0:02
questions that are in the first chapter. Uh if you had an opportunity to read that, but there there four questions that basically go with
0:19
this overarching paradigmatic question, what about Israel? And Paul asks it three times in the section uh Romans 9 through11. He asks it in different ways, but he's
0:29
basically asking the same question. I I mentioned last week that the way that Messiah came Messiah came was not the way he was expected.
0:41
Probably even by those who were expecting him as close to the prophecies as as anyone else, it's very unlikely that they got it all right. It's fairly
0:53
evident from the history, from the written records of the second temple era, that the Jews, even the best of them, didn't put it all together. And by that,
1:05
I mean the various uh Old Testament prophetic titles like the son of man, uh Messiah, son of David, uh servant of Yahweh, all these different titles that
1:16
we have in the Old Testament. um the prophet for example and we have an example of their kind of mixed up thinking and we can't blame them for it. I I'm not doing that. But when the uh
1:28
the Sanhedrin sent a delegation to John the Baptist and and asked are you are you the one meaning are you the are you the Messiah? Are you the prophet meaning
1:41
the prophet of Deuteronomy 18? Are you Elijah? You know and when he kept saying no they said well then who are you? you know, you're not any of these, but but that shows and just kind of by way of
1:53
example that they didn't put it all together. And so there are there is a human as well as a divine explanation for the uh the
2:06
unbelief of Israel. The the the divine explanation is in Romans 11 that God had has caused a hardening a partial hardening to come over Israel. The human
2:17
manifestation of that is they just didn't figure it out and and I don't think we can look back and say how how could they not have seen
2:28
well we don't always see it and we've seen the results and we still don't agree with the question what about Israel we don't agree what God was doing there what he did there and what he will do
2:39
there and so we have some really majorly different opinions as to the answer to this Christian. So, I don't think we can, you know, hold ourselves up as being especially enlightened um over the
2:52
second temple Jews. I'm not sure they would. Well, the disciples didn't get it and they were not among the ones that God were was hardening. They still didn't get it. Even after he rose, they
3:02
didn't get it. Okay. So, it's it it's it's definitely a mystery. But as I've said many times about this mystery, it's it's often erroneously
3:16
interpreted as something that nobody could figure out until it was revealed. Well, in a way that's true, but what do mysteries have
3:27
mysteries have that lead to the revelation of? They have clues, have clues, right? So just by calling it a mystery, even if we use the modern meaning of the
3:37
word, which is not the the old the New Testament meaning of the word for starters, but even if we use it, it's it's similar. If we use the word mystery as we understand it, that doesn't mean some absolutely opaque, impossible to
3:50
understand writings that are all of a sudden esoterically interpreted by Paul. That's not what Paul meant. And he copiously quoted the clues.
4:01
But even with those clues, the disciples didn't get it and we often don't get it. So I think the question, what about Israel is is still quite valid. And the questions then, four basic questions
4:28
Now I think this is an especially difficult question and probably the the answer to which in scripture um moved me 40 years ago out of dispensationalism
4:42
because essentially the answer the dispensationalism gives is yes God failed. God failed. Now they don't blame God.
4:53
God failed because Israel failed. But I don't know why God would have expected anything different given Israel's history.
5:04
Israel's history. But what the dispensationalist says is that God that God in all for all intents and purposes failed in the purpose for which his son was sent.
5:16
was sent. And so he's going to try again later. only this time he's not going to fail because he's gonna bring out the big guns. Basically Armageddon. Okay. So coming u
5:29
born of a virgin, born a child, taking on the form of flesh, being humiliated to the point of death and death on a cross. That plan didn't work.
5:41
So we're going to try another one later on where he comes with the clouds of glory and with power and majesty and just blows away all his opponents. that's bound to work. Okay.
5:52
Do do you get my drift though that that this is really not very God-honoring in terms of of his redemptive purpose? And and um you kind of wonder I wonder
6:04
why Jesus said it is finished from the cross. What's finished? His failure. His failure. Pardon me. Pardon me. His patience. His patience. His patience. Uh
6:24
Well, they do have a problem. Does that does that anticipate open theism? That God really doesn't know how the future is going to Well, yes. In fact, all Armenianism is open theism. If taken to its logical conclusion, if man's free
6:36
will is sovereign, then we are open theists. Is that a fair statement? Does anybody not know what open theism is? you haven't been here for that
6:47
discussion. Okay. Open theism is the view that says that even God does not know the future but he is moving forward boldly where no man no god has gone
6:57
before. Okay. Um that he he and man are lovingly going into the future together. U it is a major teaching in modern evangelicalism and some really big names
7:09
have adopted open theism. But open theism basically means that God has so willed that the future is open. It's contingent. But how could it be otherwise if you're
7:21
an Armenian? an Armenian? Think about that. If I mean if what God does is dependent on what I choose
7:38
choose and he's infallible then I'm going to choose what he knows I'm going to choose and I don't really have free will do I so if he knows the future see this is
7:50
where open theism goes beyond Armenianism Armenianism I know this is a rabbit trail but hopefully it will help our discussion Uh, Armenianism says that God foresees those who would believe.
