How to Interpret Scripture - 35

Well, all true Christians believe the Bible knowing that it is the source of our faith.

It is the place where we find all that the Lord has given to men in regard to Himself and in regard to our sinfulness, in regard to the giving of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, for redemption. So Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God given to mankind. And Christians believe that we are responsible to obey what the Bible says, but we're also very much aware that not all Christians understand the Bible in exactly the same way. In other words, there are different views on how to interpret the Bible. And we have come to that issue in our series through the book of Hebrews when we came in chapter 8 to an explanation of the New Covenant quoted from the Old Testament prophet of Jeremiah. And as we looked carefully at that covenant as it is described for us, both in Jeremiah and again in Hebrews, and understand how the writer of Hebrews applied it to the people of his day, and we realized that it raises some challenges regarding the way the Bible is interpreted by various groups of Christians.

We find statements in Jeremiah and in Hebrews that challenge popular Christian doctrines. And so today we continue to consider how to properly interpret scriptures. That's really what we've been doing over the last couple of weeks, even though I didn't call it that, but I'm calling it that today. And we are continuing that today because so many of you encouraged me to do so. I really thought maybe I'd move on to chapter 9 today, but I received encouragement from many of you that said what you've been telling us has been very, very helpful. Please will you consider going a little bit further in that direction.

So we're back in school today. Join me in the classroom as we learn a little bit more about how scripture itself guides our endeavors to properly interpret the word of God. So today I'm going to address number one, the New Covenant and dispensationalism. Number two, two New Testament examples of mistaken literalism. And number three, one example of New Covenant interpretation of the Old Testament. Now that's actually a lot to cover. I trust that I'll be able to do all of that, but that's only a sampling, but hopefully it will help us to understand and give us some tools by which we can study other similar areas of scripture for ourselves.

Now I'm not picking on dispensationalism. You know that I also addressed covenant theology previously and the doctrine of infant baptism and how the New Covenant challenges that doctrine mightily. But today we've moved to a different area of consideration. Now, just as a matter of review, and particularly for those who are visiting today, what am I talking about when I talk about the New Covenant? I'm talking about the New Covenant that was prophesied by Jeremiah in chapter 31 verses 31 through 34, which was inaugurated by Christ who on the night before he was crucified lifted a cup from off the table, the Passover meal that his disciples were enjoying, and inaugurated a new ordinance, namely the Lord's table. And in the process of lifting that cup, he said this cup is, that is, represents the New Covenant in my blood. There he announced the inauguration of the New Covenant, which he established by the shedding of blood the next day when he shed his blood upon the cross. And it was certified that the New Covenant had come into being, replacing the old one, by God Almighty when the temple veil was torn in two.

And that barrier that had for centuries kept worshippers from the immediate presence of God was now opened that all believers might have personal and immediate access into the very presence of God. That was established in the New Covenant. The New Covenant is described, as I've already mentioned, in Hebrews chapter 8 verses 7 through 13.

And we've already spent some time examining that carefully. And in doing so, we have learned that the wording of the New Covenant challenges the doctrine of infant baptism. When you understand that people who belong to the New Covenant, according to the very words that are spoken by Jeremiah and by the writer of Hebrews, everybody who belongs to the New Covenant is already regenerated. And therefore the idea that we carry over the old covenant rite of circumcision, which by the design of God was applied to unregenerated people, particularly unregenerated babies, and apply that to what we consider to be members of the New Covenant, because they are the children of believers, and we baptize them as if they were now legitimate members of this New Covenant is entirely erroneous because the New Covenant wording tells us that everyone shall know the Lord.

I will put my law in their minds and in their hearts. There's nobody that belongs to the New Covenant who has not been regenerated by the Spirit of God. And so that challenges one common, very common doctrine that many Christians believe, namely infant baptism, but it does not hold up to an examination of the New Covenant. But the New Covenant also challenges dispensationalism on several tenets of that particular theology. So I move to my second question, which is what is dispensationalism, knowing that not everybody understands what that is. And dispensationalism is also a theological system.

There's nothing wrong with theological systems. We all have one, whether we understand it or not. We all have one, whether we know how to describe it or not. We all have one, whether it is coherent or not.

