Published: March 19, 2026 | Speaker: Chuck Hartman | Series: Leviticus - The Parable of Leviticus 3 - Part 5 | Scripture: Leviticus 19:1-18
Transcript
View Full Transcript →
0:04
So tonight we're going to um actually still be back in in chapter 4 because I want to spend some time talking about the land of Israel. Um and that that is obviously a major topic right now. Um,
0:17
you know, as many uh professing Christians, especially in the United States, very much consider the the modern state of Israel to be the fulfillment or at
0:27
least the the beginning of the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, harbingers of the of the end of the age.
0:38
uh definitely consider the nation of Israel to be unique among the nations of the world today and to be treated as unique um politically
0:49
if if not religiously. So it's it's not that modern American evangelicals are advocating that we adopt Judaism,
1:00
but but there is a very strong push to um politically support Israel. Um you know the the phrase that is often
1:11
used is that God will bless those who bless Jerusalem and that that's used today. So um when we we look at the land
1:25
the question comes up as to the perpetuity of the promise.
1:50
if we if we look at the calendar, we see that possession of the land was actually a rather small segment of the calendar of of history including God's dealings with Abraham.
2:03
So just very briefly without without just using rough numbers if we have the promise
2:17
I'll say Genesis 15 where you find the anchor that's the first place that the land is mentioned uh in the um conversations between God and Abraham but immediately as we've seen with
2:28
regard to the iniquity of the Amorites God gives a caveat and says, "You're not going to get this land. You're going to go to your fathers in peace and and in fact your uh your descendants will be
2:41
strangers in a different land for 400 years." So, we already have a 400year
2:58
And then, of course, we have another 40-year gap before the conquest. So there's a lot of delays in this promise.
3:14
So at this point, scholars disagree as to where where we are in time. Um I I tend to put it between 15 and 1700 BC. Um modern liberal scholars want to say
3:24
more like 1200. um they they they want everything to be more recent because it's their opinion that older than that the people didn't know how to write. Um
3:40
I think modern scholars don't know how to write but we talked about the timing when we in bibl biblical theology and then a little bit last week we talked about the suzaranti treaty the hittite
3:50
suzaranti treaty which seemed to be a kind of a pattern of the age in terms of agreements and and the hittite emperor empire is relatively um settled as far
4:01
as those things can be uh between 15007 1700 BC which which I think makes it contemporary with with the Exodus and the and the early years of of Israel.
4:13
Now we have the period of judges which is very difficult to date because some of them may have been judges
4:23
concurrently. The judges were regional, which is why Israel came to Samuel at the end of that period and basically demanded a king. A king who would who would go go out for all of us as Israel
4:36
as the judges did not. Samuel was about as close to being a king as Moses was. But other judges, even um Samson, they
4:46
they were not really national leaders. They were more tribal leaders um who are highlighted. So we don't really know how long that is, but we can say with some
4:57
certainty that
5:07
during the the century from around 1,00 to 900, we have the the um the reigns of Saul and David and Solomon. So I don't know if we say what do I say
5:21
maybe um let's say 1500 and you know then we're going to have of course with Riaboam
5:39
the divided kingdom. So in terms of Israel being a a united nation, it really only happens in the reigns of Saul and David and
5:53
Solomon, which is about 120 years. Prior to that, they were in the land, but they had not completely conquered the Canaanites, and they were having a
6:03
great deal of trouble with just about everybody. And God was raising up individual judges to lead the tribes, but there was no national leader, no no
6:13
real national cohesion. That doesn't come until really until David. But then by Riaboam, Solomon's son, everything falls apart again. And
6:24
and at that point, we've got maybe 250 years left for the northern kingdom and then another 150 for the southern
6:35
kingdom. So, we're not talking about a long time where Israel was actually a sovereign state in terms of actually reaching the boundaries that were promised to
6:47
Abraham. That only occurred during the reign and the conquests of David. And Solomon makes note of it that um the land that was under his control because of his
6:59
father's military exploits. He basically repeats the promise that was given to Abraham in terms of the land going from the rid of Egypt to the Euphrates and
7:10
from the desert to the sea. So that was again uh if if it was only finally conquered toward the end of David's
7:21
reign and then it was divided at the beginning of Rihaboam's reign, then it may be that Israel was sovereign over the promised land for 50 years.
7:40
So what's up with this promise? Even after the return from exile, Israel is not sovereign and the land is also now occupied by other tribal peoples, including a a half breed race called
7:52
Samaritans that the Assyrians had brought in and mixed with the the Jews who had left been left behind by that captivity or dispersion. It wasn't a
8:02
captivity. The northern tribes were dispersed. So, Israel has remained a political entity
8:13
longer than longer than most, if not all, other political entities in human history. That's
8:25
significant. As a people, they have remained recognizable in their ethnicity and in their religion longer than any other
8:35
people. So we have kind of a conundrum here. Um we have the reality of the existence of a people called Israel and now in the 21st century we
8:48
have a nation a sovereign state called Israel. Is there any relationship between that sovereign state and the biblical
9:00
prophecy prophecies and the redemptive calendar that God has has ordained? And as we are concerned, I think the next event on
9:10
that calendar is the return of Christ. So, um, when when we're looking at the land biblically,
9:25
exesus is whether we're talking about something that had a a role to play at a time and has played it or whether it is a
9:35
perpetual promise that then must come to pass in the latter days. So these are kind of the two views. If we look at
9:48
this is the land
10:00
The same thing can be asked in terms of the temple in terms of the Davidic kingdom. All of these things are promises and in certain places in scripture those
10:11
promises sound very permanent and yet in other places they're not. So in 2 Samuel 7 the Davidic covenant is
10:22
given in a in a tone and in a a language that is permanent. You will not lack a son to sit upon your throne. But then in first second first 2 kings 8 dedication.
10:34
Is that first kings or second kings? Anybody? Dedication of the temple. Second. Okay. Um Solomon adds a caveat to that promise
10:46
that we don't read in 2 Samuel 7. That caveat is if if the king obeys. Okay. Now, it's not mentioned in at least not that I can remember that it's
10:57
mentioned in the first, but it's it's mentioned in the second that there's a uh it's there's an implied caveat that is then explicit in Solomon's
11:08
prayer of dedication. But even if you look at these promises as being perpetual,
11:21
none of them have been continuous. Does that make sense? When when a promise is perpetual, you don't expect gaps of thousands of years.
