Well welcome again to our search class on Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Our first week we did an overview of the history of the two movements of thought Then we started going into subject by subject. We did covenants, that promise on oath sealed with blood, that are probably the most prominent markers in the biblical storyline. But we also considered how dispensations explain why the covenants came about, because God sets something new up, and then man tends to fail. Well, he does, fails every time. And then the re, vamping of things gets solidified often with a covenant. And so we see different eras of history then punctuated by a new foundation stone being laid of a covenant, culminating ultimately in the new covenant, which is Christ. And so then we looked last week at the kingdom which speaks primarily of a reign, not the reign of God sovereignly, that's the sovereignty of God, but the reign of God mediatorially or indirectly through man. Again, man failed. Individually, fathers failed. Then God set up governments after the flood and they failed. Then God appointed a particular nation to bless the world through Abraham and his seed. And we found that they were failing once they entered into the, they failed at the mountain, but then once they entered the land, they started failing. God appointed then the king Because every man was doing what was right in his own eyes. So the king is supposed to lead them not to battle, but to God. And the king makes them worse than the Canaanites. So by 600 BC, everything fails. And so the theocratic kingdom of the Old Testament, God's presence with them from tabernacle to the departure of the glory in the temple in Ezekiel. That theocratic kingdom of the Old Testament where God is accomplishing his purposes through man fails. And so the prophets then at that juncture of history not only speak of coming kingdoms, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, but also of a new covenant in which God will put the law of God on man's heart. because he will forgive them of their sin and everyone in that new covenant, every single individual from the least to the greatest will know God personally. And in that moment, he foretells also of a coming kingdom, of a coming inheritance, of a coming rain that will then spread to all the nations and a king in Psalm 2 who can ask of God and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, the end of the earth as your possession." So that coming kingdom we called the Messianic Kingdom. It was interesting, they built a temple, but the glory of God didn't fill it. The glory came when Jesus came and tabernacled among them, and a new part, kind of a new story began. And so that's the messianic kingdom and culminates ultimately in the end, because as Mary was told, the increase of his kingdom, there will be no end, Isaiah's prophecy. And so his kingdom has no end. So, just pausing right now. Welcome to Countryside Bible Church. You are in a confessionally pre-millennial church. Okay, this is a pre-millennial. We do not believe in a post-millennium. We do not believe in a non-millennium. We believe in a pre-millennium view of the coming of Christ. Which last week, if you remember, the pre-year of the post deals with where you put the return of Jesus, the second coming. If the second coming comes before a millennium, that's a pre-millennial view. If the second coming comes after a millennium, that's a post-millennial view. And there's varieties of post-millennium. The revival that never ends, or more recently, the kind of the education programs that will discipline the nations, a theonomy kind of approach. And if you think, oh, it's just a symbol in the book of Revelation, and don't take Revelation 20 as speaking of something chronological in history, it's just a picture, that's an amillennial view, there is no millennium in history. That's typically in a Dutch Reformed setting, or a Presbyterian, more modern Presbyterian setting often, it's a Reformed view that's been pretty popular over the last 100 years. You are in a pre-millennial, confessionally pre-millennial church. Now, last week I gave you some reasons why we believe it. I realized afterward I forgot one. And it was actually an important one. So I'm just going to go back briefly. Psalm 110, God says to the Messiah, sit at my right hand. Most quoted psalm alluded to psalm in the entire New Testament. This is not small. This is a big point. God says to the son of David, sit at my right hand. But when David speaks of it, he says, Yahweh said to my Lord, my master. And Jesus, of course, took advantage of that. If he's the son of David, why does David call him my Lord? The implication is he's more than a man. And so as a result of that, you have the Messiah being ascended into heaven, sitting at the right hand of God. Revelation describes that as Jesus saying, as I sat with my father on his throne. Then we see, in the rest of the Psalm, that the Messiah is going forth to slaughter kings. Machats in Hebrew, shatter kings. This is violent. It's the day of His wrath, not just the day of His power, but now the day of His wrath, which appears to be two different days. Now, God the Father is at His right hand. So if you remember, I quoted Psalm 16, as the Messiah approaches His suffering, I have always set the Lord before me, because He is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken. And then, he is raised from the dead, you will show me the path of life, at your right hand are pleasures forevermore. Psalm 16 starts with God the Father at God the Son's right hand, and ends with the Son at the Father's right hand. But then Psalm 110 starts with the Son at the Father's right hand, and ends with the Father at the Son's right hand, implying he's back on earth, slaughtering kings. bringing about the Great Judgment. So, I suggested that there's a difference between God's throne and the Son of God's throne. Jesus said, when the Son of Man shall sit on his throne in glory, Matthew 25, and judge the nations. That's a different throne, that's the throne of David. Notice, there's the sovereignty of God and there's the mediatorial kingdom that was pictured in the theocratic kingdom of David. And so, Jesus right now has ascended and is co-regent in heaven as