Questions and Answers, Part 7

Transcript

Questions and Answers, Part 7
10/07/2019
GRM 1200
Selected Verses
Gil Rugh

I want to go over some of the material with you that relates to what we’ve done and what we’re doing, then look at some of your questions. Some of you have pointed out to me, you know what I’m doing, when you ask a question I just give you a very long answer then I don’t have to answer as many questions. Maybe we’ll go a little faster. Let me just put up the points we did on Covenant Theology, because this relates to where we are in talking about the Millennium. I just went over with you the three covenants that are the basis of Covenant Theology. I noted sometimes there are just two, they combine the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, but these covenants are not named as covenants in scripture. How did they come to them? They think they find the elements of a covenant in places in scripture, so they think therefore we can say there was a covenant established. My view is we just call covenants what God calls covenants. The first covenant mentioned in scripture is a covenant with Noah after the flood, that is a general covenant with the human race. The first, what we call redemptive covenant, is the Abrahamic Covenant, made with Abraham and his descendants.

But Covenant Theology has created these covenants and then their whole theology is developed out of that. It ends up being what we call Covenant Theology because developed out of these is the fact that there’s one people of God, the people that God chose for Himself, the elect, and provided redemption for. So any significant and long-term distinction between, for example Israel and the Church, is nonexistent. Though sometimes we talk about Covenant Theology and say they don’t see a distinction between Israel and the Church, they may see a difference. But basically there’s only one people of God, sometimes there’s variation within it. You’ll see them refer to the church in the Old Testament, because Israel and the church, they’re just the people of God, so any future for Israel as a distinct people and as a nation generally is not held. Where does it come from? This is why we get what we call Covenant Theology and it’s why we don’t end up talking about it in our general study of scripture because there is not a covenant called the covenant of redemption or covenant of grace or covenant of works.

Covenant of works is foundational, they say that was a covenant God made with Adam for Adam, I promise you life if you’ll obey, if you do not obey the consequences are death, so they entered into a covenant together. Adam disobeyed so death was the result, then this is carried out theologically, when Jesus Christ came to earth He had to completely and perfectly keep the Mosaic Law, so He could acquire righteousness to pass on to us. It’s called the active obedience of Christ, the active obedience of Christ in Covenant Theology is Christ’s obedience to the Mosaic Law to acquire righteousness to pass on to us. His passive obedience is His death on the cross. It’s rooted in the covenant of works, even though some Dispensationalists pick up that idea and promote it without giving careful consideration that’s a covenantal idea rooted in a covenant that we don’t find as a covenant in scripture. So I can’t quite understand where they get it. There’s do doubt Christ perfectly kept the Law, because He had to be a sinless sacrifice so He had no sin of His own to die for to summarize it. But nothing to do about acquiring righteousness through keeping the Law. I noted, the expression ‘the righteousness of Christ’ is not even used in the New Testament. We get the righteousness of God through faith in Christ, righteousness provided by Christ. I have no problem using that expression if we understand what we’re talking about. It’s through His death and paying the penalty for sin that righteousness, the righteousness of God, could be provided for us in accord with God’s justice.

So that’s Covenant Theology. That came into existence as a theological system in the 16th and 17th century. Sometimes dispensationalism is discredited because they say that’s more recent, that was in the 19th century, in the 1800’s, where that system was developed. But Covenant Theology as a system didn’t exist before the time of the Reformation, it wasn’t developed as a system until after the reformers, Calvin had been dead for over 50 years before we had the Covenant Theology system developed. They incorporated some things from him, but Calvin didn’t believe there was a covenant of works. In fact, his teaching was talking about a covenant of works as talking about the Mosaic Law. There was nothing about a covenant between God and Adam, he would not have hold to that. So there is a variety in the system.

Ok, let me mention some of the different views relating to the Millennium. And then there was a question on how do people get these ideas, if they are not in scripture? So, I’ll talk a little bit about that. Let’s start with the contrast between pre-trib and post-trib, so we put this on a slide, side by side. You recognize the pre-trib, that’s the last part of the chart we use regularly, the pre-trib rapture believes Christ will come at the end of the church age and call the church to meet Him in the air. It’s called the pre-tribulation rapture, because we believe Christ will come for the church before the Tribulation. There are those who hold a post-tribulation rapture, in other words, they believe at the end, (and that’s on the side, the other side of the charts), at the end of the Tribulation, and that tribulation is… there is variation within there, but it’s not usually the defined 7-year period, because they don’t see a distinction. We sometimes call this covenantal pre-millennialism, because most of those holding this view are covenantal, that is, they don’t see a clear distinction between Israel and the church. They don’t see the purpose of the Tribulation in the way we would, as focused on Israel’s redemption. They are covenantal, there is one people of God, they blend together. Some of them see a salvation for the nation, but that’s a subset of this saving of the church. Israel really gets absorbed into the church in that system. They believe Christ will come at the end of the Tribulation, they are still pre-millennial, they believe in a coming, earthly Millennium.

