Welcome back to Systematic Theology. We're up to session 67 tonight. And we've begun on the topic of ecclesiology, which is the study of the church. And last time we covered how in the Ordo Salutis, the application of redemption, God deals with us as individuals. But once we have been called, born again, and justified, God now also deals with us as part of a community. And that community is the church. There are aspects of God's work in us that he chooses to do as part of a community. We looked at how Christ is building only one church, but we can look at that one church from different viewpoints. There is the church from God's viewpoint, which is the universal church. The universal church is all of the elect across geography and across the age. We also call this the invisible church because even though God sees the church from this viewpoint, we can't. We can't comprehend all the saints across geography and time. The other viewpoint for the one church is the local church, which is also the visible church. Local churches are true, visible manifestations of the universal church on earth at a particular place, at a particular time. Every true local church is a true manifestation of the universal church even though there may be hidden hypocrites that have attached themselves to a local church. We also covered how the meeting together as the local church is a means of grace, a means of grace. Since the scriptures are taught when we assemble, the word of God is the most important means of grace, the most important part of the toolbox, so to speak, which the Holy Spirit uses in our progressive sanctification. If a Christian thinks he can completely separate from the local church and be this lone ranger Christian, he doesn't understand that the universal church and the local church are both viewpoints of Christ's one true church. So now we get to the question, is God's plan for community among his people just a brand new thing in the New Testament? Well, of course, the answer is no. It's not a new direction for the Lord. In fact, God covenanting with his people in community, that's the normal thing. It's normative. It's always been normal for God's people. The covenant of Moses that God made in the Old Testament was a covenant that addressed a community, a people, And I'm gonna turn to Exodus chapter six verse tonight to emphasize this community aspect of the covenant of Moses. And as we come to this chapter, God has sent Moses to Egypt to be his instrument in delivering his people. Pharaoh is punishing the people of Israel by forcing them to make bricks without straw. Now, God is giving Moses the message that Moses is then to tell the people. And I'll be in Exodus chapter six verses six to eight. Say, therefore, to the people of Israel, I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from slavery to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment. I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God, and you shall know that I am the Lord your God who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. I will bring you into the land that I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. I will give it to you for a possession. I am the Lord. And verse seven gives us what we can call the core of the covenant. The core of the covenant is, I will take you to be my people and I will be your God. The core of the covenant has not changed from Old Testament times to the New Testament. Because I'll read from Hebrews next, Hebrews chapter eight, verse 10. Now this verse comes in the middle of a quote from a prophecy of the new covenant that was way back in Jeremiah. It says in Hebrews 8.10, for this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days declares the Lord. I will put my laws into their minds and write them on their hearts and I will be their God and they shall be my people. So once again, at the end of verse 10, we see the core of the covenant. I will be their God and they shall be my people. This has always been the covenant purpose of God for his people. Part of the core purpose of God for us is that not only would God save the elect as individuals, but that God would also deal with his saved people as a community. Now we've seen before that in the visible church, there are true believers, the true elect, but that the visible church, it's a mixed group. In any visible local church, there may be hidden hypocrites. The Old Testament gathering of Israel was also a mixed group. God's true people were not equal to the entire nation of Israel. God had chosen Israel out of the nations, but the individuals who truly belonged to God were always the remnant, which we could call the Israel within Israel, the Israel within Israel. And Paul describes this Israel within Israel in Romans chapter nine. In this chapter, Paul is writing of the fact that while some of those of ethnic Israel had accepted Christ, there was a tragedy. Most of the Israelite nation had rejected the Messiah. It was tragic because God had given them the benefit and blessing of God's word and covenant. And Christ himself had come from Israel. Does this mean that God's word had failed? No, and Paul goes on to explain why, and I'm gonna read from Romans 9, verses six to eight. But it is not as though the word of God has failed, for not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but