Premillennialism / Greg L Bahnsen An Eschatology of Optimism Part 2 of 4

Onto the chronological question of whether the millennium precedes or succeeds the return of Jesus Christ. But before I get underway, I was handed a card by someone that tells me that Charles Ryrie was never president of Dallas Theological Seminary, which is new to me and I'm glad to be corrected. So if that makes any difference to you and what you think of what I had to say, then take that into account. All right, let's continue then. We're looking at dispensationalism. The Jewish question. Should we interpret the Bible literally? The answer to that is we should interpret the Bible literally when it's intended to be taken literally, and we should interpret it figuratively when it's intended to be taken figuratively. And dispensationalists do that, and amillennialists and post millennialists do that. And that's not really a point of separation between anybody. You're going to have to get down to particular passages, how they are or are not being interpreted correctly. We can't just wave our hand and say literalism or figurative symbolic interpretation. You're going to have to take each one on its own. We move to the second point. Is Israel separate from the Church, as the dispensationalists insist? Well, we need not insist upon that to protect the grace of God from being intermingled with legalism. Because the Old Testament church, where God called the Jews as a special nation, was not taught to save itself by works of the law. It was taught to trust in God and to obey him, even as we in the Gospel of the New Testament are taught to trust in God and to obey Him. So that motivation is unnecessary. I mean, that motivation need not lead us to reject the continuity of Israel with the church. And then, as we've seen in the last portion of the hour, Israel indeed has become the church in God's prophetic scheme. It's with the saving work of Jesus Christ and the establishment of the New Testament church that God is fulfilling many of the prophecies of the Old Testament, some of which are put into wording which is very clearly Davidic, Jewish, Tabernacleish, and so forth. And these things are understood in the New Testament as being fulfilled in this age, not in a geopolitical future for Israel. I want to come to the question of whether the kingdom of God has been postponed and the church is a parenthesis in God's plan. Following upon the dispensationalist view of this Jewish question is their understanding that when Jesus came into this world and ministered among men, he offered The Davidic kingdom. He offered the promise of the Davidic covenant. He and Israel rejected him. And therefore from that point, God went into, if you will, plan B. God put plan A on the shelf. The church, which is a parenthesis in God's plan, is now inserted. This parenthesis is put in its place and later the kingdom will come back. Plan A. The kingdom will come back into God's plans for human history. The kingdom has been postponed. The church has been inserted as a parenthesis in God's plan. This is crucial to dispensational eschatology. And I also think that if there's anything that is contrary to the teaching of God's Word in the New Testament, that's it. I don't see how a person who is a serious student of the New Testament could claim the kingdom has been postponed, that Jesus offered an earthly kingdom and the Jews rejected it. Let me tell you something. On the day that Jesus fed 5,000 people, the Jews rushed him to make him their king. And Jesus refused it. You see, the dispensationalist has it exactly backwards. The Jews wanted Jesus to be their king. And he said, I don't like your concept of kingship. You have the wrong understanding of the kingdom of God, and I refuse to submit to this. He did not postpone the kingdom. He rejected the Jewish understanding of the kingdom. But what did Jesus come preaching? The nearness of the kingdom, the presence of the kingdom. In fact, Jesus said, if I by the finger of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God in your midst? Of course, he has just cast out demons before he said that. So Jesus says, if P, then Q. And you already know P is true, so you better know that Q is true also. If I'm casting out demons, then the kingdom of God is here and I am casting out demons. You draw the conclusion. The kingdom of God is present. The church is not a parenthesis in God's plan, and the kingdom has not been postponed. I'd like to look into this in a little detail. Although the time that we have before us doesn't permit us to say everything that might be said. Turn to Acts, the third chapter, verse 24, Acts 3, 24. And there Peter is discoursing and he says, yes, and all the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of these days. Peter tells us that the prophets of the Old Testament, Samuel, one of the greatest of them, and all those who followed. In fact, he said, all who spoke. If you want to back up and look at the whole gamut. All of the prophets of the Old Testament spoke of a future age. All the prophets of the Old Testament had no idea about the church age. This is a parenthesis in God's plan. No, he says they all spoke of these days. I choose this passage in Acts in particular because a dispensationalist might say, before the crucifixion the prophets were speaking of the days of Jesus. Because by that point the kingdom hadn't been rejected and the church put in its place. But certainly in Acts chapter three, this is the church age. It's post Pentecost. And Peter says all the prophets were referring to these days. The church is not then a parenthesis in God's plan. Consider by comparison, Acts 6:22. That's not the text I want because there aren't that many verses. What does that mean? Well, let's turn to Acts 10:43. Anyway, I'll have to figure that out on my own later. Acts 10:43, We read that Jesus has been ordained of God to be the judge of the living and the dead. And then verse 43 to him bear all the prophets witness that through his name everyone that believes on him shall receive remission of sins. Again, all the prophets bear him witness this gospel of remission of sins. All the prophets are prophesying of these days. And then turn to Acts 28, verse 20, where we read of the hope of Israel. This is an amazing text, maybe one of the most important we'll look at all morning. Acts 28:20. Paul here in his address says, for this cause therefore did I entreat you to see and to speak with me. For because of the hope of Israel, I am bound with this chain. Devastating teaching for the dispensationalist. Because Paul is bound with the chain. Because he has contradicted the Jews, because he's fallen into trouble with the Jews, because he's preaching Jesus Christ as the savior of men, Jew and Gentile alike. As a minister of the New Testament Church, he is bound with chains and sent to Rome. And he says, it's for the hope of Israel that I'm in chains. The hope of Israel? No, Paul, you've got to draw a distinction. The hope of Israel's future, that's kingdom, you're in chains for the sake of the parenthesis church. Paul didn't see it that way. The hope of Israel was the gospel to the Gentiles that Paul was preaching. Look at Romans 1, verses 1 to 5. