Why I Am Not A Dispensationalist

Here is the sermon I preached yesterday for Ascension.

The seventy weeks of Daniel are the fount of much debate about eschatology. Many solutions have been offered, but most are speculative and difficult to prove. I am not going to offer a comprehensive answer, but I do want touch on a few issues over the next couple of posts.

The seventy weeks comes from the first portion of Daniel 9:24.

“Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city.”

The angel Gabriel is delivering a message to Daniel. He says, “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and your holy city.”

“Your people” obviously refers to Israel. “Your holy city” obviously refers to Jerusalem. Gabriel is saying that something is going to happen to Israel and Jerusalem in “seventy weeks.”

If we take “seventy weeks” in a wooden sense, then Gabriel is saying that something is going to happen in one year and four months. However, most understand that Gabriel is referring to a much longer period of time.

The Hebrew word for weeks actually means “seven.” Thus, seventy weeks could be translated seventy-sevens. This is referring to seventy groups of seven, which would be 490. Most scholars understand that Gabriel is speaking of years. Something is going to happen in 490 years.

Unfortunately, Dispensationalists do not take this literally. They argue that the 490 years are not consecutive. That is, they assert that after 483 years, then God is going to “stop the clock” for an undisclosed period of time, and then “re-start the clock” for the final seven years at some point in the future.

However, this violates literal, normal, rational communicative principles. No one speaks like this.

If I tell my wife that I’ll be home in ten minutes, only to arrive two hours later, I could not escape by saying, “I was not including the time I stopped by a bar to watch the basketball game.”

Last time, we looked at chapter seven of Daniel and the four beasts that he sees in a vision. In the midst of this vision, Daniel encounters a heavenly vision which is often misunderstood and misapplied. Let’s look at this part of the vision.

I watched till thrones were put in place,
And the Ancient of Days was seated;
His garment was white as snow,
And the hair of His head was like pure wool.
His throne was a fiery flame,
Its wheels a burning fire;
A fiery stream issued
And came forth from before Him.
A thousand thousands ministered to Him;
Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.
The court was seated,
And the books were opened (Daniel 7:9-10).

In Daniel’s vision, he sees “the Ancient of Days” sitting on his throne. This is obviously a reference to God seated in heaven. The hair like wool and the flaming eyes are exactly what John describes in Revelation 1:14. Daniel goes on to describe this vision further:

I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,
And they brought Him near before Him.
Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
Which shall not pass away,
And His kingdom the one
Which shall not be destroyed (Daniel 7:13-14).

Daniel sees “One like the Son of Man.” This is Jesus’ favorite title of self-designation. Daniel saw a vision of Jesus Christ.

Notice what the One like the Son of Man is doing: he is “coming with the clouds of heaven.” What does this mean? What are the clouds of heaven? Is this what the Son of Man rides on as he comes to the earth?

Not at all. Look at the next line of description: “He came to the Ancient of Days.” This is describing the Son of Man coming to heaven, coming up to the throne of God. Once the Son of Man comes up to the Ancient of Days, he is given a kingdom and everyone serves him. This is the everlasting kingdom of God given to the Son of Man.

Consider verses 13-14 carefully. Most people read this as a description of the second coming, that Jesus returns to the earth “on a cloud” and sets up his kingdom there. However, this is not what the text is describing.

Daniel is seeing Jesus receive his kingdom, but he receives it upon coming to heaven. When did Jesus go to heaven? At his ascension. Daniel sees Jesus ascending to heaven and being given the everlasting kingdom.

The phrase “the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven” is not describing the second coming, but the ascension. Thus, every time that Jesus uses this phrase, we should understand that he is referring to his ascension, not the second coming.

For example, when Jesus says, “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matthew 16:28), he is not referring to the transfiguration or his second coming. He is referring to his ascension. This makes much more sense given the context.

Furthermore, when Jesus says in the Olivet Discourse, “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Matthew 24:30), he is not referring to the rapture or the second coming. He is referring to his ascension. Obviously, this has major implications for interpreting the rest of the Olivet Discourse.

Notice that this is neither “spiritualizing” nor “allegorizing,” but allowing the Old Testament to speak plainly. Dispensationalists routinely ignore the origin of the phrase “Son of Man coming on the clouds.” However, this is unmistakably referring to the ascension of Jesus Christ.

The theme of the book of Daniel is the kingdom of God. Despite the fact that Israel was in captivity, God promised to build his kingdom on earth. In chapter two of Daniel, God revealed that his everlasting kingdom would be established after the four earthly kingdoms of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome.

We find a similar message in chapter seven. Daniel has a vision of four animals: a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a beast (Daniel also sees a heavenly vision which we will examine more carefully in the next post).

Daniel is given details regarding each of these animals, but without getting bogged down, most commentators agree that each of these animals corresponds to the empires from the vision in Daniel chapter two.

· The Lion = Babylon
· The Bear = Persia
· The Leopard = Greece
· The Beast = Rome

Notice the interpretation given:

Those great beasts, which are four, are four kings which arise out of the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever (Daniel 7:17-18).

Just as in the vision of the statue in chapter two of Daniel, the kingdom of God follows the four earthly kingdoms. The kingdom of God is an everlasting kingdom.

Thus, a straight-forward reading of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 leads to the expectation of four empires (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome) followed by the kingdom of God.

I maintain that this is precisely what happened. At the first coming of Christ, the first three kingdoms had already disappeared. Jesus established his kingdom, which eventually led to the demise of the Roman empire.

Certainly, there have been other kingdoms and other empires, but the kingdom of Christ was established during the latter days of the Roman empire. Jesus’ kingdom has been growing gradually ever since, much like yeast leavens a loaf of bread (Matthew 13:33). It started small, like a mustard seed, but it is growing, and one day, it will be the largest kingdom (Matthew 13:31-32). It began as a stone, but eventually becomes a mountain that fills the whole earth (Daniel 2:35).

In the next post, we will examine the heavenly vision from chapter seven of Daniel.

One of the main selling points of Dispensationalism is their claim to take the Old Testament seriously. While I heartily embrace this noble intention, Dispensationalists regularly fail to realize their goal. This is especially noticeable in the book of Daniel.

I am going to attempt a few posts that survey of some of the important eschatological passages in the book of Daniel. Let’s start with Nebuchadnezzar’s vision in chapter 2 of Daniel.

