolding kingdom plan of God culminating in Christ and His kingdom in the future after Jesus returns and sets up an earthly kingdom where he reigns out of Jerusalem.

Israel And The Church

Let’s discuss Israel and the church in more detail as this a major point of difference in these two theologies. A major distinction concerns the relationship between Israel and the Church.

Covenant Theology teaches substantial continuity between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament people of God. In this view, the Church is not a completely separate entity from Israel but the continuation and fulfillment of God’s covenant community. In other words, Christians are grafted into Israel being the spiritual children of Abraham while unbelieving Israelites were pruned off the branch, but can be regrafted when they receive Christ as Savior. Hence, it is all about Christ for salvation.

Gentile believers are grafted into the promises made to Abraham, and Christ fulfills what Israel typologically anticipated. Passages such as Galatians 3 and Romans 4 are used to argue that believers are heirs of Abraham through faith in Christ.

Dispensational Theology traditionally maintains a total distinction between national Israel and the Church. Classical dispensationalists teach that God has two distinct programs: one earthly and national for Israel, and another heavenly and spiritual for the Church. Many dispensationalists believe Old Testament promises to Israel, particularly regarding land, kingdom, and national restoration, must be fulfilled literally and separately from the Church.

The New Testament repeatedly applies Old Testament covenant promises to the Church and presents Christ as the fulfillment of Israel’s mission. Covenant theologians believed believing Jews and Gentiles together form one covenant people in Christ.

Where dispensationalists believe God has two peoples (Israel and the Church) and works with them separately. It is wise to use New Testament passages such as Ephesians 2:11–22, Romans 11, and Galatians 3 should be considered when looking at this dividing wall between Jew and Gentile.

The Role Of The Covenants

For two nearly thousand years, Covenant Theology adherents sees the biblical covenants as the primary framework for understanding Scripture. Theologians commonly speak of the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace as overarching theological categories that explain God’s dealings with man. The historical covenants found throughout Scripture progressively reveal God’s redemptive plan and are united by common promises and purposes centered on Christ. For instances major covenants were unified though each of these:

·       Adamic

·       Noahic

·       Abrahamic

·       Mosaic

·       Davidic

·       New Covenant

There were lesser or specific covenants as well. The covenantal structure provides the theological backbone of Scripture. The covenant concept explains why there is continuity in morality, worship, redemption, and kingdom throughout both Testaments. God’s covenants reveal His faithful and consistent character across history.

Dispensational Theology instead uses dispensations as the chief organizing principle of biblical history. Different eras are often marked by distinct tests, responsibilities, or divine administrations. Darby and his followers typically used these dispensations:

·       Innocency

·       Conscience

·       Noahic

·       Human Government

·       Abrahamic (Promise)

·       Israel (Law)

·       Gentiles

·       Present/Church Dispensation (Church age)

·       Millennial Kingdom

·       Eternal State

The Mosaic Law

Covenant Theology is essentially the continuing of God’s law from the Old Testament into the New Testament unless God changes specific laws for man. Covenant Theology generally distinguishes between the ceremonial, civil, and moral aspects of the Mosaic Law.

Covenant theologians traditionally teach that the ceremonial laws (e.g., sacrificial) pointing forward to Christ were fulfilled in Him, while God’s moral law continues to reflect His holy and unchanging character. The Civil law remains in effect unless God changed certain things in the New Testament.

Dispensational Theology places a discontinuity between the Mosaic covenant and the present Church age. Many dispensationalists teach that believers today are not under the Mosaic Law as a covenantal administration and say that that slate has been wiped away entirely. Dispensationalists say there is a distinction between Israel’s covenant obligations and the New Testament believer’s relationship to grace today.

Many Covenant theologians strongly opposed the idea that God’s moral standards had been set aside! God Himself does not change, His moral requirements likewise remain consistent. In his view, the New Testament does not abolish God’s law but confirms, fulfills, and properly applies it through Christ.

Matthew 5:17–19, where Christ declared that He did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it states plainly that it wasn’t abolished but fulfilled and the covenant theologians argue that the Dispensational theologians have essentially agreed the Law was now abolished in Christ. Many Covenant theologians believed dispensationalism often weakened the continuity of biblical morality and ethics by separating the Old and New Testaments too sharply (discontinuity).

 Adherents of Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology often disagree over how Old Testament laws apply today.

Covenant Theology Perspective

In Covenant Theology, the Mosaic Law is often divided into three categories:

• Moral laws
• Ceremonial laws
• Civil/judicial laws

Covenant theologians generally teach that the ceremonial laws connected to Israel’s sacrificial system, ritual purity, priesthood, and temple worship were fulfilled in Christ and are no longer binding.

The civil laws tied specifically to ancient Israel’s national government are also viewed differently depending on the branch of covenant theology. However, the moral law is seen as permanently due to God’s unchanging nature and character and therefore still morally instructive.

Dispensational Theology Perspective

Dispensational Theology generally teaches a strong distinction between Israel under the Mosaic Covenant and the Church under the New Covenant. Many dispensationalists argue that the Mosaic Law as a covenantal system was specifically given to national Israel and is not directly binding upon Christians today. Thus, the Law of Moses is null and void for Christians in this system.

As a result, dispensationalists often approach laws by asking whether the New Testament repeats or reaffirms the command for the Church age. If a law is not restated in the New Testament, many dispensationalists conclude it is not binding on Christians.

