our fifth I don't say message or ceremonies fifth session dealing with the subject of dispensationalism and some of the things that we've looked at so far and 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 dispensation was in the last time and then this week we want to look at the hermeneutics of dispensationalism and in other words hell with the word hermeneutics really is how we interpret the bible and the mechanics are the science if you like are 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 and one important principle of interpretation is that of the different types of writing in the scripture there are different ways that the Bible writes and historical literature poetic literature prophetic apocalyptic which is different than prophetic and sometimes people miss understand the difference between prophetic and apocalyptic they're not the same and Isaiah is prophetic but it's not apocalyptic whereas Ezekiel is apocalyptic and like Revelation is apocalyptic parts of Daniel are apocalyptic and so on and so not all prophetic literature is apocalyptic then you have didactic literature which is like the book of Romans and so on this is a straightforward doctrinal teaching and and so therefore all these different types of biblical literature are Jean of Scripture if you like and 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 to some of the sections we're looking at now in the same way proverbs is full of ordinary advice for life principles of living and that's not what Romans is that Romans is a book all about the doctrines of salvation the doctrines of grace so we cannot read and that verse in Proverbs as a definite promise of salvation add 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 not just prophetic but apocalyptic literature we don't take that and as literally a literal beast and the physical sense and this is something I'll come back to in a few minutes and this whole idea of what literally is and so on in fact the only grew 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 our Armstrong ISM as it's known or they they print what's called the plain truth or did I'm not sure if you 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 commit to sea with seven heads and ten horns but that's a very very rare view sold 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 and in the manner in which they were written in the context and in the manner in which they were written and variety and again as those of us who known through the series know that I'm using rory's chapters as the outline I'm simply going through chapter by chapter what he is written and seeking to respond to many of the things that he says we're already 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 hell 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 the holder scripture and in that sense now what's what's interesting here's one of the big differences and 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 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 and the the some sort of you know 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 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 and Rory 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 that's just taking 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 emphases of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount what where Rory shows here is that it's just all the same in other words were to take it just all the same he goes on to say dispensation is claim that there are principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation that 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 employed in writing speaking our thinking on 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 noticed in the chapter in chapter 5 is he emphasizes this idea of the word of a single word and the two words he emphasizes are Israel the church now we will be looking at the church specifically not next time at the time mouths words 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 is the genre important but also the context in which the word is found let me give you an example of that I chapter 19 and verse 32 Acts chapter 19 and verse 32 this is the uproar at Ephesus and for the sake of time we won't read all the verses but just first 32 was 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 ekklesia our 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 they're 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 the distinction of the word church one of the problems the Puritans had with the AAV was that it changed the Genevan and boy will use the term congregation or assembly and the AV introduced its 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 called out and a call to gather people so when a dispensationalism talks about the difference in 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 of and Peter will be looking at that in 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 in a in a sense of just an ordinary group our 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 of a problem with this because what is 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 an edifice or establishment this churchy idea and by the way the Puritans also had a problem with Heron Bishop for they saw it as a classical in that sense and that was the problem they had those two words bishop and church it's one of the reasons he didn't like VAV and but covenant here and this implication it's it's it's constant I have to say in erroneous writings he he's implying all the times things like this and that's simply just not true it's simply not the case those who held the covenant theology do not look for deeper meanings we actually look for the simple meaning the basic and simple meaning of biblical words and 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 call the people of God from the beginning of time let me just show you this point and play a concrete examples Matthew 6 or sorry Matthew 16 and Matthew 16 and verse 18 now the only verbs no listed before but I think this will be helpful Matthew chapter 16 and verse 8 in 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 certainly the Lord Jesus it doesn't say that in the text obviously and 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 never mentioned it never asked that question if the church was something new was the question to you the apostles were also always asking questions weren't they you know I'm the obvious ones sometimes which are clear and 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 the English word Church in the original language all the Lord Jesus Christ was saying I will build my people not 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 we can for the sake of time just read the one verse and if he shall neglect to hear a dam this is truck discipline tell it unto the church but if he neglect hear the church let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican again he's speaking as if this is something normative for for them to understand it's not 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 language they clearly understand he doesn't have to explain it to them it's very important isn't it that church is not something that began on the day of Pentecost the church existed in these two scriptures and what's interesting is the Matthew is the is probably don't like using this term was referred to as the Jewish gospel it's the gospel that was written with the Jews in mind and this is the gospel as these two accounts in it for the Jews were well-acquainted with this term I - chapter 7 and verse 38 