I'm going to actually read different verses than what you have in your bulletin, beginning to read at verse 9 through verse 13. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you. He is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey. I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem. The battle bow shall be cut off. He shall speak peace to the nations. His dominion shall be from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth. As for you also, because of the blood of your covenant, I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit. Return to the stronghold, you prisoners of hope. Even today, I declare that I will restore double to you, for I have bent Judah, my bow, fitted the bow with Ephraim, and raised up your sons, O Zion, against your sons, O Greece, and made you like the sword of a mighty man. Amen. Father, we thank you for your word, and it is our desire to glorify you as we consider the teachings that your word has. We pray that you would anoint us and enable us to continue in this time of worship, that the thoughts of our hearts and the meditations may be acceptable in your sight. In Christ's name, amen. Last week we began looking at three evangelical controversies that swirl around the Passion Week, and that one was what day did Jesus die on? Now, initially, it may seem like it's such an inconsequential issue. What's the difference if he died on Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday? But we saw that if you're off by even one day, there are enormous implications that arise from that, sometimes unintended. And I want to hasten to say that we aren't taking three weeks to examine these controversies in order to disparage our brothers in the Lord, not at all. We are doing this to show that it really does matter what you believe. And I've actually been wrong on all three of the issues that we're going to be looking at. And so it's not a situation where I'm looking down on them and raising myself up. No, I've been wrong on these. But we don't just drop things in order to be nice. When there are such massive implications, we really need to understand these controversies. But anyway, we saw last week that even though solid evangelicals hold to the Friday theory, their chronology gets messed up. And they as a result, they have lost some fantastic faith building material. But more importantly, they've given all kinds of ammunition to atheists who use that ammunition to attack the so-called contradictions that are in the gospels, they claim. Now we saw on a Thursday theory, there are no contradictions whatsoever. Well, the same is true of today's controversy. What is the significance of Palm Sunday? Was it an offer of the kingdom that was later retracted because of Israel's unbelief? This is what dispensationalists have historically said. Now, I have a number of godly dispensationalist friends who believe that what was signified in Palm Sunday was retracted and it will not be reinstated until sometime in the future. Now, they do not deny that the Gospels portray the kingdom as about to start on Palm Sunday. Everybody believes that. They do not deny that Palm Sunday was a presentation of the king. or a description of the imminent kingdom or the declaration of God's law claims on Israel. In fact, if you read some of these dispensational books, which I've read a massive amount of them, they acknowledge that in the Old Testament, it sure looked like the kingdom was going to start in the first coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Daniel prophesies 70 weeks, which is 490 years divided up into three periods before the millennial kingdom would start. Now, on my timetable, that gets us to the tribulation, the seven-year tribulation of 66 to 73 AD. Just in case you're curious, the 1335 days of Daniel takes you just beyond the seven-year tribulation to the destruction of Masada. From the burning of the temple to the fall of Masada, exactly 1335 days. But that's my view that places us in the kingdom. But rather than saying as we do that we are in the kingdom, they say that the clock of prophecy was stopped with the crucifixion and the last week of years in Daniel will not start being counted until sometime off in the future. Reverend Bill Lee Warner summarizes the view of his fellow dispensationalists when he says this. After Christ presented himself to Israel as her Messiah on Palm Sunday and was subsequently cut off, a nearly 2,000 year gap ensued. And when he says a gap, he's talking about the 2,000 years that have elapsed since 30 AD were utterly unanticipated in the Old Testament. There was prophecy that was going along and somehow there's a gap in here that you don't see in the Old Testament. He goes on. When Christ was cut off, the time clock was effectively stopped. Then in May of 1948, Israel was once again back in the land. That was significant because she had to be back in the land before the prophecy to Daniel in Daniel 9, 24 through 27 could be fulfilled. God had dealt with Israel as a nation up to the time when Israel was cut off. He does so again when he resumes the program with Israel for the 70th week, the final seven years. The re-emerging of Israel as a nation among the nations of the world after nearly 2,000 years was essential before the 70th week could begin. Okay, so that deals with their timing, which I believe is off. But the reason their timing is off is because of some erroneous presuppositions. And there are five presuppositions, or you can call them assumptions, of dispensationalism that Zechariah 9 beautifully corrects. And again, I do not bring up these differences because these men are bad. Far from it. I bring it up because I am saddened by the way in which these assumptions have made the church ineffective, have caused the church to stop using the spiritual tools that God has given to her, have robbed the church of faith, and have made the church retreat from culture. The last 150 years of retreat is largely due to dispensationalism. There are a few other factors that are in there as well. Now the timing issue may not seem like a big deal, but the implications are enormous. And so I thought it might be helpful to give you a little bit of background before we dig into this text. For the first 1800 years of church history, the church has been fairly unified in believing in five unities. Once dispensationalism started, these five unities were replaced with five dichotomies, and you can read these very clearly stated in authors such as C.I. Schofield, Lewis