← Prophecy Watchers
Prophecy Watchers
Tucker Carlson Got It Wrong | Mondo Gonzales and J.B. Hixson Respond | The Week in Bible Prophecy
01:18:36
Loading summary
Transcript212 lines
- [00:02]
A
The Week in Bible Prophecy, a Prophecy Watchers podcast.
- [00:09]
B
Hello, everyone. Mondo Gonzalez here in studio. Welcome to the podcast. This week I am here with Dr. J.B. hickson.
- [00:16]
A
Welcome, J.B. hey, Mondo, thanks for having me.
- [00:19]
B
And recently here in the past few days, it was perfect timing for you coming in to do some filming on some of your other stuff. But Tucker Carlson had he's been kind of on a certainly anti modern Israel. Right. Are you calling him an anti Semite?
- [00:37]
A
No, I think like you and I have talked about before, anti Semitism and anti Zionism are two different things. And just because someone is against modern Israel doesn't mean they don't like Jews.
- [00:46]
B
Right? So that, so let's come out of the gate. Is Tucker had this, what he was calling a theologian, J.D. hall, on discussing basically what is dispensationalism? And of course, it goes through a lot of things, different topics on there. What is dispensationalism? Christian Zionism, what is Jesus Christ's role in dispensationalism? Who killed Jesus? The Scofield Bible, Zionism taking hold in the west, and on and on and on. But what we wanted to do was we wanted to respond because I don't really know much about J.D. hall except, and I don't need to except we're going to judge him on his words of what he said. And so I'm going to have a lot of quotes today. Sorry about that. As it relates to direct quotes from him. I'm even going to give some timestamps so that people can go look and make sure that if they want to check whether we're quoting him out of context, which we're going to definitely try not to do. So again, Tucker, very anti Zionism, maybe let's, let's start there. What is Zionism?
- [01:50]
A
Well, I thought you were going to start with who is Tucker Carlson? But I do want to, I want to, I'll get to that question in a second. But let me just say, you know, I, I respect a lot of what Tucker has said through the years. He's a conservative in that sense, and so we resonate with what he says. But I've been really discouraged in recent years with the decision he's made to really come out against a lot of what we hold near and dear in terms of our biblical understanding of God's plan of the ages. So Zionism, that's the question.
- [02:19]
B
Yeah, because I think this is common and I think they do, they do bring it up and in the sense of and certainly this Is like one of the worst things that could ever happen is Zionism. And so let's talk about the distinction, because there's political Zionism and then there's. There's Christian Zionism. Yeah. And so let's talk about. First of all, let's talk about political Zionism.
- [02:40]
A
Yeah. So just FYI, in my latest book, Fade to Black, I have a whole chapter on fade on Biblical Zionism versus political Zionism. Right. And so there is a huge distinction. There's huge. Yep. So you said start with.
- [02:52]
B
Let's start with political Herzl. Let's go all the way back.
- [02:54]
A
So obviously, you know, around the end of the 19th century, there was a sort of a resurgence of interest in giving the Jewish people a homeland. Theodore Herzl kind of is considered the father of the modern Zionist movement. He actually proposed a plan to move them to Uganda, if I recall.
- [03:11]
B
Among others.
- [03:12]
A
Among others. Yeah. There were plenty of candidates there. And so that was sort of the seed, you know, in seed form, this notion that ultimately culminated after World War II, some 50 years later in giving Israel their rightful homeland, which is, you know, in what we modern people call Palestine. But it's the Holy Land, God's land, which is marked out in scripture. It was promised unconditionally to Israel. So yeah, the modern Zionist movement was more, you know, reactionary to persecution, to just deference to the Jewish people. It really, really wasn't a spiritual movement or a biblical movement, although we believe it was the underpinnings of biblical prophecy setting the stage for it. But, but yeah, a lot of people think, I don't know how far you want to go with this, but no, that, that's good.
- [04:03]
B
That's a vase. Because the, there's a lot of where we want to go. But for the sake of clarity for people, look there within. Even political Zionism, it's, it's primarily secular. Herzl was not a religious Jewish. So this is the religion idea is not there now. Later we see even some of the many Orthodox Jews, the Rabbinic Jews, were actually against the state of Israel because it was founded by secular atheists, agnostics, et cetera. So this idea of what we would say, secular Zionism there, but it's about establishment of a piece of land for the Jewish people. Again, as you mentioned, could be they had many different options, Uganda, others, et cetera. But it landed, as we know, in The United Nations, 1947, in the land of Israel as we understand it now. So let's come into Christian Zionism. Okay, what, what does that mean.
- [05:01]
A
Yeah. So I. I tend to lean toward the label biblical Zionism. Okay, Right. Just because Christian, you know. Are you talking about the narrator? You know what?
- [05:10]
B
You're right.
- [05:11]
A
So, yeah. So when we talk about biblical Zionism, the Bible clearly promises and details the boundaries of the land. 300,000 square miles, according to some measurements in Genesis 15:8, this promised land for Abraham and his descendants. And the entire Old Testament from Genesis 12 on really is focused on national Israel. Their plan, God chose them as a nation to be a light to him. They were to go in after they left Egypt, across the Jordan, into the promised land and draw all the pagan nations with all their pagan gods to him and elevate Yahweh and be a light to these pagan nations. And God gave them very clear instructions on what to do, what not to do. And of course, if you know your Israelology, to borrow Arnie's term, you know, they failed at every turn. They capitulated to the pagan lands, they adopted pagan religions. They did not succeed through prophets, priests, kings and judges. And eventually God said, oh, Jesus, the Messiah came. And during his earthly ministry, he said to the leaders of Jerusalem in his day, look, I'm going to take this kingdom from you and give it to a future nation of Israel that's worthy of it. So he set Israel aside temporarily enter the church age, which the New Testament talks about. But that doesn't mean he was through with his future for Israel. There is a future for national Israel. And so much of the Old Testament details that very specifically, I'm talking about geographic boundaries, architectural designs, thrones, kingdoms, Daniel's whole promise of a future kingdom and so forth. So kingdom of his kingdom, there shall be no end, that kind of a thing. So I think biblical Zionism says that God has chosen the nation of Israel. Paul explains the doctrine behind this, that they are his chosen nation. He's free to choose who he wants, Jacob and Esau. And then, you know, temporarily he has set them aside, but not permanently. Eventually, all Israel will be delivered into the kingdom. When they cry out, hosanna. Hosanna. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. And so even though there was no Israel, on the political maps of world history from roughly end of the first century to 1948, if you're a Biblicist, you know, somehow, some way, God's got a future for Israel. And so then when Israel did reconstitute as a nation and have sovereignty and a place on the map, that got a lot of Christians excited and Biblical prophecy, folks excited because we're starting to see the beginnings of the fulfillment of prophecy. Yeah, so that's what, that's where I think things get confused if you don't stay in your lane, if you sort of merge political Zionism with biblical or Christian Zionism, you know, you don't understand. So for a guy like me, I'm okay criticizing modern Israel if they do something wrong and recognizing that they're not there in belief, they've not recognized their Messiah, none of that, but yet it's still pretty exciting that they do have a homeland. And oh, by the way, it's the exact homeland that God promised them some 4,000 years ago. So, yeah, Biblical Zionism basically just says God has a plan for Israel. National Geographic Israel and all of God's prophetic plan of the ages is going to culminate and center around that territory and that Nation.
- [08:46]
B
Tommy Ice, Dr. Tommy Ice, he wrote a book, you know, Christian Zionism. And in there, and I've quoted this several times in many of my presentations, is that he basically says that he summarizes the Christian belief is that for some Christians, not all, okay, it's fine that they believe that Israel is still God's chosen people and that they have a future. National Israel has a future sometime prophetically in the future. Okay, so that being the case, I'm like, well, that if that's the definition, you know, in the sense of a very narrow, then sure, I'm all on board with that. But it doesn't mean, again, as. As we discuss here, that that automatically requires us to embrace everything that modern Israel does approve of, of. Of any of the governments throughout the last, you know, 78 years. And so the other thing that was brought up by JD hall here is he brings up, you know, the Genesis 12:3, you know, and he talks about Tucker and Tucker's interview with Ted Cruz. And there's no doubt, I think, that Ted Cruz wasn't ready. You know, why should you support Israel? He brings up Genesis 12:3. Those who bless you will be blessed, and those who curse you will be cursed. Well, the One thing that J.D. hall brought up, he said, well, that's referring to Abraham. That's not referring to Israel. And so it's sad to me because, you know, in Genesis 12:3, we know that that promise is. Is then given to Isaac. In Genesis 27, it's. It's then given to.
- [10:15]
A
To Jacob.
