Understanding Dispensationalism and Hermeneutics

Our fifth, I don't want to say message or sermon, our fifth session dealing with the subject of dispensationalism and some of the things that we've looked at so far. In the first week we looked at the whole issue of whether dispensationalism was good or a bad thing. Then we looked at what is a dispensation, what are the dispensations. The origins of dispensationalism last time and then this week we want to look at the hermeneutics of dispensationalism. In other words, the word hermeneutics really is how we interpret the Bible and the mechanics or the science, if you like, or the principles of interpretation. What are the principles of interpretation of dispensationalism? and then what are the principles of interpretation to some degree of covenant theology. One important principle of interpretation is that of the different types of writing in the scripture. There are different ways that the Bible writes. Historic literature, poetic literature, prophetic. Apocalyptic, which is different than prophetic. Sometimes people misunderstand the difference between prophetic and apocalyptic. They're not the same. Isaiah is prophetic, but it's not apocalyptic. Whereas Ezekiel is apocalyptic. like Revelation is apocalyptic, parts of Daniel are apocalyptic, and so on. So not all prophetic literature is apocalyptic. Then you have didactic literature, which is like the book of Romans, and so on. This is straightforward doctrinal teaching. And so therefore all these different types of biblical literature, or genres of scripture, if you like, are not apocalyptic. cannot be taken in the same way. They cannot be understood in the same manner. They have to be read, excuse me, in the manner in which they were originally written. For example, a well-known verse from Proverbs, which sort of comes under the general umbrella of the poetic literature. Train up a child in the way he should go. And when he is old, he will not depart from it. Now this is a general principle of life. It is not a salvific promise. In other words, such a verse would not fit into the book of Romans, especially the sum of the sections we're looking at now in the same way. Proverbs is full of ordinary advice for life. Principles of living. That's not what Romans is. Romans is a book all about the doctrines of salvation, the doctrines of grace. So we cannot read that verse in Proverbs as a definite promise of salvation to our child. What we can take from it is that if I train my child in the way that they should go, that will have a lasting effect on them. throughout their life but there isn't a salvific promise there in the same way as you might have such promises in the book of Romans. Another example the apocalyptic sort of literature would be Revelation 13 verse 1 where it talks about out of the sea coming this beast with seven heads and ten horns and because this is apocalyptic literature not just prophetic But apocalyptic literature, we don't take that as literally, a literal beast in the physical sense. And this is something I'll come back to in a few minutes, this whole idea of what literal is and so on. In fact, the only group that I've ever known that take that literally, that I suppose are consistent in their literalism, if you put it that way, is the Worldwide Church of God or Armstrongism. as it's known or they print what's called the plain truth or did, I'm not sure if they still do haven't seen it in years, a magazine called the plain truth magazine they believe that literally one day a literal beast will literally come out of the sea with seven heads and ten horns but that's a very very rare view. So this is how Covenant theologians would approach the Bible. We cannot approach all of the parts of the Scripture in the same way. We must approach them in the manner in which they were written, in the context and in the manner in which they were written. Rory, and again, as those of us who have been going through this series know, that I'm using Rory's chapters as the outline, and I'm simply going through. chapter by chapter what he has written and seeking to respond to many of the things that he says. Rory notes one of the pitfalls of the covenant view of approaching scripture and all these different genres is to claim that each genre represents truth in its own way and makes unique demands for how it should be read and that meaning is genre dependent. That's exactly right. That is a big difference. The problem with the dispensational approach is it demands this just carte blanche approach to the whole of Scripture in that sense. Now what's interesting, here's one of the big differences. We approach Scripture in the way I've already explained. Different types of writings, poetic, apocalyptic, prophetic and so on, didactic. What dispensationalists do... is much more strange. They approach the different sections of scripture not in that manner, but in a dispensational approach. So it's not what the type of literature it is that counts, what matters is what dispensation it was written in or written for. And that I would suggest in a much more damaging way affects the way you understand what you are reading. So what covenant theologians would say is it's not so much the time frame in which it was written or it's not so much the some sort of dispensational perspective. Now what matters is is what we can actually see in the literature itself. In other words it's clearly apocalyptic that should affect our way of understanding it. But when you bring this sort of um This other idea of something else that controls the text, that's when you end up with some dangerous and some wrong views. So it does matter what type of biblical literature we are referring to. Royer shows his lack of appreciation for the different types of literature within the scriptures when he says this. Of course, the dietary laws are just as much inspired. scripture as the Sermon on the Mount, a fact that emotions easily overlook. Now clearly in scripture, and again, I've just taken that out from a bigger section, but clearly the dietary laws in the book of Leviticus, for example, and in the Pentateuch are very much different than the emphasis of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. What Ryerley shows here is that it's just all the same. In other words, we're to take it. just all the same. He goes on to say dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. Now again we're going to question this idea of what literal is. This means interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage whether implied in writing, speaking or thinking and to some degree we would agree with that. But we must qualify this. Not only is the type of literature important, but the context of a word is important. The one thing I notice in chapter 5 is he emphasizes this idea of the word, of a single word. And the two words he emphasizes are Israel and the church. Now, we will be looking at the church specifically, not next time, but the time afterwards, I think. So we won't get into that in great detail. Now, we will get to some degree. But he puts emphasis on this idea of the word. Now not only, as we've said, is the genre important, but also the context in which the word is found. Let me give you an example of that. Acts chapter 19 and verse 32. Acts chapter 19 and verse 32. This is the uproar at Ephesus. For the sake of time, we won't read all the verses, but just verse 32 is the key verse. Some therefore cried one thing, and some another, for the assembly was confused, and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together. Now the word assembly there is the word ecclesia, or ecclesia, depending on how you pronounce the word in the Greek, which is the word that is used for the church in the New Testament. Now there we have the word, which is translated assembly there, referring to just... an indescribable number of people including believers, unbelievers and so on and they're called the assembly. Now one of the problems with the dispensational view is making too much about the distinction of the word church. One of the problems the Puritans had with the AV was that it changed the Genevan Bible used the term congregation or assembly and the AV introduced this word church and the Puritans had a problem with that They saw it as bringing Establishment ism into the Bible because the word doesn't have the idea of an establishment The word simply means a called out and a call together people So when dispensationalism talks about the difference between Israel and the church, they are sort of buying into this wrong understanding of the word church. The church is not an establishment. It's not some organization. It's not something that's to be equated with a nation in that sense, even though there is a reference, and Peter will be looking at that in a few minutes'time. But