11:32
You don't expect gaps of of really even generations. A divine promise doesn't have
11:43
interruptions. Okay? So when when we look at the scripture in terms of understanding these promises, we're faced with a historical reality. So the first is the land a perpetual promise or is the land
12:10
redemptive character. And by character I I mean with an outlined and specified role to play in the drama of redemption. And I say it that way because the land
12:22
in Leviticus 18 and 20 and elsewhere in Romans 8 and also in the rest in the Old Testament, the land is often
12:32
personified. It is often treated as if it is along with the people a part of of this unfolding drama of redemption.
12:43
If the land is perpetual, the promise I should say is perpetual, we are faced with a very difficult exeetical challenge and that is all of
12:55
these promises these promises have had interruptions. Now, does anybody disagree that that's a
13:06
problem? I don't think it's a problem. You don't think it's a problem? Okay. Um, fair enough. I think it's I do think it's a problem. I think it it presents uh gaps that have
13:18
to be explained. The one promise that has no interruptions and scripture I think makes it very clear in the genealogies that there are no
13:29
interruptions is the promise of the seed of woman who will bruise the serpent's head. There are no interruptions in that line
13:39
at all. at all. And even when Hezekiah is told that he will die will die and there appears to be an interruption because Manessa is not born yet.
13:57
Ezekiah repents or or not repents but prays and seeks the Lord. We don't even know what he said but God gives him another 15 years. Manessa is born 12 years later. So even in situations even in the situation of
14:09
the exile and even in the intertestamental period we now know from the genealogies of Luke and Matthew there's no interruption in that promise. So even if the promises that are
14:21
interrupted with the king or with the land or with the temple, if if you accept those interruptions as being um okay, you do have by contrast
14:33
one promise that was never interrupted. And and I think it's it's the purpose of the genealogies the genealogies that that are kind of peppered through
14:44
the the the scripture. I think it's the purpose to show that there was no interruption. There was no king for a long time. That's what I'm saying. That was that's an interruption.
14:56
an interruption. I'm saying to me that's a problem. Okay. It's a problem with the perpetuity issue. First of all, in my opinion, I I understand that many do not agree with this and that's fine. Um but what I'm
15:07
saying is saying is to to me the the meaning of the word perpetual is not ending.
15:19
not ending. Not that it will come back someday. Perpetual means Perpetual means a perpetual motion machine doesn't stop and then start again.
15:30
So my understanding of the word perpetual or perpetuity is that it keeps going. So, for example, in Isaiah, when we're told that his kingdom shall never
15:43
end, well, that leads to a a a major disagreement between uh hermeneutical philosophies. There are those who believe that Jesus's kingdom has been delayed
15:55
and will not actually start until the millennium. In in other words, he was born unto us a child was given. the government was put upon his shoulders but we have a gap
16:09
until it actually happens. Okay. Now I don't agree with that. I think that the his government has never ended. I think he is all authority in heaven
16:20
and earth has been given to him now or actually at his resurrection and has has perpetuated ever since.
16:31
So, that's a difference of opinion, but it's a it's kind of a major one because it impacts our orientation to what we're reading in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Because if we read about the
16:43
land and we consider the land to be um once promised, always promised, then I think we're going to we're going to understand what we read differently
16:55
than if we see the land as as having a redemptive role alongside of Israel, alongside of the tabernacle, alongside of the Davidic kingdom. All of these
17:06
things are part of a of a period of time that was establishing the the type of its own consummation
17:17
which is Jesus Christ and the kingdom of So um what to Abe to answer just to answer
17:28
your question that what what I'm saying
17:47
Okay, here I I don't have my eyeglasses on. Um, so you might have to go like this. Oh, by the way, by the way, I do need to say this. Um, did any of you notice that I was having trouble reading the
17:57
scripture Sunday? scripture Sunday? Yeah, you noticed. Okay. And and you know that I've had problems with my eyesight. uh you know and and so I was pretty troubled by it and and I went home and Monday at the office it seemed
18:09
better. Um but when I got home Monday evening it it wasn't good anymore and and so I'm sitting at the computer you know going like this and making you know enlarging the font and and so you know I
18:20
think I'll clean my glasses. Well, one of the lenses had popped out. So, it was definitely a senior moment, but not the one I feared.
18:43
Oh, was it was just out? I didn't know it was I got to go back. I was Yeah, I got to go back to the doctor, you know. Okay. Well, you and me, brother. Erin.
19:21
That's a very good point. When he says it's given to you as an everlasting possession, then there are there there are terms like that.
19:32
The question then becomes to me because the fact is it was not an everlasting possession. That's a historical fact, is it not? Everlasting is like perpetual. When it
19:43
when it says from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Are there any gaps in that? It's kind of the same thing with the remnant. I mean, it looked like God was going to destroy the
19:53
entire people. entire people. Yes. And that's what I that's why I said earlier the fact of Israel is significant and I don't want to be misunderstood as being a
20:04
replacement theologian that the church has taken the place of Israel. I don't believe that. I believe the church is being grafted into the commonwealth of the covenant that was formed with
20:14
Abraham. Okay? and that so we are um brought near and the two are being made one new man. So that's Jew and that's Jew and Gentile. I don't think there's
20:25
any other way to read that. So and and even as Paul talks about there's neither Jew nor Gentile, he still talks about the Jews and the Gentiles. So the the the identity of a Jewish people
20:39
in perpetuity in perpetuity is real. So let me put some things up on the board. Okay, I think perpetuity means unending like
20:52
everlasting. The question is what what then is the meaning of that which is being promised? Okay. And this is where I think typological interpretation comes in
21:06
that what we're reading can be interpreted literally. But does that exhaust the scriptural meaning or does the literal meaning actually
21:18
point to something else? And I think in many cases it points to something else. So in terms of perpetuity, I think
21:38
that's one that we can say there is absolutely no interruption in the promise of the seed of woman. Okay. Another one, and I think this this more addresses what you're talking about,
21:48
Aaron, and maybe this will clarify our positions a little bit. I I think the people are perpetual because as Paul says in Romans, the the
22:00
gift of God is without repentance. The people continued to be the people without interruption
22:10
without interruption from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So at least historically, there's no interruption in the existence of this people. Other peoples have come and gone. And peoples that we read about in
22:22
scripture are no more. There's no trace of them anymore. And so I think
22:36
the people of God are perpetual. But then we have so I think in in my definition these are at least two things that are uninterrupted throughout time
22:46
from the moment of their inception the beginning of that promise to today. Does anybody disagree with that
22:57
statement? Okay. But we do have a conundrum and and I'm not I'm not pretending to answer it. I'm just saying it exists. And that is we have interruptions,
23:30
divinic kingdom. I mean there there there may be others but these are kind of the big three in terms of of the orientation of Israel as it forms that sovereign nation during that short period of time under David
23:41
when it reaches the extent of the promised boundaries. And again this information is given to us in scripture and and I don't think it's it's just arbitrary. I think it's important that
23:52
Solomon says that the boundaries are now the same as what was promised to Abraham. And I think that's why okay at that point and I mentioned this before
24:02
that's that's my opinion as to why God finally agreed to have a fixed structure rather than a mobile temple the
24:14
tabernacle because they finally reached now maybe they could have reached it earlier if they had been more obedient and more faithful but historically they don't reach the promised boundaries until
24:25
David and I think again that was God's purpose Definitely it was associated with Israel's um recalcitrance but it was also God's purpose that David would be
24:36
the king who would fulfill that promise. So but that's not kept and and I think that as we read the scripture we
24:46
definitely struggle I do with those you know everlasting this is everlasting this is everlasting. And then I think well what does everlasting mean? Does everlasting really mean?
