Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Restoration and Reformation



Restoration and Reformation
John P. Sartelle
"From the time Jesus began to preach, saying.' Repent. For the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 4:17). What was the first word spoken by John the Baptist and Jesus as they came preaching? Each of them returned from his sojourn in the wilderness proclaiming the same thing. (Matt. 3:1-2; 4:17). The word repent conjures up a picture in our minds of a wild-eyed man with unkempt hair carring a sign: "Repent, the end is near." That is exactly the image Satan wants us to have. Many evangelicals avoid the subject of repentance because of that connotation. We must be reminded that the two greatest preachers and leaders of Christian reformation began their initial sermons with the word repent. True reformation begins with repentance,
What did John and Jesus have in mind when they called people to repentance? Their hearers were sinners from the heart whose lives exhibited characteristics alien to the kingdom of heaven. Thus they were calling them to renounce their sin and take on a new character. There is a false and incomplete repentance that confesses a sin and even develops an animosity and aversion to that sin, yet does not adopt the righteous characteristic opposite the illicit behavior. It is not good enough that the penitent eschews greed, Jesus calls him to a gospel generosity. Hence, genuine repentance leads to reformation - a reformation of the repentant individual and society. The authenticity of a Christianity that does not change individuals and societies must be questioned.
Repentance and reformation are born from a change in the inner man wrought by God. Man, with his arrogant ego, wants to produce reformation by his own strength. Such was the shallow sanctification of Nicodemus. Outwardly, he was the epitome of religious obedience. Inwardly, he was full of putrid corruption. Jesus' initial statement to him pertained to a spiritual rebirth in the inner man (John 3:3) The secular world preaches a reformation of outward behavior ( the utopian great society) fashioned by the power of education, capital, or government. Such institutions are only placebos that will not reach to the depth of mankind's depravity. Repentance that produces reformation begins deep in the inner recesses of the heart.
If sin corrupts every part of our being ( and it does), then there must be repentance and reformation in every part of our lives. Sometimes we are wont to say the gossip or jealousy or prejudice is our besetting sin. We ignore other areas of our lives, thinking they are quite right with God and others. Who of us can say we have no need of repentance and change? As a Christian, I know that every aspect of my life is in need of daily repentance, and if it is in need of repentance, it is in need of reformation, There is a reformation continually thanking place in the Christians life from the moment of his conversion until he is called home. The man or woman who has been a Christian seventy years is still repenting, growing in Christ, and being reformed by the Holy Spirit.
There has always been a tendency to "spiritualize" repentance and reformation so that they do not reach the mundane details of our "real" lives. For instance, the young Christian is often taught that if he desires genuine sanctification he must go into some ministry serving the church. Many of us teach Sunday school, sing in the choir, or serve as officers in the church, thinking these are the only ways we can really express our love for Christ when we live in the secular world during the week. When John the Baptist cried to the crowds to repent, some tax collectors and soldiers came to him and asked, "What shall we do?" (Luke 3:12, 14) John did not tell them to leave their vocations (and many viewed those specific vocations as inherently evil). He did not tell them to become prophets or priests. He told them to repent of the sins usually prevalent in their line of work and to bring a godly character to their careers.
For many years I was privileged to meet with five ministers of very large churches on a regular basis. These conservative churches had a combined membership of 48,000 members. I once asked these ministers what percentage of their congregations understood that they were called of God to serve Him in their vocations. Each minister thoughtfully considered the question and gave his answer. Not one estimate was over ten percent. Ninety percent of these congregations were not bringing repentance and reformation to the places where they spent the majority of their week. We are called of God to bring heartfelt repentance and reformation to every area of our lives and His world. Over the last century, Christians in our society have abandoned the institutions of media, government, education, arts, business, and so on. The strange truth is that we abandoned these institutions in the name of Christ. We must ask, " What Jesus were we serving?" Certainly not the Jesus whose first preached word was repent as He sought to bring restoration and reformation to a lost creation

Saturday, December 4, 2010

We Believe the Bible and You Do Not



We Believe the Bible and You Do Not

by Keith Mathison
Not too long ago, in an effort to get a better grasp of the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, I was reading the chapters on the sacraments in Francis Pieper's Christian Dogmatics, and I ran across this statement: "The difference between the Lutheran Church and the Reformed in the doctrine of Baptism is fully and adequately defined by saying that the former believes God's Word regarding Baptism, the latter not" (vol. 3, p. 269).
Let that one sink in for just a moment. Here we have one of the most respected Lutheran systematic theologians of the last century saying that the difference between his church and the Reformed over baptism can be summed up as follows: "Lutherans believe the Bible, and the Reformed don't." It's just that simple, right?
When I first read this, I was a bit taken aback. How could a theologian as brilliant as Pieper so casually ignore the role of interpretation on this point? Why could he not see that this is not a matter of disbelieving the Bible, but of disagreeing with the Lutheran interpretation of the Bible?
I recalled, however, that this kind of statement in regard to the sacraments goes back to the sixteenth-century debates between the Lutherans and the Reformed. In his debates with the Lutheran Joachim Westphal, John Calvin was almost driven to distraction by Westphal's repeated claim that Jesus' words "This is my body" allowed of no interpretation. One either believed them or one disbelieved them. In the historical context of the Lutheran-Reformed debates, then, Pieper's statement is not terribly unusual.
If you are Reformed or Baptist, what is your immediate reaction to Pieper's statement? Do you accept his claim that the only difference between you and the Lutherans on the subject of baptism is that Lutherans believe the Bible and you don't? Or do you think that his statement is a poor excuse for an argument? Do you think it is a fair statement, or do you think it is somewhat self-serving?
Lest I be accused of picking on my Lutheran brothers, ask yourself this question now: "How many times have I seen my theological heroes use essentially the same kind of argument in different theological disputes?"
I don't know about you, but as I reflect on it, I can recall numerous times when I've seen this "argument" in action in my own theological circles. When I was a dispensationalist, the common thought was that the difference between premillennialists and everyone else was fully and adequately defined by saying that premillennialists believed God's Word regarding the millennium while amillennialists and postmillennialists did not. We believed what God said in Revelation 20. Amillennialists and postmillennialists did not believe what God said. Case closed.
When I was a Baptist, I regularly heard it said that Baptists believed God's Word concerning believer's baptism while others did not. As a Presbyterian, I've heard it said that Presbyterians believe God's Word concerning the promises to the children of believers while the Baptists do not.
I've heard this line of argument used in disputes involving the Sabbath, the days of Genesis, theonomy, the gifts of the Spirit, church government, you name it. In every dispute over the meaning of some biblical text or theological point, it seems that someone eventually throws out some version of the line: "The simple fact of the matter is that we believe what God clearly says here and you don't." When both sides in a given debate do it, the result is particularly edifying.
Re-read the Lutheran quote in the first paragraph. Do you (assuming you are not Lutheran) find it persuasive when it is said of you that the only reason you do not accept the Lutheran understanding of baptism is because you do not believe God's Word? Probably not. But we find that same kind of statement very assuring (and persuasive) when it is said in support of a doctrine or interpretation that we happen to agree with.
The problem with Pieper's statement is that he does not allow for any conceptual distinction between the infallible and inerrant Word of God and his own fallible and potentially errant interpretation of that Word. Thus, to disagree with his interpretation is to disagree with God. But this is obviously false. Presbyterians and Baptists do not reject the Lutheran doctrine of baptism because they disbelieve God's Word. They reject it because they think Lutherans have misinterpreted God's Word.
The fact of the matter is that people who believe equally in the authority and inerrancy of Scripture sometimes disagree in their interpretation of some parts of that Scripture. We know God's Word is not wrong, but we might be. God is infallible; we are not. We are not free from sin and ignorance yet. We still see through a glass darkly. In hermeneutical and theological disputes, we need to make an exegetical case, and we need to examine the case of those who disagree with us. It proves nothing to make the bare assertion: "We believe the Bible and you don't."

Friday, September 10, 2010

A Colossal Fraud



A Colossal Fraud

by John MacArthur

 
Former NASDAQ chairman Bernie Madoff ran a ponzi-scheme swindle for nearly 20 years, and he bilked an estimated $18 billion from Wall-Street investors. When the scam finally came to light it unleashed a shockwave of outrage around the world. It was the largest and most far-reaching investment fraud ever.
 
But the evil of Madoff's embezzlement pales by comparison to an even more diabolical fraud being carried out in the name of Christ under the bright lights of television cameras on religious networks worldwide every single day. Faith healers and prosperity preachers promise miracles in return for money, conning their viewers out of more than a billion dollars annually. They have operated this racket on television for more than five decades. Worst of all, they do it with the tacit acceptance of most of the Christian community.
 
