March 19 2 Guys and a Bible

Well, hello everyone and welcome back to Two Guys and a Bible here on Fulfilled Radio, a voice you can trust. And we're doing this live on YouTube and I hope there's audio over there. We'll see. I keep forgetting exactly how to do it. We're recording on Zoom and we're going live on YouTube. All right. So anyway, glad you could be with us again this evening here on Tuesday. My name is Don K Preston. I'm the president of Preterist Research Institute of Ardmore, Oklahoma. And over there and sitting in Memphis, Tennessee is my good friend, William Bell. William, good to see you again. Good to see you too. And how has your week been going so far? Busy, busy, busy, busy, busy. And then I got issues here, plumbing issues here. So I've got the plumber in the background working. So we hear some knocking around. That's what's going on. Okay. But we get some of those things straightened out. Other than that, everything is going fine. Well, that's great. I tell you, it's been beyond busy over here. You know, I was supposed to have had last night on Monday night, I was supposed to have had my debate with Chris Day. Well, last Sunday, I get an email from Donny Budinsky, who's the host and moderator of the debate on Standing for Truth Ministries. And he said that Chris Date's son's pickup had gotten broken into and that he was going to have to spend the day all day Monday trying to deal with police and, you know, insurance and who knows what all. And it's, you know, getting broken into like that is just not a happy experience whatsoever. Yeah. Yeah. And so fully understandable. But anyway, we have rescheduled the debate for tomorrow night. Now, for those of you who have been contacting me privately saying, Hey, I thought the debate was supposed to be last night. I had posted all over Facebook, the announcement, it has been postponed, etc, etc. But not everybody's on Facebook. Yeah, well, that's true. So you got to go further. As a matter of fact, I've got the same announcements out. Did they change anything from the the original post that they published? Did they change the dates on that? They were supposed to. Okay. debate for you? No, no, no, the one for you. Yeah, yeah. Donnie told me that he had changed the dates on his website. Okay. Yes. And I still I was still getting inquiries about Oh, did I miss the debate? What's wrong? And what have you. And, and again, that's perfectly understandable. Lots of people don't get on Facebook all that often, and they don't visit his website and what have you. So if it just simply wasn't there, when they expected it to be there, they didn't they didn't have any idea what was going on. But again, the debate is scheduled for tomorrow night. That is March the 20th. And it will be seven o'clock Eastern Time. Pardon me the same format, all this kind of stuff like that. Now, speaking of debates, I will not give the name at this time. But we now have confirmation that a very, very highly prominent scholar in the former believer slash atheist world has agreed to meet me in debate on the internet. This fellow has, has been and continues to be a very, very prominent voice. You know, accusing Christ of failing our proposition will be this will be very, very close to what the actual proposition is. Granted that the New Testament records the words of Jesus faithfully, all of his predictions of the judgment and his coming for the first century failed. So yeah, that's, that's the proposition. I shared that proposition. I didn't share the name, but I was sharing the proposition with a friend of mine on the, on the phone earlier. And they said, oh, wow, that proposition is right down your, right down your alley, isn't it? Well, yeah, it is as a matter of fact. So the date that has been set that has been agreed to is October the 12th of this year. And we're, we're trying to finalize all of the final D logistical details, you know, technology, the debate will be carried on mythvision.com. That is Derek Lambert's blog forum, whatever you wish to call it. Derek is himself a former believer turned atheist. And he initially contacted me, or he was contacted, I should say, about setting up a debate between Dr. Bart Ehrman and myself. Dr. Ehrman said he was simply too busy with his scholastic activities right now. We can understand that somebody with his standing, but nonetheless, so we turned to this other individual and they agreed. So I really can't begin to tell you how exciting this is, not only for me personally, by not by any means, but for what it could mean for the Preterist movement. So very, very exciting stuff. Yeah, sounds like some really, really good and exciting opportunities for the Preterist movement. That's exactly right. I just, you know, I'm kind of over the moon about it, to be honest about it. Very, very exciting stuff. So folks, I solicit your prayers on my behalf in preparation for that debate. This scholar is well published. He's well known, very, very academic in the very highest circles of academia. And nobody questions his academic prowess in that regard. But we shall see if he's prepared to vindicate the proposition that Jesus failed. You and I, William, we encounter people all of the time who say, oh, Jesus failed. And after a few minutes of conversation, all of a sudden, well, I never thought about that. I didn't know about that. Wow, that's really fascinating. And there are tons of folks out there right now who are now full Preterists who once accused Jesus of failing. And it's my hope and it's my prayer that this debate will result in the very same result. So with that said, we want to get back into it. And by the way, folks, I want to also tell you that on the 31st of this month, in just two weeks, William and I will be having, now it's not an open call, okay, but we will be involved in a Zoom meeting with a gentleman who is originally from Cameroon. He now hails from both Great Britain and France. He works with congregations in both