{"id":19220,"date":"2018-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-04-04T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/the-coming-kingdom-040\/"},"modified":"2018-04-04T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2018-04-04T05:00:00","slug":"the-coming-kingdom-040","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/the-coming-kingdom-040\/","title":{"rendered":"The Coming Kingdom 040"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[89],"series_event":[470],"sermon_service_type":[474],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-19220","sermon","type-sermon","status-publish","hentry","book-acts","series_event-the-coming-kingdom","sermon_service_type-wednesday-evenings","speaker-dr-andy-woods","no-post-thumbnail"],"acf":{"sermon_title":"The Coming Kingdom 040","sermon_date":"20180404","sermon_month":"4","sermon_year":"2018","sermon_notes":5646,"sermon_slides":5647,"sermon_mp3":5651,"sermon_id":"44181919369","series_or_event":470,"service_type":[474],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":89,"chapter_and_verse":"17:11","sermon_transcript":"Andy Woods\n\nThe Coming Kingdom\n\n4-4-18\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Acts 17:11\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lesson 40\n\nLet\u2019s open our Bibles to the Book of Acts, chapter 17, verse 11.\u00a0 We\u2019re continuing on with our study on the Kingdom.\u00a0 We\u2019re kind of at a transition point, as you\u2019re going to see tonight, in the study.\u00a0 We\u2019re in chapter 15 of the book that I wrote and then chapter 16.\u00a0 And remember the book I wrote is just supplemental, the important book is the Bible.\u00a0 Right, Amen to that!\n\nThe whole first part of this study (which we\u2019ve completed this part of it, believe it or not) what does the Bible say about the kingdom.\u00a0 And we\u2019ve carefully gone through how the kingdom program starts in Eden, that\u2019s where the kingdom was lost.\u00a0 And then the goal of history is how it gets restored to the earth.\u00a0 And God gradually unfolds His plan through the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant and the Kingdom program continues to be unfolded through the divide kingdom, the times of the Gentiles, and hopefully all of this is review to you.\u00a0 If not we have all this archived, Old Testament prophets, post-exile, right up to the life of Christ where the kingdom is offered to Israel on a silver platter in the first century.\u00a0 And then as you know Israel rejected that kingdom offer in Matthew 12.\n\nAnd that ushers us into a time period called the interim age, what is the plan and program of God while the kingdom is in postponement?\u00a0 And under that we studied the kingdom ministries of Matthew 13, the church which is what we\u2019re in now, church age, and one of these days the church age will be over, the translation of the church will occur and God is not forgetful of His promises to bring the kingdom to the earth through Israel.\u00a0 So there you see, number 13, Israel\u2019s discipline and restoration, the offer of the kingdom is re-extended to Israel in the tribulation period, and it\u2019s at that time in history that the kingdom is now transferred back to the earth where it belongs as the world is taken out of Satan\u2019s grasp.\n\nAnd finally, number 16, the kingdom is established on the earth for a thousand years.\u00a0 And then that time period gives way to the eternal state which is in Revelation 21 and 22, which is what we finished studying last time, so we\u2019ve looked at the eternal state.\u00a0 And since we\u2019re in Revelation 22 there\u2019s nowhere else to go in the Bible, right?\u00a0 I mean, there\u2019s no Revelation 23 unless you come up with your own Bible version. So my point is we basically exhausted what the Bible says about the kingdom.\u00a0 And I hope you\u2019ve enjoyed the ride thus far.\n\nBut I\u2019ve also included on this number 18, the testimony of early church history because what we\u2019re trying to say is that the kingdom currently is future and not in a state of cancellation but postpone\u00adment. That\u2019s basically what we\u2019ve tried to argue all the way through.\u00a0 And if we\u2019re right on this then that viewpoint ought to show up in the earliest church fathers.\u00a0 The church fathers and church history and church tradition is not inspired revelation like the Bible is; it\u2019s not inspired.\u00a0 BUT, it does represent sort of a check, if you will, on\u00a0 your interpretation.\u00a0 So if I\u2019m holding some view that no one in church history has ever held before then that should cause me maybe to question, not the Bible, but my interpretation of it.\u00a0\u00a0 And what I\u2019ve tried to say through this study is the kingdom is completely future; we\u2019re not in the kingdom.\n\nThe whole kingdom program revolves around Israel\u2019s response to her King. And if I have this view and no one in church history has ever held to it maybe I should rethink the way I\u2019m interpreting the Bible. So that\u2019s why number 18 sort of becomes important.\u00a0\u00a0 You can use it, not to place at the same level as the Bible, but you can use the church fathers to sort of check our interpretation of how we\u2019re interpreting the Bible.\u00a0 Does that make any sense?\n\nSo it\u2019s very interesting, the earliest church fathers agreed completely with what we\u2019re saying here. Isn\u2019t that interesting?\u00a0 They looked to the kingdom as something future.\u00a0 And someone sent me this quote from Josephus; you all know who Josephus was?\u00a0 He was a very early historian who lived just a little bit after the time of Christ and he talks about Jesus actually in his writings, because a lot of people will say Jesus is not found in any other books outside the Bible and that\u2019s just not true.\u00a0 Josephus does make a reference to Jesus and he even makes a reference to Jesus\u2019 resurrection from the dead and he even makes a reference the group that Jesus started called the Christians.\u00a0 And this is coming at us from secular history.\n\nHe was a Jew who basically went to work for Rome and he wrote several books, one of them is called Antiquiti<\/em>es, another one is called Wars of the Jews<\/em>, written towards the end of the first century, early second century maybe, probably early first century would be better to say it that way.\u00a0 And he is a secular historian. And notice what he records here; he records something very interesting.