Edward Miller's quotations from Irving's notes of the first Albury conference in 1826 confirm that the origin of the dispensational distinction between the Jews and the Church and the restoration of the Jews before the return of Christ may be attributed to Edward Irving.23
The conference of 1828 similarly focussed on speculation concerning the imminent restoration of the Jews. Irving, for example, records the momentous news which Drummond shared of the discovery of some 20 million of the 'ten lost Hebrew' tribes allegedly now living in Cashmere.25 It is possible that Joseph Wolff's lifelong search for the 'Ten Tribes' which began in the same year may have been sparked off by this 'discovery'.26 In the later conferences the emphasis shifted to the imminent Last Days 'preparations' or signs of the Second Coming.27
In 1866, Hugh M'Neile, whom Drummond had appointed Rector of Albury, looked back and acknowledged how, a generation earlier in the 1830's, such futurist interpretations of the prophetic books of Daniel and Revelation advocated by himself, Way and Irving had been viewed as something of a novelty by sceptics he describes as 'anti-restorationists'.28 He admits that it had, 'no place in the battle-field of the Reformation' or among theologians in the 18th century.
Irving rejoiced that the 'Albury Circle' had caused a sea change in Millennial speculation and how, 'the truth of his Son's glorious advent maketh winged speed in all the churches.'30 The Albury Circle, principally Irving, Drummond, Way, Wolff, M'Neile and Lady Powerscourt, were probably the most significant influence in the development of a literalist and futurist hermeneutic which in turn gave rise to both Dispensationalism and Christian Zionism. Between 1830 and 1834, following the model established at Albury, Lady Powerscourt hosted a series of similar prophetic conferences at Powerscourt Castle near Dublin, under the growing influence of J. N. Darby, to whom she was engaged to be married.
John Nelson Darby's Contribution to a Literalist Hermeneutic
John Nelson Darby is regarded by many as the father of dispensationalism and the most influential figure in the development of its prodigy, Christian Zionism31. Darby defended his own literalist dispensational hermeneutic on two grounds. First, because, he claimed, others had not studied the Scriptures correctly.
Second, Darby insisted that his own interpretation, over against that of the Millenarians, was correct because the Lord had revealed it to him by special revelation.
Darby's literal hermeneutic, typical of popular Christian Zionist writers today, might be summed up in his own words, 'I prefer quoting many passages than enlarging upon them.'34 In response to the negative reaction his controversial teaching about a future dispensation of Jews on earth after the church had been removed, Darby wrote,
Even Coad, in his otherwise positive history of the Brethren Movement, admits that 'For the traditional view of the Revelation, another was substituted.'36 Barr is less sympathetic arguing premillennial dispensationalism was, '...individually invented by J. N. Darby... concocted in complete contradiction to all main Christian tradition...'37 It was Cyrus Scofield, however, and principally his Scofield Reference Bible, who synthesised and popularised a literalist and futurist reading of Scripture based on Irving and Darby's distinctive rupture between the Church and Israel.
Scofield's Hermeneutic - Rightly Dividing the Word of
According to one of Darby's biographers, 'His perceptions of Scriptural truths are the source from which Scofield Reference Bibles get their characteristic notes.'38 Others have noted that the resemblance between Scofield and Darby 'is deep and systematic.'39 It is significant, however, that neither in the Introduction to his Reference Bible, nor in the accompanying notes does Scofield acknowledge his indebtedness to Darby, any more than Darby credited Irving. In 1888 Scofield published his first work called 'Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth'.40 In it Scofield presented the hermeneutical principles of dispensationalism he had allegedly been teaching his Bible classes and which would become the theological presuppositions behind the notes of his Scofield Reference Bible. Not surprisingly, it was the Plymouth Brethren 'house' publishers, Loizeaux Brothers of New York, who printed the first edition,41 and continued to do so, a century later.42 The key text upon which Scofield based his scheme is the Authorised translation of 2 Timothy 2:15, in which the Apostle Paul calls upon Timothy to, '... rightly divide the word of truth.' Scofield took this as the title for his first book which elaborated on how the Bible should be divided into discrete dispensations.43
The first lesson sets the tone for all future Dispensational teaching offering a novel 'literal' interpretation of the verse 'Give no offence, neither to the Jews, nor the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.' (1 Corinthians 10:32). On the basis of this verse, Scofield justified the division of the world into three classes of people, Jews, Gentiles and the Church, an idea that is now the 'warp and woof of Dispensational teaching.'45 Others perceive that The New Testament more accurately delineates two classes of people, those who believe in Jesus Christ and those who do not, irrespective of their racial origins.46 Scofield, like Darby, insisted that promises made to the Jews in the Old Testament could not be applied to the Church in the New Testament.
