Amen. You can turn in your Bibles
to Hebrews chapter 1. I want to just talk to you about
the concept of eschatology for a moment before we go into our
chart and deal with what we call end-time studies. I just want
to deal with the term and its usage scripturally. The idea
of end times comes from a Greek New Testament term. We use the
word end times The word times literally is not connected to
it. It's the word end or last. The term time can be the Greek
term chronos, archairos, and both of those have to do with
events or circumstances. But the word last is our word
eschaton, eschaton in the Greek. And it means to come to an end
or come to a final point or consummate in its objective. And in the
Bible, the idea of that which is last has several applications
that are important for you to note when you read it in your
Bible. One of the fallacies that we can engage in is what we call
a one definition or one application fallacy. Whenever you see a word
in the scriptures, it doesn't always mean the same thing in
the context in which it's used. It has a denoted meaning, a denotation,
that is, it has a fundamental meaning, like the word last means
an end or a conclusion or a finality, but that finality or conclusion
or end is only understood in its context, meaning that the
word end in your Bible isn't always dealing with the end of
time. So there are about seven or eight applications that I
wanna show you with regards to how the word Last or end is used
so that you can be sensitive to them in your script in your
study of the Word of God first and foremost It's important to
know that we have a first and last in terms of God's larger
covenant objective in the Old Testament Which we call the first
covenant You had a period from the time of Abraham all the way
up to the Lord Jesus Christ and his resurrection from the dead
Fundamentally we can actually even go all the way back to the
beginning of time But largely the Old Covenant was given to
us in the days of Moses about 1500 BC Up to the time when Christ
said it is finished that period covered what we call the Old
Testament Eschaton the Old Testament Eschaton and so in Hebrews chapter
1 verse 1 and 2 this is what we read God is who at sundry
times, that word sundries means at different times, who at sundry
times and in diverse manners, that is in different modes, spake
in time past unto the fathers by the prophets. Now that verse
right there underscores God's economy of revelation during
the Old Testament period. God's economy of revelation during
the Old Testament period. And we could technically say
It started with Moses and ended with Malachi. It started with
Moses and ended with Malachi. Because Moses was privileged,
even though he started writing in 1500 BC, he talked about things
going all the way back to the what? Beginning of time. The
last means of revelation to the church was the prophet Malachi. And Malachi is the last Old Testament
You have in your Old Testament Bible and the word Malachi means
messenger of God literally my messenger And Malachi is the
last word that's given to us by God through his prophets according
to this text God who had sundry times and in different manners
spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets now notice verse
2 but in these last days He has spoken unto us How? By his son,
whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made
the world. Now mark the first line of verse
two. He hath in these, what? Last
days. So when you use the term or observe
the term last times or last days, it does not literally mean the
last actual day. And this context is talking about
the last days beginning the New Testament, ending the Old Testament
era. So there was a transition from
the old covenant that ended in the days of Christ and the new
covenant that started at his resurrection. The new covenant
constitute these last days that we are in. So if I were to use
a graph, I would say that the last days are here. You have
the Old Testament and you have the New Testament and the old
ended at the cross and the new began at the resurrection. So
you and I are living in what we call the New Testament era,
right? And that began in AD 33. for
those of us who are conservative in our date of the crucifixion
and resurrection of Christ. It has continued to now. You and I are somewhere along
this spectrum, almost 2000 years later. Does that make some sense?
And we call these days in which we live the last days. And the
reason why we call these the last days is because of the concept
of the last days being covenantal. not merely chronological. So
there is a covenantal aspect to the last days. We call it
the last days covenantally. Why? Because we are in the New
Testament era and there will never be another Testament. We
are in the final eschaton. We are in the final Testament.
So when we talk about Old Testament and New Testament, the New Testament
era in which we live will never become old. This is the last
Testament. The old Testament before the
new Testament came into existence was the only Testament. And it
was neither old nor new, but became old by virtue of the fact
that it anticipated a new covenant. And when that new covenant was
ratified by the death of Christ and confirmed by his resurrection,
remember what Christ said at the last supper, this is the
new Testament in my blood, which was shed for you. So that night
they inaugurated, anticipating his resurrection, the new covenant.
And so the new covenant has been that covenant treaty that God
has made with his people in Christ from the days of Christ's resurrection,
from the sending of the Holy Spirit, the establishing of the
church, the preaching of the gospel for these 2000 years.
You and I now live in these last days covenantally. And again,
when the term eschaton is used for these last days, it means
we're not going to go through another covenantal period. I
do want to stress that out, that the last days anticipate a radical
consummation that comes under the new covenant principle or
objective that will usher in eternity. The last days in which
you are in, you and I are in, will culminate with eternity. So what the church is looking
for in the future is eternality or glorification, a consummation
period with Christ when he comes, which is simply an extension
of this present age of grace coming into full bloom because
of Christ's crown rights having accomplished everything at Calvary.
And as the text says, These last days he's spoken to us by his
son whom he at the point an heir of all things and by whom also
He made the world. So the heir of the universe for
all eternity is the lord jesus christ And if you're in christ,
you're an heir with him So we anticipate the full manifestation
of airship when he returns Which will be an extension of this
new covenant not another covenant. Does that make some sense? very
important to know then when you're dealing with the Paradoxical
nature are the tension between old and new Just like first and
last There is no new after the new the new is the final state
and I have to press it home another way The term is used therefore.
Let me let me actually affirm this through a few passages in
first Peter chapter 1 verse 20 if you don't have that in your
outline you can mark it to this is the way Peter speaks of it
as well when Peter talks about the coming of the Lord Jesus
and In first Peter chapter one verse 20, the New Testament writers
were very clear on the fact that they lived in the last days,
but their understanding of the last days didn't mean that they
were dealing with the idea of the Lord Jesus Christ chronologically
appearing as soon as their own generation. It didn't necessarily
mean that. For for many reasons but they
were talking about the ending of the old covenant the ending
of that old legal system the Indian ending of that old expression
of the kingdom of God under the monarchy of the rulers of Israel
and so we read in first Peter chapter 1 verse 18 and then finally
we'll get to verse 20 for as much as you know that you were
not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold from
your vein, or that is empty, futile conversation, that is
lifestyle, received by the tradition of your fathers. Verse 18 could
tell us actually that we were not redeemed by religion. Religion
didn't redeem you, but with the what? Precious blood of Christ,
as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. So our redemption
comes to a person, that person is Christ. Now Mark verse 20,
who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the what? World. but was manifest in these last
times for you. And when you think about the
term last times, what you were thinking about is Jesus was manifested
by the incarnation prophesied by the old Testament prophets.
He was manifested in the end of the old covenant era. He closed
out the old covenant. Are you guys following that?
In other words, When he uses the term in these last days,
he's not speaking in the first sense to you and me, the writer
is speaking contextually to his own generation in the first century.
So the first century saints were frequently confronted with the
theology of the end of the old covenant called the last days.
They had a real sense that the old covenant models and paradigms
and structures were fading away. They actually lived within that
sort of, again, paradoxical transition period where even though they
went to synagogues sometimes and temples sometimes, they knew
that that system was wearing out, that it was null and void
and had no more real spiritual efficacy. And at some point it
would all utterly be removed and they would move into a new
model of kingdom expression represented by the New Testament church,
he was manifested in these last times for you. Go with me in
your Bibles now to Acts chapter 2, 17. I wanna reinforce that
with one more verse. Now, the reason why I'm calling
your attention to this process is that if you begin to talk
to people about the end time, don't use wrong Bible verses
to talk about the end, end, end, because that will get you in
trouble if you're not sensitive to the context and understand
that there's an end that took place in the first century, crossing
over from the old covenant into the new versus the end of time
where we would assume we are in. There's nothing worse than
when you're trying to persuade someone of biblical truth to
use the wrong verses to do it. Especially if they're more sensitive
to that text than you are. In Acts chapter two, verse 17,
Here's what Peter is saying on that great day wherein the Spirit
of God was dispensed to birth the church with the 17 nations
that were at Jerusalem. Notice what Peter says in verse
15 through 17. For these are not drunken as
you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But
this is that which was spoken by Joel the prophet, a minor
prophet in the Old Testament period, about 600 years before
Jesus. Here it is, verse 17. Joel said
this, and it shall come to pass in the what? So he was speaking
several hundred years before this event. And it shall come
to pass in these last days, saith God, I will pour out my spirit
upon all flesh and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.
