We're continuing in this study of Colossians. And one of the down points of a Bible study or anything else is when you know you're being recorded. So I try to ignore this thing. We're looking at a commentary written by Mr. Charles Alexander, and the way we've been doing it, is to slowly read and comment, and that seems to have been... We've gotten some good discussions out of it, and that's the purpose. It's not just to parrot what somebody else has written, but to think about it and comment on it. And we were impressed last week And Brother Gables made the point, I believe, of how important it is for this point to be understood. And so I'm going to back up a paragraph and start at that point in today's study. And he says, he writes, this is a study in Colossians, by the way. The first part of the study, the part we're in now has to do with the era, the modern era in the church. And Colossians is Christ-centered, one of the most, if not the most, Christological books of the Bible. It's all about Christ. Well, we know how quickly man also fell, and thus it seemed that the purpose of God was thwarted and unattainable. But he who is above all and matchless in his wisdom had decreed from the beginning to turn evil into good by making it the means of the highest good. This could only be done by an act of self-abnegation, that is, to give thyself up, by God himself, and so the Eternal Son became man and yielded himself in utter weakness to the power of evil in the agony of the garden And under the curse of the tree, he restored the Father's name and glory. And having approved himself thus to be worthy to hold sway over all creation, he, as man, and this was the main point, that the Son of God, the Word made flesh, he did this as man, as true man, accomplished this. Ascended on high and united Godhead to manhood, He realized in himself the divine purpose and creation, which was to display to the uttermost the divine wisdom and perfection and glory, and unite heaven and earth in acclaiming the greatness, the worth, and the eternal love of God. Thus it is that in Christ Jesus our Lord, man achieves his destiny in spite of sin and It may seem that maybe we're beating this to death or something, but it's not understood well enough. This church may be, and I believe is an exception, but there's so much out there that's shallow and not really getting into the depths of this book, this word. Christ is the second Adam, the head of the new creation, and in him man eternally reigns. Only as God is one in essence, yet subsisting in three persons, could this be done. And only as he who died was God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, who was God, and with the Holy Spirit who was God, Yet one God, undivided in essence, could this task be accomplished. They who deny the deity of Christ have no atonement. They who deny the Holy Trinity have no God and no answer to the problem of creation. But the redemption of the Church as the new creation of God, never to be corrupted, never but eternally to be glorified because her head is Christ and she is his body. This is the divine mystery revealed, the secret disclosed. These are the unsearchable riches of Christ which Paul marveled that he should be the unworthy instrument of unfolding. Again, my burden or the thought that I'm stressing so much is the emphasis on the church, how is the church. We'll see, and I think today we'll get this far. There's a whole school of theology out here that minimizes the church. Where I believe the Bible teaches that the church is the focus of the Scripture in Christ. Of course, it's Christ. But what did He come into this world for? What was the purpose? And I don't apologize for reading this again. Turn to Ephesians chapter 3. Because I think it is so pertinent to the emphasis being placed here on the church. I repeat this. If you want to understand the doctrine of the church, study Ephesians chapters 1, 2, and 3. It's there. There are other things to be seen, but just in chapter 3, verse 1, For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ, for you Gentiles, if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery as I wrote before in a few words, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." Now, he's going to use these expressions, the mystery of Christ, the mystery that I wrote to you about. As many times as we've talked about it, It ought to be in your mind. Now, what is this mystery? What is this mystery? Well, he's going to tell us. Verse 5. Which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to his holy apostles and prophets. And here it is. That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs of the same body and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel." Somebody says, well, obviously I believe that. Sure, that's what the Bible says. But I promise you that the vast majority of Bible teachers in our day don't put this interpretation on it. What he's saying is that the prophets, if I can use this expression, the Old Testament, what were the prophets about? What was their focus? It was about Christ and the church. Much of what they said was not understood by them as that's what it meant. But Peter writes in a place, we'll see this later, It's not what they understood, but it was for us. It