How many of you have ever done a jigsaw puzzle? I know you know what I'm talking about. It's a picture that's printed, usually on a piece of cardboard, and then it's cut up into a whole bunch of pieces. And so you get this box of pieces, and your goal as the puzzle maker is to reassemble them into the picture. So how do you do that? How do you know how to arrange the pieces? I suppose you could approach it completely by trial and error. trying different pieces against each other until you found two that fit together, and then just go on from there. That wouldn't be a very efficient approach. you would try a lot of things that didn't work, and it might cause a lot of confusion, or at the very least frustration, along the way. So instead, you keep the box top handy, with the picture of it, of the completed puzzle. And this way, you know what you're working toward. and you continue to refer to the box top as a guide to help you know how to use the individual pieces. Without the box top, you pick up a single piece. It's one out of hundreds, or maybe even out of thousands. So what's it a picture of? What's it a part of? not knowing what the whole puzzle looks like, and being such a small piece, it's hard to say. You might see it as the petals of a flower. I think it's the scales on a fish. Who's to say? Until you hold it up to the box top, and then you see. You see what it is, where it goes, how it fits. Systematic theology is the box top for studying the Bible. It attempts to give us the big picture when we're studying the little pieces of the Bible. Now a couple of years ago, we were studying the book of James on Sunday mornings here at Trinity Bible Church. And we came to chapter two. And we read, faith without works is dead. And Abraham was justified by works. Now, if all we had was that one puzzle piece, and we looked at it all by itself, It might look to us a lot like works-based salvation. And we might have proceeded under that assumption. But we didn't do that. Instead, we held it up to the box top. We compared what we read in James to our big-picture understanding of the Bible as a whole. And then we fit that piece from James alongside the pieces that Paul gives us in Romans and in Galatians, and with the pieces we found in Genesis when Abraham exercised faith and then responded with works. And it fit perfectly, James with Paul and with Abraham. And it's so satisfying when it does, when we see how perfectly the different parts of God's word fit together. It's like finding that elusive puzzle piece that you've been looking for and then slipping it into place. Only it's infinitely more satisfying than that. If we were studying without the box top, we may have gotten there eventually, but it would have taken so much longer to put that all together if we didn't have the box top. So what is the box top? Different people have suggested different ones. As I said, these are called systematic theologies. But I don't want to make this an academic exercise. I want to help you to interpret God's word correctly. So I'm going to do something, and it's quite different from how we normally approach a sermon. In fact, I've never done this in 10 years, and I may never do it again. But I'm going to step away from 2 Samuel for a week And I'm going to begin by sharing my understanding of what the box top looks like. I'll do my best to back it up with scripture, especially when we get a little further into it. And I'll note where some reasonable people disagree with me. And I'm even going to give an alternate version of the box top later on and try to present that equally and in a balanced way. I have to say though, and this is important, the goal is not for each of us to develop our own box top, our own theology. As you listen, I don't want you to think, I like that, that makes sense to me, or I agree or disagree. isn't about what I think or what you think. The question that we need to continually ask is, is this really what God's word teaches? It doesn't matter if it appeals to me or not. It doesn't matter if I like it or it works for me. The only thing that matters is what the Bible is really saying. There is only one correct box top, and we should all be striving to discover what that truly is, and to conform our current perceptions to whatever that might be. So, If you read the entirety of the Bible, and you consider everything from Genesis to Revelation, and then if you had to sum it up in one sentence, what would that sentence be? What is the theme of all Scripture? Is there one thing that everything points to? I believe there is. And here's what I would say it is. God is committed to bring himself glory by redeeming mankind. The Bible is the story of redemption, the redemption of mankind. God's purpose in it is for his own glory. And it's important that God is committed to this from beginning to end. And this statement contains all of that. God is committed to bring himself glory by redeeming mankind. We see it from the very first page of Scripture, when God created the heavens and the earth. At least this statement answers the obvious question. Why? Why did God create the heavens and the earth? Because he was committed to bring himself glory by redeeming mankind. And he had to create man, and a world for man to