- [10:16]
B
Jacob. But in addition, my favorite one, which is so ironic, is that if you go to numbers 24, 9 here, you have Balaam, the prophet called by Balak to curse Israel. And he says, I can only speak what God tells me. And, and he's talking not just about Jacob the person now. He's talking about the full 12 tribes that are out there in front. And he says, those who bless them will be blessed and those who curse them will be cursed. So here Balaam is speaking specifically, taking that promise that was given to Abraham down to Isaac, down to Jacob, but now 100% on the 12 tribes of Israel and everything that it said. And so I don't know again, the other thing, too, J.B. i get your comments on this is we kind of joked earlier that Tucker has this guy on here who's a covenant theologian, and he's asking him, let's talk about dispensationalism. And yet why didn't he call you? Right? I mean, why didn't he call some person that is trained in understanding specifically what dispensationalism? But he's getting a detractor to shape the narrative. Let's just bring that out of the gate.
- [11:26]
A
Yeah, I don't know J.D. hall either. In fact, I had not heard of him, full disclosure, until this interview. He seems like a nice enough guy. I'm sure he's a great guy to sit down, have a Coke with and talk and get to know. But it was really surprising to me that a guy of Tucker's stature who's an interviewer, he has a show, he's well respected in the public domain, wouldn't know better. And he committed a fundamental flaw, which is when you're critiquing a position, make sure you're fair to the position you're critiquing. Don't bring up their critics and say, we want to critique this. So let's get all of their critics here and let the critics decide what they don't like and think we're, we're giving them a fair shake. You gotta start with the right definition. So I would, you know, I would be happy open, open letter here to, to Tucker Carlson. I and I know many of our colleagues would be happy to come on the show and in grace and fairness, say, hey, here's what, what dispensationalism is. We are part of the movement. I mean, I've been on the Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics. I've been trained at two of the leading dispensational seminaries I have. You know, we both are good friends with Dr. Tommy Ice, which is another beachhead for Advancing dispensational scholarship. So, yeah, we'll be glad to tell you what dispensationalism is and then you can tell us if you disagree. But I. With all, without trying to astound snide, I don't think J.D. hall would know a dispensationalist if it came up and bit him on the rear. I mean, he just doesn't. He doesn't seem to have a good definition of dispensationalism and he's not fair to their definition. You know, I thought the same thing when he tries to take the minimalist view of Genesis 12. The verse that came to my mind was Stephen's speech in Acts 7. I don't know if you thought of this either, but he said, and God gave them no inheritance in it, not enough to set his foot on. But even when Abraham had no child, he promised to give it to him for possession and to his descendants after him. Wasn't just about Abraham, it's about that land. Repeatedly throughout the whole the Old Testament, God refers to it as my land, my land, my land, my land. It was God's to give, and he gave it to his people, not to one individual.
- [13:40]
B
Yeah. And so, I mean, and if you watch the beginning here, I'll have some timestamps. But he said, what is dispensationalism? And he really didn't answer it in the way. And so here, just for the sake of people, you can see his response. This is Charles Ryrie's book, I mean, called Dispensational. I mean, no doubt Charles Ryrie is the standard as it relates to understanding, at least a summary. This is his 1995 edition. He says, here's a, here's a definition that he gives. So I'm surprised. Okay, why didn't J.D. hall say, well, here, let me, let's read this definition, because let me just say this first before I read it, is when you have a critic, it's going to be inevitable generally that they're going to develop straightforward straw man fallacy. Okay, let's build a straw man. Then we can attack it or show how weak it is or how dumb it is, but that's a logical fallacy. And he did that many, many times. And so here is the official definition. It says a concise definition quote of a dispensation is this. A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose. If one were describing a dispensation, he would include other things, such as the Ideas of distinctive revelation, responsibility, testing, failure, and judgment. But at this point, we are seeking a definition, not a description. And so right here, again, out of the gate, and I have other things that we can talk about. But so in the Bible, the word appears many, many places. Maybe give quickly, because I want to move. But what does the biblical word mean? And then we have, of course, a fancy word, dispensationalism. So what is that answer that for us?
- [15:21]
A
Yeah. So first of all, yeah, Ryrie's book was originally dispensationalism today from the foundational dispensational school, Dallas Seminary, which C.I. schofield was heavily involved with. And now it's just called dispensationalism. That's an obvious oversight not to go straight to that source. Not that Ryrie invented it.
- [15:41]
B
Correct.
- [15:41]
A
But he's the authoritative definition. I mean, you have to study that book if you're going to study what dispensationalism is. Right. So, yeah. I mean, really surprising, but, yeah. So the word dispensation comes straight from Scripture. It's the Greek word oikonomia. It's often translated with the cognate economy in English, but more often than not, stewardship. It's used seven times in the New Testament, five of them in the New King James. It's translated stewardship. For example, when Jesus gives the parable of the unjust steward, he's talking about how he gave the stewards a stewardship. Right. So dispensation in the grand scheme of God's plan of the ages. We get that truth from Ephesians chapter 3, where Paul says, have you heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me, which in other ages was not known, but has now been made known through me? And so he's talking about a new work that God is doing through Paul as one of the leading apostles of the day. So to Ephesians 1:10, in the dispensation of the fullness of times, that he might bring together all things in one so concise definition would be recognizing that God, throughout the progress of revelation, has interacted with mankind on earth in different ways with different responsibilities.
- [17:06]
B
Pretty straightforward.
- [17:07]
A
Clearly, if you didn't bring a goat with you to church on Sunday, you're a dispensationalist, whether you admit it or not. If you wear clothes when you tend your garden, you're a dispensationalist because Adam and Eve didn't. So it's not different ways of salvation. It's Always salvation by grace through faith has nothing to do with salvation. It's just the expectation that God puts upon his people for how they are to act and interact with Him. So you have in the garden, they interacted one way. They walked and talked during the law. They interacted under the stewardship of the law. Today, we interact under the stewardship of the Holy Spirit, indwelling us. So that's all. That is as precisely as the Word says, Precisely as Ephesians explains, God is working out his plan according to different stewardships.
- [17:51]
B
And so let me. There's another aspect that comes in sometimes which often can be confused is this idea of, again, God giving a management the word stewardship. It's a manager. He's given a certain bit of progressive revelation and saying, hey, I want you to mankind, I want you to follow. I want you to obey Me here. And then that stays on for an amount of time. So a dispensation is not equivalent biblically with the idea of an ion or an age. However, just naturally, because we live in time, there's changes many times from what God expects. One of the best examples I like to use is you mentioned the garden. Well, in the garden, everybody ate vegetables. Genesis 1, 28, 29. They were vegetarians. And then they were vegetarians until Genesis 9 after the flood. And God says, now you can eat meat. Just don't eat the blood. Okay, don't eat the blood. That. And then you go to the. Under the law. Well, now he's got kosher laws. You know, now it's not just all meat. It's, well, you can't eat pork and you can't eat shrimp. And then you come to the New Testament in Mark 7, it's very clear that, you know, Mark says, Jesus declared all foods clean first Timothy, four other passages. So all of a sudden, whoa, which one is it God? So God is modifying and he's saying. And he didn't say, hey, I want you to do this for 500 years. But when he introduces a new requirement, time has passed. So that's why I think dispensationalism comes. It sometimes gets picked on. It just says, we recognize that there's been different economies through the passage of time. Again, God didn't just slap a Bible. Full Bible, Genesis to Revelation to Adam. No, it is very much connected with a progression.
- [19:32]
A
Yeah. Dispensationalists in the theological realm are highly sensitive to the progress of revelation. It impacts everything we do in terms of interpretation. Not just prophecy, but soteriology. Every area of Theology, we are sensitive to the fact that later revelation cannot fundamentally change the meaning of prior revelation. And that's going to be important when we get into some of these other things that JD Said. But let me just say this. When I was teaching for 12 years full time at a college and seminary and I would teach on dispensationalism and premillennialism, that was the course title on almost every time on day one, first class session, I would ask students, get out a piece of paper, define dispensationalism, and then I would quickly say when I would, you know, read their answers or they would read their answers. And many times it was, oh, it's a series of time periods, right?
- [20:21]
B
Yes.
- [20:21]
A
And I would go, no, that's a common misunderstanding. It's wrong. No dispensationalist has ever taught different time periods. It's different stewardships. Well, obviously if a stewardship has a beginning, as you just said, and an end, it's going to result in time periods. But that's not what it is. And so J.D. hall made one of the fundamental mistakes that's out there, and it's an embarrassing one, to be honest, that dispensationalism does not teach different time periods, it teaches different Stewardships.
