The Bible and the Future Paperback – Picture Book, September 6, 1994

This book does not start out with a comparison of the different views – premillennial, postmillennial, amillenial, preterist; it does not even start with a discussion of one of them. The first two chapters give evidence that both the Old Testament and New Testament have quite a bit to say about the future. He starts introducing the idea that some prophecies have already been fulfilled and some prophecies will be fulfilled in the future. There is the Last Days, which we are living in now, since the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and there is the Last Day, which is in the future. The discussion is pretty general in the first two chapters. There is nothing about tribulation or rapture or seventy weeks or the AntiChrist. I don’t mean this as criticism, just trying to describe the book.Chapter three examines how people should view history and how they actually do view history. Christians should be optimistic, confident that God is in control and everything will turn out right, according to God’s plan. But in fact many Christians are pretty pessimistic, seeing sin on the increase everywhere they look.Chapter four examines the Kingdom of God. It is not a place or a region where God rules. It is the reign of God. Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God in both present tense and future tense. His presence meant that the kingdom of God is here.Several chapters deal with the “already but not yet” paradigm. This has two kinds of applications. Most commonly, it describes the fact that Jesus has already defeated Satan and death, but we have not yet arrived at the Last Day, when Jesus will return and judge everyone and we will have the New Heaven and the New Earth. Hoekema also sees the “already but not yet” playing out in the life of each Christian. We are already converted, a new creation, with the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, but our sanctification is not yet complete, so we are still sinners.Some theologians see a sharp discontinuity between the current Earth and the New Earth, but Hoekema sees a smooth transition where the current Earth is restored and cleansed.In the New Testament, there are several texts that seem to say that the return of Jesus, the Parousia, will come very soon. Some people see these and conclude that Jesus and some of the apostles believed this, and they were mistaken. Page 118. Hoekema explains why the “imminence passages” do not need to be understood as meaning that Jesus will return within the lifetime of those listening to him. Page 119. Jesus told his disciples about the “sign of the times.” The signs actually are with us throughout the present age – earthquakes, famines, wars, tribulation,etc. They may increase just before the Parousia.Chapter Seven, Eight, and Nine deal with physical death, immortality, and the intermediate state. Theologians differ on whether there was death in animals before the Fall, and whether humans would have died if there had not been a Fall. Hoekema concludes that animals died before the Fall, but humans die only because of the Fall. Plato and the Greeks saw the soul as good and the physical body as evil, so they did not see the resurrection of the body as a good thing. Hoekema sees immortality of the soul for Christian believers, but not for unbelievers. He touches on the “soul sleep” controversy. I recently read Randy Alcorn’s “Heaven”, and he speculates that in the intermediate state Christians have a temporary body and they are awake and alert; then at the time of the resurrection, they get another resurrection body for the New Earth. Some believe that between physical death and the resurrection, Christians sleep. Others believe that in the intermediate state we will be awake but without a body – that is hard for me to see. Hoekema rejects soul sleep.Hoekema examines what the Bible has to say about Sheol and Hades. The Old Testament tells a little about Sheol, the place of the dead, or the grave. The New Testament mentions Sheol, but mostly uses “Hades.” Jesus tells one of the men on the cross that “today you will be with me in Paradise.” This seems to indicate some kind of conscious existence, not soul sleep. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man mentions the Bosom of Abraham and indicates a separation between the godly and the ungodly.II Corinthians 5:6-8 mentions “the building from God, the house not made with hands.” This could mean 1) an intermediate body, 2) our resurrection body, or 3) the glorious existence of the believer in heaven with Christ during the intermediate state. Hoekema dismisses the first view because it is not consistent with “eternal”, which is interesting because Randy Alcorn advocates for this view. Hoekema goes with Calvin’s view, which is a combination of the second and third, but maybe emphasizing the third view.Hoekema points out that there are many texts in the New Testament that tell of the Second Coming of Jesus, the Parousia. There are texts that might be understood to say that the Parousia would occur in the first century. Albert Sweitzer and many lesser-known theologians say that Jesus and His contemporaries expected the Parousia to occur in the first century, and they were mistaken. Sweitzer and the others call this the “delay of the Parousia.” Some resolution must be found, to explain why the Parousia did not occur a long time ago.In Chapter 14 Hoekema goes through the major millennial views, traditional