Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology

by J. Dwight Pentecost

A comprehensive and accessible study of eschatology for anyone interested in the important subject of biblical prophecy. The Bible and its revelation about Jesus Christ's return is the one source of hope and confidence for the future in these dark days. Approximately one-fourth of the Bible was prophetic at the time it was written, meaning that a greater body of Scripture is devoted to the unfolding of God's plan than any other one subject. God, the architect of the ages, has seen fit to take us into His confidence concerning His great design. But until Things To Come was published, the treatment of biblical prophecy had been mainly either apologetic or expository, with prophetic themes being developed individually, apart from their relation to the whole revealed prophetic program. This methodology produces fragmentary and unrelated knowledge of the subject. In this monumental classic, Dr. Dwight Pentecost has synthesized the whole field of prophecy into a unified biblical doctrine, a systematic and complete biblical eschatology. He deftly handles many controversial topics, including a detailed presentation of premillennial eschatology. With nearly a quarter of a million copies sold, Things to Come has earned its place in the library of the pastor, the scholar, and the seminarian or Bible institute student.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity, Faith, Nonfiction, Reference, Religion

670 pages, Hardcover

First published May 1, 1984

About the author

J. Dwight Pentecost is Distinguished Professor of Bible Exposition, Emeritus, at Dallas Theological Seminary where he has served since 1955. He holds a B.A. from Hampden-Sydney College and both the Th.M. and Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary. His nearly twenty books include Design for Discipleship: Discovering God's Blueprint for the Christian Life; Your Adversary, the Devil; and The Divine Comforter: The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit.

Reviews

[Bart Breen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitive work in Dispensational Eschatology

I read this book as a requirement to ordination back in the late 1980's. It was not an easy work to read through. It is encyclopedic in nature and very academic and dry in terms of it's approach although no doubt, one could find it exciting if you are passionate about dispensational eschatology. (I'm not sure I want meet someone like that, but I'm sure there must be a few out there!) ;)

The value of the book is as a reference and means to study for the student or pastor who wishes to thoroughly work through the Biblical references.

Don't expect very much ambiguity on the part of Dwight Pentecost. You will get dogmatic and definitive answers to the different minute elements of prophesy and eschatology (study of the end times) with little or no room for differing approaches and understandings. It is not a work to go to if you are looking for a spectrum of differing opinions. You will get dispensational, premillennial, pre-trib doctrine and it will be presented to you as unassailably true.

The issue in rating the value of the book is not whether you agree or disagree with the positions espoused. The value is that you will get what the book advertises itself to be and know what the foundation is for the teaching presented.

If you want a broader view you must look elsewhere or supplement your reading with other sources. Indeed, any serious student should do that, even those in primary agreement with Pentecost's exhaustive and dogmatic positions.

4 stars given instead of 5, not because of the qualities of the book, but because even an academic tome of this nature could have been written to read easier and smoother. Sympathies are extended to any who are required to read it from cover to cover. As a reference it is an important and valuable work for any student of the eschaton to have in their reference library, which is where it rightfully belongs.

[Jason Carter · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read this book in the nineties. The nineteenth-century rise of dispensationalism in England, and its subsequent triumph in America, goes a long way in explaining the impotence of the modern church.

Any eschatology that posits utter defeat of the King of kings and Lord of lords has a basic problem with its exegesis. Pentecost parrots the dispensational viewpoint and dismisses all others with poor logic and a dogmatist's misplaced confidence.

Avoid at all costs except to hear more end times nonsense.

[Doc · Rating 4 out of 5]

I "finished" this book (that is, I got to the end from where I started) last week. Before that, I had been skipping around in the book as circumstances called for learning those sections of it. Now I'm going back to the beginning and reading cover to cover, looking up verses as I go.

[Read1000books · Rating 3 out of 5]

Want to know what's going to happen? Check this out. Whether you have an interest in Bible prophecy or simply want to know about the future and what this old world is coming to, this is the book for you. Plenty of Scripture references, quotations, and documentation throughout. A long (587 pages) but rewarding read.

[Oakley C. · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is hard to rate. As exegetically-based theology meant to clarify an eschatological position it is ZERO stars. BUT as a work of post-modern fiction (like the volume of theology a Thomas Pynchon character would be working on in between bouts of singing and drinking) it's six stars.