24:57
Does it really mean that we're going to have gaps that are orders of magnitude larger and longer and longer than the actual
25:26
right. Right. Which Right. Which that's usually how I hear it. That's how I hear it explained. And I have a problem with that because that really makes God I hate to say it this way,
25:39
impotent and stupid. Impotent because he he cannot actually bring about his will. His will is thwarted by fallen human beings and
25:50
stupid because he knows very well that they're not going to obey. He even says it in in Moses's song, you know, Jeson grew fat and kicked. I It's prophesied
26:02
that you will rebel. It's prophesied that you will be spewed out from the land and go into exile. So why am I saying everlasting perpetual when I know you're going to fail?
26:15
You can see the counter example why that's not true,
26:33
Um, Peter's explanation of what happened. I I'm going to read that because I think it does show that God's purpose and God's plan is not contingent. Now, man's
26:46
actions are contingent and they certainly seem seem to interrupt God's plans, but that's not God. At least if I
26:57
if we don't agree on that, then we have a fundamental disagreement. Um, and not like this, which I'm not sure anybody knows for sure how things are going to play out, but Acts um, I think it's two
27:11
um, oh, where is it? Or is it four? Four. No, here it is. 2 uh, 22 and 23. I think this is the passage. You mean
27:24
men of Israel, listen to these words. Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through him in
27:34
our midst. Just as you yourselves know this man delivered up by the predetermined plan and fornowledge of God, you killed you nailed to a cross by
27:46
the hands of godless men and put him to death according to the predetermined plan of God. You did it. So, there's
27:56
divine sovereignty and human responsibility in in one verse. Um, I I can't and I've never been able to accept that Israel has thwarted God's plan. And
28:08
and it makes me wonder, what's God going to do differently the next time? And the answer is he's basically going to override their will and make them
28:21
believe. But we can't say that now. We can't say that God overrides our will by giving us a new heart and the day of his power makes us willing. We can't say
28:33
that now. But that's exactly what he's going to have to do in the millennium because the Jews aren't going to be any different than the same fallen sons of Adam that they've always been and we have always been. So in other words, if
28:45
the Jews rejected Jesus, then by what confidence do we say they will not reject him later? I mean, even Jesus
28:56
said, pardon me. Yes. But that's not the Jews. That's the hardening that God has put, right? But that that comes from God. Yes. From what?
29:06
Yeah. Well, I'm saying I'm saying it's not coming from the Jews. Pardon me. that no they're being hardened. They are being hardened. It's judicial
29:17
and that will be removed. It's passive. That's what I'm saying is that but what the what the dispensationalist says is no. They will come willingly.
29:27
But I my problem is why yes then and no back when he first came. He was filled with the Holy Spirit without measure. He performed mighty
29:39
miracles that that could not be denied. And yet the majority of the people rejected him. And it's not because of their own will. There was a hardening
29:50
that came upon them. It was all God. So I don't think the argument that it's going to all work out in the
30:02
future someday. future someday. I think that's pie in the sky by and by. There's no historical reason from the fall of Adam onward to think that that
30:12
any part of the human race will somehow come to a point on their own well they will willing accept the son of God. You must be born again
30:22
in our native fallen state. We will not accept the grace of God. So nei neither will Israel in the millennium. So,
30:32
the reality of history is is what I'm trying to get at is that we look at the land and we're looking at something that was promised with language of perpetuity and and unmistakable language that this
30:44
will be an everlasting possession. Now, there are in a number of places caveats. So, even in Exodus 19 where they're called a peculiar people and a holy
30:56
nation, God prefaces that. He says, first of all, I am your redeemer. I brought you as on eagle's wings out of bondage in Egypt. I did this. You're my
31:07
people. But then he says, if you will obey my commandments, then I will make you
31:17
a holy nation. So it's like, okay, God did it. There's the grace, and now there's an introduction of what he appears to be contingency.
31:28
But if there's contingency in the midst of a fallen race, how can there also be
32:07
Yeah. Ezekiel's temple is actually so the land is important. That's what I That's exactly what I where I'm headed. The land remains important but for a different reason.
32:23
Okay. Should we head somewhere else?
32:40
It's coming out of the law. And you mentioned the contingency that is just saturated through the words of the law. Those those things
32:50
are spoken in that context. And it seems to me necessary to take that fully into account that what those things will be
33:03
has to work alongside what the law ends up doing to sinful men. And also what the law predicts about faith is
33:14
faith is whatever it means it can't be separated from whatever it means it cannot be separated from the
33:39
amongst things that can't last. See, that's that's what I'm I appreciate you saying that. I'm trying to say the same thing because you have on the one hand language of unmistakable perpetuity and on the hand on the other hand
33:50
language of unmistak unmistakable conditionality unmistakable conditionality and yet you also have copious prophecy of failure.
34:03
So when you couple the the conditionality, the contingency with the reality that you will disobey, then you wonder what is the meaning of these
34:16
promises of perpetuity. You you you you must keep the law. You won't keep the law. We find out later you can't keep the law, but if you keep
34:27
the law, you will have the land forever. What why say that? And I think there's a very good reason why it's said because it forces us in recognizing the the
34:40
fallibility of Aaron, the fallibility of man. It means those promises of perpetuity must have pointed to something beyond themselves.