was written for us, for our day. Verse 7, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power. To me, who am less than the least of all the saints. And this is true humility. false humility. He really believes this about himself. When he says, I'm the chief of sinners, he believes he's the worst sinner he knows. That I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all people in Italics, make all see What is the fellowship of the mystery which was from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ. Now that goes back to the one who writes to the Church of Colossae. Everything was created by Christ. Everything is in Christ. Everything is for Christ. Verse 10, To the intent that now the manifold or many-sided variegated the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in heavenly places according to the eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. The eternal purpose of God, this mystery, was that the church is constituted, made up of Gentiles and Jews in one body. There is not a Jewish church and a Gentile church There's not that separation forever as one school of eschatology teaches. That the church is separate from the Jews and never to come together. Paul is saying here that it's been in the eternal purpose of God that they be in one body. Now, I'm going to continue with this commentary and again I'm doing all the talking so you feel free to contribute. Creation's secret. If then the Church is, as we have tried to show, the object of that redeeming work by which God everlastingly determined to reveal Himself, and that this revealing of God is the mystery of creation, The secret which lay in the hidden depths of the divine wisdom till the hour should come when Christ should reveal it. Then the church must be and is the central and the greatest object in history and takes precedence over all other institutions, orders, systems which may have gone before her. Certain it is there can be nothing after her. For she is the bride, the body, the spouse of Christ, the total fruit of his sacrifice of himself at Calvary. It seems almost irrelevant in the face of this to contend against those who allege that the church was not the sole and unique object of Christ's coming into the world. I'm not trying to be subtle here. Does everybody see what the import of this statement is? The most popular eschatology of our day says exactly what we just read, that the Church is not the central focus, that it is the Jews, a future nation of Jews. The theory that the Church is only a temporary expedient to tide over till the time until God's real purpose shall be resumed in the establishment of an earthly kingdom with its metropolis at Jerusalem, is not only contrary to the Savior's words to the woman of Samaria, neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem." That's so much more profound than most people see in what he told her. She was debating theology with the Lord Jesus. She said, our people say it's on this mountain. that you worship God and you Jews say it's down in Jerusalem, in that temple. That's what Jesus answered. It's neither on that mountain or in Jerusalem. And that's mostly just passed over, but what he's saying is that the Jewish nation and the economy is gone. It's over with. It'll last for another 40 years, but it's going to be gone. But it is also irreconcilable with the Pauline doctrine of the Church that she is the eternal object of the divine purpose in creation, the consummation of all God's wisdom and of His vast designs in time and in eternity. Any comments? Everybody too cold this morning? The other system is a parenthesis in the time frame when God started dealing with Abraham, the Jewish people born. I don't want to. We've got to have what's on the back of that thing there. That's not something there. Is there something there? Yeah, you got it. Yes. Everybody see that? You see the star over here, or Israel before that, that is viewed as the main purpose of God, and the church is a parenthesis. Until the rapture takes place, then God goes back to his main purpose again. I think it would really help to see that Israel is the parenthesis. Go back to Genesis, and start then from Abraham's time until the coming of Christ, that's where the parenthesis is. And then the church is manifested as what God was dealing with all the time. And it's Israel, which ought to be in the parenthesis period here, as far as the national ethnic purpose there. That helped me when that finally clicked in my mind, is to see which group belongs in the parenthesis. That's a good point. An excellent point. And I don't think we can overstress how different these views are. I mean, it's not just an indifferent thing. It has to do with entirely how you interpret all the Bible. In light of the Pauline doctrine, any attempt to prove that the Church is irrelevant to prophecy or is not the real the exclusive object of Christ coming into the world, or that she has to be moved out of the way before the end in order to establish an earthly economy centered on Jerusalem, must be furnished with very formidable arguments and proofs. And Mr. Alexander says, so far as we know, this proof has never been presented. And this is the point I'm trying to urge Brother Jim Put this in writing, this series