There are those who hold that the true Israel of God are those who can trace their blood line to Abraham through Isaac, if it were possible. There are those who claim that people who have gone through and keep certain rituals and ceremonies are the true Israel. There are those who claim that the residents of the Palestinian nation of "Israel" are the true Israel. There are those who claim, using "secular, historical evidence," that the White Anglo-Saxon race is the true Israel. Midst all the voices calling out, "We are the true Israel of God," or "They are the true Israel," it seems that God's voice (Word) is ignored.
Officially, "Who is Israel? - Who is a Jew?"
When ask the question, "Who is Israel? - Who is a Jew?", the Israeli government's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) answered:
The term Israelite is purely Biblical. An Israeli is a citizen of Israel, regardless of religion. A Jew is a person anywhere in the world born to a Jewish mother, or converted to Judaism, who is thus identified as a member of the Jewish people and religion.
Information Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem. (E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org - http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il [2/20/1997])Though tying the term "Israelite" to Scripture, MFA admitted that "Israelite" or "Jew" has nothing whatsoever to do with a blood line to Abraham: an "Israelite" is one (no matter his "religious persuasion") living in the literal nation of Israel, and a "Jew" is one who follows the Jewish religion, which, by the way, is very antichrist. "A Jewish mother" is simply a mother who is "identified as a" follower of the Jewish religion. Obviously, anyone can become an "Israelite" by moving to that Palestinian nation, and/or can become a "Jew" simply by converting to Judaism, i.e., denying that Christ fulfilled all the Old Testament rites and ceremonies that spoke of His work for His people. Officially, Judaism is simply a religion, claiming no physical ties to Abraham, Isaac nor Jacob. A Jew is one who follows the religious practices prescribed by that religion.
Even if God's Word is not ignored (as done by the MFA), it is, many times, misinterpreted by sincere Christians, used to raise good amounts of money, and/or used to support the "traditions of the elders:" The tradition was offered to the Protistant Church more than once by several "converted Jews" (converted to Romanism) before the 1790 version of the Jewish tradition was inbibed by the Protestants. It spread and developed, and about a hundrend years later, was codified by C.I. Scofield: It can be called "Protestant Zionism." We find a popular version of "Protestant Zionism" offered in the following article "SHOULD BELIEVERS SUPPORT ISRAEL?" (The Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, Office: 6304 Belt Line Road, Dallas, Texas 75204. (214) 661-UMJC "8652" ; 1-800-692-UMJC "8652." Fax 214-386-4770, http://www.umjc.org/, E-Mail: email@example.com)
There is a great deal of talk these days in political circles as well as in religious circles regarding the State of Israel. As the Palestinians wage loud protest against the Jewish state, people are beginning to raise serious questions about the Israeli's possession of the West Bank and the Gaza strip. They claim Israel is acting wrongly.
There are several issues at stake here. First, regarding Israel's right to the occupied territories, It should be pointed out that these lands were never part of a Palestinian state. They were lands controlled by Jordan and Egypt prior to the 1967 war. Why in that time did not these Arab states declare a Palestinian state? They could have done so freely. Not until Israel controlled these lands did there cone the outcry for a free Palestinian state.
Secondly, these lands were part of the historic Judea and Samaria, the Biblical Land of Israel. In peace negotiations with Egypt, Israel returned the Sinai peninsula because it was never part of the historical Land of Israel.
Thirdly, these lands were won in a war that was not started by Israel, but by her Arab neighbors. The territories taken provide safe, defensible borders. Israel has a right to this land.According to "Protestant Zionism," national Israel still has a legitimate claim upon the land of Palestine because of a promise made to the seed of Abraham. However, this claim overlooks the fact that the promise was fulfilled under Joshua, to which even King Solomon refers. It also ignores the fact that the land of Canaan was not the promised land of rest to God's chosen people. We will develop both of these statements as we proceed.
