[Frank Dunkle] Actually, my introduction,
I've got just going into a little bit of a
story or a narrative.
And it reminded me the last time I visited
down in, I believe it was Lexington.
And there was a fellow there who used to attend
in Prestonsburg, Kentucky when I was pastoring.
So I told him, "Oh I've got a story or something
I'm going to tell that you might have heard
before."
He said, "Oh I bet it has something to do
with history, doesn't it?"
I said, "Well, yeah," I said.
It gave away than a lot of my sermons do.
But this goes back about 400-some years.
It was in the middle 1600s in England.
A somewhat new way of looking at and interpreting
a certain Bible prophecy began gaining prominence.
And it captivated the minds of quite a few
people, not an overwhelming majority but enough
that it became significant especially because
it captured the minds of some people who took
a hand in interfering with politics and government.
It was what became known as the Fifth Monarchy
Movement, and they were often referred to
as Fifth Monarchists.
I remember in my studies, a lot of times seeing
that come up here and there as you're studying
government and political events, which I'm
sure all of you are always reading about what
happened in the latter 1600s in England.
But you'd hear that referenced and often in
reference to some fringe movements.
It's like, "Oh, those Fifth Monarchists again,"
sort of with that tone of voice along with
some other people that you wondered about
where their minds were.
This movement flourished within those who
were called the Puritans.
Now, if you're like most Americans, you think
of Puritans, you're thinking of Thanksgiving
dinner and funny hats with buckles, and things
like that, which isn't entirely inaccurate.
But it's good to remember what we mean when
we say Puritan historically.
And it goes back to the reformation of the
church in England.
You know, when Henry VIII separated from the
Catholic Church, he did so primarily not because
of theological or doctrinal reasons, he wanted
a divorce, and the pope wasn't cooperative.
So following the advice of some of his advisors,
Henry separated and started his own church,
the Church of England.
And instead of the pope, he was in charge
and he got his divorce.
But he didn't change much doctrinally.
And thus, there were people within England
who said, "We need to clean up the church
more.
We need to change doctrine."
And the way they said it is they wanted “to
purify the church.”
Now, as some Puritans, when they didn't have
as much success as they wanted, left England.
Some went to Holland, some came to America
to found their own separate pure church.
But many more of them did stay in England,
seeking to purify what became known as the
Anglican Church from within.
And some of them became Fifth Monarchists.
You know, Fifth Monarchy doesn't sound all
that impressive, but it was a powerful idea
and one that had a strong element of truth.
I'm looking because I just realized the projector
is still on.
I don't know if it's casting a blue light
on my face, but… no, then you won't have
to worry about it.
If you want to show those slides, I could
read the scriptures backwards.
No, I can't.
But this is as bad as when I saw the albino
squirrel.
I'm interrupting myself.
And let me get back to that story.
The truth that the Fifth Monarchists understood
is one that we understand.
So it wasn't bad that they knew this truth
that a lot of people in their church didn't
want to agree with.
It's the fact that they decided to base everything
upon that and take matters into their hand.
It became the central feature of their worldview
or what we might call their paradigm.
I struggled a little with whether I should
use that word because I never feel like I'm
using it quite correctly.
But it was their framework for viewing the
world.
So to get an understanding of that, if you'll
turn with me to Daniel 2, and I'm going to
go beyond the history lesson in a moment.
But the prophecy that they gained an understanding
of or at least partial understanding was one
that we discuss fairly often.
And Daniel 2, of course, is the story of King
Nebuchadnezzar, the first Babylonian emperor,
having this disturbing dream.
And he saw this dream and it included this
fascinating image made of different metals.
And he was so bothered he called all of his
advisors, his soothsayers.
He said, "You've got to tell me the meaning
of this dream.
Oh, and by the way, you have to tell me the
dream itself."
And they sort of said, "What you're asking
is impossible.
Nobody can tell your dream and tell you what
you dreamed and then what it means."
But of course, there was one man who was able
to because God gave him the meaning.
And Daniel did that.
Daniel 2:31, Daniel, through the miracle of
God giving him this understanding, told Nebuchadnezzar.
He said, “You, O, king were watching; and
behold, a great image!
This great image, whose splendor was excellent,
stood before you; its form was awesome.
The image's head was a fine gold, its chest
and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of
bronze, and its legs of iron, it’s feet
partly of iron and partly of clay.
And you watched while a stone was cut out
without hands, which struck the image on its
feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces.
And then the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and
gold were crushed together, and became like
chaff in the summer threshing floors; the
wind carried them away, no trace was found.
And the stone that struck the image became
a great mountain and filled the whole earth."
Now, as I said, this was all the more miraculous
because Nebuchadnezzar hadn't told Daniel
what he saw on the dream but it was this.
God also gave Daniel the interpretation.
As he continues in verse 36, "This is the
dream.
Now we'll tell the interpretation before the
king.
You, O king, are a king of kings.
For the God of heaven has given you a kingdom,
power, strength, and glory; wherever the children
of men dwell, or the beasts of the field and
the birds of the heaven, He has given them
to your hand, has made you a ruler over them
all — you are the head of gold."