live in, in order to do that. And we see it on the last page of scripture. Revelation 22 verse 3. No longer will there be anything accursed, and there's redemption, nothing accursed, but the throne of God. There's God in his glory. And the lamb, the lamb is Jesus. And he's the lamb in this depiction because he became the sacrificial lamb in order to redeem. And his servants will worship him. More glory. God is committed to bring himself glory by redeeming mankind. He set the wheels in motion in Genesis 1, and we see it fully realized in Revelation 22. But there's not a lot of detail in that statement. It's not much of a box top yet. If you said this to someone, someone who had never read the Bible or had any exposure to Christianity, they might respond, redeem from what? So we need to flesh this out a little bit. And so there's a second statement that helps us to understand the first one. God requires righteousness from man, rewarding man for obedience and punishing man for disobedience. As long as you meet God's righteous standard, God will bless you and you will enjoy perfect fellowship with him. But if you fail to live as he requires, the penalty will be as horrible as the reward is wonderful. You will be cut off from God and suffer His wrath eternally. But where's the redemption in that? Well, it sets up the need for redemption because every one of us has disobeyed. Every one of us is guilty before God and deserves the penalty for our sin. It answers the question, redeemed from what? And it leads to this third statement. But Jesus grants forgiveness from sin and he grants righteous standing before God based on his life and on his death. I believe that all scripture points to this. To these three statements taken together. And I believe scripture is best understood in light of this. We do this for other literature all the time. We identify the theme, and then we go back and we look for that theme where we may have missed it earlier. You read Shakespeare's Macbeth. And by the time you come to the fourth and fifth acts, the theme is obvious. Power and ambition lead to corruption. And then you reread the play, now knowing what the theme is. And it's clear now that Shakespeare intended certain things to expand and give nuance to that theme, even if it wasn't obvious on the first read. How much more unified and intricate is God's Word And when we recognize that this is the theme, we begin to find it on every page. That God is committed to bring himself glory by redeeming mankind. That God requires righteousness from man, rewarding obedience and punishing sin. and that Jesus grants forgiveness from sin and righteous standing before God based on his life and death. This is the essence of the box top that I use to interpret scripture. So when I read a passage of scripture, I ask myself, how does this piece fit into this picture? This is also, at least in layman's terms, the foundation for what is called covenant theology. So when I say that I lean toward covenant theology, this, more than anything else, is what I mean. This is the box top that I use to understand scripture. Now, for this to truly be called covenant theology, you have to understand these three statements as covenants. That God is committed to bring himself glory by redeeming mankind is seen as a covenant that exists among the persons of the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And it's called the covenant of Redemption it is an eternal unbreakable irrevocable commitment God will do this for the sake of his own glory that God requires righteousness from man rewarding obedience and punishing disobedience is called the covenant of works and It is God requiring something of man, imposing an obligation on him with rewards and punishments defined. And it, too, is irrevocable. When man sinned, God couldn't just wave it off. Someone had to die. that Jesus grants forgiveness from sin and that he grants righteous standing before God based on his life and his death is called the covenant of grace. Once again, it's irrevocable. If you have received forgiveness and right standing by God's grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, God will never take that back. You cannot lose it. Now I understand that a lot of people object to calling these covenants. There is no specific passage that spells them out like this and then calls them a covenant like there are for many of the other covenants. So I understand the reluctance. And I hesitate to say this because I know that many of my covenantal brothers would object to it. But I'm okay if you don't want to call these covenants. I think there are reasons to understand them as covenants, and they come into play later on. But if you don't see them that way, it doesn't change the basic box top for understanding scripture. And honestly, I can't remember the last time that I interpreted a passage of scripture where it made any difference whether I considered any one of these a covenant. So I'm more concerned with the substance of these truths than I am with whether or not we call them covenants. I do need to step back here for just a minute and I need to say this. I know that my dispensational friends agree with these statements. There's no question about that. The validity of these