through Isaac shall your offspring be named. This means That is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. Paul explained that the nation of Israel was always a mixed assembly with two sides, and the two sides are named in verse eight. And that verse speaks of children of the flesh and the children of promise. The entire nation was of physical descent from Abraham. Those that Moses led out of Egypt, they were of this physical descent. That physical descent, the children of the flesh, was one aspect of the nation of Israel. The Jews of Jesus' time thought this was the only aspect that counted, physical descent. A Gentile could become a Jew by converting and submitting to the physical mark of circumcision, Physical descent from Abraham, that was really at the forefront of their minds when it came to being part of God's people. But physical descent does not necessarily equal spiritual descent. The other aspect of Israel, the true Israel within national Israel, were those who were children of the promise to Abraham. They were those who belong to the offspring, the offspring of promise who is Christ. It is the elect who were the Israel within Israel, the spiritual descendants of Abraham, the children of promise. Paul explains that the promise of God was given to the spiritual children of Abraham, the elect who were given to Christ from eternity. God elected people who lived under the types and shadows of the covenant of Moses, and he elected people who live under the fulfillment that we have today. It was a remnant of national Israel who accepted Christ, but God's word did not fail. It is those who belong to Christ who is the true seed of Abraham, who are the spiritual Israel. While God's purpose for his people in the Old Testament included community, there are changes from the Old Testament gathering to the New Testament church. The church is something that was new that could not begin to be built until the ascension of Christ. But the New Testament church is not new in requiring God's people to meet together. God dealt with his people under the Old Testament as a group. Israel was called out from the surrounding nations, separated from the nations. Now the New Testament church, it's not God's plan B as though, well, Israel was plan A, but that didn't work out. The church has continuity with God's true Israel, God's elect within Israel, the Israel within Israel. But along with that continuity, the institution of the church is also new. There is continuity, but also important differences. So the next question about the church is this, What is the relationship between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church? We know that the building of the New Testament Church was prophesied in the Old Testament. Therefore, the New Testament Church, it wasn't a plan B in the sight of God, but it was God's plan all along. But now that the New Testament Church exists, what does this mean for national and ethnic Israel. Does this mean that God is dealing with national and ethnic Israel on a parallel path with the church? Does God now have two peoples? There are many Christians who believe exactly that, that God is dealing with two separate peoples and that there are presently two parallel divine agendas. Perhaps the most common system of theology today is called dispensationalism, dispensationalism. This system assumes that after national Israel rejected Christ 2,000 years ago, Jesus brought the church into being as a parallel structure. In that system, which is dispensationalism, God set aside the geopolitical Israel for the time being, putting that program on pause kind of. And in the meantime, he's building the church. At some point as we approach the end of history, God will turn his attention back to geopolitical Israel. Under dispensationalism, God has two peoples, and to some extent, he has a different agenda in process for each of them. Now, the study of dispensationalism is really a whole study in itself, but I wanted to bring up just this aspect of it. Dispensationalism holds that God has two separate peoples, two separate projects. One project is the New Testament church, and the other project running in parallel is the National Israel Project, a heavenly people and an earthly people, so to speak. Now, I don't want to say anything wrong about dispensationalists. Dispensationalists do believe that salvation is available only in Christ for both Jews and Gentiles, and they do believe that there will eventually be a mass conversion of ethnic and national geopolitical Israel So this particular problem with dispensationalism, it's not with the means of salvation, but with their division of God's people into two peoples, at least temporarily. But the fact is, there has only been one people of God throughout history. The New Testament church has some degree of continuity with the Old Testament community. The truly saved Jews in Old Testament times, the remnant who are the Israel within Israel, are elect believers and are in Christ. Those of us in New Testament times, both Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles are also in Christ. Christ is the good shepherd and he has only one flock. I'll read next from the Gospel of John chapter 10. Here, Jesus describes himself as the door of the sheep and as the good shepherd. All others who claim to be shepherds are actually thieves who kill and destroy. Only the good shepherd Christ gives life to his sheep. Now read from John chapter 10 verses 14 to 16. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me. Just as the father knows me and I know the father and I lay down my life for the sheep. and I have other sheep that are not of this fold, I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd." One flock, one shepherd. Jesus told his disciples that he has other sheep that are not of this fold. During his earthly walk, Jesus did interact mainly with the Jews. He said at the time that he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And at the beginning of the New Testament church, the church was composed of Jewish Christians. But Jesus also spoke of his important task to bring his other sheep that were not of the house of Israel. These other sheep, the elect Gentiles, already belonged to Christ by election since he said, I have other sheep. The father had already given elected Gentiles to Christ since before the foundation of the world. So Jesus could say, I have other sheep in the present tense. Jesus had the task of bringing these other sheep into his sheepfold. This is an urgent task that Jesus would carry out using the apostles, primarily Paul. Jesus, he did express the urgency of that task when he said, I must bring them also. And now we come to an important sentence. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. There is only one good shepherd, only one flock, only one people of God. There is no Jewish church that is distinct and separate from the Gentile church. Even though dispensationalists do state that salvation is only through Christ, they still divide God's project into two projects. dividing the church from national ethnic geopolitical Israel. They still say that God has two parallel projects at the same time, two separate peoples. That is one of the errors of the dispensationalists. And since their sharp distinction between geopolitical Israel and the church lies at the very heart of their system, their whole system fails. Now to do a full study of dispensationalism, we would need a whole series, but the goal here is to show that the Lord has one flock, one church, the church composed of both Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians from every nation. The church has continuity with true Old Testament saints. Those in the Old Testament who were true saints were saved in the same way we are, by faith in Christ alone, revealed to them under types and shadows. There is an underlying unity of God's true people in both Old Testament and New Testament. And where we're gonna be next is in the book of Romans, because in Romans, Paul uses the metaphor of a single olive tree to represent the visible community of God. Gentile believers in the New Testament church are, in a biblical metaphor, crafted into the one tree of God's people. The union of Gentiles into God's people, it didn't happen naturally. God had to graft them into the one tree. I'll read from Romans 11 next. In this chapter, Paul is showing that God has not rejected ethnic Israel completely since there was even at that time a remnant of Jews who were elect and believing chosen by grace. In chapter 11, Paul uses this metaphor, the metaphor of a single olive tree where branches are grafted into that one olive tree. In the metaphor, the olive tree represents God's visible covenant community I'll read a small portion of chapter 11 verses 17 and 18. But if some of the branches were broken off and you, although a wild olive shoot were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root supports you. In this metaphor of the olive tree, representing God's visible covenant community, some branches are being broken off from the tree, and wild olive shoots are being grafted into the tree. The branches being broken off are physical descendants of Abraham, but they are cut off and separated from the tree because of their undelief in the Messiah, Christ. In the metaphor, the Gentile Christians were wild olive shoots, grafted into the single olive tree. These wild shoots, they would not graft naturally to the cultivated olive tree. It took the effort and skill of the master gardener to accomplish this. By the divine power of the Holy Spirit, Gentiles who were previously alien to the Israelite promises were grafted in. They are now supported by the rich root of the olive tree. Verse 18, it strips away all pride from Gentile Christians toward ethnic Israel. We are to recognize that as Gentiles, we were the wild olive shoots that were not native to the tree. John Calvin, when he commented on this passage, wrote, the Jews are the first and natural heirs of the gospel, except to the extent that by their ungratefulness, they were forsaken as unworthy, yet forsaken in such a way that the heavenly blessing had not departed utterly from their nation. It was the Jews who had the privilege and dignity of the gospel coming to them first. I'll read from Romans 1, verse 16, where Paul states this dignity and privilege given to the Jews in that the gospel was brought to them first. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. The gospel is the power of salvation to all, but the Jews had the dignity and privilege of priority to hear the gospel first. We as Gentile Christians are grafted into that one tree and supported by the rich root of that one tree. Now theologians, they differ on the meaning of the root in this metaphor, Does the root represent Christ himself or does it represent the promises to Abraham that come through Christ? And I wouldn't argue too vigorously either way, but I tend to go with the opinion of the commentator Douglas Moo that the root is the promise of God given to Abraham. The promise of God given to Abraham as being the rich root of the olive tree. One passage that tells us of this rich root of the olive tree is where I'll be next, Galatians chapter three. verses 13 and 14. As we come up to these verses, Paul is describing how Abraham was justified by faith alone. Faith was counted to him as righteousness. Therefore, only those who by faith trust in Christ alone, only they are truly sons of Abraham. Now this passage speaks of believing Gentiles receiving the blessing of Abraham. I'll read from Galatians chapter three, verses 13 and 14. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree, so that in Christ Jesus, the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised spirit through faith. It is the blessing of Abraham that comes to the Gentiles, the blessing that comes in Christ, by the Holy Spirit, through faith. This is the rich root of the covenant tree. Just a few verses earlier in Galatians, Galatians three, verse eight, we can see what the blessing of Abraham is. I'll start in verse seven, Galatians three, seven. Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, in you shall all the nations be blessed. The blessing of Abraham is this promise of God. In you shall all the nations be blessed. Paul even writes that the gospel was preached beforehand to Abraham in this promise. The Abrahamic promise is tied to the gospel and the blessing comes through Christ. As one Puritan phrased it, Christ is the storehouse of the benediction of Abraham. Christ is the storehouse of the benediction of Abraham. This promise to Abraham is the rich root of the olive tree that nourishes both Jewish and Gentile believers. Now back to the metaphor of the tree. When the wild olive branches that are Gentiles come to Christ, they are grafted into this covenant tree to become part of what was promised to Abraham. Then both Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians are part of one tree, both nourished by the root. The other thing we should see is that in the metaphor, there's only one olive tree. At the start of the New Testament church, God didn't plant a new olive tree alongside the old olive tree. There are not two peoples of God. The elect remnant of Israel who are believing Christians are one tree with the Gentile Christians who have been grafted in. The New Testament church has continuity with the true saints of the Old Testament congregation. I like how the modern reformed theologian Michael Horton summarizes this, and the quote's a little difficult, so I'm gonna paraphrase it here. that we need to steer a path between two errors. One error is to say that the New Testament church is a completely new people of God that supersedes or replaces the Old Testament people of God. The other error is to soften our stance on the truth that Christ has always been the gate for the sheep in the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. God always had a people. which are his true people throughout history. Gentile Christians are beneficiaries of the Abrahamic covenant, the unconditional promise given to Abraham and his offspring, with the offspring being Christ. Those saved in the Old Testament were saved by faith in Christ the mediator under types and shadows pointing to him. And those saved now are also saved by that one mediator, As it says in 1 Timothy 2, verses five and six, there's only one mediator, and I'll read from that. 1 Timothy 2, beginning in verse five. For there is one God and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. As this passage shows, there's only one mediator, and there has only ever been one mediator, Christ Jesus. He gave himself as a ransom for all with this word all, meaning that the ransom is not limited to Israel. The word all doesn't mean every individual in the world, but the elect without national distinction or social distinction. The word all means that Christ gave himself as a ransom for both elect Christian Jews and elect Christian Gentiles. There has only ever been one mediator, one means of salvation, Christ. John Calvin eliminated any other means of salvation for Old Testament believers other than Christ's work when he wrote this. He wrote, accordingly, apart from the mediator, God never showed favor toward the ancient people nor ever gave hope of grace to them. There is continuity between God's true saints in Old Testament Israel and the church under the New Testament. There is one tree, one rich root of the olive tree that nourished the true saints of the Old Testament and the church of the New Testament. But while there is continuity between the gathering of God's true saints of the Old Testament and the New Testament church, there's also important differences. There is a degree of continuity, but there's also much of what makes the New Testament church new and different from what came before. Those differences between the Old Testament