Eschatology (End Times)

Eschatology is another area where major differences emerge. Dispensational Theology is commonly associated with premillennialism, particularly pre-tribulation premillennialism. This system typically teaches a future rapture of the Church, followed by a seven-year tribulation, a restored national Israel, a rebuilt temple, and a literal thousand-year earthly reign of Christ centered in Jerusalem.

Covenant Theology historically has included amillennial, postmillennial, and historic premillennial positions, though it generally rejects the dispensational separation between Israel and the Church in prophecy. In this view, the kingdom of Christ progressively expands throughout history through the preaching of the gospel and the discipling of nations. Christ currently sits on the throne of God at the right hand of the father in His resurrected body. He has been given all authority over heaven and earth. Thus, the covenant theologian reasons that Christ is king over heaven and earth right now. The New Testament consistently shows Christ fulfilling Old Testament expectations concerning His kingship, Temple, priesthood, sacrifice, and kingdom.

Hermeneutics (Interpretation)

The interpretive method used by each system deeply influences all other theological conclusions. Dispensationalists commonly push a literal or plain interpretation of prophecy, especially regarding Israel, the land promises, and the future kingdom. They argue that Old Testament promises should retain their original national meaning unless the text explicitly indicates otherwise.

Covenant theologians say that the New Testament itself provides the authoritative interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. They argue that Christ and the apostles interpret the Old Testament covenantally and Christologically. The New Testament repeatedly expands and fulfills Old Testament promises in ways that transcend merely national or territorial expectations.

The apostles themselves show how Old Testament promises must be understood through Christ. For example, the Temple becomes fulfilled in Christ and His people, sacrifices are fulfilled in Christ’s atonement, and the kingdom expands beyond ethnic Israel to include believers from every nation.

When Was Dispensational Theology Articulated Into Its Modern Form?

The modern system known as Dispensational Theology was first clearly articulated in the early 1830s by John Nelson Darby (1800–1882), a leader and founder of the Plymouth and Exclusive Brethren movement in Britain and Ireland.

Darby developed a highly structured system that divided biblical history into distinct dispensations or administrations in which God dealt with mankind under different stewardships. He is especially known for emphasizing a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church, a future restoration of national Israel, and the idea of a pretribulation rapture.

Although dispensationalists sometimes point to earlier theologians who recognized different eras or administrations in biblical history, most historians agree that the full dispensational system itself did not exist in its modern form prior to Darby. Earlier Christians certainly recognized periods such as pre-Flood, Mosaic, or New Covenant eras, but this is not the same as modern dispensationalism. What made Darby’s system unique was the comprehensive theological structure combining:

• Multiple dispensations
• Israel/Church distinction
• A future earthly kingdom for Israel
• A pretribulation/dispensational rapture (distinct from the traditional understanding of rapture which was the second coming/final judgment)
• A consistently literal prophetic hermeneutic

Darby spread these ideas through extensive preaching tours in Britain, Canada, and the United States during the mid-1800s. His teachings gained major influence among some influential conservative Protestants, especially through Bible conferences and prophecy movements.

One of the greatest influences on the spread of dispensationalism was the Cyrus Ingerson Scofield and his famous Scofield Reference Bible, first published in 1909. Scofield incorporated dispensational notes directly into the biblical text margins, making the system widely accessible to ordinary Christians. Through Scofield, dispensationalism became extremely influential in many Baptist, Bible church, and evangelical circles throughout the 20^th century.

According to many covenant theologians, this historical development is significant because they argue that classic Covenant Theology has much deeper roots in church history. Covenant theologians often point out that the early church fathers, the Reformers, and the major Protestant confessions did not teach modern dispensational distinctives such as a pretribulation rapture or a permanent theological separation between Israel and the Church.

Dispensationalists, however, often respond that theological systems can become more fully developed over time and argue that Darby simply systematized truths already present in Scripture. They also sometimes cite earlier writers who anticipated aspects of dispensational thought, though only partially but without distinct systematic form later developed by Darby.

Syncretism of Dispensational and Covenant Theology

Between classic Covenant Theology and classic Dispensational Theology, several “middle” or blended theological systems developed. These systems often try to preserve strengths from both sides while avoiding what they see as extremes. Here are brief definitions of some of the major hybrid or mediating positions.

New Covenant Theology (NCT)

New Covenant Theology attempts to position itself between Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology. NCT sometimes takes the dispensational approach to a subject and other times takes a covenant theology approach to other subjects. It just depends on whom you are talking to.

NCT rejects the strict covenantal framework while also rejecting the sharp Israel/Church distinction of traditional dispensationalism.

NCT teaches that Christians are not under the Mosaic Law as a covenantal system but are under the “Law of Christ.” Though some argue that the both the Old and New Testament Law is the law of Christ.

Nevertheless, NCT views the Old Covenant as being fulfilled and now abolished being replaced by the New Covenant established through Christ. Unlike classic Covenant Theology, NCT usually rejects the traditional threefold division of the law (moral, civil, ceremonial). Unlike classic Dispensationalism, it typically sees one unified people of God rather than two permanently distinct peoples.

Progressive Dispensationalism (PD)

Progressive Dispensationalism is a softer and more modified form of traditional dispensationalism that emerged in the late 20^th century.

PD still maintains distinctions between Israel and the Church but has much more continuity than older dispensational systems. Progressive dispensationalists teach that Christ is already reigning spiritually on David’s throne in heaven while awaiting future consummation. This “already/not yet” kingdom emphasis moves closer to covenant theology in some areas.