Ferry Schaeffer, who was the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, Charles Ryrie, and others like that. So let me just quickly list these five different ways of looking at life, and this is a worldview difference, okay? Five different ways of looking at life. First of all, you have whole Bible Christianity of the historic church versus dispensationalists claim that we're supposed to be New Testament Christians. But most of the biblical blueprints for success in life have unwittingly been thrown out of the window when they have neglected Old Testament law. They don't have blueprints for success. And so we have the unity of the scripture versus the view that says, hey, the Old Testament was for Israel and the New Testament is for Christians. Second, the historic church knew of only one kind of salvation by grace alone through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and the Old and the New Testaments versus the dispensationalist idea that what's, especially right now, what they talk about is carnal Christian theory where lordship of Christ is optional. You can receive Christ as Savior, you can reject Him as Lord. Now, it is interesting that the dispensationalist writer John MacArthur has ditched at least this one plank of dispensationalism. In fact, he's written some of the most phenomenal critiques of the carnal Christian theory that are out there. He's written some fabulous stuff in critiquing those in his own camp. But anyway, in the early dispensational, there's three waves of dispensational. The further along you get, the better that they are. But in the early waves, like C.I. Schofield, for example, you read his writings, you would get the impression that he believed that the Old Testament saints were saved by works righteousness, totally different from the way we are saved. Almost nobody believes that anymore. But this division, this dichotomy in terms of lordship versus non-lordship salvation continues. to be quite strong. Third, the church has historically believed that God has only one people redeemed by grace and that one people is likened to one and only one olive tree. Yes, branches are broken off. Yes, new branches are grafted in, but it's one olive tree, one temple, one bride, one invisible church, one commonwealth into which we have been engrafted according to Ephesians. Now in contrast, Charles Ryrie states that with dispensationalism, at the heart of God's purpose is a watertight distinction between two peoples, Israel and the church. And the two will always be separate throughout eternity. For example, consistent dispensationalists will deny that Old Testament saints are part of the Bride of Christ. They deny that Jews who are saved in the future millennium will be part of the Bride of Christ. And so they have two separate peoples. Now there is enormous implications to this error, and I won't have time to get into those implications today, but I'll just give you one example of where this gets messed up. Because there's such a bifurcation between Israel and the church in their minds, they say it is illegitimate to ever apply a promise given to Israel to the church. I mean, it's totally different. Paul does this all the time, doesn't he? I will never leave you nor forsake you. Well, that was a promise that was given to Israel under Joshua. And you see many examples of this, but they say, no, you cannot apply promises to the church, to Israel or vice versa. They insist Israel and the church are two quite separate people. So, so far we've seen there's a unity of the scripture, a unity of salvation, a unity of God's people versus dichotomies in each of those areas. Fourth, the historic church held to a unity of God's purpose, namely restoring everything lost under Adam through Christ and His grace. And I love the way that the Christmas hymn words it, you know, joy to the world, that His grace goes far as the curse is found. It is a universal, eventually we're going to have a new heavens and new earth, right, in which dwells righteousness. His redemption reverses everything that was under the fall. Now in contrast with that, dispensationalism says that there are two purposes. They will agree with parts of what we have just said, but again Charles Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism Today says one of the defining characteristics of dispensationalism is the belief that God has two purposes, an earthly kingdom purpose for Israel and a heavenly non-kingdom purpose for the church. Now you have some modern dispensationalists who kind of hedge on that and they say, well that's a kingdom too, but it's two separate kingdoms, if they say it's a kingdom. Fifth, the historic church held to a unified ethical system that included the Old Testament moral law, whereas dispensationalism says that there are kingdom ethics for Jews, and that's the Old Testament. Then there are non-kingdom ethics for believers in the New Testament, and that would be the New Testament, and some people exclude the Sermon on the Mount. but it would be the New Testament and natural law. And so there's really not a unified system for God's redeemed people of ethics down through history on their view. And almost all dispensationalists still hold to this dual ethics. Now with those five changes in worldview, when they began taking over in the 1800s, The church began to abandon the cultural mandate of Genesis chapter 1, and they began to withdraw from culture. And as a result, the church has lost many of the gains that we had made over the past many, many centuries. Because they do not believe that God has made promises for victory for the church in the future, they do not have the faith to expect great things from God or to attempt great things for God. Once the church no longer believes that the Bible provides the foundation for everything, For mathematics, linguistics, science, politics, economics, you name it, Christians have had to fill the gap by going to the world for wisdom in those areas rather than going to the Bible. So they've gone to the world for help on counseling, and education, and business, and church growth, and leadership, and so many other areas. And so it's no wonder to me that the church has more and more begun to look like the world. For a number of years, I very sincerely held to this newer theology of dispensationalism. And there's a number of good men out there who still do, John MacArthur being one. And even though he's rejected one of those five planks, he still holds that the kingdom has been