I imagine Nebuchadnezzar swallowed his gum
at that point or breathed hard.
And, "I'm the head of gold."
And Daniel said, "After you shall arise another
kingdom inferior to yours; then another, a
third kingdom of bronze, which will rule over
all the earth.
And the fourth kingdom shall be as iron…
as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks
in pieces and shatters everything; and like
iron that crushes, that kingdom will break
in pieces and crush all others.
And whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly
of potter's clay, partly of iron, the kingdom
will be divided; yet, the strength of iron
shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed
with the ceramic clay."
And he goes on here.
I want to skip down to verse 44.
"In the days of these kings the God of heaven
will set up a kingdom which will never be
destroyed; the kingdom will not be left to
other people; it’ll break in pieces and
consume all these kingdoms, and it'll stand
forever."
Let me stop there because I think you've probably
heard this explained and discussed many times.
The Fifth Monarchists came to understand as
we do that the four kingdoms prophesied were
ones that would dominate the world scene.
First, was Babylon.
As it said, Nebuchadnezzar was the head of
gold.
The second was Persia.
The Persian Empire or Medo-Persian, as we
say.
The third would be the Greek Empire founded
by Alexander the Great.
And the fourth would be the Roman Empire.
We believe and understand that the stone cut
out without hands represents Jesus Christ
when He returns to establish His Kingdom that'll
rule for a thousand years, which we refer
to as the Millennium.
The Fifth Monarchists differed.
They believed everything right up to that
point, but they believed that the Fifth Monarchy
in this dream, like the previous four, would
be a human kingdom.
But they believed that it would be religious
in tone.
They expected it to prepare the way for Christ's
return.
Thus, with that in mind, they adapted prophecies
that we read of the Millennium.
And they believe that it meant that God's
chosen people and the Kingdom that they would
establish would rule for a thousand years
and then Christ would return.
That's a belief that still exists in some
places among those who call themselves Christians.
The technical term for that is post-millennialist,
believing that Christ will return after the
Millennium.
They believed that this Fifth Monarchy, depicted
in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, would be established
not by Jesus Christ, not by God Himself but
by saints, by the Christians.
When I say “saints,” the Puritans refer
to themselves as the saints.
Now, you might be thinking, "Okay.
So far this is an interesting history lesson.”
And I have avoided getting into the names
of their leaders or some particular events.
But as I said, the reason I wanted to discuss
it is that the Fifth Monarchists came to see
everything that was going on around them and
what they thought they should do through the
lens of this particular belief.
That belief guided everything they should
do.
And so that led them to get involved in an
uprising against the government.
If we need this Fifth Monarchy to come about
and it's going to be led by the saints, we're
the saints.
We got to get busy and overthrow the government.
They joined in the rebellion against Charles
I, fought in the civil wars.
At first, they supported Oliver Cromwell.
But when Cromwell made himself Lord Protector,
the Fifth Monarchists were among those who
said, "Well, you took the crown off Charles
I and put it on yourself."
And so they joined the uprising against Cromwell.
Yeah, I'm saying this too fast.
Later on, of course, the dynasty was restored.
After Cromwell died and his son's reign didn't
work out very well, Charles II came to the
throne.
The Fifth Monarchists realized that that was
not going to be a thousand-year reign of godliness
so they worked at overthrowing that government.
And splinters of the Fifth Monarchist Movement
would remain for many decades afterwards.
And as I said, you see references to it in
various histories of all those Fifth Monarchists.
“Here they are again.
We got to deal with them.”
Interestingly, as I said, they participated
in movements and in actions because of their
belief in one part of the Bible that directly
contradicted other parts of the Bible.
I think particularly of the sections of Romans
13 and of 1 Peter 2 that tell us to obey the
governing authorities, to pay our taxes, to
submit to rulers because God establishes them.
And it's worth thinking about.
Could this happen to us?
Could it happen to you or to me?
Could we ever have a part of the truth, and
then let that shape… or shape that into
a paradigm that gives us a limited or distorted
view of all the rest of the truth?
I thought of this idea actually in reading
a scripture in the book of Isaiah, Isaiah
29.
We'll begin in verse 9 if you'll join me there,
because I likened what the Fifth Monarchists
we're doing to this.
Isaiah 29 beginning in verse 9, says, "Pause
and wonder!
Blind yourselves and be blind!
They're drunk, but not with wine; they stagger,
not with intoxicating drink."
Here, it seems that he's referring not…
he said, "Oh it's not wine, it's whiskey."
No, it's not any type of intoxicating drink.
He says, "The Eternal has poured out on you
the spirit of deep sleep, has closed your
eyes, namely, the prophets; He's covered your
heads, namely, the seers."
There are some places in the Bible where alcohol
or inebriation is used to be symbolic of people's
thoughts being clouded by some ideas.
Sometimes, it's a philosophy or a false doctrine.
And it's portrayed as being somewhat intoxicating.
