{"id":19221,"date":"2018-04-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-04-11T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/the-coming-kingdom-041\/"},"modified":"2018-04-11T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2018-04-11T05:00:00","slug":"the-coming-kingdom-041","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/the-coming-kingdom-041\/","title":{"rendered":"The Coming Kingdom 041"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[89],"series_event":[470],"sermon_service_type":[474],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-19221","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 041","sermon_date":"20180411","sermon_month":"4","sermon_year":"2018","sermon_notes":5669,"sermon_slides":5670,"sermon_mp3":5671,"sermon_id":"411181944349","series_or_event":470,"service_type":[474],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":89,"chapter_and_verse":"17:11","sermon_transcript":"The Coming Kingdom\n\n4-11-18\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Acts 17:11\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lesson 41\n\nLet\u2019s open our Bibles to the Book of Acts, chapter 17, verse 11.\u00a0 And we\u2019re kind of at a transitional point in the study that we\u2019ve been doing on the kingdom.\u00a0 Really what we\u2019ve done thus far in the study is we started in Genesis and gone all the way through the very end of the Book of Revelation to explain what the Bible says about the doctrine of the kingdom.\u00a0 And basically what we\u2019ve learned, in a nutshell, is that the kingdom today is in a state of, not cancellation but postponement.\u00a0 The kingdom program is yet future and God is doing something very authentic to the church but it\u2019s not the kingdom.\n\nThe last time we talked about number 18 where we saw that the actual view that we\u2019re presenting was what the early church believed for its first few centuries.\u00a0 So for 200 years after the apostles left the earth the early church fathers believed in a future kingdom.\u00a0 And it really wasn\u2019t until the church fathers drifted into, around the fourth century, allegorical interpretation that they started to formulate a kingdom now theology.\n\nAnd from there, moving into part two, which we\u2019re going to try to finish tonight, Lord willing, and now that we\u2019ve looked at what does the Bible say about the kingdom what is the main couple of problems with the idea that people articulate all the time today that we\u2019re in the kingdom now?\u00a0 Kingdom now theology, which is really the dominate buzzword today, the kingdom this, kingdom that, everybody\u2019s growing the kingdom, building the kingdom, bringing in the kingdom.\u00a0 So I\u2019ve used this quote, a quote from within the book from Dallas Willard, just as an example, he wrote a book called The Divine Conspiracy<\/em>, and I just saw this and I wanted to use it as sort of an example of how people view the kingdom.\n\nHe 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.\u00a0 The \u2018interior castle\u2019 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 That\u2019s where he gets the title, The Divine Conspiracy, <\/em>for his book.\u00a0 \u201cBut even this does not detract from the reality of the kingdom among us<\/u><\/em>.\u2019\u00a0 Nor 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 really what\u2019s popular today is this idea that well, don\u2019t get me involved with a biblical study of the kingdom and what the future says.\u00a0 The kingdom is inside all of us.\u00a0 You know, Jesus is reigning in our hearts sort of mindset.\u00a0 And this kind of is what passes today in Christianity for the concept of the kingdom.\u00a0 Now when people argue this what I want to communicate to you tonight, Lord willing, is that there\u2019s two main problems with what they\u2019re doing.\n\nProblem number 1, the first problem is that the kingdom in the Old Testament, and we\u2019ve gone through all the verses, I think we\u2019re on lesson 41, the kingdom in the Old Testament is always earthly over a repentant Israel.\u00a0 And we\u2019ve talked about the earthly dimensions, passages like Genesis 15:18-21, over repentant Israel, Ezekiel 36-37, and only when that comes into existence will you have the kingdom on planet earth.\u00a0 It\u2019s not just for Israel, it\u2019s through Israel to the world.\u00a0 And as we\u2019ve tried to carefully document, unless you have that (a repentant Israel) you can\u2019t have the kingdom of God present unless you can look over into the Middle East and see Jesus reigning on a literal throne of David in Jerusalem, over a world that\u2019s taken their swords and beaten them into plowshares.\u00a0 Unless all of that criteria is satisfied you can\u2019t have the kingdom.\n\nSo therefore if you\u2019re in the business of trying to communicate to people (like Dallas Willard and other)\u00a0 that we\u2019re in the kingdom now and Jesus is reigning in our hearts and all of these kinds of things, what you have to do is you have to change\u2026 and that\u2019s a key word here, CHANGE, you have to change the definition for what the Old Testament says concerning the kingdom; it has to be changed.\n\nI gave\u00a0 you this quote last time by Renald Showers, who I think is on the right side of this whole kingdom discussion, and he writes this, he is a longtime minister or theologian with Friends of Israel.\u00a0 And by the way, I was very happy that they ordered 500 copies of my book, Friends of Israel and they\u2019re promoting it in their magazine.\u00a0 I didn\u2019t even know that was going on, someone had to tell me about that, so I just say praise God!\u00a0\u00a0 So they apparently like what I wrote, I\u2019m glad somebody out there does.\n\nSo in the book I quote Renald Showers and he says this: \u201cSeveral 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\u00a0 So you\u2019re not going to have the kingdom until Jesus returns and sets it up is what he\u2019s saying.\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 you go through the Old Testament and there\u2019s nothing that says well, you\u2019re going to get a spiritual form of the kingdom first and then you\u2019re go get the GEO political kingdom through Israel second.\u00a0 To make that work you have to change, which is a key word, you have to change what the Old Testament says.