Daniel describes Nebuchadnezzar’s vision:

“You, O king, were watching; and behold, a great image! This great image, whose splendor was excellent, stood before you; and its form was awesome. This image’s head was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay” (Daniel 2:31-33).

To summarize:
Head = Gold
Chest & Arms = Silver
Belly & Thighs = Bronze
Legs = Iron
Feet = Iron and Clay

Daniel goes on to describe what happens to this image:

“You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed together, and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth” (Daniel 2:34-35).

To summarize: a stone strikes the feet, and the whole image is shattered. The stone becomes a great mountain which fills the whole earth.

Daniel then gives the interpretation:

“You are this head of gold” (Daniel 2:38).

Nebuchadnezzar is the head of gold.

“But after you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours” (Daniel 2:39a).

Notice that Daniel says, “another kingdom,” meaning that he is speaking not just of persons, but of kingdoms. So, the head of gold is not just Nebuchadnezzar, but also his kingdom, Babylon.

The next kingdom, the chest and arms of silver, must refer to Persia, which conquered Babylon.

“Then another, a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth” (Daniel 2:39b).

The third kingdom is the third part of the image, the belly and thighs of bronze. This must refer to Greece, which conquered Persia.

“And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the others” (Daniel 2:40).

The fourth kingdom is the fourth part of the statue, the legs of iron. This must refer to Rome, which conquered Greece.

Daniel adds these details:

“Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay. And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile. As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay” (Daniel 2:40-43).

Notice that Daniel is still describing the fourth kingdom. Although it starts out strong (iron), it becomes a mixture of strength and fragility because the iron and clay cannot adhere to one another. This describes the latter stages of the Roman empire.

Daniel then describes the stone cut without hands:

“And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. Inasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold--the great God has made known to the king what will come to pass after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure” (Daniel 2:44-45).

In the days of the Roman empire, God will set up his kingdom, which is unconquerable, universal, unbreakable, and unending. A natural reading of the text understands that the kingdom which succeeds Rome is the kingdom of God. The catalyst for this kingdom is the stone cut out without hands, which is obviously a reference to Jesus Christ.

This is precisely what happened. John and Jesus announced the nearness of the kingdom. Following his death and resurrection, Jesus ascended to the throne of the kingdom, which he has been ruling ever since.

Thus, we are given a succession of five kingdoms: Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and the kingdom of Christ.

Despite Daniel’s interpretation of the vision, Dispensationalists insist that the kingdom of Christ has not yet come; it is still future. Some Dispensationalists argue that we are still under the Roman Empire, which is odd considering Rome crumbled 1500 years ago.

Others Dispensationalists argue that we are in limbo between the “first” Roman empire (legs of iron) and the “revived” Roman empire (feet of iron and clay). Yet, this belies a straight-forward reading of the text. The legs and the feet describe two phases of the same kingdom: a strong phase and a weak phase. Dispensationalists insert the entire church age between the legs and the feet.

Here we see a recurring difficulty that Dispensationalists have with Daniel: they manipulate Daniel’s timetable with the insertion of gaps. By inserting gaps, they are rejecting Daniel’s eschatology.

Dispensationalism is known for it’s peculiar eschatology. Premillennialism itself is not peculiar; this has enjoyed support throughout the history of the church.

The peculiarity of Dispensational eschatology has to do with the novel idea that the church is an interruption in God’s plan of dealing with ethnic Jews. Dispensationalists argue that the church is a “parenthesis” or an “intercalation” between Pentecost and the rapture of the church. Once the church is out of the way, God can get back to his main program, ethnic Jews.

This peculiar eschatology is really the direct result of Dispensational ecclesiology. The radical separation of Israel and the church in eschatology is fueled by the radical separation of Israel and the church in ecclesiology. Ontology affects history. Dispensational ecclesiology drives Dispensational eschatology.

My journey out of Dispensationalism began by examining my eschatology. While I was shaken by a fresh reading of the Olivet Discourse, I clung to Dispensationalism for several years because of my ecclesiology.

For this reason, I felt it was more crucial to deal with some foundational issues in ecclesiology (and hermeneutics). While I have not exhausted the relationship between Israel and the church, one must eventually deal with Dispensational eschatology.

Many of my eschatological arguments will be based upon the ground already covered in Jesus, Israel, and the Church. If you have not read these entries or listened to these lectures, please see the links in the side bar on the right.

In a nutshell, I will be writing on these three thesis regarding the kingdom of Jesus:

1) Jesus established his kingdom in his first coming.
2) Since his ascension, Jesus has been ruling and building his kingdom through the church.
3) The consummation of the kingdom is when Jesus returns to judge the nations.

The abuse of alcohol was a problem in the early frontier years of America. Of course, drunkenness has always been and will always be a problem until the Lord returns.

The Temperance Movement
Preaching against drunkenness is nothing new, but in the late eighteenth century, preachers began to focus their preaching against alcohol itself. Alcohol was a great evil that need to be abolished. This kind of preaching spawned the Temperance Movement.

Ironically, temperance means “moderation” or “self-restraint.” Yet the goal of the Temperance Movement was not temperance or moderation, but the total prohibition from all alcoholic beverages.

Several states banned alcohol by the mid-nineteenth century. After the Civil War, the national Prohibition Party was formed, whose sole goal was the prohibition of alcohol.

Soon after, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union was started. This organization was well known for such stunts as marching into saloons singing songs like, “Lips that Touch Liquor Shall Never Touch Mine.”

In 1919, the Eighteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution of the United States of America. This prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors.

Of course, making alcohol illegal did not eliminate its abuse. The roaring twenties were one of the most debauched decades in American History. Although alcohol was prohibited, it did not stop people from getting drunk. It did not stop people from sinning.

In fact, people now had license to be creative about their sin. Bathtub gin, moonshine, and other illegal distilleries were prominent. Not only this, but organized crime got its major start in America by making, selling, and transporting liquor.

In 1933 the twenty-first Amendment was ratified, which repealed the eighteenth Amendment of Prohibition.

Of course, today, the abuse of alcohol is still a rampant problem. Most would agree that Prohibition and the Temperance Movement had the opposite effect of its intention. Sin actually increased when alcohol was prohibited.

Prohibition and the Church
More than that, the Temperance Movement has had a profoundly debilitating impact upon the church in America.