- [20:53]
B
Yeah, see, 100%. And so let me just say this too, that one of the things that often is, is, is commented is that that Darby invented all these things. And so there's different, there's different elements, not, not requirements, but different elements of dispensational thinking. And so I talk about these, where you have different dispensations and in again, that involve, can involve time frames. As we mentioned pre millennialism, there's a future Antichrist, a future little rebuilt temple at the end of the age. Antichrist, you have a distinction between Israel and the church. You have a flying away rapture before the wrath of God, two phases of the return of Jesus in some form, and a gap of time between the sixth and seventh week. So those are just some of the elements that come out of dispensationalism. But what, what they say is all those were completely invented by Darby. And I show that all those can be found in church history. Yeah, all of them can be found. Check, check, check. Every single one of them. So maybe give a, give us, give us a 30 second. How did Darby come along and systematize all this?
- [22:01]
A
Yeah. So by the way, you can also find a gap between the 69th and 70th week in the Bible.
- [22:05]
B
Exactly. That's my Whole point is all these are biblical things, but yet they often say they were. No, this is not church history. This is manufactured in 1830.
- [22:14]
A
Yeah, so it's. I hate to say, but it's the same old drivel that you and I have talked about before of other people echoing this claim that Darby invented dispensationalism and he did it. Got it from some demon possessed girl or whatever. Tommy Ice, myself, Lee Brainerd and many others have shown that that is provably false. But how did Darby systematize it? Well, everything happens in a context. Remember, Darby was living in an age coming out of, you know, the Reformation and then the printing press and all these things start to flourish. People are reading the Bible for themselves. By the time you get to Darby's time, you've got the Bible conference movement and the, you know, the Niagara Bible Conferences, things like that. And so people are actually reading the Bible and taking it in its literal, grammatical, historical form. And he starts to say, hey, let's look at the two peoples of God. The distinction between God's plan for the church and God's plan for Israel, that they're distinct, they don't ever become one people. God has a plan for Israel, it still has a future. God has a plan currently for the church which will end at the Rapture. We will then be the bride of Christ, will be reigning and ruling with him in the kingdom. So he begins to see that distinction and he just systematized it. His synopsis of the books of the Bible was a big part of that. And yeah, his writings, he was a prolific writer. But I took issue with the suggestion that Darby was a heretic or was someone separatist.
- [23:45]
B
That's exactly. He rejected authority of the established church as if he's some renegade.
- [23:49]
A
Yeah, well, yeah, he did. I mean, so were the reformers.
- [23:52]
B
Exactly. Come on. Exactly.
- [23:54]
A
I mean, he definitely departed from the established church and nothing wrong with that, that's part of church history, you know,
- [24:01]
B
and I would encourage anybody if you take J.D. hall or. I'm not picking on him, but you take his academic credentials and put them up against Darby's. Darby was a brilliant scholar.
- [24:14]
A
Oh yeah.
- [24:15]
B
Language is everything. I don't know Hall's perspective, but you want to talk about just an academic or a person that's not. Darby wasn't some back backwards country bumpkin, you know, that was just regaling against established church authority.
- [24:28]
A
Yeah, no, that's the, that's the picture they paint. Especially when that tired old Margaret McDonald story gets bounced around. But no, he was a very respected man. Was he perfect? No. Was he flawed? No. I think we're going to get to CIA. Scofield, too, which I'm particularly passionate about that, so I'll wait and tell you about that when we get there. But, no, these guys were very scholarly. And, you know, there was a. They were all. Not Darby. But Schofield was instrumental in starting Dallas seminary in the 20s. Dallas Seminary is also often sort of, you know, made fun of and picked on by people who don't know better. But it was like. It was like the Harvard or Princeton of theology schools. It was like everybody wanted to go there. I remember when I went there, you know, in 1990, I felt like I was walking on holy ground. When you realize the impact that the scholarship coming out of Dallas Seminary has had on the world. Yes, it's phenomenal. Now, obviously, you know, no seminary is perfect. There's. There's, you know, bad teaching that comes out of every place. You would get all that. And Darby was not perfect. Schofield was not perfect. But to suggest that he was some kind of country bumpkin that made up or invented dispensationalism.
- [25:37]
B
Yeah. Or they sitting out there, has an ax to grind against the established church. Okay.
- [25:41]
A
You don't. You're not doing your homework.
- [25:42]
B
No. And so. So at the 10:55 mark, this is super important because this is pretty common within Covenant Theology. Galatians 3:16. And just describing. And he says, quote, the promises were not given to the Jews, but to Jesus.
- [25:58]
A
Yeah.
- [25:58]
B
And so here, right out of the gate, I think this is a. I think a misunderstanding of the whole theology of Galatians, Chapter 3. Let's respond to that comment that in reality, all these promises, et cetera, et cetera, are found in Jesus. I did the presentation last week where everything for a covenant theologian, it dissolves into Jesus, it's transferred into Jesus, and somehow it's this mystical. There's a reinterpretation of all the Old Testament in its very normal reading that somehow it just gets again, absorbed into the person of Jesus.
- [26:32]
A
Yeah. That was a great presentation, by the way. Folks need to get the Prophecy Watchers package just for that one message. It was hilarious the way you weaved that together and showed that was wrong. So I have a teaching that I do and a chart that we have in our NBW chart book on the four seeds of Abraham. And when you understand that, then it begins to become clear. So, you know, it's not a technical term as he's suggesting that it's all fulfilled in Jesus. That's one part of a bigger process. So you've got the natural seed of Abraham that Paul talks about in Romans 9 that are the physical descendants of Abraham, in other words, ethnic Jews, genetics, natural seed. But he says just because you're a natural seed doesn't mean you get the blessings. Because you, like every human being, are born dead in your trespasses and sins. And you need to believe before you can call on the name of the Lord and be delivered into the kingdom. You must first believe the gospel. So not all are Israel who are Israel or of Israel are Israel. So he goes on to talk about, and we get this from Romans 9, 6, what I categorize as the natural spiritual seed, right? So they're Jews, ethnic Jews, but they've been saved by faith and they're born again. But then you've got as going back to Galatians 3. 29, the spiritual seed that is non Jews like you and me, who also have been born again. And so therefore we too will experience the kingdom blessings. Remember what Genesis 12 says, that through Abraham all the nations in the earth will be blessed. It was never just about Abraham or just about Israel. It was about global kingdom. And so we, if you are a spiritual seed of Abraham, you'll experience those blessings. But then the ultimate seed of Abraham, capital S, of course, is Jesus Christ. So you've got the natural seed, the natural spiritual seed which is saved Jews, the spiritual seed saved Gentiles, and the ultimate seed, Christ. And only when you in each of those, the Bible, we have Bible references for them. Only when you understand that can you really understand the references to the, the seed of Abraham.
- [28:31]
B
Yeah, and I think too just to saying that again, quote, promises were not given to the Jews, but to Jesus. I think that is so false because the fact of the matter is there were many promises that were given specifically to the Jews who experienced them really from the time they were in the land. They were in the land. That's a promise they were given them all the way through. So clearly those promises were given to the Jews and certainly by extension to to the perfect Israelite, which is Jesus. The other thing that happens there in Galatians 3 is the covenant theology approaches Galatians 3 and they're looking to remove the Jews. When in fact what you have there in the theology is Paul is describing not the removal of the promises to the Jews, but the addition to explain the addition, hey, there's other people that are now receiving the promises in addition to the Jews. So Just because they come in and we're grafted in to receive the promises. As we know in Romans 11, it doesn't remove all of the Jews because many, as you said, Messianic believers receive those promises as well. So Galatians 3 is not about who's removed, it's about who's added 100.
- [29:40]
A
Yeah, just like Romans 11 and the olive tree. You know, he misunderstood that. Is that on your list? The olive tree? The whole.
- [29:47]
B
Yeah, that's down. Down the. Right.
- [29:49]
A
Well, should we talk about it now? Yeah, because it kind of relates. Yeah. So people misunderstand. The olive tree analogy that Paul makes in Romans 11 is not suggesting that the church has replaced Israel. The olive tree represents the place of God's blessing. It's not Israel because it talks about they own the olive tree at one point. They can't be the olive tree and own the olive tree.
- [30:09]
B
Right, exactly.
- [30:10]
A
So the olive tree is not Israel. The olive tree is the place of God's blessing. And because of unbelief, Israel has been hacked off and the church has been grafted into the place of God's blessing. Indeed, we're center stage right now, or experiencing the blessings of the Holy Spirit and all those things.
- [30:27]
B
National Israel. It says there that they were partially blinded. Right? They were partially blinded. Not fully, because we know that, again, there's some Messianic believers that are still participating.
- [30:35]
A
It's not complete and it's not permanent.
