it's rare that you can get two guys who have a lot of things in common together. It's just rare. Now, whenever, and I don't know if you guys know how lucky you are today, but when you get two quarries together, two quarries who wear glasses, two quarries who were bald. As a matter of fact, listen, listen, even two quarries who have cats in their office. Yeah, that's how that's how God works. And so anyway, I'm glad you guys are here. I think this is important. Why? Because we're going to talk about one, our hermeneutics. I've been saying it. I'll keep saying it, guys, how you read the Bible absolutely matters. If you don't have some sort of discipline, how you read it, well, then depending upon how you feel that day, maybe what you ate, who you listen to last is going to determine how you read the text. And clearly that's not what God wants. And so I've got my brother here who is an author, brother by the name of Corey Marsh. And so I, as a matter of fact, I'm sorry, Dr. Corey Marsh. And so if you guys ever get confused, the guy on the, the darker skin guy on the, on the, on, let's see, what is it?  And so brother Corey, how are you doing today? I'm doing great, Corey. And you know, I know that while you were saying that, I was thinking of other similarities where both of our names are C M, you know, so even our, our initials are the same. Although there is a big problem with how you spell your first name. So hopefully, you know, we can correct that as we move along.  You've taken, you've taken away from the text. Right. Right. Yeah. You know, certain vows just don't make sense. I'm all about consonants. I guess that's what it is with my name. Anyways, thank you for having me on, Corey. I appreciate it. It's been, it's been fun to be on the catch. Some of your shows here and there and you're doing a great word. So I know it's been a long time coming for me to be on smart Christians here with you. And I'm honored by the invitation. So I'm looking forward to our conversation today.  I'm going to ask Corey to tell him just a little bit about himself, but I want you guys to do me a favor. I think this is important also. Corey, if you can, while I show this, can you also grab the other book that you and I were just talking about the one with Dr. Cohn. But guys, he also, this is how I first came across him. He has this book called Discovering Dispensationalism. Now, I've spoken about this before.  It's only, what, a couple hundred years old. It's not that old. It's novel. Well, that's not the case. I've given some examples. But where Corey has ventured further than I am, really truth be told, he and his co-auth have done more than most people in this, as far as I can tell, going back and tracing the history of dispensationalism. So that's what this particular book is, Discovering Dispensationalism, the history of it. But then also, Corey, could you go ahead and one introduce your other book, but also tell us more about yourself? Sure, I'd love to. Yeah, quickly about the other book, as we brought up before we started the show. I'll hold it up. It's this one right here called Forged From Reformation. And just like every good academic work, the thesis is going to be in the subtitle, right? So our thesis is how dispensational thought advances the reformed legacy. Too often times, dispensationalism is considered this aberrant form of something new or distinct from reformation or reformed theology. Well, this book we published in 2017, Christopher Cohen and James Fazio. James is the co-editor of the book that you already showed, Discovering Dispensationalism, on that with me. On this one is Dr. Cohen and James Fazio. We published this in the 500th year anniversary of the Protestant Reformation to show that it's really been dispensational thought that has most consistently advanced those five solas of the Reformation, particularly Sola Scriptura, where other reformed brethren will be mostly appealing or largely appealing to their confessions or creeds, perhaps, it's dispensationalists that refer back always to the text. So that's what this thing is, 600-page beast. There's about 12 different dispensational scholars and authors on this, and I was able to contribute two chapters and help edit it as well, published by SES Press. And that one, that was unique because nothing's been written on that. In that book, we're tracing the history of dispensationalism really, if we had to say tracing history, to the 16th century. We go only to the Reformation to show that both dispensationalism and covenant theology, they're both legitimate children of the Reformation. And when we say reformed, we're saying reformed little r as in reformational theology, not confessionally reformed, which are the confessions like Westminster Confession, the Faith and others. So that's a little bit of a unique book. It came out on the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. And you brought up our other book, our newest one, Discovering Dispensationalism, which is over my shoulder. I'm backwards as we're doing this. There it is, right. And so that one still, it's making some headway and some good places, it's getting reviewed in peer review journals and making some waves because it's in the subtitle there as well. We're tracing the development of dispensational thought from the first to the 21st century. So in that one, we have about 10 or 11 historians, professors, all credentialed PhDs and PhDs who were assigned a certain era in church history to just be honest with the primary evidence. Are there any dispensational, what we would consider today dispensational ideas in those periods throughout history? We're not arguing for the system of dispensationalism as ancient. What we are arguing is that the ideas, the patterns will be called dispensational thought is as ancient as the church. And it's pretty easy, easily demonstrable through all the church history eras from the New Testament era to the patristics, the Nicene era, all the way into the medieval era, pre-Darby era, we call it, even that the enigmatic figure Darby, his era, and how dispensational thought been transferred into the United States and how it's got various forms here. And if I can, since you asked Corey, I appreciate it. I do have a small little primer right here also called a primer on biblical literacy. This was published maybe two years ago to small little guy, just three chapters long on what it means to be biblically literate, how American evangelicalism is so woefully biblically illiterate. So I offer a definition of what biblical literacy is, at least what I think it is, and a very intro, a primer on how to correctly read scripture to avoid the pitfalls of so many cults and other aberrant theology, if we did go straight back to the text and apply a literal harmonic. And to really experience God's presence in the text by correctly discerning the meaning in the text. So that's what this guy is here, the primer of biblical literacy. All three of those works published by S.C.S. Press. So thank you for asking me about that. That is, that's the seminary that you are a professor at, correct? Correct. I am professor of New Testament at Southern California Seminary in El Cajon. That is the greater San Diego area, East San Diego. The school is very old. It's actually the oldest, fully accredited traditional dispensational seminary on the entire West Coast. So from San Diego all the way to up to up to Canada, S.C.S. has been there for, it's taken on different names of course, but we were established in 1946. So to give you a little context, that's two years older than the modern state of Israel. So we've been there for quite some time. We are privileged to be under the leadership and the headship of Shadow Mountain Community Church, where David Jeremiah is the senior pastor there. And I have the privilege of teaching New Testament. I teach all the New Testament books, New Testament Greek, some theology courses as well, like dispensational theology and other type of theological courses, hermeneutics. And I also have the privilege of leading our publishing arm at S.C.S. Press, which is producing some really good academic conservative biblical theological works. So that's a little bit about me. I live in Mission Viejo, which is in Orange County, South Orange County, California. I've been married to my wife, Shannon, who's my high school sweetheart. We've been married 14 years now. And yeah, it's a little bit us. And I got a cat, just like you said, Corey, in the office at home here that's going to be walking around. So maybe we'll both see each other on the camera. That's what we're talking about. Amen. Now, quickly, not quickly, but for the people who are, who may tune in, who, because if you tune in to YouTube, or you go online, or you listen to different people, there are those that will say that, or they will have some sort of negative understanding or view of dispensationalism, or what it means to have a dispensational hermeneutic. And so what does, what does that mean to be either dispensational or to have a dispensational hermeneutic? Is that even in the Bible? Does the Bible speak about dispensationalism or dispensations? Yeah, very good question. I would start with what dispensationalism is not, because as you just mentioned, Corey, there is a lot of mischaracterizations about what dispensationalism believe, what the system of dispensationalism is. In fact, the first chapter of our book, Discovering Dispensationalism, I wrote that one. And I start with somebody in the mischaracterizations that are kind of hurled our way that just don't reflect what we believe or teach. For example, that dispensationalism, or the big one that we wrote our book about, is recent, as you just brought up, like it's brand new. It's something that hasn't been known in the first, you know, 19th centuries of the church, perhaps, or something like that. And to that I would say, look at every Orthodox evangelical system. If we're going to use the claim of, or the charge of recency, it goes across the board, if that is our criteria. Covenant theology does not predate 16th century progressive covenantalism, which is very big right now, or it's gaining steam within modern evangelicalism. It's only a decade or two old. The theological interpretation of scripture or movement is only a few decades. You can go on and on. How about Protestantism? Protestantism is, I mean, we can trace our history to the break of the Catholic church and the reformation. So that doesn't even go back more than five or five hundred, that's almost 600 years now. So when it comes to Protestant evangelical theology and the systems that have come from it, all of it is recent, relatively speaking, in that sense. I think what's important is what makes up the system. What are the some parts? What are the ideas? What is the the hermeneutical method to reach those ideas? Where do those start from? And to that we would say as dispensationalists, it is ancient. We're not, again, not saying the system of dispensationalism, but the thought patterns that make it up, as well as the hermeneutic that justifies it. So to your question on hermeneutics, yes. Dispensationalism, one reason why