like 7 and verse 38 and here we have an actual example of the word ecclesia translated Church referring to the Old Testament people first 37 for context this is that Moses which said unto the children of Israel a prophet shall the Lord your God raise up onto you of your brethren like unto me him shall you hear this is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him and Mount Sinai with the fog with our fathers who received the lively articles to give unto us is 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 in the church but never does the Bible make a distinction between the church in Israel that is a non biblical 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 would 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 first Kirino sorry Acts chapter 20 and verse 28 speaking to the elders and Ephesus take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood who was the Church of God all the people of God from the 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 at first Corinthians 10 and verse 32 1 Corinthians 10 verse 32 give no offence neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God the distinction here is not between Jews in the church the distinction here is between unbelieving Jews unbelieving Gentiles unbelieving Jews and Gentiles together who are called the church true isn't it that's what it means 1st Corinthians 14 and verse 34 let your women keep silence and 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 is two things first of all and 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 we're in the church now we don't have an exact various in the Old Testament that I exist says that 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 and organism as well as a New Testament otherwise Paul's appeal to the law here makes no sense now Riley admits of course the 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 dispensation was claimed to use the normal principle of interpretation consistently and in all his study of the Bible the dispensation was 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 an e and it was actually ashe 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 it's easy to say that's people are inconsistent but you need to give an example of that and and I am NOT going to be guilty of the same thing I'm not going to snake a statement they're inconsistent as I don't have an example so I won't do that later and we do agree with the next statement this is interesting the next statement and is very interesting he says later revelation later revelation on a subject does not make the earlier revelation mean something different true it may add to it or even super Cedars now he sounds like a covenant theologian doesn't it it may add to it or even superseded the word super see it means to take over 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 us 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 is he he's employing that's what covenant theologians say that is not what we say what we are saying is that the promises made today to the people in the Old Testament and quite often just had that the physical and soil 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 on 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 for our greater he quotes at Daniel fuller and fuller does plead for the patience to pursue the inductive method of Bible study which is just letting the Bible speak for itself at 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 inductive sorry but to do an induction on the basic of the words Israel and church would have been an order he might then have seen more easily why the dispensation was believes that God has two distinct purposes one for Israel I'm the church in the progress of Revelation there has been no change in the meaning of these words and they are kept distinct that we challenged us based upon what we have said before but more so because of what we read in 1st Peter to turn there with me please and again we want to emphasize this idea of literal interpretation he thinks sometimes we we we let dispensation us off the hook on this one and because we go on the back foot don't we so often when they bring up this issue of the literal hermeneutics and literal interpretation we tend to go on the defensive well we need to turn that Canon use Spurgeon's terminology we turn that Canon around on them and ask them to interpret such passages as this literally 1st Peter 2 verse 9 but ye are a chosen generation a royal priesthood an holy nation a peculiar people that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light which in time past never liens Goulet the first and is better which in time past were not a people would listen but are now the people of God now Rory says a number of times are 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 our 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 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 our 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 cuz I'm not 100% sure about this I don't know if there'll be revival at the end among the ethnic Jewish people I 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 and Jesus Christ are the people of God that 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 the literal interpretation he goes he says that is why the dispensationalist recognizes two purposes of God and insist on maintaining this the distinction between Israel and the church and all of this is built on an inductive study of the use of two words and it's that's the weakness isn't it we can't do an inductive study just on two words and removed them from their context we must see the words not just in the genre which they're 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 interruption interpretation finds many promises that if interpreted literally have not yet been fulfilled the a millennial say that they will not be fulfilled literally but are being fulfilled spiritually in the church new here's something we want to challenge I believe in literal fulfillment but he seems to have like many dispensation as 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 first Peter 2 just turned there for the moments actually the and the New Testament quoting over hosea chapter 2 and verse 23 reads and I will sow horror unto me in the earth and I will have mercy upon horror that had not obtained mercy and I will say to them which were not my people there are my people and they shall say their work my god no Peter that's just one example there's loads of examples of this in the New Testament how the Apostles actually interpreted the Old Testament is is so important its 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 a reformed interpretation how did the Apostles interpret the Old Testament and as you go through a lot of deal with 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 and he argues again in the 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 and is that true first Corinthians 10 and verse 18 first Corinthians 10 and verse 18 is it true that Israel does not mean the church at first 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 Israel's there's a fleshly Israel and there's a spiritual Israel is that what he's saying of course that's what he's saying why would he make that distinction Israel after are 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 come in contrast this chapter 6 and verse 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 is there only one Israel why does he say the Israel of God because in 1st Corinthians 10 verse 18 he's talking about Israel after the flesh and now