divine and as man, but he's co-regent sharing the throne of God, but I would contend he has yet to take his own throne, which will be on earth. And so, whether that's gonna be for final judgment, amillennial, you might say, or for duration of time, premillennial, I don't believe that Jesus is on his throne because he promises you, believer, that if you overcome by faith, just as he overcame and sat with his father on his throne, so you overcome and will sit with him on his throne. which is what Revelation pictures, thrones were set up, and the saints were raised from the dead, and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years. I think that's indication of the premillennial view. Another one that I didn't mention last week is Ezekiel 37, 38, and 39. Chapter 36 is the new covenant. Chapter 37 is the dry bones. Son of man, can these dry bones live? Oh, sovereign God, you know." So he speaks to the bones and they live. They actually come together in sinews form and then he breathes into them life. So there's form and then there's life, just like Adam. He formed him from the dust and breathed into him the breath of life. They're dry bones because Israel has been dead for years. The bones are very, very dry. And so that's the picture of the nation being dead and needing to be raised from the dead, and I believe will be raised from the dead. That's actually, I think, picturing a physical resurrection coming. And then chapters 38 and 39 has the nation of Israel, the people of Israel, in unwalled villages signaling a time of peace. But Gog of Magog comes down and there's a huge horde that ascends upon them and fire consumes them. And Revelation chapter 20 puts that at the end of the millennium. So if chapter 20 pictures the first resurrection, something that John seems to say you should know about, the first resurrection, and then as a time period of peace where the devil is bound, and then Gog and Magog, and a final judgment scene, it matches the pattern in Ezekiel. And interpreters put them in different places, but that text was actually a big one for me, saying it is pre-millennial. Look it, it matches the pattern. New Covenant, Resurrection, Time of Peace, Gog and Magog would seem to echo what we see in Revelation. 1st Corinthians chapter 15 also speaks of a similar breakdown between the second coming and the end. It's a brief reference but Paul is doing chronology and so in 1st Corinthians chapter 15 Verse 20, God has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. Verse 23 picks up the reference to firstfruits and says, each is in its own order, as all die in Adam, all in Christ, all who are in Christ shall be made alive, but each in its order. Christ, the firstfruits, Then at his coming, those who belong to Christ, then comes the end. Now notice how he differentiates between the end and his coming. Now how much time is there between there? Is it just a judgment scene, an amillennial view, or is it a big time period? Then comes the end when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father. after destroying every rule and every authority and power. Notice the Psalm 110, destroying every rule and power and authority. At the end of that, when all the enemies are put under his feet, Psalm 110, he hands the kingdom back to the father. and they are co-regent together, and the kingdom of God in heaven, and the kingdom of the Messiah on earth, as the book of Revelation says, come together, and heaven and earth are not separated at the end of the book. Heaven has come to earth, and you have not just the garden of Eden, you have the city of Eden, the final state. This picture to me, and notice it also says there that all his enemies shall be under his feet. It says that he must reign until every enemy is under his feet. And then he says, there's a quote, for God has put all things in subjection under his feet. That's Psalm 8. And I'm going to refer to Psalm 8 in a little bit. The key between Psalm 8 Psalm 110 is all things. They link together under his feet just like Psalm 16 and Psalm 110 is right hand links them together. These are messianic Psalms and they're wondrous. They're really really encouraging. So My understanding, and there are good men on all sides of the issue, please understand that. Respect to anybody who loves the Bible, believes in Jesus Christ, God be praised. My understanding of this is in line with our church, that this is a premillennial view and that revelation does give us, broadly speaking, a chronology of the seven churches The seals in chapter six, which are outside the scroll, they're not hidden, they're known. They are things that occur before the end, like Matthew 24 says, famines, earthquakes, wars, and rumors of wars. Then the trumpets begin. A third of everything starts dying. And then you have the revelation of the beast in the final empire, which combines the four and Daniel. And you get in chapter 16, the bowls of wrath, the destruction of that beast, and a picture then at the end, a recapitulative picture of the two women, the harlot and the bride, Babylon and Jerusalem. I think it does picture a broad chronology in symbolic form proper to apocalyptic literature. Perhaps more interesting to me, though, was last week's, I'm gonna call it a discovery, because Alvin McLean helped me to see something I'd never seen. There is an old covenant, or an old kingdom and a new kingdom. I think we can use that terminology properly because there is an old covenant, scripture language, and a new covenant. The theocratic kingdom is the old kingdom. The messianic kingdom is the new kingdom. There's only two time periods where the presence of God is on earth. In that broad sleep after Eden, where the presence of God dwells with man in these two kingdoms and God mediates his reign through man. We're in the second one right now. The inaugurated kingdom is what the progressive dispensationalists call it. But the kingdom has begun. We've been transferred from the dominion of darkness into the kingdom of his beloved son. And we're in that kingdom. And that kingdom is in us too. And it's a blessing. The spirit of Jesus the king is in us. And all authority in heaven and earth is given to him. He's not on his throne, but it started. against the devil, target against the devil. Now, here's