34:51
Did you have a comment here? Okay. All right. So the land, the tabernacle, the uh the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic
35:05
king, these are abiding
35:15
facets of God's redemptive program that have never ended in terms of God's redemptive plan. They have been interrupted for long periods of time in terms of their
35:27
visible manifestation. visible manifestation. Now, this is tricky ground here because um you might say, "Well, I'm just spiritualizing it." spiritualizing it." And that's what a lot of people say that
35:38
whenever you talk about typological exesis, that's just a $65 word to mean spiritualize or allegorize. Okay? And that that's okay. Um, we've talked about
35:50
that in biblical theology. But if you don't recognize types, like the writer of Hebrew clearly does in in his letter, if you don't recognize types, then
36:03
you're faced with what I think are insurmountable historical realities. historical realities. And you you have different ways of of of
36:13
cutting that knot or untying that knot. You might say, "Well, the land really wasn't that important." Or, you know, the the obviously the
36:24
temple was temporary until Jesus came. That that is to to divide what God has joined together. joined together. See, God has joined his overall
36:34
redemptive purpose in Israel, the people of Israel, with the tabernacle, with the land, and then with the Davidic kingdom. He he joined them together
36:47
so that if we simply say, "Well, the church replaces Israel or the land doesn't matter anymore." I don't think we're understanding what God meant. I think we're actually
36:59
playing rather loose with what he said because clearly those things were important. They were at the very heart of what it meant to be Israel, to be God's people. But we still are faced
37:10
with the historical reality that none of them were kept for very long and in their fullest extent not very long at all.
37:22
And and I that trouble that has always troubled me because as I said, you know, if again this is humanly speaking, but if if you if you promise something in
37:32
perpetuity and then you make a conditional and you know that the condition cannot be met met at all, not even possibly, even possibly, then your promise of perpetuity is is
37:45
essentially meaningless. essentially meaningless. But it's not. So that's where the typological interpretation comes in that and and I believe that that
37:56
pertains to the entire nation of Israel that Israel is not the perpetual people of God. It is the seed people.
38:08
It is the people into whom the people of God will be grafted. But it was never intended to be that people in its
38:19
entirety. Is that everybody agree with that? Okay. It it there were people of God before Israel and now the people of God have been grafted into that very
38:30
same covenant that formed Israel. That's our that's now our heritage. That's now our adoptive heritage just as much as if we were born Israelites.
38:42
That's it belongs to us now. So, it's not something that started new or alongside of Israel, but it does mean that Israel had a purpose in this
38:54
redemptive drama. redemptive drama. When that purpose was served, the entity of Israel as a political state, as a kingdom,
39:05
was no longer necessary. And I think AD70 kind of put an exclamation point on that fact. But the people of Israel never ceased to
39:16
be for the last 2,000 years because they they are God's beloved possession. And I believe that. But I also believe that I am and the church is
39:29
accepted in the beloved. And I don't believe that God loves a Jew more than he loves me. He loves his beloved son and all who are
39:42
in him. in him. Whether Jew or Gentile, there cannot be an Israel without sacrifice. There cannot be an Israel without an
39:53
ironic priesthood ironic priesthood and without temple sacrifice sacrifice in the temple. Yeah. So Yeah. So so so from the perspective and and dispensational the dispensational
40:06
uh prophetic schools do deal with this and what they say is that that's coming. Okay. They'll they'll rebuild the temple
40:17
and they'll reinstitute Torah and they'll reinstitute animal sacrifice in the temple. Um and and that will constitute Israel's rebirth.
40:30
There's there's no mental gymnastic that you can perform to turn the modern state of Israel into biblical Israel. It is not a theocracy. It is not run by the
40:41
priesthood. It does not have a Davidic king, nor does it have a temple. So the essential components of Israel, now what has happened in rabbitic Judaism is they've abandoned all of that.
40:53
Rabbitic Judaism has no tangible or recognizable connection to biblical Judaism. It's just an interesting um
41:04
side note. What are Jews thinking these days? Okay, that's about all the Mishna will provide you with is what were Jews thinking after the temple was destroyed?
41:14
But there's there's no actual tangible connection between rabbitic Judaism and biblical Judaism. And so they they can accept Israel now today because they've abandoned all the promises that we
41:26
Christians are so up in arms about. The Jews don't even talk about them. They're done. They don't really know what happened, but it's done. Okay? So they've re recreated Judaism
41:39
as a religion. And that and that the ironic thing is that we're told that that's what Paul did. What what's different is not Christianity. What's different is rabbitic Judaism.
41:51
Does that make sense? They're they're the ones that left biblical Judaism. We continued on in it with the Messiah. Okay. So, and and that's very
42:02
significant because we're we're often treated as the ones that left. No, no, we were brought in. We didn't leave. I mean, we were already gone Gentiles, but
42:13
the Jews that believe were the ones that stayed. The Jews who disbelieved were the ones that left. And Paul calls them the so-called circumcision. Calls them the synagogue of Satan in one place.
42:25
Okay? So we can see from scripture that the thing continues on and and so the promises continue on. They weren't ended in AD.70. They weren't ended at the
42:36
incarnation. They weren't ended at the crucifixion. They weren't ended at the resurrection. They were fulfilled. But that's where when we look at these
42:47
things, typological interpretation is essential. That yes, they had a historical reality in time, but even that historical reality pointed to something else
42:59
as so much in scripture does. It pointed to the fulfillment. So what did the land point to?
43:13
the whole earth. Yes, the meek in the Old Testament will inherit the land, but not in the biatitudes. The meek will inherit the earth. Okay? And not just the earth,
43:25
creation, the cosmos, as Paul puts it. It's see the land is there. It's real. It's important. It doesn't lose its important but its importance lies not in its perpetuity as a possession of Israel
43:38
but rather as it's pointing to the fullness of it in the new earth. related thoughts
44:14
there, I guess. Yeah. And and that it it's there in the Old Testament that that the land if you and I don't know that you I could see it very clearly if it weren't for Paul or if it weren't for Jesus and
44:27
biatitudes and and the promises of or the um statements of the New Testament. But I do think that having that we can look back at the Old Testament and realize it never was all about Israel.
44:40
It never was all about the land. It never was all about the temple. So that in Jeremiah's day when the people were saying, "We have the temple, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord."
44:51
Jeremiah says, "You think that's going to help you?" No, it's not going to help you. And it was torn down. Okay. Um and so even even the destruction of the
45:02
temple is is is at least at the very minimum significant in telling us that the ultimate purpose of these emblems is
45:17
typological. Okay, again I know that that word makes people nervous. Okay, are you just allegorizing? Are you just spiritualizing? Is this just some big moral lesson?
45:28
moral lesson? No, it it's simply saying that God's redemptive purpose includes his entire creation. And so when he selects a people out of
45:39
all the nations, he says, "For all the nations are mine." Okay? And so that right away tells you that he's selecting this little people for a purpose. And I
45:52
think that purpose, we've talked about this before, but that purpose is twofold. And even that is
46:04
typological. Israel as the people of God is typological of the church.
