Greek, Latin, and Hebrew!

by Alexander Smellie

"And an inscription was written over Him in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS!" Luke 23:38

Over His head they set up His accusation written, This is Jesus the King of the Jews. In Greek, Latin and Hebrew they wrote it, and "God," as George Herbert says, "God held their hands while they wrote!" For this title was a little gospel, told out in the three great languages of the earth.

If, like the Greeks, I prize beauty and wisdom above everything beside, it says, "Here is Jesus your King!" He, He alone, can create beauty within your soul, can banish its ugliness and make it lovely! He, He alone, can teach you the truest wisdom—the wisdom which answers all your questions and gives you peace.

If, like the Latins, (or Romans) I prize law and government and empire most of all, it says to me, "Here is Jesus your King!" He will bring you under the best law, the most beneficial law, the most gracious law. He will teach you how to govern yourself. He will win for you the empire over my own heart here and now—an empire over all things before very long!

If, like the Hebrews, I prize righteousness far above every other blessing, it says to me, "Here is Jesus your King!" There is none but He who can clothe you in a spotless righteousness, who can cancel your hideous guilt, who can justify you at God's bar, who can lift you into a new realm of pardon and purity!

His enemies meant it for evil—but God meant it for good! He is King of the human heart! And I, too, will bring forth the royal diadem, and will crown Him Lord of all!

The Keys of the Kingdom

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:19

What is meant by this passage? Have you ever read it and remained baffled, asking yourself what these keys are and what is meant by the binding and loosing? Are they physical keys? Does it have to do with the binding and loosing of persons and demons? In order to bring a little more clarity to what is meant by this passage, we need to be good students of the Word and compare Scripture with Scripture. We find the second part of Matthew 16:19 repeated in Matthew 18:18. The context here should shed some light on precisely what was meant by these allegorical keys that were given to Peter.

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that 'By the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." Matthew 18:15-20

Does that help you? Have some things been clarified for you? If you still have not understood what Jesus is saying, then perhaps it is time we looked at a clearer passage that leaves no doubt as to what is meant.

"...[Jesus] breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.'" John 20:22-23

These keys are not literal, physical keys. They are symbolic. The binding and loosing has nothing to do with persons or demons, contrary to some of the many false teachings that come from the Charismatic movement. John Cotton put it this way: "Whatsoever you bind on earth, is as much as whose sins soever you retain on earth; and whatsoever you loose on earth, is as much as whose sins soever you loose on earth." He went on to say this:

"Now this binding and loosing of whatsoever sins, in whosoever commit them, is partly in the conscience of the sinner, and partly in his outward estate in the Church, which is wont to be expressed in other terms, either in foro interiori, or in foro exteriori. As when in the dispensation of the Ordinances of God, a sinner is convinced to lie under the guilt of sin, then his sin is retained, his conscience is bound under the guilt of it, and himself bound under some Church-censure, according to the quality and desert of his offense; and if his sin be the more heinous, himself is shut out from the communion of the Church: But when a sinner repents of his sin, and confesses it before the Lord, and (if it be known) before his people also, and then in the ministry of the Doctrine and Disciple of the Gospel, his sin is remitted, and his conscience loosed from the guilt of it, and himself hath open and free entrance, both unto the promise of the Gospel, and into the gates of the holy communion of the Church."

As Matthew Henry notes:

"He doth not say, "I have given them," or "I do not;" but "I will do it," meaning after his resurrection; when he ascended on high, he gave those gifts, Ephes. 4:8; then this power was actually given, not to Peter only, but to all the rest, ch. 28:19, 20; John 20:21. He doth not say, The keys shall be given, but, I will give them; for ministers derive their authority from Christ, and all their power is to be used in his name, 1 Cor. 5:4."

What are these keys? John Cotton believes them to be "the Ordinances which Christ has instituted, to be administered in his Church; as the preaching of the Word, (which is the opening and applying of it)." Matthew Henry believes them to be the "key of doctrine" and the "key of discipline." Matthew Poole refers to "the key of knowledge and doctrine" used by the apostle's preaching to open the kingdom of heaven to men, and "the key of discipline." Whatever is exactly included by these keys, we can be sure of the fact that this passage is expounded more clearly by John 20:22-23.

