MIDWESTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

A SUMMARY AND THEOLOGICAL CRITIQUE

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE

DR 373500 OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

BY

GREGORY J. FLOYD

MARYVILLE, TENNESSEE

APRIL 17, 2017

 Introduction

The book, A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, edited by Roy B. Zuck is a

production of five faculty professors of Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) and published in

1991. DTS has maintained a strong historical belief in dispensationalism, and professors Robert

B. Chisolm, Jr., Thomas L. Constable, Homer Heater, Jr., Eugene H. Merrill, and Roy B. Zuck

would have written from this theological perspective. Likewise, the biblical hermeneutics of

these professors are assumed to preserve a literal, historical, grammatical interpretation of the

text as put forth by traditional dispensationalists. The treatise follows the entire Old Testament

traditional biblical arrangements and is generally grouped by biblical author or type of

successive literature. Each of the separate biblical groupings has one of the professors’

authorship. Current 2017 Old Testament courses at DTS still list this as a textbook or one

suggested as an advisable resource.

The forward from Zuck’s book, written by Kenneth L. Barker, suggests that he and the

authors believe that the center of “biblical theology,” not merely Old Testament theology, is

“basically the kingdom principle.”1 If one had not read the book’s forward by Barker or the

preface by its editor, the reader might have been left to assume that a theological “handful of

subjects” or “themes” would be addressed dealing with man’s relationship to God. The

introduction of the book, written by Merrill, is key to understanding the method and theological

approach of the entire work. In the prefess he defines the two governing theological processes of

“biblical” and “systematic” theology that are traditionally involved with Old Testament

1
Roy B. Zuck, Eugene H. Merrill, and Darrell L. Bock, eds., A Biblical Theology of the
Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), forward.

2
theology.2 He is complementary to both processes but is unapologetic about the significance to

“biblical” over “systematic” theology because proper “systematic” theology must be derived

from “biblical” theology.3 Merrill is convinced that the “high view of the authority of the Bible”

is the stance from which all the contributing professors have written.4 Furthermore, he clarifies

that “scripture itself is not uniform in its presentation of the revelation of God. That is, in the

very nature of progressive revelation and the multiformity of the literature and literary genres,

there are bound to be different themes and emphases.”5 These differences are non-contradictory,

“harmonious and complementary” because they are in God’s Word.6 Thus, capturing the core

themes of God’s “mind and purpose” as revealed in His Word will arise naturally from the

Scripture.

The beginning chapters of the book could potentially have left readers confused as to

whether the authors subscribed to an Old Testament theological center as Barker claimed.

However, Merrill explains in the first chapter regarding his view on the center of theology.

Unfortunately, he is the only author who addresses this “kingdom” center directly and weaves

that principle throughout twelve books of the Old Testament. His biblical theology, as opposed

to strictly Old Testament theology, consistently exhibit continuity with both Old and New

Testaments, thus recognizing the unity of “Kingdom Center Theology.” Merrill exposits that

2
Ibid., 2.
3
Zuck, 6.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid., 3.
6
Ibid.

3
neither of the Testaments contradicts each other because they are one unified revelation of God.7

The remaining authors’ choice of words throughout the book does not indicate a need for

a center, multiform, multiplex, or any other aspect of Old Testament theology. Likewise, they do

not regard positively or negatively for the matter of center at all. Respectfully, they do not put

forth philosophies that contradict that premise either; rather the remaining authors expound upon

various themes that all reflect God’s progressive revelation as He deals with people. Progressive

revelation is certainly a shared belief amongst theologians and is surely a key component to

understanding the way dispensationalism separates itself from some areas of covenant theology.8

All authors wholeheartedly agree with Earl Radmacher when he states, “literal interpretation is

the ‘bottom-line’ of dispensationalism.”9

To discover the concepts these five authors have proposed for Old Testament theology,

one will need to determine why Merrill has chosen “Kingdom of God” as a center. Did he choose

this center because it naturally arose from the books he was assigned to write as opposed to those

written by the others? Had the other authors determined that it would be a theological “stretch”

to weave a “kingdom” center into their books? Did the others write totally separate essays

without needed consultation from the collective group? The latter question seems to be the

intention of the entire book. The authors all had a sameness of theological predilection and were

merely tasked with the themes that arose from their assigned books. Merrill had the privilege to

7
Ibid., 11.
8
Rolland D. McCune, “A Study In The Dispensations,” Central Bible Quarterly 13, no. 2
(1970): 25.
9
Earl Radmacher, “The Current Status of Dispensationalism and its
Eschatology,” Perspectives on Evangelical Theology, Kenneth S. Kantzer and Stanley N.
Gundry (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979), 171.