gathering of God's people and the New Testament church can be described in two major categories, expansion and fulfillment, expansion and fulfillment. And we're gonna get to those two categories, expansion and fulfillment in an upcoming study later on. But first, since we looked at the continuity of God's true Old Testament people with the New Testament church, I wanna look at the newness of the New Testament church. We can look at two things that signal that the New Testament church was to be a new institution or structure to administer his grace. So the first signal that the New Testament church has newness is that Christ, during his earthly walk, described the building of his church in the future tense. I'll read from what is probably a familiar passage, the Gospel of Matthew, and I'll be in chapter 16. I'll read verses 15 to 18. He said to them, but who do you say that I am? Simon Peter replied, you are the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus answered him, blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock, I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will build my church, future tense. Jesus states what must have seemed astounding in the ears of the disciples. There were not many gathered there, but Jesus now sharing a hint of the blueprint for his building project. He said, I will build my church. This church, described with the Greek word ekklesia, would be invested with power so that the gates of hell will not withstand its forward-moving campaign. But the building project for his ekklesia had not yet begun. It could not begin until he had finished the work of the cross and had been resurrected and then ascended. Only after Christ's ascension would he then send the person of the Holy Spirit to grant power to the disciples and enable the spread of the church throughout the world. The word ecclesia translated for us as church points to a gathering of God's people and the nature of God's true people as a community. It's not entirely new. Gerhardus Voss describes the New Testament church with these words. On the one hand, the church at the time that Christ walked the earth was something future. On the other hand, there is present in the word itself pointing back clearly enough to the church of Israel that it is not something absolutely new. It had existed earlier, but will now come in a new form. It will now be his church par excellence. That is the church in the form that he himself having appeared in the flesh and as duly authorized by the father has given it. When Christ began to build his church, it's not like when we take an etch, a sketch, and hold it upside down and shake it to erase all that came before. God's true Old Testament saints were a gathered people, a congregation, so the church has continuity with what came before. But the church is also very new and has a new form compared with what came before. Another clue that the church would be a new form for this gathering of God's people is in the choice of words that the New Testament uses for the church. By New Testament times, the gatherings of the Jewish community used the word synagogue. And that word is still used today. Jesus could have used the same word to describe what he was to build. The Greek word that we see translated as synagogue, synagoge, could have been used. Since it means a gathering, it means a place of gathering, but the Greek word ekklesia, that's used instead. It's used consistently to refer to the New Testament church. So we have a different word choice. In this word choice, ecclesia, instead of the well-established word synagogue, signals a new institution, a switch to a new structure that God would use to administer grace to his people. The theologian Gerhardus Voss looks at this word choice as an emphasis on the nature of the church, as those that God has called out of every nation. Instead of the synagogue, which was distinct to the nation of Israel, the ekklesia, the church, was to be universal in scope. This change in wording from synagogue to ekklesia signals something new that is being built. How does the New Testament church differ in form from the gathering of God's true saints under the time of types and shadows, the time of the Old Testament? First, Old Testament Israel, before they were exiled, had both a religious face and a political face. It was a gathered people under a political ruler, a political king, and having political laws. But it was also a gathered people intended to worship God, their heavenly king, in a unified way with a central temple. It was both church and state. The two faces of the gathering were, in a sense, separate, but in another sense, unified. The king, he couldn't perform the duties of the priests. One of the kings of Israel found this out the hard way when God judged him for taking a religious role for himself. And I'll read from 2 Chronicles 26. Here, King Uzziah had been one of Israel's good kings to this point, but then because of pride, he suffered God's judgment. I'll be in 2 Chronicles 26, verses 16 to 21. It says, but when he was strong, he grew proud to his destruction, for he was unfaithful to the Lord, his God, and entered the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the altar of incense. But Azariah, the priest, went in after him with 80 priests of the Lord who were men of valor, and