Scofield's literalism extended even to exact verbal phraseology. This led him to claim, for example, that there are seven dispensations, eight covenants, and eleven great mysteries.48 To justify this perpetual and 'eternal' distinction between Israel and the Church, even under the New Covenant, Scofield insisted that Israel is the 'earthly wife' of God and the Church is actually the 'heavenly bride'' of Christ. Commenting on Hosea 2:2, Scofield writes,
That Israel is the wife of Jehovah (see vs. 16-23), now disowned but yet to be restored, is the clear teaching of the passages. This relationship is not to be confounded with that of the Church to Christ (John 3.29, refs.)... The N.T. speaks of the Church as a virgin espoused to one husband (2 Cor. 11.1,2); which could never be said of an adulterous wife, restored in grace. Israel is, then, to be the restored and forgiven wife of Jehovah, the Church the virgin wife of the Lamb (John 3.29; Rev. 19. 6-8); Israel Jehovah's earthly wife (Hos. 2, 23); the Church the Lamb's heavenly bride (Rev. 19.7)49
Scofield therefore concluded that Israel and the Church were separate bodies. 'A forgiven and restored wife could not be called either a virgin (2 Cor. 11: 2,3), or a bride.'50 Such novel teaching about two separate people of God - that of an 'earthly wife' and a 'heavenly bride' contradicts other passages such as John 10:16 and Romans 11:24, neither of which warrant any comment in Scofield's Reference Bible. Scofield's footnotes and systematised scheme of hermeneutics, however, were seen as inspired and used as a test of orthodoxy among fundamentalists in the early 20th Century.
One of Scofield's disciples, Lewis Sperry Chafer who founded Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924, became his most articulate and influential exponent, producing the first and definitive eight volume systematic theology of Dispensationalism based on Scofield's scheme. Before his death in 1952 Chafer described what he perceived to be his greatest academic achievement. 'It goes on record that the Dallas Theological Seminary uses, recommends, and defends the Scofield Bible.'52
A Dispensational Definition of Biblical Literalism
Lewis Chafer defines the literal hermeneutic upon which dispensationalism and contemporary Christian Zionism is based in the following way.
The biblical text therefore needs little or no human interpretation. Like Chafer, Charles Ryrie insists that it is only dispensationalists who are consistent in applying a literal interpretation.
Louis Goldberg claims that it is those who reject a literalist hermeneutic who are imposing their theological framework on the Scriptures.
...two established rules of interpretation are as follows: 1) "When Scripture makes common sense use no other sense;" 2) "Prophecy ... must be interpreted literally ... The reason a non-literal method of interpretation is adopted is, almost without exception, because of a desire to avoid the obvious interpretation of the passage. The desire to bring the teaching of Scripture into harmony with some predetermined system of doctrine instead of bringing doctrine into harmony with the Scriptures has kept this practice alive."
The point is that we have to let the prophetic Scriptures speak on their own without reading into them!55
However, without the foundational dispensational presupposition that God's purposes for Israel and the Church are and remain eternally separate, Chafer insists the Bible is incomprehensible.
Chafer taught that without this dispensational distinction between Israel and the Church, a simple literal reading along with other 'non literal' methods of interpretation are confusing and lead to internal inconsistency. Dwight Pentecost, also of Dallas Theological Seminary similarly insists,
Scripture is unintelligible until one can distinguish clearly between God's program for his earthly people Israel and that for the Church.57
Patrick Goodenough of the International Christian Embassy explains the consequences of this simple 'literal' hermeneutic.
In the 1980's the Churches Ministry Among Jewish People went further, locating the origin of what they term a 'spiritualised' reading of the Bible in the heresy of Marcion who proposed the abandonment of the Old Testament.