We all have one of some kind or another. Nothing wrong with systems. But dispensationalism is a particular theological system, parallel, but dissimilar from covenant theology, which is another theological system, and they are often competing in what they teach and how they interpret scripture. And dispensationalism in this country was popularized by C.I. Scofield and his reference Bible that came into popularity in the early days of the 1900s and sold multiple thousands of copies, not only in America, but around the world, and became the most widely distributed study Bible of all time so far. And I think I told you maybe last week that the first adult Bible that I had was given to me by my grandfather and was a Scofield reference Bible, which I completely wore out.

It's in shambles. I still have it in a plastic case because if I didn't keep it in the plastic case, it would fall to pieces. But I didn't tell you my next two Bibles were also Scofield reference Bibles. I wore out the first one with a black cover. I wore out the second one with a navy leather cover.

I wore out the third one with a burgundy leather cover. So I'm a child of dispensationalism, and I speak as a friend to explain why I began to see some problems and questions with that particular system, and that's what I'm trying to share with you today. But again, what is dispensationalism? Well, the best I can try to describe it to you, it's a theological system that divides history into several dispensations or periods.

I don't find fault with that necessarily. And it finds that within each of these periods, God dealt with humanity in a particular way. For example, the period of history from the creation of Adam until the fall represents a relatively short period of history, but in that period of history, God dealt in a different manner with mankind than he did after the fall.

We all agree with that. You don't have to be a dispensationalist to agree with that, but I'm trying to give you some idea of the flavor of dispensationalism. And then we take the period, say, from the fall to the flood and study how God dealt with mankind during that period.

And then we take the period from the flood to Abraham and study how God dealt with mankind during that period and so forth. Historic classical dispensationalism identifies seven dispensations. Not all people who identify themselves as dispensationalists subscribe to seven dispensations. The number of dispensations is not a main tenet.

It's just a common feature. But here's the thing that needs to be examined. It needs to be questioned and examined. Dispensationalism emphasizes a strong, strong, strong, strong, literal hermeneutic.

What do I mean by that? Well, hermeneutic, hermeneutics plural, means rules of interpretation. It's a ten thousand dollar word for a very simple concept. The rules we use when we interpret scripture. And again, all of us have rules, even if we've never studied them, never thought about them, but we have certain principles in mind that guide us in the way that we interpret scripture. And a primary feature of dispensationalism is a strong, strong, strong emphasis upon literal hermeneutics. You always must interpret the Bible in the most literal way possible.

The way I heard it growing up was something like this. If the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense. In other words, if you can read a passage of scripture, a statement in scripture, a verse of scripture, and if it can be understood literally, and obviously some things can't, but if there's some way to understand that literally, then you say, that's it, that's the answer, no more, period. If the literal sense makes good sense, then seek no other sense.

In other words, don't even consider another possibility, you've got it. The most literal way possible is the way that we are to interpret and understand scripture. That is a major tenet of dispensationalism, and that's what I'm going to be calling into question primarily today.

Therefore, with this hermeneutic, dispensationalism interprets Old Testament passages about Israel with the most exact literalism possible. Now let me say, again, there's a lot that's right about this. There are just a few things that need to be questioned.

There's a lot that's right about this. And if you start studying your Bible in the Old Testament and you read what it says, I don't know what else you can do except be thinking of these things literally as they are written on the page. How else is it possible for you to understand them if you haven't got to the New Testament yet?

You've got to start somewhere. And so it makes perfect sense to interpret Old Testament passages about Israel with exact literalism. But what doesn't make sense is if coming to the New Testament you find a different understanding, you're unwilling to budge because you've already got it. You read the Old Testament, if the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, even if the New Testament says otherwise, you find a way to explain your way around the New Testament interpretation because the literal sense has got to be the correct sense. This is what I got from dispensationalism in the background that I grew up in, which was strongly dispensationally. And so we therefore conclude that Israel and the church are two bodies with two different destinies.

You don't mix them. The Israel is one thing and the church is something entirely different. And dispensationalism therefore denounces non-literal interpretations of scripture. When you interpret the scriptures in a non-literal way, the dispensationalist says, you are spiritualizing. And that's a no-no. You're spiritualizing. You're taking a passage of scripture and you're applying a typological meaning, you're applying a symbolic meaning, you're spiritualizing away the literal meaning that is before you on the page.