I'm a dispensationalist, before I even knew what the term was, was I was committed to a hermeneutic that was consistent, right? A consistent hermeneutic that takes the grammatical context that face value, the historical context of face value to bring them together to then lead to that theological climax and then application. Doing that consistently, whether you like the term or not, you are going to end up as a dispensationalist, even if you don't like the word, because it's dispensationalism that is based on an inductive, consistent hermeneutic, as opposed to being deductive, where you start with a system and you sort of filter all of scripture through that and read that in the text. Dispensationalism is the opposite. It is based on an inductive hermeneutic starting with the data of the text consistently read that branches up to our patterns of belief. So for me, the flag to wave isn't so much on dispensationalism. The flag that I like to wave is on a consistent grammatical historical hermeneutic that is contextual, it is canonical, and reading it, fleshing it out from Genesis to Revelation, you are going to get the certain patterns or distinctions that dispensationalists are known for. For example, we are known to make a distinction, probably the thing we're known the most for, we are known to make a distinction between national Israel and the church. That comes from a consistent reading because there are just too many prophecies about Israel. There are too many even descriptive texts throughout the Old Testament into the New Testament, where Israel still remains an ethnic people, yet something new happened, specifically in Acts chapter 2 in the day of Pentecost, where the spirit descends on the crowds that's there. They are speaking in real languages. They are preaching the mighty works of God. We would pinpoint the birth of the church there. But Israel, even if you read Acts in the rest of the New Testament, is still referred to as Israel, but now you have this new body of Christ. So there seems to be two programs here, not two different ways of salvation. And that is one of the big mischaracterization that dispensationalists are charged with, which is false, that we teach multiple ways of salvation because the thought going, we see multiple peoples of God. Let me clear it up here, which I'm sure I'll have to do 100 million times more before I'm dead. Dispensationalists have never taught multiple ways of salvation. Every dispensationalist believes God saves those by grace through faith. I would a clear proof text going back to Genesis 15.6 with Abram. Abram believed God and was counted to him as righteousness. That is how people have always been saved by God's grace through believing in Yahweh. As the scriptures then revealed progressively more about Yahweh, come to find out, we now believe through the same, to the same Yahweh, believing the same Yahweh through his Son, who has now been revealed and his death and resurrection for our sins. That is by God's grace, it is through faith. That is how we are saved, whether you are Jewish or Gentile, it doesn't matter. No one can be saved apart from the atoning work of Christ. So we teach one way of salvation, but multiple peoples of God, because the scriptures seem to suggest that, or I would say demand that, by a consistent literal hermeneutic. And also if I can, before I end this question, thinking of distinctions in my head, not only do we make a distinction between church and Israel, dispensationalists also make a distinction between the church and the kingdom of God. Now there is some debate, even within dispensationalism, maybe we can get to this with some of the questions. It's not so monolithic as some assume. There's a lot of disagreements within dispensationalism. Myself, I am a traditionalist, so I can speak out of my context, but I operate and work with, and I have working relations with a lot of dispensationalists who would consider themselves progressive dispensationalists, or even mid-ax dispensationalists. There's different varieties of these things. But generally, at least from a traditional dispensational perspective, the kingdom of God, for the most part, not all references, because God reigns on the throne, he is sobbing over the cosmos. He is king, there's no doubt about it. But the Messiah is always king in relation to Israel. Jesus is said to be the head of the church, his body. With Messiah, he is king. He is the Messiah King of national Israel, and so the Bible makes this distinction that there seems to be this future transitory messianic meditorial kingdom, where it's not just God reigning ethereally from the heavens, but tangibly concretely from Jerusalem on a literal throne that's going to last a specific period of time that hasn't happened yet. That is in relation in fulfillment of the Davidic covenant, speaking of the Christ Messiah to come. So we would see the majority of kingdom references as still future. We would call it the millennial kingdom. When you take out the word millennial, which is just 1,000 years, there's a messianic kingdom that will happen on earth before we transition into the eternal state.  There's more of them. But one, it's all based on a consistent little hermeneutic, which results in a distinction between church and national Israel, which also results in a distinction between church and the kingdom of God. And all things I'll end with this, ultimately, are for the self-glorification of God, the purpose tying everything together throughout canonical history, which is from the creation of the earth to the eternal state, which we haven't even experienced yet. So canonical history that's recorded for us is God's glory. God is glorified through all things, not merely in the salvation of man as some of our more reformed brother might take it or might emphasize. Of course we emphasize God is glorified by man's salvation, the salvation of man. But he's also glorified in man's condemnation of the wicked. He's glorified by nature. He's glorified by animals. He's glorified by nations. He's glorified by everything. It's the one plumb line that ties the entire Bible together with the climax being Christ. So that would be the ultimate purpose of everything we would say is the glorification of God. One of the things that I think is interesting, if let's say if someone were to hear you, they would, if you didn't even use the word or the term dispensational or dispensationalist or dispensationalism, there aren't very many people that will disagree with anything of what you said. Even if they are reformed, covered in theology, they won't. But when you introduce that word for some reason, for some people it becomes a trigger. Now I've always come back and I said rather than having to use the term of the title dispensationalist or dispensationalism, as you said earlier, I focus more on the the the hermeneutics, dispensational hermeneutics and the reason why it's not focused on the conclusion, though in many cases you'll come to the same conclusion or similar conclusions, but it's literally the way that we read everything else. It's the way we read a newspaper. It's the way we read menus. It's the way we read every, it's how we were taught to read. It's how we read the overwhelming majority of the Bible, but then on certain aspects, certain passages, we reinterpret them and I think it's because we're trying to get to a certain conclusion that a system gets. But before we go back to the hermeneutics and so forth and even the distinctions, I want you, if you could, to talk more about the earlier dispensational thought that we see in the churches, even though we know it wasn't they didn't use the term dispensationalism and so forth, whatever. But can you give some examples as to who and when some of these dispensational thoughts were in the church? Yeah, I can do my best on the fly here. I am not a historian, so we actually in our back, that's one of the reasons why we had multiple scholars in our book cover these areas who were historians that actually deal with the primary evidence in these these areas. I'm my PhDs in biblical theology, so I'm more about the text and biblical studies. Of course, I don't relapse with history, but I'll do my best here. Let me start with something you brought up earlier, Cory, and you brought up just now. So thank you again. The very word dispensation, right? The word is ancient. Come to find out. That's one of the reasons why dispensationalism is, I guess we can start there, being a strong system because it's inductively based on the text. As I mentioned, well, the word dispensation is throughout the Greek Septuagint, that is the Old Testament in Greek, as well as the Greek New Testament, and it's simply the Greek word or economia. Or economia. It's where our English word economy comes from. And it gets translated in various ways. You'll have some translations like the New American Standard likes to, they prefer administration instead of dispensation, which is great. Some will translate it as stewardship. I like economy because it shows like we understand economies, even in our modern United States cultural context right now. Right now we're under the Biden economy, beforehand was the Trump economy, before then was the Barack Obama economy. These are different administrations, that rule, sort of rule, if you will, that manage the country in different ways. That is a dispensation. So it goes back to even Luke chapter 16. Jesus himself uses the word or economia in the parable of the manager showing us that there's always a household involved with the dispensation, this economy, this administration. There are goods to be distributed and to be managed. And that steward is to be held accountable. So there's a judgment for how he manages the manager's goods. That is stewardship. That is a manager. That is what we mean by dispensation. By the way, the word dispensation comes really more from the King James. So it's got a word that we don't use very often. And it's got a lot of baggage, unfortunately, attached to it because of all the different mischaracterizations of it. But the word itself is very biblical. Paul himself uses it in a few places also where the word is used, in fact, in the same way that we would also use it. If I can go there, Cory, if that's the right going to the text here in Ephesians, if you want to do that, perhaps you will have some other questions later on this very thing. But the Bible's open for me right now. But I'm looking at Ephesians chapter one. I'll start in verse six, to the praise of his glorious grace. As we said, dispensationalists always hold to God's glory as the ultimate goal of everything. Verse six, to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has blessed us in the beloved. In him, we have redemption through the blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he has lavished upon us in all wisdom inside. Verse nine, making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a dispensation. Or you have administration there. I'm reading from the ESV. It says plan. Plan's not the best way to be able to translate that. But it's the word of economy. For the fullness of time. So it's speaking of a