Was Peter the Rock?

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." Matthew 16:18

What is this "rock" upon which Jesus would build His church? The Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter is the rock upon which the church would be built. Their argument is that if you take this verse literally, you can come to no alternative interpretation. Is this what the text teaches us? Are they correct in their beliefs and teachings? I submit to you that they are not correct. Here is the verse in Greek:

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω, ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Anyone who knows anything of the Greek language, or of languages such as Latin, French, Italian, and Spanish, knows that if the object is masculine, everything pertaining to that object will be masculine also. If the object is plural, everything pertaining to that object will be plural also. In English, the singular "the red car" would simply become "the red cars" in the plural. But in Spanish, for example, the singular "el coche rojo" becomes "los coches rojos" in the plural.

In the verse in question, the Greek word Πέτρος for "Peter" is masculine. However, the Greek word ταύτῃ for "this" is feminine, as is the Greek word πέτρᾳ for "rock." If this was a reference to Peter, it would have been masculine. However, it has nothing to do with Peter whatsoever. Jesus asked Peter, "Who do you say that I am?" (Matt. 16:15). Peter responded, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). According to 1 Corinthians 3:11, Christ Jesus is the "Rock" upon which the church is built: "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

Peter believed that Jesus was the Christ. All true believers throughout the centuries have also believed that Jesus is the Christ. This is the "rock" in question. It refers back to Peter's testimony concerning Jesus. It is upon this testimony—"You are the Christ"—that the church would be built. The testimony points to Jesus. Jesus is the Rock, the foundation upon which the church is built. All those built upon this foundation will have this testimony: "[Jesus] is the Christ."

Jesus starts out by saying, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona" (Matt. 16:17), and ends by saying, "I also say to you that you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). Just as with Abraham and Sarah before him, and Paul after him, Jesus was giving him a new name. His receiving a new name has nothing to do with the actual conversation. After Peter's confession, Jesus tells him that "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), to which He could have left out the renaming and immediately followed with, "upon this rock [upon this confession, upon your confession] I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it" (Matt. 16:18).

Contrary to the erroneous teachings and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church, Peter was not the rock upon which the church would be built. If one looks at the Old Testament, one will see that Jesus is the Rock in question in several passages. Jesus is the foundation of the entire church—not Peter.

Judge Not...

Far too frequently, the world—and, sadly, many Christians—misrepresents Jesus' words, where He says, "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you" (Matt. 7:1-2; cf. Luke 6:37). They deliberately ignore where Jesus also said, "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment" (John 7:24). They even ignore the Apostle Paul's words, where he says, "For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present" (1 Cor. 5:3), and, "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves" (1 Cor. 5:12-13). Paul also poses these questions, "Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? . . . Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?" (1 Cor. 6:2-3).

These people also deliberately ignore the English language and the fact that the word "judge" has more than one definition, other than the definition they are attempting to force upon it to suit their egregious misquoting of Jesus' words. In all the above verses (with the exception of the second occurrence of the word "judge" found in 1 Corinthians 6:2), the Greek word is exactly the same: krino (κρινω). It means "to separate, distinguish, discriminate between good and evil, select, choose out the good, to judge, to form or give an opinion after separating and considering the particulars of a case." What Jesus meant by what He said in Matthew 7:1-2 is that we are not to judge in an absolute sense, that is, to condemn a person in the legal sense. But we are supposed to judge, and He extols the manner with which we ought to do so in John 7:24.

The Apostle Paul judged a man whose actions were being overlooked within the church, and tells us that we are to judge those inside the church. Not with a self-righteous judgment of condemnation in the absolute sense, but in distinguishing right from wrong, good from evil, fruit bearing from fruit barren. Jesus' own words agree: "You will know them by their fruits" (Matt. 7:16, 20). When looking at new or young Christians, it may be difficult to distinguish between babes in Christ and false converts. But someone who claims to have been a Christian for 10, 20, 30, 40 or more years, if they do not demonstrate the fruit thereof, then they have never been saved to begin with. Just as it is impossible to remain a physical infant forever, it is also impossible to remain a spiritual infant forever. If the Spirit of God is within you, there will be growth. It is impossible to be spiritually stagnant.

