imaginations of large numbers of people, particularly people in the Bible Belt. And they are attracted to it for any number of reasons. My wife was telling me last night about a relative. They had a Jewish lady come to their church and point out how all these prophecies and revelations were being fulfilled in contemporary events, and the relative's response was that she'd become dispensationalist because of that presentation. Of course, the problem with a presentation like that is, is that 20 years from now, all of those fulfilled prophecies will not be fulfilled prophecies. That's one of the great difficulties with distensationalism and time setting we don't compare scripture with time magazine we compare scripture with scripture and if our interpretation of scripture is dependent upon current events our interpretation of scripture is flawed people don't admit this but this kind of thing has been going on in distensationalism forever I can remember when we lived in Mississippi in the 70s and there was a special that was being run on one of the few television stations we could get. how the events in Russia were fulfilling the prophecies of Revelation. And they had these tanks, they had the number on them, 666, and the tanks were going to be the scorpions that came out of the pit. Of course, that doesn't sound very literal to me. But anyway, we'll come back to that. Of course, none of them now are saying that Russia is going to be the problem. And you remember the first Iraq war, literally the books were produced to show that these were events in fulfillment of prophecies and revelations. And of course, that passed. And now there's people taking the second Iraq war and doing the same thing. And it's too going to pass. That's a prophecy I can make. Simply because we don't interpret prophecy from scripture by current events. There's not a concept and hardly a phrase in the book of Revelation that is not in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is the key to the book of Revelation. Particularly what we call the apocalyptic sections that deal with the judgment of God. And so that's what often carries people away. It's a great romance to be able to do this, to hold up the newspaper and say, see? And it's a bit of a validation for Christians. And it's the wrong kind of validation because eventually it invalidates us. But the system itself is not premised upon trying to figure out in current events what is going on in the book of Revelation but rather it's premised upon a very different approach to the Bible than for the most part the church ever had before the middle of the 19th century. And so when we talk about dispensationalism in terms of its eschatology, we have to look at it as a system as a whole. Because you cannot divorce what they're saying about revelation or current events from the broader system of dispensationalism. And so what I hope to do initially is to give you a definition and then some basic parts and principles and quickly look at how they divide the Bible up and then we'll offer some initial critiques. Dispensationalism, Dr. Smith quotes a 1909 Scofield Bible and let me just say there's a Scofield Bible and there's a new Scofield Bible. Now, they never admit in the new Scofield Bible that they've changed the notes from the old Scofield Bible. And that's one of the problems that I have with any system that will change and you never admit they've changed. Now, the progressive dispensationalists will say we are departing from the system here, here, and here, and that's very useful. But when you have a Schofield Bible or a new Schofield Bible, the notes do change and this sensationalist never let on, it seems to me, that they've made some very radical changes in their system. But Dr. Smith and his systematics, do we have any of those back there, Margaret? Do we have any Dr. Smith books back there with systematics? Anyway. A dispensation is quoting the Scofield Bible notes in Genesis 127. A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God. For said period of time, there is a test or probation of mankind with respect to some specific manifestation of the will of God. Now in the old Scofield Bible, Each of those tests had to do with salvation. It's not that you could have been saved that way, but God was testing them with an offer of salvation in some other way. The New Scoprio Bible, recognizing the difficulty with that, no longer has the tests to do with... I didn't turn it on, did I? Is it on? Now it's on. How was it on? Now I know it wasn't. This one was, but that one wasn't. All right, very good. Jim was having to tend to another problem and he couldn't wave at me. But now, Venema gives this definition that's more in terms of traditional NUSCO field dispensationalism. And by the way, I don't want to say things and assume. Schofield was the Bible expositor who really systematized and popularized the system in his study Bible in the first part of the 20th century. A man named Darby, who was one of the founders of the Plymouth Brethren, was kind of the early founder of the system. Schofield was the popularizer of the system with his Schofield Bible. And then particularly the Dallas men, Robert and Ryan and others, did the New Schofield Bible. And so the system initially came out of the notes of these initial study Bibles. But then in the book that Dan mentioned, I really encourage