Someone needs to say this plainly: The faith healers and health-and-wealth preachers who dominate religious television are shameless frauds. Their message is not the true gospel of Jesus Christ. There is nothing spiritual or miraculous about their on-stage chicanery. It is all a devious ruse designed to take advantage of desperate people. They are not godly ministers but greedy impostors who corrupt the Word of God for money's sake. They are not real pastors who shepherd the flock of God but hirelings whose only design is to fleece the sheep. Their love of money is glaringly obvious in what they say as well as how they live. They claim to possess great spiritual power, but in reality they are rank materialists and enemies of everything holy.
There is no reason anyone should be deceived by this age-old con, and there is certainly no justification for treating the hucksters as if they were authentic ministers of the gospel. Religious charlatans who make merchandise of false promises have been around since the apostolic era. They pretend to be messengers of Christ, but they are interlopers and impostors. The apostles condemned them with the harshest possible language. Paul called them "men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain" (1 Timothy 6:5). Peter called them false prophets with "heart[s] trained in greed" (2 Peter 2:14). He warned that "in their greed they will exploit you with false words" (v. 3). He exposed them as scoundrels and dismissed them as "stains and blemishes" on the church (v. 13).
Those biblical descriptions certainly fit the greed-driven cult of prosperity preachers and faith healers who unfortunately, thanks to television, have become the best-known face of Christianity worldwide. The scam they operate ought to be a bigger scandal than any Wall Street ponzi scheme or big-time securities fraud. After all, those who are most susceptible to the faith-healers' swindle are not well-to-do investors but some of society's most vulnerable people - including multitudes who are already destitute, disconsolate, disabled, elderly, sick, suffering, or dying. The faith-healer gets lavishly rich while the victims become poorer and more desperate.
But the worst part of the scandal is that it's not really a scandal at all in the eyes of most evangelical Christians. Those who should be most earnest in defense of the truth have taken a shockingly tolerant attitude toward the prosperity preachers' blatant misrepresentation of the gospel and their wanton exploitation of needy people. "But we don't want to judge," they say. Thus Christians fail to exercise righteous judgment (John 7:24). They refuse to be discerning at all.
How many manifestos and written declarations of solidarity have evangelicals issued condemning abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, and other social evils? It's fine, and fairly easy, to oppose wickedness and injustice in secular society, but where is the corresponding moral outrage against these religious mountebanks who openly, brashly pervert the gospel for profit 24 hours a day, seven days a week on international television?
Advocates of abortion and euthanasia don't usually try to pass their message off as biblical. The people who say we need to redefine marriage haven't portrayed themselves as an arm of the church. But the prosperity preachers deceive people in Jesus' name, claiming to speak for God - while stealing both the souls and the sustenance of hurting people. That is a far greater abomination than any of the social evils Christians typically protest. After all, what the prosperity preachers do is not only a sin against poor, sick, and vulnerable people; it also blasphemes God, corrupts the gospel, and profanes the reputation of Christ before a watching world. It not only tears at the fabric of our society; it also befouls the purity of the visible church and abates the influence of the true gospel. It is surely among the grossest of all the evils currently rampant in our culture.
In the weeks to come, we're going to be looking at the preposterous claims and false teachings of some of religious television's best-known figures. We'll analyze why a disproportionate number of celebrity faith-healers and prosperity preachers have succumbed to serious immorality. And we'll see what Scripture says about how Bible-believing Christians ought to respond. I hope this series will challenge you to take a more active stand against the phony miracles and false teachings that are being peddled in the name of Christ.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist, Part 4





Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist, Part 4

Selected Scriptures

Code: 90-337

Now tonight as we continue our study on the future of Israel, I want to begin by reading you a portion of Scripture. Open your Bible, if you will, to the forty-fourth chapter of Isaiah, Isaiah chapter 44 and without a lot of comment on this text from the forty-fourth chapter, I want to read for you a few selected portions which I think will provide a foundation for the things that I want to say to you tonight.
While you're turning to that, let me just say that this is the fourth message in a series on the future of Israel. It also is tied in to the wonderful biblical doctrine of sovereign election, God's sovereign election of the nation Israel for a future. That really sums up what we're looking at.
As you look at the forty-fourth chapter of Isaiah, there are a number of portions of this text that I want to draw to your attention. First of all, verse 6, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and His Redeemer, the Lord of hosts, I am the first and I am the last and there is no God besides Me. And who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it, yes let him recount it to Me in order, from the time that I established the ancient nation and let them declare to them the things that are coming and the events that are going to take place. Do not tremble, do not be afraid, have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me or is there any other rock? I know of none."
In those few verses, God identifies Himself as the Lord the King of Israel and Israel's Redeemer. He is a God who fulfills what He proclaims and what He declares, who brings to fruition what He establishes, who declares things that are yet to come and events that have not yet taken place.
If you look further into the chapter, down to verse 21, again God is the speaker and He says, "Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are My servant. I have formed you, you are My servant. O Israel, you will not be forgotten by Me."
And then looking at the future salvation of Israel, God says, "I have wiped out your transgressions like a thick cloud, and your sins like a heavy mist. Return to Me for I have redeemed you. Shout for joy, O heavens, for the Lord has done it. Shout joyfully, you lower parts of the earth. Break forth into a shout of joy, you mountains, O forest, and every tree in it, for the Lord has redeemed Jacob and in Israel He shows forth His glory."
Previews of that great and final redemption of Israel were seen in Israel's recovery from activity. Isaiah prophesied that the children of Israel would be taken into captivity and they would be recovered from captivity, but that would only be a historical preview to the great redemption that God had planned for the nation. In verse 24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the One who formed you from the womb, I the Lord am the maker of all things." That is to say, I do what I will to do. It cannot be any different. 
In chapter 45 and verse 17, Israel has been saved by the Lord with an everlasting salvation. You will not be put to shame or humiliated to all eternity. In chapter 46 of Isaiah and verse 9, "Remember the former things long past, I am God there is no other. I am God there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done saying, My purpose will be established and I will accomplish all My good pleasure." And what is that? Verse 13, "I bring near My righteousness, it is not far off, and My salvation will not delay and I will grant salvation in Zion and My glory for Israel." Here is God affirming His nature, affirming His purpose and affirming His promises to Israel, promises that ultimately bring about the redemption, the salvation of Israel and God manifesting His glory through that salvation.
To put it simply, God has already written history. God has already written history to its end. All history is really His story. It is all moving in the direction and toward the objectives that He has already designed and already determined. And Scripture is not vague about the end. In fact, Scripture reveals much about how the world will end and how redemptive history will come to its final consummation. And as we've been saying in this series, looking at the end, looking at doctrines of , eschatology the study of the eschaton in the Greek meaning the end, we have come to the conclusion that the cornerstone of all eschatology is Israel. The foundation of any understanding of end times is an understanding of God's future promises to the Jews. The history of the world is really the redemption of the world. In fact, history is redemptive at its heart. Man was created in order that God might call to Himself a redeemed people. And history goes on until that redeemed people have been called, until the elect are all gathered in. And the final element of God's redemptive history, the culminating element is the salvation of a future generation of ethnic Jews because that is exactly what God has promised.
As I said in the beginning of this series, the future fascinates everybody...everybody. It also frightens most people. And many people seek to understand it, many people seek to predict it. There are the doomsday prophets who tell us the worst about the future and then there are the hopeful folks who try to put the best spin on it. People are fascinated by the future even in a fantastic way, a science fiction way, a very unreal way. But Scripture tells us the truth about the future. In fact, Scripture records the future before it happens. That's why when God talks about something that's going to happen in the future, He speaks of it in the past tense...I have redeemed Israel...even though it hasn't yet happened.
But to understand  eschatology, to understand the biblical doctrines that relate to the end of redemptive history and therefore the end of human history, and therefore the end of the age and also the end of the universe as we know it, one must understand the role that Israel plays in this because it is the cornerstone. We have been saying, if you get the future of Israel right, you're going to get  eschatology right. If you get the future of Israel wrong, you're going to get wrong. If you get Israel wrong, you're going to find that everything else is a muddle and you're left with  eschatology nothing but confusion and therefore the diminishing of the glory of God in our eyes.
God made promises to Israel. He made unilateral, unconditional, irrevokable promises and covenants with Israel. In those covenants He included the promise of a great nation, a land defined in boundaries, blessing through Israel, blessing to the world, salvation, the Messiah and a great glorious Kingdom in which the Messiah would rule in Jerusalem, Israel would become the center of the whole world and from His throne in Israel in Jerusalem, Messiah would rule the entire world, wisdom and knowledge would pervade all the world and righteousness and peace would dominate. The book of Revelation tells us this Kingdom would last for a thousand years, after which this entire universe as we know it is dissolved and God creates a new heaven and a new earth which is the eternal state where the righteous will live in joy forever.
Now the fulfillment of God's purposes in the end will come only when a future generation of Jews repents and acknowledges Jesus Christ as Messiah and Lord. Only then will God bring salvation to Israel, only when He brings salvation to Israel will the Messiah come and establish His Kingdom. That is the sequence in Zechariah 12 through 14, as you, no doubt, remember. They look on Him whom they've pierced and they mourn in repentance, putting their faith in the very one they pierced. God then opens a fountain of cleansing. They are washed from their sins and the Kingdom follows because Messiah returns.
The Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, the establishment of His messianic Kingdom then is contingent upon the salvation of a future generation of ethnic Jews who will collectively understand the horrors of the crucifixion of Christ and embrace Him as their Lord and Savior. Will it come to pass? It will come to pass, it must come to pass because God promised it would come to pass and God refers to it as a future promise that He will fulfill. In fact, God calls Israel, "My elect...Israel, My elect." We all understand that the gifts and callings of God, as Romans 11 says, are without repentance. If God elects some to salvation, He is bound to fulfill His purpose. Strangely then, so strangely, there is a widespread and deep-seated idea in Christian theology that Israel is no longer in the plan of God, no longer part of the purpose of God, that Israel has forfeited all claims to God's promises because of unbelief, because of rejection to Christ Israel has forfeited all the promises, covenants and blessings. They are all canceled because of Israel's apostasy. And, in fact, the church made up of Jew and Gentile is now the recipient of all the promises once given to Israel. They are now for us because Israel did not believe, Israel rejected Christ and we have accepted Christ and believed and therefore we have earned the right to replace Israel. In fact, this view is called "replacement theology." The church replaces Israel, the church is now the Israel of God and all the promises given to Israel are for the church.
I think the strangest part of this view is that it is dominant among those who are Reformed in their theology and who hold most tightly to the doctrine of divine election. And we ask the question, "How can someone who believes in divine and sovereign election and who understands clearly that Israel is God's elect, chosen for a future salvation to come, believe that God has canceled out His elective purpose?" This is very strange, and so I've said that the idea of replacement theology is better suited to an Arminian view of theology where God promises things, pledges things, gives things that can be lost, forfeited or taken back. It belongs in an Arminian environment but certainly not in an environment of Reformed theology.
So the popular view in Reformed Theology is that there is therefore no Kingdom coming for Israel. In fact, there is no earthly Kingdom at all, no actual fulfillment of promises given to Abraham, David or through Jeremiah and Ezekiel in what was called the New Covenant given to Israel, no millennium at all and therefore this view is called Amillennialism.
Now in order to make this view work, you have to manipulate the Scripture because this isn't stated in Scripture anywhere. You have to violate the normal rules of interpretation of Scripture to avoid the obvious meaning of Scripture. And the biggest issue is that you have to say that when the Bible says "Israel," it doesn't mean Israel. And that we have covered in detail and won't go over it again.
So to sum it up simply, just to catch up, having missed the last three weeks, Amillennialism denies the plain meaning of Scripture and the nature of divine, sovereign election...pretty serious things to deny. In our previous consideration then, I told you that the key to  is what we could call Judeo Centrism, getting Israel in the right place. Why then would a eschatology anybody deny this? Historically if you go back, and I gave you a little bit of that last time, you can get the CD on that, historically if you go back and study it, it really is the product of early, anti-Judaism...not anti-Semitism, that is to say it's not a racist idea, but it's anti-Judaism, it is against Judaism as a religion that rejected Christ. It showed up very early in church history, fairly well formed by Augustine, the fourth century. That becomes the footing or the root system that develops into modern replacement theology. So what I'm trying to help you do is clear all that out and go back and take a biblical look at this issue of Israel in the future.
Now in order to do this effectively, I've posed a series of questions. So let's jump back into our questions tonight. These questions will lead us into the teaching of the Word of God. Question number one...Is the Old Testament Amillennial? Is the Old Testament Amillennial? Frankly I don't think there's anybody that says it is. That is to say, does the Old Testament deny a future Kingdom? Answer: Of course not...of course not. And we looked in detail at this question at the Abrahamic Covenant, at the Davidic Covenant, at the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36 and 37. And we pointed out that all of these Covenants promise all those things that I reiterated to you a moment ago, a King and Kingdom, and blessing, and salvation, and blessing the world, etc...possession of the land, further descriptions of Kingdom life, long life, prosperity, the flourishing of peace and righteousness, paradise regained, if you will. The Old Testament is precisely clear on this and all of the promises that relate to the future of Israel and the Kingdom to come are unilateral, unconditional, irrevokable promises which God made and to which God bound Himself. So we have to answer the question...Is the Old Testament Amillennial?...with a resounding no.
Second question, "Were the Jews of Jesus' day Amillennial...Were the Jews of Jesus' day Amillennial?" Which is to ask the question...How did people in the day of Jesus interpret the Old Testament? Had something happened in the four hundred years between the end of the Old Testament and the time of our Lord when the New Testament is being written, had something happened in that period of time to change the interpretation that they put on the Old Testament? How did the Jews of Jesus' day interpret the Old Testament promises?
This is an easy question to answer, very easy really. And I want to give you a sort of summation of it and then take you to a couple of passages to look at it. It was back in 1880 that a man named Amel Schurer, S-c-h-u-r-e-r, wrote a book on this very subject, 1880. And Schurer had done a very definitive study on existing Jewish   eschatology at the time of Jesus. What did they believe about the future? What did they believe about the promises of God? It lays out Jewish  eschatology and what they believed concerning Old Testament Covenant promises. Here's the sum of it.
Messiah is coming but His coming will be preceded by a time of severe trouble. Sound familiar? That's what the Bible calls the Great Tribulation. That's what they believed even without the New Testament. Jewish  eschatology at the time of our Lord also believed that before Messiah comes, Elijah or one like Elijah would come. Jewish  affirmed that Messiah comes and He will be a Son of David who will exercise power to set  eschatologyup His Kingdom on earth in Israel and fulfill all the promises made to Abraham and the patriarchs and to David. This study points out, as well, that Messiah in His coming and the establishment of His Kingdom must wait for the repentance and salvation of Israel. The Jews also believed that the Old Testament taught that the Kingdom would be established in Israel and Jerusalem would be the capital city. They also believed that dispersed Jews scattered around the world would be gathered from around the world into the land for that great Kingdom. They also believed that the Messianic Kingdom would extend to cover the whole earth and the whole of human society around the world would be dominated by peace, all people would worship Messiah, no one would resist Him, even those who did not worship Him in heart, there would be no war, only joy, gladness, health, prosperity. They also believed that the temple would be rebuilt because that's what Ezekiel says in Ezekiel 40 to 48, and temple worship would be at its apex. The eschatology  of the Jews at the time of our Lord is precisely the   eschatology that I believe because it's what the Bible teaches. They were just interpreting the Old Testament in its normal sense.
They also understood that there would be renovation of the world because that's what Isaiah said would happen. They also understood there would be a general resurrection, Daniel 12, of the righteous, there would be final judgment and they even understood that there would be a new heaven and a new earth because that also is specifically prophesied by Isaiah. So at the time of our Lord, nothing had changed in terms of how you interpret the Old Testament. They interpreted the Old Testament in the normal sense anybody would interpret it and their  eschatology reflects that.
Now to look at some biblical indications of this, go to the gospel of Luke...and we could spend a lot of time going to a lot of places, but let's just stick with our beloved Luke with whom we have walked for so many years. Luke chapter 1 verse 67, this is Zecharias, the father of John the Baptist, is filled with the Holy Spirit, he has been given a message that he's going to be the father and his wife, Elizabeth, is going to be the mother of the great prophet who will be the forerunner of the Messiah, the herald of the Messiah. Messiah is coming, he now knows that. He will have a son though he and his wife have been barren and they're likely in their eighties and past the possibility of conceiving children. They've never been able to anyway, but now they will miraculously give birth to a son. He will be the forerunner of the Messiah, therefore the Messiah is coming. Zechariah is filled with praise and he says this in verse 68, "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel for He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people, has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David, His servant." The first thing they understood was the Messiah would come, He would come to reign, He would come to save and He would come from the house of David. That is to say, they understood literally and normally what the Old Testament prophesied. Verse 70, "As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old, salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us." This would result in the priority, the preeminence of Israel in the world. Instead of being abused and hated and embattled, they would rise to a time of glory. This God would do, "Showing mercy toward our fathers, to remember His holy Covenant, the oath which he swore to Abraham, our father, to grant us that we being delivered from the hand of our enemies might serve Him without fear in holiness and righteousness before Him all our days."