they withstood King Uzziah and said to him, it is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but for the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Go out of the sanctuary, for you have done wrong, and it will bring you no honor from the Lord God.' Then Uzziah was angry. Now he had a censer in his hand to burn incense. And when he became angry with the priests, leprosy broke out on his forehead in the presence of the priests in the house of the Lord by the altar of incense. And Azariah, the chief priest, and all the priests looked at him, and behold, he was leprous in his forehead. and they rushed him out quickly. And he himself hurried to go out because the Lord had struck him. And King Uzziah was a leper to the day of his death and being a leper lived in a separate house for he was excluded from the house of the Lord. And Jotham, his son was over the King's household governing the people of the land. God's law had placed a division between priest and King. The palace was not the temple. Uzziah, in pride, tried to unify the political face and the religious face of Israel under himself. He paid the price for the rest of his life. So Israel had a dual aspect, unified, but also with two faces. It was both a political nation and a religious institution. The church is different. The church does not present a political face to the nations of the world. The Roman Catholic Church, you know, they disagree with this. To this day, the Roman Church still has Vatican City as a kind of city-state, and it has a footprint greatly pared down from the days when the papal states controlled a lot more territory. Vatican City has the trappings of a state, with the Pope being the head of state, even though today that entire state, it's about the size of Disneyland. But the Reformed recognize that Christ rules the nations in a way distinct from how he rules the church. Ancient Israel had a dual aspect with a political face as an earthly kingdom and a religious face. The church that Christ is gathering and building is not an earthly nation and does not have a political seat among the nation states. When Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God, he spoke of it in spiritual terms. I'll read from the gospel of Luke next. Luke chapter 17, verses 20 and 21. Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, the kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, look, here it is, or there, for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you. The Pharisees thought that the nature of the kingdom of God was a nation with borders on a map with a physical army. And Jesus corrects this, saying that the kingdom is spiritual. Where Christ is, there's the kingdom. It doesn't come with observation. In ancient Israel, the combination of nation and priesthood, it had borders. And maybe you have a Bible with maps in the back, which will tell you exactly where those physical borders were. The church has no physical borders. It is overlaid over the whole world. This is one of the ways in which the gathered church differs from how God gathered his people under the Old Testament. Jesus spoke of the true nature of the kingdom of God and the church to Pilate before his crucifixion. I'll read next from the gospel of John chapter 18. I'll read verse 36, John 18, 36. Jesus answered, my kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, My servants would have been fighting that I might not be delivered over to the Jews, but my kingdom is not from the world. The New Testament church does not present a political face to the world. It is active in the world and it greatly affects the world. Even in the beginning days of the church, when Paul and his team went to Thessalonica, the Jews accused them before the authorities of turning the world upside down. And then the dream, Daniel interpreted for Nebuchadnezzar shows the influence of God's kingdom, that it would break every empire that precedes it and would be a mountain to cover the earth. And that is powerful influence. But what form does the influence take? Our form is not, our influence is not in the form of borders on a map or a military presence. The influence is the power of the outward call of the gospel applied to hearts in the inward effectual call of the Holy Spirit to the elect. So the first difference between the Old Testament congregation and the New Testament church is that the church is spiritual. Unlike ancient Israel, it does not present a political face to the world as nation states do. And there's a second difference between the Old Testament community of God's people and the New Testament church. The Old Testament gathering was not only a state church, it was also a national church. It was limited to one nation. Back then, if you were a pagan and you wanted to convert to being part of God's people, you had to become a Jew. But even while still in the days of the Old Testament, it was prophesied that the nationalistic barrier would be dissolved. I'll read a prophecy of this from Isaiah chapter two, verses one to three. Isaiah two verses one to three. The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains and shall be lifted up above the hills and all the nations shall flow to it. And many peoples shall come and say, come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths. For