Keep sharing good news without ads.
Handout https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BjryWKcU5Yuholpp_CkbDgJn6H61tpeN/view?usp=sharing
All right, does everybody have a handout? Y 'all seem to like the handouts the last time that I was here. So as you know, we've been fielding questions through email. So the members of 12 Five have been sending in questions on Wednesday nights.
And so there's kind of three questions that I want us to tackle this evening. I thought I could kind of roll it all into one session. And so the first and biggest question is, has or did the church replace Israel?
So did y 'all see the Instagram out there? That's what I tried to draw everybody in with, with this very hotly loaded, controversial question. Okay, and so we're gonna talk about the relationship between Israel and the church, what that looks like.
I want us to also talk about the old covenant law and how it relates to the life of a Christian. And then on the back of your handout, I want us to kind of answer this question. How is the new covenant better than the old covenant?
And then this is where we're gonna all be mad at each other as we're working through the first question, but we're gonna end well. We're gonna end with saying, you know what? The new covenant is the covenant of grace and praise God that Jesus cannot fail in his high priestly ministry.
Okay, sound good? So as I was thinking about this question, has the church replaced Israel? Now, what I'm about to express is my view, okay? You can say, Jeremiah, I do not hold that view and we can still be brothers, we can high five, we can continue to sharpen one another.
So I don't want us to treat this as, well, if you disagree with me, you're wrong and we have no fellowship. In fact, my prayer is that this is one of those topics that we can continue to sharpen one another, right?
Sound good? Are we all on the same team in that? So as I was thinking about this topic, did the church replace Israel? It could be like asking this question. So you can look on your handout. It's like asking, did Isaac replace Ishmael?
Okay, so this is dipping back into your Old Testament memory, right? So I want you to be thinking about the two sons, Isaac, Ishmael, which one is older, which one was the child of promise, which one was the child of a bond slave, okay?
And so this is actually going to help relate back to the question. And so kind of from the initial premise that I'm operating from is Isaac and Ishmael are two different sons. And so the second son did not replace the first.
They're just two different sons with two different missions and there was only one son of promise, okay? So you're like scratching your head, how does that relate back to the first question? I'm glad you asked.
And the best way to begin this conversation is see these two bullet points? I want us to define, well, who is the church? What does that mean? And who is Israel? That's the dicey one, who is Israel, okay?
So I thought one of the best ways to start defining the church is turn with me to Galatians chapter one. Galatians chapter one, I want us to begin defining what is the church, okay? And so church comes from the Greek word ekklesia and its core is the called out ones, called out how?
Okay, so in Galatians chapter one, verse two, this letter is written to all the brothers who are with me, Paul says, to the churches of Galatia. So I want to submit to you, the church are the called out ones by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
That make sense so far? These are the called out ones. And so you are called out by the only gospel of grace. So in Galatians one, look with me at verse six. Paul says, I'm astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel.
Not that there's actually another gospel, but a said gospel that cannot actually save. Paul goes on in verse seven to say, not that there is another one, but there are some who are troubling you, trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preach to you, let him be accursed. So we see a few important phrases here, but this is the gospel according to the grace of Christ.
You'll hear me all the time refer to the true gospels, the gospel of grace, not a gospel of your works, but one that is grace. And since it's of grace, it can only be received by faith. Okay, so let me ask a question.
How are we defining the church?
What does that mean? Called out ones. Called out ones, called out how, right?
Does someone know the five solas of the Reformation? Someone help me out.
Wesley. Sola Dei or Gloria. Right. Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fidei, Sola Scriptus.
Yes, so these are the five alones of the Reformation that stand in contrast to what Romans stood for. We say, well, we stand on God's word alone as the ultimate authority in the Christian's life. We are saved by God's grace alone, nothing by our merit or our actions or our accomplishments.
In fact, we are justified by faith alone apart from works. And this is all in the context of in Christ alone. He's our sole mediator, not praying to Mary or any other saints or whatever. And then God gets all the glory alone.
So these are the called out ones. Now look with me at Galatians 2 16. This is more specific on how we are called out. Yet we know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, right?
You see a little bit of the Sola Fidei, faith alone and Christ alone. So we have believed in Christ Jesus in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of law, because by works of the law, no one will be justified.
So we are defining what it means to be the church, the called out ones. So look with me now at Galatians 3 verse seven. Paul says, know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. I'm wanting to press on a principle of continuity from Old Testament to New Testament to say that the church has always been those that have put their faith alone and Christ alone.
And so that verse kind of reemphasizes that. We know then that it is those of faith, the time of Abraham and even the churches of Galatia, the churches today, those of faith, we are sons and daughters of Abraham, spiritual offspring.
Okay? This is what it means when we define the church. Look with me at the closing verses in Galatians 3 in verse 28. So it is neither Jew nor Greek. There is neither slave nor free. There is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ by faith.