\u00a0 You have to come up with an interpretation of the New Testament which changes the Old Testament.\n\nNow Arnold Fruchtenbaum, who many of you know or at least\u00a0 you\u2019re familiar with his work, a Hebrew Christian scholar, calls this out for what it is.\u00a0 He says, \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.\u201d\u00a0 So if I\u2019m coming up with some interpretation of the New Testament that contradicts the Old Testament then I have to rethink my interpretation because God, as I\u2019m going to show you tonight, can\u2019t lie, it\u2019s impossible!\u00a0 And he goes on and says, \u201cThe Book of Mormon and other books by cultic groups fail to stand because they contradict the New Testament.\u201d\n\nSo the reason why we would reject the Jehovah Witness\u2019s doctrine, Mormon doctrine, because you can look at the canon of Scripture and you can compare their writings to the canon of Scripture and see obvious contradictions.\u00a0 The Jehovah\u2019s witnesses basically teach that Jesus is a created being; that would contradict the Scripture, wouldn\u2019t it.\u00a0 The Mormons have many other contradictions; they don\u2019t believe in the Trinity for example, they have many other contradictions with the closed canon of Scripture.\u00a0 So basically we can\u2019t accept Mormonism, we can\u2019t accept Jehovah Witness doctrine because it contradicts what God has said.\u00a0 And what Fruchtenbaum is saying is in the same way, in the same vein you can\u2019t accept an interpretation of the New Testament that contradicts the Old Testament because God can\u2019t contradict Himself.\u00a0 And what I\u2019m going to show\u00a0 you is all of these \u201ckingdom now\u201d theologians are coming up with interpretations and definitions that go against what God has plainly revealed in the Old Testament.\n\nSo Fruchtenbaum goes on and he says, \u201cBy 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 [Arnold Fruchtenbaum, \u201cIsrael\u2019s Right to the Promised Land,<\/em>\u201d 17\u201318, accessed March 9, 2013, http:\/\/www.pre-trib.org.com.]\n\nAnd yet this is what kingdom now theology does; it says don\u2019t worry about that Old Testament stuff,\u00a0 pay attention to our interpretation of the New Testament.\u00a0 And I gave you a couple of examples of this last time.\u00a0 One is by Colin Chapman who wrote a book called\u00a0 Whose Promised Land<\/em>, and he is a big kingdom now theologian and he says: \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.\u201d\u00a0 So what basically he\u2019s saying here is all that information in the Old Testament about a return of the Jews to the land and Jesus ruling over Jerusalem and over the world in a kingdom, all that got cancelled.\u00a0 That\u2019s what he\u2019s saying, all of that is rewritten.\u00a0 And he says, \u201cThe one and only fulfillment of all promises and prophecies was already there before their eyes in the person of Jesus. The way they interpreted the Old Testament should be the norm for the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament today.\u201d\u00a0 \u00a0[Whose Promised Land? The Continuing Conflict over Israel and Palestine<\/em> (Oxford, England: Lion, 2015), 262.]\n\nHe\u2019s basically saying Jesus came along and cancelled the Old Testament, or rewrote it.\u00a0 Now I don\u2019t think Jesus did that but he thinks Jesus did that.\u00a0 And if Jesus and the apostles did that then we have the right to do it too.\u00a0 And this is how kingdom now theology works.\u00a0 The New Testament changes the Old Testament.\n\nI also gave you this quote from Naim Ateek, who\u2019s very involved with the Christ at the Checkpoint conferences.\u00a0 Are you all familiar with Christ at the Checkpoint conferences?\u00a0 They meet in Bethlehem, almost yearly, and they put on these conferences, basically about why Israel is the oppressor.\u00a0 You know, Israel is the bad guy, after all, Israel built this security wall and you can\u2019t get in and out of the country unless people pass through the wall, and after all, it was the Nazi\u2019s that built walls, that kind of mindset.\u00a0 Well, the reason they built a wall is there\u2019s people trying to get into the country to blow them up periodically.\u00a0 Amen!\u00a0 There\u2019s a reason they put the wall up but they make it sound like Israel, by putting up the wall and making people pass through a gate barrier to get into their country is somehow doing something oppressive.\u00a0 So this is the mindset of Christ at the Checkpoint.\u00a0 And all of these guys congregate there, I think almost every year and they give talks and things about how Israel is the bad guy.\u00a0 I call it the transforming the David into Goliath syndrome.\u00a0 I should have brought in my map, Israel is just a little speck on the in comparison to Islamic dictatorships.\u00a0 And Israel is about the size of Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut, I mean, just a little tiny dot in a sea of Islamic dictatorships and theocracies, surviving for her life in the Middle East, and yet Israel is somehow the bully.\u00a0 So they\u2019ve taken David and made him into Goliath.\u00a0 It\u2019s propaganda, that\u2019s what it is.\u00a0 Hank Hanegraaff, The Bible Answer Man, is a typical participant at this Christ at the Checkpoint conference.\n\nSo Naim Ateek, who basically has a theology that Israel is written out completely because the New Testament rewrites the Old Testament, says, \u201cThe use of this \u201cnew\u201d hermeneutic,\u201d now hermeneutic is method of interpretation, that\u2019s what the word \u201chermeneutic\u201d means.\u00a0 \u201cThis use of this new hermeneutic 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. It 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, becomes the criterion by which Christians can measure the validity and authority of the biblical message for their life.\u201d\n\nDid you guys know that, that you can go through the Bible and determine which ones are valid for today?\u00a0 I didn\u2019t know I had that freedom.\u00a0 \u00a0According to Naim Ateek I have that freedom.\u00a0 Well, how does it work.?\u00a0 He says, \u201cWhen confronted with a difficult passage in the Bible . . .\u201d now in his mind what\u2019s a difficult passage?