Politically, people have questioned America's support for Israel. Israel has been, and has remained America's best friend in the world today. Israel's defense is strategic to a stable middle east. Were it not for the Israeli army, nothing would stop the Soviets from taking advantage of the middle east as they have in other parts of the world. The Israeli military presence contributes to the peace of the region, which in turn contributes to our security.We must ask a serious question: Is God's command to the Christian community to earnestly contend for a piece of real estate once delivered to the nation of Israel?
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 3, 4.)The world perishes for lack of defense of the total faith as delivered in God's Word to the saints. Certain men have crept in unaware and changed the concern of the Church from defending the faith to defending a political, antichristian nation.
Politics is one thing, but a spiritual consideration of Israel is something else. How should believers view the modern State of Israel, and who should we support in the Israeli-Arab conflict? Israel is a secular state. It is this secularity that provides for the tolerance of Christianity and Islam as well as Judaism in Israel. In Moslem countries this is oftentimes not the case. Iran furnishes a perfect example of a non-secular state. It is good that Israel is a secular state. Israel's detractors reason that because the State of Israel is secular, it's existence can not be the work of G-d in fulfillment of prophecy. They say that if G-d were behind Israel, it would not be secular. The fact is, G-d did say in prophecy that He would restore the Jewish people to the Land, which they themselves would govern, which has indeed happened. In Ezekiel 37, the prophecy of the dry bones is a metaphor of the restoration of Israel. Chronologically, the bones came together, tendons formed, and flesh appeared, but there was no breath in them (vs.8). It was only later that breath entered them. In the spirit of this metaphor, breath can be understood as Spiritual life. Israel returns in unbelief, and only later believes. This fits well with Zechariah 12:10 and Romans 11. The secularity of Israel should pose no problem to her status as the work of G-d. People have argued that because Israel is secular, it's government does not deserve our support as believers. America too is secular. All our officials are not perfect. We pray for our leaders because Romans 13:1 tells us that "there is no authority except that which God has established." We support America even if we disagree with the leadership. And we pray for the leadership. It is no different with Israel. We may not agree with every government policy and action, but we should still support Israel because G-d is behind it. If the American authorities are established by G-d, so are the Israeli. Israel should be supported by believers, not because they like the prime minister, but because it is the work of G-d in fulfillment of His Word. As He has been faithful to Israel, so is He faithful in all His promises to believers. Israel's blessings are the believer's encouragement.We defer our comments concerning Ezekiel until we get to Israel's Conversion. We will only comment at this point that the Zionist above took promises that clearly belong to the Israel of God and gave them to a nation that is avowedly against the Christian God, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Others have pointed to the plight of the Palestinians in refugee camps as reason to support the Palestinians and oppose Israel. Just because a group is "third world" does not mean they are right. The Palestinians are not a victimized peace-loving people. These people have bombed children's day care centers, nursing homes, school busses, and market places in Israel. They do not recognize Israel's right to exist. How can Israel treat them any differently? This land was not Palestinian in the first place. It was under the British from 1917 to 1948. Prior to 1917, it was under the control of the Ottoman Turks for 500 years. There was no preexisting Palestinian state. If they would recognize Israel's right to exist, and not seek the complete destruction of the State of Israel, there would be peace. Israel has done what they have had to do to keep peace. Believers who disagree with Israel's policies should still recognize God's hand on Israel, and pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and for the coming King of Israel, the Messiah Yeshua, who will rule the world from Jerusalem and preside over 1000 years of peace.Obviously, the above is presently the generally accepted view of Israel: "Protestant Zionism." The above view replaced the orthodox view that the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ is "the Israel of God." "Protestant Zionism" was introduced c. 1790, but did not gain its present world-wide dominion until Scofield's notes were published in the early 1900s. In our book, The Death of Victory, we throughly trace the origin and growth of the modern idea of a renewed Jewish state through which God will again work to show Himself strong upon this earth, i.e., "Protestant Zionism." Therefore, this study will not deal with the roots nor fruits of "Protestant Zionism."
