The Davidic Covenant

What Are We to Make of Israel — Steve Gregg

Next in this series

The Future of Israel (Part 1)

00:00

The Davidic Covenant

What Are We to Make of IsraelSteve Gregg

Explore the profound concept of the Davidic Covenant as presented by Steve Gregg. This biblical teaching sheds light on the relationship between ethnic Israel and the nation of Israel, delving into the distinctions between them. Gregg examines how Jesus, as the seed of Abraham, fulfills the covenant and establishes a kingdom, separate from the church, that awaits its future fulfillment. Gain a deeper understanding of the kingdom of God and its implications for believers today through this insightful exploration of the Davidic Covenant.

Transcript

Tonight we're continuing our series on What Are We to Make of Israel. And the real question really is, what is Israel? And what about the nation Israel? What is their status today? Are they a fulfillment of prophecy? Are they a fulfillment of God's ultimate purposes in history? Or something else? And we've been comparing what I consider to be the teaching of scripture with another teaching on the same subject that is very popular. That view is called dispensationalism, and it's usually the view that you'll hear.

If you hear anyone talk about Israel at all, it is usually from the standpoint of dispensationalism. Because dispensationalism does see a very important role for the nation of Israel throughout history, but especially in the last days. And because of this, you'll hear a great deal of teaching on the subject, largely from that camp.

You don't hear as much teaching from any other camp. In fact, when I was growing up, I didn't know there was another camp. I just knew the dispensational view.

I didn't know anything else. And, you know, imagine my surprise when I learned that dispensationalism was teaching something on this subject that had never been taught prior to the 19th century. The church always had a different view than this.

And dispensationalists generally admit this. There are some who will not. There are some who will say dispensationalism didn't really begin in the 1830s.

It really, you know, you can find traces of it in earlier writings of church people. And there are some aspects, no doubt, of dispensationalism that have roots going back further than John Nelson Darby in 1830. But the system, and especially the emphasis on the nation of Israel as a key player in end times prophecy fulfillment, definitely and unmistakably arose with John Nelson Darby in the 1830s.

And that being so, of course, that means that for 18 centuries prior to John Nelson Darby, the church had another teaching on the subject. The teaching of the church was that God had called the remnant of Israel through Christ to himself at a time when the nation of Israel was very largely in apostasy, very largely in disobedience to the covenants that God had made with them. And that he took that believing remnant and met with them and made a new covenant with them.

And they are now what is regarded to be Israel, God's chosen people. Those people are made up of the believing remnant of Israel, that is the Jews who believe in Christ, which, as you must know, would be a very small percentage of the Jewish people on earth actually do believe in Christ. But there are many who do.

Those who do believe in Christ are part of this remnant. They are part of the true Israel. But there are Gentiles who are also part of that Israel on the same basis because they believe in Israel's Messiah.

And therefore, Jews and Gentiles who believe in the Messiah are the Israel that the New Testament describes and discusses. And of course, when we talk about Jewish people and Gentile people who believe in Christ, we're really talking about a group that we also know as the church. Now, dispensationalists, whenever they speak of the historic view of the church on this, they always call it replacement theology.

They say for many centuries, from the church fathers on until the 1800s, Christians tended to replace Israel with the church. Or used to claim that since the church is the new Israel, that this is replacing Israel in God's plan with the church and consigning all the promises that God made to Israel to the church. And therefore, they call it replacement theology because they say the church has replaced Israel in that theology, which is a theology that they don't agree with.

They believe that replacement theology is very wrong. Heretical, even blasphemous, I've heard it recently said by certain dispensational teachers, that it's a blasphemy to suggest this. Which would, of course, mean that all Christians prior to 1830 were heretics and blasphemers because it was the uniform teaching of the entire church for those centuries.

This, I think, is unlikely to be the case. I doubt that the whole church was in heresy and blasphemy in one of its main propositions for all of its history. But, of course, just because the church taught a certain thing consistently for 18 centuries doesn't mean it was true.

After all, most of us here are not Roman Catholics. And we would say that many things taught by the church through the Middle Ages for a period of at least a thousand years are things that the church was wrong about. And so it is possible for the church to be wrong and for something that somebody else has now just found in the scripture to actually be true.

But, or at least Protestants should have no objection to that suggestion. But if something has been believed by the church, by all Christian writers, all Christian teachers known to us for 18 centuries, it hardly qualifies as a heresy. It may be mistaken.

It may need some adjustment. It may need some correction. But unless the whole church has been heretical consistently for 18 centuries, then I think that kind of language is uncalled for.

Dispensationalists say that God has two chosen peoples. He has the church and he has ethnic and national Israel. Dispensationalists often do not make a clear distinction between ethnic Israel and the nation of Israel.

In fact, maybe you, until I said that, maybe you never made that distinction. But it should be quite obvious that ethnic Israel is a race of people. If they are descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then they would be ethnic Israel.

No matter what part of the world they live in, they may not live in the nation of Israel. They might live in America or Russia, Poland, China even. There are Jewish people all over the world, and therefore they're not associated with the nation of Israel, which is a political entity in the Middle East ever since 1948.

So there is a nation called Israel, and there's also a people who have been historically called Israel. And they're not one and the same, since even if you became a citizen of the nation of Israel, you wouldn't necessarily be Jewish. There are Gentiles, there's Arabs, citizens of Israel, there's even Arabs who sit on the Knesset.

And they're not Jewish by ancestry. So you could be part of the nation of Israel, but not part of the Jewish race. Or you could be part of the Jewish race and not part of the nation of Israel.

These are two different entities. When dispensationalists speak of Israel, they usually are not making a distinction. To them, the race and the nation is all the same.

All they know is the word Israel is found 2,000 times in the Bible, and that's good enough for them to say whatever's going on in Israel today is very important. Well, but Israel is spoken of in a variety of ways in Scripture, and not always in the same way. Because Paul distinguishes the church in Galatians 6 and 16 as what he calls the Israel of God.

He says in Galatians 3, at the end of the chapter, he says, You, if you belong to Christ, are Abraham's seed. He's writing primarily to Gentile Christians in Galatians. And he says, You are Abraham's seed.

Not literally, not ethnically. Spiritually. Earlier in Galatians 3, he says, Only those who are of faith are the children of Abraham.

So, according to Paul, no one really qualifies to be a child of Abraham, regardless what their ancestry is, unless they have the faith of Abraham. Jesus had said the same thing, so Paul was in good company. In John 8, Jesus said to the Jews who were criticizing him, he said, I know you are Abraham's children.

But if you are Abraham's... No, he said, I know that you are Abraham's descendants. But if you are Abraham's children, you would do the deeds of Abraham. So, Jesus made a distinction between being ethnically descended from Abraham, which he admitted his Jewish neighbors were descended from Abraham.

But he said, if you were really Abraham's children, you'd be behaving differently. Because those who do what Abraham did are his true children. And that's why Paul later said in Galatians 3, Only those who are of the faith of Abraham are the children of Abraham.

