Be thinking of a few minutes about any question you might ask regarding eschatology. We've been talking about it quite a while. And I thought that rather than inhaling today, you might exhale a little bit. So I'm going to open the floor for questions about prophecy. If you have been here for most of the sessions on prophecy, then you've heard most everything I have to say. And particularly about two things. Number one, who Israel is. And really, I don't have any grounds to debate or discuss any brother unless we can come to an agreement about who Israel is. Because that's really the key. And we can certainly discuss who that is and who it may not be and what other people say Israel to be. But you can't discuss prophecy. until you answer that question, who is Israel? Because if you draw a different conclusion about who is Israel from someone, then there's no way you can come to a meeting about prophecy. Then the second thing that we've talked about is how do the writers of the New Testament take Old Testament scriptures and apply them in the New Testament? Again, I'm going to open the floor for that discussion in just a few minutes. God willing, next Lord's Day afternoon, I hope that Samuel Tulloch will be with us at 1.30 p.m. to discuss the eschatology of the Pilgrim Fathers. Who were the Puritans? Who were the Plymouth Puritans in particular, and what did they believe about the kingdom of God? Also, I hope the following Sunday. to talk about where Baptists historically have differed from the Puritans. The Puritans believe in the synthesis of church and state. Baptists historically have believed in the separation of church and state, and I hope to provide for you some documents that explain the Puritan position on the state. Then following that, I hope to do at least one lesson on why the preamble to the Constitution is unbiblical. There's a lot of very interesting debate going on today about the meaning of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as being grounded in Christian principles. Well, when I taught the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, I always presupposed that they were primarily not Christian documents. And so I want to take a few minutes in the context of what we call the Thanksgiving holidays, where we supposedly hearken back to the faith of our fathers and try to demystify the myth about who the Puritan forefathers were. And then secondly, after that, as I said, an analysis of the Baptist position and I think the biblical position. And by the way, it's tied up with this concept of eschatology. If you believe that the kingdom of God is temporal, physical, spatial, geographical, political, ethnic, then there's no problem doing away with the separation of church and state. But if you believe the kingdom of God is separate and distinct from the kingdom of man, then there's a sense in which the state will always be the enemy of the church, or at least a friend you need to keep your eyes on very closely. And then again, thirdly, some biblical analysis of some of our founding documents. Now, I do hope that Sam can be with us for that. It is not yet confirmed. If not, I'll sort of proceed with the discussion. He certainly is the better expert on the Puritans. But it should be an interesting discussion. It should be seasonally apropos. You all know that I really like to build my sermons around seasons. So I thought in the context of the election, especially all the bad propaganda that's out there about America as a Christian nation and so forth, we might help set some of those things straight. I'll say this for sure. Those who are saying that we are a Christian nation want nothing to do with the Puritans. Those who are saying that we ought to become a Christian nation again want nothing to do with what the Puritans believed about God and grace and salvation. So that will be an interesting discussion. Is anything on anybody's mind about eschatology? We've talked about a lot the last few weeks, and if we could make this sort of a discursive environment today, you making comments, asking questions, not just I answering questions, perhaps, but others. If something impresses you about a response to someone's question, we can have an open and free dialogue. So are there things that we've talked about the last few weeks that have raised questions in your mind? about eschatology, so I'm going to throw the floor open right now and see if there are comments or questions. Yes, sir, I'm sorry. Eschatology is the study of last things. More commonly stated, it's the study of prophecy. Okay, any comments or questions? Mark? Yes, sir? I'll do my best, and you all help me remember if this is what I talked about last week or not. It was last week when I talked about the twofold nature of the sword of the Spirit being intended to damn as well as to save. Mark, what I talked about last week was really Isaiah chapter six and John chapter twelve. And let me summarize it for you. I think there is a there's a popular