Spiritual Leftovers?

Malachi 1:6-14

Do you like eating leftovers? Can it even compare to fresh, hot, delicious food? Are you giving God spiritual leftovers?

Israel is commanded to bring the best of its flocks for an offering. And yet, Malachi condemns the priests for deliberately offering lame and sick animals to the Lord (Mal 1:13). “You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame and sick, and this you bring as your offering! Shall I accept that from your hand? says the Lord.” The man who does this is to be cursed, because while he has an animal without blemish, he gives God the lame, sick and unsightly. He gives God the leftovers. God has a right to be angry. “For I am a great King, says the Lord of hosts, and my name will be feared among the nations,” (Mal 1:14).

In our own lives, we often give God leftovers. Work saps our energy. The television beckons. Our kids need attention. Our hobbies capture our energy and enthusiasm. Somewhere, in the midst of all of this, we might remember to give God some of our time. We rarely give Him our undivided time. He gets leftovers. A five minute Scripture reading before we doze off. A half-hearted prayer before breakfast. A bite-sized devotional at lunch. A quick twinge of guilt on Sunday morning as we purpose to do better this week. And the cycle repeats . . .

“My brethren, these things ought not so to be,” (Jas 3:10b). God deserves our best. He deserves our attention. Praise God that He sent Christ to save us from our sins! Make God your priority this week; skip the leftovers and show up for the meal instead.

Good Apologetics Debate

Below is a very fascinating debate between the late atheist Christopher Hitchens and Pastor Doug Wilson.

Hitchens was an unusually eloquent speaker for atheism, and his British accent lent him an air of authority we Americans simply can’t imitate! Hitchens was a brilliant man, well-read and intelligent. His knowledge of Scripture was meager and his arguments against Christianity were far less formidable than his rhetoric. If you can spare the time, this debate is well worth watching.

Recommended Reading in Dispensationalism

Excellent reading list on dispensationalism

Paul Henebury's avatarDR. RELUCTANT

Dan Phillips has asked me to come up with a guide to the reading of Dispensational Theology.  I hope this is what he expected.  Anyway, this is what I have come up with.  No “Progressive Dispensationalist” work is included because I do not consider that approach to be Dispensationalism proper (which does not mean dispensationalists can’t learn from them!).  Neither have I included ultra-dispensational works, nor indeed, those post-trib./pre-wrath books which deny imminence.  An asterisk indicates my recommendation of where money ought to go first.

No doubt I have let some vital resource run through the sieve that is my memory.  If readers want to prompt me to remembrance I shall add to the following list: 

Introductions

*Dispensationalism – Charles C. Ryrie – Updated version of the author’s Dispensationalism Today, which should still be purchased.  This is a must read, even if it is soft on the covenants. Irenic…

View original post 1,858 more words

The Five Kingdoms in Daniel 2 and 7

*I will be adding some charts to this paper sometime in the future to help explain things a bit more clearly*

Introduction

This paper presents a comparison between the two prophesies in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7. They are complementary accounts of God’s program for His people, presented in two separate visions. There are any number of ways to contrast these two prophesies; this paper exposits each vision separately on its own merit in preparation for a side by side comparison of key events, presented in a chart following the exposition.

The picture which emerges is one where God will triumph over the Antichrist, fulfill His covenant promises to Israel and establish a kingdom for His children which will endure forever. The manifold designs and wicked aims of Satan cannot stand against God, who is sovereign over His entire creation. This message is one of hope given to a people under penalty of sin; God was not through with them yet.

It is also the hope of the Gentiles who number themselves among God’s people, a circumstance not even revealed when Daniel recorded these prophesies. It is a reassuring message of God’s supremacy, trustworthiness and glory. As one scholar observed, “in this present world of injustice, wars, and crime, it is reassuring to know that Christ is coming; and when he comes, all of the evils of this age will end (Miller, 1994, 102).

Daniel 2

The Dream

This vision of God’s program from the fall of Jerusalem until the millennial reign of Christ is very brief and lacks the greater detail of Dan 7. Nevertheless, it presents a complete program. Leon Wood (1973) sees specific significance in this one united image, especially when viewed from God’s perspective. “Before God, history is a whole, made up of variations of the same basic aspirations and activities of mankind involved,” (68).

Archer (1985) remarked matter-of-factly that “this section represents the foreordained succession of world powers that are to dominate the Near East till the final victory of the Messiah in the last days,” (46). The image represents five different kingdoms, four from men and the final from God, which together comprise God’s program from the fall of Jerusalem onward.

2:31-32

A great, mighty and frightening image appeared in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (v. 31). The image was quite imposing and dwarfed Nebuchadnezzar himself; its very appearance was frightening. “Even Nebuchadnezzar, the ultimate ruler (Dan 2:38), recognized this as something greater than himself,” (Walvoord, 2012, 77). It was one single image with multiple composite parts; a head of fine gold (v.32), chest and arms of silver (v.32), a torso and thighs of bronze (v.32), legs of iron (v.33) and feet of both iron and clay (v.33).

There is symbolism in the metals which comprise the image. The preciousness and weight of the metals deteriorates from the head of gold to the feet of mixed clay and iron, while increasing in hardness (Walvoord, 78).

2:34-35

The stone strikes the statue at its weakest and most brittle point, the feet, breaking them into pieces (Dan 2:34). The entire image then disintegrates at once, the pieces are carried away like chaff before the wind (Dan 2:35). Not a trace is found, and the stone becomes a mountain which fills the entire earth.

The Interpretation

This is a prophesy for Israel specifically, and the focus is on the Mediterranean area, which comprises the Biblical concept of “world.” Pentecost (1985) observed that Daniel’s interpretation reveals “the course of Gentile kingdoms which in turn would rule over the land of Palestine and the people of Israel,” (1335).

2:36-38

Nebuchadnezzar is the head of gold (Dan 2:38), and all this power and glory is given to him by God Himself. Nebuchadnezzar, alone among the three kingdoms of men which are to come after, is identified specifically. He embodies Babylon. “After him, its power diminished rapidly. It was far more his kingdom, than he was its king. The same was not true of any ruler of the succeeding empires,” (Wood, 67). The phrase “king of kings” is even used of Nebuchadnezzar again in Eze 26:7; he truly was a supreme monarch who was above all the kings of his generation (Walvoord, 79). This power was given to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:38), emphasizing God’s complete sovereignty over human affairs in His own creation.

2:39

Moving down the statue, two more kingdoms are in view. An inferior kingdom, comprising a chest and arms of silver, will come after Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:39a). This is Medo-Persia, which conquered Babylon in 539 B.C. Silver is less valuable than gold, symbolizing the inferiority of the second kingdom. The inferiority is not with respect to territory; Medo-Persia conquered far more area than Babylon did. Peter Steveson (2008) places the inferiority in the rulers; “it will be inferior in that the Medo-Persian ruler will have less power than Nebuchadnezzar,” (34). Likewise, Wood (68) agrees and remarks the inferiority “can have referred only to quality of government.”

The king was not supreme in this second kingdom in the same manner Nebuchadnezzar was in Babylon. “History certainly confirms that the Medo-Persian Empire, and the empire of Alexander that followed, lacked the central authority and fine organization of the Babylon Empire . . . the inferiority of the succeeding empires does not prevent them from wide geographic control, for he [Daniel] specifically stated that the third kingdom will ‘rule over all the earth,’” (Walvoord, 80-81). The arms signify a division in the kingdom – the inclusion of Media and Persia (Steveson, 35).

Yet another inferior kingdom will come after this, the torso and thighs of the statue fashioned of bronze, which will rule over all the earth (Dan 2:39b). This is Greece, which conquered Medo-Persia between 334 – 330 B.C. Greece did indeed extend its military reach farther than the other three kingdoms, all the way from Egypt, Europe and eastward to India. This kingdom was even more inferior from Nebuchadnezzar’s point of view, in that its political system was more republican than monarchy (Archer, 47).

2:40

A fourth kingdom will come after this, comprising the iron legs of the great image. It has two distinct properties; (1) it is strong as iron and (2) it will crush and shatter all opposition. Iron is less precious than gold, silver or bronze, but is stronger. This is precisely what characterized Roman conquest as it swallowed up and engulfed the Greeks; “Rome in its cruel conquest swallowed up the lands and peoples that had been parts of the three previous empires and assimilated those lands and peoples into itself,” (Pentecost, 1335).

