Psalm 83: Past, Present, or Future?

0:01 Looking at our world from a theological perspective. This is the Theology Central podcast making Theology Central. Good afternoon everyone. It is Wednesday, June nineteenth, twenty twenty four. It is currently five four pm Central Time, and I am coming to you live from the Theology Central studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. Now, when it comes to interpreting the Bible, when it comes to the study of hermeneutics, and hermonutics is really the system, the idea is the principles we use in order to interpret the Bible. Now, in some ways, hermeneutics is really just kind of the science of interpretation, and we use that for everything we read. But when it comes to the Bible, when it comes to understanding and interpreting the Bible, which everyone is engaged in. Every Christian is engaged in Bible interpretation. Don't just go to your church and go whatever you tell me. No Christians read, they interpret, they argue, they debate, they think their interpretation is right. Whether they've ever studied hermanutics, they still draw conclusions and interpret the text. But when it comes to the idea of Bible interpretation, when it comes to the concept of hermeneutics. I want you to consider and I want you to think about the following three things. Are you ready? If you have a piece of paper, you may want to write these down. Three things. Number one descriptive versus prescriptive, descriptive versus prescriptive, descriptive versus prescriptive. This is

1:42 the idea. When you open your Bible and you're reading a passage, is that passage simply describing what has occurred or describing what will occur? It just simply describing something? Or is it prescribing that you do ABCDE you'll get the same results. Is it prescribing something you're supposed to do? Is it prescribing something you know? Is it telling you something to do? Or is it simply describing something. Let me give you an example. Early this morning, I was looking on one of my podcast apps and I have the devotional feed from Sermonadio. I don't even know where I obtained this RSS feed, but it works pretty good on most of the podcasting apps. So I get the Spurgeons Morning and Evening devotional, the audio devotional sent to some of my podcast apps. Because of this RSS feed that comes from Sermonadio, I don't even know where I found it. I found this probably I don't even know how many years ago, and I've been just using it and moving it from podcast app to podcast app. But I started listening. It's about three minutes four minutes long, and it's, you know, based off Morning and Evening, the famous devotional by Charles Hatton Spurgeon. Well, this morning he was in Acts chapter two, and of course Acts chapter two is the day of Hintecost, the Holy Spirit falls upon them and basically Charles Spurgeon was taken In fact, I was going to do a broadcast about it. He basically takes Acts chapter two and says, see, this is what we need. We need the Holy Spirit basically to fall upon us, to fill us, and then we will have power and we will have ability, and we will have this

3:15 and we will have this and we will And I'm like, wait a minute, is Acts chapter two prescribing something or is it simply describing what happened on the day of Pentecost. Wasn't what happened in Acts two a fulfillment of what was pictured and Leviticus when it talked about the day of Pentecost or what? So? Was it simply in a description or is it prescribing? So many people go to acts too and says, well, if we'll all come together and we will pray, then the Holy Spirit will fall upon us and then we will have power and ability and we will be holy and we and I'm like, I don't know if X two is really prescribing anything. It's just describing what occurred. And I and Christians never agree many cases, it was this passage descriptive or prescriptive? Will most sermons take every repassage and make it turns it into something prescriptive. You need to do this, and we need to do this, and if we need to do this, and if we will do this, and then we will get this ability and we will gain victory. And you're kind of like, I don't know if that's really prescribing something. I think is simply describing what happened. Now, maybe there's some lessons we can take from it, but we got to really decide descriptive or prescriptive, all right, So that's that's the first thing I want you to write down. Descriptive versus prescriptive. Number two past present, future, past present future. Now, this can get very convoluted. And very confusing quickly.

4:38 So you're going to have to listen carefully. So whatever destructions are around, you tell them, shh okay to them, be quiet. I've got to hear this all right, Past present, future. Whenever you come to a passage of scripture, you have to ask this. Not only do you ask is it descriptive or is it prescriptive? You ask is this describing something past, present, or future? And what do I mean by that? Well, I mean a couple of things. And so this is where it can get confusing. First of all, you have to take into consideration when it was written. When this passage was written, was it talking about something that was a past event for the original recipients? Was it describing something that was a present event for the original recipients, or was it describing something that would be a future event for maybe the original audience or even someone else's generations to come. So first you have to consider past, present, future as it relates to the original recipients of each letter of each book. Hey, when this book was given to whomever, was it describing events that were passed for them, present for them or future for them and for generations to come?

5:50 Past, present, future, all right. In other words, so I'll give you a good example. When they talk about the coming Babylonian captivity, Well, that's future for the original recipients. It's past for me though, right when there was warnings about seventy a d that was future for them, but past for me. So we consider past, present, future first and foremost as it relates to the original recipients. Is that talking about something that had happened in the past for them? Present it's happening right now for them, or future for them? So past present, future as it pertains to the original audience, then we have to ask the question, is this passage past, present or future for us now the future recipients for it, for you and for me in twenty twenty four. So if I read a passage, is that describing something past for me? Okay, well I think it is. What event is it talking about? Is it talking about something that relates to our present? Well that's very difficult sometimes to determine, But okay, does it relate to something in a present or is it related to something future even for us? So when it comes to Biblical harmoneutics, when it comes to entering a passage of scripture, The first thing you need to consider is descriptive versus prescriptive. Is it simply describing something or is it prescribing something we're to do? And second you need to consider past, present future for the original recipients and for you when you open your Bible, is this describing something that was a past event for us, it's it's in our past, it's you know, it's passed way way before we even existed. Or

7:24 present. Is it describing something that's going on now or is it future for us? So for the original recipients, was it passed for them, present for them or future for them? And then for the for us, is it passed for us? Present for us or future for us? Past present future? Now Once again there will be massive disagreements. You can come to a passage and go, oh, that's that was future for the original recipients, but it's past for us. That was fulfilled in you know whatever, you know, seventy five A D three hundred eighty or it was it was fulfilled in you know, five point thirty six BC, whatever the case may be. But for the original recipients it was future. But it's past for us, that past, present future. We have to think long and hard about that. Because people get that all can feel. They'll take a passage and be like, oh, this is describing something that is to come.

8:18 You're like, no, that was describing seventy eight. Like Matthew twenty four, that was describing seventy a D. For example, Matthew twenty four, the obvious most relevant connection those events are talking about is seventy a D. They come out of the temple, they talk to Jesus, Hey, do you see this, and he's like, yeah, do you see this? It's all coming down, It's all going to be destroyed. He's talking about the temple that was in existence when he was on earth, and that temple was destroyed in seventy a D. So primarily Matthew twenty four was future for the original hearers, but it is passed for us. Now I get well.

8:58 Christians agree on that, absolutely not. They will fight and argue all day. So many times people will be quoting some scripture and they're like, that's talking about the future. I'm like, what are you talking about? That was fulfilled? Was it was future for the original recipients. That's past for us, that's already been fulfilled. So these are just basic hermeneutical principles. This is like hermeneutics one oh one. This is what every young person who goes to church, they should learn these hermaeutical principles. Okay, so descriptive versus prescriptive, descriptive past, present, future again for the original recipients and for us. And then third, literal or spiritual? Literal or spiritual.