misconception, Mark, that in the first coming of Jesus, that he came with the purpose of establishing the kingdom of Israel. This was what we call the messianic expectation of the Jews, and therefore the Pharisees and the Sadducees asked Christ on numerous occasions, "'Art thou at this time come to establish thy kingdom?' In fact, on a couple of occasions they tried to take him by force and make him a king. And he resisted that. He rejected that totally, saying, my kingdom is not of this world. For if my kingdom was of this world, then my servants come and fight. But my kingdom is not from here. Well, that is a political issue. And I would say it's a political issue that impacts American right-wing fundamentalist politics today. In fact, I think American right-wing fundamentalist politics is essentially Zionist in the same way that the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus' day were Zionistic. They wanted Zion to rule the world in the same way that Hasidic Jews are Zionistic today. There's a sense in which the right are wrong. about the reestablishment of an earthly physical kingdom. So again, I would classify them as Christian Zionism. It's built on the idea, Mark, that when Jesus came the first time, he intended to set up his kingdom upon the earth. That's one of the cornerstones of dispensationalism. that when Jesus came he made a quote legitimate offer to Israel to accept him as Messiah and that had they accepted him as Messiah at that time he would have been inaugurated as king of Israel and therefore the special reign of national Israel would have been established over the earth. Original dispensationalists say That that rejection of Christ by national Israel then created a parenthesis in the purpose of God, a huge parenthesis from the cross to the second coming. And that huge parenthesis is what we call the church age. And at the end of that parenthesis, Christ will come in a rapture. And then for seven years to spend the church arially. after which you'll come down to physical Jerusalem and then take up where he left off when Israel rejected him." My point last Sunday was that that's wrong, that it was not Christ's purpose to give the kingdom to national Israel, that Christ had no intention of establishing, inaugurating an ethnic, political, local government in Jerusalem. that in fact Christ came to damn Israel. Israel national, Israel political, Israel ethnic. And that this was in fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah chapter 6 that God spoke to Isaiah when he said ultimately Israel would be blinded, deafened, and their hearts hardened so that they could not see, could not hear, and could not be converted. and that their whole house would be left to them desolate. So that's what it was about, the cryptic nature of Christ's teachings. In other words, Israel couldn't understand it because God had predestinated that Israel would not understand it. God had predestinated that Israel would reject Christ. God had predestinated that Israel would crucify Christ. And if you want to look at the key passages And you know, I really felt almost guilty speaking these passages because they are so forceful. They are so contradictory of what is out there today. But it says, verse 37, "...but though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him, in order that the saying, of Esaias, the prophet, might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who has believed? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore, verse 39, they could not believe, because Esaias said again, God has blinded their eyes, God has hardened their hearts, so that they would not see, would not understand, and would not be converted, and would not be healed. So I would say one of the key undergirders of dispensationalism is this idea that Christ came with a purpose to offer the kingdom to national Israel, and I think that's unbiblical. This gets on a very hot doctrine mark called reprobation. Reprobation has to do with God rejecting. Election is God choosing, reprobation is God rejecting. John 12, 37 through 40. That's a quotation from Isaiah chapter 6. So that's what we talked about last Lord's Day, that it was not the purpose of Christ at his first coming to offer the kingdom to national Israel. That in fact, it was the purpose of Christ to inaugurate a new kind of kingdom. If I could draw it on the board, Israel, Israel, man of God, men of God, people of God. Ethnic, political, earthly, and I would say, based on a covenant of works. Whereas, I believe the kingdom that Jesus came to inaugurate was non-ethnic. There's nothing to do if you're a physical Jew or a physical Gentile, and I think this is what Paul is saying all through the New Testament. There's no difference. It's not political, but ecclesiastical. It is not earthly, but it is heavenly. I need to add another word there. But it's spiritual, and then lastly, it's not a kingdom of works, it's a kingdom of sovereign grace. Well, that's a long answer, but that's