2:41-43

Rome regressed into a weaker nation of clay and iron, a mark of progressive weakness and deterioration. The composite nature of the empire signifies a divided kingdom in its later years, hobbled with increasingly frailty. It is significant that the iron legs were not a composite mixed with clay, but the feet were. “It follows that this element of brittleness would be true of the Roman Empire only in its later period, rather than its former,” (Wood, 69). This refers to the moral decay and decline of the Roman Empire, not a future revival.

The two legs represent a political division, which occurred in the mid-fourth century as the Empire split into East and West. Daniel later identified the toes of the image as ten individual kingdoms (Dan 7:7, 20), therefore it is likely the legs also signify a political schism (Steveson, 38).

2:44-45

Daniel’s narrative telescopes at this point, segueing into prophetic future events at the time of the Antichrist.[1] The “days of those kings” when God sets up his millennial kingdom (Dan 2:44) cannot refer to the time of the four kingdoms already mentioned, because Dan 7:24 explicitly mentioned ten kings would reign at the time of the Antichrist. As noted previously, Dan 7 is a much fuller explanation of a different vision containing the same, expanded message. Nor does this refer to a future revival of the old Roman Empire. “This empire has continued to exist in various forms since it began. Daniel here speaks of this empire in its final form. This will be a union of ten strong and weak governments . . . all under the control of the Antichrist,” (Steveson, 41-42).

God will accomplish several things at this time, (1) He will establish His kingdom (Dan 2:44a) which will never pass away, (2) He will destroy the ten kingdoms.God destroys the whole image at once and the end of them all is sure and certain (v.45b). The stone is nothing less than Christ, smiting all vestiges of the preceding kingdoms. “The stone is part and parcel of the sovereignty of God . . . the symbolism clearly indicates an origination with God rather than human beings,” (Walvoord, 89). God will be faithful to His covenants with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the nation of Israel and David – He will establish His kingdom, which “shall never be destroyed” and “shall stand forever,” (Dan 2:44).

Though less comprehensive than the vision from Dan 7, there are a number of reasons to support that Christ will establish a future kingdom.

First, the conquest and destruction of the kingdoms is violent and abrupt, not peaceful and gradual, as amillennialists argue (Steveson, 43). The stone struck the image’s feet and broke the entire image into pieces, suddenly and abruptly (Dan 2:34-35). Those opposed to the premillennial interpretation of the text deny a literal, future destruction of these ten kingdoms. Generally, they see the fall of the old Roman Empire as fulfillment of Christ striking the image (Dan 2:34-35). However, Christ and Christianity did not destroy the Roman Empire. It continued on for centuries afterward. Furthermore, its destruction was gradual and drawn-out, not sudden as Dan 2:35 depicts. Christ did indeed come in the days of the Roman Empire, but He did not destroy it (Pentecost, 1336).

Second, Daniel’s prophesy clearly indicates Christ will return again “in the days of those kings,” before defeating them and establishing His kingdom (Dan 2:44).  Daniel’s subsequent vision in Dan 7:7-28 supports this point. However, during Christ’s time on earth the Roman Empiredid not have 10 kings at once. Therefore, the time of the ten kingdom (“ten toes”) is still future.

Third, the church today has not, and is not, conquering the world’s kingdoms. Indeed, as Walvoord notes, “for the past century or more the church has been an ebbing tide in the affairs of the world, and there has been no progress whatsoever in the church’s gaining control of the world politically. If the image represents Gentile political power, it is very much still standing,” (89).

Fourth, Christ will rule over a theocracy. “The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people . . . it shall stand forever,” (Dan 2:44). Pentecost observed, “the church is not a kingdom with a political realm, but the future Millennium will be,” (1336).

Daniel 7

The First Three Beasts

7:1-2

Most commentators agree Daniel presented a summary of his dream; “the essential points of significance,” (Wood, 180). Steveson argues the significance of “wind” is that trouble and tribulation will come from all directions (117). Wood agrees, and notes “winds stand for various forces which play upon the nations, serving to bring strife and trouble,” (180).

Walvoord sees the winds here as God’s sovereign power in conflict with sinful humanity. He argues wind always represents God’s sovereign power, which Walvoord maintains is the whole focus of the Book of Daniel. He went on to observe, “Gentile history is the record of God striving with the nations and ultimately bringing them into subjection when Christ returns to reign,” (189).

The dream was given to Daniel to provide comfort to the exiles, lest they believe God was through with them. “God was not through with them, however, and He desired that they know He was not. An effective way to do this was to reveal the historical future which God had in mind for them,” (Wood, 178). God will defeat the Antichrist. He is sovereign and Israel will have a kingdom.

The “great sea” is typically used in Scripture to refer to the Mediterranean. This strongly implies the prophesy involves only the Mediterranean world (Pentecost, 1350). This is a point Steveson also emphasizes later (134).

7:3

The beasts each represent successive nations, different from one another. The sea in question, the Mediterranean, symbolically represents the nations of Biblical prophecy (Pentecost, 116). Daniel later confirms that the beasts were nations, or kings, of the earth (Dan 7:17).

7:4

The first empire is Babylon, under Nebuchadnezzar. This is not really a matter of serious dispute. Walvoord observed, “there is more unanimity on the identification of the first beast of chapter 7 than on any other point in this chapter,” (189). Images of lions have been found in the ruins of Babylon, and Nebuchadnezzar is represented elsewhere in Scripture as a lion (Jer 4:7) and an eagle (Jer 49:22). The wings being plucked off the lion can symbolize either the empire’s rapid deterioration after Nebuchadnezzar’s death, or his insanity (Pentecost, 1350). The transformation from a lion to a more human-like figure represents Nebuchadnezzar’s changed disposition after his seven years of insanity. The fact that he “was lifted up” signifies that he did not change himself; God did it for Him (Miller, 197).

7:5

The second empire is Medo-Persia. Wood observed two points worth noting (183); (1) The lop-sided shape of the animal indicates the Persians had vastly more influence than the Medes in the alliance, and (2) The beast was lop-sided because the beast had one foot in the air, as if to lurch forward, symbolizing the rapid military advance of the Medo-Persian empire.

The ribs the beast was munching on symbolize Lydia, Egypt and Babylon (Walvoord, 193). Archer remarked it was “hopeless” to explain away the identification of Medo-Persia with the second beast (86).

7:6

The third empire is Greece, characterized by extraordinary swiftness of conquest. The wings suggest speed and swiftness. The four heads symbolize the four generals who ruled Alexander’s dominion after his death (Steveson, 123).[2]  “The lightening character of his conquests is without precedent in the ancient world, and this is fully in keeping with the image of speed embodied in the leopard and the four wings on its back,” (Walvoord, 194).

The Fourth Beast

7:7

The fourth beast is Rome, which follows Greece in the chronology of great Mediterranean empires. Wood remarked the most outstanding feature of this fourth beast was its strength, and the emphasis given to this last beast indicates it has far greater significance for Daniel’s vision (183). This beast is characterized by “extensive conquest involving enormous destruction of people and property,” (Wood, 186). It is no accident Daniel describes the beast in such stark terms, such as “terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong.” Rome differed from the previous three empires – it had staying power. Daniel noted the permanence of this beast’s conquests, “it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet.”

Conquest was made at wide range and with the greatest strength and ferocity. Her conquests were more permanent too; for whereas the other empires had been satisfied with only a loose confederation of countries seized, Rome consolidated and organized for lasting control (Wood, 186).

Daniel saw all ten horns at the same time on this fourth beast. This means the empire comprises ten different kingdoms.  Most commentators emphasize the contemporaneous nature of these kingdoms. This is extremely important – Daniel was not speaking of a different empire; he was clearly describing features of the fourth beast.

Is this a re-constituted Roman Empire or merely 10 kingdoms formed from the political ashes of the old? Commentators are divided on the issue. Wood alone sees a reconstituted Roman Empire. “The correct view can only be that there will be a time still future when the Roman Empire will be restored, so that these representations can be true in the manner depicted,” (187). He noted that symbolism shows the horns growing from the fourth beast’s head while it is still alive, demonstrating the Roman Empire must be reconstituted at some future date (200).

Archer is not dogmatic, merely labeling this as a “latter day ten-state federation,” (87).  Walvoord agrees, “ten actual kingdoms will exist simultaneously in the future tribulation period,” (200).

Pentacost disagrees, “when the hordes from the north conquered the Roman Empire in the fifth century a.d., they did not unite to form another empire. Instead individual nations emerged out of the old Roman Empire. Some of those nations and others stemming from them have continued till the present day. The present Age, then, is the 10-horned era of the fourth beast,” (1354). Steveson, as seen in the discussion on Dan 2:43, agrees with Pentecost (41-42, 126).