\u00a0 Anything that contradicts kingdom now anti-Israel theology, that\u2019s a difficult passage, which would include the whole Old Testament.\u00a0 Right.\u00a0 See, this gentleman has a problem, it\u2019s called the whole Old Testament.\n\n\u201c\u2026which calls for a future kingdom in the land of Israel with Jesus on David\u2019s throne reigning over the whole earth.\u201d\u00a0 He\u2019s got to get rid of that.\u00a0 So he\u2019s got to come up with a hermeneutic or a method of interpretation to just take out liquid paper and write all those passages out of the Bible.\u00a0 \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\u00a0 [Naim Ateek, Justice, and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation<\/em> (Maryknoll, NY: Ortis, 1990), 81\u201382.]\n\nSo basically what he\u2019s saying is I\u2019m going to come up with my definition of who Jesus is.\u00a0 In his mind Jesus doesn\u2019t care about land, He doesn\u2019t really care about the Jews, He doesn\u2019t care about the kingdom.\u00a0 In fact, people like this will tell you that Jesus was Palestinian.\u00a0 When Anne and myself, on an Israel trip that we went on with Dr. Randy Price a couple of years ago, we\u2019re coming out of Bethlehem, which as you know is the birthplace of Jesus Christ, and you probably know this also, that Bethlehem is controlled by the Palestinian authority, it was part of one of those deals where the Jews gave that territory up in exchange for the promise of peace which to me is you just gave away a piece, not p-e-a-c-e, but p-i-e-c-e of God\u2019s land.\u00a0 But anyway, you come out of Bethlehem and\u2026 you remember this Anne, we were greeted with a giant sign, it was like a poster hanging on a wall and it was positioned in a way where everybody had to look at it as\u00a0 you were leaving, and basically it read something to this extent:\u00a0 Welcome to Bethlehem, we hope you enjoyed your stay here to the place where Jesus was born, Jesus, the first Palestinian, and we were the first to greet Him here.\u00a0 We were the first Palestinians to greet Him and Jesus was a Palestinian.\n\nWell, I\u2019m sorry, but my Bible, Matthew chapter 1 tells me that Jesus is connected genealogically to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.\u00a0 In fact, the name \u201cPalestine\u201d wasn\u2019t even used until after the time of Christ.\u00a0\u00a0 The first time it was used was by Emperor Hadrian, if I remember right around the second century and this is after the Romans had driven the Jews out of the land and they wanted to pretend like the Jews had never lived there, sort of like what the Muslims want to do today.\u00a0\u00a0 And they came up with this name for it, not Israel, which is the biblical name for it. When you refer to Israel you refer to it as the land of Israel; that\u2019s the biblical definition.\u00a0 You\u2019ll find that in Matthew 2:21 the land of Israel.\u00a0 [Matthew 2:21, \u201cSo Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel.\u201d]\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 You don\u2019t call it Palestine.\n\nSo where did this title \u201cPalestine\u201d come from?\u00a0 It came from Emperor Hadrian in the second century after the Jews had been driven out by the Romans and he wanted to pretend like the people of Israel were never there.\u00a0 So he de-Judaized the land and he humiliated the Jewish people by calling it after their ancient enemies, the Philistines, because Philistine sounds like what?\u00a0 Palestine!\u00a0 And so every time a Christian uses the word \u201cPalestine\u201d without even knowing it they\u2019re using an anti-Semitic slur; they\u2019re using an anti-Jewish word.\u00a0 A lot of times we use vocabulary and some of our study Bibles, I love the Ryrie Study Bible but he\u2019ll even sometimes use the word Palestine.\u00a0 Palestine is a non-biblical word.\u00a0 The land properly called is the land of Israel, Matthew 2:21.\u00a0 [Matthew 2:21, \u201cSo Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel.\u201d]\n\nSo anyway, Naim Ateek comes up with this definition of who Jesus is, He wasn\u2019t Jewish, He was Palestinian and He didn\u2019t care about land and a future kingdom because He ushered in the kingdom now.\u00a0 So therefore that becomes the grid through which He reads the Old Testament.\u00a0 See that?\u00a0 And anything that doesn\u2019t fit his grid in his mind he has the ability to say well, that passage over there that talks about a land of the Jews, that\u2019s not a valid passage.\u00a0 So it\u2019s all rewritten or re\u00adinterpreted or re-filtered through a Jesus that he has made up.\u00a0 This is what they specialize in at this Christ at the Checkpoint conferences.\u00a0 This is classic kingdom now theology .\u00a0 But you\u2019ll notice that both the Colin Chapman and with the Naim Ateek quote the name of the game is the New Testament, at least their interpretation of it, changes the Old Testament.\u00a0 And wave a magic wand and all of these prophecies for Israel\u2019s future disappear [snaps his fingers] just like that!\n\nAnd then we have in my Alma Mater what\u2019s called progressive dispensationalism.\u00a0 And they are also arguing that we\u2019re in the kingdom now.\u00a0 That\u2019s a picture there on the screen of my professor, Dr. Darrell Bock, sometimes you\u2019ll see him on TV defending the resurrection and things like that, the historicity of Jesus.\u00a0 And I\u2019m a fan of his when he\u2019s in that lane, when he\u2019s in that area.\u00a0 But what you have to understand is he is a progenitor of something that started in the 90\u2019s called progressive dispensationalism.\u00a0 Progressive dispensationalism, to my mind, is an outworking of post\u00admodernism.\u00a0 Postmodernism says nobody has the truth; the dispensationalist don\u2019t have the truth, the kingdom now theologians don\u2019t have the truth,\u00a0 so truth is in the middle.\u00a0 And that\u2019s postmodernism; they\u2019re always trying to pursue what I call middle ground mania.\u00a0 They\u2019re always trying to find areas where two sides of a theological debate agree with each other.\u00a0 And once you find that area of agreement then that becomes the new truth.\u00a0 See that.\n\nSo you have synthesis, thesis, antithesis (two opposites) and where is the truth?\u00a0 It\u2019s the synthesis in the middle somewhere.