I'll give you a couple references in the book
of Revelation.
For instance, Revelation 17:4, mentions a
woman with a wine cup full of abominations,
and that's a familiar image.
But we don't think of her carrying a cup that's
full of literal wine.
Likewise, a bit later in Revelation 18:3,
it says, "All the nations drank the wine of
the wrath of her fornication."
All I'm saying is, you know, that catching
on to an idea if it's a wrong idea and using
it incorrectly can distort proper view of
other things.
You know, it can happen to God's people.
It's happened to people in the past.
I thought I would look at some other examples
besides the Fifth Monarchists.
For one example of a case study let's consider
a broad easy one first.
We can find it starting with Colossians 2.
Colossians 2 beginning in verse 13.
This is one that a lot of our men might be
familiar with seeing it on the list of what
we call difficult scriptures, a great source
for a sermonette to describe, "Okay, why doesn't
this mean what it's commonly interpreted to
mean?"
Colossians 2 beginning in verse 13, and I'm
breaking into a thought.
But here Paul writes, "You being dead in your
trespasses and the uncircumcision of your
flesh, He has made alive together with Him,
having forgiven all your trespasses, having
wiped out the handwriting of requirements
that was against us, which was contrary to
us.
And He has taken it out of the way, having
nailed it to the cross."
He took it away and nailed it to the cross.
Imagine if this passage of scripture is your
starting point with Christianity.
What if you come across this first and you
say, "This is going to shape everything I
look at and believe."
What if it shapes your paradigm?
You would look through it and say, "What is
the requirements that was against us?"
Well, the easy answer is all the Old Testament
law.
And you might say, "Well, hey!
It's nailed to the cross."
If that's my paradigm, it's going to strongly
affect how I read the Old Testament.
I might not bother to read it at all.
What an intoxicating idea.
When you read all the requirements on all
the things it says to do, how liberating.
“Tithing, do I need to do that?
Nailed to the cross.
Do I have to worry about dietary laws?
Nailed to the cross.
Seventh-day Sabbath?
Nailed to the cross.”
If what I do or don't do is guided by this,
it's going to give me a very different view
than we have today.
And by the way, please, no one take this out
of context.
I'm not saying that God's law is nailed to
the cross, not in the least.
Now, I'm not going to take the time today
to thoroughly explain this scripture, but
it's about Christ's sacrifice freeing us from
the required death sentence.
You know, the handwriting of ordinance as
you could say is the sentence that of the
punishment that's due, you know, because of
breaking God's law.
But God's law was in no way nailed to the
cross.
But Jesus Christ, when He was crucified, did
pay the penalty that we owe.
The fact that you're all here today, I believe,
is a good indication that you understand that.
Your paradigm for viewing the institution
of God's law is superior than seeing it as
nailed to the cross.
But there's other ways we could look at things,
and there's one I thought of that has affected
many people in God's Church including me and
probably many of you.If we turn to Exodus
18.
We read an interesting account.
It's an event that happened after God had
brought the children of Israel out of Egypt.
But before He spoke the Ten Commandments from
Mount Sinai.
So the Israelites are somewhat disorganized
and they're moving through the wilderness.
And in this account, Moses' father-in-law,
Jethro, comes on the scene bringing Moses'
wife and children.
The professor in me can't resist mentioning
that the Hebrew for father-in-law could properly
be and translated as brother-in-law.
Basically, it's relative by marriage because
I'm thinking, "Boy, Moses is 80 years old.
How old is his father-in-law at this point?"
Although father-in-laws can live a long time
and be very robust.
I have to say that since mine's here visiting.
That's off the subject of what I wanted to
talk about here.
But here in chapter 18 verse 17, "Moses' father-in-law
said to him," that is to Moses, "The thing
you do is not good.
You and these people that are with you will
surely wear yourselves out.
This is too much for you."
He said this because he saw Moses standing
all day with a line of people waiting to see
him to ask about God's law and what to do.
He said, "Listen now to my voice," this is
verse 19, "I'll give you counsel, and God
will be with you: stand you before God for
the people, so that you may bring difficulties
to God.
And you'll teach them statutes and laws, show
them the way that they must walk, and the
work they must do.
Moreover, select from all the people able
men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating
covetousness; place such over them to be rulers
of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of
fifties, and rulers of tens.
And let them judge the people at all times.
And it'll be that every great matter they'll
bring to you, but every small matter, they'll
judge themselves."
And it goes on to say that Moses, he did it.
You know, and we wonder, it doesn't describe
him talking to God about it, but we know another
place as it says Moses talked to God very
often.
Probably, he got God's approval.
And they set this up, a very effective form
of administration and government.
So effective that many armies, most armies
use this, so do many organizations.
And it would be possible to look at this and
say, "Okay, that's my paradigm for how every
organization has to be formed.
I can view all other aspects of administration
and leadership through it."
If I have that as my central focus, I'm going
to look at in the New Testament for that type
of structure.
You know, and I would probably see Peter as
being outspoken and at the forefront and say,
"He must have been the chief apostle."
