The Future of Israel (Part 2)

What Are We to Make of Israel — Steve Gregg

Next in this series

The Future of Israel (Part 3)

00:00

The Future of Israel (Part 2)

What Are We to Make of IsraelSteve Gregg

Steve Gregg discusses the concept of the New Covenant in relation to the future of Israel. He argues that the new covenant, which Jesus made with his disciples and the church, does not support the idea of two separate new covenants. Gregg also explores the interpretation of Old Testament prophecies and suggests that they should not be understood in a literal and natural sense. Instead, he proposes a symbolic interpretation, highlighting the regeneration and spiritual rebirth in the present age.

Transcript

I'd like now to talk about the New Covenant. This is the last of the covenants that God made with Israel. We have had separate lectures in the earlier part of this series.

One was about the Abrahamic covenant, one was about the covenant God made at Mount Sinai, and one lecture was about the Davidic covenant. I now want to talk about the New Covenant. This is, of course, the most relevant to us as Christians.

Whether you're Jewish or not, this New Covenant has to do with all of us. We need to understand what it is. Let's look at Jeremiah 31, verses 31-34.

It reads, Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my law in their minds, and I will write it on their hearts.

And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me. From the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.

Now, many lines in this passage should be very familiar to any Christian, partly because quite a few of them are quoted in the New Testament more than once, but also because this is a very important part of the Old Testament expectation that God gave Israel. There will be a new covenant. It will not be like the old covenant that he made when he brought them out of Egypt.

Okay, that was the Sinaitic covenant. It's going to be instead of. It'll be different from.

It'll be a new covenant that replaces the Sinaitic covenant. And this is what, of course, Hebrews 8.13 tells us. Hebrews 8.13 says where there is a new covenant, it has made the first covenant obsolete.

Okay, so Hebrews 8.13 makes it very clear. There's not two covenants going on at the same time. You only get one at a time, just like marriages.

You might have more than one marriage in your lifetime, but you're not going to have more than one at a time, Hope. It's possible that an old marriage can end. You can enter into a new covenant with someone else, but only at the expense of the old one.

You don't have the old one going on in the new one at the same time. Any of you have been married more than once. You only have one spouse.

You don't have two. Your ex and the present. No, the ex is gone.

No longer your spouse. You've got one at a time. God makes a new covenant.

It replaces the old covenant. He even compares it with marriage covenant. He says, not like the covenant I made with them, which they broke, although I was a husband to them.

So I'm going to make a new covenant, different kind. What is this new covenant? Let me tell you what several dispensational views are on this. And the reason that this is a problem and the reason dispensations can't agree among themselves about it is because if the new covenant was made when Jesus was here the first time, then that was the time of the fulfillment of these promises that God made to Israel.

This new covenant passage is smack dab in the middle of Jeremiah chapters 30 through 33, which are the chapters in Jeremiah that focus on God fulfilling these promises, bringing Israel back and cleansing them and things like that. This is where Jeremiah concentrates this kind of prediction. And in the middle of it, there's the new covenant.

So since the dispensationalist believes that these promises have to be fulfilled in the end times, they believe that the new covenant must belong to the end times also. And if you say, but I believe Jesus made the new covenant when he was here, they'll say, ah, notice I'm going to make a new covenant to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. They'll say the new covenant, the covenant that Jesus made with the disciples is the church.

It's a church covenant. Some of them will say this, but God still has to make the new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. And so this is really quite counterintuitive if you really think in biblical categories, but because it is so counterintuitive, dispensationalists cannot agree among themselves as to really what the new covenant is or when it will be made or how.

For example, Lewis Perry Schaeffer, who is the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary and John Walvoord, who was the chancellor of Dallas Theological Seminary and Charles Ryrie, who was a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. They hold that there are two new covenants, a new covenant for the church now and a later new covenant for Israel in the last days. Now you will search in vain for any biblical evidence that there'll be two new covenants, but that is the position they have to take.

Why? Because it's hard to deny that the New Testament teaches that we are in the new covenant now. And yet, if you're going to have a future fulfillment of these prophecies, you've got to have another new covenant for the Jews later on. And so, for example, Lewis Perry Schaeffer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, commenting on these verses, he said, quote, there remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people, which is also styled like the preceding one for Israel, a new covenant.

It is made in the blood of Christ. Now the heavenly people is the church he's talking about and continues in effect throughout this age, whereas the new covenant made with Israel happens to be future in its application. To suppose that these two covenants, one for Israel and one for the church, are the same is to assume that there is a latitude of common interest between God's purpose for Israel and his purpose for the church.

Yeah, I guess it would be, wouldn't it? Imagine thinking something so heretical that there's a common interest in God in his purpose for the church and for Israel. Now, dispensations can't believe that. They believe Israel's Israel, the church is the church and never the twain shall meet.

What happens to a Jew becomes a Christian becomes a little hard to explain, but Israel is still one entity in the church is a different entity in separate destinies for them. That's what dispensationalism teaches. And Schaeffer says, if we're not going to make this huge mistake of thinking that God's got the same purpose for Israel's for the church, that is, if we're going to be dispensationalist, then we have to believe there's another new covenant for Israel in addition to the new covenant for the church.

So there's two new covenants, he says. Is there any scripture whatsoever to support this notion that there's two new covenants? I think not. And many dispensations don't think so either, because Darby, who's the creator of dispensationalism, had a different view than that.