the word simply means a... body of people that God has called to himself out of the world. And we see it's even used here in a sense of just an ordinary group or collection of people. He goes on to argue the scriptures then cannot be regarded as an illustration of some special use of language so that in the interpretation of these scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be sought. Now, I have a problem with this, because what he's implying is that those who hold the covenant theology are looking for some sort of Gnostic, deeper meaning. That's just not the case. That is not true. We do believe in the simple meaning of words. In fact, from the example that I just showed you, I think it's those who hold the covenant theology have a more biblical understanding of the word church. Because we don't see it as this some sort of edifice or establishment, this churchy idea, and by the way the Puritans also had a problem with the term bishop, they saw it as ecclesiastical in that sense, and that was the problem they had with those two words, bishop and church. It's one of the reasons they didn't like the AV. But covenant theology, and this implication, It's constant, I have to say, in Roy's writings. He's implying all the time things like this. And that's simply just not true. It's simply not the case. Those who hold the covenant theology do not look for deeper meanings. We actually look for the simple meaning. The basic and simple meaning of biblical words. Again. The most helpful example in this is the word church, which is not some hidden group separate from Israel, but simply are simply one with all the called out people of God from the beginning of time. Let me just show you this by concrete examples. Matthew 16 and verse 18. I don't know if you've ever noticed this before, but I think this will be helpful. Matthew chapter 16 and verse 18. It's the first time the word church is used in the New Testament. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. And Peter said, oh, what is this new thing, the church? Suddenly the Lord Jesus Christ has announced, and I will build my church. But the disciples asked no question of what's this new thing the church is doing. The church never mentioned it. Never asked that question. If the church was something new, because the apostles were always asking questions, weren't they? And the obvious ones sometimes, which are clear. Here the Lord Jesus Christ announces I will build my church and there's no question. In other words, this was not a foreign idea to the disciples. This was not something new. The idea of the church is an Old Testament idea. Why? Because again, we get confused by the English word church. In the original language, all the Lord Jesus Christ was saying, I will build my people. That's simply what he says. I will build my people, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. That's simply what he was saying. We also have it over in chapter 18 and verse 17. Again, for the sake of time, just read the one verse. And if he shall neglect to hear them, this is church discipline, tell it unto the church. But if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. And again, he's speaking as if this is something normative for them to understand. He's not saying that... Well, you know, in some period in the near future, there's going to be a new organization called the church. No, not at all. He's speaking in a language they clearly understand. He doesn't have to explain it to them. This is very important, isn't it? The church is not something that began on the day of Pentecost. The church existed in these two scriptures. And what's interesting is that Matthew is the gospel that was written with the Jews in mind. And this is the gospel that has these two accounts in it. For the Jews were well acquainted with this term. Acts chapter 7 and verse 38. Acts 7 and verse 38. And here we have an actual example of the word Ecclesia, translated church, referring to the Old Testament people. Verse 37 for context. This is that Moses which said unto the children of Israel, a prophet. It's the church in the wilderness. You see, so when we talk about this distinction between Israel and the church, we are using an unbiblical idea. That's the point. When we talk about the church and Israel, we're using a distinction that the Bible knows nothing of. That's very important to emphasize. Of course, the Bible talks about the distinction between Jew and Gentile, yes. And even between unbelieving Jews and the church. But never does the Bible make a distinction between the church and Israel. That is an unbiblical distinction. Acts chapter 14 and verse 27. Acts 14, 27. And when they were come and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. So who were the church in verse 27? Believing Jews. Believing Jews. And the Gentiles are distinct here, in that sense, from the church, who are believing Jews. Acts chapter 20 and verse 28. Speaking to the elders in Ephesus, Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Who is the church of God? All the people of God from the beginning. beginning of time to the end of time, who have been purchased with the blood of Christ. Because if this is only referring to those from Pentecost onwards, well then Christ didn't die for Old Testament believers. Christ purchased with his blood the church of God. 1 Corinthians 10 and verse 32. 1 Corinthians 10. Verse 32, give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. Now the distinction here is not between Jews and the church. The distinction here is between unbelieving Jews, unbelieving Gentiles, and believing Jews and Gentiles together who are called the church. True, isn't it? That's what it means. 1 Corinthians 14 and verse 34. Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. Now what's interesting here is two things. First of all, dispensationalism is wrong on one level, two levels here. But first of all, because Paul appeals to the law, but what's also very interesting, he appeals to the law, he's saying in the context of the church, the law says women are to remain silent. Where? In the church. Now, we don't have a... An exact verse in the Old Testament that says those exact words. But that's Paul's interpretation of the Old Testament practice. What Paul is saying here is this. The Old Testament says that women are to remain silent in the church. That's exactly what he's saying. So the church is an Old Testament organism as well as a New Testament. Otherwise, Paul's appeal to the law here makes no sense. Now, Royerty admits, of course, literal interpretation is not the exclusive property of dispensationalists. What then is the difference between the dispensationalist use of this hermeneutical principle and the non-dispensationalist? The difference lies in the dispensationalist's claim to use the normal principle of interpretation consistently and in all his study of the Bible. The dispensationalist claims to be consistent in his use of this principle and he accuses the non-dispensationalist of being inconsistent in his use of it. Now he doesn't give any, and it was actually Ash who was helpful here, because he doesn't actually give any example of inconsistency. So that's as much as I will say. It's easy to say that people are inconsistent, but you need to give an example of that. And I am not going to be guilty of the same thing. I'm not going to make a statement they're inconsistent because I don't have an example. So I won't do that either. We do agree with the next statement. This is interesting. The next statement is very interesting. He says, Later revelation on a subject does not make the earlier revelation mean something different. True. It may add to it or even supersede it. Now he sounds like a covenant theologian, doesn't he? It may add to it or even supersede it. The word supersede means to take over from. That's exactly what covenant theology says about all the promises to the people of the Old Testament. That they apply to us in a greater sense. It's not that they're contradictory to it, but they're a greater fulfillment of it. He goes on to say, A word or concept cannot mean one thing in the Old Testament and take an opposite meaning in the New Testament. We say amen. But that's not what we are saying. You see, he's implying that's what covenant theologians say. That is not what we say. What we are saying is that the promises made to the people in the Old Testament quite often just had the physical side to them. But there's a much greater meaning to those promises. There's a much greater meaning. So when God promises the land to the people, what it means to us is we shall actually inherit the earth. It's not just the little land of Palestine, but it's the whole earth. It's heaven and earth shall be the possession of God's people. That's not a contradiction. That, to use Rory's own