the thing, I was like, wow, old, new. Patterns, right, types. Talk about patterns in scripture. Genesis, a covenant with creation. After the flood, a covenant with Noah. God reboots the world, it's creation rebooted, but with a twist. Little differences. Now government's in place and other things, but with a twist. You have an old creation and a new creation. In fact, 2 Peter calls it, I believe, the old heavens and earth. We're in a, you know, now there's a, the present heavens and earth, there'll be a new heavens and earth. Okay, track with me. I always wondered how this, why do they sit there like, how do they connect with Abraham and on? I almost feel like you could drop, if you just told me everybody's a sinner and we're all in trouble and we're all gonna die, you could start pretty much with Abraham and carry the rest of the story forward. Blessing to all the nations, that makes sense. Like why do these two covenants sit over here? How do they connect with these other covenants? They give you a preparatory pattern. God is a faithful God who works in ways according to his name. He keeps his word, he's faithful to his promises, but he is a consistent God who has a name that never changes. Gracious, compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in loving kindness and truth. His ways are wrapped up in his name. And so when you start to learn the patterns of God as revealed, the patterns of God in history as revealed, you start seeing the patterns in other places. Old covenant, new covenant, theocratic kingdom, messianic kingdom. Oh, old creation, new creation. Then I started thinking, well, do those continue today? I believe so. I believe even in the history of the church, I'm gonna throw this out for you, but in the history of the church, I think we also see God letting man do his best at doing church, and he lets it go on for a thousand years. the patristic theology and era all the way to the Reformation, is God letting, as it were, a theocratic kingdom work its way out, church with a big C, until everything's been tried and everything tanks and goes to idolatry, and he reboots it in the Protestant Reformation. If that pattern is of God, which I'm suggesting it is, looking at the sweep of scripture, old creation, new creation, old covenant, new covenant, theocratic kingdom, messianic kingdom, then I suggest to you that the fact that the Protestant Reformation does not occur until 1,500 years later is not an argument against being Protestant. It's actually an argument for the Protestant Reformation. because our God is a God, mark this, who patiently lets every option be tried to shut every mouth Well, we didn't get a chance to do this, God. Well, we didn't get a chance to set this up. Oh, if we had only had this. So think of the patristic tradition. If we had just had a king on earth, much like Saul, Samuel, they desired a king in the days of Samuel. If we just had a Christ on earth, then we would succeed. Oh, well, let me give you a Pope and let's see how that goes. This is a pattern of God. It's really interesting to me. And it goes with what I quoted last week. Isaiah chapter five says, I planted a vineyard. I put a wall around it. I built a tower. I put the best grapes in it. And it only produced bad grapes. What, he speaks to Israel, what should I have done that I didn't do? Nothing. There's no option that hadn't been tried. It takes a long time to get to that point. Because you go, well, they're out in the wilderness. If they were in the land, they'd do better. Oh, if they just had a good law, well, they got a great law. Oh, if they just had a nice sacrificial system and the presence of God among them, oh, they got that. Oh, if they just had the power of the Spirit to defeat their enemies in Canaan, oh, but they go astray and every man does what is right in their own eyes. Oh, if they just had a king, Okay, I'll give him a king. And so after everything's been tried, you get to the end and God looks at us, humans, and says, okay, is there anything left that you want me to try? Okay, are we convinced? This is not the way to go. Okay, now we're gonna start over. And then he starts over. It's real and that again I think is an insight into dispensational way of thinking. God works in dispensations. He sets up different times and then keeps changing them and adjusting them as man acts or responds because man is responsible and the sovereignty of God is not opposed to the responsibility of man. Mysteriously God always gets his way and mysteriously salvation is only due to the Lord. I thank him not me. But within that great mystery, there's interaction, an incarnational mode to God, where he's angry, grieved, surprised even. With that in mind, I would suggest, look at your own life. Is that pattern actually worked out in your life? My first, the first baptism I ever did as a young preacher, I was in my 30s, lower 30s. It was the first convert that I had saw like one-on-one in my ministry. She was in her 50s. She was on her third marriage. She was married to an alcoholic. Her mom, her dad was a womanizer and not giving her the best example. And her mom was a believer and her mom sent her a birthday card. And on the bottom of the card, you know, little verses, on the bottom of the card it said, trust in the Lord with all your heart. Lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him and he will make your paths straight. And she thought to herself, I bet if I had let Jesus run my life, things would have been better. I'm not sure she could have been convinced of that in her 20s or 30s or 40s. Things had to work their way out. And we often see conversions, do we not, of loved ones, of children, that it's still working its way out. They're still trying the options. And they're not convinced yet that all the options have been tried. So I give this to you as an encouragement today. For your own life, as Pastor Lily would say, you know, like, how's that working for you? Okay. Check in your own life and go, if things are not going well, well, maybe I ought to repent and maybe there's an area of repentance. But if you're praying for somebody and wondering, well, how come it's been so long? Maybe it's because in the patience of God, he's letting them try all their options so that finally