countries. He has invited William and me to travel to Great Britain to hold some lectures there, and then possibly and hopefully to travel on from there to France. And so this is just another exciting door that is open for the teaching of covenanted eschatology, not in totally unprecedented ways. I was privileged to travel to France and Great Britain and do some teaching some years ago. But this gentleman has all sorts of contacts in the religious community there. And so on the 31st of this month, William and I will be having a Zoom meeting. He has a group of ministers that he has gathered together for them to just simply ask questions in preparation for this planned trip. So that is just another exciting venue that is opening up for the message to get out. Yeah, look, Don, I forgot to close my blinds, and that sunlight is coming through here, and you can probably see it. Yeah, I'm noticing a difference in your writing there. Yeah, step away for a second and take care of that. Okay, that's fine. Well, folks, what William and I want to do this evening, we've been focused on Isaiah chapter 49 for a good little bit because it's such an incredibly wonderful and incredibly rich chapter that deals with Israel, Israel's last days, the time of salvation, the time of the resurrection, and therefore all of this interrelated to the time of the Messianic Temple. As we have said before, you cannot divorce all of these ideas of Israel's restoration, you cannot divorce that from resurrection. As we've been expressing it over and over again, alienation and exile equaled death. Reconciliation and restoration equaled resurrection. And so when we come to Isaiah chapter 49, and it's all about the reconciliation of Israel with God, and not only Israel, but reconciliation of the Gentiles with Yahweh, that's nothing less than resurrection. But another factor that enters into this in regard to our study of not only Zion, but the Messianic Temple, is the fact that Israel's salvation is Israel's resurrection. And by the way, you see this explicitly in Isaiah chapter 25, 8 and 9. But I'm not going to go into that, perhaps we'll get into it more this evening, maybe or maybe not. But I mean, it's all right there. Resurrection and Israel's salvation are one and the same thing. And so what we want to do this evening, and I didn't send William a message on this, but that's okay, he can talk about it. He's perfectly qualified. You know, he's had, I think, at least a year of study on covenant eschatology. Is that right, William? Maybe a year? William Sturkey About a year. Dr. Reagan About a year. Yeah, something like that. So, you know, William, I'm reminded, I know it was this way when you were in seminary as well. We had classes on extemporaneous preaching, in which you'd be called upon as you were going to the pulpit, or as you were standing behind the pulpit, you were given your subject. And you were expecting— William Sturkey We didn't get that opportunity. Dr. Reagan Oh, you didn't do that? Oh, wow. William Sturkey No, no, we didn't do that. Dr. Reagan Oh, yeah. This was a regular part of our training there at Northside School of Preaching in Harrison, Arkansas. We did it at least once a week. And so, you know, this is really challenging because you didn't always get the same subject. They had a list of subjects. They literally put them in a hopper. And the teacher, the professor, would drag a subject out as you're walking to the pulpit. When you turned around, he would say, Okay, Don, today you're speaking on the following subject. And you had to speak for at least five minutes, preferably 10, in order to pass that course and what have you. Well, that kind of reminds me of what I'm doing to you tonight on Isaiah 49. And the theme that I thought we would discuss, and that is the marriage of Israel, or we might say the remarriage of Israel. And I would just simply read. And by the way, folks, let me take note of something. Tom Holland in his book, The Marriage of Israel, or The Marriage of God. What's the name of that, William, do you remember? The Divine Marriage. The Divine Marriage. Yes. Yes. Tom Holland in his book spends a good bit of time exegeting Isaiah 49 as one of the Old Testament prophecies that spoke about the remarriage of God and Israel. So, you know, I'm not just pulling this out of the hat and imagining it as a doctrine. And I know that William understands that as well. So let me read Isaiah 49, beginning with verse 13 and going down through verse 18. Sing, O heavens, be joyful, O earth, and break out in singing, O mountains. For the Lord has comforted his people and will have mercy on his afflicted. But Zion said, The Lord has forsaken me and my Lord has forgotten me. Can a woman, the Lord responds, can a woman forget her nursing child, not have compassion on the son of her womb? Surely they may forget, yet I will not forget you. See, I have inscribed you on the Psalms of my, on the palms of my hands. Your walls are continually before me. Your sons shall make haste, pardon me, your destroyers and those who laid you waste shall go away from you. Lift up your eyes, look around and see. All these gather and come to you. As I live, says the Lord, you shall surely clothe yourselves with them all as an ornament and bind them on you as a bride does. So we have bridal imagery here set in the context of, let's not forget, the context goes back here to verse six in which the Lord says, it's too small a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, to restore the preserved ones of Israel. I will also make you as a light to the Gentiles that you should be my salvation to the ends of the earth. So this is the context. The salvation of Israel is the context of this promise of Israel saying, well, the Lord has forsaken us. He has abandoned us. And the Lord says, no, no, no, no. Just like a woman cannot forget her suckling child, I cannot forget you. And I'm going to bring you back. I'm going to glorify Zion and you're