postponed. Therefore, the laws of the kingdom have been postponed. They no longer apply. And he claims that the Old Testament did not anticipate our age. Now, I know this is a long introduction, but I think it's very important for you to understand what's going on in many churches out there. We'll see how our passage contradicts all of this and gives us a basis for a tremendous faith for the future. But let me first of all quote from John MacArthur, just so that you can see I have not misrepresented him. Even though MacArthur admits that the Gospels are full of references to God's kingdom law, that the Sermon on the Mount is the manifesto of the kingdom, that the four Gospels are riddled with promises that the kingdom is about to start, he says it all got sidelined. And I'll just give you one sample quote. He says, if Jesus came to bring his kingdom to earth, to reign, and to establish that which was promised, But Israel refused him and his kingdom, then what happened to the kingdom? Chapter 13 answers that question. You see, the kingdom cannot come until the nation of Israel receives the king. And why do they say that? Why does he say that? Well, it's because he believes that the promised kingdom was only intended for Israel. If Israel rejected it, then logically it had to have been postponed. Anyway, he continues. He says, until that point then, the kingdom has to be postponed in terms of its complete fulfillment. It has to be postponed to a future time. What time is that? The Second Coming of Christ. That's why Christ is coming a second time to bring the Kingdom that was refused at His first coming. Christ came and said, repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Matthew 4, 17. The message of John the Baptist and the Apostles was the same. Matthew 3, 2. Matthew 10, 7. They preached that the Kingdom of God was at hand. The people rejected the king and his kingdom, therefore the kingdom was postponed. Now MacArthur also believes that since all of the Old Testament prophets thought that the kingdom was going to be established at Christ's first coming, this postponement was completely unanticipated. In other words, they admitted that the Old Testament prophetic timeline goes up to Christ's first coming and continues with the kingdom. But he says with the unanticipated rejection of Jesus, which by the way I think is bogus too. Last week we saw there was over a hundred prophecies of the Passion Week. It is not unanticipated at all. But anyway, he says with the unanticipated rejection of Jesus, we now have to put a 2000 year gap or parentheses into the Old Testament prophetic timeline. So you got the Old Testament kingdom. You got an interruption, a parentheses of our church age, and then there's a reinstitution of the kingdom. A standard dispensationalist theology. Anyway, MacArthur calls this postponement the New Testament mystery. And I say that is a total misuse of the word mystery. Ephesians 2 through 3 defines what the mystery is. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the postponement of the kingdom. It has to do with us Gentiles being engrafted into the commonwealth of Israel. And yes, it does say we are grafted into the commonwealth of Israel. Anyway, that's the mystery. But in any case, John MacArthur says, now what happens in the time between the rejection of the kingdom and Christ's second coming? Some theologians have called this period the parentheses. Some have turned it the interim. Some have called it the interregnum. Regnum refers to reigning. So interregnum is the time between reigning. So you've got kingdom back there, you've got kingdom in the future, now he's not reigning? Weird. But anyway, the interregnum. It's a period, he says, that is not seen in the Old Testament. Thus Jesus calls it the mystery in Mark 4 11. It was a period of time hidden from the people. Now this too is standard dispensationalist theology that the church age is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament. And they have to say that because the Old Testament has the kingdom being established at the first coming just like we believe. But was Israel's rejection of the kingdom unanticipated. And I say, absolutely not. Daniel 9 talks about it. Daniel 12 talks about it. It talks about Israel rejecting their Messiah being cast out into the nations and the gradual assimilation of all of the Gentiles into the kingdom. And if you look at our passage, verses 9 through 10, you'll see that the gospel to the Gentiles after the rejection of Israel is not a mystery at all. Zechariah says, this is verse 9, Now let's stop there for a moment. I want you to notice that this is not Israel as a whole that would rejoice, but the daughter of Zion and the daughter of Jerusalem that would rejoice. That is Old Testament language for the remnant of Israel, the elect, those who are truly saved. And in Matthew 23, Jesus said something similar. He said, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her, how often I wanted to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. He doesn't say how often I wanted to gather you together, but you were not willing, but how often I wanted to gather your children together, but you were not willing. What does he mean by that? Well, he defines exactly what he means in the same chapter using different words. He says, Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men, for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. So there are children of Zion who are entering into the kingdom, but the political leaders were trying to prevent it. They don't like them rejoicing in Jesus and crying out, Hosanna, Hosanna. They don't like that. And so there's a distinction between Israel as a political entity and the elect, the children of Zion or the children of Israel. as the godly remnant. And by the way, Jesus does not forever say that the nation of Israel is going to be cast off. There is a time in the future when even politically they will acknowledge Christ, and He goes on to say that right in Matthew 23. He says, See, your house is left to you desolate. for I say to you, you shall see me no more till you say, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." And there is a time when they will say that. There is a time when Israel will acknowledge Christ's Lordship over politics. So anyway, the same kind of distinction between The children of Zion and the political leaders that we see in Matthew 23 is exactly what we're going to see here in Zechariah 9. So Zechariah 9 verse 9. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion. Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Behold, your king is coming to you. He is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey. So that's Palm Sunday. What happens on Palm Sunday? Will a remnant of Jews rejoice in Christ and receive Him as their King? What happens to those who do not? Well, on Palm Sunday, Jesus said that their house would be left to them desolate. And that's what Zechariah 9, verse 10 says. It says, I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem. The battle bow shall be cut off. So that's the second thing that happens is national Israel would be judged by God. Israel's military would be completely destroyed in battle, which is a reference to Rome's destruction of Israel and Jerusalem within one generation. All of these things will happen, Jesus said in Matthew 24, within one generation. It happened from 66 to 73 AD. So that's the second correction that Palm Sunday brings. God was not blindsided by Israel's rejection of the kingdom. It was not In fact, there isn't any prophecy in the Old Testament that would indicate that Jesus was going. I mean that Israel was going to receive Jesus at the first coming, and there's many that say the exact opposite, that they're going to reject their Messiah. So it's a problem for dispensationalism. It is no problem for covenant theology. It fits perfectly into the postmillennial time map of Romans chapter 11. But the third correction to dispensational theology is found in the last clause in verse 10. The Kingdom is precisely about the Great Commission. The Great Commission going to all nations is not an afterthought, utterly unrelated to the Kingdom. It is not a great unanticipated parenthesis. It says, He shall speak peace to the nations. His dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth. So there's no postponement of the kingdom just because Israel rejects their king. God anticipated Israel would do exactly that. And yet he said that the kingdom would grow and continually, gradually grow from sea to sea, from the river to the ends of the earth, until finally Israel itself as a nation would receive Christ. And you see that later on in the book of Zechariah. Now, the fourth correction that this advancement to the ends of the earth is not Jesus as Savior minus Jesus as Lord. It is Jesus as King establishing His kingdom. It says His dominion shall be, well the word for dominion is just a synonym for kingdom. Okay, there is no postponement and submitting to His lordship is not an option. Now, as I mentioned, dispensationalists have historically taught the carnal Christian theory that says that people can receive Jesus Christ as Savior, reject Him as Lord. That's another way of saying that they can get a train ticket to heaven without riding the train. Or they can get saved, sin like the devil, and still consider themselves candidates for heaven. No, Jesus did not come to make us comfortable in our sins. He came to save us from our sins. And I want you to notice the order here. It parallels the order in the New Testament of Lord and Savior. You don't find anywhere in the New Testament Jesus as Savior and Lord. It's always as Lord and Savior. And you see the same thing here. Now, depending on your response to Jesus as Lord, you either experience the judgment of verse 10a, or the peace of verse 10b. But it's all based on the gospel, and the gospel was designed, as I said, to save us from our sins. And so Palm Sunday is a huge correction to the carnal Christian theory. But there are some further implications, and I bring these up, again, not because, you know, You know, I don't love my brothers. I've got good friends who are dispensationalist and I used to be myself and praise the Lord. Number of my friends have ditched their dispensationalism, but I will admit I am greatly saddened that dispensational theology has completely robbed the church of a world conquering faith that the church had in centuries past. No longer is the Great Commission thought to be achievable. As dispensationalist Tommy Ice says, we believe the reason for this lack of success is that God has not given the church the necessary tools and graces to establish an earthly kingdom. Let me read that again. He said, we believe the reason for this lack of success is that God has not given the church the necessary tools and graces to establish an earthly kingdom. And we say, what are you talking about? The Great Commission says that Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. He doesn't need more authority than all authority in order to establish his kingdom. And it's not postponed. You know, we don't have to wait for the Second Coming. He says, Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. The very One who breathed the cosmos into existence has said He will be with us so as to make that Great Commission possible. And the Great Commission doesn't command us to just conquer a few individuals out of the land of Canaan. It commands a total conquest. Every nation, a Christian nation, thoroughly living out God's Word. That's the Great Commission. What many people have is a very, very truncated, reduced version of the Commission. Now, nor are we lacking tools to achieve this, as Tommy Ice claims. Jesus commanded us to teach these nations all things that he has commanded, and what did he command? Matthew 5, 19 says, you're to use all the tools of the Old Testament law, all of that. The Old Testament and the New Testament together have all the necessary tools to put science under the feet of King Jesus, to put mathematics under the feet of King Jesus. to put politics under the feet of King Jesus, music under the feet of King Jesus, economics under the feet of King Jesus. Okay, we don't need any other tools. And even though we're not under the ceremonial law, I've pointed out a few weeks back that the ceremonial law is needed to teach you the axioms of mathematics and physics and geometry and other things like that. So it's not a question of whether those tools are good and sufficient or equal to the task. Of course, they're sufficient. The only question is, will the church be too embarrassed to use the spiritual weapons, the spiritual tools that God has given? Or are they going to opt for carnal tools? Unfortunately, they've opted for carnal tools. Paul said, Yes! We have the adequate tools that we need. They are not the tools of a worldly kingdom. They are the tools of a heavenly kingdom, which is progressively coming to the earth, which is gradually