future economy, future dispensation, the fullness of time being wrapped up to unite all things in him, things in heaven and on earth. And we will look to that as that future millennial kingdom. Also in Ephesians three, there's something very interesting here that's a dispensational distinction, even using the word as we use it. Ephesians three, Paul says, starting in verse eight. To me, though I am very least of all the saints, this grace was given to preach to the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ. Verse nine, and to bring delight everyone, which is the plan. Again, ESV translates plan. That's a, that's not a best translation. Administration, as you have there, it's with economy, dispensation and economy. It's the same word of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things so that through the church, the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and the heaven authorities and the heavenly places. This was according to his eternal play purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus, our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through him, through our faith in him. So I ask you not to lose heart over what I'm suffering for you, which is your glory. His point here, he's saying this mystery, he even describes it as a an administration, a dispensation, this mystery, which is, which was hidden in ages in God who created all things that through the church. So this is something new. A mystery, mysterion, is the Greek word in biblical usage, doesn't mean mystery as we normally assume it to be. A mystery is something like in you watch a murder mystery or read a mystery novel. There's something that, there's just clues there that you try to pick up, but sometimes it's not tied together. There's always remaining this unopen, this sort of open ending mystery in biblical usage, just something that was concealed that wasn't there. There were suggestions and hints to it, perhaps, but it is now revealed and made known. It's something new. And that is what Paul says here with the, with the church. And one more, I'll end on this in the book of Colossians, technically the letter to the Colossians, because it's not a book, it's a letter. He says in chapter one, verse 24, starting at verse 24, now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake and in my flesh I'm filling up with his lacking Christ afflictions for the sake of his body. He goes on to explain what that is. That is the church of which I became a minister according to the dispensation or stewardship. That's a good translation. It's a way kind of means the same words from God that was given to me for you. Look at what he says, to make the word of God fully known, verse 26, the mystery hidden for ages and generations, but now disclosed, now revealed to his saints. To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles and the riches of the glory and the mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. So he is saying that church was not something that was before. It was hidden for previous generations, but now something new has come, this new administration, this new dispensation, which is Jewish and Gentile believers together in the same spiritual body that was not ethnic Israel beforehand. And so some would say, well, that's a good reason called the present era that we're in now, the dispensation of the church, or perhaps the dispensation of grace, as Paul would say or refer to suggest in Romans chapter six. But what we call our present age, the dispensation of the church or the administration of the church or the stewardship of the church, or the economy of the church, or that of grace, we're meaning the same things. And my point here, Corey, is that it's there in the text. So unlike other systems that have to start with an idea, theological concept, and sort of filter everything they read through that, because it's not in the text, dispensationalism based on the very word just starting there in the lowest run of the ladder is a biblical word, a biblical term. And therefore I would say dispensationalism itself is a biblical theology because it's inductive and it's based on the actual words and terms used in scripture that we that that become that branch out into our patterns of belief. Okay. See, I think that, you know, the whole label or the whole argument that people who have a either dispensationalist or people who have a dispensational hermeneutic. And again, I say that every single person that's listening is dispensationalist to some degree, whether you want to carry the title or not. But the argument that gets thrown about, as you said earlier, you alluded to earlier that there seems to be too much of a focus on Israel. But again, as we read the scriptures, guys, we also have someone else that we know in common. Obviously, Corey knows more than I do, which is Dr. Cohn. But one of the things we talked about is that we have this, this, this Israel envy, as though because the Bible spoke so much of Israel, there seems to be this desire for us to kind of, as he would say, kind of hog hog in on on them. And it's not as though the guy is saying that Israel is so great, so awesome. Don't you wish you could be them, but he's just using them really to show obviously his glory, his goodness. But it's not as though that because he didn't speak much about Gentiles as he did as much about Jews or Israel, that we're an afterthought that he didn't love us. But you can't escape the fact that throughout the Old Testament, he makes these promises to Israel. But it doesn't negate the promises in the Old Testament that he also makes to Gentiles and that he is, even as he says, he is going to use Gentiles and to bring us to him, make them jealous and thereby fulfilling his promise. And so I think one of the biggest issues that they think that because we mentioned Israel, so much that there is a focus on Israel that we are worshiping Israel, idolizing Israel, and so forth. And I've stated, listen, I would, you couldn't pay me to be Israel. I don't want, I don't want to be Israel. Because in this different, at this particular dispensation, there is this spirit of stupor, this partial hardening to the nation. And right now we see Israel doing and behaving exactly as God prophesied and promised that they would, but he's dealing with us. I think that's wonderful. I think that if a person values, if you're a Gentile, you value salvation, then you should be grateful. As a matter of fact, you have to have a dispensational view, at least in that regard, because it now obviously benefits you because you're a Gentile, but he's speaking about you and this is a promise that he gave from the, from the beginning and we're seeing it happen now, but it doesn't negate that, that also that he still has his promise that he's going to fulfill in Israel. Yeah, Corey, what you're bringing up is huge. In fact, I would say it's the center point, if we really strip all the finer theological details apart and get right to the center of the matter, what dispensational thought, what dispensationalism, what dispensationalists, not everybody does this consistently or as well as the other one, but what the system itself dictates is a trust and love for the faithfulness of God's word. Not that other systems don't, but we're able to stay consistently with it. So as you brought up, if God promises certain things to Israel, which everybody across the board has to agree with, 75% of our Bible is the Hebrew scriptures, what we call the Old Testament. That word Israel continues all the way through the New Testament over 2,500 times in the Bible. The church pops up in the New Testament and that's it or the theological understanding, at least of the church of Christ church. But if we can't understand the promises given to Israel starting from that Abrahamic calling, you know, that I will bless those who bless you all, curse those who curse you, through you all the families of the earth will be blessed, which right there in Genesis 12-3 has a huge purview that includes, which would be Gentiles and the church later on, because everybody's going to be blessed through the posterity of Abraham. How so? Climax wise, the main peak obviously is the Jewish Messiah, right? So we have all these promises throughout Israel, giving them all the covenants are given to Israel as well. All of that shows that God has a tangible, concrete people on this earth to demonstrate the faithfulness to his word. Now, when we get to the New Testament, and we see promises like in Romans 8, there is now no condemnation for those in Christ. Very technical and important prepositional phrase that Paul likes to use in Christ, that those are what we call Christians. That is language for New Testament-esque believer. Those who believe in Christ, part of his body, that it's not Israel though, it's now those in Christ, those who are members of the church. And as Romans 8 ends with that golden chain of salvation, and it finally says that nothing can separate for the love of God in Christ, those are promises given to the church, which comprises both believing Jew and believing Gentile in the Messiah. It's a different program, we call it the church. If he says that to the church, and we want to stake our eternity on that as we should, we don't have a firm foundation to do so if we're going to dismiss or reinterpret all the hundreds of prophecies given to Israel that led up to that. So much so that the very next block of Scripture in Romans, following chapter 8, Romans 9 to 11, Paul goes right into the argument of God has not cast off his people because the thought would be going, well, wait a second, if he's done, if he's superseded, if he fulfilled Israel, whatever words we want to use, if he's no longer has a love for the Jewish nation, and now it's us, what do we do with all those promises? Did he renege on all of those promises? Then how can I trust him for the promises now? So Paul goes right into Romans 9 to 11 with a series of diatribe saying he has not cast off his people. He's still the covenants belong to Israel, and they will be restored and brought in. So it's a wonderful thing that we have these multiple peoples of God, whether the church, Israel, even Gentiles are going to come to, nations are going to come to, are going to flow to Jerusalem as Zechariah 14 says. This is amazing. What it does is it shines a spotlight on the beauty and the faithfulness of God and his promises going all the way back to the election of Abraham on, that he is faithful to his word. You can stake your life on it no matter what dispensation you happen to find yourself. For us right now it's the church or the dispensation of grace. It's still the same God. He is still faithful to his promises, and he brings those promises to a literal fulfillment, to a T. Therefore I have all the confidence in the world to say yes, Jesus died for my sins, I can trust in that, and I am in Christ, and there's no condemnation for me because God is faithful to his promises, especially given to us through all the promises given to Israel. And I'll end on this. It's incredible in Romans 9 to 11 that Paul goes into an argument saying, I am an Israelite. I am of the tribe of Benjamin. I am circumcised. He does this throughout Philippians and Romans. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on Corey.  Sorry, I'm like jumping out, I'm really excited here. But before I do, I want to, I want to address a couple, even though we're not necessarily taking questions now, we're taking questions. I'm propagating, I'm marking your questions guys, but I want to put something, two questions that just, I see back to back, and I mark, I mark some other questions as well guys, but a couple of them I want you guys to see. Number one, Russ says the Jews rejected him. My question is this, Russ, how do you know that? Why do you, why would you say, obviously you can't answer back or you can put it, you can put it in the comment section, but how could you even say that the Jews rejected him? Based on what? Are you taking a literal reading of the scriptures or are you sure that's what he literally meant? By the way, when they rejected him, did God have anything to say about Israel after that? And then right after his comment, Brian says that the land promises to Israel were fulfilled in Joshua. The covenant is renewed in the fulfillment with Jesus. He is the fulfillment of Abrahamic covenant. The question is this though, the land promise, in Joshua, what does the Lord say? What does the Bible say? After they go into the land, he promises to take them right back. As a matter of fact, he makes a statement, and this is why I think that our harmonics matters. I want to go to, to the Old Testament, and I want, I want you guys who, who, who might be inclined to disagree. I want you guys to tell me, what does this mean? How can you take this other than, if you don't take it literally, how do you take this? And this is Deuteronomy 32. By the way, Paul brings this up as well, but he says they had, they made him jealous with strange gods. The question is, who's the day? Well, you could not come up with anyone other than Israel, right? They made him jealous with strange God. That's Israel. And he says, with abominations, they provoked him to anger, they sacrificed to demons who were not God, to gods whom they have not known, new gods who came lately, whom your fathers did not dread. So obviously he's speaking to Israel. Then when we drop down to verse 21, he says, they can only be Israel. If you guys disagree that it's literally Israel, you're going to have to tell us, who then is he speaking of? They made me, that's God, jealous with what is not God. They have provoked me to anger with their idols. And so look what he says. So I will make them jealous with those who are not people.  And so my question would be, who's the they that made him jealous and who are the people that he is going to use to provoke them to jealousy? And then when he does so, because Paul brings this up in Romans, we go through Romans, that's why I wanted to put a hold on Romans nine and 10, because we're going to go through it. Paul literally brings this up about making them jealous. And this is what Corey was speaking of about. Did he forget about his promises? No, this is all part of his promises. We just focus on what's happened in the Old Testament. Remember, the God says, even before they go into the land, that they are not going to do right. They're going to sin. As a matter of fact, he tells them to surround me to circumcise your heart. Well, they don't. But he says I will in the future, I will circumcise your heart. And then we see this all throughout the Old Testament. And so what we're seeing happen with Israel is going to happen. What he says is going to happen is happening. But then also this promise about making a nation, a foolish nation, become a nation, those who are not beloved to be beloved, those who are not a people to be as people. That's what's happening now. And so if we are the fulfillment as Gentiles, what he says, can we forget about the other part about, yes, us Gentiles coming to him. That's a fulfillment of his promise. But there's another part of the promise that is that he's also going to bring in. He's also going to save this nation as well. And so I just be interested to hear what someone, how someone, especially you guys who would disagree with at least the hermeneutic, how would you read Deuteronomy 32 verses 16 through 21? That would be interesting. I haven't, I've never once heard, at least since we've been talking about this, an adequate response. And so you guys that are in the comments, please help us out. Because if we're wrong, I don't want to, I don't want to spend the rest of my life wrong. I want to know, I want to learn something. I'm pretty sure Cory's the same way. And so if we, if we're misunderstanding Deuteronomy 32, help us out. Yeah, you know, also Cory, as you're talking, I was thinking, because Deuteronomy is so important, obviously, and it's probably quoted among the Torah, then the other books more so throughout the rest of scripture. And I was looking at Deuteronomy 30, there's this idea, and kind of goes to one of the questions that you brought up, that the Jews reject, rejected Jesus.  Before we get there, it's, there's this idea always that, yes, there were curses and blessings promised for Israel, but even in the curses, which would sort of demand, they wouldn't enjoy the present possession of their land always, or in a consistent matter, which is exactly what history has shown. But ultimately, it was going to be God who fulfills it for them by turning their hearts. And that's promised for us in Deuteronomy 30. I'm looking at Deuteronomy 30, verses one and two. It says, and when all these things come upon you, Deuteronomy 31 too, right? So when all these things come upon you, and that's talking to Israel, this is Moses to Israel, the blessings and the curse, which I set before you, and you call them to mind among the nations where the Lord your God has driven you, and return to the Lord your God. There is the promise and you return right there in verse two, and you will return. It's not if it is you will return and return to the Lord your God, you and your children and obey his voice and all that I command you today with all your heart and with all your soul.  And the verse four goes on to describe, in fact, this whole set, this whole passage I would say is still future. This is precisely what the prophets also confirm, like Zechariah 14 and Zechariah 12. They're going to look to him who they pierced and mourn for him in spirit of grace, going to be poured out in the house of David. Zechariah 14, all the nations are going to float to Jerusalem. This has not happened yet. So to that one question, why have the Jews have rejected God? I think I understand what the question's getting at, but it's very broad and very hasty and it needs to be parsed out. Not all Jews have rejected God, clearly. Paul himself, in fact, the entire New Testament was written by Jews. Sometimes there's this idea that the New Testament is Gentile and only Old Testament is Jewish. The entire Bible, all 66 books, are thoroughly Jewish. All the apostles and the prophets were Jewish. All the writers in the New Testament were Jewish. And Paul makes that case for himself in Romans 9 to 11 that he's a Jew. So God's still faithful to his promises because he's an ethnic Jew where these promises are given to ethnic Jews and to a future nation. But what I just read in Deuteronomy 30 goes past where we're at today, looking to the future, they will, not if, they will return to God. They will repent, we would say. They will, you know, look to God, God in Christ and mourn for their Messiah and believe in him. It is promised. It's part of God's sovereignty. He will have this happen. So even the promises tied to the land felt conditionally to be able to enjoy the land consistently may have been conditional. Ultimately, it's unconditional because it's based on God who's going to do this work in Israel at that point. When the Messiah returns, I think, and this is where this is a debate among dispensations, I think every living Jewish person who survives the tribulation at that point and sees the Messiah return, every Jew alive will believe in their Messiah and will be believers. No one is saved merely by their ethnicity. Everybody saved by, by God in Christ. And so that is still to come. So the enjoyment of the land, perhaps, was tied to conditions. And I would say that's probably accurate. But ultimately, the possession of it is still to come and ultimately rest on God and his promises of what he gives in Deuteronomy and elsewhere that these things will happen according to his sovereignty. He's going to be the one turning their hearts to believe in Christ. Amen. Amen. I think, first of all, I don't understand the rush to eliminate Israel because they were disobedient and because they rejected because truth be told, are they the only people on the planet that were disobedient, that were unworthy, that were ungodly? Well, no, that's us too. As a matter of fact, a lot of us who have the Holy Spirit, we act ways and say things and behave ways. Sometimes it makes us, makes other things that, well, wait a minute, are you as saved as you think you are? But again, this promise, and here's the problem, I think too many people who, and Corey makes us, made the same. As a matter of fact, he said something. Again, I told him, made me want to shout. I've said it before too, that is, if you can't trust the promises that God made with Israel, on what basis do you have to believe and trust the promises that he made to you? And the promises that he makes to you, Paul is trying to be clear that he's made promises with Israel. All of Israel, every single Jew ever? No. But I'm with you, Corey, that he is going to, at some point in time, don't know when it's going to take place. Might be next year, might be five years. Who knows when it's going to be? Well, no, it won't be next year. But at some point in time, that nation, maybe it's only 10 of them left. Maybe it's a thousand left. Who knows? But he is going to turn the hearts of those people back to him and they'll repeat what Isaiah says in Isaiah 53. That matters, guys, what he says. That's why he's using these past tense verbs about an event that hadn't happened yet in relation to Israel, which is why Paul is quoting Isaiah in specifically Romans 9, 10, 11. And he's speaking about what they are going to do and that they did not believe the report. Well, who's the they that did not believe? Certainly not the Gentiles. He's speaking of the Jews, but he says they will. And so I think it's a huge issue. And so people say, well, I want to pull up a passage. People are asking, I think someone's asking about this particular passage, Obadiah 1. Obadiah 1 says, because of violence to your brother, Jacob, you will be, matter of fact, let's start and let's start in verse, you know what? Let's start in verse six. Oh, how Esau will will be ransacked and his hidden treasures searched out. All the men allied with you will send you forth to the border and the minute peace with you will be deceived, you and overpower you. They who eat your bread will be set and ambushed for you. There is no understanding in him. Will I not on that day declares the Lord, destroy wise men from Edom and understanding from the mountains of Esau, then your integrity, then your mighty men will be dismayed. Oh, Timon, so that everyone will be cut off from the mountain of Esau by slaughter. Because of violence, you, the violence to your brother, Jacob, you will be covered with shame and you will be cut off forever. I think someone put that in as as though that's the Israel to be cut off forever.  