going, William, I find it interesting that he says that the returnees would be like a clothing to Israel, like a bride's clothing. So the floor is yours. Expand on this passage for us. Well, this is like walking me up to the podium right before the time to speak. I would say that what we're looking at here is a time of betrothal. During this period of time, they are going through their time of trial, their time of persecution. It appears that they are forsaken by God. And because of what appears to be, you know, an extended time for them, anytime you're suffering, anytime you're going through a trial period, it always seems longer than what it is. And so what God is telling them is that, you know, he's not forsaking them, that he's going to appear to them. He's going to come to them and deliver them. And as verse 18 says, you know, look up, lift up your eyes around you and see and gather together and come, all these gather together and come to you. So that would be the time of the, you know, the eschatological gathering. That's also the time, you know, when you look at the wedding motif in the New Testament is the time that the clothing of the bride as well, because he's indicating that in the latter part of the text, he says, as I live, says the Lord, you shall surely clothe yourselves with them all as an ornament and bind them on you as a bride does. So this is the time when that victory over their enemies has occurred. And they are, the symbolism is, you know, binding them as an ornament, as a bride decks herself, as she, you know, puts on her garment and her jewelry and everything that it, you know, that it takes to adorn her as she's prepared for the wedding. So I would see that if I'm not mistaken, and, you know, and I could be incorrect, but I'm sure you'll set things right. But that's what I'm seeing in this, that it is the time where the eschatological marriage is taking place after they've been betrothed and go through this period of persecution until the Lord redeems them. Well, I don't see a thing in a world wrong with that. I think it's very well said. I think it's spot on to what Isaiah is trying to convey. And perhaps it would be good for us to take a step back and to find out where this concept of the remarriage actually springs from. And that's the book of Hosea, which is very roughly contemporary with this. We have to remember that in Hosea chapter 2, the Lord speaking to Israel, and to back up a little bit, the Lord gives the metaphor of Himself married to Israel. And even as Isaiah 54, I am your husband, you are my wife, O Israel. So that again is the language. And by the way, folks, there's a marvelous book. It's another one of those that is not cheap, but let me see here. Can you see that? Covenant and the Metaphor of Divine Marriage in Biblical Thought, a study with special reverence, excuse me, reference to the book of Revelation. This, Sebastian Smolars is the author of this book. And I want to tell you, I bought this book, first of all, a couple of years ago. I've forgotten now when it very first came out. It was one of those books that some other scholar cited. Let me see. Yeah, 2011. So it's been out, you know, a short time. But it was cited by another scholar that I was reading. And the citation just made me set up and go, wait a minute. This is really, really good stuff. One of the things that he does is to show that the metaphor of marriage dominates the book of Revelation. And so much so that Kenneth Gentry, who, by the way, is just finishing up his two volumes set on the book of Revelation, which has been like 12, 15 years in production, is now at the printer. So it's going to be available in the very near future. I can't wait to get my hands on it. But nonetheless, in writing a review of Smolars' book on Amazon, he said that Smolars' book had a profound impact on his understanding of the marriage motif in the book of Revelation. Well, Smolars is one of those, and we both know Gentry is, that when we read them, we just go, they got to be full preterist. They've just absolutely got to be full preterist. And so I highly recommend getting this book. It's not the easiest reading book in all of literature. Lots of heavier stuff in it, but his linguistic studies are off the chart good. And his analysis of the linguistics is just dynamite, especially in the book of Revelation. And he obviously takes an early dating of the book of Revelation and its application that Babylon was Old Covenant Jerusalem. That's powerful. That's interesting. I'm looking forward to grabbing a copy. You said it's a little pricey, over a hundred bucks? Yes, under a hundred. I had bought my very first copy some five or six years ago. Well, in the move from our old office to here, that book got lost somehow. Now, if I've got it somewhere, I don't know where it's at. If I find it, you know what'll happen to it. Oh yeah. See all the books on William's shelf back there? About half of them are books that I had bought duplicates of and sent him the extra copies. He says, keep it up, keep it up. That's the small shelf. The one over on the opposite side of the room is lunch. Yeah. Oh yeah. It's cost me a lot of money. But anyway, so back to this marriage motif, Smilarz just does a marvelous job of pointing out how powerful this is in the Tanakh, that is the Old Testament, and how it's drawn over into the New Testament and especially the book of Revelation. So as we suggested, the book of Hosea, which is roughly a contemporary with the book of Isaiah, the Lord says, write her a bill of divorcement. And once again, this is after speaking of Israel as his wife, but he said, he always says, I am not her husband. She is not my wife. Now, remember he had married her. And again, in Isaiah 54, he laments the fact, you know, I am your mecker. I am your God. I am your mecker. I am your husband. You are my wife. But he laments the fact, and he says, where is that bill of divorcement that I wrote you? Which kind of look