Pretty clear. Here is an Old Testament priest, this man is a priest, Zacharias. This man is a priest like a whole lot of other people who function as priests in the land of Israel. He is still in an Old Testament environment, pre-Christ. He understands the Old Testament, he's a student of the Old Testament, he is a priest as one who studies the Old Testament, teaches the Old Testament. His understanding is this, the Messiah comes, the Messiah fulfills the promise of God to bring redemption to Israel, which we read about in Isaiah 44, He comes as a horn of salvation, He comes in the house of David, He comes to assert the primacy of Israel. He comes to end the tortuous treatment that they have endured at the hand of all their enemies. He comes to remember His holy Covenant made to Abraham, He comes to grant holiness and righteousness. That's all related to Old Testament Kingdom promise. "And you, speaking as it were to his son yet to be born, John the Baptist will be called the prophet of the Most High, you will go on before the Lord to prepare His ways, to give His people the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins because of the tender mercy of our God with which the Sunrise from on high shall visit us to shine upon those who sit in darkness in the shadow of death and guide our feet into the way of peace." He's coming to save Israel. He's coming to bring salvation to Israel.
Our course Zacharias would have assumed that all of that would have happened at His first coming. The fact that it didn't happen at His first coming is no justification to assume that it will never happen and that some other people have taken Israel's place. They understood that when Messiah comes, salvation comes to Israel and the fulfillment of Davidic and Abrahamic promise and New Covenant salvation. All the verses in that benedictus of Zacharias, everything he says is built on Old Testament texts related either to the Abrahamic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, or the New Covenant. It is Old Testament Covenant language. And the essence of what Zacharias is saying is, Messiah comes, it will all be fulfilled. This is what they expected.
Turn to Luke 17 for a moment. The Pharisees were probably the most notable students of Scripture, assisted by the scribes who did the grunt work of the text and theology to provide them with the right beliefs. Jesus in this constant encounter with the Pharisees is confronted here in Luke 17:20, having been questioned by the Pharisees. And what is it they're asking? As to when the Kingdom of God was coming. Now what does that tell you? That tells you that the Pharisees, the elite, the fundamentalists, the scholastics, the purveyors of Judaism to the populous believed that a real Kingdom was coming. That's what they believed. That's what they assumed.
Go to chapter 19. Chapter 19 verse 11, and you will remember this, we talked about it recently...
"And while they were listening to these things," this, of course, just after Jesus has left Jericho and He has a great crowd to whom He is speaking, "He went on to tell a parable because He was near Jerusalem and they supposed that the Kingdom of God was going to appear immediately." What does that tell you about how they interpreted the Old Testament? There was only one way to understand the Old Testament, a real Kingdom is coming. And it's going to come immediately. The Pharisees want to know when is it coming, when is it coming? And here they expect it to come immediately. You remember now this is just at the very beginning of the...the fever that starts to strike the crowd as Jesus approaches Jerusalem for His triumphal entry. They think it's coming and it's coming now. He's arrived finally to bring the promised Kingdom. There is no other way to understand the Old Testament promises. The Old Testament is not Amillennial and the generation of Jews at the time of our Lord were not Amillennial. They believed in the coming of the promised King and Kingdom.
Well let's ask the third question. "Was Jesus an Amillennialist?" That's a strange question, isn't it? Was Jesus an Amillennialist? Did He bring the shift? If there's going to be a shift, I would venture to say it ought to be at the point of our Lord. Nothing in the Old Testament, nothing in the Old Testament gives any hint of the cancellation of Kingdom promises which include the land, the primacy, the reigning Messiah, salvation, and all of those things, nothing in the Old Testament hints at it. Nothing in the 400 years between the Old and the New Testament developing in Jewish theology indicates that there was any sense in which anyone interpreted it any differently than that. So if it's now changed and if it no longer is to be believed that there is a real Kingdom for Israel, as defined by the Old Testament, the shift probably should come with Jesus.
Turn to Acts 1, this is, to put it mildly, an extremely definitive text...extremely definitive text. It is a text that one is hard-pressed to get around if one wants to hold to the cancellation of God's promises and replacement theology. This is post-cross, this is post-resurrection, therefore it is post-rejection, it is post-apostasy. It is after our Lord has said, "Your house is left to you desolate," Luke 13. It is after our Lord has said, "I will not answer your questions. You have enough light, you have rejected the light, I will give you no more light." It is after the Lord has pronounced a judgment on their apostasy. It is after the fickle crowd who hailed Him through most of the week turned on Him and screamed for His blood on Friday calling, "Crucify Him, crucify Him." It is after Israel's apostasy. Okay? That's important. In fact, Jesus has died, He has risen. And now we read in verse 3 to the Apostles whom He had chosen, mentioned in verse 2, He presented Himself alive after His suffering by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of 40 days. Now we're in to the 40 days between the resurrection and the ascension, Israel's apostasy is set, in fact we remember, don't we, that Jesus already declared in the nineteenth chapter of Luke, verses 41 to 44, that there would be a siege against Jerusalem. He predicts the destruction of Jerusalem and reiterates it later in Luke's gospel before He was crucified. Judgement has already been pronounced on Israel.
And so during this 40 days, Jesus is speaking. What's He speaking about? Listen to this. "Speaking of the things concerning the Kingdom of God. And gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem but to wait for what the Father had promised which He said you heard of from Me, for John baptized with water but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." For 40 days, okay? 4-0, He taught them concerning the Kingdom of God. Verse 6, here's the telling verse, "So when they had come together, they were asking Him saying..." listen to this question, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the Kingdom to Israel?" Do you understand the importance of that question? They had just had 40 days of instruction about the Kingdom of God and after 40 days of instruction concerning the Kingdom of God, they only had one question...and the question is not...why did You cancel the Kingdom? The question is not...why is the Kingdom now spiritual and not for Israel? They have one question, verse 6, "Is it at this time You are restoring the Kingdom to Israel." He must in 40 days have affirmed to them unmistakably that the Kingdom promised to Israel was still coming. The only question was...what?...when? It's unmistakable. And this is His response in verse 7, "Where did you get that crazy idea?" Is that what it says? "Where did you get that wacky notion? Have I wasted My 40 days trying to tell you that you've been replaced and you don't get it? You blockheads."
No. He said to them, "It's not for you to know...what?...times, seasons, which the Father has fixed by His own authority." In verse 6 they use the word "restoring." This Greek verb, apokathistano, means to restore. And interestingly enough in all Jewish sources, it is a technical eschatological term for the end time. They're asking an eschatological question, is it at this time that the final Kingdom promised to Israel will come? And Jesus' only answer is, "It's not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed, set, appointed." By the way, that in the Greek is a...that is tithemi, an aorist middle which means reflexive, fixed for Himself by His own authority. So the idea of "by His own authority" is intensified by the middle voice which is reflective in the Greek language. The time that the Father has fixed for Himself by His own authority is not for you to know. If Jesus was an Amillennialist, this is the moment in which He must declare Himself. This is the perfect question for Him to answer by saying, "Didn't you hear what I've been saying for 40 days? It's cancelled, it's not going to happen. I am now an Amillennialist. And that's what you all need to be. You have been replaced by a yet to be identified new redeemed people called the church, made up of Jew and Gentile."
There's one other note to make in verse 6 that must have been a part of their teaching in the 40 days. "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the Kingdom to Israel?" They knew from 40 days of teaching that there would be a Kingdom and there's only one who would be able to bring that Kingdom and it was Christ Himself. And He affirms it. This is His perfect opportunity to announce that He is Amillennial, His perfect opportunity to affirm replacement theology, or as scholars call it, Supersessionism where the church supercedes Israel. This is His moment to establish once and for all there will be no earthly Kingdom for Israel, no national fulfillment of Abrahamic, Davidic and New Covenant promises, to tell them all the church will come, the church will receive all of the promises. And what was once physical promises will become spiritual promises because Israel has rejected Him and crucified Him. This was the perfect time to say, "Don't you know that that was only going to happen if Israel received Me? What they did to Me cancels everything. Forget all those Old Testament prophecies and covenants made to Israel, forget the idea that Israel is God's elect...no more, it's all cancelled."
Well all of what Jesus says is it's not for you to know times and seasons. That's all. And if, think this one through, if Israel's rejection of Christ, apostasy and crucifixion of Christ cancelled the Kingdom for them, then we would have assumed that if they wanted to receive the Kingdom, they would have had to embrace Christ and not kill Christ. And if that had occurred, then there would be no salvation for anybody. Are we to assume then that the cross is an adjustment, plan B, a contingency, a reaction to an apostatizing Israel? Did He not Himself say that He was born to die? Did He come to give His life a ransom?
At the end of Luke's gospel in the twenty-fourth chapter, verse 25, He said to those disciples on the road, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken, was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?" The Old Testament promised the suffering of Christ. The Old Testament promised the crucifixion of Christ. Psalm 22 describes it, Isaiah 53 describes it, the sacrificial system of the Old Testament typifies it, Zachariah 12:10 talks about Him being pierced. Same chapter, Luke 24:44, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the prophets in the Psalms must be fulfilled, including that Christ should suffer and rise again the third day." The Old Testament prophesied His resurrection, Psalm 16, "You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption, but show Him the path of life."
The cross was the plan. It is not an afterthought. It is not an adjustment to Jewish apostasy. It is the plan. Listen to our Lord's words in Luke 18:31, "He took the Twelve aside and said to them, Behold, we're going to Jerusalem and all things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished, He will be delivered to the Gentiles, will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him." Matthew says, "Crucify Him." "And the third day He will rise again." He says that will happen. He predicted every detail of His suffering and His death. The cross is the plan. It is not an afterthought, it is not Plan B.
When Jesus came the first time, He came in humiliation. When He came the first time, He was born to die. When He came the first time, He came to provide the sacrifice to propitiate God's justice as a satisfaction for the sins of all who would ever believe in order that sinners could be redeemed, including Jews and Gentiles and in the end a whole nation of ethnic Israelites.
Was Jesus an Amillennialist? No, not at all. Did Jesus promise a Kingdom and then take it away because Israel didn't believe when He prophesied their unbelief and His own execution because it was going to happen and even prophesied the betrayal of one Jew named Judas and even prophesied the amount of money for which the Messiah would be sold? No. Israel's rejection of Christ was written by God. It doesn't diminish their guilt and was not a reason to cancel the promises. In fact, it was necessary for the fulfillment of the promises that He bear sin and rise from the dead. Jesus was no Amillennialist.
And He also knew what God knows, that no people and no person can believe apart from God's sovereign election. Sinners are willing in the day of His power, says the Old Testament. If God cancelled promises because sinners didn't do what sinners can't do, then this is complete folly. The cross was the plan, not an afterthought and not Plan B. The Kingdom is not conditional on what men do. History is God's story. He writes it and He wrote into it His rejection and His crucifixion and His resurrection. It's pretty important, I think, if you're going to be an Amillennialist, to face the fact that Jesus won't join your group. I would like to think if I had a theological group that Jesus would join it. That would be an indication that I was right.
Now that poses a second critical New Testament question and a fourth question overall...were the Apostles Amillennialists? Maybe it shifted on their watch, huh? Maybe the Holy Spirit revealed to them. There's got to a verse somewhere, right? Where's the Amillennial verse? Where is it? Where is the replacement verse? It's got to be in the Apostles and Jesus didn't say it, it must be the Apostles. And if you want to find out about that, be right where you are next Sunday night cause our time is gone and this part gets really rich. Join me in prayer.
Your Word is so thrilling and refreshing and clear and it is such a treasure, Lord, to be able simply to understand it. We thank You that it's not convoluted, mystical and esoteric, allegorical, that it can just be understood in the normal way we understand language. It's so important to us, Lord, that You don't cancel Your promises because we're banking on the fact that You won't cancel the ones You made to us in Christ. We're resting on Your irrevokable Word. We're resting on Your faithfulness. We're banking our entire eternity on it, that You don't change. You are the Lord, You change not. You do what You say, You fulfill what You prophesy. You bring to pass what You promised. You keep Your Covenants. And we depend on that. Father, we rejoice that history is unfolding exactly the way You designed it. And how stunning is it to know that the Jews are still with us while all other ancient people have disappeared in the amalgam of time. They're still here and they're even occupying a portion of the original promised land. How wonderful to know that some day they will look on the one they pierced, mourn for Him as an only Son, repent, exercise faith in the very one they crucified and a fountain of cleansing will be opened to them, they'll be washed from their iniquities. An entire generation will be purged, the rebels will be taken out and that generation will be saved...a hundred and forty-four thousand of them, the book of Revelation says, will become evangels to the wide world, proclaiming the gospel across this planet. And when Israel comes to repentance and Israel becomes evangelistic with the gospel, there will be salvation and people will redeem...be redeemed out of every tongue and tribe and people and nation across this world. And then Christ will come to fulfill His promises to them and to all the saints of all the ages who will together with Israel enjoy all the glories of the Kingdom and of eternal life. This is how history ends, how we rejoice in Your unfolding purpose. And how we rejoice that we're a part of that. Even if we are gathered to be with You before this begins, we'll come back with You to reign in this glorious Kingdom and forever. You are the God of history, You have prewritten it and it moves inexorably down the path of Your eternal purpose. All things are in Your hand. Your purpose will be accomplished and no one can alter it. We rejoice in that confidence, give You all the praise and glory in Christ's name. Amen.