words, is superseding or adding to it. We are not contradicting the promise in the Old Testament. We're just saying that God actually meant something far greater. He quotes Daniel Fuller. Fuller does plead for the patients to pursue the inductive method of Bible study, which is just letting the Bible speak for itself. The inductive method of Bible study, which is nothing more than the scientific method, seeks to gain all the facts before drawing some general conclusions from them. Excellent. But to do an induction on the basic of the words Israel and church would have been in order. He might then have seen more easily why the dispensationist believes that God has two distinct purposes. One for Israel and one for the church. In the progress of Revelation there has been no change in the meaning of these words. and they are kept distinct. Now, we challenge that based upon what we have said before, but more so because of what we read in 1 Peter 2. Turn there with me, please. And again, we want to emphasize this idea of literal interpretation. I think sometimes we let dispensationalists off the hook on this one. Because we go on the back foot, don't we, so often. When they bring up this issue of the literal hermeneutic and literal interpretation, we tend to go on the defensive. Well, we need to turn that canon, to use Spurgeon's terminology, we need to turn that canon around on them and ask them to interpret such passages as this, literally. 1 Peter 2, verse 9. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, and holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. Which in time past, now verse 9 is good, but verse 10 is better. Which in time past were not a people, but listen, but are now the people. of God. Now Royerty says a number of times there's two peoples and two purposes. Here's Peter talking to the scattered elect and he's saying you are now the people of God once you are not a people. But now you are not just a people. Now you are the people of God. There's not two peoples. Not two purposes. There's one people and one purpose. Now, to our dispensationalist friends, take this literally. Please, take this literally. Don't spiritualize this, because that's what they often do. When it comes to something like this, they try and spiritualize it. Take this literal. We are the people of God. So therefore, it is wrong to say that the ethnic nation of Israel today are a distinct people. the only people who are the people of God are those who have been joined by faith to Jesus Christ now I'm not saying and let me say this because I'm not 100% sure about this I don't know if there will be revival at the end among the ethnic Jewish people that could happen God willing it will happen. God willing there will be a revival of true faith among the Jewish people tomorrow. But the one thing we have to be clear on. Unless they come to Christ. They are not God's people. Unless they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. They are not God's people. Because that would destroy the meaning of this verse. If now we, the believing ones in Jesus Christ, are the people of God, there can't be another people. That's literal interpretation. Correct? There can be only one people called the people of God. And that is those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. That is literal interpretation. He says, that is why the dispensationalist recognizes two purposes of God and insists on maintaining the distinction between Israel and the church. And all of this is built on an inductive study of the use of two words. And that's the weakness, isn't it? We can't do an inductive study just on two words and remove them from their context. We must see the words not just in the genre in which they are written, but also in the context of the passage that they are written. Where does the New Testament make such distinction? He goes on, In the prophecies of the Old Testament, plain interpretation finds many promises that, if interpreted literally, have not yet been fulfilled. The amillennialists say that they will not be fulfilled literally, but are being fulfilled spiritually in the church. Now here's something we want to challenge. I believe in literal fulfillment. But he seems to have, like many dispensationalists, this fixation with physical being literal. I think we've mentioned this already. Literal does not equate to physical. Something can be spiritually literal. And the promises fulfilled in the New Testament are spiritually fulfilled. And that is literal fulfillment. In fact, in Hosea 2 verse 23, the verse from which 1 Peter 2 just turn there for a moment, is actually the New Testament quoting of it. Hosea chapter 2 and verse 23 reads, And I will sow her unto me in the earth, and I will have mercy upon her that hath not obtained mercy. And I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people, and they shall say, Thou art my God. Now Peter, that's just one example. There's loads of examples of this in the New Testament. How? How the apostles actually interpreted the Old Testament is so important. It's fundamental, isn't it? What Peter does is, Peter takes this verse and applies this to the people of God in his day. This in the Old Testament, obviously, is referring to the people in that day. But then Peter takes it and applies it to the believers in his day. That's the apostolic example. That's an important principle as well, isn't it? Of reformed interpretation. How did the apostles interpret the Old Testament? And as you go through a lot of... Do this in your own study. Every time you see a reference back to the Old Testament, a cross-reference, check how the apostolic interpretation works. And you'll see it in your own study. Time and time again. the apostles interpret these things spiritually. And that's not to take away a literal interpretation. That's just to give a greater meaning to the Old Testament passage. He argues again in the New Testament the word Israel does not mean the church and vice versa. The dispensationalist then recognizes the different peoples of God simply because of the distinction maintained by the text as literally interpreted. Is that true? 1 Corinthians 10 and verse 18. 1 Corinthians 10 and verse 18. Is it true that Israel does not mean the church? 1 Corinthians 10 verse 18. Behold Israel after the flesh. Why does he say that? Why does he say Israel after the flesh? Is the Apostle saying that there's two different Israels? There's a fleshly Israel and there's a spiritual Israel. Is that what he's saying? course that's what he's saying. Why would he make that distinction? Israel after or according to the flesh, in other words, ethnic Israel, physical Israel, are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar. But then look at Galatians and contrast this. Chapter 6 and verse 1. 16. Galatians 6 verse 16. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. Why does he make this distinction? The Israel of God is their only one Israel? Why does he say the Israel of God? Because in 1 Corinthians 10 verse 18, he's talking about Israel after the flesh. Now he's talking about spiritual Israel. There's two Israels in the New Testament. There's the physical Israel, the earthly Israel, and the spiritual Israel. In fact, he talks about it back in chapter 4. And we've looked at that before. From verse 21 to 31 of chapter 4, you can read that in your own time. There is a Jerusalem that's below, that's in bondage. And there's a Jerusalem which is above. Now, is that literal? Let's again bring that back to our dispensationalist friend. And Satan, is that literal? Is there a literal Jerusalem above? Above. Which is the mother of us all. Yes that's literal. It's literally true. So the Jerusalem on the earth. Is in bondage. And the Jerusalem from heaven. Is free. And that is. That which has begotten. Faith in us. Speaking of the covenant of grace, he says, and I think he's very disparaging about the covenant of grace. We made reference to it in an earlier study. The so-called, and I think it's almost, it is blasphemous to be honest with you. Not only that the man probably doesn't realize how blasphemous he's being. The so-called covenant of grace, he calls it, is the governing category for us who hold the covenant theology. By which all scripture is to be understood. God's purpose in the world is to redeem. This is what he's saying that we believe. And men have been and are and will always be redeemed in the same manner throughout all time. He's saying that's our view. So by implication he's saying that's not my view. Men will not, from a dispensational point of view, are not redeemed in the same manner. He goes on to say the dispensation of the sea is a broader purpose in God's program for the world than salvation. And that purpose is his own glory. And that might sound spiritual to you, the second part at least. But