Now, we’re going to talk a little bit more about that, but they believe then before the Millennium (the Kingdom in its fullness is established) Christ will come. He’ll call believers from the earth to meet Him in the air then they will turn around and come back down to earth with Him so He can establish His Kingdom. That’s why we picture it as the meeting in the air, but instead of taking us to heaven, as the pre-trib rapture holds, they just turn around. Christ calls them to meet Him in the air so they can be part of His triumphal coming to earth.

There are a number of problems with this view. One is, if all believers are raptured just before Christ comes to earth, that means they get glorified bodies. If all unbelievers are killed so they can’t go into the Millennium, who’s going to populate the Millennium? Where do those people come from? We saw in our judgments of the living where they came from. But in this view all living believers are raptured at the beginning of the Kingdom when Christ comes to earth. That means all believers are in glorified bodies, all unbelievers we saw from the judgments are killed. How are you going to populate the Millennium and who’s going to rebel against Christ at the end of the thousand years? So you run into some difficulties with that view, we’ll talk a little bit about when we move through Revelation 20.

But that’s the post-trib rapture views, it is a very, very popular view today. It became more popular with neo-evangelicalism, remember we talked a little bit about the new evangelicalism. Because they view, generally, the Kingdom is already present but it’s not yet present in its fullness. So these covenantal pre-millennialists believe the Kingdom began with Christ’s first coming, so we are in the Kingdom today but there is a fuller realization of the Kingdom on earth when Christ comes, that creates a whole new realm. They are very strong on social and political involvement, because we’re in the Kingdom we do kingdom things, we’re here to change social conditions.

They take passages that we would see in the Old Testament about Israel’s social conditions, the responsibilities to the poor and all of that, as applicable to us today because we don’t make a clear distinction between Israel and the church. And we are in the Kingdom, we do kingdom things, we do kingdom work, so there’s a strong emphasis on being involved in kingdom activities, this characterizes all flavors of Covenant Theology. But this is the view I talked about John Piper, I don’t want to rag on him, but he’s one that most of you know. George Eldon Ladd was really the father of this, in a really dominate way, at Fuller Seminary. ‘Already not yet,’ when you read already in the kingdom but it’s not yet here in it’s fullness, is what we’re talking about. If we’re already in the Kingdom you do kingdom things. Kingdom was characterized by miracles so we have the emphasis, that’s why the charismatic movement becomes very involved in this. These people become very involved in environmental and racial things, we have to have racial justice, we have to be involved in preserving and keeping environment, because the Kingdom is already begun. Sometimes we think, well, these are just future things, so you know, I don’t need to know all the details. But you understand, practice comes out of theology, sometimes believers get picked up and carried along in theology that they say they don’t believe. The whole emphasis that’s pervading the church today on social action, racial justice, and environmental activity comes from a covenantal view. Sometimes coming from the liberal side, sometimes it’s coming from those who would be very conservative in many other ways.

That’s why we call it new evangelicalism, we’re part of this. I’m going to read you some stuff on that, this goes back to the 1940’s. In the 1940’s a man named Carl F. H. Henry wrote some stuff, one of his books was The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, and what he’s really saying is, fundamentalists aren’t comfortable with their theology because the Kingdom is completely future. If you interpret the Bible literally the Kingdom is completely future, but that leaves us out of what everything is going on, the social conditions around us, the political situation, and so on. These men claim to believe the Bible, and Carl F. H. Henry has written on the Bible as the word of God and so on. But he wanted to change our view of the Kingdom to the ‘already not yet’ so that we could include social activity.