Many covenant theologians sometimes jokingly refer to this softened version as “Leaky Dispensationalism” because covenantal ideas seem to “leak” into the system.

Leaky Dispensationalism

“Leaky Dispensationalism” is not an official theological system but an informal label often used by critics or observers. It usually refers to dispensationalists who begin adopting covenantal concepts to more or less of a degree such as:

• Greater continuity between Israel and the Church
• Present fulfillment of kingdom promises
• Less rigid literalism in prophecy
• Greater use of typology and Christ-centered interpretation

The term is often applied to Progressive Dispensationalism or to dispensationalists who move away from strict classical distinctions.

Revised Dispensationalism (RD)

Revised Dispensationalism developed as a refinement of classical dispensationalism, especially through theologians like Charles Ryrie. It softened some earlier distinctions while maintaining the core Israel/Church separation and dispensational framework.

Ryrie attempted to make dispensationalism more theologically balanced and biblically defensible while preserving its central distinctives. Many Dispensationalists today may actually be in the style of RD instead of Darby’s version and may not realize it.

Progressive Covenantalism (PC)

Progressive Covenantalism is a newer middle-ground position that differs from both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. It  goes more to the progressive unfolding of the biblical covenants centered in Christ.

Unlike Covenant Theology, it often rejects the theological “Covenant of Works” and “Covenant of Grace” formulations. Unlike Dispensationalism, it rejects a permanent Israel/Church distinction. It focuses more on typology, fulfillment in Christ, and biblical theology. It really isn’t as rigorous as the other methods as of yet. 

Conclusion

In all methods, one should always look to the Bible as authoritative. Each method should be judged by Scripture. I suggest starting with your local church to see what and why they hold to one of these positions.

Image requested by Bodie Hodge*

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist defending 6-day creation and opposing evolution since 1998. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields.

*Images generated by ChatGPT

 

Why Don’t Christians Follow All The Old Testament Laws?

Why Don’t Christians Follow All The Old Testament Laws?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, September 16, 2025 (Donate)

The Alleged Problem 

Have you ever heard the claim that Christians are walking contradictions because they don’t follow all the Old Testament laws (e.g., offering sin offerings, Leviticus 5:5-6 or eating bacon, Deuteronomy 14:8)? Consider the following verses and think about whether Christians obey these commands, and if they do not, why don’t they? 

‘Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud, or among those which divide the hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you. ‘Likewise, the shaphan [ed. note hyrax/coney], for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you. ‘You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.. (Leviticus 11:4-8, NAS) 

"You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together. (Deuteronomy 22:9, NAS) 

Many Christians eat bacon. Many Christians wear garments made of two or more materials but rarely is it woven cotton and wool. Most avoid this mixture for obvious reasons. Cotton and wool which have different thread sizes, different properties, like elasticity, shrinkage, and surface texture cause a lot of problems. It's atrocious to do it without causing unevenness or distortion to the fabric. 

Christians also still avoid mating animals of two different kinds (Leviticus 19:19). This should also be for obvious reasons—for instance, chickens and cows are not the same kind, so stop wasting your time tying to make them breed. 

Photo by Bodie Hodge

Nevertheless, unbelievers still criticize Christians and say they are inconsistent. Let's evaluate this situation of "law-change" from a big picture theological perspective. 

The Solution 

The answer is not as difficult as it may seem, and yet is overlooked by non-Christians, and even some Christians, who have not read or at least fail to understand some basic theology (perhaps just newer Christians and that is understandable). Did rules ever change for man at different times in the Bible? Of course they did. Let’s look at one example—diet: 

• From the beginning man was vegetarian (Genesis 1:30). The Bible lists a number of covenants after this and usually there were some associated rule changes at this time. 
• When there was a new covenant with Noah, man was allowed to eat clean and unclean meat (Genesis 9:3). 
• With Moses, meat eating was even more strict, limiting them to eat only meat that was clean (e.g., Leviticus 11:47). 
• In the new covenant in Christ’s blood, He purified all foods making them all clean (Mark 7:19). So now all foods, like rabbit, pork, and shrimp and permitted to be eaten (Romans 14:1-4).[1] We still eat a clean diet, but the list is expanded. 
• And in heaven, we will be vegetarian again to complete the cycle (there will be no death in heaven [Revelation 21:4], so no meat will be available).[2]  

Food permitted to be eaten

Edenic	Vegetarian
Noahic	Vegetarian foods, clean and unclean meats
Mosaic	Vegetarian foods, clean meats
New Covenant in Christ	Vegetarian foods, clean meats but expanded
Heaven	Vegetarian

For instance, Christians recognize from the Bible that when a new covenant came about, certain rules changed, were modified, or affirmed. Some of these covenants are the original Edenic/Adamic (Hosea 6:7),[3] Noahic, and the new one in Christ’s blood. 

So God’s rules to man can change at various covenants (but God’s character has never changed). With regards to various laws, there are also some changes but it may not be as “cut and dried” as the example above regarding food. 

Two Major Schools Of Thought (Today)

Now here is the tricky part: developing a theological basis from the Bible on the subject regarding law changes. Let’s look from a bird’s eye view at the change from the Mosaic to New Covenant. From a big picture, today, there are two popular theological schools of thought (with many variations). They are Dispensational and Covenant theology.[4] 

As a significant point of note, Covenant theology was the prevailing view of churches historically since the New Testament until the AD 1830-1850s. Dispensationalism had not been invented yet. It came about in the 1830s by a lawyer named John Nelson Darby and he was instrumental in forming a denomination called the Plymouth Brethren (and later split from them to form the Exclusive Brethren church). Around World War I (early 1900s), dispensational theology started to explode. 