That's a no-no. And if you want an even bigger no-no, if you in any way join in your understanding of scripture Israel and the church, you are guilty of replacement theology. You have replaced Israel with the church.

Shame, shame, shame on you for doing such a thing. That is not allowed because our literal interpretation of the promises of God to Israel in the Old Testament mean that Israel and the church are kept distinct forever, at least all the way through the millennium. The third question before we move to our second main point, our main heading, but the third question on the new covenant and dispensationalism is how does the new covenant challenge dispensationalism? Well, in our study in Hebrews chapter 8, it does so in this way very simply that, lo and behold, the passage in Hebrews chapter 8 does not understand Jeremiah 31 literally. You can read it in Jeremiah and interpret it literally. And particularly what I'm looking at there is that this covenant in Jeremiah 31, we are told, is made with the house of Israel, the house of Judah, and then later with Israel. So obviously this covenant that Jeremiah is prophesying is made with Jews. And lo and behold, you come to the New Testament and Jesus inaugurates the new covenant in his blood for what happens.

This is obviously the basis of the church. And you come to Hebrews chapter 8 and we find that the writer of Hebrews just applies it to what's going on in his day, namely the progression of the church. In other words, the words Israel and even the house of Israel, house of Judah, but the word of Israel is not understood in a strictly literal sense.

It seems to have a broader meaning. It seems to in some way refer to all the people of God, of the mixture of believing Jews and Gentiles under the new covenant. That's the way the New Testament understands the words of Jeremiah. You see, the only problem with the literal hermeneutic is that the Bible doesn't follow it. And you're in the place where you have to say, if you're going to be consistent on this and dogmatic on it, won't budge on it, shame, shame, shame on the writer of Hebrews. Shame, shame, shame on Jesus.

Shame, shame, shame on Peter. We'll see that in a moment. For spiritualizing these verses, these Old Testament prophecies which we are supposed to understand literally. To give you an example, somewhere along the line several years ago now, is I was discussing some of these issues online with a dear brother in another state who obviously is very, very knowledgeable.

He's an associate pastor in a large, large church. And we've discussed a number of things over the years, but we've gotten into this. And I pointed out to him what I'm saying to you now, that there are many examples where the New Testament does not interpret the Old Testament scriptures literally the way that dispensationalists would. You take an Old Testament passage and you say this is what it means with the literal hermeneutic. You come to the New Testament and the New Testament writers, I remind you, inspired writers, understand it a different way.

So that was a bit of a conundrum for this brother, so here's what he told me. He said, well, they can do that because they're inspired. Well, good, he got that far. Not all dispensationalists get that far. They try to circle around it and find ways to avoid dealing with the issue, but they can do that because they were inspired, but it only applies to the ones that are found written in the New Testament. We can't do that because we're not inspired, so we can only do it literally. Well, the problem with that is if we took the ones that we have in the New Testament and took our literal interpretation from the Old Testament to the New Testament, we'd find out we were absolutely wrong. What makes us think, therefore, that on the ones that are not dealt with specifically in the New Testament that our literal interpretation is right? Don't we at least have to open up the possibility to consider the possibility that maybe we should be interpreting those in the same pattern that the inspired New Testament writers have revealed to us?

That's what I concluded slowly, reluctantly, as I was wrestling with these things. And so Hebrews 8 does not understand Jeremiah 31 literally. Jeremiah's Israel becomes Hebrew's church.

Then we've got Israel and church coming together. No, no, no, replacement theology. Well, writer of Hebrews, you're guilty. You're guilty of replacement theology, and a lot of other New Testament writers are similarly guilty because the New Testament has many instances of non-literal interpretation.

I'm going to give you two examples now. That's my second heading, two New Testament examples of mistaken literalism. The first one is found in John chapter 2.

You'll know the account as soon as I mention it. Jesus, after creating the wine at the wedding of Cana, went to Jerusalem, to the temple, and he cleansed the temple. He drove out all the money changers and the sellers of animals and so forth. We're told in verse 17 that the disciples remembered that it was written, the meal for your house has eaten me up. They now understood a statement from the Old Testament, what it meant and how it applied.