Hal Lindsey also attributed the development of erroneous views concerning Israel to an allegorical, non-literal hermeneutic allegedly advocated by Origen.60 Others, however, have argued that it was the consistent approach of the Post-Apostolic Fathers, including Origen, to interpret the Hebrew Scriptures typologically, that is as 'types' of New Testament realities61, as the Apostles had done before them.62 In his commitment to literalism, Lindsey and other dispensationalists do not distinguish between figurative or typological approaches acknowledged by covenantal theologians from the allegorical methods of interpretation seen typically in pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism.63 The distinction between these two methods of interpretation is significant since the former places particular emphasis on the historical context of passages as well as the way scripture interprets scripture.64 An allegorical approach finds eternal truths in the Bible without reference to their historical setting. A typological approach highlights the way New Testament writers see Jesus Christ to be the fulfilment of many Old Testament images and types.65 There is good evidence that a typological interpretation of the Old Testament was consistently followed by the Church from the 1st Century, and did not arise with Origen as Lindsey alleges.66
The Political Implications of a Zionist Literalist Hermeneutic
It is when such a literalist hermeneutic, combined with the dispensational distinction between Israel and the Church, is applied to the prophetic books of Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation, that the political ramifications of Christian Zionism are seen to be so controversial. Hal Lindsey, for example, has been largely responsible for popularising a futurist and predictive view of ancient prophecies applying promises made to the ancient Jews to the contemporary State of Israel.
Lindsey's eschatological speculations, while criticised by some dispensationalists68, are nevertheless representative of numerous other popular Christian Zionist writers such as Tim LaHaye69, Mike Evans70, John Hagee71, Randall Price72, Charles Dyer73, Grant Jeffrey74 and Dave Hunt75. Leslie Flynn of Jews for Jesus, for example, illustrates how Old Testament prophecies can be used to describe future events and thereby reinforce a Zionist agenda.
While not a dispensationalist, Basilea Schlink, on the basis of a literalist reading of the Bible, similarly equates the ancient Jews with the contemporary State of Israel, and elevates them to a privileged status far above human sanction or criticism. Indeed she warns that those who reject such a conclusion are opposing God.
The outworking of this hermeneutic can also be seen in the conclusions Anne Dexter reaches concerning the territorial extent of Israel.
The implication is clear, only those who read the Bible 'literally' are being faithful to the integrity of the Scriptures. It is interesting to obgserve how far this literalism is sometimes pressed by Christian Zionists. For example, while the promises of blessing made to Abraham in Genesis 12 were made personally to the patriarch, the International Christian Embassy not only applies them to the way other nations treat the State of Israel today but insists the promises also provide divine justification for Israel's continued occupation of parts of Syrian and Palestine.
Mike Evans, Founder and President of Lovers of Israel Inc., interprets the same passage in Genesis as meaning that as long as the United States supports Israel, it will survive and prosper. He argues that demonic forces are attempting to force America to betray Israel and that America's very survival will depend on her continued support of Israel.80
An Appraisal of the Christian Zionist Hermeneutic
With sales of over 40 million books in over 50 languages, Hal Lindsey is undoubtedly the most influential Christian Zionist writer today.82 This appraisal will therefore use Lindsey's own writings as illustrative of, as well as representative of, other Christian Zionist writers apply a 'litreral' hermeneutic.
It is noticeable how some authors have altered their interpretations to suit changing events.83 For example, in There's a New World Coming (1973), Lindsey was relatively circumspect in his interpretation of what some of the symbols used in the Book of Revelation.
By the time he wrote Apocalypse Code (1997), 24 years later, however, as new and more destructive military hardware became available, Lindsey's speculations became more dogmatic and specific. So, for example, "might symbolize" becomes what the apostle John "actually saw."
|1980's Countdown to Armageddon||Planet Earth 2000 A.D.|
||We see Russia as no longer a world threat, but a regional power with a world-class military - exactly what Ezekiel 38 and 39 predicted it would be.87|
|Late Great Planet Earth (1970)||Apocalypse Code (1997)|
|The Russian force will establish command headquarters on Mount Moriah or the Temple area in Jerusalem. ...he seeks to utterly destroy the Jewish people.90||...the Russian-Muslim force retreats back to Israel and sets up command HQs on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. These forces try to annihilate the Jews as they do this.91|
When Daniel talks about "weeks" (literally units of seven) in this passage, he is not speaking of literal weeks but of periods of time, each a period of seven years94In order to give a futurist reading to Daniel's prophecy, it is also necessary for Dispensationalists to posit a 'parenthesis' of 2000 years between the 69th and 70th week. Brickner, offers this explanation.