He believed there's only one new covenant, and that's for Israel in the future. And there's no new covenant for the church at the present time. Darby's view is there is no present new covenant, only a future one for Israel, and it doesn't involve the church.

Darby, when he was commenting on Hebrews 8, 7 through 13, he wrote, we enjoy indeed all the essential privileges of the new covenant, its foundation being laid on God's part in the blood of Christ, but we do so in spirit, not according to the letter. The new covenant will be established formally with Israel in the millennium. Now, in commenting on Hebrews 9, 15, Darby said, the way in which the apostle always avoids the direct application of the new covenant is very striking.

Hebrews 9, 15 is a very striking example of the writer of Hebrews avoiding the direct application of the new covenant. I don't think I'd get that out of reading those passages. I don't see the writer of Hebrews avoiding the application of the new covenant.

He quotes Jeremiah 31, this very passage in Jeremiah, he quotes it at length. Half of chapter 8 is a quotation from Jeremiah 31, and a major part of it is quoted again at the beginning of Hebrews 10. Twice the passage is quoted at length as being relevant to the present in the writer of Hebrews.

But Darby thinks it's very striking how this author avoids any direct application of the new covenant. Well, it would be striking certainly to find that in the passage, but it's not. Likewise, when Darby comments on Hebrews 10, 15 through 17, he says, quote, he does not speak of the covenant in a direct way as a privilege in which Christians had a direct part, unquote.

Well, maybe you should read Hebrews at home again and see whether chapters 8, 9, and 10 of Hebrews do or do not apply a new covenant directly to the present age of believers. Darby says not. Why? Because he needs it to be future for Israel.

No matter how much evidence is against it. And by the way, I mean, I don't want to be harsh on dispensations, but I see them do this all the time. They need the passages to teach a certain thing, whether the passages teach them or not.

And therefore, they tell us what they must mean, even if an exegetical approach to those passages would not agree with what they think it must mean. Now, there's a third view among those who are called progressive dispensations. There's quite a few dispensations, even at Dallas Theological Seminary, that call themselves progressive dispensations.

And they're changing from the Darbyite views somewhat. They're still maintaining this distinction between church and Israel, but not quite so much. They're moving kind of more in an amillennial direction, but they're keeping the millennium in place and a lot of the Darbyite things, but they call themselves progressive.

Their view is that the church partially fulfills the new covenant now, and Israel completely fulfills it in the future. That way, you can still have a future thing for Israel. But they admit it is partially fulfilled by the church now, which is why you can find verses that say it's fulfilled in the church, because it is partially now, but later fully in Israel.

The problem I would have with this is that all the passages about the new covenant, they don't indicate that one group of people is going to have it partially fulfilled for them for 2000 years. And then another group of people are going to have it more fully fulfilled. It's just a new covenant.

God's going to make a new covenant. He doesn't indicate partial fulfillment for 2000 years until finally the full fulfillment. It's conjecture.

It's convenient exegesis. And here's what, for example, Daryl Bach, who's one of the new leaders of the progressive dispensation movement, wrote, quote, with initial and future fulfillment, one can have some fulfillment in the church now and more fulfillment for Israel later. So you can have your cake and eat it too.

Okay, so this is how dispensationists work with this new covenant idea. Why do they do that? Well, partly because it says God's going to make the new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. But remember, the promises of God are to the remnant, the remnant of Israel, the faithful of Israel.

When Jesus met in the upper room for the last supper, he was with the faithful remnant of Israel, at least the 12 who were to be the judges over the 12 tribes of Israel. He was with those who were the representatives of the faithful Israel. In Jesus' lifetime, the faithful remnant of Israel followed Jesus because you could not be faithful to God and be rejecting his Messiah.

The faithful remnant became disciples of Jesus. Their leaders, their representative leaders were the 12 apostles. Jesus, just like Moses took the elders of Israel up on the mountain to eat a meal before God, Jesus took the leaders of the new Israel, the remnant, into an upper room and had a meal with them.

And there he handed out bread and a cup. And when he handed out the cup, he said, this cup is the new covenant in my blood. He mimicked the words not only of the Passover Seder, but also of Moses himself.

When Moses had given all the laws, the Bible says that he slew some animals, put their blood in a basin, and he sprinkled the book. And he also sprinkled the congregation. And as he sprinkled the blood on the congregation, he said, this is the blood of the covenant.

And what did Jesus say? This is the blood of the new covenant. This cup is the blood of the new covenant. Just as Moses established the covenant in the blood of those sacrifices, Jesus established the new covenant in the blood of himself.

That's what Hebrews says. It talks about he didn't enter into the holy place with the blood of bulls and goats, but with his own blood. He established a new covenant.

Now it's clear that Paul believed that the new covenant was in force in the church because in 2 Corinthians 3, Paul's writing to his converts there, and he says in verse 2, you are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men. You are manifestly an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but by the spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of flesh, that is of the heart. Now he's saying that God's word has been written on the heart, not on tablets of stone.

Well, that's what Jeremiah 31 said. I'll make a new covenant, not like the covenant I made with their fathers, which happened to be on stone, but I'll write my words and my ways, my laws on their inward parts in their heart. So this is something that Jesus established.

That's what the church is. The church is the new covenant Israel. And it originally was only Jewish.

The first many, many thousands of Christians were only Jewish. Three thousand on the day of Pentecost. By the end of the next miracle in the book of Acts, there were five thousand men plus women and children.