we know that God is glorified in the salvation of his people. That's how God is glorified. If the heavens declared the glory of God, how much more does the salvation of his people glorify him? This false dichotomy between the salvation of man and the glory of God. You see, it explains dispensationalism's view because if salvation isn't the main purpose, Well that sort of leaves the door open for dispensation because there's all different purposes. There's all different programs going on. He says two, there's more than two. But we see one purpose. And it's one purpose mixed. It's not the salvation of man to the exclusion of the glory of God. It's God being glorified in the salvation of his people. It's the primary method of how God is glorified. Christ has been made head over all things to the church. We are the body of Christ. You see, when he talks about salvation here, he misses the whole point. That salvation brings us into this union with Jesus Christ that makes us one with him, that brings that glory to him, which he will not receive in any other way. He goes on to say, without getting involved in all the questions concerning salvation during the period of the Mosaic Law, it is quite clear, isn't it? It is quite clear that God had some purposes under the law beside the purposes so theological. In other words, beside salvation purposes. Otherwise, how can we take at face value Paul's statement that the law was the ministry of death and the ministry of condemnation? This almost shows such a simplistic misunderstanding of what Paul was saying. It almost doesn't need rebuttal. He says these are not descriptions of salvation, to say the least. But what is Paul saying in 2 Corinthians 3? And what is he saying in Galatians 3 verse 24? The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The reason why Paul is saying the law is the ministry of death and ministry of condemnation is that when we come to the law and realize that we cannot be saved by the law, we flee to Christ. But Rory says these are not descriptions of salvation, to say the least. The covenant of works is so tied up with the covenant of grace. As much as the law and the gospel are tied together. The law brings us to Christ. The law brings us to the gospel. Because it's only when, to quote Pilgrim's Progress. It's only when Christian tries to mount the hill of difficulty. He realizes he can't do it himself. He realized that he's slain by the law and he can't do it. So he flees to the cross and at the cross his weight falls off his back. Just as we come to the near the end he has an addendum in this chapter on the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount is one of the big areas of difference between the those who hold covenant theology and those who hold dispensationalism. They believe that the Sermon on the Mount is not primarily written for believers. It's primarily written for the Millennial Kingdom. He gives three general dispensational positions regarding the Sermon. Listen to this. One, the Sermon relates only to the Millennial Kingdom in order Words only when the the Millennial Kingdom is established on this present earth under the kingship of Christ will the sermon become the rule of life. Such an understanding takes the sermon in its strict literal sense. Now it amazes me you know where do you get that? Maybe someone tell me later on where that's a strict interpretation of the sermon that it's about the Millennial Kingdom. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something. I don't even understand how they come to that conclusion. One question, and he's honest about this, one question about this view is simply, if the sermon will be the new rule of life for the millennial kingdom, what will be the purpose of praying thy kingdom come, if it has already come? Which is a good point, he's honest enough to say that. Another is this, if the sermon is for the future kingdom, when righteousness will reign, why will some be persecuted? Matthew 5, 10. Which again is a very good point. Secondly, he says it relates to any time the messianic kingdom is offered. And this applies it back in history. What dispensationalism says is the reason why Christ gave the sermon was to offer the kingdom to the people. What dispensationalism says is this, Christ did not come in the first place to die on the cross. Christ in the first place came to offer a physical kingdom to the nation. So the offer wasn't the offer of the gospel. It wasn't believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. That's a different gospel. That's not my words. That's what they say. It's the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of belief in Jesus Christ are two different gospels. Thus, he says, it is a detailed explanation of the Lord's call to Israel to repent. In other words, become like this and we will establish the kingdom on earth. Become like the Sermon on the Mount. So, whereas what do we see? Yes, it's a call to repent and to believe because we know we cannot keep that. We can never keep it. That's why we need Christ. Thirdly, it relates both to any time the kingdom is offered, that is during our Lord's earthly ministry, as well as during the coming tribulation period. Again. I could see how they could fit Matthew 24 and 25 into that sort of idea, but I can't see how the Sermon on the Mount fits in. Someone needs to help me on that one. He quotes a Mark Saucy, which is a strange name, but anyway, he quotes him. He says, At the beginning of Jesus'career, he proclaimed and offered to Israel the restoration of the rule of Yahweh in their land. Listen to this. Which would bring his peace and righteousness? and through which they would be a blessing to the rest of the world. of the world. This kingdom of which he spoke is physical, glorious and powerful, compelling the wicked either to repent or feel its wrath. Now I think we might have said this in an earlier study. Most dispensational. are Arminian, we know that. And they often criticise us for presenting the gospel in their mind and what they say about us to people who won't be saved. But this is worse. We do preach the gospel to many people who won't be saved, but the difference is... If them people did repent, they would be saved. But here what they're presenting is that Christ came to offer something that he couldn't give. Christ couldn't give this. He couldn't offer something that he couldn't give. How could he offer peace and righteousness and a wonderful kingdom on earth when these people were still in their sins? Look at Mark chapter 8. Mark chapter 8, and just for context here, we're nearly finished, but verse 27. Jesus went down and his disciples into the towns of Caesarea Philippi, and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist. But some say, Elias, and others one of the prophets. And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth, and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him. Why? Let me just quote 1 Corinthians 2 verse 8 before we read on here. Had they known they would what? Not have crucified the Lord of glory. Don't tell anybody who I am. Why? Because he needed to be crucified. Didn't come to proclaim who he was in all his glory. And it's proven by we go on verse 31. And he began to teach them that the son of man must suffer many things. Christ did not come to. To offer a physical kingdom. Why? Because the son of man. Must suffer. Many things. And be rejected of the elders. And of the chief priests. priests and scribes and be killed and after three days rise again he spake that saying openly and peter took him and began to rebuke him and when he had turned about and looked on his disciples he rebuked peter saying get thee behind me satan for thou savourest not the things that be of god but the things that be of men satan wanted christ to get out there listen stand on the pinnacle of of the temple. Turn these rocks into bread. Be the glorious son of God. Christ said the son of man must suffer and come to be worshipped as a physical earthly king. He came to die on the cross to bear the sin of his people. May God bless his word to us. Let us stand for closing prayer. O Lord, we rejoice that God has one purpose, one people, one plan. One way of glorifying his name, and that is the exalting of the Lord Jesus Christ as the saviour of the world, especially of those who believe. Oh Lord, we pray your blessing. blessing upon us this night, that we would not only understand our faith, understand the scriptures, but that we would live in the good and the glory of these things, that God would be glorified. in our justification and in our sanctification and one glorious day when we stand before him and see him as he is and then we shall be glorified together with him. O Lord bless us this night and we give you thanks for that which we shall receive in the Saviour's name. Amen.