These views have similarities and differences. They differ in the way they look at how the laws change. There is more to it than this, but we will get to that in a moment: 

(1)    Covenant Theology: rules apply unless done away with or modified in the New Covenant. In other words, each covenant is seen as part of a greater covenant that now has modifications where the rules are still in effect unless abrogated or modified by the New Testament by God. 

Leading Covenant Theologian Greg Bahnsen stated: 

“The methodological point, then, is that we presume our obligation to obey any Old Testament commandment unless the New Testament indicates otherwise. We must assume continuity with the Old Testament rather than discontinuity. This is not to say that there are no changes from Old to New Testament. Indeed, there are — important ones. However, the word of God must be the standard which defines precisely what those changes are for us; we cannot take it upon ourselves to assume such changes or read them into the New Testament. God’s Word, His direction to us, must be taken as continuing in its authority until God Himself reveals otherwise. This is, in a sense, the heart of “covenant theology” over against a dispensational understanding of the relation between Old and New Testaments.” [5] 

(2)    Dispensational Theology: previous rules were for ancient nation of Israel and do not apply to the church so the laws in the Old Testament are therefore abolished for the church. Thus, only laws in the New Covenant (New Testament) apply. In other words, the New Dispensation (New Covenant) does away with previous Mosaic rules because those rules were given to a specific group of people, and entirely new rules need to be stated. 

Leading Dispensationalist Charles Ryrie states: 

“Now the Mosaic Law was done away in its entirety as a code. It has been replaced by the law of Christ. The law of Christ contains some new commands (1 Tim. 4:4), some old ones (Rom. 13:9), and some revised ones (Rom. 13:4, with reference to capital punishment). All of the laws of the Mosaic code have been abolished because the code has. Specific Mosaic commands which are part of the Christian code appear there not as a continuation of part of the Mosaic Law, or in order to be observed in some deeper sense but as specifically incorporated into that code, and as such they are binding on believers today. A particular law that was part of the Mosaic code is done away; that same law, if part of the law of Christ, is binding.” [6] 

Both of these schools of thought affect the way Old Testament laws are viewed. Both sides agree on many laws because so much was reiterated, changed, or commented on in the New Testament. But some things went away such as the sacrificial stuff such as Leviticus 5:5–6, which Christ fulfilled. Both of these schools of thought answer why Christians do not adhere to all the Mosaic laws—particularly the sacrificial and methodological aspects of the Temple service, and so on. 

There are Christians whose theologies do not fit into either of these camps or are variations of them. For example, within Dispensationalism there is (among others) Classic Dispensationalism, Revised Dispensational, Progressive Dispensationalism, and one theologian even used the term “Leaky” Dispensationalism. 

On the other side of the coin, there is New Covenant theology which finds some middle ground between Dispensationalism and Covenant theology, but starts with a Covenant theology basis as opposed to Dispensational basis.    

The reality is that in all of these variations, they mix the two predominant theologies together, but really there is no justification for this and it is arbitrary (i.e., pick and choose what you want whenever you want). 

Of course, there are significant differences on certain points as well. This is where the debate heats up between theologies. For instances, Covenant and Dispensational theologies differ on things like tattoos, prost1tuting one’s daughter, and beast1ality. These are all seen as sinful in the Old Testament but not mentioned in the New. 

So, they are still wrong in the Covenant theology realm but not sinful in Dispensational view—if one is consistent. This is one reason that some dispensationalists waffle on dispensationalism and move to New Covenant theology or leaky dispensationalism and the like. Because they know these things are wrong. So the historical view of Covenant theology should be favored for the one who is astute. 

If you are interested in pursuing these theologies in more detail, then I suggest you contact your local pastor and elders and do further research to get into the finer details.

This is all said to teach the reader that Christians have a biblical basis for certain law changes (even in both camps) and can easily answer the claim that Christians are walking contradictions. 

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children. 

Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited, expanded, and updated; Republished by permission.

---

[1] Some still preferred to utilize diets that exclude meat temporarily even though it was permitted in Scripture. For example, Daniel, who lived under the Mosaic covenant, followed a vegetarian diet instead of eating the king’s sacrificial delicacies to false gods while in captivity, and this was not a sin. Later we read that Daniel ate meat. In the New Covenant, some who are weak eat only vegetables (Romans 14:2). Further, this answers the verse mentioned previously in Leviticus 11:4-8.

[2] Some may argue that meat could still be eaten without death, e.g., lizard tails can be removed and regrown without the death of an animal. If such could be designed to have no pain in Heaven, this could theoretically allow meat to be eaten in a perfect heavenly state. Though, would such a thing be necessary in a perfect state? Likely not.

[3] Hosea 6:7 indicates there was a covenant with Adam and he broke it. God certainly gave Adam and Eve instructions to be followed and warned Adam of the consequences for disobedience.

[4] In rare cases, some other Christians may hold to obscure views different from these two, but to answer this alleged contradiction I am going to stick to the main two theologies that Christians adhere to. So please forgive me if I have not dived into one of the other theological positions. 

[5] Greg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today, Institute for Christian Economics, Tyler, TX, Second Printing, 1991, p. 3.