46:36
I I think I would say more that it's type and anti-ype and anti-ype because the now and the not yet. And and I really appreciate you saying
46:46
that because I don't think I've ever fully explained what I think the now and the not yet means. The now and the not yet are
47:00
connected in time. in time. So if we look at the kingdom as now and not yet, we have the kingdom
47:20
consummated. Two M's. Now, the now
47:43
They're connected because the kingdom is as leaven that a woman mixed into a lump of dough and it worked its way through the whole. Okay. Until the whole was leavened. And and
47:56
the other parables of the kingdom that we read in the gospels show that while the kingdom is often invisible, its power is at work in this age.
48:07
Okay. So, um, these and I don't want to this is not going to what I'm about to draw is not correct because it's going to look like
48:17
we're bringing in the consummated kingdom. And I do not believe that. And maybe I'll do it this way. Maybe this will help. But there is a connection
48:28
between the two. Okay? So when we say now and not yet, we don't mean now and then nothing nothing then not yet. It's it's now continually
48:41
now growing now progressing in the hearts of people as the kingdom is leavenvening the lump and then it's
48:52
going to be consummated at the peruseia. So they're connected whereas type and anti-ype are rarely connected
49:02
in any tangible way in time. So for example, the tabernacle, the temple, the two temples two temples were a type of the body of Christ.
49:15
But there's no chronological connection between the physical temple and the birth of Jesus Christ. One is a type, the other is an anti-ype. The land and
49:27
the world. So it's not like Israel just kept evangelizing kept evangelizing territory and growing until it overspread the whole world. No, that's
49:40
the gospel. That that's not the political state of Israel, nor is it the political state of the church in any of its forms. That's not how it works. So that's a type, the anti-ype of which is
49:54
the redemption of God's created order of everything, including the angelic realms. So I I I think they're very much
50:04
parallel in thought to each other. I just want to make sure in my understanding everybody's clear that when I talk about the now and not yet, they're they're integally connected.
50:14
The one flows out of the other.
50:26
today. Right. And and yet um that that's a that's an interesting conundrum because we're we're told that uh in 1 Corinthians 15 um that the body of our
50:40
resurrection will will will not be in any way connected to the body of our corruption. That there's actually a break there. But what is continuous is the new man. So
50:52
the man regenerate or the new woman regenerate in Christ will continue through death to the consummation. What will not continue is the body because
51:04
we'll have a new body. Does that does that make sense? So so type and anti-ype are not necessarily in fact I think unusually ever ever connected. now and
51:15
not yet are connected there. It's it's not God did a little bit now and he's going to do a bunch later. No, that it's not God God did it and we consider it now but not yet because it's not
51:43
now. I always
51:53
that it stops. No, I don't think the now and not yet concept stops. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstood. I I do think a type and anti-ype are are not connected. The temple was destroyed.
52:05
It stopped. It stopped. Okay. Uh and it stopped long before the anti-ype came. Now it was rebuilt uh and then Herod was glorifying it but
52:16
that was meaningless. Um but as a physical building it stood as a type and I think the writer of Hebrews makes that clear with regard to the tabernacle but as connected to its antitype it wasn't
52:32
now and not yet is doesn't stop. it's connected and that's actually a major difference between I don't even know what to call it uh in terms of a hermeneutical view but it's a major
52:43
disagreement with dispensationalism dispensationalism is full of discontinuity stopping and starting again starting with something different um and I don't think what that's what
52:54
the land is I think that I don't think that does justice to the language of everlasting justice to the language of perpetuity I also don't think that
53:07
um literal interpretation of the land does justice to the contingency to the conditionality and also to the
53:17
fulfillment that the meek shall inherit the earth. So the people of God is perpetual. There's no interruption in the people of God. In in Acts 14, Paul
53:29
says God has had his witnesses in every age. Okay? and and God says to Elijah, I you know, I have 7,000 who haven't bowed the knee to Baal. The people of God, the
53:40
remnant always exists. And and it's because prior to Christ, the seed was in that remnant. And now after Christ, it is just simply
53:51
expanding, expanding in the hearts of of Jews and Gentiles throughout the world.
54:11
something that is already there versus God saying I'm doing a new work and work for the old testament that to me yeah yes and the second one is now and not yet okay so Romans 8 where he says
54:22
that the re that creation is is groaning waiting for the revelation of the sons of god that's like the perusia of Jesus Christ He is he is risen. He is the God man. Okay. He's there at the right hand
54:34
of the father and his glory will be revealed. There's no interruption in the reality of that. But when when God says, "I am doing a new work and the old things will pass
54:45
away." Or when Paul says, "If any man be in Christ, behold, he is a new creation. Old things have passed away." That's type and antiype. And the atom, the first Adam is a type and the second
54:56
Adam, the antitype. So yes, there is a there's a logical distinction between those couplets type and anti-ype and now and not yet. Now and not yet indicates
55:08
something that has begun and is continuing and will reach a point where it becomes both full and visible. So I'm what I'm saying then to to kind
55:19
of summarize is that not that that these things have ceased to be important but rather that they stood as types
55:31
and even in the prophets when the the latter age is spoken of the scope is no longer Israel
55:41
longer Israel it's the whole world. So, um, the passage in Isaiah 49 speaking of the servant of Yahweh and the Lord says, "It is too small a thing for you to redeem
55:52
Israel and to raise up the tribes of Jacob. I will make you a light to the Gentiles." And and that that focus continues through the prophets from
56:03
Isaiah on through Ezekiel especially where it's yes, I'm going to restore Israel. Yes, I'm going to redeem Israel. But I'm not stopping there. this time
56:14
it's it's now going to go beyond that and the law shall go forth or redemption shall go forth from Zion out into the nations and he brings in the Ethiopians
56:24
and the Egyptians it's interesting he brings in he brings in all of the sons of Ham except one Canaan okay so it's it's all integral
56:36
and it's really from the beginning in your seed all the nations of the world will be blessed Genesis 12. So there is really never any reason for the Jews to
56:47
think or conclude that was all about them. Now I think it's reasonable that they would think that the Gentiles need to become Jews and then you know be the
56:59
people of God. I think later Revelation had to show them that that was not the way it was going to go. But to think that it was all about them, they have no
57:10
no basis for that. That's that's ignoring everything that happened before God called Abraham and it's ignoring the first thing God said to Abraham. So So these things are incredibly important,
57:39
promises that the day will come when
57:53
right yeah that that's against the idea that But also conversely, and I think you'd agree with this, Israel's still there, right? Israel's still there. Israel, Israel is
58:05
the instrument of God's redemptive, but once that instrument has fulfilled its purpose, the people of God are perpetual. I think that's what Paul means in Romans nine. Okay? That the
58:17
idea that Israel has ceased to be or replaced by the church has no basis in scripture. And in fact, I think it's detrimental to the honor of God that he has broken his promise. He says, 'You
58:27
know, if a does a does a mother ever cease to love her child, but even if a mother would do that, I will not cease to love you. Okay, well, I changed my
58:40
mind. I mothers do better than that. No, no, God has not changed his mind. And and so I think the idea of replacement theology is is actually bordering on blasphemous.