you did in this room. Maybe you can't ever, but it was one of the best presentations I've seen of these different views. I'm not speaking of myself, but there's been some good stuff taught in this little room here over the past several years. What happens, and I'm trying to be very fair, Great pronouncements are made with no support. They just say that's what it is. So he says, so far as we know, this proof has never been presented. We have little doubt that there will be many who will be glad to have an exposition which makes valid their own faith and standing in Christ, and which assures them that the death of Christ for them transcends all boundaries of nations, are of time, and that the atonement which covers their sins has elevated them to the rank of sons of God, and having received the spirit of adoption, whereby they cry, Abba, Father." This is good. What more can any earthly kingdom in Palestine do for them? Seeing that in Christ they have already overcome death and sin and Satan, and realize the entire object of God's purpose in creating the heavens and the earth. And I think this is a good point. If you subscribe to this theory, what does it do for you? What benefit of it is to you? Here we're getting into something we've already discussed a little bit, but it's more complete. And Brother Jim asked the question a couple of weeks ago, what do we mean by the church in the Old Testament? And his heading here is one church in the Old Testament and the New Testament. And I won't give my explanation again, I'll just read what Mr. Alexander has written. One church in the Old Testament and the New Testament. It appears to us more that not only is a very great error being permitted regarding the nature and standing and preeminence of the Church in relation to the impending future of the human race, but there is equal misunderstanding regarding the past history of the Church. That the Church, in quotes, began at Pentecost is a statement not quite true. What began at Pentecost was the New Testament manifestation of the Church. And I've learned that this thing really picks up page turning really well. The Church's full and most glorious chapter on earth, that the Church is one in the New Testament and Old Testament, is settled beyond all argument by Paul when he preaches that all who are Christ are the children of Abraham. who is the father of us all. He's quoting out of Romans 4 and Galatians 3. Indeed, Paul goes so far as to say that Jews, no more than Gentiles, may be regarded, strictly speaking, as the seed of Abraham. And that's a little difficult wording, the way he stressed it. But the way I would say it is that Jews are no more the seed of Abraham than the Gentiles are. Whereas this school says that the Jews are the children, the seed of Abraham. There is only one person who is in that category and he is the Lord Christ alone. And to thy seed which is Christ. Galatians 3.16. The Jew is not the seed of Abraham. Christ is that seed, and only as any are born again in Christ are they the children of Abraham and the children of God. If you be Christ, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. These fundamental scriptures are so much ignored by all parties in this controversy that we make no apology for insisting upon them here. Turn to Romans 4. In the famous, quote, circumcision passage in Romans 4, Paul makes plain that the doctrine of justification by faith was revealed in Abraham before he was circumcised. And circumcision, the fleshly sign of being a descendant of Abraham, has therefore no significance in the realm of faith. For Abraham is shown to be the father of all who believe, though they be not circumcised, and the father of the circumcision to those Jews who are not of the circumcision only, but who walk in the steps of that same faith of Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised." Now let me just say some things that all of you probably already know, but in the way Paul uses these words, The circumcision has to do with the physical circumcision of the male. Cutting the foreskin off. That's the physical thing. But it's a term that means the Jew. Those of the circumcision are the Israelites. They are the Jews. The uncircumcision is a reference to the Gentiles, the non-Jews. So that may not... Maybe I didn't need to go that far with it. But you've got to understand that to understand what Paul is saying here. So in Romans 4, what shall we say then that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? And again, the physical flesh. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something of which to boast, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God and it was imputed. It was accounted to him for righteousness. Does anybody have a problem with that sentence? Abraham was given, charged, righteousness based on an act of faith. Not works, not anything he did. He didn't earn it. It was given to him. Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. If I do something religious in nature because I expect God to respect that and do something for me, it's not grace. It's something I've earned. but to him who does not work, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly." What a sentence. I've preached a sermon on it. I know Brother Jim probably has. For him who justifies the ungodly. So much could be said here. Justification does not come as a result of you doing things and becoming worth justifying. You're justified in a state of ungodliness, unbelief. Justification. Considered righteous by God. His faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes Blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works. Quoting Psalm 32, blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord thus shall not impute sin. Here is the crux of the argument. Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only? Is this justification, is it only for the Jews? Or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised or uncircumcised? In other words, when was Abraham justified by faith? before or after he was circumcised? Before. Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who are not only of the circumcision, but also walk in the steps of faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised. You see it? I mean, it couldn't be clearer. How does justification come? To the ungodly. And it makes no difference whether you're Jew or Gentile, whether you're circumcised or uncircumcised. It has nothing to do with it. And I hit on this and stressed it in a sermon, and maybe everybody already knew it, but it's something to me, it's one of those things that once you distill it down and you say, okay, this is at the hub, this is what has to be understood. And this was it. It's so simple. As to the Jews. in the Old Testament time. They were greatly blessed of God. Paul answers that question in chapter 3 of Romans. If we're all under sin, then what advantage is there to being a Jew? Well, there's every advantage. You have the Word of God. You have all the blessings. But listen, this is it. That had nothing to do with justification. And that's where that misunderstanding comes. The people that think that the Jews were saved under this blessing, the fact is most of them died in unbelief. So we cannot confuse the fact of God choosing the people and setting up a nation, a Jewish nation, and greatly blessing them above all the other nations of the earth. Don't confuse that with being justified, with being saved. I have been overwhelmed with this as I read material that take the other position. They don't see this. They confuse the Jews being chosen by God as though they were saved people. And that's the way they treat this so-called future restoration that God is going to save them. That's the impression I've got from people that have chosen people. They're thinking that they are chosen by God as far as to salvage. I've quoted this before, but a local Baptist preacher outside Baptist Church that has this relationship with the Jewish synagogue. And while the synagogue was being remodeled, at this Baptist church in the south side of Birmingham. But he's quoted in the Birmingham News as saying the Jews are safe. You know, we don't need to evangelize the Jews. God's got his plan for them. And then he's got this other thing over here called the Gospel. Could we say that the Jews were chosen to receive temporal and earthly benefits? Amen. But that the true elect are chosen to receive spiritual and eternal benefits. Amen. And that's through justification. Yeah. So that there could be a common grace bestowed upon the physical descendants of Abraham, but that doesn't mean that they were elected or unto receive spiritual benefits and justification. And that segment of the Jews after the flesh is what's called the remnant. There's the Israel within Israel. There's the remnant. And there's always been that element of the believers within the larger body. And I guess you could make a parallel today with the local church. We have the local church. But within most assemblies, You have unbelievers who profess to be believers. They may think they're believers, but they're not born again. Their life is not submitted wholly to Christ. They're not subject to the Word of God. They're not living by the Spirit of God. But they're recognized as members of the church. And we have no way other than by their own life. I have no way of looking at a person and saying, well, that's a real believer and that one's not. We accept them on their profession. But the Lord uses that parable of the tares among the wheat. The tares, the darnel, looked like wheat. You couldn't tell any difference when it was growing. Except that when it was mature, the head of it, was poison. I'm going to continue here. This is good. I hope a good discussion. But I can't turn loose of this. Do you really see, does anybody not see that the distinction between God saving individual Jews and Gentiles justification of individuals based on faith and the blessing to a people, a nation, that never, there was never a nation on the face of the earth of which they were all believers. Never existed. One side note, Jim. If Abraham was justified in eternity prior to faith, if Paul had understood that, he could have saved himself a whole lot of time trying to point out all of this right here. I think Paul was dealing with the same obstinance that we are dealing with. And I say this, I hope, in humility. Of course I see it. But how do I understand it? It's by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. I didn't sit down