Here's what it means. But there's another one, verse 18. So the Jews answered and said to him, what sign do you show to us since you do these things? Jesus answered and said to them, destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then the Jews said, it has taken 46 years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days. But, verse 21, he was speaking of the temple of his body. Therefore, when he had risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this to them, and they believed the scriptures and the word which Jesus had said.

Now think this through. Jesus has cleansed the temple. That shows an awful lot of presumed authority.

How dare you do this? Who gave you the authority to do this? And so those who consider themselves to be the guardians of what goes on in the temple challenge Jesus' authority. They ask him by what authority he does this, and they demand a sign to prove that he has been given such authority. And so Jesus tells them the sign that he will produce for them. It is the miraculous restoration of the temple. Destroy this temple. Where are they when he says this? In the temple. Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

They are thinking, is probably the only way they were able to think at that particular moment, they are thinking literally. Destroy this temple, what else could that mean but this temple, Herod's temple. That's the literal meaning, but that's not the meaning that Jesus had in mind. They rejected his claim as impossible. Nobody, it took 46 years to get this temple to the place where it is now, and it wasn't even finished then.

It took 46 years to build this temple, and you can raise it up, you can rebuild it in three days. Now obviously they were skeptical of everything about Jesus. They didn't believe that he was God. They didn't believe that he had any miraculous power. His first miracle was the wine at the wedding in Cana.

They hadn't seen that. That happened up in Galilee. He's now down in Jerusalem. So they haven't seen him actually do any of his miracles, but we who know who Jesus is, the son of God who's created this world, we have no power believing that if he chose to, he could take the rubble of that temple and restore it and instantly.

It wouldn't take three days, would it? When the Romans destroyed that temple in AD 70, Jesus, if he wanted to, could say, be rebuilt, be restored, and bang, just like that it'd be done. He had the power to do it, but that's not what he was talking about. That's not what temple meant in this instance. Jesus is referring to his body. His hearers assumed that he meant the literal temple because they, whether they said this statement or not, this is the way they thought, if the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense. He said temple. Does that make sense?

Yes. He could be talking about that. In fact, they probably hadn't considered any other possibility. So they were thinking literally, but Jesus was thinking symbolically. And John tells us that Jesus was referring to his body, but even his disciples didn't understand that until three years later when he was raised from the dead. The last verse tells us.

So even they were puzzled. What's he talking about? Destroy this temple.

And in three days, I will raise it up. Well, now they understand he's talking about his body. That's the temple. And we know that elsewhere in the scripture, but the scriptures that hadn't been written at this point, but elsewhere in the scriptures, our bodies are called the temple, the Holy Spirit. So it's not really a far-fetched idea to us, but it sure was to them. And they misunderstood what he said.

Why? Because they took it literally and it wasn't intended that way. Jesus intended it to be taken symbolically, spiritually, if you please. You have to spiritualize that statement in order to understand what Jesus meant. Hmm. Maybe spiritualizing isn't such a terrible thing all the time after all, is it?

All right. One more example. You heard Pastor Carnes preach recently about the leaven of the Pharisees. I think that was on a Wednesday night. That's referred to in Matthew, Mark and Luke. I'll take Matthew's account.

It's the fullest one. Matthew Chapter 16. Now, when his disciples had come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. Then Jesus said to them, take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, it is because we have taken no bread.

Excuse me. But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, Oh, you of little faith. Why do you reason among yourselves? Because you have brought no bread. Do you not yet understand? So remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up, nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up.

And then this. How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread, but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

You get it? The disciples forgot to bring bread on a journey. And while they're in the midst of this journey, probably going across the Sea of Galilee by boat, but we're not specifically told that, I don't think. But Jesus is teaching them and he warns them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. They think, literally, leaven is something you use to bake bread.

If the literal sense makes good sense, there ain't no other sense. So they're discussing among themselves, oh, he's scolding us because we forgot to bring bread. Now we're going to get a scolding because of our forgetfulness. And Jesus says, what is wrong with you? Where were you when I fed the five thousand with five loaves and two fishes? Where were you when I fed the, however many other thousand it was, seven thousand, no, it was, I forget. Four thousand, I guess it was, when I fed the four thousand with the couple of loaves and fishes.