\u00a0 And by the way, this is how people kick the ball forward on practically every issue, abortion, gun control, you name the issue, someone will stand in one area with a thesis, let\u2019s take this one, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, the individual right, which I believe is what our Founding Fathers gave us.\u00a0 And then someone else will come along with an antithesis and say no, Americans should not keep and bear arms.\u00a0 So what they come up with is synthesis, in the middle, that yeah, we believe in the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms but it\u2019s very regulated, it\u2019s very restricted.\u00a0 So what have they done?\u00a0 They\u2019ve kicked the ball down the road.\u00a0 See that?\u00a0 And everybody is fine with that solution until the next round of thesis\/antithesis\/synthesis happens, then the goal post gets pushed even further.\u00a0 Then the next round comes, thesis\/antithesis\/synthesis and the goal post is moved even further.\u00a0 And over the process of time your Second Amendment rights have disappeared, whereas you thought all along the goal was to find truth in the middle but that was never the goal.\u00a0 The goal was to keep pushing the goalpost further and further and further until the left finally gets what they wanted, a complete outlaw of the private use of firearms in America.\n\nNow I\u2019m not trying to get into politics, I\u2019m just trying to give you an example of how this is.\u00a0 And this essentially is what Darrell Bock and progressive dispensationalists have done.\u00a0 They said well one camp says Jesus is not reigning on David\u2019s throne now and the kingdom is yet future.\u00a0 Another camp says well, Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne now spiritually in heaven and we\u2019re in the kingdom now.\u00a0 So thesis\/antithesis, let\u2019s find a middle ground synthesis, middle ground mania\u2014I know, we\u2019ll come up with progressive dispensationalism, which is this idea of already but not yet!\u00a0 Yes, Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne now in heaven, oh but don\u2019t worry, don\u2019t worry, there\u2019s still going to be a future earthly kingdom.\u00a0 See that?\u00a0 And this is what\u2019s called already not\u00a0 yet view of the kingdom.\n\nNow remember what Renald Showers said?\u00a0 Second sentence there after the ellipsis?\u00a0\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 This idea of a present spiritual form of the kingdom in any form is not found in the Old Testament.\u00a0 And yet he\u2019s been able to introduce this doctrine as a middle ground between the two camps, a synthesis between the two camps through thesis, antithesis, synthesis and it fits with postmodern epistemology; epistemology is how do we know what we know?\u00a0 Postmodern epistemology says nobody has the truth so where do you find truth?\u00a0 It\u2019s where the two camps agree on something; that becomes the new truth.\u00a0 See that?\n\nAnd once\u00a0 you get the community, typically of scholars, to all agree on something that becomes the new truth.\u00a0 And everybody is fine with it until the next generation comes and we go through the same process again, thesis, antithesis, synthesis and what just happened?\u00a0 We just moved further into replacement theology.\u00a0 And then within a generation or two or three the church is back right into replacement theology and they don\u2019t even know what happened.\u00a0 See that?\u00a0 This is what Darrell Bock has done, a very intelligent man, you could dance intellectual rings around a lot of people, myself included, he looked at me, I think, when I was there at Dallas Seminary as sort of a long-term project.\u00a0 You know, he was always a very winsome, very engaging, very intelligent guy but really into this process of dialogue, always trying to get me to\u2026 he knew what I believed for whatever reason, always trying to get me to shift just a little bit and if he could get me to shift through the process of dialogue just a little bit then he\u2019s basically, in his mind, I think he\u2019s largely winning.\n\nBut he writes this, this is what\u2019s called complimentary hermeneutics: \u201c\u2026the New Testament does introduce change and advance;\u201d now the key word there is \u201cchange.\u201d\u00a0 Every kingdom now theologian you ever deal with is always trying to tell you that the New Testament changes the Old.\u00a0 \u201c\u2026 the New Testament does introduce change and advance; it does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation. In making complementary\u201d what\u2019s the next word? \u201cadditions, however, it does not jettison Old Testament promises. The enhancement\u201d that\u2019s another key word, \u201cis not at the expense of the original promise.\u201d\u00a0 [Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, \u201cDispensationalism, Israel and the Church: Assessment and Dialogue,\u201d in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church<\/em>, ed. Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 392\u201393.]\n\nAnd this is why you can\u2019t accuse Darrell Bock of doing the same thing that Naim Ateek is doing or what Colin Chapman is doing.\u00a0 Colin Chapman and Naim Ateek are basically saying the New Testament has completely written the Old Testament, that\u2019s how they get their kingdom now theology to work.\u00a0 Darrell Bock is much more clever than that, he basically in the whole argument is how does the New Testament use Old Testament citations?\u00a0 And there are many, many times when the New Testament will quote the Old Testament.\u00a0 Have\u00a0 you noticed that?\u00a0 It happens many, many times, I can just give you one example.\n\nYou\u2019re in Acts 17, if you go back to Acts 15 and if you look at verses 15-18, this is the debate about the early church and should the early church require saved Gentiles to convert to Judaism to join the church; very early on in the Book of Acts it says, and I believe it\u2019s James, the half-brother of Christ speaking, it says, Acts 15:15, \u201cWith this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, [16] 'AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT.\u00a0 [17] SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME, [18] SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO.\u201d\n\nNow as a traditional dispensationalist how do I interpret this passage?\u00a0 This is quoting Amos 9:11-15 in Acts 15; that\u2019s what\u2019s going on.\u00a0 [Amos 9:11-15, \u201cIn that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David, And wall up its breaches; I will also raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old;\u00a0 [12] That they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by My name,\u201d declares the LORD who does this.\u00a0 [13] \u201cBehold, days are coming,\u201d declares the LORD, \u2018When the plowman will overtake the reaper and the treader of grapes him who sows seed; when the mountains will drip sweet wine and all the hills will be dissolved.\u00a0 [14] Also I will restore the captivity of My people Israel, and they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them;<\/em>\u00a0They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, and make gardens and eat their fruit.\u00a0 [15] I will also plant them on their land, and they will not again be rooted out from their land which I have given them,\u2019 says the LORD your God.\u201d]\n\nAmos 9, end of the chapter is being quoted in Acts 15.\u00a0 How do I interpret that?\u00a0 Well, here\u2019s my interpretation: the early church really can\u2019t figure out whether saved Gentiles have to convert to Judaism to join the church so there wasn\u2019t a direct word from the Lord so they pulled out the Old Testament, which was the only Bible they had at the time, Hebrew Bible, and they read this passage about the millennium, which indicates that Gentiles are going to be full participants in the millennial kingdom.\u00a0 And they reasoned to themselves, they had to reason because there wasn\u2019t a direct word from the Lord on this, that if the Gentiles are going to be full participants in the millennial kingdom then let\u2019s let them in now as full participants in the age of the church.\u00a0 So it would be an argument from analogy.\u00a0 See that?\n\nSo what have I just done there?\u00a0 I have come up with an interpretation of how the New Testament uses the Old respecting the original context of the Old Testament. See that?\u00a0 So in the interpretation I just gave you the New Testament never changed the Old Testament.\u00a0 It never rewrote it, it never added what he calls complimentary editions, it never did any enhancement.\u00a0 Now Darrell Bock doesn\u2019t like that, he calls that\u2026 the word he uses or the terminology he uses to describe this is flat interpretation which is kind of a condescending term, isn\u2019t it.\u00a0 How would you like it to be said well,\u00a0 you\u2019re involved in flat interpretation. That kind of sounds like flat earth to me.\u00a0 So how does he interpret it?\u00a0 Oh, you see, the New Testament comes along and adds a layer of meaning that the Old Testament writers never saw.\u00a0 And from this passage this is how he gets Jesus in a kingdom now reigning on David\u2019s throne in an already sense.\u00a0 The whole thing here is a battle of hermeneutics.\u00a0 Now he\u2019s very clear, oh don\u2019t worry, Amos 9:11-15 is still going to be fulfilled one day in an earthly kingdom, but for the time being He\u2019s reigning on David\u2019s throne because when James, in Acts 15 quotes Amos 9 he just filled the sails with new wind, new meaning, new understanding.\n\nAnd from examples like this he gets this idea that Jesus is now reigning on David\u2019s throne in an already sense.\u00a0 Whereas I\u2019m looking at the exact same passage, the exact same citations and I\u2019m not seeing that because Darrell Bock approaches it through the lens of complimentary hermeneutics; I approach it through the lens of traditional hermeneutics.\u00a0 So the whole name of the game is complimentary hermeneutics.\u00a0 And I asked him once, if I reject complimentary hermeneutics can I be a progressive dispensationalist?\u00a0 Can I believe what you believe that we\u2019re in an already phase of the kingdom. He said no you couldn\u2019t believe that.\u00a0 His whole argument is based on this invention that he\u2019s come up with called complimentary hermeneutics.\u00a0 See that?\n\nNow why is that every single generation at Dallas Seminary never saw this?\u00a0 John Walvoord never saw this.\u00a0 Charles Ryrie never saw this.\u00a0 Dwight Pentecost never saw this.\u00a0 But suddenly Darrell Bock goes to get some education in Europe, which is part of the problem, because when you send your best and your brightest to Europe for theological education are they sitting under believers or unbelievers?\u00a0 Unbelievers!\u00a0 And then you come back thinking sort of like an unbeliever, and maybe you don\u2019t believe everything unbelievers have taught you but you can\u2019t tell me that an intensive three, four years, however many years you spend over there, doesn\u2019t affect you somehow. And this is how institution after institution after institution has toppled formerly evangelical schools, because we bought into this idea that to gain acceptance and credibility in the scholarly world we have to send our best and our brightest to sit under unbelievers to be qualified to teach believers.\n\nNow can you all find that passage for me in the Bible, thus saith the Lord, Take your best and brightest and send them over and sit under unbelievers to be qualified to teach believers?\u00a0 There\u2019s no biblical authority for that at all but that\u2019s the academic accreditation model that we have bought into.\u00a0 So this is why Darrell Bock is seeing things that prior generations never saw.\u00a0 Now he\u2019s not saying there won\u2019t be a future kingdom; his is very different from\u2026 not too different than Ateek or Chapman but it\u2019s still this idea that the New Testament changes the Old Testament in some respect.\n\nSo anytime someone comes along and tells you that the New Testament is changing the Old Testament that should send up warning signals; warning lights should be going off in your mind.\u00a0 So this is how this game is played.\u00a0 And what I want to show you tonight if time permits is three problems with that.\n\nThe first problem is this: can God lie?\u00a0 What do you think?\u00a0 He CANNOT \u00a0lie!\u00a0 People say are there certain things God can\u2019t do?\u00a0 Can God make a rock so big that He can\u2019t move it?