And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed. And the heir is according to the promise. We've looked at some of those scriptures in previous lectures.

We're not going to get into those further tonight. But what I wanted to make very clear is, if we're deciding who is and who is not God's chosen people, we need to be... We need to realize what it is that makes any group of people special in the sight of God. And as I pointed out in all our previous lectures, what makes people special or have a special status in the sight of God is a covenant.

A covenant. It's just like what makes your husband or your wife special to you, different than other men and women around you. And this is true whether you get along or not.

You have a covenant relationship, and that defines your relationship uniquely. You don't have the same kind of relationship with anybody else. Like that relationship which you have with your spouse.

Because you and your spouse entered into a covenant, which is called marriage. God entered into covenant with his people also more than once. He made a covenant with Abraham.

And in one of our early lectures, we talked about the Abrahamic covenant. And how, as I mentioned a moment ago, Paul said that if you are in Christ, you are Abraham's seed and you are the heirs according to the promises of that covenant. Last time we talked about the Sinaitic covenant, which was made at Mount Sinai.

Now this is not exactly the same as the Abrahamic covenant. Those clearly connected. Because the children of Abraham, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were slaves in Egypt for many hundreds of years.

And then they came out and were made free by God's liberating superintendence of events and judgment on Egypt. And God brought them to Mount Sinai, and there he made a covenant with them. In that case, it was not only people who were descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Because the Bible says there was a mixed multitude that left Egypt with them. So there were some Gentiles there, mostly probably Israelites, but there was a mixed racial multitude. And they came to Mount Sinai, and God established a covenant with them, which is sometimes called the Sinaitic covenant.

It included the Ten Commandments. It included the establishment of a priesthood, of the line of Aaron, the building of a tabernacle, and certain animal sacrifices associated with that covenant. It required, most of all, that they be faithful to God as a wife is expected to be faithful to her husband.

And he said that they must never worship other gods. Just as it would be understood that a wife is not supposed to have sex with somebody other than her husband. And so Israel was given a conditional covenant.

God made it very clear it was conditional, because he said, if you keep this covenant, then you will be blessed in all these various ways. If you read Deuteronomy chapter 28, for example, or Leviticus chapter 26, both chapters tell them that if they are obedient to the covenant and faithful to God, he will bless them above all the nations of the earth. Nationally, they will be his wife.

He'll have a marriage covenant with them, and they'll be unlike any other nations in God's sight. They'll have a unique covenant relationship with him. But he said that if you break my covenant and go after other gods, then I'm going to just have to abandon you and go for someone else.

That's what he said in Deuteronomy. He says, if you make me jealous by going after other gods, I'll make you jealous and go by some other people. And so this was conditional.

The covenant could be annulled if they did not meet the conditions of obedience and faithfulness to the covenant. Well, the history of Israel is very clear. They didn't remain faithful.

They worshipped idols on many occasions. In fact, the fingerprints were not even dry yet on the Ten Commandments when God saw that they were making a golden calf and worshipping it. So they'd already broken the covenant.

But through Moses' intercession, they were able to be forgiven and to continue for about 1400 years, during which time they were very seldom faithful to God. And a great number of times, they worshipped idols. And God kept sending prophets to warn them that if they keep this up, he's going to have to play rough with them.

And he sent them into captivity. Then he brought some of them back to Judah, and he gave them another chance. And they did reasonably well for a while, but then they drifted off again.

And in the time of Christ, the Jewish people had become externalistic. They were still keeping the ritual worship of God. As Jesus said about his generation, These people draw near to me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

And that was the problem. Their hearts were hard toward him. Sure, people came out to hear him in droves because he was working miracles.

Anyone can draw a crowd doing that. But he didn't want people following him because of his miracles. He wanted them to follow him if they were interested in the kingdom of God.

And he was offering himself as their king. And that brings us to our topic tonight. Because there is a covenant that God made in the Old Testament with King David.

And it is usually called the Davidic Covenant. We talked about the Abrahamic Covenant and the Sinaitic Covenant in previous lectures. Tonight, we want to talk about the Davidic Covenant.

And the Davidic Covenant is a covenant that God made with David in 2 Samuel. This is back when David was being very good. This is before he had his sins that he became notorious for later on.

But when he had become king and he was very eager to see a house built for God, a temple. Because in those days, people were worshipping in a tent, in a tabernacle. And David was living in a very nice house.

And he thought it was not quite right that he should live in a great palace. And God's ark, the representation of God's presence was in a tent. So he intended to build a house, a temple for the Lord.

Which he never did. Initially, his friend, the prophet Nathan, encouraged him to do this. But then God spoke to Nathan and said, no, you go tell David, don't do that.

That's not what I want. And in these verses, 2 Samuel 7, beginning at verse 11. God first stated what was repeated a number of times later in Scripture.

His promise to David. He says in verse 12, or we can start at verse 12. He said, when your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you who will come from your body and I will establish his kingdom.

He shall build a house for my name and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father and he shall be my son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men.

But my mercy shall not depart from him as I took it from Saul, the previous king, whom I removed from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever.

Now this is the Davidic covenant. It does not appear to be conditional. There are no conditions stated for it.

It appears to be unilateral. The covenant is between David and God. And God initiated it.

God sort of used a play on words because David wanted to build a house for God. And God said, I'm going to build you a house. And the play on words is this.

The word house can refer to a building that people live in. As in the first instance, when David wanted to build a house for God. Or it can mean a household, a family.

Or in the case of a king, a dynasty. So this is talking about the house of David that would be formed. Saul, the only previous king Israel had ever had, didn't have a dynasty.

He was the only king of his family. He was taken out and he was replaced by someone unrelated to him, David. But David would not have that fate.

David would have his son, and eventually son, son, and son, son, son, and so forth, sitting on his throne after him. So he would have a house, a dynasty that God would establish. And this dynasty would be established forever.

Now obviously, many things that are stated at the beginning of this passage could apply to Solomon. He said, when you're dead, when you rest with your fathers, I'll raise up your son who's born from your body, and I'll put him on your throne, and I'll establish his kingdom. Well, God did that with Solomon, David's son.

It says, he will then build a house unto my name. Well, Solomon did that. He built the temple.

The temple that David would have gladly built, he was not allowed to build, but Solomon, his son, did build it. So far, so good. But then God says, I will be to him a father, and he will be to me a son.

Interestingly, in Hebrews chapter 1, this verse is quoted as being about Christ. Because the writer of Hebrews says in Hebrews chapter 1, to which of the angels did he ever say, I will be his father, and he shall be my son. And what the writer of Hebrews pointed out is that God said that to Jesus, and that makes Jesus unique and superior to the angels.

But when you look at it back in 2 Samuel chapter 7, it could almost be seen to be a reference to Solomon. But since the New Testament writers make it clear, it's really to Christ, then what do we have going on? We have type and antitype. Solomon is a type of Christ, even as David was a type of Christ.

What is a type? A type is something in the Old Testament that is a divinely appointed pattern for something in the New Testament, usually Christ himself or something associated or established by Christ. And so David, in one sense, is a type of Christ. And Solomon, in another sense, is a type of Christ.