Rather, the following study focuses on the Word of God; it is meant to determine what God's Word says concerning Israel. It is divided into two parts: First, the identity of the "end time" Israel, and second, the gathering and salvation of Israel.
Like most others born and raised in 1900s, even in a Christian home, this pastor never heard any other understanding for the Biblical Israel other than the one stated above, i.e., "Protestant Zionism." Through the failure to present the historic orthodox, Biblical view that the Church is the Israel of God, a very serious problem is allowed to develop - If one cannot agree with the general Protestant consensus that God must yet exalt a national Israel in the "last days" (a political entity that is publicly against the Christian faith), then he is left with no Biblical foundation against such unique teachings as "Christian Identity," which seems to be gathering many sincere followers at the end of the 20th Century.
The following document will Scripturally show the orthodox view that the Church is the Israel of God through which He will work to expand His kingdom on earth.
The Christian Assembly
Note James' words and A.T. Robertson's comments:
For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment... (Ja.. 2:2.)
2. For (gar). An illustration of the prohibition. If there come in (ean eiselthêi). Condition of third class (supposable case) with ean and second (ingressive) aorist active subjunctive of eiserchomai. Into your synagogue (eis sunagôgên humôn). The common word for the gathering of Jews for worship (Lu 12:11) and particularly for the building where they met (Lu 4:15,20,28, etc.). Here the first is the probable meaning as it clearly is in Heb 10:25 (tên episunagôgên heautôn) [i.e., the religious assembly of Christians, Thayer; see also, 2 Thes 2:1, ed.], where the longer compound occurs. It may seem a bit odd for a Christian church (ekklêsia) to be termed sunagôgê, but James is writing to Jewish Christians and this is another incidental argument for the early date. Epiphanius (Haer. XXX. 18) states that the Ebionites call their church sunagôgê, not ekklêsia. In the fourth century an inscription has sunagôgê for the meeting-house of certain Christians... (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 1. 27, 28. See Online Bible. Is it any wonder that some fully committed Dispensationalists refuse to look at any deeper meanings of words than what they can superficially read into a text?)Accordingly, we learn from James, and Hebrews 10:25, that the first Christians were so convienced that the church replaced the old Israel who rejected Christ that they called their meeting houses "synagogues."
A good explanation of the orthodox Biblical view of Israel is offered by Dr. Bernhard Weiss:
§ 44. The Elect Race
The Christian Church, in which the promised completion of the theocracy begins to be realized, is the elect race, which consists of believing Israelites. (b) Their election to participation in the completed salvation is accomplished in baptism, in which God makes them a holy nation by equipping them with His Spirit, and granting them the full forgiveness of sin. (c) All Israelites who would not obey the demand of the message of salvation are excluded from the elect race. (d) Wherever individual Gentiles are received in to the Church through baptism, they are joined to the elect race, whose substance is formed by believing Israel. (Dr. Bernhard Weiss, Biblical Theology of The New Testament, 1: 204. 1879. Clark's Foreign Theological Library. New Series, Vol. XII. T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street, Edinburgh. 1888.)Observe:
First, Dr. Weiss' tells us that water baptism in 1 Peter 3:21 refers to producing a clear conscience in the believer. The baptism that washes away sin must be understood according to 1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body - for not even the "law" of baptism can produce righteousness. (Gal. 2:21. See also Gal. 3:27.)
Second, the true Israel of God (the Church) was/is made up of those whose hearts are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands. (Col. 2:11. See also Eph. 2:11-13.) Thus the true Jews, from the very beginning, are those who have experienced the true circumcision that is of the heart. (Rom. 2:25-29. See also Rom. 3:30; 4:9-12.) In other words, as we will see, the Root and Branch is Christ. From that root, some of the branches were broken off, and the Gentiles grafted in. (Ro. 11:16-18.) The Root was/is Christ. (Isa. 11:1-10/Ro. 15:12.) (We will see more of Dr. Weiss' comments under "The Testimony of Scholars" and in Appendix A.)