So maybe ten, fifteen thousand or so Christians, all Jewish. And the church continued to grow among Jews. It wasn't until Stephen was stoned and the church was scattered from Jerusalem that some began to evangelize Gentiles.

And as Paul says in Romans 11, some of those wild olive branches were grafted into this olive tree. But it's still the olive tree. It's still the remnant of Israel.

The olive tree is Israel, as we shall see when we come to Romans 11. So the point here is that the Bible indicates that Jesus made the new covenant. There's not another one.

There's not a newer new covenant, a new new covenant or a more full new covenant. There's just the new covenant. And Jesus made it.

And anyone who says there's going to be another one in the future is simply making it up because they have a doctrinal framework that requires that Jeremiah 31 fit into a last days scenario, when in fact it fits in perfectly into the scenario we've been talking about. The Messiah has come. God had gathered the exiles from Babylon back into their land.

God poured out his spirit upon them at Pentecost. Christ made a new covenant with them. I mean, what's missing here? Nothing is missing.

In Jeremiah chapter 3, much earlier in the book, we have the first reference to this, I believe. Jeremiah chapter 3. And here we have in verse 14, God says, Return, O backsliding children, says the Lord, for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion.

That is only a remnant of them, not all of them, out of a city, just one, out of a family, only two. He's not bringing all the Jews back, just some. Now, technically, the remnant came back from Babylon to Zion, that is Jerusalem.

But the writer of Hebrews says that we have come to Mount Zion. Using this very language, I'll bring you to Zion. Well, we've come to Mount Zion.

We've come to the city of the living God, the general assembly and church of the firstborn. This Zion could very well be that spiritual Zion that Hebrews is talking about. It says, And I will give you shepherds according to my heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.

Then it shall come to pass, when you are multiplied and increased in the land in those days, says the Lord, that they will say no more the ark of the covenant of the Lord. It shall not come to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit it, nor shall it be made any more. The ark of the covenant, what was that? That was the ark of the old covenant.

God gave them that ark of the old covenant when he gave them the tabernacle and made the covenant with them. It was with them through their wilderness wanderings. It was with them at Shiloh.

It was with them in Jerusalem until the Babylonian exile. They've never seen it since. And there is no ark of the covenant in the new covenant.

But it won't be remade. It won't be remembered. It won't be visited.

The ark of the covenant is passé. It doesn't belong to the period of the new covenant. He's talking about a time when the old covenant and the ark which represented it will be of no more of no more significance.

You know, there are people today who say, I wonder where the ark is today. And there's a lot of theories. Maybe it's in a crevice under the Mount Calvary, or maybe it's in a Coptic church in Ethiopia that claims they've got it.

Or maybe it's stored in Washington, DC in some big warehouse. But where is it? I couldn't care less. What do I care where it is? I care where it is.

It's not gonna be remembered anymore. It's not gonna be visited anymore. It's not worth anything.

It's the old covenant emblem. We don't have any use for it. That's what Jeremiah says.

There's a new covenant now. The old covenant is irrelevant because there's a new thing that God is doing. Let me show you one other passage.

There's more than this to show you, but I don't have time to show you all of them. In Ezekiel 37, this is one of those passages about God restoring his people, bringing them back. But it also talks about the covenant he's gonna make with them, which is in fact the new covenant.

If you'll look at Ezekiel 37 verses 21 through 29, this is when God tells Ezekiel to take two sticks. One is for Ephraim, one's for Judah. He puts them together, they become one in his hand.

And when God gives the interpretation of that, let's read it, begin at verse 21. Then say to them, thus says the Lord God, surely I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, wherever they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land. So this is your typical restoration of the remnant passage.

And I'll make them one nation in the land on the mountains of Israel. One king shall be king over them all. Now that didn't happen.

They never really had a legitimate king after they returned from Babylon because they were still under the Persian rule and then later the Greeks and then under the Syrians and then under the Romans. The Jews never really had their king until the Messiah came. And this one king, therefore God says, I'm gonna bring you back to land and then there's gonna come a time when I'm gonna send your king to you.

That's the Messiah. That's when Jesus came. I'm gonna suggest.

He says, and they will have one king over them all. They shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again. And they shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions.

But I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and I will cleanse them. Then they shall be my people and I will be their God. David, my servant, shall be king over them.

Now David, of course, is dead. But many dispensations because of a passage like this one, and there's one in Ezekiel 34 and one in Hosea chapter 3 that all mentioned David being the king. They say, oh David during the millennium is going to reign over the Jews because it says David will be their king.

You have to understand the name David referred to any king of the dynasty of David. We know this because after David had died and Solomon, his son, had died and David's grandson Rehoboam was ruling and the ten nations broke off and rebelled against him. They said to Rehoboam, see to your own house David.

We're going our own way. They referred to Rehoboam as David. Why? Because he was the sitting king of David's dynasty.

Just like every ruler of Egypt was called Pharaoh and every ruler of Gerar was called Abimelech. So every ruler of Judah is called David because that's the name of the dynasty, David's house, the house of David. And so Jesus, who is of the house of David, is the king, the David that is mentioned here.

And it says, and they shall have all one shepherd. Do you remember Jesus saying anything like that? Do you remember him saying to his disciples in John chapter 10, I have other sheep you don't know about. I must go and bring them also.