\u00a0 He records a Syrian philosophe who wrote, \u201cWhat advantage came to the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them?\u2019\u201d [Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syrian philosopher, wrote in Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 18.3.3 \u00a7 63-64]\n\nSo here we\u2019ve been trying to argue that the kingdom is offered and rejected and postponed because of the Jewish rejection of their own king and lo and behold we find this quote in Josephus where a philosopher of the time period says the same thing.\u00a0 This philosopher is saying the kingdom is in postponement and driven away because the Jews did not acknowledge Jesus Christ as their king.\u00a0 And so it\u2019s interesting that this concept of a postponed kingdom even shows up in the writings of Josephus.\n\nAnd then we have Justin Martyr, who wrote very early on in church history, and notice what Justin Martyr says in his dialogue with Trypho, a very early church father.\u00a0 \u201cBut I and every other completely orthodox <\/u>Christian feel certain\u201d so notice he\u2019s not saying maybe this is going to happen, he\u2019s saying this is certain, \u201cthat there will be a resurrection of the flesh, followed by a thousand years in the rebuilt, embellished, and enlarged city of Jerusalem<\/u> as was announced by the prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the others.\u201d [Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, 80]\n\nSo after the apostles leave the scene here comes Justin Martyr saying you\u00a0 know what?\u00a0 We all believe there\u2019s a future resurrection, we all believe there\u2019s a future kingdom, we all believe that there\u2019s a future temple.\u00a0 And in fact, we\u2019re certain\u00a0 of this. We all believe that the center of the earth one day is going to be the city of Jerusalem; we\u2019re certain of this!\u00a0 And then he says if you don\u2019t believe this we don\u2019t even consider you\u2026 if you\u2019re not certain of this we don\u2019t even acknowledge you as an orthodox Christian.\u00a0 And I find that very interesting because so many times when I try to advance the view that I\u2019m trying to argue for here, a futuristic kingdom, I get this sort of lecture from people telling me well you can\u2019t make this view a test or orthodoxy.\u00a0 You can\u2019t say that people that don\u2019t agree with your view are not orthodox Christians. And in fact, I really have never said that but people want to make sure that I know that.\n\nBut it\u2019s very interesting to me that Justin Martyr said everyone to a man believes there\u2019s a future kingdom, and this would be late first century, probably early second century is when he made this statement.\u00a0 And he actually uses the word orthodox to describe the future kingdom.\u00a0 He says if you don\u2019t believe this, if you don\u2019t believe in a future Jerusalem, future enlarged city of Jerusalem, future temple, future, resurrection of the flesh, future thousand years, he says you\u2019re not even an orthodox Christian.\u00a0 So the viewpoint that I\u2019m representing here was the, at least the futuristic kingdom part of it, was the reigning sentiment in the church for its first two centuries.\n\nHere is a statement by Philip Schaff, a well-known church historian, he wrote a two volume set or actually more than two volumes, multivolume set call History of the Christian Church<\/em>.\u00a0 Schaff, of course, was not a church father but he\u2019s a church historian summing up what the early church believed on this topic.\u00a0 He says, \u201cThe most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age (A.D. 100\u2013325) is the prominent chiliasm,\u201d does anybody remember what chilia<\/em> means?\u00a0 It means a thousand, It\u2019s the Greek word a thousand used six times in Revelation 20.\u00a0 So the early church fathers that believed in a future thousand year kingdom didn\u2019t call themselves premillennialists that\u2019s a name we use today, they called themselves chiliasts.\u00a0 And Schaff says, \u201che most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm or millenarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, before the final resurrection of unbelievers at what\u2019s called the Great White Throne Judgment, there will exist this long kingdom period.\n\nAnd then Schaff goes on and he says, \u201cIt was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as\u201d and he names a bunch of these early, the earliest church fathers, this would be the generation that followed the apostles, people such as \u201cBarnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr,\u201d who I just quoted a moment ago, \u201cIrenaeus\u2026\u201d\u00a0 When you think of Irenaeus you want to think of the Old E.F. Hutton commercial, \u201cWhen E.F. Hutton speaks,\u201d what\u2019s the rest of it, \u201cpeople listen.\u201d So when Irenaeus speaks we should all listen because there is only one generation removed from Irenaeus and John, the guy who received what we call The Book of Revelation.\u00a0 So John discipled Polycarp, Polycarp discipled Irenaeus, so if Irenaeus.\u00a0 So if Irenaeus believes the way we believe then we\u2019re pretty safe in believing that what we believe is consistent with what John, the apostle, believed. So Schaff talks about distinguished teachers, such as \u201cBarnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius,\u201d not the founder of the Methodist denomination, that would come much later with the Wesley brothers, \u201cand Lactantius.\u201d\u00a0 [History of the Christian Church, vol. 2 , p. 61, Philip Schaff<\/em>]\n\nAnd it\u2019s interesting what Schaff says, he says you know, this view of the future kingdom was so common that they didn\u2019t even bother to put it in a creed because what people today demand is if it\u2019s not in the Nicaean Creed, or it\u2019s not in the Apostles Creed or it\u2019s not in this creed or if it\u2019s not in that creed then I don\u2019t believe it\u2019s true.\n\nIn fact, we went to a church in the Dallas area when we were living there and we asked them for a doctrinal statement and they had non, and they said well, our doctrinal statement is the Nicene Creed.\u00a0 That was their doctrinal statement.\u00a0 And you see, they\u2019re totally misunderstanding why creeds came into existence.\u00a0 Creeds did not come into existence in this ancient time period to put together a doctrinal statement of what Christians believe.\u00a0 That\u2019s the way most churches operate, we put together a doctrinal statement and say here\u2019s what we believe on a macro scale.