you to order, although he is omnil, it is an excellent book on these things. In dispensationalism, however, this term is used to describe the various ways in the history of redemption by which God regulates man's relationship to himself. So the regulation of the relationship, you're not saved by these things, but it's regulated, but the idea of a test is still there. Then, in the progressive dispensational definition, dispensation is a particular arrangement by which God regulates the way human beings And so actually venomous definition is much closer to the progressive dispensationalist than it is historic dispensationalism. So you've got these basic parts. You've got a divinely given stewardship, that's the dispensation, the administration, based on a particular rule of life. It's reviewed in the progressive unfolding of truth and scripture. So there's a temporary stewardship or dispensation based on a rule of life. Second, there's a time element. There's an economy with a distinct beginning and end. So there's this rule that is administered. It's administered in a particular time. The rule of life is not a way of salvation. It was initially. It isn't now. I'm used to going across people that never got away from the old school through a Bible. They think that is dispensationalism. They don't realize that all their teachers no longer teach that. But now it's not a way of salvation but a rule of life. And that each period is brought to an end by a crisis that introduces the next period. So an administration of a rule of life for a specific period of time with a distinct beginning and end a rule of life not a way of salvation and the transition is always at a time of crisis those would be the basic parts of the definition now some principles the first is what they would call the literal interpretation of scripture and I call the literalistic interpretation of scripture although Some of them will turn scorpions and horses with the tails of scorpions and things of that sort and all that into modern weapons. Others of them will still maintain that literally these are the kind of things that are going to come on the earth. It's more fun to turn them into modern weapons. But that is no longer a literal interpretation of scripture, is it? The thing they really bank on is what they call literalism, and we call it literalistic. And in fact, they're inconsistent with their literalism. Second, is a very distinct contrast between Israel and the church. Jesus came to offer the kingdom to the Jews. They rejected it. and crucified him, and with that rejection there's a parenthesis now in the history of redemption. This era of grace in which we live was not part of the revealed Old Testament plan of God. And so they will say that the church is never mentioned or prophesied in the Old Testament. the people of God and Israel rejected Christ then the church came into existence and we live in this parenthesis in history and this ties into their eschatology then because they become pre-mill at this point so that what's going to happen when Christ comes at the end of the tribulation before the millennial reign is the Jewish kingdom will then be established and we'll come back to that and the church will be no more. Now there will be Jews saved during the parenthesis by being brought into the church but in the kingdom it's the Jews who are in the driver's seat and Gentiles who become part of the Jewish kingdom to be saved. And this contrast grows out of another distinction we'll talk about in a moment and that is the belief in the land promise that God has promised the land to the Jews, and that's an eternal possession. And so that's why they have to make this distinction then between Israel and the church. So that Christ came and offered the kingdom to the Jews. Now, one of the passing difficulties is what if they had accepted it? How would God have atoned for sin? Well, they would not hold to the necessity of the atoning work of Christ then for the remission of sins and so again the Jewish kingdom is going to be the re-institution of the sacrifices and so that it tends at that point at least to be ambiguous and so literalism with respect to scripture a distinction between the Jews and Israel and that includes then the offering the kingdom to the Jews that what would happen if they accepted it. Third distinction we talked about last night is the pre-tribulation rapture. So just remember that all sides for the most part agree, there might be some preterists that don't, but at least most people agree there's going to be this apostasy before the return of Christ. Now, where it gets difficult is, is how long does that go on or where, you know, right now even, you know, we don't, those are the kind of things that we don't have answers to, we're only, we can't figure some of these things out. But we all agree it's going to happen. And so, but they see this is going to be such a terrible time of tribulation before Christ returns that God is going to take the church out of it. And that's why it's pre-tribulation rapture. Now there are those who are dispensationalists who will say it's in the middle of the tribulation and a few at the end. But the basic hallmark is that before the seven year tribulation begins, God's going to hook this church up and it doesn't have to suffer. And that's a third distinctive with respect to... And the reason of