transforming the earth as leaven of the kingdom. And we'll look more at the nature of the kingdom in a bit. But another thing that we see in our passage is that this gradual taking over the world started shortly after Palm Sunday. We see the Passion Week as the pivot on which all of history is reverse of the cross as the hinge of the door of history. It's not the second coming. While the second coming does conclude all of the work of the cross of Jesus Christ with the resurrection, it concludes it It does not replace it. Okay, the cross, or what verse 11 speaks of, is the blood of the covenant, is the key to reversing all of the sin problems of this world. The cross purchased everything necessary, and the resurrection in 30 AD began the process of making all things new. But dispensationalist writers lack faith that the cross is sufficient to make this happen. For example, Wolvard, very famous dispensationalist writer said, therefore the only solution to the turmoil among nations is the return of Jesus Christ in power and glory to the earth. He doesn't see the cross as the solution. He sees the second coming as the solution. In other words, the cross is not enough to reverse history. The gospel is not enough to Christianize the nations. And because they believe that the Old Testament law, and some would say the Sermon on the Mount, is for Israel in the future kingdom, they don't see the whole Bible as having the necessary tools for achieving the Great Commission. So that, in a nutshell, is the controversy about Palm Sunday. Is the message of Palm Sunday postponed? We say no. And they will admit that there is no hint of any postponement in the Old Testament passages. We say, well, then your postponement is wrong. You cannot impose something on the text. That's eisegesis just to rescue your system. You cannot do that. There is no hint of a parentheses in the Bible. And by the way, I don't know if I mentioned this already, but in case you're wondering about the Great Tribulation, it's not future, it is past, past tense. It was a literal seven-year tribulation in the first century. It was a complete cutting off of the Israelite chariot, horse, and battle bow that verse 10 talks about. Every detail of that tribulation that other passages talk about, including the fire, hail, and blood that came pouring out of the sky, the Jordan River filled with blood up to the horse's bridles, the sun turning dark without an eclipse, the moon turning blood red, the Antichrist, the beast, the number 666 earthquakes, the prices, the wine, the oil, all of the details you find in the Tribulation, you can find seen in the histories of Israel and of the Romans in the first century, it's there. I didn't see it because I had never read any of these histories before, but when I saw it, it made me mad that this kind of stuff had been hidden from me. It is such a faith builder when you understand eschatology. But there's another problem, a point that I want to make, and that is that dispensationalist idea of the kingdom is not the kingdom Jesus was offering anyway. And Zechariah 9 is a fantastic corrective. In fact, the kingdom of Alexander the Great in verses 1 through 8 is contrasted on many levels with the kingdom of Jesus listed in verses 9 through 12. And when you read these verses in context, there's so much more that comes to light. Let me quickly go through the first eight verses, and then we'll look at some of the contrasts, beginning at verse 1. the burden of the word of the Lord against the land of Hadrach and Damascus, its resting place. Now the passage begins at Hadrach, which is way north and west of Israel. And then when you look at the cities that are listed in verses one through eight, it follows exactly the, it's identical to Alexander the Great's line of conquest after the battle of Issus. And he quickly gobbled up territory and it made Israel extremely nervous. It became a conflict that has been symbolized by what the early church father Tertullian said, what hath Jerusalem to do with Athens? Okay? It became a conflict between the wisdom of man, the wisdom of God, the kingdom of man and the kingdom of heaven. But God told the faithful believing Jews of that day, hey, don't worry about it. I'm sufficient for your problem. Verse one goes on. For the eyes of men and all the tribes of Israel are on the Lord, on Jehovah. That's where they should be, right? Israel in the time of Alexander the Great was a believing nation. They had faith in God rather than in politics. In fact, it was a rather amazing faith that they had. So it says, the eyes of men in all the tribes of Israel are on the Lord. Also against Hamath, which borders on it, and against Tyre and Sidon, though they are very wise. So the phrases against Hamath and against Tyre and Sidon shows that Israel had a very self-conscious resistance to humanistic kingdoms and and humanistic wisdom, and instead had their eyes on Jehovah, God, and His heavenly kingdom, as we too must. So it says that they are against Hamath, Tyre, and Sidon, even though they are wise. They are not allured by the wisdom of man. But this attack that Alexander the Great brings on Tyre is an amazing feat of war that Ezekiel describes in much greater detail. Centuries earlier, the empires of Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, Asher, Bonaparte, Shalmaneser and Nebuchadnezzar had tried to besiege it and they had all failed. In fact, Nebuchadnezzar spent 13 years besieging that city and finally gave up. It looked like it was an impregnable, invincible city. But verses 3-4 indicate that Alexander would be successful with God's help. It says, Retire, built herself a tower, heaped up silver like the dust, and gold like the mire of the streets. Behold, the Lord will cast her out. He will destroy her power in the sea, and she will be devoured by fire. Ezekiel prophesied exactly how Alexander would do that amazing feat. He built a jetty from the mainland to the island by hauling timbers and rock and dirt, making a causeway. And when he captured the city, he killed 10,000 Tyrrhenians, made slaves of 30,000, and he burned the city. So it's no wonder that verse 5 says, Ashkelon shall see it and fear. Gaza also shall be very sorrowful, and Ekron, for he dried up her expectation. The king shall perish from Gaza, and Ashkelon shall not be inhabited. A mixed race shall settle in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines." Alexander depopulated those cities, and then he brought various races in there to try to avoid