premillennial, dispensational premillennial, postmillennial, and amillenial.He gives arguments to refute the first three of those, but saves Chapter 15 for a thorough argument against dispensational premillennial. He writes more about this one perhaps because of its larger following in the United States, and perhaps because it was not formulated until about 1830, by Charles Nelson Darby. He gives pretty good arguments against dispensational premillennialism, but I suspect that my committed dispensational premillennial friends will not be fazed by them.Some texts indicate an imminent return, some indicate a delayed return, and some indicate uncertainty about the time. Hoekema starts with the texts that indicate uncertainty, and excludes the interpretation of any text to mean that the return is imminent. Mark 13:30 says “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass a way before all these things take place.” There are various interpretations of “this generation” and “all these things.” Hoekema favors the view that the rebellious, apostate, unbelieving Jewish people will still be here at the Second Coming.Regarding the Olivet Discourse, Hoekema says that it describes events in the near future – the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and far distant future events that will occur at the end of the age. This is probably correct, but I don’t think that Jesus made this clear. (location 2939)John E Adams suggests that the term amillenialism be replaced by the expression realized millenialism. Page 173.Chapter 16, The Millennium of Revelation 20. Hoekema has a detailed discussion of the opening verses of Revelation 20, regarding the millenium and Jesus’ reign. Jesus is reigning right now in heaven. Hoekema views the book of Revelation in the way advocated by William Hendriksen in More Than Conquerors – progressive parallelism. There are seven sections in Revelation, each one depicting the church and the world from the time of Jesus’ first coming to the time of his second coming. They are progressive because they have more and more emphasis on the last times, and less on the time of John’s writing. Using this motif, Chapter 19 is the end of one section, and Chapter 20 is the beginning of the last section. Therefore, the content of Chapter 20 is not what happens *after* Chapter 19, it is about what happed in the First Century. When the ‘millenium’ is mentioned, it is the perfect number 10, to the third power. So it is a complete period of undetermined length. So it runs from just after the first coming until just before the second coming. The binding of Satan happens during this period, which is supported by Matthew 12:29. Rev 20:1-3 describe activity on earth, and 4-6 describe activity in heaven. Page 230. The first resurrection is not the physical resurrection from the dead – that is described later in Chapt 20. So the first resurrection is for the believers, living in the current age and reigning in heaven with Jesus, and this is what the millenium is. So a better word for amillenialism is realized millenialism.Chapter 17, The Resurrection of the Body. Premillenialists believe that the resurrection of believers is at the beginning of the millenium, and unbelievers are resurrected at the end of the millenium. Dispensationalists add a resurrection of saints at the end of the tribulation and another resurrection of saints at the end of the millenium. Hoekema cites texts to dispute this: Daniel 12:2, John 5:28-29, Revelation 20:11-15, and others. Hoekema holds to a single resurrection, on the last day, for saints and unbelievers.Chapter 18, The Final Judgment. Both saints and unbelievers will be judged, and the degree of their reward or punishment will depend on what they did on earth. Luke 12:47-48. Saints may be rewarded by being given greater authority. Luke 19:12-27. 1 Cor 3:10-15.Chapter 19. Eternal Punishment. There are two ways to deny eternal punishment – univeralism (everyone is saved, some way) and annihilationism (unbelievers cease to exist after death.) Universalism goes back to Origen, 185-254. Annihilationism goes back to the fourth century, Arnobius, and is held today by Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jesus talked about Gehenna, a name for hell, taken from a place near Jerusalem where garbage was burned. Hoekema uses studies of Greek words in the New Testament to defend the doctrine of eternal punishment.Chapter 20. The New Earth. Bible prophecies of a very productive earth and very happy people are about the new earth, not the millenium. The New Earth will be the present earth, but it will be renewed, restored to what it was before the Fall. Some people disagree, but this is Hoekema’s view.Appendix. Recent Trends in Eschatology. This is pretty long but it does not have page number in the Kindle version so it is hard to tell how long. It starts at 66%. Adolf von Harnack, 1851-1930, said that the gospel is about the fatherhood of God and the infinite value of the human soul. Johannes Weiss, 1863-1914, saw future eschatology as central but failed to see eschatology in the present. Albert Schweitzer, 1875-1966, said that Jesus was mistaken in thinking that the end time would be very soon.The book is a scholarly, meaning that it is thorough and examines every aspect of many concepts, often tracing views of earlier theologians, and sometimes examining the Biblical use of certain Greek or Hebrew words. But it is very approachable for a person who has done some Bible study but no Bible College or seminary.