As a matter of fact, afterwards we see Israel being spoken of that Israel is going to be brought back from the same passage that we use to speak about hearts being regenerated. Well, the first time that we even hear about this is in regards to Israel, Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 119, Latin 19, Ezekiel 36, Jeremiah 32. And so it's not we're not saying it's just Israel that will have their hearts regenerated, but this is who we speak into first. And so when we get to Romans nine, I just don't see how anyone, how anyone can come to the conclusion, Romans nine, that Paul is not making a distinction between Israel and the church and stating that Israel will be saved. That that is the part that just that just flabbergasts me because whatever you want to point to in the Old Testament, where you think that God has said that he's going that he's through with Israel because he himself comes back and says that I will remember my covenant, not because of them, but the covenant that I made with their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And then he let matter of fact, let me do one thing before I bring you back in court. This is a passage. I love this passage. Is it song things 84 39? I think that's it. If I can remember is no, it's not 80. What is this? Oh, Lord, what is this passage is a song? Or is it? Ah, you know what? I know I just typed in this keyword. There it is 84 34. I don't know why it's a 39. We put this in Instagram. I want you guys to read this. And I want you all to see what it's literally saying. He says that my covenant, I will not violate nor will I alter the utterances of my lips. Once I have sworn by my holiness, I will not lie to David. So he, God is literally saying, I'm not by the word alter. He's not going to change. He's not going to fix it up. He's not going to, he's not going to make it to be something new. He doesn't have to, he didn't have to. Someone says regeneration is in do the round. Regeneration is also in Ezekiel. Regeneration is also in Jeremiah. And then Jesus brings us up in, in John three, but he's not going to alter. He is not going to change or differ what he's saying. He's God. He doesn't have to. He knows exactly how it's going to be an end because this is who he is. He's not like you and I. And so when we get guys to Romans nine, Paul is concerned not for the Gentile church. He's concerned about the Jews who are not coming. And I'm, I'm waiting to hear, I am waiting to hear someone tell me that Paul is not speaking about Israel. I would love to hear now. And maybe Corey, you've had some, some, some better responses from someone that, that has said, well, yeah, I can see what you're saying. I've never heard anyone that's given, maybe it's just my opinion, a legitimate argument to state that he's not giving a distinction between Israel and the church in Romans nine to 11. Maybe you have, I don't know. Yeah, that's, that's this block of scripture, Romans nine through 11 is one of those passages, one of those, those parts portion of scripture we as dispensational sort of hang our hat on, on this idea that God has a future for Israel. He has not rejected his people because it's plain as day, but Corey, as you keep bringing up, that is only based on a consistent interpretive approach. So one of the arguments would have to be to make Israel anything other than national ethnic Israel, the promises given throughout the Old Testament to his people, Israel, anything other than that, that is a spiritual Israel, that it's the church, that it's really Christ and not Israel. You have to do some gymnastics throughout Romans nine to 11. And here's one in particular, and this is usually what's gets brought up. The end of Romans nine through 11 chapter 11 Romans chapter 11 says this, excuse me, 1125. Here you got 1125 and 26 using the word Israel in both places. The consistent interpretive method, you say, okay, Israel means the same thing in both places. If you are thinking of it theologically where Israel has to be done with in some sense, it's a spiritualized or it's replaced or whatever it may be, you have to take Israel verse 26 to mean something totally different. So I'm looking at your screen, thanks for having it on. So I don't have to keep looking down on my show on my lap here, but look what he says, for I do not want you to be you brethren to be uninformed of this mystery so that you will not be so that you will not be wise in your own estimation that a partial hardening has happened to Israel. Everyone across the board is going to understand that has to be national Israel. I mean, that's been the case for 2000 years now just about there's a partial hardening meaning that not all Jewish people believe in the Jewish Messiah. There was a remnant, but not all of them do. So a partial hardening has happened to Israel until this arcade, the adverb there, and it's only partial to a certain time, the fullness of the Gentiles come in, they're in verse 26. And so all Israel will be saved. If Israel means ethnic national Israel in verse 25, it takes, it's too much of a stress just the very next verse to flip flop and say, okay, Israel means something totally different the next verse. That would be too much to even demand on the Romans, the original Christians who got this letter to demand on them without any explanation. Perhaps Paul just means Israel in both places. So Israel will be saved national Israel still in the future. And there is a partial hardening upon Israel now to make that mean anything else means that you have to do some inconsistent harmonics and reinterpret that second Israel to mean something else. And Paul makes it very clear, even in Romans, in Romans 10, I mean, you have to understand, it's funny how it's not funny, but I've noticed that those who don't take Israel as being consistently Israel throughout Romans nine to 11 or throughout the Bible, they have no problem sort of adapting the spiritual blessings to the church, but they somehow dismiss all the curses and everything else, right? You have to do something in Romans 10. That's very clear that it couldn't be clear that Paul's talking about Israel in these passages. Romans 10, one brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them. Right? Look at that verse one. Who is the them? You have to just go back up to all the way up the text until you see in verse 30 Rome, verse 31 or Romans nine, clearly it's but that Israel pursued a law. So he's talking about Israel. When he gets to Romans 10, my heart's desires for them to be saved. Obviously, that can't be the church because the church is saved. Church by definition are those who believe in Christ. He is talking about Israel, the ethnic national Israel, as it's got in a sense like, look at Israel as this lesson, this object on earth for us to be able to tangibly look at and know God is still faithful to his promises. And Paul's going to make that case even in Romans nine through 11 that he is. Romans 11 in particular, Brian, myself and Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people for who he foreknew. Paul saying, even if he was the last Jewish person alive, God is still faithful to his promise. And I want you to see that when it says in Romans 11, one, this comes out in the Greek text far more than the English. But Romans 11 one, Paul says, I say, then God has not rejected his people. Has he? Look how he answers. May it never be that in the Greek is mega noita. It is the strongest way to express abhorrence in the Greek language. And it's used in a context where he's making it.  May it never be sometimes translations say God forbid by no means is another way. Paul could not be clear. And the Romans, the original recipients of this letter in the church of Rome would have understood that as well to make that mean anything else that it's not Israel. And that God has not rejected Israel. And that Israel is now spiritually the church or has been subsumed into Christ, which comes with its own problems. How do you subsume land borders into a person, all those things. That's just plain sort of hermeneutical hopscotch. But a consistent method, whether you want to call yourself a distance, there's not it doesn't matter. And consistent method demands that God has talked about national Israel, ethnic Israel, God, it still has a plan for Israel, they will be saved in the future. And that is distinct from his, his purposes right now on earth, saving people through the church. Yeah, before before we I want to I want to take a few of these, a few of these questions, but before we do, and I've seen people that are asking some of these questions similar to this, there's this belief that and this and this only comes from your how you how you read into the passages, because we are quick to condemn someone for ice ajeeding. But guys, if you have a conclusion and your reading is it leads your conclusion leads your reading, then it's the same thing. And so when he says that not all Israel is Israel, that doesn't give you room to say, Yeah, but a Gentile can be Israel. No, he's just saying that all of those who are Jewish or Israel are true Israel. But what I want to do is, is go ahead and answer or bring up some of these some of these questions. Matter of fact, this actually pretty good question. Damonte, John says, how did the apostles read the text, though? And I think I want to ask you that question, because I think that's important, because I don't think that they that they have a certain way of reading it. And then we're supposed to read a different way or what have you. So, so how would you answer that? Good question. This is, yeah, Damonte, you put you put your your thumb on the pulse of a hotbed issue that tomes of books are written within evangelicalism right now. There is some debate on this. Do we translate the scriptures or do we read the scriptures as the apostles did? Or are they special? I mean, the apostles are very few of them that actually in all of human history that wrote inspired scripture. Did they have some different insider method that that we can't use that they use during the inspiration process, those types of things, a lot of good books on it. And there's actually some disagreements even within dispensationalism. One book in particular, I think is helpful. And I wouldn't agree with all of it, but he makes a good case. And I was by Avner Chow. I think it's called the hermeneutics of the Bible, learning to read scripture like the prophets and apostles, something like that. It's published by Kriegel Academic. He makes the case. Yes, we read scriptures like the apostles did. They have adopted this same what we call today a consistent literal grammatical historical methods, what they did throughout the Old