4
write about some of the most theologically significant books in dispensational theology. This

paper will address the dispensational theological proposals of Merrill as contrasted to those of

covenant theologies; highlight some major differences between the two systematic theologies;

expound upon the degree to which these differences have affected the results of theological

centers, and attempt to show how dispensational and covenant theologies may find agreement.

Critical Evaluation

The Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) states in their bylaws that its members must

adhere to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI 1978).10 The statements,

affirmations, and articles proposed by CSBI will presumably be agreed upon by those adherents

of dispensational theology since Merrill was a member of ETS since 1965 and served as

president in 2010.11 It is important to note that both dispensationalist and covenant theologians

have agreed to and have equally participated in ETS.

Covenant theology is contrasted here with Dispensationalist theology because these two

theological views dominate most evangelical churches but arrive at many diverse conclusions.

These two theological constructs can examine the same biblical text of creation beginning in the

first chapter of Genesis and extend to many of the prophetic Scriptures discussing the nation of

Israel and come to vastly differing conclusions regarding their meaning. Interestingly, each

would claim adherence to the same historical-grammatical interpretation largely proposed by

CSBI. Covenant theologians will often contend for allegorical or essential spiritualization; in

10
“Bylaws | The Evangelical Theological Society,” http://www.etsjets.org/about/bylaws.
11
“ETS Past Presidents | The Evangelical Theological Society,”
http://www.etsjets.org/Presidents

5
contrast, dispensational theology contends that the identical text should be interpreted literally.12

Many times prophetic passages that have obviously been historically fulfilled will satisfy a

covenant theologian, but a dispensationalist will argue for a partial or double fulfillment that is

yet to come.13 The two major theologies listed here will be discussed later in this paper since

they pertain to Merrill’s theological center as he interacts with biblical covenants.

Merrill believes that a specific center for the Old Testament is the Sinaitic covenant as

stated in Ex 19:4-6 because the majority of the Old Testament deals with the nation of Israel’s

interaction with God.14 He designated only six paragraphs to this Old Testament specific

theology then immediately shifts to a full biblical theology which unites Old and New

Testaments with God’s “ultimate objective… unbroken communion” with the people of the

earth.15 If the literal view of Gn 1:26-28 is the theological center, then it also entails the full

creative purposes of God.16 Merrill states: “the very priority of creation both historio-graphically

and canonically should point to its theological centrality.”17 Then he begins to unfold the biblical

theology that unites Genesis’ creation of man and his subsequent fall throughout the Old

Testament to the New Testament’s prophetic final restoration based on a kingdom principle.18

12
Renald E. Showers, There Really Is a Difference!: A Comparison of Covenant and
Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990), 24.
13
Zuck, 429.
14
Ibid., 12.
15
Ibid., 13.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid., 16.

6
 Kingdom Center

To explain the manner by which he arrived at a kingdom center, Merrill states, “proper

biblical theology method demands that any proposed center or structure of theological analysis

be derived from the material itself and that it not be imposed on that material.”19 He then

develops the theology of kingdom center on God’s purpose, as creator/king who created man—

Adam—as the image of God.20 Merrill qualifies this assumption with the text of Gn 1:26 by

stating, “The text speaks not of what man is like but of what he is to be and do” this is a

“functional statement and not one of essence.”21 Adam was created to be the very image of God

and to represent “God Himself as sovereign over all creation.”22 Merrill shows how verses 26-28

contain kingly authority statements bestowed on man by God such as: “let them rule over,” “fill

the earth and subdue it,” “rule over the fish… birds… every living creature that moves on the

ground.”23 Man will therefore function as a king, lording over and dominating all creation.24