8:01
Okay, you've all heard that before. And therefore, from eternity past, he elects those whom he foresees will believe. The problem with that is God what God foresees is infallibly foreseen.
8:14
Does that everybody agree with that? I mean, just as a logical premise. Okay. Which means when that point in time comes in history, that person must believe because he's
8:27
been eternally infallibly foreseen to believe. Well, that unravels the whole thing. And those who have thought that through but remain Armenian will then take the next
8:39
step. God doesn't know what you will choose. That's open theism. And and I will grant that it is the logical progression of Armenianism.
8:51
Someone has to be sovereign in terms of what happens. what happens. It's either God or us. I vote God. Okay. But so um yeah this this idea of
9:05
of um of um the plan of God to send his son failed. Some dispensationalists will say that, but they will very quickly say that it
9:17
failed because of Israel's unbelief. Well, that's Armenianism, okay? That God's plan to to save Israel was contingent on Israel cooperating.
9:30
They didn't cooperate. And so now you've got what was God what's God going to do? And then you have the question, well, what about Israel? Is God done with Israel or is God simply taking a break and
9:43
he'll come back to Israel later? Well, that's of course classic dispensationalism that he'll come back to Israel later. We'll talk some about that because it's not just I know that
9:54
people think that it's all about esquetology. Do you believe in a tribulation? Do you believe in a rapture? You know, it's where all that's not the point. That's not my point. I
10:04
don't think you've I don't know if you've been around for any length of time. I don't think you've ever heard me arguing for an esqueological end time position.
10:14
Have you? I mean, I don't really I don't go there. I do believe he's coming back. Um I tend toward a particular view view,
10:24
but I I just simply assume I'm wrong because I think we all will be wrong. I think we'll all go, "Wow, I didn't figure that out. I didn't see that coming. Praise God. I mean, it'll be all
10:34
glory. Just like John the Baptist, are you the one or you we look for another? Nobody quite figured it out. I think that's part of God's MMO. You don't quite figure him out. But that's not the point. What what I'm trying to teach is
10:46
that dispensationalism and covenantalism are hermeneutics. are hermeneutics. They're the way you read scripture. Okay? And that's important.
10:57
Okay? You're you're if you're reading scripture the wrong way, you cannot come without with the right answer. That's where it's all at. So, I know people have said that, you know, you're really
11:08
hard on dispensationalists. I don't care if there's a rapture. I really don't. I hope, you know, I expect that if I'm alive, as the scripture says, if I'm alive in that day, I will
11:19
be caught up with the Lord in the air. Again, if he comes, I don't really care. I mean, seven years of tribulation, is that going to be worse than the Hujino went through? Is it going to be worse
11:31
than than the the martyrs of the early church went through? Is it going to be worse than what our brethren in in in Iran or Indonesia, what they go through?
11:41
Jesus says, "Don't fear man who can kill the body, but rather fear God who can cast both body and soul into hell." You know, so this whole idea that we're not we're not under the wrath of God, so we're going to be whisked out of here.
11:52
That's escapism. But frankly, if things are going to get really bad and God takes me up, I'll thank I'll be glad for that, you know, and I've said I've said here in this class that, you know, if in
12:03
the new earth Jerusalem is a city over there in Palestine or Judea and Jesus is reigning from there, that's not going to bother me. bother me. I'll just go there and worship today.
12:13
It's like it's it's not really important. What's important is do we know how to read the Bible? And and I frankly don't think that the church has known how to read the Bible for a very
12:23
long time. And I do think that both covenantalism and dispensationalism have contributed to that inability to read the scripture the way it has been
12:34
written, the way it has been given. I think dispensationalism is more egregious in that than covenantalism. But I think they're both wrong. So that's where I'm coming from. Again,
12:45
it's not um it's not necessary that you agree with me, but at least understand that when I talk about dispensationalism, I really don't care about what your end
12:56
time views are. Frankly, I think the greatest lesson in esquetology has already been fulfilled. And we talked about that in the Pauline studies that that the most important
13:06
esquetology is old testament esquetology because that pointed to Jesus Christ and the and the inauguration of the new of the new creation. So all right having
13:18
said that you know what what what did God fail? Well again Paul Paul puts it very clearly. He says may it never be. I mean that's that right there that
13:29
statement may ganto or gito may it never be it's a it's it's a fundamental it's using words
13:39
using words that fundamentally deny the reality of that position that position that position cannot be it's it's about as it's about as firm a
13:49
statement that you a negation as you can make about any proposition is that it cannot be okay. So Paul's answer is
14:11
So if we don't understand exactly how it is that God did not fail with Israel, then the challenge is on us to figure it out and not to try a shortcut and say, "Whoa, we're just he's going to do it later. He's going to come back to it
14:25
later." um and then say that's not somehow a failure. God does not even temporarily fail in in all the things that we read in the Old Testament and the seeming
14:38
failures, the the the judgments, the plagues, um the the exile and all of that. None of those were failures on God's part. nor did any of them, this is where the
14:50
covenantalist and the or the the reformed and the dispensationalist part ways. None of those apparent failures
15:01
were either outside the purpose of God or in any way changed it.