But the unity of the Old and New Testaments must not be understood as identity. The Old Testament itself, while it regards the decree of salvation revealed in it, and the kingdom of God founded thereupon, as eternal, as extending to all times and to all races of men (from Gen. xii. 3 onward, comp. also the parallel passages; further, Isa. xlv 23 f., liv. l0, etc.), acknowledges that the manifestation of God's kingdom at that time was imperfect and temporary; for it points forward to a new revelation, in which that which is demanded by the letter of the law and signified by its ordinances shall become a reality through divine communication of life (comp. Deut. xxx. 6); indeed, at the very time in which the old form of the theocracy was overthrown, it predicted the new eternal covenant which God would make with His people (Jer. xxxi. 31 if.) (4).----But still more distinctly does the New Testament emphasize the difference from the Old which subsists within the unity of the two covenants. The eternal counsel of salvation, although announced by the prophets, is nevertheless not completely revealed till after its actual realization (Rom. xvi. 25 f.; 1 Pet. I. 10 ff.; Eph. I. f., iii. 5). The tuition of the law reached its goal in the grace and truth of Christ (John I. 17; Rom. x. 4; Gal. iii. 24 f.). In the saving benefits of the new covenant, the shadow of the old dispensation passes into reality (Col. ii. 17; Heb. x. 1 ff.): therefore the greatest man in the old covenant is less than the least in the kingdom of Christ (Matt. xi. 11); indeed, the Old Testament teachings and institutions, divested of their fulfilment in Christ, sink down into poor and beggarly rudiments (Gal. iv. 9) (5). (Oehler, Theology, 19. See also, Weiss, Biblical Theology, 369, 370.)We will mention that no study of Israel's Identity would be complete without examining C. I. Scofield a little. (See Appendix D.)
Obviously, the reader will not agree with all that will be presented herein, but the reader is asked to examine the many passages used, and not to overlook the context of those passages. It has been said, "A text without a context is a pretext." There is an abundance of false teachings presented as sound dogma that are built on texts with no regard for the context.
Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. (Isa. 29:9 -14.)Why are so many blinded today to the clear teaching of Scripture? It could be money; it could be personal prejudices; it could be any of many other things, but in the end, only the Lord knows.
The Word of God is meant for every person; however, we are clearly told by the Wise Man that though God's Word is wisdom, it requires a great amount of personal effort and sacrifice to mine the wisdom from that Word. In fact, he compares finding and understanding God's wisdom to mining for gold, silver and precious stones. (Pr. 2:1-9)
There are no short cuts: Superficial reading of God's Word will give superficial misunderstandings of His wisdom and understanding. His Word must be studied in its totality if one will find God's hidden treasures. Those who do not or will not seriously study God's written revelation to man are open to whatever wind blows the strongest or sounds the most appealing to the natural senses. Being a Christian does not exempt one from being led astray by appealing words and ideas, or the Spirit of God would not have issued so many strong warnings against being deceived:
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (1 Jn. 4:1. See also, Isa. 28:9; 1 Cor. 3:1ff.; 2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2; 11:3ff.; Gal. 1:6ff.; 3:1; Col. 2:4ff.; Eph. 4:14; 1 Tim. 4:7; He. 5:12ff.; 1 Jn. 2:26, &c.)Deception of God's people is a very real possibility, so they are to try (compare) everything by the Word of God that comes to their attention. We must admit that probably only a small fraction of those who present ideas contrary to the total revelation of God do so intentionally. No doubt, most are as sincere in what they believe and teach as anyone can be, but sincerity does not confirm a message. (Mt. 7:21ff.)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16):First, the Word of God is and must be our only source for faith and practice. "Secular" history is commonly reconstructed to suit the ones writing the history. It is not hard to find fallen men to rewrite history to support their views of the way they feel things should be, and in order to control the present. (In my research, I found that John Nelson Darby and his editor, William Kelly, changed the words of then existing songs, the writings of Reformers, the writings of early Church Fathers and Darby even issued new translations of Scripture to confirm the new prophetic speculations, e.g., "Protestant Zionism," obtained from the Jesuit, Lacunza, and from Miss McDonald. MacPhearson, in The Rapture Plot, documents how that many highly regarded men, some still living, since the early 1800s have done the same thing. These statements are well documented in The Death of Victory.)