\u00a0 That\u2019s not the way creeds came into existence in this time period, the first couple of centuries of the church.\u00a0 Creeds came into existence to combat heresy.\n\nSo there was a heretic running around (around this time period) named Arius, and he developed a doctrine called Arianism. Arianism is exactly what the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses teach, not if they come to your door but when they come to your door they will try to tell you that Jesus is a created being.\u00a0 In other words, Jesus did not eternally exist.\u00a0 And all of that is, is recycled Arianism.\u00a0 Arius actually developed a song, I don\u2019t know how to sing it exactly because there\u2019s not any recoding labels back then, but it was a song that went something like this: You know there was a time when He was not (speaking of Jesus).\u00a0 And Arius was so popular with this heresy that he almost won the day and very few people were standing up to him.\n\nIf I remember what my church history right the guy that stood up to him was a guy named Athanasius, and everybody criticized Athanasius for standing up to Arius and the statement goes something like this: Athanasius, don\u2019t you know that the world is against you.\u00a0 And Athanasius says it\u2019s not the world that\u2019s against Athanasius, it\u2019s Athanasius against the world.\u00a0 Arianism almost took over Christianity.\u00a0 Christianity almost succumbed to the idea that Jesus was a created being, had it not been for Athanasius and a creed was developed out of that called the Creed of Nicea, that has a clause in it, you might recognize it.\u00a0 When I was an Episcopalian we, in the form of responsive reading and things like this, chanted this creed all the time; it\u2019s just at the time I was a very young person, I had no idea what it meant, but now in hindsight I do know what it means.\u00a0 And it\u2019s a very valuable creed, it says \u201cJesus is begotten but not\u2026\u201d anybody know the rest of it?\u00a0 \u201c\u2026 begotten but not made.\u201d\u00a0 So what is that?\u00a0 That is a decree of Nicea which is a reaction against Arius.\u00a0 So the creed of Nicea was not designed to be a sum total of what all Christians believe.\u00a0 See that?\u00a0 It was designed to respond to a particular heresy.\n\nSo therefore early on in church history they didn\u2019t develop a doctrinal statement related to the kingdom because it was just a reigning sentiment; they only developed creeds to respond to heretics.\u00a0 And so that\u2019s why this argument that unless I find this in a creed I\u2019m not going to believe it\u2026 well, that\u2019s not why they created creeds in those days.\u00a0 That\u2019s what you would call an anachronistic understanding.\u00a0 Anachronism is outside of time, taking what\u2019s normal today\u00a0 and reading it back into the first couple of centuries of the church.\u00a0 I mean, what\u2019s normal today is we develop doctrinal statements that are very comprehensive.\u00a0 That\u2019s not what they did back then; they only put creeds into existence to refute heretics.\u00a0 So this idea that I don\u2019t find premillennialism in a creed therefore I won\u2019t believe it, people that say that don\u2019t even understand why the creeds were formulated.\u00a0 And this is what Schaff is saying.\u00a0 Schaff is saying premillennialism, the belief in a future kingdom, was so common, in fact Justin Martyr said it was a sign of orthodoxy that you didn\u2019t even need to have it in a doctrinal statement, everybody believed it.\u00a0 And you don\u2019t start having creeds until heretics, like Arius, arose.\u00a0 Does that name any sense.\n\nHere\u2019s another statement by Edward Gibbon, and you might recognize that name.\u00a0 Anybody know what Edward Gibbon wrote, other famous book?\u00a0 [Someone answers]\u00a0 Yeah, I think he wrote The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire<\/em>.\u00a0 I think he wrote that around that around the time of America\u2019s founding, if I remember right.\u00a0\u00a0 So he\u2019s a pretty respected historian, he documents how Rome rose and fell and he also wrote something The History of Christianity<\/em>.\u00a0 And this is what he says of the early church.\n\nHe says, \u201cThe ancient and popular doctrine of the Millennium\u201d that\u2019s what we\u2019ve been studying and teaching, \u201cwas intimately connected with the second coming of Christ. As the works of the creation had been finished in six days, their duration in their present state, according to a tradition which was attributed to the prophet Elijah, was fixed to six thousand years. By the same analogy it was inferred, that this long period of labor and contention, which was now almost elapsed, would be succeeded by a joyful Sabbath of a thousand years; and that Christ, with the triumphant band of the saints and the elect who had escaped death, or who had been miraculously revived, would reign\u201d where? \u201cupon earth till the time appointed for the last and general resurrection\u2026 The assurance of such a Millennium was carefully inculcated by\u2026\u2026a succession of fathers\u201d and he mentions some of the people we\u2019ve already talked about, \u201cfrom Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus,\u201d that\u2019s our E. F. Hutton guy, \u201cIrenaeus who conversed with the immediate disciples of the apostles, down to Lactantius, who was preceptor to the son of Constantine.\u201d\n\nSo what he\u2019s saying is the earliest church fathers that were taught by the apostles all had this under\u00adstanding of a future kingdom.\u00a0\u00a0 I mean, it wouldn\u2019t be the kind of thing you have to stand up in front of these guys and convince them of premillennialism, they were all premillennialists, they just didn\u2019t use the name \u201cpremillennial.\u201d\u00a0 They just used the name chiliast.\u00a0 And here\u2019s the key phrase in the Edward Gibbon\u2019s quote here.\u00a0 He says, \u201cThough it might not be universally received, it appears to have been the reigning sentiment of the orthodox believers<\/u>;\u201d look at that.\u00a0 So if you didn\u2019t believe in what we call premillennialism your orthodoxy as a Christian was challenged.\u00a0 \u201c\u2026 and it seems so well adapted to the desires and apprehensions of mankind, that it must have contributed in a very considerable degree to the progress of the Christian faith.