Your young men shall see visions and your old men shall dream
dreams. And obviously what Peter is doing is explaining that what
they are observing in terms of the 17 nations hearing the gospel
preached in their own languages. is the fulfillment of that prophecy.
And included in that prophecy is the notation that this would
take place in the last days. What days? The end of the old
covenant. I just want you to make sure,
I wanna make sure that you grasp that. If you're new at theology,
I want you to get it. Another way in which this term
eschaton is used in a very practical way or positional way is where
Jesus frequently talked about the first shall be last and the
last shall be first. Matthew's chapter 19 verse 30
and then Matthew's 20 verse 12 to 14 Look at Matthew's 19 verse
30 and mark how Jesus uses it here now when he uses it here
He's simply giving us an insight into Again the paradoxical nature
of the assumption of those who thought that they were worthy
of preference when he's teaching that just because You are the
first doesn't mean you have privilege Then he uses the term as you'll
mark Um, let me let me start at verse. Um 28 and go through
30. This is interesting and this
when we get into Rewards in the new year this year will be pulled
up again Jesus said unto them verse 28 verily I say unto you
that That ye which have followed me in the regeneration see that
phrase regeneration That's another word for the new testament period
In other words, the New Testament period is circumscribed by the
term regeneration because that is the initial work that the
spirit of God must do to birth dead men to life and bring them
into the kingdom of God. That the era in which you and
I live is an era where in the spirit of God is saving his people
by raising them from the dead. It's called the regeneration.
He says, And when the son of man shall sit on the throne of
his glory, you shall sit upon 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes
of Israel. Here he's speaking specifically
to the disciples and everyone that has forsaken house or brother
or sister or father or mother or wife or children or lands
for my name sake shall receive an hundredfold and shall inherit
what eternal life. So Mark, what verse 28 says,
Verse 28 says that there is a position of authority that Christ has
in this period called the regeneration. And there are apostles who reign
with him, judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Now, I don't want
to get into an exegetical explanation of that, but largely this has
to do with the work of the apostles preaching the gospel and becoming
the foundation to the New Testament church. In other words, they
rule with Christ through their prophetic authority, which we
have in the Bible. Those of us who obey God's word
are submitting to apostolic doctrine. In that sense, they rule over
us. So Jesus would say very, very
critically important things like, if they don't hear you, they
didn't hear me. And if they don't hear me, they
don't hear him that sent me. The idea then is that the apostles
would be the vicar of Christ the ambassadors of Christ to
exercise authority over the church as the first body of leaders
in the body of Christ. You guys know, theologically,
the way the Spirit of God arranges the gifts and the offices in
the church, the first of the offices are what? The apostles,
then the prophets, then the pastor teachers, correct? And so the
apostles always have preeminence in that sense. And this is why
you have this vision of the temple in Revelation 21, the renewed
temple whose foundation is 12. And the apostles are the foundation
of it. As Paul talks about in Ephesians chapter two, Jesus
Christ, the chief cornerstone, the apostles, the foundation
with, with, with, uh, in, in conjunction with the prophets
of the new Testament. as we would suggest or surmise
that that text in Ephesians is talking about the building of
the church. But what he's talking about in verse 29 is that those
who have abandoned themselves to the cause of Christ in the
gospel are promised blessings in this life to a hundredfold
and they shall inherit eternal life. You guys see that? Now
watch what verse 30 says, but many that are what shall be what? And the last shall be what? Right.
And he's speaking here positionally about preference that will be
given to those who exhaust themselves for the kingdom versus those
who assume they have a right to a position of preference on
the wrong grounds. There's a hint here that he was
speaking in rebuke to the leaders of the Old Testament church who
assumed that they have a right to first place in the kingdom.
which assumption leaked out in the prejudice of the apostles
from time to time when they said, who shall sit on your right hand
and on your left? Remember that? Because the Jews
as a whole body politic really believe that they should be the
head over all the nations of the world. You're going to see
that when I show you the graph today, that a premillennial dispensational
view, that holds national Israel as the center of its eschaton
is going to rule over the world. And that has always been the
assumption. Even the apostles took that position
in Acts 1. Remember when they said, when
shall the kingdom come? In their estimation, it meant
that the Jews would rule over all the nations of the world,
which assumption many of us believe is flawed. But nevertheless,
the warning is the first shall be last, and the last shall be
what? Right, and that little play on words has a theological
implication too. Matthew 20, verse 12, Matthew
20, verse 12 does the same thing. Jesus says it a couple of times.
Let's see here. In Matthew 20 here, it gives
the parable of those who went out and labored in the vineyard.
And it says over in verse 10 of chapter 20, but when the first
came, they supposed that they should have received more. And
they likewise received every man a penny. And when they that
have received it murmured against the good men of the house saying,
these last have wrought one hour and you have made them equal
to us. Do you guys see that? Which have borne the burden of
the heat of the day. And then he goes on to talk about
him having the right to give them the same wages, though some
worked all day long and others worked at the last. And that's
the idea of the first being last and the last being first. or
at least rebuking and admonishing those who would assume that because
they labored all day long, they were worthy of more. Now look
at verse 16, here it is. Let me start at verse 15 and
then I'll go to verse 16. Is it not lawful for me to do
what I will with mine? Is thine eye evil because I am
good? This is Christ speaking about
his intrinsic goodness and right to bestow upon the laborers what
he thinks is just, versus those arguing that I should get more
because I did more when they had agreed upon a set wage. Now mark what verse 16 says.
So the last shall be what? First, and the first shall be
last. For many be called, but few be what? Now, as a contentual
interpretation, dealing with it covenantally, largely these
kinds of parables are arguing for the fallacious assumption
on the part of the Jews to think that they can get into heaven
based upon their good works. When in fact, what he's warning
them is that men and women get into heaven only by the grace
of God through faith in Christ, apart from works, whether you
work 12 hours or one hour, and that your assumption that the
Gentiles should be a lower rung of people and you should be a
higher rung because you work 12 hours, that is since the days
of Moses, wrong because you only get in by grace that has to be
more fully developed when we get into the argument of rewards
and the teaching of rewards you want to be careful not to oversimplify
that either it's very important but at least here what he's pressing
home is the fundamental grounds of entering into the kingdom
of God is grace not works it's always it's also the term eschaton
is also used with reference to the end of one's earthly physical
life let me see if Luke chapter 11 verse 26 will affirm that
so from time to time when the term is used and they came to
their last and it can be referring to the end of a person's life
in Luke chapter 11 verse 26 here's how Luke uses this term as well
and in this context is speaking concerning the the unclean spirit
leaving a man And then coming back with seven other spirits
and the end of that man being worse than the beginning So you
have a a proton eschaton paradigm here, too Here's what it says
in verse 24 through 26 when the unclean spirit has gone out of
a man He walketh through dry places seeking rest and finding
none He saith I will return unto my house once I came and when
he cometh he findeth it swept and garnished That means it's
empty. It's clean, but it's empty then goeth he and taketh to him
seven other spirits, more wicked than himself. And they enter
in and dwell there. And the last state of that man
is what? Worse than the what? Right. So
once again, you have a last first sort of tension or paradoxical
warning taking place here. And again, just to satisfy anyone's
curiosity as to what Christ is doing, largely the teaching of
Messiah, Contextually was to rebuke the Jews for a false assumption
that they were all right with God because they were Abraham
see If we would read into this prophetically what it would state
is that Israel was bad Horribly bad bad as a nation and therefore
were not saved largely as a nation Even when Christ came but what
Christ warned is their rejection of him would heap upon them so
great a condemnation is that it would manifold seven times
more and so that the last state is worse than the first because
they rejected their healing in Jesus. And if I were to kind
of entertain it eschatologically, I would say that if this had
application to national Israel, there's a real good intimation
that from the days of Christ to now, they've gotten worse,
not better spiritually. I'll leave that alone for now.