The Bible and the Future is a Reformed eschatological masterpiece written by one of the greatest Reformed evangelical minds of the 20th century. Anthony Hoekema presents one of the most prominent evangelical works on eschatology in the first part of his three-volume journey through the major tenets of Reformed theology. His other two works, Created in God’s Image and Saved by Grace capture the doctrines of anthropology and soteriology, respectively. Hoekema served as both a pastor and professor throughout his life and his theological writings are considered some of the best Reformed theological works of the 20th century. His robust historical, theological, and biblical grasp of each doctrine he takes up to teach makes this work on eschatology one of the go-to works on the subject.SummaryIf one were to ask me what this book was about, I would simply point him or her to the title. The Bible and the Future is a book about just that—the Bible’s own claims about all things last things. Hoekema strives in this book to biblically and systematically understand and interpret what God has revealed to his people in his Word about last things.The book is divided into two major sections. The first is a small section dealing with inaugurated eschatology in which Hoekema importantly proves that eschatology is not reserved for the apocalyptic literature of Daniel and Revelation. Rather, Hoekema scans the entire Bible and points out the eschatological direction of the Old Testament, the eschatological nature of the New Testament, along with a look at the meaning and purpose of all history, the kingdom of God, and the Holy Spirit’s role in inaugurated eschatology. This section closes with an ever-important look at the biblical eschatological theme of “already, not yet.” Hoekema shows that the new creation is already in progress, yet it has not been fully brought out. The primary purpose of this first section is to show the eschatological movement of redemptive history.With this groundwork laid, the more familiar aspects of eschatology begin to make their way to the surface. Future eschatology is taken up in great detail in the second section of the book. This second section deals with four major eschatological themes: the death of believers, the second coming of Christ, the millennium, and the final judgment. With regard to the death of believers, Hoekema begins in chapter 7 by describing what the Bible says about physical death. Chapter 8 deals with the immortality of humans after death. Chapter 9 goes further to discuss the intermediate state in which Christians are in the presence of God, but without their resurrected bodies.Chapters 10-13 involve discussions about the second coming of Christ. Step by step he goes through the elements of the second coming—our expectation of it, the general and particular signs of it, and its very nature.Next, Hoekema discusses the biblical doctrine of the millennium. Consistent with traditional Reformed theology, he presents future eschatological events through an amillenial perspective. While positing the amillennial understanding of future eschatology, Hoekema very spends time in chapter 14 discussing the various views of the millennium. Chapter 15 serves as a sort of continuation of chapter 14 as it gives significant space to critique the popular dispensational premillennial position. Then in chapter 16, Hoekema goes directly to the text of Scripture that teaches the millennium in Revelation 20. While he previously described what the amillennial position taught in chapter 14, here he interprets Revelation 20 from an amillennial perspective. Chapter 16 serves as a solid representation of amillennial interpretation of the millennium by looking at the text itself.Finally, chapters 17-20 deal with the final judgment. Hoekema begins in chapter 17 with a description and discussion of the resurrection of the body. He shows this doctrine’s centrality to the Bible’s overall eschatology (239). This thought flows directly into Hoekema’s biblical teaching on the final judgment. All aspects of the final judgment are discussed here from the time it occurs to who is judged. Appropriately, the doctrine of the final judgment is followed by Hoekema’s presentation and defense of the traditional evangelical position concerning eternal punishment. He engages those who deny eternal punishment (universalists and annihilationists) while arguing for eternal conscious suffering in hell for sinners who remain under God’s wrath.The book closes with a glorious look at the new earth. The final state of those who are in Christ is looked at in chapter 20 (274). Where all history and this book is heading is summed up in these words, which also is a good summation of Hoekema’s eschatology: “At the beginning of history God created the heavens and the earth. At the end of history we see the new heavens and the new earth, which will far surpass in splendor all that we have seen before. At the center of history is the Lamb that was slain, the first-born from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Some day we shall cast all our crowns before him, ‘lost in wonder, love, and praise’” (287).Critical EvaluationAs expected, Hoekema’s work is biblically faithful, theologically reliable, and historically consistent. What