Additional statements supporting the kingship of man include his ability to “work the (un-

cursed) ground” causing it to do his will and his authority to name the animals, thereby asserting

dominion and privilege over all.25 According to Ps 8:5-8, mankind has been given kingship

19
Ibid., 158.
20
Ibid., 14.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid., 15.
25
Ibid., 16.

7
specifically indicated with a “crown,” and this passage re-emphasizes the creation account in Gn

1:26-28.26

Next, Merrill proceeds to trace the kingship of Adam as it relates to patriarchal covenant

arrangements throughout the Old Testament to the Second Adam, Jesus, the church, and the

literal fulfillment of Israel, “His ancient people.”27 Dispensationalists hold to a literal future

fulfillment of Israel’s 12 tribes to their land in a 1,000-year reign of Jesus on the throne of David

in Jerusalem. The covenants are a recognized necessity of dispensationalist because they

naturally arise from the literal text, like that of Noah, Abram, and David, but this does not mean

that they are covenant theologians. When Merrill states, “what became submerged in the course

of human history will reemerge in the eschaton when man’s full covenant-keeping capacity will

be restored” he would then find covenant theologies final eschatology agreeable. 28

Similar Theological Centers

The influential scholarly work in the field of Old Testament Theological center, theme, or

other motif appears to have a greater amount of reformed theology or denominations attached to

their primary author. In the preface to his large volume on Old Testament Theology, Walther

Eichrodt speaks of “covenant” as being the “code-word” for the complete identity of Israel.29

Most of the chapters in his book center around the covenant of God with His people Israel.

Though he apparently never argues for a theological center, it seems evident that “covenant” is

26
Ibid.
27
Ibid., 17, 87.
28
Ibid., 16.
29
Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1961), 18.

8
the central position arising from scripture.30 This assumption would not be an unusual theme for

a Protestant theologian to embrace. “God is the Lord” is a very similar central concept developed

by Ludwig Kohler; Lordship and Kingship are similar New and Old Testament biblical themes.31

Horst Seebass emphasized another similar concept of “rulership” of God while the central idea of

Gunther Klein is the “kingdom of God.”32 It is hard to determine the exact theologies of the

aforementioned authors, but many of the schools at which they attended or taught were from

Reformed traditions and held closely to covenant theology.

Covenant Theology

Traditional covenant theology and its clear differences to a dispensationalist view will be

briefly examined below. The historical roots of covenant theology date from approximately

1536-1587. Louis Berkhof states, “Olevianus was the real founder of a well-developed federal

theology, in which the concept of covenant became for the first time the constitutive and

determinative principle of the entire system.”33 Furthermore, “Reformed Churches of

Switzerland and Germany”34 were the first to adopt this new covenant (federal) theology. For the

most part, current denominations such as Presbyterians, Anglican, Episcopal, Congregational,

Evangelical, Baptist, and most mainline Reformed Protestant Churches follow versions of

30
Ibid., 17.
31
Gerhard F. Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 4th
ed., updated & enl (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 141.
32
Ibid.
33
Louis Berkhof and Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, New ed (Grand Rapids, Mich:
W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1996), 212.
34
Ibid.

9
covenant theology which include a covenant of works and a covenant of grace, with some

denominations separating out the third covenant of redemption from grace. Covenant theologians

adhering to the CSBI of the ETS have significant differences in hermeneutics that are not merely

semantic; their conclusions lead to stark eschatological differences, specifically in reference to

Israel and the Church.

Works and Grace

A covenant of works and grace began in the Garden of Eden with a covenant made

between God and Adam. The covenant of works, initiated in Genesis Chapters 1 and 2, was

evidenced by Adam obeying God through the process of actively resisting eating the fruit from

the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; this “work” alone would have granted eternal life.