We know the Catholic Church did exactly that.
And they put a pope at the top of a hierarchical
government, you know, with layers through
cardinals and archbishops, bishops, priests.
And I know I'm leaving some out, but all the
way through deacons to the masses of people.
Within the Church of God in previous decades,
we did something similar.
We designated an apostle as the unquestionable
leader of the church under Jesus Christ, of
course, and we always said that.
But then there was a level of evangelists
and then pastors, preaching elders, local
elders, deacons.
And I'm not saying or implying that the form
of church government we used was wrong.
No, it had some problems, but it also had
great advantages, and it followed a biblical
model.
I have no criticism of that form of organization.
But what I would criticize is adopting a paradigm
that says, "That's the only form of organization
that could ever be valid."
The only thing the Bible would support.
I think if I did that, I would be blinding
myself to some other things that are within
the Bible.
For instance, Acts 15.
We'll turn there to see not necessarily a
father-in-law saying, "Do this," but an example
of a different way of doing things.
Acts 15 describes the early Church finding
a way to settle a disagreement.
A large disagreement had to reason about,
"Hey, we got people coming into the Church
who aren't Jewish.
They haven't been circumcised.
Do they need to be, to be part of the Church?"
Some people said, "Well, yes, of course, they
do."
Other people said, "No, that's not for them."
We'll pick up reading in chapter 15 verse
6.
"Now the apostles and the elders came together
to consider the matter.
And when there had been much dispute, Peter
rose up."
So much dispute means a lot of discussion,
different opinions, you know, different arguments
for different ways of interpreting.
“Peter rose up and said: ‘Men and brethren,
you know that a good while ago God chose among
us, that by my mouth, the Gentiles should
hear the word of the gospel and believe.’"
I'm going to break off reading there, but
Peter was referring back to an incident that's
described in this book in chapter 11.
When God showed Peter a vision, a vision of
the sheep coming down with different animals
and such, and that led to him going to this
Roman army soldier, Cornelius.
And basically, God gave Cornelius the Holy
Spirit before…
I shouldn't say before he was circumcised.
For all we know, Cornelius was never circumcised,
but Peter baptized him.
Who am I to withhold water when God's poured
out the Spirit on him?
What we see here in this story though is not
Peter presiding as chief apostle and then
making a ruling.
We see him so far of one voice, a very significant
and influential voice giving testimony as
part of this conference.
We move on then in verse 12.
It says, "Then all the multitude kept silent
and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring
how many miracles and wonders God had worked
through them among the Gentiles."
Okay.
They made their testimony.
After that in verse 13, we see the apostle
James.
“After they had become silent, James answered,
and said, ‘Men and brethren, listen to me.’"
James answers and he's going to give a proposal.
“And then it would seem…” actually,
I want to skip down to verse 19, his proposal.
"Therefore I judge that we shouldn't trouble
those who are among the Gentiles who are turning
to God, but write to them that they abstain
from things polluted by idols, from sexual
immorality, and from things strangled by blood.’"
And it goes on, and the conference then makes
a decision.
As it says in verse 22, "It pleased the apostles
and the elders, and the whole of the church,
to send chosen men of their own company to
Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas
and Silas, and leading men among the brethren."
And my point isn't to focus on church government
today, but rather to use this as an example.
It's possible that in this conference, they
might have taken some type of a vote or a
consensus, or, you know, they discussed this.
We don't really know for sure.
But we do know that today, the United Church
of God follows an organizational structure
closer to what we see in Acts 15 than what
we read about in Exodus 18.
You know, our structure has some problems,
and it has great advantages, and it follows
the biblical model.
A person could adopt a paradigm with this
at its core so that he would judge all the
church organizations by this model.
And to be honest, I think that would be as
blinding as saying the other one is the only
way.
But this came to mind because I remember well
back, especially the late '90s early 2000s
when, you know, there was division among those
who left of what was then the Worldwide Church
of God.
You know, I talked to some people who had
been good friends but they said, "I can't
consider the United Church of God to be a
valid part of the body of Christ," because
they said, "you don't have a one-man in charge
government."
That single reference point colored their
view of everything about this organization.
It made me think what was not decisive in
their view?
What was not was how well we were preaching
the gospel.
That wasn't a consideration.
How much we were teaching?
I was about to say treaching.
Were we teaching true biblical doctrine?
Were we caring for the brethren?
As I said, "I think that should be a part
of that paradigm."
But the particular paradigm of it's got to
be this form of organization or nothing at
all I think has caused and maintained division
within the Body of Christ.
It's not hard to think of other things that
can come up, other ideas, other interpretations
that could cause division or maintain division.
You know, there are some that are shaping
people's paradigms today.
And I should pause because I'm not saying
that it's wrong to have a paradigm or that
there are no hard and fast rules to make decisions
by, you know, of course, we have to.
What's wrong is when… or what can be damaging,
I don't even want to say wrong because I struggled
with giving this message because I thought
this is an important subject.
But that I'm not the pastor in the congregation.
I don't want to be corrective.
And that's not what this is meant to be.