any kind of nationalism movement from happening. Verse 7. I will take away the blood from his mouth and the abominations from between his teeth. But he who remains, even he shall be for our God and shall be like a leader in Judah and Ekron like a Jebusite. This is speaking of the assimilation and the conversion of the remnant of the Philistines into the true faith. And that all happened in that era. Verse 8. I will camp around my house because of the army, because of him who passes by and him who returns." Now historian, and the him is Alexander, but historians tell us that when Alexander was advancing southward toward Jerusalem in order to destroy it, to conquer it, God stopped him in his tracks with a very scary dream and he decided not to attack Jerusalem and to spare that temple and he spared it going down to Egypt and then it talks about here his coming back up again. from Egypt. Now the day after the dream the high priest showed Alexander the detailed prophecies about him in the book of Daniel. He was so amazed by the detail of these prophecies of what he had already accomplished that he gave enormous wealth to the temple and he gave Israel religious liberties, freedoms that were unheard of in the ancient world. At no time during Alexander's reign was there oppression in Israel. Now the last phrase may actually be the words of Alexander upon seeing the vision rather than being the words of God as the New King James renders it. So it likely should not have a capital on the my. No more shall an oppressor pass through them for now I have seen with my eyes. And as I said, many people think Alexander is talking. He saw God in a vision. He promised to no longer oppress Israel. Verses 13 through 17 return to a discussion of what happens after the Empire of Greece breaks up into different parts after the death of Alexander. And it talks about persecution that's going to be happening under the Maccabees. But before God goes there, and I'm not going to deal with those verses, but before God goes there, He promises a coming Messiah, a coming Prince in verses 9 through 12, who would be quite different from anything else that is described in this chapter. And it is these contrasts between the kingdoms of this world and the kingdom of Christ that I think are such a great corrective to dispensationalism. So Zechariah chapter 9 compares and contrasts the greatest emperor of all time with Jesus Christ. Both died at the age of 33. Both sought world conquest. Both commanded such loyalty from their soldiers, their soldiers were willing to die at a moment's notice. Both claim to be divine, but the first 12 verses focus primarily on the contrast between the two. What Alexander valued most in life was of absolutely no importance to Christ, and what Christ valued, Alexander could care less about. Their kingdom priorities were worlds apart, and the nature of their kingdoms were worlds apart. Now the first contrast that we see is that Alexander's kingdom is a kingdom of brute force, whereas Christ's kingdom is prophesied to be one of transformational grace that will be willingly embraced. Now the reason this is so significant is that many dispensationalists, not all, But many believe that Israel and the nations will be forced to submit to Christ in the millennium, and that their submission will be a fake submission that will later be reversed, and thus the battle of Gog and Magog. In other words, it's a kingdom by power and force, not a kingdom that wins hearts through grace. And I'll give you four sample quotes from four different dispensational authors. Kelly Sensenig said, the entire world will know what the king requires and be forced to submit to his rule and wishes that are issued forth from his holy mountain or Mount Zion in Jerusalem. And by the way, that's another contrast I think is important to understand is that Christ's kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. It transforms the earth. It doesn't have an earthly capital. It's got Zion and heaven. That's where he rules from. But it's a heavenly kingdom that transforms the earth. But in the Lamb of God in heaven, we're never going to have a resurrected temple, resurrected sacrifices. That's blasphemy. Hebrews is quite clear that's blasphemy. And that's essential to dispensationalism as well. But I shouldn't interrupt the quote. Anyway, he gives, he says from his capital, Mount Zion in Jerusalem, when righteousness is enforced, then peace will be the result. Another author states, there will be unsaved people who will be forced to come up annually to worship Jesus in Jerusalem during the millennium, Zechariah 14, 16 through 19. They will be ruled with a rod of iron by Jesus. During that time, Jesus will have to employ His wrath against the surviving unsaved nations in order to bring them into forced submission to Him. Now this gentleman's views of Christ's kingdom looks much more like Alexander the Great's kingdom. It's not the kingdom that I see described of Jesus. Here's another author. After the 1,000 years of forced submission of the nations to Christ and His rulers, the final separation will occur. This one from Brother Raul. Speaking of those inhabiting the supposed future millennium, he says, they have been forced to submit, and even though they have rebellious thoughts and inclinations, they have no devil to empower their desires. But what does this Palm Sunday passage say about the kingdom of grace? Verse 9 says that those in the kingdom rejoice over it. It's based in salvation, not force. The king is lowly. He rides on a donkey, not on a war horse. War horse could symbolize imposing the kingdom, but a donkey, much more friendly terms. Though Israel would be judged in the first half of verse 10, they are not in the kingdom. That's why they're judged. They're not in the kingdom. And the same Messiah establishes his kingdom by speaking peace or shalom to the nations. Shalom is good news. So what's the basis for the good news? Verse 11 says it's the blood of the covenant. It's not force, it's redemption. And the next phrase indicates that those in this kingdom have been set free from the waterless pit. They've been set free from hell. They're really believers, okay? In other words, this is a kingdom of grace and salvation, not force. It's quite different from the kingdom of Alexander the Great. And I think it's a marvelous corrective to dispensationalism. But there are also ethical contrasts on many levels. Verse 9 says, Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, daughter