 

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist, Part 3









Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist, Part 3

Selected Scriptures

Code: 90-336

We are in the middle of a study of eschatology, focusing on Israel.  We are at the beginning of the bigger study of eschatology, but kind of in the middle of studying the role that Israel plays in eschatology.  If you wonder what eschatology is, that is a long word, it basically means the study of last things, from the Greek word eschatonwhich means last things.  What does the Bible say about the end of the world?  What does the Bible say about the end of history? What has God planned for the end? 
And what I've been saying to you is that it matters greatly to God how redemptive history ends because the whole purpose of it is bound up in how it ends.  The reason there is a created universe, the reason there is humanity, the reason there is a purpose unfolding in redeeming sinners, they're all focused in one direction and that is toward the great consummation, the great end in which God will be glorified.  God is moving everything sovereignly to His own purposed, glorious end.  And what is wonderful for us is that He has revealed so much about it in the Bible. There is so much that we can know about the end. 
The book of Revelation, as we mentioned this morning, tells us the most.  That's why we wanted you to pick up a free copy of the book, Because The Time is Near, so that you would have your own copy, it would help you to understand the wonderful truths of the end laid out in the book of Revelation.  And we're going to go through those elements of the end that are revealed in Scripture as the weeks go by.

But Scripture is very clear about one thing.  Foundational to any accurate understanding of the end is an accurate understanding of the future of Israel.  This is the cornerstone of biblicaleschatology .  What I've been saying is pretty simple.  If you get Israel right, you're going to get eschatology right.  If you don't get Israel right, you will never get  eschatology right.  It is impossible to fully understand biblical teaching about the end times apart from understanding the future of Israel, the future of ethnic Jews in God's plan.  And if you don't get Israel right, then your eschatology is confused and you cannot be blessed and you cannot give God appropriate glory and you cannot have a full hope for what lies ahead so that His glory is diminished, your joy and blessing are diminished as well.  Getting Israel right means understanding what God has promised to do with Israel for Israel in the future.  That all goes back to the Old Testament where God made irrevokable, unconditional, unilateral promises and covenants to Israel to be fulfilled in the future.  And within those covenants, He promised that the nation would one day be saved, a generation of ethnic Jews would be saved, that they would inherit their originally promised land which God pledged to Abraham, that they would become a blessing to the whole world, that they would enjoy a Kingdom over which God's anointed King, the Messiah, would rule from Jerusalem with justice and righteousness and peace for a thousand years, that He would rule the whole world from Jerusalem, Israel being given a special place of blessing.  This must come to pass because God has chosen Israel for this purpose in the end.  It is then a matter of election.  Israel is God's elect.  The Bible calls Christ, "My Elect."  The Bible calls the church, "God's Elect." And the Bible calls Israel, "My Elect."  And thus it is strange, very strange, that it is the very historic theology of sovereign election whose advocates have denied this to Israel. 
In the theological world where people believe in the doctrine of election more strongly than anywhere else, they are more prone to deny Israel's election than anywhere else.  In fact, they have come up with the idea that the church, God's new and present elect, receives all the promises once given to Israel, all those promises and covenants having been cancelled to Israel because of Israel's apostasy, Israel's unbelief, and Israel's rejection of Christ, they then being permanently set aside, all the promises come to the church. 
Where did this come from?  And I want to answer that a little bit tonight because you are very careful in how you consider the things I teach you and I know the question will come up because it's already come up, how could they ever arise at such an idea?  Where did it come from?  There is no verse in the Bible anywhere that says the promises of God to Israel have been cancelled and the church is the new Israel.  You can't find that in the Bible.  The question then is, where did it come from?
Well it started historically with a man named Augustine in the fifth century.  And because he is such a formidable and shaping theologian who really was the main influence in the lives of people like John Calvin and Martin Luther and John Owen and many other formidable students of Scripture, it has the power of these great names behind it.  The idea then, which really began in a formal sense with Augustine, flowed down through these great Reformers and found honor among those who rightly honor the Reformers and so it has long survived. 

However, reformed theology, as such, is hard pressed to prove the point.  And, in fact, Reformed exegesis, that is the discipline of interpreting the Scripture, works very hard, I think, to manipulate the Scripture to avoid the obvious.  They have come up with a view called amillennialism which says there is no Kingdom for Israel, and for that matter there is no earthly Kingdom period.  It denies then certainly a future earthly Kingdom for a generation of ethnic Jews in which Christ reigns on earth and fulfills all the Old Covenant promises.  Rather it is called replacement theology.  The church replaces Israel and the blessings are spiritual.  The Kingdom then becomes only a spiritual Kingdom and a heavenly Kingdom and not an earthly one at all.  In order to make this work, as I said, they have to work really hard at moving their theological points around and they have to do some very manipulative exegesis to avoid what is clearly in the Bible.  Scripture then has to be removed from its normal sense and placed in a category of interpretation so that it doesn't mean what it appears to mean, as basic as Israel doesn't mean Israel.
So to say it simply, to hold the view of amillennialists, called replacement theology, that the church replaces Israel in the promises of God, Israel as God's Elect is no longer God's Elect, cancelled out, to come up with this idea that there therefore is no real earthly Kingdom to fulfill those promises and that they are fulfilled in the spiritual life of the church both now and in heaven, you have to deny the nature of divine sovereign election.  You have to basically say that when God called Israel His Elect, and when God gave them unconditional, unilateral, irrevokable promises, He didn't keep them, or He doesn't keep them, so that election doesn't mean permanent election, it might be temporary as in the case of Israel.
I don't know anybody who believes in the doctrine of election who thinks its temporary with the elect angels, or temporary with the elect Son or temporary with the elect church, so this has to be a category invented to accommodate replacement theology.  The second thing that has to happen is, you cannot interpret Scripture in the normal meaning, the normal sense in which it is written both in the Old Testament and the New Testament because clearly in both testaments promises are made to Israel.  Therefore Israel doesn't mean Israel, a thousand years doesn't mean a thousand years, reigning in Jerusalem doesn't mean reigning in Jerusalem, it means something else...something not apparent in any normal interpretation of the language.  So you can see there are some extremes here in trying to make this work theologically when you have to reinvent the doctrine of election which is so sacred to us and when you have to change the normal meaning of the language.
Now, I want to having said that, say this, that throughout history there have been some in Reformed circles of great note who didn't buy this.  I am particularly, as you probably known, drawn more to Scottish Reformed theology than I am to Dutch Reformed theology.  And one of my favorite Scots in the area of theology is Horatius Bonar.  He's a nineteenth century preacher, Scottish preacher and theological writer.  In 1847 he wrote prophetic landmarks and he took a position very different from his Reformed friends, very different.  He was always a strong advocate of the doctrines of sovereign grace.  He was always a strong advocate of the doctrine of election.  He affirmed as well that election was forever and therefore affirmed the primacy of the destiny of the Jews in the scheme of .  eschatologySo he was going against the grain of his day and his compatriots.  This is what Bonar wrote in 1847:  "The prophecies concerning Israel are the key to all the rest.  True principles of interpretation in regard to them will aid us in disentangling and illustrating all prophecy.  False principles as to them...that is Israel...will most thoroughly perplex and overcloud the whole Word of God,"eschatology end quote.  And that's right back to what I said and when I said it I hadn't yet found Bonar's comment.  He says you can't get  right if you don't get Israel right.