The origins of dispensationalism last time and then this week we want to look at the hermeneutics of dispensationalism. In other words, the word hermeneutics really is how we interpret the Bible and the mechanics or the science, if you like, or the principles of interpretation. What are the principles of interpretation of dispensationalism?

and then what are the principles of interpretation to some degree of covenant theology. One important principle of interpretation is that of the different types of writing in the scripture. There are different ways that the Bible writes.

Historic literature, poetic literature, prophetic. Apocalyptic, which is different than prophetic. Sometimes people misunderstand the difference between prophetic and apocalyptic.

They're not the same. Isaiah is prophetic, but it's not apocalyptic. Whereas Ezekiel is apocalyptic.

like Revelation is apocalyptic, parts of Daniel are apocalyptic, and so on. So not all prophetic literature is apocalyptic. Then you have didactic literature, which is like the book of Romans, and so on.

This is straightforward doctrinal teaching. And so therefore all these different types of biblical literature, or genres of scripture, if you like, are not apocalyptic. cannot be taken in the same way. They cannot be understood in the same manner. They have to be read, excuse me, in the manner in which they were originally written.

For example, a well-known verse from Proverbs, which sort of comes under the general umbrella of the poetic literature. Train up a child in the way he should go. And when he is old, he will not depart from it. Now this is a general principle of life.

It is not a salvific promise. In other words, such a verse would not fit into the book of Romans, especially the sum of the sections we're looking at now in the same way. Proverbs is full of ordinary advice for life. Principles of living.

That's not what Romans is. Romans is a book all about the doctrines of salvation, the doctrines of grace. So we cannot read that verse in Proverbs as a definite promise of salvation to our child. What we can take from it is that if I train my child in the way that they should go, that will have a lasting effect on them. throughout their life but there isn't a salvific promise there in the same way as you might have such promises in the book of Romans.

Another example the apocalyptic sort of literature would be Revelation 13 verse 1 where it talks about out of the sea coming this beast with seven heads and ten horns and because this is apocalyptic literature not just prophetic But apocalyptic literature, we don't take that as literally, a literal beast in the physical sense. And this is something I'll come back to in a few minutes, this whole idea of what literal is and so on. In fact, the only group that I've ever known that take that literally, that I suppose are consistent in their literalism, if you put it that way, is the Worldwide Church of God or Armstrongism.

as it's known or they print what's called the plain truth or did, I'm not sure if they still do haven't seen it in years, a magazine called the plain truth magazine they believe that literally one day a literal beast will literally come out of the sea with seven heads and ten horns but that's a very very rare view. So this is how Covenant theologians would approach the Bible. We cannot approach all of the parts of the Scripture in the same way. We must approach them in the manner in which they were written, in the context and in the manner in which they were written.

Rory, and again, as those of us who have been going through this series know, that I'm using Rory's chapters as the outline, and I'm simply going through. chapter by chapter what he has written and seeking to respond to many of the things that he says. Rory notes one of the pitfalls of the covenant view of approaching scripture and all these different genres is to claim that each genre represents truth in its own way and makes unique demands for how it should be read and that meaning is genre dependent. That's exactly right. That is a big difference.

The problem with the dispensational approach is it demands this just carte blanche approach to the whole of Scripture in that sense. Now what's interesting, here's one of the big differences. We approach Scripture in the way I've already explained.

Different types of writings, poetic, apocalyptic, prophetic and so on, didactic. What dispensationalists do... is much more strange. They approach the different sections of scripture not in that manner, but in a dispensational approach.

So it's not what the type of literature it is that counts, what matters is what dispensation it was written in or written for. And that I would suggest in a much more damaging way affects the way you understand what you are reading. So what covenant theologians would say is it's not so much the time frame in which it was written or it's not so much the some sort of dispensational perspective. Now what matters is is what we can actually see in the literature itself. In other words it's clearly apocalyptic that should affect our way of understanding it.

But when you bring this sort of um This other idea of something else that controls the text, that's when you end up with some dangerous and some wrong views. So it does matter what type of biblical literature we are referring to. Royer shows his lack of appreciation for the different types of literature within the scriptures when he says this.

Of course, the dietary laws are just as much inspired. scripture as the Sermon on the Mount, a fact that emotions easily overlook. Now clearly in scripture, and again, I've just taken that out from a bigger section, but clearly the dietary laws in the book of Leviticus, for example, and in the Pentateuch are very much different than the emphasis of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. What Ryerley shows here is that it's just all the same. In other words, we're to take it.

just all the same. He goes on to say dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. Now again we're going to question this idea of what literal is.

This means interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage whether implied in writing, speaking or thinking and to some degree we would agree with that. But we must qualify this. Not only is the type of literature important, but the context of a word is important. The one thing I notice in chapter 5 is he emphasizes this idea of the word, of a single word. And the two words he emphasizes are Israel and the church.

Now, we will be looking at the church specifically, not next time, but the time afterwards, I think. So we won't get into that in great detail. Now, we will get to some degree. But he puts emphasis on this idea of the word. Now not only, as we've said, is the genre important, but also the context in which the word is found.

Let me give you an example of that. Acts chapter 19 and verse 32. Acts chapter 19 and verse 32. This is the uproar at Ephesus. For the sake of time, we won't read all the verses, but just verse 32 is the key verse. Some therefore cried one thing, and some another, for the assembly was confused, and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together. Now the word assembly there is the word ecclesia, or ecclesia, depending on how you pronounce the word in the Greek, which is the word that is used for the church in the New Testament.

Now there we have the word, which is translated assembly there, referring to just... an indescribable number of people including believers, unbelievers and so on and they're called the assembly. Now one of the problems with the dispensational view is making too much about the distinction of the word church. One of the problems the Puritans had with the AV was that it changed the Genevan Bible used the term congregation or assembly and the AV introduced this word church and the Puritans had a problem with that They saw it as bringing Establishment ism into the Bible because the word doesn't have the idea of an establishment The word simply means a called out and a call together people So when dispensationalism talks about the difference between Israel and the church, they are sort of buying into this wrong understanding of the word church.

The church is not an establishment. It's not some organization. It's not something that's to be equated with a nation in that sense, even though there is a reference, and Peter will be looking at that in a few minutes'time.

But the word simply means a... body of people that God has called to himself out of the world. And we see it's even used here in a sense of just an ordinary group or collection of people. He goes on to argue the scriptures then cannot be regarded as an illustration of some special use of language so that in the interpretation of these scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be sought.

Now, I have a problem with this, because what he's implying is that those who hold the covenant theology are looking for some sort of Gnostic, deeper meaning. That's just not the case. That is not true. We do believe in the simple meaning of words. In fact, from the example that I just showed you, I think it's those who hold the covenant theology have a more biblical understanding of the word church.