one day and read the Bible and just, oh, okay, anybody can see that. There are people who are good people. I'm not putting them down at all. They read the same text and they make a wholly different interpretation of it. Well, that depends. Depends on what their faith is in. Let me run this little rabbit again. I asked the question, can a Roman Catholic be saved? Yes. But not if they believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches as the way you're saved. But an individual in that system can be saved. The next question is, can a Baptist be saved? Yeah. if they believe in Jesus Christ, if they trust Him, but not if they trust a decision they made. If they think they're saved because of something they did, I don't care if they're Baptist or what they are. If you're saved, why did He do it? Why did He do it? Can you come up with any reason except He justifies the ungodliness? I qualify. I'm as good an example as there ever was of who God saves. He saves the ungodly. Paul enlarges upon this when he declares the promise to Abraham that he should be the heir of the world. For so Paul interprets the Old Testament promise as ranging far beyond the land of Palestine. Let's see. Verse 13 of chapter 4 of Romans. That he should be the heir of the world. See, that's not a direct quote of the Old Testament. But when an inspired apostle quotes it or modifies it, then that's okay. It's not that Paul didn't know the Old Testament. Let's see if we can find a blanket. I think it is. Look at Genesis 17.4. If that's not it, it's chapter 22. Genesis 17, verse 4, As for me, behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of many nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but you shall be called Abraham, for I have made you the father of many nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. Genesis 22, verse 17. In blessing I will bless you, and in multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens and as the sands which are on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. The point is that Paul doesn't directly quote the Old Testament passage, but he says this is really what it means. ranging far beyond the land of Palestine, is fulfilled only in Christ and through Him in all who attain the righteousness which is by faith." Then he quotes Romans 4.16, "...therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end of the promise that might be sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." Father of many nations. After the same manner, Paul interprets the promise to Abraham that he should be the father, not of one nation, but of many nations, whose faith is the same in quality, substance, and object as Abraham's. Those children of Abraham have the same faith of Abraham, the same object of faith, be they Jew or Gentile. Thus was the promise to Abraham fulfilled which was implied in the change of his name from Abram, great father, to Abraham, father of many nations. Yes. Nations are sometimes it means Gentiles in the Old Testament. But it means all races and ethnicities and so on of men. Many nations. But not in the physical sense. It's out of every kindred, nation, tribe we elect. That's the seed. They're made out of all the Gentile nations out here. Not that Abraham actually fathered physically all of us, but he fathered physically the Hebrew people. But the many nations are the spiritual people out of that. I can't help but look on your face. You were reading one thing and Jim was reading another. Was I right? You were right. And this is why we need to talk and ask questions. Please, if you're not understanding it, or if I'm confusing you, then make me explain it. Or let Jimmy explain it. I love it. Ok, he says, Mr. Alexander says, We entreat our friends to give careful study to these passages and set them alongside the view which so widely prevails That there is a special future for the Jew as a Jew. And this is what they teach. And again, to borrow one of Mr. Alexander's lines that I've just stolen, that God will not justify a person based on their birth certificate. Whether they be Jew or not Jew. Isn't that what John says in chapter 1, 12, 13? It's not of the will of the flesh. It's not who your mom and daddy are. It's the will of God. They will perceive that as Abraham is the father of all who believe, be they Jew or Gentile, then we Gentile members with Abraham of the same church. Read that again. They will perceive that as Abraham is the father of all who believe, be they Jew or Gentile, then are we Gentile members with Abraham of the same church. Therefore, the church existed in Abraham's day, and he was a member of it, and before his day, for the catalog of those who believe and are justified by faith alone stretches back to that great chapter of faith, Hebrews 11, far beyond the flood, right back to the father of the human race at the beginning of human history, by faith able. offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than that of Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, and by it he being dead, yet speaketh." It goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden, and immediately after. And that's what Brother Gables mentioned earlier. It goes way back beyond Abraham's day. You can't start your Bible in Genesis 12 and