makes The Bible and the Future so important and reliable for any serious study of eschatology is his dual fervent defense of amillennialism and honest and fair presentation of all other millennial views. It is rare to find a theologian who stays faithful to one theological position while remaining fair to other positions. The balance of chapter 14 is very appealing. By presenting these other views alongside his amillennial perspective, this makes his arguments more reliable and persuasive.Hoekema’s presentation of eschatology is also comprehensive. While other books in this field primarily deal with elements of future eschatology, Hoekema shows that eschatology is not limited to all things future, even showing eschatological elements throughout the Old Testament. This is a very important way to view and understand the doctrine of last things. What usually surrounds this doctrine is controversy and unhelpful charts. Hoekema does not allow this kind of thinking after reading his book because he presents the entire Bible, all of redemptive history, and all of the Christian life as having an eschatological twang to them. And when the aspects of future eschatology are taken up, they are rooted firmly in Scripture and accurately represent the Reformed understanding of eschatology.Hoekema’s Reformed perspective does not seem to function as a blinding bias. Per usual, Hoekema gives ample attention and critique of positions he disagrees with. This fair treatment of various eschatological views makes his book all the more effective and worthy of consideration from all Christians. An example of this is chapters 14-15. Hoekema not only provides us with multiple eschatological understandings of the millennium, but he also gives us an excellent example of how to engage positions that differ from your own. He is fair, yet faithful to and confident in his own perspective.Another very important aspect of The Bible and the Future is Hoekema’s emphasis on the importance of the resurrection of the body. He shows that this is absolutely central to future eschatology. Though after physical death and we are in the intermediate state, Hoekema emphasizes that we are not meant to be spiritual beings (239). This is excellent perspective as many Christians focus on the intermediate state or only a spiritual state in heaven when Christ returns. Hoekema eliminates this kind of thinking, which is one of the more important contributions of this book.ConclusionThere are many evangelical works on eschatology. However, very few of these works can compare with Hoekema’s candor and comprehensive nature. After the publication of this work, there can be no serious discussion of eschatology without consideration of The Bible and the Future. Hoekema’s faithful biblical exposition and theological-historical reliance makes this work an eschatological masterpiece and maybe the most influential Reformed eschatology of the 20th century.

This product arrived in very good condition. I have not had a chance to start reading this book but am very much looking forward to doing just that. I am not familiar with the author, but the book was highly recommended.

This book is a good introduction for Amillennialism. The author helpfully explains the arguments for and against each views. A must read!

Hoekema leaves no stone unturned of scripture that deals with Eschatology. This book will make it difficult to not see eschatology in its already/not yet reality, it’s centrality in the OT, it’s telos of all history, its culmination in the second coming of Christ that will usher in the resurrection/judgment and new earth to be enjoyed by his people for al eternity. This book is from an amillenial perspective. Most importantly, he deals extensively with Dispensationalism. If he represents dispensationalism correctly then I think the perspective of this book much more adequately interprets OT prophecy and Rev 20 consistent with the storyline of scripture. He helped me see in Scripture the right perspective for enjoying this life considering that much of the blessing of what we experience in current redemption will be apart of the new earth in the future. Enjoy life. The suffering is purposeful and will one day be gone. But don’t lose sight of the fact that we are forgiven, adopted sons, free, alive and new. Live it up to the glory of God.

This is an excellent presentation of what the Bible teaches concerning the future. Not only the future from our current perspective but the future from the perspective of the times when various sections were penned. It presents an even handed review of Scriptural support for the major schools of thought on the millennium (pre-, post- and amillenialism). Highly recommended.

I had this as a set book for a course I am doing. The first few chapters were OK. Hoekema takes a kingdom stance on his point of view and works everything around that. He is obviously an amillennialist, he looks at the dispensationalists view but almost mockingly. As soon as he headed down the millennialist path I lost interest. Eschatology is a really interesting topic but this felt sometimes like reading a book on grammar. I skim read the book after part one as it really didn't grab my attention after that. Some might enjoy it but it wasn't for me.