that is because there's no prophecies that relate to the church. And so the church has to be removed from the scene before God begins to fulfill the prophecies with respect to Israel. And connected with that is their idea of imminence. Now remember we talked earlier about imminence as this reality that none knows the time and in comparison to eternity it's very near and we should live ready. For them imminence means yesterday. and that's why you've got, again you don't get any detractions Hal Lindsey, Lake, Great Planet Earth he made a lot of money off that book you know that's left behind to make lots of money in fact it's in jest but it's in loving jest if you go up to Liberty College Mr. Lindsey took some of the millions he's made and built a student center now Has anybody seen that student center? It's built to be left behind. It's the ugliest thing. It's a metal building, but a real metal building, not a metal building with a brick facade. It's architecturally and structurally pitiful. But that suits the best ecology. Maybe a stewardship as well. But here's the Tim LaHaye Student Center and it's just an ugly, This is going to be in public, isn't it? Tape. Okay, no. I'm befuddled. It's a pretty ugly building. And I suggest, whether it was conscious, I'm not accusing anybody of bad motives, put that on the record there. Whether it was conscious or unconscious, your theology affects what you do, your eschatology affects what you do. Why build a beautiful building if you've just written all these books? We're about to get raptured out of here, because it's imminent. And that's why you see these pitiful bumper stickers, beware that the rapture of this car is without a driver. I mean that's part of the system though is that at any moment, I hope all of you will disappear, that none of us will be left behind, but anyway, it can happen at any moment. And so the eminence is part of this pre-trib rapture distinction. A fourth thing is the millennial reign which in government and political character will fulfill all the prophecies about the world as the kingdom of Christ. It's during that millennial reign that the curse is lifted, the desert blossoms literally in Palestine and Christ will reign on earth. Another distinction is the ethics and that is The Ten Commandments are part of a mosaic system, a mosaic system that's left behind. And so we don't have that system. We do have the ethical system the epistles give us, but it's often connected with dispensation, dispensationalism, what we call antinomianism, a very low view of law and of Christian life. Again, if the hope is rapture, Why worry about sanctification? This is why, I mean, some of you probably have prophets from the books of A.W. Pink. Do you have a prophet from A.W. Pink? A.W. Pink was a dispensationalist. And what brought him out of dispensationalism was the Bible's emphasis on holiness and not eschatology. And he began to examine the system because he had a heart for holiness. And the system is not a system that has a... I'm not saying that there aren't holy people, some of them, but it doesn't have a... the system doesn't have a heart for holiness. And then the land promise is the other distinction. This is the promise that the land was promised to Abraham and his physical descendants as an everlasting possession. It's very important. As I said this lies behind the distinction between the church and Israel that the seed of Abraham or his physical descendants is called an eternal promise thus it is an unconditional eternal promise sealed by a covenant that we'll come to called the Palestinian covenant and it was not fulfilled then in the reign of Solomon So these are the arguments with respect to the land promise. So these are the underlying factors. I'm going to review them for you again very quickly. The literal interpretation of scripture. The contrast between Israel and the church, with no Old Testament prophecies being about the church, Christ came to establish the kingdom. When it was rejected, he established the church as a parenthesis in God's purposes. The pre-trib rapture, the millennial reign of Christ in a revived Palestine and Jerusalem, with a temple and sacrifices, the cessation of the Ten Commandments, and the land promise. Now those are the basic distinctives of dispensationalism. Now these things drive then the approach to the Bible. And the tag dispensationalism comes out of that definition that God has had these specific dispensations, administrations where he gives a rule of life for a distinct period of time. Well, traditional dispensationalism says there's seven of these distinct periods of time, each one ending the next beginning with a crisis. Now I understand there's others that will have more. Is that right, Jim, that some will have more than seven? You don't know. I have heard, and you got, I mean, we're trying to stay mainline and respectful and honest. There are the more radical dispensationalists. And Jim does know about these, but actually will say that the sacraments are not part of the dispensation in which we live. And so the different ones cut off the change of the Sermon on the Mount. Now that was kingdom theology, that's not for the church. And they cut it off at different periods, and so they can't quite agree there on when this dispensation begins, although most of them agree when it ends. Traditionally there are