58:52
Okay. So, um, but I do think it's important to realize that he's bringing everybody else in, too. And, and I think what Paul was trying to teach his fellow countrymen is that now that Messiah had
59:02
come, they need to take their place alongside their brethren and stop lording it over as they had for generations. I think his biggest
59:13
complaint with the Israel with the Israelites or is Israelis I don't know what to call them then um the Jews is that they were still clinging to their
59:24
superiority as a nation and Paul says no there's no such thing get in line you know get get in we're now at the foot of the cross and there's no hill here
59:35
there's no podium um the temple we know that the temple
59:48
And I think it's significant that when when we read of the new Jerusalem in Revelation, there's no temple in it. So I think that's that's important. It can't be perpetually important if it's not in the New Jerusalem.
1:00:01
In other words, its importance still remains, but it's its typology has been fulfilled. And even in that in the consummation something will be different. It we we
1:00:13
won't I don't know how to say this. I don't think the church will be in the new earth.
1:00:25
I think the bride of Christ will be there. I think the church like the temple is typological is typological of the the earth in which righteousness
1:00:38
dwells. Does that make sense? No, it doesn't. Okay. Um they were they are they are but which one of them is going to continue?
1:00:49
They're the same. Um I mean they're the same. Well, but then but you can also say the the body of Christ is the temple. And yet there's no temple. Yes, the temple remains.
1:01:00
But it doesn't. It's different. It's different. Okay. Well, all right. So, let me see if I can say this differently. Um, I do not believe that the kingdom of God is co-extensive with
1:01:11
the church, but the kingdom of God is perpetual. So the the entity that we call the church with the with officials with pastors with deacons and I do not think
1:01:24
will continue in the new earth. I think right now it is typological of that community that will inhabit the new earth and it should it should live
1:01:37
according to that typology just as Israel was typological of the church.
1:01:47
Okay, does that make is that making any more sense? So the the church in its current form is the the now it's the body of Christ just as it's also the
1:02:00
temple. But in the kingdom there or in the the consummation there is no temple and there is a bride. And and so when the angel um brings John to that vision
1:02:12
at the end of Revelation, he he says, "Behold, I will show you the bride of Christ." And he and it's so it's different. It's it's the same people.
1:02:23
It's the same people, but it's also the people who um were in Christ beforehand. It's Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It's the
1:02:34
marriage feast or the the the feast at which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are sitting with us. So it's it's different. It's it's not so the church is not
1:02:46
Israel. Israel was a type pointing toward the church. The church is not the kingdom. It's the manifestation in this age of the kingdom. And it should in its
1:02:57
behavior point to the kingdom and the way the kingdom will be as at least as far as we can tell. Just think about the term the church. It
1:03:08
seems to by definition to a community that is distinct from that's that's a good point. Church means called out or assembly.
1:03:19
That that's an excellent point. Let me see if that helps my what understand what I'm saying here because it does touch on that the church in the current age is it exists set apart from the
1:03:36
non-church just as Israel existed set apart from
1:03:50
no there will be no Israel, there will be no church because there will be no distinction anymore. The separation that we read so much about in Leviticus was
1:04:02
because of because of the fallenness of humanity and Israel was set in the midst of humanity to be a witness in their worship.
1:04:12
And what I'm saying is that purpose is now the churches.
1:04:24
too. Yes. Yes. So um the all all of the elect of God will be in the new kingdom
1:04:34
both before Christ and his finished work and after. And so the the manifestations of those people before Christ, that's Israel, true Israel. The manifestations
1:04:46
after Christ, that's the church. But the people, which that's what's important, the people are perpetual all the way through. Okay? They go all the
1:04:56
way through. The different iterations and manifestations that we read in history are just that they have purpose, but their purpose is to to to tighten our focus until we begin to see what it
1:05:09
is God's doing with his remnant. But we realize that the people have never been interrupted. Never been a time at any point in history when God did not have
1:05:19
his faithful witnesses on earth. Okay. So, um and then the last one, of course, the Davidic kingdom. Of course, that that's the that's the kingdom of Christ. He he is the reigning king.
1:05:39
We we we need not look for a Davidic king in Jerusalem. We need not look for a temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem. We actually need not look for the Jews to possess the land that they were promised
1:05:52
by Abraham. They've already done that. And the meaning and the purpose of all of that has been fulfilled. And in Christ now, the typology of it is what's
1:06:04
important. What those things pointed to is what is now our reality. Now, uh, what does that mean? Okay, well, we don't need the Old Testament
1:06:14
anymore. Okay, again, that's where a lot of people go when they when they realize that Christ is the fulfillment of all the prophecies and all of the types and shadows. Sometimes they say, "Well, we
1:06:27
don't need that anymore." And that's a bit of a sticky wicket because you can you can overdo the Old
1:06:38
Testament and you can and we we've known people to do that and I imagine some of us have been tempted to do it ourselves. You can go back into the Old Testament thinking of that's how we are supposed to live.
1:06:52
So it's a constant challenge to read the Old Testament and recognize what is perpetual for the people of God and what
1:07:02
was momentary typological for the nation of Israel. of Israel. Some of the things are obvious at least for believers and that is for example the ironic priesthood.
1:07:15
But um as we get into chapter 21 uh I hope to point out that even that is not very clear. How do you suppose that the Christian church developed priests?
1:07:41
Yeah. We basically brought Judaism back. Okay. Now pardon me. And yeah, and and that's why we call, you know, we call that part of our church the sanctuary. And, you know, we we basically brought back Judaism. Now, in
1:07:53
in spades in in churches like the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Church, um that that's really it's just neojudaism as Spurgeon called Catholicism. We brought it all back as
1:08:06
if God still wants to be served by priests. But even among reformed theologians who fully and correctly acknowledge that
1:08:18
the high priest was the type and foreshadow of Jesus Christ, right? So what about the other priests?
1:08:36
priests. Okay. But you we'll get into it in more detail. If we if we don't we we need to go to the Old Testament to recognize the antitype by reading the types.