Let me just read you what he said. He disarms you by making a statement like this, the burden of these articles that he’s writing, that comprise his book, is not to press a personal kingdom viewpoint. So, I’m not pushing one view of the Kingdom over another, but in the very next paragraph he says, “no study of the kingdom teaching of Jesus is adequate unless it recognizes His implication both that the Kingdom is here and that it is not here.” Now wait a minute, you just said you’re not pushing a view of the Kingdom, now you’re saying you can’t have a real understanding of Jesus’s teaching on the Kingdom unless you hold that the Kingdom is already here as well as it’s not here. That’s ‘already not yet.’ I’m talking about there. So he would have been a covenantal pre-millennialist. He believes there’s a coming form of a kingdom, but the Kingdom is already here, so we’re not waiting for the Kingdom, we’ve got to jump in. “The task of a Bible student is to discover, number one, in what sense is it here, number two, in what sense is it to be further realized at the second advent of Christ, and then thirdly, in what sense will it be fully realized at the advent.” Now the main difference between the Kingdom of God now and the Kingdom of God then is that the future Kingdom will center all it’s activities in the redemptive King because everything will be subjected to Him. But right now we’re in it and so here’s where you get now the practice. “If historic Christianity is again to compete as a vital world ideology, evangelicalism must project the solution for the most pressing world problems. It must offer a formula for a new world mind with spiritual ends involving evangelical affirmations in political, economical, sociological, educational realms, local and international.” Now, you see, all of a sudden it’s a responsibility of the church because we’re in the Kingdom.

And this carries us further, they are very ecumenical, that’s why they don’t like dispensationalists, that’s why he doesn’t like fundamentalist, because we make a separation on the basis of doctrine. He says, “It remains true that the evangelical must unite with non-evangelicals for social betterment if it is to be achieved at all. We can’t do it on our own.” So we may have doctrinal differences, but everyone who calls himself a Christian we can work with even if they don’t. So there’s strong, look, let’s not divide with Roman Catholics, let’s not make a distinction among ourselves on doctrinal matters. In other words, you abandon your doctrinal convictions and come to my side. Because isn’t that what he’s saying? If you interpret the Bible literally and believe the Kingdom is completely future and therefore we’re not in the Kingdom and I’m not going to be changing the world, well no, you’re wrong. You need to come over with me. And then we have to agree that we’re not going to make an issue of doctrine. Therefore, we agree, we can get together with Roman Catholics, we can get together with Lutherans, with Episcopalians, with anybody who wants to make the world a better place, so we can join together in action with the World Council of Churches, because we’re in the Kingdom.

Now this gets even more serious. I’m reading this to you because I’ve got to get it out, it’s important that we understand. Now we have to quit making an issue of the Bible being the inerrant word of God. So later Carl F. H. Henry writes another book. At least he writes small books so they’re short reads. “The somewhat reactionary elevation of inerrancy as the super badge of evangelical orthodoxy.” In other words, taking a stand on the Bible as the inerrant word of God, you’re elevating that to a high level. “That deploys energies to this controversy, that evangelicals might better apply to producing comprehensive theological and philosophical works so desperately needed in a time of national and civilization crises.” In other words, there’s something more important than the Bible being the inerrant word of God. It’s that we join together in dealing with the crises of our world, social problems, poverty, the environment. Wait a minute, now we’re given away the full authority of the word of God, you see how these things creep along.

This became true of Fuller Seminary when they changed their doctrinal statement, so you didn’t have to believe in inerrant scripture to be on the faculty, and it progressed on. Fuller was the leader in this, and since I studied there in the 1970’s for a little time, for 30 years I received their magazine and all their publications. There came a point where I thought, I don’t know that I find anything in any of these publications that I think is written by a believer. Where do you go? Once the whole Bible isn’t inerrant, well, then who decides what is and isn’t? So Paul Jewett, on the faculty of Fuller, said (Apostle) Paul was just flat out wrong when he wrote about women, period, that was just part of his rabbinical background, it has nothing binding on us as a church. Fuller just accepted it, why? Well, we can’t say what he says is not part of the Bible and inerrant.

So this is why it’s important. Sometimes believers just jump on a band wagon. You know, you have the side that’s promoting what we would say is the error. The other side which stands strongly against it. And then you just have the middle of all these believers who say, look, I just don’t want to fight the controversy. And they make the point, isn’t the foundational thing Jesus wants to do is we love one another? So doctrine is not the most important, and I can read you quotes on that. Love is the most important. They ignore the fact that John wrote and said, we must love in the truth. We can not have biblical love apart from the truth.

Alright, had a question: it doesn’t seem like there’s a biblical basis for Covenant Theology. I didn’t go into all details of how they tried to develop it but just the summary. If that’s true, what is so appealing about that position, that people who were previously dispensational are moving over to it? I’m talking about neo-evangelicalism, and then I’ll go back and look at the different millennial views that are more broad than that. Basically what happened in evangelicalism, you know, we get restless or bored or unhappy with just the straight, literal handling of scripture and they decide we’re not being relevant in the world. We’re not accepted as intellectual, scholarly, in the world. We’re not making an impact on the political situation in the world, we’re not involved in the world’s concern about the environment and social issues. How are we going to reach the world if we don’t get more involved? So they decide, we’ll have to change our handling of scripture. If the Kingdom is just in the future, and they all acknowledge this, some of them are well familiar with dispensationalism. These things aren’t part of our activity because we believe the world is going to deteriorate and get worse, only the coming of Christ can rescue the world. But that’s not an appealing message to the unbeliever so they come up with the ‘already not yet.’

