Tag: double fulfillments

Song to go with article:

I. Introduction: Fulfillment Does Not Return to Shadow

One of the most important—and yet often overlooked—questions in biblical interpretation concerns the nature of prophetic fulfillment itself. When Scripture declares that prophecy has been fulfilled, what precisely does that mean? Does fulfillment signify completion, consummation, and realization? Or may fulfilled prophecy somehow revert back into anticipation, becoming prophetic again for another future fulfillment thousands of years later?

This question lies at the center of modern eschatological debate. Many futurist systems acknowledge that significant prophetic events were fulfilled in connection with Christ’s first coming, His death and resurrection, and even the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Yet they maintain that these fulfillments often function as preliminary patterns pointing forward to another, greater fulfillment at the end of world history.

This hermeneutical approach is commonly described through categories such as double fulfillment, multiple fulfillment, prophetic telescoping, or already/not yet fulfillment. Although different traditions express this concept differently, the underlying assumption remains similar: a New Testament fulfillment can itself become another prophetic shadow awaiting a greater realization.

Before proceeding, an important distinction must be made. This chapter does not deny the existence of typology, patterns, partial fulfillments, or progressive revelation within Scripture. In fact, the New Testament explicitly teaches these realities. The Exodus typified redemption in Christ. The sacrificial system typified Christ’s atoning work. The temple typified God’s dwelling among His people. Israel’s history contained divinely ordained shadows pointing beyond themselves to greater realities in Christ and the New Covenant.

The issue is not whether the Old Testament contained types and anticipatory fulfillments. The inspired New Testament writers repeatedly affirm that it did. The issue is what happens once those realities reach their New Testament fulfillment. The consistent pattern of Scripture is movement from Old Testament type to New Testament antitype, from shadow to substance, from promise to fulfillment. What Scripture never teaches is a further movement from New Testament fulfillment back into another future antitype. Once fulfillment arrives, the New Testament never transforms fulfillment itself into another shadow awaiting a greater realization thousands of years later.

This distinction is crucial because advocates of double fulfillment frequently appeal to Old Testament typology as justification for multiplying New Testament fulfillments. Yet this confuses two fundamentally different concepts. The inspired apostles possessed authority to identify Old Testament types and reveal their fulfillment in Christ. Modern interpreters possess no comparable authority to transform the apostles’ imminent New Testament fulfillments into new shadows awaiting another consummation at the end of world history.

The apostles were inspired interpreters of prophecy. Later theological systems are not.

While sharing this basic assumption, Reformed and Dispensational approaches often develop double fulfillment differently.

Many Reformed and partial preterist theologians acknowledge that AD 70 was a genuine fulfillment of biblical prophecy. They correctly recognize Jerusalem’s destruction as covenantally significant. However, AD 70 is often then described as a smaller-scale fulfillment, a historical microcosm anticipating a greater macrocosmic fulfillment at the end of world history.

In this framework, AD 70 becomes Israel’s eschaton, while Genesis 2–3 (Adamic/Edenic) eschatology supposedly introduces a broader hope involving the defeat of death, removal of the curse, restoration of paradise, access to the tree of life, resurrection, and renewed fellowship with God that still awaits fulfillment.

The difficulty with this distinction is that the New Testament itself never makes it.

The apostles never present two separate eschatological hopes—one covenantal hope for Israel fulfilled in the first century and another Adamic hope fulfilled thousands of years later. Instead, Israel’s eschatology carries Adam’s eschatology within it because Israel was the covenant people through whom God promised to restore what was lost in Adam.

Paul explicitly teaches this unity. When defending his resurrection hope, he does not describe it as a separate universal hope detached from Israel’s promises. Rather, he declares: “And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers” (Acts 26:6).

He immediately identifies this hope: “Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?” (Acts 26:8).

Near the end of Acts, Paul summarizes his entire eschatological expectation: “for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain” (Acts 28:20).

For Paul, resurrection was not a different hope beyond Israel’s covenant story. Resurrection was Israel’s hope. The defeat of death, restoration of access to God, judgment, inheritance, and New Creation were the very promises made through Moses and the Prophets.

This is precisely why Paul’s resurrection argument in 1 Corinthians 15 unites Adam and Israel. The coming of Christ, resurrection, defeat of death, removal of sin, and victory over the Law converge in one eschatological climax: “The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law” (1 Cor. 15:56).

Adam, sin, death, resurrection, and the Mosaic covenant all meet in the same redemptive consummation. Paul does not separate Adam’s problem from Israel’s story. He demonstrates that Israel’s covenantal consummation brings the solution to Adam’s curse.

John confirms the same reality in Revelation 21–22. The “new heaven and new earth” should not be read apart from the Old Testament covenantal background. Isaiah describes God establishing Israel as His covenant creation: “I have put my words in thy mouth… that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people” (Isa. 51:16).

This covenant heaven and earth was established when God formed Israel as His covenant people at Sinai (Ex. 19–24). Therefore, the passing of the first heaven and earth in Revelation 21 concerns the removal of the old covenant world and the arrival of the New Covenant creation in Christ.

Yet within that covenantal transition, the deeper Genesis 2–3 problem is also resolved. The curse is removed. The tree of life appears. God dwells with His people. Death is no more. Access to God’s presence is restored. And John repeatedly declares that the prophecy containing these realities would be fulfilled “shortly” because “the time is at hand” (Rev. 1:1–3; 22:6–10).

Therefore, the passing of Israel’s old covenant world and the restoration of what was lost in Adam are not two different hopes separated by thousands of years. They are fulfilled together in Christ.

Dispensationalism approaches the issue differently. AD 70 is generally treated as preliminary rather than consummative, while the climax of redemptive history is often located in a future restoration of Israel’s earthly institutions. Thus history culminates in a return to an earthly Jerusalem, rebuilt temple, renewed sacrifices, priesthood, land-centered kingdom, and ceremonial distinctions.

This creates a different problem. The New Testament moves from earthly shadows to heavenly realities, from the land to Christ, from temple to Christ’s body, from sacrifices to Christ’s once-for-all offering, and from old covenant types to New Covenant fulfillment. Dispensational eschatology often reverses that trajectory by making the consummation a return to the very shadows the apostles said were passing away.

Despite their differences, both approaches depend upon the same assumption—that New Testament fulfillment can become the foundation for another future fulfillment.

This chapter examines whether the Bible itself teaches such a concept. Did Moses, Daniel, Jesus, and the apostles anticipate one covenantal consummation or multiple prophetic endings? Did they teach one appointed time, one coming of the Son of Man, one resurrection, one judgment, one New Creation, and one fulfillment of the prophetic mystery—or repeated fulfillments across history?

The biblical evidence overwhelmingly favors one fulfillment.

II. Moses Predicted One Appointed Time of the End (Deuteronomy 31–32)

The foundation for understanding the unified eschatological expectation of the New Testament must begin where the biblical writers themselves began: with the covenantal testimony of Moses. Far from presenting an open-ended series of recurring prophetic fulfillments stretching indefinitely across redemptive history, Moses established a single, coherent covenantal horizon for Israel’s latter-days crisis. This framework—rooted in covenant lawsuit, divine jealousy, appointed judgment, and ultimate vindication—becomes the interpretive backbone for everything that follows in the prophets, in Jesus, and in the apostolic writings. To detach New Testament eschatology from this Mosaic foundation is to misread both the continuity and the climax of redemptive history.

As Moses neared death, he gathered Israel and issued what amounts to a covenant lawsuit against the nation. Having delivered the covenant stipulations and warned of blessings and curses, Moses was under no illusion concerning Israel’s future faithfulness. The nation that had pledged obedience would, in time, rebel against Yahweh and bring covenant wrath upon itself. Moses declares: “For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days” (Deut. 31:29).

This statement deserves careful attention. Moses does not speak vaguely of cyclical rebellions repeated endlessly throughout world history. Nor does he predict an indefinite future detached from covenantal context. He speaks specifically of “the latter days” (beʾaḥarît hayyāmîm), a covenantal period in which Israel’s rebellion would ripen to maturity and bring divine judgment.

Much confusion surrounds the biblical expression “latter days,” largely because modern readers instinctively import notions of the end of world history into the phrase. Yet within the Old Testament itself, “latter days” often refers not to the destruction of the physical cosmos, but to the climactic period of covenantal fulfillment. Moses’ concern was not twenty-first century geopolitics or the end of biological existence upon planet earth. His concern was covenant Israel—its rebellion, judgment, and ultimate restoration under God’s redemptive plan.

The theological centerpiece of Moses’ eschatology emerges most clearly in the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32). This chapter functions not merely as poetry but as covenant witness and prophetic indictment. Moses explicitly states its purpose: “Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel” (Deut. 31:19).