1:08:49
It didn't just come out of a vacuum. It didn't just drop out of the sky. All of these images are are given to us so that we might recognize more clearly their
1:09:02
fulfillment. just to start and stay with the New Testament. You can't possibly understand the depth and height and breadth of the love of God in Jesus Christ. That's all part of the types and shadows for
1:09:14
thousands of years ahead of Christ. And that's what we go to the Old Testament for. But sometimes we go back there, we see things that we think, you know, that would work really well. Vestments, for
1:09:25
example. Why don't we all wear robes? You know, priests, of course, pastors. We don't call them priests in the in the Protestant camp, but that's effectively what a lot of commentaries do with Leviticus
1:09:38
21, for example. They they go back to what the priest is supposed to be in his life and they immediate apply it to a pastor. Um, I don't think so.
1:09:50
I think the only connection that we have between the tabernacle and its environment and the ministry of Jesus Christ as we read in Hebrews is the high priest.
1:10:04
He is the one who entered the holy of holies and he is the one whose type was fulfilled in the great high priest Jesus Christ. as to the rest of the ministers
1:10:16
of the tabernacle that whole system is gone. is gone. So when we read Leviticus 21 and we read that um for example the priest is not to
1:10:30
mourn the death of anyone other than a close relative. close relative. Does that apply to pastors
1:10:40
today? Are we only allowed to mourn close relatives when they die? No. Okay. So, there's the danger of of and
1:10:50
and again, it maybe because of the danger some people just stay away from it. I think most people stay away from it because it can be very confusing. It it requires us to think. It requires
1:11:02
us to hold fast to the inherency of to understand that our understanding is not by any means complete
1:11:14
and to attempt over time to let scripture interpret scripture. But this is where I think first of all biblical theology is so important. But in the midst of biblical theology, I think we
1:11:24
need to recognize the types and realize that the the the literal perpetuity was actually never intended. It was
1:11:35
established upon conditions that could not be met, which in themselves, as Paul teaches us, points to grace.
1:11:46
Okay, that that's the only way I can I can um square the circle when when I said you know you've got you've got promises that are everlasting and
1:11:58
perpetual but then you have conditions upon obedience and then you have immediate prophecy that you will not obey. That's that's in this in the Old Testament
1:12:08
that's that's a logical conundrum. And I think the only way to to get through it is to recognize that the physical realities of temple, of king,
1:12:19
of land were themselves spiritual types of that which would be fulfilled in God's people by God himself.
1:12:30
And that's the grace of it. So when we look at the land in Leviticus 19, uh, which is where we're we're heading, I think this is the answer
1:12:44
that land, tabernacle, high priest, dividic king, these are all and and I know this is this sounds like
1:12:55
I'm diminishing their importance, but I'm not. I'm actually trying to elevate them and and keep the importance central. These are all roles that are part of the drama of redemption
1:13:08
during that act of the drama that we call Israel
1:13:20
changes the perspective of Torah. So that we read in Torah, we read in the law stipulations law stipulations that were violated on a regular basis by the patriarchs.
1:13:32
the patriarchs. marriage to sisters, marriage to a sister. Okay. Um just there's a whole number of of of things that are forbidden to Israel as they go into the
1:13:44
land that were never mentioned. Now, that's not to say that they were good things to do. You can see the consequences of those errors in the
1:13:54
lives of the patriarchs. So, I'm I'm not saying that God was ever in favor of anything, but a man shall leave his
1:14:04
family and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one. I think Jesus makes the point very clearly that that was the original pattern, and that's the way it was supposed to be all the way through. And anytime it didn't happen
1:14:15
that way, it was because of the hardness of your hearts. And if you read the story, you realize that the consequence of your foolishness was manifest then in your family. Hey,
1:14:26
look at David. Look at Solomon. All right. So, uh, but nonetheless, coming into the land is now a kind of a I hate to put it, a whole new set of rules
1:14:37
and and the the nature of these rules is intimately tied with the land. So that landedness becomes
1:14:48
uh contingent upon obedience. So it's it's not that the covenant is contingent upon obedience. No, the covenant covenant is monogistic. It's
1:15:01
God's work alone. That's why the people are perpetual. But I think fairly clearly the land
1:15:11
is granted on the condition of obedience. I think Leviticus 18 and 20 are the clearest examples of that. You've seen now, you will see
1:15:23
Joshua, the people, you will see how the land will vomit out the Canaanites because of their wickedness. But if you follow in their footsteps, you will see the land vomit you out as
1:15:33
well. So the land is actually, and I do not believe that's a metaphor, I think, and this may sound kind of weird. I think that all creation has within it,
1:15:47
this is going to sound pantheistic. It's and I'm not pantheistic. Not all creation is not God, but all creation came from the hand of God. And
1:15:58
therefore, all creation possesses I won't say I don't know what the word really should be. It possesses its existence by virtue of its relationship with God.
1:16:12
Is that a fair way of putting it? I think so. I I I think so. I I just when you when you say things like that, um I I said something like that in my
1:16:23
dissertation and my faculty adviser did not like it. Okay? And he made it very clear that he did not like it because I was personifying the land and personifying the earth. But I'm like,
1:16:35
what is Paul saying? Is this just metaphorical? When he says that creation is groaning under the weight of human sin, is that
1:16:45
metaphorical or does that explain plate tectonics? I I think the latter. I don't think God created an earth that's all broken up
1:16:55
and destroying itself with earthquakes. You know, I do think that all of that all of that natural violence that we witness like Monday morning, did anybody else wake up Monday morning? That was a
1:17:07
doozy that came through that front. Oh, wow. Okay. And and and I just, you know, lie there in bed thinking all creation is groaning. It, you know, it's not just
1:17:18
high pressure, low pressure, plates sliding and subducting. That's what we're doing in our in our age. We're we're we're taking the the reality of of
1:17:29
creation as part how do I be part of the work of God. it it's in it's endued with the power of
1:17:42
God and and it is will be redeemed fully by the grace of God. He has united himself to not only his image man but he's united himself to his creation and he's
1:17:55
committed to it. And so creation when when we read that at the death of Christ there were earthquakes and the sky was
1:18:05
darkened. I I think that it was creation's reaction to the death of its maker and and and again Ces de Mill did it well in in uh in Benhur. I mean oh he
1:18:18
did it really really well. um probably not as dramatic as it actually was, but it's the best I've ever seen uh in cinematography. But
1:18:29
cinematography. But so the the land here in Leviticus 18 and 20 and I think 19 is is really the heart of it. of it. The land becomes the arbiter of the
1:18:40
obedience of God. Okay. Right.