Testament. By the time you get to the New Testament, they are using scriptures and interpreting the same way. But in the Old Testament, when Old Testament passages are quoted within the Old Testament, and then the New Testament quotes Old Testament passages, it was sort of this web. They're all interconnected. Someone called that interconnected biblical exegesis. Avner Chow uses the idea of authorial logic that every prophet knew what they were saying and kind of dropped the ball for the next prophet to pick up when God would use whoever else was to be used. By the time you get to the New Testament, they're doing the same thing. They are just drawing out the significance and the conclusions and reading scripture the same way. That is a helpful way to look at it. Another helpful way to look at it, I would say, oftentimes when we see the New Testament quoting the Old Testament, we assume that's a direct one to one fulfillment correlation. And that's just not the case. Oftentimes, the New Testament authors will quote the Old Testament not for its meaning, but drawing out an analogy or an illustration, drawing out its significance. We do this all the time. When we preach, when we teach, we draw it and we use an analogy to get a point across. They do that as well oftentimes. It's not that here was a prophecy and now it's a direct beeline to their quotation as fulfillment. They were seeped and immersed in the Hebrew scriptures. They knew them backwards and forward. These apostles in the New Testament formed their thinking on all things. So they can freely quote or allude to the Old Testament without the intention of saying, hey, this is a direct fulfillment of it, borrowing on language for illustrative purposes, for drawing out a significance without changing the meaning. The meaning is always locked in history. That meaning is still there. But the apostle sometimes will quote or refer to scriptures to point out the significance of the text. Never is it ever changing the meaning of the text, which I would argue is always singular, which is always fixed in history tied to the author's original intent. One of the things that like you said, we'll have this discussion from now until the time that we die until the time that Christ returns. But this issue of our hermeneutics being a literal grammatical historical hermeneutic, meaning that we don't understand sometimes. I think when we say it, they don't hear it. And my dear brother, he's doing this now. When we say literal, we think that everything is taking literal one note. Same way that we read everything else. We read it literally until there's reason not to. And we understand that there are little doesn't mean that you don't recognize figures of speeches, figures of speech, semiles, metaphors, and so forth. And so he says, or is it he says, oh, about in regards to us taking things literally and so forth, he says, don't muzzle an ox. Did Paul interpret this literally?  Most of us don't have an ox in the backyard. They do. They under or they understand how an ox works. And so all, we get the, we get the point, we get the meaning. And so when he uses figures of speech, we understand that if I tell you it's hot as the blazes outside or it's hot as H-E-L-L, I understand what that means, or it's burning up or it's pouring down. I'm using a metaphor, I'm using Sybilis figures of speech, and we still get that. And so I, guys, I wish you all do it now. I want to go take that. And I want to go to a question that Brian asked. Where is it? It's a question about Romans. Oh, there it is. He says, Romans nine six uses Israel twice in the same verse, but those are two different Israel. So the objection in Romans 11 where the prophet decided about Israel. So let's go to Romans nine six and let's just see. So Romans nine six. Uh-oh. I don't have that. Romans 11. Romans nine. And so let's put it on the screen. Romans nine six, but it is not as though the world, word of God has failed for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel. This is Brian, if you could just tell me where you, where you're located, if you just tell me where you're located, I will either drive there or get on a plane, come there and then I would shake you real hard and help you. Brian, let's just do this. Let's go back to the text. Let's start instead of verse six. Let's go to verse one. Paul is saying, by the way, by the way, here's the interesting thing. Paul isn't just making this up in the vacuum. He didn't just, let's just start in verse chapter nine where he just concluded what he said in chapter eight about salvation. There'll be no separation and so forth. Then he goes to about Israel. And so notice what he says. He says, I'm telling you the truth in Christ. I'm not lying. I think Paul really wants us to believe what he's saying. My conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit that I have a great sorrow and an unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were a curse separate of Christ. Why Paul? Well, for the sake of my brethren. Well, which brethren? Your spiritual brethren? No. He says my kinsmen according to the flesh. You couldn't spiritualize that if you wanted to. He says according to the flesh. You couldn't come back and say that he says spiritual brothers because he says according to the flesh. Karasaka, which is according to the flesh, who are and then he makes it even clearer who are Israelites. That's not us. These are Israelites according to the flesh to whom belong the adoptions as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the temple services and the promises. Who are the fathers and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh?  Amen. But it is not as though the Word of God has failed for they are not who's the they. That's the question we got to ask, Brian. Who is the they that's used there? Who's he speaking of? They are not all Israel who are descended from. Notice what he says, Brian. The answer is in your question. Decent those who are descended from Israel, though not all of Israel are those who are descended from Israel, nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but through Isaac your descendant. And he gives us, he gives the example of there being two children and then speaks of the one. This is who he's speaking of. So it's the the Jews who are the Jews by faith who are the true Jews. That's his point. You cannot come back and say that you are using your hermeneutic is as grossly inconsistent and allegorical as it could possibly be. If you come away from Romans nine and six, not thinking that he's speaking about Israel. I don't know if you want to have a look at him on that, Corey. Yeah, that 100% agree with you. And it's interesting when you had the Greek text up there, it makes it very clear. Like even in your your translation, Corey, what translation are you using? It's hard to see on my screens. This is the NESB. I had I've been by other people who said, Corey, you're too Calvinistic. You're using ESV. Like, okay, wow, yeah, you can't win. So I said, well, this is the NESB though. So to warm the hearts of your Calvinistic viewers, I'm actually reading an ESV, but I'm like, read the text right for me. So I'm glad to look at it right here. But I noticed this when you were reading it. So the New American Standard helps us with this. In Romans nine, six, look what it says. There's italics, right? It is not as though the word of God has failed for they are not all Israel who are. Look what they do there. They put a verb in there. It's when you see that italics descended. See how that's italicized? And the New American Standard, that's a clue for the reader. Say that's not in the original text. It's implied, but it's not there. When I go over to the Greek text where I see it there, that preposition X, it's literally just out of Israel. And I think that's a better if we're being literal. It would be for they are not all Israel who are out of Israel, meaning those, just what you just said, those who are in Israel, there are those that are unbelievers. And even some that are in Israel can tie their lineage back to Ishmael because he goes on to say, but it is through Isaac, your descendants will be named. That was the children of promise. And those were the believers of the promise. So the distinction is made right there. And the Greek helps us a little bit, I think, with that preposition out of because you can read it, you know, those who are descended from Israel are not all those who are Israel or descent from Israel is the New American Center says the ESV says not all those who are not for not all those who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, same type of thing. It's really it's the idea is those who are in Israel at the time, Paul's making the case that there are non believers, even though they live in Israel, and they can even tie their ethnic lineage back to Ishmael and not the child of the promise, which is Isaac, which is exactly what he goes right into in the next verses. Yeah, someone asked this is this is my brother 1689. I still call them that's they change their their profile names from time to time. And so right now he's federal ex theology, but I still call him 1689 Baptist. He says Romans eight is about believers, then he suddenly switched to Israel in nine. Yes. Let me say it again. Let me get closer to the screen. Yes. Because he's speaking about who who who who are who are not accepting Christ. He's speaking about those people who are because because notice, you got to say the same thing when he's speaking about Jews in Romans three, then he makes us then he makes a switch to be kind of all inclusive. So he's speaking about salvation, Roman date. And when he gets to chapter nine, 1011, he's got a problem. Well, dog on it. What's what's happened with with my with my Jewish brother? And he says, is it as though that God's promises have failed? Well, no, he's still going to keep his promises. Let me let me go to I have to dog on him getting worked up. Okay. Look what he says. Well, yeah, you're working me up. Romans 10 one going back to they says my brethren, my heart design prayer is to God for there to them for their salvation. For I know, by the way, the word there is also not there. But but it's for their salvation for I testify about them that they have. And we know it's the they because we say we have the plural in a cousin. So we know it's the they who's the they that's being spoken of. The they guys that's being spoken of is not the Gentile believers because they're the ones that's coming. Paul's issue. Paul's issue. I can't I can't start Romans eight would be a favorite. I and I grant you, Romans eight is speaking about all of us having salvation. Those of us that are in Christ, in Christ, the problem that you're going to have to come to. And this is why we're making this point, guys, is that God made all of these think about it. God made all these promises, all these statements about Israel and then bam, we're through with Israel. No, that's what Paul is doing right here. Paul is saying and the reason why let me just be honest, guys, I love you to death, but the reason why guys will hold on this, who are who who tends to want to hold on to this will be those who have a covenant of theology because your confessions lead you to this. You are the new Israel.  