out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." Once the gospel goes forth, all nations are invited. We can see the fulfillment of the prophecy by the reach of the church today. It includes both Jewish Christians and also Gentile Christians from all nations. While the people of God in the Old Testament were walled off, so to speak, from the nations, in the New Testament church, it's different. There is no more nationalistic division. Now we come to a third difference between the Old Testament community of saints, their national church, and the New Testament church. It's related to the difference we just looked at. True worship is now no longer geographically centralized. The ancient city of Jerusalem was the one authorized place of true worship for Old Testament saints. This is where God chose to place his name at that time. I'll read next from 1 Kings 11, verse 36. And here, God sends a prophet to Jeroboam to tell him that the United Kingdom of Israel will be divided and Jeroboam will be king over most of the tribes. Now in verse 36, God states that Solomon's son, Rehoboam, will retain one tribe with the city of Jerusalem. 1 Kings 11.36. Yet to his son, I will give one tribe that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I have chosen to put my name. It was Jerusalem where God had placed his name. This was the one centralized place of authorized worship. The people, they did sin by worshiping false gods in other places, what scripture calls the high places. But true worship, authorized Old Testament worship, was geographically centralized. You know, when we came to church tonight, we didn't catch a flight to Jerusalem. Yet we're not sinning by worshiping in the San Fernando Valley. The transition away from geographically centralized worship was already near as Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well in John chapter four. Once Jesus proved to the woman that he knew all about her life without ever having met her, she concluded that he was a prophet. And now she comes with a question that divided Jew from Samaritan. Who is right? Where is the divinely authorized place of worship? Is it in Jerusalem or Samaria? I'll read from the Gospel of John chapter four, verses 19 to 24. The woman said to him, sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship. Jesus said to her, woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the father. You worship what you do not know. We worship what we know for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming and is now here when the true worshipers will worship the father in spirit and truth. For the father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. Now the woman thought she had history on her side. when she said, our fathers worshiped on this mountain. Somehow she thought that the Samaritan history and tradition pointed to the solution that Mount Gerizim, the Samaritan rival to Jerusalem was the authorized place of worship. But Jesus disregarded her argument saying that the Samaritans had no knowledge of what they worshiped. Their history and tradition meant nothing. Jesus gave her the truth that the word of God and the promises of salvation, they were given to the Jews. So here, We can see some degree of continuity between the true Old Testament saints and the New Testament church. Salvation is from the Jews, but now comes one of the differences between the Old Testament community and the New Testament church. A new era was imminent. In this new era, the church age, old forms would no longer apply. There would no longer be a mandatory geographic location for worship. As we can see today, the old forms are gone. The temple was destroyed not long after this. True worship no longer involves the ceremonies of the law of Moses or a centralized geographic location. A major difference between the Old Testament saints and the New Testament church is that worshipers now worship in spirit and truth. The shell of the outward forms of ceremonial law are gone. to reveal that kernel of true worship within that shell. The shell of the ceremonial law was types and shadows to point forward to Christ. Many in Israel had just been going through the motions of these outward actions to carry out the ceremonial law. The new era now makes the outward forms in this central geography obsolete. The shell of the ceremonial law has been stripped away to reveal the kernel of true worship, which is worship according to scripture and from a regenerated heart. Well, we've come to the end of our time tonight, but I wanna give a kind of roadmap for what lies ahead and where we're gonna go next in our study of the church, Lord willing, when I'm up here probably sometime early next year. First, we'll look at another major difference between the New Testament church and God's congregation under the Mosaic covenant, And that is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that the church was granted. And then we're gonna look at two categories where the New Testament church moves God's project forward. And those categories are expansion and fulfillment. And then we'll look at how scripture teaches us about the church using the metaphors for the church, like the church as a temple and the church as a body. And that's kind of where we're gonna be headed in the future, Lord willing. Thank you for coming tonight.