He further wrote of his conviction as to biblical clarity on this matter.  And his language is so magnificent that it needs to be thoughtfully repeated.  So let me read to you what Bonar wrote in 1847.  "I am one of those who believe in Israel's restoration and conversion, who receive it as a future certainty, that all Israel shall be gathered and that all Israel shall be saved.  As I believe in Israel's present degradation, so do I believe in Israel's coming glory and preeminence.  I believe that God's purpose regarding our world can only be understood by understanding God's purpose as to Israel."  Now remember, this is a time long before they had ever been gathered back into their land.
He went on to say, "I believe that all human calculations as to the earth's future, whether political or scientific, or philosophical, or religious, must be failures if not taking for their data or basis God's great purpose regarding the latter day standing of Israel.  I believe that it is not possible to enter God's mind regarding the destiny of man without taking as our key or our guide His mind regarding that ancient nation, that nation whose history so far from being ended or nearly ended is only about to begin."  He went on to say this, "He only to whom the future belongs can reveal it.  He only can announce the principles on which that future is to be developed.  And if He set Israel as the great nation of the future and Jerusalem as the great metropolis of earth, who are we that without philosophy of science we should set aside the divine arrangements and substitute for them a theory of man?  Human guesses concerning the future are the most uncertain of all uncertainties and human hopes built upon these guesses are sure to turn out the most disappointing if not the most disastrous of all failures.  I believe that the sons of Abraham are to re-inherit Palestine and that the forfeited fertility will yet return to that land, that the wilderness and the solitary places shall be glad for them, and the desert will rejoice and blossom as the rose.  I believe that meanwhile Israel shall not only be wanderers, but that everywhere only a remnant, a small remnant shall be saved.  And that it is for the gathering in of this remnant that our missionaries go forth.  I believe that these times of ours are the times of the Gentiles and that Jerusalem and Israel shall be trodden down of the Gentiles till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.  I believe that the completion of what the Apostle calls the fullness of the Gentiles will be the signal for the judgments which are to usher in the crisis of earth's history and the salvation of Israel and the long-expected Kingdom."
Why did he believe that?  Because that's exactly what the Bible says.  I love the comment of Barry Horner who has written a new book called Future Israel, it won't be out until July.  It is the end of the argument, it's that good.  I got a pre-publication copy, 450 pages.  I couldn't put it down, I read right through it in two days.  And I thought, "This guy's been reading my mind."  And then I got a letter from him saying, "I heard your message that you gave at the Shepherds Conference, on this subject and I find myself tripping over my 'amens.'"
But in this amazing book, researched better than anything I've ever seen on the subject, scholarly and yet warm-hearted and readable, Horner comments on some of these men who were going against the grain of amillennialism, like Bonar.  In fact, he comments on Bonar's writing and says, "How refreshingly different is the attitude here from that of Augustine and Calvin.  Undergirding this teaching is not the eschatological blending of national Israel into mere shadowy insignificance and obscurity, but rather the acknowledgment that while grace has blessed the Gentiles in a grand manner, so too will the same grace of God according to the same sovereign purpose ultimately bless the Jewish people in a most climactic and triumphant sense," end quote.

Another writer, William VanGemerin(?), writing in the West Minister Theological Journal, 1983, said, "Israel is the hermeneutical crux in the interpretation of prophecy."  I love it when it comes out of Westminster Theological Seminary, which, of course, is a seed bed of amillennial thinking, but there are men and there always have been who take the Word at its face value.  The key to eschatology then is Judeo centrism, if you want to coin a phrase.  The key to  eschatology is Judeo centrism which alone provides the cohesive base to integrate the various features of biblical prophecy.  Still for centuries, right up until now, and I want to talk to you a little bit about this, there is a strong...let's use Barry Horner's term "Anti-Judaism."  There is a strong anti-Judaism, not Semitism...not anti-Semitism as though it were a racial thing, but anti-Judaism as though it is a religious thing.  There is a strong anti-Judaism in Reformed Theology saying Israel had lost its election, lost the right to all its covenants and promises.
For example, George Murray writing in Millennial Studies says, "To be sure the nation was sovereignly chosen by God, but God no longer deals with them as a chosen nation."  I don't want to put words in their mouths so there are their own words.  They were chosen, they aren't chosen anymore.  They were elect, they're not elect anymore.  Some contemporary anti-Judaism replacement theology, Anglicans, are so derogatory as to be anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian.  In fact, some of them, according to Horner, would be delighted if the Arabs pushed Israel right into the Mediterranean Sea.  This comes very clear in the book Future Israelwhich Horner writes is, quote, "Dedicated to the elucidation of the pre-mil perspective, especially as it focuses on national Israel that has been ignored, belittled, and distorted in Calvinistic Reformed and Sovereign Grace circles," end quote.  Pretty direct, but true.
Horner goes on to say, "The wrong perception of Israel and the Jews by so-called Christians has produced consequences of horrific proportions during the history of the church.  Such a shameful legacy perpetrated during the illustrious Reformation and onwards remains undiminished, largely unconfessed and still prevalent in substantial degrees up to the present within a Calvinistic Reformed and Sovereign Grace environment," end quote.  What he is saying is that while we're being told we ought to apologize as a nation for the early attitude in America manifest in slavery toward African/American people, we ought to start apologizing to the Jews for the way the American church has treated them with its replacement theology.
Based on chapter 12 of Genesis, if a Christian'eschatology s produces indifference toward the children of Abraham, or detachment from the children of Abraham, or antagonism toward the children of Abraham, you're in trouble because the Abrahamic Covenant says you bless them and God will bless you, you curse them and God will curse you.  The issue then is...does Israel have a future as a nation?  Scripture says it does.  Many in the Reformed tradition deny that.  Typical of this are the words say of a Dutch Calvinist, Herman Riterbosse(?)  in his book, Paul: An Outline of His Theology., I quote him, "The church then as the people of the New Covenant has taken the place of Israel and national Israel is nothing other than the empty shell from which the pearl has been removed and which has lost its function in the history of redemption."  It's over for them as a nation. 

Now you have to ignore the clear words of Zechariah 12 to 14, Ezekiel 36 to 39, Romans 9 to 11, particularly.  And you also have to do damage to your own understanding of sovereign grace because you are saying that Israel failed to believe, Israel failed to embrace Christ, and so Israel on its own failed to do what it was supposed to do.  By saying that, you would have to also say that Israel would have guaranteed its own place in the future purposes of God if on its own it had done what was right.  The problem is, nobody can believe except by the sovereign grace of God.  Israel has failed but that has not altered God's plan because the generation that is elect has not yet come.  To believe that the church somehow has earned the promises given to Israel because we pulled it off on our own and Israel didn't, that kind of thinking is foreign to our thinking of sovereign grace.  Do we fail to grasp that we as a church exist only by divine sovereign grace and that we are no more able to believe than the Jews were able on their own to believe?  Do we think that somehow we've inherited the promise because we were able to do what they were not able to do?  The truth of the matter is, we were enabled to do what they were not enabled to do because that generation has not yet come.  And if Romans 9 through 11, and we'll get to that, teaches anything, it teaches that salvation is by sovereign grace and election alone for the church now and many Jews that are brought into the church and for Israel in the future.  To make a human contingency or human achievement the factor in prophetic fulfillment is not true to the doctrine of sovereign grace.
So you're asking the question...How in the world did this idea get such momentum?  Well, as I said, it was Augustine, North African church father came up with this idea, established this idea that the church was the new Israel.  Thirteenth century, the church establishes Replacement as canonical law.  It becomes the official dogma of the church.
Let me give you a little bit of the history written by Robert Wistrick(?).  "Augustine even likened the Jewish people to Cain, the first criminal recorded in biblical history who had murdered his own brother and merited death but instead had been condemned to wander unhappily ever after." Augustine saw the Jewish people like Cain, alive but dispossessed, a perpetual wanderer.  "The Jews," Augustine said, "might deserve to be eradicated for their crime, rejecting Christ, but Augustine preferred that they would be preserved as wandering witnesses until the end time."  Witnesses to what happens when you reject the truth.  Augustine did suggest, however, that they would turn to Christ at the last judgment.  The canonical legislation of the church in the thirteenth century fully institutionalized the reprobate status of the Jew and the doctrine which the church called Servitus Judae Oram(???), the perpetual servitude of the Jews.  The Jews then had to be subordinate to Christians.  They could exercise no position of authority and Christian society had to be originally protected from contamination through living, eating, or engaging in any sexual relationship with a Jew.  That was church law.

The Lateran Council, thirteenth century, the year 1215, codified this to segregate the Jews.  And in the thirteenth century, the Lateran Council segregated the Jews by requiring them to wear distinguishing dress.  In Germanic lands they wore a conical hat and what they called a Jew-badge, usually a yellow disc sewn into their clothing whose color symbolized Judas betraying Christ for gold coins.  That's what was done to them in Latin countries.  The effects of the badge required to be worn and the conical hat were to make the Jews more visible and vulnerable to attack which reduced their ability to travel.  And so they formed ghettos, twelve hundreds.  The German Reformation a few hundred years later under Luther's guidance led to a very unfavorable direction for the Jews, seeded hatred sewn deep, Luther did nothing to remove it.  It eventually found its full flower in the Third Reich with Hitler.  And the German Protestants showed themselves amazingly receptive to Nazi anti-Semitism, it was so ingrained for so many centuries.  You can go back to the Council of Nicaea in 325, a council which was debating the nature of Christ, came up with the right understanding of the nature of Christ.  But in the documents of the Council of Nicaea, Jews are called "that odious people."
This attitude stuck and it stuck throughout the Middle Ages.  They were mostly resented, hated and often killed.  In the fourteenth century, Jewish books were burned.  At the end of the thirteenth century they were expelled from England by Edward I and allowed to come back 350 years later under Cromwell.  In 1144 in Norwich, England, the Jews were charged with killing their babies to drain the blood to use in the Matsos, the unleavened bread of Passover.  Of course in the sixteenth century, the time of the Reformation pervasive anti-Jewish attitudes pervaded in Europe.  Hikel(?)  Overman writing in a book, The Roots of Anti-Semitismsays, "Hatred of the Jews was not an invention of the sixteenth century, it was an inherited assumption."  And sad to say, the Reformation didn't change it.  Sixteen forty-eight, the Ukranian Jews were butchered and it is a strange and sad thing to say that in the last sermon that Luther preached before he died, he called for all Jews to be driven out of Germany.  He was fighting on another front, never really got around to dealing with that issue which was so ingrained in the culture.  This...this led to this Amillennial Replacement Theology and it became so ingrained.  Interesting further study that Barry Horner points out, the CRC, which is the Christian Reformed Church, Dutch Reformed Calvinism, squelched all pre-millennialism.  And interestingly enough, they...they would not tolerate anybody believing in a future kingdom for Israel.  Anybody who did was placed under investigation.  You could find that in their own history.  They actually went so far as to forbid preaching or discussing premillennialism.
Wystricks(??)says in his book, Anti-Semitism, The Longest Hatred, "The Augustinian theology reinforced the notion of the Jews as a wandering, homeless, rejected and accursed people who were incurably cardinal, blind to spiritual meaning, perfidious, faithless, and apostate, their crime being one of cosmic proportions merited permanent exile and subordination to Christianity."  One writer, W.J. Greer writing in the most...in the momentous event, said, "The power of Augustine is best seen in the fact that he removed the ghost of premillennialism so effectively that for centuries the subject was practically ignored." 