forward to the future and the remarriage. But even though Yahweh divorced Israel, the 10 northern tribes in the book of Hosea, in Hosea chapter 2, 18 through 23, the Lord said that the time is going to come. And actually verse 16 and 17 says, I will bring you into the wilderness. I will bring you down into the valley of Achor. And there I will speak gently to you and I will speak softly to you. And in that day, I will make a covenant of peace with you, with the animals of the field and with the birds of the air. And then he says, I will betroth you to me again. I will betroth you to me in righteousness. I will betroth you to me in holiness. I will betroth you to me forever. So here is God promising that the time was going to come, that although he was putting her away, and according to Hosea chapter 8, verse 8, she would be swallowed up by the nations. God says he would remarry them. And right here in Isaiah 49, he says, I'm going to, I'm going to bring your children from afar. And I'm going to bring them back. And he says, I'm going to comfort Zion. William, isn't that, you know, we went over Zion at length, you and I did on this program a while back. Isn't Zion pretty much, is the proper word synecdoche, the word, one word standing for the entire complex, for the whole, isn't, isn't the language of God saying, I'm going to comfort Zion, doesn't that cover the entire complex of salvation? Yes, yes, it definitely does. That's, you know, it encompasses everything that relates to what Zion was all about, you know, salvation, fulfillment of all the promises, et cetera. It's almost like a person's name, like when you name the name of God, you're speaking of everything. Or when you, you know, you talk about Yahweh, et cetera, you're speaking of everything that represents his character, his, his power, everything that's related to his, you know, divine essence. Yeah, including covenant. Yes, yes. And that you could, you could almost put that word covenant at the top of that heap of everything that is related to it. So the restoration of Zion and especially in the context of God promising, I'm going to make a covenant with you, a covenant of peace. And William, isn't that really in essence, what marriage is all about from God's perspective? Isn't that the key concept that it's a covenant between himself and his people? Yes, yes, that's definitely the case. He mentions that, of course, you know, even from the Exodus, we see this kind of language going on when they enter, you know, in the covenant relationship with the law. And that's expressed in Ezekiel 16 very clearly when he found them. And then the time came that he entered into a covenant with them and she became his as a bride. So that's exactly what's going on. And it's such beautiful language. I used to have some charts that someone sent me. I've forgotten now who sent them to me, but it was a series of PowerPoint charts examining the Hebrew language, the linguistics of the scene at Sinai and of how so many of the words that are used there in the Hebrew, and I don't know Hebrew from anything, but so many of the words are words that are used throughout the rest of the Old Testament to speak of marriage, to speak of a wedding ceremony and what have you, the tent of meeting and what have you. And so that really, really was enlightening to me. It was exciting to me to see all of this language that was used at Sinai is marital language. And that brings out how important covenant is. So this promise of this covenant in Hosea 2, verse 18 is really an incredibly powerful thing in this life. William, was it not true, was it not true that in Deuteronomy 24 that if a man divorced his wife and she went away, married another man and was put away, if the first husband took her again, that that was an abomination before God? Yeah, it was not allowed. That was against the law for her to return back to the previous husband after she had been with another husband. So in Hosea, here is Israel going off and committing adultery, spiritual adultery with all these other gods and goddesses, that spiritual adultery basically was entering covenant with them, marrying them, although that language is not specifically used, and I understand that. And yet God in the book of Hosea said, I'm going to bring her back to me and I'm going to remarry her. Am I wrong, William? I've said this on different occasions. I have said, I don't know of a more powerful expression of God's overwhelming mercy and grace than His willingness to take the ten northern tribes back, albeit under a totally different covenant, although in a totally different form, but nonetheless, He was going to remarry her after saying in the law it's an abomination to take a woman back after she's committed adultery. Am I wrong on that? Are there some hidden nuances that I'm missing here? No, no. I mean, that's correct, because that was, as you say, it was considered an abomination and a form of humiliation as well. I mean, she was considered disgraced from that point of view. And then for one to take her back, for God to take her back is definitely an expression of His mercy, His grace, and His love for her. And that, you know, really supersedes anything that was even legislated in the law from that point of view. So, as you say, it was done through a new covenant. I've said this very, very often, that when we find examples of God extending His grace and mercy like this, what we're talking about is grace between the lines, because this kind of grace is not found in the law itself. It was forbidden by the law itself. And so, as you say, the only way it could be extended really is for the old law to be done away and for God to establish this new covenant. And that's just mind-blowing in one way, to think about God's love was so sufficient that He would do that. Just, it's incredible. Awesome. Really powerful. So, we have this promise of the remarriage, of God saying that you're going to adorn yourself. Well, why don't