I thought maybe it's more of a cautionary
tale.
When I think of those Fifth Monarchists and
what they got involved in.
And as I say, it can be harmful when you adopt
one very narrow point of view through which
you see everything else especially if that
one point is not correct.
But as I said, there are hard and fast truths
that everything does have to fit.
And that's where we want to make sure we're
aligned with.
But some of the things that I think shouldn't
be central to us or some of what we sometimes
call are fringe doctrinal issues.
You know, there's things that come up on a
regular basis.
How do you pronounce God's name?
These various Hebrew roots issues.
You know, should I be wearing tassels?
Am I allowed to trim my beard?
I hope so.
I did.
You know, can I have my furnace run on the
Sabbath day?
That's kindling a fire.
How am I supposed to observe the land Sabbath?
It's not wrong to think about these questions.
Not wrong to necessarily have differing opinions
on them.
I think we should find answers to them.
I think though it could be harmful to myself
and to others in the Church if I allow that
one of those topics to become the center of
a paradigm by which I view and just interpret
everything else.
I thought of this imaginary scenario I made
up.
So please don't think this is real.
It's not happening that I know of.
But imagine a group of people have become
enamored with the land Sabbath.
As it's first described in Exodus 23.
I'm not going to turn there, but it first
comes up in Exodus 23:10-11.
Imagine there's a group that says, "This is
a moral eternal law, a spiritual law that
we must follow on every detail as described
in ancient Israel."
And I'm not entirely unsympathetic to that…
well, to part of that line of reasoning.
I believe God gave that law.
I believe God wants us to be very good stewards
of our property, and that's one of the reasons
He gave the land Sabbath.
God doesn't want us to overwork and exhaust
our land.
God also wanted to teach the people of ancient
Israel to trust Him, you know?
And you're in an agricultural society, and
say, "Once every seven years, I'm just not
going to plant anything.
You know, my God is going to make so much
grow in the sixth year that I can get by."
That's exercising faith.
Now, modern Christians don't live under the
civil administration of Israel's national
law.
But we can ensure to observe the spiritual
principles that underlie the land Sabbath
and allowing the land to like fallow once
every seven years will accomplish that.
And what I'm looking at is if focusing on
that land Sabbath became my central paradigm.
You know, I view everything through that.
Imagine how it might lead to some imbalanced
thinking and actions.
I might say “Since God established the land
Sabbath, He must have done so from creation,
and that those particular seventh years are
the only ones.
So I've got to study the calendar very thoroughly.
I've got to make sure I'm keeping the land
Sabbath on the right year.”
And so I immerse myself into the study of
history and calendars.
So I study intensively.
And I'm so convinced of this.
I believe that all people everywhere have
to keep it exactly on those years.
I turn myself into a missionary to convince
everybody that they've got to keep the land
Sabbath the way I understand it to be.
And if they're not, they're not true Christians.
By the way, please nobody edit and take that
out of context.
But I might then look at Leviticus 25, and
it talks about the Jubilee year, which is
based on the land Sabbath, these 50-year cycles.
“Wow!
That's very significant.
If I study those then, I'm sure I can determine
all types of prophetic events.
I'll be able to figure out what year the Great
Tribulation is going to start.
I'll know when Christ is going to return if
I can just study the land Sabbaths and keep
them properly.”
Does that sound like I've become intoxicated
with an idea?
I'm letting it carry me away.
I've created this paradigm that, you know,
puts things out of wax.
Out of whack, not wax.
I'm looking through a distorted lens.
You know, and I don't think that's what God
intended.
And I say that…
I put a note in here in different colored
ink to remind me anytime I've planted gardens
on my property, I've kept the land Sabbath.
I think it's a good thing to do, but it's
not at the center of my thinking of how to
practice Christianity.
And again, that's just an imaginary scenario
of how things could maybe get out of whack,
not wax.
Okay.
So if I'm trying to make a case that there
are things, there are understandings that
we should not make central to how we live
and how we discern and interpret the world,
you know, is it better to make a list of what
those things are?
You know, I could think of some.
I think what should not be central to my view
of Christianity is an interpretation of end
time prophecy, you know?
And I don't think end time prophecy is unimportant.
I like to study it.
I think we need to pay attention.
Jesus did tell us, "Watch."
But, you know, if you let one particular interpretation
shape everything, you know, if you want some
interesting reading when you go home later,
Google the Great Disappointment of the 1800s.
You'll see some interesting stuff.
I don't think my central viewpoint should
be shaped by who I believe or do not believe
as the only God-ordained person to be in charge
of the Church.
I don't think that wouldn't be instructive.
It shouldn't be my determination of what's
the proper way to pronounce the name of God.
And there are plenty of other things.
As I said, I could start making up a long
list of what I think shouldn't guide my paradigm.
But then, “Come on, Frank, what should it
be?”
That'd be a lot easier, right?
Does the Bible say this is the central thing?
This is first.
And actually, I think the Bible does tell
us in a sense.
It doesn't use those terms but Jesus Christ
answered some important questions along that
line.