Second, though teachers may possess wonderful, charismatic personalities, and unusual speaking abilities that permit them to present their positions well, we must avoid personalities. The many voices crying out, "Who is Israel," or "We are Israel" are not to be in competition for the best presentations of their various views. We must see and understand what the Word of God says, in its context, about the matter.
Third, though it is possible, it is extremely difficult to accept truth over emotion. And let us not imagine that teachers do no know that fact. Many teachers have great abilities to sway the emotions of their hearers and readers. They know that the average listener cannot overcome his emotional involvement in a subject matter, nor will the average listener seriously search both Old and New Testament Scriptures to confirm what he is hearing. Why can crooks, murderers and whoremongers get into high, elected public offices? They know what the people want to hear and what raises the most money.
I found that when the Word of God went against what I was taught and I was faced with a choice, I felt I was turning my back on good men whom I greatly respected if I forsook their teachings for what I was seeing from God's Word.
Fourth, I challenge the reader to look up the word ISRAEL in a KJV with no footnotes, and read the context of the word throughout God's Word without preconceived ideas. Let the Spirit settle the matter, for He will guide the honest seeker into all truth. (Scripture must be studied with the attitude of, if in anything I am otherwise minded than what the Word of God says, God will reveal even this unto me (Php. 3:15--used out of its context, but it applies). Apart from a humble spirit and laying aside the vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers, (1 Pe. 1:18, 19) one will not see what the Spirit has to say. Not even the apostles could see past the Jewish traditions they were raised in, for they fully expected the Lord to set up a literal, millennial kingdom, Ac.1:6. Though Jn. 16:13 was specifically to the Apostles, it still applies to God's people in general: If God's people are willing to lay aside what they have been taught and will allow the Spirit to reteach them from His Word, He will guide them into all truth. The truth may or may not be according to what they have been taught, but when folks search Scripture to confirm what they already believe, they will find what they are looking for. Compare Ac. 1:6 with Gen. 49:10; Isa. 1:26; 9:6,7; Jer. 23:5,6; 33:15-17,26; Ezk. 37:24-27; Da. 7:27; Ho. 3:4; Jl. 3:16-21; Am. 9:11; Ob. 1:17-21; Mi. 5:2; Zep 3:15-17; Zec. 9:9; Mt. 20:21 & Lk. 22:29.)
Moreover, what we will present was the historic position of men like A.H. Strong, R.L. Dabney, C.H. Spurgeon and others. There may well have been, but this writer knows of no Baptist theologian before the middle 1800s who presented the modern dispensational view of Israel and the church, that is, a "church/Israel distinction." In researching for The Death of Victory, the Baptist pastors and theologians I encountered before the late 1800s spoke out against what was being presented by the Plymouth Brethren and the Keswick men such as: Watchman Nee, George Muller, Hudson Taylor, C.H. Mackintosh, V.B. Wigram, W.E. Vine, S.P. Tregells, J.G. M'Vicker, W.F. Grant, Andrew Jukes, Charles Stanly, R.C. Chapman, D.L. Moody, R.A. Torry, J.W. Chapman, Billy Sunday, E.M. Bounds, Andrew Murry, H.A. Ironside and C.I. Scofield, to name a few.
In fact, H.A. Ironside had very harsh words to say against the Baptist theologian, A.H. Strong for Strong's stand against the Plymouth Brethren's version of Lacunza's "church/Israel" distinction, "Protestant Zionism." However, Ironside used no Scripture to support his charges against Strong; rather, he used other Plymouth Brethren writers to support his Plymouth Brethren doctrines.
The following conforms well with The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, chapters 7, 11, 12, 31 & 32.
New Study Method.