The Song traces a unified covenant drama. Israel would become prosperous yet apostatize (Deut. 32:15–18). Yahweh would hide His face in judgment (v. 20). Israel would be provoked to jealousy through a “no-people” (v. 21). Divine wrath would intensify (vv. 22–25). A covenantal “day of calamity” would arrive (v. 35). Yet finally, Yahweh would come and vindicate His faithful servants and judge His enemies (vv. 36–43).

The sequence is remarkably coherent. Moses describes one covenant story moving toward one covenant climax. This becomes especially important in Deuteronomy 32:35: “To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time [or better translated “in the appointed time”]: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.”

Here Moses speaks not of repeated covenant judgments, but of an appointed time. The Hebrew expression translated “due time” conveys the notion of an appointed season or fixed moment of judgment. The Septuagint makes this even clearer through the language of kairos—an appointed season or determined time. This terminology becomes enormously significant because Daniel, Jesus, and the New Testament writers later employ precisely this kind of appointed-time language when describing the covenant consummation.

Equally important is Moses’ emphasis upon imminence: “the day of their calamity is at hand” and “the things that shall come upon them make haste.” The covenant lawsuit is moving toward a historical climax. Moses does not envision an endlessly deferred eschatology stretched across thousands of years. Rather, Israel’s rebellion would ripen until divine judgment arrived at its appointed season.

This background proves essential for understanding Jesus’ confrontation with first-century Jerusalem. In Matthew 23, Christ deliberately invokes Mosaic covenant lawsuit language against the scribes and Pharisees. After cataloging Israel’s long history of covenant rebellion and blood guilt, Jesus declares: “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers” (Matt. 23:32). The allusion is unmistakable. Moses had predicted a covenant rebellion that would mature toward judgment. Jesus identifies His generation as the generation in which that measure had finally reached completion. The language of “filling up” parallels the covenant ripening anticipated throughout Deuteronomy 32. Israel’s sins had reached maturity. The appointed kairos had arrived.

Christ then delivers one of the clearest time statements in all of Scripture: “Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation” (Matt. 23:36). The same generation that rejected the prophets, murdered the Messiah, persecuted His apostles, and filled up the covenant measure would experience the covenant curses Moses had forewarned. As many scholars acknowledge, Matthew 23 consciously echoes covenant lawsuit themes rooted in Deuteronomy.

The apostle Paul likewise understood Moses to be reaching fulfillment in his own generation. Writing in Romans 10, Paul explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 32:21: “I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people” (Rom. 10:19). This is no incidental citation. Paul understands Gentile inclusion as the very mechanism Moses had foretold. Israel’s rejection of Messiah and the inclusion of the Gentiles constituted covenant fulfillment, not a postponed prophetic program. In Romans 11 Paul develops this point extensively. Gentile salvation provokes ethnic Israel to jealousy precisely as Moses predicted.

As J. Ross Wagner has demonstrated, Paul’s use of Deuteronomy is not superficial proof-texting but reflects a deep conviction that Israel’s covenant story had reached its decisive climax in Christ and the gospel mission to the nations. Moses’ prophecy was not being temporarily enacted while awaiting another fulfillment. It was happening.[1]

This creates a profound challenge for double-fulfillment theories. If Moses predicted one latter-days covenant crisis involving apostasy, Gentile jealousy, divine vengeance, and covenant vindication—and if Jesus and Paul explicitly apply that framework to their own generation—then on what exegetical basis may interpreters multiply covenant consummations across thousands of years? No such warrant appears in the text. Moses envisioned one covenant lawsuit. One latter-days rebellion. One appointed kairos of judgment. One covenantal vindication. Jesus said it came upon “this generation.” Paul said it was unfolding in his generation. The burden therefore rests upon advocates of double fulfillment to prove that Moses anticipated another covenant climax beyond the one Christ and His apostles explicitly identified. Such proof is conspicuously absent.

III. Daniel Predicted One Appointed Time of the End (Daniel 9 & 12)

Building directly upon the covenantal foundation laid by Moses, Daniel supplies the chronological precision and covenantal specificity that would shape all subsequent biblical expectation. Far from envisioning multiple eschatological horizons or a suspended prophetic program awaiting distant completion, Daniel consistently presents one appointed time (kairos) in which Israel’s rebellion would reach its full measure, Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be desolated, vision and prophecy sealed, the power of the holy people shattered, resurrection realized, and covenant vindication accomplished. The prophet’s visions do not fragment into disconnected prophetic dramas separated by vast chronological gaps. They form a unified covenantal tapestry reaching its God-ordained consummation.

This unity is evident from the very structure of Daniel 9. Having meditated upon Jeremiah’s prophecy of seventy years of Jerusalem’s desolation (Dan. 9:2), Daniel intercedes with fasting and confession on behalf of “thy people” and “thy holy city” (Dan. 9:16, 19). Gabriel’s response maintains this precise covenantal focus: “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy” (Dan. 9:24).

The Hebrew term nechtak (“determined” or “decreed”) carries the force of something cut out or fixed for a definite purpose. As C. F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch long ago observed, the six infinitival clauses function together as coordinated aspects of one redemptive program to be accomplished within the seventy weeks rather than scattered across unrelated ages. There is no grammatical warrant for dividing these purposes or postponing the final three into a distant future dispensation. Daniel presents one covenantal horizon moving toward one consummation.[2]

The prophecy then explicitly ties this consummation to the destruction of “the city and the sanctuary” by “the people of the prince that shall come” (Dan. 9:26). Desolations are determined “until the end” (Dan. 9:27). The Old Greek (LXX) rendering heightens the covenantal finality, repeatedly employing language of an “appointed consummation” (kairos synteleias). This terminology directly echoes Moses’ covenantal kairos of vengeance in Deuteronomy 32:35. Daniel therefore does not suspend the prophetic clock or introduce a multi-millennial gap. He times its final movement.

Daniel 12 consolidates the identical vision with even greater force. Following the unparalleled tribulation “such as never was since there was a nation,” Michael stands up, many awake from the dust of the earth—some to everlasting life, others to shame and contempt—and the wise shine as the brightness of the firmament (Dan. 12:1–3). When Daniel inquires concerning “the end of these wonders,” the angel answers with unmistakable covenantal specificity: “when he shall have accomplished to shatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished” (Dan. 12:7). The reference to the shattering of the holy people points directly to covenant judgment upon Israel. Daniel does not separate resurrection from the desolation of Jerusalem, nor tribulation from covenant consummation. All belong to one appointed time of the end.

Daniel locates resurrection, tribulation, and consummation at the single time when “the power of the holy people” is shattered (Dan. 12:7). Jesus likewise identified the destruction of Jerusalem, the tribulation, His coming upon the clouds, the gathering of the elect / resurrection, the fulfillment of all that had been written in the Old Testament with the end of the old covenant age—all coming within His generation (Matt. 23:36; 24:3-34; Luke 21:20-32). Therefore, Daniel’s resurrection and consummation belong to the covenantal transition culminating in AD 70—not to another future eschatological horizon.

This covenantal connection is vital. In Second Temple Jewish expectation, as reflected in texts like 1 Enoch, resurrection was not typically viewed as an isolated biological event detached from covenant history but as the vindication and restoration of God’s people at the climax of the age. Daniel stands within this stream, locating the awakening of the dead precisely when the power of the holy people is shattered in covenant judgment. Jesus Himself drew upon this framework when teaching that the resurrection and the judgment of the living and the dead would occur at “the last day” of the old covenant order (John 5:24–29; 6:39–40, 44, 54; 11:24). In John 5, the hour “is coming and now is” when the dead hear the voice of the Son of God and live—an already/not yet reality tied to covenant transition. The same pattern appears in Luke 16’s parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where covenant reversal and judgment occur within the framework of the old covenant age, and in Matthew 22:23–33 and Luke 20, where Jesus corrects the Sadducees by rooting resurrection hope in the God of the living, not the dead, within the age-to-come transition. Daniel 12’s resurrection is understood covenantally and spiritually as the transition from death under the old covenant to life in the new, fulfilled when the holy people were shattered in AD 70, the old age ended, and the new covenant people emerged vindicated as the true Israel of God.

The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 therefore marked not merely the end of a political entity but the covenantal shattering of the old order. At that moment, the corporate-covenantal resurrection hope of Daniel 12 reached its fulfillment as the saints were vindicated, the unrighteous judged, and the new covenant people emerged as the true Israel of God. This is resurrection understood covenantally and spiritually—as the transition from death under the old covenant to life in the new—not as a yet-future biological event detached from the first-century horizon. Hebrews 11–12 reinforces this by contrasting the temporary earthly inheritance with the heavenly country and unshakable kingdom that the patriarchs and prophets anticipated and that believers had already begun to receive (Heb. 11:10, 16; 12:22–28). The resurrection life Daniel foresaw was realized when the old covenant world passed away and the new stood fully revealed in Christ.