not say that that is not only true if you're a dispensationalist but also if you're a covenant theologian. You can't start Genesis 12 and then read it back into Genesis 3 and say that if Abraham's physical descendants were automatically his children were in the covenant that Adam's children were coveted children and flattened the whole thing out. You can't start the Bible in Genesis 12. That's a good line. I'll steal that too. All preachers are thieves. It's not copyrighted. All preachers are thieves. It's not copyrighted. What embarrasses me from time to time is you think, well, he'd be embarrassed. Yeah, I can. is I think I've come up with something, and I'll say it. And I'll think, oh, that was a good thought. And I thought, I don't have that many original thoughts, so I'm real proud of it. And then I'll read something that I read 20 years ago, and boy, that's where I got it. I mean, you know, I don't ever think of anything fresh. It's just, I just, things come to mind. What's happening to me is that I'll see something here and get all excited, and I'll say, I wonder what Charles Hodge thought of that. And I'll go back and pick out a badge or something that I'd seen 30 years ago and I'd written into my... Yeah. Yeah. How say some, therefore, that the church only began at Pentecost 2,000 years ago, when in fact it goes back to the first generation of the human race? The only difference between the faith of the Old Testament Church and that of the New Testament Church is that the Old Testament believers look forward to the fulfillment of the promise in Christ, whereas New Testament believers look backward to the promise fulfilled. It is this promise of God and the faith therein which constitutes the Church. And as the Church had her origin in the beginning of the human race, so she will be on earth until the trumpet calls all creation to judgment. It's the church. That's what his argument is. His next paragraph is headed Frivolous Theories. Frivolous Theories. It can scarcely be said nowadays, and nowadays to him was 25 years ago, and I'm really amazed at how far we've slid down the slippery slope in 20 years. Would he have been writing then about the era of Hal Lindsay? Yes, exactly. In fact, I got that on the top of my next page. To put it in the context of when he was writing, the great success of that day was Hal Lindsay's The Late Great Planet Earth. It was as popular as the Left Behind series is today. And people bought that book and they taught Sunday school classes on it and it was just the answer. Now the coming of Christ was set by Lindsay. It was going to be 40 years from the time that Israel became a nation in 1948. And by 1988, that's when it was all going to end and everything. Well, he says, it can scarcely be said nowadays that the doctrine of the Church is the subject of profound erudition. And I thought I knew that word, and I did. After I looked it up, I was confirmed. Erudite means to show great learning. Erudition. It can scarcely be said nowadays that the doctrine of the Church is the subject of profound erudition among the Lord's true people. We have been harassed for so long by theories well-nigh frivolous, which are propounded with a minimum of thought, but with a maximum of incredible confidence, that it is difficult for the voice of truth and sanity to be heard in our evangelical corridors." And again, if Alexander thought it was bad in his day, I don't care where you are, you can go to any group meeting of almost any group, pastor's meetings, And these people make these pronouncements as though there's no other view to be had. And they're just so sure of it. We are awed by the almost sublime authority with which the strangest predictions are made regarding the church's future in terms of her secret disappearance from the earth, and her equally remarkable reappearance exactly seven years later to mingle with immortals and mortals, surviving Jews, now converted, and huge numbers of surviving ungodly under the personal rule of Christ seated upon a throne at Jerusalem for the next 1,000 years. Multitudes of ungodly are alleged to be there, survivors somehow of the event of the Second Coming. That's what I wanted to have an answer for. Exactly. How does anybody survive the Second Coming alive? Nor is this 1,000 year reign a complete success. Seeing, in parenthesis, if the literal view be accepted, close parenthesis, that there shall be need of police, jailers, hangmen, and terrible plagues to discipline those who absent themselves from religious festivals. And he gives a reference to Zechariah 14. Zechariah 14 is the Old Testament prophecy on the Feast of the Tabernacles. And I just this past week moved a cassette recording of Alexander on Zechariah 14. I don't think I put it on the internet yet. But he exposits that Zechariah 14 showing that the complete fulfillment of that was in John 7. When Jesus... He is the Feast of the Tabernacles. And I won't go further with that. It seems to us that the only hope for our friends is to spiritualize the millennium and recognize that Christ is reigning now. And he puts that in bold caps. He is reigning now and must continue to reign until all his foes are put under his feet. But who are we to oppose interpretations which are propagated with such