15:19
Yeah, that's the one. I know. And and that's the word that that's the word. God regretted that he had even made man. God repented that he had ever made man. And I'll grant that's a difficult concept. Um but you you have
15:30
to let the rest of scripture teach you about the nature of God who knows the end from the beginning and whose ways are are past finding out but also past changing. What he what he bends no man can straighten and what he straightens
15:41
no man can bend. So yeah, there are difficult passages um in both the old and the new testament and that's one of them. What does it mean when God repents? Okay. Um but did that this is
15:54
the question. Did the flood anull the promise of the seed of woman? No. Because God preserved Noah, didn't he? And what I hope to show you in this
16:06
particular lesson is that every one of those stories follows a pattern. Okay, it follows a pattern and that they're missing the pattern because
16:17
they're not reading the scripture according to the right hermeneutic. They're not reading it the way it's written. They're not seeing the patterns that keep repeating themselves. And there's a reason why the first two
16:28
chapters of Genesis mirror the last two chapters of Revelation. They're the book ends. And in all of the lists and and we're talking about this
16:39
in our in our Milton class on the Bible as literature, there's so many different orders of both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, but in every single one
16:50
of them, Genesis is first and Revelation is last. Okay? And you can mix them up inside like a toss salad, I guess, but not really. We'll we're you have to attend that class to find out why. But
17:01
it's the pattern that we see and that's why Israel is so important because Israel's entire existence follows that pattern. And so yes, there are judgments
17:12
at Sodom and Gomorrah and then before that the flood and and there were judgments on the northern tribes where they were simply essentially wiped out from history. And so you think, well,
17:23
God must have failed. No. See, that's that's a remember we we talked about a couple things. First of all, you you you've got to be fundamental on your doctrine of who God
17:34
is. That's where you got to start. You in fact, that's bedrock. You let the scripture lay the bedrock of God and then you don't move it as you build your
17:44
theology, your house of theology. You don't move that foundation. So, if there's any joist, stud or whatever that you're putting into your structure that
17:54
requires you to move the biblical bedrock of the nature of God, don't put it in. Okay? You don't change the nature of God. Does the scripture portray God
18:07
as absolutely sovereign? I think it does. And so I look at that passage and honestly, Erin, I don't know that I could give you I could not give you a
18:17
definitive answer on what that why God says it that way. But I can say that he knows from the end from the beginning and and that his his word is forever
18:30
settled in heaven. And I know that the flood did not change the promise. And even when God said to Moses, "Stand aside. I'm going to wipe out Israel and I'll make a nation out of you.
18:41
like, whoa, what's going on here? See, that's a form of repenting, isn't it? I'm going to change my mind. I'm going to destroy all of Israel except for Moses and the Levites, or at least some of the Levites.
18:52
No, that can't be because of Genesis 49, where he promised that the scepter would never depart from Judah until Shiloh comes, the one to whom it is due. That's
19:07
Judah whom he would have destroyed allegedly. So you you you you fix your understanding of the nature of God which means what he has promised he will
19:18
fulfill and then as you go through the vicissitudes of biblical redemptive history and human history and there have been many people have wondered just in the church history what is God doing? I
19:31
wonder that now because I frankly don't think the church in general is in good condition. uh and you wonder what what are you doing God? And and there are places in the world that um that used to be
19:43
vibrantly Christian that are now burnt over districts. They they don't have any Christianity that you can find. So we don't know. Um what we do know is that
19:53
that God's word is settled and it and he doesn't fail. I think that's what Paul is pointing out in Romans that that what you're seeing with Israel's rejection
20:04
and the incoming of the Gentiles, this this is all within the plan of God and he is faithful. Though all men be faithless, he will be faithful. So the
20:15
the answer remains and I think you're in pointing that out. Thank you, Aaron, because that is there are plenty of scripture that you can bring up and say, "What about that?" Well, depending on
20:27
how you read the Bible, you you can get really tr tripped up over those. And there are some I know this and we're going to talk about this uh here in a moment. I'm going to read a quote. I mean, there are some who think that the
20:38
Bible or is absolutely perfectly clear. And then there are others who get very well pretty much the same, but um get very upset if if you say, especially
20:48
from the pulpit, I don't know what this means. But to say otherwise can often be very dishonest. You know, if you don't know what it means, say so. Just don't like
21:01
with your children. They come to you with and you don't know what it means, don't make something up. Help them. Study with them on it. But but bring in what you do know, the
21:13
nature of God. And that will at least tell you what it doesn't mean. And that's sometimes as important what as what it does because that keeps you from error knowing what it doesn't mean. All
21:25
right. So the second question if God did not fail in his purpose for Israel and Paul insists I'd say in no uncertain terms that he did not fail.