A type of Christ in that he's the son of David. He sits on David's throne, or at least is predicted to, that he built a house unto the name of the Lord. What house is Jesus building? What did Jesus say in Matthew 16? Upon this rock, I will build my church.

And in Scripture, the church is always said to be the house of God, not the church building, the people. 1 Peter 2.5 says that we all as living stones are built together into a spiritual house. In the closing verses of Ephesians 2, Paul said that we are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building fitly framed and joined together grows into a holy temple in the Lord and a habitation of God through the Spirit.

So the church, the body of Christ made up of living stones, is a spiritual house. And Christ said, I will build my church. Christ is building a house.

Solomon's temple was a type of the church. Solomon himself, a type of Christ, the builder of the temple. And then, of course, when God said, I will be his father, he'll be to me a son, this applies very literally to Jesus.

Less so with Solomon. Solomon could be called the son of God, just like any of us could be called sons of God in a sense. Good people in the Old Testament were sometimes called sons of God, godly people.

But this, of course, is more literal in the case of Jesus. And that's what the writer of Hebrews is pointing out when he quotes it. That Jesus is uniquely the son of God and God is uniquely his father in a way that is not true of anyone else, including angels.

Now, it does confuse us a little when he goes on to say, if he sins, that is, if David's seed sins, I will chase him with the rods of men. But I will not ever thoroughly remove my mercy from David's house. What this means is that not only Solomon and Christ, but everyone who's in David's dynasty, Solomon and his successors, Rehoboam and the rest, all the way down to Christ.

That dynasty would be established by God. There would be members of that dynasty that would sin and God would have to discipline them. And some of the kings of Israel did sin and did come under severe discipline.

Manasseh, for example, was taken away into captivity until he repented. Jehoiakim, the last of the kings of Judah, was taken into captivity where he died. And so God did discipline the sons of David, the members of the house of David who reigned after him.

It's not saying that Jesus will sin and God will discipline him, although Jesus did do something that brought the punishment upon himself. He himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we being dead to sin should live unto righteousness, Peter said in 1 Peter chapter 5. Or in Isaiah 53, 6, it says, all we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned everyone to his own way and the Lord laid on him, Jesus, the iniquity of us all.

There's a sense which Jesus did take on our sins and he took on the discipline by the rods of men. But since he was not really guilty of anything, God vindicated him in the resurrection and sat him again on the throne of David at the right hand of God. Now this is what I believe the Bible teaches and what the church believed the Bible taught for a very long time.

And you can see what the promises are. God would build a Davidic dynasty or house. A son of David would succeed him on his throne.

This son of David would build a house for God. He would enjoy a father-son relationship with God. His kingdom would be established forever.

And God would discipline but not abandon the Davidic dynasty. These things, as I say, were fulfilled in Solomon and in the later kings from the house of David. But not ever so much as in the ultimate king from the line of David, which is the Messiah.

And the Jews understood that this promise was ultimately a messianic promise. Even though they knew that Solomon in some ways was a fulfillment and that the dynasty was a fulfillment. They knew there was something in this that pointed to eventually a son of David who would be the eternal king of David's line.

And would sit on David's throne forever and reign forever over Israel. This is what the Jews expected. This is why when Jesus cast demons out of a man who couldn't see or speak and the man could then see and speak.

That the people were amazed in Matthew chapter 12 and they said, Could this be the son of David? By son of David, of course, they meant the Messiah. Son of David became a messianic title. Jesus on one occasion said to the Pharisees near the end of his life in the final week there in the Passion Week.

He said, What do you believe about the Messiah? Whose son is he? And they said, David's son. Of course, everyone knew that the Messiah is gonna be the son of David. Of course, he would also be the son of God and they didn't all know that.

That's why Jesus brought them up short and said, Well, why did David call him his Lord then? Quoting Psalm 110 verse 1, he said, The Lord said to my Lord, that is God said to my mess, the Messiah. Sit here at my right hand. But David said, My Lord, how could David call the Messiah his Lord? If the Messiah is his son.

No son yet was ever the Lord of his father. Not in Israel, not in ancient times. And so the Pharisees couldn't answer because they knew the Messiah would be son of David.

They didn't know he'd be also son of God. And that's what Paul tells us at the beginning of Romans when he's talked about the gospel and it's how it's about Jesus. He makes this statement right at the outset in the book of Romans.

He said, Then I've been separated. He says unto the gospel. And he says this about the gospel in verse 3. It's concerning his son, Jesus Christ, our Lord, who was born of the seed of David, according to the flesh.

And declared to be the son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead. Says Jesus was the seed of David, according to the flesh. But was also demonstrated to be the son of God through the resurrection.

He's the son of David and the son of God. That was not something the Jews quite understood about the Messiah. They did know, though, he'd be the son of David.

And they thought he'd be a lot like David. They thought God would send another David, as it were, to come and rescue his people from their oppressors. In David's day, Israel had been oppressed by the Philistines for centuries.

Or at least for many generations. But David liberated them from the Philistines. They expected that the Messiah would come and liberate them similarly from the Roman oppression that the Jews had been under for some generations.

That's what they thought. Now, Jesus didn't do that. And therefore, you know, they never did take him all the way to the throne.

And instead, they crucified him and he ascended into heaven. This fact is interpreted differently by different persons. Dispensationalists, who, as I mentioned earlier, have a special view of this that is not really agreeable with the historic view of the church, but is more popular today in some quarters than the traditional view is.

They believe three things about the ultimate fulfillment of this. The first thing is that this must be fulfilled in a political enthronement of Christ in the earthly city of Jerusalem. Why? Well, because David was told that his son would sit on his throne after him.

David sat on a throne in Jerusalem and he oversaw a political kingdom of Israel. And therefore, if the Messiah is going to be like David, he must sit on David's throne in Jerusalem and rule over an earthly kingdom. It is the argument of dispensationalists that this is what Jesus actually came to do.

But it was thwarted by the crucifixion. Let me read what some dispensational leaders have said about this. For example, John Walvoord, in his book, Major Bible Prophecies, said this.

It is also clear that Christ is not reigning on the earth in any literal sense. Jerusalem is not his capital, nor are the people of Israel responsive to his rule at the present time. To attempt to find fulfillment in the present age requires radical spiritualization and denial of the plain factual statements related to the kingdom.

Now, what Walvoord is saying is this. The Davidic covenant has not been fulfilled yet because it is plain that Jesus never did assume an actual seat of being enthroned in Jerusalem. He is not there now.

He wasn't granted that by the Jews in his time. And therefore, we must look forward to a future fulfillment of the Davidic covenant that has not been fulfilled yet. You see, the dispensationalists insist that this must be done on earth with a literal throne of David.

And so Walvoord speaks for all dispensationalists in this. Now, a second thing that the dispensationalists say about the ultimate fulfillment of this is that they say that Jesus offered Israel just that kind of a kingdom, a political kingdom, with himself as the Davidic ruler, and would have delivered them from the Romans and would have fulfilled all their expectations. But his offer was rejected, and therefore it was postponed.