[6] Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, ChariotVictor Publishing, Colorado Springs, CO, 1982, page 305.

Tithe

 

How Much Should Christians Give…A Tithe?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, August 26, 2020 (Donate)

 

In many Christian churches, they request a tithe—a certain percentage of their earning “given back to the Lord”. Tithe literally means “one-tenth”. A tithe is therefore 10%.

In the Old Testament, a tithe is often mentioned and is the Hebrew word מעשׂר or transliterated as ma‘aser. Recall that Christ lived under the Old Covenant and fulfilled it. So references to tithing before Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection on the cross would have been under the Old Covenant. Tithing was directly commanded to the Israelites in the previous covenant to be paid to the Levites as their inheritance (more on this in a moment), but interestingly it goes back well before Moses. 

Giving before Moses

In searching for tithe/tithing/tithes, there were no commands for it in the New Testament. Though there are a couple of references to it in Hebrews 7 looking back to the Old Testament account where Abraham gave 10%, a tithe, to Melchizedek, the priest-king of Salem.    

This is the first recorded instance of a tithe in the Bible when Abraham gave Melchizedek (the priest of God) a tenth of his plunder in Genesis 14:18-20 (see more in Hebrews 7:1-12): 

Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High.  And he blessed him and said: "Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand." And he gave him a tithe of all. (Genesis 14:18-20, NKJV) 

The next instance is Jacob’s vow to give a tenth to God in Genesis 28:22: 

Then Jacob made a vow, saying, "If God will be with me, and keep me in this way that I am going, and give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, "so that I come back to my father’s house in peace, then the LORD shall be my God. "And this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be God’s house, and of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You." (Genesis 28:20-22, NKJV) 

Perhaps these are a reflection extending as far back as the amount given by Abel from his flocks (fat portions in Genesis 4:4) and Cain’s (first fruits in Genesis 4:3). However, we cannot be sure of the amounts given prior to Abraham nor was there a command revealed to us by God to give a tenth. Abraham and Jacob set their own amount to give, as it wasn’t commanded by God. So I would not be dogmatic about pre-Abrahamic amounts, but it is something to think about. 

Another tidbit that escapes many expositors is that Pharaoh received a double tithe (1/5^th) from the Egyptians’ increase when they sold themselves into slavery. After they had sold their land to Pharaoh, this was the purchase price for slave labor in Egypt that Joseph imposed (Genesis 47:19-24). Nevertheless, to understand tithing further though, we need to dive into the Law of Moses. 

Tithing with Moses and the Law 

‘And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD’S. It is holy to the LORD. ‘If a man wants at all to redeem any of his tithes, he shall add one-fifth to it. ‘And concerning the tithe of the herd or the flock, of whatever passes under the rod, the tenth one shall be holy to the LORD. (Leviticus 27:30-32, NKJV) 

After Moses gave the law to the Israelites, there were tithes of the land (seed and fruit) per Leviticus 27:30. There were tithes of livestock per Leviticus 27:32.[1] 

This is the beginning of the Bible’s references to tithing as a command to the Israelites under the Law. Under the Mosaic Covenant, the Israelites were commanded to give 10% of what they earned to the Lord. One of the reasons for this tithe was for the Levites income, who were the priests. The Levites, who had no land allotted to them. Instead, they worked for the Lord performing sacrifices and doctoral duties and so on. God had set them apart to work in the Tent of Meeting, Tabernacle, and later the Temple. 

The LORD had said to Moses: "You must not count the tribe of Levi or include them in the census of the other Israelites. Instead, appoint the Levites to be in charge of the tabernacle of the Testimony—over all its furnishings and everything belonging to it. They are to carry the tabernacle and all its furnishings; they are to take care of it and encamp round it.( Numbers 1:48-50, NKJV) 

When Israelites were giving to God, they were also providing for the Levites and the upkeep of the Tabernacle and later the Temple, Synagogues, and so on.  

"I give to the Levites all the tithes in Israel as their inheritance in return for the work they do while serving at the Tent of Meeting. From now on the Israelites must not go near the Tent of Meeting, or they will bear the consequences of their sin and will die. It is the Levites who are to do the work at the Tent of Meeting and bear the responsibility for offenses against it. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. They will receive no inheritance among the Israelites. Instead, I give to the Levites as their inheritance the tithes that the Israelites present as an offering to the LORD. That is why I said concerning them: ‘They will have no inheritance among the Israelites.’" The LORD said to Moses, "Speak to the Levites and say to them: ‘When you receive from the Israelites the tithe I give you as your inheritance, you must present a tenth of that tithe as the LORD’s offering. (Numbers 18:21-26, NKJV) 

This tithe was to be for the Levites for their “inheritance” because they didn’t inherit land as the other Israelite tribes. Even so, the Levites were to still give 10% of their earning as a gift to God. 

In Malachi, the Israelites were not tithing as they were commanded. At this point, the Levites weren’t getting any sort of proper “income”, so in a way they were robbing those who worked in God’s house, and that was the same as robbing God. 

"Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, ‘In what way have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, For you have robbed Me, Even this whole nation. Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, That there may be food in My house, And try Me now in this," Says the LORD of hosts, "If I will not open for you the windows of heaven And pour out for you such blessing That there will not be room enough to receive it.(Malachi 3:8-10, NKJV) 

God blesses those who give. Of course, Leviticus 26 speaks of blessings and curses if the Israelites didn’t obey God (this would include tithing), which they weren’t doing in Malachi. This is why God was cursing the Israelites for their disobedience. 