I've forgotten the exact number. In other words, why are you worried about not having bread? Haven't you seen me create bread? Why don't you understand I'm not talking about the leaven of bread, literal translation, literal interpretation. I'm talking about the doctrine of the scribes and the Pharisees, symbolic meaning.

Leaven is symbolic of something. It is symbolic of dangerous doctrine that easily spreads, permeates, and damages. Beware of the damaging and destructive and easily spread doctrine of the Pharisees. Those who took his statement literally didn't understand what he said. Only when they were able to move from the literal to the symbolic, only when they were able and willing to spiritualize what he said, did they get the meaning that he intended.

Now that's just two examples. I would encourage you when you read your Bible, particularly your New Testament, be looking for other examples of this. You'll find others if you'll look out for them when you read. With this in mind, you may have read the New Testament dozen scores of times and never noticed this because you weren't looking for it. But now that I brought it to your attention, look for it and see how many times you can find people who misunderstood what was being said because they took it literally and it wasn't intended literally. Does that mean there's no danger in too much spiritualizing?

Yes, there is. That's why, no doubt, that some are unwilling to consider it at all. Because there have been times in church history when people have taken every word in a passage and made every word have a symbolic meaning so that pretty soon you can't even understand the Bible at all. It makes nonsense out of everything. You have to start with literalism, but you have to be willing to adjust if the Bible itself points you in that direction. That's what I'm saying. Yes, start literally. Where else could we start? But don't let your system, don't let your commitment to a particular system and to a particular hermeneutical rule disable you from understanding a lot of what the Bible says when it doesn't fit into your system, it doesn't fit into your rule.

You better learn to be flexible and adjust in those areas. Now we come to the one example of New Covenant interpretation, and here's where we go to Joel's prophecy that Peter explained on the day of Pentecost. Here's what Joel said in chapter 2. Here it is.

I picked up the wrong sheet. Joel 2, 28 to 32. And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh. Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.

Your old men shall dream dreams. Your young men shall see visions. And also on my men servants and on my maid servants I will pour out my Spirit in those days. And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood and fire and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord. And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, as the Lord has said, among the remnant whom the Lord calls. If you didn't have the New Testament and if you had a strong literal hermeneutic, how would you understand that passage?

Well, I think it would be something like this. Joel is talking about a future event. It shall come to pass afterward, after the days that he's writing. He is talking about a time when there's going to be an unusual outpouring of the Holy Spirit of God. It's going to have universal inclusion.

It's going to be poured out upon all flesh, which could lead me to believe that there's going to come a time when everybody in all the world is going to experience this. But that's not what Peter indicates. But we could take that from what Joel says. But clearly he's telling us that there's going to be an outpouring of the Holy Spirit with manifestations, with evidences that the Holy Spirit had been poured out. Visions, dreams, various manifestations of the kinds of things that only a handful of people had in the Old Testament, namely those who were prophets and were given visions. They were given dreams. They were given supernatural revelation.

But now that seems to be coming on a whole group of people, not just a select handful of people. Furthermore, Joel predicts celestial upheaval, things that are going to happen in the heavens above and on the earth beneath of an enormous disruptive nature. And he indicates that this is going to come before the coming of Christ in judgment, before the great and terrible day of the Lord. But he says, interestingly, if you look at it carefully, he says, afterward, after this great judgment, there will be great opportunity for salvation, for it shall come to pass afterward that whoever will call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

And he describes even who that includes. He says it shall include Mount Zion in Jerusalem. There shall be deliverance, as the Lord has said, among the remnant whom the Lord calls. So it looks like there's going to be a great deliverance for Israel. That's the way I would take that from Joel if I didn't have any other information to guide me.

But I do have other information to guide me. I have the apostle Peter who quoted this text on the day of Pentecost and said what's happening on the day of Pentecost is the fulfillment of this prophecy. This is what Joel prophesied. King James says, this is that. My Bible says this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel. This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel. If we're going to take words literally that didn't mean anything, we're going to have to say this package, the whole thing, is what was spoken by the prophet Joel and it's all being fulfilled before our eyes on the day of Pentecost. And so the inspired New Testament interpretation of this Old Testament passage in Joel goes something like this. The Pentecostal tongues fulfill Joel's prophecy.