John Walvoord argues that Daniel 12 points to a future tribulation period after the Church has been removed, because the unparalleled tribulation, the shattering of the holy people, and the resurrection cannot be exhausted by the events of AD 70. He assigns these realities to a final consummation involving national Israel and a literal future fulfillment distinct from the first century. Similar views appear in Charles Ryrie, who treats the Church age as a parenthesis requiring Daniel’s prophecies to resume in a future dispensation, and in John MacArthur, who sees a future Antichrist and rebuilt temple as necessary for full fulfillment. Michael Vlach maintains that ethnic-national land promises remain unfulfilled, rendering AD 70 incomplete. Even Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, while more nuanced, preserve a future national role for Israel that treats the first-century events as only partial. These approaches impose a gap that Daniel never authorizes and that Jesus explicitly closes.[3]

IV. Jesus Came to Fulfill All the Law and the Prophets

The decisive witness against double fulfillment comes from Jesus Himself. Throughout His ministry, Christ presented His mission not as the inauguration of a new prophetic program requiring future completion, but as the fulfillment of what the Law and the Prophets had long anticipated. This self-understanding leaves no room for treating AD 70 as merely preliminary or typological. If Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, and if He explicitly located that fulfillment within His own generation, then the hermeneutical structure of double fulfillment collapses.

At the very beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus declares: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matt. 5:17).

He immediately adds the comprehensive temporal qualifier: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt. 5:18).

Jesus is not speaking merely of isolated predictions concerning His death and resurrection. “The Law and the Prophets” was the common Jewish designation for the entirety of Old Testament revelation. That revelation foretold not only Messiah’s suffering and resurrection, but also His enthronement, kingdom reign, coming upon the clouds in judgment, the resurrection of the dead, the vindication of the saints, the destruction of Jerusalem, the inheritance of the kingdom, and the arrival of the new creation. The same Scriptures that anticipated Christ’s first coming also anticipated the consummation of the old covenant age.

This means the “all” of Matthew 5:18 cannot be artificially restricted to the cross or resurrection. Jesus does not say that the Law would remain until some prophecies were fulfilled. Nor does He say it would remain merely until His death and resurrection. Rather, not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law until the entire prophetic program contained within the Law and the Prophets reached its appointed goal.

This creates a serious problem for every version of futurism and double fulfillment. If major portions of Old Testament eschatology remain unfulfilled today—including the coming of the Son of Man, the resurrection, the judgment, and the new creation—then Jesus’ stated condition for the passing of the Law has not yet been satisfied. The unavoidable implication is that every jot and tittle of the Mosaic order should still remain binding.

The dilemma may be stated simply:

Major Premise: Jesus taught that not one jot or tittle of the Law would pass away until all that the Law and the Prophets foretold had been fulfilled (Matt. 5:17–18).

Minor Premise: The Law and the Prophets foretold not only Christ’s death and resurrection but also His second coming in judgment, the resurrection, the kingdom, and the new creation.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Law could not pass away until all of those redemptive-historical realities reached fulfillment.

This is why the Olivet Discourse is so important. Having already declared in Matthew 5 that all must be fulfilled before heaven and earth pass away, Jesus later identifies the generation in which that fulfillment would occur. After describing the abomination of desolation, the great tribulation, the cosmic signs, the coming of the Son of Man, and the gathering of the elect, He declares: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (Matt. 24:34). He then immediately adds: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35).

The parallel is unmistakable. In Matthew 5, the passing of heaven and earth marks the point at which all is fulfilled. In Matthew 24, all these things are fulfilled before that generation passes away, and Jesus again speaks of heaven and earth passing away. Jesus interprets His own prophecy. The covenantal “heaven and earth” of the old order would pass when the Law and the Prophets reached their appointed goal in the events surrounding Jerusalem’s judgment.

Luke’s account removes any remaining ambiguity. Concerning the desolation of Jerusalem, Jesus states: “For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled” (Luke 21:22).

This is one of the most sweeping statements in the Gospels. The context is not merely the destruction of a city. Jesus has just referenced Daniel’s abomination of desolation and proceeds to describe great tribulation, cosmic signs, the coming of the Son of Man, the redemption of His people, and the end of the old covenant age. Therefore, “all things which are written” must include the prophetic expectations concerning Israel’s latter days: Daniel’s tribulation and resurrection, Isaiah’s swallowing up of death, Hosea’s redemption from Sheol, Deuteronomy’s covenant vengeance, the coming kingdom, and the passing of the old creation order.

Significantly, Luke 21:22 echoes Daniel 9:24, where the seventy weeks would “finish the transgression,” “make an end of sins,” “make reconciliation for iniquity,” “bring in everlasting righteousness,” and “seal up vision and prophecy.” Both passages describe comprehensive prophetic consummation. Neither describes the beginning of another prophetic cycle awaiting fulfillment thousands of years later. If Jesus declares that these realities would reach fulfillment in Jerusalem’s days of vengeance, then the claim that AD 70 was merely typological requires one to argue that “all” does not actually mean all.

A second syllogism follows naturally:

Major Premise: Jesus taught that the passing of the Law awaited the fulfillment of all that the Law and the Prophets foretold (Matt. 5:17–18).

Minor Premise: Jesus taught that all things written would be fulfilled in Jerusalem’s days of vengeance within His generation (Matt. 24:34; Luke 21:22).

Conclusion: Therefore, the passing of the Law and the fulfillment of all Old Testament prophetic expectation coincided with the events culminating in AD 70.

Jesus’ post-resurrection teaching provides one of the clearest refutations of double-fulfillment theology. On the road to Emmaus He rebuked His disciples: “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken” (Luke 24:25).

Notice carefully what Jesus does not say. He does not accuse them of failing to believe some of what the prophets had spoken. He rebukes them for failing to believe all that the prophets had spoken. The issue was not whether the prophets had spoken clearly enough, but whether the disciples had believed the totality of the prophetic witness concerning the Messiah.

Jesus then immediately explains the nature of that prophetic expectation: “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” (Luke 24:26). The precise extent of Christ’s “glory” need not be settled here. Whether one understands the term primarily as referring to His resurrection, ascension, and exaltation, or more broadly as His royal triumph as Messiah, the point remains unchanged. Jesus presents the prophetic story as moving from promise to fulfillment. The prophets foretold the Messiah’s sufferings and subsequent glory, and Jesus declares that those prophetic expectations had reached their intended goal in Him.

Luke then records: “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Later that evening Jesus repeated the same principle: “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me” (Luke 24:44).

Again, the context controls the meaning. The “all things” are the things written concerning Christ. Jesus is speaking specifically of the prophetic witness to His messianic mission. The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms had collectively testified concerning His suffering, resurrection, exaltation, and redemptive work.

No Christian interprets these passages according to a double-fulfillment paradigm. No one argues that Isaiah 53 was fulfilled in Christ’s first coming but awaits a greater fulfillment thousands of years later. No one claims that Psalm 22 received an initial fulfillment at Calvary but will receive a more complete fulfillment in the future. No one teaches that Psalm 16’s resurrection prophecy was partially fulfilled and remains awaiting another realization.

Why? Because Jesus Himself treats these prophecies as having reached their intended goal in His messianic work and passion. Promise became fulfillment. Type became antitype. Shadow became substance.

Yet this same hermeneutical principle must govern Jesus’ teaching in Luke 21.

There, Jesus is discussing a different category of prophetic expectation. He is no longer focusing primarily on His suffering and resurrection but on Jerusalem’s coming judgment, Israel’s covenantal end, the vindication of the saints, the coming of the Son of Man, the resurrection hope of God’s people, and the consummation of the age.

In that context He declares: “For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled” (Luke 21:22).

The scope of “all” in Luke 21 is therefore broader than the scope of “all” in Luke 24. In Luke 24 the reference is to all the Scriptures concerning Christ’s messianic mission. In Luke 21 the reference is to all the Scriptures concerning Israel’s covenantal consummation. But while the scope differs, the hermeneutic remains identical.

Jesus does not suggest that the prophecies concerning His suffering would be fulfilled once and then fulfilled again thousands of years later. Neither does He suggest that the prophecies concerning Jerusalem’s judgment, resurrection, kingdom consummation, and covenantal end would be fulfilled once and then fulfilled again thousands of years later.

The pattern throughout Scripture is singular fulfillment, not recurring fulfillment.

This creates a serious dilemma for the advocate of double fulfillment. Futurists rightly insist that the “all” of Luke 24 means exactly what it says because it concerns Christ’s first coming. Yet when Jesus uses the same comprehensive language in Luke 21:22 concerning His coming in judgment and the consummation of the age, “all” suddenly becomes “some,” with major portions postponed for thousands of years. Such a distinction is not derived from the text. It is imposed upon the text.