The Temperance Movement united both theological liberals and theological conservatives. Theological liberals denied doctrines such as inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, etc. Theological conservatives affirmed all of these doctrines.

Theological liberals and theological conservatives were opposed on nearly every issue. However, when it came to the prohibition of alcoholic beverages, these two factions put aside their theological differences and joined in opposing all alcoholic beverages. In other words, they considered alcohol to be a greater evil than false doctrine.

The results of this unholy alliance are notorious. During the years of Prohibition, the theological liberals were busy taking over every mainline denomination.

In 1924, the Auburn Affirmation was signed, which allowed Presbyterian ministers to deny the fundamentals of the faith, yet still retain their ordination.

Of course, theological liberals did not just appear in 1919, but they gradually infiltrated the church during the nineteenth century. While the church was consumed with warring against alcohol, the theological liberals were allowed to come in and take over the denominations.

This is the legacy of the Temperance Movement. Not only did it fail to slow or even curb alcohol abuse, but the Temperance Movement was one of the distractions that allowed false doctrines and false teachers to creep into the church.

The church was right to preach against drunkenness, but wrong to preach against alcohol. Ignorance of the Biblical teaching on alcohol contributed to downgrade of the American church.

Yet, this ignorance continues today. Prohibition and abstention are still trumpeted as the answer to the problem of drunkenness. Alcohol is blamed, rather than sinful hearts.

American Exile


All of the creeds that name the elements of the Lord’s Supper specify wine, not grape juice (Heidelberg Catechism, Westminster Confession and Larger Catechism, Baptist Confession of 1689).

All of this changed during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries because of the Temperance Movement. American churches discarded wine in favor of non-alcoholic grape juice.

In a sense, the American church has exiled herself. She has thrown out the wine, and thus, thrown out something that God has deemed good and a symbol of blessing.

It is fitting that most American churches serve grape juice. As a society, we have rejected God, and now we suffer the curses of breaking covenant – the blessing of wine has been taken away. Our gospel is inert, just like our grape juice offered in communion.

The gospel is the power of God for salvation. God has declared that wine is a picture of this powerful gospel. Let us not reject the blessing of God.

Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money, Come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price (Isaiah 55:1). For the first 1800 years after Christ’s death and resurrection, the church has unanimously used wine in communion. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Baptists all used wine in celebrating the Lord’s Supper.

Despite the Biblical evidence that wine is a gift of God and a blessing to be enjoyed, many are still opposed to the Christian use of alcohol. In this chapter, we will examine a few of popular arguments for abstention.

The Weaker Brother

Many argue for abstention out of concern for the weaker brother, based upon Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. This is an important issue that ought to be seriously considered by all who claim to love the brethren.

Paul writes that those who are mature ought to be careful not to cause weaker brothers to stumble into sin:

But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak (1 Corinthians 8:9).

Paul even mentions wine specifically:

It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles (Romans 14:21).

The primary teaching of these passages is that we should put love for our brothers in Christ ahead of some concern for our “rights.” If that means voluntarily abstaining from the public use of some food or drink when a brother with a sensitive weaker conscience is present, we should not object.

The weaker brother argument is a legitimate concern and a legitimate reason for voluntarily abstaining from the public use of alcohol in certain situations. However, two caveats are required.

The Weaker Brother and the Lord’s Supper
First, the weaker brother argument does not affect the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper. There were alcoholics in the early church, yet this did not stop the apostles from using alcohol in the Lord’s Supper.

More importantly, Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper with wine. Those who advocate removing wine from the Lord’s Supper are implicitly condemning Jesus.

Jesus loves his church far more than we do. He instituted the Lord’s Supper with wine. We ought to assume that Jesus knew what he was doing. Woe to those who attempt to be smarter than Jesus.

Weaker Brother or Legalist?
Second, we must distinguish between the weaker brother and the legalist. Although these two categories of people look similar, they are miles apart, and are to be treated differently.

Paul portrays the weaker brother as one who has a weak and sensitive conscience. The weaker brother is probably new in the faith; he is not confident about what to do in every situation. He is not sure if certain things are Biblical or unbiblical. He is impressionable and tempted to copy another Christians’ behavior, even in violation of his own conscience.

We should love such weaker brothers so much that we are willing to give up our own liberties so that we do not cause them to violate their consciences. This may mean abstaining from the consumption of alcohol in certain situations.

However, the legalist is not the same as the weaker brother. The legalist is arrogant and unteachable. He has appointed himself as judge. His conscience is not weak, but cold and hardened. Unlike a weaker brother, the legalist is confident that he knows exactly what is right and wrong in at all times.

While the weaker brother is tempted to imitate an action even though he thinks it might be wrong, the legalist would never violate his conscience. Whereas the weaker brother’s conscience may be wounded by seeing mature Christians drink alcohol, the legalist’s conscience is offended. Herein lies the crucial difference.

So, what is the church’s response to the weaker brother? The church has the responsibility to help the weaker brother to grow into maturity. The church is to instruct him, rather than coddle him and allow him to remain a spiritual infant forever.

What is the church’s response to the legalist? The church should not be afraid of offending the legalist. Jesus went out of his way to offend legalists.

Additionally, the church has the responsibility to confront the legalist on his sin of substituting a man-made standard for the word of God. To add to or subtract from the word of God is an abomination.

Summary
The weaker brother should be a legitimate concern for moderationists. We should not hesitate to give up our liberty for immature believers.

However, concern for the weaker brother cannot be stretched into a universal principle of abstention. The weaker brother applies to specific situations, not all situations.

Even abstentionists know this, as they eat meat without giving much thought to the weaker brother. Paul says that we should be willing to give up both drinking wine and eating meat for the sake of the weaker brother (Romans 14:21). Abstentionists who eat meat are inconsistent; they ought to be teetotalers and vegetarians.

Defiling the Temple of the Holy Spirit

In the Old Testament, the priests were not allowed to drink alcohol when they were serving in the temple. Many well-meaning Christians argue that we should likewise refrain from consuming alcohol because we are now the temple of the Holy Spirit:

Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? (1 Corinthians 6:19).

We do not want to defile our bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit. However, this passage has nothing to do with alcohol. The context of 1 Corinthians 6 is sexual immorality, as seen in immediately preceding verse 19:

Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body (1 Corinthians 6:18).