And then there'll be one shepherd and one flock. And this is talking about that. Jesus basically saying, I'm here to do that.

Those ones he's going to bring in were the Gentiles, of course. It says, they shall also walk in my judgments and observe my statutes and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I've given to Jacob, my servant.

Well, the Jews did live there for a while, but actually the land's a heavenly land. That's what Hebrews tells us. The land he's talking about is a spiritual inheritance in Christ.

And he says, coming on down to the end of verse 25, my servant David shall be their prince forever. Not a thousand years, but forever. Moreover, I will make a covenant of peace with them and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them.

I will establish them and multiply them and I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them forever. Where's God's sanctuary? It's in the midst of us. We are his sanctuary.

We're the temple of the Holy Spirit. We are living stones built into a spiritual house, the habitation of God through the spirit, Ephesians and 1 Peter tell us. So, I mean, the sanctuary of God is among us.

He lives among us. I'll set my sanctuary in their midst. By the way, hold your finger there and look over what Jesus said in John chapter 14 to his disciples when he was talking about sending the spirit to them.

In John 14, verse 23, Jesus said, if anyone loves me, that'd be a Christian then, he will keep my word and my father will love him and we will come to him and make our home with him. How is this done? By the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. God, through the Holy Spirit, makes his home with us if we love and obey Christ.

Isn't this him putting his habitation among us? We will come and dwell with you, Jesus said. This is not something off in the last days. This happened 2,000 years ago and still is happening.

But what's interesting here in verse 26 of Ezekiel, it says, I'll make a covenant of peace with them, an everlasting covenant. This, I'm going to suggest, is the same as the new covenant. There's not the new covenant and then some other covenant of peace that's going to be made.

But look over at Hebrews chapter 13. And the reason I keep showing you these cross references in the New Testament is because they tell us how the apostles who wrote the New Testament understood these ideas from the Old Testament. In Hebrews chapter 13, verse 20, the writer says, now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you complete in every good work to do his will.

Now look, he's wishing this on his contemporary listeners. May God make you complete, you people. May he grow you up, make you mature, make you complete Christians.

How? Well, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, the God of peace, the great shepherd of the sheep. These are all words from Ezekiel 37. There'll be one shepherd over them.

I'll make a covenant of peace with them, an everlasting covenant. All that phrase is, it's all here in Hebrews 13.20. And it applies to now. These are the terms under which the writer hopes that his readers will be brought to maturity.

By the great shepherd of the sheep who has established the everlasting covenant, the covenant of peace. All you need is a New Testament in order to understand the Old Testament. And this is something that we have to really come to terms with.

Are we supposed to use the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament? Or is it the other way around? This is a key difference between dispensationalism and historic Christianity. Throughout the ages, historic Christianity thought we should use the New Testament to decode the Old Testament. The dispensationalists say, no, we must understand the Old Testament on its own terms.

And then we should see the New Testament as an addition to it, but it has to fit into the paradigm that God established in the Old Testament. But they always say the best hermeneutic is to interpret the New Testament in light of the Old. One dispensationalist always used to tell me, because we debated a lot, you say, well, when you build a house, you build the foundation first and you build the walls next.

Then you put on the roof. You don't build the roof first and let it decide what shape the house and the foundations could be. The last part has got to conform to the earlier part.

And so the New Testament is like the roof. The Old Testament is like the foundation of the building. So the New Testament has to be made to conform to the Old Testament.

Well, it does, but it doesn't conform to what the Jews thought the Old Testament meant. That's the thing. It doesn't have to conform to the human opinions about the Old Testament.

Sure, it conforms to the Old Testament, not a problem. But the problem is the Jews with the veil over their heart can't be expected to know what the Old Testament really is talking about. And the disciples whom Jesus opened their understanding that they might understand scriptures should be expected to know.

And therefore, it's the New Testament authors who really know what the Old Testament is talking about. And no matter how many rabbis of the Old Testament you consult, you're not going to get anywhere. You've got to consult Jesus and the apostles.

Therefore, the New Testament gives us the divinely inspired interpretation of the Old Testament. If you look with me at 1 Peter chapter 1, it's a long sentence. And if you're not good at following long sentences, I'll help you out here.

1 Peter 1.10, actually, I want to start at. He's talking about our salvation. And in verse 10, he says, Of this salvation, the prophets, that's the Old Testament prophets, have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you.

That is the grace we have in Christ. Now, just a minute. Peter just said that the Old Testament prophets prophesied about the grace that would come to us, our salvation.

Interesting, because dispensationalists say the Old Testament never spoke about the church. You ever heard them say that? They say the church was a mystery. And the Old Testament never spoke of the church.

It's only about Israel. But Peter said the Old Testament prophets prophesied about us, the grace would come to us, our salvation, of our salvation, they spoke and inquired. And it said that they were curious.

Verse 11, They were searching what or what manner of time the spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when he testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that would follow. Now, they were prophesying in the Old Testament about Jesus and about the subsequent glories of what he would accomplish. That's what Peter said the Old Testament prophets were prophesying about.

They didn't understand. He said they searched diligently trying to understand what is it we're talking about. They actually asked God.

They were searching what or what manner of time this was about that the spirit was talking about. And he says in verse 12, to them it was revealed that not to themselves, but to us, they were ministering the things which have now been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven, which things even angels desire to look into. He's saying the prophets themselves, they spoke by the Holy Spirit, but they didn't know what they're talking about.