Till when? Till he comes back. So that Jesus offered to establish the kingdom and deliver Israel, but the Jews rejected him, and therefore his kingdom was not established and has been postponed. Let me read to you several major dispensational writers.

John Nelson Darby, the creator of dispensationalism himself, said this, quote, In fact, we know John was beheaded and the Lord was crucified, and the kingdom presented in him and by him was rejected by Israel. By and by, it will be set up visibly and in power. Meanwhile, the church is set up because the kingdom is not set up in this manifested way.

C.I. Scofield, famous for the Scofield reference Bible, in one of his addresses on prophecy preaching, he said, quote, In the fullness of time, John the Baptist and then Christ came preaching the kingdom of heaven as at hand, but his own received him not. Israel would not have her king meek and lowly. And so when his rejection by the bulk of the nation became manifest, the kingdom was postponed and Christ announced the mystery, the church.

That is to say, the church is sort of a parenthesis in the time that God has postponed the kingdom rejected by Israel until the time that he actually returns and establishes that kingdom, that political Davidic kingdom and sits on the throne in Jerusalem again, or not again, but for the first time. Until that time, there's a parenthetical period, they say, which is the church age. It's called the mystery.

They call it a mystery because they say the Old Testament never mentioned it and it was not revealed until the New Testament. This is not actually according to the facts. The church is mentioned in the Old Testament very frequently, judging from the number of times the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament with passages about what they consider to be the church.

But anyway, dispensationism came up with this idea. Another dispensationist, Charles Ririe. Wrote, quote, Because the king was rejected, the messianic Davidic kingdom was from a human viewpoint postponed, though he never ceases to be king.

And of course, is king today. As always, Christ is never designated as king of the church. Christ is a king today.

He does not rule as king. This awaits his second coming. Then the Davidic kingdom will be realized, says Ririe.

The church is not part of this kingdom at all. Unquote. So this is the unanimous view of dispensationists.

Christ did not establish the Davidic kingdom. It was postponed because Israel rejected it, but it will be established a political entity, just as the Jews expected, just like David's kingdom was, but it will be only after Jesus comes back. The kingdom, therefore, has not been established yet.

According to this view, and the church is not part of God's kingdom. One other quote. This comes from Dwight Pentecost and other dispensational heavyweight.

He said, quote, in his covenant with David, God promised that a descendant of David would sit on David's throne and rule over his house. This covenanted program was offered to Israel, but was rejected by the nation because the covenants are eternal, unconditional, and therefore irrevocable. The Davidic kingdom program would not be canceled.

It could, however, be postponed. Christ's central teaching was that the Davidic kingdom would be postponed until a future time. Unquote.

Now, nothing about that quote surprised me after reading the other quotes. Of course, I've heard dispensationalists say this kind of stuff a lot, but except for this last line, very surprising. He says, Christ's central teaching.

Was that the Davidic kingdom would be postponed? I wonder where Christ said that. I don't know of any place in the Bible to say nothing of the teachings of Christ specifically that ever mentioned the kingdom being postponed. And yet, Dwight Pentecost says that was Christ's central teaching.

That the kingdom would be postponed. I thought his central teaching was the kingdom of God is at hand. So, the dispensations are seeing something there that I'm not seeing.

And I've read through the Bible a lot of times, and I haven't found any place that Jesus or any other writer said the kingdom of God was or would be postponed. And that might be why the church never saw that either. You know, H.A. Ironside, another important dispensational teacher, made this statement in his book, The Mysteries of God.

H.A. Ironside said this, quote, Until Mr. John Nelson Darby, the dispensational idea of a postponed kingdom is scarcely to be found in a single book or sermon through a period of 1,600 years. Well, he's exaggerating. It's more like 1,800 years.

But this is a dispensationalist admitting this. Dispensationalists often will point this out that Darby was the first person, Darby himself admitted this. He said that he disagreed with all the older church fathers and older commentators on this.

He had, as he put it, rediscovered truths that have been lost since the death of the apostles. So, on his view, the apostles taught dispensationalism. But nobody else did until Darby came along to restore it, to reinvent it, to revitalize it or whatever, to reintroduce it.

And even H.A. Ironside, the great dispensational hero, said, the way he said it was before Darby's time, For 16 centuries, there's hardly a single book or sermon that mentions this idea of the postponed kingdom. He's understating it, frankly. It's 18 centuries, and I doubt if there was a single article or sermon that mentioned it, because it wasn't in church theology.

However, according to Pentecost, that's the central teaching of Jesus, was the postponement of the kingdom. But the central teaching of Jesus, then, there's nothing said about it for 16 centuries or more by Christian preachers and teachers and Bible students? Well, I would just remind you that Joseph Smith also claimed that what he learned from the angel Moroni, around the same time as John Nelson Darby around 1830, Joseph Smith said that he rediscovered the true gospel that had been lost since the time of the apostles, too. And that no one since the apostles had taught it either, until an angel gave it to Joseph Smith and called Mormonism.

So Darby in England and Joseph Smith in America, the same year, essentially, rediscovered what no one had taught in the church since the apostles, but what was nonetheless true. It's just that they discovered different true things. Joseph Smith came up with one view, Darby another, and frankly, as I examine both views, I think Joseph Smith and Darby did not rediscover anything that the apostles had actually taught.

I think that the church, to a very large extent, had represented correctly what the apostles taught on this particular subject, maybe not on every subject. Now, having pointed out that dispensationalists teach that the kingdom would be postponed, there's one other thing that's part of the dispensationalist system, and that is that Jesus must sit on David's literal throne after his return and during the millennium. When Jesus comes back, according to dispensationalism, there will be a millennial kingdom.

It will be the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. It'll be the Davidic kingdom. Jesus will sit literally in Jerusalem on a throne.

Now, almost everyone, no doubt, is familiar with this scenario because dispensationalism is so widely taught and hardly anything else is ever taught, although there are very many other teachers who don't believe it. People who aren't dispensationalists just don't end up talking about Israel that much. I mean, once in a while, but dispensationalism is all about Israel.

Historic Christianity was really all about Jesus. Dispensationalism has changed the focus to Israel. Not that Jesus is out of the picture.

He's just kind of, in terms of the end times, he's kind of out there in the fringes. Israel's the center stage. And we saw in our very first lecture how many dispensationalists say, keep your eyes on Israel.

It's all about Israel. It's all about Israel. Well, not for me it isn't.

For me, it's all about Jesus. It's always been all about Jesus. And the church thought that too, until the time came when Darby indicated that, no, there's going to be an Israeli kingdom, Jesus reigning over Jews in Jerusalem.

And that's kind of getting sort of a run up to it in the end times. And then in the millennium, when Jesus comes back, he's going to sit on that throne, literally. Now, what arguments? Well, let me read some quotes from dispensationalists before I give you arguments.