of Jerusalem! Why do they rejoice? Not because, just because of the answered prayers of verses 1 through 8. Those are wonderful. Those are wonderful. But the real reasons for joy are His justice and salvation, verse 9. The spiritual peace he brings, verse 10. His atonement, verse 11. Spiritual freedom from bondage, verse 12a. Spiritual riches, verse 12b. And really as the whole chapter shows that God is working all things together for their good, for the good of the elect. He's a great, wonderful king. In contrast, verse 8 describes Alexander as an oppressor. Literally, the word means a slave driver. Every city he conquered, he executed thousands and took thousands more as slaves. He promised never to do that again with Israel, but even his own people suffered under his oppression. He did not give the kinds of social freedoms we take for granted. He was a tyrant. He even drove his own people and his own soldiers relentlessly. Verse 5 speaks of the fear he brought, the sorrow he brought with him. There was no rejoicing in Alexander the Great. Verse 5 mentions Gaza. Gaza fell after a two-month siege. And he killed 10,000 of its inhabitants, you know, just slit their throats right there when they went in. And the rest were sold into slavery. Bettis, the king of Gaza, had holes punched through his feet. They tied thongs through those holes and dragged him alive around the city. He was not a fun guy to be around, this Alexander the Great. He was ruthless, and the only way he could achieve his goals was through such fear tactics. Verse 2 indicates that the eyes of every person in Israel was looking to the Lord in fear. But God assured them that Israel could rejoice if they would look in faith to the coming Messiah. who was greater than any Alexander. And I'm quickly going to give a few other contrasts with Alexander the Great that have nothing to do with the Palm Sunday controversy. I just think they're cool contrasts and I'm going to give them. Verse 9 goes on to say, he is just. In contrast, Alexander was consistent. Sometimes he would be generous. Other times he'd fly into a rage and have somebody killed, and everybody was surprised. On one occasion, Alexander demoted an entire legion to civilian status. He took away their weapons. His attitudes changed from day to day. The way he treated his enemies was fearful, but Christ was just, righteous. He was consistent. Verse 9 says, Jesus comes having salvation. Where Christ brought healing, Alexander brought death. Where Christ brought salvation, Alexander brought destruction and bondage in what verse 8 speaks of as oppression or slave driving. Verse 9 says of Christ, he is lowly. In contrast, Alexander was a man of pride. I mean, all of the writers spoke of him as being a very arrogant person. And what is most striking about this is Jesus is the one who created the entire universe. If anybody had the right to be proud, it would be him. But he was not. He was humble and he wants his followers to be humble like him. He didn't need to draw attention to himself because he didn't need anything. He owned all things. In contrast, Alexander was constantly preoccupied with more. He had an insatiable desire to acquire more. Another contrast is symbolized in the phrase that Christ described, describes Christ as riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey. Alexander came on a war horse. And I've already mentioned that donkeys or mules were used in the Old Testament as a symbol of peace. And so verse 10 says he shall speak peace to the nations. Now, this does not mean that he had no war. He was a man of war. We've looked at that in the past and he brings war on Jerusalem. But here's here's where the distinction comes. And let me just illustrate it with a story. The story is told of Alexander the Great after he'd conquered India. He sat down and wept because there were no more countries that he could conquer. He idealized war. He glorified war over peace. In contrast, Christ's goal is peace, and so he will rejoice when there is nothing more to conquer. Another major contrast was the extent of their empires. Verse 10 says, he shall speak peace to the nations, his dominion shall be from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth. So Christ started small, But history will not end until the ends of the earth have experienced His dominion of peace. Satan has tried since the beginning of the world to have a competing worldwide empire. There have been a couple of times where he's come close, but he's not succeeded. Compton's encyclopedia says of Alexander's conquest. In the early summer of 327 BC, Alexander reached India. At the Hidaspis River, now Jhelum, he defeated the army of King Porus, whose soldiers were mounted on elephants. Then he pushed farther east. Alexander's men had now marched 11,000 miles. Soon they refused to go further, and Alexander reluctantly turned back. He had already ordered a fleet built on the Hadaspes, and he sailed down the Indus to its mouth. Then he led his army overland across the desert. Many died of hunger and thirst. He never achieved his dream of total world conquest. And shortly after that, Alexander died. His vast empire was split into three parts ruled by three generals. So when Alexander died, he lost everything that he had worked for. When Jesus died, he inherited all things. And interestingly, Alexander recognized his impotence and his failure. When he was dying, he told his people, that he was dying, there was nothing he could take with him and he ordered them to bury him, not bury him, to make sure that his hands, empty hands, were outside of the casket so people could see that they were empty. He was a strange guy all the way around, but in contrast Verses 11 through 12 say that it was through Christ's blood that he won everything. As for you also, because of the blood of your covenant, I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit. Return to the stronghold, you prisoners of hope. Even today, I declare that I will restore double to you. Christ restored by his shed blood more than was lost through Adam. Double. He gave spiritual freedom and security and blessings, and he did it by dying in our place bearing the punishment that we deserve. And I think you can see this whole chapter is so jarringly different from our ways. Our plans for kingdom advance, I suspect, would be like Alexander's. We want Christ to come flashing out of the sky on a war horse and do all of our work for us instantaneously. That's a whole lot easier. Our rapture is a