Below, you will find each Greek word translated as "judge," "judged," "judges," "judgest," "judgeth," and "judging" found within the New Testament of the King James Bible.

350. ανακρινω anakrino: to discern, to judge, to examine or question in order to pass a judicial sentence, to examine accurately or carefully, to inquire, or ask questions in general. (1 Cor. 4:3 as "judge"; 1 Cor. 2:14 as "discerned"; 1 Cor. 2:15, 4:4 as "judgeth"; 1 Cor. 2:15, 4:3, 14:24 as "judged")

1252. διακρινω diakrino: to distinguish, To make a distinction, to decide, to judge, to separate oneself from. (1 Cor. 6:5; 11:31; 14:29)

1348 δικαστης dikastes: to give judgment, to give justice. (Luke 12:14; Acts 7:27, 35)

2233 ηγεομαι hegeomai: metaphorically; to lead out before the mind, to esteem of persons, to hold or esteem an individual in a particular light. (Heb. 11:11)

2523 καθιζω kathizo: to cause to sit down, to set as judges. (1 Cor. 6:4)

2919 κρινω krino: to separate, distinguish, discriminate between good and evil, select, choose out the good, to judge, to form or give an opinion after separating and considering the particulars of a case. (This is the word used the majority of the time throughout the New Testament, and can be found translated as "judge," "judged," "judgest," "judgeth," and "judging.")

2922 κριτηριον kriterion: a judge, judgment, the art, act, or authority of judging or determining. (1 Cor. 6:2)

2923 κριτης krites: to judge, he who decides, a judge. (Matt. 5:25; 12:58; 18:2, 6; Acts 10:42; 18:15; 24:10; 2 Tim. 4:8; Heb. 12:23; James 4:11; 5:9; Matt. 12:27, Luke 11:19, Acts 13:20, James 2:4 as "judges")

Law vs. Grace

Millions of people walk around and they think they will get into heaven by leading what they think is a good life, and they are in for a big shock because it is not enough. If God did not lower His standard for even His Son, what makes you think He will do so for us?

I think every Christian struggles with being under the law or under grace, and in so doing they tend to go too far one way or the other while missing grace entirely. If you lean too far the one way, you become legalistic and think you can earn favour from God by the way you live. If you lean too far the other way, you turn grace into a license to sin and think you can live any way you want to. The truth of the matter is that it has to be a balance of both. You see, the Christian needs to remember that there is nothing he/she can do to earn favour with God; he/she simply needs to trust in the person and work of Christ Jesus on the cross at Calvary. But at the same time he/she needs to remember that the Bible commands a certain way of living from the Christian that is different from the rest of the world. We should strive to live this way not because it will merit us favour with God, because it will not, but because we love Jesus and it is our righteous calling. If we examine the New Testament carefully, we will find it laced with more commandments to the Christian than we find in the Old Testament. The only way we can live these commandments out is through the Holy Spirit: "Walk by the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the desires of the flesh" (Gal. 5:16). Do we believe it?

Old vs. New: Authors, Preachers, Theologians

"The reading of good sermons is the most underrated kind of Christian literature on the market today. In former centuries, the reading of sermons was the bulk of the mature Christian's reading diet. Most Puritan books, for example, are sermons edited for print. Sermon reading keeps believers in the Word, matures the soul, and whets the appetite for good preaching. It promotes Christ-centered thinking, healthy self-examination, and godly piety in every sphere of life. Though nothing can replace the Word preached, sermon reading has one advantage over preaching—the sermons that made it into print are usually the minister's best! Tolle Lege—'pick up and read' great sermon books, especially those of past centuries that are packed with spiritual meat." —Joel Beeke

Have you ever noticed the vast difference between books of old and modern-day books?  Have you ever noticed the difference between devotionals by people such as Charles Spurgeon and those put out by The Daily Bread? The difference is meat versus pablum; depth versus shallowness; soul filling versus soul hungering. Compare any of the works of any of the Puritans to the works of people like Max Lucado. The old writings were Christ-centered, written by men in touch with God, bringing you to the cross. The new writings focus too much on self. If there is one bit of advice I might be able to pass off to you, it would be this: Go old!