sort of what we talk about. Yes, sir? That's real complicated, Bob. probably a whole hour in and of itself. But let me tell you what dispensationalism says about Daniel's 70 weeks. times 7, which is 490 years. If you begin analyzing the Old Testament, here's, I'm not sure I can get this exactly right, but I think I can. From the birth of Abraham or from the call of Abraham to the Exodus is 490 years. From the Exodus to the building of Solomon's temple. is 490 years, and from the building of Solomon's Temple to the crucifixion of Christ is 483 years, according to dispensationalism. And that third discrepancy of 483 years refers to an absent seven years, Bobby. an absented seven years, which has never happened but is supposed to have happened. Dispensationalists say that that seven years refers to the time of Jacob's trouble, which will be at the second coming. I'll put it on a timeline real quickly. Jesus comes down and raptures the church here. And then for seven years, literally all hell breaks loose on earth. That's the end of which seven years Christ is judging national Israel during this time, Bobby. And at the end of seven years, Jesus will come and then set up his 1000 year millennial kingdom. Numerology in the Bible is really tough. There's another problem in Revelation chapter 12 with an apparent three and a half year period. And I would say if you deal with someone in prophecy, don't get into any of those issues with them. Take them to Daniel chapter 2 and ask them who the stone is. Cut out a mountain without hands and then ask them, how is stone imagery used in the New Testament? I would never get embroiled. Most people who want to argue about prophecy are novices. And I would not get embroiled in a discussion over prophecy with anyone unless they're willing to camp at some key issues, particularly the issue of who is Israel. And I would just keep nailing that issue with them, Bobby. Romans 2 and Galatians 3 and 4. Other passages are Philippians 3 and 3. I would camp on that issue, and if you can't come to an agreement about who is Israel from the perspective of the New Testament, you just can't discuss Daniel's 70th week, you can't discuss the Great Tribulation, you can't discuss the rapture, you can't discuss anything with anyone about prophecy unless you can come to an agreement. about who is Israel, because who you think Israel is then determines all your subsequent presuppositions about prophecy. Charles? Yes, sir? The first time they had ever read through it? Well, I know what I wouldn't do. I wouldn't give them a prophetic scheme. I wouldn't recommend that they read any commentaries. I wouldn't recommend that they read any tapes or listen to any tapes on it. No, there aren't. There's some good tapes right back there, Nick. There's a lot of them out there, Charles. If I were going to advise someone about how to read Revelation, I would say, read it as a book of worship and look at the glories of Christ in Revelation and look at the glories of God in Revelation. See who Christ is and who God is in Revelation. Don't get into the chronology of it, get into the theology of it. Would you say that it's something that has transpired, is transpiring, and will transpire? Oh, I would say that it's something that is. I think Revelation is eternally alive. In other words, if I could be Cecil B. DeMille for a moment and make the book Revelation come alive, and that's how I think it should be interpreted, and we did talk about this one Sunday, Revelation is Yahwistic, meaning that Revelation is based on what we call the I Am formula. Like all the writings of John in the Gospel, Jesus says, I Am. And that's derived from the Hebrew word for Jehovah, Yah, I Am. And so throughout Revelation, over and over again, you see I Am. And so I would argue that if you interpret Revelation through the person of Christ, It is His nowness upon which we should focus in the book. And therefore, when we read the book, we should read it as a book of nowness. I believe the church of God has always had wings, that she's always had the moon under her foot, that she's always been crowned with the crown of twelve stars. that she's always been pursued by the dragon. I believe now there's war in heaven, Michael and his archangels fighting. I believe now that the locusts from the bottomless pit are loose and are raging upon this earth, stinging men with their tails. I believe now that the seas are turned to blood. I believe now that the earth is scorched with fire. I believe now that the stars of the heavens are fallen. That the sun is turned as black as sackcloth of hair, that the moon is blood. I believe now that the gospel trumpets are blaring. I believe now that he who is seated at the right hand of God holds in his hands and is unloosing the curses of the books of Almighty. So, to me, Revelation is a lie. I believe revelation spans the time from the first coming to the second coming of Christ. I think it's one day and I think it's 1,000 years. Yes, sir. I believe