\u201d\u00a0 [History of the Christian Church, vol. 2 , p. 614<\/em>]\n\nSo the earliest church believed in this 6,000 year idea, there\u2019s going to be 6,000 years of history and that\u2019s a view I don\u2019t necessarily embrace because I don\u2019t necessarily find that in the Bible.\u00a0 But many in this time period, the first couple centuries of the church believed that, according to Edward Gibbon and they got that, probably, from the Peter verse which is quoting Psalm 90, \u201cwith the Lord a day is like a thousand years,\u201d and the Lord created the world in six days so there\u2019s going to be 6,000 years of history.\u00a0 That\u2019s a view that I don\u2019t necessarily embrace but it is interesting that the final thousand they believe is the earthly kingdom of Christ.\u00a0 So they all believed in this earthly millennium that we\u2019ve been talking about over these various lessons.\u00a0 [2 Peter 3:8, \u201cBut do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.\u00a0 Psalm 90:4, \u201cBut do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.\u201d]\n\nHere is another quote from another historian named Jesse Forrest Silver.\u00a0 \u201cSilver says of the apostolic fathers\u201d that\u2019s the generation that immediately followed the apostles, that \u2018they expected the return of the Lord in their day<\/u>\u2026\u201d\u00a0 Wow, what is that?\u00a0 That\u2019s imminency, that\u2019s the idea that Jesus can come back at any minute.\u00a0 That kind of sounds like what?\u00a0 the rapture. They weren\u2019t looking for the antichrist, they were looking for Jesus Christ.\u00a0 So \u2018\u201cthey expected the return of the Lord in their day.\u00a0 They believed the time was imminent because the Lord had taught them to live in a watchful attitude.\u2019 Concerning the ante Nicene fathers, he\u201d that\u2019s Forrest says: \u201cby tradition they knew the faith of the apostles.\u201d\u00a0 And watch this, \u201cThey taught the doctrine of the imminent and pre-millennial return of the Lord<\/u>.\u201d\u00a0 [The Lord\u2019s Return: Seen in History and in Scripture as Premillennial and Imminent<\/em> (NY: Revell, 1914), 62-64.]\n\nSo what did the early church believe?\u00a0 They believed a couple of things; number 1, there\u2019s going to be this earthly thousand year kingdom.\u00a0 They believed it was going to be in the city of Jerusalem.\u00a0 They believed it was going to correlate with the rebuilding of the millennial temple.\u00a0 They believed that Jerusalem would be the centerpiece of the world.\u00a0 They believed that all of these things were tangible, earthly and real exactly like we have been explaining them.\u00a0 But they also believed before Jesus comes back and sets that time period up, called chiliasm, or what we today call premillennial\u00adism, they also believed Jesus, in a separate coming, can come back at any\u00a0 moment.\n\nNow, did they have well developed prophecy charts like we have today?\u00a0 No, probably because it\u2019s hard to sit around and air conditioned building like we have the luxury to do and develop prophecy charts with nice pictures on them and graphics and all that stuff.\u00a0 It\u2019s kind of hard to do that when Nero, Domitian, and others are trying to cut your head off.\u00a0 They didn\u2019t have the luxury that we have today to develop systematic theology like we have the ability to do today.\u00a0 But prophecy charts notwithstanding they seemed to hold to a general concept that we hold to today, an any moment appearing of Christ.\u00a0 Now did they call that the rapture?\u00a0\u00a0 Not necessarily but they believed that.\u00a0 They believed Jesus could come back at any minute and they also believed that following that time period through a time of distress and the conversion of Israel would be this thousand year millennial kingdom.\n\nI find this very interesting because it nobody in church history ever held to the views that we hold to here I would maybe question whether we\u2019re on the right track.\u00a0 I mean, is our interpretation correct?\u00a0 But since those closest to the apostles did not in any way, shape or form reject what we\u2019re teaching here, they didn\u2019t have the details finally tuned like we do.\u00a0 They certainly didn\u2019t reject it and they\u2019re closer to the apostles and Jesus than we are, since they seemed to accept the ideas that we\u2019re teaching here, embrace the ideas we\u2019re teaching here, I think our interpretation is correct on this.\u00a0 So I just kind of hold that out as church history, at least the first two centuries of the church seem to be on our side in a lot of these things.\n\nBut, if you followed along with our Protestant Reformation series what we learned is in the third century and the fourth century everything changes.\u00a0 And\u00a0 what you start seeing happening down in Alexandria, Egypt, which is that circle down south, they started to do what with the Scripture?\u00a0 Spiritualize it, allegorize it, in fact the little book I wrote, which we gave away on Easter, which we\u2019ll have more of them back there next week, Ever Reforming<\/em> is the name of the book, it\u2019s a fast read, only 160 pages or so, one guy emailed me and said I read it in one sitting.\u00a0 So I said praise God, that\u2019s why I wrote it, I didn\u2019t want to write a book so thick no one would read it, except maybe my mom.\u00a0 And maybe she wouldn\u2019t even read it, I don\u2019t know, but she did request that I send her my books for her birthday, and mom is going to be 82 April 9th<\/sup>.\u00a0 Anyway, that\u2019s more information than what you\u2019re looking for.\n\nSo what happened is down in Alexandria, Egypt, they started to allegorize the Scripture, symbolize the Scripture away, there\u2019s a lot of forces that led to that.\u00a0 And that\u2019s where amillennialism comes from, the rejection of an earthly kingdom.\u00a0 And once Augustine comes on the scene and writes his book, The City of <\/em>God, which is the first formal treatment of amillennialism in church history, then the church is cast under an amillennial spell.\u00a0 And if\u00a0 you ever get asked on a test, I tell this to my students, what is the most influential theological book in church history the answer is Augustine\u2019s The City of God<\/em>.\u00a0 And I don\u2019t use the word \u201cinfluential\u201d in the positive sense, I use the word \u201cinfluential\u201d in the negative sense.\u00a0 That particular book eclipsed the first two centuries of the church in terms of its beliefs in a future kingdom.