Well, no, God hadn't forgotten his promise. He's not altering his promises that he's made. Remember, God wasn't tied or forced to choose Abraham. No one said, Hey, God, I think it'd be a good idea if you go ahead and and make this promise to Abraham. I think it'd be a good idea if you make this promise to Isaac and Jacob. I think it'd be a good idea for you to cause Jacob or Israel to go into Egypt. I think it'd be no God does this on his own. And then he tells when they when the disobedient that he's going to bring them back, not because they're so wonderful and that they're going to do right. No, but because remembering the promise that he made, that he did on his own. And so when he gets to Paul, Paul is bothered because his countrymen aren't aren't following this. He says my heart desires for that for their salvation. Now, they have a zeal, but not according to knowledge. Well, who is he speaking of? He couldn't be speaking of Gentiles because he there's nowhere that we're saying that the Gentiles have a zeal for him, but not according knowledge for not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own. They did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God for Christ is the end of the law. Gentiles had no issue or concern about the law. They didn't deal with the law. Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness, which is based on the law shall live by the law. Who was he speaking of? He can only be speaking of Israel. And then here's what I think is interesting is he then Paul speaks about. We read Romans 10 and I think it's fine to do so, but Romans 10 and Paul speaking about placing their or having this confession and so forth. Paul is speaking of the Jews, though they've heard the gospel, they rejected it. They still need to have someone to preach to them. He says, starting in verse 11, for the scripture says, whoever believes in him will not be disappointed, for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. Is there? Now does he mean that there's no such thing literally as Jew and Greek? No, but in terms of salvation, for the same Lord is Lord of all abounding and riches for all who call him. Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. And look what he says. I think this is really telling. How then will they call on the name? And by the way, the word they is not there, but this is a plural era subjunctive. How will they call on him on whom they have not believed? Well, who's he speaking of? And how will they believe in him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will the preacher, how will they preach unless they are sent? How before a few of those who bring good news of tidings? And look what he says. However, they did not all heed the good news. Who's the they? Israel, for Isaiah says, the Lord who has believed that report. So faith comes not by hearing, I'm sorry, comes from hearing and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say they have. Now look what he says. But I say surely they have never heard. Have they? Indeed they have. Who's the they? The Jews, their voice has gone out into all the earth and their words to the ends of the world. But I say surely Israel did not know. Did they? First, Moses says, and it's what I read and I do around me. I will make you. Who's the you? Israel jealous by that, which is not a nation. That's us by a nation without understanding. I will anger you. And Isaiah is very bold to say, I was found by those who did not seek me. I became manifest to those who don't ask me. That's us. But as for Israel, all day long, I have stretched out my hands to an obstinate or disobedient people. Then he speaks about Israel's not being cast away. And this word right here is those who believe in eternal security. Notice the word that's used here. He says may apostate, which is not they have been rejected or cast out. God has not rejected. By the way, hafeaz tan la'am, outoos, outoos. You know what that means? Paul literally just called the Jews God's people. Well, so you can't come back and say, well, they're not his people. Yeah, they are. Now, which ones? All of them? No, obviously the person that is rejecting him. But he has reserved for himself these people. You guys cannot get. He says Christ rejected him. This is why I think it's funny. Christ rejected, they rejected Christ all throughout the Old Testament. So did you. So did we. So we don't, we don't get a moral high ground because we have the benefit of having their history because who, who, what is our lineage? Were we Edomites? Were we Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites? Where did we come from? We didn't come from Israel. So we came from a nation that turned our back thoroughly on God. And if, by the way, the Jews weren't disobedient, we might not be here because we should have, or at least our descendants or not our descendants, our forefathers should have been thoroughly slaughtered. So guys, don't think that because they were disobedient as Paul goes and say, don't be arrogant towards them. Don't do that because you might find, I'm not saying you because I know, I know, uh, 699 is actually, I believe he's a true brother, but there's others who do so. And you've probably seen this Cory who, who had this arrogance towards Israel. And it makes you wonder, then do you actually have the love of Christ because his scripture still has a promise for them. And so if you're running around thinking that you're, you're awesome, you're great, you're amazing because you name, because you say the name of Christ, maybe you don't. Maybe your righteousness is just like that of the scribes and Pharisees. And if that's the case, Jesus says, you will in no way enter the kingdom. I'm sorry. I wouldn't want to run right there, but I got fired up. Yeah, you know, I'm thinking, and even the end of Romans 11 ends with that, that olive tree analogy to emphasize the point that you're making Cory is that to not be boastful. Uh, if the wild graft branches can be grafted in by God's grace and it's the, the root that supports you, you don't support the root. Um, you know, and this whole point is to not be, I believe the root there are the promises going back to Abraham. Um, the part, the point is not to be spiritually arrogant. And even Israel itself or is, were, were there Jewish people that were arrogant to, to being called by God? Yeah, I would think, I mean, when you think about it, if there was one race of people, we can use that language that had some type of justification to feel superior over anybody else, it certainly would be the Jewish people because they are called the apple of God's eye. They are his people. And with that comes this temptation to feel like you are superior over everybody. And then you can have some idea that, you know, well, God says I'm his, so I'm better than you. But he makes it very clear in Deuteronomy seven, I did not choose you because you're so great because you're large in number or any of that, because I want to show my love on a people and you're the ones that I've done nothing because of anything good you've done. The problem is by sending to Romans two and to go back to one of the questions the brother said earlier about Romans nine to 11 seems to be this disruptive thought. It's nothing about, you know, everything in Romans eight and beforehand as salvation or in Christ and all of a sudden this thing about Israel, however the question was framed, I would say that everything in Romans nine to 11, he has to talk about his people, the Jewish people because he's been, if without Romans nine to 11, you take that out, you have a lot of condemning statements about Jewish hypocrites and them boasting in the law from Romans chapter two versus 17 all the way to the end of the chapter. If we're left with that, it is this negative picture of the Jewish people. Everything is building up to, wow, so he talks about it, all have fallen short in the glory of God, Romans three. The Gentile is falling short, the Jewish is falling short, the hypocrite is falling short, the moral person, whether you're a Jew or Gentile, it's building up to that percent of by trying to get to Romans nine to 11, Paul has to deal with what has got us so faithful to his promises. And it's not the only time he's talking about Jewish people. In fact, Romans nine to 11 is the only time he mentions Israel, I think a dozen times, but he's talking about Jews up until then and it's pretty negative. He gets to Romans nine and say, listen, now that I've built up to this, everybody stands condemned, Jew and Gentile, he still is faithful to promises, there is still a future. He has not rejected his people, as you said, Corey Hins right there in the text, because that would be the question that would be naturally asked by the time the original readers got to that section. Some exegetes that aren't even, many exegetes that aren't even dispensationalists realize this. For example, C. E. B. Cranfield. Cranfield is one of the best exegetical commentaries, he's a critical commentator on Romans, got two volumes published in the 70s. He makes that case very strongly as well. It's Romans nine to 11 is not disruptive in the text, everything is building up to that. If the Gospels present are Romans 116, the Gospels of power salvation, those who believe both to the Jew and to the Greek, and it's governed by a present active verb, it is the salvation both the Jew and Greek, so it's still not was, but still for the Jewish person first in the Greek, that leads all the way up to find you get to Romans nine to 11 to get fleshed out and has a look concretely when we're talking about God's promises, his elective promises. Does he elect individual believers in Christ? Absolutely. But does he elect a nation of people on earth collectively? Absolutely. That's the point. Israel's sort of the great objective illustrator for individual election, but it starts with his electing a people Israel, which are still called his people. But everything you're leading up to Romans nine is just leading to that. It's not so disruptive. Romans nine to 11 isn't this weird block. You can just take it out, put it somewhere else. In fact, every manuscript we have that I know of ancient manuscripts of Romans contain Romans nine to 11 in it, because some have tried to make that case that this was added later, which the text 11 and since there it's all part of the same manuscript. Yeah, it makes sense. Paul is leading to that. He has to deal with the Jewish problem because everything up until then is like they stand condemned along with Gentiles. When now he flushes it out, he still has a special love by his grace to them. They will fulfill the promises that he's given them and and and all to the glory of God. And that's why he ends Romans level with that great doxology. Who can understand these things? Who can send the mind God to him? Be all the glory. And it's really shown the wisdom that God has vindicated and justified in this by his election of the Jewish people, as well as those that we would call in the church. Amen. I