Dispensationalism: Greg L Bahnsen An Eschatology of Optimism 1 of 4

For me to live up to anything that you've said, and everyone's going to have to go home disappointed. But I'll certainly try to make this day worthwhile for you. If we were to have one passage of Scripture serve as a theme for our considerations throughout this day, I would find it in Romans the first chapter. Tomorrow I'll be preaching on a reformation theme. Romans 1:17. But this morning I'd like to look at the verse preceding that. Romans 1, the 6:16th verse, where Paul says, I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth to the Jew first and also to the Greek. I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation. There have been times in the history of the Christian church when this theme of the power of the gospel unto salvation was believed from the heart and when all of what God's word has to say about God's saving intentions for the world and how his power and the power of his saving kingdom would dominate the affairs in this world gripped the hearts and lives of people in the churches. And when that happened, they sent missionaries to Earth's remotest ends. When that happened, they saw everything they did in terms of God's kingdom and they reformed their political structures and their educational structures and their family structures, and they looked for the reform of the church and for the vitality of its worship. There have been times in the history of the church when that theme of the power of God and to salvation seen in the Gospel grips the lives and hearts of people. But this is not one of those days. In our day and age, we live in an age of pessimism. We live in an age where we are being told on all sides by those who presume to speak for God himself based on what is seen in the Bible. We have people who are telling us on all sides that this is really the late great planet Earth. There isn't much hope for planet Earth anymore. Indeed, we're living in the last days, we are told, not in the biblical sense of the last days, but in some human prophetic sense in the last days. Things are winding down. Things have never been worse. We have been told, which is always somewhat humorous to me because throughout history there have been people who said things have never been worse. We live in a terrible time. We see what is happening over in Palestine, how God is working with his ancient people, the Jews. What is taking place is the time clock of biblical prophecy is now ticking down. The church had better prepare for the rapture the church is going to escape that terrible time of tribulation that's going to overcome this world. Nothing can be done. Maybe we can snatch a few souls from the burning, maybe we can get a few individuals saved before it's too late. But outside of that, there's nothing left for us to do. And that's why the missionary enterprise of the church is so weak today. That's why the missionary enterprise of the church is so afflicted with liberal theologies that don't preach the gospel that Paul was proud of. We live in a day and age where the church itself has its own internal problems. Indeed, I tend to think that one of the reasons we fight so much with each other inside the church is because we've given up the fight outside the church. We've forgotten who the true enemy is and we've lost the sense of the victory and the vision God gives us about the task of redeeming this world, bringing it under the sway of Jesus Christ and His kingdom. And so today I come to you to talk about eschatology. And I come without embarrassment using those terms. I come as a person brought up in a reformed church, a minister in a reformed church. I believe we need a prophecy conference, but not like the ones that are so often put on. You'll notice there's no room up here for me to put up some huge chart to diagram for you where Russia and Israel and all these other forces are going to come into world events and how God is going to take care of this or that matter and getting the church out of the way and Israel in its place and the temple rebuilt and the battle of Armageddon, all those sorts of things. We don't need that kind of prophecy conference. I'm going to argue today we need a prophecy conference that's going to return to the foundations that we find in God's word. For an eschatology of victory, an optimistic eschatology. It says the gospel is indeed the power of God. And because it's the power of God, it will not fail. Because all power and authority has been given to Jesus Christ in heaven and on earth. The nations will be discipled for Him. Indeed, I will pose that to you right at the outset. A challenge for you. If Jesus is the Almighty, resurrected, victorious Lord, if the power and authority is his, not only in heaven, but on earth as well, then what will keep the church from discipling the nations? Jesus said it's because he is the resurrected Lord with such authority that he sends us into the world to make all the nations his. You say, well, but Jesus went back to heaven. But he said, lo, I'm with you always. To the end of the age. How is Jesus with his church to the end of the age? Well, Jesus explains in the upper room discourses to his followers in John 15 and 16 how he's going to send the Holy Spirit into the church. He says, I won't leave you as orphans. I won't leave you alone. You, you will have the power of my Spirit. And Jesus fulfills that promise on the day of Pentecost. On the day of Pentecost, we have the promise of the Father looking to all the Old Testament prophets and as well the promise of Jesus Christ that he will send the Spirit into the church, fulfilled. And with the outpouring of the Pentecostal Spirit. On that day, what happens? Thousands of people are converted in the power of that Pentecostal Spirit. The apostles went and converted the Roman Empire, the turned the Western world upside down. And that gospel has continued its victorious march throughout history. It's had its good days and its bad, but you step back and look at the overall scheme and you're going to see an upward march for the kingdom of Jesus Christ. The power of God's Spirit is with us. Jesus is with us to the end of the age. He has all power and authority in heaven, on earth, and we will disciple the nations. If you say otherwise, I'd like to ask you why. If Jesus by his spirit is with his church and empowers it, what is it you think that can overcome that power? Satan. Well, greater is he that is in us than he that is in the world. John tells us Satan can't overcome the power of Jesus Christ. Can the nations do so? Of course not. Jesus Christ is the king of the nations. Can death or sin or any other force prevent Jesus Christ from accomplishing his will in this world? Of course they cannot. And so today's prophecy conference is going to focus on an optimistic eschatology, an optimistic view of history based upon the teachings of God's Word. Before we can get to the good stuff, though, before we can get to the dessert of God's Word, we're going to have to spend some time looking at some points of view that stand in the way of our believing what I've just told you, we're going to have to look at some prevalent eschatological opinions which I believe have debilitated the church, have drained it of its confidence, have given it no future whatsoever, and therefore, in a certain sense have become self fulfilling prophecies of defeat for the kingdom of God. Since we don't expect that, or since history by definition must be downward and must be a losing cause in terms of God's kingdom, then it turns out that the churches and the people that follow these eschatologies produce a defeated mentality. A people