They inquired God, what manner of time are we talking about here? And he says, God told them, it's not for you to know. It's not for you. It's for someone else.

Peter said it's for us as Christians. The fulfillment of what the prophets taught is for the generation after Christ and following, not for them. Now think about it.

The prophets who were inspired by God did not understand what they were writing about. And do we think the rabbis who were not inspired by God are going to understand it? If the prophets themselves were not entitled to know what they were talking about, but Peter says they were talking about Christ and the glories that follow and our salvation. Talk about the church.

That's what Peter says we're talking about. But the prophets didn't know that, and certainly the rabbis didn't know that. So why should we care what the Jews thought before Jesus was there to enlighten them? The predictions were that the Jews, God's people, would be brought from the east, the west, the north, and the south.

Look at Isaiah 43, 5. Fear not, God says, for I am with you. I will bring your descendants from the east and gather you from the west. I will say to the north, give them up, and to the south, do not keep them back.

Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth, everyone who is called by my name, whom I have created for my glory. Dispensationists believe this is talking about the end times when God's going to gather his children, the Jews, from the east, the west, the north, south, from all the lands, and bring them back to the promised land. How did Jesus understand this scripture? That'd be interesting to know, wouldn't it? Look at Luke chapter 13, verse 28 and 29.

Jesus said, There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you, the Jewish people he's speaking to, see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. They will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and sit down in the kingdom of God. Very much echoing the words of Isaiah 43, 5 and 6. But who is Jesus talking about? Who will come from the north and the east and the south and the west? Who's going to come sit down in the kingdom of God? If it's unclear there, it's not unclear in Matthew chapter 8, where Jesus makes the same prediction with fewer words.

This is when the centurion, a Gentile, exhibited more faith than Jesus found in any Israelite. Remember when the man expressed his faith, Jesus said, I've not heard, I've not seen such faith in all of Israel. And it's a Gentile who had this faith.

And on that occasion, Jesus made this comment in verse 11, Matthew 8, 11. And I say to you that many will come from the east and the west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom, this is the natural ones, the Jews who would normally be expected to be there, will be cast out into outer darkness, for there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Now he said this as a commentary on this Gentile who had more faith than any Israelite he'd met.

The people come from the east and the west are the Gentiles coming to the Messiah. And many of the Jews, he said, would not be included. Look at John chapter 11.

And this is an interesting thing because Caiaphas, an enemy of God, accidentally prophesies. And then John tells us something about the significance of Caiaphas' prophecy. In John chapter 11, Caiaphas in verse 50 predicted that Jesus had to be killed so that the nation could live.

And in verse 51, John comments on Caiaphas' words. John says in verse 51, now this he did not say on his own authority, but being a high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, that is for the nation of Israel. And not for that nation only, not only for Israel, but also that he would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.

That's very much language from the Old Testament. In fact, from Isaiah 43, where God says, gather my sons and my daughters, my children from the east, the west, the north, and the south. John says, yeah, Jesus is going to gather all of God's children who are scattered abroad.

But he's not, it's not talking about Jews because he mentioned the Jews, not that nation only, that's the Jews. Well, who else are there? Gentiles. Not just the Jews, but the Gentiles too.

This in-gathering that is spoken of is gathering to the Lord. Remember, the remnant will return to the mighty God, that's Jesus. Salvation is in Christ.

The return of the exiles is fulfilled in the remnant coming to the Messiah and being saved. The idea that Abraham would inherit the land and his seed would inherit the land is interpreted quite differently by Paul. In Romans chapter 4 and verse 13, Paul says, for the promise that he, he's talking about Abraham, the promise that he would be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Okay, so God made a promise to Abraham and his seed that they would be the heir of, the heir of what? The world? Do you find anywhere in the story of Abraham in Genesis chapters 12 through 24, the entire story of Abraham, do you ever find God mentioning him being the heir of the world? I thought it was like from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean to the river of Egypt, there's like this promised land, the land of the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Gergizites, and all those guys. That's what I read in Abraham, in the promise God made to Abraham, he's going to be the heir of all that nation, he and his seed. Paul says, no, the promise that was made to Abraham and his seed was that he'd be the heir of the whole world.

Well, you don't find it stated that way in the Old Testament, so are we going to go with the way it's stated in the Old Testament, the way that Paul understood it? You see, Paul obviously is seeing that the promised land in the Old Testament is simply a token for a larger promise. I was listening to a debate between a Zionist Christian and a person like myself, who doesn't hold those views, the other day on YouTube, and the Zionist Christian was saying God has to fulfill the promise of giving the Jews the land that he promised Abraham, because can you imagine God saying, I'm going to give you Portia, and then he gives it to you, and then he takes it away from you, and you don't get any more? God would not be faithful to do that. And the other guy said something like, well, it's more like God promised you a Volkswagen, and it turns out it gives you a Porsche.

God's not unfaithful to do better to you than what he stated. In the Old Testament, there's all the types and shadows of something better, a better covenant, with better promises. It says that in Hebrews chapter 8, it says God made a better, he said if the old covenant had been adequate, why would he then speak of another covenant? Why would he speak of a new covenant? This is what it says in Hebrews 8. It says, but finding fault with them, that is the old covenant promises, it says he has become the meteor of a new covenant based on better promises.