\u00a0 And it led to this idea that all of these prophecies that we\u2019ve been studying are not literal, they\u2019re not earthly, they\u2019re allegorical.\u00a0 And the church has been crawling out from under that shadow from the fourth century right up to the Protestant Reformation, which happened in the sixteenth century.\n\nAnd even the Protestant Reformers themselves, as I\u2019ve tried to teach in the study on the Protestant Reformation and in my book Ever Reforming <\/em>brought with them a lot of Augustinian ideas into the Reformed faith.\u00a0 And it really is not until the 1800\u2019s that we, as dispensationalist, took the Reformers hermeneutic and began to apply it not just to the solas, Sola Fide, Sola Christus, Sola Deo, Gloria<\/em>, Sola Scriptura<\/em>, and Sola Gratia<\/em>, and those all stand for what?\u00a0 Faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone, the Scripture alone, the glory of God alone.\u00a0 The Reformers used a literal method of interpretation to restore those doctrines.\u00a0 That happened in the sixteenth century.\n\nAnd what we, as dispensationalists did and said, let\u2019s take that same method and apply it to the whole Bible.\u00a0 And guess what comes roaring back into the light when you do that?\u00a0 Chiliasm, which the church believed in in the first two centuries.\u00a0 And I would argue the eminent return of the Lord in the rapture which the church apparently believed in in its first two centuries.\u00a0 We just have different names for it.\u00a0 Today we call it premillennialism and pretribulationalism.\u00a0 But you can\u2019t believe those things until you get committed to a literal method of interpretation.\u00a0 And fi that method of interpretation was sufficient to restore the solas in the sixteenth century, thank you Protestant Reformers, then let\u2019s just do it to the whole Bible.\u00a0 And once you use that method in the whole Bible what you discover is chiliasm<\/em> and imminency start to come back to the surface.\n\nSo all of that to say when you look at the earliest church fathers, not what the majority of Christians have believed in church history, that\u2019s the wrong way of looking at it because the majority of what most Christians have believed in church history has been corrupted by Augustinian hermeneutics and mentality.\u00a0 If you look, not at what the majority of Christians have believed historically over the last two thousand years but you look at what the church believed in its first two centuries after its inception, after the apostles left the scene, what you discover is they were extremely open to our beliefs.\u00a0 In fact, the earliest chiliasts came from the circle up north called Antioch.\u00a0 Those are the two schools of Christian thought that developed right out of the gate, Antioch up north, they were the literalists, they were the chiliasts, they were the ones that believed in a future earthly kingdom and all of that got eclipsed by the circle down south, Alexandria, Egypt, where they taught the allegorical method of interpretation.\n\nNow one fast point before I leave this is: is there apostolic succession back to Antioch.\u00a0 Can you trace the apostles back to the school at Antioch?\u00a0 The answer is yes!\u00a0 I mean, Paul, the apostle was there, wasn\u2019t he?\u00a0 Isn\u2019t that where Paul launched his three missionary journeys from---Antioch?\u00a0 So Antioch has apostles, like Paul, connected to it.\u00a0 How many apostles can you trace to Alexandria, Egypt?\u00a0 Zero!\u00a0 So our view, although it\u2019s not the most dominant view in church history was the earliest view.\u00a0 And our view, although it\u2019s not the most dominant view in church history has the most apostolic succession because our view is rooted in Antioch.\u00a0 The amillennialism view is rooted in Alexandria, Egypt.\n\nSo I think that\u2019s sort of helpful; I don\u2019t know if you found it interesting or not but I think it\u2019s sort of helpful, isn\u2019t it, to understand that we\u2019ve been going through this lengthy study on the kingdom, and I think we\u2019re on lesson 40 or something like that\u2026 I mean, it\u2019s kind of nice to know that the Bible study perspective that we\u2019ve come up with is very consistent with what the early church believed for its first two centuries.\u00a0 And if that wasn\u2019t the case maybe we\u2019d better rethink the whole thing. Amen.\u00a0 So that\u2019s why I brought all that up.\u00a0 So that finishes the first part of this study, what does the Bible say about the kingdom.\n\nAnd now we\u2019re moving on to number two.\u00a0 And you say oh my gosh, if number one took forty lessons how long is he going to take on number two?\u00a0 Well, be encouraged, I think I can do number two, I can either finish it tonight or next week, so this study will start to pick up steam a little bit.\n\nSo now we\u2019re no number two: what is the main problem with Kingdom Now interpretations?\u00a0 Because what everybody today is arguing is that we are now in the Kingdom.\u00a0 As you go around and you look at pastors and churches and leaders and vision statements and mission statements, they all mention the word kingdom all of the time.\u00a0 They\u2019re doing kingdom work, we\u2019re bringing in the kingdom, one TV broadcast is called The Kingdom Con<\/em>nection.\u00a0 One gentleman wrote a book called The Kingdom Man<\/em>, what does the kingdom man look like.\u00a0 And people are throwing around this buzzword all of the time, kingdom, kingdom, kingdom, kingdom, giving you the impression that we\u2019re actually in the Kingdom Now or bringing in the kingdom.\n\nNow based on what we\u2019ve studied so far that\u2019s not what we\u2019re teaching here.\u00a0 We\u2019re teaching that the kingdom is not in a state of cancellation but postponement revolving around Israel\u2019s response to their King, which they haven\u2019t responded yet to their King.\u00a0 So in the interim God is doing a new work through the church but it\u2019s not the kingdom.\u00a0 But the way people use this word \u201ckingdom\u201d all of the time\u00a0 you would think that this ancient heresy, coming from Alexandria, Egypt, is coming right back into the forefront.\n\nSo here on number two I\u2019m trying to ask what are the main problems with Kingdom Now interpreta\u00adtions.\u00a0\u00a0 And I ran into this quote from Dallas Willard, he\u2019s passed on now, but he\u2019s a very popular writer, a lot of churches jump on the bandwagon with his writings and he wrote a book called The Divine Conspiracy<\/em>, and on page 30 I just found this excerpt very interesting because he\u2019s very clearly arguing that we\u2019re in the Kingdom Now.