The burden of proof therefore rests upon the futurist. If the prophecies concerning Christ’s messianic mission reached their intended fulfillment without requiring a second fulfillment, why should the prophecies concerning Israel’s covenantal consummation require one?

The logic may be stated simply:

Major Premise: “All” the prophecies concerning Christ’s messianic mission reached their intended fulfillment without requiring a second fulfillment (Luke 24:25–44).

Minor Premise: Jesus used the same comprehensive “all” fulfillment language concerning Israel’s covenantal consummation coming in His “generation” (Luke 21:22-32).

Conclusion: Therefore, the prophecies concerning Israel’s covenantal consummation likewise reached their intended fulfillment without requiring a second fulfillment.

This fulfillment hermeneutic explains why Jesus could speak with such urgency and audience relevance throughout the Olivet Discourse. The signs, the tribulation, the abomination, the cosmic signs, the gathering of the elect, and the coming of the Son of Man all belonged to one covenantal climax. There was no need for another fulfillment because the one God had promised had arrived. To treat AD 70 as merely foreshadowing another eschatological drama is therefore not merely to extend chronology. It is to reverse the redemptive trajectory Jesus Himself established—from promise to fulfillment, from shadow to substance, from the land to Christ.

V. Paul Taught No Other Eschatology Than Moses and the Prophets

The apostolic witness confirms and extends Jesus’ fulfillment hermeneutic. Nowhere is this clearer than in Paul’s explicit claim that his entire ministry proclaimed nothing beyond what Moses and the Prophets had already announced. Standing before Agrippa, Paul summarized his gospel: “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” (Acts 26:22).

This statement is hermeneutically decisive. Paul does not present a new eschatological system, a postponed prophetic program, or a separate destiny for national Israel detached from the Church. He insists that his message remained in complete continuity with the covenantal expectation already revealed in Israel’s Scriptures. The resurrection hope itself was not innovative but “the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers” (Acts 26:6). When Paul taught resurrection, judgment, and the coming of Christ, he understood himself as proclaiming the fulfillment of what Moses and the Prophets had long foretold.

As we have already seen, both Moses and Daniel spoke of one appointed time (kairos) of covenantal consummation. Deuteronomy 32 located Israel’s final covenant lawsuit, judgment, and vindication at an appointed time that would come in Israel’s latter days. In the Septuagint, this “appointed time” is explicitly connected with nearness: “for the day of their calamity is near, and the things prepared for them hasten” (Deut. 32:35 LXX). In other words when the appointed time would come in Israel’s last days perverse and crooked generation, Israel’s eschatological end and God coming in vengeance and salvation would be “near” at that time.  Likewise, Daniel’s visions repeatedly focused upon the appointed time of the end, the tribulation, resurrection, and destruction of the city and sanctuary. Together, Moses and Daniel anticipated one climactic covenantal end associated with the close of the old covenant age. They did not predict multiple covenantal consummations, repeated endings of the age, or successive fulfillments of the same eschatological events.

What is remarkable is that Paul adopts this same prophetic vocabulary and applies it directly to his own generation. Writing to the Corinthians, he declares: “But this I say, brethren, the appointed time is short” (1 Cor. 7:29).

The phrase literally reads, “the appointed time has been shortened” (ho kairos synestalmenos estin). Paul then describes the passing character of the present order: “for the fashion of this world passeth away” (1 Cor. 7:31). Thus, just as Deuteronomy 32 connects Israel’s appointed time with nearness and hastening judgment, Paul connects the appointed kairos with shortness, urgency, and the passing away of the existing world. The very appointed time foretold by Moses and developed by Daniel had drawn near and was rapidly approaching its consummation.

Paul immediately reinforces this covenantal framework in his discussion of Israel’s wilderness history: “Now these things happened unto them as types, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor. 10:11).

The Greek term is stronger than the common translation “examples.” Paul says these events happened typologically (typikōs). Israel’s history was not merely illustrative; it was divinely designed to function as a system of types pointing forward to their fulfillment in Christ and the New Covenant age.

This observation is highly significant for the present discussion. Throughout this book we have acknowledged that the Old Testament contains genuine types, patterns, and partial fulfillments. The Exodus, wilderness generation, conquest, kingdom, exile, restoration, temple, sacrifices, priesthood, and even Israel herself functioned typologically. Yet the biblical pattern consistently moves from Old Testament type to New Testament imminent antitype, from shadow to substance, from promise to fulfillment. Scripture nowhere establishes a pattern of Old Testament type, then New Testament antitype, then turning that imminent New Testament antitype into another future antitype repeating the same fulfillment!

The expression “the ends of the ages” has been interpreted in two primary ways. Some understand the plural to emphasize the convergence of multiple covenant ages—patriarchal, Mosaic, kingdom, prophetic, and Second Temple—upon one climactic consummation. Others understand it as a superlative expression stressing the fullness or consummation of the age. In either case, Paul’s point remains the same. The plural does not require multiple future endings any more than “Holy of Holies” requires multiple Most Holy Places or “King of kings” requires multiple supreme kings. The emphasis falls upon the culmination and fulfillment of all previous redemptive-historical epochs.

Indeed, the immediate context favors precisely this conclusion. The wilderness generation functioned as a type. Paul’s Corinthian readers were experiencing the antitypical fulfillment. The movement is forward—from type to fulfillment—not forward and then backward again into another cycle of fulfillment. Thus, whether one understands “the ends of the ages” as referring to the convergence of many covenant ages into one consummation or as a superlative expression emphasizing the fullness of that consummation, the result is the same: Paul places his own generation at the one climactic goal toward which the entire Old Testament redemptive drama had been moving.

The same idea appears in Hebrews 9:26, where Christ appeared at “the consummation of the ages.” Neither Paul nor the author of Hebrews expected a succession of future covenant endings. Both viewed the old covenant age as standing at its divinely appointed conclusion. The many ages had reached their one appointed end.

Paul uses the same pattern in Romans 13: “And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand” (Rom. 13:11–12).

Here again, Paul uses kairos: “knowing the time” (ton kairon). He then immediately attaches that appointed time to nearness: “now is our salvation nearer,” and “the day is at hand.” This is precisely the pattern already seen in Deuteronomy 32:35 LXX, where Israel’s appointed day of calamity is said to be near and hastening. Paul is not inventing a new eschatological horizon. He is announcing that the appointed covenantal day foretold in the Law and the Prophets had become imminent in his generation.

This same covenantal climax appears in Paul’s warning to the Corinthians: “upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor. 10:11).

The plural expression “ends of the ages” does not imply multiple future endings. Rather, it reflects a common Jewish idiom emphasizing fullness, culmination, or consummation. All previous covenant ages converged upon a single climactic end experienced by Paul’s generation. The same idea appears in Hebrews 9:26, where Christ appeared at “the consummation of the ages.” Neither Paul nor the author of Hebrews expected a succession of future covenant endings. Both viewed the old covenant age as standing at its divinely appointed conclusion.

Paul repeatedly reinforces this same imminence. “The Lord is at hand” (Phil. 4:5). The appointed kairos had been shortened (1 Cor. 7:29). Salvation was nearer than when believers first believed (Rom. 13:11). The covenantal day was at hand (Rom. 13:12). The ends of the ages had come upon Paul’s contemporaries (1 Cor. 10:11). These statements are not disconnected expressions of general Christian watchfulness. They are Paul’s inspired declaration that the very appointed time previously foretold by Moses and Daniel was now near.

This observation is devastating to double-fulfillment theories. If Moses, Daniel, Jesus, and Paul all spoke of the same appointed time, the same covenantal end, and the same climactic fulfillment, then there is no exegetical basis for multiplying endings, consummations, or fulfillments. The prophets anticipated one covenantal climax. Jesus placed that climax within His generation. Paul proclaimed that the appointed time was now short, near, and at hand. The apostolic message was therefore not the announcement of another future consummation but the proclamation that the long-awaited consummation foretold by Moses and the Prophets was at hand.

This continuity is particularly evident in Romans 9–11, where Paul returns repeatedly to Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah, and Hosea to explain the dynamics of Israel’s hardening and Gentile inclusion. The jealousy Moses predicted through a “no-people” (Deut. 32:21) was unfolding through the gospel’s advance to the nations (Rom. 10:19; 11:11). The remnant principle seen throughout Israel’s history was again at work “at the present time” (Rom. 11:5). The Deliverer coming from Zion to banish ungodliness from Jacob (Rom. 11:26; Isa. 59:20–21) belonged to the same covenantal climax. Paul does not shift to a distant future age. He interprets the present crisis as the outworking of the one covenant drama foreseen by Moses and the Prophets.