Doesn't matter if you're a male, female, Jew, Gentile, it's always by faith alone and Christ alone. That is how you are spiritual sons and daughters of Abraham in verse 29. And if you are Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring and heirs according to the promise.
So the church are the children of faith, those of the promise. Okay? So we've still not defined Israel. I want us to define, continue to define the church. Now I want you to see, this is essentially how I understand Paul, how he is defining the church.
So this leads us into Galatians chapter four. So this will actually be on your handout. And this right here will help us answer the question, has the church replaced Israel? Well, the church are the called out ones by grace alone, through faith alone and Christ alone.
And I still want defining Israel to kind of hang out there for a moment. So look with me at verse 21. Tell me, Paul says, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman.
So I want to pause. Who are we talking about? Who are the two sons and who are the mothers? Okay, Ishmael and Isaac. So raise your hand. Tell me some more of what you remember about these two sons. Anybody.
Could not have a child. And so she gave her bond servant woman to her husband. And then he had a child with her, which would be Ishmael, because they were not patient and could not wait on the Lord for Isaac.
Was that wise of Sarah saying, hey, here's a maiden, right? And she was mad about it too. It was her idea and she was mad about it, right? Now to make things more complicated, she was past the age of childbearing and she was barren.
Like she couldn't have kids. So the point is Abraham and Sarah took matters into their own hands because God said, I will bless your offspring as multitude of the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore.
You will actually bear children. And that was kind of unthinkable, but God made a promise, okay? And so there was going to be a child that carried that promise. Now I want you to think about this. Sarah recommended that Hagar be with Abraham.
And so they had a child, not of the promise, not of faith, but by the flesh and their own works and their own planning, okay? Now they had Ishmael first. So that did not nullify the promise of God. This makes sense because I want us to think about when we talk about Isaac and Ishmael, there was no son replacing the other one.
In fact, they made poor decisions. They took matters in their own hands, right? And Sarah got mad about it. And yet God still said, still going to honor my promise through you, okay? So
Aspect to that, that we often don't realize or think about, only God can create a life.
So Abraham and Sarah were taking matters into their own hands. Right. And they produced another child. But God created that life. God created life, but they were not trusting in the promise of God. He said that, I'll provide.
So that's, but that's what we're wanting to hang on to as we answer the question, does the church replace Israel? It's similar. And Paul's about to make this case. It's similar to asking the question, did Isaac replace Ishmael?
And the answer is no. Because even though they took matters into their own hands and they had a child of a bond slave, that's not the child of promise, right? I guess what I was trying to point out is,.
God knew about all of that and it was his plan to do that, to do so.
That's a great point. God is sovereign even in the midst of our disobedience. Okay. So look with me at, we'll look at verse 22 again. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman.
So who's the slave woman? Hagar. Hagar. And which son was hers? Ishmael. Ishmael. And one by a free woman. Who was that? Sarah. And her son was? Isaac. Okay, verse 23. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh.
I'm gonna pause. Think about this. Ishmael, they took matters into their own hands. They're the ones that produced them. That was not the child of promise. While the son of the free woman, Sarah, was born through promise.
And to Ms. Brenda's point, God is sovereign even in light of man's disobedience. God's promises are sure and true. Ishmael, or Isaac, did not replace Ishmael. Verse 24. Now this may be interpreted allegorically.
So this is what's super interesting. As Paul is saying, I'm giving you an analogy, an illustration. It's like, I want you to think about two different sons and we're about to relate this to the covenants, okay?
This is why I can't tell you for how many years, I guess I just skipped over this passage of scripture. Or I read it and I'm like, I don't know, right? So I want to show you how this directly is about to be tied back into the church and Israel.
Verse 24. Now this may be interpreted allegorically. These women are two covenants. Now let me pause. Any takers out there, what covenants do you think this is referring to? We're about to develop more of the context, but this is covenants plural.
Any thoughts out there?
One's the Mosaic covenant, one's the covenant of Abraham.
Yes, one is the Mosaic covenant. So thank Mount Sinai. Old covenant. And then you got the new covenant. Now this is what's really groundbreaking to me, is your Bible is divided into two testaments. Old Testament, New Testament.
Now that Testament is a will and really is a covenant that God made with man. And so what we're about to really continue to develop is all of redemptive history, which even our scriptures are divided up into.
Okay, so this is talking about the old Mosaic covenant and the new covenant. And listen, the new covenant that is exclusively the covenant of grace. It's really, really important as we're gonna continue to develop.
Verse 24 again. Paul says, we're interpreting this allegorically. These women are two covenants. So Hagar represents which covenant? Mount Zion. And another theological term that we talk about for the Mosaic covenant is we here at 12 .5 call this the covenant of works.
Okay, and the reason why we call it a covenant of works is when you have conditions, a list of commands, well, you have to work to obey or disobey, right? And so when you think about what God told Adam in the garden where there were conditions, don't do this, do this.
If you obey, blessing, if you disobey, curses or punishment, right? And so what we're gonna see is there is a covenant of grace that is totally night and day different than the Mosaic covenant, the Sinaitic covenant, the covenant of works is not the same as the covenant of grace.