Is it a better promise to promise people a strip of real estate smaller than Rhode Island, or to promise them the whole world? Which is a better promise? I would think the whole world. Now Paul is saying the promise God made to Abraham has its fulfillment, not in that little strip of real estate, but in the whole world, the promises that Abram and his seed, whom Paul takes to be Christ, was there to inherit the world. Well, is that in the Old Testament somewhere? Well, there is something like that in the Old Testament, because in Psalm 2 8, there is a prophecy about Jesus, about the Messiah, and God is speaking to the Messiah in Psalm 2 8, and he says in verse 7, you are my son, this day I begotten you, and in verse 8 he says, ask of me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for your possession.

The Messiah, the seed of Abraham, is promised by God that his inheritance will not be a little strip of land along the Mediterranean. I'll give you the nations for your inheritance, the uttermost parts of the earth for your possession. That's the promise.

It's bigger. When God spoke to Abraham, he only gave him the short-term promise. Your children, you know, sometime in a few hundred years, they're never going to inherit this little strip of land here, but the real issue is your seed, the Messiah, he's going to be a blessing to all the families of the earth.

I'm going to give him all the nations to rule over. And so Paul can say the real promise is not about what we call the promised land. The promised land is the whole planet.

Jesus said to his disciples in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5.5, blesser you meek, blesser the meek. Why? You will inherit the earth. Jesus is going to inherit the whole earth, and we are joint heirs with Christ.

We're going to inherit with him. You meek, you'll inherit the earth. There's no promised land left.

It's all the land, all the earth is promised. It's this world gift that God's giving to Abraham's seed, Christ, and us. Remember Paul said in Galatians 3 in verse 28 and 29, if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.

The last verse in Galatians 3, if you belong to Jesus, you're a Gentile, but you belong to Jesus, you are Abraham's seed and you are the heirs of the promise. So this is not that the Jewish race will get this little piece of land forever. It's that God's true seed will inherit the whole world forever.

The new heavens, the new earth, where God dwells among men forever and ever in righteousness, and there's no more curse. This is the promise. This is the fulfillment in scripture, and you know when Jesus said to his disciples, you'll be my witnesses in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria and to the uttermost parts of the earth, it's an echo of Psalm 8. God said to Jesus, I will give you the uttermost parts of the earth for your possession.

Jesus said, you go out and tell them, go out to the uttermost parts of the earth and you claim them from where you go preach that I'm the king. There's another king they need to submit to me. Teach them to observe everything I've commanded because they are mine now.

The uttermost parts of the earth are mine. I'm the seed of Abraham and they're mine now. Tell them to obey me.

All authority in heaven and earth is given to me. He said, not just a little piece of property, all authority in heaven and in earth. Frankly, dispensationism in Israel, they've placed their hopes way too small because they're taking old testament ideas and not seeing the type and shadow function of these smaller things to represent much larger things in the new covenant, much better promises in the new testament.

By the way, the real inheritance of God's people is God himself. Do you remember when God said about the Levites, as he's given out the inheritance of the land into portions to the different tribes, he says, except the tribe of Levi, they will not have a portion of that because I am their inheritance. I'm their inheritance.

In Psalm 90, which was written by Moses, by the way, the one who inaugurated the old covenant in Psalm 90 in verse 1, we're told it's a Psalm of Moses. He said, Lord, you have been our dwelling place for all generations. Not Israel.

God is our dwelling place. In the next Psalm, Psalm 91, verse 90, it says, because you have made the Lord who is my refuge even the most high your dwelling place. The remnant have God as their portion and their inheritance.

Psalm 16.5, which is messianic, by the way, both Peter and Paul in their sermons and acts quote Psalm 16. Not this verse, but other verses in the Psalm. In verse 5, it says, O Lord, you are the portion of my inheritance and my cup.

You maintain my lot. God is my portion of my inheritance. God is my dwelling place.

There's a spirit, a heavenly country. I dwell in Christ. That's the new Israel.

Christ is the new Israel. We dwell in him. He's the land.

He's the promised land for us. He's the one that God promised to the to the Jews and some of them found him. Others did not, but that's nothing new.

Every generation of Jews either did or did not find God. Some did and they were the faithful remnant and the promises fulfilled to them. The return of the people is to God.

Now, there are some people who say that there is some reaffirmation of the Jewish hope in the New Testament and by the Jewish hope they mean the hope of being regathered into the land in the last days. Remember the Jewish hope as I said at the beginning of our last lecture. The Jews to this day expect the Messiah to come and regather the diaspora, the scattered Jews from all over the world into the land.

The one who does that they will recognize as the Messiah. That Jesus didn't do that is the primary reason they don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah. They don't understand that it's a spiritual thing because why? Paul said the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God.

They're foolishness to him because they're spiritually discerned. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 2 14 and 15. So the natural mind can't receive the things of the Spirit of God.

They're spiritually discerned. Christians can because we have the Holy Spirit and we have Jesus opening our understanding. So we can know what these things mean but some do not and so the Messiah was not recognized by those who are looking in the natural and not at the spiritual.

They say you have to take it all literally. My question is why? I mean it's one thing to say we take the Bible literally and that makes us better. Really why is that better? If Jesus spiritualized it, if Jesus said you know that prophecy about Malachi, about Elijah coming? Well that's spiritually fulfilled in John the Baptist if you can receive it.