\n\nLook at what he says: \u201cSometimes the places where God\u2019s effective or actual rule is not yet carried out, and His will is not yet done, lie within the lives and little kingdoms of those who truly have been invaded by the eternal kind of life itself\u2012those who really do belong to Christ because His life is already present and growing within them.\u201d\u00a0 So he\u2019s talking about Christ within us, growing within us, so far so good, I believe Christ is present in us and the Holy Spirit, and growing in us but you see, he\u2019s linking that to the kingdom.\u00a0 He goes on and he says, \u201cThe \u201cinterior castle\u201d of the human soul, as Teresa of Avila called it,\u201d now let me just stop right now; this is very common amongst these kind of writers, they\u2019re always connecting to these sort of Catholic mystics of the past.\u00a0 For whatever reason they want to get to a time period that I like to call the Dark Ages, before the Protestant Reformation happened.\n\nSo it was a time period of mysticism and people trying to get very spiritual and you see that kind of thing today in the emergent church where they set up a maize in a church, sometimes it\u2019s on a carpet in a church called the labyrinth and you kind of walk through this thing to get kind of a spiritual feeling, a liver quiver, or you darken the sanctuary or you to back to Ash Wednesday.\u00a0 And I was in a Bible church where they were going back to Ash Wednesday and I thought I can\u2019t believe this is happening, this is Episcopalianism that I got saved out of.\u00a0 And now here\u2019s a Bible church going back to that.\u00a0 And they want to get into the icons and the statues and they want to do the holy water and all of these kind of things because they think that there\u2019s some mystic experience that we\u2019re somehow missing that the Protestant Reformers did away with.\u00a0 And this is called the new emergent spirituality.\n\nSo Dallas Willard wants to go back to the writings of this and he says, \u201cThe \u201cinterior castle\u201d of the human soul, as Teresa of Avila called it, has many rooms, and they are slowly occupied by God, allowing us time and room to grow. That is a crucial aspect of the conspiracy.\u201d\u00a0 Remember the title of his book, The Divine Conspiracy<\/em>.\u00a0 \u201cBut even this does not detract from the reality of the\u201d ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, what does it say there? \u201c\u2018kingdom among us<\/u><\/em>.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 So as we get back to these sort of Roman Catholic experiences we\u2019re going to start experiencing God more and as we experience God more there\u2019s going to be a manifestation of the kingdom within us.\u00a0 And he says, \u201cNor does it destroy the choice that all have to accept it and bring their life increasingly into it.\u201d\u00a0 [Dallas Willard, The Divine C<\/em>onspiracy, pg. 30]\n\nSo this is very common in literature today, so called Christian literature.\u00a0 You can find things like this in any Christian bookstore.\u00a0 You can find things like this in the Christian section at any major Barnes and Noble; it\u2019s kind of this new spirituality and what they\u2019re doing here is they\u2019re saying we\u2019ve got to have these mystical experiences and as we have these mystical experiences then the kingdom is manifested among us.\u00a0 So that\u2019s yet another example of Kingdom Now theology.\n\nAnd what I\u2019m trying to do here in chapter 16 is explain the two problems with that kind of interpretation.\u00a0 I mean why would it be wrong to call a present spiritual experience the kingdom?\u00a0 How would that contradict everything we\u2019ve studied for 39 or 40 lessons?\u00a0 And I have two major problems with this.\u00a0 Numbers one, the kingdom, as we\u2019ve studied it is always portrayed as earthly and it\u2019s always portrayed as only becoming manifest once Israel repents.\u00a0 You\u2019ll see this in Genesis 15:18-21, the earthly dimensions of the kingdom, and you\u2019ll see the repentant Israel in Ezekiel 36 and 37.\u00a0 [Genesis 15:18-21, \u201cOn that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, \u2018To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:\u00a0 [19] the Kenite and the Kenizzite and the Kadmonite [20] and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Rephaim [21] and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Girgashite and the Jebusite.\u201d]\n\nUntil those two things become a reality earthly and a repentant Israel, neither of which we have today, right?\u00a0 We don\u2019t have a repentant Israel, do we?\u00a0 Israel has been regathered but she continues on as an unbelieving nation.\u00a0 And we certainly don\u2019t have an earthly kingdom, not the way the prophets describe it, about they\u2019ll beat their swords into plowshares and all that kind of stuff.\u00a0 Until that becomes a reality you cannot say the kingdom has come.\u00a0 And see what we\u2019re doing here is we\u2019re defining the doctrine of the kingdom biblically.\u00a0 What does the Bible say about the kingdom?\u00a0 And that is not where the mindset is today amongst most churches.\u00a0 What they want to do is they want to grab this word \u201ckingdom\u201d and pour into it whatever definition they like.\u00a0 If you\u2019re a communist, for example, communists love to use the word kingdom because to them kingdom is the redistribution of the wealth.\u00a0 If you\u2019re into another political philosophy, whatever it is, you just grab this word kingdom and you pour your own sociological definition into that word.\n\nAnd see, this is what\u2019s happening with people like Dallas Willard, as they want to move us into some kind of mysticism, they want to say that\u2019s the manifestation of the kingdom.\u00a0 And my point is very simple, you can\u2019t do that if you care about what the biblical text says.\u00a0 And as we\u2019ve documented very carefully the Bible is very clear as to what the kingdom actually is.\u00a0 It has to involve a terrestrial element and it has to involve a repentant Israel.\n\nNotice this quote here from Renald Showers, who is one of the good guys (as far as I\u2019m concerned) Friends of Israel, and he says this, quote: Several items of Scripture reveal that no form of the future Kingdom of God foretold in the Old Testament will be established before the Second Coming of Christ. . . .