They Are Both Religions

by Eric Hovind

Many people think that religion and science do not go together. Often, they compartmentalize each into completely separate places in their lives. Science, after all, is based upon observation and testing—unquestionable facts. Right? Religion, on the other hand, is based upon thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. Science is material; religion is immaterial. Science gives answers; religion causes problems. Isn’t this the basic attitude towards the two?

Ultimately, anything that is untestable is put into the realm of religion. We can observe the law of gravity. We can test the law of inertia. Of course, these would not be considered religious. We cannot, however, observe the Big Bang, nor can we test it. We have not witnessed a star form. We have not seen life emerge from non-life.

The theories of origins—creation and evolution—are not observable nor are they testable. Thus, they are religious. If you were to ask a Christian how God was created, he or she cannot tell you. It must be taken by faith. If you were to ask an atheist where the matter originated for the Big Bang, he or she cannot tell you. It must also be taken by faith. Either you believe “in the beginning God” or you believe “in the beginning dirt.” Neither can be considered science; they both are religions.

Unscientific Assertions: Gold

It is said:

• The ocean holds nearly 20 million tons of gold. While most of the gold is diluted (each liter of sea water contains about 13 billionths of a gram), there is enough undissolved gold on the sea floor to put 9 pounds in every pocket on Earth.
• 99% of the Earth's gold is in its core.
• There is enough gold in the Earth's core to coat its surface in 1.5 feet of the stuff.

The only piece of information in the above statements that has any scientific credibility to it is this: "Each liter of sea water contains about 13 billionths of a gram." This statement can be tested and observed in order to draw an accurate conclusion. We can verify whether or not it is true. The rest of the above statements are nothing but pure speculation and imagination.

Since nobody has ever seen what comes after the Earth's crust, and nobody has seen the Earth's core, it is ludicrous and unscientific to make claims that the core holds 99% of Earth's gold. Likewise, unless you collected all the supposed gold in the Earth's core, you cannot make ludicrous and unscientific statements that there is enough gold there to cover the Earth's surface 1.5 feet thick. There is no model you can use to accurately predict such a thing, and predictions are not science.

It is just as ludicrous to state that the ocean holds enough gold to put 9 pounds in every pocket on Earth. Unless one has collected all that gold, weighed it and then divided it by the number of people on the Earth, the statement is made foolishly. There is nothing scientific about it.

If I say, "There is no gold in China," I would have to know everything about every square inch of China, and every person living in China, in order to say that with any genuine scientific accuracy. I would have to know that the land absolutely and positively contains no gold whatsoever, and I would have to know that nobody has a gold filling inside their mouth. It is the same with the above statements.

Most of our so-called "scientists" need to go back to school and learn what science really is. Science is the examination and observation of things in order to provide accurate, verifiable facts. Models and predictions are not science. If it is not testable, observable, and verifiable, it is not science. Scientists can argue that point all they want; they will still be in the wrong.

Science is what tells me my car needs gasoline in order to run, instead of chocolate milk. Science is what tells me all the properties of an apple and how one apple differs from another. Science is what tells me the distance from the Earth to the moon. Science is what tells me what things to combine in order to make salt. If science is not about conclusions, facts, and truth, things we can test, observe, and verify, as some of these fools try to assert, then it is untrustworthy and not science at all.

I am not talking about proof. The only field wherein you get proof in the strict sense is mathematics. In every other field, including science, you cannot speak of proof, but you can speak of evidence. For those who fail to grasp it, science is limited. Science has absolutely nothing to do with, and is not equated with, rationality. The things that are beyond science are not necessarily "irrational," as some erroneously believe. Science cannot tell us whether a poem, a work of literature, a work of art, or music is good or beautiful. Science can, however, tell us that putting strychnine into someone's tea will kill them. But science cannot tell us whether it is morally right to do so. You can easily see the limitations of science because it cannot answer the elementary questions of a child: Who am I? Where did I come from? What is the purpose of my existence? Where am I going?