The failure of Adam to obey the “work” covenant effectively voided the contract, and in Genesis

3, God extends the second covenant of “grace.” Some theologians support the implication in Gn

3:15 that “work wages” can no longer save; the proto-evangelium indicates that Christ will pay

the penalty for the wages that man could not. Wayne Grudem refers to this time after “works” as

“common grace” which all descendants of Adam receive because they are not sent directly to

hell but are generally afforded the capacity to have a productive life on earth.35 Covenant

theologians readily admit that neither statement of works or grace is found explicitly in the early

chapters of Genesis, and is not qualified until the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 17. However,

“works and grace” is implied from the command of God to “not eat” as being a “work” and

rather than killing Adam and Eve, God extended “common grace,” which would find its ultimate

fulfillment in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

35
Wayne Grudem, Bible Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2014), 274.

10
Hermeneutics

Since the covenant of grace has been in effect since Genesis 3 and extended between both

Old and New Testaments up until today, a metanarrative unity exists. There cannot be any

amount of divine revelatory times, eras, or administrations (dispensations) of God that will

change the “grace.” Therefore, everything that applies to a New Testament believer would have

been true for the Old Testament believer as well because of this unified covenant of grace.

Traditionally, it has been accepted that the Holy Spirit is not acting differently in the New

Testament; rather He is extending His coverage to those who were formerly restricted by God.

Prophetic scriptures dealing with Christ in the Old Testament must, therefore, take on imperative

spiritualization. The above comments are broad, overarching, and not necessarily agreed on by

all covenant theologians, but they are certainly truer of those in older traditions such as

Berkhof’s time.

Israel and the Church

Following covenant hermeneutics, Berkhof explains that the church and the “old

dispensation” Israel are “essentially one” in nature.36 He further explains after Christ’s incarnate

work, “The Church was divorced from the national life of Israel and obtained an independent

organization.”37 Replacement theologians embrace this concept because they do not

acknowledge a physical country of Israelites, either at present or in the future. The Church

replaced or became separated from physical Israel and became the non-land affiliated “world-

wide extension” of spiritual Israel.38 Since a literal Israel does not exist due to its spiritualization,

36
Louise Berkhof., 571.
37
Ibid.
38
Ibid.

11
a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ cannot occur. The amillennialist (meaning no millennium),39

along with, postmillennialist, and covenant premillennialist40 naturally fuel replacement theology

and the divesting of Israel for covenant theology and the denominations that follow. These are

the beliefs of uniformity promoted by covenant theology and their tenets obtained through

differing hermeneutics from that of a dispensationalist. Covenant theologians would say that the

kingdom of God is already here based on Jesus’ statement that the “Kingdom of God is at hand,”

“the Kingdom of Heaven has come near,” and similar quotes from the Sermon on the Mount

(Mat 5:1-12). Covenant theology is generally in agreement with and accepting of a “kingdom”

center for biblical theology, and a significant part of covenant theologians’ systematic theology

and belief is that the Kingdom of God is already among us.

Dispensational Theology

Charles Ryrie, a leading proponent of dispensationalism, attended DTS as a student; he

later became a professor there, and finally became the dean of doctoral studies. The definition of

dispensationalism has been a challenging task because the proponents cannot seem to contain it

in a single word or sentence due to the vast scope of its parts. John N. Darby is typically credited

as the father of dispensationalism, but many would trace certain of its aspects to early church

fathers such as Irenaeus and Augustine. Denominations that subscribe to dispensationalism are

largely non-Reformed such as fundamentalist, Baptist, Pentecostal, charismatics and other

churches adhering to those reflective practices. Unlike covenant theology, which contains two or

39
Ronald M. Johnson, “Covenant Hermeneutics,” Conservative Theological Journal 3,
no. 10 (1999): 328.
40
R. Bruce Compton, “Dispensationalism, The Church, And The New Covenant,”
Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 8, no. 1 (2003): 5.

12
three components, initial dispensations under Darby contained five sections, and later Cyrus

Schofield increased the number to seven. Ryrie comments, “As far as the use of the word in

scripture is concerned, a dispensation may be defined as a stewardship, administration, oversight,

or management of others' property. As we have seen, this involves responsibility, accountability,

and faithfulness on the part of the steward.”41 Traditional dispensationalism recognizes the

progressive ways in which mankind has been historically tested by God beginning at creation

and ending at consummation. Ryrie states,

Thus, the distinguishing characteristics of a different dispensation are three: (1) a

change in God's governmental relationship with man (though a dispensation does
not have to be composed entirely of completely new features); (2) a resultant
change in man's responsibility; and (3) corresponding revelation necessary to
effect the change (which is new and is a stage in the progress of revelation
through the Bible).42

The three characteristics will be addressed in the following section on progressive revelation.