- [30:37]
B
It's not permanent until it's not total
- [30:39]
A
and it's not permanent. But at some point, Israel will be grafted back in and they'll once again return to the place of blessing. And that's what they miss. It's so plain to see at the end when he says, you know, blindness in part has happened until the fullness of the Gentiles has come. In verse 26, then all Israel will be delivered into the kingdom when the deliverer comes out of Zion. They don't like to quote that part.
- [31:04]
B
Yeah, they skipped that one.
- [31:05]
A
So, yeah, you're right. Totally right. In Galatians and in Romans, it's about who is, you know, added to the heirs of the promise, not who is abandoning or been removed from it.
- [31:18]
B
Okay, so I'm just going to make. We. We'll go. We'll go quicker. So at the 11:30 mark, hall says, Christian Zionists say, quote, we have to bless Jews in order for God to bless us. Yeah, so I'm a Christian. I would say I'm a Christian Zionist under the definition that we gave earlier. I have never said that you have to go bless a Jewish person in order for God to bless us as a pastor. Never has it ever come out of my mouth. Now, let's. Let's bring up something else here within Christian Zionism. And again, in one of my other presentations too, I presented extremes. There's some extremes. You have some that again, are again, that hate Israel, whatever, and then you have others that are so pro Israel and so pro Zionist that they're unbalanced. So again, here JD hall is making a generalized statement of some people who are abusing, I would say, a dispensational doctrinal viewpoint which is balanced. So it's easy to quote, you know, an abuser of the doctrine and then generalize that. Have you ever said that? I mean, never we have to bless Jews in order for God to bless us?
- [32:25]
A
No. In fact, I'm on record many times as being willing to be critical constructively of modern Israel when they do things that God wouldn't please. Wasn't pleased with. Look, God's word is filled with bad leaders in Israel who were chastised, you know, Ahab, Jezebel, Herod, Herod, or killed. So, you know, certainly God sets the record, history sets the example. And we today should feel the same way that we can criticize Israel. We don't have to bless Israel to be blessed. You know, what that means is we understand that God has a future for national Israel. There's a special place in God's heart for Israel. The Bible calls him the apple of his eye. And so, all things being equal, we look forward to the day when Israel receives her Messiah. When they look on him whom they've.
- [33:11]
B
Didn't Paul say that again in Romans 11? He says, look, have they stumbled that they would completely fall off the wagon? No. And they get the gifts and the calling of God, irrevocable. But then he says, look, if by their stumbling blessing has come to the Gentiles, how much more their restoration is going to bring life from the dead?
- [33:27]
A
I know, that's one of my favorite parts. That's Romans 11. What is it, 9 or 9, 10, 11 and 12. Yeah. I mean, essentially that's a great reminder for the church and for replacement theologians who think the church is all that Paul basically says not to be. I don't know if this is an appropriate metaphor, but the church is really the other woman. Really. The church is driving Israel back to Christ. We want what they had. You know, we squandered it. We missed it. Boy, I wish we had that Intimate fellowship. I wish we had that indwelling Holy Spirit. I wish we had that unmitigated access. Jealousy. That's what the text says, you know, but to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. So God's using the church in his plan of the ages and certainly using it to evangelize the world today. But, but as it relates to Israel, when Christ comes back a second time, they're going to have a better context now and they're going to go, ah, I see what it means for him to be our God and us to be his people and that intimacy. And so we're going to receive him by faith. Right. How can they call on him in whom they have not believed? Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God. So they'll hear him. Romans 10. Then the deliverer comes out of Zion and then all Israel is. Is saved. Yeah, it's amazing how they, they don't connect those obvious dots there.
- [34:43]
B
Well, I think the. Just to belabor that one one more time is that the church is glorious. We understand the blessings of the church that we have, that we've been given for salvation.
- [34:54]
A
Amen.
- [34:54]
B
But what Paul's saying is, if you think that's great, just wait.
- [34:57]
A
Yes.
- [34:58]
B
So you think, you know, make sure he says, you know, later. Verse 25, don't be proud, don't be in your own mind, don't be arrogant towards the branches that have been broken off. But in fact you think you got it good now, just wait till they're restored. So that blessing is going to be even more. And you go, really more than now?
- [35:12]
A
Yes, in the millennium. And so that's why the whole plan all along was for Israel to go into the promised land and everything to emanate from there. It didn't happen. They failed. They failed. And so it's going to happen though, because the gifts in calling God are revocable. All of his promises are guaranteed unconditional. And so in the millennium, it's going to be unprecedented. Peace and righteousness and justice and, you know, Jew, gentile alike, coming up to worship. And so yeah, God is using Israel, he's using the Church, but there are different plans.
- [35:47]
B
So. Okay, another couple quotes here at the 12:10 mark, Jews who don't believe in Jesus are not children of Abraham. Well, we already kind of discussed that, that there's a starting in Romans chapter two, he's beginning to distinguish to the Jews, to the Jews. There are those that are circumcised externally, but not circumcised of the heart, circumcision of the heart goes all the way back to Deuteronomy, Jeremiah. And so again, his point there was simply trying to say that the Jews who don't believe in Jesus or they're not children of Abraham, that they're trying to redefine that there's only one now, that a true child of Abraham has nothing to do with ethnicity, which you already showed that there's four different elements in the Bible. So, okay, let's just move on.
- [36:32]
A
He says just to give the verse for people verses Romans 9, 6 and 7. They are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham. Right. In other words, you have to be saved. Your ethnicity doesn't give you a free pass to get into the kingdom.
- [36:50]
B
And Jesus said that in Matthew 8, hey, many are going to sit down at the table on that day with Abraham, as in Jacob, but the sons of the kingdom, the Jewish people, are going to be cast out. So clearly we see from a consistency from John the Baptist, repent. Don't say that you're children of Abraham. Big deal. You can bring it from these stones, right? Yeah, I love it. So you have a consistency there. So at the 12 mark, he says Romans 11 has unbelieving Jews severed from Abraham and in their place are believing Gentiles. And it's interesting that they do not like being called replacement theologians. But yet he can't even. It was oozing out of him that I don't know how. This is a direct quote. Again, you can look at it.
- [37:35]
A
12, 30 placed with them.
- [37:37]
B
Yes, and in their place are believing Gentiles. So does Romans 11 sever the Jews from Abraham? And we did that a little bit there, but correct his.
- [37:51]
A
No, it's severs the 1st century Jewish nation temporarily, not permanently, from the place of blessing that God brings in the church and reminds the church, by the way, you too can be cut off if you don't have faith. And then eventually he's going to bring the Jews back in. I mean, read the rest of the chapter. It's very clear he's totally missing the point of that passage. Church.
- [38:13]
B
So let's see if I can. My writing's pretty small here. So at the 15 mark, he says dispensationalism say, quote, Jews are special in a way that other ethnicities are not. Is that what we say? That Jews are special in a way that other ethnicities. And this was really. You listen to it. But I felt that he was very Clear that us dispensationalists were trying to elevate the Jews to be better than Americans or Chinese or whatever. And so somehow we are blindly loyal to the Jewish person no matter what, therefore we're elevating them better than every other group. Is that what we do?
- [38:52]
A
No, not at all. But it reminds me of the conversation that Paul has in Romans 9. Is there unrighteousness with God? I mean, no, God, the pot doesn't get to say to the potter, make me like God chose. Look, that's what he says. Jacob, I beloved Esau. I've hated using hyperbole there just by degree. He's just saying, look, I chose Jacob. That's my prerogative. So the church is just acknowledging that God chose Jacob as the apple of his eye. That's not saying that we think that Israel and the Jews are better than every other nation. We just understand their role in God's plan of the ages. Right?
- [39:26]
B
Yeah. We know in Deuteronomy 9, crystal clear that God says, when you get into the land, this is Moses, right before they're going to go, his final will and testament to him, when you get in the land, don't save yourselves because of my righteousness, my uprightness, center and over. So they were not chosen for anything special. But let's not forget though, that Romans 9 also says Paul's very sad about it. He's. He's talking about his brothers, his ethnic brothers. And he says to them belong the covenant, the promises, the scripture. It wasn't past tense. He didn't say, oh, they lost it. And this is. I love sharing this because what you have in. He wrote. He wrote this roughly 57 AD. Roughly. Okay? So whatever at that time, that the time right there is equivalent to today, you couldn't say that. You couldn't say, take Romans 9 and then make it equivalent to 1850, because there was no Israel. So in Romans 9, you have a rebellious national Israel still in the land. Okay. There's very few Messianic believers. Okay. And today we have rebellious national Israel in the land. Very few Messianic believers. Identical situation. Well, in Romans 9, he says to them, still belong.
- [40:39]
A
That's it.
- [40:39]
B
It's present tense. It's not past. They didn't lose them then and they haven't lost him now.