Our encyclopedias and textbooks need to be re-written containing only the information that is verifiable, and that can be tested at later dates to see if they provide the same results or not. Putting "millions" or "billions" of years in these books is unscientific. Stating they only grow to be a certain size is also unscientific, considering the fact that snakes, squids, turtles, etc., have been found that are larger than our encyclopedias and textbooks assure us regarding their maximum size. If the largest your people have ever found was, say, 36 feet (in the case of the Anaconda), then state that! "The largest anaconda we have ever found was 36 feet." That is a scientific statement. "Anacondas grow to a length of 36 feet," or even, "Anacondas grow to an average length of 36 feet." That is arrogant pride thinking your data is absolute and infallible, just like the foolish statements above pertaining to gold.

The "Catholic" Church

The first known use of the Greek word katholikos (καθολικός), which means "universal, complete, or whole," is attributed to Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote around A.D. 107, while being taken to Rome for execution. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, he wrote:

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.

The other location where we encounter the term catholic is in The Apostle's Creed; the version we are familiar with having been written somewhere between A.D. 710 and A.D. 714.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried,
He descended into Hell, the third day He arose from the dead,
He ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty,
from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church, the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

The term catholic is used to refer to the true and living church in its universality, but it has nothing to do whatsoever with the Roman Catholic Church. The two are worlds apart. There is a vast difference between the catholic church—that is, the universal church, and the Roman Catholic Church, which is a complete and utter oxymoron. The catholic (universal) church is spiritual and invisible, made up of every true and genuine believer around the world. The Roman Catholic Church is physical and visible, made up of those who follow the traditions of men and elevate fallible men to positions of godhood.

Every true and genuine believer belongs to the true catholic (universal) church, whereas the Roman Catholic Church is largely filled with religious frauds and hypocrites on a one-way trip to Hell. It is the Roman Catholic Church who kept the world in darkness—known as the Dark Ages—concerning the light of Christ Jesus. It was various members of the true catholic (universal) church who finally set the church free from its grasp.

Just some of the Roman Catholic Church's teachings refuted by the ultimate authority, Scripture:

• Peter had a wife (Matt. 8:14).
• You cannot pay for the dead or for the sins of the dead (Acts 8:20).
• There is one mediator between God and men—not the Pope, a priest, or Mary (1 Tim. 2:5-6).
• Forbidding marriage is wrong (1 Tim. 4:1-3).
• There is no purgatory (Heb. 9:27).

The Roman Catholic Church, centered around the worship of Mary—the "queen" of heaven, is a superstitious religious cult that has assimilated elements from just about every other religious cult into itself (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.). It makes a mockery out of biblical Christianity, keeping people dead in their sins while the wrath of God abides on them still.

The Roman Catholic Church is blasphemous, in that it:

1. claims to have the power to forgive sins, which only God can do (Mark 2:7),
2. makes a man out to be God, which is only true of Christ Jesus (John 10:33), and
3. persecuted the church in the name of God, as history reveals to us (1 Tim. 1:12-13).

There are only two kinds of religion: works-based, which encompasses every world religion outside of biblical Christianity, including the Roman Catholic Church; and grace-based, which is a free gift, where your works are the result of your salvation and not a means of attempting to earn it.

The term catholic was originally used to describe the invisible church because it is universal in its scope. However, eventually the term became corrupted by the application of it to the Roman Catholic Church. It seems to me that they stole the entire wording from the Apostle's Creed, calling themselves the "Holy Catholic Church," when there is nothing holy about them in the least. The term catholic—universal—is used to describe the true church, but the Roman Catholic Church is not that church.

True Israel

Below is a set of premises and a conclusion that Dispensationalist Michael J. Vlach has attributed to non-Dispensationalists. Let us look at them and then see why they are true.

Premise 1: Israel was God's chosen nation and servant in the Old Testament.