21:36
What then happened when Israel by and large rejected her promised Messiah? So the second question is
22:10
Well, we've you've asked me that before. I the the Messiah is a term that is purely for Israel. It's not a gentile term that I can see. It's not a gentile concept. He's the glory of Israel and
22:21
he's and he's going to be the salvation of the Gentiles. Absolutely. He's the same person, but as as I read the Old Testament, the Messiah is peculiarly uh
22:32
Jewish. Okay. So, I call him Israel's Messiah. And actually, I'm not alone in that at all. Does anybody disagree with that? That that the term Messiah
22:44
is a term that belongs to the people and the hope of Israel. The term Messiah, it's the Messiah is is definitely the salvation of the world,
22:56
but he's is Israel's Messiah. He wasn't coming from any other place. I guess
23:08
There's no nation. No, nation. No, he arises from the term itself. Yeah. And I and I guess when I say Israel's Messiah, I'm just reinforcing
23:18
that he is the seed of Abraham. Okay. That he is he it couldn't have been any other. I remember years ago um and and I say this I laughed at the
23:29
time and now I look back on I think well you know I probably shouldn't have laughed but there was a Christian comedian by the name of Tony Campolo some of you might remember him charismatic so you might not remember
23:41
him depending on where you were at the time but he's Tony Anthony Campolo and one of his skits he said Jesus was a Jew he says that's good he would have
23:52
been Italian but he had to humble himself I mean, that's both blasphemous and anti-semitic and you can't say stuff like that anymore. All right. Um, at the
24:02
time I thought it was funny, but the more I I read it and I thought, "No, you you have no idea. You have no understanding. He could not have been anything else." And he and he, you know,
24:14
and he had to be the Israel's Messiah. But the anointed one. Yeah, he was the anointed one. And I'm
24:24
not saying he's not our Christ. That foreign to the Oh. Oh, the idea of anointed one. No, that's not foreign. That's why they called him Christ because that's what the word means to be anointed. So, their kings and their priests were anointed.
24:36
They had anointings, too. But I'm I'm not saying that he's not my Messiah. He's my savior. He's but he's the Messiah of Israel just like he's the
24:47
seed of woman. He's the he's the uh he's the son of David, right? These these titles show us the
24:58
the flow of biblical redemptive history. If if we lose the title, then we we skip out of a particular path that scripture
25:08
takes us. Does that make sense? and the and the path called Messiah. Remember as I started this evening, there were multiple titles of somebody coming to do
25:20
something, right? Servant of Yahweh, son of David, um lion of the tribe of Judah. I mean, all these different titles that's that we could look at as maybe
25:33
paths. And during the first century, the second temple era, temple era, they didn't all coalesce into one person. We we know now that they did,
25:45
but if we don't use the right titles as we look at the path that led to Jesus, then we're basically wiping out that road. Israel was promised a Messiah.
25:58
The Greeks weren't. They didn't call Jesus Christ until they believed. And then they just simply called him Christ because Christos is the same word for um
26:30
right? But essentially the Messiah is Yeah. And he's also he's also God's king, you know. So the the um I the the whole
26:41
goal of this particular session of biblical theology is is this question right here. Israel's history takes up the bulk of the Old Testament obviously,
26:52
right? from the Exodus on through Malachi is all about Israel. And the amount of Old Testament references, illusions, and echoes in the New Testament means that that story doesn't
27:04
end with the advent of Christ. So I think it our the way we read the Bible is going to stand or fall on our understanding of the purpose of the
27:16
people of Israel and what God was doing there, what he did, and what he is doing. And that's what I hope to cover um in this particular session of biblical theology. It's a it's a large
27:27
it's a huge task. But the second question then and I'm not going to answer all these tonight because these are kind of guiding questions. The first one I'm not going to go back to because
27:39
I think it's it's just a silly question. Um it it shouldn't be. We should we should never ask such a question. Which is why I think Paul answers it in Romans 9:10
27:50
and 11 the way he does. What are you doing asking such there are such things as stupid questions. This is one of them. Okay. them. Okay. Whoever said that has never been a
28:01
teacher. There are such thing as stupid questions. So the second question is what happened when Israel by and large rejected her promised Messiah? Well, we're going to talk about that later
28:12
this evening because there are different views. Obviously, the earliest believers were Jews, were Jews, but then just as obviously historically,
28:24
the gospel kind of hit a brick wall and then spread out to more and more Gentiles. So that within a hundred years,
28:36
the church is predominantly gentile. within two 300 years or by the time of Constantine for example it's almost exclusively gentile and that's going to
28:47
remain that way for the rest of current history there's clearly been Jews who have been born again who have accepted Jesus as Yeshua
29:00
Hamashiach but that's a very small number right you know we're not looking at we can't look at Romans 11 and say oh God has removed the hardening because look at all the Jews flocking into into
29:12
into Christ. Um and so that's going to lead to different views of what does that mean for Israel? We'll talk about that this evening
29:23
because there and what does it mean for the church? What what what what is this what is this thing now we call the church? It's so almost purely gentile
29:33
now that we've we've tended to forget that it is in fact of Jewish heritage. um and and and born out of the revelation of the Old Testament and we
29:44
come up with ideas that Paul created a new thing, a new church and we come up with a lot of really silly ideas and somewhat dangerous ideas. So that second question is very important. The third
29:54
and really what I'm saying is the most important for any study in biblical theology. Is there any theological or hermeneutical significance of Israel
30:05
under the new covenant to the church? I'm sorry, the old covenant to the church under the new. Let me put that up on the board.