- [40:46]
A
Yeah, I mean, Paul says in Ephesians 2, speaking to Gentiles, at that time, you were without Christ being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no God in the world. I think we need to distinguish between God's national promises and individual. God loves the entire world, every human being. He sent his Son, our Savior, to shed his blood and satisfy the wrath of God and pay the penalty for it. Every human being. I don't care whether you're from Costa Rica, America, Israel or Canada. So there's individuals which are all equal in the sight of God and all in need of a Savior. But there's nations. And yes, God chooses nations. He's God. We're not. I'm not going to tell the potter how to mold the plan of the ages. So yeah, that's a powerful passage there in Romans 9:4, that these are the ones to whom pertain the covenants, the giving of all the service of God and the promises, they're still there. It's unconditional. In fact, we know this. Jeremiah makes it clear that as long as there's a sun, moon and stars, you're pretty good at looking at the stars. Have you noticed? Are they still there?
- [41:52]
B
They're still there.
- [41:53]
A
Then there's a future for national Israel.
- [41:56]
B
You know, he says that exact phrase in Jeremiah 31:35, that it'll never cease to have the nation before me, the nation of Israel. And yeah, but they are set apart or they are set aside at the moment. And I want to say something else too, because this comes up is that look, everybody, when we describe again in Romans 9, he goes back to Romans 3, Paul says, well, what advantage is the Jew in every way? He says, because to them were given the covenants. So they did have an advantage, not because they were special, but because of God's choice. So when we say today, and tell me if you can agree with me, is that when people say, do you still believe that the Jews are God's chosen people today? You mean the ones living in the land? Yes, they're chosen, but that doesn't mean they're saved. Under the Old Testament, chosen means separated, Correct? Now granted, in the New Testament, chosen has a little bit different New Testament theological nuance. But to say that they are still chosen people does not mean that's automatically salvation universally across every last.
- [43:02]
A
No, no. In fact, I think dispensationalists do a much better job of nuancing God's consistency in the plan of salvation from age to age over time. Because we would say, for example, in the Old Testament, Israel in the time of Israel, on the day of atonement, just because the high priest went in to the holy of holies one time a year, Leviticus 16 did that mean every Jew living in the land was heaven bound?
- [43:25]
B
Yep. No, not even close.
- [43:26]
A
No. Every Jew, just like every Gentile, must personally place his or her faith in Jesus Christ. So we know this. Also, you know, when you think about Moses and the children of Israel in the promised land, they didn't get to go into the promised land, but it doesn't mean they went to hell. A lot of people call promised land heaven. No, it's individual faith. And that's the whole point Paul is making in Romans 9, 10 and 11 is he's like, look, they think they have self righteousness. They don't need self righteousness, they need faith righteousness. And when they place their faith in Christ, then and only then can they cry out, as Joel2.32 says, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord or call the name of the Lord and be delivered into the kingdom. So, yeah, I mean, the Bible has a special place for Israel. I've got another chart that comes around here. The five purposes for Israel and God's plan of the ages. One is to witness to the unity of the Creator. Two is to be an example to the nations of the benefit of serving the Creator. Number three, here's a biggie. To receive and record God's revelation. Every book of the Bible, including Luke, I believe, was written by a Jewish. Every one of them.
- [44:35]
B
Yep.
- [44:36]
A
So if it wasn't for the Jewish people, we wouldn't have a Bible.
- [44:38]
B
Is that not special? I mean, again, not that they're trustworthy. Yeah, but so here again, his claim is that dispensationals are elevating Jews in a special way that other ethnicities are not. I've never said that. No, no one has ever said that.
- [44:50]
A
To produce the Savior, which he acknowledges that. But that's not all their purpose was.
- [44:55]
B
Yes, that's their only purpose.
- [44:56]
A
Yeah. And then, and then fifth, to be center stage in the global kingdom. So, yeah, there's a difference between Israel and the church.
- [45:03]
B
But let's, but let's step back and say, okay, again, quote, dispensational, say Jews are special in a way that other ethnicities are not. Well, in fact, that is true.
- [45:12]
A
The nation of Israel is way out.
- [45:13]
B
The nation of Israel.
- [45:14]
A
Yes, because Jews implies individual Jews and no one person is more special to God than another. But a nation can be.
- [45:21]
B
And that's clearly Deuteronomy 4 says that exact thing. What other nation is there that God has chosen?
- [45:26]
A
Oh, 100% throughout time. I mean, he's jealous for his people. It's his holy land. But, I mean, Paul actually anticipates this very conversation in Romans 9. He's like, oh, well, you know, you think that sounds unfair, that God would choose one nation? Well, who are you to say to the potter? So we're having the same conversation. Paul anticipated under the inspiration of the spirit, you know, 2,000 years ago.
- [45:49]
B
Yeah, so. So again, this is where we need to nuance things. And again, we. No one, we. We recognize that the, the place of national Israel in the plan of God going back to Abraham, but it doesn't automatically make them more. More special inherently. But part of God's plan, clearly.
- [46:07]
A
Absolutely.
- [46:08]
B
So at the 17:30 mark, he says dispensationalists say that the world is blessed through Israel, but it is through Christ.
- [46:18]
A
Yes, Christ is the ultimate seed of Abraham, but the kingdom that so much of the Old Testament talks about, Isaiah, Ezekiel, so many pictures we get of the kingdom age, where does it emanate from? From Zion, from Israel, that the geographic changes, the boundaries. The nations from all over the world are going to come up to Jerusalem and worship Jesus Christ sitting on the throne in the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. So, yes, it's through Israel that all the nations of the earth are blessed. And yes, it's through Christ that all the nations of the earth are blessed.
- [46:50]
B
I think the other thing that he's implying here is that, that we are saying today, right now that the world is blessed through modern Israel, not through Jesus Christ.
- [47:04]
A
No one I know says that. In fact, I've said in class before, you know, if Israel had a rogue leader who fired a Scud missile at the US I'd fire one right back.
- [47:14]
B
Absolutely.
- [47:14]
A
I mean, I'm defending my nation. Right. So, no, we're not suggesting you've got to, you know, bless modern Israel and have, you know, be indiscriminate and blind to whatever they're doing. It's about God's plan for national Israel in the future.
- [47:30]
B
So, okay, so he says here at the 2013 mark, dispensationalism, quote, is a Jewish interpretive model. We interpret the scripture as Jews interpret the scripture. And then he says they brag about it. Well, the Jews miss Jesus. And so.
- [47:46]
A
Oh, I really. That's. I think that's about when I felt like I needed to turn it off because I was going to break my radio.
- [47:51]
B
Really? Yeah. So that. Because we recognize that 2nd Corinthians 3, that Paul says when the Jews read the Tanakh, the Old Testament, without Jesus, there's a veil. Okay, that's very clear. And so basically what he's saying is, since we are interpreting it from that seemingly implied a rabbinic Jewish model, therefore, well, they miss Jesus, therefore we're missing Jesus. Is it a Jewish interpretive model?
- [48:20]
A
No, and you don't. I mean, any interpretive model has to be understood in its historical, literal context. Right. So let's ask David someday. What did he think when God promised him a throne and a kingdom and a territory? Did he think it was going to be a spiritual one in the heart of mankind, or was he picturing brick and mortar?
- [48:39]
B
Yes.
- [48:39]
A
Yeah. So in that sense, yeah, we take the Bible in its contextual meaning, but there's nothing Jewish about our model. And we acknowledge that the Jews stumbled at the stumbling stone, they missed the Messiah, and Jesus rebukes them for that. You know, how to discern the weather, but you can't tell the signs of the times.
- [48:59]
B
Y. And in fact, I think one of, you know, one of our favorite, you know, scholars is Dr. Arnold Fruchterman. I mean, he's a messianic Jew, and he takes things from a Jewish perspective, but he takes it straightforward. And you know what, as we say all the time, most, not all, but most of the first. Most of the prophecies related to the first coming of Jesus were very straightforward, literal. Oh, yeah, most of them.
- [49:24]
A
And then These guys like J.D. hall, they switch their hermeneutic, inexplicably, without justification in the text, to an allegorical method. I mean, they literally believe he was born of a virgin. They literally believe and in Bethlehem and that there was a forerunner and so many other prophecies. But then for some reason, all these prophecies that are future, that are very detailed, I mean, Ezekiel 40, 48, you can't get more detailed than that. The boundaries of the promised land, all these things, somehow they just brush that aside. That's all Jesus, like you said.
- [49:58]
B
Okay, so here's another little dig in 21 at the 2120 marker by J.D. hall. The church is a parenthesis instead of the bride of Christ. It is a summer fling. Jews are at the center instead of Jesus at the center. God has a love affair with Israel, and the church is secondary, unquote. So here again, targeting the idea of what some dispensational scholars have used, the idea of the church being a parenthesis, it's as if secondary after the fact. God wasn't aware, so now he's got to shift and pivot. And so, oh, this wasn't my plan from the beginning. It's a parenthesis Plan B. Yeah, it's a plan B.