Even Paul’s teaching on the Parousia in 1 Thessalonians 4–5 remains anchored in this Mosaic-Danielic framework. The descent of the Lord, the trumpet, the gathering, and the resurrection echo the covenantal theophany patterns of Sinai, the second-exodus expectations of Isaiah, Daniel’s resurrection hope, and Jesus’ own description of His coming in Matthew 24. Paul does not introduce a secret rapture detached from covenant history. He comforts the Thessalonians within the same eschatological horizon Jesus had established. The “we who are alive and remain” language (1 Thess. 4:15, 17) reflects genuine audience relevance, not abstract theological generality. Paul expected the Parousia to occur within the lifetime of at least some in his generation, consistent with Jesus’ own time statements.

Paul’s conduct in Acts 21 further illustrates this covenantal framework. Upon arriving in Jerusalem, James and the elders informed Paul that many thousands of Jewish believers remained zealous for the Law and urged him to join four men under a vow, purify himself with them, and pay the expenses associated with the completion of their vow (Acts 21:20–26). The narrative culminates with the required offerings being presented for each participant. Whatever questions remain concerning the precise details of the ceremony, the passage demonstrates that Paul did not regard the old covenant order as having already disappeared from history. The Temple still stood. The priesthood still functioned. Sacrifices were still being offered. This historical reality harmonizes naturally with Jesus’ teaching that not one jot or tittle of the Law would pass until all had been fulfilled (Matt. 5:17–19). The old covenant world had been judged and rendered obsolete through Christ’s redemptive work, but its final removal awaited the approaching consummation. Paul’s actions therefore fit comfortably within the covenant-transition period anticipated by Jesus.

Throughout his letters, Paul’s covenant theology consistently moves from shadow to substance and from old covenant forms to their fulfillment in Christ. Believers are no longer defined by geography but by union with Christ (Eph. 1:3; 2:6). The Jerusalem below gives way to the Jerusalem above (Gal. 4:26). The earthly shadows give way to heavenly realities. The apostle’s entire theological trajectory runs from promise to fulfillment, not from fulfillment back to shadow.

This trajectory directly contradicts any eschatology that requires another covenant consummation beyond the one foretold by Moses and the Prophets. Paul’s message contains no second prophetic program, no postponed eschatological ending, and no future covenant climax distinct from the one anticipated throughout the Old Testament. He taught no other eschatology than Moses and the Prophets because the one eschatology they foretold had reached its appointed goal in Christ and was rapidly approaching its consummation in his own generation.

The argument may be summarized as follows:

Major Premise: As previously demonstrated, Moses and Daniel foretold one appointed time (kairos) of covenantal consummation and one climactic end, and Deuteronomy 32:35 LXX connects that appointed time with nearness and hastening judgment.

Minor Premise: Paul taught that this same appointed time had become short, near, and at hand in his generation which he understood as the one Moses prophesied of (1 Cor. 7:29–31; Rom. 13:11–12; 1 Cor. 10:11; Phil. 2:15; 4:5).

Conclusion: Therefore, Paul understood the prophetic “appointed time of the end” foretold by Moses and Daniel to be reaching a “near” fulfillment in his own day, not awaiting another distant fulfillment.

Double-fulfillment theories therefore face the same problem in Paul that they face in Jesus. The apostle knew of one prophetic program, one appointed time, one covenantal climax, and one end of the age. To multiply those fulfillments beyond the horizon established by Moses, Daniel, Jesus, and Paul is not to follow the apostolic hermeneutic but to replace it.

 VI. Hebrews: Fulfillment Does Not Return to Shadow

If Moses established one appointed time of covenant consummation, Daniel identified one appointed end, Jesus declared that all things written would be fulfilled within His generation, and Paul proclaimed that the appointed kairos had drawn near, then the Epistle to the Hebrews explains the theological significance of that fulfillment. More than any other New Testament book, Hebrews demonstrates why double-fulfillment theories collapse. Its central argument is that redemptive history moves in one direction—from shadow to substance, from type to antitype, from the old covenant to the new. Once the substance arrives, revelation never returns believers to the shadows.

This argument is woven throughout the structure of the book itself. The author repeatedly contrasts the temporary and typological nature of the old covenant with the permanent and heavenly realities inaugurated through Christ. The Levitical priesthood was a shadow. Christ is the reality. The earthly sanctuary was a copy. Christ ministers in the true sanctuary. Animal sacrifices could never perfect the worshiper. Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice accomplished what they never could. Everywhere Hebrews moves in a single direction: from anticipation to fulfillment.

Nor is the movement merely from one covenant administration to another. It is a movement from the inferior to the superior, from the earthly to the heavenly, from the temporary to the eternal, and from the shadow to the true reality. Throughout the epistle, the author repeatedly describes Christ’s priesthood, covenant, sacrifice, sanctuary, promises, and inheritance as “better” than their old covenant counterparts. The old covenant realities were never ends in themselves. They were temporary pedagogical shadows pointing forward to the greater and more enduring realities that were soon to be fully manifested. The old covenant was good, but the New Covenant was better. The earthly was real, but the heavenly was true. The temporal was meaningful, but the eternal was superior.

This movement becomes particularly important in Hebrews 8–9. The writer declares that Christ has obtained a more excellent ministry and serves as the mediator of a better covenant established upon better promises (Heb. 8:6). He then cites Jeremiah’s New Covenant promise and concludes: “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13).

Significantly, the old covenant had not yet vanished when Hebrews was written. The Temple still stood. The priesthood still functioned. Sacrifices continued daily. Yet the author describes that entire covenant world as growing old and standing on the brink of disappearance. The old covenant age was not merely old—it was “ready” to vanish away.

This transitional framework helps explain the argument of Hebrews 9. The tabernacle consisted of two compartments. The first was the Holy Place; the second was the Most Holy Place (Heb. 9:2–5). The author then makes a remarkable theological observation: “The Holy Spirit this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while the first tabernacle was yet standing” (Heb. 9:8).

The Greek carries the idea of continuing validity or covenantal standing. As long as the first order remained standing, full access into the antitypical Most Holy Place had not yet been publicly manifested.

Many commentators have recognized that the two compartments function typologically. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown note that the arrangement symbolized two covenantal orders. The first compartment represented the old covenant economy with its earthly ordinances and restricted access to God. The second represented the heavenly realities inaugurated through Christ and fully manifested in the New Covenant. The movement from the first chamber to the second mirrors the movement from old covenant shadow to new covenant fulfillment.

The writer himself confirms this interpretation. The first compartment, with its gifts and sacrifices, was: “a figure for the time then present” (Heb. 9:9).

The term parabolē denotes a symbolic representation. The earthly sanctuary was not the final reality. It was a divinely appointed symbol pointing beyond itself. Thus the tabernacle, priesthood, sacrifices, feast days, sabbaths, and covenantal order all functioned typologically.

This becomes even clearer in Hebrews 10: “For the law having a shadow of the good things to come…” (Heb. 10:1).

Notice that the shadows belong to “the law” itself. The sacrifices were not isolated shadows detached from the Mosaic covenant. They were part of a larger covenantal system that included the priesthood, Temple, feast days, new moons, sabbaths, and ceremonial ordinances.

Paul makes the same point in Colossians: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” (Col. 2:16–17).

The feast days and sabbaths were not merely memorial observances. They were prophetic shadows pointing to Christ and the realities secured through His redemptive work.

Many dispensational scholars openly acknowledge this. J. Dwight Pentecost argued that the spring feasts found fulfillment in Christ’s first coming while the fall feasts await future fulfillment in connection with Israel’s restoration and kingdom. Likewise, John Walvoord viewed the feasts of Leviticus 23 as prophetic rehearsals extending from Christ’s first advent to His future kingdom program.

Yet this admission creates a significant problem. The feasts were not independent prophetic symbols detached from the Mosaic Law. They were part of the Law itself. Jesus declared: “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt. 5:18).

If major portions of the feast-day system remain prophetically unfulfilled, then the condition Jesus established for the passing of the Law has not yet been met. The unavoidable implication is that the Law itself—including its feast days, sabbaths, and ceremonial ordinances—should still remain covenantally binding.

Yet virtually no futurist wishes to embrace that conclusion. They insist that believers are no longer obligated to observe Israel’s feast days and sabbath system while simultaneously claiming that the prophetic realities embedded within those observances remain unfulfilled.

The dilemma is unavoidable. If the feast-day shadows still await fulfillment, then according to Jesus’ own logic the Law that contained those shadows should still remain standing. But if the Law has passed away as a covenantal order, then the prophetic realities embedded within its feast days, sabbaths, sacrifices, and ordinances must likewise have reached their intended fulfillment.

Hebrews provides the solution. The shadows belonged to the Law. The body belongs to Christ. The inferior pointed to the better. The earthly pointed to the heavenly. The temporary pointed to the eternal. Once the better reality arrives, the shadow has fulfilled its purpose. The movement is from shadow to substance, not from shadow to substance and then back again to shadow.