George Elton Ladd, the father of this “already not yet”, you can read his biography, A Place at the Table. His biography says he was obsessed with getting recognized in the non-evangelical world as a scholar. He started out as dispensational and he abandoned that and came up with the ‘already not yet’ idea of the Kingdom to promote that. That’s a balance, with not going completely covenantal of denying the future aspect of the kingdom, but we’re already in it. So he went to Harvard to get his doctorate, then he encouraged the students at Fuller, you ought to go to these kind of schools to get your advanced degrees so the world will recognize you as a scholar. Then it became their goal, they became… Edward John Carnell there with these men, he’s just bitter in his attack against dispensationalists and fundamentalists. Why? Because we have to get into the world system. That’s why you then have ecumenism and you have, well, if that’s your goal to be recognized and accepted by the world, the world’s not going to compromise, we have to compromise.

But you understand, compromising the truth does not enable us to reach the world. You understand only God can touch a sinful heart. When Paul came to Corinth, he said the Greeks want wisdom, I just came and gave them the gospel, Christ crucified. But we say, how do these men miss that? But now this is the dominant theology in the evangelical world, Trinity Seminary, the evangelical school, D.A. Carson. It’s a balance, we’re not a-millennial denying the kingdom. Put up the charts on the comparison on the Millennium. I’ve given you the covenantal pre-millennial view, which is sort of a middle view. Here’s the three major views that have been present in history. We have the pre-tribulational pre-millennial, but you could have the subset there, the covenantal pre-millennial. There is two basic pre-millennial views, the covenantal view and the pre-tribulational view.

We have here then the pre-tribulational view, there won’t be any kingdom. Some of the dispensationalists are abandoning that, they call it progressive dispensationalism, it’s infected Dallas Seminary and other schools. Well, we are already in the Kingdom, they don’t want to go as far as the covenantal pre-millennialists, but they say the Kingdom began with the first coming of Christ. He is seated on the throne of David in heaven so we’re in the Kingdom. Some of the covenantalists have said, well, they’ve just come over to our side. They don’t want to acknowledge it and I think that’s more true then they acknowledge.

Post-millennialism, that is saying the world will get better and better and ultimately will bring in the Kingdom. We used to sing the hymn, “the darkness shall turn to dawning and the dawning to noon day bright, and God’s great kingdom shall come to earth, the kingdom of love and light.” That was written by a post millennialist, things are just going to get better and better. Sometimes we’re critical of the modern songs but we were willing to sing some of the theology that wasn’t so good. It’s not the darkness that’s going to turn to dawning and then the dawning to noon day bright and then Christ, that was post-millennialism. We’re going to, with the gospel, progressively win more and more of the world to Christ until the kingdom comes in. Christ will come after the Kingdom. He doesn’t come in to establish the Kingdom, He comes in after the Kingdom, because we bring it in.

There was a revival of that several years ago, it had some popularity, theologies were written, commentaries were written on that. Then as things get so bad in the world, it starts to die out again, it was the first two world wars. Most of the theologies written in the 1800’s by evangelicals were post-millennium. When you read those theologies they are basically post-millennium, because with all the inventions and all the things happening people think the world is getting better and better, then we had World War I and World War II. It was the joke, when I was in Bible college, that there was only one known post-millennialist, Lorraine Bettner. He was down here in Missouri, in Rock Port where he lived and he wrote books and his books out, he’s deceased now. But that’s post-millennialism, it’s covenantal, it sees no distinction between Israel and the church. There is no kingdom for Israel because we’re bringing in the Kingdom for all mankind, a-millennialism, the ‘a’ in front of millennial means, no, no millennium. They sometimes don’t care about that name, so they want to call it symbolic millennialism or realized millennialism. The point is when Christ came He established the Kingdom, we realize it’s a spiritual kingdom, not an earthly kingdom. It’s covenantal and these people would talk about the church in the Old Testament. Because all of those things with the coming of Christ we now realize… and I’ve read you Goldsworthy’s hermeneutical book, which is a recent work, and he’s well respected in the evangelical world, even Dallas Seminary for some reason recommends it when they reviewed it. But he says, I’m a-millennial, if you take a literal interpretation of the Bible you will be pre-millennial, I’m a-millennial. I believe the coming of Christ now gives us the authority to go back and reinterpret the Old Testament and understand all those promises to Israel are now to be understood as fulfilled in a spiritual way as Christ reigns today from heaven.