Premise 2: Jesus now fulfills Israel and is the true Israel.

Premise 3: As the true Israel, Jesus assumes and fulfills national Israel's mediatorial role.

Premise 4: All who are in the true Israel—Christ Jesus, are also Israel.

Conclusion: There is no future role for national Israel in the plan of God.

According to Michael J. Vlach, the Dispensationalist who came up with the above, he says that Dispensationalists agree with the first two premises. Because of this, we will only address them briefly. But the rest we will look at a little more closely. As Justin Taylor said, "The New Testament authors understood Jesus to be the culmination of the Old Testament. He is the Last Adam, true Israel, the suffering servant, the son of David, the faithful remnant, the ultimate prophet, the reigning king, the final priest."

Premise 1: Israel Was God's Chosen Nation and Servant in the Old Testament

This premise needs no addressing as, from as far as I can tell, everyone agrees to this fact. So I'm not going to waste any space demonstrating what can be seen from a simple reading of the Old Testament.

Premise 2: Jesus Now Fulfills Israel and is the True Israel.

Matthew 2:15 quotes from Hosea 11 in the Old Testament, calling this a fulfillment found in Christ: "Out of Egypt I called my son." When we turn to Hosea 11 and read, there is nothing prophetic or predictive about this chapter. It is not talking about Christ Jesus, because Jesus never sinned, but about national Israel. After verse 1—"Out of Egypt I called my son"—it goes on to tell us all the ways in which national Israel had sinner. So how can this possibly be a fulfillment of Christ? I do not know. What I do know is that my Bible quotes it as a fulfillment found in Jesus.

When national Israel was wandering around in the desert for 40 years, they were supposed to learn that "man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord" (Deut. 8:3), which they never did. Jesus, after spending 40 days in the desert, quoted this passage to Satan (Matt. 4:4). Just like Adam, Israel failed at what they were called to do. Just as Jesus is the Last Adam, He is also the True Israel. Since Dispensationalists agree with this, we will not say too much more on it.

Premise 3: As the True Israel, Jesus Assumes and Fulfills National Israel's Mediatorial Role

With regard to this premise, Michael J. Vlach has said, "this position is not supported by Scripture." Excuse me?!? I suggest you pay better attention to your reading of the Bible, sir, because this position is fully supported by Scripture. He claims "It is assumed more than proven." His declaration is far from the truth.

"And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, and everyone his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all will know me, from the least to the greatest of them" (Heb. 8:11; cf. Jer. 31:34). The only thing different pertaining to the "new" covenant is this verse. Something is going to cease that pertains to teaching and the knowledge of the Lord. It has to do with a form of teaching that occurred among the covenant people of the Lord. The passage is stated negatively: "They shall not." In the Old Testament, it was the Levitical priests who had a unique relationship with the Lord. It was their duty to teach their fellow citizen and brother: "... So the Levites shall be Mine" (Num. 3:12); "And of Levi he said, . . . They shall teach Thine ordinances to Jacob, and Thy law to Israel. They shall put incense before Thee, and whole burnt offerings on Thine altar" (Deut. 33:8, 10); "True instruction was in his mouth, and unrighteousness was not found on his lips; he walked with Me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many back from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts" (Mal. 2:6-7). Something changed.

"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). Christ Jesus is the only mediator between God and men. It is not Mary, it is not the Pope, it is not a priest, and it is not—nor will it ever be—Israel! The role used to belong to Israel, but since they failed as mediators, Jesus fulfills the role of a mediator. Israel as mediator was a shadow of what was to come. The fulfillment is found in Christ. We will not return to shadows of the fulfillment—ever! They were imperfect. The perfect has come, is here, and shall remain. We have no need of imperfect shadows, as the author of Hebrews informs us. That Dispensationalists miss all this is a crying shame. It is as plain as the nose on their face. Why can Dispensationalists not understand this? Why do they prefer their flawed and erroneous interpretations to the plain understanding of Scripture as it is written? This perplexes me greatly.