Sexual immorality defiles our bodies; the consumption of alcohol does not. Jesus drank wine while the Holy Spirit was dwelling in him. He was not defiled.

Jesus even stated that we cannot be defiled by what we eat or drink:

Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies (Matthew 15:17-19).

Sin comes from our hearts, not from consuming alcohol in moderation.

Fencing our Liberties

Most of the popular arguments against the consumption of alcohol are motivated by wanting to eliminate its abuse. This is certainly a worthy goal, but the means employed are often inconsistent with how we handle other sins.

For example, compare alcohol with food or sex. God created both food and sex our enjoyment. However, our enjoyment must be confined to God-ordained parameters.

Food is fine when enjoyed in moderation. However, over-eating is the sin of gluttony.

Sex is fine when enjoyed within marriage. However, sex outside of marriage is the sin of immorality.

Likewise, alcohol is fine when enjoyed in moderation. However, a large quantity of alcohol produces the sin of drunkenness.

With food, sex, and alcohol, there is both a godly use and an ungodly use. Unfortunately, the abuse of this triad is rampant in our society. Gluttony, immorality, and drunkenness are all widespread sins.

Yet, does anyone argue for the prohibition of food or sex? Does anyone call for Christians to abstain from food or sex in order to prevent gluttony and immorality?

Of course not. These are good gifts that are to be enjoyed in their proper contexts: food in moderation, and sex within marriage. Why, then, is alcohol treated differently?

Martin Luther said it best, “Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?”

Sin comes from our hearts, not from food or sex or alcohol. Sin cannot be controlled by external rules. In fact, God says that external controls have zero impact on our flesh:

Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations-- “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using--according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh (Colossians 2:20-23).

Man-made regulations are of no value against our flesh. Abstaining from alcohol has no effect on the desires of our heart. Prohibition may suppress some instances of drunkenness, but it does not keep us from sinning. In fact, external regulations only increase our sinful desires.

Conclusion

Each of these three objections largely ignore the copious Biblical evidence that alcohol is a gift from God to be enjoyed in moderation. Unfortunately, most who argue against the Christian use of alcohol are unwittingly more influenced by the Temperance Movement than the teaching of the Scriptures.

Jesus, Peter, and Paul condemn drunkenness and the abuse of alcohol.

But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly (Luke 21:34).

For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles--when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries (1 Peter 4:3).

And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18).

The abuse of wine and drunkenness are explicitly condemned in the New Testament, as well as in the Old Testament. However, one never finds any hint that the godly use of wine is prohibited.

Jesus Drank Alcohol
Jesus drank enough wine that some people accused him of being a drunkard:

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, “He has a demon.” The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, “Look, a glutton and a winebibber [drunkard], a friend of tax collectors and sinners!” (Luke 7:33-34).

Jesus is drawing a parallel between himself and John the Baptist. The Jewish leaders condemned John for being an ascetic, for not eating bread and for not drinking wine.

Jesus was condemned for the exact opposite, for eating much bread and for drinking much wine. Jesus shocked the Jewish leaders by not only befriending sinners, but also by eating and drinking alcohol with them.

This passage ought to give pause to those who argue that we should abstain from alcohol for the sake of avoiding “any appearance of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:22). Jesus never sinned. He avoided all appearances of evil, yet he also drank alcohol. Let us not try to be holier than Jesus.

Jesus Made Alcohol
Jesus’ first miracle was to turn water into wine, creating 120-180 gallons of wine. This not “new wine,” but fine-aged wine:

And he said to him, “Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!” (John 2:10).

Jesus’ first miracle not only testified to his deity, but it also announced the return from exile. Remember that throughout the Old Testament, the abundance of wine is a symbol of blessing. By creating a massive amount of wine, Jesus provided a vivid picture of the return of blessing. The kingdom of God was being established, and Jesus’ first miracle proclaimed this fact. There is wine! There is much wine! There is much fine-aged wine! Ho! Everyone who thirsts! Come! This miracle was an announcement and an invitation into the kingdom of God.

Wine and the Lord’s Supper
When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, he says that the cup symbolically represents his blood:

Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:27-28).

Notice that the contents of the cup are not in doubt:

But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom (Matthew 26:27-29).

The cup contained the “fruit of the vine,” which is an obvious reference to wine. Some prohibitionists and abstentionists argue that this was non-alcoholic grape juice. While this may seem possible, no scholar takes this claim seriously.

Furthermore, the early church used wine in their celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you (1 Corinthians 11:20-22).

Paul berates the Corinthians for getting drunk while celebrating the Lord’s Supper. Notice, though, that Paul does not tell them to remove the alcohol from the Lord’s Supper. He condemns them for abusing alcohol, not for the mere use of alcohol.

As Jesus, his disciples, and the apostolic church all used wine in the Lord’s Supper, so we ought also to use wine in our celebration of the Lord’s Supper. If we remove wine from the Lord’s Supper, then we are removing a sign of blessing.

The communion cup is supposed to be a cup of blessing:

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? (1 Corinthians 10:16).

In the Bible, prohibition is a curse. The church that prohibits wine from the communion cup is self-imposing a curse upon what is supposed to be a blessing.

Wrong Uses of Wine
All Christians agree that drunkenness is a sin. The Bible is replete with commands and warnings against the abuse of alcohol.

Do not mix with winebibbers,
Or with gluttonous eaters of meat;
For the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty (Proverbs 23:20-21).

Woe to those who rise early in the morning,
That they may follow intoxicating drink;
Who continue until night, till wine inflames them!
(Isaiah 5:11).

Woe to men mighty at drinking wine,
Woe to men valiant for mixing intoxicating drink
(Isaiah 5:22).

Many other passages condemn drunkenness. Prohibitionists, abstentionists, and moderationists all agree that drunkenness is a sin.

The Godly Use of Wine

Yet, the condemnation of the abuse of wine does not entail a condemnation of all uses of wine. Rather, God says many positive things about wine. Most who oppose the Christian use of wine do not reckon with how the Bible endorses the proper use of alcohol.

Wine is a Gift of God
The Psalmist sings that God wants us to enjoy wine.

He causes the grass to grow for the cattle,
And vegetation for the service of man,
That he may bring forth food from the earth,
And wine that makes glad the heart of man,
Oil to make his face shine,
And bread which strengthens man’s heart.
(Psalm 104:14-15).