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle separated unto the gospel of God, which he promised afore through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning his Son born of the seed of David, according to the flesh, who was declared Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, even Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we receive grace and apostleship unto obedience of faith among the Gentiles or the nations for his name's sake. Paul sees the Gospel to the Gentiles as the fulfillment of what the prophets of old were referring to, and he calls it the very hope of Israel. Or if you want to see another illustration of this fact that the Church is not seen as a parenthesis in God's plan, just consider the use of Isaiah's prophecy in the book of Acts, Isaiah 49. 6. Turn back to the Old Testament to Isaiah 49, the sixth verse, where the prophet says, yea, he saith, it is too light a thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel. I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation. End of the earth. And then turn in the book of acts to chapter 13, verses 46 and 47, Acts 13:46 and 47. And Paul and Barnabas spake out boldly and said it was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you, seeing he thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life. Lo, we turn to the Gentiles, for so hath the Lord commanded. And then the quotation of Isaiah, I have set thee for a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth. Now you have to understand something. The dispensationalist believes the kingdom was to be offered to the Jews. They were to accept it, but when they wouldn't, then God turned to the Gentiles. And this turning to the Gentiles, this putting away of the Jewish kingdom, makes the Church a parentheses that was not anticipated in the Old Testament. And yet Paul specifically says the turning to the Gentiles is the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. Isaiah knew of what is being called a parenthesis. But if Isaiah knew of it, it's not a parenthesis, is it? It's just part of the original plan all along. Our Joel. The second chapter, verses 28 to 32. For the sake of time, I'll not read it because we'll end up reading it again in Acts chapter 2, at the 15th verse on the Day of Pentecost, Peter is preaching, and he defends the Christians who are full of the spirit. There he says, these are not drunken as you suppose, seeing it's but the third hour of the day. But this is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel. This day of Pentecost is not parenthetical in God's plans. This is what Joel was talking about. And then he quotes it. It shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth my spirit upon all flesh. Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy. Your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. Yea, and on my servants and on my handmaidens, in those days will I pour forth of my spirit. And they will prophesy, and I will show wonders in the heavens above, signs on the earth beneath, blood, fire, vapor and spirit smoke. The sun turned into darkness, the moon into blood. Before the day of the Lord, come that great and notable day, and it shall be that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. This is that which Joel was referring to, Peter says. And so what we see is that Christ refused the earthly Jewish political kingdom that the Jews were willing to have. He's the one who turned away that kind of kingdom, not the Jews. Moreover, we see as well that the church, the turning to the Gentiles and the building up of the Pentecostal church is not a parenthesis in God's plan. But all of the prophets referred to these days of the building up of the church. This is the very hope of Israel, this building up of the church. It is the fulfillment of Isaiah 49 and Joel 2 and other passages such as that. And so we see first that the church. The church is not a parenthesis, and we need to add to that. And the kingdom has not been postponed. Both sides of that dispensational coin are wrong. The church is not a parenthesis, and the kingdom has not been postponed. Matthew 12:28 I've already referred to Jesus says, if I cast out demons, the kingdom of God's here. Of course it was. And then look at Matthew 16:28 to get another indication of this. Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here who shall in no wise taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. Boy, it's devastating, isn't it? Jesus says, within the generation of this hearers, the kingdom of God will be here. In fact, you'll see it. It's going to take Place within your very generation. In Acts the second chapter, verses 30 to 36, we read that Christ is now enthroned. The kingdom was not postponed. God actually enthroned his son. Acts 2:30 36. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God hath sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon 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. Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this which ye see and hear. For David ascended not into the heavens, but he saith himself, the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. Let all the house of Israel therefore know, as God hath made him both Lord in Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified. Peter's words are stirring. He says David didn't ascend into heaven. The promise to the Davidic king could never be fulfilled in him or any of those earthly descendants. Jesus ascended on high. He now is seated at the right hand of God, even as God. God had promised that he would make him to be the ruler over all of his enemies. Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies the footstool of your feet. So the ascension of Jesus Christ is seen in biblical theology as his enthroning, not the postponing of the kingdom, but as entering into his rule. Look at Hebrews, the first chapter, verses 3, 8, 9 and 13. Hebrews, chapter 1, verses 3, 8, 9 & 13. So hurry along here if we're going to get done. Who being the effulgence of his glory in the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high, but of the Son, he saith, thy throne, O God is forever and ever. And the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity. Therefore God thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Verse 13. But of which of the angels hath he at any time said, sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet? No, the kingdom wasn't postponed at the ascension Jesus entered into his glorious reign. And now every enemy is going to be put under his feet. The kingdom of God was preached by the Apostle Paul. We've looked at these verses, and so I'll just cite them again. Acts 20, 25 and Acts 28, 23 and 31. If Paul was preaching the kingdom, then obviously the kingdom was present. In Matthew 16, verses 18 to 19, Jesus teaches that men in this present day enter the kingdom through the church. Now think about that one for a moment. How can you have the church be a parenthesis and the kingdom postponed if the way you enter the kingdom is through the church? Matthew 8. Excuse me. 16, verses 18 and 19. And Simon Peter answered and said, thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, blessed art thou, Simon bar Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, who is in heaven. And I also say unto thee that thou art Peter. And upon this rock I will build my church. And the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Peter is the foundation, however you're going to interpret that. And it would take us the rest of the morning to settle those disputes. But in one way or another, Peter is confession, or as the confessing apostle, whatever is the foundation of the church. And upon this rock I will build my church. And I give to you the keys of the kingdom. And so the church, you see, has the keys of the kingdom to open and close the doors of God's kingdom to people through the preaching of the Gospel and the use of church censures. And then finally, the kingdom of God is experienced by the New Testament Church. Three quick passages. First Thessalonians. First Thessalonians 2, the 12th verse, where we read to the end, that ye should walk worthily of God, who calleth you into his own kingdom and glory. Those who are in the Thessalonian church have been called into the kingdom of God. Colossians 1, verse 13. There we read who delivered us out of the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love. In Hebrews 12:28. Wherefore, receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us have grace, whereby we may offer service well pleasing to God. With reverence and awe we have received the kingdom. We've been translated into the kingdom of his dear Son. We enjoy the kingdom of God. Those who are members of the church of Jesus Christ. And therefore we conclude that the dispensational separation of Israel from the church is unbiblical in every major respect. It's unbiblical in the idea of not intermingling law and gospel. It's unbiblical in saying that the church is not continuous with Israel. And it's unbiblical in the notion that the kingdom was postponed and the church was a parenthesis in God's plans. And so we turn to the third major distinctive of dispensational eschatology, the idea that there's a geopolitical future for Israel. Now, if I wanted to take the easy way, I could just say, we've already undermined that, haven't we? We certainly have. The only way you can maintain the geopolitical future for Israel is one, by a wooden and literal interpretation of certain prophecies contrary to the New Testament use of them, and two, by insisting that what God is doing in the church today doesn't fulfill the promise to Israel. But we've already seen that those promises are being fulfilled in the church, indeed the church. Those who are sons and daughters of God by faith are the children of Abraham, according to Galatians, the third chapter, and heirs according to promise. And so the church does fulfill those promises. And noting that there is no basis for saying there's a geopolitical future for Israel, however, I want to say something a little bit more about that. There are two aspects to this geopolitical future for Israel as I see it. First of all is the dispensational idea that Palestine is still the Promised Land, that Palestine is still the Promised Land, and that upon the land of promise the temple must be rebuilt and animal sacrifices reinstituted. Both of these points are contrary to the teaching of the New Testament. Let's look first at the idea of the Promised land. In First Peter, chapter one, verse, verse four, Peter says of those who are Christians that we have a living hope by the resurrection of Christ from the dead unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you. The important thing to note is that that word inheritance is precisely the word that was used for the Jewish promised Land. That was the land of inheritance. And Peter says, by the resurrection you've now inherited a better land, one that is not going to be corrupted as Palestine one, one that will not fade away as Palestine will. Peter says, everything that the Promised Land was in the Old Testament was but a foreshadow, was but a type of the kingdom of God that we receive now in Jesus Christ by his resurrection. In Ephesians 1, verse 14, Paul presses home the same point when he tells us of the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance unto the redemption of God's own possession under the praise of his glory. The word inheritance refers to that plot of ground the Israelites received in the promised land. Now we have the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the down payment of the inheritance. We are going to enter the promised land. God has set it aside for us and he's even given us an earnest, a down payment, which is the