The nations do not go to Israel for mediation; they go to Christ! He provides salvation. It is His name salvation is available through. It is through Him that you come unto the Father. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6). Jesus is our mediator—not national Israel! That any Dispensationalist would miss this or deny it is incomprehensible to me.

Premise 4: All Who Are in the True Irasel—Christ Jesus, Are Also Israel

This premise is so easy to prove and simple to understand that it is almost laughable how Dispensationalists deny it. Dispensationalists claim to read the Bible "literally," yet every time you examine their doctrines you find that they do not pay attention to the literalness of Scripture. It seems they try to read the Old Testament literally, while ignoring the literalness of the New Testament. The New Testament was in the Old Testament concealed; the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed. The New Testament illuminates and explains the Old Testament. Dispensationalists claim we are not allowed to spiritualize the text, yet any educated Bible student will see that Jesus and the Apostles did it frequently. Where Jesus and the Apostles spiritualized their quotations from the Old Testaments, Christians are to hold to those interpretations. If Jesus and the Apostles gave an interpretation of a text that was different from the "literal" understanding of the Pharisees and Jews at that time, then we need to accept the interpretation given us by Jesus and the Apostles. Dispensationalists would benefit from reading their Bibles backwards. Read the New Testament several times over until they understand it inside and out. Then read the Old Testament and see how the New Testament illuminates it and explains it. Their problem is that they are committing the same eisegetical interpretations as that of the Pharisees.

For example: The Pharisees were looking for a literal, physical kingdom. The Dispensationalists are looking for the same. But what did Jesus say? At the beginning of Jesus' ministry, He announced, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand" (Mark 1:15). What time is He referring to? For the good student of the Word the answer is simple. Daniel had predicted four empires: Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Then, "in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom" (Dan. 2:44). In the days of which kings? In the days of the Roman kings. Jesus later said, "There are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of god after it has come with power" (Mark 9:1). This is a reference to Pentecost. When the Pharisees asked Jesus about this kingdom, the one they perceived would come literally and physically, He stated clearly to them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed" and "behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst" (Luke 17:20-21). He said to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). For people who claim to read the Bible "literally," why can Dispensationalists not grasp the words of Christ?

The exact statement of the fourth premise can be seen when you read Romans 11:17-24—literally! Paul divides national Israel into two groups: believing and unbelieving. According to Romans 2:28-29, the broken off branches—the unbelieving group—are not true Jews. According to Romans 9:6-8, the broken off branches—the unbelieving group—do not belong to Israel. There is a distinction made in Romans 11 between true Israel and false Israel, between spiritual Israel and fleshly Israel. Just as the Old Testament had prophesied, which Paul calls a "mystery," believing Gentiles are grafted in with believing Jews; in to the true Israel. Expansion theology. If Gentiles are grafted in to the true Israel (the believing group, the remaining branches), what does that make them? True Israel! The New Testament everywhere quotes from and alludes to the Old Testament, applying the literal text of these quotations to finding their fulfillment in the church. 1 Peter 2:9-10 is a classic example of this.

Further proof concerning this fourth premise is evidenced from what Paul had to say in the letter to the Galatians. "Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7). "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as referring to many, but rather to one, 'And to your seed,' that is, Christ" (Gal. 3:16). "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise" (Gal. 3:29). See Ephesians 2:11-22 for more.

Conclusion: There is No Future Role for National Israel in the Plan of God

All four premises, provided by a Dispensationalist to summarize the beliefs of non-Dispensationalists, are true. Therefore, the conclusion must also be true. The fact is, there is no future role for national Israel because national Israel is nothing! Where do you see Israel anywhere in the New Testament? It is all about Christ! Christ was the final sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Dispensationalists claim that in their future millennium we will return to sacrifice "as a memorial." Why in the world would you return to an imperfect shadow of the fulfillment when you have the fulfillment before your very eyes?!? Furthermore, if they read the passages "literally" that they quote in regard to this false and erroneous teaching, they would see that they state very clearly that they are "sin offering[s]" that "make atonement." There is nothing "memorial" about these sacrifices!!! Why would anyone take Dispensationalism seriously when they do not take the Bible seriously?