statements and their love for these statements is not a dividing point. And I don't mean to imply in any way that it is. The only question is whether this is the box top or the lens through which we should be interpreting all of scripture. As I said before, this is really what matters to me about covenant theology. that all scripture should be understood in light of God's commitment to redeeming mankind for the sake of His glory, and in light of His standards of righteousness, and in light of salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus. Of course, this isn't the whole of covenant theology. The other covenants come into play, too. They help to illustrate and to explain the covenants of redemption and works and grace. And so when God told Adam in the garden that Adam could eat of any tree except one, and that if he ate of that tree, he would die, that's not the covenant of works per se. But it is, in a sense, an application of the covenant of works specific to Adam. And it helps to reveal to us the truth about the covenant of works and how it works. When God told Israel through Moses that if they obeyed, they would be blessed. And if they disobeyed, they would be cursed. That's, strictly speaking, not the covenant of works. But it certainly shows us the principles of the covenant of works in an application that was given to Israel at that time. In the same way, the promises made to Abraham and to David in those covenants are based wholly on God's grace. And they both include promises that point to the coming Messiah. And so, while neither of them is the covenant of grace, they both illuminate the covenant of grace. And it's not just about the covenants themselves. The covenants are important. They form a framework of Scripture as God relates to His people in Scripture within the context of those covenants. But how He relates and how people respond is important too. For instance, Abraham responded to God's covenant in faith. And it was through that faith that he was counted righteous before God. That's critical to covenant theology. And so when I read the Old Testament, I believe that I am compelled to look for this. We are supposed to use this as our box top and hold scripture up to it and ask, where does this piece fit into God's commitment to bring himself glory by redeeming mankind? Where does this piece fit into the penalty for sin that we have all brought on ourselves? And where does this piece fit into the forgiveness and righteousness that we have in Christ by grace through faith? In other words, how does this text point me to Christ? How does it point me to the gospel? And I believe that is the appropriate approach for both the Old and New Testaments, even where it may not be immediately apparent. To clarify a potential misunderstanding here, this doesn't mean that I see Christ symbolically in every passage. When I read the story of Noah and the ark, I don't see it as an allegory of Christ. I don't believe that I am supposed to see the ark as symbolically Christ saving his people from God's judgment. But the theme of deliverance is obviously there. And I absolutely believe that the reason that God has preserved this account in his word is to point me to the gospel and to Christ. I understand this to be what Paul means when he says in 2 Corinthians 3.15 that sacred writings, by which he means the Old Testament scriptures, are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. And when Paul wrote in Romans 15.4 that whatever was written in former days was for our instruction. I believe this is what Jesus did when in Luke 24 verse 27 it says Beginning with Moses and all the prophets he interpreted to them all the scriptures in all the scriptures the things concerning himself and I believe this is what the New Testament writers model for us in the way that they use the Old Testament and By one count, in just the epistles, not counting the Gospels or Acts or Revelation, the writers cite the Old Testament more than 300 times. And overwhelmingly, they interpret those Old Testament passages in ways that illuminate the Gospel and point to Christ. The book of Hebrews alone is a graduate level course in how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament to the church. This is what I believe that Paul was doing in Acts 17, when he says in verse two, when it says in verse two, and Paul went in as was his custom. And on three Sabbath days, he reasoned with them from the scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for Christ to suffer and rise from the dead and saying, this Jesus, whom I proclaim to you is the Christ. This was Paul's sole focus, resolving, as he wrote in 1 Corinthians 2, verse 2, to preach nothing except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. This is why I approach God's Word, including the Old Testament, the way that I do. Because I believe it is the approach that the New Testament writers point us toward. And that they, and the Lord Jesus himself, model for us in the way that they approach Scripture. And specifically, the Old Testament. So this is what I believe the box top looks like. Before I leave covenant theology, I just very briefly want to make one point, and it concerns what covenant theology is not. I don't want to dwell on this