that do not conquer in the name of Jesus Christ, do not overcome, as John told the churches of Asia minor in Revelation 2 and 3 to do. And so let's look at those eschatologies this morning before lunch to be considering dispensationalism. And then secondly, premillennialism. I would imagine that most everyone in the audience, the very fact that you came out today indicates that you you know something about these things already. These terms are not absolutely foreign to you. However, it's also very likely that many of you have only a fuzzy notion of what is distinctive to those eschatological systems. And in order for me to do some destructive work in refuting them, you better know what it is I'm trying to refute. I'm going to take the first few moments then in this first session of our prophecy conference to lay out for you the difference between three major eschatological positions. And then I'm going to go back and deal with the first one, premillennialism, and draw some distinctions between historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism. And then finally the stage will be set to deal with our topic this morning of dispensationalism. What are the three major approaches to biblical prophecy that we find in the Bible believing Christian church in our day? The three are premillennialism, amillennialism and post millennialism. And if you are taking notes, I'm going to offer for you seven points with respect to each one of them, defining the position that is held by the premill amil and post mill believer. First of all, the premillennialist, as the name itself tells you, argues that Christ will return prior to the millennium. Christ will come back prior to the millennium. Secondly, the premillennialist says that millennium is a period of earthly prosperity for the kingdom of God, which brings in righteousness, peace and prosperity for the world. Thirdly, the premillennialist says there is a historical gap between the first resurrection and a physical resurrection that takes place at Christ's return and the second resurrection at the time of final judgment, the final judgment of the wicked. And so there's a gap between a first resurrection and A second resurrection later on. The first resurrection taking place at the beginning of the millennium, the second resurrection at the end of the millennium. Fourthly, the premillennialist says that the millennium is therefore distinct from the church age, being a future interim period between Christ's return and the final judgment. In terms of the chart that a premillennialist would draw for you, you have the church age. We're now in that. Then you have to have a slash line. Okay, the line is broken. And we begin a new age that is inaugurated with the return of Jesus Christ and the first resurrection. But that new age that begins with the return of Christ is called the millennium. And then at the end of that millennial period, a second resurrection will take place in final judgment. And then we'll enter into the eternal state. Fifthly, the premillennialist says that the millennial period will see a restored Jewish nation with Christ ruling physically from Jerusalem with military might over the world. Now, not all historic premillennialists would argue that, or at least not emphasize that this is especially a distinctive of dispensational premillennialism, that that millennial period is a period of restored Jewish geopolitical power. Christ rules physically from Jerusalem with military might, and he does so over the world. Sixthly, the premillennialist says that the Old Testament prophecies of kingdom prosperity. There are so many things that you read of in the Old Testament prophets that promise a wonderful day on earth, a day of prosperity and cultural advance, a day of religious purity, unity among God's people, a day of peace among the nations. Such things as these are going to be literally fulfilled in the Jewish state during the millennial period. They're going to be fulfilled not in the church age, but in that future age called the millennium. And then seventhly, the premillennialist says the Church's preaching of the Gospel throughout the world will be of little avail as the world grows worse and worse in the church age and will climax in the tribulation. Church age is a period of pretty much outward defeat for the Gospel. It will end in a tribulation period of unprecedented horror. Some would say the Church will be raptured and not have to go through that tribulation. That's the dispensational version. Others would say, no, after the tribulation, we'll be raptured and then return for the battle of Armageddon and enter into the millennium with Jesus Christ to help him rule over the nations in this military might. Point is the Church age is an age of outward defeat, ending in the tribulation. And so there you have pre millennialism. The amillennialist can be summarized in seven steps as well. And if you're taking notes, you'll note that everything that I say for number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 corresponds to 1, 2, 3, 4,. 5, 6, and 7 in the premillennial summary. First of all, the amillennialists would argue that Christ returns after the millennium, not before the millennium, but after the millennium. Secondly, for the amillennialist, the millennium is not a semi golden age on earth, but rather the millennium pertains to the blessings of the intermediate state or the spiritual triumphs of the Church. The millennium pertains to the intermediate state, those souls which have gone to heaven, they've been separated from their physical bodies at death, and they enjoy the presence of Jesus Christ and the blessings there. Or the millennium pertains to the spiritual triumphs, the internal triumphs of the Church in this age. Thirdly, the amillennialist says Christ return will synchronize with the general resurrection and general judgment of all men at the very end of the church age. The amillennialist denies that there is this period of time after Christ returns at the first resurrection. There is this period of time between that and the final judgment in which you can insert a thousand year period, as the premillennialist tries to do. The amillennialist says, no, we live in the millennial age now, and when Christ returns, that is the final judgment. Fourthly, the amillennialist says that the millennium pertains to the present age between the first and second comings of Christ. And so we are in the millennium. The church age is the millennium. And at the end of the church age, Christ will return at the resurrection and general judgment of all men. What will take place in the millennial period 5 distinctive 5 for the amillennialist is that the millennial period will see parallel development of good and evil. The world will not be converted by the Church seen as New Israel, nor will the world be subdued as yet by Christ the King. We should expect that there is going to be a parallel development of good and evil in the world. According to the amillennialists, neither one are going to have the final upper hand unless we think of the very end of the age. Some amillennialists will teach there is a tribulation at the end of the age, and so evil wins out in the long run. But the overall course of history is just the ups and downs of the kingdom, and there are good days and bad days, but there is no real victor within history. Sixthly, the amillennialist says that Old Testament prophecies of prosperity are to be taken figuratively for the new heavens and the new earth which is coming after the judgment that Jesus will bring at his return. Or some amillennialists would say they pertain to the spiritual condition of the church, but