Many scholars, of varying theology, dispute the literal, premillennial interpretation given above. The crux of the matter was captured perfectly by Walvoord; it comes down to whether one’s hermeneutic is literal or not.

Interpreters who agree that the Roman Empire is in view differ in their explanations about how the ten horns relate to Rome. Amillennial scholars . . . tend to spiritualize both the number ten and the number three, and thus escape the necessity of finding any literal fulfillment. Both of them find literal fulfillment impossible because no ten kings reigned simultaneously in the Roman period . . . Premillenialists offer another view, providing literal fulfillment: ten actual kingdoms will exist simultaneously in the future tribulation period (200).

7:8

There are ten contemporaneous kingdoms. One kingdom, insignificant and unthreatening, rises dramatically and absorbs three others. This last kingdom emerges later, from among the ten others. Most conservative commentators identify this last ruler as the Antichrist. This last ruler was noted for his intelligence and his blasphemous claims.

7:9-10

God will judge the nations, and the court of judgment Daniel sees (Dan 7:10) is nothing less than the Great White Throne judgment (Steveson, 128). The phrase “ancient of days” (Daniel 7:9) suggests God’s eternal nature. His clothing and appearance illustrates His purity and holiness. The flames about the throne demonstrate His righteous judgment. “The fire not only represents the blindingly brilliant manifestation of God’s splendor but also the fierce heat of His judgment on sin and all those opposed to His supreme authority,” (Archer, 89). The wheels of the throne suggest God’s omnipresence and mobility (Steveson, 129);He sees all men’s works and will judge correctly. Reference to the books being opened (Daniel 7:10) is a further reference is Rev 20:12 and the Great White Throne judgment (Pentecost, 1351).

7:11-12

Daniel’s attention is diverted from this awesome vision of God’s final judgment because of the blasphemous words (Dan 7:8) the Antichrist was speaking (Dan 7:11a). The beast is slain and burned with fire (Dan 7:11b). The other three kingdoms pictured in this vision had been defeated by military might and their legacies lived on to some extent; “their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time,” (Dan 7:12). This last kingdom, which rose out of the political ashes of the Roman Empire, will be conquered only by divine judgment and the defeat will be final, total and absolute. The Antichrist is defeated (Rev 19:20) and Christ establishes the MillennialKingdom; “the end [of the fourth kingdom] here is complete as God brings the empire under the absolute authority of Jesus Christ in His reign over the earth,” (Steveson, 130).

There is a clear parallel here with Daniel 2:34-35, where the stone which represents Christ’s kingdom strikes Nebuchadnezzar’s image. The image was destroyed at the same time, “then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces,” (Dan 2:35a). Returning to Dan 7:11-12, “each of the three previous empires would be continued, by this reduplication of self in people and culture, in their respective successors; but the fourth would not be,” (Wood, 192). The last vestiges of the previous three empires are destroyed along with the fourth – once and for all.

7:13-14

After the destruction of the Antichrist, Jesus will rule and reign. The covenants promised to Israel will have their literal fulfillment. Compare Dan 7:14 to 2 Sam 7:16, where the prophet Nathan explained God’s covenant with David; “And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.” What Daniel describes in Dan 7:13-14 is the millennial reign of Christ (Pentecost, 1351) and the ultimate victory over Satan. All believers, including all those who have trusted in Christ throughout history as well as believing Jews at the time of Christ’s return, will receive this kingdom (Dan 7:18). “The final outcome of human history will be a return of Adam’s race under the rule of the divine Son of Man to loving obedience and subjection to the sovereignty of God, never again to fall away from Him,” (Archer, 91).

7:15-18

This is a short summary statement from the angel Daniel asks the “truth” from. It is very straightforward; four kings will arise, but God will inevitably triumph in the end. There has been considerable debate among conservative scholars over what the “saints of the Most High” means. Pentecost adamantly states these are believing Jews, not the church. “The existence of the church in the present Age was nowhere revealed in the Old Testament,” (1352). Walvoord sees this as including the saved of all ages (212),as does Steveson (133), in light of later NT teachings that all saints will rule with the Lord (Matt 19:28; 1 Cor 6:2). Wood also sees both groups (196). In light of later NT clarification and the revealed mystery of the church age (Eph 3:2-7), this is the more likely interpretation.

7:19-22

As Gabriel provides the interpretation of this vision to Daniel, some additional facts come out. The Antichrist will persecute the saints, overcome the nation of Israel and eventually himself be judged by God. These “saints” are primarily Jews, “Since the Antichrist will oppose especially the Jews in Palestine during the latter half of the tribulation, the primary reference must be to them,” (198).

The Interpretation

7:23

The fourth beast will have absolute dominion over the Biblical world. Steveson, drawing from Dan 11:40-44, strongly emphasizes that Daniel has in mind the Biblical world only;

The focus of prophesy is on the Biblical world, the world ruled by the Romans. While this ‘little horn’ (7:8) rules only in the Mediterranean world, he will certainly have worldwide influence (Rev 13:7-8) . . . Nothing in this context gives Antichrist dominion over the whole world. He controls the nations that have come from the old Roman Empire (Steveson, 134-135).

Archer agrees, “the whole earth refers, not to all known parts of the inhabited earth, but rather to the entire territory of the Near and Middle East,” (93). It is the Biblical world, not the whole world that is in view in the prophesy.

7:24

Gabriel clearly identifies the horns with individual kingdoms which rise from the ashes of the old Roman Empire. Again, as Wood reminds us, this fourth kingdom is unique in that it has two periods of existence, one of old time and another of future time (199). Dan 7:24 is future prophesy; the ten kings reign simultaneously before the Antichrist rises and subdues three of them (Walvoord, 215). These conditions have not yet come about.

7:25

The Antichrist’s program is now brought into focus, and Gabriel expands on Daniel’s original vision from Dan 7:8. The Antichrist is blasphemous against God, will persecute the believers and institute his own system of laws during the first half of the tribulation (Pentecost, 1354). He simply must substitute God’s laws for his own, it is critical to his sinister designs. “Antichrist will not be able to accept worship of man without changing the worship of the true God. He does that by either by letting the festival times point to him as God or by substituting other festivities that honor him.” Steveson went on to suggest this will take the form of a new calendar devoid of any and all Christian reference (137). Miller has perhaps the best explanation as he suggests “Antichrist will go beyond what anyone has done before in his attempt to create a thoroughly secular world,” (214). The “time, times, and half a time” refers to the second half of the seven year tribulation (Walvoord, 216 and Wood, 201-202).

7:26-27

This is the explanation of Dan 7:9-12. The Antichrist will be overthrown once and for all; Antichrist will “be consumed and destroyed to the end.”

Summary and Comparison

As noted before, Daniel 7 contains much more material than Dan 2. The two visions are complementary accounts of the same program God has been bringing about from before the foundations of the world. This chart lays out God’s program from both prophesies, with the supporting verses from each chapter.

Event

Chapter 2

Chapter 7

Rise of four successive earthly kingdoms

2:37-43

7:2

These kingdoms will be defeated. God’s people, of all ages, will rule and reign with Him forever

2:44-45

7:17-18

Rise of Babylon

2:32a, 36-38

7:4

God is sovereign over all human affairs

2:37-38

Rise of Medo-Persia

2:32b; 39a

7:5

Rise of Greece

2:32c

7:6

Greece will rule over whole of Biblical world

2:39b

Rise of Rome, more terrifying and stronger than all others.

2:33a, 40

7:7-8, 23

Rome will have a political division into East and West – significance of “legs”

2:33a

Rome will deteriorate and weaken over time

2:33b; 41-43

Future rise of 10 contemporaneous kingdoms from political ashes of Roman Empire

2:44

7:7c; 24a

Rise of Antichrist during time of these 10 kingdoms

7:8, 24b

Antichrist subdues three of these 10 kingdoms

7:8b, 24b

Antichrist is a man, intelligent and blasphemous

7:8c; 20

Antichrist persecutes and harasses Israel, bringing worship to himself and secularizing the world in a manner never seen before

7:25a-c

Antichrist will make war against Israel during second half of tribulation and prevail for a time, until God judges him and Christ establishes His kingdom

7:21-22; 25d

Great White Throne judgment

7:9-10; 26a

Antichrist destroyed, along with his kingdom and residual of previous three kingdoms

2:35a; 44b-45a

7:11-12; 26b

Millennial Reign established

2:35b; 44a

7:13-14; 27

The preceding exposition of both prophecies was done to justify the interpretations presented in the chart above. Comparing both Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, it is clear God provided a comprehensive picture of eschatology for the ever faithful Daniel and his fellow exiles in their time of need. It is also the promise that, after the four kingdoms of men, God will establish His kingdom, free from sin. It is a marvelous portrait of God’s sovereignty, a comfort in a time of storm for all of God’s people past, present and future, until He calls His children home.