they get to the end and go, there's nothing more I could try. I guess you're the only way, God. That's our God. It's so encouraging. So our question for today is how should we understand the inheritance promises of, which would include the land, Abrahamic covenant, and the city, which is spoken about in the Mosaic covenant, but brought about through the hand of David. So most connected to the Davidic king. the city of Jerusalem. So think land and city. These are the ones to track the most. This is a challenge. Should we think the land promises were fulfilled under Abraham? Some do. Hey, they went into the land. They took over the land. They took it over so much they put their enemies down all around them. They had a great peace under Solomon. How can you get better than that? I mean, it's like that's taking the land. I think they got the land. So Abraham gets the land in his children, much the same way that Esau got Mount Seir in Deuteronomy. It says, don't go in that land. I gave Mount Seir to Esau and it's his descendants who are there. So is it like that? Abraham gets the land because the seed or the children of Abraham are there. That's an option. Maybe after the exile, the promises of the big prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, that you will be given the land, you'll return to the land. Jeremiah, go and buy that land from your relative. And he's like, we're about ready to go into exile. What does property mean now? Buy it because I'm gonna bring you back to the land. It's an act of faith. So are the land promises of, The big major prophets fulfilled when they come back after Babylon? Or are we still looking for a fulfillment of Abraham? Abraham isn't raised from the dead. He's still dead. Now, he's with Jesus, thankfully, after the cross, he takes captive, a host of captives, and brings them to the presence of God, but he's still not resurrected. Hebrews says he's waiting for the perfection of all things for us, you know, coming resurrection still. Okay, maybe then Abraham will not just have a cemetery plot, a place to put the dead, but the Abraham who lives is gonna have the land. A lot of people in dispensationalism in particular have believed that. Well, here's some of the challenges. I was like, I knew, I put the hard ones to the end of this course. I was like, this is going to be challenging. Because when I read the Old Testament, it's specific. It's really specific. And it's big. There is so much. That's one of the reasons why I picked up Alba McLean. It's like, I want somebody that takes those promises seriously and catalogs them. Not just somebody that goes, oh, it's just kind of like a new Eden. You know, just kind of. No, I want somebody to deal with the details. And he does. And one of the ways that Alvin McLean just challenged me, I'll call it the Zachariah challenge. He's really, I should have the quote, I don't have the quote, but here's the gist of it. In chapter 9, God says, behold, your king, he comes riding lowly on a donkey, a beast of burden. And then later, like chapter 14, his feet touch the Mount of Olives. Now, what warrant, Dr. McLean says, what warrant do I have to say, well, chapter 9 is to be interpreted very literally. It's gotta be a donkey. Oh, but chapter 14, because it's future, well, that's just kind of fuzzy, kind of vague. It just kind of means he's coming back. Well, if it specifies an animal in chapter nine, can I specify a geographic location in chapter 14? You know, that's the kind of specificity in the Old Testament. You go like, I think that makes sense. What hermeneutical rule do I have to say take chapter 9 literally but take chapter 14 spiritually and quite vague? That doesn't seem to make sense. So the dispensationalists, you know like one article I read by Dr. Craig Blazing leader in the progressive dispensationalist movement. He said, you know, the promise of the land is given in Acts 13 39 to you. I will give this land. Deuteronomy 4 chapter 4 verse 40 says, for all time, I give you this land for all time. Psalm 105 says it's an everlasting covenant to you and to your seed. I will give this land an everlasting covenant. God doesn't break covenants. And then Romans 11 29 says that not only are the callings of God irrevocable, but the gifts of God are irrevocable. I give you this land irrevocable. Well, Then I turn to the New Testament. And in the New Testament, I read that when Paul talks about the promise given to Abraham, it says in Romans 4 that he will be heir of the world. And it's in the topic of the promise given to Abraham. He's gonna be heir of the world. Well, one dispensationalist says, well, the part includes, I mean, the whole includes the part. If he's heir of the world, he can be heir of the part of the land. Okay, you know, but then I learned to other places. Jesus says my kingdom is not of this world. Otherwise, my men would be out fighting. Paul says in Philippians 3, we are citizens of heaven. Talk about a city. We're citizens of heaven. Ephesians chapter 1 says that we've been blessed, you know, with all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies. that we don't fight against flesh and blood, we fight against heavenly forces in the heavenly places. It seems so spiritual. I'm so tempted then when I come to Ephesians 6 and it tells children to honor your father and your mother for this is the first commandment with a promise that it may go well with you and that you may dwell long on the land. And I'm tempted to go, well, on the land probably then means heaven. Spiritually speaking, typologically speaking, fulfillment talk, it was land during the theocratic kingdom, it's heaven during the messianic kingdom. What was the lamb? A literal lamb here is fulfilled in Jesus here. And so you have a kind of a tear up, a heightening, an escalating. It was land of Canaan there, but now it's heaven here. Now you can see, I hope, how this seems to clash. Am I the only one in the room that feels like it clashes? I don't know, maybe I'm, if you have never dealt with this, maybe you don't know the feeling, but you read the Old Testament, you go like, somewhere he's coming back, and he's gonna touch this place, and he's gonna do this specific. And then you go to the New Testament and it goes, we're fighting Satan, not flesh