This is one of the most positive statements about wine that God has made. Just as God provides the conditions that allow man to cultivate food and oil, so God provides the conditions that allow man to produce wine. Wine is a gift from God to man.

Notice, too, that wine is given to make our hearts glad. It is virtuous, godly, and righteous to enjoy the warmth that a glass of wine gives. Feeling some of the effects of alcohol is not the same as drunkenness.

Those who argue against the righteous use of wine are rejecting one of God’s good gifts. This passage alone ought to be enough to cause abstentionists to pause. If we take God’s word literally, then we will not shrink from believing this passage. Alcohol is a gift from God.

Wine is a Gift to God
God commands wine to be given as an offering to himself.

Now this is what you shall offer on the altar … with the one lamb shall be one-tenth of an ephah of flour mixed with one-fourth of a hin of pressed oil, and one-fourth of a hin of wine [approximately one quart] as a drink offering (Exodus 29:38-40).

Its grain offering shall be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, an offering made by fire to Yahweh, for a sweet aroma; and its drink offering shall be of wine, one-fourth of a hin [one quart] (Leviticus 23:13).

And one-fourth of a hin of wine as a drink offering you shall prepare with the burnt offering or the sacrifice, for each lamb … and as a drink offering you shall offer one-third of a hin of wine as a sweet aroma to Yahweh … and you shall bring as the drink offering half a hin of wine [two quarts] as an offering made by fire, a sweet aroma to Yahweh (Numbers 15:5, 7, 10).

God demands that nothing unclean or unholy can ever to be offered to him. Yet, God also commands Israel to regularly include wine in their offerings. Therefore, it is impossible that wine is inherently unclean or unholy. God was pleased when Israel gave wine to him as a gift.

Look at what God also commanded as an offering:

And its drink offering shall be one-fourth of a hin for each lamb; in a holy place you shall pour out the strong drink to Yahweh as an offering (Numbers 28:7).

God commands not only wine, but also strong drink as an offering. Again, it is inconceivable that God would allow something sinful to be poured out on his holy altar. God was pleased to receive alcohol from Israel as an offering.

Wine is a Blessing
Isaac blessed Jacob, praying for plenty of wine:

Therefore may God give you
Of the dew of heaven,
Of the fatness of the earth,
And plenty of grain and wine.
(Genesis 27:28).

Throughout Israel’s history, God promised an abundance of wine for faithful obedience:

Honor Yahweh with your possessions,
And with the firstfruits of all your increase;
So your barns will be filled with plenty,
And your vats will overflow with new wine.
(Proverbs 3:9).

Then it shall come to pass, because you listen to these judgments, and keep and do them, that Yahweh your God will keep with you the covenant and the mercy which He swore to your fathers. And He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your land, your grain and your new wine and your oil, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flock, in the land of which He swore to your fathers to give you (Deuteronomy 7:12-13).

As a reward for faithful obedience, God also commanded Israel to purchase not only wine, but also strong drink, which was even more alcoholic than wine.

And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or strong drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before Yahweh your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household (Deuteronomy 14:26).

The abundance of wine and strong drink is a sign of godliness and blessing. Indeed, God promised an abundance of wine for those returning from exile:

“Behold, the days are coming,” says Yahweh,
“When the plowman shall overtake the reaper,
And the treader of grapes him who sows seed;
The mountains shall drip with sweet wine,
And all the hills shall flow with it.
I will bring back the captives of My people Israel;
They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them;
They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them (Amos 9:13-14).

Wine is a also part of the great eschatological feast:

And in this mountain Yahweh of hosts will make for all people A feast of choice pieces, A feast of wines on the lees, Of fat things full of marrow, Of well-refined wines on the lees (Isaiah 25:6).

An abundance of wine is one of the signs of blessing that God graciously promised throughout Scripture. God would never tell his people that wine is a blessing, if it were actually a curse or sinful or foolish.

The Absence of Wine
The absence of wine is always regarded negatively, as a sign of the absence of God. For example, God threatens to curse Israel by preventing them from drinking their wine:

But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of Yahweh your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you … You shall plant vineyards and tend them, but you shall neither drink of the wine nor gather the grapes; for the worms shall eat them (Deuteronomy 28:15, 39).

As a further curse, God threatened that foreigners would drink Israel’s wine:

Yahweh has sworn by His right hand And by the arm of His strength: “Surely I will no longer give your grain As food for your enemies; And the sons of the foreigner shall not drink your new wine, For which you have labored (Isaiah 62:8).

Just as God promises an abundance of wine as a blessing for faithfulness, so God also promises the removal of wine as a curse for unfaithfulness.

In Scripture, prohibition is a curse, the result of disobedience. Those who object to the use of wine on the grounds that it is inherently evil, and that its use is sinful, should pause to consider the fact that they are declaring to be a curse that which God has declared to be a blessing, and a blessing that which God has declared to be a curse. This is a grievous error.

Wine is a Symbol of the Gospel
Isaiah uses wine as a symbol of the gospel:

Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money, Come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price (Isaiah 55:1).

It would incongruous for God to use wine as a symbol of the gospel and yet prohibit his people from enjoying it. The consistent testimony of the Old Testament is that wine is a gift and a blessing and is to be enjoyed by God’s people.

Those who oppose the Christian use of alcohol often argue that the alcohol content of wine in Bible plays an essential role in determining whether the use of alcohol is permissible for Christians.

Two Kinds of Wine in the Bible?

The Scriptures mention “wine” over two hundred times, both in positive and negative contexts. Some Christians have used this positive/negative distinction to argue that the Bible is speaking of two different kinds of wine.

When the Bible speaks positively of wine, then this is referring to “wine” as non-alcoholic grape juice. When the Bible speaks negatively of wine, then this is referring to “wine” as alcoholic wine.

This argument was very popular among prohibitionists, particularly those that led the Temperance Movement. The advantage of this position is that it seems as though one is able to account for all of the Scriptures.

Explanation
However, the alleged distinction between alcoholic wine and non-alcoholic grape juice does not exist in the Bible. The Bible uses the same word for wine in both positive and negative aspects.

The positive/negative distinction has to do with the use/abuse of alcohol. When the Bible speaks positively of wine, this is referring to the moderate use of alcohol. When the Bible speaks negatively of wine, this is referring to the abuse of alcohol, or drunkenness.