\u201d Where does he get that from?\u00a0 He gets it from the study of the Bible.\u00a0 \u201cNo Old Testament revelation concerning the future Kingdom of God indicated that the Kingdom would consist of two forms, one spiritual and the other political, established at two different points of time in the future.\u201d\u00a0 [Renald Showers, \u201cCritique of Progressive Dispensationalism,\u201d Friends of Israel National Conference (June 2003), 5.]\n\nSo a lot of people want to divest the word \u201ckingdom\u201d of its terrestrial element and just grab the spiritual stuff and pretend like the spiritual stuff is happening now.\u00a0 In fact, at my Alma Mater, Dallas Seminary, it just grieves me, it grieved me when I was there, it grieves me now as I read and study what they\u2019re teaching; they teach the doctrine of the kingdom, not all, but many, in what\u2019s called progressive dispensationalism and they teach what they call already not yet.\u00a0 And you say well, what do you mean by already not yet?\u00a0 Well they say the kingdom is here in spiritual form but don\u2019t worry, we still believe in a future millennium.\n\nNotice what Renald Showers says, you don\u2019t have that concept in the Old Testament.\u00a0 No Old Testament revelation concerning the future Kingdom of God indicated that the Kingdom would consist of two forms, one spiritual and the other political, established at two different points of time in the future.\u201d\u00a0 What he\u2019s saying is the Kingdom, as we understand it, which will be a blessing to the whole world, will not come into existence until the terrestrial element is satisfied, it\u2019s got to be earthly, and the whole program revolves around whether Israel is going to repent or not.\u00a0 As long as Israel is not in repentance then the kingdom is not cancelled but it\u2019s what? Postponed, and therefore what\u2019s happening today is a great work of God in the church, praise God for it, but it\u2019s not the kingdom.\u00a0 This is the biblical definition of the kingdom and this is what\u2019s being\u00a0 discarded.\n\nArnold Fruchtenbaum, you all know Arnold Fruchtenbaum don\u2019t you?\u00a0 Notice that he agrees with me, or maybe I should better say I agree with him, or something like that.\u00a0 He says:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cIt is incorrect to say that the Old Testament should be interpreted by the New Testament because if that is the case, the Old Testament had no meaning and seemed to be irrelevant to the ones to whom it was spoken. On the contrary, the validity of the New Testament is seen by how it conforms to what was already revealed in the Old Testament. The Book of Mormon and other books by cultic groups fail to stand because they contradict the New Testament. By the same token, if the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament, it cannot stand. It is one thing to see fulfillment in the New Testament, but it is quite another to see the New Testament so totally reinterpret the Old Testament that what the Old Testament says carries no meaning at all.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 [Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, \u201cIsrael\u2019s Right to the Promised Land<\/em>,\u201d 17\u201318, accessed March 9, 2013, http:\/\/www.pre-trib.org.com.]\n\nAnd you see, what Dallas Willard, backing up to this quote here, that\u201d the kingdom is among us,\u201d what these people are saying is Jesus brought in a spiritual form of the kingdom.\u00a0 Jesus brought in this kind of spiritual community, spiritual kingdom, Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne right now, all of these kinds of things.\u00a0 That\u2019s where everybody is going, that\u2019s what everybody is teaching.\u00a0 What\u2019s the problem with that?\u00a0 The problem with that is it contradicts every single thing we know about the kingdom from the Old Testament.\u00a0 As we\u2019ve gone through forty lessons we\u2019ve seen that the kingdom has to have two things; a terrestrial element and a repentant Israel.\u00a0 Neither of those things exist, neither of those things existed in the life of Christ and what everybody is saying is well Jesus just reinterpreted the Old Testament.\u00a0 Jesus changed the Old Testament.\u00a0 And what Fruchtenbaum is saying is you can\u2019t have that.\u00a0\u00a0 God can\u2019t say something on Monday and completely contradict Himself on Tuesday.\u00a0 That\u2019s an impossibility.\n\nSo if you\u2019re coming up with an interpretation of the New Testament that completely rewrites the Old Testament then guess what?\u00a0 You need to rethink your interpretation.\u00a0 You don\u2019t interpret the Old Testament by the New Testament\u2014you interpret the New Testament by the what?\u00a0 The Old Testament!\u00a0 And that\u2019s really the whole debate here.\u00a0 Kingdom Now people are saying the New Testament rewrites the Old Testament.\u00a0 And we\u2019re saying no, the New Testament needs to be interpreted in a way which is consistent with the Old Testament, not in contradiction to it.\n\nBy the way, isn\u2019t that the same reason we reject Mormonism?\u00a0 Don\u2019t Mormons come along with their new revelation. What do they have?\u00a0 The Pearl of Great Price, The Doctrine of Covenants, The Book of Mormon<\/em>, and in those books allegedly given when?\u00a0 1600\u2019s-1800\u2019s, somewhere in there, they totally contradict what the Bible says.\u00a0 They contradict the nature of God, salvation by faith, and we can go on and on talking about contradiction.\u00a0 So why would I reject Mormonism?\u00a0 Because Mormonism comes up with interpretations that contradict divine revelation.\n\nIn the same way if someone is coming up with a Kingdom Now interpretation that completely discards everything given in the Old Testament you reject Kingdom Now on the same logical basis that you would reject a cult like Mormonism.\u00a0 And that is a major, major problem with Kingdom Now theology.\n\nLet me give you some examples of how Kingdom Now people do this.\u00a0 Colin Chapman wrote a book called Whose Promised Land?<\/em> About Israel; it\u2019s an anti-Israel book.\u00a0 To him Israel means nothing because we\u2019re in the kingdom now and the church is the new Israel.\u00a0 So Colin Chapman writes, \u201cWhen the New Testament writers like John had seen the significance of the land and the nation in the context of the kingdom of God which had come into being in Jesus of Nazareth, they ceased to look forward to a literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies of a return to the land and a restoration of a Jewish state. The one and only fulfillment of all promises and prophecies was already there before their eyes in the person of Jesus.