Because I'm not just beating up on people when I think about
where we are in this study. It is really a solemn study around
eternity bound souls Not really something to laugh at because
apart from grace you and I are no different than rebel Jews
Who are blinded to the glory of God? it's just that to whom
much is given much is required and God is a just judge when
he punishes and And therefore Israel will accrue a greater
judgment because of all the benefits that were given to them that
they rejected. I think there might be one other
entity in the world that might have a lower place in hell reserved
for them. And that is the apostate church.
If you and I are an apostate where we have come to a knowledge
of the gospel and then abandon it for some other form of religion
or some other hope for glory, Well, we actually are more accountable
for rejecting the gospel than for Israel in its blindness under
the law. Are you guys following what I'm
saying? Because we could do the same thing in our generation,
assuming because of all of the benefits in the kingdom of God
that are ours, that because we are indeed that people who have
inherited the spirit of God, that we should be first in the
kingdom. We could end up being last. It's an attitude issue. You guys understand that? It's
a real attitude issue. And eschatology is designed on
an ethical level. This is why I'm looking forward
to this study with us, is to get our attitude right. Because
when you are not seriously thinking about the end time appropriately,
your attitude can be funky. As if you will not die. When
you will die, you and I have a last day in our physical life. Here's another way in which it's
used Go with me in your Bible to first John chapter 2 verse
18 where John talks about the last hour Where he uses the word
Eschaton Hora the last hour and is speaking concerning the the
the intensity of tribulation that they felt in that first
century in the days of the Apostles the Apostles felt like they were
experiencing a indicators of the last days of the old covenant
system, where the enemy was furiously working to destroy Christianity
during the days of the apostles. And John's church was assaulted
by paganism, mysticism, gnosticism, legalism, and denying the person
and work of Jesus Christ, that is his incarnation, and therefore
his successful work in terms of his atonement. And we read
in chapter two, verse 18, these words, Little children, it is
the what? Last time. So that is a time
piece he's using, but he's also referring to the character nature
of the end of that Old Covenant period where the enemy is furiously
coming after the church to see to it that it doesn't get established.
Okay, are you guys hearing what I'm saying? And if we were again
to stay consistent with the coherent stream of biblical revelation,
Largely, the enemy that was seeking to stop the church from being
established was Judaism. Do you guys understand that? So you guys have heard me point
you to Revelation 12, verses 2 and 3, where it gives the image
of the woman who was with child, ready to be delivered, and the
dragon, the beast, hovering over her, ready to devour the child
as soon as it be born. And the timepiece there has to
do with the incarnation of Christ. of which every year we celebrate
his birth, but his birth has always been in troublesome times. I'm going to teach that theme
tonight around the idea of the millennium, if we have time.
The false assumption, in my opinion, that the millennium is a period
free of any trouble, any suffering, any difficulty is, I think, alien
to the scriptures. The idea that the lion will lie
down with the calf and the baby will be able to rub the head
of the serpent and all of that is metaphorical language. In
my opinion, as a theologian, along with many other conservative
theologians, that we will never have a world in this dispensation,
in this physical dimension, where human beings can actually put
their hand on the head of a puff adder and kick it. Okay. Until there's a radical transformation,
at the return of Christ and a glorification of the present heavens and earth,
where everything evil as a consequence of the first fall is removed. I'm not putting my head on nobody's
snake, poisonous or not. Let me share with you two more
verses before we go into the images tonight. I like snakes
in cages and from a distance. Another way in which the term
eschaton is used is very critical It's often used personifying
the Lord Jesus Christ. He will say I am the first and
I am the last. I am the beginning and I am the
end. Revelation chapter 21 verse 9. Now I want you to mark why
that statement is used. It is used several times both
in the Old Testament and the New. Isaiah the prophet uses
it several times when he underscores the aseity of God the uniqueness
of God, the sovereignty of God, and the exclusivity of God over
everything made. This is being used with regards
to the end of time, as we would interpret this with the seven
last plagues. And it says, And there came unto
me one of the seven angels, which had seven vials full of the seven
last plagues, and talk with me saying, come hither, I will show
thee the bride, the lamb's wife. And so verse 21, verse nine of
chapter 21 is describing the seven last plagues that God will
pour out on the world before he ushers in the celebration
of the marriage of the lamb and his bride. And there you see
the term last used again. And what it actually is describing
is a massive period Judgment and pain on the earth called
plagues and I Don't have prepared in me where it's using the term
for the Lord Jesus Christ I think it's in chapter 22 as well as
in chapter 3 where the Lord Jesus is speaking to the seven churches
But I want to share with you one set of verses where our Lord
speaks specifically concerning the last physical day of this
present earth's existence and And that's going to John's gospel
chapter six, verse 39. Let's look at these three and
then we'll talk about the end times from the standpoint of
your charts. Did everyone get a chart? Did
we pass them out? Raise your hands so that people
can, uh, uh, help, help, uh, help you with that. So when I
go to the board, what I'm going to have on the board is going
to be slightly different than what you have, but it will correspond. Rebel, uh, John's gospel chapter
six, verse 39 is where I want to go now. And there are four
verses in this series of words that our Lord speaks in this
one event where he underscores the last day being so very important
to his work of redemption that he's accomplishing in the world
even today. So we read in verse 39, John
6, 39, these words. And this is the Father's will
which hath sent me. that of all which he hath given
me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again. When?
At the last day. So there's a security for God's
elect in that between the father and the son and their contractual
agreement to save all those whom the father hath given to the
son, none will be lost. None will be lost. Um, all right. So how many, is that it? All
you got is that's it. Oh, you got more. All right, because
we got a few more people up here that we have to have a few more
people. Now, look with me at verse 40. And this is the will
of him that sent me, that everyone would see the sun and believe
it on him may have everlasting life. And I will raise him up
when at the last day. And then again, verse 40, verse
44. Here's what it says. No man can
come to me except the father which has sent me draw him. And
I will raise him up when? So when our Lord uses this term
at the last day three times in this text, what he's teaching
is that the believer needs to understand that the ultimate
reward comes at the last day. That there is a need to remember
and understand that what we are going through in this life is
only ultimately rewarded or compensated on the last day. So there must
be a healthy comprehension in the life of every Christian of
realizing that you're going to feel shortchanged in some area
of your life subsequent to the last day. I'm going to say that
again. We've got one or two more up
here. Let's one, two. We've got a bunch
of people wanting outlines. Did you guys have outlines from
last week and didn't bring it? If you do, then you just bring
it next week. For those of you who are new
tonight, we'll give them to you. But you guys know how that goes.
We've even printed 1,000 outlines if we get one every week. So
he has to run some more. So run off. How many of you guys
don't have them? Let me just make sure. Good.