First, has ANYONE read beyond page 60 in this book? And if you did so, and gave this five stars, have you ever read the Bible? I'm being perfectly serious, albeit rude. The "hermeneutical principles" this book espouses are utterly (and ironically) abandoned by the author by chapter 8 (if not a little before that). How so? Well, Pentecost begins with excoriating anyone who holds to any other millennial position other than dispensationalism by claiming that they don't "take the Bible literally" and they are always "spiritualizing" the "plain words" of scripture. And, as you can imagine, the church fathers (and everything they did) is utterly dismissed because Augustine was a tad too allegorical at times. Additionally, the tone of the work is wholly unbefitting serious scholarship as pentecost will quite literally describe alternative interpretations of Biblical text as "allegations" essentially labeling any other theologian's reading of a text as being "criminal." Pentecost cannot seem to figure out whether he is writing a polemic or biblical theology. As it turns out, he has crafted neither.

At one point (starting on page 137) Pentecost literally ADDS to scripture by inserting M Dashes into verses not because the context of the original manuscripts suggests that such typography is suggested or warranted but because it makes a better case for his own eschatological argument:

"There are many places in Scripture in which this passing over of the present Dispensation is very plainly evident...if we fail to do this, if we fail to notice these so-called "gaps," we cannot possibly understand the Scriptures which we read. We give a few by way of example, placing this (--) mark to indicate the parenthesis of this present Dispensation, which comes between the previous Dispensation of Law and the next Dispensation of Judgement which is to follow this Present Dispensation of Grace..Isa ix. 6 'For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: (--) and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.' "

Do you see what he did there??? He literally takes his own dispensational presuppositions and ADDS TO THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE. Can you imagine a Master's Thesis on Hamlet which adds slash marks within the Prince of Denmark's most famous soliloquy and arguing that the Bard simply didn't lineate his own text properly? Or that your interpretation of "to be or not to be" only works if you read it as "to be/or not/to be?" Yet Pentecost is advocating the position that when Isaiah predicts the birth and Lordship of Jesus there MUST be a temporal gap between the messiah's birth and his authority and therefor adding a dash is perfectly acceptable!

But there is even a further issue here because Pentecost's work is NOT his own and that absurd "adding dashes" to scripture idea was something he merely lifted from another writer in a block quote. Speaking of which, I have never before encountered a work of non-fiction (theology, systematic theology, philosophy, political science, popular science, history, et cetera) that has so little of the author's own thoughts, ideas, or claims. Almost every page is simply a gargantuan block quote from one of Pentecost's friends or mortal enemies but Pentecost himself is there merely to arrange, edit, and promote (or condemn) the ideas of others. He, himself, engages in almost no "exegesis." But when he does, Pentecost is quite possibly the worst exegete I have EVER encountered. Once again, Pentecost is "dedicated" to a "literal hermeneutic of scripture" so much so that he (or actually, one of his friends) takes an amillennial scholar to task for having a primitive and un-nuanced understanding of the κοινε definite article "Ὁ" (really, disputing a definite article is the kill shot?) yet he is the CHIEF allegorizer and literalist! For instance, did you know that the letters to the seven churches aren't actually letters to actual churches (which followed the exact postal-route from Πατμος throughout Αντολια) which the LORD charged John with composing? No, they are ACTUALLY SYMBOLS OF THE SEVEN "CHURCH AGES" THROUGHOUT HISTORY! Talk about being literal! I "literally" thought these letters were sent to these seven churches which the Lord determined needed correction, direction, judgement, and praise AT THE TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN! In turns out these letters weren't letters at all, or if they were, they had NO RELEVANCE TO THE PEOPLE THEY WERE ADDRESSED TO.

Now, I'm not here to simply bang the drum for a preterite, or semi-preterite position (and I will try to read a serious work on historical premillennialism) but there comes a point where you cannot simply declare something is "futurist" and print a whole chart "proving so" if you haven't actually engaged in any exegesis. But, interestingly enough, before Pentecost shares the most absurdly "literal" interpretations of Matthew's "Kingdom of Heaven" parables (chapter 13) he tells his audience that "It is not possible nor necessary to give a detailed exposition of these parables at this point." Remember, this is the guy who claimed someone's entire argument was wrong because they didn't understand a definite article! Yet he gives himself a pass on expository exegesis! And what does he come up with? What is his "literal" interpretation?