The Bible and the Future by Anthony A. Hoekema is a somewhat dry and unenjoyable book on a subject that is rich and exciting by definition. Though a lot of work has gone into this text and many helpful things were learned, such as clearly defining the parameters of reformed Biblical Eschatology and the various interpretations of supporting Scripture, it is the opinion of this review that this work could have been edited better. This brief critique therefore will uncover the author's style of writing and handling of the content to support these findings. In concluding remarks, the review will highlight the positives of this book that have contributed to an overall increase in understanding on the matter of Eschatology.There is a notable disconnect between Hoekema's choice and use of words when discussing these weighty matters of End Times, simply put, he employs unattractive semantics. He writes similar to a science professor who is describing the dry details of an algebraic equation, rather spiritless, detached, and unconvincing. There is a sense of caution he uses too, as if to avoid a legal indictment of truly believing what his subject matter consists of, namely, the consummation of the world which entails the complete salvation of God's elect and the unchangeable damnation of unbelievers. On this last point for example, Hoekema writes, "that the day of the Lord predicted by the Old Testament prophets will be a day of judgement and wrath for some but of blessing and salvation for others." At first glance this line seems harmless and unworthy of criticism, but when one looks closer, he purposely uses the word some. The word should be most, or at least, many, but never some. Too many verses of Scripture confirm that God destroys most of fallen men, and redeems a remnant elect by grace. From the global flood, where "every living substance was destroyed," to the entire destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, where "the LORD...overthrew...all the inhabitants of the cities," it is clearly established in the Old Testament that God's judgement and wrath are upon all men, yet is pleased to preserve and show grace to a small minority.Another poor word choice which unfortunately causes an improper image of the devil and evil is when Hoekema writes of the Second Coming of Christ, "when the enemy shall totally and finally surrender." Nowhere in Scripture do we find that Satan will finally surrender. As if he will give up his wicked rebellion after much conflict and secure some favourable conditions. Rather we read, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." There is not a hint that Satan will have the option or ability to surrender, but rather he will be completely destroyed without any chance of the least mercy by the Most High. His judgement has already been declared, and there is nothing that can change this.The glory of the Return of our Lord Jesus was sapped from this book by the excessive use of the words eschatology and eschatological. Yes, this book's subject matter is on eschatology so it must be used frequently, but not to the point of ad nauseam. On pages 13 and 14 for example, the term is used the most frequent, at least 11 times. All throughout the text this word eventually became annoying rather than helpful. Perhaps the simplicity of Christ's Return, would have better connected the reader's heart to the content at hand. Yet a similar grievance is found with another word, and it is not specifically unique to Hoekema. This word is tension, defined more specifically as, the already and not yet.The subject of the End Times is truly the hope of the believer, which is established in the Hoekema's book. In the first chapter Hoekema neatly uncovers the seven eschatological outlooks that Old Testament believers held to when pondering the final days. We learn that they "looked for a redeemer," the kingdom of God" to rule the whole world, "the New Covenant," "restoration of Israel," "the outpouring of the Spirit," "the day of the Lord, and lastly, the "New Heavens and the New Earth." Yet we learn immediately in the second chapter that the New Testament believer must keep in tension the already and not yet of end times. It is this word tension that warrants criticism or rather clarification since it seems erroneously used.Some of the synonyms of tension include, "strain, stress, anxiety, and pressure." The way Hoekema writes of the already and not yet, that is, the inauguration of the Kingdom but awaiting the consummation of the Kingdom, seems to reveal an unnatural or uncontrolled stress, anxiety or pressure. We know that our Lord likened this interim period to a woman giving birth to a child in John 16:21, and Hoekema does reference this later in his book, but without qualifying this terminology with the supreme sovereignty of the LORD, the tension could almost be viewed as a set back or possible hindrance to the Last Day. On pages 51 and 52 he uses these terms at least five times, making it rather unappealing to consider it further. It is as if he wrote a paragraph on this matter, then came back later to only address the same subject all over again repetitively, without considering what he first wrote.Along the same line, when quoting theologian George Ladd, this lack of considering the sovereignty of God is clearly seen. For truly tension has behind its definition a lack of control over a situation. Hoekema endorses Ladd by quoting him, "The church has experienced the victory...and yet the church is, like other men, at the mercy of the powers of this