not to outward cultural, national affairs. They do not pertain to the victory of the gospel conquering the world. But they deal either with the new heavens and the new earth, which are yet future when Christ returns, or with internal spiritual matters today. And seventhly, the amillennialist says that the preaching of the gospel by the Church will not achieve pervasive success, although the nations, the Gentiles, will have received it in some measure, and so it will go throughout the world in a representative fashion. The Gospel will get to earth's remotest ends because every nation will have heard the gospel. They'll be believers everywhere, but they need not be considered the majority in a numerical sense. There will be a period of increasing lawlessness in the future which will set back even the limited success of the gospel in this church age. Okay, so let's look at the amillennial position. Put it all together. Here we are living in the church age. This is the millennium. The millennium pertains to internal victories, however, to spiritual victories, or to the intermediate state when souls go to heaven. And at the end of this age, there will be a period of lawlessness, perhaps a tribulation. Christ will return, and at that time the resurrection and the judgment will take place. There will be no period of a thousand years after he returns, and Christ will return and introduce the eternal state, which eternal state will fulfill those Old Testament prophecies of prosperity for God's people on earth. And then, thirdly, this morning, we need to understand what the post millennial position is. That's the one I will be encouraging you to believe, because I think it's taught in God's word. The post millennialist agrees with the amillennialist that Christ returns after the millennium. However, number two, the post millennialist will say the millennium is a period of growth for the kingdom on earth, with the world gradually converted and the saints in heaven being vindicated in their cause. The millennium is a period of growth for the kingdom on earth, with the world being gradually converted and the saints in heaven being vindicated in their cause. Thirdly, the post millennialist says Christ's return will synchronize with the general resurrection and the general judgment of all men at the very end of the church age. In this, the post mill and the Amill agree their general resurrection in the future and a general judgment of all men. And this will take place at the very end of the church age, the last day of human history as we understand it. And the post millennialist says this is the second resurrection. When Christ returns, it will not be for the first resurrection. He'll be returning for the second resurrection. Because the first resurrection is not a physical resurrection at all. It is a spiritual one that takes place within the hearts of men during this age. And then the second resurrection will take place when Christ comes back and our bodies rise from the tombs and all men will be judged. Fourthly, the post millennial says that the millennium is the present age between the first and second comings of Christ. That this period we call the Church age is also the period of Christ's kingdom. This is the millennial age. Now, there are slight variations, very slight. Some post millennials would say the kingdom began at Christ's first coming, but the millennium is the victorious phase of the kingdom that is yet future. Others would say, which is my position, and I think it's also the majority position among post millennialists in history, that when Christ introduced the kingdom, he introduced the millennium. The kingdom and millennium are one and the same. But there is that variation you may want to remember. Some speak of the latter day glory of the Church as the millennium and would say the kingdom is here, but the millennium isn't. I think the millennium and the kingdom, which are identical really in biblical theology, are here now. Fifthly, the millennial period will see the prosperity of the Church, which is the new Israel of God. It will see its growth through the gradual conversion of the nations by the sword of the Spirit, not military might. And we'll see the influence of the Church in society and culture as Christ subdues all of his enemies. Secondly, the post millennialist says Old Testament prophecies of prosperity are to be taken figuratively or literally according to the context in which they are presented and the intention of the author. And that these prophecies of prosperity point to the visible victory of Christ's kingdom on earth between the two advents climaxing in the eternal state. That is to say, the post millennialist does not believe that all those Old Testament prophecies can be consigned to the eternal state. That many of those Old Testament prophecies of prosperity are intended to be fulfilled in time on earth before Christ returns. And then Seventhly, according to the post millennialist, the preaching of the Gospel by the Church is going to disciple the nations. It will do so over the long range, and will do so not by human cleverness, not by human persuasiveness, not by human might, but in the power of God's Pentecostal spirit. Worldwide conversion will gradually bring a period of extraordinary righteousness and prosperity on earth, which will be broken but briefly at the very end of the age when Satan is released just prior to the return of Jesus Christ in judgment. And so here you have seven propositions, if you will, for all three of these positions. If I could summarize very briefly. The premillennialist, especially of the dispensational variety. The premillennialist says we live now in the church age, but in the future Christ will return and there will be a resurrection. When Christ returns, there will be a rapture. And if that rapture takes place before the tribulation, there'll be a seven year gap. And then Christ will complete his return, come to earth and set up an earthly military kingdom ruling from Jerusalem that we'll call the millennium. And then at the end of that millennial age, there will be a second resurrection and final judgment. The amillennialist and the post millennialist both they know that is misfortune mistaken. This is the millennium now. It's not future, it is the church age. Christ has established his kingdom and at the end of this age, when Christ returns, all men will be resurrected and all men will be judged and the eternal state will follow. But the amillennialist and the post millennialist will then disagree with each other beyond that, because the amillennialist in a sense spiritualizes those promises of gospel prosperity or assigns them future age of the new heavens and the new earth. Whereas the post millennialist says no, there will be in time and on earth victory for the Gospel. The nations will be converted. There will be a period that can be described, as B.B. warfield said, that is semi golden by comparison, where righteousness will prevail in the affairs of men. There will be peace among the nations, there will be unity among God's people. There will be widespread success for the Gospel. That doesn't mean a perfect day. It's semi golden, not golden. It's not going to be like the eternal state, but it's going to be a period of victory whereby the claims of Jesus Christ and the Gospel have been vindicated in the course of human history. All right, we've defined three positions then. Pre mill, all mill, and post mill. And you can put the all mill and post mill aside for a while in your minds. I'm going to go back now and do some detail work on that position called premillennialism. And in this first session in particular, I want to