seven dispensations. But what I didn't know until I started working on this to teach the critique in my Christ and Salvation class, alongside the seven dispensations are eight covenants. So dispensations have seven dispensations and eight covenants. Now quickly, the seven dispensations are innocence, conscience, government, promise, law, grace, a church, and kingdom. I'm going to do it again. Innocence, conscience, government, promise, law, grace, a church, and kingdom. Now, within and alongside those are the eight covenants. The Edenic Covenant, which was the covenant with Adam before the fall, so that would parallel innocence. The Edenic Covenant that begins, depending on the writer, either with Genesis 3.15 or Genesis 4, and that goes along with the period of conscience. The Noahic Covenant is with the dispensation of government. The Abrahamic Covenant is the dispensation of promise. The Mosaic Covenant is with law, the Palestinian Covenant is with law, and the Davidic Covenant is with law. Now, one finds it downright interesting that the Davidic Covenant doesn't get its own dispensation. But why would that be? Well, it was a kingdom. A promised kingdom to the Messiah. And thus, Since that doesn't happen until the millennial reign, you've got the Davidic covenant under the Mosaic economy, but the millennial kingdom does not take place until Christ returns. And then the new covenant that is now part of this period of grace of the church. So seven dispensations, and so innocence was Genesis chapter 2, with the absence of the Sabbath, they don't put that in there Genesis chapter 2 with work and marriage and the probation with respect to Adam's obedience and so that would end with the fall of Adam and the Edenic covenant would, that's what leaves out the Sabbath and that's in the New Schofield Bible and so the test was not to eat the forbidden fruit and that ended in disobedience and expulsion so there's the crisis and immediately with that crisis was the dispensation of a conscience and that says that mankind and Adam responsible to do all known good and to abstain from all known evil and to approach God in sacrifices and that goes somewhere between Genesis 3.15 or Genesis 4 to Genesis 6.5 and its result is the absolute total depravity of the human race with the exception of Noah and it of course ends with the crisis of the flood and in the Moraic dispensation a covenant begins with God covenanting with the creation and the dispensation of government where God now man has failed and the flood comes in because man failed to rule righteously but his responsibility for government has not ceased and the Noahic covenant is a secular covenant according to them and not redemptive the Abrahamic covenant is the centerpiece of dispensationalism It's the promise to Abraham that he and his seed will inherit the land. It's a program for Israel to provide a savior for all who believe and that dispensation of promise is accompanied or administered through the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 17, 2 and following. And then the covenant of law is the rash acceptance of God's law, God's covenant at Mount Sinai. Now the New Scripture says it is a rule of living for people already in covenant with Abraham and covered by the blood. It's the way the nation might, through obedience, fulfill her proper destiny. So we move now from individual to the nation. The crisis would be, of course, the exodus. The people are brought out of Egypt and become now a nation, and that has three covenants in it. The Mosaic Covenant, that's since 1915. The Palestinian Covenant, and this is Deuteronomy 30. Now I want to read that because this is the primary basis. The Palestinian Covenant is through the Mosaic dispensation, God's way of sealing the promise of the land to the physical descendants of Israel. Deuteronomy 30 verses 3 and 5. Then the Lord your God will restore you from captivity. Now this is after Remember the people are told that if they sin they go into captivity. Restore you from captivity. Have compassion on you. And will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. And the Lord your God will bring you to the land which your fathers possessed and you shall possess it. And he will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers. Now, that took place Now it seems to me that biblically took place when Cyrus sent the people back to the land. The temple was rebuilt. Sacrifices were re-instituted. But they say that has not yet been fulfilled. And because the people then again were driven from the land when the temple was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70. And so the Millennial Kingdom is going to be the time that the Palestinian covenant shall come into its full reality. But that's part of the Mosaic dispensation. The Davidic covenant is also part of the Mosaic dispensation and that is that David shall have a son who sits on the throne forever. 