- [50:41]
A
No, no. I mean, you're a writer, and so parenthesis is a legitimate grammatical tool.
- [50:46]
B
Yes.
- [50:46]
A
You know, you don't, when you see a parenthesis, you don't think, oh, this is irrelevant. I don't even need to read or
- [50:51]
B
oop, that's after the fact.
- [50:53]
A
Yeah, right. Yeah. No, this is something that's. It's part of the flow of the sentence. You still have a first word of the sentence and a period. So it's still part of the sentence. It's just not an after. You know, it's not. It's not. You know, it's not. I see it as explanatory, so I think it's a legitimate metaphor. I know it takes a lot of heat and we've kind of gotten away from using it in dispensational circles, but I don't have a problem with it. It makes perfect sense. You think? You know, if you go back to Daniel 9, Daniel clearly says that, you know, after the end of the 69th week, there's. Then some things are going to happen. The Messiah is going to be cut off, the Jerusalem will be destroyed, and then sometime later, the covenant's going to be signed, which starts the clock ticking on the final week of Daniel. But there's a gap of time there. The New Testament comes along and explicitly says, hey, I'm telling you something new that you didn't hear about in the Old Testament. And it fits right in that gap of time. It has a definite beginning on the day of Pentecost, a definite ending on the day of the Rapture, just like a parenthesis. And then he's shifting back to the previous narrative with Israel. So it's like three acts. Act one, Israel, act two, church, act three, Israel. You know, there's not, you know, I don't understand it.
- [52:05]
B
Well, and you brought it up earlier as it relates to the exact word of dispensation in Ephesians 2 and 3, where Paul is saying, hey, this was a mystery. And this is why I find it fascinating that many of them don't understand the theology of mystery in the New Testament. You know, something unrevealed in the Old Testament. And so Paul's saying, hey, by the way, this idea of the Jews and Gentiles being together in one body, this mystery that is now revealed to him was unrevealed in the Old Testament, Gentiles being saved, that was revealed in the Old Testament. So give me a 30 second. What is then the mystery again? That Paul is referring to there, that was unrevealed because Gentiles being saved clearly was. So what's the mystery?
- [52:46]
A
So I actually spoke on this at Rapture in the Rockies. My first session was on one minute before the Rapture and I gave the definition of mysterion. If you look it up in bdag, secret doctrine information previously hidden now being revealed. So what was that information? That Jew and Gentile were going to be together in one body, baptized by the Holy Spirit and dwelt by the Holy Spirit and be used of God in the present age. It's a new era, it's a new day.
- [53:14]
B
Okay, so on that, how does that new mystery unfolding, which obviously was happening for the Ephesians, how does that differ from a Gentile getting saved under the Old Testament?
- [53:23]
A
Well, in the Old Testament they weren't permanently indwelt with the Holy Spirit number one, they weren't baptized with the Holy Spirit, number two, a gentile to get saved in the Old Testament became a proselyte under the Jews take on the law. Right, took on the law. And that was the way they interacted. It wasn't a different means of salvation, it was a different stewardship. And so that's what we're saying that these oikonomias, which is where the word dispensation comes from in the Old Testament, they interacted with God through the priestly system, through the sacrifices and all that. Today we can come boldly to the throne of grace to find grace and help in time of need. We don't go through our human.
- [53:58]
B
And Ephesians 2:15 says that that middle wall of partition, that law has been broken down, which is what was required under the Old Testament. Think about Ruth. Your God will be my God, your people, my people. So today that new fellowship of Jews and Gentiles, the law is not required.
- [54:13]
A
And the veil rent into at the cross. Yeah.
- [54:15]
B
So again, so you can see some of these pejoratives idea of a parenthesis, which I think I don't know is again, whether he's read the book or not in the sense of that. So in 24 he says quote. This is an. Basically it's an insult to Jesus because he is the Son of man. And I think that's quoted or he says, and that's a quote from Isaiah. Well, first of all, the Son of Man is not from Isaiah, it's from Daniel 7.
- [54:41]
A
I know, I was gonna say it's from Daniel 7. I screamed that when I heard him say that I'm like he never says son of man in Isaiah. It's Daniel the first time one like the Son of man.
- [54:50]
B
Yeah, so. So, you know, hey, I've misquoted scripture before, so maybe he misquoted. Give me the benefit of the doubt. But his point there was that again, I think even theologically he's incorrect. That the Son of man is not. It's an insult to Jesus because Jesus is a savior to humanity. That's not what the Son of Man means in Daniel 7 by any stretch. It's not talking about his humanity. So here again, he says that because of, again, our viewpoints, we're insulting Jesus because his ministry is far broader. Was his ministry only to the Jews?
- [55:19]
A
No, not at all. And this ties into what you were just sort of addressing that he says. He almost makes it sound like we think the church is irrelevant or that we're all about Israel.
- [55:29]
B
We're secondary. He says we're a summer fleeing.
- [55:31]
A
Yeah, that's insulting. That's a very insulting thing because just like the Bible preaches five clear purposes for Israel, we can see five clear purposes for the church. And a proper ecclesiology, to use a theological term, helps you recognize what an incredible blessing this is. So God's using the church to call out a people for his name. You know, the Jews were not called Yahwehites, but we're called Christians. That's pretty significant. To showcase the exceeding riches of God's grace and mercy. Ephesians 2:7. Like never before. God's grace was evident in the Old Testament that God's grace is consistent, but we're seeing it in high definition, color, 4K color today, through the church. It's amazing to get Ezrael's attention, we talk about that being one of the purposes of the church. I love this one. People don't talk about it a lot, but Ephesians 3:10, one of the purposes of the church is to showcase God's wisdom. To Satan.
- [56:19]
B
Yeah. To the angels.
- [56:20]
A
To the angels and the demonic realm. And the angelic realm. That's pretty amazing. And then, just as Israel's purpose is to be center stage in the global kingdom someday, the church's purpose is to prepare a body that will help rule in the kingdom someday. So, yeah, we love the church. We're privileged to be a part of the church. It's an amazing. I mean, I often think about what it would have been like if I'd have lived in Noah's day or, you know, David's day. But I live in the church age and what a blessing that is. So we're not denigrating the church in any way.
- [56:53]
B
So again, this is where I think for us, if we were to, you know, hey, you know, JB can you explain, you know, Covenant theology? I would be committing the same crime as Tucker. And instead of getting a covenant theologian. And so you have all these, these straw men arguments that potentially, you know, certainly could come up and it's like we and you. And again, I could go find, in fact, I could go find the most radical extreme covenant theologian and bring them on and have them basically falsely represent the mainstream of coming to theology. That would be wrong. And so this is the comments that he's making. Could you find some dispensationalist that says that the church is, is a summer fling? Highly unlikely anyway, but that was his interpretation.
- [57:36]
A
Yeah.
- [57:38]
B
And at the 30 mark again, there's. This week we can go on, but I'll try to keep them. He makes this comment which he says he's talking about the, the horrible nature of the Jews and that they were judged in 70 AD and he says, quote, the Romans repented and believed, but unbelieving Jews started a new religion in 70 AD
- [58:03]
A
I was lost on that one. I'm not sure what he's getting at. Did you understand it?
- [58:08]
B
Well, yeah. My, my. He was trying again, he was trying to, I think, show that the, the wickedness of national Israel in that there's such a contrast because remember, we're elevating the Jews to, to some status that he says we are. Yeah, but he says, look, even the Romans repented.
- [58:25]
A
Yeah.
- [58:25]
B
But the Jews had to go start a new religion. And I'm thinking the Romans repented.
- [58:30]
A
Yeah. Where I never.
- [58:31]
B
Where's that at?
- [58:32]
A
Yeah.
- [58:33]
B
And especially to make such a.
- [58:34]
A
For hundreds of years the empire continued. Yeah.
- [58:37]
B
And for, for 200 some years they persecuted Christians and they Domitian and others
- [58:42]
A
in the 90s, absolutely.
- [58:44]
B
So massively killing Christians. And so for anybody to say to. And I would never do this in the sense of this, this group think this group Repentance. The Romans repented. But those evil wicked Jews, they didn't repent. They went and started a new religion that, I mean, quote, this is a quote. The Romans, the Romans repented and believed, but unbelieving Jews started a new religion in 70 A.D. yeah.
- [59:10]
A
It was one of those comments by J.D. hall that I would love to get clarity. I mean, I would have interrupted him and said, can you explain that? In what way did the Romans repent? And you know, give me more on that. So. Yeah, I mean, maybe. Maybe he would provide clarity. We still don't agree.