we develop that a little bit? And there are just all sorts of Old Testament passages. You know, I've already mentioned Isaiah chapter 54, in which God said, I'm your husband, you're my wife, but He was looking beyond the situation of the divorce. So, we go to Isaiah chapter 54, and we get an indication there that just like God promising to take her back was technically a violation of Torah, we have in Isaiah 54, one and following, Sing, O barren, you have not borne. Break forth into singing and cry aloud. You have not labored with child. For more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married woman, says the Lord. Enlarge the place of your tent. Let them stretch out the curtains of your dwelling. Do not spare. Lengthen the cords and strengthen your stakes. For you shall expand to the right, to the left, and your descendants will inherit the nations and make the desolate cities inhabited. Now, William, seems like I remember Paul using that passage to speak of a different people. Now, I'm bringing that subject up because we'll go back to Isaiah 49 to develop it more, but here we have Paul citing directly from this passage. How does he apply that? Yeah, Galatians chapter 4. Yeah, in Galatians 4, and you know, it's interesting, I remember this text back during the days that we worked with Max King when we were doing the living presence, you know, in those earlier days, and I think it was at that time that I did the study on Galatians, and I had to comment on this passage, and it was a challenging text, and you know, at that time, I hadn't really looked at what anybody else thought about it, but I remember when I finished the lesson, Max came to me, he says, William, he said, you know, most people see that in a different way, he said, but I think you got it correct. But anyway, whether I did or not, I'll tell you what my view is on it, you know, from that perspective. In verse 27 of Galatians 4, you know, he says, Rejoice, O barren you who do not bear, break forth and shout, you who are not in labor, for the desolate has many more children than she who has a husband. And so, my understanding of it was, and is, that the one who was desolate was Sarah, at this particular time, because the wedding had not taken place, and God's relationship with Old Covenant Israel was a relationship of marriage. Of course, we know the northern tribes had, you know, been divorced, but he still had that relationship with Judah. And therefore, at the time of judgment, of course, Judah would be divorced, and the marriage relationship would take place with New Covenant Israel. And so, that's what I see here from this perspective. So, when he says, for the desolate has many more children than she who has a husband, that was the one who was being persecuted. That was those who had entered into that relationship with him as the betrothed bride. Well, go ahead. Well, you know, of course, as Corinthians says in 2 Corinthians 11 and verse 2, Paul said, for I am jealous over you with godly jealousy, for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. So, that betrothal had been entered into. It's much like the case of Mary and Joseph, when before they came together, he had been espoused to her, and she was producing children. And the parallel is so beautiful. It's so great when you compare the two. Mary was pregnant with child of the Holy Spirit. Joseph, who was, you know, unaware of how that came about because he knew he had not been with her, and assumed that, you know, she might have committed adultery, which it would have been even though they were betrothed. They would have been breaking the covenant. And, you know, of course, the Holy Spirit revealed to him in a dream that that was the child of the Holy Spirit, and therefore, he was to go ahead and take his wife. But the Bible clearly says he knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn child. And so, that parallels what took place with the church. The church, by virtue of the Spirit, had begun to produce children in the Spirit before the bride came together in marriage. And so, when he says that, I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ, this would be the time of the betrothal. And that is Ephesians chapter 5, when Paul speaks about the time of the wedding, and says that he would present her holy and without blemish, etc. And that is the time of Revelation chapter 19. But that occurs after Mystery Babylon, which is Jerusalem, is destroyed. Because once that happens, and God has judged the harlot, which was Old Covenant Israel, then he says the time came for the wedding. And that's when she is adorned in her garments for the wedding, righteousness being that garment, and that's righteousness of Christ that she's adorned with. And that comes at the time of the fall of the city, which is 70 AD. It's interesting that I'm doing some responses to Phelan McPhelan on his historical premillennialism, and I just covered that. I haven't uploaded it yet, but I did that video last night, so I'm going to upload it from Matthew chapter 22. And because his idea was that God postponed the wedding because of Jewish unbelief, when in that very video, the people were invited, they didn't come, so he didn't stop the wedding. Because of that, he went and found people who were prepared and who wanted to, and the wedding went on. But anyway, that's the idea. And it's just that theme that runs through Matthew 22, Matthew 24, and 25, because there's no separation between those chapters in terms of time. It's one continuous narrative. And thus, the fall of the city, the fall of the temple in Matthew 24, and the wedding is the same theme of Matthew 22. It's the same theme of Revelation 19 and also Revelation 21. So that's the idea. That's when that betrothal state was consummated in marriage with Christ returning and coming back. Absolutely great. Now let's go back to Galatians chapter 4, and let's take note, because I took note of the fact a few moments ago that