The author’s eschatological horizon is equally clear. The better realities were not postponed for thousands of years. They were imminent for the original audience. Hebrews 10:1 speaks of “the good things to come,” using language of realities standing on the threshold of manifestation. A few verses later the readers are exhorted not to forsake assembling together: “and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching” (Heb. 10:25).

The Day was not distant. They could see it approaching.

The warning immediately intensifies: “a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries” (Heb. 10:27).

The covenant enemies stood under imminent judgment. Significantly, the author then quotes Deuteronomy 32: “Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord” (Heb. 10:30).

The same Deuteronomy 32 covenant lawsuit we have traced throughout this study now appears again. Moses located that judgment in Israel’s latter days. Jesus applied it to His generation. Paul proclaimed it was near. Hebrews likewise presents it as approaching.

The argument reaches its climax a few verses later: “For yet a very little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry” (Heb. 10:37).

This is one of the strongest imminence statements in the entire New Testament. The author does not merely say Christ will come. He says Christ will come in “a very little while” and explicitly adds that He “will not delay.” The old covenant world was ready to vanish. The covenantal Day was approaching. The enemies were about to be consumed. The coming of the Lord would not be delayed.

The same imminent transition governs Hebrews 12–13. The writer contrasts Mount Sinai with Mount Zion, the earthly Jerusalem with the heavenly Jerusalem, and the old covenant order with the unshakable kingdom believers were already receiving (Heb. 12:22–28). He then cites Haggai’s prophecy: “Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven” (Heb. 12:26). The author immediately interprets the prophecy: “Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken… that those things which cannot be shaken may remain” (Heb. 12:27).

The contrast is covenantal. The old covenant world—with its Temple, sacrifices, priesthood, earthly Jerusalem, and ceremonial order—was destined for removal. The New Covenant kingdom would remain.

This same expectation appears in the closing chapter: “For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one soon to come” (Heb. 13:14).

The city “to come” (mellousan) is the city about to or soon to come. The earthly Jerusalem was passing away. The heavenly Jerusalem was about to remain as the enduring covenant reality. This is entirely consistent with Hebrews 12:22, Galatians 4:26, and Revelation 21–22.

The result is the exact opposite of double fulfillment. Hebrews does not teach that believers should expect a return to old covenant structures after the shaking. It teaches that the shaking removes them forever. The old covenant order passes away so that the unshakable kingdom may remain.

The trajectory therefore could not be clearer:

Type → Antitype

Shadow → Substance

Copy → True Reality

Inferior → Better

Temporary → Eternal

Earthly Sanctuary → Heavenly Sanctuary

Old Jerusalem → New Jerusalem

First Covenant → Better Covenant

Shakable Kingdom → Unshakable Kingdom

To introduce another future fulfillment that returns believers to old covenant forms is not merely to extend biblical prophecy. It is to reverse the central argument of Hebrews itself.

Major Premise: Hebrews teaches that the old covenant institutions were types and shadows pointing to their fulfillment in Christ and the New Covenant (Heb. 8–10).

Minor Premise: Types reach their intended goal when the antitype arrives and are removed through the covenantal transition from old covenant shadow to new covenant reality (Heb. 8:13; 9:8–10; 10:25–37; 12:26–28).

Conclusion: Therefore, fulfillment cannot return to shadow through another future covenantal fulfillment. Once the antitype has arrived, the type has permanently reached its goal.

The argument of Hebrews therefore strikes at the heart of every double-fulfillment scheme. The old covenant realities were shadows. The New Covenant realities were the better, true, heavenly, eternal, and imminent fulfillment of those shadows. The readers of Hebrews stood at the threshold of that covenantal transition as the old order was ready to vanish away and the unshakable kingdom was about to remain alone. Once the better reality arrives, the shadow has fulfilled its purpose. Fulfillment does not return to shadow, and the true does not yield again to the copy.

VII. Peter Taught One Fulfillment, Not Two

Peter’s eschatology is fully consistent with the prophetic and apostolic pattern we have already traced throughout Scripture. Like Moses, Daniel, Jesus, Paul, and the author of Hebrews, Peter knew of one covenantal consummation, not multiple fulfillments separated by thousands of years. His contribution is especially significant because he explicitly addresses both the timing and the nature of Old Testament fulfillment. The prophets searched for the appointed time of fulfillment and the manner in which God’s promises would come to realization. Peter identifies both.

Peter begins by reminding his readers that they had obtained: “an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you” (1 Pet. 1:4).

This inheritance was not a distant hope reserved for believers thousands of years removed from Peter’s audience. Rather, they were being: “kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:5).

The language is unmistakably imminent. Their salvation was not merely possible. It was “ready” to be revealed. Peter presents his readers as standing on the threshold of the consummation anticipated by the prophets.

Importantly, Peter immediately identifies the nature of this inheritance and salvation. A few verses later he writes: “Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls” (1 Pet. 1:9).

This statement provides the interpretive key for the entire passage. The inheritance reserved in heaven (v. 4), the salvation ready to be revealed (v. 5), and the goal (telos) of their faith (v. 9) are inseparably connected. Peter does not direct his readers to an earthly land inheritance, a political kingdom, or a transformed planet. Rather, the inheritance culminates in the salvation of the soul.

This observation is crucial because it establishes the nature of the prophetic fulfillment Peter is discussing. The prophets were ultimately pointing beyond the earthly shadows of the Old Covenant to the greater spiritual realities secured in Christ. Just as Hebrews moves from shadow to substance, Peter moves from earthly expectation to spiritual fulfillment. The inheritance is redemptive rather than geographical. It concerns the consummation of salvation itself.

Peter then explains that this salvation was the very subject of Old Testament prophecy: “Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you” (1 Pet. 1:10).

Again, the audience relevance could hardly be clearer. The prophets were not primarily ministering to a generation thousands of years beyond Peter’s readers. Peter says they prophesied of the grace that would come unto you.

The prophets searched diligently: “Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify” (1 Pet. 1:11).

Peter indicates that the prophets searched for both the time and the manner of fulfillment. They desired to know when God’s promises would be fulfilled and how those promises would come to realization.

This harmonizes perfectly with the argument developed throughout this study. The New Testament repeatedly teaches that fulfillment arrived in a manner far greater than many anticipated. The promises were not simply transferred from one earthly administration to another. They were transformed from shadow to substance, from earthly types to heavenly realities, and from fleshly forms to spiritual fulfillment in Christ.

The prophets anticipated a holy nation. Peter identifies the Church as: “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation” (1 Pet. 2:9). The prophets anticipated a restored temple. Peter identifies believers as: “lively stones… built up a spiritual house” (1 Pet. 2:5). The prophets anticipated a priesthood. Peter identifies the Church itself as that priesthood. The prophets anticipated the restoration of God’s covenant people. Peter applies Hosea’s restoration promises directly to the Church: “which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God” (1 Pet. 2:10).

Thus, Peter answers both aspects of the prophetic inquiry. The time was his own generation. The manner was New Covenant fulfillment in Christ and His Church.

Indeed, Peter explicitly states: “Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister” (1 Pet. 1:12). This declaration is devastating to double-fulfillment theories. Peter does not say the prophets were primarily serving a generation thousands of years beyond his audience. He says they were serving us.

The inheritance, salvation, and glory anticipated by the prophets were therefore not postponed. They stood ready to be revealed. This same imminence governs the remainder of Peter’s first epistle. He writes: “Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead” (1 Pet. 4:5). The Judge was not merely coming someday. He was ready. Peter then declares: “But the end of all things is at hand” (1 Pet. 4:7).

This is one of the clearest time statements in the New Testament. Peter does not place the end thousands of years beyond his audience. It was at hand.

Even more significant is Peter’s use of covenantal timing language a few verses later: “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God” (1 Pet. 4:17).

The word translated “time” is kairos—the very term we have already traced from Deuteronomy 32, Daniel, Jesus, and Paul. As we have seen, Deuteronomy 32:35 LXX connects Israel’s appointed time with nearness: “the day of their calamity is near.”

Peter now declares that the appointed kairos had arrived. The covenant lawsuit anticipated by Moses had reached its climactic moment. Judgment was beginning at the house of God.

Peter’s covenantal framework becomes even clearer when viewed against the backdrop of Deuteronomy 32. Moses described Israel’s last-days apostasy as a “perverse and crooked generation” (Deut. 32:5, 20) whose appointed judgment would be near when their rebellion reached its climax (Deut. 32:35 LXX).

Peter had already applied this prophecy in his Pentecost sermon. After proclaiming the last-days fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, he exhorted his hearers: “Save yourselves from this crooked generation” (Acts 2:40). The language echoes the covenant-breaking generation of Deuteronomy 32. Peter understood his contemporaries to be living within the very generation Moses had anticipated.