- [59:25]
B
No, we still. No. There's no group repentance. It's individual all the way to the Old Testament, same way. So at the 32 mark, he says, Darby comes along and says to unbelieving Jews, God is going to bless you regardless of faith in Jesus because you are Jewish.
- [59:42]
A
Darby said that. I'd love to see that cited.
- [59:45]
B
Yeah.
- [59:45]
A
Yeah.
- [59:46]
B
Again, this is quote. People can check me 32. Darby comes along and says to unbelieving Jews, God is going to bless you regardless of faith in Jesus because you are Jewish.
- [59:56]
A
I'm not familiar with anything that could be even construed that way from Darby. Now, look, we know that guys like Darby and Schofield definitely, we don't agree with everything they said. And one of my projects in my PhD studies was to read every note from the original 1917. I think it is Scofield. And then every note from the 1950 Walvard, Edward. And just to see the changes. And so it was fascinating, you know. Yeah. There were some statements that C.I. scofield made that were problematic and theologically speaking. And you kind of wonder, why was he. What did he mean by that? But I never heard anything from Darby or Scofield that I can remember that indicated, you know, what he's suggesting.
- [60:34]
B
This is. Yeah, this is a complete violation. John 14, 6 stands if I'm the way, the truth and life, no one comes to father except through me. That's. That's good for Jews and Gentiles. So it's hard for me to believe, again, that Darby would say something like that. But again, in the midst of conversation with. Watching Tucker and J.D. go back, he can say these things.
- [60:52]
A
Yeah.
- [60:53]
B
And Tucker's like. He just. Tucker doesn't. He's not a theologian in. He shouldn't try, really, because he's outside of his lane. I wouldn't go try to be a journalist in that sense either. But he hears, he's saying it, and he doesn't know enough to be like, Darby really said that.
- [61:08]
A
Yeah. But if I wanted to be a journalist, I would. I would want to bring on reputable journalists to learn from that. Yes. I wouldn't bring on country music stars and guys like J.D. hall or Rich Hull.
- [61:17]
B
Right. You're going back to him because he was one of the first ones that started. He was speaking for. Well, he's speaking of dispensationalism going back.
- [61:25]
A
Oh, yeah. And echoed the same, you know, drivel. I mean, again, I'M trying to be fair here. I mean, good for Tucker for engaging in discussions about these types of things, but I'm not going to bring on a country music star and an obscure, you know, guy who doesn't really know much about dispensationalism. If I want to learn about dispensationalism, let's bring on someone that's credentialed and represents the viewpoint accurately. You still don't have to agree with it, but at least be fair.
- [61:51]
B
At least be fair. Okay, so at the 35, 30 mark, he says that which is true is not new. Okay, yeah, here. So here's this quote. So he, he has this axiom. Now, this is the, this is the axiom quote. That which is true is not new. That which is new is not true. If someone invents a new theology, it is automatically wrong, unquote. And I was like, well, there goes the Reformation. Yeah, that's right, because at the Reformation, you have imputation, which is the reformer's position, of the doctrine of judge facer versus infusion. So do we throw out. I mean, so here he's stating, like, what he would say is an axiomatic statement, that which is true, it's not new, and if it's new, it's not true. Is that an accurate statement?
- [62:45]
A
No, it's not an accurate statement. I mean, he doesn't really give much credence, at least in that statement, to church history, because it took several hundred years for several foundational doctrines taught in Scripture. Scripture to be sort of articulated and crystallized into written form. Now, part of that was because they didn't have written documents and they had circular letters and, you know, it made it harder. But, but still the notion that, you know, that which is new is not true. I mean, yeah, that's.
- [63:13]
B
Where in the Bible does it say that? I mean, and, and, and even there, that's just a, again, a false standard. Now that you can say nothing new because automatically it's suspect.
- [63:22]
A
And the other part of that, too, that he said that's troubling, is someone and makes up a new doctrine. Well, that presupposes that's what happened with dispensationalism.
- [63:31]
B
Yes.
- [63:31]
A
That's not what happened with dispensationalism. Somebody didn't make up dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is taught in Scripture. The notion that God clearly interacts with people in different stewardships. And in this present age, we have a new stewardship, which was a mystery previously unknown, that's the word. It comes straight from Scripture. We're not suggesting that Darby made it up. In fact, we're rejecting that false notion.
- [63:53]
B
And again, it's the historical fallacy that if it's not taught in history. Well, the real question. Biblical, not as historical.
- [64:00]
A
Yeah, that's one of the 24 foundational rules of hermeneutics that I teach is that church history is significant but not determinative in church history.
- [64:10]
B
And we said earlier that right there on that most of the principles or many of the principles that are found in again in modern day dispensationalism were found in some form by some writer in church history. So that doesn't prove it's right.
- [64:22]
A
Right.
- [64:23]
B
Either. Right.
- [64:24]
A
We only bring that up because we've been forced to based on false accusations. The accusation that nowhere before Darby do you find any reference in church history to a two phased return of Christ. Well, as a matter of fact, you find hundreds.
- [64:37]
B
Yes, exactly.
- [64:38]
A
So we're bringing it up not because we're staking our claim for accuracy on that we believe the Bible teaches that. That's why we believe it. But if you're going to suggest that no one ever taught it before Darby, well you better check your facts because it's taught repeatedly before Darby.
- [64:52]
B
Yeah. And that's the other thing too is when we look at, at church history, I'm not even saying, nor are you, that everybody in church history taught these things. We know that the minority church history is not monolithic.
- [65:03]
A
Right, right. Especially going back and I'm ready to, I'm happy to admit, because it's a fact that it was the minority view. But God always works in the remnant. Quite frankly, if I find myself on the majority of any kind of view in Christianity, I'm going to wonder. I better take a second look.
- [65:16]
B
Exactly, exactly. So Tucker, Tucker, this we don't spend at the 4146. Mark Tucker asks why England? And John responds, I don't know why religious Zionism took off from England. And I think. Have you never read dispensationalism before Darby by William Watson? Yeah, the entire English, I would say situation or environment was very much going back to normal literal reading. And so that's why it was England.
- [65:46]
A
Yeah, no doubt. Yeah. I mean he hasn't read it. That's pretty obvious. He really doesn't know what dispensationalism is and what dispensationalists believe. He just hasn't read it. You know, we were talking off air, you know, I am so thankful That I, you know, I got to train under great teachers and learn sort of an academic way of doing things. But when I did my five part critique of Calvinism, most folks know I'm not a big fan of Calvinism. I was painstakingly took painstaking efforts to make sure that everything I taught about what they believe on the five points of Calvinism, the tulip was their own words. I didn't say, well, Calvinists believe this, and here's why it's wrong. I said, let's hear them in their own words. So I gave, for each of the five points, 10, 12 slides of them defining, you know, what does MacArthur say the total depravity is? What does Sproul think? What does Piper think? What does all these guys from bygone eras, how do they define total depravity? And then I said, okay, now that we know what they believe, here's why I disagree with it. That's, I think, a better way to critique. You want to bring on dispensationalism and you want to critique dispensationalism, give it an accurate, fair standing, and then you can still disagree with it. But these straw men are. It's, it's really, it's a shame. And shame on Tucker, honestly, for not
- [67:05]
B
doing better research and for, again, for allowing this. And as we know, the. The typical person out there hearing this is just going to believe it. Oh, of course they're not. So at the 45 mark, quote, most of Christendom historically doesn't allow for the belief that the Jews are the chosen people of God. Well, there again, who. This is an argument from history.
- [67:33]
A
Yeah. Who cares? Yeah.
- [67:34]
B
I mean, so, so that, so we could say, okay, yeah, you're right, the church had it wrong.
- [67:38]
A
Yeah. Most of history thought Roman Catholicism, the kingdom and that you needed to pay money to get your sins forgiven.
- [67:44]
B
Yep.
- [67:44]
A
Is that thousand years?
- [67:45]
B
I mean, is that the. Is he going to embrace the infusion justification doctrine by Rome, everything else? Most of Christendom believe this. So see, so here again, he's not living up to his own. So I asked the question based on 46, does believing in premillennialism require us to support modern Israel?
- [68:05]
A
No, not at all. In fact. Yeah. See if I can call up a quick quote here. Yeah, no, not at all. Like we said earlier, you can critique, you know, Israel, modern Israel, and you can see God critiquing Israel throughout history. They don't get a pass. It's not like everything they do is correct. So if you go to in my newest book, in chapter eight on the spirit of pluralism. Or let's see. Yeah, no, this is chapter six on the spirit of persecution Understanding. You know, the distinction. You know, I wish I could find it here. Just, you know, the, the notion that just because here it is. This is what I say in my new book. Just because I'm a dispensationalist who is unapologetically pro Israel does not mean I must wholeheartedly endorse a secular nation that locked up a up 7 millions of its citizens, injected them with experimental gene altering drugs, and then made them show their papers to visit a restaurant.