"The Mustard Seed (Matt. 13:31-32). As the age progresses several facts are to be observed. (1) The age is characterized by an abnormal grown. That which was to be an herb has become a tree–it has developed into a monstrosity." (p. 147, hardcover edition)

I won't quote further because it simply get's worse. But here you were, thinking the Kingdom of Heaven was a Good thing! That it starts small but grows and that all the birds of the air (all of the world) will find comfort, peace, and truth by resting on its branches! SILLY YOU! The Kingdom of Heaven is DESTINED for corruption! Pentecost makes the same claim about the leaven which leavens the whole loaf and even the hidden treasure! He asserts, for instance, that since the birds in the "Sower and the Seeds" were negative (eating up the seed that did not sprout but laid on the earth) then they "MUST BY NECESSITY" be seen as wicked in the Mustard Seed! Of course, he gives us no reason to make this connection, at all, and I've not met or read anyone who made such an absurd, utterly counter-intuitive interpretation before (as it's obvious that all of the Birds of the World resting in the Tree is a GOOD THING) but for Pentecost, he simply has to say it and we simply have to accept it. Without any actual interpretative support or apparatus, Pentecost proclaims these highly novel (and utterly blasphemous) interpretations of the Lord's parables about the Kingdom without any expository support. He in no way bothers to exegete but eisegetes his own presuppositions onto the text and then projects this very same practice on his critics! Yet, I've now read two short volumes on post millennialism (Doug Wilson's "Heaven Misplaced" and his commentary on Revelation) and both of those books had more than five times as much expository exegesis than this 600+ page behemoth does.

So what, ultimately, is the issue? Pentecost displays dispensational eschatology as that which does not confess Jesus as Lord. When Jesus says that all power "on heaven and earth" has been given to him folks like Pentecost add "but not NOW and not over EVERYONE." When Jesus proclaims the GOOD NEWS of the Βασιλεια του Θεου/Ουρανου Pentecost hears BAD NEWS. The Gospel will NOT triumph, our Lord's words are NOT clear (and require someone with special "knowledge" to tell us what they "really mean" without explanation), and God really ISN'T in control of his own creation (subjected as he is to the whims of these man-centered "ages").

Additionally, Pentecost is profoundly dishonest in other ways. For one, you could read this entire book and not actually know that Jerusalem fell (and that the Second Temple was destroyed) in 70 AD. Apparently Jesus, nor the apostles, had ANYTHING to say about it or any PREDICTIONS regarding such a monumental event. Thus, Pentecost seems to think that Jerusalem's fall holds almost no spiritual or theological significance and simply references "70 AD" here and there. Lastly, Pentecost is incredibly dishonest with his deployment of scripture. If one turns to the scripture index in the back of his tome one will discover a list of verses that would rival those found in whole systematic theologies! But as one reads it becomes utterly clear that Pentecost is using verses like bird shot, loading and spraying them without any care or consistency. While it IS acceptable to occasionally reference a chapter and verse parenthetically without direct quotation, Pentecost will simply add strings of these references signaling to the reader that "all of these verses support MY reading!" However, if you actually go to the verses he cites, you will find that more often than not they are NOT so obviously supporting his interpretation. But, he figures you won't do that, so he can just paste them about as he pleases.

Please, please, please, read your Bible. Read other perspectives. Use this for a paperweight.

[Jason Harris · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this book because I felt it was a good representative of the pretribulational, premillennial position. I grew up in this tradition and was, as far as I knew, still basically within it.

First, this book is basically academically credible (I do not mean theologically or exegetically credible, merely academically). It's dated, written in 1958. But all things considered, it is basically credible based on my experience of it. I think the author over-relies on long quotations from other authors. I'd say he has a long quote (10-20+ lines of text) on average at least once a page. Indeed, I suspect roughly 50% of the word count of the whole book is from quotations. And he over-relies on a few particular authors as well I think. But these are relatively minor complaints.

Second, I think Pentecost is basically reasonable. He takes a very complex topic and sets it out in a well structured way that makes it understandable and easy enough to follow. He is usually fair-minded in his presentation of other views (although, distinctly more so where they are other views within the pretrib/premil view) and generally his logic is coherent. Even where his views are difficult to take seriously, they are put with a level, simple clarity that commends the man.

These things said, I have some major concerns about this book. Indeed, I'm not sure if my pretrib/premil views will survive having read it.

First, I noted very quickly that every time Charles Ryrie was quoted, the credibility was suspect. I finally decided to follow one of his citations to it's source. On the first instance, I found the material to be unscholarly, poorly cited, and factually inaccurate. Indeed, in the one instance in which I actually traced his quote to the church father he was quoting, it was clear to me that the source was saying precisely the opposite of what Ryrie represented him as saying. My conclusion from the quotes in this book combined with the few random times I dug deeper is that Ryrie is a liability to the position; uncredible at best. Unfortunately, I fear this is far too generous an assessment.