Now this actually continues to be an issue today.  In our modern world, our tolerant world, a world that embraces everybody and everything, there is still this subjective sort of impositional pre-suppositional anti-Judaism, if not anti-Semitism, not necessarily racist but this anti-Judaism mentality.  Melanie Philips, a Jewish columnist for The London Daily Mail, wrote a really amazing article about the Anglican Church hostility toward Israel.  This is some of which she said, "The church's hostility has nothing to do with Israel's behavior toward the Palestinians." And she wrote this after she went to a conference of the Anglicans discussing Israel and the Palestinians, the current situation.  This is what she wrote, "The church's hostility has nothing to do with Israel's behavior toward the Palestinians, this was merely an excuse.  The real reason for the growing antipathy was the ancient hatred of Jews rooted deep in Christian theology and now widespread once again, a doctrine," she wrote, "going back to the early church fathers, suppressed after the Holocaust, has been revised under the influence of the Middle Eastern conflict.  This doctrine is called...this is a Jewish writer...Replacement Theology.  In essence it says that the Jews have been replaced by the Christians in God's favor and so all God's promises to the Jews, including the land of Israel, have been inherited by Christianity."  That is Replacement theology.
You can go to websites like Christian Zionism.org, and other websites and find many Anglican leaders that are pro-Palestinian, think Israel has absolutely no right to the land.  Christian anti-Judaism is strong in the U.K., very strong, much to the delight of the two million Muslims that now live there.  It's interesting to find the quote/unquote Anglican church taking their view of Israel.  One writer, Colin Chapman, an Anglican who wrote Whose Promised Land?, question mark, says, "Israel is responsible for Hamas and Islamic Jihad."  He is supported, by the way, by such notable scholars as N.T. Wright who says, "Israel doesn't mean an ethnic people, but it means a worldwide family."  To support his own view, Chapman says, "The Old Testament is not the inerrant Word of God, it is simply a very ethno-centric interpretation of Israelitish history."
Well all of that, and that's probably more than you wanted to hear, but the things I say here go far and wide.  Do you understand that?  It's time for Bible-believing Reformed Sovereign Grace Christians who affirm scriptural inerrancy and legitimate interpretation to drop this tragic error and get Israel in the right place or we're never going to understand God's unfolding purpose, to say nothing of having some bad attitude toward these people...absolutely unacceptable.  That is not to say that the Israel of today in the land of Israel is God's people.  The race is chosen, a future generation will be saved, but present-day Israel lives in apostasy and unbelief and the rejection of Jesus Christ and can claim no protection from God now.  God will preserve them as a race.  God is not obligated to protect them currently as a people.  They are under divine judgment, as are all people who reject Christ.  But they do have a future.
Now that being said, I have very little time left.  But we need to look at the Bible for a moment.  I said I wanted to go through some questions to answer this dilemma.  Is the Old Testament amillennial?  Were the Jews of Jesus' day amillennial?  Was Jesus amillennial?  Were the Apostles who wrote the New Testament and those associates of the Apostles amillennial?  Were the early church fathers amillennial?  We're going to answer those questions and then give you some very important conclusions.
First question...Is the Old Testament amillennial?  We started, didn't we, last time with the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 12 and following chapters and we said that obviously God promised Abraham a seed, a nation, a land, blessing and through them blessing to the world.  Specifically, a nation...a nation that would grow like the sands of the sea and the stars of the heaven, a nation that would have a land and possess the land and be blessed and be a blessing to the world, and through that nation a seed, not just seeds, but a seed, as the Apostle Paul describes it in Galatians, meaning a ruler, a Messiah which assumes a Kingdom.  It's all in the Abrahamic Covenant, we saw that last time.
The second great covenant in the Old Testament is the Davidic Covenant.  Now I just want to show you that briefly.  Turn to 2 Samuel chapter 7...2 Samuel chapter 7.  Our intention is not to cover every aspect of this passage, but to draw out those things which are pertinent to answering the question...Is the Old Testament amillennial?  The Davidic Covenant, this is a covenant made with David.  It really is an expansion and an extension of the Abrahamic Covenant.  It's not something disconnected, it's something very, very connected.  Second Samuel chapter 7, verse 12, "When your days are complete," God tells David, "you will lie down with your fathers.  I'll raise up your descendant after you who will come forth from you and I will establish His Kingdom."  Now in verse 13, "He shall build a house for My name, I will establish a throne of His Kingdom forever."  So we know He's not talking about Solomon.  He's talking about a forever Kingdom.  He does speak of Solomon, the one who will be a son and commit iniquity and be corrected, but down in verse 16 He moves again beyond Solomon to the forever King and the forever Kingdom, "Your house, and Your kingdom shall endure before Me forever, Your throne shall be established forever."  God is saying to David, "Out of your loins, out of your line is going to come a King with an everlasting Kingdom."
Over in 2 Samuel chapter 23 we come to the last words of David as he comes to the end of his life.  And his last words are recorded for us here.  And if you'll drop down in to verse 5, this is what David knew to be true and what he said at the end of his life, "Truly it's not my house, so with God." In other words, to be blessed by the God of Israel, the rock of Israel, the one who rules is not my house so blessed for He has made an everlasting covenant with Me, ordered in all things and...what's the next word?...secured.  For all My salvation and all My desire will He not indeed make it happen?"  Will He not indeed...a better way to translate...do it?  It is an everlasting covenant.
What is promised to David?  A house, that is a progeny, a seed, a Kingdom.  And again, it sounds...go back to chapter 7...so much like the Abrahamic Covenant.  Verse 12, "I will raise up your descendant.  I will establish His Kingdom."  Verse 13, "I will establish the throne of His Kingdom forever."  Verse 16, "Your house, Your Kingdom shall endure before Me forever.  Your throne shall be established forever.  I will...I will...I will."  This extends the Abrahamic Covenant.  Yes a Kingdom, yes a King, and the King through the line of David, an eternal Kingdom that will not only bless the people who are the sons of Abraham, but a Kingdom that will bless the world.

Psalm 72, just quickly, Psalm 72 speaks of the reign of the great King who will come and establish His Kingdom and bring peace to the people, and verse 3, the hills in righteousness, and so forth, it goes on to describe this wonderful, glorious Kingdom.  This is a Psalm that speaks of an enduring name, verse 17, an increasing name that all the nations will call blessed.  Verse 18, "Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel who alone works wonders.  Blessed be His glorious name forever.  May the whole earth be filled with His glory, Amen, Amen."  David is celebrating here the wonderful promise of the King.  He will rule, according to verse 8, from sea to sea, from river to the ends of the earth, etc.  You can read it for yourselves.  Psalm 89 is another of these great Psalms of the King that celebrate the covenant that God made with David, and again Psalm 89 has those same magnificent characteristics of the Kingdom.  It ends with the same approach, verse 52, "Blessed be the Lord forever, amen and amen."  And Psalm 89 is directed right at the covenant God made with David.  Look at verse 35, "Once I have sworn by My holiness, I will not lie to David, his descendants shall endure forever and his throne as the Son before Me.  It will be established forever like the moon and the witness in the sky is faithful."  God is here binding Himself to this great covenant.  It is unilateral, I will...I will.  It is unconditional, God says I will do it, there are no human contingencies.  It is irrevokable, the language of Romans 11, the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, they are irrevokable.  It is a grant that can never be taken away.  There is no other way to interpret these covenants. 
But both the Abrahamic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant depend on one other covenant.  Let me show it to you.  Jeremiah 31...Jeremiah 31, this is all we will do for tonight.  Jeremiah 31, the Abrahamic Covenant expands in to the Davidic Covenant which expands in to the New Covenant which is the only way that the promises of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenant can come to pass.  This is the only means of fulfillment and it is the New Covenant.  Jeremiah 31 verse 31, also made with Israel, verse 31, "Behold, days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a New Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the hand of Egypt.  Not like the Mosaic or Sinaitic Covenant, the Covenant of Law, not like that.  "y Covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them, declares the Lord."
See here's the dilemma.  You have the Abrahamic Covenant with all its promises.  You have the Davidic promises with all its promises.  And how to do you get to the fulfillment of those?  You have then the Mosaic Covenant which only proves that they can't qualify for the blessings of the Abrahamic and the Davidic, because they can't keep the Mosaic.  So the Mosaic Covenant only curses them.  You've got to come to the New Covenant.  And the New Covenant isn't like the Mosaic Covenant.  "his is a covenant...verse 33...which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord."   And this is the kind of Covenant this is, "I will put My Law within them and on their heart I will write it and I will be their God and they shall be My people." That's the New Covenant.  It is that covenant which God promises one day He will change their hearts and write the Law inside of them.  And then He will be their God and they shall be His people.  And again would you please notice, this is the covenant I will make, I will put My Law on their heart, I will write it, I will be their God.  There are the "I wills" again, it is an unconditional, unilateral, sovereign, gracious, irrevokable covenant. 
How irrevokable is it?  Verse 35, "Thus says the Lord who gives the sun for light by day, and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night," this is reminiscent of the Psalm we just read, "who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar, the Lord of hosts is His name, the Creator God, the upholder of His creation, if this fixed order departs from before Me, declares the Lord, then the offspring of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever."