the new covenant that God promised in Hosea chapter 2 would be a totally different covenant. Well, it would also be with a, quote, different people. Not that Old Covenant Israel per se would be excluded because it would be with the righteous remnant of Old Covenant Israel that God would do the wedding. But notice in Galatians chapter 4, William mentioned it. He didn't dwell on it, but let's look at it. The woman that was if you please. The woman with children was Hagar bearing Ishmael. I just went blank. William, help me out here. Hagar and Ishmael. Yes. Correct. And they represented the Old Covenant. Now they represented, Paul said, we have two mountains and we have two women that represent two covenants. We have Sarah and Isaac representing the new covenant seed of promise. They're Christians. We have Hagar and Ishmael representing what Paul called the Jerusalem that now is and is in bondage with her children. Well, you have the Old Covenant physical seed of Israel. And he says, cast out the bond woman, that's Hagar, and her son, Old Covenant Israel after the flesh, for the children of the bond woman, Hagar, shall not partake of the inheritance of the seed of promise. Now folks, that tells us an awful lot. Just as Paul said earlier in that very book, Galatians chapter 3, verse 6, only those who are of faith are the children of Abraham. Well, you got children of the flesh through the normal conjugal relations of Hagar and Ishmael. Then you got the miraculous birth to Sarai of Isaac through the Spirit. These are the true sons representatively in Paul's allegory. And Paul says, the children of the bond woman, Israel after the flesh, they are not recipients of the promises. Now the promises were given to them. And if they were one of the righteous, then they obeyed Christ. Just like Peter said in Acts chapter 3, quoting Moses, it shall be that God shall raise up a prophet like unto me. It shall come to pass that whoever will not obey the voice of that prophet shall be cut off out from among the people. In other words, if you obey the law, then you obey Christ. If you don't obey Christ, you're not obeying the law and you are not of the people. You're not Israel. You're not truly Israel. So this is a profound way of saying what John said, John the baptizer said in Matthew chapter 3, when the Pharisees and Sadducees came out to be baptized of him. And he says, who warned you to flee from the wrath that is to come? Do not think within yourselves, oh, we have Abraham to our father. God is able to, of these very stones, you can just see him pointing out the rocks, laying around. God is able of these very stones to raise up children unto Abraham. That's what Paul's saying in Galatians chapter 3, basically, that the children of God are not determined by race. Those who are the inheritors of the promises of Abraham do not get it because they're born of the natural seed of Abraham, but because they are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. So all of this plays into it, and I think it's so critical to honor the fact that he sets forth that allegory, children of the flesh, children of the spirit, and there's only one group that inherits the promises of Abraham, and that's the children of faith who are born of God, not of the flesh, not of the will of man, but by faith. Go ahead. I was just saying the text that came to my mind was John chapter 3, which is just an expansion of John 1, 12, and 13 that you were just citing, when Nicodemus comes to Christ by night and says, you know, Rabbi, Rabbi, we know you are a teacher come from God. No man can do these miracles which you do, except God be with him. And Jesus tells him, except a man is born again. So here is Nicodemus as a Jew coming, and you know, I remember the words of Fort Wallace some years ago said that he was trying to find a backdoor entrance into the kingdom. I don't know if that's true, but nevertheless, you know, Jesus, whatever perceptions he had in mind, very clearly told him that in order for him to enter the kingdom, he had to be born again. He couldn't come by virtue of the birth that placed him into the old covenant, but he had to be born again, not of the flesh, which Nicodemus assumed. He says, well, how do I do that? Do I go back into my mother's womb and be born? So that just negates, as you were saying, this idea of a fleshly relationship to God from that perspective. That's the one that's being canceled out through the new birth in that sense. It doesn't cancel out their ethnicity. It cancels out their covenant relationship through that ethnicity and tells them that now you've got to come, as you said, based on faith. And unless one is born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. He could not see the kingdom of God. And that's what allowed them to have their status before God. And not only that, but it was the Gentiles who likewise would have to come into that covenant so that they formed that unity, as Ephesians 3 says, that they would be partakers in Christ, that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs and partakers of the same promise in Christ by the gospel. So that's what Galatians 3 and 4 is really developing. Dr. Reagan You know, I find it in full corroboration of what you were just saying there. As a matter of fact, it takes it maybe even a step further. When Jesus said, you must be born again, he actually used the second person plural. Dr. Reagan Yes. And I figured you were going to bring that out because I know you're well aware of it. Dr. Reagan Well, I thought about it initially, and then I forgot it as I was going through, but go ahead. Dr. Reagan But so what he is saying here, what Jesus is saying, he's not singling out Nicodemus as a righteous man coming to him and saying, you know, Nicodemus, you need to come forward, you know, be born again. No, no, no. He's saying, Nicodemus, you're a leader of Israel. You're a teacher in Israel. And you, Israel, the nation, will have to be born