These men aren't drunk. They are manifesting what Joel prophesied would happen. This is the manifestation of a great outpouring of God's spirit. Joel said God would pour his spirit out upon all flesh. Behold, this is what it looks like.

Take it in. This is what Joel was talking about. God has poured out his flesh upon all kinds of people, all flesh. Evidently doesn't mean every individual without exception, but it means all kinds of people.

And I take it that it not only means this particular instance, but other instances where we also find the speaking of tongues in the book of Acts. And what you find is a growing circle of inclusion. We start out with Jews, but not just Jerusalem Jews, but Jews of 13 or 14 different languages.

That's a lot of different kinds of people. But in this case, they're all Jews in Jerusalem to worship on the feast day. But then speaking of tongues takes place in, let's see, Cornelius and his household.

Wow. And it takes place in other places. It takes place in entirely Gentile locations like Ephesus.

And I think it's clear that if you'll examine those, that's not to indicate that this is something that is going to go on indefinitely for all of time. But this is an indication of the all flesh that this prophecy is talking about. It includes all kinds of people. This is an indication of the extent of the reach of the gospel that is going to that whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Not just Jews, not just proselytes, but people from all over the world of every walk of life. If they call upon the name of the Lord, they shall be saved.

That's what is meant by all flesh, all kinds of people. Furthermore, it speaks about catastrophic upheaval of the natural order, which to me looks like the moon is going to turn to blood. The stars are going to fall from heaven.

There's going to be a cataclysmic upheaval. But the problem is, if that happened on the day of Pentecost, how can we still be here? If that literal interpretation happened on the day of Pentecost, then how can we still be here if there was that kind of cataclysm in the heavens above and the earth beneath? And then I realized that that language almost word for word occurs in a number of prophecies in the Old Testament. This idea of fire and blood and cataclysm in the heavens above. And I began to wonder if this couldn't be a symbol for judgment, not a literal understanding about what's going to happen to the moon and the stars. But just a way of speaking of something that's very cataclysmic. An idiom, so that we could say.

We have those in English. When we have a great downpour, sometimes somebody will say, It's raining what? Cats and dogs. Did you ever see a cat? Did you ever see a dog? We know what that means.

It's raining hard. Now I must confess, this is one part of the prophecy I'm certainly not going to be dogmatic about because Peter doesn't really deal with it. Except in quoting it where he does and the way he does, it seems like it has reference to that particular time. Because it's not even till after that is spoken that he goes on and quotes the part about whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Nobody has any difficulty believing that that applies to the church age from Pentecost onward down to our age. So why would we think the first part has been fulfilled in the speaking of tongues? The last part has been fulfilled in the opening the door of the gospel to whoever calls upon the name of the Lord. But the middle part is being reserved for a future coming of Christ in judgment. Wouldn't it at least be profitable to consider the possibility that what he's talking about is the first coming of Christ also brings with it not only grace and salvation but judgment. And it could be, I'm not being dogmatic at all here, but it could be that the fulfillment of that came in 70 AD when the Roman army came in and completely destroyed Israel, Jerusalem, the temple, and so forth. That was a great upheaval of the natural order that has never been reversed.

Can I maybe restate this in other words? Although the language of Joel might seem at first to refer to the second advent, it does look like it to our understanding, Peter's inspired statement in Acts 2 requires that we look for immediate fulfillment beginning on the day of Pentecost. There is one phrase that Peter changes and he can, he is inspired. Joel says afterward Peter changes that to in the last days. And in the Bible we learn that the last days started with the coming of Christ. The last days are not the days just before Christ's second coming, though they include those, but the last days began with the coming of Christ.

The Bible is clear on that point. So afterward it's changed to in the last days by Peter. Afterward could therefore mean God's judgment of Israel, the time of fulfillment came at Pentecost, the last days began with the first coming of Christ, and God is about to bring an end to national Israel because of their centuries long rejection of his word and only save out of national Israel a remnant which is referred to in Joel's prophecy.