I know he's making copies. I'm trying to give a count. So
you have to run off about 30 more. All right. But we'll be
able to go into our chart here in a moment and they'll just
give it to you later. As I was stating, this is very important
to our understanding of the grace of God, the period between our
conversion and when Christ comes again, we call that the period
of grace. That's where we are now. Grace
will ultimately lead Ultimately lead to a state of what glory
that's right. That's Psalm 84 verse 11. It's
a really good Psalm to Memorize he shall give us grace and glory
Grace is the foundation for glory It's the basis upon which glory
is secured in the life of the believer and glory is really
the end game for the believer now there are a number of benefits
that you and I experience in between grace and glory and but
fundamentally we are saved by grace in order to obtain the
glory. Does that make some sense, ladies
and gentlemen? Right, now what's critical about that truth is
this. If you think Jesus saved you to make you shine now, you're
gonna be disappointed by the providence of Christ in your
life. If you think Christ saved you to put you on the mountaintop
and cause everybody to look at you and say, look how wonderful
you are, you're gonna be disillusioned by the true gospel. If you actually
think that the goal of Christ is to make you more than simply
a sinner saved by grace in this interim period between grace
and glory, you're gonna be disappointed. If somehow you think that you
are going to experience some glory down here that's going
to be visible and existential and affirmed by people, you fail
to understand the doctrine of the incarnation and its co-extensive
nature to every one of God's elect. Every one of God's elect
bear the resemblance of Christ in his incarnation. Incarnation
is that period between grace and glory where there is a glory
on the inside, but not manifested outwardly. Are you guys hearing
what I'm saying? Right. So as they didn't know
him, they won't know you. As they didn't see him for who
he really was, they won't see you for who you really are. If
they couldn't observe his deity, they won't observe you being
a partaker of the divine nature. If they couldn't comprehend without
spiritual eyes that Jesus was the son of God, they will not
comprehend without spiritual eyes that you are children of
God. Are you guys following the logic? I don't care how much
makeup you put on, ladies. I don't care how many weights
you lift, brothers. You will never, ever transcend
being the mystery of the gospel, which is Christ in you, the hope
of glory. You will never transcend a body
of flesh that looks like everybody else's flesh and acts like everyone
else's flesh. Encompassing a soul that is able
to give glory to God as it grows in grace and in the knowledge
of the Lord That's the best you can do And some are gonna like
you and some are gonna hate you for it and That's the call of
the believer because as Jesus said in John 15 The servant is
not greater than his master If you can get the whole world to
love you, you are a child of the devil Did you hear what I just stated
It's very true. It's very true. He is an angel
of light, accepted by all pagan religions and pagan notions and
secular people who build a view of glory that's carnal. But there
was no beauty in him that we should desire him. Are you guys
hearing what I'm saying? So it's very important for you
to know that. All right. Now what I want to do is I want you
to pull up the graph for me. And I want to start working through
what we call the four major views. The four major views of our millennialism
is not the first one. There it is. Historic premillennialism.
The four major views of eschatology. Now, you can get the tape and
listen to it a couple of 10, 20, 30 times if this is brand
new for you and this will help you. But I'm going to try to
build a concept or an understanding of the basic views with you tonight. For those of you who are new,
This is going to be a study that will enlarge your view of future
things. And for those of you who have
been through these kinds of studies before, you will have some things
affirmed. We're not here tonight to determine
right or wrong views. I'm just here tonight to share
with you, expose you to the four common views that are held by
the church. And the reason I'm starting with
what we call historic premillennialism is because historic premillennialism
is the view that goes back to the earliest days of the New
Testament Church. In other words, historic premillennialism
is found to be embraced and encompassed by the patristic fathers anywhere
from 200 to 300 AD. By the time we get to 200 AD,
200 years after Christ, the patristic fathers, the early
church fathers, Irenaeus and Polycarp and others, Augustine
even, would have built a theology of eschatology. And while there
were two or three views budding at that time, the common view
held by the church in the Middle East would have been what we
call historic premillennialisms. Now the term millennial, Millennial
simply is a Greek term Actually, this is a Latin term That means
what? 1,000 Okay Killia is the Greek term for
1,000 and that's found largely in the book of Revelation chapter
20 and And I would be using Revelation
20 as my premise text tonight, but I wanted to share with you
the various usage of the term eschaton so that you are sensitive
to it. Maybe next week I'll go back
through Revelation 20 and show you why a theology of eschatology
is built fundamentally on that chapter and show you the difficulties
of it. Tonight, I just want you to see
visually how the church constructed four views of what would happen
from the days of the church in the first century to the end
of time. Are you guys trekking with me
right now? All right, so when we talk about historic premillennialism,
what we are talking about is an understanding of the millennium
or what is called the thousand year reign. The thousand year
reign, Historic premillennialist would say that there would be
a thousand years that would take place where there would be a
unique rule of Christ You'll see that when we look at the
graph rule of Christ before the end of time before the end B4
that's why we have pre millennial premillennial before the end
of time and this is a simple construct that they hold that
but you're gonna have to be careful because this image is gonna show
you some things that I'm gonna call your attention to that you
need to lock in on. When the early church fathers
constructed their views of eschatology in time study, they start with
Israel. Do you guys see that? Now, the
historic premillennial view starts with Israel, not as a theocracy,
That would have been back here in the days of who? Moses. Remember 1500 BC, Moses wrote
the law. God gave judges in the days of
Moses to rule over hundreds and thousands, tens, hundreds and
thousands. And it went all the way through
Joshua. And then finally, Israel was established under the rule
of whom? David, not Saul. What does this star represent?
The Star of David, that's right. So when you see the star here
what you're dealing with is the monarchy and this monarchy started
approximately 1,000 years before here You guys see that so you
can write under that graph 1,000 technically Saul who became first
king but was not acknowledged as God's first king took the
throne at about 1050 and BC David took it approximately 1000 BC
his son Solomon 967 BC and it led all the way to the collapse
of the kingdom as you know by the Roman Empire Medo-Persia
the Grecian Kingdom and Babylon and the days of our Lord Jesus
you see this cross here This is a d33 if you want to mark
it you guys got that Because it's talking about the what death
of Christ So from here the rule of david to here the depth of
christ is what we would call The monarchical rule of god through
his judaic kings leading to the final david That would be the
lord jesus And this is why we have here the kingdom. What?
So the kingdom of god is god's absolute rule manifested in the
world from the days of adam in the days of Abraham, in the days
of Moses, in the days of David, and finally in the days of who?
Christ. So David Abraham that's Matthew's
one, right? We're learning that in in the
book of Acts So from David we go back to Abraham Abraham I
mean some David to Moses from Moses back to Abraham Abraham
all the way back to Adam So when you read your genealogies in
Matthew's gospel Matthew's one it says Abraham to David to whom
Jesus and that's because Matthew is dealing with the Jews and
And we have the star underscoring that historic premillennialists
view the kingdom's expression Monarchially right here and then
that kingdom came into full manifestation By the death of Christ at the
cross you guys see that It's called the inauguration. When
was the actual inauguration of the kingdom? You notice this
little line going upward That's what we call what the ascension
of? The death, burial, and what? Resurrection and ascension. This
would have been when Christ rose again on the third day, and then
he dwelt in Jerusalem for another 40 something days until when?
Pentecost, right? Not actually, he dwelt for 40
days, and then he rose, and then about 10 days later, he poured
out his spirit on Pentecost. And Pentecost would have been
what we call the inauguration of the kingdom of God through
the what? Church So this is what we call the church age from the
cross of Christ to this present hour. You see this term gospel
age It's the church age or some call it the age of grace from
8033 to here Whatever this period is it? Begins to end right here,
doesn't it? from 8033 here to here it begins
to end A lot of people would love to
say that this is year 2015, but don't do that. Mr. Campy
made a big mess out of it because he had no idea where we are.
Let me say this ladies and gentlemen, from here to here, we don't know
where we are. You and I could be right here.
This could be 2000 years. We could have another 2000 others,
4,000 other 5,000 years to go. Is that possible? Is that plausible?
Right. So when we when we talk about
the gospel age, all we're talking about is the point from which
Christ rose ascended to his throne, sent the Holy Ghost and started
the church. At some point, our historic premillennialist
brethren said that there would be a decline in the gospel. See
that slant? Let's call it what? Decline.
What do they call that period? The tribulation period. Yeah,
I see that you got the vision. So if you want to begin to write
some other stuff there, I'm going to allow you for the moment to
write here the number seven, circle it, and then put three
question marks by it. OK? Well, you can mark it. All you have to do, you got a
historic premillennial chart, right? Make that for yourself.
I mean, you got the chart. You got the chart. You got the
chart, let me look on my chart and see. Do you have exactly,
do you have enough material there for that to occur? Historic premillennialism, return
of Christ. Okay, so yeah. Okay, so then
you, it's not that confusing at all. The only thing you don't
have is your slant. Make your own slant. You do see
the little square box that says apostasy and tribulation breakout,
right? So you make a slant down there
and put seven years. Now, the reason why this graph
is given a slant is because it's demonstrating a decline in the
reception of the gospel. You guys see that? It's just,
it's talking about everything goes around, goes along kind
of even keel here. Not that that really means anything
other than, you know, the outward manifestation of the kingdom
went from Israel being the center of revelation and stewardship
to Christ being the one who came along with his witness John the
Baptist saying what the kingdom of God is at hand repent and
believe the gospel church age established the church took over
from here preaching the kingdom is at hand right preaching the
gospel and this is called the gospel age or the age of grace
but at some point we start to go downhill right now most people
who hold to a premillennial view hold to a seven-year tribulation
period you got that That's the reason why I put that there.