You are cursed with a curse, For you have robbed Me, Even this whole nation.(Malachi 3:9, NKJV) 

When Jesus spoke of tithing (e.g. Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:42, etc.) we need to keep in mind that Jesus was living during the Old Covenant. The Temple was in place, the Levite priests and their families needed to be paid for their religious duties.

How to view law changes

Christians are now under the New Covenant in Jesus Christ as He fulfilled the Old. 

Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:20, NKJV)  

In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.( Hebrews 8:13, NKJV) 

Because of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, we are under a New Covenant (not to mention we don’t have to provide for Levites because they no longer have the Temple in which to work and the sacrificial duties are no more as Christ died once for all. In fact, the body is now the new Temple of the Holy Spirit  per 1 Corinthians 6:19.The point is that things changed. 

Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20) 

This is where you need to understand some theology to understand these changes. For example, the way Christians look at various Old Testament laws is primarily based on one of two theologies. They are either dispensational or covenantal (sometimes people try to mix these two to get hosts of variations). These views have similarities and differences.   

As a note of history, most Christians historically have been covenant theology. However in the mid-1800s, a new idea emerged called dispensationalism in the Plymouth Brethren  denomination in the United Sates. Since then, it has spread to several other notable denominations.  

Both covenant theology and dispensationalism agree that when a new covenant came about, rules changed.[2] Some of these covenants are the original Adamic (Hosea 6:7), Noahic (e.g., Genesis 9:9), Mosaic (e.g., Exodus 24:8), and now the new one in Christ’s blood (e.g., Luke 22:20). 

For example, from the Adamic, man was vegetarian (Genesis 1:29-30).  When there was a new covenant with Noah, man was allowed to eat clean and unclean meat (Genesis 9:3). With Moses and the covenant with the Israelites, it was even more strict limiting them to eat only meat that was clean (Leviticus 11:47, etc.).  In the new covenant with Christ’s blood, this was again changed (Romans 14:1-4) as Christ, showing His godly power, made all foods clean (Mark 7:19, Acts 11:6-9, etc.).   

And in heaven, we will be vegetarian again to complete the cycle (there will be no death in heaven [Revelation 21:4], so no meat will be available).  

Food permitted to be eaten

Edenic	Vegetarian
Noahic	Vegetarian foods, clean and unclean meats
Mosaic	Vegetarian foods, clean meats
New Covenant in Christ	Vegetarian foods, expanded listing of clean meats
Heaven	Vegetarian

So God’s rules to man can change at various covenants (but God’s character has never changed). With regards to various other laws, there are also some changes but it may not be as “cut and dried” as the example above. These two views differ in the way they look how the laws change. In essence, they say: 

Covenant theology: rules apply unless done away with or modified in the next covenant by God.  In other words, each of the covenants is seen as part of a greater covenant that now has modifications.  

Dispensational theology: previous rules don’t apply in a new covenant unless reiterated in the next covenant. In other words, new dispensations do away with previous rules in previous covenants and new rules need to be stated.  

Both of these affect the way that Old Testament laws are viewed. Both sides agree on most laws (where they don’t is where it gets interesting –bestiality, tattoos, etc.), because so much was reiterated in the New Testament that both sides agree for the most part. But some things went away – obviously the sacrificial stuff, which Christ fulfilled. 

Since the duties of the Levite priests have been fulfilled and no longer necessary, by both dispensationalism and covenant theology. So let’s look at tithing from these perspectives.  

New Testament Giving

Under the new covenant (New Testament), we find no direct passages insisting on a tithe to the Levites or the church. So from a dispensational perspective, tithing should be extinct, when Old Testament law came to an end with the new covenant in Christ’s blood per dispensationalism. Even Levites, who were Israelites, are now the same as gentiles (Galatians 3:28-29). 

For the covenant theologian, it gets interesting—because God never said to stop tithing in the New Testament although the New Testament makes it clear, the Temple, sacrifice, and associated Levitical duties to be done away with. So did tithing, which is connected to those duties, end as well? God discusses giving and gave rules concerning it so indeed there has been changes. 

Both dispensationalists and covenant theologians should completely agree on this part by the way. God discusses how He loves a cheerful giver. Furthermore, we, as Christians, should set aside a certain amount according to our income as purposed in our heart. This is found in 2 Corinthians: 

But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. (2 Corinthians 9:6-7, NKJV) 

This was in the context of setting aside funds for the ministering saints, such as Paul when he arrives (2 Corinthians 9). Paul also directs the church in Corinth to set aside a sum of money each week.  

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come. And when I come, whomever you approve by your letters I will send to bear your gift to Jerusalem. (1 Corinthians 16:1-3, NKJV) 

This was directed specifically for the New Testament church at various places such as Galatia, Corinth, etc., it is a principle that can be applied today, concerning giving within the church. However, we can’t neglect that this gift was ultimately given to another church for their use. Building on this, consider to whom giving is now directed? 

If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more? Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel. (1 Corinthians 9:11-14, NKJV) 

Those who preach the Gospel are to reap their living from the Gospel as well—in a manner similar to the way the ministering Levites did. So there has been a change from the ministering Levites to those preaching the good news. 

We should be encouraged to give to God’s ministry of saints whether through the local church, missions work, para-church organizations, or other specific ministries of the church as a whole or locally (supplementing widows and orphans, etc.)—so long as the Gospel is being preached. Jesus says it is more blessed to give than to receive.  