30:34
Now, I put those two words up there, but I I hope you understand that I don't see them as hermetically sealed. They're somewhat to me the two sides of the same or different sides of the same coin is if your theology is not hermeneutical
30:45
and it's not right. In other words, if you're not you're not reading the scripture hermeneutically correctly, justifiably I should say, then you're not coming up with the right theology.
30:56
But if you're also reading the Bible according to, let's say, a literary um view, a hermeneutics that recognize that it's one epic story, that's fine.
31:07
But you bypass theology as if it's not teaching us anything, then it's it's it's empty. It has no value as a as an as an exercise. So I
31:18
don't see these as two separate things, but I think they are uh different sides of the same coin. So any theological or hermeneutical um relevance
31:53
Now, another little bit of a sidebar, um, is very popular among reformed writers starting with the 16th century and on into the present to speak of Israel in the Old Testament as the
32:07
church. Um, that is very misleading. I think I think it does a great disservice but it falls into the uh the emphasis on continuity that is a hallmark of covenantal
32:21
hermeneutics whereas discontinuity is the hallmark of dispensational hermeneutics. dispensational hermeneutics. How are these two regions of time or dispensations or the way God is dealing
32:32
with man are they connected? The covenantalist says seamlessly. The dispensationalist says no, they're not. So there you see the two polar
32:44
opposites. Well, one of the evidences of the continuity class is to keep calling the church or calling Israel the church. The church the church the church in the wilderness is a is a very popular
32:56
phrase. um that is uh lexically acceptable because the one of the Hebrew words that is used to describe the community of
33:06
Israel is the cahal the assembly and in the Septuagent the Greek translation of kahal is almost uniformly
33:19
ecleacia which we translate as church. Okay. So go you go from a Hebrew language to a Greek translation into English and somehow you turn Israel into the church
33:29
of the wilderness. There's a theological reason they're doing that and I think it's slight of hand and misleading and I don't do it. So when I you know Israel we don't call it the church that doesn't
33:42
that sound confusing to you if you're reading a commentary and on Exodus for or Leviticus and it's talking about the church in the wilderness. Does it have a steeple?
33:56
It would means called out, which is what kahal means, which is nice. Kahal. It sounds like call, right? Yeah, that's the other one. I can remember. You all know I can remember tent because it's oh hell. Okay. I'll never forget the Hebrew
34:07
word for tent. So those two I got call. All right. Call y'all. That's southern Israel.
34:17
Same way Israel was called, right? But they're not the church. Yeah. I'm saying Yeah. I mean, philologically it's okay. It works. You know, if you want to say, "Well, it's, you know, it's just a translation." But that's not what
34:29
they're doing. Okay? That's it's it's disingenuous. I I won't argue with them there that it does in fact follow the trail of Hebrew to Greek to English. Fine. But that's
34:40
not what you're doing there. Uh because the the um it overemphasizes continuity backwards.
35:02
that the church is many things. It's the body of Christ. It's the bride of Christ. It's the it's the people who are bought with the blood of Christ. So to call the church in the old covenant before Christ even came and
35:13
shed his blood for before the the church the true church are those that are indwelt by the regenerating spirit of God. that hadn't come yet. We're even told in John 7 that it hadn't come yet. So, I'm
35:26
not saying it's it's technically wrong. I'm saying it's misleading. And what it does is it emphasizes almost a seamless continuity between the old and the new
35:36
covenant that if you read it, you you you're again logical conclusions. You wonder why did Jesus have to come? See? Okay. So I I reject that seamless
35:48
continuity the same way I reject the hermeneutically a hermetic hermetically sealed discontinuity of dispensationalism. I think they are extremes and both of them then represent
36:15
is not true of us anymore. Yes, you pointed that out this past Sunday. These things are not true of us anymore, you know, and so there's the discontinuity. Christ Christ is a
36:44
It is a lot. Yeah. So it's inacronistic, technically correct, but very misleading. Okay. So I I don't do it and I don't like it when I read it. It confuses me. Um Okay. So the third question then is is
36:58
really this is the application of our study. Okay. So this is this is the this is the meat in a sense, the content. Um why why Israel? What was it all about is kind of
37:09
the question. when when you look back at the history of the church and and even in the book of Acts and you realize it it didn't really work out the way at least the Jews were thinking it was going to work out and even the disciples
37:21
at our distance we can still ask the question what was that all about because it was all about something and that something culminated in Jesus Christ and his body
37:32
the church so this this is our history okay and I've often used the you know the analogy of of the fact that the United States is is entirely made up of
37:43
immigrants, either immigrants from Asia that came over the Bearing Strait or immigrants from Europe or immigrants under uh forced circumstances from
37:53
Africa for instance. Um but being a nation of immigrants, we have all at least most of us have adopted the heritage of our new country.