This is the view that I’ve mentioned, was a view of the Reformers because they come out of Roman Catholicism. What happened? Early church for the first 300 years, most are agreed whatever your position, the first 300 years the church was basically pre-millennial. Not necessarily dispensational but at least pre-millennial. Origen, you’re familiar with that name, around 200, born around 185, died around 250, so we’ll just say 200, 250, in there. He was born in Alexandria, Egypt and that context. He decided there’s more to the Bible than just what you read literally, so we should have been interpreting the Bible allegorically, spiritually, looking for deeper meaning, hidden meanings, beyond the literal meaning. That grew. Sometimes believers always are enticed by something different and get drawn into these things. Well, you know, maybe there’s something to this. Maybe this insight… nobody else… But Origen starts that.

You come down to Augustine, about 200 years later, about that, Augustine is going to die around 430, but you can see, Origen will die about 250, Augustine will die about 430, so we’ll say roughly 200 years apart. Augustine, was pre-millennial, interpreted literally, but through some things that happened, he decided that a literal view of the Kingdom was a carnal view of the Kingdom, selfish and carnal, fleshly, looking for worldly things, it will happen on this world. And besides, there were changes going on in the world. Constantine had declared himself a Christian and made Christianity the religion of the empire, so instead of Christians being persecuted, it was non-Christians who would get persecuted. These kind of things and the other things that went together, Augustine decided, yes, we shouldn’t be interpreting this literal either. We have the heavenly city, the city of God, the heavenly city and then we have the material city on earth, and the two cities. So he developed a-millennialism, and we’re in the Kingdom. Roman Catholicism adopts this. Augustine’s great influence, sometimes viewed as the greatest theologian in the church since Paul, might have questions about that, but no doubt a brilliant theologian.

But that’s where a-millennialism comes, it becomes the doctrine of the church down through… a -millennialism was the view of the Reformers. Where did the Reformers come from? It was Calvin, Luther, these men, they were Roman Catholic priests, they came out of Roman Catholicism. They never changed the eschatology of Roman Catholicism. They were battling for a literal interpretation of the scripture. The problem was they only focused on the doctrine of salvation. Luther who would say he would die for the literal interpretation, what the Bible says by salvation by grace through faith, but he spiritualized, allegorized the prophecies, and it fit perfectly well with Roman Catholicism, cause he just went on. We sometimes give them a pass because we say, well, their hands were full battling over the issue of salvation, but how does he get down to here? Then people, they become followers of Luther, followers of Calvin, the Reformers. So Reformed Theology, which is a little different then Covenantal Theology, but they go together. Reformed Theology is usually identified with what we call the 5 points of Calvinism, which were not formed until after Calvin died, part of a development of Reformed Theology, but they end up being covenantal because the reformers were covenantal, because they had Roman Catholicism in their background.

So why does this appeal? All these things appeal, I think primarily because it’s an intellectual thing. You don’t get this by just studying the Bible literally, interpreting it literally. This is why covenantalists are so bitter against dispensationalism. I read to you from the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, he says dispensationalists have destroyed the mind of evangelicals by their emphasis on literal interpretation. And you can’t fit into the world, they say, because they interpret prophecy literally, they think you ought to interpret Geneses literally. Now we’re outside the scientific world because we get no respect in the world because we’re still holding to that old fashioned view that God created the world in 6 days. Destroys their credibility. So it doesn’t appeal to the intellectual and sometimes believers get caught in that. Boy, you just don’t get this from reading your Bible, you don’t know about the covenant of grace, the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works by just reading your Bible. Now this becomes an intellectual, scholarly thing, and the theology that goes with it is developed more logically than exegetically.

I think I read you the quote from a reformed theologian, he said, it’s just my premise, I come to the Bible, I presume my Reformed Theology and read the Bible in light of that. Well, we ought to go the other way, I go to the Bible and read it and study it exegetically according to the principles what we would call literal interpretation, that may mean I have to make some changes in my theology. But it appeals to the mind. And then you get to fit in. Even the world appreciates when you’re involved socially. Roman Catholics have made a big thing out of this, they do vast social programs. Everyone says, well, that’s what the church ought to be doing. If you have a Lutheran background, Episcopalian background, Presbyterian background, Methodist background, these kind of things are where we came out of. The study of scripture. So that’s part of the appeal.