Progressive Revelation

Progressive revelation is the bedrock in determining the way in which each dispensation

begins and ends. God's revelation was not given all at once to man but, “unfolded in a series of

successive acts” that developed as time passed and was recorded in the Bible thereby conveying

the record of progress.43 One of the clearest distinctions of seven dispensations is delineated by

Ryrie’s examples of man’s responsibility to God and the subsequent judgment upon mankind

when they failed. To illustrate his point Ryrie begins with Adam in the Garden of Eden before

the Fall when God and man communicated face-to-face in the Dispensation of Innocence. At this

41
Charles Caldwell Ryrie and Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Rev. and
expanded (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 23.
42
Ibid., 29.
43
Ibid., 26.

13
point, man’s only responsibilities were to keep the garden, fill/subdue the earth, fellowship with

God, and abstain from consuming one fruit. Adam and Eve’s disobedience brought the curses of

both physical and spiritual death. The Dispensation of Conscience required man to respond with

a good conscience toward God by bringing animal/blood sacrifices. That dispensation ceased

with deep regret on God’s part; the resulting judgment was His flooding of the entire world.

Noah and his family began the Post-Flood Dispensation of civil government which ended in

judgment at the Tower of Babel.

The Dispensation of the Patriarchal Rule is significant because God moved from dealing

with all mankind in general to one elect man, Abraham, and his family. The subsequent

judgment was slavery by the Egyptians and wandering in the wilderness. Mosaic Law

Dispensation elevated a priestly-elect nation by representing God through obedience to His laws.

The national judgments consisted of various captivities. The current dispensation, which began

after Christ’s ascension, is the Dispensation of Grace in which all mankind has the opportunity to

participate by believing in Christ, walking with Him, and earning heavenly rewards. The final

judgment for this dispensation is only for those who do not believe—they will suffer death and

loss of rewards. The future dispensation is called the Millennial Kingdom in which

responsibilities will include believing in and obeying Christ as He rules His kingdom for 1,000

years. The judgment will consist of the final Great White Throne Judgment where death will be

the Lake of Fire.

Hermeneutic

Hermeneutics is where dispensational theologies begin to have major differences from

that of covenant theologies. Dispensationalists claim that they have the correct hermeneutical

understanding of the literal interpretation of scripture; this is occasionally referred to as the

14
principle of grammatical-historical, plain, or even the normal interpretation.44 Dispensationalist

believe the first understanding of a text is to be how it is typically read in the context of original

intended hearers, for example, if the text indicates that literary devices are being employed, the

reader should next consider the figures of speech, symbols, and other potential literary devices. If

there are figures of speech, they should enrich the literal meaning for the reader. Beginning in

Genesis one, a dispensationalist will interpret the literal language of orderly, ordinary-created,

24-hour days and will assume that this manner of language continues throughout the Bible unless

otherwise indicated. That is the struggle many have because covenant theologians may read

symbolism into a text that a dispensationalist would not, which can lead to a very different

understanding of Israel and the Church.

Israel and the Church

A dispensationalist would say that Israel was before and certainly not the same as the

Church. They would site several verses from both the Old and New Testament to show the

separation as it is crucial to their eschatological views. Romans Chapter 11 is often used to

demonstrate the different view of the nation of Israel and the Church through keywords and

phrases such as: “grafted in,” “broken off,” “partial hardening has come upon Israel until the

fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” This chapter has also been used by covenant theologians to

explain how the Church replaced the nation of Israel. A major tenet of belief is that a literal

nation of Israelis will gather in the original land bequeathed to Abraham by God, and when Israel

became a nation state in 1948, the dispensationalists saw this development as a significant

eschatological sign. A regathering of Israelites who had been scattered and were now returning

to their homeland was considered to be an indication that the Church Age was coming to an end.

44
Ibid., 64.

15
The physical bodies of previous saints and those presently alive will be caught up to heaven

according to Paul45 and the seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy will take place.46 After a

tribulation time of 7 years, the Lord Jesus will return with all the host of heaven to rule as King

of Jerusalem. The original inhabitants of the earthly kingdom will be 144,000 Jews and other

individuals who have accepted Christ as Savior during the Tribulation. Those who survived will

have the Messiah King Jesus rule a literal earthly kingdom for 1,000 years, and they will

repopulate the world. This brings us back to Merrill’s theology of kingdom that began with

Adam. Dispensationalists would agree that the Kingdom of God has started as Christ announced

but is not completely fulfilled yet.