9:46 When we read a passage, do we understand this? Is usual? This is usually in reference to future things, right, Usually this is in a reference to future things. If we decide that the passage has some relevance to the future that we have to determine, do we under stand that to be literal or spiritual? Now, this can get really really weird, right, This can get really really weird. When you talk to Christians, they can look at a passage and they'll be and they'll say, Okay, let's say the Book of Isaiah. Well, some of that is describing maybe past events, even for the original recipients. Some of Isaiah's clearly describing present events that were happening or we're very close to happening for the original recipients. And some of it is describing future events that would grew that those who were alive would experience, say Babylonian captivity or the Assyrians or whoever else that you know is being spoken of, and they will take that those past events and those present events and those ones that happen in the near future for the original recipients, and they will say that was all literal, literal, Babylonians literal captivity, literal, Assyrians literal, Egyptians literal, this literal, this literal, this literal, this literal this. Then they'll take some of the prophecies found in Isaiah and say those are literal prophecies that will be fulfilled in the future.

11:09 When it talks about a virgin having a child, that was literally fulfilled. Mary was a virgin and she brought forth Christ. And when it talks about the Messiah, he literally will will suffer, he will literally die, he will literally be resurrected. And so they'll make some of those future prophecies all literal, literal, literal. Then there'll be other prophecies in the Book of Isaiah and go no no, no, no, no, no no no no, that's not literal Israel and literal land and a literal temple and a literal millennial Kingdom. No no, no, no, no, no no no. Now, see, the past things were literal, the present things were literal, some of the future things were literal. But these other promises, no, no, no, that's not literal Israel, that's spiritual Israel. That's not literal Land, that's just just going to be fulfilled by the Church. Or that's not the millennial Kingdom. That's what God's going to do inside the church. And then all of a sudden it goes from literal to spiritual. Well, others will be like, no, the past events talked about in Isaiah were literal, the present events were literal, the immediate future events were literal, and the far distant future events are also literal.

12:16 Once again, you'll get disagreements. Now, just think about it. What is the hope of us ever coming to any agreement on anything. If we can't agree whether something is descriptive or prescriptive, we can't agree on whether it's past, present, or future, and we can't agree on whether it's literal or spiritual. So what I always suggest is, whenever you find yourself disagreeing with other Christians, just stop them and go wait, wait, wait, let's figure out some basic hermeneutical principles here that we can agree or disagree on. Do you see this as descriptive or prescriptive? Do you see it as past, present, future? Do you see it as literal? Spiritual?

13:01 At least start there. And if you don't even have agreements on those aspects of whatever passage you're discussing, there's no point in having any future discussion. There's no point just walk away because you're not going to get anywhere. But those are three very just foundational things to hermeneutics. You have a passage. Is this descriptive or prescriptive? Is it past present, future, past present future for the original recipients, past present future for us? Right? And is it literal or spiritual? Those are basic elements. I could probably give you more principles, but those are basic elements. Now, why am I spending thirteen minutes plus and my introduction to discuss this? Well, last week I spent some time driving in my car, And because this year is the year of the Sermon's two point zero Sermons Challenge, where you're supposed to be downloading the sermons two point zero app and finding random sermons in honor of that challenge. I found some random sermons, and the first one I found was one that said the coming Middle East War. Oh, that's a future event.

14:13 And I'm like, okay, all right, I want to listen to this and see what they're going to say about the coming Middle East War? What is their predictions? What are they basing it off of? Do I will I agree or disagree with their hermoneuticts? Oh? I can't wait to hear this. Then I noticed that it was the coming Middle East War, but the first part of the title was Psalm eighty three, and I was like, wait, Psalm eighty three predicts a coming Middle East War. I'm like, I'm baffled. I'm confused. All all seminary Bible, college, Bible Institute. I've done a lot of schoolwork and academic pursuits, and I don't think I've ever perceived Psalm eighty three to be about the future. But okay, okay, listen. So I started listening, and you know how this all played out. The first two we did over two hours of review, and they never even mentioned the future. They never even explained why they called it that. In fact, they kept applying Saw eighty three to the present for us and they and it was really kind of just bizarre the way it went down. So we moved around. We started our own work in SSAW eighty three. So I did two hours of teaching on Sunday on Psalm eighty three, and I think we did a relatively good job offering an introduction and getting us started. And I noted over and over and over in our study of SSAW eighty three that the language is describing events that were past and present for the original recipients, not future. Now there's request for God to

15:46 do something in the future, but it's all past and present language. And I'm like, how do we get this attached to Psalm aid, to the future, to some future Middle East war? I was perplexed. So then a listener was listening to sermons on saw Maty three, and then they sent me a sermon that connected the events of Psalmadi three to Second Chronicles twenty, which I gave everyone an assignment to work on. You're supposed to be producing charts showing me how they are similar and different. So far, I don't think I've received one, but you're supposed to be working on that, So please don't don't give up on that let's continue to work on that. So I've been like, okay, all right, So I haven't had the ability to uh to do I didn't have the ability to do anything yesterday. Feel like I haven't had the ability to do any messages for what forty eight hours, it feels like. But here we are today, and I decided, you know what, it's Wednesday, before we know it, this week is going to be over, and our focus is week is SAW eighty three.

16:45 So let me look up a random sermon. So I found a random sermon on SAW eighty three, and this one was Saw maighty three Israel hamas War. And I'm like, wait, wait, I'm confused again. I'm confused again. How are people getting saw I'm eighty three And when they say Israel hamas war, are they talking about the current conflict that's happening now is related to SAW eighty three. I'm like, I am so confused. So I have grabbed the audio and we're going to listen to it now. I did play it long enough that I feel that they are against the idea that PSAW eighty three is referencing the Israel hamas war. I always listen for a second to see the volume. The volume was too low, so I had to go place it into some software and artificially increase the volume. It's still not loud enough. Again, I don't know why churches record their sermons at such a low volume. I will never understand that people listen on their mobile devices turn up the volume level. Okay, right, but I digress, I digress. Are you ready? I have no idea where this is going to go, but as it does, remember what are our hermeneutical phrases for today, ladies and gentlemen. It is what is it descriptive? I was opening up in my notebook. Descriptive versus prescriptive, past, present, future for the original recipients and for us literal or spiritual. Now let's see what this

18:18 one, this sermon is going to do. Now, just a reminder, because we always have new people who tune in and they make wild assumptions about what I'm doing and make wild accusations without ever really bothering to take five seconds to maybe email me and ask me some questions. Sermon reviews, I do not listen to the sermons in advance. The goal of a sermon review is not to necessarily criticize or make anyone look bad, or attack anyone. The goal is to just listen to a sermon, but I listen to it live on the air, and we try to learn from it. We may agree, we may disagree, but what we do is we take whatever it is and then we work. This is how this entire series on Saw Madi three started. I listen to something. I don't know what they were doing.

19:04 I disagree, but I don't care to attack them. I'm like, thank you for putting it online, because now I can take it from here, and we're gonna go study SAW eighty three. They put forth their hypotheses. I reject their hypotheses. Now we produce our own hypotheses and how to interpret SAW eighty three. So many people think it's somehow an attack. No, people put their sermons all over the internet. Well, then now you want people to listen. I listen. I'm like, well, okay, everyone, here's their perspective. Now everyone gets to hear their perspective. They may agree with that perspective. Then I put forth my perspective. They may disagree with mine, agree with the other, or they may agree with mine and disagree with the other. It's not some like Ooh, we're out attacking.