remarkable tones of infallibility? The papal pronouncements from St. Peter's Chair in Rome are modest compared with the prognostications now available in evangelical literature. And again, this is 20 years ago, 25 years ago. I'll start this section. He has a section here on the Scofield Bible. And I admire very much Alexander. I've never heard him utter a mean-spirited thing. He's a gentleman. He was much maligned in his day. He was under attack. For the most part, his little chapel, Norris Green in Liverpool, he probably didn't have any more people than Diamond Park has on a good Sunday. But he faithfully preached there for, I forget how many years, 40 years. The Scofield Bible. The late Dr. C.I. Scofield, of whose character and Christian standing we desire to speak nothing but good, was surely terribly entangled in false prophetical theory when he wrote, page 975, Scofield Reference Bible, note on Zechariah 11, verse 11, this is his quote, neither the Gentiles nor the Gentile church corporately are in view. Only the believers out of Israel during this age underlined, the church corporately is not in Old Testament prophecy. That's a flat statement by Mr. Schofield. The church is not in Old Testament prophecy. And I should have found it. I quoted Oliver Green several months ago now. We were in Ezekiel. But he makes a statement to the effect that we who try to spiritualize the Old Testament prophecies and make them apply to the church are guilty of spiritual robbery. And that's what I'm guilty of then, if he's right. We understand that in the latest edition of the Schofield Bible, the editors have quietly dropped this sentence. We wonder why. When the note is essential to the survival of Dr. Schofield's system. You get the weight of this? If the church is not in Old Testament prophecy, then everything I've said today doesn't make any sense. That whole system is built on that foundational statement that the church is not in Old Testament prophecy. Dr. Schofield was only plowing with Mr. J.N. Darby's heifer. And it must be admitted that if the prophetical theory he inherited from this great Plymouth Brethren patriarch was correct, he was being no more than logical when he insisted that the Church is not to be found anywhere in the Old Testament prophecy. Yet Paul insists that the Church is the body of Christ, that the Church is the eternal purpose of God, The prophet prophesied of the salvation which the apostles proclaimed, says Peter, and their words were only relevant to New Testament times. This is important. Look at 1 Peter 1, 10-12. I have to cut this off here. 1 Peter 1, verse 10. Of this salvation, Now he's in the context here. He's been talking about salvation of God's elect, God's chosen. Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently who prophesied of the grace that would come to you. Searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when he testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us, they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things which angels desire to look into." You get what Peter says? The Old Testament prophets were prophesying of things that they didn't understand. But it's given to us. It was given to them for us, us apostles, us to follow. And then he says, and we'll stop here because this will take too much time. Amos wrote of the Gentile salvation, said James, as he quoted from Amos chapter 9. the words related to the setting up again of David's fallen house, his tabernacle, Acts 15. James quoted this prophecy to prove the validity of Gentile salvation then being called into question. Very quickly, and we'll deal with it the next time, what that's all about is in Acts 15, the question before the church was can a Gentile be saved if he's not circumcised? The church was mostly the Jews. The local visible church. And the Judaizers were going around telling people that if you were not a Jew, that you had to be circumcised before you could be saved. And I'm not making that up. Acts chapter 15. And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. That's verse 1. We'll deal with that more later. And in this context then, Peter and then James stands up and says, these Gentiles, this is the fulfillment of the prophecies, that the Gentiles are included. And they're just as much in the church as we are. And Peter makes that marvelous statement. in verse 11, but we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we, that is, we Jews, shall be saved in the same manner as they, that is, the Gentiles. Yes, the Lord willing. but that a Jew had to be saved the same way that a Gentile as an ungodly person. Yeah. And that was a tremendous shock to someone who was practicing obedience to the Jewish law. You mean that this is not going to help us at all? We've got to come like these heathen? That was the really the mysterious thing here that the Not that the Gentile had to be saved the way the Jew was saved, but the Jew had to be saved the way the Gentile was saved. The whole argument, the whole reason for the council at Jerusalem was, do Gentiles have to become Jews? And Peter flipped it on them and says, no, no. We Jews are saved just like the Gentiles. We Jews have got to be saved like an ungodly Gentile. Isn't that good? That wouldn't hurt the pride.