- [69:13]
B
Yeah.
- [69:13]
A
Am I okay for criticizing the government of Israel for doing that? I mean, it was leading the world in the tyranny that came with the pandemic. Absolutely was. So, no, I can criticize them and still be unapologetically pro Zionist and pro future for Israel.
- [69:29]
B
Because at the end of the day, what I tell people is, is people said, do you support Israel? I go, well, indirectly, I support the promises of God.
- [69:36]
A
Amen.
- [69:36]
B
That's what I support. That's what I stand for. That's what I'm promoting. But those promises of God include again, that the land belongs to Israel forever and that there's a future for them. It doesn't ever say that just because they're still chosen. Romans 9, present tense. That they're not. My favorite passage, you read it earlier, is in Romans 11:26. It says, All Israel will be saved. And it says the deliverer will come out of Zion and God will remove ungodliness from Jacob. So there's a, it's, it's. There's a two pronged thing. He's going to save Israel, but he's going to remove the ungodliness, which is exactly what we see in the land of national Israel today. We see the LGBTQ movement, we see all that, what you described, medical tyranny. So, you know, as we. We've gone a long time before we go though, let's just say that, listen, to support Israel, we're not. It doesn't require us to give a pass for modern Israel or that modern Israel is somehow holy and righteous and true. Because again, it's not as no nation is. But you mentioned earlier, and he has a whole section here on the Scofield Bible, okay? And he was trying to maintain that the Scofield Bible was basically done by Rothschilds and secular Jews and it's all meant for this major political brainwashing of ever just give us Whatever you want to say about that, because we're out of time.
- [70:59]
A
Yeah, I mean, I. It's. There's. It's. It's almost not worth commenting on, but it's the same arguments that we would respond to his criticisms of Darby. I mean, look up the guy. You know, this is. You know. You know, you can. You can trace the origins of the sort of Scofield conspiracy theory and realize that it's not. It's not factual. There's no substantive. In a court of law, it would be. The case would be dismissed because it's just not accurate. So, yeah, I know there's a lot of YouTubes out there. I know there's a lot, you know, TikTok videos and all this stuff, people saying Scofield was Rothschilds and this and that. It's just simply not true. And I take it personal because, first of all, you know, I had to do that research on Scofield, but I was one of those young people raised in a Christian family who. My father, first Bible was a Scofield reference Bible, and I learned so much from him. Was he perfect? Do I agree with everything he wrote in the notes? No. But he loved the Lord. And he was not a shill. He was not a puppet. He genuinely studied the word of God, taught the word of God and wanted people to come to faith in Jesus.
- [72:07]
B
So I guess from a devil's advocate. Well, that just tells me that you're biased.
- [72:12]
A
Yeah, well, I mean,
- [72:15]
B
I say that not because I believe it. So how do you. How do you respond to.
- [72:20]
A
So I would say I'm removing the bias by telling you up front, look, I have a special place in my heart for him, and so it bothers me when people criticize him. I'm not defending him because I'm biased. I'm defending him based on the facts. Yes. So show me the facts. Show me. Have you read every note in the Scofield reference Bible? I guarantee you J.D. hall hasn't. You know, have you read anything Scofield has written? Have you read rightly dividing the word? Read it. Find something in him, not just Candace Owens.
- [72:50]
B
Quote. Yes, exactly.
- [72:51]
A
Find something from Scofield that supports your premise. He won't. You won't. Because I've studied the guy, and I think, again, I'm not endorsing everything he said, but I know his heart and I know his history. I know the people he ran with. People like James Brooks and, you know, other turn of the century, you know, Irons. Ha. Ironside. I mean, these were guys that were, you know, Lewis, Barry Chafer, the founder of Del Seminary. These are guys that are godly men who really were seeking to do a good thing. So, yeah, I do get a little emotional when people criticize Scofield, even more so than Darby, because, you know, Scofield, I think he was a great contribution and he helped spread Bible teaching and Bible conferences and start Bible colleges.
- [73:38]
B
And, you know, people can go if they want to. I could maybe put the link up. But the Schofield files, if they find those online, it. It unpacks and just refutes this conspiracy mentality which again is, is, you know, is. That's the, that's the name of the, the game today is people living in the conspiracy world and they don't go do their homework. And so, I mean, so here we are. I mean, we, we spent quite a bit of time responding. What any. Let's give some final thoughts. What's your final thoughts?
- [74:06]
A
I think the biggest thing I'd like to underscore because as I list, but it, it went from him making arguments that were wrong and that, that anyone who knows better would, I think, have. Would had a plausible response to it, but yet they seemed believable. And I was kind of discouraged because I'm thinking everyone listening to this is going to be led astray. It went from there to completely, you know, off to hilt. I mean, he was just. I mean, the latter part of it was just outrageously wrong. But so I would underscore what we said sort of early on, and that is the notion that somehow the church has replaced Israel, or that everything made as a promise to Abraham was just about Jesus and that, you know, that you need to go back and read the Old Testament. You cannot dismiss all of these detailed promises that relate to National Geographic Israel that have not been fulfilled. Either God's a liar, God changed his mind, neither of which are possible, or we believe there's a future for national Israel. And so I would underscore that. That he's got a hermeneutic problem. And then I would underscore that no, a lot of the things he claims we're saying, we're not saying. We're not blindly supporting modern Israel. We're believing in the promises of God for Israel. And we see things that have happened in the last 70 years sort of relevant to that. It's like, oh, now there's a land for Jesus to build a temple in and rule in or whatever.
- [75:31]
B
Yeah, absolutely. And I would encourage people too, that, you know, check out some of Michael Vlock's work V L A C H. Because, you know, he wrote a great article recently talking about what does it mean to have prop. What does it mean for prophecy to be fulfilled? And so again, the typical Amalena view is that it's absorbed or dissolved into Jesus somehow, and that the New Testament reinterprets everything you would read under the Old Testament. And therefore, if we just understood that it's all spiritualized or allegorized, that we're. That's why we're missing it when you're like, well, again, as you said, and I say this often, why are we changing the rules of hermeneutics in the middle of the game? Every amillennialist looks at Micah 5. 2 and Isaiah 7:14, and they take it straightforward. But when it comes to the second coming or Isaiah 11 about the wolf laying down with the lamb lion, they say, oh, that's all spiritual. So they're the ones that have changed the rules in a dramatic way. Yeah, they'll take some of the few prophecies of the first coming that are typological, but that's the exception, that's not the rule. And so then they make it now the rule when it comes to the second coming.
- [76:34]
A
Yeah. And that's why Ryrie says, going back to dispensationalism, that the sine qua non of dispensationalism is a consistent literal, contextual, historical hermeneutic. Because even dispensationalists have been guilty at times of allegorizing the Scripture, of course. So we're not saying we're the only ones that take it literal. And you don't. We're saying consistent. You do take it literal sometimes, but let's be consistent. What justification do you have for making all of those promises about the land and the kingdom and the temple allegorical? Show me, from a hermeneutical perspective, what changed?
- [77:08]
B
Yeah, what changed in the middle of the game and to make the exception now the rule. So I just encourage everybody. Thanks for listening today is that if. If you want to know what in the world and maybe how to discuss this intelligently, get Charles Robbie's book Dispensationalism. I mean, is there any other book? I mean, this is. Of course, this is from 95. It was originally in the 1960s, but this was his revised, expanded book. Is there any other book that you'd recommend specifically?
- [77:31]
A
Yeah, I. I don't. I mean, there's some more academic ones, I think. I saw you reading one. Essays in Honor. Dispensationalism. Was it? Or something like that. Yeah. That's a great book, by the way. But I think just as a good primer, it's a short book. It's not hard to read. It's still in print. Dispensationalism. Hear it straight from people that know what they're talking about and then go to the Scripture and see if it makes sense. See if what we're saying is true. The Bible's the ultimate arbiter. So we're not saying, believe me, because I said so, but we're certainly saying, don't believe. What, someone who hates dispensationalism. That's too hard a word. Don't believe. A critic of dispensationalism is accurate. Do your own homework.
- [78:13]
B
Yes. Amen. Everybody. Thanks for listening today. JB where can I find information about your.
- [78:18]
A
Yeah. Notbyworks.org and you can get the new book. Prophecy Watchers has it here. Fade to black. We made several references to it. It's got charts at the end. A lot of these charts that I've talked about are there. So. Yeah. Notbyworks.org all right.
- [78:33]
B
Thanks, everybody, for listening today, and we will catch you next time.