All right, now I didn’t leave any room for other questions. I’m going to answer some questions, and then if you want to come back to anything on that, we can. About life after death, someone asked about what’s the status of those who have died and past from this life? The persons I’m asking about were born again believers in Jesus Christ, accepted Him as their personal Savior and Lord of their lives. Then he asks extensive questions about his own family… and hasn’t understood this. What happens to believers that die? My understanding is, first what is physical death? James 2:26 (we’re not going to go to these scriptures so I don’t get mired down) the body without the spirit is dead. What happens at physical death? The spirit, the immaterial part of a person, leaves the body, so the body is physically dead.

Let me give you some scriptures, we won’t go there, 2 Corinthians 5: 6-8, Paul talks about to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. He does the same thing in Philippians 1:21-24, it’s clear, Paul says, at death the believer leaves his body and goes to be with the Lord, that’s pretty clear. We will look at a passage, 1 Thessalonians 4, because this is the second part of it. What do you get from a body, what about people who are cremated? They don’t have a body left, how can you have them resurrected? In 1 Thessalonians 4:13, “But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep”. Now this sleep refers to their physical body, as the context makes clear. And you’ve seen this, you go to a funeral, you go by and the body is there and sometimes you hear people say, it looks like they’re asleep. Because their body is not being used. But they as a person have left their body.

If they are a believer, they are in glory with Christ. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, I want you to understand so you don’t’ grieve as those who have no hope. So this is important for us as believers, we need to understand it and be able to share it with others. We have hope! Verse 14, “If we believe that Jesus died and rose again,” He’s the pattern. 1 Corinthians 15, Christ’s resurrection from the dead is the guarantee that we will be raised from the dead. Back to 1Thess 4:14, “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep.” So you note, “those who have fallen asleep,” reference to believers who have died, are going to come with Christ, so they have been with Him in heaven. They left their body, now what’s going to happen? Verse 15, “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first.” Their bodies will be raised from the dead. Whether they were cremated, whether they were buried in the ocean and the fish ate the bodies, whether they were buried in a grave and they have returned to dust, dust to dust. No problem from God to call that body back to life, reconstitute it, the elements of that body are present in some way, He can do it, it’s not a problem. Verse 17, “Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up,” to meet them.

So what happens when Christ returns at the rapture, for example, of the church, believers who have been out of their body but living in heaven? We don’t have to live in this body, Paul calls this body a tent in 2 Corinthians 5. Our dwelling place now, it will be folded up and set aside at death, another analogy. We as a person will go to join Christ, shouldn’t be a problem because angels are spirit beings and they have never had physical bodies. But God’s intention for us is we will dwell eternally in this physical body, resurrected in a condition that can not die. You may want to go to 1 Corinthians 15, this is where the great chapter on resurrection… we don’t have time for the whole chapter, but verse 35. A question that we have, how can this body be raised, what kind of body will it be, how does God do this? Paul says in verse 35, “But someone will say, ‘How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?’ You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies.” So there is a principle here. Verse 37, “and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body just as He wished.” So this physical body is just the preliminary in the picture here. It’s like the seed, it’s going to develop into that awesome, beautiful flower. You look at that seed and you say, that’s ugly and it’s nothing. But out of that seed… and that’s the picture. Verse 39, “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.” Then he goes on further about the spirit.

So the two truths, at physical death the believer leaves his body and is immediately in the presence of God in heaven, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Now at a future time God is not done with this body. As Christ’s body was raised from the dead, our bodies will be raised from the dead. And it will be these bodies… You know, the disciples recognized Christ, except when it was His intention they not recognize Him. Then when their eyes were opened, they said, well it’s Him! It was the same body because remember it had the nail prints in it and the wound in the side, it’s the same body. And He ate fish with them at the Sea of Galilee. So be of good cheer, when you’re in your glorified body we can sit down and enjoy the banquet, the wedding feast. We will be the bride in our glorified bodies but it won’t be a perishable body. You say, well, I don’t understand all that. I don’t either! But the God who reveals the scriptures through Paul did give us an idea. And we have a picture of Christ after His resurrection, it was not limited by physical things as our physical bodies are, He could come and go, He could enter a closed room as angels can do. It is a resurrected body, not perishable, not natural. So those two things. Hope that answers the question, it was a longer question.