19:45 It would be different if I listen to a sermon and like, this is a horrible sermon. Everyone, you've got to hear this, Then it would become across as a rehearsed attack upon people. I never know what's going to happen. Whatever happens happens. I don't know why I have to explain that I've only stated that like fifty thousand times. But I will still get some email. Oh you think you're better than everyone else. Now I think I'm just like everyone else. We study the Bible, we read it, we try to figure out what it means right. We're supposed to interpret it right unless we're just going to go back to Catholicism and agree with the magisterium. So guess what. I may agree, I may disagree. I'm not saying my position is better or worse. I'm saying this is what I think. And you know what, that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to read my Bible and try to interpret it and guess what the listener gets to decide which one they want. So I think what we do is interesting, it's unique, and it gives everyone the ability to hear multiple perspectives in one message and learn a little bit of hermeneutics as well. So are you ready?

20:52 Here we go? Saw eighty three Israel Hamas war. Please find the message on the sermon two point o approbata dot sermon audio dot com and downloaded and listened to it all later without my commentary because I like them to get the downloads in the streams. All right, are you ready? Here we go? Dispensational futurists claim that Psalm eighty three is a prophetic war that will occur yet in the future, during or just before the seven year tribulation as it's commonly called. As I was looking for such a message a sermon online, I came across a sermon dated October eighth, twenty twenty three, the day after the October seventh attack by Hamas in Israel, and the pastor of this this, this particular Baptist pastor made statement that they have an Israeli flag flying alongside along with the American flag in front of their church building. Okay, let's stop right here first. Don't say futuristsalists believe Psal maybe three is a future war because many of us who hold to a very futuristic idea that many prophecies have not yet to be fulfilled and they will be fulfilled in the future. And many of us who hold the very much more dispensational ideas, I don't believe Psalm eighty three is future. See. That's why I don't

22:22 like labels. That's why I don't like it like I hate that. Look, my job is to go to the text, and I don't care if it offends or agrees with any supposed philological team out there. Dispensationalist. Guess what, Sometimes dispensationalists don't like me. Sometimes reform people like me. Sometimes reform people hate me. Sometimes non reform people hate me. Sometimes non reform people like me. Sometimes people have no idea what I think. You know? What I think is. My job is to go to the Bible and figure it out. And I don't care about the team. I don't care if it makes the Baptist mad. I don't care if it makes the Lutherans mad. I don't care about anyone's little team, because when you get caught up into the team or tribe mindset, then you have to interpret everything in agreement with that team. Well, I don't believe one team has the corner on truth, because if they did, then everyone should just go to that team. Sometimes I take off the lordship people. Sometimes I take off the free grace people. Sometimes I tick off everyone. Is what I ultimately do.

23:23 It's so weird, like it's a crazy concept. When I come to a text, you know what, the last thing I care about is what do Baptist think about it? What a dispensationalists think about it? What to reform people? I don't care. I think about what does the text say, based off the language that is used, and based off basic hermeneutical principles. What conclusion can I come to? And you say, well, that conclusion contradicts your previous conclusion, I don't even care about my previous conclusion. What do I always say? My previous study has literally no influence on my presence study. Whatever conclusion I come to about Psalm eighty three June twenty twenty four will make absolutely zero difference. And if I study saw mayby three and twenty twenty five, I will throw out everything I said about it in twenty twenty four. And I don't care if I change my mind one hundred and ten percent. I don't care. My job is to continue to study the text, study the text, study the text, and study the text, and try to figure out what I could do better, what I can understand better, and constantly be pursuing the truth, ir regardless of whose team gets offended. I can't stand that, like, well, everyone who's a futuristic dispensationalist believes saw Maty three that it's not even Look, there are much variety in the dispensational camp, much variety in those who are futuristic, there's much variety in those who are pre trib I mean, the same thing is true

24:53 in all millennialism, or in the reform or it's always now. You can say, many with in a futuristic dispensationalist perspective would possibly say saw him eighty three as future you know what. That would probably be extremely accurate, but not all because many would classify me as a futuristic dispensationalist. I completely reject saw eighty three is about a future war. And then the second thing he mentioned right there, and I find it interesting see what he did. He was listening to sermons. Whether you like it or not, pastors listen to sermons and guess what that greatly impacts in many cases what they're going to say.

25:36 But so I love the fact that he's doing what I'm doing, looking for something. But he mentions that this pastor that that that he was listening to, that that pastor mentioned that they have in front of their church an American flag in an Israeli flag. You know my stance on this. A church should not have a flag of a country anywhere on its property, not outside, especially not in the sanctuary. The church is not nationalistic. The church is a is a how can we say a is focused on theology. It's focused on God. I was gonna say theistic theological. I was going to use different term, but you get the idea. The church is about God. The church is about scripture. The church is about theology. The church is not there. It's to represent God. It's to represent the Kingdom of God. Our citizenship is in Heaven. It's to we're there. If you want to symbol in your church, then put across. That's if you want to, but not flags of a country. We're not there to promote, or to represent, or to honor a nation. We're there to honor and represent Christ and the Kingdom of God, We're not to be nationalistic.

26:51 We're to be theistic, philological, biblical, doctrinal, not I don't understand churches that do that. You can walking into the church and it's like, there's a big an American flag. Why Christianity is not American. I don't know if everyone's shocked by that. Christianity is not American, America is not. I don't know why we want to merge those two together. Christianity transcends national identity, so I don't know why a church would have a flag from any country anywhere on its property. But let me back this up now, we'll see where this goes. Dispensational futurists claim that Psalm eighty three is a prophetic war that will occur yet in the future, during or just before the Seven year Tribulation, as it's commonly called. As I was looking for a message a sermon online, I came across a sermon dated October eighth, twenty twenty three, the day after the October seventh attack by Hamas in Israel, and the pastor of this particular Baptist pastor made statement that they have an Israeli flag flying alongside along with the American flag in front of their church building.

28:12 But this message was entitled depending Psalm eighty three war. And again I want to make this emphasis as we look at Psalm eighty three and examine it scripturally in its historical context. Psalmighty three, they claim, is a prophetic war that will occur yet in the future, during or just before the seven year tribulation period. I want to just focus first of all, on verses one through five says, keep not thou silence, O God, hold not thy peace, and be not still, O God, for low thine enemies. Notice thine enemies make a tumult. And they that hate thee have lifted up the head. They have taken crafty council against thy people and consulted against thy hidden ones. They have said, and let us cut them off from being a nation, that the name of Israel may no more be no more in remembrance. For they have consulted together with one consent. Notice this, they have consulted together with one consent. They are confederate against the notice against God.

29:18 Of course, this has stated in the form of a prayer to God. You notice here in the heading of psalmighty three, a song or Psalm of Asaf. Asaf was a levite during the time of David. It's very important for us to notice the historical context of this psalm. Okay, now, a couple of things. He's emphasizing that these enemies are enemies against God. Okay, now, we talked about a little bit of this in my introduction. Is the psalmist emphasizing this because they, look, we got a problem. Lord. We don't know where you've been. You've been silent. We need you to be active because we got a confederacy of nations trying to destroy us. Hey, God, these are your enemies. Is this Is this like a tactic to try to invoke God, to get God involved he these are your enemies? Or is this a way of saying, Hey, we're your chosen nation. We're in a covenant relationship with you. If they're coming against us, Hey they're your enemies because they're going against the nation you entered into covenant with. Right. Is this kind of a way to invoke God? Right? So we have to at least consider that. So we talked about that the language speaks of something that is currently happening at that time, which is is how I emphasized it. But I do appreciate that.