again. That is so powerful. Dr. Reagan It is. Especially when people are arguing for this national conversion of Israel. Jesus is telling them that they had to be born again and become, you know, one in the Spirit, a new nation in the Spirit. Dr. Reagan That's exactly right. Unrelated to the old, as we just pointed out. Not according to the flesh, but according to faith. And so when you're dealing with this, with all of these concepts, everywhere you turn, it really honestly is a repudiation of the dispensational paradigm and the restoration of national physical Israel. You know, Chris Date, the fellow that I'll be debating tomorrow night, he believes that God's promises to Israel of a national restoration of ethnic Israel remain valid. Now, it seems to me that if you're going to argue that God's promises to physical Israel remain valid, that you're going to have to take the position that the land promises remain valid, that the temple promises remain valid, that the sacrificial cultus promises still stand valid, and that the Levitical priesthood stands valid. Dr. Reagan Exactly. How do you take that Jehoiachin's proverbial penknife and say, oh, well, yeah, God's promises to ethnic Israel stand valid, but not any of the other corollary covenants? Where does a person get that idea? Dr. Reagan Did you mention the land? Did you say the land as well? Dr. Reagan I didn't, but of course, it's directly related. Dr. Reagan And there you go. That's the land as well. Dr. Reagan And I think what's so surprising to me about Chris Date is that although he says these promises and covenants with, quote, physical Israel stands valid, he calls himself an amillennialist. That's not any brand of amillennialism that I knew growing up. In fact, in the circles that you and I grew up in, the amillennial circles that you and I grew up in, if someone suggested that, physical Israel is going to be restored at the second coming, I'm sorry, that's just almost anathema in those amillennial circles. Dr. Reagan Yeah, they cut national Israel off at the cross. Dr. Reagan That's exactly right. Dr. Reagan And did not extend it. As you say often, they didn't know what to do with Romans 11, but they certainly cut Israel off at the cross. Dr. Reagan That's exactly right. So, okay, here we are. We're dealing with this marriage theme. So, to continue with Isaiah chapter 54, and I thought it was really good that we went back to Galatians chapter 4 to show that in Isaiah 54, when God is making this promise of this marriage, that He has slipped in the discussion of a new people, a transformed, redefined Israel. Is that a good way to put that, William? Dr. Reagan Yes. Dr. Reagan Okay. All right, now then watch, verse 4 and following. Do not fear, for you will not be ashamed, neither be disgraced, for you will not be put to shame. And boy, this is just another one of those passages that deals with the shame versus glory motif found throughout all of the Old Testament and carried over into the New of how when Israel was committing idolatry, God called it their shame, but they turned their shame into their glory. And consequently, God would turn that glory into shame, but He would restore them and restore them to glory under the Messiah. So, there's this interweaving of the motifs of shame versus glory and a redefinition of shame versus glory woven into some, and it's, boy, when we go back to Isaiah 49, it is extremely profound in Isaiah chapter 49, but we'll get that as we come to it. So, let me, pardon me, let me continue here in Isaiah chapter 54. Let me read verse 4 again. Do not fear, for you will not be ashamed, neither be disgraced, for you will not be put to shame, for you will forget the shame of your youth and will not remember the reproach of your widowhood anymore, for your mecker is your husband. The Lord of hosts is His name. Your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel. He is called the God of the whole earth, for the Lord has called you like a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, like a youthful wife when you were refused, says the Lord. For a mere moment I have forsaken you, but with great mercies I will gather you. With a little wrath I hid my face from you for a moment, but with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you, says the Lord your Redeemer. So here is God reminding Israel. And again, let's not forget, He sets the foundation for what He's saying about the restoration of Israel within the context of it's going to be a transformed Israel. It's not the old people. It's a new, redefined Israel. And He says the time of their disgrace will be taken away and they will be given honor and glory. And that honor and glory, I think it appropriate to say for certain, would be found in Messiah. He would transform them from shame and disgrace into His children, into sons of God, where there is no shame. You want to pick up on that ever so slightly for a brief moment here, William? Williams Yeah, well, you know, I was looking at verse 5, you know, for your mecker is your husband, the Lord of hosts is his name, and your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel. He's called the God of the whole earth. For the Lord has called you like a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit. A woman who had been cast off was certainly one, as you say, that, you know, that goes right into that dishonored theme. She was dishonored. And, you know, pretty much because of the high honor they had on marriage in Israel for a woman who was, you know, forsaken or cast off like that or without a husband, was definitely, you know, disowned from society, sometimes cast out. And, you know, some people, even in some cultures, you know, they considered her, you know, to such a degree that, you know, she was just personless, if you please, at that point. And so, and to be a young woman at the same time, and then to talk about regathering her or, you know, bringing her back. And so, he says, like