For the unbeliever, Luke 16, Revelation 21, we’ll be talking about the unbeliever at death, his body, his spirit leaves his body and he’s immediately in Hades. Hades is the holding place of torment, fiery torment for unbelievers. They will be called from Hades at the Great White Throne, we’ll talk about that at the end of Revelation 20, for their final sentencing to hell. So the rich man who died in Luke 16 lifted up his eyes, being in torment in Hades. So it’s similar kind of torment, the difference is Hades is temporary, where you go and suffer awaiting your final sentencing, sort of like being in jail waiting to go to prison. What’s the difference? You’re in this little cell, well, jail is usually… if I can just use that, don’t tear apart the illustration, not much different in the kind of suffering, you’re confined it that little cell, but in prison duration becomes… That kind of thing. Hades is the temporary holding place until they’re resurrected. They will get resurrected bodies that will not be subjected to death, that will be able to suffer endlessly without dying. Terrible thought, terrible concept, but it’s true.

Ok, got another question here, let me answer this, then I’ll open it up to you. Some discussion about what the Bible says about offerings and sacrifices. What’s the difference between offerings and sacrifices? In the context of Cain’s sin, Noah’s offering, the offerings of the Pentateuch, the point is the word ‘sacrifice’ is not used, the word ‘offering’ is, and how did they know what to offer? There must have been some revelation given early on. I think there had to be, also. Come back to Genesis, we’ll look at a few verses here, Genesis 3, remember when Adam and Eve sinned they were conscious of their nakedness so that they sewed together leaves to make a covering. After God confronts them then, verse 21, “And the Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.” I think there’s an indication there. What’s the difference? They’re in a tropical environment, before the Flood, they’re still in the Garden here, the world would have been, I take it, in a tropical environment, even when they are cast out of the Garden. What’s wrong with leaves? You can make the next suit of clothes when the leaves dry out. But He makes them garments of skin. I take it that’s an indication a sacrifice was offered, an animal had to die for the provision of the skin, that’s an early indication.

When you come down to chapter 4, with Cain’s offering, that was mentioned in the question here, verse 3, “In the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground.” Now I don’t think that means he just brought some fruit he found on the ground, this is things he had grown. In contrast, verse 4, “Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions.” And that we know from the opening chapters of Leviticus, those first 7 or 8 chapters there, and all the instructions of the offerings, we get instructions regarding the animal and even the burning of the fat and so on. It would seem to indicate clearly God had given some instruction. “The Lord had regard for Abel.” In the book of Hebrews chapter 11 verse 4, it said that God regarded Abel’s sacrifice, rejected Cain. Abel offered it in faith, faith in what? If these were just coming up with their own ideas of what to bring, why is one better than the other? They could have both had faith. God wants us to bring something to Him as an offering, but God had revealed His will, and Abel’s is a sacrifice in believing what God said. Just like today, people come with their own sacrifice to God, I was baptized, I joined church, I take communion, supposedly God is supposed to accept that as their offering for sin. It’s the death of Christ! It’s believing in Christ! So, I take it, that’s indication there was revelation given.

While you’re in Genesis… They knew what God required, Cain may have brought the best fruit that he had grown, the problem was it wasn’t by faith because that’s not what God said He wanted. It took a sacrifice of death, even though the word sacrifice is not used. Come to chapter 5, we talk about there must have been prior revelation, verse 21, and these are the descendants of Seth. We’re going to jump down to Enoch in verse 21, “Enoch lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Methuselah.” Verse 22, “Then Enoch walked with God three hundred years after he became the father of Methuselah,” and so on. Verse 23, Enoch lived a total of three hundred and sixty-five years, not long in those days. Verse 24, “Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.” That’s all we have recorded about Enoch, until you come to the book of Jude. When you get to the book of Jude and you can get there, just before Revelation if you want, the references are verses 14 and 15. Verse 14 of Jude, “It was also about these men, these godless men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam.” But if you count there, each one begat this one, begat this one, you get down to Enoch, he’s the seventh there, so we know that’s the Enoch we are talking about, we just read in Genesis 5.

“Enoch… prophesied, saying,” Jude 14, “ ‘Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgement upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.’ ” Enoch was prophesying this kind of truth of the coming of the Messiah and as the Old Testament prophets did, they prophesied in the past tense often. Remember we talked about the prophetic past? So Enoch “prophesied, saying, ‘…the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones.’ ” It’s in anticipation, prophesying of some day the Lord is going to come and bring judgment. But we don’t have that recorded in the Old Testament. We read in Genesis 5, Enoch walked with God, so he’s a godly man, and then he didn’t experience death, God took him directly to heaven. But now, Jude writes and says, you know, Enoch was a prophet and here’s what he wrote. So the fact that he was prophesying, there’s a discussion how this was preserved, but the point is that Enoch was a prophet. Holy Scripture says it and tells us what he prophesied, so there was revelation from God that’s not recorded. Progressive revelation is given. But we need to be careful on thinking those men didn’t know anything. Even in the days of Enoch, they knew about the coming of the Lord to bring judgment on unbelievers. And He would do that in the days of Noah. Enoch says there’s yet a future dimension of this, in it’s more final form. So I think, yeah, there was prior revelation.