I want to turn to Luke 10, Luke 10:25.
I find this interesting because this part
of my message fits very well with what Mr.
Metzel was covering.
And I don't plan to turn to Mark at all.
So between the synoptic gospels, we've got
this covered.
Luke 10:25, “Behold, a certain lawyer stood
up and tested Him," the “Him” being Jesus
Christ, “saying, ‘Teacher, what shall
I do to inherit eternal life?’”
What's the key to living forever?
Surely, nothing we can think of is going to
be more central to our thinking.
What's more important and how do I live forever?
Jesus answered the lawyer's question with
a question of His own.
I think not because Jesus was unwilling to
answer but He knew that the answer was readily
available.
Jesus said, "What's written in the law?
What is your reading of it?"
He said, "What do you think?
What do you think is the right paradigm?
What lens should we view it through, Mr. Lawyer?"
And he answered.
He didn't say Mr. Lawyer, but that lawyer
answered and said, "Well, you shall love the
Lord your God with all your heart and all
your soul and all your strength and all your
mind."
We were there earlier.
That's Deuteronomy 6:5.
And he adds to it, "And your neighbor as yourself."
That's from Leviticus 19:18.
I’d love to say I've got that in my memory
all the time, but I've got it written in my
notes.
Okay, Jesus asked him, "What do you think
is the key to having an eternal life?
What's central?"
"Love the Lord your God with all your strength,
heart, and mind.
Love your neighbor as yourself."
And you know what Jesus answered?
He said, "You have answered rightly.
Do this and you will live.”
That's pretty succinct.
"Do this and you will live.
Love the Lord with all you've got.
Love your neighbor as yourself."
Is that it?
You might say, "Surely, there has to be more
to it than that," but he didn't say that.
Well, the lawyer talking to Jesus maybe thought
so because then he's got a follow-up.
"Well, who is my neighbor?"
Jesus answered by telling the parable of the
good Samaritan, which I'm not going to study
today.
It's always good reading, but I think we understand
it basically teaches us that human beings
are all our neighbors.
Someone in need is our brother that we should
love as ourself.
Aside from that, there might still be room
to further elaborate on these commands.
You know, how do I love the Lord my God with
everything I've got?
How do I love my neighbor besides if I see
him wounded on the side of the road, binding
him up and taking him to an inn?
Well, that's where Matthew 19 comes in.
Sorry, I keep glancing up at the clock.
I wasn't sure how long this would take.
Matthew 19 beginning in verse 16, a similar
question comes up and in this time, Jesus
did answer with further detail.
And I'm glad because rather than me coming
up with a long list of what I think is the
way to fulfill, love the Lord your God first
and love your neighbor as yourself, He gives
an answer that shows us exactly where to get
the greater elaboration.
So Matthew 19 beginning in verse 16, "Now
behold, one came and said to Him," once again,
to Jesus, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall
I do that I may have eternal life?"
Same question.
What do I have to do to live forever?
Jesus Christ clears up one thing first.
“He said, ‘Why do you call Me good?
No one is good but One, that's God.’”
So Jesus Christ properly deferred to the Father,
which we have always taught.
But then He goes further.
"If you want to enter into life, keep the
commandments."
That's the answer to how to have eternal life.
Keep the commandments.
“And he said, ‘Which ones?’"
And if you read from, you know, basically
starting in Exodus 20 to the end of Deuteronomy,
there are quite a few commandments including
the land Sabbath.
Is that one?
Well, Jesus said…
I imagine He might have got a little-exasperated
look, He says, "Well, ‘You shall not murder,’
‘Don't commit adultery,’ ‘You shall
not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false
witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your
mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor
as yourself.’"
These are several of the Ten Commandments,
and then the second of the greatest commandment,
which sums them up.
Now, there has been the theological debate
since the Middle Ages and I think before about,
“Well, why didn't He list the first four
commandments?”
You know, “Have no other gods before Me.
No graven images.
Don't take the Lord's name in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.”
We can guess and argue because the answer
isn't given, but part of me thinks perhaps
if this fellow was representing the Pharisees,
I think they had that part down.
They've learned their lesson from the Babylonian
captivity to not worship idols and not take
God's name in vain.
I think they had a lot to learn about loving
their brother as themselves.
So rather than worry about…
“Are the first four commandments out of
the 10 included?”
I think the Ten Commandments come and go as
a unit, and we see that pretty clearly in
the Bible.
But we could pause and give some thought to
what else did Jesus not say was vital for
having eternal life?
As I said, I think the first four of the Ten
Commandments are implied in what Jesus said,
"If you want to have life, keep the commandments."
What did he not say you have to do to have
life?
How about being able to correctly calculate
the 70-weeks prophecy?
Nope.
Properly pronouncing the Hebrew version of
God's name?
Nope.
Wearing tassels on your garments, never trimming
your beard?
He doesn't mention that, nor does Christ mention
church government.
You have to have captains of 10s and captains
of 50s.
No.
He doesn't even mention the land Sabbath,
much to my chagrin.