In fact, grace and works don't mix, right? If you did, then you've abolished the gospel of grace and understanding the works of the Mosaic law, right? Grace and works are different. That's why when we talk about these five souls, we're saved by grace alone, through faith alone and Christ alone, not by your own works, okay?
So these are the two covenants in view, covenant of works, covenant of grace. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery she is Hagar, okay? So think about the imagery of the children enslaved at Egypt, they were enslaved.
And so when you have children of the flesh enslaved, you're enslaved to sin. When you're under the covenant of works that you can't fulfill, you are enslaved, right? Jesus said, he who sins is a slave to sin.
So in this analogy, that's what Hagar represents. This is Mount Sinai, okay? So verse 25, now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia. She corresponds to the present Jerusalem. Okay, now let's define our other word.
Did the church replace Israel? And I would say no, because that's like asking, well, did Isaac replace Ishmael? No, they're different sons and only one is the son of promise. So let's define Israel as the nation of Israel.
Those that are of flesh, those stiff-necked individuals that constantly were rebelling against God and he would have to raise up judges, kings, and they would repent and be restored, okay? So now the two categories that we're asking about, did the called out ones of faith replace the nation of Israel, okay?
This is what Paul is getting into and what I'm suggesting is no. The nation of Israel served many purposes of God. They were under the covenant of works and they failed. When you look back to Galatians chapter three, the whole point of the law was to look at it as a mirror and realize that you are a sinner in need of saving grace and an amazing savior who cannot fail, okay?
So I would argue, no, the church does not replace, the called out ones of faith do not replace the nation of Israel, different purposes, okay? So look at me at verse 25 again. Now, Hagar is Mount Sinai, the Sinaitic mosaic covenant in Arabia.
She corresponds to the present Jerusalem, the nation of Israel, for she is in slavery with her children, okay? They're bound in sin to this covenant of works that they cannot fulfill and will be held accountable to on the day of judgment.
Verse 26, but the Jerusalem above is free and she is our mother. So I wanna pause. I wanna submit to you now, we're talking about the church, the called out ones by grace alone through faith alone. This is the heavenly Jerusalem from above.
When we talk about being born again, it means to be literally born from above, okay? Two different children, one doesn't replace the other. We got the nation of Israel. They are not being replaced by the children of promise, okay?
So the Jerusalem that's from above, this is the church. She is our mother. Let's keep reading. For it is written from the prophet Isaiah, rejoice, O barren one, who does not bear, break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor.
For the children of the desolate, one will be more than those of the one who has a husband. I think the context of this verse from Isaiah is when the people, the nation of Israel were enslaved, there was a remnant and God is saying, you're gonna be restored.
So I'm wanting you to think about this principle. The church has always been the called out ones by faith. Now we're gonna get into on the backside, how you have believers in the Old Testament and you still have believers in the New Testament.
They were just under a time where the Mosaic law was present, but they were saved by the new covenant. In some sense, the saints of old, they were a part of heavenly Jerusalem by promise, okay? So it'd be safe to say.
Yes, so this is the direction we're headed, okay? Because we could say that no, the church doesn't replace the nation of Israel, but the called out ones today are the fulfillment of the believers of Israel in the old covenant.
My point is the true Israel of God, that's the church. That's the called out ones by faith. And that's the distinction that Paul makes is there's a present Jerusalem, nation of Israel, and then there's a heavenly Jerusalem that resides in heaven, our membership by faith.
Can you say that again? You were saying the called out ones of today or the contemporary?
The called out ones today are the heavenly Jerusalem. And that's back in verse 26. But the Jerusalem above is free. She is our mother. And so this idea of being from above, these are the ones that have been born again.
These are the ones that are trusting in Christ by faith alone. So this helps us answer the question, the church, the called out ones by faith do not replace national rebellious Israel. Rebellious national Israel, they are not God's people.
God's people are those of faith. They are the children of promise as we're gonna see Paul kind of continues to develop that thought. And so what I also wanna talk about is it's more accurate to say that the called out ones of faith, the church, are the fulfillment of the true Israel God.
The present Jerusalem is where Paul wrote that. Right. Right, so when Paul wrote that, think about the principle of continuity even from Old Testament, before 780 and after 780. Present Jerusalem is the rebellious national people.
Yeah, that's what I was wanting to bring out because it's not the present Israel today. Sure. It was the present Jerusalem when Paul wrote that. Here's what's interesting about present Jerusalem today is they are still rebellious against God.
And you know how I know that? They reject Jesus as their Messiah. They are in a sense the present Israel as a nation that's still rebellious. But it's true, like he wrote this before like the judgment of the destruction of the temple.
And what's being contrasted is a present Jerusalem, earthly, fleshly Jerusalem, with the Jerusalem that's from above. And we're starting to see the Jerusalem that's from above is the church. What he was just saying, think about Paul in the first century saying this Jerusalem.