and blood. We're gaining the heavenlies as our inheritance. It's kept up there for us. Oh, that's different. So, now, do you know why A hundred years ago, the classic dispensational view. I'm talking Lewis Barry Schaeffer. I'm talking, I should have had the book. Clarence Larkin, I think, would be of this. You know, he's got all those big charts. The old Schofield guys. They had two peoples with two places. The people of God on earth get the land in the millennium. That's Israel. The heavenly people, The church get the heavenly places. Well, then that makes sense. I've just taken care of the Old Testament. Those people get the land, and I just took care of the New Testament. Those people get heaven. Now, to their credit, the dispensational movement itself was not satisfied with two peoples of God. Like it keeps moving, they keep coming together through the classic time period, now into a distinctive time period where the progressive dispensationalists are distinguishing between Jew and Greek in the church, much the same way we distinguish between male and female in the church. Equal in some ways, not the same in other ways. Because we're still part of the flesh, Male leadership in home and church is in place. Jew first is in place because we're still here on earth. But spiritually, we both get the Holy Spirit. Spiritually, we have the same destiny in the eternal state. Spiritually, we're equal. So dispensationalism has moved these two peoples closer and closer together to now really not be separate, just distinct. where the covenant side are ditching more and more covenant of grace, covenant of works, and tracking with the historical covenants, but viewing them more in typology where you have basically the Old Testament now fulfilled, heightened, escalated in a New Testament. So physical sacrifices now become the eternal Lamb of God. Temple now becomes the body of Jesus himself and the body of Christ. Land can become the heavenlies, or the earth, or a new Eden, or something big. Okay, do you see how this typology can work? Old Testament kind of ramps up New Testament. Those in audio cannot see, but look at the covers of these things. Progressive dispensationalism came out in the 90s. Progressive covenantalism came out in the 2010s. Both speak of progressive, they're moving beyond their old ways of thinking. These started out with dispensationalists over here, covenantalists over here, they're like this now. They're in dialogue, like they can talk to each other now. They don't agree, but they're talking to each other. And so, I just gave you what is the arguments for both sides. Let me repeat them if you didn't get them. First of all, the progressive covenantalism, these guys see basically one people And it's a form of, it's like a revised Israel of a sense, if it's not a replacement Israel. But the last chapter in this book is on the land. And what the author, Orrin Martin quotes, he says, there's some things in the Old Testament you may have missed, O thou dispensationalist. He doesn't speak condescendingly, but. Genesis 22, 17 says to Abraham of his seed that he will possess the gates of his enemies. Singular seed, speaking of Christ. He will possess the gates of his enemies. Which speaks, could we think of this? Their famous book, by Gentry and Wellam is kingdom through covenant. Could we think of it this way? That the land promises our inheritance through kingdom. The kingdom comes through the covenants of the Old Testament. Once the kingdom comes, the inheritance comes as the people of God assert themselves in the power of the Holy Spirit. And now they take possession. And so you might say then that you could have Abraham being heir of the world, by spreading out that, taking possession. Now I'm actually slipping to the other side when I bring that one in, but excuse me for that. Chapter 26 verse 3, God tells Isaac, you will inherit all these lands, plural. Not just a land, but lands, plural. So more than just the land of Canaan, You can see we're moving towards world here, a new Eden. And so they say that basically Canaan was like God setting up a new Eden. Jacob saw angels as he left the land. Jacob saw angels as he came back to the land. The land is pictured like Eden, a place where angels dwell. And angels guard like the flaming sword of the cherubim guards the garden of Eden. So there's angels at the border. Okay, typology goes like this, then gets heightened, goes like this. Okay. Progressive dispensationalism. They almost want to shout at you. God doesn't deal just with individuals. In election, in a big outside of time covenant of grace, God chose individuals, yes, but God also chose one nation. If there is not a salvation of the nation, God has broken his promises to the nation. If I were to go around and individually promise you things, I, Bob Snyder, promise to mow your yard once this summer. I promise. And I take an oath. And I seal it with a covenant. You guys can hold me accountable individually. But if I stood up in the front of church and said, I promise, Countryside Bible Church, you as a group, that I will do this for you as a group that's different. because the group has a separate entity than the individuals. Pastor Lilly taught me to think in terms of what does the ministry need? When I came here, I used to only think what do the members need? I thought I was a good pastor. There's a difference between what do the individual sheep need and what does the flock need? And so I think they're right. God chose a nation. And I think he needs to fulfill his promises to a nation. And I suspect that has something to do with the millennium. They also assert that Jesus has yet to sit on his throne. That's also a theme I have. So I'm wondering if I do not know for sure if my position is actually pretty well represented somewhere in this camp. I'm not sure, because I'm just learning about it. I checked out of all these discussions 20 years ago. I was totally into it in the 1990s. I read tons, and I ended that time period being a post-millennialist. And it was sermons on Easter that convinced me I was wrong, because Jesus didn't get the kingdom without dying and rising again. I guess I won't either. I can't say I'm better than Jesus. I have to be changed. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. I have to die and be resurrected or be changed. Go through that gate. If I go down to these guys and go, okay, what are you actually saying? One thing they say in their book, Craig Blazing, Daryl Bach is, well, the Jews and the Gentiles in the church era both share in the spirit and they both had table fellowship. In the church, they're equals in that way. But in the millennium, the Jews, it seems, go to their city, and the Gentiles go to their lands. And at that point, I'm not with them. I'm like, I don't see any distinction. And I have great difficulties with not seeing some spiritual millennium. I mentioned that last week. So I'm still confused. But I want to give you an analogy, and then I'm going to talk about specifics. Here's an analogy. If you were my son, and I have one son in here, and I promised you a Ford on your birthday, and when the birthday came, parked in the driveway is a Ferrari, did I break my promise? I love this illustration. When we pray and we ask God for something and he doesn't give it, but he gives something better that is in line with what our heart's real desire and need was for, did he not meet our need? Or did he not answer our prayer? It would seem like he answered our prayer, but not in the way we intended. but he did meet it. But it's a little different when he promises X and gives you Y, or at least he promises you a small X and gives you a capital letter X. Did he break his promise? Did he change his promise? I think this is at the heart of the question. So when it comes to hermeneutics, there's only two questions. Every Christian is gonna agree, God is faithful. He never breaks a promise. It's kind of like Augustine when he had his little discussion in his book on free will. He's talking to some guy named Evagris or something like this. And he says at the start of the book, let's just get this straight. We're going to talk about where sin came from. But we're always going to end up saying this, God is not the author of sin. That's not an option. So, can we all agree, whatever view you take, however you settle this in your own mind, one thing is not an option. God is unfaithful to his word, okay? God is faithful. Every Christian's gonna believe that. God is faithful. He keeps his word. The question is twofold. Who did he promise to, to whom did he promise, and what did he promise? Because there we can misunderstand. Romans 9 discusses to whom did he give the promise? That's next week. Lord willing, next week we're gonna discuss Israel, the church, and who exactly gets the promises. And then what did he promise? That speaks of kingdom and inheritance. Talking about inheritance today, we're gonna talk about city, temple, and land. What exactly did he promise? Because it could be, I think he promised a Ford, and now I see a Ferrari parked out in the driveway. And I go, you didn't keep your promise. And he comes to me and says, well, I actually promised you a Ferrari. And again, what if he promised a Ford, literal Old Testament, and gave a Ferrari, heightened progressive covenantal view. It could be that the progressive dispensationalists didn't understand the promises well, and so they kind of have a flat view, kind of goes on earth and ends on earth still. It could be that the progressive covenantalists are misinterpreting the promises and saying it can change, which is what the dispensationalists charge them, you change the content. So I'll try to be brief. This is gonna be tough. Let the Lord be gracious. First of all, there is a difference in this question. How do I understand the Old Testament? I'm going to tell you. Luke 24 tells us we cannot understand the Old Testament without the help of Jesus. He opened their mind to understand it. and explained from Moses, through the prophets and writings, everything pertaining to Himself. But, even though you can't understand the Old Testament without being in the New Testament, it doesn't mean it wasn't there all along. It was. as it is written, or to say it is written, it is written, it is written, settles every argument when rightly interpreted, period. The devil cannot stand that firm stand of faith. So it's kind of like the question, does everything God does, is everything that God does good? Well, if I had knowledge of what good ultimately is, I could say, most assuredly, I can explain why, and actually I can't. On this side of heaven, I just have to look up and go, I trust you that whatever you are doing is good. And if I was up sitting next to him, I would go, yeah, I see, that's definitely good. So if I had the knowledge of God, I could sit next to Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah and go, that's exactly what it says. It's right here. But I'm not. I'm just a little old Christian who needs a lot of answers in the back of the book. So I go to the New Testament and Paul and Peter and John tell me, oh, that's what that means. Oh, that's what that means. Oh, thank you. So our mode in this is gonna be use the New Testament to interpret the Old. But it was always there in the Old. Augustine famously said that the New Testament, the Old Testament, let's see, the New Testament reveals the Old Testament and the Old Testament conceals the New Testament. And that speaks of the same reality I'm pointing to. Second. There's a lot of false dichotomies in this. Do you wanna know what a false dichotomy is? Picture holding an overpriced hot dog at a ballpark. And the vendor looks at you and said, would you like ketchup or mustard? Many of you go, can I have both? Do I have to choose either or? That's a false dichotomy. When it looks like it's gonna be this or that. The promise to Abraham is either unconditional or it's conditional, the covenant. Well, it's actually both, right? The sovereignty of God, is it the responsibility of man or not the responsibility of man? Well, there's both aspects in it. Is there continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament or discontinuity? One author says this is not a helpful question. It's a complex story where there's both discontinuous and continuous elements. It's better to say what is what and how. Similarly, the land and the world. Does Abraham fulfill the land or inherit the land or does he inherit the world? Can't I have both but in different