A new BIBLE STUDY method was developed starting around 1830, called "Bible Readings." This method was developed so the speaker could take a favorite topic, e.g., prophetic speculations or the "church/Israel distinction," and trace it through the scripture with no regard to the context of the passages. The method caught on quickly, and spread like wild fire. Using his Northfield Bible Conferences, D.L. Moody "Americanized" the "Bible Reading" method of study; At Northfield, he taught American preachers how to use it.
Along with the new Bible study method was a new theory that Scripture does not necessarily have to be understood in light of history. In other words, an Old Testament and/or New Testament "prophetic" passage can be read and history does not necessarily have any bearing on the meaning of the passage. Prophetic passages can, therefore, be understood from the time of the reading instead of from the time of the writing, at the speaker's convenience, however it fit best together for the speaker to present his opinions.
Example: Matthew chapters 21 through 24 can be used by the speaker for prophetic speculation while totally overlooking or ignoring its primary fulfillment in history - the Jewish/Roman war.
Both of these new developments in the late 1800s and early 1900s - Bible study method and ignorance of history - allowed some things:
First, they allowed a "church/Israel distinction" to be developed in spite of what both the Old and New Testaments said. In fact, some teachers actually follow the implications of a "church/Israel distinction," saying there are two plans of salvation, one for the Jews, Israel, and one for non-Israelites, Gentiles: The grace of God, it holds, through faith in Christ is only for non-Israelites, and God will deal with Israelites in a different manner, i.e., through the blood sacrifice on a literal altar. Thus they deny the words and the finished work of Christ. It is a receient heresy to say that there are two plans of salvation, and that the work of Christ (the "Church") was hidden from the prophets of old. Writing in about 185, Against Heresies, Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 202) said
[W]e have not been taught another God besides the Framer and the Maker of all, who has been pointed out to us from the beginning; nor another Christ, the Son of God, besides Him who was foretold by the prophets. 3. For the new covenant having been known and preached by the prophets, He who was to carry it out according to the good pleasure of the Father was also preached; having been revealed to men as God pleased; that they might always make progress through believing in Him, and by means of the [successive] covenants, should gradually attain to perfect salvation. For there is one salvation and one God; but the precepts which form the man are numerous, and the steps which lead man to God are not a few... (Fathers, 1. 472, 473.)Second, the use of "Bible Readings" allows the speaker to say that anyone who disagreed with him does not believe the Bible, e.g., when challenged for making a passage say something the Author did not mean (proved by its Old and New Testament context), a speaker using the "Bible Reading" method (overlooking the historical fulfillment of a passage) can respond by saying, "Don't you believe the Bible?" Then the charge against any challenge is backed up on the speaker's part by very his charismatic personality and speaking ability, and his opposition is overwhelmed not by sound, contextual Bible exegeses, but by the powerful character and personality of the speaker.
All the above things, and a great many more, are very well developed and documented in The Death of Victory.
First, Scripture alone in its context can be used for what we will present. This premise prohibits using surrounding circumstances and "secular" history to establish what one believes about "Israel." We are not, accordingly, cutting ourselves off from the opinions of other men, but the final authority must be God's written revelation to man - His Word - Geneva or KJV in the following study.
Second, the New Testament Author told us what He meant in the Old Testament passages. Therefore, we cannot separate the Old Testament "prophetic" passages from their applications as given by the New Testament Author without seriously mutilating the Word of God.
Third, those who reject the Old Testament as the major source of doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in right living, will not find anything in the following (they reject the totality of God's Word), for the following study is based in the Old Testament as explained by the New Testament. (2 Tim. 3:16.)
Fourth, those who do not have the time nor inclination to seriously study the matter from God's Word will not be able to follow what will be offered as we proceed.
This pastor urges those serious about studying God's Word to obtain and study a copy of Louis Berkhof's Principles of Biblical Interpretation, Baker Book House. If it cannot be found new, it can surely be found used.
All of life hinges on properly understanding the Word of God; let us not take it lightly.
With the above thoughts in mind, the following is presented for your consideration.