begin looking at what we call dispensational premillennialism. There are going to be four major considerations in my examination of dispensationalism. And if you're taking notes, you may want to kind of outline things in this way. As I see it, dispensationalism raises the Jewish question that comes to expression in a number of ways that we'll see. The Jewish question is raised by the dispensationalist. And then in our second session we'll probably do a little finish up work on dispensationalism. Then when we get into premillennialism itself, we'll be looking at the chronological question. How do we time the millennium? Does the millennium before or after the return of Jesus Christ? So this morning we're going to be looking at the Jewish question first and then secondly the chronological question. And then after lunch we're going to be looking at the concept of God's covenant and God's kingdom, which will be something both all millennialists and post millennialists will agree with one another over. Until we get to the end of that consideration. We look at the nature of God's kingdom and then that's going to raise the question of prosperity for God's kingdom on earth. And that will separate an amillennialist from a post millennialist. And I hope by the end of the day you'll go home very happy knowing that God intends to win this battle here in history on earth. So the dispensational question is that of the Jews. How are we to see the Jews in biblical prophecy? Four things distinguish dispensationalism from historical historic premillennialism and in the same way distinguish dispensationalism from all other evangelical eschatological options. Those four things are first, the literal interpretation or the claim to the literal interpretation of biblical prophecy. Secondly, the insistence that Israel be kept separate from the church. Thirdly, the concept of a geopolitical future for ethnic Israel. A geopolitical future for ethnic Israel, and fourthly, a belief in the pre tribulation rapture of the saints. Dispensationalism stands over against all the other positions and in particular is a refinement of historic premillennialism by claiming literal interpretation of biblical Prophecy. Israel must be kept separate from the Church. Israel must have a geopolitical future. And fourthly, there will be a pre tribulation rapture of the Church. I'm going to go back and look at each one of those. I'll be very brief about the first one, because though it is the trump card of the dispensationalist, it's also the most ridiculous part of his program. The dispensationalist will tell us. In fact, the dispensationalist will pride himself in the fact that he believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible. The dispensationalist will tell you that his opponents, those who in the church disagree with him, disagree because they don't interpret the Bible literally. They don't take it as seriously as he does. The Bible says that the dispensationalist maintains, then I believe it. That settles it. The difficulty, you see, is that's highly unfair to the dispensationalist opponents. I'm one of them, and I believe that if the Bible says it, that settles it. There's no question about that. The Bible must be believed for what it teaches. The issue is, does the Bible teach only in literal terms? Yesterday I was on a radio program where I tried to draw a distinction. Maybe some of you heard this. It's valuable parenthetically here, valuable to remember this, that at the time of the Protestant perspective Reformation, literal interpretation did not mean what dispensationalists call literal interpretation. Literal interpretation means interpretation according to the letter literal. That means we don't interpret it between the lines. You don't look for some allegorical, spiritual third dimension of interpretation that no one could understand who just read it. In its ordinary sense, literal interpretation was a way to get away from the medieval corruption of God's word. By a spiritual sense. It just meant textual interpretation. And all of us believe in that. But now the dispensationalist means by literal interpretation, not simply textual interpretation, but in a certain crass and outward sense, physical interpretation of anything that is presented in the Bible. So that if the Bible speaks of Israel, Israel must be interpreted physically as physical Israel. If the Bible speaks of a temple, that temple must be interpreted physically as an architectural structure in Jerusalem, for instance. That we must not take this in a figurative way. Well, the difficulty with this is twofold. First, it's rather clear that the Bible often refers to physical things using physical figurative language. That is to say, some of the reference of the physical language in the Bible must be interpreted figuratively. The Bible tells us that Jesus is a lamb. He's the Lamb of God. Anyone who were to interpret that in a physical sense, in what the dispensationalist calls the literal fashion, would certainly be misled, wouldn't they? Jesus does not have wool, he does not bleat like a lady lamb. He doesn't walk on all fours. That's what lambs do, literally, physically. But the Bible speaking figuratively is Jesus as the one who is our sacrifice for sin, who takes away the sin of the world. And so the dispensationalist does not live up to his own alleged approach to biblical interpretation. I do not know a dispensationalist anywhere in the world. Certainly not one that's possibly published, anything reputable that takes the beast in the Book of Revelation literally. The beast in the book of Revelation is portrayed as having seven heads and ten horns. No dispensationalist believes that such a biological monstrosity is going to rule over the nations of the world. He interprets the beast figuratively. Now the dispensationalist will say, yes, but you have to do that. It's literal where it's possible. And where it's not possible to be literal, then you can go to a symbolic or figurative interpretation. Well, I've got a word for you here. It's possible to have a seven headed beast. God could do that. There are certain geneticists who tell us they could do it. If you give them enough time, maybe man will be able to make seven headed beasts someday. I don't know. Maybe it is literal after all then, right? No, the dispensationalist doesn't believe it's literal where possible. What it comes down to is the dispensationalist interprets the Bible figuratively in some places and literally in some places. And I maintain it's his system of prophecy that is brought to the Bible that tells him when to interpret literally, when to interpret figuratively. It is not the text, it is not the context, and it's not the intention of the author that tells him that. And so the first distinctive of dispensationalism is simply bogus. All Bible believing scholars interpret the Bible both literally and figuratively. The difference between them is not that one has this pristine, pure approach to literal interpretation and the other doesn't. The difference is that they disagree where it's literal and where it's figurative. And that must be settled on a text by text basis. It cannot be settled by just a wave of the hand saying, oh well, you Figurative, rise, everything. Or you allegorize everything, or we could say to the dispensationalists, but you literalize everything. That doesn't settle the dispute. So the first distinctive of dispensationalism, which you're going to find as we go through the other ones, they keep coming back to as their defense in the other three areas. The first distinctive is a bogus one. So let's go to the second. And this is the most important of all. The