This comes from C.I. Schofield in the Schofield Reference Bible. His note on Acts 111. If you happen to have a Schofield Bible with you, you'll see this note on Acts 111 is there.

Quote, the return of the Lord to the earth is to accomplish the yet unfulfilled prophecy of Israel's national regathering, conversion, and establishment in peace and power under the Davidic covenant. So, Schofield plainly says that when Jesus comes back, it will fulfill the Davidic covenant. That's what his coming is for.

Dwight Pentecost, whom I quoted earlier, said, quote, David's son, the Lord Jesus Christ, must return to the earth bodily and literally in order to reign over David's covenanted kingdom. Again, David's covenanted kingdom, the Davidic covenant, he must come and reign in the millennium. Charles Ryrie said, quote, the goal of history is the earthly millennium, which is the climax of history and the great goal of God's program for the ages, unquote.

So, there's a thousand year period that Jesus is going to establish at his second coming where he'll reign from Jerusalem on the throne there in David's place, fulfilling the Davidic promises. And in doing so, this is the fulfillment of all God's program. In other words, a Jewish-Israeli kingdom reigned from the city of Jerusalem.

That's what God has had in mind since all time. Well, this is not necessarily taught as clearly as one might wish to find it in Scripture if this is truly God's ultimate goal. For example, the idea that there will be a thousand year reign is found nowhere in Scripture except one chapter, which is Revelation 20, which is the only chapter that mentions the thousand year reign of Christ.

That chapter has been interpreted a great number of ways and has even been referred to as the most controversial chapter in the Bible, Revelation 20, because there's, from that chapter, divide different views, the premillennial, the amillennial, the postmillennial, all see in a different way what the fulfillment is of that prophecy. Even if we go along with the dispensationalists and affirm premillennialism, in other words, if we affirm that there will be a thousand year reign when Jesus comes back, we only have that one place in the Bible to say so. And it would hardly be justified to say that must be the ultimate purpose of all of history.

We have 66 books of the Bible, and the last one to be accepted into the canon of Scripture, in almost the last chapter, is the first place you read of a millennium. And you find it nowhere else. Now, I personally am one of those who interprets that somewhat differently.

And I'm not premillennial, I'm amillennial. And that, of course, is what the church was too for most of its history. But I'm not here to pick on premillennialism per se, but rather to question whether the Davidic covenant, in fact, requires a future fulfillment, or whether it has been fulfilled already in Christ.

You have to understand that the suggestion that God's kingdom has been postponed has ramifications for the church in a big way. The church throughout history believed that the people who served Jesus Christ, the true disciples of Jesus, the body of Christ, is the kingdom. We are the members of the kingdom, and Christ is ruling over us.

He's our Lord. He's our King. He's the King of kings and Lord of lords, and we have submitted to Him.

And therefore we are His kingdom. That's the historic view of the church. Distant-satialism came along and said, no, the kingdom has nothing to do with the church.

It's about Israel. And it's about Jesus reigning over Israel in a millennial kingdom. Well, if that's true, then what about the teachings of Christ that He gave when He was offering this kingdom to Israel before it was rejected? Do they apply to us according to classic distant-satialism? No, they don't.

Jesus, when He was teaching, for example, the Sermon on the Mount, was not teaching things that pertain to the distant-satialism we live in, but to the kingdom that He was offering. Since that was rejected, it was postponed. The Sermon on the Mount, therefore, will be relevant during the millennium, not now.

That's the Darbeite view. Scofield said this in his own... Scofield's one of the main spokesmen for distant-satialism in the 20th century in his Scofield Reference Bible. His note on Matthew 5, 2, Scofield said this, The Sermon on the Mount applies primarily to the kingdom.

In this sense, it gives the divine constitution for the righteous government of the earth. Whenever the kingdom of heaven is established on earth, it will be according to that constitution. He means in the millennium.

The Sermon on the Mount is primarily... In its primary application, gives neither the privilege nor the duty of the church. These are found in the epistles. That is to say, you will not find the duties or the privileges of the church mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount.

Well, what else is there in the Sermon on the Mount? Duties and privileges. Certainly, duties, the commands, you know, don't be angry at your brother without a cause. Don't look at a woman to lust after her.

These are duties, but they're not ours. They're not our duties. Those are the duties of people, the Jews and others, living under the Jewish rule in the millennial reign of Christ.

This is Scofield's view. It's the view of many older distant-satialists. Some back away from this.

By the way, Scofield's note goes on to say, There's a secondary application in that some of the principles of it are beautiful principles that the church can be inspired by as well. But the point is, the sermon wasn't given for the benefit of the church to obey, but of Israel, and they rejected him as king, so obeying the sermon is something that will be obligatory for them when he comes back and sets up his kingdom, whenever the kingdom is set up, he says. Now, let me, by contrast, tell you what I believe the New Testament teaches about the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant.

First of all, the idea that the Davidic kingdom under the Messiah is to be political was something that Jesus shot holes in. The Jews thought, as the distant-satialists do, that there would be a political kingdom under a David-like Messiah. When Nicodemus came to Jesus in John 3, he definitely had this in mind.

Jesus didn't even wait for him to ask about it. He answered the question that was on Nicodemus' mind before Nicodemus even had a chance to ask it. But when Nicodemus came to Jesus in John 3, 2, he said, Rabbi, we know that you're a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.

Almost certainly his next question would be, What can you tell me about the kingdom of God? But before he could ask, Jesus said to him, Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. And Nicodemus said to him, How can a man be born when he's old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born? Jesus answered, Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. You cannot see it, you cannot enter it, unless you are born of the Spirit.

It is not being born Jewish, obviously, because Nicodemus was already born Jewish. He had to be born again if he wanted to see the kingdom. Being Jewish is not what it takes, it's being spiritual, being born of the Spirit, because it is a spiritual kingdom.

In John 18, 36, Pilate said to Jesus, Are you a king then? And Jesus said, My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom was of this world, my servants would have thought that I would not be delivered to the Jews, but from now on, my kingdom is not from here. You see, the kingdom of God in the Old Testament was Israel.

God at Mount Sinai had said to them, If you obey my voice and deed and keep my covenant, then you'll be my kingdom, a kingdom of priests unto me. Israel was, under those conditions, God's kingdom, but Jesus said, From now on, my kingdom is not from here, it's not part of the earth. It's in earth, but it's not of the earth.

My kingdom is not of the world, it's not an earthly kind of a kingdom. It's present here, but it's not, it doesn't originate from here, it doesn't have the characteristics of a worldly kingdom, as you're expecting. David's kingdom was a worldly kingdom.

David's kingdom was a political kingdom like any other kingdom, only just God was on their side, but it was still a regular kind of a kingdom, political in all aspects, and with a religious tinge. And that's what the Jews thought Jesus was going to bring, another kingdom like David's. And Jesus said, No, you're going to be born of the Spirit, you're going to be born from above.

You're going to have to have a rebirth, you won't even see it otherwise. You mean like it's invisible? Quite. In one sense, it is.