world..." It is unclear how Hoekema could agree with this statement. Since when has God's bride (The Church) ever been subject to the mercy of the world? The world does not even have mercy when dealing with the church. When David for example was to be punished for sinning against the Lord, he says to the prophet Gad, "I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man." The Church is never at the mercy of the world even if the church perceives it as such. The Lord ordains that we must suffer at the hands of the ungodly, be despised by them, and even be killed by them, but never is this adversarial period outside of the absolute control and will of God. Therefore it seems that tension or the already but not yet terms seem to rob the present power of Christ's Kingdom here and now, whereby the proclamation of the Gospel of God reveals the true power and mercy of God to sinners, but never the other way around. How could the Gospel era of the church be likened to tension? Warfare yes, attrition yes, advancement yes, but tension no, for it weakens the truth of this victory era of the Church. Is God somehow under pressure during this age? Is God under some anxiety during this interim before the final consummation? If he is not, for he is The Prince of Peace, then it must follow that the church is not either, or else her members would have a defeatist or cowardly disposition when marching forward to glory. And we know that the "fearful, and unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." Tension and its definition simply cannot fit to describe the Church militant awaiting her Lord's return.This apparent vain of weakness or even fence sitting is found elsewhere in Hoekema's book. He says certain things that just throw the entire Biblical worldview out of sync. Take for example when he writes his chapter on The Meaning of History. He makes such an outrageous and ill informed claim that any Christian reader should be troubled. This is perhaps because Hoekema is an evolutionist. Is it possible that anyone who tampers with the foolish doctrine of evolution has a compromised understanding of absolute truths and morality? He writes regarding the judging of history, in that, "We can never be absolutely sure whether a specific historical event is good, evil, or—in case it partakes of both—predominantly good or predominantly evil." How can an allegedly reformed theologian write with such post-modern nuance? Was the holocaust good or evil? Was the abolition of the slave trade good or evil? Was the invention of penicillin good or evil, or predominantly good or predominantly evil? Was Communist Mao a mixture of both good and evil when he starved 100 million Chinese citizens? Hoekema denies that we cannot see history "in terms of black and white." Hoekema thus seems to live in an idealist-leftist reality which can easily frustrate a reader seeking for solid answers in light of the Revelation and world history.Where the above was enough to make the rest of the read a test of mental indurance, Hoekema massively blunders with his affirmative stance on evolutionary origins. This compromises his entire view of God's nature and character, and other doctrines such as the inerrancy of the Word of God. When discussing the origin of sin and death, he separates the meaning of death into two camps, one for man, and the other for the animals and plants. He plainly states, "there must have been death in the animal and vegetable worlds before man fell into sin." He then attempts to support this outrageous and anti-biblical claim, that is, death before sin, by citing "fossil records," and how "death plays an important part in... plants and animals," and how some of these carnivores "subsist by eating other animals." At a quick glance then, Hoekema believes that the Garden of Eden either never existed, or if it did, it was full of dead carcases, bones, weeds, thorns, mosquitoes, biting flies, aggressive lions, tigers, wolves and their torn apart, bloody, and chewed up victims; and that God said to this carnage, "it was very good." How is it that Isaiah can prophecy that "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.(?)" It may be received well if "death" is simply limited to the plant world before sin, for this is a different meaning of death as we know it; but to include the animals, and more particularly mammals, of which humans are physiologically defined likewise, this entirely undermines the truthfulness of the Word of God.Though it seems all hope is lost that Hoekema would hold to a pseudo-Darwinian theory of origins, he does make up for this slightly by stating, that Genesis 2:17 "teaches us that physical death in the human world is the result of man's sin." Yet he went beyond sowing the seeds of doubt for the authenticity of the Genesis record, and thus loses all credibility for remaining a reformed-proper theologian. By holding this worldview, he also undermines the many Christian scientists who have contributed to Creation research, and have found that science confirms Genesis rather than disproves it. The fact that pandas eat bamboo and have similar teeth to other carnivorous bears, disproves the need for many similar animals to consume a carnivorous diet. The fact that petrified trees have been discovered directly through alleged "fossil records," disproves the use of these for undermining a young earth. And the fact that it is impossible for a dead creature to lie perfectly still for hundreds of thousands of years until it becomes covered in a layer of rock-sediment and then into