38:08
We don't really consider ourselves to be the heritage of of our grandparents or great-grandparents or however far you go back. That's not our heritage. And the
38:19
same thing analogously is true of believers. We're grafted in. We looked at that last week. We're grafted in. And therefore, our life is the same life of that olive olive tree that was Abraham's
38:32
seed. Is Abraham's seed. So this is this is really our history that we're talking about. The fourth question is really not a part of our study and that is is there
38:42
a future for Israel in God's overall redemptive plan.
38:57
And I I'll put this as is there a future for ethnic for ethnic because I don't want to get into the discussion of of of the Israel of God and true Israel. That'll come out. But um is there a future for ethnic Israel
39:23
I can't read Romans 11 and answer no to this question. I have to answer yes. But that's not really a biblical theological discussion. It's more of a
39:34
esqueological discussion. Um because I believe I believe that the purpose for which Israel was created and and we'll be pointing that out in few in a next
39:45
week or the week after the scripture speaks of Israel being created by God. Okay. So, Israel being created
40:03
necessitates a continuation because he's they're they're God's creation. Israel is God's creation, God's special, unique among all the nations. So, yeah, I think something is
40:13
left for Israel. But again, this is where you have to build your foundation solid. And that is there is no name given under heaven and earth by which we
40:24
must be saved. Right? So how can Israel be saved? Through faith in Christ. They must be
40:35
born again, right? And it says, you know, throughout the New Testament, as Peter says, you know, we have been saved just like them. talking kind of reversing things. Not saying the Gentiles will be saved just like us. He
40:46
says, "No, we are saved just as they are." Paul says that, "Okay, they're they're going to come in the same way we came in. They're going to be grafted back in to that olive tree." So, hey,
40:58
there's your fundamental foundation. Whatever you view as how it's going to happen, I think somewhat arbitrary. I don't know that the scriptur is anywhere clear enough to give us um uh reason to
41:10
be dogmatic on how it's going to happen. It's going to happen through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit resulting in faith in in Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father. That's how
41:20
it's going to happen. What that looks like and when it happens, I don't have a clue. But it's not going to happen any other way. That's that's the point. There's not going to be some new temple, some
41:31
new Levitical priesthood and sacrifices and and Jesus reigning as King David in Jerusalem. And no, it's not going to happen that way. And and yet the opposite view is it is
41:44
going to happen. You know, we can't say that Israel has been written off. Romans 11 cannot allow us. And I think the whole of of the Old Testament shows us that God's love to Israel on account of
41:56
the patriarchs was not from anything that he found within them. And his love never fails.