that it is in one sense and in another sense, no. The question is, then, is it also the times of Jacob's trouble? And, Scott, that's interesting and a very important question. I think the three most difficult texts, Scott, in the New Testament to deal with about prophecy on Matthew chapter 24 and the destruction of Jerusalem, then Romans chapter 11, determining who is Israel and what does it mean that all Israel will be saved, and then thirdly, Revelation chapter 20 and what is the meaning of the 1,000 years. Historically, premillennialists, let me rephrase that, but historic premillennialists, but most especially dispensationalists, say that the time of Jacob's trouble is the Great Tribulation. Remember the timeline? There you have the church age, you have the second coming, really the rapture right here, and then seven years' tribulation. That seven years' tribulation is the time of Jacob's trouble, and therefore a dispensationist will look at Matthew chapter 24 and say that is yet future. And it all boils down to one verse. This generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled. Sir? Well, it either refers to... I think, you mean, to what be fulfilled, refers to the Transfiguration. I think, in a sense, that the Transfiguration might have been a phenomenal inauguration of a kingdom in a new way. I think, rather, it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. living generation then would not die until they saw the destruction of Jerusalem. I think the text of which you're referring has to do with when Jesus said, I say to you that there shall be some of you standing here who shall not taste the death until they see the kingdom of God coming in power. And then after six days, Jesus went up with them into a high mountain and was transfigured. Now, I think that text, but that text is before Matthew 24. I think that text refers to transfiguration. Scott, the one we're talking about, the time of Jacob's trouble, supposedly refers to when the Antichrist begins to rule over the nation of Israel the first three and a half years, the Great Tribulation, and then in the middle of the Great Tribulation, turns against Israel and begins to wage war on her. time of Jacob's trouble, according to dispensationalism. I believe that if we historicize the time of Jacob's trouble, I believe that beginning with the Babylonian captivity, if we can put it on a curve, I think You could even argue beginning with the separation of the kingdom between North and South, but certainly by the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah and those who warned Israel that their enemies would overcome them. I think that the nation of Israel was plummeting to a destined downfall, beginning with the Babylonian captivity. Now, Bobby, this is what I believe the book of Daniel is about. followed by the Medo-Persian captivity, followed by the Grecian Empire, particularly Alexander the Great, and then the Roman Empire. All these things mark the demise and decline of national Israel, and I believe that Israel's fall consummated not by her destruction by earthly kingdoms, but I believe that the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ destroyed Israel. That the kingdom of Christ really rested from national Israel's hands. Everything she had possessed took it away from her and gave it to a global people. That her rejection of Christ was the last moment of her significance in the special purposes of God. So that when Jesus said, behold, your house is left to you desolate. He really meant that. And therefore, and if there were Messianic Jews with me here this morning, they would be furious at what I'm saying. So-called Messianic Jews. And you know, I want to say to them, brothers, If you're Christians, why don't you let go of your Jewishness? Why don't you let it go? You see, there's such an inherent Phariseeism with so-called Messianic Jews. because they still cling to and grasp for a superior place in the kingdom of God. And I would say, and no offense to my dispensational brethren, I would say there's inherent superiority complex among dispensationalists, because they still desire for Israel a superior place in the future of the kingdom of God. And if you go back to Galatians 3, Paul says, If you're Christ, you're Abraham's seed, and there is neither Jew nor Gentile." He was writing to the Galatians and arguing against the Galatians for trying to Judaize Christianity. I think that dispensationalism is the Judaization of Christianity. and so forth, and then on down it says, evidently, it's as if Christianity itself were a church, because he says, for the sake of the elect, today is going to be a church. Now, if, I know Jesus didn't say the great tribulation, he said there will be a great tribulation. Are we to, is that kind of for referring to the people who involved in the oppression of Jerusalem? In other words, the great tribulation which has never been seen and never will be seen is already there. On national Israel. Yeah, in other words, that tribulation is coming. I believe that it is, and I think the elect of which Christ, refers, if you look at 1 Peter, what happened to the church during this time? Well, the church experienced, and I want to show you Peter's word specifically. 