And all this other stuff that the New Testament says was spiritually fulfilled from the Old Testament. Why is this a bad thing to spiritualize it? If it wasn't authorized in the New Testament to do it I could see complaining about it perhaps. But you do not find the New Testament writers taking any of these promises to Israel in a literal natural sense.

They see them as fulfilled in Christ. To the New Testament writers Jesus is the fulfillment. He is the seed of Abraham.

He is the one in whom all the promises of God are yea and amen. He is the fulfillment of all that God promised. All the promises of God are yea and amen in him.

So there aren't any that are nay in him. There aren't any that aren't fulfilled. But there are some namely the dispensationalists who say ah but there are still some indications in the New Testament that Jesus and the apostles did expect this natural fulfillment of these natural promises that Israel's going to have their land back and be regathered.

All that stuff that I said is the Jewish hope. There's supposedly some information in the New Testament about that. Where's that? Let me run through it as quickly as I can.

First of all the Olivet Discourse, Matthew 24. No we're not going to go through the Olivet Discourse tonight. I have lectures on that.

You can listen to those if you want. They take hours to go through because I do take them verse by verse and we're not going to do that here. Suffice it to say the Olivet Discourse which is called the a little apocalypse sometimes, Matthew 24 which is also found in Mark 13 and Luke 21.

That discourse is always applied to the end times by dispensationalists and even by some who don't call themselves dispensationalists just assume it's about the end time. Earthquakes, famines, wars and rumors of wars, false prophets, false messiahs, the abomination of desolation. They say all that's going to happen in the tribulation period.

Well read through the Olivet Discourse and tell me which verse says one word about Israel being regathered to their land. There's not a word in there about it. Not a single word that can even be interpreted that way and yet the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation are considered to be some of the major teachings of the New Testament that dispensationalists look to to see there's a future establishment of Israel.

There's not a word in the Olivet Discourse in any of the versions about a re-establishment. What there is is a reference to them being scattered in the Olivet Discourse in Luke 21 verse 20 which is near the end Jesus says, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies know that her desolation is near. Then you who are in Judea flee to the mountains and woe unto those who are pregnant and nursing children those days for these are the days of vengeance that all things that are written may be fulfilled.

He's talking about AD 70. Now of course the fact that he mentions Jerusalem dispensationalists already transport this whole discourse to the end time. So oh Jerusalem they must regather to Jerusalem so that this can happen.

Why? It doesn't speak ever of first of all the end times. It doesn't speak of regathering. In fact Jesus said this generation will not pass before all these things are fulfilled.

All three versions of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew, Mark, Luke they all have that statement. Jesus said this generation won't pass and you may have heard this generation means you know this race or a later generation at the end times. The term this generation is used six times or five or six times in Matthew.

Look it up. See what this generation means in every case. It means Jesus's generation, his disciples generation.

The Olivet Discourse therefore has nothing to do with establishing the eschatological hopes of the dispensationalists. What about the book of Revelation? People often just assume well the book of Revelation that certainly is where you'll find it. Well okay I'm looking where is there a verse in the book of Revelation that speaks of the regathering of Israel to the land? Not a word in any of those chapters about Israel being regathered.

How is it that this could be thought to be some confirmation of the dispensational eschatology? Well they say well there is in fact a temple there. In chapter 11 verses 1 and 2 he measures the temple. That's the temple that's going to be rebuilt there.

How do we know that? The book of Revelation again and again tells us that its contents will take place shortly. Now this was written 2,000 years ago to people who were alive at the time and it was addressed to them personally. The church of Smyrna, the church of Ephesus, churches these churches they were around then.

They're not there now. They don't exist anymore but they were there then and these the revelation was written to them and he told them again and again these are things that must shortly take place. The time is at hand.

Now if it wasn't then he certainly misled them. We talk about God misleading people. The dispensationalists say if God doesn't bring Israel back to the land of the last days he misled them in these prophecies.

If he was talking about 2,000 years away from his time being fulfilled in Revelation he certainly misled them by saying the time is at hand. The time is near. This is about to take place.

There's nothing in the Olivet Discourse or Revelation that mentions the regathering of the Jews to their land and both passages say that they're going to have a soon fulfillment within that generation or at least soon in the case of Revelation. But here's something that often comes up almost always and this is just before Jesus ascended in Acts chapter 1. Read in verse 6 through 8 of Acts chapter 1. It says, Therefore when they had come together they asked him saying, Lord will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? And he said to them it is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the father has put in his own authority but you shall receive power when the holy spirit has come upon you and you shall be witnesses to me in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth. So they asked him in verse 6 will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? Quite obviously they were thinking in terms of the traditional Jewish idea.

Messiah would come and he'd restore the kingdom that David had to the people of Israel. They clearly were asking a question in the terminology that every Jew would understand in the traditional sense of the Messiah coming and rescuing Israel from the lambs and all these things. The disciples at this point were still thinking in those terms.

Now what the dispensation sometimes say is Jesus didn't tell them that they had it all wrong. He just told them their timing was off. In other words the dispensation says Jesus is implying that the Jewish expectation will come true but the disciples are just off on their timing.

It's been postponed because the Jews rejected Christ been postponed to the millennium. This is how the dispensation sees this and they point out if Jesus understood the way the all-millennialists do well he would have said oh you're all wrong about this whole kingdom and Israel stuff but he didn't he just said it's not for you to know the times and the seasons that the father's put in his own authority. Basically he didn't tell them their timing was off or that they were thinking wrong.