Second, the book as a whole has a literalistic, Pharisaical feel to it. I would describe it as legalistic, but not in an ethical sense. More that the author seems to see Scripture as a legal text which encodes deep mysteries which we are to divine through analysis. It's hard to describe this, but I'll give one example. The author usually sees the way any author in any book of the Bible used terms such as "kingdom of God" vs. "kingdom of heaven" (or "Son of God" vs. "Son of man," etc.) as part of a coded system for communicating distinct concepts. Which, I understand may hold within a particular written work, and perhaps even in a particular author's writings. But to assume that this sort of coding extends across all of Scripture sees Scripture as something other than what it is, I think.

Third, while basically credible, there are a number of lapses in scholarly practice additional to the points noted already. First, there are some concerning fallacies. A number of times I felt the opponent was misrepresented. There are a number of non sequitur moments. And most concerningly, I felt the whole opening section is largely a misrepresentation of the opponent and a false dichotomy in which literal interpretation is pitted against mystical interpretation. This is sound in theory. But in fact, my experience of Amillennialism doesn't square with this Origenesque interpretation they supposedly take. Where they are not literal, there is often reasonable warrant for being so. And this warrant is constantly taken on board by Pentecost himself who cannot reasonably be said to be interpreting literally in a consistent fashion. I know the arguments for exceptions are made. I simply don't accept that it's as neat and tidy as Pentecost tries to make it. If it were, he wouldn't have needed to make so many minute and unsupported caveats in the first section of the book.

There is much more I could say. But for now, I'll close with a final point—the biggest concern I have with this book and the system as it is presented in this book. It systematically and consistently misses the point. It obsesses about the smallest points of distinction, the most minor questions of sequence, and the precise solution to problems I'm not convinced exist. While missing, I think, the whole point of the Bible. The centuries old American obsession with power is embarrassingly transparent in these views. And worse, projected onto God. Human history becomes more about God vindicating his sovereignty in a geopolitically anachronistic theocratic Israeli kingdom than his grace in the cross of Jesus Christ. God is presented as an insecure being who can't let go of a slight with mere redemption through his son's blood, and eternal punishment, but must have a second, but by no means penultimate, "program" (there are a lot of these in this book) for the systematic vindication of his right to reign. It's redundant. And distracting. And misses the whole point of Romans and Galatians. And the nation of Israel. And the Bible. And human history. Which I think is why the book, in 600 odd pages doesn't have any significant value for edification.

Anyway, that's my take. I'm not letting my view ride on this book. But it's a good thing because this book will make it very hard for me to continue to be pretrib/premil. Time will tell if I do.

[Sean Kewley · Rating 2 out of 5]

We Christians ought to be more humble with eschatology, because it has tripped up a lot of good Christians. With that in mind, here's my take on JD Pentecost:

1) Pentecost believes the entire Bible, if and only if you include the first 70 pages of the book explaining why his version of the "literal interpretation" is the one held by the greatest Christians of all Christendom. Dispensational Literalism is held in highest regard. The problem is, this "literalism" drives hard against other forms of literalism held by nearly all other types of Christians. What is literalism anyway! Who says? I don't have anything against literalism, but we need to define it properly using the Holy Scriptures, not as JD Pentecost does, by deciding late 19th century dispensational scholarship is the way to go.

2) Pentecost is mostly consistent with his own dialectic. He clearly states absurd doctrines, listed as following: Israel is not saved through Christ's sacrifice but through the Father's previous promises. The Church has no physical effect in history until the second coming. Old Testament saints will remain in Hades until the 2nd coming. The churches mentioned in Revelation dictate the Dispensations of history.

3) Pentecost rewrites history to fit his worldview. Instead of engaging with other theological doctrines, mostly postmill, and sometimes amill, he dismisses them on a basis of his own historical worldview. Fallacious to say the least.

4) Pentecost fails to address the obvious typological interpretations of Bible prophecy, which can drastically change the meaning of many verses in the old and new testament. Pentecost engages with the old testament, but with his dispensational literalist presuppositions, and in my view, forces the text to say far more than it does. You can read the book if you want specific examples.

5) Pentecost parades his pretrib premill convictions, demeans his opponents as bad Christians or heathens, and then sits in his easy chair giving himself a pat on the back for "figuring it out". Eschatology has deep roots in how we ought to live our lives, and if being premill means we demean everyone else, or just as bad, step back on our convictions, I can't be premill without some serious heart changes (for the worse).