dispensationalist maintains that Israel must be kept separate from the church. Israel and the Church are distinct entities with distinct purposes and distinct memberships. God has different plans for Israel and the church. Okay, three sub points about this. One, what motivates the dispensationalists to insist upon this? Two, is it true that Israel is not identified with the church or vice versa in the Bible? And three, what about this notion of the kingdom being postponed and the church being a parenthesis in God's plan? All of this ties into this Jewish question of Israel being separate from the church. So, number one, why do dispensationalists do this? And on this point I'm going to say something that may surprise some of my friends. I agree with the dispensationalists and their motivation here. I disagree with their interpretation of God's word and their conclusion. But their motivation is very good. Their motivation is, as it's stated throughout their literature. They do not want to see any intermingling of law and gospel as different ways of being saved. The dispensationalist wants to protect the grace of God and not have any legalistic motive be brought in and mingled in with the grace of God. And we should all say, amen, brother. That's right. Salvation is by grace, by grace alone, alone through faith, not by good works. And if that's their motivation, it's a good motivation. But it's also intellectually a misconceived motivation because the dispensationalist feels he must separate Israel from the church. Because according to the dispensationalist Old Testament, Israel was offered salvation on the basis of works righteousness. The law of the Old Testament is, is legalistic according to the dispensationalist. And so in order to protect gospel and the grace of God, we must keep the law out of the gospel. And that means we must keep Israel and the church separate. These are two different plans. God uses a plan with the Israelites, which is basically legalistic. Although the dispensationalists will Give in and say, but of course they were saved by grace ultimately anyway. But God did offer legalistic salvation to the Jews, but to the church he offers only the way of salvation by grace. And if we're going to protect the grace of God, we must separate Israel and the church. So again, the motivation is good. The thinking is fallacious. It's fallacious for a couple of reasons. First of all, because the Old Testament did not offer legalistic salvation to the Jews. That is just the misreading of the Old Testament on a massive scale. And here we're going to get into God's Word and do a little work together. Turn with me in your Bibles to Hebrews the third chapter, verse 19. In the book of Hebrews we read that disobedient Israel could not enter into the Promised land. Israel in the wilderness, having come out of Egypt at the Exodus, is in the wilderness and will not be allowed to press into the Promised land. Why is that? Hebrews 3:19 and we see that they were not able to enter in because of unbelief. Because of unbelief. Indeed, verses 16 through 19 stressed that point. They sinned in the wilderness. That's why God swear that due to their disobedience they would not enter into the rest. But let's go on and read Hebrews the fourth chapter, verse two. For indeed we have had good tidings preached unto us, even as also they. But the word of hearing did not profit them, because it was not united by faith with them that heard. That's amazing. The author of Hebrews says the Gospel was preached to the Israelites in the wilderness. They had good tidings, good news, gospel preached to them, but it was not united with faith. Their hearing of the gospel did not bring them to have hearts of faith, and that's why they couldn't enter the Promised land. Does that sound legalistic to you? Does that sound like that? They failed because they didn't have works righteousness to you? It sounds to me like they didn't enter into the Promised land for the same reason your next door neighbor is not going to heaven because the preaching of the gospel is not united with faith in his heart. The Israelites failed to believe God at the preaching of the Gospel. And so the disobedient among Israel are disobedient because they are unbelieving. Verse 6 of Hebrews 4 says, seeing therefore it remaineth that some should enter thereinto and they to whom the good tidings were before preached failed to enter in because of disobedience Then the author completes his thought. You say, now wait a minute, he's contradicting himself. He has just said they failed to enter in because they lacked faith. Now he says they don't enter in because they lack obedience. So which is it? Faith or obedience? And the answer is both. Because faith and obedience can't be separated artificially. If you have faith in God, you obey Him. And if you truly obey him, you have faith in Him. The two go hand in hand. And that's why the Old Testament system of salvation is not any different than the New Testament system of salvation. Now, I want to suggest to you the reason why many people don't understand that today is because they don't really understand the New Testament system of salvation. They understand salvation by faith to be separate from works. They think we are saved by faith, some kind of little internal, spiritual, ghostly experience in our heart. And then, of course, works are an evidence of that, or something like that. That comes in later. Good works becomes maybe the second work of grace for people who see things that way. That isn't the way the New Testament represents it. Men are saved by obedient faith in the New Testament, even as they are saved by faithful obedience. You have to have both, James, unless you want to throw him out of the cannon, as Luther was tempted to do. James makes it very clear that a man who says he is justified by faith and doesn't have works is wrong. That's dead faith. And dead faith justifies no one. Now, I am not telling you we are saved by faith plus works. You see, that's the problem. People hear what I've been suggesting, and they think that means this plus that it's not at all. I'm saying that we are saved by the grace of God and that the instrumentality of that is active, living, obedient faith, not dead faith, obedient faith. So I'm not saying first you have faith, then you add works to it, and that formula gives you salvation. That would be judaizing. That's a problem. What I'm saying is that the faith God gives us as a gift is a living, active, obedient faith. And that was true of the Old Covenant Saints as much as it is of the New Covenant Saints. Another passage, Galatians 3, verse 21, Is the law then against the promises of God, may it never be. For if there had been a law given which could make a lie, verily righteousness would have been of the law. Paul says, do you think that what God did in introducing the law was contrary to what he promised Abraham by faith and promise? Absolutely not. He says it's impossible. Some of your trans will say God forbid, no way. You cannot pit promise and law against one another, he says, because if the law had given righteousness for salvation, then that would have been it. Paul's whole point is that is never the intention of the law. You have misread the law. And one of the most telling passages in all the New Testament that points that out to us is found in Romans the ninth chapter. I'd like you to look at Romans 9, particularly at verses 31 and 32. Paul says in verse 31 but Israel following after a law of righteousness did not arrive at that law. Why? Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works. And I want to stress two things here. Notice how Paul says the reason they did not arrive at what the law demanded of them is because they saw sought it in the wrong way. They sought it not by faith. God always required of his people faith that would obey him. Not works of righteousness, not works of the law, not merit by which they would gain his favor. They were to seek the righteousness of the law by faith, but they didn't. And then notice this. Secondly, he says the reason they didn't achieve it is because they sought it, as it were, by works. Paul will not ever give in to the idea that the Old Covenant taught works salvation. And when he says the problem with the Israelites is that they sought that righteousness of the law by works, he adds as it were by works. Because it never was intended by God to be by works. It's only as it were in their own minds, a matter of works. Yes, they perverted the grace of God. Yes, they took the law as their honor and their glory and their self righteousness in the face of men. Yes, they did, as the Pharisees and the Judaizers demonstrate, think they could earn the favor of God by obedience. But that was never what the law taught. And so dispensationalists are absolutely right to want to protect the grace of God as the basis of salvation. No intermingling of works of law and merit. Absolutely right. But that problem is you don't have to separate Israel from the church church to do that. Because Old Testament Israel was never offered salvation by way of personal merit. Old Testament Israel was not offered legalism. And then we have the New Testament Church. Allegedly, that is, apart from that legalism, no New Testament saints are saved even as Old Testament saints are saved by grace. That works through active, obedient faith. And so we have to reject the dispensationalist motivation for separating Israel from the Church, because the intermingling of law and gospel does not take place when Israel and the church are identified any more than there's an intermingling of law and gospel. When the Old Testament and the New Testament are brought together, they have one uniform understanding of salvation, not two different dispensations and plans. To this I want to add the dispensationalist, who has a kind of legalistic understanding of the Old Covenant, has an antinomian understanding of the New. In order to keep Israel and the Church separate and not have grace and law mingled together. The dispensationalist makes a second and equally damaging mistake when he looks at the New Covenant. He says, the New Covenant is not a covenant of law, it's a covenant of grace. We're no longer under grace, are we? I mean, no longer under law, but under grace. Right? The dispensationalist makes that almost his war cry when he deals in terms of Christian ethics. He doesn't like the idea that anyone would teach that the law of God is binding today, because that takes us back to legalism. Well, I'm not going to take time today to deal with that question, because I've been up here before and given you conferences having to do with the law of God. And I've published a couple of books on that subject that you can look into, and I would encourage you to do so. One is entitled Theonomy and Christian Ethics, and the other is entitled by this Standard. The second one by this standard is shorter, easier to read. It's a paperback. Take it to the beach with you. You'll enjoy it a lot more. Start there. I think that'd be a good idea. But in these books I argue that when Jesus brought the New Covenant, he did not bring it by abrogating the laws of the Old Testament. Jesus said so in Matthew 5, he said, don't think I've come to abrogate the law of the prophets, because until one jot or tittle, and not one jot or till, will pass away from the law. And until everything has happened, until heaven and earth has passed away, and therefore anyone who teaches the relaxing of even the least of these commandments will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. And so we have to understand that the New Testament believes that the law of God should be followed. But just as much as the Old Testament, the New Testament says it will only be followed in the power of God's Spirit by those who are redeemed and regenerated, those who by the grace of God have the power to to do so. It does not offer the law of salvation. It offers the law as a way of demonstrating we are a new people, people want to please God and obey Him. So dispensationalism must be faulted on that first sub point about separating Israel and the Church, because this idea of not intermingling law and gospel, which is a good one if you understand by law, legalism and self righteousness and works salvation, we mustn't intermingle those two. But you won't find it in the Old Covenant and you won't find antinomianism in the New. No problem. Let's move on to the second point then. Is it true that Israel and the Church must be kept separate? Is it true that according to the Bible, Israel and the Church are separate? And on this I would like to tell you a little bit about the views of Charles Ryrie. Perhaps the best known dispensationalist in our age, who has written a book and titled Dispensationalism Today, was at one time the president of Dallas Theological Seminary. And in his book dispensationalism today, Dr. Ryrie says that the most basic, practical and conclusive test of whether a man is a dispensationalist or not, the very essence and touchstone, these are all his words. The very essence and touchstone of dispensationalism is the separation of Israel from the Church. According to Ryrie, there are two purposes of God expressed in the formation of two peoples who are to be kept distinct throughout history and eternity. And these two peoples are Israel, earthly Judaism and the Church, heavenly Christianity. They must be kept clearly distinct throughout history. According to Ryrie, God has had his redeemed peoples, plural, he's had his redeemed peoples in all ages. And he continues to redeem people today even as he did previously. And thus the Church is integrated in God's plan. It's not isolated from God's plan. However, Ryrie says the redeemed peoples throughout history are not one people. The Church is not the continuation of Israel, but is distinct from the previous body of the redeemed. The Church is a separate work of God. Again, every bit of this is quotation from Ryrie from his book the Old Testament. Saints did not belong to the Church, he said, and the Church is not the only seed of Abraham, but only a seed of Abraham in our day. And therefore the church in Israel are to be sharply distinguished. According to Ryrie, the Church was not known or experienced in the Old Testament. It was a mystery in the Old Testament, unknown until the New Testament. It did not exist in the Old Testament. And so that the existence of the church, the building up of the church and the operational function of the church is limited to this present age after Christ's resurrection of ascension and the day of Pentecost. Ryrie says the church has a distinct purpose from Israel. There is a national purpose for Israel in addition to the continuing of spiritual salvation. The church does not have that national purpose. And Ryrie tells us that this distinction of purpose applies to the past as well as to the future. There is a distinct place of Old Testament saints in heaven. He says, after Pentecost, the Israel Gentile distinction is maintained in the Bible, and the distinction of Israel and the Church is maintained in the Bible. Indeed, even within the Church, Ryrie says the Jew Gentile distinction is maintained. And of course, the Jews will have a distinct place in the millennium. And so you get a pretty full idea. And I could go on