know we're getting closer to time. We're going to have to shut it down, but I want to I want to give you a question. This question comes up. And so now this says this isn't about Romans actually about Romans at all, but it's about a passage in Mark before I go there. The least of these says this statement. This is going to lead to the person's questions that and he will return to it. I think that's important guys. It's not that he just chose a place just, you know, where when I return, where can I return to? Yeah, let me see. Miami's nice this time of year. What about Hawaii? What about a Rubin? No, he's going to Israel to a disobedient nation. That's where he's going to show up. He's so he's going to return there. But the reason I brought that up is because faith refined by fire asked a question. And so I'll see how you answer this question. He says, how do dispensations deal with Mark 1330, where Jesus says, truly, I say to you this, and I think it's what she's focusing on, this generation will not pass until these things take place. And I'm just put that on the screen also for you guys. He says, truly, truly, I say to you that this generation will not pass until all these things take place. So how would you, I'm sure you've been confronted with this before dealing with eschatological issues. The this, how would you interpret the this or this generation? Yeah, this is there's there's some there's a multiple. There's a few ways we can actually look at this and dispensation. Let's do that. The this generation is referring to the people that are going to be at the end of time at when these things happen that he's describing a certain generation that will be alive at that time. And that's a good interpretation to go to. It's an interesting question because right now I happen to be the editor of a new monograph series that we're launching. I'm an SES Press and one of the first volumes we're going to be publishing is on this particular passage. And the author of that who is a dispensation makes the argument and a strong one that that English translation generation, and you see it there with a little one there for your new American standard because it's got a little it's got a little marker there. Isn't the best translation for that because that particular word that's used, which is ganeta, which is there at the end there at where is it? Generation for the generation. Yeah, it's not showing on your thing there, but it should be that the word generation is that's the word there, right? It's really it's the best way to the way that it's used contextually elsewhere is talking to not a certain time of people. It's not temporal. It's a kind of people. And what Jesus is referring to is this disobedient people will continue to be here because they'll stay disobedient until these things happen. So he's not just talking about that generation. There are those people there, but a kind of nonbeliever who will remain on the earth until in fact his audience were Jews until the return of Christ and every Jewish person will at that point return and trust in the Lord through Christ. So I think that's a strong argument right there that that very word generation could be better translated as a kind of people. And there are there are multiple places that are proven where that's the very sense of that word. So we generally tend to think as our English is limited that generation is just this temporal thing Jesus talking to that group right there talking about them in time. And it's not he's they are representing a kind of non believing disobedient people. Yeah, I can that seriously that will be there throughout time until the return of Christ. I can't remember who this was. And I quoted him before and then I went and looked at it. This is a an actual Greek scholar and he makes the point and I don't know that he was even agreeing or disagree was just making the point that when we go back to this particular word, this word outay is that that we think when it says the word this that it means this that this pronoun has has a timestamp to it, but they don't this doesn't necessarily mean this in terms of time it can mean this anything. And I did this before we cover other examples where outay or other uses of the word this doesn't mean this at that specific exact moment or this exact group of people is just referring to, as you said, that particular generation that is going to go through that. So there's a strong there's a strong case that it's not just so it's not just the pronoun, but it's also used with the genotype, the word that gets translated generation, that is describing a particular kind or type of people and that would be a disobedient people. But that's that's one way to answer her question. And I think there's some strong evidence we're going to publish volume on that. But the other one was commonly considered by dispensationalists is that the this is referring to the people that Jesus is describing starting in verse 14. But when you see the abomination of desolation standing there standing where he will not to be let the reader understand he's describing these people are still in the future. That would be the other way to interpret this as a dispensationalist that this generation is still that future people when the abomination desolation happens that that Jesus talking about starting in verse 14 on you got two good options there. One thing it can't mean obviously that that particular people right then everything would take place while they were still alive. Clearly that that can't be it because these things haven't happened yet. And if that's what he meant that we have to spiritualize everything that he was saying was going to happen that those aren't literal. But to take it literal, we got two good options. This generation is referring to a a disobedient non believing people to the kind of people that will be throughout the ages until the return of Christ, or is referring to the generation that will be alive in the future after the abomination of desolation is committed that Jesus is pointing to starting in verse 14 of that same chapter. Yeah, that's really kind of how I that your last example. That's that's how I personally how I how I view it. But now guys, first of all, when you can ever come in contact with two Cori's, whose last name begins with him, who both now Cori's wearing a hat, but he's bald. So there we go.  It doesn't happen every every, you know, that often. But what I want to do, I want to put Cori on the spot. I got to put him on spot. The reason why is because I want to have him back, but I want him to bring Frank with him. Is it Frank? Is it Frank? Frank. That's his name, right? You talking to me? Yeah, I'm talking to you. Let's see. I'll sorry, James. Why am I thinking Frank? Well, I'm thinking Frank, but I want to get him and James back. Yeah. Again, to have this conversation and maybe maybe even narrow it down. I don't know. But I want to I'm putting him on the spot here because you can't really be a Christian and say no, when someone asked you nicely, right? So I want to try to get him back, get him back again. I know he's gonna be the first. Let me be the first to want to say no now. Yeah, no, you know what, Cori, I would love for James to be part of this. I'm sure he would too. I mean, we're busy academics that have a large plate full of things, but if we can make it work where he can be on with me. In fact, I told him yesterday that this interview is happening. So and he may have been a little little upset that he couldn't join. I don't know. He didn't say that, of course, but who knows. But him and I would yeah, I'm sure he would love to be honest with you and we can have another conversation and get to the weeds of some of the stuff. Amen. And so with that being said, guys, make sure you guys go out and check out this book, Discovering Dispensationalism. Apparently, there's some hubbub about it because it's hard to get the book delivered to you today or tomorrow. And so that just kind of speaks to the interest in the book. Mine is coming. It won't be here for another week or two. But go guys and go and order the book. It's what I think it's $30 on Amazon and 19 if you get on Kindle or what have you. I don't know what Kindle is. I've heard about Kindle. I've never seen Kindle. But Amazon, I do know. They love our house. They're here every day. So yeah, it's on Kindle. So go and check it out. What it will do, well, it's what it should do, is it should eliminate the argument that this is a novel discussion, that this is brand new, that this just occurred. This is because of Schofield and this is because of Dar being so forth. And it's not. This has been around for some time. And remember guys, most of a large part of church thought was dominated by the Catholic Church. And so we don't know what everyone else was thinking because you've got this big eight-hundred-pound gorilla that is influencing a lot of thought. Thank God, though, that they weren't as influential as they would like to have thought. But the point is, make sure you go out and buy this book. Well, the other one, though, I want to get as well, the one that the 600-page one that you and Cone did, or that you were part of with Cone. I want to get that as well. And also the one biblical literacy. I think that is very important as well. Biblical literacy, I think that is vital and important because I think the biggest problem that we have in the church is a lack of people understanding how to read the Bible. So that being the case, Brother Corey, thank you so much for being here. I enjoyed this. I know you have to get back to teaching the kids today. You have classes today to teach. Today I'm actually off, but today I have some writing projects, so I'm excited about it. I'm actually writing a new book on dispensationalism with Kreegel Academic. Myself, I'm Snowburger, who's a professor at Systematic Theology at Detroit Seminary. We have that we're doing. As well as a new book, I have with Christian Focus on defining evangelicalism and bringing them back from the sort of critical and even leftist, wocus type culture, I don't know, but kind of defining what makes up the fundamentals of evangelicalism. So I'm working on those two projects and that's keeping me pretty busy with a full-time teaching load. Amen. Amen. So guys, do me a favor. I no one would say, hey, go out and check out his channel and make sure you go out and check out his book. Also, guys, don't forget tomorrow we are also going to be here early tomorrow. My Calvinist brothers are going to love the guests. We're going to have tomorrow's going to be Dr. Layton Flowers. He's going to come here and tell you why.  No, I'm kidding, but no, he's going to. There are some things that I disagree with him on and some things I do agree with him on. We'll have him here. I can't remember what time it is. I don't know if it's 12, 11, 10. I'm not sure, but we'll be here. We'll fellowship together and then we'll also come back again later in the afternoon tomorrow and do our continued Q and A's tomorrow. So anyway, guys, thank you so much, brother Corey. Thank you so much to the rest of you guys. God bless you and I will see you all later.