point, but there's a misconception about covenant theology that continues to be repeated over and over, and in ways that trouble me. Covenant theology is not replacement theology. Covenant theology does not teach that the church replaced Israel. This has been addressed and refuted over and over, exhaustively and consistently. Covenant theologians all agree, every single one of them, that the Church did not replace Israel. So, I've laid a very, very broad overview for why I read Scripture the way I do. Is there another possibility? Now, I find this approach very appealing, it's very Christ-centered, and I like that. But as I said earlier, we must not decide based on what we like. It doesn't matter what appeals to me. Is this really how God intends us to read Scripture? Not everyone agrees that it is. There are some very godly brothers in Christ who meticulously study God's word and have a very high view of scripture, who have a different understanding. They use a different box top, a systematic theology called dispensationalism. Here's what's important, what distinguishes dispensationalism. First, is a distinction between Israel and the church. These are two different groups, two different entities, and we need to understand them differently and not conflate them in our minds or in our interpretation of scripture. Now, there are a lot of implications to this, but perhaps the most obvious one is that if a promise was made to one group, it can't be fulfilled to another group. That would be like if you promised to give me $100, but instead you gave $100 to Courtney, and then Courtney claimed that your obligation was fulfilled. It's not. Courtney and I are two different people, and whatever you might have done with him has no bearing on your obligation to me. Isn't this what Paul means when he writes in Romans 9, 4? They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. Paul is drawing a clear line here. They're Israel. You're not. The covenants and promises belong to them, not to you. there's a distinction. The second distinguishing belief is a future for Israel. And this really flows out of the first. It recognizes that there were promises that were made to Israel that have not yet been fulfilled to Israel. And since the commitment is to Israel, they can't be fulfilled in any other way, such as to the church. So there has to be a future for Israel when these promises will be fulfilled. In Romans 11, Paul writes about the future of Israel. He says there has been a partial hardening of Israel now while God brings in what Paul calls the fullness of the Gentiles. But he says in verse 29, the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. And he's referring to the gifts and the calling that God has given to Israel. God has not revoked them because they're irrevocable. They're still there waiting to be realized. And when will they be realized? In the millennial kingdom the thousand-year reign of christ when he will sit on the throne of david in jerusalem The third is literal interpretation of scripture What this means is sometimes misunderstood. The issue here is not so much literal versus symbolic, although that may come into play for certain passages. But dispensationalists are more than willing to interpret scripture symbolically where it is clearly intended to be symbolic. They agree, for instance, that Jesus is the Passover lamb. The Passover lamb is a symbol or type for Jesus. The lamb was killed and its blood covered God's people while death came to those who were not marked by the blood of the Lamb. The Passover Lamb is a clear representation of Jesus. And so, to recognize it as a symbol does not violate the principle of literal interpretation. in the poetry of the Psalms, in the visions of the prophets, or in Revelation, in Jesus' parables. They understand symbolism where it is clearly intended. What they mean by literal interpretation of scripture is that we should focus on what's there and leave it at that. Don't look for something in the text that isn't there or try to understand it in a way that would not likely have been intended or understood at that time. In other words, don't read into the text. The practical application of that is this. If the gospel isn't in the text, don't try to impose it on the text. If Jesus isn't there, don't try to shoehorn him into it. That, they would say, violates the principle of literal interpretation. And I'm going to give you a 3A here that ties in with 3, although many dispensationalists list it as a separate distinctive on its own. I'm including it here because it really highlights the distinction. 