Because we don't see it as this some sort of edifice or establishment, this churchy idea, and by the way the Puritans also had a problem with the term bishop, they saw it as ecclesiastical in that sense, and that was the problem they had with those two words, bishop and church. It's one of the reasons they didn't like the AV. But covenant theology, and this implication, It's constant, I have to say, in Roy's writings. He's implying all the time things like this.

And that's simply just not true. It's simply not the case. Those who hold the covenant theology do not look for deeper meanings.

We actually look for the simple meaning. The basic and simple meaning of biblical words. Again. The most helpful example in this is the word church, which is not some hidden group separate from Israel, but simply are simply one with all the called out people of God from the beginning of time.

Let me just show you this by concrete examples. Matthew 16 and verse 18. I don't know if you've ever noticed this before, but I think this will be helpful. Matthew chapter 16 and verse 18. It's the first time the word church is used in the New Testament.

And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. And Peter said, oh, what is this new thing, the church? Suddenly the Lord Jesus Christ has announced, and I will build my church.

But the disciples asked no question of what's this new thing the church is doing. The church never mentioned it. Never asked that question. If the church was something new, because the apostles were always asking questions, weren't they? And the obvious ones sometimes, which are clear.

Here the Lord Jesus Christ announces I will build my church and there's no question. In other words, this was not a foreign idea to the disciples. This was not something new.

The idea of the church is an Old Testament idea. Why? Because again, we get confused by the English word church.

In the original language, all the Lord Jesus Christ was saying, I will build my people. That's simply what he says. I will build my people, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. That's simply what he was saying. We also have it over in chapter 18 and verse 17. Again, for the sake of time, just read the one verse.

And if he shall neglect to hear them, this is church discipline, tell it unto the church. But if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. And again, he's speaking as if this is something normative for them to understand. He's not saying that...

Well, you know, in some period in the near future, there's going to be a new organization called the church. No, not at all. He's speaking in a language they clearly understand. He doesn't have to explain it to them.

This is very important, isn't it? The church is not something that began on the day of Pentecost. The church existed in these two scriptures.

And what's interesting is that Matthew is the gospel that was written with the Jews in mind. And this is the gospel that has these two accounts in it. For the Jews were well acquainted with this term.

Acts chapter 7 and verse 38. Acts 7 and verse 38. And here we have an actual example of the word Ecclesia, translated church, referring to the Old Testament people. Verse 37 for context. This is that Moses which said unto the children of Israel, a prophet. It's the church in the wilderness. You see, so when we talk about this distinction between Israel and the church, we are using an unbiblical idea.

That's the point. When we talk about the church and Israel, we're using a distinction that the Bible knows nothing of. That's very important to emphasize. Of course, the Bible talks about the distinction between Jew and Gentile, yes. And even between unbelieving Jews and the church.

But never does the Bible make a distinction between the church and Israel. That is an unbiblical distinction. Acts chapter 14 and verse 27. Acts 14, 27. And when they were come and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.

So who were the church in verse 27? Believing Jews. Believing Jews. And the Gentiles are distinct here, in that sense, from the church, who are believing Jews.

Acts chapter 20 and verse 28. Speaking to the elders in Ephesus, Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Who is the church of God? All the people of God from the beginning.

beginning of time to the end of time, who have been purchased with the blood of Christ. Because if this is only referring to those from Pentecost onwards, well then Christ didn't die for Old Testament believers. Christ purchased with his blood the church of God. 1 Corinthians 10 and verse 32. 1 Corinthians 10. Verse 32, give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. Now the distinction here is not between Jews and the church.

The distinction here is between unbelieving Jews, unbelieving Gentiles, and believing Jews and Gentiles together who are called the church. True, isn't it? That's what it means. 1 Corinthians 14 and verse 34. Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Now what's interesting here is two things. First of all, dispensationalism is wrong on one level, two levels here. But first of all, because Paul appeals to the law, but what's also very interesting, he appeals to the law, he's saying in the context of the church, the law says women are to remain silent.

Where? In the church. Now, we don't have a... An exact verse in the Old Testament that says those exact words. But that's Paul's interpretation of the Old Testament practice.

What Paul is saying here is this. The Old Testament says that women are to remain silent in the church. That's exactly what he's saying. So the church is an Old Testament organism as well as a New Testament.

Otherwise, Paul's appeal to the law here makes no sense. Now, Royerty admits, of course, literal interpretation is not the exclusive property of dispensationalists. What then is the difference between the dispensationalist use of this hermeneutical principle and the non-dispensationalist?

The difference lies in the dispensationalist's claim to use the normal principle of interpretation consistently and in all his study of the Bible. The dispensationalist claims to be consistent in his use of this principle and he accuses the non-dispensationalist of being inconsistent in his use of it. Now he doesn't give any, and it was actually Ash who was helpful here, because he doesn't actually give any example of inconsistency.

So that's as much as I will say. It's easy to say that people are inconsistent, but you need to give an example of that. And I am not going to be guilty of the same thing. I'm not going to make a statement they're inconsistent because I don't have an example. So I won't do that either.

We do agree with the next statement. This is interesting. The next statement is very interesting.

He says, Later revelation on a subject does not make the earlier revelation mean something different. True. It may add to it or even supersede it.

Now he sounds like a covenant theologian, doesn't he? It may add to it or even supersede it. The word supersede means to take over from.

That's exactly what covenant theology says about all the promises to the people of the Old Testament. That they apply to us in a greater sense. It's not that they're contradictory to it, but they're a greater fulfillment of it. He goes on to say, A word or concept cannot mean one thing in the Old Testament and take an opposite meaning in the New Testament. We say amen.

But that's not what we are saying. You see, he's implying that's what covenant theologians say. That is not what we say. What we are saying is that the promises made to the people in the Old Testament quite often just had the physical side to them. But there's a much greater meaning to those promises.

There's a much greater meaning. So when God promises the land to the people, what it means to us is we shall actually inherit the earth. It's not just the little land of Palestine, but it's the whole earth. It's heaven and earth shall be the possession of God's people.

That's not a contradiction. That, to use Rory's own words, is superseding or adding to it. We are not contradicting the promise in the Old Testament.

We're just saying that God actually meant something far greater. He quotes Daniel Fuller. Fuller does plead for the patients to pursue the inductive method of Bible study, which is just letting the Bible speak for itself.

The inductive method of Bible study, which is nothing more than the scientific method, seeks to gain all the facts before drawing some general conclusions from them. Excellent. But to do an induction on the basic of the words Israel and church would have been in order.