30:33 Now he's going to look at the historical context. That is really really that's really good. I'm interesting where he's going to go with the fact that these are God, that the Psalmist keep saying that these are your enemies of God. How he's going to approach that. And I love the fact that he's going to go historical context. Now, is he going to connect us to second Chronicles twenty? Is he going to connect it to something else? What is he going to do? Let's find out. Now. Asaf is a was a Levite during the time of David. He was a music leader according to First Chronicles fifteen and sixteen, First Chronicles twenty five, and Second Chronicles twenty nine. So he was a music leader in the organization that David had set up as far as the music for the Tabernacle Future Temple. Now, if you remember the last sermon we reviewed, they said that the King called in Asaff to compose basically a prayer, something of worship for the people.

31:33 Now i've one of the assignments I said, is Asaf mentioned the second Chronicles twenty Do we have anything that says the king called him in and said, hey, compose this that was stated almost dogmatically in the other sermon we reviewed, and I don't think anyone has sent me anything on that as well. In other words, you got a lot of work to be doing on Second Chronicles twenty. So but he doesn't now mention he mentioned Asaff. And guess what chapter he skipped. He didn't mention Asaf in Second Chronicles twenty. Now he's focusing on how he's mentioned as a worship later. But maybe he'll mention it in a minute. Here we'll see Palm eighty three is the final Psalm of Asaf, and Psalm fifty was a psalm of Asaff, and then Psalm seventy three through eighty three are labeled as a song or psalm of Asaf.

32:24 The descendants of Asaff, known as the Sons of Asaff, were part of the temple choir. Now want for us to consider the historical context of Psalm eighty three. I believe it's very important for us to understand this because we're going to see in our study that some of these nations are no longer in existence today, So how can this be a future a future war against Israel? For Samuel fourteen. For Samuel fourteen, versus forty seven and forty eight gives us a clue here as far as king King Saul says the First Samuel fourteen, verse forty seven. So Saul took the kingdom over Israel, and fought against all his enemies on every side. Notice the list here against Moab to the southeast, and against the children of Ammon towards the southeast, and against Edom again directionally's southeast, and against the kings of Zoba, which is Syria, against the Philistines southwest, and whithersoever he turned himself. He vexed them, and he gathered and host and smote the Amalekites, and delivered Israel out of the hands of them that spoiled them. Now, the reason why I want to emphasize this passage relation to the reign of King Saul. These are many of the nations that are mentioned in Saul eighty three, as we will see in a moment. I also want you to notice here as far as the time of David. Second Samuel Chapter eight. Second Samuel Chapter eight,

33:55 verses one through fourteen, also gives us a clue as far as the historical context of Psalm eighty three. Tewod Samuel eight verses one through fourteen. And after this it came to pass that David smote the Philistines and subdued them. And David took meThe Gamma out of the hand of the Philistines, and he smote moab and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground. Even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive. And so the Moabites became David's servants and brought gifts. David smote also hated Deezer, the son of Rihab, king of Zobah, which is a part of Syria, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates, and David took from him a thousand chariots and seven hundred horsemen and twenty thousand footmen. And David howed all the chariot horses and reserved of them for one hundred chariots. Now what David does here is he debilitates for future military He's basically limiting the use of those horses.

35:05 And when the Syrians of Damascus came to succor, hated Eeser king of Zoba, noticed the Syrians of Damascus. Now, so these are different parts of the area we commonly know as Syria today. David slew the Syrians two and twenty thousand men. Then David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus, and the Syrians became servants to David and brought gifts, and the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went. And David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Haydedieser and brought them to Jerusalem, and from Beta even to Biothi, cities of Hatedeser. David took exceeding much brass. When TOI, king of Heymath, heard that David had smitten all the hosts of Hated Deeser. Then TOI sent Joram, his son unto King David, to salute him and to bless him, as he had fought against Hated Deeser and smitten him, for Hated Aesar had wars with Toai. Again, these are different regions of Syria, and Joram brought with him vessels of silver and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass, which also King David did dedicate unto the Lord, with the silver and gold that he had dedicated of all nations which he subdued, of Syria and of Moab Norise the list here the children of Ammon, of the Philistines, and of Amelek, and the spoil of Hated Deeser, son of Rihab, king of Zoba. And David got him name a name when he returned from smiting the Syrians in the Valley of Salt, being eighteen thousand

36:37 men, and he put garrisons in Edom. Notice again, all of these nations that are mentioned here that we will see in psalmighty three throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all they of Edom became David's servants, and the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went. As we think about the historical context, I believe PSALMATEI three is both historical and prophetic in its nature. Okay, we may have a new approach here, all right, So we've listened to one that said, well, they never really articulated it, but they seem to be implying by their title that it's a coming Middle East war. We never they never really articulated the second sermon that we reviewed, or the second different one, because we reviewed two sermons in that one series, saying it was a coming Middle East War. They just never got to the Middle East War part. Maybe they will later on, and maybe we'll have to review some more from that series. I don't know. The first two did not help us much, but the next sermon we reviewed said that, no, this was fulfilled and Second Chronicles twenty, now this one says it was past and future, that it does have a prophetic nature, that it's passed and prophetic. All right, So that's interesting. Now he quotes from those passages of the past. So is he saying saw maybe three is referencing to what happened under Saul and David? I mean maybe maybe you know it's possible.

38:07 I guess. I don't know. I would. I mean, I know it's it's got similar the similar nations, So m I don't know, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Does it fit better? Second Chronicles twenty. Here's what I want you to realize is that we're finding there's not much agreement. And when there's not much agreement, then we have to figure out why is it? Is there a hermeneutical issue here? Is it because nobody knows? Is it because maybe we should all stop acting to be so dogmatic. He seems to be pretty sure and pretty clear. Let's see where where he's gonna take this. Now, saw maybe three is what we would call fulfilled prophecy now not future prophecy.

38:53 And for this, I want you to understand Second Chronicles twenty, I believe is the fulfillment of eighty three in its prophecy nature. For Oh, there we go. So he's saying it's fulfilled for us. It may have been prophetic for the original recipients, and it was fulfilled in Second Chronicles twenty. So this is gonna be another sermon that points us to Second Chronicles twenty. Okay, that makes more. I didn't know exactly where he was going. That makes sense. So he's saying that this that Psalm eighty three was written. Again, I struggle with it's a fulfillment of it. I'm saying Psalm eighty This is the way I keep saying it. Psalm eighty three's context is Second Chronicles twenty. That during the events of Second Chronicles twenty, Psawm eighty three is composed. And that's kind of how the other sermon he's like, he calls in Asaf to compose this with this is during that time. So is it a prophecy. I don't know why we want to make it a prophecy. It's a prayer during a very difficult situation which God ultimately answered.

40:02 I don't know if I would call it prophetic as much as it's petitioning God in the midst of a difficult situation. And we know how the situation turned out, because we have Second Chronicles twenty fedec nature, I should say second Chronicles twenty as we think about King Jehashaphat in his time as a king in Judah. Again, what I want for us to see in these passages is the nations that are mentioned in psalmatey three are mentioned in these passages. It gives us the historical context of psalmighty three. It came to pass after this also that the children of Moab and the children of Ammon, and with them other beside the Ammonites came against Jehashafat to battle. Then there came some that told Jehashafat, saying, there comes a great multitude against thee from beyond the sea, the salt sea, the Dead sea, on this side Syria.