3A is that the Old Testament should not be reinterpreted in light of the New Testament. It should be understood in its own light. Now if the New Testament says specifically and clearly that an Old Testament passage means something, then of course they accept that. But we shouldn't take what we know generally from reading the New Testament and then use that to reinterpret the Old Testament. And this is really where the difference lies, between the two camps, in our understanding of how to interpret the Old Testament. Because we all agree, at least in theory, with the literal interpretation of Scripture. But it's here, whether we should allow the New Testament to affect our understanding of the Old Testament where we don't necessarily see eye to eye. This is where there is a clear difference in how we believe we should interpret scripture. There are other things that some dispensationalists see as important when defining dispensationalism. But all dispensationalists agree that these three are essential. A distinction between Israel and the Church, a future for Israel, and literal interpretation of Scripture. But what's the box top? What should I hold a passage of scripture up to, to help guide me, to show me what it is and where it fits? Well, we've already touched on it in the distinction that they see between Israel and the church. That's the primary distinction that they maintain. All dispensationalists draw a clear line between Israel and the church. But the word dispensation, which is where they take their name from, means, at least in layman's terms, a period of time when God deals with man in a certain way. So they divide the Bible into different Dispensations now, I don't want to make a whole lot of this but just very briefly the original dispensationalist the old school had seven Dispensations and many still do today it starts with the dispensation of innocence the way that God dealt with Adam and Eve in the garden before the fall and And then there was conscience and government followed by promise. Promise was how God dealt with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Joseph. Then, most of the New Testament falls under the dispensation of law. How God dealt with Israel as a nation. Next, there's the dispensation of grace. That's most of the New Testament. It's where we are right now. And finally, the millennium, Jesus' literal thousand-year reign. That's the classic breakdown. Today, some limit it to four dispensations. Others have eight or nine. Don't get bogged down with that. The main thing in dispensationalism is that you have Israel, you have the church, and then the millennium, with very clear distinctions. You can break it down further than that if you want, but this is, in essence, your box top. And so you take a passage of scripture, and you hold it up to this, and you ask, what's this passage about? Where does it fit? If it's a passage that's directed to Israel, then keep it in Israel. Don't make it about the church. If you read something, even if it's Old Testament, and it's clearly about Christ, with application for the church, for instance, the Passover lamb, or any of the sacrifices really, or the prophecies about Christ, then put it there, in the church. Although, to be precise, Dispensationalist find very little if anything in the Old Testament that they would say applies to the church post Pentecost, but there's plenty there that applies to Christ and if you're considering a passage like the covenant that God made with David in 2nd Samuel 7 and you compare it to this box top and You're going to put a good part of it in the Millennium. Now some of it was fulfilled to David, and you'll see some fulfillment in Solomon and in David's other royal descendants, but the rest of it is in the Millennium. You wouldn't apply it to the church at all. If you hold a more detailed system of dispensations, then you have an even more detailed box top, and you would divide God's revelation more finely. But the point is, from an interpretive standpoint, you must keep things where they belong. If it's about Israel, it's about Israel. If it's about the church, it's about the church. If it points to the millennium, Keep it there. There's one more thing I want to share with you about dispensationalism, and it's an illustration that they use that I have found helpful in understanding something about the way that they understand Scripture. If you envision redemptive history as a land with a couple of mountain peaks on it, the first peak is Jesus' first coming. It includes his life, his death, his resurrection, his ascension into heaven. The second peak represents Jesus' second coming when he reigns on earth during his millennial kingdom. Before the first peak you have Israel between the peaks you have the church During the Millennium you have future Israel When an Old Testament prophet looked forward as he wrote scripture, he could see the Messiah's first coming. That was revealed to him through prophecy. And he could see the second coming, although it's not even clear that it's two separate comings. He saw the Messiah and the kingdom. What he didn't see was the church. It's hidden in a valley, a valley that he didn't even know was there between the two peaks. So nothing that he writes anticipates the church because he wasn't even aware of the church. But why would God do that? Why wouldn't he reveal the church to them in the Old Testament? Why did he tell them so much about Messiah's coming and the future kingdom and nothing about the church? Because it doesn't have anything to do with them. In fact, dispensationalists refer to the church as a parenthesis in God's plan for Israel. That's the word that they use, parenthesis. Sometimes they call it a pause in God's divine program for Israel. And this is part of the reason that they don't take Old Testament scripture and apply it to the church, because the church was unknown to the Old Testament