He's talking about the nation of Israel. And I'm saying there is a principle that's true from the Old Testament time, you still had a nation of Israel of sorts. And Paul said this in the first century.
And I'm saying by application, it's still true today. There is a present Jerusalem that's rebellious against God. And my point is they are of Hagar. They are not the children of promise. The children of promise are those that look to Christ alone by faith.
So then I got Hagar's children, the Arabs.
Right, but here's the principle, that rebel against God. And they are not the children of promise. I get that, but they're not part of Jerusalem. They are part of, well, they're a part of the present Jerusalem, the fleshly Israel that's rebellious against God.
And here's the point that Paul's making. They are not the children of promise. Those are believers by faith alone.
I get that, but I don't get calling Hagar's children true Israel.
Hagar's children, the takeaway is they're not the children of promise. It's an allegory. It's an allegory. He says it's an allegory. So let's go ahead and continue. We got a lot of ground to take. Verse 28.
So we're talking about the church. We're defining the church. And we also defined Israel as present Jerusalem, rebellious nation of Israel. And they don't replace one another. They're just different. So now he goes back in verse 28.
He says to the called out ones by faith, the church. Now you brothers, like Isaac, are children of the promise. So this is good news. Believers, they inherit the promises of God. Not a rebellious nation, fleshly people.
The Jerusalem that's heavenly and from above that's been born again, they are the children of promise. That's his point. Verse 29. But just as at that time, he who was born according to the flesh, so this would be who?
Of the two sons. Which son is born of the flesh? Ishmael. But just as at that time, he was born according to the flesh, persecuted him, Isaac, who was born according to the spirit. So also it is now. Now, what Paul means there is Isaac is the child of promise, right?
Of divine favor, just like all believers that are born again. Those who are born again, they are the church. And as we're about to see here in a moment, they are the true Israel of God, not the fleshly rebellious nation, but they are part of the heavenly Jerusalem.
So verse 30. But what does the scripture say? Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit the son of the free woman. So there was a context back in Genesis 21.
There was, like we were talking about earlier, there was not a strong relationship between Ishmael and Isaac, right? Or Hagar and Sarah. There was animosity, and the child that was born of the flesh, right?
Which was who? Sarah eventually said, you gotta go, okay? Now, what's wild here is the application that Paul is using in this allegory. Those that are adding works to the gospel of grace are cast out and are not saved.
They are not children of the promise. I just want to make sure I'm understanding.
So Paul is saying, you're saying, we're interpreting this allegorically. It's not an actual allegory, because it's not fiction, right?
Oh yeah, so there's a narrative of all these stories that actually took place. So he's saying, take this story that we all know that's true, and I want to make a case about the covenants. Comparing and contrasting.
Comparing and contrasting, because you gotta think the audience, especially the Jewish audience, would understand these stories very well. And he's saying, take Sarah and Hagar. They're like the covenants, the covenant of works at Mount Sinai, and the covenant that's promised to come, covenant of grace that has a perfect mediator, the new covenant.
I just want to make sure. Oh yeah. Somebody could just say it's an allegory. Right, Paul's point is saying, let's take an illustration to talk about the covenants, and who is the children of promise? And his point is, the physical offspring of Abraham, they are not the children of promise.
It's those who are born from above, and have put their faith in Christ, they are the children of promise. So, great clarity. So before we turn the page, I want us to make sure, this is what I'm trying to say, we have to define the church, which are who?
The called out ones, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. And then, who is Israel? The present Jerusalem. This is the nation of Israel, ethnic Israel, fleshly Israel. Now look with me in Galatians chapter six, at verse 15.
This will give us a new definition for Israel, to complicate things a little bit. Okay, Paul says, for neither circumcision, which are the fleshly ethnic nation of Israel, right? For neither circumcision counts for anything.
It's important, God gave the command, but it doesn't count for anything in terms of salvation. Because we already read earlier, it doesn't matter if you're male or woman, Gentile, Jew, if you're in Christ, then you can be saved.
You can have your sins forgiven. So neither circumcision counts for anything, to salvation, or uncircumcision, but a new creation. Doesn't that sound like born again language, right? All things are brand new.
If you're in Christ, then your heart has been changed from a heart of stone, and you've been given a living heart, one that trusts in Christ. That's what counts, being born again, trusting in Christ alone.
Verse 16, and as for all who walk by this rule, by faith, trusting in Christ, who have been born again, a new creation, peace and mercy be upon them and upon the Israel of God. So the Israel of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, who is that?
Okay, so I heard a lot of good answers out there. But the Israel of God is the church, the called out ones, they're the heavenly Jerusalem that's been born again. And that's existed from Old Testament into New Testament.
Okay, so does it make sense of what I'm putting forward here? That's why I wanted to have handouts again. Did the church replace Israel? No, right? The church are the called out ones by faith. They are the children of promise.