Holy Spirit. And so the promised land yet lies ahead. That's why in Hebrews 3 and 4 we read that we are to be sure that we press into God's rest. We are like the church in the wilderness, and we are going to the promised land of heaven. And we must be faithful to God and obedient to God that we might press into into his rest and receive it. In the New Testament, the land of promise is no longer seen as earthly Palestine. It's seen as the kingdom of God, which is eternal and uncorruptible. I'm going to make one more point quickly here about the promised land. In Galatians the third chapter, Paul tells us about the promises made to Abraham. Verse 16. Now, to Abraham were the promises made spoken, and to his seed he saith not, and to seeds as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. Now the interesting thing is that if you study the Book of Genesis, you will find that the only place where God makes promise to Abraham with respect to his seed, he's promising the land of Palestine. Paul is clearly referring to one of the passages, either Genesis 13 or Genesis 17, where God promises the land of Palestine to Abraham and to his seed. But now we read in Galatians that these promises are fulfilled in Christ. For the promise was made not to seeds, plural as to many, but to one seed. And Paul says clearly, that is Christ. The promised land made was a promise that foreshadowed the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. And those who are in Christ, they now are heirs according to promise. They now have the inheritance that was once allotted to the Jews, but really was nothing but a foreshadow of heaven itself. Palestine no longer has any significance in biblical prophecy because Palestine was but a symbol of the coming kingdom of God, which kingdom we have now who belong to the Christian church. Now let's go further and talk about Jerusalem. According to the New Testament, Jerusalem no longer has the significance that we are told according to dispensationalists Turn to Matthew 23, verses 37 and 38 Matthew 23, verses 37 and 38 Jesus says, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem that killeth the prophets and stone of them that are sent unto her. How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings. But ye would not behold, your house is left unto you. Desolate Jerusalem has been rejected of God. Matthew 24:1 2 and Jesus went out from the temple, was going on his way, and his disciples disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple, but he answered in them, see ye not all these things. Verily I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down. Verses 15 to 21 when therefore you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place, let him that readeth understand. Then let them that are in Judea fleet unto the mountains. Let him that is on the housetop not go down to take out the things that are in the house, and let him that is in the field not return back to take his cloak. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days Pray that your flight not be in winter, neither on a sabbath for then shall be great tribulation, such as hath not been seen from the beginning of the world unto now, nor ever shall be. Jesus tells us, the abomination of desolation will be the rejection of Jerusalem and Jerusalem's temple. It will be a time of tribulation of such spiritual significance that nothing will ever match it. And this is exactly what took place in A.D. 70, when Jerusalem was surrounded by Roman armies and the temple was desecrated and finally destroyed the place of Jerusalem and God's understanding is no more. Matthew 21:33 36 Hear another parable there was a man that was a householder who planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country. And when the season of the fruits drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen to receive his fruits and the husbandman took his servants and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another again he sent other servants more than the first, and they did unto them in like manner. But afterward he sent unto them his son, saying, they will reverence my son. But the husbandmen, when they saw the son, said among themselves, this is the heir. Come, let us kill him and take his inheritance. And they took him and cast him forth out of the vineyard and killed him. When therefore, the Lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 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 said, didn't you ever read in Scriptures the stone which the builders rejected? The same was made the head of the corner. This was from the Lord. It is marvelous in our eyes. Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation, bringing forth a fruit, fruits thereof. Jesus sees the rejection of Israel as coming to its epitome in God miserably destroying those miserable men who killed his son. He tells this parable precisely to show us that Israel is going to be destroyed of God. And of course, we've already read this morning how God did that. Through the abomination of desolation and the destruction of Jerusalem, Jerusalem's temple. And one more passage, Galatians 4, 24, 31, Galatians 4, at the 24th verse, where Paul begins to speak of a different kind of Jerusalem, which things contain an allegory. For these women are two covenants. One from Mount Sinai bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to the Jerusalem that now is, for she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother. For it is written, rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not break forth and cry, thou that travailest not, for more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband. Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are children of prophets. Promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also is it now, how be it what saith the Scripture, Cast out the handmaiden and her son. For the son of the handmaiden shall not inherit with the son of the free woman. Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of a free woman? These are very significant words. Paul says, the Jerusalem that now is answers to the Sinai in bondage of the Judaizers, it answers to Hagar. The Jerusalem that is above, which is our true mother is free. And even as the Bible says, the children of the handmaid must be cast out, even so the Jews have been cast out. Jerusalem that now is, is rejected of God. The only Jerusalem that counts is that which is above, which is our true Mother Spirit spiritually. And so the Bible teaches us that Palestine no longer has the significance it did in the days of the Old Testament shadows, and that Jerusalem is now rejected and desolated of God. It no longer is the holy city. Dispensationalists tell us not only that Palestine has a special place which we've just seen, it no longer has. They tell us what's going to take place there is that the temple is going to be rebuilt. I think this may be the most horrendous theological aspect of dispensationalism because it's the most insulting thing imaginable to the saving work of Jesus Christ and the finished atonement that he presented, that animal crises will be reinstituted in a rebuilt temple. According to Hebrews 10, we read that the sacrificial system has once and for all been put out of gear because Christ has presented a sacrifice once and for all. A finished sacrifice. The blood of bulls and goats no longer avails for the salvation of men. Indeed, it never was satisfactory for the salvation of men. And now that the true satisfaction has been offered through the atoning work of Jesus Christ, we no longer bring animal sacrifices. Dispensationalists will tell us well, but you see, these sacrifices are not for atonement. These sacrifices are a memorial of what Christ did. You see, a bad theory gets worse when this is the defense that is offered. For you see, Jesus himself as Lord of the Covenant, has instituted the memorial of his sacrifice. Jesus doesn't need for us to go back to Old Testament shadows to remember what he has accomplished in the days of the New Covenant. Jesus says that the the Supper of the New Covenant is what we do in the Lord's Supper when we take the bread and the wine and remember his sacrifice made for sinners. So dispensationalists end up instituting a sacrament which is not instituted in God's word, a sacrament that stands in contrast to that which the Lord of the Covenant has instituted. There is no need for animal sacrifice. It's an insult to the atoning work of Christ. It's the suggests that there is. And to say, oh well, it's only sacramental, a memorial of his work. Why would something that preceded his work as shadow be the memorial that looks back to his work now? And why would we need such a memorial when Jesus has given us one already? This is absolutely unacceptable from a theological standpoint, as is the rebuilding of the temple. Because as I've told you already in John, the second chapter, Jesus explains how God. God rebuilds the temple. He rebuilds the temple in the resurrection and following from it, the building up of the international kingdom of God, which is a temple of the Spirit made up of living stones. And so God is rebuilding his temple, but it has nothing to do with an architectural reality in the land of Palestine. Which land is no longer the promised land and which city of Jerusalem is now a desolated place rejected of God? And so again, we must reject the dispensational distinctive of a geopolitical future for Israel. Now do hang on a little bit though, because after lunch I'm going to say there is a distinctive future for ethnic Israel, but it's not geopolitical. The distinctive future for Israel is spiritual. When all of Israel shall be saved by turning to the rejected Messiah and now endorsing him as their Lord and King. And when Israel comes into the church in mass numbers, then we'll see a distinctive future. But my point is it has nothing to do with Palestine in a rebuilt temple. That geopolitical future is just not biblical. And then we turn to the fourth distinctive of dispensationalism. This morning, finally, we get to their view of the Rapture and the Tribulation. Charles Ryrie says that the distinction between Israel and the Church leads to the belief that the church will be raptured before the tribulation. Of course we say, well, if that's what it leads to, then obviously we don't have to believe the pre tribulation rapture because we've already seen the premise upon which it's built is fallacious. Ryrie says this because he holds that in no way is the Church the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. But we've already seen that the church is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, and very dramatic ones about David, his kingship and the Tabernacle and Temple and so forth. But Ryrie tells us that this fact that the church cannot fulfill Old Testament prophecies will be understood in direct proportion to the clarity of the distinction between Israel and the Church. The only alternative to this perspective, he tells us, is a non literal fulfillment of the prophecy. And so you see how all this is like a ball that winds back on itself. It all ties together. Ryrie says you've got to have a literal approach to interpretation, thereby rejecting continuity between Israel and the church. And if you do that, then what you'll end up with is a pre tribulation rapture. Well, we've rejected the premises for his defense of the pre tribulation rapture. And, and therefore there is no foundation for his conclusion. Let's turn to someone else, John Walvoord, who I understand was a president of Dallas Theological Seminary, if I can get that one right, and who has written a number of books, perhaps one of the leading spokesmen for discipline today. And we must at least thank him for that because he's given a lot of work to explain and defend this view that is held by so many Christians. Walvard, in his book the Millennial Kingdom at page 252 says, and I quote, Two important presuppositions are essential to the pre tribulation position. One, the definition of the church as a separate body of saints distinct from saints of other ages. In this he agrees with Ryrie, and in this they are both then going to be refuted by what said this morning. But two, the doctrine of a future tribulation of unprecedented severity. Walvoord tells us that obviously if you're going to believe in a pre tribulation rapture, you must believe that there's going to be a tribulation in the future. A tribulation of unprecedented severity. A tribulation that will last seven years. Now where does this doctrine come from, this doctrine of a seven year tribulation period? It comes from only one text in God's word, one only. And I don't say that to try to minimize what my dispensational brothers believe. They say that themselves the only place you can get the seven year tribulation is from Daniel the ninth chapter. So I guess we have to turn to Daniel 9 this morning and try to deal with that. Daniel 9 at the 24th verse. Here we read the famous prophecy of 70 weeks. 