But I also told you to put three what? Right, because if I really
wanted to actually start a refutation of a premillennial view, one
of the first areas that I would refute is the assumption of a
seven-year tribulation period. That would be one of the first
areas I would refute. What I would say is that if you
believe in a seven-year tribulation period like most premillennial
dispensationalists do, To, to affirm that you better have a
sound biblical basis for it. Okay. They're going to be a seven
year tribulation period. And in the middle of the tribulation,
the antichrist will pop up three and a half years into the tribulation,
all kinds of stuff will break out. And then finally Jesus will
come. Well, that's, that's fascinating as a story, but you have to build
that theologically. And I challenge people to find
a seven year tribulation period. Even if you want to go to the
book of Daniel chapter nine, verse 24 through 27, which is
what I cut my teeth on theologically as a young man, arguing that
you cannot build a chronological timetable of an exact seven year
period for some new covenant model with an antichrist system.
It's just pure assumption. So I'm gonna leave that with
folks to think about and we'll deal with that more later. But
notice after this tribulation period comes what? The second
coming. what we would call the perusia
the second coming of who and at that same time what takes
place and The rapture is first Thessalonians chapter 4 and 5
of which at the same time what takes place? Right and notice
that this is simultaneous second coming rapture resurrection.
I like that idea because simple premillennialism doesn't get
into two and three comings of Jesus and two and three resurrections,
seven judgment seats, and then the final state. We'll talk about
that when we get to premillennial, uh, dispensationalism. But most
of us who just use our Bibles to interpret the second coming,
we see the second coming simultaneous with the rapture. And it's only
one coming of Jesus. And at that time is a resurrection
all taking place in this space. And if you hold to a millennial
view, then after this, there is a millennial period that takes
place. And then finally, another what?
Apostasy. Right here, you can write Revelation
chapter 20. Right here, you can write Revelation
20, because this is where they would build their argument for
a golden age. You guys got that? And then after
the 1,000 years of Revelation 20, another period of apostasy. Notice that this period is shorter
than this period, right? And then finally the judgment,
you see that? And then the eternal state. What's
weird about this is the judgment just takes place. There's no
coming of Jesus, no rapture, no resurrection, because all
that took place here before the millennium. You got that? And
so we got a lot of questions to ask if you hold to that view.
We really do. But I'm just letting you see
that this is the early model that our church fathers held.
Many of them were very good men, but they just had not worked
through the theology a whole lot. That's view number one.
The next view, would you pull it up? And I think you have it
on your chart. Do a chart as well. Although your chart will
be slightly different. This is called the Amillennial
view. And the Amillennial view is a view that was also, um,
historically rooted primarily at the same time as a historic
pre-millennial view, you will find amillennialism and the term
amillennial, ah, is a negative prefix, which literally means
no millennium. No, but don't let that fool you
because the idea of an amillennial view held by people like Augustine
and then finally picked up and more thoroughly developed by
the reformers in the days of Calvin, and then the days of
Luther, and the days of Zwingli Knox, and the rest of them, when
they more fully developed an amillennial view, the word ah
simply means that they did not agree with the millennial view
held by the pre-millennialist. They did believe in a millennium,
as I do, but their view of it was not the same as some golden
age to come, and we'll explain that further. So notice how our
all-millennialist brethren start. They start in the same place
our premillennialist brethren start, right? With Israel, don't
they? And they actually make a distinction
here between Old Covenant and New Covenant by saying this ran
all the way to here, and that this here was the period of the
cross, and then the New Covenant is expressed by the kingdom,
which would have been the church. You guys see that? Don't worry
about the gap in between here. This is not suggesting necessarily
any real lengthy time period, just a sequence of events. The
monarchical rule of Israel with the promise given to King David
that of his seed would once sit on the throne forever, that would
take place through the cross work of Christ and it would be
declared by the church, which is the present manifestation
of the what? The church is the present manifestation of the
kingdom and we have the right and privilege and power and resources
to tell the world That jesus is lord. He is the son of david.
He is sitting on his throne right now He's ruling over the universe
everyone who bows a knee to king. Jesus has hope of eternal life
This is why i've shared with you that we don't ask people
to make a decision for jesus Because you don't make a decision
for a king You bow to a king Jesus is not a politician. He's
not a congressman or a president. You don't vote Jesus in. God
has made him both Lord and Christ. That's why you never read in
your Bible, make a decision for Jesus. The gospel is proclaimed
and you have an opportunity to either believe it or not. He
that believeth shall be saved. He that believeth not will be
damned when the king comes. You guys follow that argument?
Right. And so I like the Amillennial
view in certain ways because of its simplicity, but I'm one
of those guys that I get a little troubled when you oversimplify
things to the point where you can't actually explain tough
scriptures. This is why we're getting ready
to do a study on rewards for the whole of this year, at least
until summer. I'm going to introduce you to
the arguments in the text and help you struggle through them.
It's one thing to have a position on a doctrine, but if you have
a position on it, you want to be able to defend your position,
but also understand the other positions so as to make sure
that your position is defendable. It's another thing to take a
position like a lot of people do and simply explain away verses
that appear to contradict your position. To me, that's not being
an honest nor diligent student of the Word of God. Does that
make some sense, ladies and gentlemen, what I just stated? If someone
teaches you a doctrinal truth, but that doctrinal truth is not
comprehensive enough to take into consideration other doctrinal
positions that may refute it. And then you run across those
doctrinal views and you go, well, I don't believe that. You don't
have to believe it. But you have to be able to refute
it logically and biblically and you have to be able to defend
your position over against that position Because what we don't
get to do is build nice neat packages of theology And throw
away a bunch of the remnants of scripture once we build our
doctrine Did you guys get that image? At that point we are now
making the scriptures subservient to our doctrine That's good,
isn't it? Did you guys get that? And it
keeps you humble when you have to face difficult texts of scripture
and say, where do they fit in this theological paradigm? And
if you don't have a place to fit it, just say, I don't know. Whole bunch of people going to
heaven saying, I don't know. Don't throw the puzzle pieces
out just cause you didn't make it fit. I can't see what it's
throwing it out. When we get into the study on
rewards, our master will say this in Matthew chapter five,
Not one jot or tittle of the law shall be removed until all
is fulfilled. And he that violates the least of the commandments,
he will be made to be least in the kingdom. So what our Lord
is saying is you don't get to just cut scripture up to fit
your theological presuppositions and throw the rest away. I'll
tell you a little secret that I've learned over 37 years of
Bible study. As you get older, There's a whole
bunch of, I don't know. Like if the picture puzzle is
a thousand piece picture puzzle, I've got about 300 pieces together. Are you hearing what I'm saying?
I'm still trying to fit the rest. I don't have an answer to every
question. All right. I do know what the picture is
going to look like when it's done. Jesus, you got that? That'll help some of you. The
Amelio view is held by most of the schools of thought that I
consider are biblical in their soteriology, the doctrines of
grace, as you guys hear me teach them here, which is a position
that the doctrines of grace, the theological term is soteriology,
as you know, that position of salvation by what grace alone,
grace alone. And then what we have in that
system are what are called the five solas. And you guys have
heard those too. They were not developed by Calvin.
The idea of tulip was not developed by Calvin. Calvin didn't do hardly
any of that. He simply taught scripture and
understood scripture from a fundamental axiom that I think is critical
to interpreting the Bible correctly. And here's the axiom from which
he discovered that you have to actually use as the grid for
interpreting scripture. And that is the glory of God. What Calvin came to understand
was this, that if you interpret any passage of scripture that
violates the principle that God must get the glory, then you're
going to have a man centered theology and your theology will
be an error. Right? And so that's where it
starts. So we talk about the five solas, uh, the glory of
God alone, scripture alone, faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone,
those five axioms underscore. So when you are preaching a faithful
gospel, God's glory is gonna be the foundation of your teaching.