This same Deuteronomic background appears in Peter’s description of the false teachers. He calls them: “spots they are and blemishes” (2 Pet. 2:13). The language deliberately recalls Deuteronomy 32:5: “Their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.”

Peter’s false teachers therefore represent the same covenantally corrupt generation condemned by Moses.

Significantly, Peter immediately connects them with imminent judgment: “whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not” (2 Pet. 2:3).

This language closely parallels Deuteronomy 32:35 LXX, where the appointed day of judgment is near and hastening. Just as Hebrews declared that Christ would come and “would not delay” (Heb. 10:37), Peter insists that the judgment of the covenant breakers was not sleeping and was not lingering. The Deuteronomy 32 lawsuit was reaching its divinely appointed conclusion.

Peter also connects this imminent judgment with imminent glory. He identifies himself as: “a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that is about to be revealed” (1 Pet. 5:1).

The Greek employs the participle mellousēs—the glory about to be revealed. This language closely parallels Paul’s statement: “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is about to be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18 YLT).

In both apostles, the emphasis is remarkably similar. The glory was imminent, and the glory was redemptive. Paul speaks of glory about to be revealed “in us.” Peter speaks of an inheritance ready to be revealed, a salvation ready to be revealed, and a glory about to be revealed. The focus is not upon geopolitical transformation but upon the consummation of redemption within God’s covenant people.

This perspective ultimately reaches back to Jesus Himself. Christ taught: “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation” (Luke 17:20). He then explained when it would come at His coming: “he kingdom of God” would be “within a person” (Luke 17:21).

The consummation of the kingdom would therefore not be discerned through merely outward and earthly expectations. Its realization would be manifested in the redemptive reign of Christ within His covenant people. Peter’s salvation of the soul, like Paul’s glory revealed in us, points to this same spiritual and covenantal fulfillment.

This observation becomes crucial when Peter’s two epistles are read together. Peter explicitly states: “This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you… by way of remembrance” (2 Pet. 3:1). The second epistle is therefore not introducing a different eschatology. It is reminding the readers of the same inheritance, salvation, judgment, glory, and consummation already discussed in the first.

This means the New Creation of 2 Peter 3 must be interpreted through the lens of 1 Peter 1. The inheritance reserved in heaven, the salvation ready to be revealed, the salvation of the soul, and the glory about to be revealed are not abandoned in the second epistle. They are expanded and brought to their covenantal climax.

The salvation “ready to be revealed” in 1 Peter becomes the New Heavens and New Earth in 2 Peter. The salvation of the soul becomes the realized inheritance. The glory about to be revealed becomes the fully manifested New Covenant order. Peter is not changing subjects; he is describing the same covenantal consummation from a different perspective.

This interpretation is strengthened by Peter’s description of the passing heavens and earth and the dissolution of the elements. As we have already demonstrated, the language of heaven and earth throughout the prophets frequently refers to covenantal worlds and redemptive orders rather than the physical universe itself. As we have seen earlier, Jesus employed this same covenantal language when He taught that not one jot or tittle of the Law would pass until all was fulfilled and the old covenant heaven and earth passed away (Matt. 5:17–18). Likewise, He declared that heaven and earth would pass away within the generation that witnessed Jerusalem’s judgment (Matt. 24:34–35).

Peter stands squarely within this same prophetic tradition. The stoicheia (“elements”) are elsewhere associated with the elementary structures and principles of the old covenant order (Gal. 4:3, 9; Col. 2:8, 20; Heb. 5:12). Significantly, Peter describes them as already in the process of dissolution. The LEB translates 2 Peter 3:11: “Since all these things are being dissolved…”

Peter does not merely speak of a future dissolution. He describes the old order as already being dissolved.

This harmonizes perfectly with the broader New Testament witness. Paul taught that “the form of this world is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:31), that the appointed time had grown short (1 Cor. 7:29), and that the glory of the Mosaic covenant was “being abolished” (2 Cor. 3:7–13). The author of Hebrews declared that the old covenant was “growing old” and was “ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13). John likewise taught that “it is the last hour” (1 John 2:18) and that the darkness of that world was already “passing away” (1 John 2:8).

This is not the language of the second law of thermodynamics or the gradual decay of the physical universe. Peter is not describing a cosmic process operating since creation. Rather, he is describing a specific redemptive-historical transition occurring within his own generation. The old covenant world was passing away because its promises, institutions, and prophetic expectations were reaching fulfillment in Christ and through His Church. The Temple, priesthood, sacrifices, feast days, and covenant order that had governed Israel for centuries were being dissolved precisely because the realities to which they pointed were being manifested.

Just as the glory on Moses’ face was fading because a greater covenant glory had arrived, so the old covenant heaven and earth were passing away because the New Creation was being revealed. The dissolution of the old order was not evidence of cosmic collapse but evidence of covenant fulfillment. The shadows were disappearing because the substance had come. The type was passing because the antitype had arrived. The promises of that world were being fulfilled in Christ and in His redeemed people.

Thus, the inheritance ready to be revealed, the salvation of the soul, the glory about to be revealed, the end of all things at hand, the appointed kairos of judgment, the destruction of the false teachers, the dissolution of the old covenant world, and the New Creation all belong to the same imminent covenantal consummation. They are not separate fulfillments scattered across thousands of years. They are different descriptions of the same redemptive reality anticipated by the prophets and realized in the generation to whom Peter wrote.

Major Premise: The Old Testament prophets foretold a coming salvation, inheritance, judgment, kingdom, glory, and New Creation while searching for both the time and manner of fulfillment.

Minor Premise: Peter identifies his own generation as the recipients of that fulfillment and declares that the inheritance, salvation, glory, judgment, and New Creation were standing on the threshold of realization—ready to be revealed, at hand, about to occur, and having reached their appointed kairos (1 Pet. 1:4–12; 4:5–7, 17; 5:1; 2 Pet. 2:3; 3:1–13).

Conclusion: Therefore, Peter understood the prophetic expectations of the Old Testament—including the promised inheritance and New Creation—to be reaching fulfillment in his own generation, not awaiting another fulfillment thousands of years later.

Peter’s testimony therefore agrees completely with Moses, Daniel, Jesus, Paul, and Hebrews. The prophets anticipated one appointed time, one inheritance, one salvation, one judgment, one glory, one New Creation, and one consummation. Peter identified his readers as the generation standing at the threshold of that fulfillment and explained the manner in which it would occur—not through a return to Old Covenant shadows, but through the greater spiritual realities found in Christ and His New Covenant people.

VIII. John and Revelation: One Prophecy, One Mystery, One Fulfillment

John brings the apostolic witness to its climactic conclusion. Moses foretold one appointed time. Daniel sealed one appointed end because its fulfillment was still far away. Jesus declared that all things written would be fulfilled in His generation. Paul proclaimed that the appointed time had grown short. Hebrews announced that the old covenant was ready to vanish and the better realities were about to remain. Peter taught that the inheritance, salvation of the soul, glory, judgment, and New Creation were ready to be revealed in his generation. John now gathers these threads together and declares that the prophetic mystery foretold by the Old Testament prophets would be finished with no more delay.

Revelation opens with unmistakable imminence: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass” (Rev. 1:1).

John immediately adds: “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy… for the appointed time is at hand” (Rev. 1:3).

The language is not vague. The prophecy concerns things that must shortly come to pass because the appointed time was near. John does not divide the book into one near fulfillment and another fulfillment thousands of years later. He speaks of “this prophecy” as a unified revelation.

This directly harmonizes with Daniel. Daniel was told: “shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the appointed time of the end” (Dan. 12:4 LXX).

The reason was obvious: the appointed time was still distant. But John receives the exact opposite command: “Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the appointed time is at hand” (Rev. 22:10).

The contrast is decisive. Daniel sealed the prophecy because fulfillment was far away. John was forbidden to seal the prophecy because fulfillment was near. Revelation is therefore not introducing a new prophetic program. It is announcing the imminent fulfillment of the very end Daniel had sealed.

The parallels between Daniel and Revelation are striking:

The conclusion is difficult to avoid. John is not predicting a second fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy. He is announcing that Daniel’s appointed end had reached its appointed time.

The theological center of Revelation’s time statements is found in Revelation 10:6–7. The mighty angel swears: “that there should be delay no longer” (Rev. 10:6). The meaning is not that chronological time would cease. Rather, God’s prophetic program would no longer be postponed. The appointed time anticipated by the prophets had arrived.

John immediately explains: “But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he declared to his servants the prophets” (Rev. 10:7).

Every phrase undermines the double-fulfillment theory.

First, the mystery would be finished. John does not say the mystery would begin another cycle of fulfillment with another consummation at the end of world history. He does not say it would be partially fulfilled while awaiting another fulfillment thousands of years later. The mystery would be completed.

Second, the mystery was the very mystery God had declared through the prophets. This is not a new prophetic program. It is the consummation of the old one. The same prophetic hope anticipated by Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Joel, Zechariah, and the rest of the prophets was reaching fulfillment.