"I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’" (Acts 20:35, NKJV) 

It is of importance that Christians give as it is commanded, but they should give because they want to, and not because they are forced to. Consider the gracious gift that was freely given to the saints: 

Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia: that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded in the riches of their liberality. For I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing, imploring us with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. And not only as we had hoped, but they first gave themselves to the Lord, and then to us by the will of God. So we urged Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also complete this grace in you as well. But as you abound in everything — in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all diligence, and in your love for us — see that you abound in this grace also. (2 Corinthians 8:1-7, NKJV) 

The Corinthian church actually excelled in giving! This lets us know that Christians were indeed giving different amounts freely. Some purposed to give a certain amount in the New Testament but then tried to rob God. They were Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10). They were put to death for God lying to God. 

Transference 

Some Christians hold to a theological concept called transference. Those in this camp hold that Christians are like the Israelites and the church leadership and buildings are like the Temple and the Levitical workers from the Old Covenant and so the tithe law is to be transferred to the New Covenant where it now means Christians and the church. Transference is then used to justify tithing to the Christians. 

Transference is also used by many to transfer circumcision to infant baptism (utilizing Colossians 2:11-12 of instance), Sabbath rest to Sunday rest, and so on. The problem is that transference is not justified Scripturally to transfer one doctrine to another in its practices. For instance, no longer would giving be cheerfully and freely purposed in one’s heart but now a command and a set amount. In the same way, just because there is a comparison of circumcision to baptism doesn’t justify transferring infants who were circumcised in the Old Testament to infant baptism (paedobaptism). Transference comes out of a theology, not the text of Scripture.  

Conclusions 

We are commanded to give—but that cheerful amount is between you and God. Keep in mind that if we do not give to God, then we are robbing God in the same way the Israelites were in Malachi. So what has been purposed in our hearts by each individual to give and should be followed through with and if that is 10%, then so be it.  

Christians should excel in giving and the tithe would probably be a good guideline to use but it shouldn’t be a hindrance, as giving could easily be much more than 10%—consider the widow’s offering (Mark 12:42-44) who far exceeded the tithe. The Lord honored such a thing by revealing it to us in His Word. So why restrict the Christian who wants to give more by only permitting 10%? 

Please read Paul’s exhortation to those who were generous givers as a closing to this brief discussion on tithing:  

Nevertheless you have done well that you shared in my distress. Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my necessities. Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account. Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God. And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:14-19, NKJV)

 

---

[1] In verse 31, a person could redeem (keep back) their tithe of fruits, seeds/grains, etc., by taking its value and doubling it (so the value is equal to 1/5^th or a double tithe) and sending that equivalent monetary value (or something else equivalently valued) to the Levites.

[2] Dispensationalists also have other dispensations beside covenants, and the covenants are also largely seen as dispensations.

Revelation Day 22

Variant Eschatological Positions

Day 22

B. Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, June 15, 2020 (Donate)

The Dispensational Pre-millennial view has a rapture, but the other end times views don't. So obviously Christians are not in agreement on this. A-millennialism, Post-millennialism, and Historic Pre-millennialism do not have a dispensational rapture event. The modern idea of a rapture is solely associated with Dispensational Pre-millennialism—a view that largely began in the 1830s in the Plymouth Brethren and Exclusive Brethren churches.  

A few Historic Pre-millennialists may claim to believe it but most do not; but generally the view doesn’t pertain to a rapture event. I suggest that the Historic Pre-millennialists that do believe it is because of recent influence by Dispensational Pre-millennialists and the two positions are being convoluted into each other by people unfamiliar with the intricacies of the two positions.

Another preliminary point is what is meant by “rapture”. There is an old meaning (pre-1830s) and a new meaning (post-1830s). Prior to the 1830s, rapture largely meant the last day and final judgment—or Second Coming (i.e., the final judgment and the end of all things here on earth before the Kingdom of God is consummate and we spend eternity with God in perfection.) But the word rapture has a different meaning today in comparison to its past definition. This is what occurred beginning in the 1830s. 

Rapture By Today's Meaning

Rapture today (as of the 1830s) has taken on a new and different understanding due to dispensationalism. Bear with me as I explain this briefly.  

What is meant by rapture today is generally seen as the alleged partial return of Christ (just to the clouds) to take believers to heaven (also sometimes called the “Second Coming” by Dispensationalists, but usually distinguished as merely the “rapture”). This is metaphorically when the wheat is taken out of the field and the tares are left (Matthew 13:24-30).

Continuing in the dispensational worldview, Christ awaits His real Second Coming (some denote this as the Third Coming) where He will leave His heavenly throne either 3 ½ or 7 years later and bring the resurrected saints with Him to set up an earthly kingdom for a literal 1,000 years on earth. After this return, then Jesus now has an authority on earth to reign from a physical throne in Jerusalem.

And then finally after the dispensational understanding of the 1,000 years, Christ will have the final judgment and the end of all things here on earth when the future kingdom is finally consummate and we spend eternity with God in perfection. This initial event of Jesus reaping people in the sky and taking them to heaven is what is meant by rapture or the rapture event for this discussion.

The word rapture is not used in the Bible. However, that is not necessarily a reason for rejecting it. Many times, Christians give names to biblical doctrines and theological out-workings of Scripture. For example, “Trinity” is also not found in the Bible yet is a biblically derived understanding of the nature of God.[1]

The rapture is supposed to be a future event that has Christians disappear. Then they are caught up in the clouds with the Lord in His “partial” second coming to go to heaven and wait for their return to earth. So Jesus leaves the throne of God, leaves heaven, almost makes it to earth and then goes back. He gets Christians and then returns to heaven leaving behind non-Christians.