The nation of Israel, they served a purpose in God's plan of redemption. And we see them fail, we see them fail. We see in 1 Corinthians 10 and Romans 15, all the things that were written about the nation of Israel was for our learning, don't do that, right?
And if you're trusting in Christ, you've been born again, we live our life. And this relates to one of the questions about God's law is we can now fulfill the law. We are free to live to the glory of God.
And when we do disobey, when we do fall into sin, we have a perfect mediator who we can go to, who we can run to, we can confess our sins, knowing that he is perfectly just to save. Okay, so we got through some of the hard part.
But before we flip over the page, any questions?
How does, does the Abrahamic covenant fit in here?
Because you're asking about it. It does, the Abrahamic covenant, we'll break this down real quick, contains an unconditional promise and conditions of works. Mainly be circumcised, you don't do it, you're gonna die.
Okay, and so what's neat is those conditions are fulfilled in the culmination of the Mosaic covenant. Covenant of works, you don't wanna try to do that. You don't wanna try to earn your way to God because you're gonna fail, okay?
So there was an aspect to the Abrahamic covenant of do this and blessing, don't do this, death. There was an element to that. But God also promised an offspring, singular, Galatians talks about of Abraham.
Oh yeah, he's gonna fulfill all this to the T, perfectly. So this does relate to the Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant is not the new covenant. Abraham was saved by the promised new covenant, but those are different covenants.
As we're gonna see here in a moment, this is what separates us from Presbyterians, okay? Presbyterians see the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of grace. There's actually internal dispute about that. And we say, no, no, no, that's a covenant of death and condemnation that we're about to look at.
And we're gonna say exclusively the new covenant is the covenant of grace that saves to the uttermost. And the members of the new covenant are the elect. It's the heavenly Jerusalem, it's the church, the called out ones by faith.
Any other questions?
Is it safe to say that's because Israel has never got the promise? 100%. Can you relate that answer to did the church replace Israel?
Right, because the church or the called out ones by God, they're the children of promise, not the nation of Israel. Okay, so Israel was never. The promises that we see in scripture, especially of salvation and the new heavens and the new earth, what Abraham looked to, that was a promise not to the physical nation, ethnic Israel, that's been a promise for believers.
So that's why the church doesn't replace Israel.
So when we're talking about heavenly Jerusalem, is that the same thing as the spiritual church? Yes, absolutely.
So I'm just kind of going back on it, but you say that there were so many of them who were in the church and so many of them were called out.
Yes, so Romans chapter nine says not all of ethnic Israel are of the Israel of God, the remnant who are believers that exist amongst unbelievers. That's a great point. I'll take yours first. No, I know, but you go ahead, Ron.
I don't have. Okay, all right, I understand. We'll talk about that kind of toward the end because it does relate to the covenants, okay? So I hope we're on the same page on what I'm trying to convey is the church doesn't replace national Israel.
The church are the children of promise, okay? And so there's a lot of dispute about that. This does relate to eschatology. Which we're gonna hold off on a little bit because I wanna transition to a really good point of application, which is the question on the back.
How is the new covenant better than the old covenant? Now, these are the two covenants that we were talking about. There's a covenant that's at Mount Sinai. That's really huge where I want us to go, okay?
And that is a covenant of works. And the new covenant is the covenant of grace, no works, right? There's no conditions in the new covenant. They are the called out ones by God. I would argue faith is not even a condition because faith is not something you can muster up on your own.
Faith is a gift, okay? So I'll turn with me to Hebrews chapter 11. And this was another question that was sent in. And this was a really good time to bring this up. So Hebrews, look at the last couple of verses of Hebrews chapter 11.
All of these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, okay? Let's talk a little bit about the context of Hebrews chapter 11. This is the great chapter of faith, the heroes of the faith, right?
I want you to understand, they, by faith, were looking forward to the promise of the coming Messiah who would restore all things and make all things new and bring heaven to earth, okay? So all of these, all the heroes of faith, though commended through their faith, right?
The just shall live by faith. They did not receive what was promised. So if you look back at verse 13 in this chapter, right? All of these died in faith. They were justified by faith. Remember, that's what counts.
That's the heavenly Jerusalem. This is the assembly from heaven, the church. All of these died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on earth for people who speak, thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland.
If they had been thinking of a land from which they had gone out, they would have had an opportunity to return. But as it is, they, Abraham, they desired a better country that is a heavenly one. So what I'm wanting you to think about is when God promised Abraham a land, he said back in, I believe it's Genesis 17, that it's going to be an everlasting possession.
So Abraham looked around and said, oh yeah, this ain't the promise. All this world is cursed by sin and is perishing and Christ will return and make all things new. Abraham was looking for a heavenly home.
So my point is all the Old Testament saints, they didn't get to see the fruition of all of that, right? But they tasted of it by faith. They trusted in the promises of God, but they didn't receive it on this side of eternity, right?