Bibliography

Archer, Jr., Gleason L. Daniel. The Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 7. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985.

Miller, Stephen R. Daniel. The New American Commentary, vol. 18. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

Pentecost, Dwight J. Daniel. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, vol. 1. John Walvoord and Roy Zuck, eds. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985.

Steveson, Peter A. Daniel. Greenville: BJU, 2008.

Walvoord, John. Daniel. Charles Dyer and Philip Rawley, eds. Chicago: Moody, 2012.

Wood, Leon. Daniel. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1973.

[1]. There is disagreement among conservative scholars over where the narrative telescopes. Pentecost (1336), Steveson (41-42) and Walvoord (89) argue for the break at Dan 2:44. Wood breaks ranks with his conservative colleagues, and argues extensively for a break at Daniel 2:42 instead (70-71).

[2]. Steveson noted Alexander did indeed have more than four generals, but four in particular gained prominence and power after his death.

Sermon – Servants of the Servant (Mk 6:7-13)

Christ’s sends the apostles out on their first solo missionary journey. Told to bring literally nothing more than the clothes on their backs, He taught them a lesson in faith as He continued training them to carry on without Him. This is a sobering and very relevant look at Christian discipleship. This lesson was preached in teen Sunday School at my church.

Sermon notes

The Bizarre Mindset of Post-Modernism

Jay Bakker, son of Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye Messner, has a new ministry of his own in Minneapolis. Bakker recently celebrated  gay marriage by partaking of the Lord’s Supper with rainbow-colored communion bread. Bakker is typical of the post-modern, edgy, un-Biblical and heretical fringe of evangelicalism. In his company would be men like Rob Bell. communion19n-3-web

I have really tried to understand why people take such un-Biblical positions on issues which are so clear-cut. I know the reasons, I just don’t understand them!

1. Typically they have a low view of Scripture

2. Therefore the Bible does not contain final authority for Christian faith and life

3. Their exposition of Scripture is frequently non-existent or pitiful

4. They play to emotions rather than Biblical truth

5. Their worldview tends to be amazingly man-centered

6. Their theology, such as it is, is frequently heretical and un-Biblical

7. This last charge is meaningless to them, because to them, God has not spoken authoritatively and decisively on anything

The reason Bakker is evidently enjoying success in his new “bar/church” venture is because he is not confronting his “congregation” with their sin. The Gospel is clear on this matter – repent and believe (Mk 1:14-15). God is holy, and He commands His people to act holy as well (Lev 19:2; 1 Pet 1:16). There are certain standards expected of Christians. True salvation entails repentance from sin.

It is so sad to see such heresy enjoying such apparent success. I doubt a Bible preaching man could garner a fraction of the attention Bakker is getting, or even a fraction of the congregation.

I will be starting an intermittent series very soon, where I review and comment on a book which speaks to this mindset, specifically a low view of Scripture. The book is older (1991), but Bakker is nothing more than a product of this un-Biblical way of thinking. It breaks my heart that this heresy is considered Christianity.

What is Dispensationalism?

Introduction

This paper is not an apologetic for dispensationalism as a system. It is simply a brief overview of the system from friendly sources–a faithful survey of what dispensationalists believe. For book-length overviews, see especially (a) Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (reprint: Chicago, Moody: 2007) for traditional dispensationalism, and (b) Michael Vlach, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths, revised ed. (Los Angeles: Theological Studies Press, 2017) for progressive dispensationalism.
Now, to business!

Worship

Worship is “the expression of an authentic response to God in appropriate forms.” God has always demanded an authentic response; reverence, love, etc, encapsulated best by Christ Himself (Deut 6:5; Mt 22:37). There must also be an appropriate form of response. Man has an obligation to respond in a specific and appropriate manner, and the form of the worship God desires has changed throughout the dispensations (Means, 1865, 531).

Dispensationalism

A dispensation is a particular way God administers His rule over the world as He progressively works out His purpose for world history (Showers, 1990, 30). God’s purpose for world history is to bring about His Kingdom. It is presumptuous and un-Biblical to presume God is not ruling and reigning over the course of events now, and it is equally un-Biblical to deny God’s eternal plan is marching towards some decreed end in the future. Therefore, it is appropriate to distinguish between the eternal, universal extent of His rule and the method of His rule (McClain, 1959, 21). The extent of God’s rule is all-encompassing, but the method of His rule has changed periodically throughout Scripture with each successive dispensation.

dispensations

God has changed the administration, or manner, of His rule several times throughout Scripture (Heb 1:1-2). Distinguishing characteristics of a dispensation are (Ryrie, 2007, 40);

  1. A change in God’s governing relationship with man,
  2. A resulting change in man’s responsibility, and
  3. Corresponding revelation to reveal both of the above.

Man’s responsibility in any dispensation is to worship God in the way He commands by (1) an authentic, heartfelt response which takes (2) the appropriate form. The genuine response of the believer has always been an unchanging requirement; Rolland McCune (2009, 125) observed; “faith in God’s revelation was required not only for redemption from sin but also for fulfilling one’s dispensational obligations (Gen 15:6).” The form of that response, however, has changed throughout human history as God periodically alters the method of His rule. This paper will explore the different forms of worship throughout these different dispensations.

God’s Purpose

God’s purposes for His creation are to bring about His Kingdom entirely for His own glory. Christians can confidently point out where everything began (Genesis), and most can also point to how it will all end (Revelation 20-21). How God is working out His plan in between these two events is the issue! The dispensational system provides a coherent, Scriptural blueprint to understand how and why God is advancing His Kingdom for His own glory.

His Kingdom

What was created perfect was ruined by willful sin; God is advancing His plan for setting His creation right once again, culminating in a new heavens and a new earth in the eternal state (Rev 21). The personal, visible worship Adam and Eve used to enjoy in the garden was no longer possible with sinful men; after the fall man could not look upon God and still live (Gen 3:8; Ex 33:20). Christ taught us that our earnest prayer should be for God’s kingdom to come (Mt 6:9-15). We should look forward to this blessed event and pray for His will to be done. Through the framework of dispensations, God’s progressive plan to achieve this very end is clearly evident.

For His Glory

This is a difficult concept for unbelievers and, unfortunately, even many Christians to believe. It is not about man – it is about God! The innate selfishness of mankind has allowed far too many Christians to believe they are the center of God’s plan and purposes. This is incorrect; God desires to be worshipped in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:24).

A poor, but useful analogy is that of a father ruling his household. The father has the right to expect his children to obey his rules if they wish to remain in the house. He is owed this respect, after all, it is his house! Any parent would agree that children should honor and respect their parents (Ex 20:12) out of a pure heart because they want to, not because they have to. In the same manner, God has the inherent right to demand proper worship and respect by virtue of who He is (Lev 19:2; 1 Pet 1:16). Therefore, it is a terrible mistake to make ourselves the center of God’s purposes.

Our salvation was done for a purpose; “so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus,” (Eph 2:7). Elsewhere, in Ezekiel, God makes it quite clear that His promised restoration of Israel in the MillennialKingdom will be done for His glory, not their own.

Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes (Eze 36:22-23).

plan

Dispensation of Innocence (Gen 1:3 – 3:6)

God’s Revelation

In this glorious state before the fall of man, the world God had created was “very good” (Gen 1:31). Man was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27; 2:5b); the only one of His creatures to have this distinction. This makes man special and unique before God. He was created by the very breath, or creative force, of God (Gen 2:7). This image was not physical, but relational. Just as God has authority and power over everything, man was given special authority over God’s creation (Gen 1:28; 2:15). Adam was appointed a steward of God’s creation, meant to have dominion over it all. Eve was created to be a help and companion to Adam in fulfilling this task (Gen 2:18). Man was meant to work the ground, not laze around idly all the day long (Gen 2:5b).

Man’s Worship Responsibility

Adam’s “principal mission” (Matthews, 1996, 209) was to work and keep the garden (Gen 2:15). Numerous subordinate responsibilities included commands to reproduce and fill the earth, subdue it and have dominion over all other creatures (Gen 1:28). The original Hebrew of Gen 2:15 may be better translated as “to worship and obey” rather than the phrase “to work and keep” so familiar to English readers (Sailhamer, 45). Man’s obligation is to appropriately respond to this specific form of worship God desired.