As the old children’s song goes: “Father Abraham had many sons, many sons had father Abraham. I am one of them and so are you…” Its theology is unquestionably biblical. In Romans 4:1-16, the Apostle Paul explains that Abraham is “the father of us all.” True believers in the Old Testament were saved in the same way that true believers are saved in the New Testament— by faith, and by faith alone. Adoption into God’s family is achieved not through having the right family name, ethnicity, land of birth, or residence. Neither are men and women the children of Abraham and the children of Israel because of physical attributes (Rom. 2:28-29) or lineage descent (Rom. 9:6-8). True Israel is faithful Israel, and only faithful Israel inherits God’s promises (Gal. 3:7, 16, 29). National Israel has no part in the inheritance of those promises. They are for faithful Israel only. Faithful Israelites are those circumcised in their hearts, those who have trusted in the Messiah: "Circumcise then your heart, and do not be stiffnecked" (Deut. 10:16). This is the way God has always fulfilled His purposes in saving His people.

As Burk Parsons said, "True Israel is faithful Israel because they have faith in the only faithful Israelite who has ever lived—Jesus the Messiah. Only Jesus completely fulfilled all of the Father’s righteous laws for Israel. As the only faithful Israelite, Jesus is an Israelite according to the flesh, and He enjoyed all the benefits that come from being born into the nation that possessed the oracles of God. As the faithful Israelite Jesus is the true Israel because He is the true Son of God." All who are united by faith alone to Christ Jesus are the true "Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16).

When the New Testament makes reference to "Scripture" or "the Scriptures," it is speaking about the Old Testament. On the road to Emaus, what did Jesus teach His disciples from the Scriptures? Did He teach them about Israel and how everything is about Israel? No! He taught them how they all pointed to Him!!! "Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:27). All of Scripture is about Jesus. Not Israel! When you read your Bible, you should be looking for Jesus on every page.

As Justin Taylor said, "Jesus is the true Israel, and the church becomes the Israel of God as it unites to True Israel. The same is true for ethnic Israel, whom God has not abandoned. But their only hope is to be united with Jesus, the ultimate suffering servant."

...Jesus had become a remnant of one. He was the embodiment of faithful Israel, the truly righteous and suffering servant.

Unlike the remnant of the restoration period, he committed no sin (Isa. 53:9; 1 Pet. 2:22).

As the embodiment of the faithful remnant, he would undergo divine judgment for sin (on the cross), endure an exile (three days forsaken by God in the grave), and experience a restoration (resurrection) to life as the foundation of a new Israel, inheriting the promises of God afresh.

As the remnant restored to life, he becomes the focus of the hopes for the continued existence of the people of God in a new kingdom, a new Israel of Jew and Gentile alike.

As the nucleus of a renewed Israel, Christ summons the “little flock” that will receive the kingdom (Dan. 7:22, 27; Luke 12:32) and appoints judges for the twelve tribes of Israel in the new age (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30).

The church is viewed as the Israel of that new age (Gal. 6:16), the twelve tribes (James 1:1), “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession” (Ex. 19:6; 1 Pet. 2:9).

A sinful nation, Israel could not suffer vicariously to atone for the sins of the world. The sinfulness of the nation made it unacceptable for this role, just as flaws would disqualify any other offering. Only a truly righteous servant could bear this awful load.

—Tremper Longman III and Raymond B. Dillard,

“Isaiah,” An Introduction to the Old Testament, 315.

 Michael J. Vlach, like all Dispensationalists, denies the literal reading of the text and the plain understanding of what it indicates. He denies 1 Timothy 2:5 as ruling out mediatorial functions for Israel by saying, "The context of 1 Tim 2:1–6 is salvation." What does he think the mediatorial function of Israel was prior to Christ? A pizza delivery system? National Israel was unsuccessful in their mediatorial functions. They were an imperfect shadow of what was to come. Jesus mediates all affairs between men and God now, so what purpose would an imperfect shadow have in returning to mediation? National Israel is nothing!!! Jesus is "all in all" and fulfills everything! He is True Israel in every sense of the term; and we, being in Him, are the "Israel of God."