ways? Inherit the land and then takes over the world through, as it were, military exercise, an empire, something like that. Beware of false dichotomies. Much of theology is both and, not either or. And many heresies are false inferences from a half truth. There's a lot that could be said there. But many of us have a hard time getting rid of our bad ideas because we saw something in the Bible and unwittingly drew a false inference, and now we hold tight to it, and we're holding an inference, not what the scriptures say in its fullness. Sovereignty of God, will of man is a classic one of that. But so is the incarnation, Jesus being man and God. So as we go to this, Topic, city, temple, and land. I'm gonna suggest to you, we're not literal enough. Here's what I mean by that. Psalm 8. Oh Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth. What is man? That you think of him the son of man, that you visit him? You have made him for a little while, or as the Greek says and quoted in Hebrews, you have lessened him for a little while. And he speaks about, Psalm 8 speaks about, you gave him to rule over the fish of the sea, birds of the air, and every beast of the field. And it sounds like creation. Many see, well, that's a Psalm about Adam. But it says, who is the son of Adam, the son of Adam that you visit him? How can it be Adam if it's the son of Adam? And how can he be lessened to become man? And you have put all things under his feet, all the works of your hands. Well, does that include the finger works of the stars that were just mentioned a few verses earlier? Yes. Hebrews 2 says, this is speaking of Jesus. All things means all things. If I think of Adam only, there's no way the stars, which as our brother Paul Hasmer gave a great devotion this spring to our kids, it's like billions of them and they're far, far away. There's no way the stars are under our feet, ever. But they're under the feet of Jesus. because Psalm 8 is quoted multiple times in the New Testament, not Hebrews 2, but Ephesians 1, 1 Corinthians 15 of Jesus, that you have exalted him far above the heavens, which is Psalm 8, verse 1. You have set your glory above the heavens. Again, are we literal enough It says above the heavens. And if I look to an earthly fulfillment, that's impossible. But he ascended and is at the right hand of God. He's above the heavens. So when I go to Psalm 8, I'm like, I don't think I'm literal enough. It actually challenges my faith. I'm like the man on the road to Emmaus, one of the two on the road to Emmaus, who says, oh, you of little faith, slow to believe all that was spoken. I'm like, Lord, I didn't take Psalm 8 like this. Like it's speaking of Jesus above the heavens, all things under his feet, including the stars, sun, and moon. And brothers and sisters, that's being literal, not spiritualizing it or allegorizing it. That's actually what it says. We're just like, wow. Because this becomes then a challenge when you go to the land. Because Hebrews says, let me quote you, Hebrews chapter 11. Again, same author that talks about Psalm 8. Hebrews chapter 11, by faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. A place he was to receive as an inheritance. Topic on hand, our land. And he went out not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise. As in a foreign land. Hmm, that's curious. Living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. Notice our topic is here. How does Abraham inherit the land? How should we conceive of inheriting the land? The author is saying, he went, he lived in the land of promise and he lived in tents. Why did he live in tents? And the author says, Because, for, he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. Why didn't he just be like Lot? Settle down, settle in, and take a city. He demonstrates his military powers in chapter 14, destroys the kings of the east. Why doesn't he take a city? He doesn't take a city. He purposely chooses to live in tents as if he was a resident alien, not a citizen or occupant of that land, which is why Hebrews says he's dwelling there as in a foreign land. Skipping down to verse 13, because it talks about Sarah and her faith. Verse 13, these all died, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, they all died, not having received the things promised. Maybe they were received in his descendants, but when Abraham died, all he's got is a cemetery plot, a cave. But having greeted them, having seen them, having greeted them from afar and having acknowledged that they were strangers and aliens on the land. Strangers and aliens on the land is what Abraham said. And the writer says, for people who speak in this way, make it clear. This isn't like rocket science. He's saying this is obvious. People who talk like that make it clear they are seeking a homeland. This is me of little faith. I'm reading this going, I actually went into this week going, I do not know why the writer of Hebrews says, Abraham was seeking a better country, a heavenly one, verse 16. Why, Lord? I do not know why. And now I feel dumb. because the writer of Hebrews actually tells me two reasons why that's true. Because I was asking the Lord earlier this week, what is the writer of Hebrews seeing in the Old Testament that I'm not seeing? I get it when he says in verse later, verse 19, that he considered that God was able to raise Isaac from the dead. I get that one because chapter 22 of Genesis says, I and the boy will return. Abraham believes he's gonna return with the boy. He's gonna raise him from the dead. And so, there's something in the text, but it tells me, the two data points are, Abraham went around saying, I'm a resident alien. I'm a sojourner. I'm a foreigner. I'm a stranger. And if I meet somebody who says, I'm a resident alien, I'm a sojourner, my natural question will be, what country do you come from? or what is your country? Which is what he says. Those, in verse 15, if they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, that's one option. I'm a resident alien because I came from Ur of the Chaldeans. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But Abraham didn't go back. In fact, he tells his servant, definitely don't bring the boy back with you to Mesopotamia. Don't do that. Well, if that's the case, then what is his homeland? Because it's not the land he came from. And he talks like, this isn't my land. I'm like, this is shocking to me. Abraham is seeking As verse 16 says, he's desiring a better country that is a heavenly one. And as a result, God is not ashamed to be called Abraham's God, Isaac's God, Jacob's God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to go by that label, because God has prepared for them a city. This is shocking to me. If the dispensational view is like this, earthly promises to be fulfilled earthly, and the covenantalists are going, earthly promises fulfilled typologically, then I'm reading Hebrews going, Abraham was seeking a heavenly country all along. I'm like, I didn't see that. But I'm gonna have an argument with the Holy Spirit if I don't agree with this reasoning. Because the process of elimination, he's calling himself a sojourner. Obviously, this is not his land. What's his land? It's either where he came from or where he's going. Process of elimination. Now, mark this. If you doubt this, I would like you to consider 1 Chronicles 29, where David prays in the presence of the assembly when they collect things to build the temple, He prays in verse 15. We are sojourners before you, strangers, excuse me, that means foreigners before you, and sojourners, resident aliens, as all our fathers were. Please note, David has the land. David has the city. The enemies have been put down. He has an empire. And he says, I am a stranger. And he links the sojourning identity to his father's. Meaning, our days on the land are like a shadow and there is no abiding. Our days on the earth. There's a lot of exploration to do in the book of Genesis. Because I think the book of Genesis has a lot more about heaven than what we realize. It's interesting, when I was in college or seminary, I had to read the Dallas Theological Seminary book on biblical theology. It's back in the 90s. It hardly even would admit that Old Testament saints knew about or believed in resurrection. Let's just take the Old Testament as it stands. I tell you, that method will leave you with a Jewish interpretation, and you will be blind to many of the details that are there, and you will not take the Old Testament literally enough We need the help of the New Testament. Time escapes me to talk about the temple in Ezekiel, but it's absolutely fascinating. It seems to be represented. It would take a long time to explain, but apocalyptic literature is a very different animal than poetry even, let alone narrative. When the book of Revelation tells you that John saw a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes, you're probably not expecting to see Jesus someday as a lamb slain with seven horns and seven eyes. Or when John pictures the final government as a beast that combines all the elements of the lion, bear, leopard, and what is it? You're probably not thinking that that's actually what people are going to see in the book of Revelation. But for some reason, when we go to chapter 21 and 22, we think the New Jerusalem is going to be a big cube. Why can't that be a big symbol, yet be a historical reality just as much as Jesus is a historical reality, just as much as the final world government is a historical reality? Why can't that be a picture of what is a historical reality? of a millennium and such of a time period, but I am absolutely befuddled by what's in that millennium. Because when I go to the New Testament, I am told, as we heard preached this morning, we do not regard Jesus any longer according to the flesh. He belongs to the Jews according to the flesh, but we do not regard him according to the flesh, nor do we know all men according to the flesh. We don't think in terms of ethnicities. We do not think of Jesus as a Jew. He is a new Adam and has transcended all of that. There is a reality there I haven't plumbed and I do not know. And when I read that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom, it reminds me that the kingdom is something bigger than just a replaying or redoing of Old Testament theocratic kingdom. There's something big about the messianic kingdom, spiritual, that we are tasting right now as we have the down payment and first fruits of the Spirit. And it makes sense because the original enemy was not man, but the devil. And someday, as the seed of the woman will crush the head of the devil, Paul writes in Romans 16 that the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. and we will reign with Christ and we will crush Satan. So whatever that time period of the millennium is, I can respect those who see a fulfillment, progressive dispensationalist, but I guess I'm parting ways with them, but I end up more like a progressive covenant guy, but I go a different route to get there. I think they use typology so much, and I don't know they take maybe the literalness enough. I don't know enough of the debate. But I invite you next week for one final session where we kind of set aside what is promised and look together at to whom it is promised and strike a distinction between Israel and the church that does keep them distinct but not separate. And I think, actually, that is where our church is centering on. And it probably is, whether it's a progressive dispensationalist stand, it's at least progressive dispensationalist-like. And I don't know for sure, but may the Lord lead us. So, let's praise him for his great wondrous mysteries, as Paul says, great is the knowledge and wisdom of God. Father in heaven, we just acknowledge that just as Simeon and Anna in the temple looking for the redemption of Israel, or Joseph of Arimathea were looking for the comfort, the redemption, of Israel. They believed the promises, but none could anticipate how that great jigsaw puzzle could be put together. So, oh God, yes, we want insight into the mystery of Christ. But Lord, we do not want to say we have just created an ism that will explain it all and hand it to people. We are fellow searchers. As the prophets searched these things out, we have the advantage of the Holy Spirit and the New Testament, and we are so privileged. Thank you, O God. Teach us. We want to worship. We want to gain insight into Christ. We want to learn, and we want to praise you. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.