2 Samuel 7.16. Now the dispensation of grace comes in with the crisis of the rejection of Christ. So the Mosaic Covenant goes from the exodus to the rejection of Christ. That crisis brings in, then, grace, a church. Some put the New Covenant here, and then personal salvation to every believer. Some put the New Covenant into the Elimium, since it's also very Jewish in nature. and looks forward to the future conversion of a separate Israel with whom the new covenant is to be ratified. And this is that distinction between the church from Israel and Israel from the Gentiles. The millennial kingdom is brought in by the crisis men of the tribulation and the return of Christ and he'll then live on the throne in Jerusalem for a thousand years, and this is the Jewish kingdom with the temple and the sacrifices being reinstituted. At the end of that thousand years then, Christ shall turn the kingdom over to the Father. So that's some of the basic outline. There's progressive dispensationalism, which is progressing. It's not something that's at all static. and it is moving closer and closer to Covenant Theology and that's a very good thing although some like to say we're really not at all influenced by Covenant Theology others have been more honest to say that they are and ultimately God's redemptive purposes bestow the same redemptive blessings upon the whole people of God now progressivists and facialists have rejected the Jew-Gentile distinction I mean the Jew church, the Israel church distinction and do not see the dispensation of grace as a parenthesis. So many of them have become fairly covenantal in their view to scripture and simply more traditional premillennial. Now, the, the filter down theory hasn't worked well. are not at all well aware of the fact that the teachers in their seminaries have rejected traditional dispensationalism. And so you've really got quite a crisis today where you've got your broad-based dispensationalists in the congregation who are still basically holding to the writings of Rory and Walvoord and the New Scofield Bible and others like that. We have this new breed of dispensationalists that have move very close to covenantal theology and basically be more historic pre-mill than anything else. And so our critique would not have to do with them. Hooking them to the critique, first of all, is a methodological critique. The system, as I've already mentioned, exegetically, the literal interpretation is literalistic at times, but not at other times, but more importantly, fails to look at how the New Testament applies the Old Testament prophecy. Scripture interprets scripture. So, for example, in Acts chapter 2, verses 16 and 30, Peter applies the events, applies the prophecy of Joel to the events that are taking place in Pentecost on the church. And in Acts chapter 15, James applies the prophecy of Amos, I think it is, and the rebuilt booth of David to the gathering of the Gentiles into the church. And that is Acts 15, 15, and with this the words of the prophets agree. and this is the Gentiles being incorporated into the church and he quotes there by inspiration Amos chapter 9 and verses following and so the system exegetically doesn't work and one of the interesting observations is the exegetes in the system The men that started out as dispensationalists, teaching New Testament, Old Testament, invariably have left the system. S. Lewis Johnson, Bruce Walkie, so many others. Because they recognized that the system had no way to deal with the interpretation of scripture. The church historians have left the system. because it's all historical. It pays no attention to how the church has believed and how doctrine developed up until the middle of the 19th century. That really was driven home to me when I was pastoring in Houston and a person came to our church and I think we were doing, we were reading Calvin's Institutes and they thought that was really strange. They said in our church they don't think anything in church history happened before the 1850s. I've asked around since then, and they're very unhistorical with respect to the history of church development doctrine. But you see, that's why the church historians, like John Hanna, have to leave the system, because they recognize the system itself. And so it's the systematicians, not the systematic theologians, but I'm an exegetical, I hope, an exegetical systematic theologian, it's the systematicians that keep pushing the system. Divorced from good exegesis and divorced from church history. And so their interpretive method is greatly flawed. Second, they fail to see the unity of God's redemptive purpose. Not traditional, not progressive. And so you've got these seven crises and they fail to see how this is all part of a unified unfolding of God's plan. Two quick examples. When God begins to establish the Mosaic Covenant, the children of Israel are in Egypt. God comes to them at the end of Exodus chapter 2 and says, I remember my covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and therefore I am delivering you. The deliverance from Egypt was part of God's covenant activity. And there was no dichotomy, tension between that and their institution as a nation which had been promised to Abraham when? In Genesis chapter 15. And in Genesis 15 God promised the Mosaic covenant. He says, I will come in 40 years and take you out. Or Jeremiah chapter 31 and 31 and following the new covenant It's simply the greater fulfillment of the law of God written upon our hearts. Not simply on tablets of stone, but there's no tension there. And I commend to you, it's easy to read, and I know that Jeremy and Dan have it, and maybe the church library has it, Palmer Robertson's Christ of the Covenants. And he has a great section, simply showing the unity of the covenants. As I've wrestled with this more