41:00 And behold they be in hazes on Tamar which is in Geddi, and Jehashaphat feared and set himself to seek the Lord and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah, and Judah gathered themselves together to ask help of the Lord, even out of all the cities of Judah, that they came to seek the Lord. Now, Second Chronicles twenty four. Second Chronicles Chapter twenty, verses one through four, to me, really does set up the historical picture of Psaw eighty three. Hey, there's this nation's coming against you. Oh no, let's cry out to God, which is exactly what Asaf did. And from what we can tell, Asaft there was alive at least for part of the reign of Jehosephat, so we seem to be able to at least get that timing right. So this, to me, Psaw eighty three is a prayer in the midst of the events that are described in Second Chronicles twenty. They're also described in Psalm eighty three. And now here's the prayer in the midst of that. And then Second Chronicles twenty may show you how God answered that prayer or intervene and during this very difficult situation, that may be the way to approach it. But let's see where he's going to go. Jehashfah stood in the congregation of Judah and Jerusalem, and in the House of the Lord before the New Court, and said, Oh, Lord, God of our fathers, art not thou God in heaven and rulest not thou over all the kingdoms of the Heathen. As we think about the prayer of Psalmatey three, I want you to notice here the words of King Jehashafat. In thine hand is

42:32 there not power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee? Art Not thou are God, who didst drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and gavest it to the seat of Abraham, thy friend forever. And they dwelt therein and have built thee sanctuary therein for thy name, saying, if when evil cometh upon us, as the sword, judgment, or pestilence or famine, we stand before this house and in thy pray for Thy name is in this house, and cry unto thee in our affliction, then thou wilt hear and help. And now behold, notice the children of Ammon and Moab and Mount Sier. So we think Aboutmite, the Edomites, here, Ammon and Moab. So again we see here the emphasis on these nations, and of course God gave them the victory as they praise the Lord in Second Chronicles, chapter twenty. Now, as we think about Psalm eighty three, I want you to consider the spirit of this Solomon.

43:29 It's a national distress. Here's the prayer that is said. In this spirit of national distress. Keep not thou silence, Oh God, hold not thy peace, and be not still, o God, for lo thine enemies, God's enemies make a tumult. And they that hate THEE have lifted up the head. They have taken crafty counsel against thy people and consulted against thy hidden ones. They have said, come and let us cut them off from being a nation that the name of israe or may no more be in remembrance. For they have consulted together with one consent. They are confederate against Thee. Now we have the list of the confederacy that was coming against the nation of Israel. Again I'm emphasizing. I'm suggesting to you that this prophetic nature of this psalm was fulfilled in the time of Jehoshaphat I'm gonna prove that by looking at each of these nations that are listed. Again, I know he's saying prophetic. I just this does not get This is a communal lament. This is a lament during a time of a communal lament, during a time of national distress right now. So I don't see it as being prophetic, as saying, Hey, jehosephat is crying out to God, Asaf is composing something to get the people of God or the people of Israel to cry out to God. Everyone's crying out to God, and everyone is aware of the exact same situation. There is a confederacy of na Is coming to destroy us.

45:00 God, where have you been? You have been silent. We need you to do something immediately. These are your enemies. I would say Second Chronicles may describe how God answered said prayer, but I don't perceive it as being prophetic. I just see it as being a prayer during a time of distress. And Second Chronicles twenty gives us the historical context for the prayer and gives us the historical fulfillment of are the historical answer to said prayer. That's how I would word it, And see if they are still even in existence today.

45:44 The first nation found in verse six is the Tabernacles of Edom. So we have the Edomites, the Tabernacles of Edom. Of course, these are descendants of Esau. As far as a location to understand where it is today, where it would be today is present day southwestern Jordan. They were located between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Akaba, and it's part of the Red Sea. There. Edom as a nation ceased to exist when they were conquered by Babylon and King Nebukinzer in the sixth century BC. I'm gonna say that again because this right here, right at the start of the list of these confederate nations, we see that the Edomites are no longer in existence today.

46:29 They ceased to exist as a nation when they were conquered by Babylon, clear back to the sixth century before Christ. You think about Herod the Great. Herod the Great was an Idumian. He was a descendant of Esau. But he was not a king of the Edomites. He was a king of the Jews. Why because he was an Edomite with no nation. He was an Edomite who had no nation. Again, edom was destroyed as a nation by the King of Balon. In an online search there was a summary statement that I want to mention here as far as the Edomites today, the descendants are lost to history. Did you catch that they are lost to history and their DNA lives on in some sense, but they are so intermixed with other peoples that there is no definable genetic group of Edomites today. Let me just point this out. Just because there is a nation in the area of Mount Seer today where the Edomites would have been found if they were still in existence, that does not mean they are Edomites. As an example, you think about in history, you have the Mayan Empire. Where where can you find the Mayan Empire today? That does not mean they are not Mayans still in existence, but as an empire they're no longer found. So just because there's a nation occupying the area where the Edomites existed, that does not mean that they are that there are still Edomites as far as any So right from the

48:00 top of the list here we see that edom is no longer a nation. How can this be a fulfillment or a future prophecy that is yet unfulfilled if there are not even Edomites. So that's the first on the list. Second on the list are the Ishmaelites. The Arabic nations today the twelve tribes of Ishmael are implicitly found wherever the Arab culture and language exist. So I have my notes here one for one. So the Edomites are no longer in existence, but the Arabs, the Ishmaelites. This is an interesting kind of polemic against the concept, the kind of an argument against or his apologetic against the dispensational futurist. I think is how I think o them, futurists, dispensationalist, dispensational futurists, however you would like to describe them. And when I say them, is because I don't like being identified as a team, because I'm going to tick off all the teams. I just think that this is an interesting approach. Hey, if I can show you these nations I don't exist, therefore it cannot be a future fulfillment. I'm not necessarily a big fan of that concept. And let me explain why. That was the same argument that would have been used by many of the Church fathers and saying, well, God has done with Israel and has been replaced by the Church.

49:15 Why because Israel is a key as a nation doesn't exist, Well, guess what happened in nineteen forty eight. So I'm not a fan necessarily of that. What I would argue is, there's nothing in this text that points to a future. It's pointing to a past present in the very situation that they're in, based off the language that is used, and it fits perfectly with Second Chronicles, chapter twenty. And I gave this as a question. I'm still waiting for someone to answer it. Does Psal is Psalm eighty three ever quoted in the New Testament? And if it is, is it ever quoted to be pointing to some future prophecy? That would be more of my polemic against the futurist or dispensational futurist. As he keeps saying, they all believe this, anyone who believes Saw Many three is pointing to a future war that you've got you gotta do. You've gotta show me something textually to prove that argument. Now here, he just but already he's down one. He's one one for one. Well, the first one doesn't really exist today, but the second one does. Okay, maybe he's gonna end up with more that don't than more that do. I just that's not to me a I would not approach it from from that perspective. But well, let's let him.

50:31 I guess he's just gonna go through the list and do We'll see if the sermon's going to go any other direction other than this is his entire thesis, and that's what he's going to do. Let's find out the descendants of Ishmael are. The third on the list is Moab. The location of Moab would be in southern Jordan today. The Moabites as a nation were conquered by the Babylonians in five eighty three BC. Listen to this statement. The descendants of Moab, who have remained in the same geographical area as their forefathers, now call themselves Jordanians. All right, so Moeb we could say it's still in existence, at least theoretically. The fourth on list are the Haggarens. All right. So you've got the Ishmaelites and the Moabites still exist, So you're two for one. So I mean, like, is this gonna come down to just what I don't like doing. I don't like doing polemics and apologetics and arguments. This way like I would, I need something better to me The text itself, the language that is used is speaking of past present situation.