70 weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city to finish transgression and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place. Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the anointed one, the prince shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks it shall be built again with street and moat, even in troublous times. And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city, and the sanctuary, and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war down desolations are determined. And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week. And in the midst of the week he shall cause sacrifice and oblation to cease. And upon the wing of abominations shall come one that makes desolate, and even unto the full end. And that determined shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate. Daniel is told, and Daniel tells us in this prophecy that there's going to be a period of slavery. 70 weeks. It is popular for this to be interpreted as 70 weeks of years, every week being made up of seven years. So every day in the week is a year. Every week then is a seven year week. There are 70 such, and therefore we have 490 years that we're dealing with here. I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of that because it's not going to make any difference to the ultimate interpretation. I will say I think that is highly questionable. The Hebrew does not support that. What we read here is that there are 70 weeks. The weeks are, I think, understood in God's timetable and perspective, understood theologically, not chronologically. But even if it's to be taken literally and every day is to be a year which we are not told in this passage, even if you take it that way, the real question is where do we get a seven year tribulation out of this passage? Since this is supposed to be the support for that idea. Well, we get that seven year tribulation by saying that 69 weeks roll on and certain things happen. You have seven weeks, then you have 62 weeks. And why there's a division between that. That's up for grabs too. I'll let you study that on your own. But then the Bible tells us that after the 69th week something is going to take place and in the 70th week something is going to take place. And the suggestion is that we must take the 70th week and break it off from the 69 previous weeks of years. Because the Bible speaks of it as being something happening after the 69th that suggests suggest that you have a break there and that some chronological period can be inserted in it. That's totally arbitrary, though. I want to suggest to you that that is an idea brought to this text. By no means could you inductively find it in the text. The text does not say there's a gap between the 69th and 70th week. It just says after the 69th and in the 70th. And if someone thinks that is so significant that it says says after the 69th must be something that takes place before the 70th. Then I just want to point out that is utterly arbitrary. No one who knows how to interpret English language would tell you that's how you have to take that. If that's what it means. You're not going to get it from the language cited. You're going to get it from something else altogether. Now, what takes place in the 70th week that is supposed to be the week of tribulation that is yet future? Well, as a matter of fact, and this is something that really, you know, it gets to me. The dispensationalists interpret this as the Antichrist doing something in the 70th week, which I think Daniel is telling us the Christ is going to do, and in fact has done. And what is it that the Christ will do? Verse 26, after the three score and two weeks, after 69 weeks shall the anointed one be called cut off and shall have nothing. Jesus is going to be crucified and rejected. As a response to this, the people of the prince. In this case it'll be the Roman people. The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary. The end thereof shall be with a flood and desolations are determined. There you have the abomination of desolation, God destroying Jerusalem because of the rejection of the Messiah. Now verse 27 goes back and tells tells us more about this week. He shall make a firm covenant with many for one week, even though he is cut off, even though he is crucified. In so doing he will make a covenant with many, and this covenant will put to end sacrifice and oblation. Of course, Jesus death upon the cross, the New Testament tells us, did put an end to the sacrifice sacrificial system of the Old Testament. There's no longer need for animal sacrifice. And even though the Jews continued it in AD 70, at the abomination of desolation, animal sacrifices in the temple were destroyed. Altogether the abomination of desolation. Let's back up. And note also that in being cut off, in making this covenant, that will turn away sacrifice and oblation. Verse verse 24 says that this will finish transgression, make an end of sins, make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness. That's the work of our Savior. That's not the work of the Antichrist. How did the Antichrist, or how is the Antichrist anticipated to bring in everlasting righteousness? I do understand why the dispensationalist Says he will cut off sacrifice. The thought is the Antichrist will make make a covenant with the Jews. He'll allow them to do their sacrifices at the rebuilt temple, but then in the midst of the week, he will cut them off. I don't believe that's what the text is telling us, but I understand why that is said, turning away sacrifice in that sense. But how does the Antichrist bring in everlasting righteousness? How does he put an end to iniquity? No, this is not the work of the Antichrist in some future 70th week of the prophecy. This is the work of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, Himself in saving us, doing away with animal sacrifices, bringing in everlasting righteousness through his saving work. And he did it at his first coming. And so, as Walvard has told