a fossil, all show that the secular understanding of origins is found wanting, that serves primarily to avoid the person, presence, and immediate power of God. Jesus raised men from the dead, healed the blind, the lame, and lepers, and all this was done in an immediate context, not millions of years. If God the Son revealed to his disciples creative-healing acts of miracles before their eyes, why then would anyone subsequently challenge this record and dare to posit an evolutionary system for origins? For truly this is an anti-Christ system of thought with no Biblical foundation to support it. The last critical observation adds to the entire unworthiness of this book to be read with any sense of enjoyability for spiritual benefit and doctrinal edification. In discussing the word Sheol (realm of the dead or grave) Hoekema fails to qualify this term properly to ensure its essential meaning and placement in Scripture. He mistakenly writes,The various figures which are applied to Sheol can all be understood as referring to the realm of the dead: Sheol is said to have bars (Job 17:16), to be a dark and gloomy place (Job 17:13), and to be a monster with an insatiable appetite (Prov. 27:20; 30:15-16 [et al]). When we think of Sheol in this way we must remember that both the godly and the ungodly go down into Sheol at death, since both enter the realm of the dead.How he could write that the godly will enter the same place as the ungodly upon death calls into question his ability to understand this word in context and at large within the Old Testament. It is rather unsettling and even outrageous to write that God's people, at least in the Old Testament, entered a place with the wicked, a place with "bars... [where it is] dark and gloomy... a monster with an insatiable appetite." One such isolating contextual error is found in how he interprets Psalm 9:17 to make this point, where "the wicked shall depart to Sheol, all the nations that forget God." (NIV) or, "the wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God" (KJV). He even challenges Lois Berkhof in making this claim. He writes,But there is no indication in the text that punishment is involved. And one finds it difficult to believe that the Psalmist is here predicting the everlasting punishment of every single member of these wicked nations. The passage, however, makes excellent sense if one renders Sheol in the usual way, as referring to the realm of death. The Psalmist is then saying that ungodly nations, though they now boast of their power, shall be wiped out by death. Berkhof however, writes criticizing this modern interpretation of Sheol, in that it was,current in popular Hebrew thought... but it can hardly be regarded by those who believe in the plenary inspiration of the Bible as an element of the positive teachings of Scripture, since it plainly contradicts the Scriptural representation that the righteous at once enter glory and the wicked at once descend into the place of eternal punishment.And specifically in referencing Psalm 9:17, this Sheol serves as a warning to the wicked, where "God's anger [is] burning," and where there is "destruction." And again when referring to Sheol as a location, descent there is "threatened as a danger and as a punishment for the wicked" It should be noted that Hoekema does believe that the godly would be eventually rescued out of Sheol; he even later states that it is apparent that the righteous enter a different place than the ungodly after death. Yet this is after he has already sapped the glory of the believers' hope of an immediate rescue into heaven upon death. It is a strange and wearisome approach how Hoekema initially writes about Sheol and then has an apparent conviction that he must get back to reaffirm a reformed perspective, which undermines his initial controversial statements. This seems to be a consistent inconsistency throughout this book, which makes it difficult to pinpoint where the author definitively stands; hence the initial critique of fence-sitting or general weakness remains as a summary word of this text. In conclusion though, it must be known that Hoekema writes very well on the New Heavens and New Earth. He clears up misconceptions about this present world, in how it will be transformed into the New Earth and united with heaven. The believers will not be placed in some ethereal, bodiless state, floating around and not being productive. Rather, we learn that it is this world on which we live at present that will be fully restored to a perfect state, as before the fall, and thus the cause for joy now and proclamation of the Gospel. Surprisingly Hoekema does not holdback to write of the eternal punishment of unbelievers in chapter 19, whereby he effectively challenges the error of annihilationism. He even provides a highly effective defence against dispensationalism, whereby they have entirely misunderstood what the New Heavens and New Earth truly mean. Had Hoekema refused to adopt a politically correct tone, been more forthright in standing behind scripture (specifically in regards to Genesis 1-11), and considered in more depth the meaning of Sheol and the state of Old Testament believers, this book would have served as a concise guide to Biblical Eschatology. Yet given the above critiques, and others that cannot fit in this review, it falls short of faithfully equipping the reformed minister in effectively grasping The Bible and the Future.

Very good book and the delivery was fast. The doctrine of amillenial is well documented and well defended and explained.