\u00a0 No He can\u2019t, because He\u2019s sovereign over His creation.\u00a0 There are some things God can\u2019t do; if God did those things it would contradict who He is.\u00a0 One of the things He cannot do is lie, Numbers 23:19 says, \u201cGod is not a man, that He should lie.\u201d\u00a0 Titus 1:2 and Hebrews 6:18 both indicate it\u2019s impossible for God to lie.\u00a0 [Titus 1:2, \u201cGod is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?\u201d\u00a0 Hebrews 6:18, \u201cso that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.\u201d]\n\nSo therefore everything that God has revealed in the Old Testament concerning the kingdom must come to pass.\u00a0 And if somebody is saying well, I think what happened is Jesus changed the Old Testament.\u00a0 I think what happened is Jesus added complimentary additions to the Old Testament.\u00a0 I think what happened is that Jesus rewrote the Old Testament, Jesus rejected the Old Testament, whatever buzzword you want to use you ultimately turn God into a liar.\u00a0 God has communicated in a way that everyone can understand and when you go through the Old Testament it\u2019s very clear that there\u2019s going to be a future kingdom on planet earth.\u00a0 Amen!\u00a0 So when you see the word \u201cchange\u201d automatically you think that\u2019s a problem.\n\nThe second issue: truth is determined by its conformity to the Old Testament.\u00a0 Truth is determined by its conformity to the Old Testament!\u00a0 Truth is always determined by whether it conforms to what God has already revealed.\u00a0 God cannot say something on Monday and say something completely different on Tuesday.\u00a0 And this is how you determine if things you\u2019re hearing are accurate or not.\u00a0 Now this is a principle taught in both Old Testament and New Testament.\n\nTake a look, if you could, back into the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 13:1-5. This is Moses\u2019 warnings as the nation is about ready to enter Canaan and Moses says this: \u201cIf a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder,\u201d oooh, look at this. [2] \u201c<\/strong>and the sign or the wonder comes true,\u201d in other words, they perform a miracle, \u201cconcerning which he spoke to you, saying, \u2018Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,\u2019 [3] you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.\u201d \u00a0[4, \u201cYou shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. [5] But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the LORD your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you.\u201d]\n\nHe\u2019s basically saying that\u2019s how you determine truth; if a prophet comes along and even performs a miracle but says let\u2019s follow other gods you know that that prophet is a false prophet because he just articulates something that contradicted what God said earlier.\u00a0 What are the first two commandments in the Decalogue to Israel?\u00a0 No Gods before me, no graven images.\n\n[Exodus 20:1-17, \u201cThen God spoke all these words, saying, [2] \u00a0<\/sup>\u201cI am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of]<\/sup>slavery.\u00a0 [3] You shall have no other gods before Me.\u00a0 [4] You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. [5] You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, [6] but showing loving\u00adkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.\u00a0 [7] You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.\u00a0 [8] Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. [9] Six days you shall labor and do all your work, [10] \u00a0<\/sup>but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it<\/em> you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who]<\/sup>stays with you. [11]\u00a0<\/sup>For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.\u00a0 [12] Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.\u00a0 [13] You shall not murder.\u00a0 [14] You shall not commit adultery.\u00a0 [15] You shall not steal.\u00a0 [16] You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.\u00a0 [17] You shall not covet your neighbor\u2019s house; you shall not covet your neighbor\u2019s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.\u201d]\n\nWas God pretty clear on that in the Book of Exodus?\u00a0 I think so!\u00a0\u00a0 So if a false prophet comes along, even performs a miracle and says let\u2019s go follow other gods,\u00a0 you know that that prophet is false because they just contradicted what God originally said.\u00a0 It\u2019s impossible for God to lie.\u00a0 [Hebrews 6:17, \u201cIn the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, [18] so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie\u2026.\u201d]\n\nIt\u2019s impossible for Him to say something one day and something different on another day.\u00a0 So if someone is coming up with a definition of the kingdom which contradicts everything you know in the Old Testament,\u00a0 you know that their interpretation of the New Testament can\u2019t be accurate.\u00a0 See that?\u00a0 Because truth is determined by its conformity to prior Scripture.\u00a0 I had you open initially to the Book of Acts, let\u2019s go to the Book of Acts, chapter 17 and verse 11.\u00a0 These are the Bereans.\u00a0 It says this, \u201cNow these\u201d that\u2019s the Bereans \u201cwere more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness,\u201d in other words, they didn\u2019t oppose necessarily what they were hearing, but what does it say, \u201cexamining the\u201d what? \u201cScriptures\u201d how frequently? \u201cdaily to see whether these things were so.\u201d\u00a0 Paul came up revealing doctrine.\n\nNow how in the world were they ever to tell that what Paul was saying was true or not?\u00a0 They had the Scriptures, in this case Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament and they were looking for contradictions.\u00a0 Is Paul here contradicting what God has already said.\u00a0 And in fact Luke, in the Book of Acts, commends the Bereans for doing this.\u00a0 In fact, they\u2019re even more noble than other groups, like the Thessalonians who weren\u2019t doing this.\u00a0 [Acts 17:11, \u201cNow these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.\u201d]\u00a0 Now how could you do this unless truth is determined by prior revelation?\n\nHow about the Book of Galatians, chapter 1, let\u2019s look at that real fast.