he's talking about spiritual Israel there's two israel's in New Testament there's the physical Israel the earthly Israel and the spiritual Israel in fact he talks about it back in chapter four and we've looked at that before for from verse 21 to 31 you can have chapter four 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 it's that literal let's again bring that back to our dispensationalist friend and say them is that literal is there a literal Jerusalem above which is the mother of us all yes that's literal it's literally true so the bonded Jerusalem on the earth isn't bondage and the Jerusalem from heaven is free and that is what I thought is that which has begotten faith in us speaking of the covenant of grace he says I think he's very disparaging about the covenant of grace we made reference to an America study the so called and I I think it's almost it is blasphemous to be honest but you don't need that the man prob doesn't realize how blasphemous he's being the so-called covenant of grace he calls it is the governing category for it for those who hold the covenant theology by which all the scriptures 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 are and will always be redeemed in the same manner at all time you think that's our view so by implication he's saying that's not my view man will not end from a dispensational point of view are not redeemed in the same manner because I want to say the dispensationalist sees a broader purpose in God's program for the world than salvation and that purpose is his own glory number it might sound spiritually 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 declare 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 that's it explains dispensations view because if salvation isn't the main purpose well that sort of leaves the door open for dispensation has all different purposes there's all different programs going on he says two is 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 as God's book God being glorified in the salvation of his people it's the primary method of how God is glorified Christ has been made had over all things what 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 it isn't this it is quite clear that God had some purposes on to the law beside the purposes soteriological in other words beasts of beside salvation purposes otherwise how can we take at face value Paul's statement but the law was the Ministry of death and the Ministry of condemnation this almost shows such a simplistic misunderstanding of what Paul was it almost doesn't need an rebuttal he says these are not descriptions of salvation to say the least but what is Paul saying in 2nd corinthians tree 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 variety 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 and to quote pilgrims progress it's only when Christian tries to mount the hill of difficulty you realize 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 at the cross his weight falls off his back just as we come to the near the end he has an addendum and in this in this chapter on the cerumen on the mount the ceremony announces one of the big areas of difference that between those who all covenant theology and those who hold dispensationalism they believe that the 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 cerumen listen to this one the Sermon relates only to the Millennial Kingdom in order words only when and the the Millennial Kingdom is established on this present earth under the kingship of Christ will the cerumen become the rule of life such an understanding takes the cerumen 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 cerumen that it's about the manual kingdom I don't know maybe I'm missing something I don't even understand how they come to that conclusion and one question and there he's honest about this one question about this view is simply if the ceremony 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 and another is this if the cerumen is for the future kingdom when righteousness will reign ye will soon be persecuted Matthew 5:10 which again is a very good point and 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 can to offer a physical Kingdom to the nation so the offer wasn't the offer of the gospel it wasn't believed 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 those he says it is a detailed explanation of the Lord's call to Israel to repent in little words become like this and we will establish the kingdom on earth become like the cerumen amount so where as what do we what do we see yes it's a call to repent them to believe because we know we kind of 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 common tribulation period again I could see how we could fit Matthew 24 and 25 and that sort of idea but I can't see how the ceremonial fits in summer needs to help me on that one and he quotes a mark saucy which is a strange name but anybody calls him he says at the beginning of Jesus career he proclaimed an offer 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 this kingdom of which he spoke is physical glorious and powerful compelling the wicked either to repent or feel it's wrath no thing well said this in an earlier study most dispensationalists are armenian we know that and they often criticize us for presenting the gospel and in their mind and what they say but it was two 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 then 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 and a wonderful kingdom on earth when these people were still in their sins look at mark chapter 8 mark chapter 8 him just for context here we're nearly finished but first at 27 Jesus went down and these 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 I know there's one of the prophets and he saith unto them but whom say ye that I am and Peter answered and saith unto Him there are at the Christ and he charged them that they should tell no man of him why let me just quote 1st Corinthians 2 verse 8 before we read on here had they known they would not have crucified the Lord of glory don't tell anybody why because he needed to be crucified it didn't come to proclaim who he was and all his glory and it's proven by big 1 verse 31 and he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things Christ did not come to offer a physical Kingdom why because the son of man must suffer many things and be rejected of the elders out of the chief priests and scribes and be killed and after three days rise again they spake that's saying openly and Peter took him and began to rebuke him and when he had turned down and looked on his disciples he rebuked Peter saying get thee behind me Satan for thou savourest not things that be of God but the things that be of men Satan wanted Christ to get out there isn't a stand on the pinnacle of the temple turn this Bray r20 is rocks under breath be the glorious Son of God Christ said the son of man most suffer you can come to be worshipped as a physical earthly king he came to die on the cross to bear the sin of his people my god bless his word to us let us stand for closing prayer O Lord we we rejoice that God has one purpose one people one plan one way of glorifying his name that is the exalting of the Lord Jesus Christ as the savior of the world especially of those who believe Oh Lord we pray our blessing upon us this night that we would not only understand our faith I 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 they then we shall be glorified together with him Oh Lord bless us this night and we give you thanks for that which we shall receive in the Savior's name