Wow, as far as I can tell, everything is still going the way it's supposed to, right?  The sun's doing what it's supposed to do.  The stars are doing what they're supposed to do.  The moons are doing what they're supposed to do.  And therefore God hasn't changed His mind.  "Thus says the Lord...verse 37...if the heavens above can be measured...and they can't...and the foundation of the earth searched out below...and it can't...then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done, declares the Lord."  There is in one passage the answer to Replacement Theology.  God is not going to cast off Israel even for what they have done.  And listen to this, the New Covenant was given through Jeremiah at a time when Israel's disobedience was so severe, they were punished by God.  They were under divine punishment, under divine judgment at the very time this covenant was given to them.  Jeremiah is what kind of prophet?  He is a weeping prophet...weeping over Israel's judgment, the captivity.  The New Covenant is not a reward for their faithfulness, it is given in spite of their unfaithfulness.  God says there will be a day when I will change their hearts sovereignly and I will be their God and they shall be My people.  "And they shall not teach again...verse 34...each man his neighbor and each man his brother saying, 'Know the Lord, for they shall all know Me'...the whole nation....from the least of them to the greatest of them,' declares the Lord, 'or I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will remember no more.'" There is a word for that..salvation.  This is the promise of salvation to Israel.  Promise them a seed, promise them land, promise them a Kingdom, promise them a King, but they can't have any of it unless God saves them.  And He will...and He will not change His plan anymore than He will allow the fixed order of His creation to be altered.  And when that Covenant comes, He'll write His Law on the inside.
We as Gentiles, how do we fit in?  Hey, we're going to be in the Kingdom.  We are the beneficiaries of all the promises to Abraham.  We have been blessed to Abraham, right?  Messiah is the Son of Abraham, we by faith are children of Abraham.  We will possess all those promises.  We'll be there in the Kingdom. 
What about the promises to David about a Kingdom and a King?  He's our King, too.  It's not exclusively Israel's.  It is the fulfillment of promises made to them, they are the witnessed people through whom God fulfills His promises, but they embrace the world.  The world is blessed as even before that, we are blessed in the tents of Shem because it was Shem who produced Abraham.  We'll be there in the Kingdom, we'll receive all the blessings of the glorious reign of Christ on earth whether we've been glorified before, or whether saints enter into the Kingdom who are alive at the time, we'll be there, all who believe.  We'll all receive the benefits of the reign of Jesus Christ on His throne.  And we all are saved on the terms of the New Covenant which is ratified in the blood of Christ on the cross and by the ratification of that blood He makes the New Covenant valid.  And we all enter in to salvation through the New Covenant, and He's written His Law in our hearts as well.  We all get in on all of it.  We're not denying that.  I'm not saying that we are not going to be the recipients of the promises to Abraham, promises to David and promises of the New Covenant given here to Jeremiah, we are all the recipients of those things as well, but not replacing Israel.  The New Testament includes the...the New Covenant, I should say, or the New Testament in His blood, the New Covenant includes the elements of the Abrahamic covenant and the Davidic Covenant.  If you go back to the early part of Jeremiah 31, even earlier in that chapter, just start reading the chapter, read all the way up to verse 30 and you're going to see some very physical blessings.  They're going to come in Jeremiah 31 to all of us, to the wider world.  We're either...we're even going to come under the great reign of the great King.  We're all going to serve the great King, all the nations of the world are going to come under His sovereign, righteous, glorious rule.  You find indications of that back in chapter 30.

If you want further details on the New Covenant, turn to Ezekiel 36, let me just very quickly have you look at Ezekiel 36 just so you have a little bit of familiarity with it.  This rehearses again the same terms, the same realities of the New Covenant.  Verse 34, "I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands, bring you into your own land.  Then I will sprinkle clean water on you and you will be clean.  I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols...here we go again...I will take you, I will sprinkle, I will cleanse.  Moreover, verse 26, I will give you a new heart, put a new Spirit within you.  I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh, give you a heart of flesh.  I will put My Spirit within you, cause you to walk in My statutes.  You will be careful to observe My ordinances.  You'll live in the land that I gave to your forefathers so that you will be My people, I will be your God.  Moreover I will save you from all your uncleanness."  Magnificent...magnificent language.
Verse 33, "On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the cities to be inhabited in the waste places to be rebuilt."  Now...He says, "Once I've cleansed you, the Kingdom comes and the desolate land will be cultivated, instead of being a desolation in the sight of everyone who passed by, and they will say this desolate land has become like the Garden of Eden, and the waste desolate and ruined cities are fortified and inhabited and the nations that are left round about you will know that I the Lord have rebuilt the ruined places and planted that which was desolate.  I the Lord have spoken and will do it.  Thus says the Lord God.  This also, I will let the house of Israel ask Me to do for them, I will increase their men like a flock, like a flock for sacrifices, like the flock of Jerusalem during her appointed feasts, so will the waste cities be filled with flocks of men and then they will know that I am the Lord."  I will...I will...I will...this is all sovereign work on God's part, there's no human contingencies.  God will do it.  In the language of chapter 37, "He will gather the dry bones of Israel."
Is the Old Testament amillennial?  Not hardly.  When God gave unilateral unconditional sovereign gracious promises to Israel, they will be fulfilled by an elect people in the future whom God will enable to repent and believe.  These promises are guaranteed by divine faithfulness and to be fulfilled like all His salvation work by divine power in divine time.  And when God says those promises are irrevokable, they are irrevokable and you cannot without impunity for any seemingly convenient idea or assumption say they are voided.
You say, "What about Israel's apostasy?"  Doesn't cancel the promises.  As I said, when He gave them the New Covenant, they were under judgment.  Furthermore, Jesus reiterates the New Covenant, ratifies the New Covenant in His blood at the very hands of the apostate Jews.  The New Covenant is reiterated to Israel through their own Messiah at a time when they were under apostasy and on the brink of judgment which came a few years later in 70 A.D.  But Israel will exist through these judgments until the covenants are fulfilled.

I just have to show you one other text so I don't have to go back over this.  Zechariah 12, quickly, verse 10...I did an entire study on Zechariah, it's available on tape, I did it many years ago, it's still just a riveting study.  Zechariah 12:10, just follow quickly, "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem...this is more New Covenant language...the spirit of grace and supplication...here it is...I will, I will, and they will look on Me whom they have pierced."  Wow.  In the future, God is going to pour out on the house of David, on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplication.  They will look on Me whom they've pierced.  They will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only son.  They're going to mourn for the Messiah that they crucified and they're going to weep bitterly over Him, like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.  "In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo, and the land will mourn every family by itself."  And it goes to listing all the family.  "In the day that they mourn, in the day that they look on the one they pierced, in that day...verse 1 of chapter 13...in that day a fountain will be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for impurity."  And what is the fountain going to do?  "Wash them and cleanse them.  And in that day, declares the Lord, here come the I wills...I will cut off the names of the idols from the land, they will no longer be remembered, I will also remove the prophets of the unclean spirit from the land," and so forth and so on.
Verse 8, "It will come about in all the land, declares the Lord, two parts in it will be cut off and perish."  Two thirds of the Jews will perish, one third will be left, that will be that final Israel that is saved.  "I'll bring the third part through the fire, refine them as silver is refined.  Test them as gold is tested.  They will call on My name, I will answer them.  I will say they are My people.  They will say the Lord is my God."  Finally this is how it ends.  And when that happens, verse 9 of 14, "The Lord will be King over all the earth, the Lord will be King over all the earth.  In that day the Lord will be the only one," there will only be one religion in the Kingdom, "and His name the only one.  All the land will be changed into a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem; Jerusalem will rise and remain on its site from Benjamin's Gate as far as the place of the First Gate to the Corner Gate and the Tower of Hananel for the king's wine presses.  People will live in it, there will be no more curse, Jerusalem will dwell in security."  Boy, that's good news, huh?  (Amen)  A secure Jerusalem.
Verse 16, "Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths.  It will be that whichever of the families of the earth doesn't go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain on them.  And if the family of Egypt doesn't go up or enter, there will be no rain falling on them; it will be the plague with which the Lord smites the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.  This will be the punishment of Egypt, the punishment of all the nations who don't go up to celebrate."  This is when the Lord reigns and He's going to call for the restoration of ancient feasts because now they will have new meaning.  And the whole world better come and worship.  Verse 20, "In that day there will be inscribed on the bells of the horses, 'HOLY TO THE LORD.'  And the cooking pots in the Lord's house will be like bowls before the altar."  Everything will become sacred, even the bells hanging on the animals. 
That's the Kingdom.  Clearly the Old Testament sees a Kingdom after a future salvation of Israel.