\u00a0 It talks about a false gospel.\u00a0 How do you determine a true gospel from a false gospel?\u00a0 Paul says, [Galatians 1:8} \u201cBut even if we\u201d that\u2019s an apostle, \u201cor an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!\u201d\u00a0 [9]\u00a0 \u201cAs we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!\u201d\n\nSo if an angel shows up at your bedside tonight, a beautiful angel, and begins to articulate to you doctrine\u2026 I believe an angel showed up to a young man named Joseph Smith one day, and gave him the doctrines of Mormonism; I believe an angel, at least a fallen angel posing as an angel of light, showed up to a young man named Mohammed, even taking the name Gabriel, which is a biblical name, isn\u2019t it, and gave him the doctrines of Islam.\u00a0\u00a0 Now if that happens to you tonight how in the world are\u00a0 you able to tell if it\u2019s true or if it\u2019s false.\u00a0\u00a0 You can\u2019t tell based on the experience because the experience is very real.\u00a0 Satan himself can give experiences, can\u2019t he?\u00a0 I mean, can\u2019t Satan perform signs and wonders?\u00a0 Can\u2019t he cause angelic appearances?\u00a0 So how would ever be able to tell?\u00a0 The only way you could tell if it\u2019s true or if it\u2019s not true is does it conform to prior revelation.\u00a0 Paul says if it contradicts what I\u2019ve already told you about the gospel then it\u2019s to be accursed.\u00a0 See that? Truth is determined by prior revelation.\u00a0 This is a basic principle of God\u2019s Word.\n\nLook at 1 Thessalonians 5:19-:21, \u201cDo not quench the Spirit; [20] do not despise prophetic utterances.\u00a0 [21] But examine\u201d what?\u00a0 \u201ceverything<\/u> carefully; hold fast to that which is good;\u201d\u00a0 Now this was in the early church where there very real prophets and extra biblical sort of prophetic gifts happening and Paul, the apostle says don\u2019t quench the Spirit, don\u2019t despise these prophetic utterances but examine it, examine what you\u2019re hearing because truth is determined by what?\u00a0 Conformity to prior revelation.\u00a0 You have to examine it by what God has already said.\u00a0 If it\u2019s a ball place contradiction then it can\u2019t be from God because God cannot lie.\u00a0 Do you see that?\n\nLook at 1 Corinthians 14:29, same circumstance in the early church, and what does it say here? \u201cLet two or three prophets speak, and let the others\u201d what? \u201cpass judgment.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 A prophet speaks,\u00a0 you don\u2019t just believe it\u2019s true just because it\u2019s a prophet, you \u201cpass judgment.\u201d\u00a0 How do you \u201cpass judgment\u201d?\u00a0 You determine it\u2019s true by does it contradict prior revelation, because God cannot lie.\n\nYou say well here at Sugar Land Bible Church we really don\u2019t have prophets, do we?\u00a0 We have people that think they\u2019re prophets; in a certain sense I\u2019m a prophet, aren\u2019t I?\u00a0 Aren\u2019t I a proclaimer of truth.\u00a0 How do you know what I\u2019m saying is true?\u00a0 I mean, some of you come here, you sort of know me, some of\u00a0 you don\u2019t, how do you know I\u2019m not lying through my teeth to you?\u00a0 How do you know I\u2019m not making mistakes?\u00a0 How would you ever determine that?\u00a0 You have the completed canon of Scripture which gives you the ability to listen to everything that I say and determine if it\u2019s true or its false because you\u2019re looking for contradictions to prior revelation.\u00a0 Truth is determined by its conformity to prior revelation.\n\nLook at 1 John 4:1, and what does John say: \u201cBeloved, do not believe every spirit, but\u201d what? \u00a0\u201ctest the spirits to see whether they are from God,\u201d well how come John, \u201cbecause\u201d a couple of false prophets, it doesn\u2019t say that does it, \u201cmany false prophets have gone out into the world.\u201d\u00a0 I mean, there are false prophets outside the church, there are false prophets inside the church, there are all kinds of hucksters that stand up in the name of God claiming that they\u2019re some kind of prophet, wanting to give you spiritual truth.\n\nHow in the world do you determine what is true and what\u2019s not?\u00a0 Truth is determined by its conformity to what?\u00a0 Prior revelation, because God can\u2019t lie. A lot of people will go on and on about their dreams or their experiences; I\u2019m not denying that these experiences aren\u2019t even real but here\u2019s the issue\u2014have you tested the Spirit?\u00a0 That\u2019s a biblical command.\u00a0 NEVER are you called ever to ascertain what is true by some sort of dream or some sort of revelation or some sort of experience, or even based on a manmade sermon.\u00a0 The biblical responsibility of the Christian is to test it by God\u2019s Word because truth is determined by what?\u00a0 Conformity to prior revelation.\n\nLook at Revelation 2:2, Jesus is speaking here to the church at Ephesus, \u201cI know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the\u201d what? \u201ctest those who call themselves apostles,\u201d you mean not everybody who claims to be an apostle is an authentic apostle?\u00a0 Is that what you\u2019re saying?\u00a0 Jesus is saying that\u2019s exactly what I\u2019m saying.\u00a0 \u201c\u2026who call themselves apostles and they are not, and you found them to be liars.\u201d\n\nNow a bunch of folks came into Ephesus saying I\u2019m an apostle, I\u2019m an apostle, I\u2019m an apostle, listen to me, listen to me, and the folks there at Ephesus said not so fast.\u00a0 They tested them and because the message of these \u201capostles\u201d was contradicting prior revelation they found that these apostles were false and were liars.\u00a0 And you know what Jesus says to the church at Ephesus?\u00a0 He says thumbs up!\u00a0 He\u2019s commending them here.\u00a0 He doesn\u2019t say you know, you all are so closed minded, you all are so narrow.\u00a0 Jesus doesn\u2019t say that.\u00a0 He commends them for their discernment.\n\nSo what\u2019s the point I\u2019m trying to get at?\u00a0 If the Old Testament lays out a definition of the kingdom, which is earthly and involves the nation of Israel and it involves Jesus reigning on David\u2019s throne from a literal Jerusalem, and it lays out all of those things with great clarity what do you do with somebody like Darrell Bock?