The prophecy of Daniel, chapter nine, has not been completely fulfilled. There is more--one "seven" of the seventy still remains to be played out. But there seems to be a break in Daniel's countdown; he indicates a time lapse between the sixty-ninth seven and the final seven. "The end will come like a flood, war will continue until the end and desolations have been decreed." The past 2000 years have been a parenthesis in Daniel's prophecy and we await that final seven: "He will confirm a covenant with many for one seven..."95
This problem with this interpretation is that it has no biblical justification, here or in any other text. The arbitrary decision to stop the prophetic clock and place a 2000 year gap between Daniel's 69h and 70th week is probably the most eccentric example of a non-literal and unnatural interpretation imposed on the text by those who insist on a literal hermeneutic.96Lindsey explains the reasons for his own 'symbolic' approach to the Book of Revelation.
How could this first-century man describe the scientific wonders of the latter twentieth century? He had to illustrate them with phenomena of the first century; for instance, a thermonuclear war looked to him like a giant volcanic eruption spewing fire and brimstone... Much of the symbolism John used was the result of a first century man being catapulted in God's time machine up to the end of the twentieth century, then returned to his own time and commanded to write what he had seen and heard. The only way that John could obey that instruction was to use phenomena with which he was familiar to illustrate the scientific and technical marvels that he predicts.97
Using Lindsey's 'Bible Code', the Apostle John's 'locusts' thereby become helicopters, 'horses prepared for battle' are actually heavily armed attack helicopters, 'crowns of gold' are the helmets worn by pilots, and the 'sound of their wings' are the 'thunderous sound of many attack helicopters flying overhead."98 The 'bow' wielded by the Antichrist in Revelation 6:1-2, is actually, "...a code for long range weapons like ICBM's."99 The reference to the "colour of fire and of hyacinth and of brimstone" in Revelation 9:17 also becomes the "Chinese national flag... emblazoned on the military vehicles."100 Similarly, while Israel is always Israel, other nations mentioned in prophecy require interpretation. So, following Darby and Scofield, Lindsey equates ancient tribes and nations mentioned in Old Testament prophecies with contemporary enemies of Israel in the Middle East.101
In Psalm 83, some 3,000 years ago, God gave a warning of what would happen in the last days... In these verses the Philistia or Philistines are the modern Palestinians. Tyre is modern Lebanon. Assyria is modern Syria.102
What is not always clear is the basis upon which these confident assertions are made.
While dispensationalists claim to use a consistent, plain and literal interpretation of Scripture, at times, even though they share the same theology and eschatology they nevertheless reach very different, and sometimes contradictory, conclusions. For example, in their interpretation of Revelation 9:13-19, Hal Lindsey and M.R. DeHann contradict one another:
|M.R. DeHann (1946)||Hal Lindsey (1973)|
|In Revelation 9:13-21 we have a description of an army of two hundred million horsemen... seems to be a supernatural army of horrible beings, probably demons, who are permitted to plague the unrepentant sinners on the earth...103||The four angels of Revelation 9:14-15 will mobilize an army of 200 million soldiers from east of the Euphrates... I believe these 200 million troops are Red Chinese soldiers accompanied by other Eastern allies...104|
For DeHann the 200 million are supernatural beasts while for Lindsey they are literally Chinese soldiers, although the horses are mobilized ballistic missile launchers.105 Both claim theirs is a literal interpretation of the text. It seems rather that their form of hermeneutic is instead 'licensed for full-scale exegetical exploitation.'106Enhanced Interpretation
Similarly, in a quotation of Matthew 24:15-18, Lindsey adds a reference to the rebuilding of the temple, necessary for this prophecy to refer to some future date rather than prior to 70 A.D. when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem.
Therefore when you see the Abomination which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place [of the rebuilt temple] (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains...108Moishe Rosen of Jews for Jesus similarly argues that Zechariah's prophecy promising an end to the Babylonian captivity and the return of the Israelites refers to the 20th Century.