It is supposed to happen at either 7 years, 3 ½ years, or immediate before Jesus comes back a third time, giving up His heavenly throne to set up an earthly kingdom (depending if you are Pre-Tribulation, Mid-Tribulation or Post-Tribulation within the dispensational worldview). When Christ’s thousand years of reigning are up, He gives up His earthly throne for a heavenly throne again. At this point, it is to usher in the end/resurrection and inauguration of the perfect state (I understand there are variations in these models depending on whom you are talking).   

Brief History of “the Rapture”

Early Church fathers didn’t comment on the Dispensational “rapture”. There is a reference, by modern rapture-believers, to Irenaeus (d. A.D. 202) writing about the end and the evil associated with it where he quotes: “And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.’ For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.”[2]

But Irenaeus was merely quoting 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and Matthew 24:21. To interpret his quoting of these verses as evidence of his belief in the Dispensational rapture is without warrant. Furthermore the context reveals that Irenaeus was talking of the final judgment and resurrection as he finishes that section by saying that due to this evil, “…a cataclysm of fire shall also come upon the earth.”[3] As a note, Irenaeus, in this same section predicted that the end would be 6,000 years after creation, which has come and gone. 

Others have grasped at straws to make early church leaders sound as though they support a rapture but without much success. It is usually because they don't realize that the word rapture had a different meaning in the past. So when were there any legitimate references to the Dispensational rapture?

Prior to the 1830’s one would be hard-pressed to find churches that had creeds, catechisms, or faith statements that had the rapture. Though a few vague unpopular references[4] preceded John Darby and Edwin Irving, around 1830 (reinforced with possible influence from Darby’s and Irving’s supposed prophetess friend Margaret MacDonald), it was these two men that began to popularize this view with a new definition of rapture.

More so, it was Darby; and he even called it the “doctrine of the secret rapture”, which proves it was not a known concept. By the late 1800s, they began having a rash of followers. And when the view was adopted by gap theorists C.I. Scofield [and he inserted into his Bible study commentaries in 1909] and author and Rev. Clarence Larkin, with his books Dispensational Truth (1918-1920)[5] and The Second Coming of Christ (1918-1922), the view catapulted into the mainstream for a Dispensational Pre-tribulation Premillennial position. Other views predominantly reject it.

The idea of a Dispensational rapture is the idea of Christ having two second comings or more properly, a second coming and then a third coming. This is problematic in light of Hebrews 9:28 and Acts 1:11. But the view holds that Jesus will secretly return for the saints and rapture out believers (the Dispensational resurrection); then will return 3½  or 7 years later to return to earth for a 1,000 year reign (this is also associated with a form of Judaism with sacrifice at the Temple being reinstated) and then after the millennium there will be another resurrection.

Biblical Evidence of a Rapture?

The primary text in the Bible pointed to for a rapture is 1 Thessalonians 4:17:

Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

However, the context (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18) reveals this is discussing the resurrection at the end, not a pre-end event. The word rapture is derived from Greek word harpazo, which is translated “caught up”.

Some might say, that all Christians believe in the rapture since all Christians believe in the day of judgment/the final day. However, that is an bait and switch fallacy. The “dispensational rapture event” is not to be equated with the “end/resurrection sometimes called a "rapture’”—they are two different instances. The rapture and the doctrine of the end/final resurrection are two different concepts/events—even within Dispensational Pre-millennialism. The doctrinal position of the rapture by dispensationalists is NOT the end.

Furthermore, the context of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 has the dead in Christ resurrecting first and those in Christ who are still alive are the ones who are caught up with the Lord afterwards.

Interestingly, the parable of the wheat and the tares has the tares being taken out first (Matthew 13:24-30)! John 5:28-29 indicates the resurrection will have all people, good and evil, coming forth at the same basic time, not separated by 1000 years.     

The second primary passage used to give support to the rapture is Matthew 24:39-42.

And did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming.

The context of Matthew 24 regards the judgment on the Jews, particularly Jerusalem and the Temple’s destruction (see the parallel passages like Mark 13:1-30; also see: John 2:19 and Mark 15:29). It marks the event that ends the old covenant with its sacrificial system (e.g., Hebrews 8:13) and the final transition into the new eternal covenant in Christ (Jeremiah 32:40, Hebrews 13:20). [See Question on Day 17 for more].

This is not a future rapture of Christians out of the earth when things get bad. Context mustn’t be neglected. Although brief, I hope this gets the point across about why the rapture is problematic.

Read 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11, Matthew 13:24-30 (note again that the tares/weeds are gathered first which is opposite of the rapture teachings. Also note, that it is a wheat field, not a tare field).

---

[1] Bodie Hodge, God is Triune. 

[2] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 29.

[3] Ibid.

[4] For example, a college paper by Morgan Edwards for Bristol Baptist College in 1744 mentioned a two fold return of Christ by confusion over the second coming with the first resurrection, but claimed they were new ideas on his part. But these had influence over virtually no one. 

[5] Larkin falsely predicted the Second Coming  of Jesus in A.D. 2000 in his book Dispensational Truth, Rev. Clarence Larkin Est., publisher, Philadelphia, PA, [37^th printing (1920)], 1918, p. 16.