1 Peter 1, verse 1. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect, strangers, and the Greek word there is diaspora. It means the scattered scene. That's what was happening to the church during this time. She was being literally disseminated. And I think, historically, that that refers to that. But I haven't answered all of Scott's question yet. Scott, I think there is a sense in which you could say this could be a metaphor that transcends, that reaches beyond the immediate moment of Jacob's trouble in the days of Christ and the tribulation. And Jacob could be a metaphorical term for all the people of God forever who suffer persecution and tribulation. But I think the primary meaning of Jacob's trouble is the first century in Matthew 24. Yes, sir? Well, I'll give you the simple answer. Just look at Romans 2, 28 and 29. Let's take this one statement. and then analyze it. He is not a Jew who went out with her. Now, in grammar, you know what a declarative sentence is. It's a sentence which declares something, and therefore it is a declaration. And as a declaration, it is an affirmation of some idea. Now, if that declaration is true, if that declaration affirms truth, then it has absolute value, does it not? Because we believe in absolute truth. Do we not? Now, is this an absolute truth? He is not a Jew who is one outwardly. Pre-millennialists can't accept that, absolutely. Impossible. Because once you come to grips with that as absolute, you have to leave pre-millennialism. Because if, indeed, Christ R-A-Z-E-D Israel and R-A-I-S-E-D a new Israel. And if indeed Paul redefined Israel so that ethnic, political, physical, geographical Israel is not what the Bible means by Israel, then there is no special place in the future for the old Israel. for the old Jerusalem, for the old Palestine, for the old temple, for the old priesthood, for the old offerings, and on and on and on. My precious Father is a dispensationalist. And if he were here, he would say, how? Yes, I can take that absolutely. But I would say that he really, really, really couldn't. The rest of it reads, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly. Circumcision is that of the heart and the spirit and not in the letter, whose praise is of God and not of men. And to me, that's the crux of the matter of this whole issue. Is Hal Brunson or is Hal Brunson not a Jew? That's the issue. And I say Hal Brunson is. Yes, yes. Because of inward circumcision. Because of election. You see, I think the election of the Old Testament typifies the greater election of the greater Israel. I don't think God was playing games with Israel in the Old Testament, but I do think He was shaping them and moving them historically in such a way as to paint for us a picture. He said, here is my chosen people and here is the blood of the Lamb. Here is Egypt, darkness and bondage. By the blood of the Lamb they go, they wander through the wilderness of sin and they come to a promised land. I believe my God was painting me a picture of who I am. and of who the church is in the Old Testament. But it's a major issue. I do think, and I was editing some writing I was doing yesterday, and a dear brother from Dallas Theological Seminary called me and said, may I get copies of your sermon on excommunication? I said, sure. So I wrote him a note on the front of my sermons and I said, Use what you can, but please don't be offended because I treat dispensationalism as a major heresy of the 20th century. And I believe it is. Heresy in a sense that it's erroneous. It doesn't necessarily have to create division among brethren. We have had, we do have people in here who are pre-millennials. Dear brother Kurt Daniel. But I know he's wavering. And I know Chuck is too. I know both of them are. They ought to. And you know I love both those men. You know I love George McBrayer. A premillennialist. Any kind of premillennialist. In original dispensationalism, the original dispensationalists would say they were Calvinistic, but their theory was nauseatingly Arminian. because they believe that there was a legitimate offer that Israel could have, that Israel did toward the immediate purpose of God, etc., etc. Right. You have the same problem with the fall of Adam and Eve. Oops. Now what does God do? Either God predestinated sin or He couldn't handle it. Either God predestinated the fall of Israel And thus the crucifixion of Christ, or it was a second big oops in his purpose. Predestination does have something to say about it. But, okay, we need to dismiss. Lord willing, next Lord's Day we're going to more historical analysis in the afternoon, hopefully about the Purim. And I do hope Sam can be with us. If he doesn't, then I'll conduct that discussion. Let's stand together.