First, the regathering of the Jewish people will take place from the west (represented by Egypt) and from the east (represented by Assyria).109
One of the most popular but erroneous assumptions Christian Zionists continue to make is that 'Gog' and 'Magog' mentioned in Ezekiel 38:15-16 refer to Russia. Lindsey even adds the word 'Russia' to reinforce his interpretation. 'And you (Russia) will come from your place out of the remote parts of the north, you and many peoples with you...'110
Lindsey is particularly prone to making unsubstantiated claims. For example,
I know from my study of the Bible that the final great war includes Turkey as part of the Islamic grouping allied with Russia... The great nations that do get Biblical reference are the Kings of the East, (China, India, Pakistan - all openly nuclear), Russia (Gog and Magog), Libya, Egypt, Iran, Iraq and so on.113
Without offering any corroborating evidence, Lindsey claims that the Bible foretold many other recent events including the rise of Muslim fundamentalism, the collapse of the Israeli peace process and the development of the European community, all at the same time in history.114Such categorical but unsubstantiated claims are not exclusive to Lindsey but found in the writings of other Christian Zionists.115For example, David Brickner, without explanation, insists that, 'we know that Persia is Iran,'116 and that the destruction of Babylon mentioned in Revelation 18 is 'modern day Iraq.' 117
Using Hal Lindsey's writings as an example, it has been demonstrated that the apparently plain 'literal' interpretation of Scripture is flexible enough to change to suit historical events, may contradict the findings of other literalists, can involve eisegesis rather than exegesis, and lead to dogmatic and fanciful but unsubstantiated claims about contemporary history.
It has been shown that historically, it was the development of a literalist-futurist interpretation of biblical prophecy amongst the Albury Circle and then Powerscourt conferences, which eventually gave rise to the dispensational distinction between Israel and the Church so foundational to Christian Zionism. This movement may be traced from the influence and writings of individuals such as Irving, Darby, Scofield through to Chafer, Moody, Ryrie and the wider dispensationalist movement associated with, amongst others, the Brethren, Moody Bible Institute and Dallas Theological Seminary.
Following Darby, Lindsey and his contemporaries believe 'prophecy is prewritten history'.118 They understand the prophets to be pronouncing with 'prophetic marksmanship'119 predetermined events thousands of years later, giving an 'exciting view'120 of human destiny. In so doing they detach predictions concerning the future from the covenantal context within which the prophecies were originally given. Such a view is at variance with the Hebrew prophets who consistently stress that their intention is to call God's people back to the terms of their covenant relationship. Their role was not primarily to reveal arbitrary and otherwise hidden facts about predestined future events thousands of years later. The truly prophetic element of the Hebrew scriptures yearns for fidelity. God's message to his people is always two edged, promising blessing but also warning of judgement. The future is always conditional upon faith and obedience to God's revealed will. Set within the context of the wider fundamentalist movement, Christian Zionists treat the Hebrew and Christian scriptures as a 'frozen biblical text'121 in which every word is given equal and continuing divine authority. The focus, however, based on highly selective texts, is placed upon a restored Jewish kingdom rather than the Body of Christ, upon the contemporary State of Israel rather than the cross of Christ.122 Their selective hermeneutic leads them to ignore how Jesus and the Apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament123
It is instead a question of whether they should be understood in terms of Old Covenant shadow or New Covenant reality. This is the most basic hermeneutical error which Christian Zionists consistently repeat. Biblical prophecy is invariably conditional rather than fatalistic and given within the context of the covenant relationship between God and his chosen people. It was the false prophets who flattered the people with promises of peace and prosperity without specifying the covenantal preconditions of repentance and faith.
The Christian Zionist's particular reading of both history and contemporary events, determined by the dubious exegesis of highly selective biblical texts, as well as their theological presuppositions, is therefore essentially fatalistic, polarised and dualistic. It sets Israel and the Jewish people apart from and above other peoples in the Middle East. In so doing, however unintentionally, it perpetuates, exacerbates and justifies the endemic racism and mistrust plaguing the Middle East because 'The Bible tells them so.'127
It leads authors such as Lindsey, Hunt and Jeffrey to demonise Russia, China, Islam and the Arab nations. It encourages the continued military and economic funding of Israel by the United States. It identifies with right-wing Israelis who resist negotiating land for peace and instead, it reinforces Israel's apartheid policies, and the settlement and absorption of the Occupied Territories into the State of Israel. It also incites fundamentalist groups committed to destroying the Dome of the Rock and rebuilding the Jewish Temple. Ironically, attempts by Christian Zionists to defend Israel and to refute anti-Semitism, may actually be leading to the very holocaust so abhorred but repeatedly predicted.