1:18:51
I'll I'll answer that. What does an arbiter do? An arbiter judges between. Okay. An arbiter judges between
1:19:02
and and gives judgment.
1:19:14
Okay. So the the arbiter stands between and the between is between God's people and God's law. Okay. So what we have here and we might look at it this way.
1:19:24
God's people and the law. the law. And this is the land.
1:19:37
The land is appointed as the judge of Israel's performance. If you do not if you do walk in the statutes of the people inhabiting the
1:19:47
land, the land will vomit you out. So it's it's both the arbiter and the executioner.
1:20:06
Israel will be vomited out for a period of 70 years. And we're told that that total is the the the Sabbaths that the land was not given. That the land will celebrate its
1:20:18
Sabbaths, but they will celebrate them in in continuous 70 years rather than the every seventh year that they were supposed to have them. You denied the
1:20:29
land its rest, but the land will have its rest. So the land, just as it was storing up the iniquity of the Amorites during those 400 years, the land is
1:20:41
registering every sabbatical year that was ignored by Israel. And then finally, when the fullness
1:20:52
arrived, Israelites were vomited from the land. No, certainly the the land didn't just kind
1:21:03
of heave up and toss everybody. No, no, but the but the the the language is that the land will vomit you out and the land will have its rest. The instrument of
1:21:14
that judgment on the Amorites, the land didn't just tilt and dump all the Amorites into the Mediterranean. What was the instrument? Joshua and the conquest. So yes, the
1:21:26
instrument of this judgment is and and I'm not trying to pretend that that inanimate nature comes alive and does, but it's still it's it it's part of it.
1:21:37
And our sin burdens God's earth
1:22:06
That That's a very good point because on the on the positive side, the promises of is it Garazim? I always get them wrong. Which one was the blessing? Gazim. The promises of the is
1:22:17
essentially a reverse of the curse. So this this thing of the land goes all the way back to Genesis 3 because of Adam's rebellion. The land will not yield to
1:22:28
you. Okay? So the land now becomes an opponent rather than an ally. But in the promises of Garazim, the land will yield. It will yield its blessing to you
1:22:41
if you walk in obedience. So the land I think is distinctly a player. But in Israel, it is like Israel, like the tabernacle, like the Davidic king,
1:22:54
typological. It points to the consummation of God's redemption where the land, the earth, will no longer bring forth weeds that we will no longer sweat to to earn
1:23:07
our food. Okay? I I think frankly we will still work but I don't think that work will be we will even call it that. Okay. Work is
1:23:17
definitely a four-letter word after the fall. Okay. So uh it is also the executioner. Now but the land is
1:23:28
is uh the way the land and the way the earth speaks earth speaks is not susceptible to our
1:23:39
interpretation. And too many Christians attempt to do so. And I I used this example example before, but it's the one I remember the most. And that was Hurricane Katrina
1:23:51
was was clearly meant for the homosexuals in New Orleans. Okay. Well, frankly, it missed, you know, at just a few degrees and that
1:24:01
would have solved that problem. There would be no more New Orleans. Um, but that kind of thing, I think, is is um is wrong. It's misguided.
1:24:12
We have a really hard time interpreting providence. We can understand that the earth is groaning. We can understand that the natural disasters and the
1:24:22
natural forces that we recognize in the earth are themselves a result of the corruption introduced by human sin. I do not believe God made an earth to have
1:24:33
earthquakes and volcanoes, hurricanes and tornadoes. and tornadoes. But we don't we can't take one particular earthquake or one particular hurricane and say, "Well, that's because
1:24:43
of this sin in this place." We can't do that. We can't go there. And even Israel could not necessarily say except through the prophets that this earthquake or
1:24:54
that famine was because of this sin. only they could go back to Garisim and say the fact that we had an earthquake, the fact that we had a famine when we were promised that we wouldn't if we
1:25:04
obeyed must mean we're disobedient. So, there was a logical conclusion there. I don't think we can make that anymore. But in the land, we're still faced with the land of Israel.
1:25:16
We're faced with an arbiter who's not speaking clearly. speaking clearly. Does that make sense? Okay. We have a bad harvest. Does that
1:25:27
mean we're all going to be vomited from the land or, you know, I I don't I don't know that they could even do that. There were poor in the land. And so, um, I I don't know that that there was any
1:25:38
direct connection between what the land was doing and what Israel either wasn't doing or should be doing. But I do think that in Leviticus, what we have is a
1:25:51
landed people or a landed community. So we we are told the land will vomit you out. The land is paying attention.
1:26:02
You're defiling the land has to be washed every year at Yam Kapor. Okay. The land needs to be cleansed.
1:26:12
But what do we do to keep the land from being defiled? being defiled? And that's where community comes in. So it's not just the land,
1:26:27
it's a landed
1:26:38
These two things, the people of God who have existed at least since Seth. Okay. So long time now they have been narrowed into a
1:26:50
specific tribe of the human race called Israel. The next difference is we're going to land them.
1:27:01
land them. We're going to give them their own land and then in this land they will now manifest God's grace or they will experience God's judgment.
1:27:15
The land will in large measure determine which. But they can't do anything about the land. But what they can do is about the community. And so Leviticus
1:27:28
18, as I mentioned before, tells us what's going to happen to the inhabitants of the land who haven't obeyed God remotely for 400 years. The
1:27:39
land will vomit them out. Leviticus 20 says, "If you don't deal with these things when they come up, which they will,
1:27:50
and they become part of your culture, as they were with Canaan, the lamb will vomit you out." But right in the middle we have precepts like you will not
1:28:00
harvest into the corners of your fields. You will not glean twice. You will not let the wages of your workers or the cloak of your worker stay with you until
1:28:10
morning. In other words, now you have community. And at the very center of it, and this is I think I'm gonna stop with this, but at the very center of this
1:28:37
which I believe is at the very heart of Paul's teaching to the churches. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Let's close in prayer.
1:28:50
Father, we do ask that you would help us to understand these things. Help us to desire to understand these things even if they uh present difficulties and and challenges to our understanding. We we
1:29:01
want to know your will. We want to know your what you have revealed of yourself and of your plan. And we want constantly to be pointed to Jesus Christ, knowing that in him all of your promises are yes
1:29:13
and amen. And so, Father, we pray that you would open your word to us by your Holy Spirit and cause our hearts to rejoice that you have revealed yourself to us of all the people of the world.
1:29:26
You have revealed it to your children that we might worship you and also witness for you and in your behalf. We ask your blessing upon our our thoughts
1:29:36
on these things. We ask your blessing as we travel home in safety. We pray in Jesus name. Amen.