That was meant to be funny.
So I'm not really hung up on the land Sabbath.
Although like I said, I keep the land Sabbath.
I'm not saying that none of these things matter.
They do matter.
They're worthy of our study.
Matter of fact, before I was reviewing this
in my mind, thinking, "Wait.
If I go too far, people will think, ‘Oh,
all you had to do is know the Ten Commandments.'"
We'd cut A.B.C. down to a one-week session
or less.
I'd be out of a job.
So I think it's worthy of studying all of
the Bible, certainly.
But I think I can say with great confidence
if there is a paradigm through which we should
view life, if there is a central element that
we have to look at first and then the others,
it seems to be the Ten Commandments.
You know, what must I do to have life?
And Jesus Christ said, "Keep the commandments."
Now, looking, it's in that Luke version He
said, "Do this and you'll live."
The Ten Commandments are a breakdown of how
to love the Lord your God with everything
you've got, how to love your neighbor as yourself.
It's the perfect law of love.
If I let any other thing, any other idea take
center place in my thinking, then I'm doing
what the Fifth Monarchists did.
I'm making a mistake.
I might become blinded.
I'm setting myself up to become intoxicated
by some other ideology or some philosophy.
That's not what Jesus said to do to have life.
Now, there's one other question that comes
up or at least… maybe, I shouldn't say one
other one because I don't want to limit because
I learned that people can come up with a lot
of questions that I don't think of.
But you might think, "Well, what about what's
ahead?
Keeping the Ten Commandments is great, but
what about Christ's return and prophecy.
And you know, a whole lot of the Bible is
made up of prophecy.
The Ten Commandments don't seem to address
that."
We've got a legitimate interest in prophecy.
You know, I've got this goal of inheriting
eternal life.
That makes me wonder, "Okay, when does that
start?
You know, what's going to happen first?"
You know, a lot of the Bible is prophecy.
As I said, the Ten Commandments were basic
to understanding everything else, but do they
address that at all?
I've got a thought that they do in a way we
might not think of.
If we… and maybe I think of this because
I've been going through the book of Deuteronomy
and I teach that.
And there is one school of thought that much
of the book of Deuteronomy consists of expansion
on the Ten Commandments.
After Deuteronomy 5, there's sections on…
you know, part of Deuteronomy 6 is showing
how do you love the Lord your God first, you
know, how is you have no other gods before
Him, and other things like that.
And I'm not sure if I buy all of that, but
one of the thoughts is it goes into the Holy
Day schedule.
And of course, we call the seven annual Holy
Days, seven annual Sabbaths.
If we consider the command to remember the
Sabbath day and keep it holy, to include the
annual Sabbath, I think it gives us a good
paradigm for looking at prophecy.
God calls the Sabbaths, holy convocations.
They are listed in Leviticus 23 right alongside
the weekly Sabbath.
When we begin obeying the command to keep
them, and we study God's Word guided by His
Holy Spirit, we as a Church have come to realize
that they do give us a paradigm, a framework
for looking at all the rest of prophecy.
We call it God's plan of salvation.
In other words, I say the Holy Days provide
this paradigm through which all of prophecy
I think could be viewed.
And it does so much better than calculating
the Jubilee year back to creation.
I thought it might be worth just thinking
about it just as a brief review.
Every day, the Holy Day season begins with
Passover.
Of course, Passover is listed as a Festival,
not a holy convocation in itself.
But what does it represent?
It reminds us partly of the commandments because
it reminds us of the unavoidable penalty for
sin.
That penalty had to be paid and Jesus Christ,
our Creator… you know, the Father created
us through Jesus Christ.
To refer back to Mr. Myer's sermon, but He
paid the penalty, makes it possible for there
to be a future, for prophecy to have meaning.
And then immediately following, there's the
week-long Days of Unleavened Bread, showing
us that we must strive to live by the commandments.
We must put sin out of our lives, which we
symbolize by putting leaven out of our homes.
But we also need to put something else in,
we eat unleavened bread.
We think of Jesus Christ representing the
bread of life.
And I think there's a direct tie that goes
into the next Holy Day on the schedule, which
is Pentecost, the Feast of Firstfruits, the
day when God poured out the Holy Spirit on
the Church.
Of course, it reminds us that it's only possible
to live by His commandments through His Holy
Spirit.
That's what gives us the power, makes it possible.
But another important thing when we think
of that paradigm of prophecy, this opens up
the understanding that God is working with
all of mankind in stages.
There are firstfruits.
That means, there's going to be later fruits.
That makes it understandable or much more
understandable that term first resurrection
that comes up in the book of Revelation.
Well, if there's the first resurrection there
must be one that's not first.
We commonly use the term second and sometimes,
third.
We keep that in mind as we go to the autumn
Festivals, the Feast of Trumpets.
Putting all the prophecies with that, it reminds
us at the end of this age, there's going to
be a time of tribulation, a time of trouble.
But that'll culminate in the return of Jesus
Christ.
He'll set up that Kingdom of God that the
Puritan Fifth Monarchists were not able to
do.