All flesh evidently means all kinds of flesh, young as well as old, male as well as female, Jew as well as Gentile, all kinds of people without distinction rather than Jewish people. Before the day of the Lord these are apocalyptic signs for severe judgment. This could refer to a yet future event but might better be related to the same time as the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.

That would seem to fit best into this sequence. A metaphor, symbols for judgment, severe judgment and visions and dreams is divine revelation such was manifested at Pentecost by the 120 Jewish disciples. Blood, fire, vapor of smoke, symbols of severe judgment.

I'll just stop there. It seems to me like that's the way Peter understands Joel's prophecy. So he helps us in our inspired interpretation, correct interpretation, infallible interpretation. Although Peter isn't so clear on every point that we have absolute clarity but we certainly have a different overall picture than we had just reading Joel and taking it literally and assuming that that's the way to understand it. The problem with that is nobody told Peter that he had to understand it that way.

You get my point? Now there's similar other inspired interpretations which I've already covered so I just remind you of them. I told you I think last week about the prophecy in Malachi chapter 4 about the coming of Elijah which the New Testament clearly and repeatedly says is John the Baptist. Does that mean John the Baptist is a resurrected Elijah the Tishbite?

No, he's not. We know who his father and mother were. We know about his birth. This is a symbolic statement. The coming of Elijah, Malachi's coming of Elijah is fulfilled in the ministry of John the Baptist.

How do I know? Because the Bible tells me so. Or I gave you the example of the church as the rebuilt tabernacle of David prophesied in Amos chapter 9 and referred to in Acts chapter 15. We would take Amos' prophecy to do with something that God is going to do in rebuilding Israel, rebuilding the tabernacle of David, elevating Israel to a place of prominence again, national Israel. But Acts chapter 15 on the day at the great council of Jerusalem as spoken by James the spokesman to give the decision of what they said on that day said this, what's taking place and the Gentiles being saved all over the world without having to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses. This inclusion of Gentiles in God's plan of salvation. This is what Amos was talking about when he said that the tabernacle of David would be rebuilt.

Here it is. This is how it's being fulfilled. Not the way we would have imagined, but this is the way that God intended all along. But you had to understand that prophecy in Amos symbolically, not literally. You probably couldn't have done that without the help of the New Testament.

But now that you've got the help of the New Testament, why would you want to reject that? That's what the inspired writers of Scripture tell us that that prophecy means. So that means those who see in the church a fulfillment of promises to Israel in the Old Testament are not guilty of replacement theology.

They are faithful to what we might call fulfillment theology or expansion theology. God has taken spiritual Israel, the true believers from within the nation of Israel, and exalted them, expanded them, glorified them by adding Gentiles to this number in great numbers. We are told clearly in the New Testament, the spiritual seed of Abraham. So you've got some of the physical seed of Abraham and a whole lot of the spiritual seed of Abraham. All of this is spiritual Israel. This fulfills God's promises to Israel.

You say, well, it didn't look like that to me. I know it didn't look that way to me either until I read the passages that I've called to your attention today and realize that we've got to at least consider that. If we don't, if we're not willing to consider that, then we are rejecting inspired Scripture. We're not taking it for what it says.

Well, I will conclude. Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture. Inspired interpretation supersedes human interpretation. We must adjust our systems when Scripture indicates that we should. Scripture defines systems. Systems do not define Scripture. That applies to covenant theology.

That applies to dispensationalism. Scripture defines systems. Systems do not define Scripture.

But I must close with this. We must embrace all who believe the biblical gospel as our beloved brothers. We can't let our disagreements and our debates about things like this cause us to push away brothers and sisters in Christ that the Bible commands us to love. The issues that I'm talking about today don't affect the gospel, the core gospel of what we must know in order to be saved. Therefore, we must be gracious, kind, and willing to embrace those of different understandings as long as they are embracing the same Christ, they are believing the same gospel. They give evidence of being true brothers and sisters in Christ. You are my brothers and sisters. I love you, even if you've got it wrong, or what I think to be wrong in certain areas. All right, with that we close, shall we pray. Father, we've got a lot to think about. Help us as we take these understandings, new understandings for some, and study your word in the days to come. We ask in Jesus' name, amen.