Was Wine Heavily Diluted?

Some Christians maintain that the wine in the Bible was almost non-alcoholic. It is argued that all wine in ancient times was filtered and dried into a paste, which was then mixed with water. Thus, small amounts of alcohol were present in wine, but the wine was so diluted as to minimize the intoxicating effects. The alcohol that was used was strictly for preservation purposes.

According to this view, the Bible does not prohibit the use of wine, provided we understand wine to be heavily diluted so that it was basically grape juice with only enough alcohol to preserve the grape juice from spoiling.

In our day, we have purified water, pasteurized grape juice, and refrigeration. There is no need to rely upon alcohol as a preservative. Thus, Christians should abstain from beverages that have a significant alcohol content, which would include all of our modern beers, wines, and liquors. This is the argument of many abstentionists.

Explanation
This particular abstentionist argument demands that all wine was heavily diluted. While dilution was certainly used in some circumstances, this was far from the universal practice. The Biblical admonitions against drunkenness should suffice to prove that not everyone was diluting. Obviously, at least some people were getting a hold of the real thing and becoming drunk. If all “wine” was so low in alcohol content, then one would have to consume gallons and gallons to get drunk.

Moreover, this low-alcohol content argument has no support in historical scholarship. Virtually every scholar agrees that the alcohol content of wine during Biblical times was usually between 5-20%, which is enough to intoxicate.

Ironically, one popular abstentionist argues that the burden of proof should fall on those who claim that Biblical wine contained alcohol. This bold claim is precisely the opposite of reality. The burden of proof always falls on those who are against the consensus of historical scholarship. Such abstentionists have failed to prove that dilution was the universal practice.

Furthermore, many Biblical texts become silly or meaningless if they refer to non-alcoholic grape juice. Would the Shulamite have said to Solomon, “Your love is better than grape juice” (Song of Songs 1:2)?

If wine was super-diluted, why did the good Samaritan pour grape juice on the wounds of the man going to Jericho (Luke 10:34)? Why did Paul counsel Timothy to drink a little grape juice for his stomach (1 Timothy 5:23)?

If wine was basically grape juice, then the weaker brother argument is pointless (Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8). Why would anyone object to the consumption of grape juice? No one’s faith is threatened by grace juice.

The wine of the Bible had to have been alcoholic. Alcohol can intoxicate, clean wounds, and heal stomach troubles. Grape juice does none of these things.

Is Alcohol Sinful?

Those who argue that some or all of the wine in the Bible was non-alcoholic or low-alcoholic are operating from a presupposition: alcohol is sinful. Both prohibitionists and abstentionists read the Scriptures through this presupposition.

However, material things are not sinful. Sin does not reside in objects, but in the human heart. Sin comes from the misuse of God’s gifts, not the godly use of God’s gifts. As we will see in the next chapter, alcohol is a gift from God. There is a godly and moderate use of alcohol.

Although not all Dispensationalists are opposed to alcohol, many are among the more vociferous challengers to the Christian use of alcohol. So, I will be posting this series called "Alcohol and the Bible." Cheers!

The use of alcohol among Christians is one of the more controversial issues of the last two centuries, particularly within American churches. Three main positions were forged:

Prohibition
Prohibitionists hold that Scripture strictly forbids Christians from consuming wine and alcohol. Thus, the use of alcohol is a sin.

Abstention
Abstentionists argue that Scripture does not explicitly forbid the consumption of wine and alcohol. However, Christians should refrain from most uses of alcohol.

Moderation
Moderationists teach that Scripture endorses the enjoyment of alcohol as a good gift from God. Moderate use of alcohol is permissible; drunkenness is not.

In this study, we will argue for the moderation view while exploring two core issues: alcohol in the Bible and alcohol in recent church history.

Israel → Jesus → Church → World
We have been surveying the various relationships between Jesus, Israel, and the Church. We have examined four key aspects of these relationships: descendents, temple, law, and land of Israel. Each of these key aspects has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, shared with the church, and are now spreading throughout the world.

Descendents → Jesus → Church → World
The true descendent of Abraham is Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:16). The church is related by faith to Jesus Christ and are now heirs of the promises to Abraham (Galatians 3:29). Our task is to now make disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28:19).

Temple → Jesus → Church → World
The true temple of God is Jesus Christ (John 2:19). Because Christ dwells in us through the Spirit, the church is now the temple (1 Corinthians 3:16). This temple is being spread to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).

Land → Jesus → Church → World
The promised land was given to Israel (Joshua 21:43-45), but they failed to possess it because of their unbelief. God has now given the promised land and the rest of the world to Jesus (Matthew 28:18) who is sharing it with the church (Psalm 72:8).

Law → Jesus → Church → World
The law was given to Israel, but they did not keep it by faith (Romans 9:31-32). The law is fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:4). The church is now under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2). We are to teach this law to all the nations (Matthew 28:20).

Summary
All that was promised to Israel has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, shared with the church, and universalized to encompass the entire world.

2Cor 1:20 (NKJV) For all the promises of God in Him {Jesus Christ} are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us.

Shadows vs. Reality
What was the purpose of the Israel, the temple, the land, and the law? These were “copies” and “shadows.”

Hebr 8:5 (NKJV) who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”

The Old Covenant system with the tabernacle, the temple, and the animal sacrifices were copies and shadows of heaven. Now that Christ has come, he has fulfilled all of these things, so that there is no longer any use for them.

Hebr 8:13 (NKJV) In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The Old Covenant system was “becoming obsolete” and “growing old” and was “ready to vanish away.” This was accomplished in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed. With the destruction of the temple, the Old Covenant system has become obsolete.

The Old Covenant pointed towards Jesus Christ. Now we are in the New Covenant, God will not return to the Old Covenant system. That would be turning his back on Jesus Christ.

There is no going back to any of the unique characteristics of the Old Covenant:

· There will never again be a significance for an ethnic Israelite nation.

· There will never again be a literal temple of stone where God dwells.

· There will never again be a holy land.

· There will never again be an animal sacrifice securing forgiveness and atonement.

What about the OT Promises?
There are hundreds of OT promises regarding the nation of Israel, the temple, the land, and the law. What happens to these? Are they going to be fulfilled?