He might then have seen more easily why the dispensationist believes that God has two distinct purposes. One for Israel and one for the church. In the progress of Revelation there has been no change in the meaning of these words. and they are kept distinct.

Now, we challenge that based upon what we have said before, but more so because of what we read in 1 Peter 2. Turn there with me, please. And again, we want to emphasize this idea of literal interpretation. I think sometimes we let dispensationalists off the hook on this one. Because we go on the back foot, don't we, so often. When they bring up this issue of the literal hermeneutic and literal interpretation, we tend to go on the defensive.

Well, we need to turn that canon, to use Spurgeon's terminology, we need to turn that canon around on them and ask them to interpret such passages as this, literally. 1 Peter 2, verse 9. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, and holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. Which in time past, now verse 9 is good, but verse 10 is better.

Which in time past were not a people, but listen, but are now the people. of God. Now Royerty says a number of times there's two peoples and two purposes. Here's Peter talking to the scattered elect and he's saying you are now the people of God once you are not a people.

But now you are not just a people. Now you are the people of God. There's not two peoples. Not two purposes.

There's one people and one purpose. Now, to our dispensationalist friends, take this literally. Please, take this literally.

Don't spiritualize this, because that's what they often do. When it comes to something like this, they try and spiritualize it. Take this literal.

We are the people of God. So therefore, it is wrong to say that the ethnic nation of Israel today are a distinct people. the only people who are the people of God are those who have been joined by faith to Jesus Christ now I'm not saying and let me say this because I'm not 100% sure about this I don't know if there will be revival at the end among the ethnic Jewish people that could happen God willing it will happen.

God willing there will be a revival of true faith among the Jewish people tomorrow. But the one thing we have to be clear on. Unless they come to Christ.

They are not God's people. Unless they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. They are not God's people.

Because that would destroy the meaning of this verse. If now we, the believing ones in Jesus Christ, are the people of God, there can't be another people. That's literal interpretation. Correct? There can be only one people called the people of God.

And that is those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. That is literal interpretation. He says, that is why the dispensationalist recognizes two purposes of God and insists on maintaining the distinction between Israel and the church. And all of this is built on an inductive study of the use of two words.

And that's the weakness, isn't it? We can't do an inductive study just on two words and remove them from their context. We must see the words not just in the genre in which they are written, but also in the context of the passage that they are written. Where does the New Testament make such distinction? He goes on, In the prophecies of the Old Testament, plain interpretation finds many promises that, if interpreted literally, have not yet been fulfilled.

The amillennialists say that they will not be fulfilled literally, but are being fulfilled spiritually in the church. Now here's something we want to challenge. I believe in literal fulfillment.

But he seems to have, like many dispensationalists, this fixation with physical being literal. I think we've mentioned this already. Literal does not equate to physical.

Something can be spiritually literal. And the promises fulfilled in the New Testament are spiritually fulfilled. And that is literal fulfillment.

In fact, in Hosea 2 verse 23, the verse from which 1 Peter 2 just turn there for a moment, is actually the New Testament quoting of it. Hosea chapter 2 and verse 23 reads, And I will sow her unto me in the earth, and I will have mercy upon her that hath not obtained mercy. And I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people, and they shall say, Thou art my God. Now Peter, that's just one example. There's loads of examples of this in the New Testament.

How? How the apostles actually interpreted the Old Testament is so important. It's fundamental, isn't it? What Peter does is, Peter takes this verse and applies this to the people of God in his day.

This in the Old Testament, obviously, is referring to the people in that day. But then Peter takes it and applies it to the believers in his day. That's the apostolic example. That's an important principle as well, isn't it? Of reformed interpretation.

How did the apostles interpret the Old Testament? And as you go through a lot of... Do this in your own study. Every time you see a reference back to the Old Testament, a cross-reference, check how the apostolic interpretation works. And you'll see it in your own study.

Time and time again. the apostles interpret these things spiritually. And that's not to take away a literal interpretation. That's just to give a greater meaning to the Old Testament passage. He argues again in the New Testament the word Israel does not mean the church and vice versa.

The dispensationalist then recognizes the different peoples of God simply because of the distinction maintained by the text as literally interpreted. Is that true? 1 Corinthians 10 and verse 18. 1 Corinthians 10 and verse 18. Is it true that Israel does not mean the church?

1 Corinthians 10 verse 18. Behold Israel after the flesh. Why does he say that? Why does he say Israel after the flesh?

Is the Apostle saying that there's two different Israels? There's a fleshly Israel and there's a spiritual Israel. Is that what he's saying? course that's what he's saying.

Why would he make that distinction? Israel after or according to the flesh, in other words, ethnic Israel, physical Israel, are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar. But then look at Galatians and contrast this.

Chapter 6 and verse 1. 16. Galatians 6 verse 16. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. Why does he make this distinction? The Israel of God is their only one Israel?

Why does he say the Israel of God? Because in 1 Corinthians 10 verse 18, he's talking about Israel after the flesh. Now he's talking about spiritual Israel.

There's two Israels in the New Testament. There's the physical Israel, the earthly Israel, and the spiritual Israel. In fact, he talks about it back in chapter 4. And we've looked at that before. From verse 21 to 31 of chapter 4, you can read that in your own time. There is a Jerusalem that's below, that's in bondage.

And there's a Jerusalem which is above. Now, is that literal? Let's again bring that back to our dispensationalist friend.

And Satan, is that literal? Is there a literal Jerusalem above? Above.

Which is the mother of us all. Yes that's literal. It's literally true. So the Jerusalem on the earth.

Is in bondage. And the Jerusalem from heaven. Is free.

And that is. That which has begotten. Faith in us.

Speaking of the covenant of grace, he says, and I think he's very disparaging about the covenant of grace. We made reference to it in an earlier study. The so-called, and I think it's almost, it is blasphemous to be honest with you. Not only that the man probably doesn't realize how blasphemous he's being.

The so-called covenant of grace, he calls it, is the governing category for us who hold the covenant theology. By which all scripture is to be understood. God's purpose in the world is to redeem.

This is what he's saying that we believe. And men have been and are and will always be redeemed in the same manner throughout all time. He's saying that's our view. So by implication he's saying that's not my view. Men will not, from a dispensational point of view, are not redeemed in the same manner.

He goes on to say the dispensation of the sea is a broader purpose in God's program for the world than salvation. And that purpose is his own glory. And that might sound spiritual to you, the second part at least.

But we know that God is glorified in the salvation of his people. That's how God is glorified. If the heavens declared the glory of God, how much more does the salvation of his people glorify him? This false dichotomy between the salvation of man and the glory of God.