So look at verse 40. Since God had provided something better for us, okay? So I want you to think about this. The saints of old, the hall of faith, they are the church, they're the called out ones by faith, but we today as New Testament Christians, we have something better than the saints of old, okay?
We have the Holy Spirit, we have God's word. Christ has already come and told us, oh yeah, I'm coming back. We have tasted better realities than the saints of old. They were just, they were saved the same way we were, justified by faith alone in Christ alone, but they saw types and shadows of it in the future, right?
They still lived with the guardrails of the old covenant, right? They did not get to live in the time of the new covenant, right? And so which mountain represented the covenant of works? Sinai, okay. So I want to illustrate this, right?
So verse 40 says, since God had provided something better for us as Christians that apart from us, they should be made, they should not be made perfect, okay? So you got to think, we are saved the same way as Old Testament saints.
They were looking forward to Christ and they were saved by that promise. And we are looking back to what Christ accomplished. And what the writer of Hebrews is saying is we have something better than what they had.
So look with me at Hebrews chapter 12, starting in verse 18. Think about Mount Sinai, and we're going to compare Mount Sinai with a better mountain, okay? So hold that thought. Verse 18 of Hebrews chapter 12.
For if you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest and a sound of the trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them.
For they could not endure the order that was given. If even a beast touches the mountain, Mount Sinai, it shall be stoned. Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, I tremble with fear. Okay, so this is Exodus 19 language, right?
God has made a covenant with the nation of Israel and they said, we will do this, right? God is holy. This mountain is covered with smoke. Now I want you to think about something. If anyone touched Mount Sinai, they would die.
This is the covenant of works. This is not a covenant of grace. If you touch the mountain, you would die. And the more I thought about this is I was saying, this could not be a covenant of grace anyway.
Like the people of the nation of Israel trembled before the mountain. They hated it. They would be holding onto their children's hands saying, don't touch the mountain. Can you imagine that if someone looked around and they didn't see their child?
Oh no, fear gripped their heart because they touched the mountain that kills. That's the old covenant. But look with me at verse 22. But you who have come to Mount Zion, this is the new covenant. This is the covenant of grace that saves to the uttermost.
And we have a better mediator than what the saints under the old covenant. I just, I want to stress to you so much that we have something so much better than the saints of old that only had tithes and shadows.
Verse 22, but you Christians, we have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem and to the innumerable angels and the festal gathering and to the assembly, the church of the firstborn who is enrolled in heaven and to God and who is judge of all and the spirits of the righteous made perfect and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, the covenant of grace and sprinkled the blood that speaks a better word than the blood.
One of the things that I want us to take away is how are we living our lives? As Christians, true Israel, saints that have been called out, we're a part of the heavenly Jerusalem who we have a perfect mediator.
This is how the writer ends in verse 28. Therefore, let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship with reverence. God is an all consuming fire.
It's the same God of old and new Testament. Mount Sinai displayed the holiness of God in his wrath against sin. You don't touch the mountain. Oh, but Mount Sinai, right? No longer do we grip our children's hands saying don't touch the mountain, but we pray, God, can baby JJ touch Mount Sinai?
Can he touch the cross? It's a better covenant. We have something so much sweeter that the saints of old only got types and shadows and a promise. They trusted in it, right? But they didn't get to experience it.
So what do you think? We got time for questions. I was trying to leave a little bit of time at the end. Hey, I want to bring something up. Galatians 3, seven and eight. Okay, yeah. It says just as Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness and then Galatians 3, seven.
Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham, and then verse eight, and the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preach the gospel beforehand to Abraham saying in you shall all the nations be blessed.
I was, I visited with a guy that was, he went to the master's seminary, which is John MacArthur where y 'all heard of the seminary. They're very dispensational. And one of the preaching professors literally quoted that and said, God preached the gospel to Abraham.
And one of the preaching professors said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm not really okay with that. And they said, we just read Galatians. And just, anyway, just very interesting. What I want to touch on is that, is what we're talking about.
And I love John MacArthur. Yeah, and I love John MacArthur, but this is something that a lot of Christians differ on. And that's okay. We can continue to talk about, because our conviction is the church does not replace Israel.
But people that disagree with this are saying, y 'all are saying that the promises made to Abraham and to Israel are replaced by the church. And then I say, well, who's the church? Who is Israel? Because you got to define those terms.
And so these are things that I would say don't divide fellowship on. These are important. It relates to eschatology and who is all of Israel that will be saved one day, Mr. Bobby? Those are good questions.
Who is Israel? Not all of Israel is of national ethnic Israel. So those are the things that relate to that.
Could you just go through and maybe quickly tell us what ethnic, national Israel's purpose was?
Absolutely. So God made, God vindicated His law with the nation of Israel and showed how natural man cannot keep works, cannot earn their way to God. God's law is holy, righteous, and good. But when a rebellious people says, okay, we'll keep this covenant of works, and you get kind of the Pharisees in the New Testament, but basically they made the conclusion, we can keep the law.