Yes, all the promises of God will be fulfilled. They are not all fulfilled at the same time and in the same way. Just as many were surprised at how prophecy was fulfilled at Jesus’ first coming, so we will likely be surprised at how prophecy is fulfilled at Jesus’ second coming. Thus, we need to be careful in assuming we have it all figured out.

Here are five suggestions for how the promises might be fulfilled.

1) Some Promises Were Conditional and Unfulfilled
Some Old Covenant promises were conditioned upon Israel’s faith. Since Israel lacked faith, the timeframe of fulfillment has passed. These promises will go unfulfilled, but this is not due to a failure on God’s part.

Remember, also, that conditions are not always stated or recorded in the text. Many times, repentance and faith are implicitly connected to a promise (e.g., the preaching of Jonah).

2) Some Promises Were Fulfilled in Jesus Christ
Some Old Covenant promises were fulfilled in the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is especially true of the ascension, which is often overlooked. Many of the promises such as 2 Samuel 7, Psalm 2, and Psalm 110, were fulfilled in the ascension of Jesus Christ.

3) Some Promises Were Fulfilled in the Early Church
Some Old Covenant promises were fulfilled in the early church as recorded in the book of Acts.

Pentecost is another event that is often disconnected from the OT, yet this was the rebirth of Israel, the reunion of Judah and Israel. The early church was the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David, fulfilling Amos 9:11, as James says:

Acts 15:14 (NKJV) “Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.
15 “And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the Lord who does all these things.’

4) Some Promises Are Fulfilled by the Church in History
Some Old Covenant promises are fulfilled by the church on earth in history up until the second coming of Christ. The church is the New Jerusalem and as such, she will fulfill many of the promises that ethnic Jews thought they were going to fulfill.

5) Some Promises Will Be Fulfilled by the Church in Eternity
Some Old Covenant promises are fulfilled in eternity by all believers from all ages. In the New Heavens and the New Earth, all of God’s people will live together in harmony. This will be the final fulfillment of some of the promises.

Thus, in eternity, we will be able to look back and say that all of the promises were fulfilled, either in Christ or his church, in history or in eternity. This gives us a Christ-centered expectation in how we look at the fulfillment of prophecy. All is fulfilled in Christ and his church.

The Future for Ethnic Israel/Jews
If all of the Old Covenant promises are fulfilled in Christ and his church, then is there a future for ethnic Israel? Yes!

Past Salvation of Ethnic Israel
In Romans 9-11, Paul defends the righteousness of God. Some are questioning the righteousness and the faithfulness of God because many ethnic Jews are perishing even after the coming of their Messiah. If God is faithful, how can he allow this?

Paul begins by saying that this is not God’s fault:

Roma 9:6 (NKJV) But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,

God has not failed nor has God’s word has not failed. God never promised to save all of ethnic Israel.

Present Salvation of Ethnic Israel
Furthermore, God is presently saving some of ethnic Israel.

Roma 11:1 (NKJV) I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Paul is an example. He is an ethnic Jew, and God has saved him. In fact, there were many ethnic Jews in the early church. God continues to save ethnic Jews throughout the history of the church.

Nevertheless, many ethnic Jews are not saved. This is because Israel has been hardened. They have stumbled and fallen. Israel’s fall has brought salvation to the Gentiles.

Future Salvation of Ethnic Israel
However, look at what God’s purpose is in bringing salvation to the Gentiles:

Roma 11:11 (NKJV) I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.

God is saving Gentiles so that ethnic Israel will be provoked to jealousy. Paul describes this further:

Roma 11:12 (NKJV) Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!

Notice that Paul speaks of the future of ethnic Jews. They will experience a “fullness.”

The Olive Tree
Paul uses the metaphor of the olive tree:

Roma 11:17 (NKJV) And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,

Ethnic Israel was broken off of the olive tree. Gentiles were grafted in. Yet, Paul expects ethnic Israel to be grafted in again.

Roma 11:24 (NKJV) For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

Paul elaborates on the future of ethnic Jews.

Roma 11:25 (NKJV) For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Paul indicates that ethnic Israel’s blindness is temporary. His expectation seems to be that when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, then God will deal with ethnic Israel.

All Israel Will Be Saved
Paul then builds to his great conclusion:

Roma 11:26 (NKJV) And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

Who is “all Israel”?
Some notable theologians, including Calvin, have argued that “all Israel” does not refer to ethnic Israel, but to the church. However, this goes against the entire context of Romans 9-11. “All Israel” must refer to ethnic Israel.

When will they be saved?
This could be fulfilled either gradually or cataclysmically.

1) “All Israel Will Be Saved” could refer to God’s plan to gradually save some ethnic Jews throughout the history of the church. Thus, at the end of time, God can say, “All Israel was saved. I did not lose one of my people.”

2) “All Israel Will Be Saved” could refer to God’s plan to save all ethnic Jews that are alive just before the second coming. Thus, there is a point in time when God will save a massive number of Jews.

Neither view is conclusive, and since this regards the future fulfillment of a prophecy, we don’t need to be dogmatic. God may surprise us.

Salvation
Nevertheless, notice that Paul is speaking of the salvation of ethnic Israel. This means that they will become part of the church. They will be part of the living temple of God. They will be co-heirs with us of the world. They will be under the law of Christ and in the New Covenant.
However, saved ethnic Israel does not and will not have a special status in the kingdom of God. Romans 11 says nothing about a return to the types and shadows of the Old Covenant. Ephesians 2-3 state that God has united Jew and Gentile in Christ.

Ephe 2:14 (NASB) For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,

Therefore, the final salvation of ethnic Israel is just that: salvation. In no way do we expect a return to an ethnic Jewish kingdom in the Middle East.

Israel Today
So, what is unbelieving ethnic Israel’s status for today?

Roma 11:28 (NKJV) Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.

They are enemies of the gospel in that they persecuted the early church. Yet, there will always be ethnic Israelites who become believers. Some ethnic Jews are elect. We don’t who they are. We must share the gospel with them. God will move the elect ones by jealousy to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

Conclusion
Thinking about the salvation of ethnic Jews brings Paul to his knees in praise of God.

Roma 11:33 (NKJV) Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has become His counselor?”
35 “Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”
36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

This has to be the purpose of all of our studying. If we develop a smug attitude about understanding any truth in the Bible, then we are in sin. We understand nothing. The beginning and end of all of our studies should be for the glory of God, for the praise of God. The goal of all theology is doxology.