us, the idea of a pre tribulation rapture presupposes that the Bible teaches a future time of tribulation, the seven year period from which the Church will escape. Then we must say if Daniel does not teach that, then the freedom tribulation rapture is not taught in the Bible either. In fact, I would challenge my dispensational brothers to adduce one, even one positive passage that teaches the rapture as they understand it. Give me one passage that teaches that the Church will be raptured out of the world prior to some great period of tribulation on the earth. Their arguments, and I have read them extensively, their arguments rely wholly on silence, that the Church is not mentioned in certain passages that deal with tribulation. So if the Church is not mentioned, and that's a period dealing with tribulation, then the Church is not there. It must have been raptured. Matthew 24:40, Matthew 24:40. And it will turn out this passage will disprove the very thing that it's used to prove. Jesus tells us that, well, if we back up a little verse 36, but of that day and hour knows no man, even the angels of heaven, neither the Son but the Father only. He's talking about the final day of judgment that will break in upon people totally unexpectedly. For as in the days of Noah, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. As in those days before the flood, they ate and drank and married and gave in marriage until the day Noah entered into the ark, and they knew not until the flood came and took them all away, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. Jesus says, when I return, it will be totally unexpected. People will be going about their ordinary work, eating, drinking, entering into Marriage and so forth. The flood to wake them up, judgment will break in before they realize what is happening. Verse 40. Now then, shall two men be in the field. One is taken, the one is left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill. One is taken, one is left. Watch therefore, for you know not the day that your Lord comes. Now doesn't that teach the idea that one is raptured and one is left when Jesus comes? Well, yes it does, but it doesn't teach that this is going to take place before the seven year period of tribulation. It doesn't tell us that earth's history and the, the eating and drinking and giving in marriage and geopolitical events and that sort of thing are going to continue with the church being raptured out of the picture and unbelievers being left down here to continue their lives. For you see, we have to ask, what is the other left behind for according to this text, is he left behind for normal living? Not at all. Get Luke 17:37, which is a parallel passage to this. Luke helps us to understand even more what this being left is all about. When Jesus returns, Luke 17:37, and they answering say unto him, well he has just said in verse 35 and 6, there shall be two women grinding together, one taken and the other shall be left, etc. And now they answering, say unto him, where Lord, where will they be left? And he said unto him, where the body is thither? Will the eagles or vultures actually also be gathered together? The one who is left is going to be left to the place of the vultures. Now what's the place of the vultures? Obviously it's a very graphic image of judgment, isn't it? The place of dead carcasses. That's where they're going to be left to. When I come, there is going to be division of the human race. One will be taken unto me in salvation and one will be left to vultures. Jesus is not talking about someone being left to continue driving on the freeway with all these Christians raptured out of their cars and so forth. He's talking about those being left unto ultimate judgment, where the vultures are. And so I don't find even one text in Scripture that teaches the seven year tribulation that the dispensationalist is anticipating, much less even one text of Scripture that teaches teaches the pre tribulation rapture of God's people, the church. Well, let's see if we can wind all this up. Finally, the dispensationalist has taken a great deal of our time this morning. But there's a reason for that. Dispensationalism is a very popular system of biblical interpretation. It is one of the prevailing views of prophecy in the evangelical church in our day. And I would like you to know I haven't covered nearly the sorts of things, all the things that might be talked about in dealing with dispensationalists, what they might want to counter, what I've said and how I counter that, and so forth. We can only scratch the surface this morning, but I think just getting into this should give all of us pause about the biblical adequacy of this approach to biblical interpretation. Four things are distinctive to the dispensationalist. Let's go over them quickly and review literal interpretation. But they don't really believe in literal interpretation. They're just like you and me. It's literal where it's intended and it's figurative where it's intended. Israel separate from the church. But that's not necessary to protect the grace of God to do that. And the church is taught repeatedly in the New Testament as the continuation of Israel. Indeed, Israel has been rejected and no longer has any special place in God's plan. The kingdom has not been postponed. It is present right here in the church. Jesus Christ brought it with him in his first advent. And the church is not a parenthesis in God's plan. So Israel being separate from the church is not an acceptable doctrine. The dispensationalists tell us that Israel has a geopolitical future that entails the land of Palestine and the rebuilt temple. But Palestine no longer has the significance it did in the Old Covenant. And the temple is not to be rebuilt. That is an insult to the saving work of Jesus Christ. And then finally, the dispensationalists insist on a pre tribulation rapture, which period of tribulation is not definitely taught in God's word. And the idea of a secret rapture preceding it has no textual support whatsoever. Now, there's going to be some emotional problem connected with your hearing this. There should be. They're saying, why then do so many of my Christian brothers and sisters believe this? If it's so lacking in biblical support and in so many crucial points, contrary to the very thing we read. Why is that? Well, I