The scriptures are gonna be the basis of your teaching. Faith
through grace is gonna be your message of redemption, and it's
all gonna be rooted in the person of Christ. So the glory of God
by scripture alone, by grace alone, through faith alone, in
who? Christ alone. Glory, scripture,
grace, faith, Christ. And those are going to be the
principles that regulate not only how we explain scripture
in terms of an exegetical labor, but how we communicate it, how
we communicate it. Even eschatology, as we'll see
shortly here. So notice this is a simple system
like pre-millennial discipline, like the historic pre-millennialism. Pretty simple, right? But again,
as I stated, if you are not persuaded of an amillennial view, Don't
don't don't get caught up in the simplicity of it. This almost
looks almost like the millennial view in that you have this decline
called the tribulation period where the man of lawlessness
takes place and notice what the Historic are millennialists do
they bring salvation to the Jews as a marked period of that time. Do you guys see that? And I would
write down here if you wanted to Romans chapter 11 then Revelation chapter 7 and
you can put three question marks about both of those I don't have
the time to deal with it but I what I am doing is being honest
with how they start to characterize the nature of the tribulation
what they're saying is there's an Antichrist our man of sin
that rises up this is second Thessalonians chapter 2 you guys
know that right so watch this there's a man of lawlessness
that rises up he fundamentally has to do with a covenant relationship
with the Jews, wherein he betrays them after three and a half years,
and then a major tribulation period breaks out all around
the world, and finally Christ comes in the second coming, the
resurrection, and the final judgment all take place simultaneously
at his coming. Notice that in the Amillennial
view, there is no kind of millennial period or golden age taking place.
That's because for the millennialists of the opposition, that's taking
place during this time. So here's how this would work.
If I were reading Revelation chapter 20, I would demonstrate
that in Revelation chapter 20, where it uses the term kilios,
or a thousand years, four or five times as the basis for our
Millennial doctrine that nowhere in chapter 20 doesn't have this
period of a golden age But that simultaneously Believers are
killed and martyred and beheaded right along with reigning with
Christ They are killed and martyred and beheaded right along with
reigning with Christ And so here's what happens in an all-millennial
view on the earth believers are persecuted like Jesus but their
death Dispatches them to heaven to reign with Christ at the same
time this is where the Apostles teach if you suffer with him
you will also what reign with him so we reign with him positionally
because of his cross word but down here we suffer as he did
right but because Christ suffered did it mean that he was not also
already the king he was already the king was he not Like manner
those that are in him are already kings and queens Though we suffer
at the hand of a rejecting world Moreover as Christ suffered it
did not mean that he didn't actually reign he did reign Where is he
that is born king of the Jews? The wise men knew he was king
didn't he Why was he killed? because they said he made himself
a what? King. What was placed on his head?
And he was viewed to be king of what? Jews and the Gentiles.
So the spirit of God affirmed this in the sufferings of Christ
that he was already king, but then he was dispatched to glory
and his kingdom is manifested through the church, right? So
the church reigns with Christ, both in suffering and in glory. This is what is meant by the
millennium. that it is simultaneous. The simultaneity of it is that
down here we suffer, but in glory we reign. If you die for Christ,
you're simply dispatched to your seat of position with Him in
glory. Am I making some sense? That's
the view. I just want you to know they don't throw out an
idea of a millennium. When you read Revelation chapter
20, you see a reign there, but it's simultaneous with suffering.
I'll leave that there for now. Let's go to our next view, which
is, I think, the final view. No, this is the next view. It's
a post-millennial view. And this is an interesting view
that is one of the youngest views, but it's older than our final
view. So I'm going to keep you guys here for a few more minutes
on both models. The post-millennial view is a
view that has held sway for about the last 300 years or more. It had a little tricklings before
the Renaissance and the sort of escalation of prominence in
the European countries, where they started dominating the world
through imperialism. But largely, the post-millennial
view is something that has resurrected itself over the last 150, 200
years. It existed, but it has become
more prominent. And it is presently prominent today. Just does anyone
know the term? Reconstructionist Theonomy It's
a theology that Rush Dooney basically built and he's a reformed man. I think he was I think he passed
not sure I know he's old if he hasn't passed but largely he
advocated a view that if the church gets his eschatology,
right what it will advocate and teach is the permeation of Christian
principles and in all of the sectors of life, politics, education,
theology, everywhere. So mark what a post-millennial
model really is advocating. It's advocating a kind of theocracy
on the earth from a Christian standpoint. Are you guys following
the logic? This is very important to get. And this is quite unique
because that's fundamentally the extreme strain of Islam,
is it not? With Sharia law, and their desire
to dominate the world through the Quran. And to create a theocracy
of submission to Allah through the Quran. Well, fundamentally,
post-millennial view is doing the same thing with Christianity.
It's what, for some of us, is called an over-realistic and
over-optimistic eschatology. And I'll show you what we mean
by that if you follow the graph. They start off the same way all
the other systems do. The monarchical rule of Israel,
the Davidic kingdom, the principle that David's son would finally
rule, right? So we go from Israel to where?
AD 33, right? Now here's what post-millennialists
do. And this little period here is what is called a preterite
interpretation of the tribulation. A preterite view of eschatology
is another model. The term preterite is a tense
in the Hebrew, largely the Hebrew, which means things are past. A preterite tense is like a past
tense. And so a preterite interpretation
of eschatology fundamentally argues that everything that we
call future has actually ended in AD 70. So I'll leave that
alone for now. That's the reason why they put
up a preterite interpretation. The post-millennial view will
be held by your Presbyterians largely, and a few other reformed
churches that are traditional churches. And here's what they
state. Israel to Christ from the days of David, almost a thousand
years. And then the tribulation period
takes place in AD 70. You can mark AD 70 there if it's
not on your graph. Where the tribulation is marked
by and consummated by and affirmed to have consummated itself by
the what? Destruction of the temple. And
from there, here's what they assert. The old covenant is dead. The new covenant is established,
ratified right here. That life gets increasingly better
through the church over time. Do you see this? On what chronological timeline
do you see the world getting better? This is what we mean
by an over-optimistic eschatology on their part. Even if we were
to put ourselves here, what they would be asserting that the world
is better here in the year 2015 than it was in the year 8033. I don't have any empirical evidence
to affirm that. You guys follow the logic though?
What they're saying is because the gospel actually has been
able to permeate the world first in the Middle East and then through
Europe, Germany, Russia, etc. The kingdom of God has been advancing
itself and it's going to get better and better and better
and one day All of our presidents and congressmen are going to
be really truly saved instead of bringing big Bibles to church
on Sunday when it's time for them to get re-elected. And life is going to be good
all around the world. Everybody around the world are going to largely
be Christians. And then we're going to get to a point where,
uh-oh, finally, we enter into a what? Apostasy period. And
notice during this apostasy period, they view also the salvation
of the Jews according to the passages that I have shared with
you. Romans chapter 11, Revelation chapter 7, largely, and some
Old Testament passages as well. But at the end of this tribulation
period, second coming, resurrection, judgment. You guys see that?
And then enter into the final state. This here can all be circumscribed
by Matthew 24, where Jesus says he's coming again. Then the end
shall be in Revelation chapter 20, verses 11 through 15. And then finally into Revelation
22. This is a simplistic view. The area that I would have contention
with is this area here of a growing, increasing, healthy world of
peace. For me, if I have scripture correct,
things get worse, not better. That if we appear to be getting
better, we're actually getting worse because the peace of the
world will be the peace of an ecumenical movement where they
have gotten rid of Christianity and everybody's happy in darkness.
Am I making some sense? And that's what the Bible warns.