recently, I think that everything that's in the New Covenant, everything in the previous covenant that was not of a redemptive, temporary value is in the New Covenant. It's not that this covenant is new, radically different from everything else, but the New Covenant embraces the spiritual promises of the Adamic Covenant, and the Noahic Covenant, and the Abrahamic Covenant, and the Mosaic Covenant, and the Davidic covenant and they weren't left behind but in fact are all now in their fulfillment and we are the people on whom the covenant has come at the end in these last days and so there's a method there that breaks up the scripture and of course doesn't relate covenants and dispensations and so it's further a method of fragmentation it's a method that lacks a particular effort to relate to creation You see, there's nothing here for the renewal of the creation, for the return of Christ that is promised in Romans chapter 8, verses 20 and following. And in fact, no real emphasis on eternity. I've already mentioned no real emphasis on sanctification. but no real emphasis on eternity obviously everything is built into the tribulation and the millennial reign and eternity is kind of anti-climatic in the system and every system needs to be moving toward that final goal of the new heavens and the new earth and then there is no dispensation of the kingdom of David and Solomon but they rather project that to the future. Second, the scripture has no defense of two separate people, Israel and the church. That grows out of the land promise. The scripture is just the opposite. How does Paul do it in Romans 11? There was one fig tree. It was a Jewish fig tree. And the great majority of them in the days of the apostles were broken off that Gentiles might be grafted in. There wasn't another tree. One tree. One church. The church that Stephen says in Acts 7 was the church of God in the wilderness. The same word that the New Testament uses for the church. Our church. Galatians tells us that we are the descendants of Abraham in chapter 3. and furthermore in chapter 6 verse 16 calls the church God's Israel and Hebrews 12, 22 and following tells us that the church is God's Zion His new Jerusalem and so there is no exegetical basis for two separate people which is why the progressives have left it there is no exegetical basis for the pre-trib rapture The word itself is not used in scripture. I showed you this morning very quickly how the passage in Thessalonians does not relate to some secret coming of Christ but to the saints alive being taken up along with the resurrected bodies to meet Christ in the heavens. And imminence does not refer to any momentness but to nearness. and that's an important distinction to keep in mind and that Christ is drawing near and he's nearer than when we first believed he's going to come for each of us either in our personal death or in his return and that's nearer today than it was yesterday and it's obviously nearer than when we first believed but moreover there's this delay character in the New Testament 2 Peter 3 almost the entire chapter some men count God's promise is inaccurate because of his slackness in fulfilling it. And Peter points out that this is part of a plan. The slackness. Matthew 24, 45 to 51. Or 25, the parable of the ten virgins shows that there is this delay. And that's why five of the virgins were ill prepared. And then the land promise, right? What are we supposed to go to? We started at quarter till. We don't go that late, do we? Quarter till? Alright, we're alright. Save people time for questions. By the way, you didn't tell them they get to ask questions, did you? You get to ask questions. I told you last night. I don't know if I can answer them, but you can ask them all you want. Alright. The land promise failed to see the unity of the covenant again. talking about breaking things up and failing to see that the promises given to Abraham are fulfilled in Christ Jesus just as we saw the promises of Genesis 16 are fulfilled in the Exodus and that the light of the Hebrews tells us that Abraham was not looking for a piece of real estate was he? He was looking for a city whose architect and builder is God whose foundations are eternal that's what Abraham was looking for And that's what we are to be looking for. The Lamb Thomas makes the seed ethnic in character. But Paul in Romans chapter 9 teaches us that not all Israel is Israel. Right? There's physical Israel. But only elect within physical Israel are God's true Israel. And by his whole argumentation from 9 to 11, Paul does away with any concept that a physical nation of the Jews have any special place now in the economy of God. It's the church. Now I happen to believe, as Paul teaches in Romans 11, that God's going to do a great work of grace in ethnic Israel. in the glorious gospel age brought about by the normal means of grace. Not brought about by some earthly kingdom or anything else, but by the preaching of the gospel, God's going to bring in the great majority of the Jews who are alive whenever that takes place. Not in any other way, but through regeneration, repentance, and faith. But Israel in the Bible is the elect people within the nation. Galatians 3.29 and Romans 9.7. But moreover, what does Paul argue in... This is so important. Paul argues in Galatians 3, who is the seed in whom all these promises are fulfilled? Paul