42:13
Yeah. That's right. That's right. It can't be any different. That's how we set it up. Yes. So there's your foundation. There's your foundation. The just shall walk by faith. By the works of the law
42:23
shall no flesh be justified. See, there's your foundation. We don't know exactly how it's going to come about in time. I don't know anyhow. If you do, write a book um or a blog of a podcast
42:36
or something. But what we do know is it's got to be the same way we were saved. Can't be any different. Okay? So, that's what I was saying earlier about the sovereignty of God. No matter what I
42:47
think about God repenting that he made man, he's still sovereign. He knows the end from the beginning. There's nothing that happens that is apart from his will. That's my bedrock. And now, you
43:00
know, that part of the house I really haven't finished yet. I don't I don't know what to build with there is I read those passages and I don't know exactly why those terms are used. But I'm not going to tear up the
43:12
foundation because of it. You know, I'm not going to make another way for Israel to get saved other than faith in Jesus Christ. All right. So, these are the four
43:22
questions. And as I said, uh the first question's got the obvious answer. We don't need to go over that anymore. And the fourth question is not really in the scope of a biblical theology class. And
43:34
frankly, again, um, returning to Paul in the same passage in Romans, I think the answer here is absolutely yes. There's a future for ethnic Israel. That that
43:46
hardening that has come upon them will be removed and so all Israel will be saved. I don't really go with the idea of the reformed interpretation that by
43:57
all Israel is meant the whole church. See there, that kind of also goes back in reverse order. and we say that Israel is the church. Paul seems very well able to keep those
44:09
two distinct in all his writings. Okay? He does not blend Israel and the church even though he fully accepts that in the
44:20
in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile yet there is still Israel and there are Gentiles. So that distinction remains. I think
44:45
Yes. And I think that's where so many people go. Yes. Um the difference between ethnic or or um redeemed elect. Let me just use
44:55
the word elect because the elect are settled. The number of the elect is settled. It's not going to be added to or taken from because they're chosen. We're all chosen from before the foundation of the world. Okay. So, let's
45:06
say the elect of Israel who have not yet been called. That is very different than political Israel. And I do think that political Israel has confused a lot of
45:17
people. I I think they look to political Israel and things going on in the Middle East and they try to interpret their Bibles through what's going on in the political
45:29
realm. This we're not the first people to do that. I I just think confuses a lot of folks. It shouldn't
45:49
look forward to Christ. Now we look back on what he did
46:00
including Christians look to the restoration of Israel just they they see in the restoration of political Israel fulfillment of Old
46:11
Testament prophecy. They do. I I don't see that. I but don't get me wrong. I I think if if any people deserve to have a land, it's it's the
46:22
the Jews. the Jews. I have a soft spot in my heart for Israel and I think it's wonderful country survived, but it's not
46:32
our our salvation is not contingent. No, no, absolutely. And I I do think it confuses a lot of people and um I think it can lead them astray in what again is
46:44
most important that is how do you read your Bible? How do you read your Bible? Do you read your Bible politically or according to current events? Then I I
46:54
think you're going to be misled constantly. And and we have plenty of examples of of that misleading hermeneutic where people have made predictions and said this is this is
47:05
what you know the end of the world's got to be in the late 18 1980s because you know the fig tree and then the generation well 1948 Israel became a state 40 years from that 1988 there were
47:16
a lot of people in the mid to late 80s saying it's coming it's coming and what did what came George HW W. Bush.
47:33
2000. Exactly. Y 2K. They even got that a year off. But yeah, it's all going to end. It's all But they did that about one two or Y 1K as well. They did it. It was like it's going to be the end of the
48:11
No, it's not new. Well, that's what we're doing. We're helping God, right? But it's again I I really believe and maybe this is a I'm I'm just I play an instrument with one string. But I do think it comes back to
48:22
hermeneutics. It comes back to how you read your Bible. If you don't read your Bible the way it's written, and I don't I don't think I do. I'm not I'm not trying to say that. I do think with the help of of many that I've read many u
48:35
kind of late 20th century into the 21st century uh it's been a big help that that I started out dispensational then covenantal reformed but just
48:46
realizing that these hermeneutics are um they're frameworks that that are not organic and you find you find yourself forcing things into your framework to
48:58
your paradigm and it doesn't matter how square the peg is, you're going to get it in that round hole. And um it it just I've often said, you know, that the best
49:09
theology is the one that requires the minimum of duct tape. Some of these require a lot of duct tape. And Israel is a very interesting phenomenon. I mentioned it in the notes. Why Why
49:19
didn't it go the way of Moab and Edom and Ammon? Why has it not disappeared? Why have the Jews not disappeared from the human family? They have not. I think
49:30
that's significant. I really don't know why. I mean, it is significant. They're there. And the only reason they can be there is because they are God's people. They were chosen through Abraham, Isaac,
49:41
and Jacob. And for that love, God has never failed. Now, clearly, they are in a period of horrible judgment.
49:52
And and I've said this before, those who advocate that the state of Israel retake the Temple Mount Temple Mount in order to do like the Crusades,
50:04
rebuild the temple and bring in the esqueological culmination. esqueological culmination. Do not understand how many thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of unbelieving
50:17
Jews and Arabs will send each other to hell. over such a thing. I mean, at least the government of Israel seems to understand that. But there's a lot of Christians in America that don't understand that that
50:29
we we would be advocating an absolute bloodbath of unbelief. That's not how it's going to work.
51:14
So that's a political or a cultural hermeneutic is what it is. They're not reading their we we can read our Bibles and and actually come out ambivalent towards the state of Israel. I mean the
51:26
political nation of Israel. We can be ambivalent. It's another nation among nations. It it deserves to be a nation. I think personally it deserves to defend
51:37
itself, but on the flip side, it ought to treat its citizens with respect and honor. Okay? And so, yeah, we could have political discussions about the Middle East without any biblical prophecy
51:48
coming into play because I just don't think it does. I really don't. I think it's a it's not understanding the purpose for which God created Israel and recognizing the fulfillment of that
52:00
purpose in the the Israelite, the servant of Yahweh, the Messiah. Okay? Everything came down on him for Israel. And then he did
52:13
before God what Israel was called upon to do and failed to do just like he did what Adam was called to do and failed to do. So you have your Abrahamic
52:24
christologology, you have your Adamic Christology. It all comes down to Jesus. Which means as Paul says, all things have passed away. Behold, all things are
52:35
new. We've come down to a point in time with the resurrection of Jesus Christ where the new creation is now inaugurated. So trying to trying to take things from
52:46
the old and bring them into our era really gets kind of ridiculous. And if you read some of the kind of mid 20th century books on the end times, you'll
52:58
find Moab and Edom and Ammon and Gog and Mog all resurrected, all resurrected, all brought back to the political arena.