When they shall say, peace, peace, then sudden what? All right. Our last view, which is gonna
be the view that we're gonna work with now, you can pull that
up, it's called a premillennial dispensational view. And I'm
gonna touch on it for the next 10 minutes and then we'll let
you go. How many of you are learning eschatology for the first time
here? Just raise your hand, I just need to know. Good, see that's
like 80% of our class. This is great, this is cool.
You know what I like about graphs? Their images and remember the
old saying a picture is as a what? Right. And so what this does
is it gives you kind of a context in which to understand some of
these arguments about in time stuff, right? It gives you sort
of a vision. Also, if you know your Bibles a little bit, you've
learned a little bit more about some of your Bible passages.
Isn't that true? Good. But believe me, you're not ready
to teach this by just the arguments go on and on and on and on. But
it's important that we start thinking these things through
because of the things that are going to be coming on our world
here shortly. So let's start working with our
dispensational brethren, premillennial dispensational theology. First,
the reason that I brought it up last is because it is the
baby in the group. It's the newest system. It's
actually only about 150 years old. at the most. Premillennial dispensational
theology was basically birthed by James Darby and it was proffered
by Schofield. I don't know how many of you
have been Christians over 20 years, but if you've been Christians
over 20 years, you may have run across a Schofield Bible, a Schofield
study Bible, which was published massively through the publishing
presses that were endorsed by our government 40 years ago,
gave everyone a view of eschatology that fundamentally put us in
a kind of unity without asking us, did we agree? So if eschatology
was ever talked about, all you had to do was open your Bible
and say, see, this is what Scofield says. And Scofield got this from
Darby, and it's in my Bible, so it must be right. And then we would be getting
into the whole issue of the diabolical nature of publishing houses and
their ability to insert false doctrine into the scriptures
in order to dupe you into believing something that you haven't been
able to affirm. Are you guys following the logic?
These are the spiritual battles that go on in your world. So
when people ask me about translations of the Bible, I have to ask them,
how much knowledge do they have about scripture in the first
place? And then I'll give them, you know, based upon where they
are in their understanding, I'll give them a few sort of novice
references for Bibles, because the question that's generally
asked is, can you help me buy a Bible that is easy to read
and makes sense? And I will say no, because that's a false assumption
that they don't realize is not the basis for which you buy your
Bible. You don't buy your Bible with the assumption of it being
automatically easy to read, which would assume that you already
have all of the apparatus in your understanding to comprehend
scripture. I mean, if you get a book on
trigonometry, it's not gonna be easy to read. I don't care
how, they can't break down trigonometry. that simplistic for it to be
that easy to read. And your Bible is not that easy
to read because of the nature of the word of God. So largely
what people have to be taught is there are there are some happy
mediums that we can have that will allow you to not feel as
if you are reading Greek. But if we give you properly translated
Bibles, you're still going to have a difficult time until you
learn how to read the Bible properly. And your problem isn't the archaic
obsolete terminology of Saxon and Elizabethan English. Your
problem is an unfamiliarity with the scriptures and walking with
the spirit of God patiently through the word of God to learn how
the scriptures speak. Do you guys understand that?
Right. So generally what people have to do is just drudge through
reading their Bibles from Genesis to Revelation, drudge through
reading, not comprehending a lot, and then finally coming across
good teachers that can begin to gradually help you understand
what we call biblical hermeneutics, the fundamentals of interpreting
scripture so that you can see the coherence and clarity in
your Bible over time. and it takes a long time. Are
you following what I'm saying? With that being the view, with that
being the view, teachers, good teachers are critical to your
advancement in your becoming familiar with and understanding
your Bible. Are you guys hearing what I just
stated? And I just state that so that it can be in the air
because you have people who are just backwards in their thinking
who wanna be little teachers, but you're not gonna understand
your Bible without the facilitation of good teachers. That's the
way the Holy Spirit has set it up. Otherwise, the Holy Ghost
would just be dropping Bibles out the sky. And you pick it
up and go, my goodness, I didn't know that. And everybody's just
gone with revelation. But he has given us teachers
to explain the word of God so that we can begin to know the
word of God, grow and serve him. Am I making some sense? All right,
last one. for tonight and then we'll come
back and talk about these in a little bit more nuanced fashion
next week using Revelation chapter 20 as our text before we go back
to the book of Acts. Dispensational premillennial
theology is really problematic to me but because a whole lot
of my brothers and sisters have bought it along with their Bibles,
I basically am patient and tolerant with their assumption that it
has some validity. But when you look into premillennial
dispensational theology, because of how complex it is, the level
of complexity for premillennial dispensational theology is such
that it actually condemns itself. Remember what I said earlier,
you can be over simplistic and fail to deal with and address
texts of scripture that have a right to challenge your views
over simplicity. But you can be overly complex,
too, and create for yourself implications and inferences out
of your complexity that you either do not know, are not aware of,
or don't care. So you can be over-complex. And
I really think the problem with premillennial dispensationalism
is that they're way over-complex. I'll give you an example as we
work it through, just for tonight. So in your graph at the top,
of your dispensationalism, you have what are called seven dispensations. You guys see that? Seven dispensations. We'll get to that in a moment.
You notice it says the age of innocence, right? Then it talks
about the age of conscience, then the age of human government,
then the age of promise, age of law, age of grace, and then
the what? Kingdom age, right? So the dispensationalists have
made those hard, critically defined concrete positions during the
time in which God has been working with mankind. And those views
cannot be concretely substantiated as hard fixed dispensations. They are loosely alluded to,
but not hard fixed. Would we believe that the age
of innocence is without the age of conscience?
That is to say before mankind fail, He didn't have a conscience. We would be able to argue on
a philosophical standpoint that man did have a conscience, but
his conscience was free of sin. And therefore, his innocency
allowed him to be aware of everything that was right with God. But
upon the fall, he became conscious that he was something that he
was not. And that is what? A sinner. So I would overlap
conscience and innocence until the fall. Then I would also argue
that if you're going to build a human government theology,
that is, mankind is to govern himself from the days of Noah. You guys see that? That's Genesis
6 on. And in fact, theologically, it
would probably be quoting Genesis 9, where God actually laid down
the death penalty the first time in Genesis 9. If man shed men's
blood, by men shall his blood be shed. Would we be asserting
that there was no human government before Noah's time? That men
didn't govern themselves? Did you guys follow the logic?
So I would say that these actually are distinctions that are stacked
on top of each other. A period of innocence combined
with conscious and human government because God gave Adam to rule
over the world. Government was given to Adam
from the beginning. That's my argument. All we have
in Genesis 9 is a death penalty inserted into the body politic
because God knew that the hearts of men were growing evil, more
evil, and more evil since the fall. We call that the noetic
effect of sin. And so in order to keep humanity
from killing itself without punitive consequences, God established
a law. If a man kills, kill him. That cuts off. The inclination
for sinful people to just want to kill thinking that the worst
thing that can happen is I'll be abandoned or exiled like Cain
was That make some sense. God knew we were evil And he
knew if we didn't have a penalty that was equal to our killing
Then we would destroy ourselves. He was right Then it goes on
into what we call the promise in abraham's day But there was
government in Abraham's day, conscious and innocence in Abraham's
day. And then we have the law of Moses. We have the age of
grace called the church age. And then you notice the final
one is called what? Do you guys see that? Again, I say these
are really problematic because the kingdom actually goes all
the way back to the beginning. If your theology is right, Adam
was a king. You understand that? Noah was
a king. Abraham was a king. David was
a king. Obviously what they're talking
about is a certain stage of manifestation of the kingdom called the Millennium
Subsequent to that let's work through this right here right
here and we'll be done here Here are the distinctions between
a dispensational premillennial view and the other views Right
here. It starts with Israel like all
the rest right the monarchial rule and it goes to the cross
here Do you see this? But immediately upon the affirmation
of the cross work of Christ, you have these brackets. You
guys see these brackets? This is what is called in premillennial
dispensational theology a parenthesis period. Put the word parenthesis
there. And what they meant by a parenthesis
period is a cessation of God's dealing with Israel until this
church age period is over with. You guys see that? that's what
that means we'll continue to build on that but I just want
you to see that assumed by this bracketing is that Israel has
been set aside for a side for a period of time to come back
once the church is out of the world that's typical traditional
pre-millennial theology you guys who have studied it you know
that you know that Israel is kind of in this sleeper state
while the church is doing something else. And by the way, therefore,
there is no ontological connection between the church and Israel.