Failure to worship God appropriately constitutes willful rebellion. God clearly defined eating from the fruit of the forbidden tree as rebellion (Gen 2:16-17) to the “worship” he demanded (Gen 2:15). This is strikingly similar to the familiar pattern of blessings and cursings from Deut 28-30. Moses presented Israel with two stark choices, both of which would fit seamlessly in this Genesis narrative; “see, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil,” (Deut 30:15). Proper worship of God entailed authentic, heartfelt response in the appropriate way (Gen 2:15). Willful deviation from this command was rebellion, which would be punished (Gen 2:16-17). “The prohibition against eating the fruit of the ‘tree of knowledge’ gave Adam the opportunity to worship God through loyal devotion,” (Matthews, 211).

Man’s Rebellion

However, Adam and Eve did willfully violate God’s commandment for worship. In so doing, they introduced sin into the world and were expelled from the garden (Gen 3:22-24). “The state of unconscious innocence gave place to a state of conscious rebellion,” (Andrews, 1901, 11).

Their rebellion ushered in the next dispensation in God’s eternal program. God’s grace can be clearly seen in His promise of redemption through their offspring (Gen 3:15) and in a covering for their sin. God’s judgment for their rebellious failure to maintain proper worship is redemptive in purpose, not vindictive (Hamilton, 2005, 46).

innocence-1024x768

Dispensation of Conscience (Gen 3:7 – 8:14)

God’s Revelation

Once sin entered into the world and man had knowledge of good and evil (Gen 3:22), conscience, which is written on man’s heart (Rom 2:14), was the ruling factor or restraint upon man’s sinful lusts. “Obedience to the dictates of conscience was man’s chief stewardship responsibility” in this new dispensation (Ryrie, 60). Scripture records that immediately after consuming the fruit, Adam and Eve were ashamed and hid from fellowship with God (Gen 3:8). There was “a consciousness of guilt or shame before God,” (Keil, 2011, 60). God provided revelation about this new dispensation immediately after the fall (Gen 3:14-24).

Man’s Worship Responsibility

Though Scripture does not explicitly record this new revelation, offerings are an implied part of worship in this dispensation (Gen 4:3-4). Life inside the garden, in the previous dispensation, was “blissful communion with God without mediation,” (Matthews, 259). Sin fundamentally changed this relationship, and the first record of life outside the garden depicts Cain and Abel presenting offerings to God.

Cain brought merely an offering of fruit from the ground (Gen 4:3) which found no favor with God (Gen 4:4b), and Cain became very angry as a result (Gen 4:5). Abel, in contrast, brought a costly blood sacrifice “of the firstborn of his flock.”

Man’s Rebellion

Cain’s failure is representative of mankind’s corporate rebellion and rejection of proper worship (Gen 6:5-6). He responded with both an insincere heart and in the wrong manner. “Abel’s thanks came from the depths of his heart, whilst Cain merely offered his to keep on good terms with God,” (Keil, 69). Cain’s attitude was false, and his subsequent anger betrayed a counterfeit love for God (Gen 4:5b). His rebellion resulted in a willful transgression of God’s requirement for a bloody sacrifice.  Scriptural evidence supporting the specific requirement of a bloody sacrifice are circumstantial (Gen 3:21; Heb 9:22), but Crawford’s reasoned statement here is virtually unanswerable; “with the single exception of Cain’s rejected offering, there is no other sacrifice or record before the time of Moses that did not consist of the shedding of animal blood,” (Crawford, 1853, 276).

Therefore Cain responded insincerely to God and in a completely inappropriate manner. He desired to worship in the wrong way and God simply will not accept the wrong form of worship (Gen 4:5). Cain left in exile and founded a large city which flourished (Gen 4:17-24). Scripture records absolutely no worship from Cain again. In contrast, the descendents of Seth “began to call upon the name of the Lord,” (Gen 4:26). Their proper worship undoubtedly consisted of doing good and not evil, in accordance with their conscience, and responding to the Lord with offerings and sacrifices at appointed times.[1]

The corporate failure of mankind to maintain a right heart for God or worship Him appropriately is evident in that “the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence,” (Gen 6:11). Mankind’s thoughts were “only evil continually,” (Gen 6:5). Noah, however, was “blameless in his generation” and “walked with God,” (Gen 6:9). Evidently Noah, alone among mankind, still loved God and worshipped Him correctly as his forefathers had (Gen 4:26). His Godly character is very apparent – Noah’s immediate response upon exiting the ark after the catastrophic flood was to make a blood offering to God (Gen 8:20-21), illustrating the authentic response of a true believer in this dispensation. It is extremely significant that God’s response came only after He smelled “the pleasing aroma” (Gen 8:21) of the offering. “Man is still fallen; but through an offering on an alter he may yet find God’s blessing,” (Sailhamer, 93) which immediately followed (Gen 8:21b-22).

conscience-1024x768

Dispensation of Human Government (Gen 8:15 – 11:9)

God’s Revelation

He would never curse the ground because of men or strike down any living creature with a flood again; the earth’s seasons would remain (Gen 8:21-22; 9:9-11).

Man’s Worship Responsibility

Man’s responsible worship is to multiply and fill the earth (Gen 9:1,7). Subordinate to this overarching responsibility, God revealed that all creatures would now fear man (Gen 9:2) and would be able to be eaten for food (Gen 9:3).

The first vestiges of human government are introduced to people as they multiplied and filled the earth, specifically as a “form of control upon the lawless impulses of men,” (McClain, 46). This government took the form of capitol punishment (Gen 9:6).

“If God on account of the innate sinfulness of man would no more bring an exterminating judgment upon the earthly creation, it was necessary that by commands and authorities He should erect a barrier against the supremacy of evil,” (Keil, 97).

Man’s Rebellion

The great rebellion of man in this dispensation was that, rather than spreading out and multiplying on the face of the earth (Gen 8:17; 9:7), mankind gathered together in defiance of God’s command to build a city to prevent their dispersion (Gen 11:4).

God’s judgment is to confound their language, frustrating mankind’s attempt to form what may be termed a “one world government” (Gen 11:6-7). Mankind leaves and disperses throughout the earth, as God initially commanded (Gen 11:8, 9b).

Man’s sin is that of selfishness; choosing autonomy over God. “The sin of the people does not lie in the desire to build a city . . . It is the motivation behind this undertaking that is most prominent.” They desired to build themselves a city which reached to the heavens, to make a name for themselves so they would not be scattered abroad (Gen 11:4). “This is the pagan concept of immortality,” (Hamilton, 75).

It was deliberate rebellion against God’s express command. Man’s responsibility for true worship in this dispensation is to abide by their innate knowledge of right vs. wrong, to multiply over the earth and govern corporately over one another. Man’s basic problem is that he always seeks to worship in his own way; “the characteristic mark of man’s failure up to this point in the book has been his attempt to grasp the ‘good’ on his own rather than trust God to provide it for him,” (Sailhamer, 105). Man’s corporate failure to worship God appropriately, borne out of a hostile heart, brought about a change in God’s administration.

conscience

Dispensation of the Patriarchs (Gen 11:10 – Ex 18:27)[2]

God’s Revelation

Rather than working corporately with all of mankind, God now choose to mediate His will through one man and eventually one people. “God turned away from man in the collective sense and called out one particular man through whom the divine regal will is to be accomplished on earth,” (McClain, 49).

God commands an idolatrous man, Abraham (Josh 24:2), to leave the land of his family and journey to a new land God will show him. He makes several distinct promises to Abraham, (1) to make a great nation from him, (2) to bless him, (3) to make his name great, (4) to make him a blessing, (5) to bless those who bless Abraham and curse (or judge) those who judge him, and (6) bless all people on earth through Abraham (Gen 12:1-3). “Abram is the vehicle of the divine gift for the nations. This suggests that a specific plan is envisioned for the blessing upon the nations,” (Matthews, 2005, 117).

God guaranteed Abraham He would be faithful to make a nation from him (Gen 15:5). God went even further, making a covenant with Abraham, promising He would provide a land for the nation (Gen 15:18). God, by passing between the severed pieces of Abraham’s sacrifice, condescended in an extraordinary fashion to place Himself as the weaker party of the covenant (Bartholomew & Goheen, 2004, 56). The covenant with Abraham foreshadowed the covenant with the theocratic kingdom of Israel (Ex 19:1-6), with David (2 Sam 7:16) and the first advent of Christ Himself (Mk 1:15).