\u201d Watch this now.\u00a0 \u201cThe way they interpreted the Old Testament should be the norm for the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament today.\u201d\u00a0 [Whose Promised Land? The Continuing Conflict over Israel and Palestine <\/em>(Oxford, England: Lion, 2015), 262.]\n\nIn other words, in his mind Jesus and the apostles came along and said all that Old Testament stuff, don\u2019t worry about that, we\u2019re repackaging it.\u00a0 It\u2019s all repackaged in the form of a new spiritual form of the kingdom.\u00a0 Don\u2019t worry about Israel, don\u2019t worry about the return of the Jews to the land, don\u2019t worry about the millennial temple, don\u2019t worry about the Dead Sea coming back to life, all cancelled, all null and void. Why?\u00a0 Because Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted it.\u00a0 So what has he just done?\u00a0 He has used his interpretation of the New Testament to cancel the Old Testament, that in essence is what he\u2019s done.\u00a0 But this is so common in the literature.\n\nHere is Naim Ateek, who\u2019s really big in a movement called A Christian Palestinianism where it\u2019s basically replacement theology, and notice how he interprets the Old Testament.\u00a0 He said, \u201cThe use of this \u201cnew\u201d hermeneutic\u201d now you all\u00a0 know what a hermeneutic is, right?\u00a0 A method of interpretation.\u00a0 That\u2019s what these guys are promoting, a method of interpretation which changes all of the promises about the kingdom in the Old Testament.\u00a0 \u201cThe use of this new hermeneutic\u00a0 is accessible to all Christians, even to the simple of faith. . . . The constant application of this hermeneutic, therefore, is the best key for Christians to interpreting and understanding the biblical message. Furthermore, this theological understanding can determine the validity and authority of the Scriptures for the life of the Christian.\u201d Did you know that, that as a Christian\u00a0 you have the ability now to look at the Bible and determine which Scriptures are valid and which ones are authoritative?\u00a0 I didn\u2019t know we had that kind of power.\u00a0 I\u2019m being a little facetious of course, just to get the point across.\n\nHe says, \u201cIt is grounded in the knowledge and love of God\u201d doesn\u2019t that sound good, I mean, that gives you like the liver quiver of the day doesn\u2019t it; I mean, all that syrupy language about the love of God; I mean, who can be against that.\u00a0 \u201cIt is grounded in the knowledge and love of God as revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The revelation of God, God\u2019s nature, purpose, and will as revealed in Christ,\u201d watch this very carefully, \u201cbecomes the criterion by which Christians can measure the validity and authority of the biblical message for their life. When confronted with a difficult passage in the Bible\u201d\u00a0 Are there things in the Old Testament that bother you.\u00a0 Guess what,\u00a0 you\u2019ve got an escape clause now, you\u2019ve got an escape clause by which you can take white out and eliminate those passages from being valid or authoritative in your thinking as a Christian.\u00a0 How are we going to do that exactly?\u00a0 \u201cWhen confronted with a difficult passage in the Bible,\u201d what is a difficult passage, that\u2019s a passage I don\u2019t like.\u00a0 That\u2019s a passage that I don\u2019t want to be authoritative over my life.\u00a0 What do I do when I hit those kinds of passages?\u00a0\u00a0 According to Naim Ateek , \u201cWhen confronted with a difficult passage in the Bible . . . . one needs to ask such simple questions as: Is the way I am hearing this the way I have come to know God in Christ? Does this fit the picture I have of God that Jesus has revealed to me? Does it match the character of God whom I have come to know through Christ? If it does, then that passage is valid and authoritative. If not, then I cannot accept its validity or authority.\u201d\u00a0 [Naim Ateek, Justice, and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, NY: Ortis, 1990), 81\u201382.]\n\nSee how subjective that is.\u00a0 I mean, you\u2019re reading in the Old Testament how Joshua went in and slaughtered the Canaanites and you say to yourself well, that doesn\u2019t look very Christ like, that doesn\u2019t fit my contemporary understanding of Jesus who I\u2019ve sort of converted into a spiritual marshmallow because I have a red letter edition of the Bible that just highlights the nice things He did.\u00a0 This stuff about overturning the moneychangers in the temple and things, you know, I don\u2019t really like that part so I\u2019ve constructed this sort of marshmallow idea of who Jesus is so I\u2019m reading in the Old Testament how Joshua went in and slaughtered the Canaanites and I way well, that doesn\u2019t really sound like my understanding of Jesus, so guess what\u00a0 I have the power to do? I just pull out my liquid paper and just sort of cross that out and say that story has no authority or no validity.\n\nAnd this is how these guys are selling a generation of Christians on the idea that we\u2019re in the kingdom currently because all of that stuff about Israel in the land, Jerusalem as the head of the nations, the Dead Sea is going to come back to life, there\u2019s going to be a rebuilding of Ezekiel\u2019s temple with animal sacrifices, all of these things that are clearly taught in the Bible, the Christians for the first two centuries believed in, those don\u2019t fit my subject interpretation of who Jesus is; I\u2019m going to cross all that out and reinterpret it the way I want to, in the Dallas Willard way as a spiritual kingdom.\n\nAnd what I have and I\u2019ve run out of time is three problems with this approach.\u00a0 And I\u2019ll just describe the approach and next time we get together I\u2019ll go through the three problems with this approach.\u00a0 I mean, why can\u2019t you just use the New Testament to rewrite the Old Testament and in the process redefine the kingdom, which is the direction people are going in.\u00a0 Why can\u2019t you do that?\u00a0 Because there\u2019s three basic problems with it and we\u2019ll pick that up next time.","series_sermon_number":""},"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t