The difference between offering and a sacrifice, you read through scripture, and this is generally, just did some review and work on this, the offering is the general word. It can include all kinds of offering, a cereal offering or a meal offering which had no blood, it can also include what would be more technically a sacrifice. The word sacrifice basically means to slaughter. If can even be used, that same word, of someone’s slaughter in a battle. So it would be a more limited word. You slaughter an animal so it’s a sacrifice. When you bring a grain offering, it’s not been slaughtered. So offering would be the broader word. You could talk about bringing an animal as an offering and it’s going to be sacrificed. So that word offering is the broader word including all kinds of offerings. Like I say, the first 7 or 8 chapters of Leviticus gives you the unfolding of the various offerings in the law of Moses. They have a meal offering, a different kind of offering. The meal offering or grain offering, obviously didn’t have any blood associated with it, but it had a special purpose. It would be an offering, you wouldn’t say I’m bringing a meal sacrifice, because there’s no slaughter associated with that. So that would be the distinction.

We know there’s additional revelation as well, if I can elaborate on that. This is one of my short answers, you see what happens. Come back to Genesis 8, we know there was revelation given that’s not recorded, if I can get to Genesis 8. God is instructing Noah of what animals to take onto the ark. Note what He says in verses 20 and 21, “Noah built an alter to the Lord, and took of every clean animal.” Note, he knows the distinction between clean and unclean animals, that won’t be really developed until the law of Moses, but he already knows about that. God tells him, you take this many clean animals and this with the unclean animals. Noah doesn’t have to say, I don’t know what you’re talking about. So we know there’s more revelation and we’re thankful because God has chosen to limit what is included, otherwise like John wrote, if we wrote everything about Christ that could be written, you couldn’t contain the volumes. So that’s true here. There’s selective progressive revelation. But at this point what I want you to note in chapter 8 here, verse 20, you bring of every clean animal and clean bird, you offer offerings on the altar, so he does that and God is pleased.

I could have taken you back earlier as well, he brought more of the clean animals, so that he could sacrifice them. He only brought two of the unclean animals. But if he only brought two of the clean animals then he offered them for sacrifice, then you couldn’t perpetuate the purpose of bringing two of each of these on so that they could then repopulate the earth. Then he brought extra clean animals onto the ark at the instruction of God so he could do the sacrifice. So again, indication there was prior revelation. What the Mosaic Law will do now is codify it and clarify it.

But there was revelation given regarding these matters and other matters obviously early, so we don’t know all that they knew. I’m sort of taken aback to realize that Enoch knew what he knew about the coming of the Lord bringing judgments on the ungodly at that early stage, when we just really have moved from Adam and Eve to their genealogies. And yet we see what God has already told them now that sin has entered the world, and His coming intervention in that.

Well, if you had some questions, I’m glad you brought them. Bring them again, you can submit them, text them in, e-mail them and I’ll try to cover them and try to do more of the questions. I wanted to cover the millennial things because that’s where we are in Revelation, but I don’t want to do it on Sunday morning too much because there are more people there that this is newer to them. If I start talking about all these different views on the millennium and covenant theology… They’re already going out saying, I don’t have any idea what that guy was talking about. So that’s why I try to pull that down to Sunday night where you who are here generally have more of a background and just to bring up to speed.

Let’s pray together. Thank you, Lord, for Your grace in revealing so much. We’re reminded that that grace, going back to the early days after the sin of Adam and Eve, the revelation You gave, the provision You made. Lord, the truth that is unfolded, regarding what would be necessary to pay the penalty for sin which is death. And the pictures that You laid out of what would be acceptable, Lord, prepare the way for the only true sacrifice that could pay the penalty for our sins. So we are blessed, Lord, to live with Your completed revelation. Your Son has come, the sacrifice has been made, He’s been raised. He’s alive! And we have the clarity of the explanations of Your word and how it will all be brought to its end, as we’re privileged to study together. Pray these truths will impact our hearts and minds, the way we think and the way we live in the days before us. We commit the week to You. In Christ’s name. Amen.