Man’s Worship Responsibility

The Patriarch’s worship responsibility is four-fold (McCune, 125-126). First, to believe in God’s promises given in the covenant (Gen 15:6). Second, to receive the sign of the covenant – circumcision (Gen 17:10). Failure to do so will result in exile (Gen 17:14). Third, separation from the other heathen nations. Isaac and Jacob both married Israelite women (Gen 24:3-4; 28:1-2), and Abraham explicitly forbid marriage with foreigners. Fourth, they must remain in the land of promise (Gen 26:2-3).

The Patriarchs executed responsible and faithful worship throughout this dispensation. Regardless of individual moral failings common to all men (Gen 12:10-20; 20:2; 25:32; 26:7; 27:35; 38), they remained faithful followers of God. Abraham’s immediate response after hearing God’s revelation is to worship Him (Gen 12:7). Abraham is still blessed with material wealth upon his return from Egypt (Gen 13:2) and maintained worship afterward (Gen 13:4). The Lord blessed Isaac during his life (Gen 26:12-14). Jacob also maintained proper worship (Gen 33:20).

Scripture provides ample context to demonstrate the sojourn to Egypt was part of God’s sovereign plan from the beginning (Gen 15:13-16), to be executed at His own specific time. Isaac was told to not go to Egypt (Gen 26:2-5), and later Joseph was allowed to (Gen 46:2-4). This event was orchestrated and decreed by God (Gen 45:5-8; 50:20), who promised to bless Israel in Egypt and did so (Gen 46:3; Ex 1:7). This is hardly the result of judgment; rather, it confirms that the Patriarchs, sinful and fallible men though they were, executed faithful and responsible worship. Dispensational attempts to defend the Patriarch’s “failure” by appealing to the tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will ignore plain Scriptural context and are unconvincing.[3]

patriarchs

Dispensation of the Law (Ex 19:1 – Acts 1:26)

God’s Revelation

After He led His people up out of Egypt, God forged these tribes of Abraham into a theocratic kingdom at Sinai (Ex 19:1-6). Sinai refined Israel’s understanding of the original promise to Abraham. As Stephen Dempster observed “[t]he promise of this covenant is that an obedient Israel may bring God’s creation blessing to the world,” (Dempster, 2003, 101). God has several goals in mind (Ex 19:5-6); (1) Israel would be a peculiar treasure for God out of all the nations; (2) Israel would be a kingdom of priests for God, and (3) Israel would be a holy nation.

God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob continues in a new form. Israel will be a showcase nation, a testimony for God to all the nations of the world, called to live by laws which reflect the character of the one true God (Bartholomew & Goheen, 66).

Victor Hamilton observed, “[t]he purpose of the covenant is to create a new relationship. The purpose of the law is to regulate or perpetuate an existing relationship by orderly means,” (Hamilton, 189). Continuing on, Hamilton quoted from Brevard Childs and noted, “The law defines the holiness expected of the covenant people,” (189). The law itself was not based on fear; faithfulness was predicated on an all encompassing love for God (Deut 6:1-13). Too often, Christians focus on the fact of Israel’s elect status among the nations and the behavior expected of her (Ex 20 – Lev 27) while ignoring why God demanded such behavior in the first place.

Man’s Worship Responsibility

Israel’s theocratic role was to be a holy, set apart people and thereby lead the Gentile nations to God by her own holy example. She would mediate God’s holiness to the other nations. In the same manner that Christians are commanded to be the “light of the world” (Mt 5:16) individually, to draw people to Christ by their testimony, God desired a specific people, Israel, to do this nationally.

Israel’s assignment from God involved intermediation. They were not to be a people unto themselves, enjoying their special relationship with God and paying no attention to the rest of the world. Rather, they were to represent him to the rest of the world and attempt to bring the rest of the world to him. In other words, the challenge to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” represented the responsibility inherent in the original promise to Abraham (Stuart, 2006, 423).

Ezekiel 18 is one of the most striking passages on the failure of Israel to maintain proper worship with God. Faith alone has always been the grounds for salvation, in any dispensation (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:5; Eph 2:8-9). Appropriate worship is mankind’s responsibility, the fruit of a regenerated heart. “These stipulations provided a concrete, practical outworking of faith in the God who redeemed Israel from Egypt and gave the people His law.” Israel failed in this respect (Alexander, 1986, 824).[4]

Righteousness before God consisted in keeping the law to best of one’s ability (Eze 18:5-9). A man who “walks in my statutes, and keeps my rules by acting faithfully—he is righteous; he shall surely live, declares the Lord GOD,” (Eze 18:9). Israel’s worship failure as a theocratic nation was corporate, but its collective failure resulted from innumerable individual rebellions. A man is responsible to God for his own sins (Eze 18:10-13). “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself,” (Eze 18:20c).

Complete forgiveness is promised for a heartfelt return to God and proper worship (Eze 18:21-23). God, in every dispensation, desires men to be saved. “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” (Eze 18:23). Blessings would result from obedience to God’s specific revelation; cursing would follow from disobedience (Deut 28-30).

Man’s Rebellion

There was a pervasive heart issue throughout Israel’s entire theocratic history – Israel repeatedly fell into rebellion and blasphemed the name of God by their idolatrous worship. As Ezekiel documented, this happened at the very establishment of the Mosaic Covenant (Eze 20:5,8,13), prior to the wilderness judgment (Eze 20:15-16) and during the wilderness years (Eze 20:19) the Israelites were specifically commanded to “walk in my statutes, and be careful to obey my rules.” Failure to worship God appropriately is “treacherous,” (Eze 20:27).

Israel failed to drive the nations out of the land and was judged (Joshua 2:1-3). After Joshua’s death, she “abandoned the Lord” and served other gods. The true God was unknown to Israel within a generation of Joshua’s death (Joshua 2:10-15). God appointed judges to rule over the Israel, and this period culminated with devastating civil war and general debauchery (Judges 21:25). The historical kingdom reached its pinnacle in Solomon, when the temple was dedicated and God re-iterated the covenant promise He had already made to David (1 Kgs 9:1-9). Nations round about Israel began to know God through Israel’s holy example; “the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon concerning the name of the LORD,” (1 Kgs 10:1). After Solomon’s death, the nation fractured into civil war (1 Kgs 12:16-24).

After Solomon’s death, God’s promised judgment (Deut 30:17-20; 1 Kgs 9:1-9) began to be fulfilled. No king was ever again chosen directly by God, but took the throne by inheritance or by force.

The depth of Israel’s worship failure is very striking when one considers the change in the office of the prophet. Originally, at the establishment of the historical kingdom, prophets advised the king and their revelation from God was for immediate application, not future events glimpsed through a glass darkly.

“The prophet spake for his own time; his words were fitted to meet the exigencies of the day; they were pre-eminently practical. The word spoken, whether to the king or people, was to enable them to fulfill present duty, not to discern in detail the remote future,” (Andrews, 80).

However, Israel’s rebellion of false worship would result in a cessation of God’s presence among His people and a need for reliance on the written word instead.

“The period of writing prophets parallels the period of the decline and end of the historical kingdom,” (McClain, 115). Prophets now began to write for the future generations, not to merely guide the current generation. “The transition, therefore, from spoken to written prophesy marks an epoch in the history of the elect people,” (83).

The sickness of Israel was pervasive, encompassing the moral, social, economic and spiritual spheres (McClain, 116). The call was always the same; return to the Law and be blessed;

“Thus says the LORD: “Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls,” (Jer 6:16).

The departure of the Lord’s glory from the temple in Jerusalem shortly after the captivity signified “the end not only of Israel’s political supremacy but also of her religious supremacy,” (McClain, 123).[5]

“Israel might have fulfilled its calling to be ‘a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,’ and that it did not was its sin; and the captivity brought the merited judgment,” (Andrews, 406). Israel’s failure can be reduced to one simple point – she did not love God with all her heart, soul and might (Deut 6:5), therefore she did not worship Him appropriately.

“And many nations will pass by this city, and every man will say to his neighbor, “Why has the Lord dealt thus with this great city?” And they will answer, “Because they have forsaken the covenant of the Lord their God and worshiped other gods and served them,” (Jer 22:8-9).

law

Dispensation of Grace (Acts 2:1 – Rev 19:21)

God’s Revelation

Here was revealed the mystery of the church age and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which “is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek,” (Rom 1:16).