writers. They knew about the cross and about the millennium, but not the church. Now, I don't agree with this. I believe that the church and Israel are the same, that Israel is the church as it existed in the Old Testament. And then God grafted Gentiles in, as Paul writes in Romans, and now the two have become one, as Paul writes in Ephesians. So not only were they aware of the church in the Old Testament, they were the church. And believing Jews, those who haven't been hardened, are still part of the church. And there's coming a day when there will be a massive turning to Christ among the Jews. And then they too will be part of the church. So I do believe that much of the Old Testament can be rightly understood to apply to the church. But I find this illustration helpful in understanding why they don't see the church revealed in the Old Testament. So these are really the two different box tops that are generally used by conservative Christians who have a high view of Scripture. Now, I don't mean to imply at all that what I've explained is the definitive version of either one. In fact, I am pretty sure that any advocate of either of these would think that I did a woefully inadequate job of explaining their side of things. And I would agree with that. I read one book this week that purported to describe just the essentials of dispensationalism, just the basics, not getting into any of the finer points, the bare bones minimum. It was 80 pages, which is not long for a book. But just based on word count, it would be the equivalent of five of my sermons. So I recognize that I only covered a tenth, if that, of what one dispensationalist considers the bare minimum. And I think I similarly shortchanged covenant theology. I recognize that this was the briefest of introductions to those two systems, and it's all that I intend to do. Now, I expect some of you may ask, why can't it be both? Do I really need to decide between the two? On certain things, yes. You have to decide. Are you going to interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament? Or aren't you? It's got to be one way or the other. Are you going to look for the Gospel and for Christ where it and where He would not have been apparent to those reading or writing in that earlier time? You either are or you aren't. And so you say, Well, can I pick and choose? Can I take some from one and some from the other? What if we maintain a distinction between Israel and the church, but we also let the New Testament help us better understand the Old Testament and look for Jesus and the gospel where they weren't seen in an earlier time? Well, you can try. You can try to put together that kind of a box top. There are a lot of people from both camps who will line up to tell you why that won't work. But there are some versions of what some call progressive dispensationalism that attempt to do something like that. Just remember, The goal is not to find a compromise. The goal is to understand scripture as God intends it. Going back to the puzzle analogy, you need the pieces to fit together. Because whatever God intended, the pieces ultimately fit together perfectly. But when we try to use half of one system and half of another, we may end up needing to force things to make them fit. So just be careful with that. When I started preparing this sermon, I had hoped, I think foolishly, that I would be able to get through this a little more quickly and then that I would have time to apply both systems, at least briefly, to the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. That's not going to happen this morning. As of now, my intent is to do that briefly next week as we continue in 2 Samuel 7, and then as we fairly quickly move into David's expression of gratitude to God in the second half of the chapter. For now, I have one charge for you. My deep concern in preaching on this topic and comparing these two theological systems is the potential to fuel dissensions and divisions in the body of Christ. It doesn't need to be that way. The body of Christ can be unified and display the love of Christ for each other, even where we disagree. But unfortunately, it would seem More often than not, this debate leads to rivalries and acrimony. It ought not be so. Theology is important. Truth is important. Rightly handling the Word of God is important. But if I have prophetic powers and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, And if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. So stay away from the rivalries. Pursue truth and right understanding of God's word so that you may be fully equipped for every good work that he calls you to. And so that you may give him glory and love your brothers and sisters with the love of Christ. Let's pray. Heavenly Father, again, we ask for discernment and wisdom. Father, teach us how you would have us handle your word. This is what we want. Not that we would found to be right, but that we would conform to you, to understand your revelation in the way that you want it understood so that it may have the effect that you desire in our lives. Father, give us love for our brothers. We know that that is what you tell us in your word, that you desire for us. So Father, we rely on you to make that happen. In Jesus' name, amen.