He just evaded the question. It's not for you to know. Now the truth is there is a sense in which God did restore the kingdom to Israel.

If you understand kingdom and Israel biblically the new testament says we're the children of Abraham. Galatians 6 16 refers to the church as the Israel of God. In Romans 2 28 Paul said he is not a Jew who's one outwardly but he is a Jew who's one inwardly.

In Philippians 3 3 Paul said we are the true circumcision who rejoice in Christ Jesus and worship God in the spirit and put no confidence in the flesh. We're the true Israel he said. Paul said if you are in Christ then you are Abraham's seed in the airs according to the prophets.

So he could have said well yes indeed this is the time that I'm going to restore the kingdom to Israel but they didn't understand yet what kingdom meant or what Israel meant. So instead of giving them a whole lesson because he's about to ascend a few seconds after this he just said listen it's not for you to worry about the times and the seasons you do this you go and and declare my kingdom declare my gospel to all the nations. Once the kingdom of God once the power of God comes upon you in the Holy Spirit you're going to be my witness to the uttermost thoughts of the earth and lo and behold you'll find that God has restored the kingdom to Israel after all because this is how it's going to be done.

It's through the preaching of the gospel. God's gathering in the children of God into the kingdom. He's gathering in the true Israel to himself and so Jesus doesn't have to correct them about them expecting God to restore the kingdom to Israel.

The Old Testament said he would do it but they have to understand what Israel is. They have to understand what the kingdom is and those are spiritual concepts and they had not yet been filled with the Holy Spirit. They were natural men not spiritual men.

They couldn't understand the things of the Spirit so instead of wasting his breath trying to explain the spiritual things he said listen you just don't worry about that stuff you just go and do what I tell you to do when the Spirit comes upon you and then you'll understand better. I think he didn't say you'll understand better but I think they did after the Spirit came they did. So Jesus doesn't do anything to affirm the Jewish ideas about the kingdom being restored to Israel necessarily.

The disciples no doubt did have those Jewish ideas in their mind. Jesus did said nothing to affirm those ideas. In fact if anything he basically just told them don't be thinking about that because you've got an omission right now.

We also have twice Jesus said to the disciples that they'll sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Dispensations think this will take place in the millennium and therefore they say Jesus is affirming that there will be a kingdom in Israel the 12 tribes regathered and the 12 apostles will sit and rule over them. This is what he actually said in Matthew 19 28.

He said so Jesus said them assuredly I say to you that in in the regeneration when the Son of Man sits on the throne of his glory you who have followed me will also sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. In Luke 22 29 and 30 he said to his disciples I bestow upon you a kingdom just as my father bestowed one upon me that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Now the common denominator to these two passages is he talks about the 12 apostles sitting on 12 thrones to judge the 12 tribes of Israel.

The assumption that this is talking about physical thrones judging a natural nation of Israel in a millennial kingdom is something dispensations bring to the passage and of course they take it literally. I mean that's what dispensations are supposed to do and so they say they have to be literal thrones judging the literal 12 tribes of Israel and so forth. It's interesting that when Paul was converted and he came to Jerusalem to talk to Peter and the the 12 he only found three of them there but but he came to Jerusalem to meet the original apostles.

In Galatians chapter 2 it says that they came to an agreement that Paul was sent to the uncircumcised and Peter and his group were sent to the circumcised. That is the 12 saw their mission their assignment was to reach the 12 tribes of Israel. James when he wrote his epistle addressed it to the 12 tribes that are scattered abroad.

James servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ to the 12 tribes that are scattered abroad. The 12 apostles saw their first mission as reaching the 12 tribes. They were sent to the circumcision.

Paul and Barnabas those guys went to the uncircumcision. The point here is I think this is symbolic. I think what Jesus is saying you will have in my kingdom an authoritative role reaching and speaking and judging the Jewish people.

Not judging them in the ultimate sense of the great white throne judgment but basically ministering to them and their field of influence will be among the 12 tribes. Now I'll tell you why I think that because in the second of those passages Luke 22 29 Jesus said I present I bestow upon you a kingdom just as my father bestowed past tense one upon me. Jesus said in the past already God has bestowed a kingdom on me and I'm now bestowing that kingdom upon you and you will sit on 12 thrones speaking about essentially in this kingdom.

Now in Matthew's version which we read Matthew 19 28 Jesus said assuredly I said to you in the regeneration you will sit on 12 thrones. What's the regeneration? He didn't say the resurrection a word that would be much more common and is much more common in the New Testament resurrection. The word regeneration I think is only found one other place in the New Testament.

In Titus chapter 3 in verse 5 which says it not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration. Regeneration is usually the term that's used for being born again among theologians. The regeneration is the present age of the spirit where we're born again we're washed and regenerated.

It's in the church age that is the regeneration. It's in the church age that is the kingdom that Jesus was starting and it's in their lifetimes I believe that they had this promise realized although it was not literal. They didn't sell literal thrones.

They didn't literally sit as judges but they were sent as authoritative declarers of God's demands to the 12 tribes of Israel and I think that Jesus spoke in figurative language. The question is is he talking literally and about something that happened in the millennium or is he talking about something spiritually that was true in the in their lifetimes after Pentecost. I'm going to take the second view at least the fact that that is a possibility means that we can't insist that this verse is reaffirming the Jewish idea which isn't reaffirmed anywhere else in scripture.