In Luke chapter 17, Jesus was asked about this very point by the Pharisees. In Luke 17, in verse 20, it says, Now when he was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, now the kingdom of God is the Davidic kingdom, that's what they're looking for, for King Jesus, or King Messiah to be sitting on David's throne. He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, The kingdom of God does not come with observation, nor will they say, See here, or see there.

For indeed, the kingdom of God is, the translation I'm reading says, within you. Other translations say, among you. In your midst.

The kingdom of God is in your midst. It's here, you haven't seen it, because it doesn't come in the observable way you think it will. You won't be able to look and say, Oh there it is, or there it is, low here, low there.

It doesn't come with observation. You thought it would. You thought it was going to come like David's kingdom.

That's definitely observed. People parading in the streets, that's an observable kingdom. But the kingdom of God doesn't come that way.

It's already here, as a matter of fact, in one sense. It's in your midst already. Because it is invisible.

It is spiritual. In fact, Paul said in Romans 14, 17, he certainly didn't sound like it had been postponed, Paul said the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but it is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Romans 14, 17.

The kingdom of God, he said, is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. That doesn't sound political to me, that sounds spiritual. Fruit of the Spirit, righteousness, peace and joy, those are spiritual things.

That's what Paul said, well the kingdom of God is that. It's spiritual. So Jesus did not come to fulfill what the Jews thought.

They thought it would be a political kingdom, he came instead to bring a spiritual kingdom. Secondly, it is not correct to say that Jesus offered himself to the Jews as a political king, but that they rejected him in that capacity. And therefore he had to postpone the kingdom.

The opposite is true. They sought to make him into a political king and he rejected that. In John chapter 6, we read that after Jesus fed the 5,000, they were all amazed, and they thought, this is the son of David, this is the Messiah.

And it says in John 6, 15, Therefore when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take him by force and make him king, he departed again to the mountain alone to pray. Wait, they were going to come and forcibly make him king. Where's this doctrine that he offered himself as king and they rejected him as king? Here's the largest crowd that ever followed him, probably at least 15,000 people.

Certainly a pretty big revolutionary core. And if they had risen up under his leadership to drive the Romans out, no doubt they'd have a lot of popular support. They'd probably be joined by thousands of others.

They might even have a shot at it. But they were going to forcibly, why forcibly? Because he wouldn't agree to it. They were going to make him be the king against his will.

Instead he dissipated the crowd, sent him home, and he went away to the mountain to pray. He didn't offer himself as a political king. They tried to forcibly make him play that role, and it was not on the agenda.

It was not on his program. So dispensationalism is at least wrong on both those first two points. It was not to be a political kingdom, and it wasn't he who was offering a political kingdom rejected by the Jews.

It was the other way around. They offered it. He rejected it.

Thirdly, Israel for the most part rejected him in this offer as a spiritual king, though the remnant received him and entered into that kingdom under his leadership. The remnant of Israel were the ones who were the true Israel. Remember when Jesus said, If you were the children of Abraham, you'd do the works of Abraham.

But he then went on to say in John 8, 44, You are of your father the devil, and the works of your father you want to do. In other words, you say you're descended from Abraham, and I know you are. I know you're descended from Abraham, but you're not the children of Abraham.

You're not the true Israel. You're more like the devil's kids, not Abraham's kids. You would do what Abraham did if you were really his legitimate children, and he's not saying they were not biologically his, but he's saying what matters is the spiritual likeness to Abraham.

So the remnant of Israel who truly did have the faith of Abraham, the faithful remnant, they were the true Israel. Remember when Jesus saw Nathaniel coming to him, he said, Behold, an Israelite indeed. In other words, a real Israelite in whom is no guile.

His heart is pure. He's got a pure heart toward God. He's guileless.

That's a true Israelite, as opposed to what? Most alleged Israelites who didn't have pure hearts and didn't believe in God. There were some in Israel who were true Israel. They were the Israel of God, and there were others who simply didn't qualify.

The ones who did were the faithful remnant, and they did enter into the kingdom that Jesus offered, not a political kingdom, but they followed him as their king. Now, David is a really instructive example for how the Davidic kingdom would be, because David himself was anointed king in his father's house in a private ceremony. You might remember Saul was actually the recognized king of Israel, and Samuel the prophet went privately to Jesse's house, the father of David, found David and anointed him with oil and said, You're the next king, and David became king, but not recognized universally as king because Saul was still there for many, many years, and he eventually persecuted David, but David was still the anointed king.

He was God's king, and you know what? Some people saw it. Some didn't. The Bible says that when David had to flee from Saul, 400 people followed with David and made him their captain.

Later we read they were 600 in number. David was king. He was just not recognized by the majority, but he was the king nonetheless.

Saul, the spirit had left him, an evil spirit from God had come to afflict Saul. Saul was on the throne popularly, but not in God's sight. He was no longer king.

He'd been stripped of authority, and that had been given to David. Just as when Jesus came out of the tomb, he said, All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. What more can be given to him in the future? Already all authority in heaven and earth is given to him.

What more is he going to get? He's got it all. Likewise, David had been given the genuine authority, but just because someone has authority doesn't mean that it's recognized. There was a remnant in Israel that followed David, knowing he was the true king.

Later, the whole nation recognized him, and someday the whole world will recognize Jesus. But that doesn't mean he's not king yet. He certainly is the king over those who recognize him.

He is enthroned at the right hand of God, and the Bible teaches that this is so, and the remnant are those who are in his kingdom. So that Jesus, speaking to his disciples, who were that faithful remnant of Israel at the time, in Luke chapter 12, in verse 32, Jesus said, Do not fear, little flock, for it is your father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Now, to the nation of Israel, Jesus said the opposite.

His disciples were the remnant in Israel, but to the nation he said, The kingdom of God is taken from you, and given to a nation that will bring forth the fruits of it. He said that in Matthew 21, 43. The kingdom of God is taken from you, Israel, and given to another nation that will bring forth the fruits of it, Jesus said.

But to his disciples, the remnant of Israel, he said, Fear not, little flock, it is the father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. You're the kingdom. You're in the kingdom.

The nation of Israel is not, because they're apostate, and only you are the true seed of Abraham. You are the true believers. They were later joined, of course, by Gentile believers, but at this point, it was only Jewish believers.

But we can see from what Paul said in Colossians 1, 13, writing to a Gentile congregation in Colossae, that Paul believed that not only the remnant in Israel, the disciples among the Jews, but also the Gentiles who follow Christ, are in that kingdom, because Paul said in Colossians 1, 13, that God has delivered us from the power of darkness, and conveyed us into the kingdom of his Son, the Son of his love. This is past tense. This is what God has already done.

He has taken us from our former association of the kingdom of darkness, and he has conveyed us into Christ's kingdom. Christ is our king already. He is already enthroned.

We see this in the preaching of the early church. You know, the gospel in the Bible is called the gospel of the kingdom of God. That's what it's called, the gospel of the kingdom.