You see, it explains dispensationalism's view because if salvation isn't the main purpose, Well that sort of leaves the door open for dispensation because there's all different purposes. There's all different programs going on. He says two, there's more than two.

But we see one purpose. And it's one purpose mixed. It's not the salvation of man to the exclusion of the glory of God. It's God being glorified in the salvation of his people.

It's the primary method of how God is glorified. Christ has been made head over all things to the church. We are the body of Christ. You see, when he talks about salvation here, he misses the whole point.

That salvation brings us into this union with Jesus Christ that makes us one with him, that brings that glory to him, which he will not receive in any other way. He goes on to say, without getting involved in all the questions concerning salvation during the period of the Mosaic Law, it is quite clear, isn't it? It is quite clear that God had some purposes under the law beside the purposes so theological.

In other words, beside salvation purposes. Otherwise, how can we take at face value Paul's statement that the law was the ministry of death and the ministry of condemnation? This almost shows such a simplistic misunderstanding of what Paul was saying.

It almost doesn't need rebuttal. He says these are not descriptions of salvation, to say the least. But what is Paul saying in 2 Corinthians 3?

And what is he saying in Galatians 3 verse 24? The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The reason why Paul is saying the law is the ministry of death and ministry of condemnation is that when we come to the law and realize that we cannot be saved by the law, we flee to Christ.

But Rory says these are not descriptions of salvation, to say the least. The covenant of works is so tied up with the covenant of grace. As much as the law and the gospel are tied together. The law brings us to Christ. The law brings us to the gospel.

Because it's only when, to quote Pilgrim's Progress. It's only when Christian tries to mount the hill of difficulty. He realizes he can't do it himself. He realized that he's slain by the law and he can't do it.

So he flees to the cross and at the cross his weight falls off his back. Just as we come to the near the end he has an addendum in this chapter on the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount is one of the big areas of difference between the those who hold covenant theology and those who hold dispensationalism.

They believe that the Sermon on the Mount is not primarily written for believers. It's primarily written for the Millennial Kingdom. He gives three general dispensational positions regarding the Sermon. Listen to this. One, the Sermon relates only to the Millennial Kingdom in order Words only when the the Millennial Kingdom is established on this present earth under the kingship of Christ will the sermon become the rule of life.

Such an understanding takes the sermon in its strict literal sense. Now it amazes me you know where do you get that? Maybe someone tell me later on where that's a strict interpretation of the sermon that it's about the Millennial Kingdom. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something. I don't even understand how they come to that conclusion.

One question, and he's honest about this, one question about this view is simply, if the sermon will be the new rule of life for the millennial kingdom, what will be the purpose of praying thy kingdom come, if it has already come? Which is a good point, he's honest enough to say that. Another is this, if the sermon is for the future kingdom, when righteousness will reign, why will some be persecuted? Matthew 5, 10. Which again is a very good point.

Secondly, he says it relates to any time the messianic kingdom is offered. And this applies it back in history. What dispensationalism says is the reason why Christ gave the sermon was to offer the kingdom to the people.

What dispensationalism says is this, Christ did not come in the first place to die on the cross. Christ in the first place came to offer a physical kingdom to the nation. So the offer wasn't the offer of the gospel. It wasn't believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.

That's a different gospel. That's not my words. That's what they say. It's the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of belief in Jesus Christ are two different gospels. Thus, he says, it is a detailed explanation of the Lord's call to Israel to repent.

In other words, become like this and we will establish the kingdom on earth. Become like the Sermon on the Mount. So, whereas what do we see? Yes, it's a call to repent and to believe because we know we cannot keep that.

We can never keep it. That's why we need Christ. Thirdly, it relates both to any time the kingdom is offered, that is during our Lord's earthly ministry, as well as during the coming tribulation period. Again. I could see how they could fit Matthew 24 and 25 into that sort of idea, but I can't see how the Sermon on the Mount fits in.

Someone needs to help me on that one. He quotes a Mark Saucy, which is a strange name, but anyway, he quotes him. He says, At the beginning of Jesus'career, he proclaimed and offered to Israel the restoration of the rule of Yahweh in their land.

Listen to this. Which would bring his peace and righteousness? and through which they would be a blessing to the rest of the world.

of the world. This kingdom of which he spoke is physical, glorious and powerful, compelling the wicked either to repent or feel its wrath. Now I think we might have said this in an earlier study.

Most dispensational. are Arminian, we know that. And they often criticise us for presenting the gospel in their mind and what they say about us to people who won't be saved. But this is worse. We do preach the gospel to many people who won't be saved, but the difference is...

If them people did repent, they would be saved. But here what they're presenting is that Christ came to offer something that he couldn't give. Christ couldn't give this. He couldn't offer something that he couldn't give.

How could he offer peace and righteousness and a wonderful kingdom on earth when these people were still in their sins? Look at Mark chapter 8. Mark chapter 8, and just for context here, we're nearly finished, but verse 27. Jesus went down and his disciples into the towns of Caesarea Philippi, and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist. But some say, Elias, and others one of the prophets.

And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth, and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him. Why? Let me just quote 1 Corinthians 2 verse 8 before we read on here.

Had they known they would what? Not have crucified the Lord of glory. Don't tell anybody who I am.

Why? Because he needed to be crucified. Didn't come to proclaim who he was in all his glory. And it's proven by we go on verse 31. And he began to teach them that the son of man must suffer many things.

Christ did not come to. To offer a physical kingdom. Why? Because the son of man.

Must suffer. Many things. And be rejected of the elders. And of the chief priests. priests and scribes and be killed and after three days rise again he spake that saying openly and peter took him and began to rebuke him and when he had turned about and looked on his disciples he rebuked peter saying get thee behind me satan for thou savourest not the things that be of god but the things that be of men satan wanted christ to get out there listen stand on the pinnacle of of the temple.

Turn these rocks into bread. Be the glorious son of God. Christ said the son of man must suffer and come to be worshipped as a physical earthly king.

He came to die on the cross to bear the sin of his people. May God bless his word to us. Let us stand for closing prayer. O Lord, we rejoice that God has one purpose, one people, one plan. One way of glorifying his name, and that is the exalting of the Lord Jesus Christ as the saviour of the world, especially of those who believe.

Oh Lord, we pray your blessing. blessing upon us this night, that we would not only understand our faith, understand the scriptures, but that we would live in the good and the glory of these things, that God would be glorified. in our justification and in our sanctification and one glorious day when we stand before him and see him as he is and then we shall be glorified together with him. O Lord bless us this night and we give you thanks for that which we shall receive in the Saviour's name. Amen.

Transcript for:Understanding Dispensationalism and Hermeneutics

Transcript for:
Understanding Dispensationalism and Hermeneutics