53:08
Why? Because God needs to kill them all again at Armageddon. That's really weird. That's really weird. Okay, they're gone.
53:21
In fact, how would we even know they're Moabites? I don't think there's a DNA class that that would, you know, maybe 23 23 and me will find out whether they're how much Moabitete they have in them. No, you see, it just takes you
53:34
down paths that are not enlightened. It just goes darker and darker into a false hermeneutic that does not glorify God in Christ. If anything, it glorifies your
53:46
own ingenuity, your own imagination. But it just I don't know, you know, hey, if if I'm wrong and if God resurrects Moab and Edom, I'll say I'm sorry. Okay, I
53:57
get you all back together in heaven on Thursday night and I say, "Sorry, I did not see that coming, but I told you I didn't see it coming." All right, so those basic questions. Um I want to read
54:10
a a quote from Lewis Sperry Schaefer who was um a a leading advocate of dispens classic dispensationalism. He was a professor I think he may have been dean
54:22
of faculty at Dallas Theological Seminary wrote systematic theology that is still widely used in um dispensational seminaries. He says this
54:32
about how we understand the answer to these questions and and the the second word he used well the third word unless you use a contraction the third word he
54:43
uses will tell you where we're headed it is simply just stop there it is simply and only a matter of giving
54:56
attention to the things God has said and said In understandable terms, the Bible terminology is always the simplest of
55:06
any literature. No, you just look at his qu his his photo. He's not a comedian. Um, no, he's
55:16
very serious. Very very serious. Uh, very uh academically astute. He was no he was no slacker in his knowledge of the Bible, which is really what's odd
55:27
that you could you could say something like this that the Bible is always the simplest of literature.
55:38
Bible. Yeah. Yeah. The Barney Bible. Um I I don't know. He's I I hate to say this that he's he's
55:48
not really being fully honest there. What he's doing is he's advocating, we talked about this before, he's advocating a literal hermeneutic. And when he says simple, I don't think
56:00
he means, and I have not read all of Schaffefer, so I'm not an expert on what he's written, but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that I'm going to say that I think what he means is
56:12
that those promises that were made to Israel belong to Israel and no other people. That's what he means.
56:28
And so he actually says, I don't know if I have that quote handy. It's it's in I believe it's in chapter 2 notes. So um hopefully you'll you'll get to it. Um but he actually says that um to it is
56:41
illegitimate to take any promise that was made to Israel and give it to the church. that is allegorizing and
56:57
What do you think he thought Jesus meant when he said to the Jews that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to another?
57:17
When Paul says in Romans nine, he quotes from Hosea to the Gentiles, you who were not a people are called the people of God. What does he mean?
57:30
So, Schaffefer is denying what Jesus and Paul do Paul do and say that promises that were made to Israel of a kingdom, Jesus says it will
57:43
be taken from you and given to another another Jew. another Jew. No, it's going to be given to the Gentiles. So, you know, there's some serious
57:54
problems with the dispensational hermeneutic, but the fundamental problem is that literalism that does not allow them to see any promise made to Israel being in any way
58:06
fulfilled in the church. They that that's it. That's that's really if there's one place that the dispensationalists cannot go, that's it.
58:18
There is a movement known as progressive dispensationalism. I link it uh analogously to theistic
58:29
evolution because it's a view that tries to blend two opposite views and does so well that both opposite views reject it. Because there's no evolutionist around
58:41
who agrees with theistic evolution and there's no theist around who believes or agrees with theistic evolution. There it's it's a it's a combination of two things that cannot mix. Well,
58:52
progressive revelation does this. They say that the spiritual promises have been fulfilled in the church but the physical promises will be fulfilled in
59:03
the millennium. They make a distinction in the promises. Now what happens however like all such distinctions is they can't agree on which promises were
59:14
spiritual and which promises were physical. The land is physical. That's really what it comes down to is the land. Who's going to get the land?
59:25
The meek. They get the earth, right? Yeah. They get the earth will get the meek will get that's good answer. Yeah. Um but that's where but with a dispensationalist that's what it's all about is the the land. Who's going to
59:36
get the land? who's going to get the city of Jerusalem? And they but they cannot accept that those promises have anything to do with the church. So, okay, we're not going to we're not
59:47
going to go into great detail there, but I wanted to point out that this is what we're dealing with as we're reading through now the Old Testament and especially the history of Israel in a biblical theological manner.