If our study of the Bible leads us to pride, to critical spirits, to judgmental hearts, or to boastful words, then we have utterly failed.

If at the end of this study, your thought is, “How stupid of anyone for not understanding this!” then you’ve reached a deadly conclusion. You’re in sin, and you need to repent.

We should remember Paul’s plea for humility:

1Cor 4:6 (NKJV) that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
7 For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

If we understand anything, it is because of God’s grace to us. There is no room for pride or boasting.

As we think about God’s plan for the salvation of ethnic Jews, we should be driven to praise God. The goal of all theology is doxology.

Roma 11:33 (NASB) Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!
34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?
35 Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again?
36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

The law is a broad, expansive topic that we could easily spend weeks or months or even years studying. This time, we are going to look at two issues:
1) How the sacrificial laws relate to Israel and to Jesus Christ
2) How the law relates to the church

Animal Sacrifices
One of the key issues that we need to understand is the role of animal sacrifices for Israel. The Bible is very explicit that a properly administered sacrifice would “make atonement” and secure “forgiveness”

Levi 4:20 (NKJV) ‘And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull as a sin offering; thus he shall do with it. So the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

Levi 5:13 (NKJV) ‘The priest shall make atonement for him, for his sin that he has committed in any of these matters; and it shall be forgiven him. The rest shall be the priest’s as a grain offering.’ “

Seventy-three times in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, atonement is used in reference to animal sacrifices. How did these sacrifices “atone” for sin and secure “forgiveness” in light of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice?

Down Payment?
A frequently heard answer is that animal sacrifices were “down payments” until the sacrifice of Christ. However, a down payment is a partial payment. This would mean that animal sacrifices paid for some sins and Christ paid for the rest. This is obviously incorrect. Jesus Christ did not pay for some of sins. He paid for all of our sins.

Hebr 10:12 (NKJV) But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,

Covering?
Another frequently heard answer is that the word atonement means “covering.” Thus, the animal sacrifices atoned for sin in that they covered sin until complete atonement was secured through the death of Christ. Temporary forgiveness was earned through sacrifice until complete forgiveness was secured through the death of Christ.

However, this answer is inadequate. The word atonement does not mean “to cover.” It means “to appease” or “to expiate.” This fits with the idea of forgiveness. The language of atonement and forgiveness of sins is inescapable. So, what kind of “appeasement” and “forgiveness” did the Animal sacrifices bring?

Animal Sacrifice vs. Christ’s Sacrifice
Comparing the atonement of the animal sacrifices with the atonement of Christ reveals their differences. The value of the atonement of animal sacrifices was temporal, finite, and external. In contrast, the value of Christ’s atonement is eternal, infinite, and internal.

1) Temporal vs. Eternal
Animal sacrifices need to be repeated.

Hebr 10:11 (NKJV) And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

Animal sacrifices had to be repeated because they did not offer lasting benefits. Any benefit from animal sacrifices was only temporary or temporal because they did not permanently take away sin.

On the other hand, Christ’s sacrifice is eternal because He died once for all time.

Hebr 10:12 (NKJV) But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,

It does not need to be repeated because the benefits last forever.

2) Finite vs. Infinite
Animal sacrifices were finite because the sacrifices were only good for particular sins. The daily sacrifices, such as the sin offering and the guilt offering, were only good for one sin. They had to be repeated for each sin, as often as necessary. Likewise, the Day of Atonement only covered the sins committed for the previous year.

Hebr 10:3 (NKJV) But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.

On the other hand, Christ’s atonement is infinite because He paid for all of the sins of believers.

Hebr 9:28 (NKJV) so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

Christ’s sacrifice is good for all of our sins that we have ever committed or ever will commit.

3) External vs. Internal
The animal sacrifices were external in that they did not necessarily produce a changed heart. On the other hand, the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice are internal. God regenerates believers, giving us a new heart.

The Purposes of Animal Sacrifices
There are at least two purposes for animal sacrifices.

1) Atonement and Forgiveness on Earth
If properly administered, the sacrifices provided a temporal, finite, and external exemption from physical death on earth.

Animal sacrifices provided temporal atonement in that they only excused the sinner from immediate stoning or burning, but they did not excuse him from eternal damnation. Forgiveness was temporal not eternal.

Animal sacrifices provided finite atonement in that they only excused the sinner from the immediate physical death of one sin at a time (the sin and guilt offerings) or one year at a time (the Day of Atonement). Each new sin required a new animal sacrifice. Forgiveness was finite not infinite.

Animal sacrifices provided external atonement in that they only pardoned the sinner from the external, physical consequences of sin, but had no impact on the sinner’s eternal destiny. Forgiveness was external not internal.

In summary, we might say that animal sacrifices were good for earthly atonement and earthly forgiveness. They allowed a sinner to remain alive on the earth.

In contrast, Christ’s sacrifice is good for heavenly atonement and heavenly forgiveness. It allows a sinner to remain alive in heaven.

2) Foreshadowing Christ’s Sacrifice
The author of Hebrews refers to the sacrificial system as a shadow.

Hebr 10:1 (NKJV) For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.

The sacrifices foreshadowed Christ’s death on the cross. Each animal sacrifice pointed to Jesus Christ. Now that Christ has come, there is no longer a need for animal sacrifices.

The Law and the Church
Is the church under law? We can answer this in two ways, depending upon our understanding of law.

Torah
Our English word “law” generally reminds us of rules. “Do this” or “don’t do that.” While rules are important, they don’t encompass all that God means by the word law.

Law comes from the Hebrew word Torah, which means “instruction.” When God gave his Torah to Israel, it did not just consist of a list of rules. Torah is not merely a legal code or a rule book. Torah includes much more.

The first five books of the OT are called the Torah. Yet, a perusal of these books shows that they are not all rules or “law.” Furthermore, even in the sections where there are heavy concentrations of “law” (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), God never gives just a list of rules. He intersperses history, prophecy, poetry, songs, and other genres of literature.

Thus, if we take a narrow understanding of Torah (rules, “laws”), then we will be mistaken when we speak of the Torah. It is much better to think of the Torah as instruction, part of which includes rules.

We err when we think of the Torah as a rule book. The Torah is not a rule book; it is a covenant book. The Torah is the in