A new arrangement for God’s dealing with men, this current dispensation was new revelation given to the apostles that the world did not have before (Eph 3:2-3), “which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit,” (Eph 3:5). Gentiles were now revealed to be “fellow-heirs” in the family of God (Eph 3:6).

Rolland McCune aptly remarks, “the new revelation from God is so vast that it cannot be easily reduced to a nice catalogue,” (132). Christ died for the sins of the world, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (Jn 3:16). What every previous dispensation looked forward to by blood sacrifices was now made clear; Christ was the perfect lamb without blemish – the final sacrifice. “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,” (Jn 1:29). His sacrifice atoned for sins, and as our High Priest Christ intercedes for His children (Heb 5:7-10).

Gentiles have been grafted into God’s covenant promise to Abraham (Rom 11:17). “God raises up a seed unto Abraham out of the Gentiles by engrafting them through faith in the Christ, and accounting them as the children of Abraham by virtue of their Abrahamic justifying faith,” (Peters, 1884, 396). God is taking out of the world certain people for His name (Acts 15:14). “When the body of Christ is complete, the Lord will come; Gentile times will finish and Israel shall be put in again,” (McClain, 1973, 202).

God’s eternal plan involves two distinct groups – Israel and the Church. God revealed that the Church was an integral part of His plan. The kingdom that was promised to Israel (2 Sam 7:16) is still future. The Jews were waiting for the promised King who would rule over Israel, whose reign would never end. They didn’t recognize Christ was that King. Jesus revealed this present dispensation once it became very clear the Jews were rejecting Him (Mt 21:43). The church, as a corporate body of born again believers, is considered a “nation” of sorts in Scripture (Gal 3:7-9; Rom 10:19), with the same purpose but different method.

Man’s Worship Responsibility

McCune outlined several responsibilities for man in this dispensation (132). Man must receive God’s marvelous gift of salvation, offered to all, by faith (Rom 10:10; Acts 16:31). Believers must worship God in the local church, be baptized, attend worship faithfully and partake of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:41-42; Heb 10:24-25). The outworking of a truly regenerated heart will be a desire to live a Godly life (Titus 2:11-14). Renald Shower’s words here cannot be improved upon, “grace practices discipline over believers for the purpose of prompting them to reject a godless lifestyle and to adopt a Godly one,” (44).

He must also spread the Gospel to the world indiscriminately (Mt 28:18-20); which includes discipleship for new believers. This is an active evangelism, rather than the passive ingathering characteristic of the Mosaic Dispensation. Men must pattern the holy ideal of the Kingdom of God in their own lives while passionately reaching out to others with the Good News of Jesus Christ. What Israel failed to do corporately, Christians in this dispensation are called to do individually. God is not mediating His grace through Israel any longer, but dealing with the whole world once again.

Man’s Rebellion

A quick glance around contemporary society proves man has not worshipped God appropriately. John Walvoord, commenting elsewhere in Daniel on the errs of post-millennialism, wrote “for the past century or more the church has been an ebbing tide in the affairs of the world, and there has been no progress whatsoever in the church’s gaining control of the world politically. If the image [in Dan 2] represents Gentile political power, it is very much still standing,” (Walvoord, 2012, 89). Paul wrote to Timothy, warning him that “evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived,” (2 Tim 3:13). This is surely the case in society today.

The witness of Scripture testifies that both the Gentile world and Israel will be deceived by the Antichrist following the rapture of the Church (Dan 7:25; 9:27; 2 Thess 2:6-12). The moral, social and spiritual decay in modern society is merely a foretaste of the debauchery to come, culminating in the Antichrist – the ultimate antithesis of Jesus Christ, a man wholly give over to Satan and self-worship (Dan 7:25), every bit as sinful as Christ is holy. “He is Satan’s masterpiece, a human being who is Satan’s substitute for Jesus Christ,” (Walvoord, 353). The fact that mankind will someday willingly worship such a creature is proof of a widespread failure to accept proper worship of God in this present age.

grace

Dispensation of the Millennium (Rev 20:1-15)

God’s Revelation

Christ will return to this world with His saints[6] at his side (Rev 19:14) and defeat the Antichrist conclusively (Dan 7:11b, 22, 26; 9:27; 11:45b). Satan will be bound for 1000 years and cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:2-3). The Millennial Reign of Christ, the kingdom promised to Israel (Gen 12:1-3; Ex 19:1-6; 2 Sam 7:16) and already offered and rejected by her once (Mt 21:43) will be established at long last (Dan 2:35b, 44a; 7:13-14, 27; Rev 20:6).

Those believing Gentiles and Israelites from the Dispensations of Innocence through the Law will be resurrected to join Christ in the Kingdom. The church has already been raptured prior to the tribulation. Everybody who did not believe in God will be resurrected and judged at the end of the Millennial Reign (Dan 12:1-4; Rev 20:4-6).[7]

Israel and the Church will both worship Christ in spirit and in truth and receive their promised and decreed ends (Amos 9:11-15; 2 Cor 11:2; Rev 19:7-9).

Man’s Worship Responsibility

Those who entered the Kingdom from the Tribulation and their children are responsible to obey Christ’s rule (Rev 19:15). All other believers will have resurrected bodies and be glorified; their sanctification is already complete.

Man’s Rebellion

Mankind will fail here, too. As the earth is re-populated during Christ’s rule for a period of 1000 years, man will still have the option to conform outwardly and yet still remain in willful rebellion against God. McClain observes,

Some people have been genuinely concerned about the problem of sin in an otherwise perfect Kingdom of God in human life. And, of course, Scripture makes it perfectly clear that sin will be present during the MillennialKingdom. The fact that Satan must be bound so that he cannot deceive the nations during the age of the Kingdom (Rev 20:3) shows that in the people of that age there will remain the inclination to respond to satanic temptation. And the prediction that a great multitude will thus respond as soon as Satan is loosed (Rev 20:7-8) only confirms the existence of a sinful human nature (499).

Because Christ Himself is ruling, disobedience to His law will be a very rare exception. “We are not told of any transgression till near the end, when Satan is unloosed  . . . This implies that till this unloosing there was at least general obedience to God’s will under the rule of the Messiah,” (Andrews, 355).

Satan’s brief, final rebellion is dealt with astonishingly quickly. The rebellious men who reject the visible, present Lord for Satan are snuffed out as like a candle (Rev 20:9b); “as the light given them has been great, so is their punishment,” (Andrews, 356).

mill

Lessons from the Dispensations

It is not the point of this monograph to examine the implications of the dispensations at length, but one overarching principle stands out quite clearly. Man is utterly unable to save Himself, is completely dependent on God’s grace, and God deserves all the glory He demands and then more. Man’s sin is clearly evident in every dispensation. There is a collective, corporate failure to worship God appropriately or respond to His revelation out of a pure heart. Jeremiah’s words to Judah, though addressed to Israelites, are entirely appropriately to all of mankind in any dispensation;

“Heaping oppression upon oppression, and deceit upon deceit, they refuse to know me, declares the Lord,” (Jer 9:6).

Paul echoes this most fundamental truth in his letter to the Romans (Rom 1:18-32).

lessons

Summary

Christ’s statement on worship transcends every dispensation; “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,” (Mt 22:37). Such an all-encompassing love for God will produce an authentic desire to worship Him in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:24). Man’s revelation from God has changed throughout human history as God progressively unfolded His plan for His creation. The mark of true worship has been the proper response to Him in accordance with the revelation given. In this, man has continually failed in a corporate sense.

Adam in Eden fell through temptation; the world before the flood was corrupt and evil. The nations descended from Noah ignored God’s command to scatter and multiply. Israel went after foreign gods, ignored her covenant responsibilities and crucified her Messiah. The Church is now dealing with apostasy which will grow ever worse, “and at last all the light and happiness of the Kingdom do not keep many of its subjects from rebellion when the Devil is unloosed,” (Andrews, 356).

In an individual way, however, man has positively responded to God’s revelation out of a pure heart and worshipped God appropriately throughout human history. He is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance,” (2 Pet 3:9). Salvation, in any dispensation, has always consisted of an authentic response to God, and corresponding worship in appropriate form.

Praise Him that so many have loved Him, do love Him today, and will love Him in ages to come. Scripture gives divine assurance that, no matter the wiles of Satan and the appetites of sinful men, God will triumph. Christ will rule and reign, defeat Satan once and for all and deliver up the Kingdom to His Father, then all who love God will “dwell in the house of the Lord forever,” (Ps 23:6b).