says it's not a plural seed, it's the singular seed, it's Christ Jesus. Galatians 3.16 Now if you understand, I mean Paul says it so clearly, it's unmistakable. If you understand that, how is that fulfilled? Ask of me and I will give you, the nations, as your inheritance. Not some typical piece of real estate from Damascus down to the border of Egypt. The entire globe belongs to the seed, Christ Jesus. And we in Him, because of union with Him, are the seed of Abraham and we are heirs not of that teeny piece of real estate, but we are heirs of what? The entire earth belongs to the people of God because of union with Christ. Now what do you want? You want a little piece of real estate or you want a big piece of real estate? I want Christ to have the world, don't you? I want to see Muslim and Buddhist and Hindu and materialist and secularist and atheist bow at the feet of King Jesus. That's an inheritance worth fighting for spiritually. That's what we long for. The whole earth subdued by Christ. That's the Lamb promise. Thus there are levels of fulfillment in the Old Testament itself. Joshua 21, 43-45 says that he gives the boundaries of the land promise and this has been given to the people. Then, under the Davidic Solomon kingdom, it's quite clear that in 1 Kings 8, 65 and 1 Kings 4, 21-24 that Solomon ruled over all of the land that God had promised. It's Abraham. And in fact, the psalmist declares in Psalm 105 verse 44 that what Joshua had was the fulfillment of that promise. Now, of course, the dissentationists respond, yes, but that's not eternal. They lost it. Well, we have to understand that particularly in the Old Testament covenants, the word that's used for eternal often means for an indefinite period of time as long as this particular covenant is in effect. Does that mean everlasting? In the New Testament, it much more means everlasting. And we'll talk about that when we talk about hell. But in the Old Testament, eternal priesthood. You see, so they don't have to go back and get an Aaronic priesthood once again because it's an eternal priesthood. But my Bible teaches me that that's fulfilled in Christ Jesus, and so it's eternal because it's fulfilled in the seed. And the eternal promise is fulfilled, not simply in land, but now in the eternal possession that Christ has of the earth. But there's a real clincher, and I love this, because it answers other problems as well. You ever puzzle over why all these folks in Jerusalem sold their land? You know, is this a Christian communism? No, it's a sacrificial love for the brethren that was quite realistic. Because Christ already told them what was going to happen to that land in their generation. One of the few times, I think the generation when Christ came, they knew that Christ was going to come in their generation, Anna and Simeon. And the generation that lived after the ascension knew that Jerusalem was going to be destroyed in their generation. And some of the generations didn't know anything exact about time. But they knew it! They had about 35 years. If you've got brothers and sisters in trouble, and you're going to lose all this in a way to the Romans, let's get rid of it now. That's what's driving that sacrificial selling of the land. But, if the land promise were in effect, this could not have happened. In Acts chapter 4, verse 36. Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles, which simply means the son of encouragement. Now, what would be? He was a Levite, who owned a tract of land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet. Now, how does that teach that the land promises are no longer of physical value? Well, in Leviticus 25, 34, this is it. The Levites are forbidden to sell their land. Forbidden. They can't sell their pasture land. And so when he sold his land, that's a theological declaration by Barnabas the Levite that he had a greater inheritance. Not any physical piece of land. But the earth itself. You see, it's dynamite. That's why I say they don't do a proper exegesis. and so I love these people who are Christians I probably had too much humor they are those that truly trust in Christ regardless of their eschatology are brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus and we are not to treat one another with arrogance or contempt but we have to understand that this system destroys sanctification It's out of this system that we get the carnal Christian views that you can have Jesus as Savior and live like hell and go to heaven. Now, those people are not Christians. But you can't live like hell and go to heaven. But those that have a bad system but still love God and seek holiness, they're going to heaven. because they've been saved by Christ. It's not your works that get you to heaven, but if you've been saved by Christ, you're not going to live like the devil. Close your heart. And so the system, though, receives a lot of people. It takes the eye off the ball, at least with respect to the glory of Christ in this church, the means of grace, the pursuit of sanctification, and heaven itself. And so we love one another, but we want to see them leave that system for a more wholesome biblical system of looking at the Bible and Christian living. Now Mr. Wilson was brought up in the system out of I've been fair, I want to be fair. Okay, thank you. Thank you. great hymn that expresses the unity of the church of all ages