\u00a0 What do you do with somebody like Naim Ateek?\u00a0 What do you do with somebody like Colin Chapman who basically wants you to almost ignore the Old Testament.\u00a0 And all of a sudden they are coming up with this new definition of the kingdom that seems to contradict everything that we\u2019ve studied in the Old Testament concerning the kingdom. What do you do with that?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 You test it.\u00a0 You say that interpretation can\u2019t be accurate. Why?\u00a0 Because it contradicts everything that God has said in the Old Testament concerning the kingdom.\n\nAre you following me on this?\u00a0 Because the \u201ckingdom now\u201d crowd can really talk and they can really wow\u00a0 you with a lot of pizzazz about the mystical kingdom is now, Jesus brought in this mystical kingdom, you know, the whole Dallas Willard thing about the rooms inside of us and all these kind of things.\u00a0 And your average person sits and hears that and it sounds so spiritual.\u00a0 I mean, it sounds so good\u2026 unless you\u2019ve done the inductive study that we\u2019ve done on what the Old Testament reveals concerning the kingdom and you say to yourself that can\u2019t be an accurate interpretation because it would contradict what the Old Testament says.\n\nOne final problem and I\u2019ll probably get back into this next week, is when you look at the word \u201ckingdom\u201d in the New Testament, the Greek word \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 (basile\u00eda<\/em>) kingdom, almost every single time it\u2019s used it puts \u201ckingdom\u201d in the future tense.\u00a0 It doesn\u2019t give you the impression that there\u2019s a spiritual form of the kingdom now.\u00a0 Now that would make sense because that\u2019s how the Old Testament presents the kingdom so why would the New Testament come along and cancel the Old Testament and say we\u2019re in the kingdom now.\n\nJust two quick examples; remember the Lord\u2019s so-called Lord\u2019s prayer.\u00a0 Now we all know that\u2019s not the Lord\u2019s prayer, right.\u00a0 Jesus didn\u2019t pray that because there\u2019s a clause in there that says \u201cforgive us our debts\u201d and I don\u2019t think Jesus had sin in his life.\u00a0 Amen!\u00a0 So it\u2019s better called the disciple\u2019s prayer.\u00a0 But how does that prayer start?\u00a0 \u201cOur Father, who art in heaven, Hallowed by Thy name, They kingdom (basile\u00eda<\/em>) come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.\u201d\u00a0 That\u2019s praying for the kingdom to arrive on the earth.\u00a0 Why would Jesus teach the disciples to pray for the kingdom to arrive on the earth if they were already in it?\u00a0 Are you with me?\u00a0 And that\u2019s typically how your New Testament is going to deal with the subject of the basile\u00eda<\/em>, the Greek word for kingdom, because the New Testament is not going to contradict what the Old Testament has already presented concerning the kingdom.\n\nTake a look at Acts 14:22, and we\u2019re getting ready to close so hang in there with me, Acts 14:22 it says, this is Paul retracing his steps on missionary journey one in southern Galatia,\u00a0 \u201cstrengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, \u2018Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.\u2019\u201d Basile\u00eda<\/em>, and what he\u2019s saying there is if you\u2019re having a lot of problems and struggles in\u00a0 your life that\u2019s normal.\u00a0 \u201cThrough many trials we enter the kingdom of God.\u201d\u00a0 Now does that present the kingdom as now?\u00a0 That clearly presents it as future, in the normal course of the life of the child of God as they go through various struggles until the enter the kingdom, yet future.\n\nActs 14:22 says, \u201cstrengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, \u2018Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.\u2019\u201d Thomas Ice says, \u201cIf they were in the kingdom, this statement would make no sense.\u201d\u00a0 [Thomas Ice, \u201cAmillennialism,\u201d in The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2004), 20]\n\nIf they were in the kingdom the Lord\u2019s prayer wouldn\u2019t make any sense.\u00a0 Now in my book on pages 192-193 I give you every reference to kingdom in the New Testament.\u00a0 And as you walk through those references, and I encourage you to look those up on your own, we may do some of that next time, you\u2019ll notice that the kingdom is always portrayed as yet future.\u00a0 Why does the New Testament portray the kingdom as yet future in its overwhelming number of usages?\u00a0 Because the New Testament is coming up with a definition of the kingdom which matches the Old Testament.\u00a0 And you\u2019ll notice here in Acts 14:22 that the kingdom is not defined, \u201cThrough many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.\u201d\u00a0 What does that mean, \u201ckingdom of God.\u201d\u00a0 There\u2019s no definition.\u00a0 So where do you think I try to go to fill in the gaps?\u00a0 To the Old Testament which spells it out in great detail.\n\nWhen Jesus said pray \u201cThy kingdom come\u201d He doesn\u2019t explain what the kingdom is. Where do you think I ought to go to fill in the gaps?\u00a0 The Old Testament which spells it all out in great detail.\u00a0 And that\u2019s why these references keep putting the kingdom into the future because the New Testament is not contradicting the Old Testament.\n\nSo there are at least three problems to this spiritual form of the kingdom people are promoting today.\u00a0 Number one, it makes God a liar.\u00a0 Number two, it interprets the kingdom in a way that contradicts what God has already said in the Old Testament.\u00a0 And that can\u2019t be true because truth is always determined by how it conforms to prior Scripture.\u00a0 And then number three, the over\u00adwhelming New Testament references put the kingdom into the future because the New Testament is coming up with a definition of the kingdom that doesn\u2019t contradict the Old Testament.\u00a0 I think I\u2019ll stop talking at this point, hoping and praying I didn\u2019t lose everybody tonight.","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