The law is meant to show your need for a savior. And so my point is God needed to show His law with a rebellious people for, I would say, mainly for our benefit to say, hey, don't try to earn favor with God through your works to a law you can't keep.
And that could have been anything. Oh, yeah, that's the thing, is God chose the nation of Israel to display their inability to earn righteousness with God. And that could have happened with any.
You wanna say again? People, I guess, a couple things. What would your view then be about the current state of Israel? Obviously, there are a lot of people that hold that the formation of the nation now is a prophecy, but it sounds like it's not really void.
So, great question. The question is about, what about Israel today? I would say they're still rebellious. They still despise the true Messiah. They do not kiss the sun, even though they probably can quote all those Psalms to you, right?
And so I pray for Israel that they repent before the Lord returns. I do not see them as a vital piece in eschatology. They are no different, in my mind, in some ways, as the Israel of Paul's day, the present Jerusalem, and the rebellious, like we're in Malachi on Sunday, right?
Israel's the same. They still reject their Messiah. It's possible. Romans 11 says maybe he'll change the ethnic nation of Israel's heart. You know what I mean? It's possible. They're a part of the covenant of grace, though, of course.
So that's where, yeah, that's where I'm leading.
This relates to, are the ethnic people of Israel the children of promise? And I would say, Galatians says, no, believers are the children of promise.
And I would imagine that this consensual would agree with you, would they not?
No, this is the linchpin in which we part ways. They would say the nation of Israel is the children of promise, and not all those promises have been fulfilled, and they will in a future millennium. Say again?
We've had a conversation. Hey, I love John MacArthur. I know. I just, I give Keith a hard time. So what? I do, too. John MacArthur here.
Because I believe in this before. I'm still, I'm still, they're not part of the covenant, maybe, but you cannot look at what's going on in Israel and say that if God was not protecting them, they would be obliterated.
There would not be peace, because everybody's around them. There's got to be something there. So how do you contend with stuff growing in the desert, with protection surrounding? You just, you can't deny that they've rejected him, but God doesn't break his covenant with them.
And that's what, that's my struggle with this little bit. So what is your thought on that?
Well, it goes back into who is Israel and who's the children of promise, because let's play devil's advocate. If God made promise with a rebellious ethnic people, then the dispensational crowd are right.
But if it's true Israel, that God said the promises are for you in their eternal position, then the dispensational view is wrong, because they are not the children of God. They are in principle, the children of Hagar and of Ishmael, and they have no promises.
In fact, they're condemned, they're cast out. So it just, it goes into who, how you define the church, how you define Israel, and who is the promise of the land in Genesis 15 and 17, really too. And my point is, it says that God made an eternal possession to Abraham and those of the spiritual offspring.
So we got to move on.
Yeah. So just to, by faith, take Israel and think Israel, true Israel, is that the elect or the elect?
The elect or the elect, and I would say that's the church, and that's the Israel of God. They're all the same. They're being of God. They are, yes, they are the members of the covenant of grace. Abraham became a member of the covenant of grace by faith.
Now, he lived in a time period where he still saw it from afar off. That's why we have tasted the realities that he only could see in a distant spot.
Any other questions? Joe. So given that, why would we say it's better if Abraham inherited the same reality that we shall? So why do we say it's better? We have the foresight to be able to look back and see if it's fulfilling.
Great question. How is it better? For one, Jesus Christ came. So we're living in light of now. We're justified the same way, but we have been given the down payment of the Holy Spirit that seals us to the end.
We have, in the old covenant, the Holy Spirit came upon their leaders and left, right? We live in the new covenant where the Holy Spirit, and check this out, we are all high priests, co-heirs with Christ, and so we're not bound to worship in the geographical bounds of the nation of Israel, right?
They had the oracles of God, right? They were given the temple that, we are the temple of God, right? We are the temple of God. Wherever the saints are, we have God indwelling us. So I wanna say it's better in every way, right?
The nation of Israel was told to be the people of God. They failed, they couldn't, and for us, we had the Holy Spirit, and now we can fulfill the law. Does that make sense? Yeah, and the new covenant is better because in the new covenant, all those that are in the new covenant know him.
In the old covenant, there's only a few who of ethnic Israel knew God by faith, but in the new covenant, all members of the new covenant know him by faith. Yeah, so we don't have a mixed covenant anymore.
And the law is on our hearts. It's not on the tablets of stone. Jamie. That's huge in their eschatology that God is preserving the nation of Israel for end times so God can finish his promises to this rebellious nation.
They would eventually. They eventually, yeah, they'll eventually be saved. Right now, they're not, but one day they will.
So I guess my question would be, so typically when I think about this, I think about Romans 11, where it's talking about Gentiles drafted in, so how does that fit in to all this?
Or does it just not? No, no, no, it factors in this way. Jesus Christ is the Israel of God. Yeah. And for those that are playing the part of being a part of ethnic Israel, they are cut off because they're rebellious, they're stiff-necked, they disobey and they get curses, so they're broken off, and the Gentiles are grafted in by faith.