I grew up in Evangellyfish circles, so premillennialism was the air I breathed, and I didn't question it till I ran into Reformed circles. I have postmillennial convictions now, mostly because I am a better Christian that way, and also because of the typological interpretation of scripture that is often used for prophecy is more biblical and plain to me. I wanted to give premillennialism their best shot in interpretation, and I have been disappointed.

For better literature, read "Through New Eyes" by JB Jordan and "When the Man Comes Around" by Douglas Wilson. I've also heard good things about Gary deMar's books.

[David Mcconnell · Rating 1 out of 5]

Pentecost's book might be considered as the ultimate apologetic for premillennial dispensationalism. However, it succeeds only among those not very knowledgeable about language and its usage. Pentecost claims the basis for his view is a literal hermeneutic. He claims that every Bible prophecy that has been fulfilled was fulfilled literally, the basis for his claim. Unfortunately for him his claim is false and easily seen to be so.
In fact, the very first prophecy in the Old Testament and the very last prophecy in the Old Testament serve as counterexamples to his claim. The first prophecy: Adam was told that he would die the very day he ate of the forbidden fruit. He didn't die in a literal sense (viz., physical death of the body) that very day. He had other progeny afterward so either the use of death or day had to be figurative. As to the second example, the prophecy that before the coming of the great Day of the Lord, God would send Elijah the prophet: that appearance of Elijah the prophet was fulfilled by John the Baptist (Matthew 17:10-13). Matthew is careful to explain that Jesus' disciples understood that Jesus was telling them that the appearance of John the Baptist consituted the promised appearance of Elijah the prophet. So both the first prophecy and the last prophecy were expressed using figurative, not literal language, as do many others. So Pentecost's defense of literalism is based upon his faulty understanding of language. Pentecost evidently doesn't understand figures of speech.
The book is a popular reprint of Pentecost's doctoral dissertation, one that is fatally flawed being based upon false premises. The errors mentioned above are two errors, but the book involves many more.

[Michael O'connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent book on biblical eschatology. Though large (600 pages), the book includes a detailed table of contents arranged in outline form, giving it a good reference for encyclopedic use. This book is very important for understanding not only the premillennial position but also the proper method of biblical interpretation, to which this book dedicates its first of seven sections. For the study of the premillennial position, the author first gives the posttribulation and midtribulation rapture theories, then the pretribulation rapture theory is given along with biblical reasons why the Scriptures support the pretribulation theory as well as reasons why the other theories do not fit in the Scriptures.

The book also covers sections on the biblical covenants and eschatology, prophecies of the tribulation period, prophecies related to the second advent, prophecies relating to the millennium, and prophecies of the eternal state.

However, cited in the book (page 245) is an excerpt of Sir Robert Anderson's work on the fulfillment of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:26-27, whose numbers have unfortunately been proven incorrect. After all, the book was copyright 1958.

Nevertheless, the book stands worthy of its place on the bookshelf of every believer in Christ because of its worth in the study of biblical eschatology.

[Michael Walker · Rating 1 out of 5]

Surprisingly poorly integrated and reasoned defense of the popular Pre-Trib rapture position. As is generally the case with these writers, be sure to have your Bible with you and check the references given (don't know if author or editor to blame). Oh, and critically think through what the author is saying. Just one example: the 7 churches in Revelation stand for 7 Church Eras in history. This is eisegesis at its most blatant - and don't expect the author to give historical examples to support his Church Era theory. Plays fast and loose with Scriptures. NOT RECOMMENDED.

[Jimmy Reagan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A widely used bestseller! Most every premillennialist has a copy. This volume is often used as a textbook and many pastors I know make it their first choice. A clearly laid-out volume that can help anyone understand the premillennial position.

[Joel Josue Rivera · Rating 5 out of 5]

Instrumento enciclopédico del estudio de la profecía historia y métodos de interpretación de las sagradas escrituras.

[Christopher Humphrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology “ by J. Dwight Pentecost, is a classic dispensational text that was first published in 1958. Pentecost earned his Th.D. From Dallas Theological Seminary, where he taught for many years. This book is largely a product of his doctoral dissertation. As such, as one might expect, it reads like a doctoral dissertation. That is not a reason not to read this book, but it does serve as a cautionary warning, so the reader understands this is not fluff.

Coming from Dallas Seminary in the 1950’s, Pentecost is unsurprisingly writing from a classical dispensational interpretive grid. Pentecost, however, does a nice job of interacting with other viewpoints while making the case for a literal, grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Because of when this book was written, it unfortunately does not interact with progressive dispensationalism, but it does deal extensively with the amillenial perspective.