a youthful wife, when you were refused, says your God, for a mere moment, I have forsaken you. And another point that I wanted to make here is the way God uses moment in these passages. You know, everybody talks about a moment as if it's like an eye bleak, so to speak. And we know the language of 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 4, you know, in a moment, etc. But this time period of, you know, their being forsaken was much longer than just, you know, an eye flash, so to speak. But that's accommodative language using these prophetic texts to talk about this time of separation, this time where they were going through trial and persecution, etc. And then at the end of that period, you know, it doesn't matter sometimes how long a person may suffer some type of, you know, negative situation, whether it's pain, whether it is, you know, loss of something valuable or whatever, or any type of situation that puts you in the dump, so to speak. Once that relief comes, it just takes away all the time that you went through that trouble, you know, to get that time of relief. And so the emphasis is on, you know, that period when it happened, because he says, with a little wrath, I hid my face from you. Well, that wrath wasn't an eye flash. You know, how much pain can you suffer in an eye flash? Not much. But this was a longer period of time, but he calls it a moment. And I think people need to think about that when they're looking at that term in some of these eschatological passages. Dr. Reagan Well, and perhaps it would be right to point out, the opponents of coveted eschatology really like to say, well, time doesn't mean anything to God. God doesn't talk in time. Well, we are very clearly in this situation, which is a very distinctive situation, we're dealing in which God is informing us. He is telling us that the period of their captivity was, but for a moment, in the overall view. And in Isaiah chapter 27, I think it is, God used the language like this, Isaiah 27, I believe it's 18, somewhere along in there. He said, I have abandoned you as it were, but for a moment. In other words, he's very clearly saying, I don't mean a literal moment. I don't mean literally just a little moment. I'm saying it was only seemingly for a little moment compared to what my restoration is going to be. It's kind of like you were saying there, you know, it doesn't really matter how much a person may suffer for a while. When that's over, that suffering just seems to fade in the past. You know, Jesus used the illustration in John chapter 15 of a woman in travail. And during that labor, I keep going back to Bill Cosby telling how his wife was in labor, and she turned to him and said, you did this to me, I hate you. But then a child is born. And in that passage, Jesus used the word onesis for relief from the pain of childbirth. And he said that relief, and that telepsis, he uses the word telepsis, the pressure of that time, is taken away by the joy that a son is given. So the joy overrides the pain. And that's precisely the concept that we have here in Isaiah chapter 54. I've abandoned you for a little while. Yeah, I think the text you were citing was Isaiah 26 and 20. Ah, exactly. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, 26. My people, enter your chambers and shut your doors behind you. Hide yourself, as it were, for a little moment until the indignation is passed. And I just want to say one more thing about that, you know, since we're talking about this period by way of comparison. Even if you looked at that transition period in the New Testament, you know, it's 40 years of God's long suffering. Well, already, we're 2000 years, pretty much, you know, beyond that point. So look at how that compares. And then just think about for world without end, for an eternity, it makes that a moment. It makes it like a blip, you know, in time by way of comparison. So that's the way to put that in perspective. Exactly right. And none of this has any bearing whatsoever on any ability to mitigate what God would say when He would say, Behold, I'm coming quickly. The day of the Lord is at hand, etc., etc. He meant that, you know, He never said, well, the day of the Lord is, as it were, at hand. We don't find any of that kind of language. And so it would be an absolute eisegetic approach to this passage to try to use it against God's time statements as some people try to do. But again, look what He's doing. He's saying, it's only for a moment. I am going to bring you back because your Maker is your husband. And, pardon me, now notice what He says in the following verses, For this is like the waters of Noah to me. For as I have sworn that the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be angry with you nor rebuke you. For the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall not depart from you, nor shall my covenant of peace be removed, says the Lord, who has mercy on you. You see, here's this covenant of peace again. And let's not forget, this covenant of peace is promised at a later period of time in Ezekiel chapter 37 verse 25 when He promised to bring all 12 tribes back to serve Messiah David their king. That would be the time of this covenant of peace. So once again, He's not talking about restoring Israel under Torah. He's not talking about restoring Israel under the old covenant form or as the old covenant people. He's already set out. It's going to be a new people, it's going to be a new covenant, and it's going to be a new marriage. And with that, it appears to me we're out of time. So we'll pick this up. It is absolutely beautiful, beautiful imagery and language here. And remember folks, the temple stands at the heart of all of this because the temple was the symbol of the covenant. The covenant was the symbol of the marriage. Okay. All right, William, great to be with you again. And folks, thank you for joining us. And with that, I'm going to say good night. God bless. All right. Good night.