And God will then resurrect all those people
whom He’s called and in whom He's put His
Spirit.
That first resurrection that we talked about.
They all inherit eternal life and rule with
Christ for, as we'll see, a thousand years.
But in between, there's another important
event, the Day of Atonement.
It reminds us, I like to say, of the necessity
for taking responsibility.
Jesus Christ took the responsibility for the
sins of mankind by paying their penalty.
And that's why, of course, in the ceremony
described in Leviticus 16, there were two
goats.
One goat represents Jesus Christ paying that
penalty.
The other goat represents Satan the devil,
taking responsibility for leading all mankind
into sin.
He's got to take the responsibility for what
he has done, and he'll be banished for a thousand
years.
That's a great part of my framework for prophecy
because I wonder “How could people possibly…
you know, how could the world be different?”
It's going to be different.
That leads into the 1,000 year reign of Christ
pictured each year by the Feast of Tabernacles,
in contrast to the era of misery with mankind's
self-rule deluded by Satan.
People are going to be prosperous, healthy,
happy, led by Jesus Christ and the saints
who will rule with Him, who by the way, hopefully,
will be us.
I say hopefully only because we have to do
our part in that.
And as good as that sounds, it's not the end
because most of mankind for thousands and
thousands of years hasn't had the opportunity
to take part in this.
And so there is one last Holy Day, the Eighth
Day, which we commonly call the Last Great
Day.
It shows us that all people who have ever
lived are going to live again.
They're going to have a full and legitimate
opportunity to turn to God, to choose eternal
life.
Now, there's lots of details about God's plan
and about what happens within that framework,
how it's going to unfold.
You know, we can pull that out of prophecies
scattered throughout the Bible.
But that framework of the Holy Days, that
annual system that shows us God's plan of
salvation shows us how to put those in their
proper place, how they relate to each other.
It's viewing these prophecies and viewing
those prophecies through the lens of the Holy
Day calendar, makes it all clear and helps
us not get off track.
I believe that framework is the correct framework.
It's the one that we want to look through
at prophecy.
We don't interpret all other prophecies through
the Olivet Prophecy, as fascinating and exciting
as it is.
We don't start with Ezekiel 4 and 5, even
though it's fun to act that out.
Well, not literally.
I've never shaved off all my hair and weighed
it out.
But you know, the message is to the Churches
in Revelation 2 and 3.
Interesting and fascinating but it's best
to look at those through the Holy Day plan,
not even the image that Nebuchadnezzar saw
and described in Daniel 2.
And as I said, the Holy Days provide a proper
long view of God's plan.
And then the Ten Commandments give us a proper
view and guide for how to conduct our lives
knowing what's ahead.
And I think Jesus Christ put the Commandments
first because… well, I've thought about
this.
What if we didn't understand the plan?
What if we didn't know about the Great Tribulation,
about Christ's return?
About, maybe even the second resurrection,
but we did follow God's Law and live by the
Commandments?
There's a part of me, and this is my own personal
speculation because I think understanding
one will lead to understanding of the other.
As I said if you understand that you need
to keep the Sabbath that leads you to understand
that you need to keep the annual Holy Days,
and keeping them and studying the Word leads
to understanding that plan.
But if for some reason it didn't, and you
just obeyed the Commandments, I suspect you'd
come up in that first resurrection and you'd
get the rest, maybe get caught up as you go.
And, getting what I'm saying?
I suspect and I'm guessing, you know, we can
ask Christ when he comes if that's the case.
Now, maybe we'll ask some people who are resurrected.
"Hey, did you know about this?
You know, back in 1300 A.D.?”
Maybe.
But one of the points I want to leave us with,
we have the right principles to shape how
we understand the Bible, how to conduct our
lives, how we look ahead to our future.
Now, it's possible.
We could get caught up in an incorrect paradigm.
We could get intoxicated with ideas that would
get us out of perspective, lead to bad decisions.
We could do as the Fifth Monarchists did.
You know, their misunderstanding of one point
of one prophecy, led them to engage in some
activities that the Bible condemns.
As I said, they looked at one first and it
distorted the other.
I don't think members of God's Church are
likely to get caught up in rebellion, civil
war, and regicide.
I hope not.
But members of God's Church could get intoxicated
with the perceived prophetic understanding,
with a captivating doctrinal understanding.
And being caught up in something like that
could lead a Christian to separating from
the Body of Christ.
It could lead to causing division, alienation,
even perhaps if you became disillusioned to
abandoning the way of life that we know is
the way of life.
And I say it could but it doesn't need to.
That's why I was saying, think of this as
not corrective but just cautionary, you know?
Because we might from time to time ask that
question that the lawyer did to Christ.
"What do I have to do to have eternal life?
If I hear a lot of things that I'm not sure,
what do I have to do to have life?
What do I need to know and what do I need
to do to be in God's Kingdom?"
Jesus said, "Keep the commandments.
Love God with all you've got.
Love your neighbor as yourself."
That's pretty simple.
And Jesus said.
"If you do this, you will live."