One could be critical of this work because it fails to always clearly articulate the author’s position, and that position sometimes gets lost in arcana. That being said, if one has a basic understanding of biblical eschatology, this is a book that could be profitable as one seeks to understand God’s plan for the ages, and especially the things to come. Happy reading!

[Darrell Davidson · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Immanuel’s and

This 1957 ThD Dissertation is the first of 21 books by this devoted student of the Bible. He begins with a thorough explanation of his commitment to literal interpretation and concludes that Scripture harmoniously points toward an eternal state of perfect adoration for the God who inspired this book. Drawing from each of the 66 biblical chapters and over 200 scholarly books on eschatology, Pentecost weaves together a unified story from Adam to the Day of the Lord. Each chapter in Things to Come addresses a controversial topic in Christian theology giving balanced presentations of previous arguments and finishing with his own explanation of the dilemma. From the Kingdom to New Jerusalem, this tome is a breathtaking survey of the entire Bible as it relates to the prophetic utterances therein.

[John McCann · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is well organized and like a seminary course. Dr. Pentecost quotes many authors. I go with the Scriptures and pre-tribulation, dispensational pre-millennialism has the Scriptures. I purchased this book in 2013; read some; then hear it referenced on some info I purchased from Prophecy Watchers and decided to finish reading. It was comforting to know that the rapture will save us from the great tribulation and the mark of the beast economy.

[Jay Thompson · Rating 5 out of 5]

A complete body of work worthy of reference in Eschatological

I found this presentation to be as Scriptural based and cross checked as any manmade study could be to ensure personal interpretations are reduced to "we just don't know" from the text. A complete body of work worthy of reference in Eschatological personal study.

[Paul R. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Comprehensive and thorough.

J. Dwight Pentecost covers many questions you may have on what the Bible, the very Word of God, says about the time after this present time has past. He considers what others have written. It is exhaustive but easily understood when read with an open and receptive intention.

[Omar Ocasio · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a good book if you are searching for objective definitions about other stances regarding eschatology. This book's primary objective is to defend the historic premillennialist stance. If you want to read this, I'd recommend using other sources to complement it.

[Ryan Bibledingers · Rating 5 out of 5]

foundational. such a deep understanding of the scriptures

[Chris Risley · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't agree with all the positions advocated in this book but it is an excellent study of Scripture

[Sharon Zink · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an important book and it is quite authoritative. However, it is hard to read. It is really a textbook. Some of it I do not agree with.

[Sheila Ann · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the gold standard of eschatology books!

[Benjamin Spanos · Rating 1 out of 5]

An old man at church gave me this book and then one year later kicked me out of my church and called me a heretic for not believing it.

[James A. Wood · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eschatology must read

Essential reading for the study of eschatology. Provides an in-depth and thorough discussion and analysis of Revelation and related scripture.

[Paul Nelson]

A comprehensive presentation of the dispensationalist doctrines of the end times (eschatology0),

[Peter Last · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty descent book which considers a lot of spiritual and biblical questions.

This volume is pretty hard to read, not really a surprise considering the subject matter. Even so, I was able to struggle through it and gain a pretty good understanding of different views of things like biblical interpretation, theories on the rapture, and other deep theological questions. Sometimes I think the author shortchanged arguments and theories he didn't agree with, but altogether a good, well-rounded book.

[Phule77 Erickson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an absolutely excellent work on biblical prophecy, but it is, in essence, an encyclopedia on the subject. It can be very dry, but at the same time is very intensely interesting if you are into the subject matter.

It starts off with several sections on exactly how scripture should be interpreted, and how that directly affects how we understand prophecy. It compares with other writings, and is very clear in how it draws it's conclusions. An excellent piece of work.

[Charlie · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author is patently wrong in many of his claims about church history, and the views presented are somewhat idiosyncratic and outdated, but I still scored it three stars for being such a comprehensive, methodical expression of an American theological school - classical dispensationalism.

[Susan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. Another wonderful Pentecost book. Laymen or students, really all levels. Pentecost is one of my favorites. The book leads and guides, and I will now read for a second time.
I don't do longggg ratings, just a an overview of my general opinion.

[Keith Lannon · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have been dipping into this book since I bought it as newly published in 1969. Still reading it. The ultimate definitive Second Advent book - even if you disagree with him.With a few points of difference I accept the gist of his constructs.