Conclusion

In the past, one theologian's passion has fueled another toward militarization of

fundamentalism. The historical beliefs mentioned continue to be standard doctrinal distinctions

between covenant and dispensational theology. Russel Moore’s doctrinal dissertation discussed

much of the historical differences between these two groups and the way they have begun to find

common ground. He also discussed how neither group wanted to necessarily “blend” or merge

into “Covenantalize Dispensational Theology” or “Dispensationalize Covenant Theology.”47

“Kingdom” as a center or central theme for biblical theology, as discussed, apparently fits well

within the proposed traditional dispensational model of Merrill. This does not mean that all

45
Thes 4:13-17; 5:6
46
Dn 9:24-27; 2 Thes 2:3-4
47
Russell Dwayne Moore, “Kingdom Theology and the American Evangelical
Consensus: Emerging Implications for Sociopolitical Engagement” (Ph.D., The Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002), 53,
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/pqdtglobal/docview/305511774/abstract/45C8319
55A4741PQ/1.

16
dispensationalists agree with Merrill’s proposal, and many would disagree over what priority

level this issue should be. Covenant theology readily agrees to the present Kingdom of Christ

and a distant future cosmic kingdom. The problems between these two schools of thought cannot

be easily remedied, nor can they be adequately described in such a small paper. The deep

theological differences will not be aligned and may not necessarily need to be. According to Carl

Henry, unity for social, publicly-observed Christianity requires a positive Christ-reflection as

part of the global evangelistic mission.48 Moore is convinced that the debates will continue

regarding the minutia of details in what has separated Dispensation and Covenant eschatology

but, “evangelical theology has moved toward a Kingdom consensus around the concept of

inaugurated eschatology.”49 The fascinating summary of the two debated theologies is that both

agree on the teachings of Jesus that the kingdom “is here and not here.”50 This statement of,

“here/not here,” carries the broad promise that does necessarily require debate over the validity

of the rapture of the Church or literal millennial reign of Christ because the eternal future is the

agreed. The resolution to Kingdom as the center between the two most dominant evangelical

theologies is that King Jesus will rule in the future over a sinless and perfect kingdom. All true

believers look forward to the day when they will partake in the new heavens and new earth as an

everlasting abode and not merely a future hope.

48
Carl F. H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids,
Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 2003), 63.
49
Moore., 39.
50
Ibid., 49

17
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berkhof, Louis, and Louis Berkhof. Systematic Theology. New ed. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B.
Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1996.

“Bylaws | The Evangelical Theological Society,” n.d. http://www.etsjets.org/about/bylaws.

Compton, R. Bruce. “Dispensationalism, The Church, And The New Covenant.” Detroit Baptist
Seminary Journal 8, no. 1 (2003).

Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1961.

“ETS Past Presidents | The Evangelical Theological Society,” n.d.

http://www.etsjets.org/Presidents.

Grudem, Wayne. Bible Doctrine. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2014.

Hasel, Gerhard F. Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. 4th ed., Updated
& Enl. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 1991.

Henry, Carl F. H. The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. Grand Rapids, Mich:
W.B. Eerdmans, 2003.

Johnson, Ronald M. “Covenant Hermeneutics.” Conservative Theological Journal 3, no. 10

(1999).

McCune, Rolland D. “A Study In The Dispensations.” Central Bible Quarterly 13, no. 2 (1970).

Moore, Russell Dwayne. “Kingdom Theology and the American Evangelical Consensus:
Emerging Implications for Sociopolitical Engagement.” Ph.D., The Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 2002.
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/pqdtglobal/docview/305511774/abstract/4
5C831955A4741PQ/1.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell, and Charles Caldwell Ryrie. Dispensationalism. Rev. and expanded.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

Showers, Renald E. There Really Is a Difference!: A Comparison of Covenant and

Dispensational Theology. Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990.

Zuck, Roy B., Eugene H. Merrill, and Darrell L. Bock, eds. A Biblical Theology of the Old
Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

18