here I have another page of notes detailing what he says in dispensationalism today. This is the touch tone. This is the crucial point of dispensationalism, that the church and Israel are two separate peoples with different purposes, different callings, different memberships. And as I see it, this is not what the Bible teaches us. Scripture teaches the continuity of the church with Israel, indeed teaches that the church is the heir of God's promised blessings to Israel. Where do we see this? Well, let me give you some ideas. In Acts 7, verse 38, Stephen speaks of the church in the wilderness. Now, Ryrie says about that that only means the congregation in the wilderness. It doesn't mean the church in the New Testament sense. Well, the problem is that if you read Hebrews 3 and 4, which we've already looked at, looked at, the church in the New Testament sense is conceived of as what? As Israel in the wilderness. I find that rather interesting. Stephen says Israel in the wilderness is the church. The author of Hebrews says the church is Israel in the wilderness. There's a merging of those two perspectives. Or consider Romans the 11th chapter, verses 17 and 18, where Paul speaks of the olive tree of faith, the kingdom of God. There is only one tree, Paul emphasizes, with branches that are either natural or grafted in. And before you say, okay, well, you see, that shows there's a difference between the natural and the grafted in. Well, but you see, in this age Those branches that are grafted in have become the natural branches, the church and later Israel, which was the original of the olive tree. Israel will be grafted back into that tree, but all along it's one tree. Whether it's Israel, the church, or Israel grafted back in, it's one tree. Or consider Jeremiah 31, verse 33, where Jeremiah says that God will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and Judah. Literal interpretation would demand what that that is physical Israel and physical Judah. The problem is in Matthew 26, verse 28, Jesus at the final passover in the inauguration of the Lord's Supper, said that this is the new covenant in my blood. Jesus made the new covenant with the church, even though Jeremiah said it would be made with Israel and Judah. And in Second Corinthians 3, verses 3 to 18, Paul says that he is a minister of the new covenant, as a minister to the Gentiles and to the Church of Jesus Christ Christ. And so again we see the continuity. What was promised to Israel is fulfilled in the church. In the Old Testament we read of God's people as being given a temple. Indeed, that was the very presence of God in their midst. It was the tent of meeting. It was the place where sacrifice was made. It was the pride and joy of Israel. In the New Covenant, we read that we are the temple of God. We are living stones built up into a house of the Spirit. Look at passages like Ephesians 2 and 1 Peter 2:5 and so forth, Romans 12:1. Here we have the image of the temple of God, God indwelling the temple. And yet the new covenant people of God fulfill the promises made to the old covenant people, the Jews, about God's dwelling in their midst in the temple. Or consider Romans 2, verses 28 and 29, where Paul says, a Jew is no longer defined by one who is circumcised outwardly, but a Jew is one who has a circumcised heart. In Philippians 3, verse 3, Paul says, We are the true Jews, not those who claim the circumcision. In James 1, verse 1. In 1st Peter 1, verse 1, you find applied to the Church of Jesus Christ terms that would have applied to the Jews of the dispersion and the 12 tribes of Israel, that is the church. And in Galatians 6, verse 16, Paul pronounces a benediction in pronouncing it upon the Galatian church. And he says, peace be upon the Israel of God. Paul says, the church is the Israel of God in God's sight. We are Now Israel in Exodus, the 19th chapter, verses 5 and 6, when God called his people out of Egypt and constituted them a nation at Mount Sinai, he said they were a kingdom of priests unto him. And yet in First Peter Chapter 2, Peter says that the church is a kingdom of priests un to God and his peculiar treasure. The very thing that God said of Israel of old is said of the Church in the New Testament. And we could go on and on. The descriptions of Israel that you find in the Old Covenant are applied without apology, without qualification, without any kind of equivocation in the New Testament to the Church of Jesus Christ. Indeed, we read in dark Deuteronomy 7:6 and Deuteronomy 14:2 that Israel was the people for God's own possession. The very words that are used by Paul in Ephesians 1:14 and Titus 2:14, that we now are a people for God's own possession. Christians are now God's peculiar people. We are the special people of God. There is just fall far too much evidence in the New Testament of the application of the terms from the Old Testament pertaining to Israel as a nation to the New Testament church of Jesus Christ. There are far too many instances of that for it to be wiped away with this casual reference to Will we interpret the Bible literally? Well, if that's what literal interpretation means, then it must be rejected because that isn't the way Paul and Jesus interpreted the Bible. What I'm saying here is that my principle of interpretation is that the New Testament enables me to understand what the Old Testament was getting at and that that is authoritative in my understanding of the fulfillment of these passages. And if someone says, well, but I know better, I know the Old Testament means this even though the New Testament says otherwise, then I suppose all I can say is I prefer Paul and Jesus to be my interpreters than you, because Paul and Jesus interpreted the Church as the new Israel of God. In fact, according to the teaching of God's Word, there is no special status for Israel today. Today is the millennial kingdom, and yet there is special status for Israel. Notice this. In Acts 10, verse 35, in the story of Cornelius, God now welcomes all nations into his kingdom. In Acts the 15th chapter, verses 7 to 9, Peter speaking before the Jerusalem Council, says there is no special place for the Jews that the gentiles are not one whit behind them. In Romans the third chapter, verse 32, we see Paul telling us that all men are under the same condemnation. Men are in need of the same way of salvation. In 1st Corinthians 12 verse 13 in Galatians 3. 28. The oneness of the Church in this age is stressed by Paul. Indeed, Ephesians chapter 2 is given over to the idea that Gentiles who were once strangers to the covenant are now in Christ, united with the Jews into one body. And any dividing wall that once stood between them has been broken down, by the way. Try that on for literally literal interpretation, the dividing wall between them being broken down. Paul quite clearly is speaking of something much more important. In Ephesians 3, verses 3 to 17, Paul considers the Gentiles fellow heirs of God's grace and salvation. And so there is no special status for Israel. The Israelites and the Gentiles are on the same footing in the eyes of God. Indeed, we can go further than this and point out that Israel has been rejected by God and rejected in drastic and final terms. In Matthew 21, verses 41 to 43, which you should turn to in your Bibles, notice what Jesus says about the kingdom of God and the Jews. Matthew 21:41 they say unto him, he will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, did ye never read in the Scriptures the stone which the builders rejected? The same was made the head of the corner. This was from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes. Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Jesus says, israel was once the kingdom of God, but that status has now been taken away. Israel is not now the kingdom of God. That has been taken from Israel and given to a nation producing the proper fruits of the kingdom, has been given to the kingdom of Jesus Christ the church. In Matthew 8, verses 11 and 12, Jesus tells us, the natural children have been cast out of the kingdom. The Jews, after the flesh, are no longer to be deemed the kingdom of God. In Matthew 23, verses 37 to 38, Jesus says, Jerusalem will be left unto you a desolated house, a house empty and destroyed, no longer the people of God. In fact, in First Corinthians, chapter 14, verses 21 and 22, Paul says that tongues in the early days of the church were a prophetically given sign. Sign that Israel has been rejected, that the kingdom has been taken away from the Jews and now is being built up in God's international body, the church. And I want to go even further than this. It's more than that. Israel doesn't have a special status. It's more than that. Israel has been rejected as the kingdom of God. The Bible teaches us in terms. It just breaks my heart when people miss this. The Bible teaches us that the kingdom is not Israel centered. It is Christ centered. Look at Acts 28, verses 23 and 31. Acts 28, 23 and 31. At the 23rd verse that chapter, Luke says, and when they had appointed him a day, they came to him in his lodging in great number, to whom he expounded the matter, testifying the kingdom of God and persuading them concerning Jesus, both from the law of Moses and the prophets, from morning until evening. In verse 31, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, none forbidding him. Isn't that interesting. When Paul expounds the kingdom of God, he talks about Jesus. He doesn't talk about Jesus and the Jews. He doesn't talk about the church and Palestine and some geopolitical future for Israel. Paul expounds the kingdom by expounding the saving work of Jesus Christ. Here are a couple of major examples before we take a break this morning that I'd like you to get under your belts. Amos 9, 11, 12. Turn to that in the Old Testament. Then we'll see how the New Testament treats it. Amos, the ninth chapter, verses 11 and 12. The Old Testament prophet says this. In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that has fallen, and close up the breath, and I will raise up its ruins, and I will build it, as in the days of old, that they may possess the remnant of Edom and auctions that are called by my name, saith Jehovah, that doeth this, God says, through Amos I will rebuild the tabernacle. I will raise it up, I will restore it and make it glorious. Okay, literal interpretation. Separate Israel from the church. And what do you get from that? The tabernacle must be an architectural reaction that God's going to restore. Is that correct? That isn't what the New Testament says. You turn to Acts the 15th chapter, verses 15 to 20. You'll notice that at the Jerusalem, James quotes this passage From Amos, Acts 15, verses 15 to 20. James says, and to this agree the words of the prophets as it is written. After these things I will return, and I will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen, and I will build again the ruins thereof. And I will set it up that the residue of men may seek after the Lord and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old. Wherefore my judgment is that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God, but that we write unto them that they abstain from pollutions of idols, etc. Etc. The very fact that the Gentiles are being brought into the church of Jesus Christ is seen as the fulfillment of the promise and prophecy of Amos that the tabernacle of David will be rebuilt. Now what do you do with that literal interpretation? Obviously James understood something which the literalist does not. He understood that when God was speaking through Amos, he was referring not to the puny architectural reality of a tabernacle or even a temple. He was talking about the grander work of building up the true temple, which is the body of Jesus Christ throughout the world, made up of living stones, created into a house of the Spirit, the very temple of God. And so the kingdom is not Israel centered, it is centered on Christ, his saving work. And as the Gentiles are brought into the body of Christ, that fulfills the prophecy of Amos about the tabernacle of David. Or one more illustration. And then I promise you we'll take our break. In 2 Samuel 7, 13 we read of the promise of the enthronement of the Davidic king. 2nd Samuel 7, verse 13 we read, he shall build a house for my name, and and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. The Davidic king is going to build a house for God, and then he will be enthroned forever. Is that going to be fulfilled in the nation of Israel? Is that something that has to do with the geopolitical future of Israel? Not if you understand the New Testament. Look at Acts 2, verses 29 to 32, Acts the second chapter at verse 29. Brethren, this is Peter speaking. I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loins he would set up one on his throne, he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we are all witnesses. Peter says David was prophesying not of the enthronement of some literal king upon a literal throne in literal Jerusalem. He was prophesying of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now the prophecy said that he will build a house for God. Well, see this is beautiful. You've got to tie this in with what Jesus said in John the second chapter. In chapter two of John's Gospel, we read Jesus cleansed the temple in Jerusalem and was challenged as to his authority to do that. And he said, destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Of course, his hearers, being dull and being literalist, I guess, in their interpretation, said, what do you mean? It's been 46 years we've been building this temple, and you'll build it in three days. Forget it. And John adds, parenthetically, of course, he was speaking of the temple of his body, because everything the Old Testament temple represented pointed to the body and the work, the person of Jesus Christ and his saving ministry. And Jesus said, destroy this temple, destroy me, and in three days I will be resurrected, I will build again the temple of God, and I in my resurrection will be in three, throned as the Davidic king. And so, you see, we must let the New Testament interpret the Old. Why it is so crucial that these passages that might mislead us if we took a simplistic and shallow literalistic approach to biblical interpretation will not benefit us and will actually cause us to believe the wrong sorts of things if we don't have as our guiding interpretive principle that the Bible must interpret the Bible. And so what we have seen thus far this morning is that the literalist interpretation promoted by dispensation is not necessary and is really bogus. It's not consistently followed even by them. We've seen that their motivation for separating Israel from the church, though it is a good motivation in itself, is misconceived because the Old Testament and the New Testament teach the same way of salvation. We've seen also that the New Testament Testament pervasively sees the church of Jesus Christ as Israel of old, the new Israel of God, the new people of God that take the place of Israel, because Israel's been rejected as a nation, Israel has no special status. And all along, as we've just now seen, the promises given to Israel about a Davidic kingdom and the restoring of the Davidic tabernacle are all fulfilled in Jesus Christ, in the Church of the New Covenant.