Third, the mystery would be finished at the sounding of the seventh trumpet. This places the completion of the prophetic program within the structure of Revelation itself.

Fourth, the angel explicitly declares that there would be no more delay. This language harmonizes perfectly with the covenantal time texts we have already examined. Moses anticipated a day when Israel’s judgment would be near (Deut. 32:35). Daniel sealed his prophecy because the appointed time was distant (Dan. 12:4). Jesus declared that all things written would be fulfilled within His generation (Luke 21:22, 32). Paul proclaimed that the appointed time had grown short (1 Cor. 7:29) and that salvation was nearer than when believers first believed (Rom. 13:11–12). Hebrews announced that Christ would come in “a very little while” and “would not delay” (Heb. 10:37). Peter declared that the end of all things was at hand and that the appointed kairos had arrived (1 Pet. 4:7, 17). John now gathers all of these strands together and announces that the prophetic mystery would be finished with no more delay.

The immediate context confirms this interpretation. At the sounding of the seventh trumpet John hears: “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ” (Rev. 11:15). He then describes: “thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged” (Rev. 11:18).

This is the very resurrection-judgment complex anticipated in Daniel 12. Daniel connected the resurrection, judgment, and consummation to the three-and-a-half-year shattering of Jerusalem. John connects the judgment of the dead to the same three-and-a-half-year period during which the holy city is trampled under foot.

The parallels are exact:

Tribulation → Tribulation

Three-and-a-half years → Three-and-a-half years

Shattering of Jerusalem → Trampling of Jerusalem

Resurrection → Judgment of the dead

End arrives → Seventh trumpet sounds

John is therefore not presenting a different end from Daniel’s. He is presenting the fulfillment of Daniel’s end.

This same covenantal framework governs Revelation’s vision of the New Jerusalem and New Creation. Peter described an inheritance reserved in heaven, a salvation ready to be revealed, and the salvation of the soul as the goal of faith (1 Pet. 1:4–9). He then connected that inheritance to the New Creation of 2 Peter 3. John now portrays that same inheritance as the New Jerusalem descending from heaven: “And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven” (Rev. 21:2).

The inheritance is not a return to earthly land promises. It is not a restoration of old covenant shadows. It is the New Covenant heavenly city anticipated throughout the New Testament.

John explains its significance: “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them” (Rev. 21:3).

This is the fulfillment of what Hebrews anticipated in the transition from the earthly sanctuary to the true Most Holy Place. It is the fulfillment of Peter’s spiritual house and royal priesthood. It is the fulfillment of Paul’s glory about to be revealed in God’s people. It is the fulfillment of Jesus’ teaching that the kingdom would not come with outward observation because the kingdom was within His followers.

Likewise, John declares: “there shall be no more death” (Rev. 21:4).

This should not be isolated from the broader New Testament doctrine of redemption and salvation as we saw in 1-2 Peter. The issue is not merely biological mortality. The focus is the removal of the Adamic death that separated man from God. In the New Jerusalem, access to God is fully restored. The curse is removed. Fellowship is restored. The inheritance promised by the prophets reaches its consummation.

Thus, Revelation’s New Creation harmonizes perfectly with Peter’s inheritance and salvation of the soul. The New Heavens and New Earth, the New Jerusalem, the dwelling of God with men, the removal of death, and the restoration of life all describe the same covenantal reality viewed from different angles. The emphasis is spiritual, redemptive, and covenantal rather than geopolitical or cosmological.

The book closes exactly as it began: “These sayings are faithful and true… the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done” (Rev. 22:6).

Again: “Behold, I come quickly” (Rev. 22:7). Again: “Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand” (Rev. 22:10). Again: “Behold, I come quickly” (Rev. 22:12). And finally: “Surely I come quickly” (Rev. 22:20).

The repetition is overwhelming. The prophecy of this book [singular] was to be fulfilled shortly. The appointed time was near. Christ was coming quickly. The mystery would be finished with no more delay. John nowhere suggests a second fulfillment of these events thousands of years later.

Major Premise: Revelation identifies itself as one prophetic book whose contents would be fulfilled shortly because the appointed time was near and the prophetic mystery would be finished with no more delay (Rev. 1:1, 3; 10:6–7; 22:6, 10, 20).

Minor Premise: The contents of Revelation include the fulfillment of Daniel’s sealed prophecy, the trampling of Jerusalem, the judgment of the dead, the completion of the prophetic mystery, the coming of Christ, and the arrival of the New Jerusalem and New Creation.

Conclusion: Therefore, John understood these prophetic realities as belonging to one imminent covenantal fulfillment, not to multiple fulfillments separated by thousands of years.

John’s testimony therefore completes the cumulative case. Moses foretold one appointed time. Daniel sealed one appointed end. Jesus declared that all things written would be fulfilled in His generation. Paul proclaimed that the appointed time had grown short. Hebrews taught that fulfillment does not return to shadow. Peter identified the inheritance and New Creation as the salvation of the soul ready to be revealed. John declares that the prophetic mystery announced by the prophets would be finished with no more delay. The New Jerusalem had arrived. The old covenant world had passed away. The dwelling of God was now with men in Christ.

IX. Conclusion: One Appointed Time, One Hope, One Fulfillment

The cumulative testimony of Scripture is remarkably unified. Moses anticipated one latter-days covenant crisis, one appointed time (kairos) of judgment and vindication, and one covenantal consummation when Israel would reach her “latter end” (Deut. 31–32). Daniel developed this same expectation by prophesying one coming of the Son of Man upon the clouds, one appointed time of the end, one great tribulation, one resurrection, one judgment, and one destruction of the city and sanctuary during the days of the fourth kingdom, Rome (Dan. 7; 9; 12). Neither Moses nor Daniel introduced multiple eschatological endings separated by thousands of years. They anticipated one covenantal climax.

Jesus placed that fulfillment within the lifetime of His own generation. He declared that all things written concerning Jerusalem’s judgment and Israel’s covenantal consummation would be fulfilled before that generation passed away (Matt. 24:34; Luke 21:22, 32). He also taught that not one jot or tittle of the Law would pass away until all that the Law and Prophets anticipated reached fulfillment (Matt. 5:17–18). The passing of the old covenant heaven and earth was not the beginning of another prophetic cycle but the arrival of the fulfillment toward which the entire old covenant order pointed.

Paul continued this same prophetic framework. He explicitly declared that he taught “none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come” (Acts 26:22). His resurrection expectation was not a second eschatological hope detached from Israel’s covenant story but “the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers” (Acts 26:6) and “the hope of Israel” (Acts 28:20). Paul knew of one hope, not two.

This observation is crucial because the New Testament never separates Israel’s eschatology from Genesis 2–3 eschatology. The defeat of Adamic death, removal of the curse, restoration of access to God’s presence, resurrection, judgment, inheritance, and New Creation are not presented as a separate program awaiting fulfillment thousands of years after Israel’s covenantal consummation.

Adam’s problem and Israel’s story meet in Christ’s one redemptive solution. This is why Revelation 21–22 can describe the restoration of Eden—the tree of life, removal of the curse, God dwelling with His people, and death being no more—while also declaring these things would shortly take place. The passing of Israel’s old covenant heaven and earth brings the arrival of the New Covenant creation where what was lost in Adam is restored in Christ.

Therefore, the Reformed distinction between AD 70 as Israel’s microcosmic eschaton and a future cosmic macrocosmic eschaton lacks explicit apostolic support. Likewise, the Dispensational expectation of a future return to old covenant forms reverses the movement of redemptive history.

The apostles move from shadow to substance. Double fulfillment requires substance to become shadow again. The apostles move from promise to fulfillment. Double fulfillment requires fulfillment to become prophecy again. The apostles move from the land to Christ. Double fulfillment systems often move from Christ back toward the land.

The biblical movement is from Old Testament promise to New Testament fulfillment, from type to antitype, from shadow to substance, from the earthly copies to the heavenly realities. Scripture never teaches that New Testament fulfillment becomes another type awaiting a greater antitype thousands of years later.

The prophets anticipated one appointed time. Daniel sealed one appointed end. Jesus announced fulfillment within one terminal generation. Paul proclaimed one hope of Israel. Hebrews anticipated one final transition from shadow to substance. Peter expected one inheritance ready to be revealed. John announced one prophetic mystery finished with no more delay.

Fulfillment does not return to shadow. When God fulfills His promises, fulfillment means fulfillment.

[1] Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, 285–317.

[2] C. F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament: Daniel, trans. James Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr.), 344–52; James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1927), 378–85.

[3] John F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), 183–86; Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), 289–92; Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 82–85; John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), notes on Matt. 24:15–31 and Dan. 12:1–7; Michael J. Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel? (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 165–81; Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 178–85.