can't tell you in a generalized way for every individual person how they come to have gotten themselves in this rut of biblical interpretation. But I do want to suggest that in general, those who have taught it and popularized it have gotten into this problem because they brought extra biblical presuppositions to the Bible. They brought a certain understanding gained either in ecstatic utterance. The idea of the Rapture, apparently historically in the 1830s, came out of a prophetic tongues environment that was not based upon biblical exegesis, but a new revelation from God. They either took it from something like that or a presupposition about the future of Israel and how that's important. Certain geopolitical events, they have brought ideas to the Bible and have not let the Bible interpret itself. I think the most basic procedural mistake of our dispensational brothers is that they do not let Scripture interpret Scripture. They rather insist upon their own idea of literalism, their own concept of a prophetic future with their charts and so so forth, dominate what the text of the Bible actually says. A study of the text, an inductive point by point study of the text, just will not support dispensationalism. And so the Jewish question is dealt with in that way. We're supposed to move to the chronological question, but I noticed that I have not talked fast enough. Many of you will think I've been talking way too fast. But the chronological question has to do with danger. Does the millennium precede the coming of Christ, or does it follow the coming of Christ? Or to put it the other way around, does Christ come before the millennium millennially, or does he come after the millennium post millennially, which is the Amiel and the post mill view? And what I'd like to do is just begin on that subject very briefly, and then we'll have to finish it after lunch as we begin to look at the kingdom and covenant as they are taught to us in the Bible. I am going to take as my representative of a historic premillennialist who answers the chronological question of where the millennium falls relative to the coming of Jesus Christ. I'm going to take as my representative George Eldon Ladd, who has written a number of books on this subject and I think is a very respectable Bible scholar. And he's laid out a very clear, distinct argument in favor of his view, but an argument which I have not been persuaded as yet to accept. According to Dr. Ladd, there is a future golden age on earth to be expected after the glorious return of Jesus Christ. Now, this age, he thinks, is being preceded even now by the present spiritual reign of Christ within the lives of God's people. And so Dr. Ladd is not as a dispensationalist. He does not believe the Kingdom was postponed in the church as a parentheses. He says, no, the church is a phase in the kingdom of God. Nevertheless, he believes there is yet a future phase before the eternal state where God is going to bring in a golden age on earth called the millennium. About this temporal earthly reign, this millennial reign of Jesus in the future, Dr. Ladd says it is part of the picture of the kingdom that's presented in the Old Testament and in the Gospels. So it's not a parenthesis. The Church is not a parenthesis. But this millennial fulfillment deals with Old Testament prophecy and what the Gospel themselves talked about. When Christ discussed the kingdom, he dealt with its essential character and its final outcome. And thus Christ de emphasized chronology. He de emphasized millennial detail. However, according to Dr. Ladd, there is progress of doctrine in the New Testament, though we don't find the doctrine of the millennium except in very shadowy or seed form. Previous to this, because of the progress of doctrine, we get to Revelation 20 at the end of the New Testament. And finally there is a clear revelation that Christ will reign in person over human society. According to Dr. Ladd, this will not bring a return to the types and shadows of the Old Testament dispensation. This does not mean a rebuilt temple and animal sacrifices, but it does mean the realization of God reign in extraordinary degree. The curtailment of Satan's power of deception, the salvation of Israel and the fulfillment of the remaining Old Testament prophecies. Now, I've stuck to my text here because I want to make very clear. Dr. Ladd's not a dispensationalist, but he is holding in a very clear way to the idea of a future millennial reign of Christ, Christ on earth. He says Christ will return. Following that, there will be an age of prosperity on earth. And I believe that this is not taught in the Bible. In fact, I believe this is impossible according to other biblical teaching. The refutation that we're going to look at when we come back from lunch is going to proceed along three lines. First of all, a theological refutation. I'd like to argue that if you understand what the Bible Bible teaches elsewhere in the New Testament about the coming of Jesus Christ, there is no period of time between the return of Christ and the final judgment into which you could insert a 1000 year millennial reign. The Bible will close that door. There is no time to insert a millennial reign after Christ comes. Secondly, I will proceed to an exegetical refutation on the a refutation of the interpretation of that One passage that Dr. Ladd said teaches the premillennial return of Christ, Revelation chapter 20. And having dealt with it theologically and exegetically, my conclusion will be that the premillennialist does not have biblical chronology down correct that Jesus does not come before the millennium to the teaching of God's Word. He comes after the millennium. And that will then finally open the door to start asking, well, what is God's covenant, What is God's kingdom, and what blessings can we expect from it? I do apologize for the fact we're running so far behind in what I wanted to present to you, but if it's any comfort to you to know, I have been working for two weeks trying to cut down what I thought I would originally present because I realized there's just no way I'm going to get all that material out in front of people. Well, I obviously need to learn my lesson better than I have in the past. Dispensationalism has been dealt with, and I'll promise to do a short job on premillennialism when we come back from lunch.