51:37 It fits perfectly with the description of Second Chronicles twenty. And unless you can produce something in the New Testament that says, see, this is going to be fulfilled here, you know, and it quotes from Saw eighty three. If you don't have that, then I don't look. It would be if you're making the affirmative argument that this is about a future war, then it would be up to you to prove that. So I mean, you're making the affirmative argument, and you would have to then counter what is clear textually and contextually. But this I don't know. I like this approach. But let's see where his tally ends up. Of course, these are descendants of hagar The Hagarites is also it's also mentioned in scripture. First Chronicles, chapter five talks about the Rubenites and the tribes on the east side of Jordan doing battle with the Hagarins, the Hagarites in the days of King Saul.

52:35 Now, as far as the location we're talking about, northeast of Ammon and Moab, which is modern day Jordan, and again this is an area east of the Jordan River. The Hagarins are actually distinct from the Arabs. It's very possible that Hagar married and had other children besides Ishmael, so that these are the descendants of Hagar, So they are distinct and separate from the Ishmaelites. But as far as an historical group of people, the Hagarines have disappeared from history. The next on the list is Gibhl Geeball. According to Ezekiel twenty seven, verse nine says this the ancients, the old men of gebl were repairers of ship seams, what the Bible calls calkers. Giball was associated with Phoenicia near Tire and Gibal was a seaport town, and people recognize it as Bibloss Lebanon today. So we are so we have the Lebanese. These people still exist Ammon Ammon of course, or descendants of a lot. According to Genesis nineteen, Ammon in its neighboring countries Moab and Edom do not exist, as they are now part of the modern day Kingdom of Jordan. Again, what I'm emphasizing is just because someone occupies the area in which they existed does not mean these nations still exist, so Ammon is not a distinct group of people anymore. The northern third of the modern state of Jordan is where

54:08 Ammon would have been located in Bible times. The next on the list is Amelek, the Amalekites. Now, the Amalekites are not from grandson, the grandson of Esau in Genesis thirty six. This grandson of Esau may have been named after Amelek, but the Amalekites actually date back to Genesis fourteen seven and before that, because we see a reference of the country the country of the Amalekites, So we see that before Esau had a grand grandson named Amelek, the country the Amalekites existed in the time of Abraham. A Jewish website had these statements to make about Amelek. The Amalekite nation assimilated into the people around them, so there's no distinct Amalekite today. Again, this is a Jewish website that claims this their national identity was dissolved. God's command to kill them became impossible to fulfill. So then there's this statement that I quote from this website. Amelek is alive and well today, albeit in a different form.

55:19 The longer a foreign nation, today's amelek is an internal enemy end quote. Now here's the problem with that. As we see in Saul maybe three, these are actual nations that are coming against Israel in a confederacy. Okay, he saying he's looking up statements on websites, you're not telling us. In many cases the websites themselves. So I am not disagreeing with the information provided. What I would challenge you if you think this is a very important polemic to develop an argumentation, to develop against the idea that this is a future war, I don't think we need this. To argue against the future war, you would have to do more than just look up one side, right, because I guarantee you the dispensationalist futurist probably would provide information that would argue, no, well, these nations do exist, or these people do exist and these will rise up as a nation, or they would provide some argumentation against it. So what you would need to do if you're going to make a polemic is first provide the dispensational future argument. That's the first thing you would have to do is provide their argument and how they how they would explain this right, then you would have to look up numerous sites to say whether these people exist or not exist, and see if that actually argues against the argument put forth by a dispensationalist futurist. I'm going to look, I think right over here. Now, I know this is not very professional, but I'm going to get up and I'm going to go pick up my scho filled

56:50 study Bible. So I'm going to go pick it up. It's right here, it's right here. It was just I looked over and I saw it, and I'm like, oh, I've got to do something. I've got to go look at it. All right, I'm gonna get here's scho filled because you know he says that you know all dispensational futurists believe this, Well, guess what. Schofield doesn't even have a note Saw maighty three. He doesn't have a note, he doesn't have anything, he doesn't have any there's nothing. They're not a thing nothing. So I mean, the the goal to for dispensationalists would be saw would be the Schofield study Bible. And he does not have anything for Saw many three a song or a psalm of Asaf and it just has the text. There's no notes, So it would be interesting to know when Saw maighty three becomes so important for dispensational dispensational futurist.

57:49 But his argument here is just like, well I looked up on a website and it said this, and I looked up on a website and it said this, and I looked up a note. Well, this website said that these people don't exist, but it also said they kind of exist today. Is an internal line? Well, no, no, no, I disagree with that. Well then do you disagree with the first part? Do you like? So like, what are these like? What are these sites? So? I mean that's where I would you know, I almost want to go through each one of them and ask artificial intelligence what artificial intelligence thinks? You could do that? If you're using one of the AI apps today, you could look them all up and go ahead, Do the Ittomites still exist as a as a people or as an or does Thetamites exist as a people and a nation? Yes or no? Something along those lines. And then how about the Ishmaelites, how about the Moabites, how about the hagwrites, how about gibel GiB Gibbelites? How you would say, gieball Ammonites, am Alek are the Amalekites. However you would pronounce them Philistines or Pelistia. And then see what AI would argue, Now, as long as the people still exist, then all it would require for them is to form aation. Right.

59:00 So again, if you're if you're arguing against a dispensational futurist, they would be like, well, there was a time Israel didn't exist. As long as the Jews existed, they could form a nation. Well why couldn't these other nations at some point take power, gain control over a segment of land, and declare them to be a nation. So then, like you would be arguing, you're arguing over a future event based on a present condition. Well when when when? Guess what? Guess what someone could have said, Hey, a virgin is going to have a child. Well guess what, ladies and gentlemen, no virgin ever has So we are you know, we're six billion to zero, So I don't think a virgin is ever going to have a child. Right, will God himself take upon human flesh and then literally die and bean raise? Well that's never happened. Just because something doesn't quote unquote exist or has I don't know how you can just argue from a biblical standpoint that it never will. I mean, the Bible describes lots of things in the future, right, have we ever? I mean, I mean, I don't know. I just don't know what that's a good polemic to use. I think it's valid information to provide. Hey, these nations don't exist or some of these some of them do, some of them don't. So if someone says it's a future event, well something dramatic would have to happen for that future event to occur. However, for those of us who believe the Bible, there's been plenty. Hey it's going to rain, well, most believe Noah had no idea what rain was, Right,

1:00:31 I'm gonna flood the earth. That only happened one time. There's plenty of situations where it never had happened before, and it's never gonna happen again. So if this is a future war, I just don't know if you can argue from it from that perspective the way he's arguing against it. Let's go a little bit further. I think that's just going to be the entire sermon here. We're not talking about some kind of spirit of Amlek. We're talking about a nation that no longer exists. Today, Israel has claimed to obedience, claimed obedience to God's command to destroy the Amalekites in their attack on Gaza and Hamas in this article. In an article from the Jewish Journal October twenty sixth, twenty twenty three, the title of this article was Hamas Today's Amelek.