What is it? It's the message that the kingdom of God has been established in Christ, as he's the king, he's the Lord, and that all men everywhere are commanded to bow to him. Every knee shall bow, every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. That's the obligation of every living person.

The message of the church is that this is the case. We go to those who have not yet bowed, and say, this is your obligation. Jesus is the king.

You are to recognize him and come into his kingdom. That's the gospel of the kingdom. And look how the gospel is preached in the early days of the church.

Just a couple places. One from Paul, actually the first one from Peter and the second one from Paul. Acts chapter 2, the first recorded sermon of Peter, and then Acts chapter 13, the first recorded sermon of Paul.

What is their message? One thing you'll find as you read through Peter's sermon in Acts chapter 2, there's not anything in there that mentions going to heaven. The message was not about how to go to heaven. The message was about Christ's kingdom having come, as we shall see.

After he goes through and says this is the fulfillment of prophecy, Joel said this would happen, even David knew this would happen. He points out, he says in verse 22, Men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.

Him being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands and crucified to put to death. But God raised him up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be held by it. Then he quotes something from David.

Psalm 16, right? Is that what he's quoting there? And he quotes from David then, and then he says in verse 29, Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Now let me just remind you of something, because it happened about an hour ago that we read what God actually said to David. The covenant that God made with David was this.

When you are dead, when you sleep with your fathers, the Lord will raise up a son from you and establish a kingdom forever. If this is the Messiah, then his kingdom has to be established while David is dead and sleeping with his fathers. Now think about this.

If the dispensations are right, it hasn't happened yet. It will happen in the millennium. But wait, that's after the resurrection.

David won't be dead after Jesus comes back. Like all righteous people, he'll be raised from the dead. And therefore, if Jesus is sitting on the throne of David during a future millennium, that's after David has been risen from the dead.

It doesn't fulfill the words of the prosody. The prosody is that it will happen while David is sleeping with his fathers, while he's dead, not after he's raised from the dead. And Peter points that out.

He makes it very clear. He says, listen folks, David, you know, is dead. And he's buried.

And his tomb is with us to this day. Which means, okay, at least we meet that qualification for the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. David is supposed to be dead, and he is.

We can see his tomb right over there. What's he say? Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, he would raise up the Christ to sit on the throne. He, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ that his soul was not left in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

This Jesus God has raised up. Now notice the wording here. In verse 30, it says, that God had sworn to David that he would raise up of the seed of his body a seed to sit on his throne.

That's a reference to 2 Samuel 7, the first passage we read tonight, where Nathan the prophet enunciated the terms of the Davidic covenant. That David, when he was dead, would have one of his seed raised up to sit on his throne. Well, Peter says, well, he's dead.

And he knew that God would raise up his seed to sit on his throne. Look, this Jesus God has raised up. Verse 32.

In other words, God has fulfilled the promise he made to David, hasn't he? He has, in fact, raised up the seed of David just as he told David that he would. Of which we're all witnesses. Therefore, being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you now see and hear.

He quotes some more scripture about this. And then he says in verse 36, Therefore, let all the house of Israel assuredly know that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah, anointed one. He has anointed Jesus just as he anointed David as king.

He said he would, and he did. He told David he'd raise up a seed of his to sit on his throne, and he's done it. He raised up Christ.

Therefore, you better know that God has done what he said he would do. He's raised up Jesus to be the Lord and to be the Christ. Peter is very, I mean, his words to the Jews would be very clear about this.

Jesus is the king. That's what Christ means. Messiah means the anointed king.

He's of the seed of David. And Peter makes reference to that here too. So, really, Peter is saying that the promise has been fulfilled because Jesus is seated at the right hand of God.

Now, the dispensationalists are going to say, wait a minute, but that's not the throne of David. David sat on a physical throne in Jerusalem, and God said that the Messiah would sit on David's throne. So it has to be a physical throne in Jerusalem.

Well, if we're going to be absolutely literal, it has to be the very same chair that David sat on. Right? If it's going to sit on David's throne, it has to be the very same chair. That chair doesn't exist anymore.

You know why? Because when Solomon took over the kingdom, he got rid of David's chair and built his own throne with lions on the sides and all kinds of fancy stuff. He made himself a much more elaborate throne than David had, and the sons of David, I've heard, sat on Solomon's throne or else made their own. David's chair isn't there anymore.

To say that Solomon sat on David's throne would be correct, but he didn't sit on the same chair. He reigned over the kingdom of God, as David had done. We might say that the present queen of England sits on the same chair as Henry VIII.

She sits on the throne of the British kings. I don't know if the same chair is there. It doesn't matter.

The point is she's in the same position of authority over the same people. And David ruled over the faithful remnant of Israel, God's people, the kingdom of God, and Jesus rules over the faithful remnant of God's people, the true Israel, the people of God. And that's what Peter says.

He does it from a higher throne than David's. If we say, no, but he has to come back down and sit on the throne of David. What? He has to leave the most exalted throne in the universe and sit on a throne in a city and rule over a people in a city? What did Jesus do wrong that he has to be demoted like that? He already has all authority in heaven and earth.

He's got to be demoted to sit only in rule over Jerusalem? This is the dispensational affirmation, but it's not what Peter believed or what Paul believed, as you can see in Acts 13. In Acts chapter 13, this is Paul's first recorded sermon. And we won't go over the whole sermon, although it's very enjoyable, but that's not what we're here to do.

We'll just look at verse 28 and following, talking about the story of Jesus and his life and death. It says, And though they found no cause for death in him, they asked Pilate that he should be put to death. Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.

But God raised him from the dead. He was seen for many days by those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses to the people. And we declare to you glad tidings, that promise which was made to the fathers.

God has fulfilled for this, has fulfilled this for us, their children, in that he has raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, you are my son today I begotten you, and that he raised him from the dead. No more to return to corruption he has spoken thus, I will give you the sure mercies of David. That statement, I will give you the sure mercies of David, is from Isaiah 55, or 50, what is it? 55 three.

What are the sure mercies of David? That's an expression only found once in scripture, Isaiah 55 three. I will give you the sure mercies of David. Every Jewish scholar would agree, and Christian scholars too, that the sure mercies of David is a reference, to the certain merciful things, that God promised to David.

The mercies that God promised to David, that are certain and sure. God says to Israel, or to Christ, I will give you the sure mercies of David, that is I will fulfill my promises I made to David, in you. Now what's interesting is that Paul quotes that, as being fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ.

And that he raised him from the dead, no more to return corruption, he has spoken thus, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Clearly he's saying, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, fulfilled that promise from Isaiah. That God fulfilled the Davidic promises, in raising Jesus from the dead.

And Jesus is now enthroned, at the right hand of God. Let me, oh I don't have it, I didn't bring it with me, I can find it. In Mark, I don't have this in my notes, and I looked it up like yesterday.

I don't know if I can easily, look I think I can. Mark chapter 11, yeah. When Jesus was riding in Jerusalem on a donkey, and they were waiting palm branches before him.