86 Lindsey, 1980's., p. 68.
87 Lindsey, Planet., p. 216.
88 Lindsey, Chapter 1 of The Final Battle, (Palos Verdes, California, Western Front, 1995), is entitled "The New Islamic Global Threat". p. 1.
89 Lindsey, Planet., p. 171.
90 Lindsey, Late., p. 160.
91 Lindsey, Apocalypse., p. 153.
92 Lindsey, Briefing., 7th January 1999.
93 Brickner, Future., p. 7.
94 Brickner, Future., p. 17.
95 Brickner, Future., p. 18. See also his 'prophetic parenthesis' timetable, p. 130.
96 Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness (Atlanta, American Vision, 1997), p. 81.
97 Lindsey, Israel., pp. 32-33. This chapter is reused heavily in Apocalypse Code, pp. 30-44.
98 Lindsey, Apocalypse., p. 42.
99 Lindsey, Apocalypse., p. 72.
100 Lindsey, Planet Earth: The Final Chapter, p. 247.
101 J. N. Darby, 'The Hopes.,' The Collected Writings, Prophetic I, Vol. II, p. 380; C. I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible, fn. 1, p. 883.
102 Lindsey, Final., p. 2.
103 M. R. DeHann, Revelation, 35 Simple Studies in the Major Themes of Revelation (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1946), p. 148;
104 Hal Lindsey, There's A New World Coming (London, Coverdale, 1973), pp. 142-143.
105 Lindsey, There's., p. 143.
106 Frank Kermode, "Can we say absolutely anything we like?" Art, Politics, and Will: Essays in Honour of Lionel Trilling. ed. Quentin Anderson, et. Al. (New York, Basic, 1977), pp. 159-72, Cited in Kathleen Boone, The Bible Tells Them So (London, SCM 1989) p. 44.
107 Lindsey, Road., p. 176.
108 Lindsey, Apocalypse., p. 78.
109 Rosen, Overture., p. 152.
110 Lindsey, 1980's., p. 65.
111 Jeffrey, Armageddon., pp. 98ff.
112 Edwin Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1982), pp. 19-27.
113 Lindsey, Final., p. 183; Planet Earth: The Final Chapter, p. 213.
114 Lindsey, International Intelligence Briefing, 7th January 1999. Lindsey also claims a 'gigantic fault' runs through the Mount of Olives. Late., p. 174.
115 Charles Dyer, The Rise of Babylon (Wheaton, Illinois, Tyndale House, 1991), p. 198; Grant Jeffrey, Armageddon, Appointment with Destiny ( Toronto, Frontier Research, 1988), pp. 185-187.
116 Brickner, Future., p. 70.
117 Brickner, Future., p. 73.
118 C. Van der Waal, Hal Lindsey and Biblical Prophecy (Neerlandia, Alberta, Canada, Inheritance Publications, 1991), p. 51.
119 Lindsey, Late., back cover.
120 Lindsey, Late., p. 18.
121 Ernest R. Sandeen, "Toward a Historical Interpretation of the Origins of Fundamentalism," Church History 36 (1967), 70. Cited in Gerstner, Wrongly., p. 100.
122 Bass, Backgrounds., p. 151.
123 See Galatians 4 where the Gentiles are now regarded as the children of Sarah and the Jews who have rejected Jesus are the children of Hagar.
124 Kyle regards this form of hermenutics as 'Pesher' which is Aramaic for 'interpretation' Richard Kyle, The Last Days are Here Again, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1998), p. 199.
125 see Hebrews 1:1-4, 8:13, 10:1.
126 R.T. Kendall, "How literally do you read your Bible?" Israel and Christians Today, Summer 2001, p.9.
127 Kathleen C. Boone, The Bible tells Them So: The Discourse of Protestant Fundamentalism (London, SCM, 1990).