Bibliography

Alexander, Ralph H. “Ezekiel,” vol. 6, The Expositors Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.

Andrews, Samuel J. God’s Revelations of Himself to Men. New York: Putnam, 1901.

Bartholomew, Craig and Michael Goheen. The Drama of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004.

Cooper, Lamar E. “Ezekiel,” vol. 17, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H, 1994.

Crawford, Thomas J. The Doctrine of Holy Scripture Respecting the Atonement. Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1853.

Dempster, Stephen. Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible. Downers Grove: IVP, 2003.

Hamilton, Victor P. A Handbook on the Pentateuch, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Keil, C.F. “Pentateuch,” vol. 1, Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2011.

Matthews, Kenneth A. “Genesis: 1-11:26,” vol. 1a, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H, 1996.

Matthews, Kenneth A. “Genesis: 11:27-50:26,” vol. 1b, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H, 2005.

McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom. Winona Lake: BMH, 1959.

McClain, Alva J. Romans: The Gospel of God’s Grace. Chicago: Moody, 1973.

McCune, Rolland. A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vol. 1. Detroit: DBTS, 2009.

Means, J. O. “What Is The True Conception Of Christian Worship?” Bibliotheca Sacra 022:88 (Oct 1865): 531.

Peters, George N.H. The Theocratic Kingdom, vol. 1. New York: Funk & Wagnall’s, 1884.

Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody, 2007.

Sailhamer, John H. “Genesis,” vol. 2, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

Showers, Renald E. There Really is a Difference. Bellmawr: Friends of Israel, 1990.

Stuart, Douglas K. “Exodus,” vol. 2, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H, 2006.

Thomas, Robert L. Revelation 8-22. Chicago: Moody, 1995.

Walvoord, John F. Daniel, ed. Charles Dyer and Phillip Rawley. Chicago: Moody, 2012.

Walvoord, John F. Revelation, ed. Philip Rawley and Mark Hitchcock. Chicago: Moody, 2011.

[1] Some dispensationalists do not agree with the traditional dispensational understanding of Gen 6:3, in that the “Spirit” is an inward restraint upon men’s activities; see McClain, Kingdom, 44-45 and Showers, Difference, 36 for this view. Arguments for the “Spirit” being the imparting of long life (“breath of life”) from Matthews, “Genesis,” 332-334 and Keil, “Pentateuch,” 84-85 are sound.

[2] Some dispensationalists disagree with the traditional dispensational understanding that the Patriarchs “failed” and were judged in any sense at the close of this dispensation.

[3] See McClain, Kingdom, 51 and McCune, Systematic, 127 (footnote #58) for these arguments.

[4] See also Lamar E. Cooper, “Ezekiel,” vol. 17, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 187. Both Alexander and Cooper emphasize that Ezekiel is speaking of judgment for sins, not necessarily eternal salvation in this passage. Due to the abysmal spiritual conditions of the day, many Israelites in Judah who thus sinned undoubtedly never exercised saving faith in God, but some certainly did. Regardless, the point germane to this paper is that Israel corporately failed to exercise proper worship in this dispensation.

[5] Eze 8:4; 8:12; 9:3-8; 11:23;21:26-27.

[6] Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22 (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1995), 388. Walvoord [John F. Walvoord, Revelation, ed. Philip Rawley and Mark Hitchcock (Chicago, IL: Moody, 2011), 290-291] believes angels are present also.

[7] Thomas, Revelation, 420. The first resurrection is the righteous to eternal life, all the righteous (Rev 20:4-5). All of the righteous believers will be resurrected before the millennial reign begins, in various stages. Thus “first” does not denote a one-time event, but more of a category. It is the category encompassing the resurrection of all the just in Christ. The second resurrection is for the wicked and ungodly (Rev 20:5) – those who denied Christ and suppressed the truth in unrighteousness until the bitter end.

 

Witnessing to a Godless Culture

We are increasingly living a world that (1) denies there are standards for anything, and (2) is Biblically illiterate. Join us as we watch the Apostle Paul deal with these very same issues on Mar’s Hill.

* This video and the accompanying notes were originally produced for an apologetics class I teach at my church, hence the opening and closing credits! I pray this modest study will be of use to some of you . . .

Notes – Acts-17

The “Gospel” of Judas . . . ?

gospel-judas-1

A news story about the so-called “Gospel of Judas” is starting to receive attention from the media.

The Gospel of Judas is a fragmented Coptic (Egyptian)-language text that portrays Judas in a far more sympathetic light than did the gospels that made it into the Bible. In this version of the story, Judas turns Jesus over to the authorities for execution upon Jesus’ request, as part of a plan to release his spirit from his body. In the accepted biblical version of the tale, Judas betrays Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.

First, the document dates to 280 A.D., which is approximately 250 years after Jesus’ ministry, death, burial and resurrection.

Second, the author assumes a great deal about the canonization of the New Testament. There were good reasons why the Gospel of Judas was not accepted as authentic, inspired scripture by the early Christian community.

Third, this is not a tale. The Biblical account of Jesus’ ministry is a historical, objective fact.

Fourth, Jesus did not die on the cross “as part of a plan to release his spirit from his body.” This seems a bit mystical to me, and consistent with other false, Gnostic “gospels” the media and theological liberals like to trumpet from the rooftops.

Criteria

Briefly, these were the criteria for Scripture to be considered authentic in the early years of Christianity:

(1) It had to have been written by an actual Apostle of Christ (Mk 3:13-21) or a disciple

The New Testament was written by these men who walked with Christ and were taught by Him personally. It was written in their own lifetimes. The copy of this spurious “Gospel of Judas” was written 250 years later and conflicts with contemporary accounts. Not too trustworthy!

To place this in a modern context, say I suddenly produced a letter entitled, “The Memoirs of General Fred Hillbilly – Confederate General Extraordinaire.” Suppose in this letter, I claimed that General Robert E. Lee actually didn’t fight at Gettysburg at all – his army was routed while in camp and all his soldiers were asleep. Men were bayoneted in their tents, shot out of hand and all prisoners were hung without trial and tossed into mass, unmarked graves. It was a cold-blooded massacre, and the myth of Picket’s charge on the Union lines was invented to protect the reputation of the Union Army and President Lincoln. This is obviously ridiculous revisioist history, not to be taken seriously by any thinking person. This is precisely what this “Gospel of Judas” is to Christian history.

(2) It had to reflect the common, orthodox body of teaching received by the apostles and disciples

The Gospel of Judas did not reflect this teaching. Documents which did not reflect the accurate, corporate teaching of Christ and the apostles was given little weight. For example, “The Memoirs of General Fred Hillbilly – Confederate General Extraordinaire,” does not reflect accurate history. Likewise, the “Gospel” of Judas does not mesh with contemporary source documents – including Scripture. Never let anybody tell you Scripture cannot be trusted because it is “religious.”

(3) It has to have divine qualities – it testifies of itself

Inspired Scripture will speak to those who are genuinely saved and have the indwelling Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:6-16). To those who have not been saved by the grace of God, it will be virtually incomprehensible. The whole weight of Scripture testifies to the authenticity of the Biblical account of Jesus’ betrayal at Judas’ hands. Satan was working in Judas’ heart, tempting him to betray Christ (Jn 13:2). Jesus stated one of the disciples would betray Him (Jn 13:21), and identified Judas as the man (Jn 13:26). Judas then fled into the night (Jn 13:27). This account is also given in Mt 26:14-16, Mk 14:10-11 and Lk 22:3-6. A false “gospel” which posits that the purpose of Christ’s death was to “release His spirit from His body” does not gel with the body of faith, or corporate teaching, of the rest of the New Testament.

When people think of “choosing the canon of Scripture,” they inevitably conjure up images of men sitting around a conference table, picking which books belong in the New Testament and which one’s don’t. It did not work this way! Those books which had the marks of authenticity, described above, grew in popularity and prominence and were gradually adopted over time by the great majority of the Christian churches in the first three hundred years or so after Christ’s death, burial, resurrection and ascension. In short, by the time lists of “orthodox” books began to circulate, the church fathers were not arbitrarily picking some to keep and some to toss in the trash –they were merely codifying what had already happened in the larger Christian community.

There is no reason to take this silly “gospel” seriously. Please force unbelievers and theological liberals to use these same standards of reasoning and apply them to undisputed historical figures – they will see the amazing double standard at work. Would anybody be willing to give “The Memoirs of General Fred Hillbilly – Confederate General Extraordinaire” the time of day? Then don’t give the “Gospel of Judas” the time of day either.