Notice what they said in verses 9 and 10. Mark 11, 9 and 10. Then those who went before, and those who cried out saying, followed cried out saying, Hosanna, blessed be he who comes in the name of the Lord, blessed is the kingdom of our father David, that is coming in the name of the Lord.

Hosanna in the highest. Certainly these people were saying, that they recognized, in Jesus coming into Jerusalem, the fulfillment, of the coming of the kingdom of our father David. Blessed is the kingdom of our father David, blessed is the kingdom of our father David, that is coming in the name of the Lord.

Right now, that is what they are celebrating. The Davidic king is coming into Jerusalem, to reign. Now they didn't know he was going to be crucified, but they weren't wrong.

This was the coming of the Davidic kingdom. And we know it is, because Jesus was told by the Pharisees, rebuke your disciples, tell them not to say those things. That is going to get the Romans upset with us.

What did Jesus say? If these ones would be quiet, what? The stones would cry out. In other words, this is true. What they are saying is true.

And if they don't say it, God will make the rocks say it. Because it is true, the kingdom of David is in fact coming, right then and there. And how anyone can say, no, it was postponed for 2000 years, it hasn't come yet, is beyond me.

It must require a very blind loyalty, to certain teachers, who have been very blindly loyal to their teachers, who are blindly loyal to their teachers, who are somewhere back there, blindly loyal to a man named John Nelson Darby, who was the first to suggest that the kingdom was postponed, and they've just kind of fallen like lemmings behind. And even though Darby said, yeah, the church didn't teach this before me, but they were wrong, I'm right. Well, I wonder why the church didn't teach what he said.

Because it's not in the Bible. No dispensationalist has ever quoted a single scripture, that says the kingdom is coming. No dispensationalist has ever quoted a single scripture, that says the kingdom is to be, or the kingdom was postponed.

Not one verse in the Bible, ever suggests that. You can trust me on that, or you can go looking for it yourself, and you'll find out the hard way. But that is an enjoyable way.

Searching the scriptures is enjoyable. Do it for yourself. You will find no scripture anywhere, that says that the Davidic promises, have been postponed for 2000 years, for 2000 years, till the millennium.

What you do find, is reference to the fact that God has fulfilled, the Davidic promises, in the son of David. Jesus, who is reigning, whose kingdom has been inaugurated, into whose kingdom, we have been translated already. And we live like those 400 men, who followed David, when he was not universally recognized yet, as king.

The day will come, when Jesus does come back, the world will universally recognize him as king. But this will not result in a thousand year, temporary reign on earth. This will be a renovation of the earth, and the heavens.

A new Jerusalem, descending from heaven. Christ reigning over the entire world. Not necessarily from physical Jerusalem.

I mean, I don't know where he'll reign from. Maybe it will be from Jerusalem. It doesn't matter.

The point is, I'm not opposed to the idea, that Jesus might reign from Jerusalem. He has reigned from somewhere. I'm saying that the Bible doesn't say those things.

And it certainly does not say, that the kingdom of God has been postponed. Rather, the kingdom of God has been established. And think about that.

If Jesus said, in Matthew 24, 14, this gospel of the kingdom, must be preached in all the world, as a witness to all nations, then the end shall come. That means, the gospel of the kingdom, has to be preached, in all the world. That's what Jesus said.

Is that the gospel that dispensationists are teaching? Well, they're teaching a gospel of a future kingdom. There's no kingdom now. Now, they say, we're at an age of grace.

The kingdom isn't relevant to the age of grace. We have a gospel of grace now, not a gospel of the kingdom. Well, they certainly are dangerously wrong about that.

Because it requires a modification of the gospel, that was preached by Peter, and Paul, and Jesus. And the Bible in general. Let me show you one more verse about this.

Because the related to the postponement, this is in Acts 20, related to the postponement of the kingdom, in dispensational theology, they say, Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom. But that, since the kingdom was postponed until the second coming, there's a different gospel now. It's called the gospel of grace.

It's related to a different dispensation. That's why it's called dispensationalism. There's these different dispensations.

Different gospels apply to different dispensations. Right now, they say, we don't preach the gospel of the kingdom. That was for a different dispensation.

Now we preach the gospel of grace. Now, how many gospels did Paul recognize? What do you say about if anyone preaches any other gospel? Or when he said to the Galatians, or in 2 Corinthians chapter 11, he said, I'm afraid for you, that if someone comes and preaches another Jesus, or preaches another gospel, that you might receive it. Paul was afraid for you.

He said, I'm afraid for you. That you might receive it. Paul was not interested in there being more than one gospel.

But why do we read of the gospel of grace and the gospel of the kingdom? Well, look, in Acts chapter 20, Paul's own words. Verse 24 and 25. He's talking to the elders of the church of Ephesus, whom he expects to see no more after this.

Though I think he probably did see them again after this. Not on record, though. But none of these things move me, nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I receive from the Lord Jesus, to testify of the gospel of the grace of God.

Well, there's the gospel of grace right there. In fact, this is the only place in the Bible that uses that expression, the gospel of grace. It's the gospel Paul preached, indeed.

And that's what dispensationalists say. They say, Paul preached the gospel for the parenthesis, the church age parenthesis. It's the gospel of grace.

It's not the gospel of the kingdom. That's what Jesus taught before the kingdom was postponed. But really, it's not the gospel of the kingdom.

But read on. Verse 25. And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more.

Now, is Paul confused or something? In verse 24, he said he's preaching the gospel of the grace of God. The next verse says he's preaching the kingdom of God. It's quite obvious Paul didn't think there were two gospels.

One gospel of the kingdom, and one gospel of grace. There's also the gospel of grace. The gospel of grace is the gospel of grace.

And one gospel of grace. There's only one gospel. It is the gospel of the kingdom.

It is the gospel of grace. It's a gracious king that we announce. It's a king who offers amnesty to rebels if they repent.

It's a kingdom characterized by righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. This is a gracious offer from the king. It certainly is a gospel of the grace of God.

But it is not something other than the gospel of the kingdom. If we say there is no kingdom of God yet, that has been postponed, then we have a different gospel than that which the apostles preached, than Jesus preached, and than Jesus said must be preached in all the world, as a witness to all nations. The kingdom has been established in Christ.

He is enthroned at the right hand of God. He is reigning. And the message we have to the world is Jesus Christ is Lord.

Jesus Christ is king. Submit to your king, and it will go well for you. Resist your king, and you will be crushed like a bug by this stone that will grind everything into powder.

That is the kingdom message. And it's good news. Because if you are not in Christ's kingdom, you are in the kingdom of Satan, which isn't a good place to be at all.

So to teach that the Davidic covenant has not been fulfilled yet, is to preach what sounds to me like another gospel. Because the gospel of the kingdom is a gospel of the kingdom of God. It is a gospel of the kingdom of God.

It is a gospel of the kingdom of God. So to preach another gospel. Because the Davidic kingdom is the kingdom of God.

And Christ is the son of David ruling over that kingdom. Alright, we're going to stop there. Believe it or not, I had intended to go over another entire subject in addition to this.

But guess what? I'm not going to.