whole lot easier than the Great Commission. Instead, Christ comes on a donkey, He dies, He sends us out into the world, shot out like believers. Verse 13 talks about Him shooting out believers into the world, right? We prefer the speed of an Alexander. In seven years, he conquered most of the known world. Instead, in God's wisdom, Christ begins as a mustard seed, you can hardly see it, tiny little seed, and gradually grows into a great tree. And he spends 2,000 years to advance to the point that we're at right now, and we're not anywhere near where the kingdom is eventually going to be. In this chapter, Greece and Israel form two competing systems of thought. Greek philosophy was the admiration of the world. But there's coming a day when the spiritual Jerusalem will be called the joy of the whole earth and the city of the great king. Jeremiah 3.17 says, At that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the Lord, and all the nations shall be gathered to it. To the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem they shall walk no more after the stubbornness of their heart. Palm Sunday may give every appearance of being the opposite, but Christ was declaring that He would mount the cross as a conqueror. He would ascend to heaven as a conqueror. But His conquest was different than Alexander's. It was a conquest of human hearts, a conquest of sin, a conquest of death, a conquest of darkness. Palm Sunday gave those disciples every reason to exalt Jesus Christ with their praises, and we have every reason to exalt Him as well. And I'm going to close with seven items, seven things in this passage that help us to exalt Him. First, we exalt Jesus when we hold Him to be our King, verse 9. If you have never put your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, I would urge you to do so because without that, you do not have the salvation of verse 9. It is the spiritual daughters of Zion alone that God can say to, behold, your King. We exalt Him as King. when we say, Yes, Lord, You are my King. Second, you can exalt Christ by believing that Jesus is just in all that He does. Verse 9, you might be tempted to think that His providences in your life are not just. Don't even go down that road. You need to rejoice in his providences that he's working all things together for your good. You might be tempted to think Jesus is not just in some of the Old Testament laws. Wow, that's a little bit harsh. That's a little bit hard. No, don't even go down that road. Say he is just. Say with David, oh, how I love your law. It is my meditation all of the day. So if you question his justice, you do not exalt Jesus. Third, you can exalt Jesus by imitating His example of humility and patience. Also verse nine, be willing to work in unrecognized roles. Value humble jobs that are behind the scenes. Don't seek great things for yourself. Seek great things for God's kingdom. God loves humility because it exalts Jesus. Fourth, you can exalt Jesus as King by praying for the fulfillment of those things that are near and dear to His heart. Christ is very interested in the salvation of individuals, and we ought, therefore, to be praying about salvation, witnessing, seeking to be involved in some way in salvation. And it's not just individuals, praise the Lord. He's interested in saving families. He's interested in this passage in saving entire nations. In fact, he wants the gospel to flow thoroughly profoundly change those nations that eventually there will be no more need for instruments of war. Christ speaks peace to the nations. He desires a universal dominion and we need to pray that that would happen. This is why eschatology is so important. If you don't believe that God has promised good things for the future, how can you possibly in faith look for good things in the future? Eschatology is critically important. Very, very important. Since making disciples of entire nations is at the heart of Christ's mission and of the Great Commission, we need to pray that entire nations would bow before him in our lifetime. So what kind of a king do you lift up? Is he really greater than Alexander the Great? He should be. He is so much greater than Alexander the Great that he will achieve the impossible goal of the Great Commission, a Christian world. Does that seem impossible to you? Well, everything that's of grace is impossible, isn't it? That's why it's of grace. That's why it's the kingdom of heaven invading the earth. But we exalt Jesus as King by praying in faith for those things that are dear to His heart. And God, as you ask, He actually said, ask of me and I will give you the nations for your inheritance, right? So He said, ask. Ask. Fifth, you exalt Jesus as King by believing that the blood of His covenant is sufficient to free us from every spiritual prison and to provide us every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. That's verses 11 through 12. Now, it's popular to think that we need to go to the experts for this and for that. But Scripture says Christ has provided for us everything that pertains to life and godliness. We don't need to go outside of the Scriptures to others. And Christ said, that in strongholds that are other than Jesus. Verse 11 says, Return to the stronghold, you prisoners of hope. Even today I declare that I will restore double to you. Are you convinced about the sufficiency of Christ? Let's exalt Him by believing that He is a King with sufficient grace and sufficient resources for all of our needs. He will restore double to us. Sixthly, you can exalt Jesus as King by looking to Jerusalem for your wisdom rather than to Greece. Greece will fail you. God's Word will not. And in our education, we should be more enamored with the wisdom of God than we are with the wisdom of Alexander the Great. We should be enamored with biblical wisdom of Jesus, the much greater King. Every discipline in the university should be thinking God's thoughts after him. It's the Hebrew model of education that we should be pursuing, not the Greek model. Seventh, you can exalt Jesus as King by being willing to be shot out into the world with the message of the gospel. Verse 13, there were many who were ashamed to shout on that first Palm Sunday. May we not be part of that number. We are called to exalt Him as King, seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and as we do so, we will be living out the message of Palm Sunday. So may this passage here encourage you to exalt the Lord as King by your thoughts, your words, and your actions. Amen.