So Romans 11 just makes the analogy of you have to, in order to be elect of God, you receive Jesus Christ, who is the elect and the Israel of God. How do you partake? By faith.
So it definitely relates. So thinking of Bobby's question, but the second part was kind of like the reformation of the reforming of Israel after World War II. What are your thoughts on that, so you don't see that as any significance?
Because I guess, would it be the dispensationalists that would be like, look, see, it came back together. Was it 1940? They became a nation again.
It's been a while. Yeah, so for dispensationalists, that was huge. Because Israel has to become a legit nation and rebuild the temple and all this is stacking up for the end times. And for what I'm presenting is, Christ can return at any moment.
We're not waiting on a rapture, necessarily. And that's a whole nother thing that I'm trying for. You know, I would love to get into it.
So isn't it like it's special, because that never, has that ever happened before? Because they were saying like the nation was decimated and then it actually was brought back together.
Some people see that as significant. For me, I don't see it as significant. What else was I gonna say? Something I would be more okay with is the church is the fulfillment of Israel, right? We just looked at Hebrews 11, the true saints, right?
They saw something to come and now we have something better. So there is some type of fulfillment and this is what's neat. We share this with Abraham. As one day, we all await for Jesus to return and resurrect the dead, right?
Resurrect true saints of all time. And Abraham will see that fulfilled promise at the Eschaton, the last day when we're all ready. We'll all get to partake and share in an everlasting possession.
Maybe this is too much to answer in this. The end of 11, though, is where I'm having the issue. What does he mean then by the partial hearting upon Israel in the fullness of the end?
So earlier in Romans 11, Paul says, look, we have an ethnic nation of Israel. They're rebellious, they're disobedient. And yeah, that grieves his heart back in Romans 9, right? Yeah. And so, but he says, but think about bigger categories, God's sovereign.
It's actually a good thing if this people turns against God and now we can evangelize the Gentile nations. So that's what he's talking about. There is a hardening. There is a rebellious tendency with this ethnic people.
It's for the good of the Gentiles. And now, the New Testament church, we are the living temple of God and we share the gospel to all of creation.
He's saying until, what's that until?
So there's a lot of, when you're talking, because he also talks about the fullness of the Gentiles. Yes. Right, and all that. There's a lot of theories. The one I like the most is there's an elect. And so there's a last elect person that comes to saving faith.
And so I think when the last Gentile comes to saving faith, Christ returns. And we just don't know when that is. And Matthew chapter 25, the parable of the 10 virgins, have your wicks trimmed, have oil in your lamps, be ready because he could return at any moment.
Be ready. Stay awake. Anybody else? We got maybe time for one more. I don't see Pastor Nathan anywhere,.
Or Keith saying that time's up. So we can maybe speak to one more. Okay, so with the law, I'm just throwing something out there, but would the law be considered a blessed curse to the nation of Israel?
Yep.
It's blessed in the sense, Paul says in Romans 7, holy, righteous, and good. The law reflects God's unchanging character. So we had another question that was saying, how does the old covenant law pertain to the Christian life today?
Well, we kind of see a threefold structure to the law. We see the moral equity of the law. Every one of those commands stems from God being holy, righteous, and good. But then you have ceremonial laws that were fulfilled in Christ.
We don't have to sacrifice animals, right? We get to eat bacon in the new covenant. That's one reason why it's better. And there are civil laws to the nation of Israel that we're not under. And so we can still learn from the book of Proverbs.
A lot of wisdom in there, right? But not everything's gonna one-to-one carry over the same. And so my point is, it's blessed. The law reflects God's unchanging character. So that's why you see a lot of the 10 commandments in the New Testament, because that reflects the unchanging character of God.
But we do see a fulfillment with the Sabbath in Jesus, right? And so we don't have to not pick up sticks on a Saturday, right? And so it is a curse, in a sense, that ethnic Israel that tried to obey, well, they received curses, yeah.
And so the offspring singular, Jesus Christ, who is both spiritual, he's God, and an actual physical Jew, perfect. Fulfilled the law to its entirety. And that's why the old covenant is obsolete. Jesus fulfilled it.
And he inaugurated a new and better covenant. And we live in the new covenant, and we're awaiting the consummation of the new covenant with the restoration of all things in the kingdom of God. And so we live in this time where we're living, the kingdom of God is here now.
It's above, but it's here. Wherever the Holy Spirit's at, it's the kingdom of God. But we're awaiting that physicality when Jesus comes and restores all things, because this physical world is perishing.
That's why, for me, I'm not waiting for 1 ,000-year reign. We're getting something so much better than that, something that will never. In the parable of the vineyard, in Mark 12, I'm not gonna go through it, but you can read it.
And it says at the end, it says, "'What will the owner of the vineyard do? "'He will come and destroy the tenants "'and give the vineyard to others.'". Right? Anyway, just read it later. Yep, yep, yep.
Well, we gotta wrap it up there.