Like they make a complete distinction between the two, right? Like
Israel is not the foundation upon which the church is the
ultimate manifestation. Which is my position, that Israel
was the seed form of what ultimately would be manifest in the church.
that Christ is the bridge between Old Testament and New Testament,
where both become the Israel of God, Jew and Gentile called
the Church of the Living God. This is my position. So that
all of the nomenclature and terminology and appellations that are connoted
to Israel in the Old Testament, the priesthood, the kingship,
the role of prophet, the role of servant, which are all terms
that correspond to the role of Christ, are also attributed to
the church, is it not? Is not the church a priesthood?
Is it not a kingdom? Are we not sons of God? Are we
not children of Abraham? And so forth. And this is why
apostolic doctrine, and I would write this up here, apostolic
doctrine affirms the continuity between old Israel and the Israel
of God, Galatians chapter six. Apostolic doctrine, when you
read your New Testament, including the words of Jesus in Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John, apostolic doctrine affirms the continuity
of relationship between the church and Israel by all of the terminology
and appellations given to Israel pointing to Christ being fulfilled
in Christ and then extensively or co-extensively through the
church. So that the church is literally
called the Israel of God. The Israel of God then in our
millennial theology, in my view, makes its way to this tribulation
period. But according to dispensational
premillennial theology, once we get here and we don't know
where we are here, here's what happens. The church gets what?
Rapture. You guys see that? The church
gets raptured. But it gets raptured before what? The second coming of Christ,
before the establishing of the Jewish resurrection. which takes
place at the end of the seven-year what? Do you guys see that? Right, so the graph is really
helpful, isn't it? But you see the distinctions
that are being made by our premillennial dispensational brethren. What
they are doing is preserving a whole future that leads into
eternity where Israel is the prominent player in the millennium. This here covers all your Bible
from Revelation chapter 3 forward, as they would assert it. They
would assert that Revelation chapters 1, 2, and 3 are part
of the church promises to the church. But when you open up
chapter 4, It's from Revelation 4 all the way to Revelation 22.
This is all about Israel. Even the eternal state that you
have in Revelation 22 where it says, and I saw a throne and
him that sat on it and I saw the lamb and there was a great
river flowing out of that and two trees on the other side of
the river. What we have the beatific vision and that Edenic language
all over again and the people of God serving him and they shall
see his face and there'll be no more tears and no more crying.
Notice what a premillennial dispensational view does. which I've argued
against. A premillennial dispensationalist
view basically does away with the church. You see no church
here, do you? Do you see a church anywhere?
No images of the church. Watch this. No images of the
cross. Let me show you something here.
Let me show you something here. And this is simplistic, but the
system for them gets really bad. The church disappears here somewhere. And that when Jesus talks about
it, he gets disappeared here where Jesus comes back, but he's
in the air. Isn't that what he's saying?
He's going to be in the air and he's going to call his elect
first. That's the only chapter four. And they'll be caught up
with Jesus kind of ruling in heaven somewhere in this mystical
space up here, just bland space up here while the world is still
going on. And it's going to be Jewish centered after the tribulation. So when the church ends, ends
this seven year tribulation, you see how they have explicitly
established seven years. That's why I told you to write
it down before, because they explicitly established a seven
year period of which I argue you don't find the word secta
or secton for seven anywhere in the New Testament dealing
with any kind of covenant for seven years. Nowhere in the New
Testament. And if I were to begin to deal
with my premillennial dispensational brethren, I would first say,
establish a seven year covenant theology scripturally. Show me
where you get seven years starting at the point in which the church
gets raptured. And then when you tell me in
the middle of that covenant, which is how many years, three
and a half years in the middle of that covenant, three and a
half years that now the antichrist rises up. Now we have this concept
called a three and a half year period, right? Well, that terminology
is certainly old Testament, the book of Daniel, a time of times
and a half a time. But then it carries over into
the book of Revelation, right? 42 months, time, a time and half
a times, and 1260 days. Three forms of the same language. Are you guys hearing me? When
you read the book of Revelation, it doesn't talk about seven years.
It only talks about three and a half years. But when we deal
with the three and a half year period in the book of Revelation,
you are forced to consider that that three and a half year period
is simply symbolic of the last half of the dispensation. We would have to get into that
as we would work it through. The assumption is, is that these
are literal seven years. But I want to show you something
to help you understand that that would be a little bit problematic.
Here's where Christ is crucified, right? If we hold to an AD 33
position, We would say that Christ started his ministry in the year
A.D. what? Twenty-nine. A.D. twenty-nine
and a half to A.D. thirty-three. He would have had
a ministry that lasted how many years? Three and a half years,
right? His ministry lasted three and
a half years. That three and a half year period would correspond
to this tribulation period here if in fact we're dealing with
an Antichrist rising up like Christ for three and a half years.
But before Christ there was another marked three and a half years
that was very significant. What was that three and a half
years? John the Baptist. John the Baptist ministry started
about the year A.D. 26 and it went three and a half
years. And when he died Jesus took over,
right? For three and a half years. That would encompass how many
years? Seven years, right. Put the seven years right there.
The reason why I say that is because if you were to go back
to Daniel chapter 924 and work through the 70 weeks of Daniel,
which is a key element there, you would realize that there's
a last week of Daniel, the last week, the last of the 70 weeks,
69 weeks are accounted for. And then there's this last seventh
week, seven sets of years that many theologians say was the
beginning of Jesus's ministry. that the last week started at
the ministry of Christ, went three and a half years to his
death. So that all we have left is three
and a half years that covers the whole church age. Do you
guys get that a little bit? Okay, so we might talk about
that in the future, but I'm saying for those who use Daniel chapter
9, 24 through 27, as a grid for understanding when Jesus came,
when his ministry started, how that last week works out, They
don't see a seven year tribulation period at all. We don't know
how long the tribulation is gonna go concretely. And this idea
of a man of sin rising up, entering into a covenant, the question
I would raise here is, what covenant? You guys hear me? So what I would
say is, remember what I stated earlier, you got an old covenant,
right? Then you got a what? Right, I'm asking what covenant
is he gonna enter into? What covenant, what theological
covenant would he enter into? Is he going back into the Davidic
covenant? Is he going to the Abrahamic
covenant? I thought both of those covenants were fulfilled in Christ.
See what I'm getting at? So for me, the antichrist here
is a system that looks a whole lot like the group that killed
Jesus. So after the seven year tribulation
period, Jesus second coming comes and this is what is called what
kind of resurrection? Jewish resurrection and then
once the Jews are resurrected they go through a millennial
period that lasts how long? Thousand years. Notice the Star
of David, right? Guess what's not there? There's
no gospel here. This is the rule of the Jews
of the Jews over the what? World. Then finally an apostasy. See this apostasy? Put Revelation
20 here and where it states that Satan, who was bound for a thousand
years, will be loosed for a small period of time. And then after
that, Jesus will come, bring judgment on him, and then we
enter into the eternal state. That's pretty good, dealing with
four forms of eschatology in about an hour and a half. We
learned a lot, and we didn't learn much at all. So I'm gonna
let you guys go, and then we'll get back here next week, and
we'll look at Revelation 20. Let's pray. Father, thank you
for your time. Thank you for your word. Thank you for these
students who are willing to be refreshed by end time studies.
We know that you know. And we know that we are called
to study to make our calling in election sure and to make
sure that we are learning how to rightly divide your word.
And as your proverb puts it in chapter 14, verse 15, the simple
believe every word, but the prudent look well to they're going. May
we not be simple but prudent. May we be careful in our studies.
May we say yay, yay, and nay, nay. If we know, then we know. If we don't, we don't know. Keep
us humble enough to acknowledge that. And as we go, give us traveling
mercies. We pray in Jesus' name. God bless
you guys.