1:01:22 Of course, we understand from scripture that in Exodus seventeen the Amalekites attacked israel As after they had left Egypt. I want you to hear the words. Listen carefully to the words of Deuteromi twenty five, verses seventeen through nineteen. Remember what Amelek did unto THEE by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt. How he met THEE by the way and smote the hindmost of thee. So talking about an ambush, an attack upon the nation, the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind THEE, when thou wast faint and weary, and he feared not God. Therefore it shall be when the Thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies roundabout in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amelek from under heaven, thou shalt not forget it. I wanted you to understand and listen to this quote here from this Jewish journal. The Amalekites, eternal enemies of the Jewish people, are said to be the embodiment of pure evil, just as the Nazis were. The twentieth centuries version of Amelek. Hamas has proven that they are the Amelek of today. Now here's the problem with this again, Psalm eighty three verses. I'm somewhat baffled by this because if this is a polemic against dispensational futurists, why are you quoting from a Jewish website, Unless it's a Messianic Jewish website who happened to be dispensational futurists. Wouldn't you quote from a

1:02:57 dispensational futurist website or a dispensational future sermon or futurists a sermon or commentary like I just find it interesting that this is a polemic against dispensational futurists. But he's quoting from a Jewish website that he's not identified. Are these Orthodox Jews? Are they? Well? I mean, what, like what form of Judaism? Like what are you referencing here? Like, I have no I have no context in which to critique or analyze what is being stated. I have no way of looking any of this up. It just seems like you would be quoting from you know, the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of things produced by dispensational futurists that now look like that's where you would go and say, here's the book, here's the commentary, here is their argument, here's why the argument is wrong. And basically his argument is because these people don't exist, and if they don't exist now, well, then the argument is they will never exist. Therefore it cannot be a future war. But that's arguing that future things must be like the current thing. But future things throughout Scripture proved to be things that had not been seen before, correct. I mean, like when you get if you're going to hold to any of the things prophetically in the future, many of those things described in the Book of Revelation would not be things that we have seen presently, right, So, I mean that's the whole thing about seventy eighty. You've never seen anything like this before. That was kind of some of the things talked about in seventy

1:04:27 eighty. Well, I mean, again, I struggle even with that language. But the point is is, I don't know, I don't know. I'm just having a hard time following the logical argument here. Six presents Amelek as an alliance nation, not an internal spirit. This is not a fulfillment. The spirit of Amelek is not a fulfillment of Psalm eighty three Versus six. Now, I do agree with that the spirit of Amelek is not a fulfillment of Psaw eighty se the future the spirit of Amlek is alive and well today. That would not be a fulfillment of so many three. Now I reject saw eighty three being a future prophecy. I think Psaw Maty three occurred during the time of Second Chronicles twenty, that this is my feelings now, and this is the prayer that would have been uttered during that time, and then Second Chronicles twenty would tell you how that prayer ultimately plays out. You need to look up, and you're supposed to be drawing a comparison chart between psaal Maty three and Second Chronicles twenty. So that's that's where I am.

1:05:31 So But okay, well let's just continue. So as again as we understand the statements here made in PSL maenty three, we're seeing this as a confederacy of nations, not a spirit of Amlek. So the country the Malakite states clear back to the time before Abraham. So where's the country the Amalekites? This is the statement from Knave's topical Bible A people inhabiting the the cut south of Ajumea eat them and east of the Red Sea. There is no country of the Amalekites today. Number thirteen twenty nine them out. Now there he gives us a reference Knave's topical babble. That's good, all right, So now I can look that up. I can look that up. That's great.

1:06:18 But he said there's no nation today. If a nation doesn't exist today, are you saying, then that means there's no hope of that nation ever being in existence in the future. Again, I think someone could, from a biblical standpoint, go, there was a time the nation of Israel didn't exist and then it did, So I don't know, I don't know, like when and if we go back and look at some of the prophecies, go look at when the prophecy was given, does that what was the existence of that nation that's being referenced at the time. Like, I just don't know. I don't know if that's a good way to make a polemic against this. I just I think there's better ways. Alekites dwell in the land of the South numbers fourteen twenty five. Now the Amalekites and the Canaanites dwell in the valley. Historically, they were defeated by kid Or Laomer in Genesis fourteen Joshua and Exodus seventeen. Gideon and Judges seven allied with the Midian Knites, and in that battle King Saul and Samuel fifteen. Of course, Samuel finished the job dealing with the King of Amelek David and First Samuel twenty seven and thirty, and the Simian Knites in First Chronicles chapter four. So as we understand, historically they were defeated by all these nations. Now this listen to the statement that's taken from Wikipedia rabbis generally agree that Amalekites no longer exist.

1:07:45 How can Psalm eighty three, verse six be a future prophecy? Again, if your polemic is against dispensational futurists, don't quote Wikipedia. Quote to me the future the dispensational futurists and how they handled the text, then go after their argumentation. I guarantee you a dispensational futurists would just simply say so because they don't exist now, they can't exist in the future, and then point out, well, when this prophecy was made, was there a nation of Egypt? Was there a nation of Babylon when this prophecy was first given? Was there a nation of Israel? Et cetera, et cetera. And then they would just go when this prophecy was given, had that ever occurred before or was this something new? So I don't know if that's a good way to argue against I think there's better ways to argue against Saw eighty three being future as I've already presented related to the nation of Israel and Amalekites.

1:08:45 When the Jewish rabbis even recognize and acknowledge that the Amalekites no longer exist, continued statement from Wikipedia, so it is no longer possible to determine who is an Amalekite. It's also interesting that the wikiped media articles said that some ultra Orthodox groups consider Zionists to be Amalekites. End quote. So much for Christian Zionism supporting Israel and the rebuilding a temple and so on. But Balem in number twenty four twenty says this, when he looked on Amelek, he took up this parable and said, Amelek was the first of the nations. That's why they are found in existence. Klarbac and Genesis fourteen. Amelek was the first of the nations, but his latter ench shall be that he perish forever.

1:09:35 Now, a major problem with applying the Amelek scriptures to the modern Israel Hamas war is that Gaza is not where the country the Amalekites was located in scripture. I believe that is a serious, serious problem with using the Amalekites as an excuse for attacking and destroying, for the killing of thousands of people in Gaza. Now that's a good argumentation there. Hey, you can't use Amelek or the Amalekites as an excuse to attack the people in godsp Okay, I got no, Okay, that's we're an agreement there. I got no problem with that. I got no problem with that. What I would say is, though, what are the dispensational futurists. This is a polemic against them. What do they say, right, what what do they say about that argument? I guarantee you they've got an argue. They they've got an answer, They've got they've got a counter argument. You know, I can go to non dispensational futurist websites and say, well, they don't believe this.

1:10:43 Well, okay, well they're not dispensational. Your polemic is against the dispensational futurists. So that's who you should be quoting in my estimation. And then now you could then go to these other sources to then counter the argument of the dispensational futurists. But he's not presented us their argument and how they would handle this particular section. The eighth nation found in Psalm eighty three, verse seven are the Philistines. Oh, that's the Palestinians. Right, of course, the Philistines settled on the southern coast of Palestine. I'm using that word on purpose. By the way, that is found in Scripture Palestine. The term Palestine is actually taken from Scripture. But as in the twelfth century BC that they settled on the southern coast of Palestine. These were people that came from the Aegean Sea region between Greece and Turkey in the area there, possibly even from the island of Crete. Now. DNA from the bones of buried Philistines confirmed that they originated in Europe according to Amos nine ver seven.

1:11:43 We have a confirmation of that. But I want to point out here so with that said, Palestinians are not Arabs. So many times we lump we hear people lumping together Palestinians and Arabs into one group. They are not Arabs, I should say, they are not descendants of Ishmael. It came across an online article from the Fellowship of Israel Related Ministries. This online article said that the Philistines were conquered by King Nebuknezar of Babylon and they were deported. Most of the Philistines were either killed or deported out of that region. Some returned and assimilated into the Phoenician culture. Listen to this statement. Their own culture slowly but surely completely died out, as was prophesied in Amos one and verse eight. Amos one to eighth says, and I will cut off the inhabitant from Ashtod and him that holdeth the scepter from Ascalon, and I will turn mine hand against Akron, and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish.

1:12:45 Saith the Lord God. Another statement from this article. While the Philistines have been gone for over twenty seven hundred years, we still now. It's interesting you said the Palestinians are not Arab, which caught me off guard, so immediately ask artificial intelligence, and it says the Palestinian people have a complex history marked by various conflicts, negotiations, and territorial claims, particularly with Israel. It says they are The Palestinians are predominantly Arab and ethnicity, and are also connected by shared historical culture and linguistic ties. So I don't know what website he went to. This just turns into this never ending kind of argument.

1:13:30 There's got to be a better polemic against this idea, so that I would have to go back and listen to everything he had to say. See, that's why I was worried, Like he's just looking up random websites. Now I don't know where, of course, AI gathered its information, so I'd have to do more searching to see if even if I agree with AI. But immediately we have conflicting information. So once you get conflicting information in your polemic, you're like you make in your polemical argument, You're like, this is the way, this is the way it is, and that is wrong. And then within five seconds of searching, going, but I've got something that contradicts your information, then your polemic begins to fall apart. My polemic about Saw eighty three is look at the language use. It's speaking of past and present. Look at the language of Second Chronicles twenty. It very much fits it. Even Asaf would be alive at that time. Look at how jehosaphat praise. That's very similar to Saw eighty three. Asaf is giving the communal lament the limit of the people. But which would fit the prayer of Jehosaph fat this works. Now, how did this prayer get answered? We would look to Second Chronicles twenty. Now, do you have any future text in the New Testament that would take Psaw eighty three and point it to a future event. If you do not, then you don't have anything to connect it to a future event. So let's say that this was past and present and a little bit future for the original recipients, or at least the answer to the prayer was future for the recipients. I think that should solve solve

1:15:02 it. This polemic just becomes more convoluted to me by the second. Well, some of these people exist, and well, some of these the people exist, but the nations don't exist. And because the nations don't exist, well that means they can never exist in the future. So therefore it can't be Now this is now we're getting to Felictia and the Philistine, the Philisines, the Palestinians, and now it's getting into some questionable argumentation about identity, their their ethnicity that this gets into. I don't know what we are accomplishing at this point. They don't feel their influence today, so is that a reference to the Palestinians. What this article emphasizes is that Roman Emperor Hadrian, to stamp out Jewish identity, renamed Judea, Syria, Palestina, and it was shortened to Palestine today. So what they're talking about is the reference to Roman Emperor Adrian renaming this area Palestine instead of Judea. Listen to this statement from the article. There is no historical connection between ancient Philistines or Canaanites and today's Palestinian population. Now I got to interrupt that because I just wanted to ask again, Ai, I'm more direct, sorry, knocking the microphone across the room. I wanted to ask Ai a more direct question. Are the Palaestinians Arab? Yes, the Palestinians are primarily Arab and ethnicity. The majority of Palestinians identify as Arab and share linguistic, culture, and historical ties with

1:16:34 other Arab communities in the Middle East. Arabic is the predominant language spoken about the Palestinians, and Arab cultural traditions and customs play a significant role in the Palestinian society. It is important to note that while the Palestinians are predominantly Arab, there is also diversity within the Palestinian population. For example, there are Palestinian Christians who belong to various Christian denominations and have their distinct cultural practices and traditions. Additionally, there are small community of Palestinians who are not who are not ethnically such as Palestinian and it names another group. Overall, the Arab identity is a significant aspect of Palestinian culture and history in shaping the collective Palestinian identity, influencing political, social, and cultural dynamics with the Palestinian territories and the broader Arab world. So I don't I mean, I mean, we could have well, I guess we could argue this all night, but I just don't see this just convolutes your polemic at this point. End quote that's from an online article The Fellowship of Israel Related ministries now Exodus twenty three nine says thou shalt not ap press. I would just say, if I'm going to look at the ethnicity of a group, I don't know, if I'm going to go to some website the Fellowship of Israel something ministries, I think I would probably look for a more I don't know, academic type prop I just like, and that's from some ministry website. I could probably find other

1:18:05 ministry websites that would argue against that ministry website. So like how are we going? And he obviously is not going to any site that would contradict his argument. But this is supposed to be a polemic against a specific philological group, which is dispensational futurists. But he's yet to quote one. He's yet to quote them one times a stranger, for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing you were strangers in the land of Egypt. What I think is very interesting is that no one trying to justify Israel's acts of aggression against the Palestinians ever quote that verse thou shalt not oppress a stranger, for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. Ninth on the list of this confederacy is tire. Okay, you can go look up, you can listen to the rest of this. It's Psalm eighty three Israel Hamas War. Psalm eighty three Israel and Hamas War.

1:19:09 You can find it on the Sermon's two point o app or thee Beta dot Sermon Audio dot com website. You probably only have about seven minutes or eight minutes of it left, and you can go wrap that up really quick, and you can hear his conclusion of the whole matter. I definitely would challenge you to do that. But there's another approach to PSAWM eighty three. I really don't know what else to say about that other than this. You can be dispensed if you want to be label if someone wants to put you a label on you, I got no problem if you. If someone wants to put a label on me, you can say dispensationalist, and in many cases definitely a futurist, a believing many of the prophecies in the Bible have yet to be fulfilled. Right, If that's what we're referring to the term futurist in that sense, okay, especially a future for Israel and them getting the land, then I am a dispensational futurist in those categories. But I don't really care about staying true to said category. So when it comes to Saw eighty three, I don't care if I disagree with every dispensational futurist on the face of the earth. Saw eighty three. It's historical context to Second Chronicles twenty. Second Chronicles twenty gives you the historical context for this communal lament penned by Asaf Asap pends it. It's his prayer. He's crying out to God.

1:20:18 He's crying out to God on behalf of the people. The people cry out to God with him in worship. Right, and now how does the prayer get answered? What happens? Well, you look at second Chronicles twenty and tell me if we have an answer there that to me is more important. Then if I'm going to argue against this being a future war, then I would just look at the language, the historical context, and demand some proof that this has something to do with the future, since there's nothing in the text that even hints at that. All right, thanks for listening. You can email me news I F at yahoo dot com. That's news I F at Yahoo dot com. If for some reason I misheard him when he said the Palestinians are not Arab, now maybe he was saying the Philistines are not ra then I would have to look that up. If you said the Palestinians, I know I did, length I did look up two different things to try to counter that. So if I misheard him. If I misheard him, that's on me, not on him. And it's not even there to make an argument. What I'm trying to demonstrate, is he's just looking up random sites that seem to be in agreement with his presupposition, and I know that there would be information that would probably challenge his presuppositions. So that's that's what I was simply trying to demonstrate, not so much trying to demonstrate whether they are or aren't, but more so just trying to demonstrate how quickly it is to find information that can counter what you're putting forth. So then that makes your polemic very much more difficult to maintain. But I completely agree with him. The PSAW eighty three is not about a future war. We

1:21:50 just differ on our polemic approach to that question. All right, thanks for listening. News F at yahoo dot com. That's news F yahud WHOA. I'm exhausted now. That was eighty two minutes. That took a long time. All right, thanks for listening. God bless